Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSP-7 Temecula Regional Center Specific Plan Volume IITEMECULA REGIONAL CENTER ' DRAFT SPECIFIC PLAN NO. 263 AND EIR NO. 340 ' Developed by: Screencheck S.P./E.I.R.: 8-22-90 ' Second Screencheck Submitted: 1-11-91 Draft S.P./E.I.R. Submitted: 5-30-91: Rev. 1-21-92: 12-15-92: 1-27-93: 3-5-93: 2-1-94 ' Planning Commission Approval: 7-18-94 City Council Approval: 10-11-94 TEMECULA REGIONAL CENTER ' DRAFT SPECIFIC PLAN NO. 263 AND EIR NO. 340 ' Developed by: KEMPER COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMPANY (K.C.D.C.) 27555 Ynez Road, Suite 202 ' Temecula, California 92591 (714)694-0666 ' Contact Person: Dennis Chiniaeff Prepared by: �. T&B PLANNING CONSULTANTS, INC. 3242 Halladay ' Suite 100 Santa Ana, California 92705 (714)662-2774 ' Contact Person: Barry Burnell ' /n Association with: ' Wilbur Smith Associates, Traffic Engineering NBS/Lowry, Civil Engineering ' Callison Partnership, Architecture HRP LanDesign, Landscape Architecture Highland Geotechnical, Geotechnical ' Douglas Wood & Associates, Environmental Analysis Natelson, Levander & Whitney, Fiscal Analysis Lead Agency: City of Temecula Contact Planner: Debbie Ubnoske 1P (714) 694-6400 Adopted on October 11, 1994 I 1 L�S2. SECTION I L I I 1 10 1 TABLE OF CONTENTS Note: See Volume I for Chapters I through IV of the Temecula Regional Center Specific Plan. The Technical Appendices for the Temecula Regional Center may be found in Volume III. VOLUME II V. GENERAL PLAN/ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS. .................... . A. GENERAL PLAN LAND USE DETERMINATION SYSTEM (Steps1-4)..................... 1. Site Identification Within Open •Space and. Conservation ,Map Inventory ... ... ..................... 2. Site Identification, Within Composite Hazards/ Resources Map Inventory ... ..... .. ......................... 3. Land Use Area Profile and Commumty Policy Area Identification for Project Site.......:.... ...................... 4. Land Use Determination ........ ::........................... .. . ..... .. ... .. . B. LAND USE ELEMENT....... .... .. 1. Land Use Planning Area Pohcy,Analysis . ................. . i Land Use Category Policy Analysis ... ................. C. ENVIRONMENTAL HAZARDS AND RESOURCES ELEMENT (EXIST- ING CONDITIONS, ImpACTS, GENERAL PLAN RELATIONSHIP AND MITIGATIONS)........;.........: ............................ 1. Seismic Safety . ;...................................... 2. Slopes and Erosion..... , ,. ,; • • :................... ........... 3. Wind Erosion and Blowsand ... ......................... . 4. flooding ...::.,.............. ............................. 5.. Noise .... ,.,............... .............................. 6. Climate and Air Quality .................................. 7. Water Quality ........................................... 8. Tonic Substances ..... :'"—''71"—*......*—** * * — * — * * 9. Open Space and Conservation ...... 4 ....................... 10. Agriculture ............................................ 11. Wildlife/Vegetation............44....................... 12. Energy Resources...........................4........... 13. Scenic Highways ....................................... 14. Cultural and Scientific Resources ............ 4 ............. i V-2 V-7 V-9 V-9 V-10 V-12 V-12 V-18 V-25 V-26 V-31 V-47 V-56 V-59 V-63 V-70 V-77 V-84 V-86 V-89 leTm1w1kawyele D. PUBLIC FACILITIES AND SERVICES ELEMENT ................ 1. Circulation and Traffic ................................... 2. Water and Sewer .................. :..................... . 3 ... .Fire Services .......:....:...:.....;:.. .. .. . 4. Sheriff Services .......................................... 5. Schools ............................................... 6. Parks and Recreation .................................... 7. Utilities ... ...... ....................................... 8. Solid Waste ............................................ 9. Libraries ................................................ 10. Health Services .`` . 11: Light and Glare ... . ................. ......... 12. Disaster Preparedness ...... .............::..:............ E. REGIONAL ELEMENT .......... `: ............. 0 ............. . 1. Regional Growth (SCAG),Forecasts . . `.... "................ . a Identification of Regional Growth Forecasts for Project Site b. RSA/Land Use Planning Area Profile ................ . C. Project Growth Forecast Comparative Analysis with Regional Growth Forecast . .............. ::................. 2. Applicable Employment/Hoiising Balance" Policies ........., . . F. ADMINISTRATIVE ELEMENT :.. ...::............. ........... • 1. Land Use Policy/Specific Plan Time Frames - Project Time Frame for Development ` :::... . 2:. Fiscal Impact. Summary.... . ............................. . G. MANDATORY CEQA TOPICS ........ 1. Cumulative Impact Analysis .... .................... . 2. Unavoidable Adverse Impacts ..::.....::................ . 3. Alternatives to the Proposed Project ....::....... ........... 4. Growth Inducing Impact of the Proposed'Action .............. 5. The Relationship Between Local Short -Term Uses of Man's Environ- ment and the Maintenance and Enhancementof Long -Term Produc- tivity .................:`'......`.....:'.i:,................ 6. Irreversible/Irretrievable Commitment of Energy Supplies and Other Resources Should the Project be Implemented ............... . 7. Organizations and Persons Consulted ...................... . ii V-93 ' V-93 V-118 V-123 V-126 V-128 V-131 V-133 V-138 V-144 V-146 V-148 V-150 V-152 V-152 V-152 V-152 V-153 V-154 V-155 V-155 V-155 V-156 V-156 V-164 V-166 V-182 1 V-183 ' V-184 ' V-185 1 It 1 .1 SECTION PAGE LIST OF FIGURES FIGURE PAGE Note: Figures 1A through 27R may found in Volume I of the three volume set that comprises the Temecula Regional Center ..Specific Plan, EIR, ' Technical Appendices, and other assorted documents. 28A Regional Faults .......................... :::....................: V -12A ' 28 Geology V-15 29 Elevation Analysis ................ ................. V-19 30 Slope Analysis...........................:....I............................ V-20 ' 31 Existing Hydrology ........................................... V-27 32 Future On -Site CNEL Noise Levels ....... . ..... .....:................V-39 33 Project Site and Surrounding, Zoning and Adjacent.Land Use .................. V-64 34 Soils and Agriculture .......... V-71 35 Biological Resources ......................... .............. V-78 36 Existing Traffic/Roadway. Characteristics ....... .....:.:. V-94 37 Circulation Element of the Riverside County General Plan ..................... V-96 38 Anticipated Transportation System .............. ...........;...:........... V-98 39 Development Area and Sub -Areas .... . ...... .. i . , ......: ................... V-100 40 Existing Plus Project Daily Traffic, Volumes ......... .:::...................I V-101 41 Projected Daily Traffic ........................ ......... :................ V-104 (Year 2000 with Project) ' 42 Project Daily Traffic ............................:...................... V-105 (Year 2000 without Project) ' 43 Roadway Segment Service Levels ...................................... V-108 (Year 2000 with Project) 44 Roadway Segment Service Levels ....................................... V-109 ' (Year 2000 without Project) 45 Recommended Future Circulation System .......... ...................... V-114 46 Residential/Commercial Alternative .................................... V-172 ' 47 Commercial/Industrial Alternative ................................... V-177 iii I iv NO. SECTION PAGE LIST OF TABLES ' ' hU TABLE PAGE Note: Tables I and ITT_ 'ay be found in Volume I bf the three volume set "that comprises the Temecula Regional Center Specific Plan, EIR, Technical Appendices, and'other assorted documents. ^ 1 , III Seismicity for Major Faults ........................:::`.-.::..:.....::: V-13 IV V Existing Noise Levels .................................. Traffic CNEL Noise Increase..... '.. V-32 V-35 VI Future Noise Levels with the Project ................................... V-40 VII VIII Air Quality Levels with Project .....................::.:...:.......... Project Related Emissions (Diesel Powered Scrapper) ......... ..........:. V-48 V-49 , IX Heavy Duty Diesel Truck Emissions for `Import.Dirt .........:............. V-50 X. Motor Vehicle Emissions ........................................... V-51 ' XI Power Plant Emissions ...............................:.::.'> ........ V-52 - XII Natural Gas Emissions ............::...::....::......::.....::...... V-52 XIII Comparison of Emissions .........':... .......... ........... V-53 XIV Soil Associations On -Site ...........:........... .......... V-70 XV Vehicle Trip Generation Summary .....:: ' ....' : ..:.... ..'.........': V-99 XVI Intersection Capacity Utilization Summary :.. ;.::...................... V-110 XVIA T.V.U.S.D. Enrollment Capacity Summary.....:::. ........... V-128 XVII Estimated Solid Waste Generated ...................:. .............. V-140 XVIII Cumulative Projects...............................1.. 7 ............: V-157 , iv I 1 V. GENERALPLAN/ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS A. GENERAL PLAN LAND USE DETERMINATION SYSTEM The following section describes the process and results of a review for consistency with the City of Temecula's applicable General Plan Goals and Policies. The City of Temecula does not currently have an adopted General Plan document for use in this review. Therefore, in the absence of a, City prepared and adopted General Plan, the City has directed this section to be prepared using the County of Riverside's General Plan Determination System. IAlthough the policies and goals discussed in this analysis are not City adopted, they will be used as guidelines by the Planning Commission and City Council for determination. This analysis, required by the County is performed to determine the most appropriate General Plan land uses for the project ' site. This analysis incorporates the review of several General Plan exhibits displaying issues of environmental and public service capability significance, and systematically unfolds those land use standards appropriate for the subject property. ' 1. Site Identification Within Open Space and Conservation May Inventory ' A review of the County's Open Space and Conservation Map reveals that the subject site is not within an area designated as Open Space or Conservation. According to the General Plan, if the subject site is not located within a spec open space or conservation land 'use' designation, then the determination system proceeds to Step H. 2. Site Identification Within Composite/Resources Inventory According to the County of Riverside's Composite Environmental Hazards Map, the Temecula Regional Center site lies outside of Liquefaction Hazard areas and 100 -Year Floodplain zones. ' The County's Composite Environmental Resources Map reveals, that the project site is located in an area designated as Prime, Unique, State -Important, Local -Important Agricultural Land and as the Rare, Endangered, Threatened Species range of the Stephen's kangaroo rat. A complete geologic and liquefaction study was conducted in October, 1989, (see Appendix "B"), which concluded that the subject site's proposed Master Development Plan provided adequate ' development standards and the required geologic considerations that would preclude any signifi- cant risk to public safety and private property caused by potential earthmovement or liquefaction. ' As discussed in Sec. VIE (Biological Assessment of the Temecula Regional Center Site), the subject site was examined by a biologist who noted the lack of evidence supporting the habitation of the site by the Stephen's kangaroo rat or any other.rare or endangered species. These issues are discussed in further detail within the Environmental Impact Report. V-1 I As stated in the County's General Plan, where only a,portion of a site has specified limits on , land use, the specified limits apply to only the identified portion of the site. Therefore, the land `f, use of the remaining portions of the project site are to be determined by the remaining steps of the Determination System. 3 Land Use Planning Area Pirofile and Communitv:Policv Area Identification for ` Proiect Site The Comprehensive General Plan outlines. several Land Use Planning Area Profiles, providing ' background. information'for each plannmg'areadriclul g:. a generaldescription; population and housing statistics; growth and land use forecasts; land use potential and constraints; and tronas , and adopted. Specific Plans, The County's five-year forecasts are intended to guide infrastructural development to support expected growth in all planning ureas. a. Southwest Territory ' The project site is located in the central portion of the Southwest Territory Planning Area. This ' area is comprised of approximately 482 square miles bounded on the south by San Diego County and on the west by Grange County and the Cleveland National Forest. . b, , Community,Policy Area ' To determine the Land Use Category, the General Plan specifies that this discussion review the growth forecasts for population and housing, land use potential, land use constraints, area -wide land use description, the applicable sub-areadescription and any applicable community land use .policies. ' A review of the Southwest Territory's Growth Forecasts reveals that the area is estimated at reaching a population of 142, 439 by year 2010. The following.are the population and housing ' forecasts at 5 -year intervals through this projection period: 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 ' Population 42,657 57,664 77,949 105,371 142,439 Housing (units) 20,220 26,912 35,818 47,672 63,440 ' The Southwest Territory Land Use Planning Area is conducive to accommodating, the above ' forecasted growth due to the following reasons: 1) Improvements to I-15 and 1-215 and surrounding transportation systems; 2) Improvements to the Rancho California community water and sewer systems via recent development projects; 3) Proximity to neighboring employment ' centers in Orange, Riverside and San Diego Counties,.and 4) Relatively lower housing costs and lower priced industrial land V-2 ' In addition to the above description of development potential, there are also concerns sited in the General Plan which may constrain the subject site. The area's population growth may place burdens on under-developed"'public services and facilities, and the _area_ is characterized by a variety of environmental issues including topography, potable water. concerns, seismic and ' flooding hazards, impacts on various cultural "and biologicalresources and impacts to the Palomar Observatory. The site is located within an urbanizing corridor through the Elsinore Valley, Sedo-Wildomar, ' Murrieta Hot Springs and Rancho California -Temecula area along Interstate 15. As mentioned previously, these areas are projected to experience significant population growth in the next two decades. In November of 1989, the Riverside County Board of Supervisors adopted the Southwest Area Community Plan (SWAP), which applies to the approximately same area covered by- the South- west Territory Land Use Planning Area within the County's General Plan. As a iesult'of the adoption of SWAP, those;.policies previously addressed through the Southwest Territory Land ' Use Planning Area, are now addressed through SWAP. The following discussion within Step 3 of this Determination Analysis will analyze those policies. 'C. Southwest Area Plan SWAP was developed to provide additional land use goals and policies that address the unique land use characteristics and issues within. this. area of the County, and is _intended to further the implementation of the Goals and Policies of the General Plan. ' According to the Southwest Area Community Plan Growth Management Concept, the Temecula Regional Center (TRC) Specific Plan site is located within an urban area. As stated on page 132 of the General Plan, "...This area represents the full urban build -out potential of the SWAP and ' the ultimate limits of urbanization." More specifically the T.R.C. site is designated as: Commer- cial. Section V.A. of the SWAP contains policies which are general and apply to a number of land use categories within the SWAP area. The following analysis_ addresses diose policies as they ' pertain to the Temecula Regional Center Specific Plan site. Policy: Zoning consistent with the SWAP as provided in the Zoning Consistency Guide - fines, Figure 11.28.2, shall be applied, throughout the SWAP area. Consistency: The Temecula Regional'Center Specific Plan proposes S.P. Zoning generally ' consistent with SWAP designations as depicted on both Figures 3, Specific Land Use Plan and the SWAP Land Use Allocation Map. With the approval of GPA 263, the General Plan and SWAP will reflect the "Adopted Specific Plan's" designation per approval of this Specific Plan. V-3 Policy: Proposed land uses will be reviewed for compatibility in light of existing and approved land uses within the surrounding area.,Additional factors which will enter into the . review for compatibility include the intensity of use, hazards, nuisances, aesthetics and design. , Consistency: The Temecula Regional Center Specific Plan proposes land uses consistent with surrounding.existing and approved land uses in terms of use, hazards, nuisances, aesthetics and design.. For detailed discussion of these issues please see Section ' V.C. within this document. Policy: Drought tolerant and non-toxic plant materials shall be utilized for street trees and , landscaping. Consistency: The Temecula Regional Center Specific Planproposes the use of drought tolerant ' and non-toxic plant materials for street trees and landscaping. For detailed discussion of these issues please see Section IV.B" within this document. ' Policy: All street lights and other outdoor lighting on electrical plans shall be submitted to the Department of Building and Safety for plan check approval and shall comply with the requirements of all applicable City of Temecula Ordinances and ' Policies. Consistency: .The 'Temecula Regional Center Spec Plan shall comply with all City of Temecula applicable Ordinances and Policies. Policy Archaeological surveys by a qualified archaeologist shall be conducted on all ' undisturbed; vacant lands or agricultural lands'as pan of the environmental review process. Prior to' approval of any development proposal, mitigation shall be incorporated into the design of the project. , Consistency: As part of the preparatory process for the Temecula Regional Center Specific Plan, a' cultural' resources survey: was conducted and recommended mitigation measures were established Please see Section VII). for further detail. , Policy: Paleontological surveys by a, qualifiedpaleontologist shall be conducted within arm:of known and potential resources, (see Figure 11.28.3) as part of the environ- mental review process. Prior to approval of any development proposal, mitigation , shall be incorporated into the design of the project. Consistency: Section VI.D. includes a detailed Paleontological Survey performed on the project ' site, and recommended mitigation measures. Policy: A road maintenance district should be created in order to repair and maintain ' roads that are not City -maintained V-4 7 Consistency: The Temecula Regional Center Specific Plan proposed the construction of both public and private roads. Public roads have been, designed to County Standards for dedication. Private roads will be maintained by either;a CSD, Master Mainte- nance Association or a similar financing mechanism. Policy: The; design and appearance of new structures and/or„ equipment within scenic ' corridors shall be compatible with the setting or environment. Consistency: Appropriawarchitectural design guidelines are contained in this Specific Plan to ' ensure that all development within view enhances the scenic quality of, the sur- rounding area. (See Section IV.D.) Policy: The size, height and type of on-site outdoor advertising displays within scenic corridors shall .be the, minimum necessary for. identification.. The design, materials, color and location of the displays shall blend.with the environment, ' utilizing natural materials where possible. Consistency: All proposed signage treatments shall conform with Section IV of this Specific ' Plan per approval by the City of Temecula Planning Commission . and City Council. Policy: Within the "Urban Areas", a traffic analysis shall be required for any development proposal, unless determined by the Road Commission. ' Consistency: A Traffic Analysis was prepared for the. Temecula Regional Center project. Please see Section VI.F. for a detailed report. Policy: An additional 25 -foot transportation easement, dedicated to the City shall be required of all projects along Hwy. 79 (Winchester Road) for,future traffic mitiga- tion programs. This easement may be used for additional parking and/or landscaping until such time as it is needed.for transportation improvements. ' Consistency: The Temecula Regional Center Specific Plan shall dedicate a 25 foot transporta- tion easement along Highway 79 (Winchester Road) to the City of Temecula for future traffic mitigation programs. ' Policy: The target Level of Services (IAS) for the SWAP shall be LOS "C" with a peak LOS "D" (LOS GD). Consistency: Although projected traffic volumes on the planned street network would result in peak -hour service level "E" or "F" at several locations, additional improvements ' have been identified which would achieve the minimum County SWAP Standard of Level of Service D or better at all intersections at peak hour levels except at V-5 peak hour levels the Winchester Road/Ynez Road intersection. These improve- ments would be needed with or without the project. Project traffic is projected to operate at -a Level of Service "C". Please refer to Section VI -F for further infor- Section V.B. of SWAP consists of land use policies for specific designations used on the SWAP Allocation Map: As shownon the SWAP Allocation Map, the site has been designated with land uses generally considered Category 1- Heavy Urban; characterized by intensive commercial land uses, including regional and community commercial centers. In addition, the project site has been included'within'an'Urban Area on the SWAP Growth- Management'ConceptMap. The following', analysis addresses those spec policies highlighted within SWAP addressing Category I - Heavy Urban. Policy: All heavy urban land uses shall be required to have a full range of public services, as described in the Public Facilities and Services Element of the Riverside County Comprehensive General Plan, including adequate and available circulation, water distribution, sewage' collection and' utilities; including natural gas and/or electricity, telephone and waste disposal services. Consistency: The Temecula Regional Center Specific Plan provides adequate provisions for both infrastructural improvements and public facilities which meet those standards outlined in the County's Comprehensive General Plan and shall conform to all standards required throughout ithe Specific Plan review process. Policy. Allheavy urban land uses shall be a part of a water and sewer district which is authorized to provide water and' sewer service. Consistency: The Temecula Regional Center Specific Plan is proposed to be served by the Rancho California Water District, (RCWD) and by the Eastern Municipal Water District (EMWD) for sewer service. Policy: Commitments for -water and sewer 'service shall be confirmed by the district responsible for providing service. Consistency: In conjunction with future implementing subdivisions, service commitments will be attained from both Districts. This will bedone before any development permits are requested Policy: Adequate and available water and sewer capacity shall exist at the time of con- struction to meet the demands of a proposed project. Consistency: Per Section V.D. of the accompanying Environmental Impact Report, adequate water and sewer capacity are available. Please see this section for further discus- sion. V-6 I ' The following. analysis addresses those SWAP policies highlighted for commercial land uses: Policy: Regional commercial facilities require a service area of 150,000 people to support the facility. Consistency: The Temecula Regional Center Specific Plan is located within an, area called "Central Riverside County." Population within the central Riverside County area ' is projected to reach a level of 541,400 by the year 2010. Therefore, the Temecula Regional Center will have ample population to support such a facility. ' Policy: Regional commercial facilities must locate along freeways and expressways, generally at or near intersections with arterial highways. Consistency: The proposed Temecula Regional Center site is designed with accessibility in mind and is located at the intersection of two urban arterials, and within close proximity of freeway access. For a detailed discussion, see Section lII.2., ' Circulation, within this report. Policy: Regional commercial centers must contain at least two anchor stores with approxi- mately 40-80 satellite commercial facilities. Consistency: The Temecula Regional Center Specific Plan proposal exceeds these minimum standards. Policy: Regional Commercial Centers must have a minimum site area of 30 acres and contain 425,000 square feet of retail floor space. ' Consistency: The Temecula Regional Center Specific Plan proposes a total of 201.3± gross acres and contains 1,673,000 square feet of retail floor space. See Section III., Table L Detailed Land Use Summary, for a more detailed development area ' breakdown. Policy: Regional commercial facilities generally have a service area consisting of a 4 -mile radius. Consistency: The Temecula Regional Center will service Temecula and neighboring County areas 4. Land Use Determination Per the standards and policies outlined within the Riverside County General Plan Land Use Determination System, the subject development proposal has been analyzed addressing Steps One, ' Two and Three and addressing all applicable land use policies within the Southwest Area Community Plan. As stated in the Comprehensive General Plan, "A Community Land Use V-7 B. LAND. USE ELEMENT 1. Land Use Plannine Area Policy Analysis This proposed project is located within the City of Temecula- Under the direction of the City, this analysis studies the County of Riverside's General Plan policies for use as guideline standards and policies for review. The site is located within the area directed by the County's Southwest Area Plan (SWAP) which occupies approximately 482 square miles. This Planning Area comprises the entire Murrieta Census Division and majority of the Elsinore Valley Census Division, excluding census tract 419.02 .-As of September- 1983,-the.County. had adopted the following Specific Pan within this Land Use Planning Area: S.P. 103 (Murrieta Hot Springs); S.P. 106 (Dutch Village); S.P. 116 (The Farm); S.P. 117 (Pala Village); S.P. 128 (Joaquin Ranch); S.P. 149: (Rancho California Plaza); S.P. 152 (Horsethief Canyon); S.P. 155, S.P. 156 (Golden Triangle), and S.P. 171 (Wolf Valley). Since 1983, the County of Riverside has approved other specific plans in .the vicinity of this project. These additional, nearby specific plans include: , S:P. 173 (California Oaks); S.P. 184 (Rancho Bella Vista); S.P. 213 (Winchester Property), and S.P. 220 (Warm Springs). These spec plans, when implemented, will provide an additional 15,538 residential units in this Planning Area. . Data provided in the Riverside County Comprehensive General Plan provides the project growth forecasts of this area as of 1980. These forecasts were as follows. T'he 1980 Census statistical data showed that the population for the SWAP was 21,435. The SCAG-89 population forecast estimates that this Land Use Planning Area will reach a population level of 142,439 by the year 2010. T'he following are the population and housing forecasts for the unincorporated portion of the SWAP until the year 2010: 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 Population 42,657 57,664 77,949.> 105,371 142,439 Housing (units) . 20,220 26,912 35,818 47,672 63,440 An EIR prepared for the Southwest Area Community Plan (SWAP), provides an analysis of the anticipated growth in the area. Based on that analysis, it was estimated that the Southwest Area is expected to have a population of approximately 142,439 by the year 2010. These data indicate that the project area is experiencing growth at a rate which exceeds the 1983 projections provided in the General Plan. According to the General Plan, the SWAP exhibits a number of characteristics conducive to accommodating the forecasted growth. These characteristics include: V-9 * Recent improvements to I-15 and I-215 freeway corridors. These corridors provide access to San Diego and Orange Counties and the cities of Lake Elsinore, Norco, Corona and Riverside. * Improvements to the community water system in Temecula * Proximity to employment bases in Orange and San Diego Counties. * Relatively lower housing costs and lower priced industrial land. * Improvements to community sewer facilities in the Temecula. * Increased industrial development potential with completion of I-15 to San Diego. * Increased demand for housing with recent improvement to freeway system. * Desirable air quality in. Temecula. * The creation of a large nature; preserve in the Rancho Santa Rosa area. There are, however, concerns that could constrain land uses in some portions of the SWAP * . Rapid and large population increases .have placed heavy- burdens on public services, schools, sewer system, flood controlfacilitiesand paved local roads. * Topography and a variety of other environmental issues are major factors affecting development.in the area. Some of these factors include: slopes in excess of 25%, lack of potable water, seismic and flooding hazards, limited fire protection services, various cultural and biological resources such as vernal pools, raptors, and Stephen's kangaroo rat, and impacts to the Palomar Observatory from mercury vapor and unshielded night lighting. These constraints and their relationship to this project have been briefly analyzed in the preceding General Plan Land Use Determination discussion, and will be analyzed in greater detail in the following environmental analysis. 2. Land Use Category Policy Analysis The proposed project exhibits the characteristics of Category I development in conformance with the land use designations and policies as adopted within the Southwest Area Plan. A Category I type development requires a full range of public services because of the type and density of development. This EIR evaluates the project's potential impacts to these public services and the project's relationship to the General Plan. The document also identifies mitigation measures which will reduce potential impacts to a level of non -significance where possible. V-10 1 1 1 1 i 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 The analysis of this project-s'potential impacts to public services are evaluated in the appropriate public services sections of this document. V-11 C. ENVIRONMENTAL- HAZARDS AND RESOURCES ELEMENT (EXISTING CONDITIONS, IMPACTS, GENERAL PLAN RELATIONSHIP AND MITIGATIONS) 1. SEISMIC SAFETY The following discussion is based on the "Revised Feasibility Geotechnical Report 230+ Acre Regional Center South and East of Winchester and Ynez Roads Rancho California, California" prepared by ICG Incorporated (dated October 18, 1989). This report is included in its entirety as Technical Appendix B. a. Existing Conditions The site lies within a region of generally high seismicity as does all of Southern California. During its design life, the site is expected to experience ground motion from earthquakes on regional and/or local causative faults. The dominant structural feature in the area is the northwest- striking Elsinore Fault Zone. This fault zone coincides with the dominant northwest -southwest structural and regional tectonic pattern displayed by other fault systems including the San Andreas and San Jacinto Fault Zones. The Elsinore Fault Zone - divided into three principal northwest -trending faults, the Wildomar Fault Zone, the Willard Fault Zone, and the Murrieta Hot Springs Fault Zone, is a predominant and youthful structural boundary that separates the Perris Block along its eastern side from the Santa Ana Mountains along its western side. The tens Elsinore, trough is commonly used to descnbe the fault controlled graben valley between Corona and Wolf Valley. Geologic mapping by Kennedy (1977), indicates that the eastern side of the Elsinore trough (Wildomar Fault Zone) is composed principally of right -stepping, strike -slip faults that have a west -dipping normal component, whereas the western side (Willard Fault Zone) is composed of a series of east -dipping, steeply inclined faults. The Willard Fault Zone - most individual faults of the Willard Fault Zone can be traced for only a kilometer or two and many for less than a few hundred meters. The faults have a complex discontinuous relationship to one another and only as a group form a through - going zone (Kennedy, 1977). The Willard Fault Zone is not classified as active by either the State or County and no evidence of recency has been encountered. The Murrieta Hot Springs Fault Zone - this zone has been mapped by Kennedy and others, 1977, as being nearly continuous from the southeast portion of Murrieta to Murrieta Hot Springs. This fault is not currently classified as an active fault by State or local agencies. However, recent evidence of Holocene Age activity has been recognized by State and local V-12 •Y f, R N �I OYMBOL MAGNITUDE 0.0 OR OREOfER "T� YOIE ttYY�Yt.R"..�Y.. Oq Ntt L a t0..t..• p _• 'w.Y wr w ItYYntN ..I acuW.W .n R .... . i�r y�:�.� .nunw .wr.rYv teeYY. .r rYlltr.rtnu Ir \ � Y Y MAP OF HISTORIC EARTHQUAKE EPICENTERS, MAGNITUDE > 5.0 MRT6tR PlanningME Gtnsulules IS..MR1.Vt1 CNM. A.AS fINI /6t -)7)I J�s+n o.u�. wv. Itm wms.suu K.C.D.C. 27555 Ynez Road, Suite 202, Temecula, Ca. 92591 REGIONAL FAULTS TEMECULA REGIONAL CENTER. IV -12A FIGURE 28A .N Y '•R� Lr'T 1 R\ _ 1 ruu •Y f, R N �I OYMBOL MAGNITUDE 0.0 OR OREOfER "T� YOIE ttYY�Yt.R"..�Y.. Oq Ntt L a t0..t..• p _• 'w.Y wr w ItYYntN ..I acuW.W .n R .... . i�r y�:�.� .nunw .wr.rYv teeYY. .r rYlltr.rtnu Ir \ � Y Y MAP OF HISTORIC EARTHQUAKE EPICENTERS, MAGNITUDE > 5.0 MRT6tR PlanningME Gtnsulules IS..MR1.Vt1 CNM. A.AS fINI /6t -)7)I J�s+n o.u�. wv. Itm wms.suu K.C.D.C. 27555 Ynez Road, Suite 202, Temecula, Ca. 92591 REGIONAL FAULTS TEMECULA REGIONAL CENTER. IV -12A FIGURE 28A agencies, therefore, it is suspected that the Murrieta Hot Springs Fault may be classified as active at a future date. The Wildomar Fault Zone - is a northwest -striking, west -dipping, high -angle normal fault. ' This fault zone is presently included within the Alquist-Priolo Special Studies Zone. The main trace of the Wildomar Fault, despite greater micro- seismicity, is assumed to have ' a recurrence.interval of 300-450 years. No portion of the site is included within a State or local County fault. hazard zone. ' Table III, Seismicity for Major Faults, lists known regionally active faults, their approximate distance , from the site, their maximum probable earthquake magnitude and, seismic ' parameters for identified causative faults. A magnitude 7.0 earthquake occurring on the Elsinore Fault Zone (Wildomar Fault) near ' the site could produce a peak ground acceleration on the order of 0.63g at the site. The duration of strong motion is expected to exceed 30 seconds. TABLE III SEISMICITY FOR MAJOR FAULTS Approximate Maximum Est .Peak Repeat Distance From Probable Ground Ground ' Faults Site miles Earthquake Accel., Accel. ' Elsinore 0.4 W 7.0 0.63g 0.419 (Wildomar) San Jacinto 19 NE 7.1 0.31g 0.21g San Andreas 32 NE 7.5 0.27g 0.18g Murrieta 0.9 N 6.5 0.59g 0.38g Hot Springs i ' In order to identify potential fault related features within or near the property aerial photographs were examined by the project engineering geologist in relationship Jo -two. linear topographic features which were originally mapped by K.P..Kennedy ("Recency and Character of Faulting Along the Elsinore Fault Zone in Southern Riverside County, i V-13 California", 1977). The aerial photographs indicate that linear features suggest surface effects of faulting exist north of the site, but no features exist within project boundaries. soils Generally, the soils underlying the site consist of loose to medium dense alluvium and medium dense to very dense sedimentary bedrock. The settlement potential under seismic loading conditions for these on-site materials is considered to be moderate to low. Ground Rupture and Ground Surface Cracking Due to the absence of known faulting on-site and the low contact angle observed between the alluvium and sedimentary bedrock ground rupture and ground cracking are not anticipated. Liquefaction Soil liquefaction is the loss of soil strength during a significant seismic event, occurring primarily in loose, fine to medium grained granular material in the presence of groundwater. Liquefaction occurs as soil particles are rearranging into a denser condition, which can result in localized areas of settlement, sand boils and flow failures. The Revised Feasibility Geotechnical Report indicates that the granular soils in the Santa Gertrudis Valley are typical of soil that will likely liquefy during major seismic events. A liquefaction analysis is presented on Figure 4 of the Revised Feasibility Geotechnical Report included as Appendix B. This analysis shows the areas and depths most likely to liquefy as well as areas where liquefaction is unlikely. Figure 28, Geology, also shows on- site locations where liquefaction is likely. Preliminary recommendations to mitigate this potential are contained in "'Mitigation Measures" and Section 7.2.2 of the Revised Feasibility Geotechnical Report. Seismically Induced Flooding Areas within the Santa Gertrudis Valley may be subject to seismically induced flooding from a dam failure at Skinner Reservoir (see Figure 31, Existing Hydrology). The project site is located approximately six miles downstream of Skinner Reservoir but lies outside this inundation area. b. Project Impacts/General Plan Relationship The Temecula Regional Center Specific Plan will be impacted by seismic activity along the Wildomar Fault (Elsinore Fault Zone) alignment which runs parallel to the western boundary of the project site. This off-site fault zone is presently included within the V-14 1 i 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 i 1 p 1 jT66 p Planning 0%%pants x .Sedimentary Bedrock oel UItl'.nf}lY1 TU J.}n1 Artificial Fill SOURCE: HIGHLAND GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTANTS K.C.D.C. 27555 Ynez Road, Suite 202, Temecula, Ca. 92591 C GEOLOGY Legend TEMECULA REGIONAL CENTER FIGURE 28 V-15 oP, Pauba Formation .Sedimentary Bedrock oel Alluvium at Artificial Fill Test Borings Cone Penetration Tests Geologic Contact 1 Liquefaction Boundary TEMECULA REGIONAL CENTER FIGURE 28 V-15 I ' Alquist-Priolo Special Studies Zone. The project design: has reflected State and local regulations with respect to the Wildomar Fault. It is possible that during a Richter magnitude 7.0 earthquake along the Elsinore Fault Zone ' the site will experience a maximum peak ground acceleration in bedrock of 0.63g. The maximum repeatable acceleration in bedrock on the site should be approximately 0.41g. As shown on Figure 28, Geology, the site is prone to liquefaction in the northern portion of the site. However, proper mitigation measures can reduce this .hazard to a level of ' insignificance. Currently, the area designated as the 100 -year floodplain for the Temecula Creek exceeds the inundation area that would result during instantaneous failure of Skinner ' Dam. Earthquake induced flooding or seiching is, therefore, considered low. As previously mentioned, ground rupture and ground surface cracking are not anticipated ' to occur on-site due to the absence of known faulting and .the condition of the soil. General Plan Relationship ' The Temecula Regional Center project site lies within the boundaries of the. newly incorporated City of Temecula. However, given the absence of a City General Plan,: land" ' use development standards, etc., this Environmental Impact Report evaluates the project in terms of the March 1984 "County of Riverside Comprehensive General Plan" (The fourth edition of the "Comprehensive General Plan" (February 1990) does not include the area within the 'City of Temecula on the Environmental Hazards and Resources Maps, Public Facilities Maps, etc.) Such an approach is a- standard .land use planning practice for ' development proposed within newly incorporated cities. The" objective of the Environmental Hazards and Resources Element - Seismic Safety ' Element of the Riverside County Comprehensive General Plan is to recognize seismic and geologic hazards as serious constraints in determining suitable land uses and structural design. This element contains land use standards for proposed sites which are located ' within a potential. liquefaction area per the County Seismic -Geologic Map, within an Alquist-Priolo Special Studies Zone, a County Fault Hazard Zone, or within 150 feet of an active or potentially active fault. The following Seismic Safety -Land Use Standards are ' applicable: 1. Liquefaction Hazards - If the proposed site is located in a County potential ' liquefaction area on the County Seismic/Geologic Map, then submission of a geologic report to assess liquefaction hazards is required. The northern portion of the project is subject to liquefaction prone soils. As mentioned under "Mitigation Measures" the project proposes common procedures to alleviate this potential hazard. 2. Groundshaking Zones - Development proposals are to be evaluated based on ' Groundshaking Zones. The site lies within Groundshaking Zone II, per the Seismic/ V-16 1 Geologic Map. The Specific Plan proposes Normal -Low Risk Land Uses;. which are compatible with Groundshaking Zone II. C. Mitigation Measures : 1. Design of structures on the project site shall be in accordance with the criteria contained in the Uniform Building Code and shall be designed to withstand earthshaking from the maximum credible earthquake that can be expected. 2. The site shall be cleared of allobstructions and deleterious material including all miscellaneous trash, debris, and organic material. 3. Due to liquefaction potential in the northern portion of the site, common mitigation procedures would be the use of.a compacted fill mat, gravel blankets, post -tensioned slabs, and additional footing reinforcement. It is recommended that a 5 foot compacted fill mat within building areas should mitigate most problems associated with liquefaction. The potential for liquefaction triggered "Lateral Spreading" may have to be mitigated by additional setbacks from the tops of, fill slopestoeing into liquefaction prone areas. The design of this system shall be performed during the grading plan review process. (See Appendix B, Revised Feasibility Geotechnical Report). 4. In order to mitigate potential inundation impacts associated with Skinner Dam, an evacuation plan shall be developed by the City of Temecula and approved by FEMA. All affected fmal subdivision maps will indicate that the proposed. project : lies in a potential inundation area. d. Level of Signiftcance After Mitigation Based upon the mitigation measures proposed above, the level of impacts related to Seismic Safety have been reduced to an insignificant level. V-17 I ' 2. SLOPES AND EROSION The information contained below is a summary of the "Revised Feasibility Geotechnical Report 230+ Acre Rancho California Regional Center, South and East of Winchester and ' Ynez Roads Rancho California, California" prepared by ICG Incorporated (dated October 18, 1989). This report is included in its entirety as Technical Appendix B. a. Existing Conditions Topography ' The site is located within the Peninsular Ranges Geomorphic Province east of the Santa Ana Mountains. The Peninsular Ranges extend southward from the Los Angeles Basin ' through Baja California, and are characterized by large Mesozoic Age intrusive rock masses flanked by volcanic, metasedimentary and sedimentary rocks. The Peninsular Ranges have a general northwest -trending structural grain that includes such geologic features as faults, ' bedding and foliation trends, and geologic contacts. The actual site is underlain by recent alluvial deposits in the Santa Gertrudis Valley and drainage areas, while the hills consist primarily of late Pleistocene Age sedimentary bedrock, known as the Pauba Formation. (See Figure 28, Geology.) Pauba Formation (Ons) - The Pauba Formation exposed on the site consists of light brown laminations and beds of poor to well indurated silts, sands and gravels with occasional intervals of greenish -gray, medium stiff to stiff clayey silt and silty clay beds. The clayey silt ' and silty clay portions of this bedrock can have high expansion potential. ' Alluvium (Oal) - The alluvial soils are generally comprised of loose to medium dense fluvial and channel deposits of interbedded silty sands, sandy silts and sands. These soils exhibit moderate strength characteristics when used as compacted fill and have a very low to low expansion potential. Artificial Fill (af) - Artificial fill consisting of light brown to brown sands and silty sands ' exists in various locations, including along Santa Gertrudis Creek. Figure 29, Elevation Analysis, indicates that the majority of the site has an elevation of ' 1,040 feet to 1,060 feet. Slightly greater elevations are found around the hill located at the future intersection of Margarita Road and North General Kearny Road. Figure 30, Slope Analysis, provides a breakdown of the slope characteristics of the project site. Approximately 190.7 acres of the site are in the 0 - 10% slope category; 10.0 acres are in the 11 - 25% slope category; with the remaining .6 acres in the 25% and above slope ' category. This breakdown indicates that approximately 94.7% of the site possesses slopes P V-18 -7' .......... J-) 0.11 JQ :7 Z, iT&D Planning Cowultants 't YM W4(i (AlV.9TIMfI3M9({ K.C.D.C. 27555 Ynez Road, Suite 202, Temecula, Ca. 92591 ELEVATION ANALYSIS Legend F-1 1040'-1060' 1060'-1080* 1080'-1100' 1100* -1120* >1120' TEMECULA REGIONAL CENTER V-19 FIGURE 29 OX A- �77 jT&B Planning Cm iltann, IK.C.D.C. 27555 Ynez Road, Suite 202, Temecula, Ca. 92591 SOURCE: R.B.F. & ASSOCIATES SLOPE ANALYSIS TOTAL 201.3 AC TEMECULA REGIONAL CENTER V-20 FIGURE 30 Legend 0-10% 19 0.7 AC 10-25% MO AC TOTAL 201.3 AC TEMECULA REGIONAL CENTER V-20 FIGURE 30 ' of 10% or less, 5.0% of the site has slopes in the 11 - 25% category, while .3% of the -site Ip has slopes greater than 25%. Groundwater ' Groundwater was encountered in two locations at depths of 33 and 38 feet below the existing ground surface. According to the Department of Water Resources, information gathered from 9 water wells within and adjacent to the site indicates the historical regional high groundwater levels vary from 20 feet to 45 feet below the ground surface in the western to eastern portions 'of the site, respectively. These historic groundwater contours are shown on the Geotechnical Map, Plate 1, Appendix E of the Revised Feasibility Geotechnical Report included as Appendix B to this document. Additionally, according to the County of Riverside Energy Resources Map, thermal waters may underlie the project ' site. Slope Stability ' Natural slopes on the site range from relatively gentle to moderately steep. No inherent stability problems are anticipated with project development. b. Project Impacts/General Plan Relationship The Temecula Regional Center Specific Plan is considered feasible for future development of retail/office/hotel use, provided that the generalized recommendations found in the ' Revised Feasibility Geotechnical Report, Appendix B, and future geotechnical investigations and fault studies are incorporated into the design and construction of the project. Topography ' Development of the Temecula Regional Center will be tailored to the existing topography of the site. It is intended to reflect original natural land forms, where possible, so the different land uses will be distinguished and separated by topographic features. (See Figure ' 9, Grading Concept Plan). Portions of the site which are flat or gently sloping will require minimal cut and fill ' operations. According to the Project Engineer, approximately 800,000± cubic yards of import will be required. This number may vary as final grading plans are developed. It is anticipated that this import material will come from the proposed Campos Verdes project ' to the east of Margarita Road. In the event that the Campos Verdes site is not an available source for import materia4 areas outside the boundaries of the proposed Temecula Regional Center but under the applicant's ownership will be utilized for this purpose. P V-21 Depending on structure types and depths of proposed fills, alluvial soil and non -engineered fill will require removal in building areas. Groundwater Adverse impacts on the proposed project from groundwater are not anticipated. Slope Stability As stated previously, no inherent stability problems are anticipated. Cut and fill slopes will be designed and are expected to be grossly stable at 2:1 (horizontal:vertical) slope ratios, or flatter, to heights of 10 feet. Slopes of greater height as well as the final design of all -cut and fill slopes will require approval during grading plan review. Slope erosion is a significant concern with regard to surficial stability. To alleviate this impact it is recommended that slopes be properly compacted and all cut and fill slopes be planted with erosion resistant vegetation or other protective devices immediately after grading (see Mitigation Measure Number 4). For additional information regarding cut and fill slopes see Appendix B, Revised Feasibility Geotechnical Report. General Plan Relationship The Temecula Regional Center project site lies within the boundaries of the newly incorporated City of Temecula. However, given the absence of a City General' Plan, land use development standards, etc., this Environmental Impact Report evaluates the project in terms of the March 1984 "County of Riverside Comprehensive General Plan". (The fourth edition of the "Comprehensive General Plan" (February 1990) does not include the area within the City of Temecula on the Environmental Hazards and Resources Maps, Public Facilities Maps, etc. ) Such an approach is a standard land use planning practice for development proposed within newly incorporated cities. The following Land Use Standards - Slopes and Erosion from the Environmental Hazards and Resources Element of the Riverside County Comprehensive General Plan are applicable to the project site: 1. Slope Heights and Contours - All cut and fill slopes or combinations thereof shall be made no steeper than 2:1 (two horizontal to one vertical), and their height shall be no greater than ten feet. Exceptions to these standards are permitted if they are recommended to be safe in a slope stability report written by a soil engineer. The slope stability report must also include recommendations for erosion control and landscaping of the proposed grading. V-22 ' In accordance with these standards, all cut and fill slopes shall be constructed at inclinations of no steeper than two (2) horizontal feet to one (1) vertical foot unless otherwise approved by the City. 2. Road Grades - All roads shall be graded to a finished grade of no more than fifteen ' (15) percent, oras recommended by the City of Temecula Road and Survey Department. ' In accordance with these standards, all streets shall have a gradient not exceeding 15%. -. 3. Slope Stability and Landscape Plans- Where land uses are to be located on slopes ' subject to instability, erosion or slippage, an environmental assessment,rockfall study, a . geologic report or engineering report shall be required. ' In accordance with these standards, a geologic report for the project has been prepared and is included as Technical Appendix B. 4. Grading Plans - Grading is to be generally limited to the amount .necessary to provide stable areas for structural foundations, street right-of-ways, parking facilities and other intended uses. Applications for development permits will provide an estimate of the development proposal's grading magnitude and slope contours of the site. Depending .on the magnitude of the grading operation, the applicant may be required to submit a grading. plan for City approval prior to issuance of a grading permit. As long as this ,detailed grading concept conforms to the Specific Plan, no further environmental analysis is necessary. ' In accordance with these standards, detailed grading plans shall be prepared prior to any on-site grading and.this Environmental Impact Report has been prepared. 'C. Mitigation Measures 1. Prior to grading, the site shall be stripped and cleared of any existing vegetation, trees, structural foundations and any miscellaneous debris. Excavation resulting, from the removal of concrete rubble, brush, debris or any buried obstructions shall be backfilled with properly compacted fill. 2. Alluvial soil and non -engineered fill will be removed in all building areas. The actual ' removal depths shall be established in the field by both inspection and density testing during grading. 13. All cut and fill slopes shall be constructed at inclinations of no steeper than a 2:1 ratio unless otherwise approved by the City of Temecula. V-23 4. Fill slopes shall be properly compacted and all cut and fill slopes shall be planted with erosion resistant vegetation or other protective devices as soon as possible once grading occurs. 5. All grading procedures shall be in compliance with the City of Temecula Grading Standards including requirements for erosion control during rainy months. Standard engineering techniques will minimize the soil erosion and siltation potential to acceptable levels. Prior to Grading Plan approval, the project proponent shall submit to the City of Temecula, for review and approval, an erosion control program indicating proper control of siltation, sedimentation and other pollutants. The erosion control measures will include revegetation of cut and fill areas, utilization of sediment control devices at construction sites, and diversion of storm runoff from development areas. All drainage will be conveyed in non-erosive drainage devices to suitable disposal points. Energy dissipation and methods for preventing scour and erosion should be part of any drainage improvements. 6. All development shall adhere to the mitigation measures contained in the "Revised Feasibility Geotechnical Report" included as Appendix B to this document, including the additional recommendations relative to: Subdrainage, Fill -Over -Cut Slopes, Slope Protection/Maintenance, Transition Lots, Foundations, Surface.and Subgrade Drainage, Foundation and Slab Recommendations, Lateral Load Resistance, Concrete Slabs/Flatwork, Set -Backs, Soil Sulfate Content, Utility Trench Backfill, Pavement Design, Retaining Walls, and Construction Monitoring. 7. Applications for development permits within the Temecula Regional Center Specific Plan shall provide detailed grading plans which include estimates of grading magnitude and slope contours. This detailed grading plan shall be submitted to the City of Temecula prior to grading plan approval. In the event that this detailed grading concept conforms to the previously -approved Specific Plan, no further environmental analysis is necessary. If the grading plan does not conform, the City shall prepare an Initial Study to determine the extent of any necessary additional environmental documentation. d. Level of Significance After Mitigation Based upon the mitigation measures proposed above, the level of impacts related to Slopes and Erosion have been reduced to an insignificant level ki V-24 I ' 3. WIND EROSION AND BLOWSAND a. Existing Conditions ' The project site is not located within the.Wind/Erosion or Blowsand Area designated within the Comprehensive General Plan. ' b. Project Impacts Although the project site lies outside the Wind/Erosion or Blowsand Areas designated by the County of Riverside, construction activities (primarily site preparation and grading) will.: generate fugitive dust. Construction activities for large development projects are estimated by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency ("Compilation of Air. Pollutant .Emission ' Factors") to add 1.2 tons of fugitive dust per acre .of soil disturbed per month of activity. If water or other soil stabilizers are used to control dust as required by SCAQMD. Rple 403, the emissions can be reduced by 50 percent. Applying the above factors to the ' approximately 201.3 acres of the project, a 6 month grading, cycle, and a 5 year, grading, duration, results in an average of .99 tons per day of particulate emissions released for grading the project site. This is a small amount compared. to the 146 tons per. day of particulates currently released in Riverside County; however, it still exceeds the threshold of significance established by, the SCAQMD. Additionally, this material is inert silicates, rather than the complex organic particulates released from combustionsourceswhich are, more harmful to health. Dust generated by such activities usually becomes more of a local nuisance than a serious health problem.. In some cases grading may benear near existing development. Care should be taken to minimize the generation of dust. Common practice ' for minimizing dust generation is watering prior to and during grading. ' C. Mitigation Measures 1. The quality of particulate matter and other pollutants emitted during the grading and construction phase of the proposed project may be reduced through watering graded surfaces and planting ground cover as dust palliatives, in accordance with SCAQMD Rule 403. ' d. Level of Significance After Mitigation ' Based upon the mitigation measures proposed above, the level of impacts related to Wind Erosion and Blowsand have been reduced to an insignificant level. 1 go 1 * 4. FLOODING The following discussion summarizes information provided by the engineering firm of J. F. Davidson Associates, Inc., as well as the Drainage Study for the Rancho California Commerce Center prepared by Robert Bein, William Frost & Associates (RBF): The Rancho California Commerce Center was a 1,049 acre project which included the currently proposed Temecula Regional Center. This project was the source of hydrologic data which was used in the subsequent J. F. Davidson study. The J. F. Davidson study is included in its entirety as Technical Appendix C, Engineering Report. a. Existing_ Conditions The majority of the project area is located within the Santa Gertrudis Valley, to the north of the confluence of the Santa Gertrudis and Murrieta Creeks. The project lies within a hydrologic drainage basin which is approximately 2,000 acres in size. An existing 100 -year floodplain' occupies the northern portion of the project site. Based on the F.E.M.A. maps dated May 1, 1984, the 100 -year floodplain extends southward from Santa Gertrudis Creek to, and in some areas south of, Winchester Road. Improvements to the Santa Gertrudis Creek are included within the approved Assessment District (A.D.) 161. Upon completion of the AD 161 • improvements (construction is estimated to be complete late in 1991), the FEMA maps must be modified to remove these areas from the flood plain. Figure 31, Existing Hydrology, shows the size and capacity of existing drainage facilities in the project area. Figure 31 also shows the existing 10 and 100 year flows (in cubic feet per second). Existing storm drain improvements include open channels, reinforced concrete boxes and reinforced concrete pipes. Along the southwest project boundary, under Ynez Road, are located an existing 7' X 5' Reinforced Concrete Box (RCB) and an existing double 10' X 5" RCB. The double 10' X 5' RCB is located approximately 1,200' north of Solana Way. This box can adequately convey a flow of 1,250 cfs. The area tributary to this box generates a 100 -year storm runoff peak well over the existing 1,250 capacity (see Figure 31, Existing Hydrology). According to the RBF report, existing facilities under I-15, also shown on Figure 31, are also inadequately sized to accommodate current 100 year flows. The project site is within the jurisdiction of the Riverside County Flood Control District and Water Conservation Agency. The project site is located within the Temecula Valley Area of the Murrieta Creek Area Drainage Plan, and there are drainage fees of $932 per acre associated with developments within the Drainage Plan area. V-26 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 ! RMT T&R Planning G+multuna I iin iiu'�. uix`.nma muwa>v SOURCE: RBF & ASSOCIATES K.C.D.C. 17555 Ynez Road, Suite 102, Temecula, Ca. 92591 0 EXISTING HYDROLOGY ;y I Lake Skinner Inundation Area TEMECULA REGIONAL CENTER V-27 FIGURE 31 Legend Basin Boundary Sub -Basin Boundary Existing Facilities ,(Capacity • ••.• in Cubic Feet Per Second) Direction of Flow 100 -Year Flood oioo (in Cubic Feet Per Second) 10 -Year Flood oio (in Cubic Feet Per Second) ;y I Lake Skinner Inundation Area TEMECULA REGIONAL CENTER V-27 FIGURE 31 I ' b. Project Impacts/General Plan Relationship Approval of the Temecula Regional Center Specific Plan would result in short-term and long-term hydrologic impacts. The development and construction phase of the proposed ' project would potentially create short-term downstream impacts related to erosion and sedimentation due to the creation of exposed soils during project grading. However, as discussed under "Mitigation Measures", erosion control measures can prevent this ' occurrence. The development phase of the project will result in the creation of impermeable surfaces on-site, thereby increasing anticipated amount of on-site runoff. The increased site runoff, as well as upstream surface flows, will be accommodated by the proposed drainage system, as shown on Figure 6, Drainage Plan. This Drainage Plan includes a single 10'X 5' RCB ' traversing the southeastern portion of the project site. This box connects upstream with an existing 10'X 5' RCB under Margarita Road, becomes a double 10'x 5' RCB at Apricot Avenue and ultimately discharges into the existing double 10' x 5' RCB under Ynez Road, then under I-15. The Campos Verde Detention Basin shown on Figure 6, Drainage Plan, is proposed as part of Zone Change 5617 (recently submitted to the City of Temecula) and will be designed to have the capacity to detain an adequate volume of storm water so that the capacity of the drainage structures under Interstate 15 will not be exceeded by more than what presently occurs. The proposed park/detention basin is approximately 13.5 acres in size. It is.proposed for construction with 4:1 side slopes with a maximum .depth. of 9.5'. The ' required -upstream flood control facilities including this proposed detention basin would be constructed independent of any approvals on the Campos Verdes project. ' The downstream facilities from the project site ultimately discharge into the Murrieta Creek. The increased flow rates from the project site will contribute to cumulative increased flow rates downstream and the potential for flooding in areas with undersized ' facilities. In addition to the drainage facilities proposed by the project, RCFC & WCD has proposed ' to improve the Santa Gertrudis Channel and Murrieta Creek Channel in the Master Drainage Plan (MDP) for Murrieta Creek area. The improved facility for Santa Gertrudis Channel (as part of AD 161) consists of a trapezoidal channel section with an 11,300 cfs capacity. Currently, about half of the channel construction downstream of the site has been accomplished. When completed, these improvements will eliminate the flood hazard on- site associated with Santa Gertrudis Creek. Design studies for the improvement of Murrieta Creek are currently underway. ke General Plan Relationship The Temecula Regional Center project site lies within the boundaries of the newly incorporated City of Temecula. However, given the absence of a City General Plan, land use development standards, etc., this Environmental Impact Report evaluates the project in terms of the March, 1984 "County of Riverside Comprehensive General Plan". (The fourth edition of the "Comprehensive General Plan" (February, 1990) does not include the area within the City of Temecula on the Environmental Hazards and Resources Maps, Public Facilities Maps, etc.). Such an approach is a standard land use planning practice for development proposed within newly incorporated cities. The project site is shown as lying within the 100 -year floodplain of Santa Gertrudis Creek, which extends south of Winchester Road. The following are Land Use Standards - Flooding from the Environmental Hazards and Resources Element of the Comprehensive General Plan: 1. Flood Hazard Mitigation - Proposed developments are reviewed for location in flood hazard areas, including floodways, floodplains, areas subject to sheetflow or local ponding and dam inundation areas. All flood -related hazards must be mitigated. 2. Floodplains - If a development proposal includes an area located in a floodplain, all new structures and substantial improvements to . existing structures shall be constructed on a pad, the elevation of which is up to or above the 100 -year flood elevation. 3. Drainage Improvement Fees - A development proposal located within the boundaries of an adopted Area Drainage Plan is required to pay a fee in the amount set forth in the plan for the support of drainage improvements. As noted above, the Temecula Regional Center Specific Plan site is within a floodplain area and will, therefore, be subject to County/City review to ensure that all flood -related hazards are mitigated. As discussed under "Project Impacts", the proposed improvement of Santa Gertrudis Creek by the RCFC & WCD will eliminate the flood hazard on-site: In accordance with the General. Plan, a Drainage Study has been prepared for the project and is submitted within Technical Appendix C. C. Mitigation Measures 1. All drainage facilities for this project shall conform to the requirements and standards of the Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District. V-29 I ' 2. The project developer shall pay drainage fees in accordance with the Murrieta Creek Drainage Plan. 3. .--. Erosion control measures shall be implemented, during construction in order to ' prevent exposed soils from erosion during periodsof heavy rainfall. Oil on graded slopes shall be strengthened by planting to reduce the potential of erosion. During the interim period before the ground cover takes hold, straw, wood chips and plastic (visqueen) can be ' used as stabilizing agents. 4. If a technically and economically feasible method is developed to catch and treat runoff ' from the project, such facilities shag be included within drainage plans to be submitted and approved by the City of Temecula. The City shag determine at that time as to: whether such technology is available and whether its implementation is feasible from an economic and ' technical standpoint. d. Level of Significance After Mitigation ' Based upon the mitigation measures proposed above, the level of impacts related to Flooding have been reduced to an insignificant level _. 1 I Eli V-30 5. NOISE The following discussion is based on the "Noise Assessment for the Temecula Regional Center, City of Temecula" (May 1, 1991) prepared by Mestre Greve Associates. This report is included in its entirety as Technical Appendix G. a. Existing Conditions Several rating scales have been developed for measurement of community noise. These account for: (1) the parameters of noise that have been shown to contribute to the effects of noise on man, (2) the variety of noises found in the environment, (3). the variations in noise levels that occur as a person moves through the environment,. and (4) the variations associated with the time of day. The predominant rating scale now in use in California for land use compatibility assessment is the Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL). The CNEL scale represents a time weighted 24 hour average noise level based on the A - weighted decibel. Time weighted refers to the fact that noise that occurs during certain sensitive time periods is penalized for occurring at these times. The evening time period (7 p.m. to 10 p.m.) penalizes noises by 5 dBA, while nighttime (10 p.m. to 7 a.m.) noises are penalized 10 dBA. These time periods and penalties were selected to reflect people's increased sensitivity to noise during these time periods. The day -night or Ldn scale is similar to the CNEL scale except that evening noises are not penalized. A CNEL noise level may be reported as a "CNEL of 60 dBA," "60 dBA CNEL," or simply "60 CNEV. The criteria used to assess the acceptability of community noise levels varies with the municipality. Although the City of Temecula has not yet adopted a noise ordinance, the County of Riverside uses exterior standards of 65 CNEL and an interior standard of 45 CNEL for residential uses. The County also recommends the interior noise standards for industrial and commercial uses as follows: private offices, church sanctuaries, colleges, pre- schools, schools, board rooms, conference rooms, etc. require a maximum noise level of 45 CNEL or less. General offices, reception areas and clerical areas require a maximum noise level of 50 CNEL. Bank lobbies, retail stores and restaurants require an interior noise level of 55 CNEL. Manufacturing areas, kitchens and warehousing areas are required to have interior noise levels of 65 CNEL or less. The recently adopted Riverside County Southwest Area Plan (SWAP) contains no noise standards relative to commercial/office use or resort/commercial use. Existing traffic volumes and estimated speeds were used with the FHWA Model to estimate existing noise levels in terms of CNEL. Traffic volumes were obtained from the Temecula Regional Center Traffic Study prepared by Wilbur Smith Associates (April 1991). Standard traffic mix distributions were used for the arterial roadways and are based on traffic data obtained at sample intersections located throughout Riverside County. V-31 i F I� The distances to the CNEL contours for the roadways in the vicinity of the project site are given in Table IV, Existing Noise Levels. These represent the distance from the centerline of the road to the contour value shown. Note that the values given in Table IV do not take into account the effect of any noise barriers or topography that may affect ambient noise levels. The data in Table IV indicates that a major noise corridor exists along Interstate 15. Noise levels directly adjacent to Interstate 15 exceed 70 CNEL. Winchester Road, Jefferson Avenue and Ynez Road have noise levels of 65 CNEL or greater at the edge of the roadway right-of-way. Other roadways in the project vicinity have low levels of traffic and correspondingly low levels of noise. TABLE IV EXISTING NOISE LEVELS Distance to CNEL Contour From Centerline of Roadway, (Feed . Roadway 70 CNEL 65 CNEL 60 CNEL WINCHESTER ROAD East of Murrieta Creek RW 88 190 West of Jefferson Ave. RW 88 190. Jefferson Ave. to I-15 67 145 312 I-15 to Ynez Road 68 146 316 E. of Ynez Road RW 96 207 W. of Regional Ctr. RW 96 207 W. of Margarita Road RW 96 207 E. of Margarita Road RW 92 197 W. of Nicolas Road RW 92 197 E. of Nicolas Road RW 88 190 W. of Murrieta Hot Spr. RW 88 190 E. of Murrieta Hot Spr. RW 66 143 SOLANA WAY Ynez Road to Margarita Road RW 55 119 East of Margarita Road RW RW 63 WASHINGTON AVE.(DIAZ ROAD) South of Winchester Road RW 65 140 V-32 Roadway JEFFERSON AVENUE North of Date Street S. of Cherry Ave. N. of Winchester Ave. Winchester to Apricot Ave. TABLE IV (Continued) EXISTING NOISE LEVELS Distance to CNEL Contour From Centerline of Roadway_(Feet) 70 CNEL 65 CNEL 60 CNEL RW 72 155 RW 72 154 RW 88 189 54 115 249 I-15 Date Street to Winchester S. of Apricot Avenue YNEZ ROAD N. of Winchester Road S. of Winchester N. of Apricot Avenue S. of Solana Way MARGARITA ROAD N. of Winchester Road S. of Apricot Ave. S. of Solana Way NICHOLAS ROAD S. of Winchester MURRIETA HOT SPRINGS ROAD N. of Winchester RW - Contour falls on roadway. 169 364 784 161 346 746 RW 60 129 58 124 268 50 108 233 RW 92 199 RW RW RW RW RW RW RW RW 82 RW RW 74 RW RW 84 V-33 ' b. Project Impacts/General Plan Relationship Short Term Impacts ' Construction noise represents a short term impact on ambient noise levels. Noise generated by construction equipment, including trucks, graders, bulldozers, concrete mixers and portable generators can reach high levels. Grading activities typically represent one of the ' highest potential for noise impacts, however, most of the grading should occur away from existing residential land uses. However in some areas grading will be occurring adjacent to newly developed areas. For these situations, the most effective method of controlling construction noise is through local control of construction hours. Noise levels _.for. equipment which might be used for the excavation and construction of the proposed project range from approximately 65 to 105 dBA at a distance of 50 feet. The noise levels decrease ' at a rate of approximately 6 dBA per doubling of the distance. Therefore, at 100 feet the - noise levels will be about 6 dBA less. Intervening structures or topography will act as.a, noise barrier and reduce noise levels further. Long Term Impacts The proposed development of Temecula Regional Center will generate traffic, and as a result will alter projected noise levels in the surrounding areas. To assess the impact of the proposed project on land uses adjacent to streets that will serve the project, the change in roadway noise along these streets was determined. Due to future development which has already been approved there will be an increase in traffic in surrounding areas with or without the proposed project. The change in noise was calculated for these roads and is shown below in Table V, Traffic CNEL Noise Level Increase. Column 1 shows the change in the future noise levels over existing noise levels. The future noise levels include the sum ' of noise levels generated from existing traffic and noise levels generated from traffic due to cumulative development in the surrounding area as well as the proposed project. This first column therefore indicates the levels of future noise given anticipated cumulative development in the project area. Column 2 represents the increase in noise solely attributable to the proposed project. Cumulative noise impacts are based upon cumulative traffic volumes provided within the Temecula Regional Center Traffic Study which is included as an Appendix. ' to this EIR 1 ko V-34 1 TABLE V TRAFFIC CNEL NOISE INCREASE Adams Street to Jefferson Ave * 1.2 WINCHESTER ROAD East of Murrieta Creek Future Noise Increase 0.4 West of Jefferson Ave. Due to Project and Future Noise Increase Roadway Cumulative Development Due to Project DATE STREET 3.1 0.4 Diaz Road to Adams Street * 0.1 Adams Ave to Jefferson Ave * 0.2 Jefferson St. to I-15 * 0.2 I-15 to Business Park * 0.2 Business Park to Jackson Ave * 0.2 Jackson Ave to Lincoln Ave 3.8 0.3 East of Lincoln Ave * 0.3 West of Margarita Rd * 0.3 East of Margarita Rd * 0.1 W. of Murrieta Hot Springs Road * 0.7 Adams Street to Jefferson Ave * 1.2 WINCHESTER ROAD East of Murrieta Creek 2.4 0.4 West of Jefferson Ave. 0.7 0.3 Jefferson Ave to I-15 1.0 0.0 I-15 to Ynez Rd 3.1 0.4 E. of Ynez Road 3.9 0.3 W. of Regional Ctr. 3.4 -0.1 W. of Margarita Rd 3.9 0.4 E. of Margarita Rd 3.8 0.3 W. of Nicolas Rd 3.4 0.5 E. of Nicolas Rd 3.8 0.3 W. of Murrieta Hot Spr 3.7 0.6 E. of Murrieta Hot Spr 4.9 0.1 APRICOT AVENUE W. of Jefferson Avenue * -0.3 I-15 to Jackson Ave * 0.4 Ynez Road to Regional Ctr. * 0.8 Regional Ctr to Margarita Rd * -1.5 V-35 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 TABLE V (Continued) TRAFFIC CNEL NOISE INCREASE Roadway SOLANA WAY Ynez Road to Margarita Road East of Margarita Road GENERAL KEARNY ROAD Regional Ctr to Margarita Road East of Margarita Road East of east Margarita Road WASHINGTON (DIAZ ROAD) North of Date Street South of Date Street North of Winchester Road South of Winchester Road ADAM STREET North of Date Street South of Date Street JEFFERSON AVENUE North of Date Street Date Street to Cherry Ave. S. of Cherry Ave. N. of Winchester Ave. Winchester to Apricot Ave S. of Apricot Ave MADISON AVENUE N. of Date Street I-15 Date Street to Winchester S. of Apricot Avenue Future Noise Increase Due to Project and Future Noise Increase Cumulative Development Due to Project 4.2 0.1 1.3 -0.7 * * * 0.8 * 0.9 * * 1.3 * 0.0 3.6 -0.1 * 2.5 * 1.5 3.1 -0.1 * 0.1 3.7 0.4 3.6 0.1 0.9 0.1 , * 0.2 * 1.3 3.8 0.5 3.7 0.2 V-36 TABLE V (Continued) TRAFFIC CNEL NOISE INCREASE Roadway JACKSON AVENUE N. of Date Street Date Street to C Street C Street to County Ctr County Ctr to Winchester YNEZ ROAD S. of Winchester N. of Apricot Avenue Apricot Ave to Solana Way S. of Solana Way LINCOLN AVENUE N. of Date Street MARGARITA ROAD N. of Date Street Date Street to A Street A Street to B Street B Street to Winchester S. of Winchester N. of General Kearny General Kearny to Apricot Ave Apricot Ave to Solana Way S. of Solana Way NICHOLAS ROAD S. of Winchester Future Noise Increase Due to Project and Cumulative Development 2.5 1.4 2.9 4.2 * 4.4 Future Noise Increase Due to Project 0.2 0.6 0.5 0.3 0.3 -0.5 0.8 0.1 M 1.4 2.0 2.1 1.6 0.7 0.6 -1.1 0.3 0.3 1 MURRIETA HOT SPRINGS ROAD ' N. of Date Street * -0.3 Date Street to Winchester 6.3 0.1 S. of Winchester * -0.3 ' * = Data is currently not available for comparison. , V-37 1 I ' According to the acoustical engineer, changes in noise levels greater than 3 dBA are often identified as significant, while changes less than 1 dBA will not be discernible to local residents. In the range of 1 to 3db residents who are very sensitive to noise may perceive a slight change. ' The data in Column 1 of Table V indicate that the future noise levels will increase substantially (greater than 3dBA) for some streets over existing noise levels in the vicinity ' of the project which will have noise sensitive land uses. This is due to the relatively low amount of traffic currently in the area. A maximum change of 15.1 dB exdsts along Margarita Road (between Solana Way and Apricot Avenue) which may have noise ' exposure just less than 70 CNEL at the roadway right-of-way edge. Furthermore, Winchester Road, Diaz Road, Jefferson Avenue, Jackson Avenue, Ynez Road, Margarita Road, Nicholas Road and Murrieta Hot Springs Road have noise increases greater than ' 3 dB. These roadways will also have noise levels greater than 65 CNEL. Those roadways that have noise increases greater than 3 dB and future noise levels greater than 65 CNEL may significantly impact already existing residential developments adjacent to these ' roadways. These cumulative noise impacts are considered a significant adverse environmental impact. Roadways along planned residential areas that are not yet developed can be mitigated by the developer at the time of construction. The future noise levels are likely to increase slowly over the years rather than immediately. This problem is a regional problem due to the intense development throughout this area. The future noise increase levels due.solely to the project specified in Column 2 are all less than 3 dB. This indicates the project will contribute slightly but insignificantly to the noise ' increase problem in the area. Traffic volumes reported in the traffic study were used with the FHWA Traffic Noise Model to project future unmitigated noise levels for all of the roadways. The modeling results are reported in the form of distances to the 60, 65 and 70 CNEL contours. These ' projections do not take into account any barriers or topography that may reduce noise levels. Future traffic noise levels impacting the project site were presented in Table VI, Future Noise Levels with the Project. For the project site the data is also presented ' graphically in Figure 32, Future On-site Noise Levels, which shows the 60 and 65 CNEL noise contours for the project site. 1 is V-38 i i 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 P �' 1qIT&A Planning Cmwitan¢ � unwnrHC Stittm i,�w�:pn r K.C.D.C. 27555 Ynez Road, Suite 202, Temecula, Ca. 92591 FUTURE ON—SITE CNEL NOISE LEVELS Legend 65 CNEL 60 CNEL TEMECULA REGIONAL CENTER V-39 FIGURE 32 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 i 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 M 1 TABLE VI` FUTURE NOISE LEVELS WITH THE PROJECT Roadway DATE STREET Diaz Road to Adams Street Adams Street to Jefferson Ave Jefferson St. to:I-15 I-15 to Business Park Business Park to Jackson Ave Jackson Ave to Lincoln Ave East of Lincoln Ave West of Margarita Road East of Margarita Road W. of Murrieta Hot Springs Road CHERRY STREET Adams Street to Jefferson Ave C STREET Adams Street to Jefferson Ave B STREET W. of Margarita Road A STREET W. of Margarita Road COUNTY CENTER Jackson Ave to C Street Distance to CNEL Contour From Centerline of Roadway (Feet) 70 CNEL 65 CNEL 60 CNEL 62 134 290. 63 135 291 68 146 :314 68 146 314 67 145 312 RW 111 238 RW 107 230 RW 107 231 RW 98 210 RW 72 156 RW RW 73 RW 53 113 RW RW 89 RW RW RW RW RW 53 V-40 I V-41 TABLE VI (Continued) FUTURE NOISE LEVELS WITH THE PROJECT •, 1 Distance to CNEL Contour From Centerline of Roadway (Feet) ' Roadway 70 CNEL 65 CNEL 60 CNEL WINCHESTER ROAD , East of Murrieta Creek RW 128 276 West of Jefferson Ave. RW 98 212 Jefferson Ave to I-15 79 169 365 ' I-15 to Ynez Road 109 235 506 E. of Ynez Road W. of Regional Ctr. 81 75 175 161 377 348 ' W. of Margarita Road 81 175 377 E. of Margariti Road 76 164 352 W. of Nicolas Road 72 155 334 , E. of Nicolas Road 73 157 338 W. of Murrieta Hot Spr 72 155 334 E. of Murrieta Hot Spr 65 140 302 ' APRICOT AVENUE W. of Jefferson Avenue RW 71 153 I-15 to Ynez Road 47 101 217 Ynez Road to Regional Ctr. 49 106 228 Regional Ctr to Margarita Rd RW 75 161 , SOLANA WAY Ynez Rd to Margarita Road RW 105 226 East of Margarita Road RW RW 76 , GENERAL KEARNY ROAD Regional Ctr to Margarita Road RW 86 185 East of Margarita Road RW 89 192 ' Far East of Margarita Road RW 81 175 WASHINGTON AVE (DIAZ ROAD) ' South of Date Street 72 155 335 North of Winchester Road 59 126 272 244 South of Winchester Road 53 113 V-41 1 1 1 i 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 P 4 TABLE VI (Continued) FUTURE NOISE LEVELS WITH THE PROJECT Distance to CNEL Contour From Centerline of Roadway (Feet) Roadway 70 CNEL 65 CNEL 60 CNEL ADAMS AVENUE North of Date Street South of Date Street JEFFERSON AVENUE North of Date Street Date Street to Cherry Ave. S. of Cherry Ave. N. of Winchester Ave. Winchester to Apricot Ave S. of Apricot Ave MADISON AVENUE N. of Date Street I-15 Date Street to Winchester S. of Apricot Avenue JACKSON AVENUE N. of Date Street Date Street to C Street C Street to County Ctr County Ctr to Winchester YNEZ ROAD S. of Winchester N. of Apricot Avenue Apricot Ave to Solana Way S. of Solana Way LINCOLN AVENUE N. of Date St RW RW 86 RW RW 115 54 117 251 57 122 262 58 126 271 71 153 330: 61 132 285 55 119 257 RW 74 160 302 650 1401. 284 612 1318 57 124 267 59 128 275 60 128 276 67 143 309 85 184 396 71 154 332 78 168 362 82 177 380 RW V-42 RW RW I TABLE VI (Continued) FUTURE NOISE LEVELS WITH THE PROJECT •' Distance to CNEL Contour From Centerline of Roadway (Feet) Roadway 70 CNEL 65 CNEL 60 CNEL , REGIONAL CTR ROAD Winchester to General Kearny RW 80 173 General Kearny to Apricot Ave RW 80 173 MARGARITA ROAD i N. of Date Street RW 88 191 Date Street to A Street RW 83 179 A Street to B Street RW 85 182 ' B Street to Winchester RW 112 240 S. of Winchester RW 93 201 N. of General Kearny RW 85 184 ' General Kearny to Apricot Ave RW 97 208 Apricot Ave to Solana Way 52 112 241 S. of Solana Way 52 112 242 NICHOLAS ROAD S. of Winchester RW 68 146 MURRIETA HOT SPRINGS ROAD , N. of Date Street RW 75 162 Date Street to Winchester RW 103 221 S. of Winchester RW 80 172 ' RW - Contour falls on roadway. On -Site Noise Impacts The data in Table VI indicate that limited portions of the project site may experience traffic noise levels greater than 65 CNEL without some form of mitigation, specifically areas along Winchester Road, General Kearny Road, Regional Center Road and Margarita Road (see Figure 32, Future On -Site Noise Levels.) It should be noted that the 70 CNEL Contour on roadways adjacent to the site extends a maximum of 14 feet from the right -of- ' way of Winchester Road, a maximum of 5 feet from the right-of-way of Apricot and a maximum of 19 feet from right-of-way of Ynez Road. V-43 I ' As discussed in Section IV.C.3, Site Planning Guidelines, a minimum building setback of 45 feet is required from the face of the curb along Ynez Road and along the south side of Winchester Road. A minimum 40 foot setback is necessary along all secondary roadways. Therefore, none of the proposed structures will fall within or be impacted by the 70 CNEL contour. The commercial retail and office uses proposed along Winchester Road, Ynez Road, ' Apricot Road, General Kearny Road, Regional Center Road and Margarita Road could potentially be exposed to noise levels exceeding 65 CNEL depending on the building setback. According to the California Land Use/Noise Compatibility guidelines, commercial ' retail and office land uses in the 65 - 70 CNEL zone are "normally acceptable", with the assumption that any building involved is of normal conventional construction without any special noise insulation requirements. 1 If the hotel uses were to be built adjacent to Winchester Road, Apricot Road,, General Kearny Road,. Regional Center Road or Margarita Road, they. could be exposed to noise: levels exceeding 65 CNEL. According to the California Land Use/Noise Compatrbility.: guidelines, hotel land use exposed to 60 to 70 CNEL is "conditionally acceptable", .new construction or development should be undertaken only after a detailed analysis .of the noise reduction requirement is made and needed noise insulation features included in the design. Conventional construction, but with closed windows and fresh air supply systems or air conditioning, will normally suffice. No significant off-site impacts will be generated due to implementation of the project. Noise levels in the surrounding areas will increase substantially in years to come. However,. the increases are due to regional development, and the proposed project by itself will contribute little but insignificantly to the ultimate noise levels. rGeneral Plan Relationship The Temecula Regional Center project site lies within the boundaries of the newly incorporated City of Temecula. However, given the absence of a City General Plan, land use development standards, etc., this. Environmental Impact Report evaluates the project ' in terms of the March 1984 "County of Riverside Comprehensive General Plan". (The fourth edition of the "Comprehensive General Plan" (February 1990) does not include the area within the City of Temecula on the Environmental Hazards and Resources Maps, Public Facilities Maps, -etc.) Such an approach is a standard land use planning practice for development proposed within newly incorporated cities. The project site is not shown as noise impacted, per County of Riverside Airport Noise Impact Area Map. However, the Environmental Hazards and Resources Element of the. Comprehensive General Plan includes the following Noise Land Use Standards. Those ' which are relative to the proposal are listed below: V-44 I 1) The following uses shall be considered noise sensitive and shall be discouraged in • areas in excess of 65 CNEL (dBA): Single and multiple family residential, group homes, hospitals, schools and other learning institutions, and parks and open space lands where quiet is a basis for use. 2) Proposed noise sensitive projects within noise impacted areas shall be required to have acoustical studies prepared by a qualified acoustical engineer and may be required to provide mitigation from existing noise. 3) Proposed projects which are noise producers shall be required to have an acoustical engineer prepare a noise analysis including recommendations for design mitigation, if the project is to be located within close proximity to.a noise sensitive land use or land zoned for noise sensitive land uses. In accordance with the land use standards of the Environmental Hazards and Resources Element and due to potential for on-site areas adjacent to roadways to possess noise levels in excess of 65 CNEL, a Noise Assessment has been prepared. However, it should be noted that no noise sensitive uses are proposed as part of the Temecula Regional Center Specific Plan. The Noise Assessment for the project, which proposes "Mitigation Measures" (as discussed below) is included as Appendix G, Noise. C. Mitigation Measures The following measures will adequately mitigate short-term and on-site noise impacts but 40 will not reduce cumulative off-site noise impacts to a level of insignificance. 1. Construction adjacent to existing residential development should be limited to 7 a.m. to 7 p.m. on Monday through Friday. Construction should not be allowed on weekends or federal holidays. 2. Mitigation measures are needed for hotel uses proposed in Planning Area 1 to ensure interior noise levels will be no greater than 45 CNEL and exterior noise levels will be no greater than 65 CNEL (since the City of Temecula and the County of Riverside have no noise ordinance for hotel use, this mitigation utilizes County of Orange Standards). One form of mitigation is the construction of noise barriers which will sufficiently shield outdoor living areas exposed to noise levels in the range of 65 to 70 CNEL. Noise barrier heights were calculated for sample locations along Winchester Road, General Kearny Road, Regional Center Road and Margarita Road. In most areas the barrier will have to reduce the noise level by approximately 1 to 5 dBA. Walls of 3 to 5 feet may be required adjacent to General. Kearny Road, Winchester Road and Margarita Road. Walls of 6 feet or greater may be required adjacent to Winchester Road. The noise barrier heights projected are a "worst-case" assessment and may be reduced considerably through site design, such as setbacks from the roadways, grade separations, and exterior living area orientation. The , V-45 1 ' barriers could be a berm, wall, or a combination berm and wall. Walls should not contain holes or gaps, and should be constructed of slumpstone or other masonry material. Final noise barrier heights adjacent to proposed hotel uses should be determined when final grading plans are developed that show lot locations, setbacks, and precise pad elevations. It has been assumed that no second story hotel balconies will face the roadway for units located inside the 65 CNEL impact zone. In general, second story balconies should not overlook major roadways due to potential noise impacts. However, if such balconies are ' planned, additional noise mitigation will be necessary to ensure they are not exposed to noise `in excess of the recommended standard of 65 CNEL for second story balconies. This determination shall occur at the time of building permit application and required noise impact analysis discussed below. 3. Mitigation measures are needed to ensure interior noise levels will be no greater ' than 50 CNEL in the retail commercial core proposed in Planning Area 2. This could be accomplished through sound wall and noise insulation. According to the acoustical engineer, as there are no exterior living areas in the retail commercial core, there is no need ' to address exterior noise levels. Exhibit 5 of the Noise Assessment contained in Appendix G of this document presents a standard condition utilized by the County of Orange. The Noise Assessment recommends that a similar condition be attached to this project to ensure that the project meets the indoor and outdoor noise standards for the City. of Temecula. 4. The project applicant shall participate on a pro -rata. basis in any City program in place at the time of tract map approval which mitigates off-site highway noise impacts due to this and other proposed development in the area. 5. Since the City of Temecula does not have standards for commercial retail, office and hotel land uses, the interior noise criteria as specified in the County of Orange "Noise Element and Land Use/Noise Compatibility Manual' should be applied. An acoustical report will need to be completed prior to issuance of building permits to show mitigation measures, if any, needed to meet the interior noise standards for the commercial retail, office and hotel buildings. The County of Orange standards require that commercial retail and office buildings are not to exceed 50 CNEL for the interior, hotel buildings are not to exceed 45 CNEL for the interior and 65 CNEI for exterior living areas. ' d. Level of Significance After Miti alp In spite of the mitigation measures proposed above, the level of impacts related to Noise (i.e. cumulative noise impacts) are considered to represent a significant adverse impact which will require a Statement of Overriding Considerations. 1 Is V-46 6. CLIMATE AND AIR QUALITY a. Existing Conditions Climate The.project site lies within the South Coast Air Basin (SCAB), which encompasses about 8,630 square miles in Southern California. The climate of the basin is classified as Mediterranean, characterized by a pattern of cool, wet winters and warm, dry summers. Typical dry summers are caused by a semi-permanent high pressure cell located over the eastern Pacific Ocean. This system generally blocks storms from moving into the basin. The climate in the project vicinity typifies that of the entire basin. Temperatures recorded in the Temecula Area range from 20 to 109 degrees fahrenheit, with an annual average temperature of 64 degrees fahrenheit. Approximately 90% of the precipitation in the area occurs between November and March, when the high pressure system in the eastern Pacific weakens, allowing storms, to move through the area (mostly from the northern Pacific). The average amount of annual rainfall in the Temecula Area is 12 inches. Based upon measurements taken at Perris Valley Airport, located approximately 16 miles northwest of the project site and data compiled at March Air Force Base, located 24 miles to the northwest of the project site, the estimated speed of prevailing southwesterly winds in the Temecula area is 6 knots. However, wind speed and direction are typically unstable, due to occasional northerly gusts. Air Quality The project site lies within the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD), which maintains monitoring stations throughout the County. The •monitoring station nearest the site with published data available is Perris Air Quality Monitoring Station. Only quantities of oxidant (ozone) are measured at that facility. At present, oxidant is the most serious problem in the project area. Oxidant is formed by a multi -step photochemical reaction between oxides of nitrogen and reactive hydrocarbons. Extended periods of intense sunlight, which is characteristic of the project area, contribute to the high oxidant levels. Total suspended particulates (TSP) also continue to be a major problem in the South Coast Air Basin. Carbon monoxide and nitrogen dioxide are not monitored at the Perris station. Levels of these pollutants are attributable primarily to automobile traffic, and usually do not reach high levels except near major congested roadways. V-47 I State and federal standards for lead and sulfur oxides were not exceeded at the station. It should be noted that the standards for these pollutants are exceeded in other parts of the air basin, but were not exceeded for the Perris station. Provided below is a summary of air quality trends for the previous four years at the Perris Station: TABLE VII AIR QUALITY LEVELS MEASURED AT ' THE PERRIS AMBIENT AIR MONITORING STATION California National Max. Days State Pollutant Standard Standard Year Level Std. Exceeded I [J I Oxidant 0.10 ppm 0.12 ppm for 1 hour for 1 hour Particulates 1986 0.22 1987 0.20 1988 0.23 1989 0.21 133 136 137 147. Percent State , Std. Exceeded . PMIo* 50 ug/m3 260 ug/m3 1986 215 18.8% for 24 hr for 24 hr 1987 187 33.3% 1988 164 63.3% 1989 187 66.1% * PMIo refers to fine articles with aerodynamic diameter of 10 micrometers or less. * ppm refers to parts per million * ug/m' refers to micrograms per cubic meter of air b. Project Impacts/General Plan Relationship Air quality impacts are usually divided into short term and long term. Short term impacts are usually the result of construction or grading operations. Long term impacts are associated with the build -out condition and the resultant mobile (automobile -related) and stationary source (electricity and natural gas use) emissions. V-48 Short Term Impacts , Temporary impacts will result from project construction activities. Air pollutants will be •' emitted by construction equipment and dust will be generated during grading and site preparation. Construction activities for large development projects are estimated by the U.S. ' Environmental Protection Agency ("Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission Factors") to add 1.2 tons of fugitive dust per acre of soil disturbed per month of activity. If water or other , soil stabilizers are used to control dust as required by SCAQMD Rule 403, the emissions can be reduced by 50 percent. Applying the above factors to the approximately 201.3 acres ' of the project, a 6 month grading cycle, and a 5 year grading duration, results in an average of .99 tons per day of particulate emissions released for grading the project site in one grading phase. Additionally, this material is inert silicates, rather than the complex organic , particulates released from combustion sources which are more harmful to health. Dust, generated by such activities usually becomes more of a local nuisance than a serious health problem. In some cases grading may be near existing development. Care should be taken ' to minimize the generation of dust. Heavy-duty equipment emissions are difficult to quantify because of day to day variability ; in construction activities and equipment used. A diesel powered scraper is the most common equipment used for grading operations. Emission factors associated with its operation are 5.4 pounds per day of carbon monoxide, 23 pounds per day of nitrogen oxides, 2.35 pounds per day of hydrocarbons, 1.7 pounds per day of sulfur oxides, and approximately 1.5 pounds per day of particulates. The emissions generated by the assumed operation of two pieces of heavy equipment at one time grading the site are listed in Table ' VIII below. TABLE VIII ' PROJECT RELATED EMISSIONS (DIESEL POWERED SCRAPER) Pollutants Resultant Emissions CO = 10.8 lbs/day ' NOx = 46.0 lbs/day sox = 3.4 lbs/day Particulates ' = 3.0 lbs/day HC = 4.7 lbs/day u V-49 I ' Other. short. term impacts will be from heavy duty diesel truck emissions from the importation of dirt from the adjacent Campos Verdes project site to the Temecula Regional Center project site. A total of 800,000± cubic yards of dirt will be imported during a 6 month grading cycle (26 weeks assuming a five day work week). A total of ' 80,000 truck trips with a carrying capacity of 20 cubic yards per truck and a 0.6 mile distance per trip is assumed to move the 800,000 cubic yards of dirt. (Half of the 80,000 truck trips are return trips.) The resultant emissions are listed in Table IX. below, Heavy Duty Diesel Truck Emissions for Import of Dirt. TABLE IX HEAVY. DUTY DIESEL TRUCK EMISSIONS FOR IMPORT OF DIRT Pollutant Resultant Emissions ' lbs. da tons da ROG 2.19 lbs. .001 tons CO 6.26 lbs. .003 tons NOx 12.86 lbs. .006 tons PM 2.47 lbs. .001 tons sox 2.4 lbs. .001 tons Note: These emissions are based on emission factors in Appendix L, Heavy Duty Diesel Truck Emission Factors, of SCAQMD Air Quality Handbook for Preparing Environmental Impact Reports (April, 1987). Long Term Impacts The main source of emissions generated by the project will be from motor vehicles. Other ' emissions will be generated from the residential combustion of natural.gas for space heating and the generation of electricity. Emissions will also be generated by the commercial use of natural gas and electricity. Estimates of the vehicular emissions generated by the proposed project were made using emission factors from the SCAQMD "Air Quality Handbook,' (April 1987). The factors 1 are based on the EMFAC6D Program. 11 A V-50 1 1) Motor Vehicle Emissions The greatest project -related air quality impact results from the 64,850 daily vehicle trips the project will generate at build -out. The amount of motor vehicle emissions associated with the proposed project is calculated based upon the total vehicle miles traveled (VMT) at various phases of development. The VMT is determined by multiplying the 64,850 average daily trips (ADT) generated by the development times the average trip length of 8.7 miles for an averaged total of 564,195 VMT. An average vehicle speed of 25 miles per hour was assumed for the projections. The emissions are projected for the year 2000. The project's vehicular emissions are presented in Table X. TABLE X MOTOR VEHICLE EMISSIONS DAILY EMISSIONS FOR PROPOSED PROJECT CO = 564,195 VMT X 12.2 gm/mi 1 lb/454 gm = 15,161.19 lbs/day NOX = 564,195 VMT X 1.35 gm/mi 1 lb/454 gm = 1,667.67 lbs/day SOX = 564,195 VMT X 0.24 gm/mi 1 lb/454 gm = 298.25 lbs/day Part = 564,195 VMT X 0.32 gm/mi 1 lb/454 gm = 397.67 lbs/day NMHC = 564,195 VMT X 1.07 gm/mi 1 lb/454 gm = 1,329.71 lbs/day 2) Use of Natural Gas and Electricity Electricity - Since the proposed project involves development of either the "Regional Center" or "Power Center Alternatives", different amounts and types of commercial, office, and hotel square footages are proposed. As indicated in Section V.D.7, Utilities, the "Regional Center Alternative" is estimated to generate a total electrical demand of 28;647,260 kwh per year while the "Power Center Alternative" is estimated to generate 29,534,200 kwh per year. Based upon the above information, the maximum potential total annual electrical usage for the Temecula Regional Center Specific Plan is projected at 29,534,200 kwh. See Power Plant Emissions (Table )U) for emissions associated with this demand for electricity. Natural Gas - The primary use of natural gas by the project will be :for combustion to produce. space heating, water heating and other miscellaneous heating or air conditioning. As indicated in Section V.D.7, Utilities, the "Regional Center Alternative" is estimated to generate a total natural gas demand of 7,726,660 cubic feet per month while the "Power Center Alternative" is estimated to generate 8,222,000 cubic feet per month. Based upon the above information, the maximum potential monthly consumption of natural gas for the Temecula Regional Center Specific Plan is projected at 8,222,000 cubic feet. See Natural Gas Emissions (Table )(II) for emissions associated with the projects consumption of natural gas. V-51 I ' CO Y NOx - Nitrogen Oxides TABLE XI POWER PLANT EMISSIONS* CO = 29,534,200 kwh x .20 lbs/1,000 kwh = 5,906.84 lbs/yr Part NOx = 29,534,200 kwh x 1.15 lbs/1,000 kwh = 33,964.33 lbs/yr ' SOx = 29,534,200 kwh x .12 lbs/1,000 kwh = 3,544.10 lbs/yr TABLE XII Part = 29,534,200 kwh x .04 lbs/1,000 kwh = 1,181.37 lbs/yr ROG = 29,534,200 kwh x .01 lbs/1,000 kwh = 295.34 lbs/yr t * Resulting from consumption of 29,534,200 kwh per year generated by a power plant, assuming continued availability and use of natural gas in power plants, and average hydro year. .1 1 V-52 CO - Carbon Monoxide NOx - Nitrogen Oxides SOx - Sulfur Dioxide Part - Particulates ' ROG - Reactive Organic Gas TABLE XII ' NATURAL GAS EMISSIONS CO = 8,222,000 c.f X 20 lbs/1,000,000 c.f. = 164.44 lbs/mo. ' NOx SOx = 8,222,000 c.f X 120 = negligible Ibs/1,000,000 c.f. = 986.64 lbs/mo. Part = 8,222,000 c.f X.15 lbs/1,000,000 c.f. = 1.23 lbs/mo. ROG = 8,222,000 c.f X 5.3 lbs/1,000,000 c.f. _. 43.58 Ibs/mo. .1 1 V-52 Total Emissions The additional emissions generated by the project are compared to emissions for Riverside County in Table XIII. The total emissions generated by the project are presented in the first line of Table XIII. The Riverside County emissions are for the year 2000 and have been taken from the 1982 Revision to the Air Quality Management Plan. The increases in ' all of these pollutants when compared to Riverside County emissions will be less than 3%. TABLE XIII , COMPARISON OF EMISSIONS Contaminant CO NO SOS Part. NMHC ' Emissions in Tons per Day 2000 Temecula Regional Center (Tn/Dy) 7.591 0.897 0.154 0.200 0.666 ' 2000 Riverside Co. 504.000 68.400 6.340 147.000 222.000 (TAY) Emissions as a Percent of Regional Emissions Percent of County Emissions 1.51% 1.31% 2.43% .0.14% 0.30% This pollutant generation is considered "significant" by the "Air Quality Handbook for Preparing EIRP, which suggests that "significant" impacts will occur when a project is capable of daily emissions of one or more of the pollutants listed below: Carbon Monoxide 550 lbs. or 0.28 tons , Sulfur Dioxide 150 lbs. or 0.08 tons Nitrogen Oxides 100 lbs. or 0.05 tons Particulates 150 lbs. or 0.08 tons , Reactive Organic Gases 75 lbs. or 0.04 tons Lead 3 lbs. or 0.002 tons , V-53 1 IR 1 I IAccording to the above information, air quality impacts associated with development of Temecula Regional Center are considered significant adverse impacts in the generation of carbon monoxide, nitrogen oxide, sulfur dioxide and particulates and will require a Statement of Overriding Considerations (see Section V.G.2, Unavoidable Adverse Impacts). I Mitigation Measures are recommended for the project which will reduce, but not eliminate the significance of the impact. The AQMP is designed to accommodate growth in the basin consistent with the SCAG-82 Growth Forecasts. This growth forecast is based on the general plans adopted by the various municipalities at the time of the forecast development. As the proposed Specific Plan is consistent with the recently adopted Southwest Area Plan (SWAP) of the Riverside County Comprehensive General Plan, the project is considered consistent with the AQMP. IGeneral Plan Relationship The Temecula Regional Center project site lies within the boundaries of the newly, incorporated City of Temecula. However, given the absence of a City General Plan, land use development standards, etc., this Environmental Impact Report evaluates the project. in terms of the March 1984 "County of Riverside Comprehensive General Plan". (The fourth edition of the "Comprehensive General Plan" (February 1990) does not include the area within the City of Temecula on the. Environmental Hazards and Resources Maps, Public Facilities Maps, etc.) Such an approach is a standard land use planning practice for development proposed within newly incorporated cities. There are two Land Use Standards in the Environmental Hazards and Resources Element 1 of the Comprehensive General Plan relative to air quality. They concern air quality impact mitigation and sensitive land uses. ' 1) Air Quality Impact Mitigation - Major development proposals which may create a significant new source of air pollutant emissions must contribute to the mitigation of adverse air quality impacts. Major projects may include large industrial, mining, residential, commercial or recreational projects. Air quality mitigation measures to reduce automobile or energy use include the following: ' • Bicycle facilities such as bike lanes, racks and lockers. • Transit facilities, such as benches, shelters and turnouts. • Park -n -Ride facilities. • Carpool preferential parking programs. • Energy efficient buildings. ' • Solar access orientation of structures. • Solar heated and cooled structures and swimming pools. V-54 2) Sensitive Land uses. - Sensitive land uses should not be located adjacent to sources of heavy air pollution, such as major roadways or heavy industrial land uses. It is intended that the project conform with the Air Quality Land Use Standards by employing mitigation measures listed in the following discussion entitled "Mitigation Measures". c. MITIGATION MEASURES 1. The quality of particulate matter and other pollutants emitted during the grading. and construction phase of the proposed project may be reduced through watering graded surfaces and planting ground cover as dust palliatives, in accordance with SCAQMD Rule 403. 2. Because most of the project -related air pollution emissions are generated by automobiles, there is very limited potential for any effective mitigation on the part of any single developer. However, where feasible, the project will integrate the following features into the project design: Transit facilities, such as benches, shelters and turnouts; • Energy efficient buildings; • Solar access orientation of structures; and • Bicycle Facilities including bike lanes, racks and lockers. 3. Additionally, the design of efficient and direct traffic flow patterns on,the project site can help reduce the quantity of air pollutants generated by minimizing the places in the roadway system where automobiles would be idling unnecessarily. The project Traffic Study, included in the Technical Appendices, contains a number of design guidelines to be utilized in creating an efficient roadway system. 4. All mitigation measures associated with the project should be monitored in accordance with AB 3180 requirements and reported to SCAG through the Annual Reasonable Further Progress Reports. d Level of Si i wane After Mitigation In spite of the mitigation measures proposed above, the level of impacts related to, Air Quality (i.e. generation of carbon monoxide, nitrogen oxide, particulates and reactive organic gases) are considered to represent a significant adverse impact which will require a Statement of Overriding Consideration. V-55 ' 7. WATER QUALITY a. Ebsting Conditions The California Porter -Cologne Water Control Act of 1968 and the Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendment of 1972 required that comprehensive water quality control plans be developed for all waters within the State. In order to accomplish this, the California ' State Water Quality Control Board divided the State into 16 planning basins. The project area is within the San Diego Basin and is governed by the California State Water Quality Board, San Diego Region. The project lies entirely within the Murrieta -Temecula groundwater area. This groundwater area, the largest in the entire San Diego Region, covers a surface area of. ' about 60,000 acres.' The aquifers are recharged by underflows from. the Lancaster Basin to the east and by surface flows from Warm Springs, Murrieta, Santa Gertrudis and Temecula Creeks. and by direct precipitation within the valley area. According to the Southwest Area Community Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report (December,. 1988) the overall storage capacity of the Murrieta -Temecula Basin is estimated to be 1.2 million acre feet. There are approximately 250 active wells within the area, producing water for 1 both domestic and irrigation uses. The wells are clustered principally within the Murrieta Valley around the community of Murrieta.. Other clusters of high -producing wells are located in the Santa Gertrudis Valley and Pauba Valley. The quality of water withdrawn from the basin ranges from 250 PPM TDS to 1,000 PPM TDS. Actively producing Rancho California Water District wells are present in the area, including one on-site. ' According to the Southwest Area Community Plan Draft Environmental Impact Regortr the Murrieta -Temecula basin is considered to be in an overdraft condition as evidenced. by ' a long-term decline in water level. Much of the basin is overlain by a relatively impervious layer which restricts recharge of the underlying sediments. I According to the "Revised Feasibility Geotechnical Report" included as Technical Appendix B, groundwater was encountered in two locations at depths of about 33 feet and 38, feet below ground surface. Historical regional high groundwater levels vary from 20 feet to 45. feet below the ground surface in the western to eastern portions of the site, respectively, according to the Department of Water Resources. Surface water conditions of the Temecula Regional Center site are discussed in Section V.C.4., Flooding. 1 b. Project Impacts/General Plan Relationship Construction of theTemecula Regional Center Specific Plan will alter the composition of the surface runoff by grading the site surfaces, by construction of impervious streets, roofs V-56 1 and parking facilities, and by irrigation of landscaped areas. Runoff entering the storm drain system will contain minor amounts of pollutants typical of urban use, including pesticides, fertilizers, oil and rubber residues, detergents, hydrocarbon particles and other debris. This runoff, typical of urban use, will contribute to the incremental degradation of water quality downstream in the Murrieta Creek. Urban runoff is considered a "nonpoint" source. Unlike point source wastes, nonpoint sources cannot be quantified through flow measurement, sampling and analysis techniques. Recommended control of nonpoint source wastes is directed primarily toward agricultural activities, including control of irrigation, fertilizer application and spreading of agricultural wastes. In addition, the project will generate an average day sewage flow of .603 MGD, which will require treatment and ultimate disposal by EMWD, as discussed in Section V.D.2, Water and Sewer. Capacity for discharge of flow treated at the RCRWRF is 5.0 MGD. The current treated flow is averaging approximately 4.0 MGD with a total plant capacity of 6.25 MGD. Additionally, a 10.0 MGD tertiaryfiltration facility at this site is scheduled to start treating secondary effluent from the RCRWRF beginning in the fall of 1991. Management of the project area's wastewater will be accomplished by EMWD, in accordance with the California State Water Quality Control Board, San Diego Region prior to project implementation. As such, project impacts related to water quality are not anticipated to be significant. General Plan Relationship The Temecula Regional Center project site lies within the boundaries of the newly incorporated City of Temecula. However, given the absence of a City General Plan, land use development standards, etc., this Environmental Impact Report evaluates the project in terms of the March 1984 "County of Riverside Comprehensive General Plan" (the fourth edition of the "Comprehensive General Plan" (February, 1990) does not include the area within the City of Temecula on the Environmental Hazards and Resources Maps, Public Facilities Maps, etc.). Such an approach is a `standard land use planning practice for development proposed within newly incorporated cities. The Environmental Hazards and Resources Element of the Riverside County Comprehensive General Plan contains the following Land Use Standard relative to water quality: 1. All development proposals will be reviewed for potential adverse effects on water quality and will be required to mitigate any significant impacts. The project is compatible with the Comprehensive General Plan Land Use Standard in that no significant impacts to water quality are anticipated. In addition, as discussed under V-57 I ' "Mitigation", erosion and sedimentation will be controlled by proper grading practices. Only pesticides and herbicides typical of urban cores are expected. C. Mitigation Measures ' 1. In accordance with the requirements of the Riverside County Flood Control District, the project will employ erosion control devices during grading, such as temporary berms, ' culverts, sand -bagging or desilting basins to prevent water quality impacts. 2. The project will comply with the requirements of the California State Water Quality ' Control Board, San Diego Region. These requirements involve the maintenance of existing groundwater quality in terms of existing levels of Total Dissolved Solids (TDS) and the governing of discharge of reclaimed or treated water into existing streambeds or drainage courses. Any proposed discharge of effluent from the project site or the withdrawing of groundwater supplies from the existing aquifer would require a permit from this agency. Neither of these circumstances, however, are anticipated for the proposed project. d. Level of goi&ance After Mitigation ' Based upon the mitigation measures proposed above, the level of impacts related to Water Quality have been reduced to an insignificant level. I ke V-58 LI 8. TOXIC SUBSTANCES The following discussion of potential impacts due to toxic substances is based upon a "Preliminary Environmental Property Investigation" prepared by Hydrotech Consultants, Inc. for four separate adjacent properties including the proposed project site, and is included in Appendix B to this Analysis. These conclusions are based upon record and document search, a review of historical aerial photographs and a field reconnaissance. a. Existing Conditions The subject property has been a site of prior agricultural activities (including several existing farm structures). No hazardous waste materials were noted on-site. For the purpose of regulating disposal practices, waste are categorized by their potential hazards to health and water quality: • Group 1 Wastes: Toxic or hazardous substances. Municipal saline fluids; incinerator ashes and chemical toilet wastes. Industrial brines; operations fluids; ashes; mine tailings; chemical mixtures and rotary drilling muds. Agricultural pesticides; discarded chemicals and other toxic wastes. • Group 2 Wastes: Special wastes such as asbestos and ash (not accepted in Group 3 wastes). • Group 3 Wastes: Typical household rubbage. Waste disposal facilities are classified by the type of wastes accepted: • Class I Facilities: All types of waste are accepted including hazardous wastes. Complete protection of public health and wildlife must be provided. • Limited Class I Facilities: All types of waste are accepted with limitations on the type and amount of Group I hazardous wastes, due to greater potential for flooding. • Class II -1 Facilities: Group 2 and 3 wastes are accepted and specific Group 1 wastes may be accepted. Measures. for flood protection and water quality protection are provided if necessary. Presently there are no active Class I and Class II -1 landfills operating in Riverside County. The Stringfellow site in Glen Avon, which closed in 1972, is currently being monitored for seepage of chemicals and awaits cleanup with Federal assistance. V-59 I ' At a State level, the Department of Health Services (DHS), Toxic Substances Control Division, is responsible for the regulation and control of hazardous materials, including hazardous wastes. At the local level, the County of Riverside Department of Environmental Health, Hazardous Materials Branch, has the primary responsibility for hazardous waste and materials enforcement. Other supporting agencies, the Regional Water Quality Control ' Board, the local Air Quality Management District, and the Fire Department, are responsible for implementing and enforcing the provisions of the various hazardous ' materials programs throughout the County.:: Caltrans responsibilities include the containment, identification, cleanup and disposal of hazardous substance spills located within highway right-of-ways. The California Highway Patrol responds to highway emergencies involving hazardous materials, inspects and regulates commercial vehicles which carry hazardous materials, and coordinates with other agencies for the enforcement of hazardous waste laws and regulations as they apply to transportation. There are about 1,200 facilities that generate hazardous waste within the jurisdictional review of the County Health Department. Approximately 25,000 tons of hazardous waste are being generated in Riverside County each year. Most hazardous waste generated in the ' County is either shipped to off-site locations with a, significant and growing portion disposed of out of state or managed on-site by the generator. b. Project Impacts/General Plan 'Relationship , The 'Preliminary. Environmental Property Investigation" indicates that the presence of ' hazardous material within a majority of the subject property is unlikely. However, due to the past agricultural use of the site, there remains the potential for near surface soil, contamination due to residues from prior pesticide use. Also present within the site are ' several fill areas. While no hazardous materials were observed within these fills, there remains an inherent uncertainty as to the subsurface fill contents. The Temecula Regional Center Specific Plan proposes approximately 201.3 acres of retail/office/hotel space. Based upon the actual uses proposed, it is not anticipated that the project will generate any toxic waste (See Section II.A.2, Project Description). However, development of the project may include small quantity generators. Small quantity generators are businesses that produce less than 1,000 kilograms of hazardous waste per. month (13.2 tons per year). A large majority of the 1,200 hazardous waste generators under the County's jurisdiction are small quantity generators. Small quantity generators may. include drycleaning businesses, photo and camera stores, painting materials and solvents, and/or other facilities which could be allowed within the proposed retail uses. In these instances, there will be no outside storage of hazardous materials. Consequently, there will be no direct exposure of hazardous materials to the public, and no impacts to groundwater. ' Persons working in the small quantity generator facilities will be protected by OSHA V-60 standards and Health Department criteria. The exact businesses to be included on-site are unknown at this time. General Plan Relationship The Temecula Regional Center project site lies within ,the boundaries of the newly incorporated City of Temecula. However, given the absence of a City General Plan, land use development standards, etc., this Environmental Impact Report evaluates the project in terms of the March 1984 "County of Riverside Comprehensive General Plan". (The fourth edition of the "Comprehensive General Plan" (February 1990) does not include the area within the City of Temecula' on the Environmental Hazards and Resources Maps, Public Facilities Maps, etc.) Such an approach is a standard land use planning practice for development proposed within newly incorporated cities. The following Land Use Standard - Toxic Substances of the Environmental Hazards and Resources Element of the Riverside County Comprehensive General Plan is applicable to the project site: 1) Toxic Substances - All development proposals will be re -viewed for potential adverse effects from exposure to toxic substances. Particular impacts which may occur include degradation to water and air quality, health problems, transportation, disposal, and storage problems. Required mitigation measures may include,special studies, setbacks, alternative pesticide use, requirements for monitoring, and siting of structures. In accordance with the Land Use Standards for Toxic Substances, a "Preliminary Property Environmental Evaluation" has been prepared and is included as Appendix B to this document. C. Mitigation Measures . The "Preliminary Property Environmental Evaluation" indicates no evidence of the presence of hazardous waste within the project boundaries. The following measures are intended to eliminate potential toxic material -related impactsassociated . with the prior on-site agricultural activities, existing fill areas, once occupied structures and construction debris. 1. Due to the past agricultural use of the site, a subsequent sampling and chemical analysis program shall be completed prior to issuance of grading permits to determine if, near surface soils contain hazardous substances in excess of EPA limits. 2. Any construction debris or other junk material noted on-site shall be removed in conjunction with rough grading and site blearing activities. V-61 ' 3. During the removal of existing, undocumented fills observations by a qualified geologist shall occur. In the event that any hazardous materials are found on-site qualified authorities shall be contacted immediately. ' 4. Appropriate Riverside County and/or City of Temecula agencies shall review proposed commercial/ retail and business park developments to determine potential for existence and use of toxic materials. ' d. Level of Significance After Mitigation Based upon the mitigation measures proposed above the level of impacts related. to. Tadc Substances have been reduced to an insignificant level i b 1 1 1 I V-62 F1 9. OPEN SPACE AND CONSERVATION , a. Existing Conditions •� On -Site Land Use and General Plan/Zoning Designations ' The project site is currently used for pasture crops and dryland firming, primarily for barley and oats. As can be seen on Figure 33, Surrounding Zoning and Adjacent Land Use, the project site is zoned R -R, Rural Residential and A-2-20, Heavy Agriculture. The site is located within the City of Temecula, which is mi the Riverside County General ' Plan Area. The Open Space and Conservation Map of the General Plan shows the site as an "Area Not Designated as Open Space". The site is also presently within the boundaries of the "Southwest Area Community Plan" (SWAP) adopted by the County of Riverside Board of Supervisors on November 28, 1989. The land use allocation map associated with the SWAP designates the Temecula Regional Center site for C (Commercial). Surrounding Land Use and General Plan/Zoning Designations , As shown on Figure 2, Vicinity Map, the Temecula Regional Center Specific Plan site is ' located in an area which supports many approved Specific Plans. Located approximately one mile north of the project site is the Warm Springs Specific Plan (S.P. 220). The 475 - acre project has been approved for construction of 1,886 dwelling units as well as approximately 17 acres of retail and neighborhood commercial uses and two acres of Industrial use, located where Margarita Road enters the Warm Springs site. Other approved Specific Plans existing in the project area are shown on Figure 2, Vicinity Map , and include Roripaugh Estates Specific Plan No. 184, located east of Route 79 in the vicinity of Nicolas Road. This 205 -acre Specific Plan has been approved for construction of 710 dwelling units and 73 acres of Industrial use. Some construction has occurred within Specific Plan 184. The industrial element of the project is located adjacent to Nicolas Road. The 1,108 -acre Winchester Properties Specific Plan No. 213 is located north of Roripaugh Estates and east of Winchester Road. It is approved for construction of 2,478 ' residential units and 268 acres of industrial/commercial use. Land uses immediately adjacent to the site are described below: Ynez Road makes up the western project boundary. Less than 12 mile west of Ynez Road is the Escondido Freeway (I-15). Between Ynez Road and the I-15, adjacent to the Temecula Regional Center site is the Palm Plaza project site, currently under construction. (See Figure 2, Vicinity Map, and Figure 1A, Aerial Photograph.) Just south of Palm Plaza, also along the project site's western boundary is the Advanced Cardiovascular Systems site, which contains a four-story structure. V-63 u I J I I I Legend R -R Rural Residential R-1 Single Family Dwellings R -A- Residential Agriculture 1/2 (1/2 Acre Lots) R-2 Multiple Family Dwellings R-3 General Residential, C-1/ General Commercial C -P PROJECT SITE & SURROUNDING ZONING /ADJACENT LAND USES C -P -S Scenic Highway Commercial •' R;TAR Planning Cnnsolranrs ItW4ANl Utf�AM pM �O�IIN M -SC JyVf dfA:NMM, All if lltl M -M I� SNIMUA LYI. 9Ql RTSMY4 Legend R -R Rural Residential R-1 Single Family Dwellings R -A- Residential Agriculture 1/2 (1/2 Acre Lots) R-2 Multiple Family Dwellings R-3 General Residential, C-1/ General Commercial C -P PROJECT SITE & SURROUNDING ZONING /ADJACENT LAND USES C -P -S Scenic Highway Commercial -p Industrial Park Manufacturing - M -SC Service Commercial M -M Manufacturing -Medium A-2- Heavy Agriculture 20 (1 DU Per 20 Acres) _? Zone Specific Plan TEMECULA REGIONAL CENTER FIGURE 33 RC.D.C. 27555 Ynez Road, Suite 202, Temecula, Ca. 92591 v-6 4 ' Other land uses along the I-15 Freeway in the' project vicinity include the Rancho Crossroads Plaza, just northwest of the intersection of 145 and Winchester Road. Further north along 1-15 is the Koll Rancho California development, partially developed with Light Industrial and Commercial uses. ' Winchester Road (Highway 79) makes up the Temecula Regional Center's northern project boundary. To the north of Winchester Road is property that is presently vacant and is ' traversed by the Santa Gertrudis Creek flood control channel. This 24 -acre parcel is, proposed for future development with a retail commercial center and is currently. under . City review. Further north of this vacant parcel is the Winchester Business Park, as shown on Figure IA, Aerial Photograph. The project site is bordered on the east by Margarita. Road. Further east of Margarita ' Road is land that is presently vacant, but is proposed for development as the Campos Verdes project. This 132 -acre project proposes a total of 1,017 dwelling units, 13.5 acres of Commercial use and 10.4 acres of Commercial/Office use. It is currently being reviewed ' by the City of Temecula. Uses proposed along Margarita Road in the vicinity of :the, Temecula Regional Center Specific Plan includes the commercial and commercial/office uses, as well as Very High Density residential (17.0 d.u./acre). T'he area immediately south of the Temecula Regional Center project site is presently partially vacant. Other uses in this area include an Auto Park, which fronts onto Ynez: Road. In addition.to the approved Specific Plans previously described (Warm Springs S.P. 220,. ' Roripaugh Estates S.P. 164, Winchester, Properties Specific Plan 213) in the immediate project vicinity, additional approved Specific Plans are found further south of the site, along Rancho California Road. At the northeast corner of I-15 and Rancho California Road, is the Tower (formerly Rancho California Plaza) Specific Plan No. 149. This 32 -acre Specific Plan has been approved for a variety of retail and office commercial uses. Just below the Rancho California Plaza Specific Plan is Rancho Highlands Specific Plan No. 180. This 226 -acre Specific Plan has been approved for 920 dwelling units, 12 acres of office/professional uses, 61 acres of open space, and 16 acres of public facilities use. Margarita Village Specific Plan No. 199 is located north and south of Rancho California Road, east of Butterfield Stage Road and east of Margarita Road. This 1,399 -acre Specific Plan has been approved for 3,639 residential units. Other land use designations include ' commercial, public facilities and park and recreation. In addition to the Campos Verdes project previously described, other proposed projects in the area include the Winchester Hills Specific Plan No. 255. This 569.5 -acre project site is located east of and adjacent to I-15, extending east to Margarita Road on the north side of Winchester Road. (See Figure 2, Vicinity Map.) This project proposes a total of 1,948 dwelling units, 120.1 acres of Business Park, 15.6 acres of Commercial use, 11.4 acres of V-65 Commercial -Office use and 25.8 acres of parks. Though no project applications have been submitted, the proposed Winchester Meadows Business Park is located north of Winchester Road and east of Margarita Road, as shown on Figure 2, Vicinity Map. A Zone Change is proposed to accommodate the proposed 118 -acre Business Park. The Temecula Regional Center site is bordered on the north, south, east and west by proposed urban land uses. The current SWAP land use designations for these areas are "RLI", Restricted. Light Industrial (to the north and south), "OC', Office Commercial,' (to the east) and "C' and "LI", Commercial and Light Industrial (to the west). Existing Zoning Designations are shown as Figure 33, Project Site and Surrounding Zoning and Adjacent Land Uses. b. Project Impacts/General Plan Relationship On -Site Land Use Project approval will result in the development of the land uses proposed by the Temecula Regional Center Specific Plan described in Section III.A.1, Specific Land Use Plan and shown on Figure 3, Specific Land Use Plan. The uses proposed for the 201.3 acre site include 71.97 acres of Retail/Office/Hotel, 97.80 acres of Retail Commercial Core/Support Retail, 5.49 acres of Retail/Office, and 26.04 acres of Roads. These land use totals are approximate and may vary in the future due to market conditions. As discussed in Section III.A.l.a., Project Description, Planning Area 2 may either be developed as a "Regional Mall", with the square footages described in that section, or as a traditional commercial "Power Center", which would result in the following square footages for the entire Specific Plan site: Retail Commercial Core 800,000 s.f. Other Retail 500,000 s.f. Fast Food/Restaurant 32,000 s.f. Financial Office 16,000 s.f. Hotel 250,000 s.f. General Office 1.260.000 s.f. Total 2,858,000 s.f. The residential land uses proposed within Planning Area l will be integrated into the design of the proposed retail/officelhotel institutional uses within that Planning Area in order to eliminate potential land use conflicts. Development of the site with the uses proposed will preclude future use of the site for pasture crops and dryland farming and will eliminate open space and the rural atmosphere currently present on-site. This constitutes continuation of the trend towards urban V-66 development in the area as embodied by the Warm Springs Specific Plan, the Roripaugh Estates Specific Plan, the Winchester Properties Specific Plan, the Tower (Rancho California Plaza) Specific Plan, the Rancho Highlands Specific Plan, the Margarita Village Specific Plan and other approved industrial, commercial and residential uses in the area. ' (See Section V.G.1, Cumulative Impact Analysis.) It should also be noted that urban uses have been previously approved for the site as part of the "Rancho Villages Policy Plan".. ' Surrounding Land Use and General Plan/Zoning Designations Planning Area 1 proposes 71.97 acres of Retail/Office/Hotel use. Margarita Road provides a separation between the proposed project and the off-site residential and commercial/ office uses proposed by the Campos Verdes project. A 32 foot LDZ is proposed on-site along Margarita Road (as illustrated by Figure 18). Margarita Road is proposed as a 110 ' foot Arterial Highway, and in conjunction with the LDZ will provide adequate buffering and separation to avoid potential land use conflicts. ' Planning Area 2 proposes 97.80 acres of Regional Retail use. Ynez Road provides a separation between the proposed project and adjacent land uses. A 32 foot LDZ is proposed on-site along Ynez Road (as illustrated by Figure 16). Ynez Road is proposed as a 134 foot Urban Arterial Highway, and in conjunction with the LDZ will provide adequate buffering and separation to avoid potential land use conflicts. In addition, the Retail/Office/Hotel use proposed in Planning Area 1 is a transitional buffer between Planning Area 2 and the adjacent property to the east of the project site. Planning Area 3 proposes 5.49 acres of Retail/Office use. Apricot Avenue provides a separation between the proposed project and adjacent off-site land uses. A 32 foot LDZ is proposed on-site along Apricot Avenue (as illustrated by Figure 20). Apricot Avenue ' is proposed as a 100 foot Major Highway, and in conjunction with the LDZ will provide adequate buffering and separation to avoid land use conflicts. It is anticipated that future off-site uses adjacent to Planning Area 3 will be retail/office uses similar to what is proposed by the Temecula Regional Center Specific Plan. These surrounding off-site areas are also designated "Commercial' by SWAP. ' As previously discussed, the "Retail Commercial Core" within Planning Area 2 may either be developed as a "Regional Mall" or as a more traditional "Power Center". An estimated 7,289 employment opportunities would be generated if the site were developed; as . a Regional Mall, while 8,126 would be generated if the site were developed as. a "Power Center", as presented below: G 0 V-67 11 Regional Mall Power Center Mall Retail Commercial 2,812 Retail Power Center 2,000 Other Retail 1,250 Other Retail 1,250 Fast Food/Restaurant 160 Fast Food/Restaurant 160 Financial Office 56 Financial Office 56 Hotel (350 rooms) 175 Hotel (500 rooms) 250 General Office 2,835General Office 4.410 Total 7,289 Total 8,126 Jobs/Housing Balance The primary impact of the on-site generation of employment opportunities is the reduction in vehicle trips and vehicle miles travelled between home and work. The proposed Temecula Regional Center Specific Plan would intercept a significant number of existing and future vehicle trips which would otherwise leave the area. These trips, involving greater travel distances to other regional center type destinations, would therefore be eliminated. The 7,289/8,126 jobs generated by the alternatives proposed for the Temecula Regional Center Specific Plan could generate a maximum total of 14,578/16,252 trips per day (two trips per job). However, a factor of 80% is applied to this total in consideration of carpooling, consolidation of trips or employees originating from outside the SWAP area. The resulting 11,662/13,000 employee based trips to the project site would reduce the length of employee related work trips which would otherwise be destined for more distant employment centers. According to the Traffic Engineer, this difference in average trip length would be approximately 13 miles. As such, the employment opportunities generated by the Temecula Regional Center Specific Plan would reduce the total vehicular miles travelled daily by 151,606/169,000 vehicle miles. This reduction represents a significant positive impact in the areas of traffic circulation, air quality and noise impacts. The 7,289/8,126 jobs generated by the Regional Mall and Power Center Alternatives, respectively will contribute positively to the jobs/housing balance in the region. It is anticipated that the previously -described proposed and approved projects in the area would provide housing for future employees. The Campos Verdes project located east of Margarita Road proposes 811 apartment units which would provide rental housing for these employees. 1 �. �I General Plan Relationship The Temecula Regional Center project site lies within the boundaries of the newly incorporated City of Temecula. However, given the absence of a City General Plan, land ' use development standards, etc., this Environmental hnpact Report evaluates the project in terms of the March 1984 "County of Riverside Comprehensive General Plan". (The fourth edition of the "Comprehensive General Plan" (February 1990): does not include the area within the City of Temecula on' the Environmental Hazards and Resources Maps, 'Public Facilities Maps, etc.). Such an approach is a standard land use planning practice for development proposed within newly incorporated cities. The proposed Specific Plan No. 263 would constitute the General Plan and zoning designations for the site. The uses proposed by the Specific Plan are in accordance with ' the SWAP Land Use designations approved for the site by the County. All of the uses proposed by this Specific Plan within Planning Areas 1, 2 and 3 correspond with the uses permitted by the C (Commercial) SWAP designation. C. Mitigation Measures 1. The project design and Conceptual Landscape Plan are intended -to mitigate impacts to off-site adjacent land uses, as discussed under "Project Impacts". (See Figure 13, Conceptual Landscape Plan). The loss of open space resulting from project development has previously been considered in the "Rancho Villages Policy Plan". No further mitigation is proposed. d. Level of Significance After Mitigation Based upon the mitigation measures proposed above, the level of impacts related to Open Space and Conservation have been reduced to an insignificant level. I 1 to V-69 1 I 10. AGRICULTURE a. Eaosting Conditions Information provided by the Riverside County Agricultural Department indicated that the primary crops grown on the 201.3 acre Temecula Regional Center project site are pasture crops and dryland grains. Surrounding property is growing primarily the same dryland grains and pasture crops. Dryland grains grown in the past include barley and oats.. However, farming on the property has not occurred for at least the last ten years. According to the Soil Survey, Western Riverside Area. California published by the U.S. Department of Agriculture Soil Conservation Service, the following soil associations are present on, the project site and are shown on Figure 34, Soils and Agriculture: TABLE XIV SOIL ASSOCIATIONS ON-SITE Map Capability Sym bol Soil Association Unit AtC2 Arlington and Greenfield Fine Sandy Loam II (2-8% Slopes, Eroded) GIC Gorgonio Sandy Loam (2-8% Slopes) H GtA Grangeville Fine Sandy Loam (0-2% Slopes) I GyA Greenfield Sandy Loam (0-2% Slopes) I GyC2 Greenfield Sandy Loam (0-2% Slopes/Eroded) I HaC Hanford Fine Sandy Loam (0-8% Slopes) H HCA Hanford Coarse Sandy Loam (0-2% Slopes) II HcC Hanford Coarse Sandy Loam (2-8% Slopes) II RmE3 Ramona and Buren Loams (5-15% Slopes) III RnE3 Ramona and Buren Loams (5-25% Slopes) III RsC Riverwash V-70 1 1 1 1 1 i i 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 qP!T&R Planning Gmndtanrs SOURCE USDA SOIL SURVEY; WESTERN RIVERSIDE COUNTY K.C.D.C. 27555 Ynez Road, Suite 202, Temecula, Ca. 92591 SOILS & AGRICULTURE Legend Arlington and Greenfield AtC2 Fine Sandy Loam (2-8% Slopes, Eroded) GIC Gorgonio Sandy Loam (2-8% Slopes) Grangeville Fine Sandy Loam GtA (0-2% Slopes) Gy A oreenf"eldo Span) dy Loam FGyC21Greenfield Sandy Loam GyC2 (2-8% Slopes, Eroded) HaC Hanford Fine Sandy Loam (0-8% Slopes) HcA Hanford Coarse Sandy Loam (0-2% Slopes) Hanford Coarse Sandy Loam HcC . (2-8% Slopes) RmE3 Ramona and Buren Loams (5-15% Slopes) Rn E3 Ramona and Buren Loam (5-25% Slopes) RsC . Riverwash TEMECULA REGIONAL CENTER V-71 FIGURE 34 The Capability Classes are designated by Roman Numerals I -VIII. The numerals indicate progressively greater limitations and narrower choices for practical uses. As can be seen above, the site contains soils from Capability Classes 1, 11, and III. Class I soils have few. limitations that restrict their use. These soils are considered Prime. Class II soils have ' moderate limitations that reduce the choice of plants or that require moderate conservation practices. Class III soils have severe limitations that reduce the choice of plants, require very careful management, or both. The site is designated as "Prime Farmland" on the Riverside County Agricultural Resources Map. Cost of Water ' The most significant factor affecting the agricultural_ use in the Rancho California area is the cost of water. Water for Western Riverside County agriculture is imported.from Northern California and the Colorado River via the State Water Project and the Colorado River Aqueduct. There is limited groundwater available. Metropolitan Water District (MWD) is contracted for allocations of Colorado River water (550,.000 million acre-feet per year) and the State Water Project for water from Northern California. In Riverside County, MWD delivers water to two of its. member agencies, Eastern and Western Municipal .Water Districts (EMWD and WMWD) who in turn sell water to local agencies and directly, to consumers. MWD uses an established priority delivery system for water supply, which gives domestic and industrial users the first priority, "non -interruptible supply. Agriculture activities receive a second priority, and in the case of intense drought, ' will be denied water first. In 1964, the United States Supreme Court made a decision awarding water allotments that ' had formerly served much of the imported water needs to Southern California including Western Riverside County to the state of Arizona. Since then, the costs of purchasing imported water from EMWD has risen from the $13 per acre foot charged in 1964 to $32.75 per acre foot in 1974 to its present (1988) rate of $ 239.25 per acre-foot. This contrasts with the current water costs in the San Joaquin Valley which range from $60 to $100 per acre foot, and the Coachella and Imperial Valley areas where water costs are $12 ' per acre foot. As is evident, water costs in the western areas of Riverside County are as much as 20 times higher than other areas in Southern California. Reclaimed water for use in agricultural activities has been frequently suggested to reduce the costs and increase the availability of water. However, feasibility of using reclaimed water for agricultural irrigation is dependent upon the economics associated with design, ' plant operation, delivery system of treated water to farm areas and the necessity of holding ponds, or pumpback systems to prevent agricultural tail water from entering any surface water bodies. Reclaimed water is suitable for irrigation on seed and fodder crops, but it is ' not suitable for crops for human consumption. Reclaimed water can be effectively used to V-72 maintain the irrigation needs of golf courses and park lands. Presently, reclaimed water is being used in some areas of Riverside County for such non-essential farm activities as sod farming and ornamental plant nurseries: At the present time, the Eastern Municipal Water District has a policy which may require Temecula Regional Center to construct reclaimed water lines on-site so that when the regional system, which is currently in the planning process, is complete, the project can ultimately utilize reclaimed water for specific irrigation purposes. Rise in Production Costs Besides the increased water cost as previously discussed, other production costs associated with agricultural activities have had significant increases in the past decade. Energy costs incurred from agricultural production such as well pumping, tractor use, fertilizer costs, crop processing and transportation, etc. have greatly increased. The cost of available labor has increased as much as 40% in the same time frame. Transportation and processing costs have risen 25% to 40%. During the same timeframe, market prices for most commodities have remained level or have declined. Alternative Crops/Climate The farming community'has attempted to, increase its agricultural viability by continuing to work with their various associations and the State of CaliforniaAgricultural Department as well as with the research departments of the University of California Riverside and' Davis Campuses. A number of new crops have been tried in Riverside County. Cold and occasional frost in the winter months, coupled with the hot, and conditions in the summer along with the wind factors, has reduced the range of crops that can be successfully cultivated in western Riverside County. To combat the previously discussed high cost of water, substitute methods of irrigating fields have been tried. However, drip -irrigation has proven unsuitable because of its ability to promote soil fungus. Market Competition In recent years, the expansion of farming activities in the Imperial Valley and Coachella Valley areas have driven farm prices below levels that can be met by production in western Riverside County. Even more recently, the expansion of farming activities in northern Mexican states, particularly Baja California and Sonora, has brought on a new source of market competition. This is exacerbated by cheap labor, inexpensive land, and lower water costs. In some areas of Riverside County, the cost of grain production was so high in 1987 that it could not compete in the marketplace and much of the acreage used for such production was plowed under. V-73 Surrounding Land Use Property to the northeast of the project site is presently vacant but is proposed for development as the Winchester Meadows Zone Change. The site is currently growing '- dryland grains. Also, to the immediate east of the project site is the proposed Campos Verdes Zone Change. The site is currently growing pasture crops. Further north of the project site is the proposed Winchester Hills Specific Plan. The site is currently growing dryland grains, including barley and oats. Although these plans have not been approved at the time of this writing, they indicate that long term agricultural use is not envisioned by the property owners. Other surrounding land uses include a cow dairy located south of the project site at North General Kearny Road and Solana Way and a library and large recreational park. b. Project Impacts/General Plan Relationship Implementation of the Temecula Regional Center Specific Plan will remove an estimated 201.3 acres of pasture crops and dryland grains, contributing to the decline of such uses in Riverside County. It should be noted, however, that the project site is shown as an "Area Not Designated as Open Space" on the Open Space and Conservation Map of the General Plan. If long-term agricultural use was considered appropriate, the site would have been designated "Agriculture" by the General Plan. Project implementation will result in urban development on "Prime" soils and. is considered a significant impact of project development. (See Section V.G.2, Unavoidable Adverse, Impacts). According to the California Department of Conservation, the loss of any prime agricultural land is considered a significant environmental impact. ' Due to the relatively small acreage of agricultural use which will be impacted, the commitment of the project site to non-agricultural uses will not adversely affect the agricultural productivity of the area. Also, it should be noted that this impact was previously addressed in the 'Draft EIR for Rancho Villages General Plan Amendment" (August 1980). That document addressed impacts associated with conversion of the existing agricultural uses to the urban uses proposed by the Rancho Villages Policy Plan and determined that because of the minor ' amount of Class I and II agricultural soils within the 4,000 -acre Policy Plan area, project impacts are not significant. The uses proposed by the Temecula Regional Center project will not create any additional impacts relative to agriculture. I 00 V-74 I 7 Surrounding Land Use , Development of the property with urban uses could potentially hasten the conversion of other, agricultural areas to urban uses by creating economic pressures and increasing land value for development. However, :much of the surrounding land is also being proposed for r development with urban uses in accordance with the recently approved Southwest Area Plan (SWAP), including the Campos Verdes Zone Change located immediately east of the project site. The 130.6'acre project is being proposed for construction of 1,017 dwelling units and commercial and office uses. The 569.5 acre Winchester Hills Specific Plan ' located slightly north of the project site is also proposed for development of 1,948 dwelling units, a mobile -home park, elementary school, two parks, business and commercial uses. , The Winchester Meadows Zone Change located northeast of the project site, is also proposed for development. As long-term agricultural use is not envisioned for this area, no land use conflicts are expected to result due to development of the Temecula Regional r Center Specific Plan. General Plan Relationship , The Temecula Regional Center project site lies within the boundaries of the newly incorporated City of Temecula. However, given the absence of a City General Plan, land ' use development standards, etc., this Environmental Impact Report evaluates the project in terms of the March 1984 "County of Riverside Comprehensive General Plan". (The fourth edition of the "Comprehensive General Plan" (February 1990) does not include the area within the City of Temecula on the Environmental Hazards and Resources Maps, Public Facilities Maps, etc.). Such an approach is a standard land use planning practice for development proposed within newly incorporated cities. ' The site is designated as "Prime Farmland" on the County of Riverside Agricultural ' Resources Map. Prime Farmland is land best suited for producing food, feed, forage, fiber and oilseed crops. It has the soil quality, growing season and moisture supply needed to produce sustained high yields of crops economically when treated and managed, according , to modem farming methods. The proposed project contains prime soils on-site. Prime soils have the quality, growing season and moisture supply needed to produce sustained high yields of crops economically r when treated and managed, according to modem farming methods. According to the Land Use Standards, proposed nonagricultural land uses located in r agricultural areas shown on the Countywide Agricultural Resources Map will be evaluated for the conversion of agricultural land to other uses. The land use will be reviewed in light , of the historic and existing agricultural uses of the land, public services serving the area, soil conditions, water usage and water distribution system, and economic factors. r V-75 1 c. Mitigation Measures No mitigation measures are proposed for the discontinuance of pasture farming on-site and the loss of Prime Farmland is considered an unavoidable adverse impact of project ' development and will require a statement of overriding considerations. d Level of Sienificance After Mi igation 1 The level of impacts related to Agriculture (i.e. the loss of "Prime Farmland' as a result of project development) are considered to represent a significant adverse impact which will require ' a Statement of Overriding Consideration. 11 I V-76 01 11. WILDLIFE/VEGETATION The following discussion of wildlife and vegetation impacts is based upon the 'Biological •' Assessment for The Regional Center" prepared by S. Gregory Nelson (November 3, 1989), and on the "Site Check for Stephens Kangaroo Rat (Dipodomys stephensi .- SKR)" prepared by Stephen J. Montgomery (October, 1990). These reports are included in their ' entirety as a Technical Appendix to this EIR. . a. Existing Conditions ' One naturalized biotic community, introduced grassland, is represented on-site as shown on Figure 35, Biological Resources. A complete listing of plant and wildlife species found within the introduced grassland community on-site is found in the Biological Assessment, included as a Technical Appendix to the EIR. , Following are descriptions of the introduced grassland community -consisting of plant and wildlife species found on-site. As the term implies, biotic communities are predictable assemblages of species which exist within the same physical habitat and have a very close ' and complex set of interrelationships. Introduced grassland is the only truly developed biotic community found on-site. ' Introduced Grassland Introduced grassland covers the entire site. This community derives its name from the predominance of introduced grass and herb species which have replaced native vegetation as the result of grazing and other past disturbances. It is a community which is widespread , in Southern California today, particularly the western Riverside County area. Common plant species found in all introduced grassland are red -stemmed filaree (Erodium , cicutarium), foxtail chess (Bromus rubens), soft chess (Bromus mollis), wild oats (Avena fatua), common barley (Hordeum vulgare), lupine (Lupins sp) and mustard (Brassica geniculata). Other species included croton (Croton californicus), telegraph weed ' (Heterotheca grandiflora), cudweed (Gnapthalium sp.), doveweed (Eremocarpus setigerus), and western ragweed (Ambrosia psilostachya). In physical appearance, this vegetation forms a dense groundcover, growing to a height of approximately two to four feet (except ' when mowed or grazed). As a result of its annual lifeform, introduced grassland typically sprouts and grows rapidly following the onset of the winter rains with the most flowering ' taking place in the spring. Plants then die back and dry out over the summer and fall. Due to their altered conditions, large, open expanses of introduced grassland pasture and ' dryland farmed area generally support a limited abundance and diversity of wildlife. Several ground -nesting birds and burrowing mammals were observed, including the western meadowlark, mourning dove, bee chy ground squirrel, audubon cottontail, and valley pocket , V-77 J 1 1 t 1 1 1 1 1 i 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES Legend Introduced Grassland TEMECULA T60P1an !ngQmsu1mnts REGIONAL CENTER SOURCE: WOOD AND ASSOCIATES K.C.D.C. 27555 Ynez Road, Suite 202, Temecula, Ca. 92591 FIGURE 35 V-78 gopher. Other species typical of grassland foraging habitat were observed as well:. These included the red-tailed hawk, American kestrel, turkey vulture, brewers blackbird, and loggerhead shrike. A number of other species are expected including western fence lizard, side -blotched lizard, gopher snake, horned lark, vesper sparrow, killdeer, deer mouse, and ' coyote. The introduced grassland on-site includes a variety of "subcommunities", or subtypes. The ' majority of the site is abandoned pasture. On-site there are several foundations from raised buildings, an abandoned horse track and an abandoned pond which does not appear to have held water for some time. ' The Santa Gertrudis streambed lies north of the site on the opposite side of Winchester Road approximately 250 feet from the project boundary in a southwesterly direction just ' west of Winchester Road. There is not, however, a riparian biotic community associated with this creek bed, which is dry for much of the year. In fact, portions of the Santa Gertrudis stream channel on-site have been used as a sand borrow site. Channelization of this facility is proposed by the Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District in the Master Drainage Plan for Murrieta Creek area. ' High Interest Species On -Site The site is located within the geographical range of one species designated as "endangered" by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. This is the Stephen's kangaroo rat, (D�i odomvs stWhensi). Historically, the species was found throughout the San Jacinto Valley of Riverside County, with small populations also being found in southern San Bernardino Valley and north-western San Diego County. Recent research, however, indicates the current distribution of this species includes many disjunct isolated localities. This reduction ' is believed to be due to widespread agricultural and urban development within areas of preferred habitat. Based on, information gathered to date, soil types and vegetation density appear to be the primary ecological factors limiting the distribution of this species (Bleich, 1977, 1973; Thomas, 1975). Generally, populations are found in soils having high percentages of sand and gravel in relatively flat or gently rolling areas and covered by open, grassy herblands where scattered shrubs occur. ' The project site was field checked on two separate occasions by Stephen J. Montgomery. Stephens' kangaroo rats (SKR) were trapped in a small area at the southwest corner of Margarita Road and Santa Gertrudis Creek approximately 500 feet outside and northeast ' of the project boundary. These SKR locations were in areas which were relatively less disturbed adjacent to the Santa Gertrudis creekbed. This location of SKR lies within areas proposed for flood control improvements under the authority of the Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District as part of Assessment District 16. SKR was not found at any location on the project site, primarily due to long term substrate ' disturbance from the cultivation and other human activities. V-79 The project site is also within the geographical range of the San Diego homed lizard and the orange -throated whiptail, both of which are listed as "Species of Special Concern" by California Department of Fish and Game. Although worth mentioning, these species are -not expected to occur on-site due to the site's disturbed condition. The site also. provides potential habitat for a group of birds included on the Audubon Society's early warning list, known as the "Blue List" (Tate et. al. 1982). These bird species are listed below: Marsh hawk Turkey vulture Snowy plover Merlin American -kestrel Ferruginous hawk Loggerhead shrike Vesper sparrow Prairie falcon Burrowing owl Barn owl Short -eared owl Bewick's wren Western bluebird Grasshopper sparrow Savannah sparrow Blue listed species are not rare or endangered and the listing is advisory only. According to the Audubon Society, the list is an early warning list of species whose populations indicate non-cyclical declines or range contractions and which are recommended for monitoring by wildlife agencies, conservation groups and individual researchers. No rare or endangered plant species are reported or expected from the project area. Areas of Special Biological Importance As indicated by the preceding discussion, the site provides habitat for a number of wildlife species. However, none of these species are rare or endangered. The area is considered to be a fairly important raptor wintering area. This determination was made as a result of the area being a location where raptorial birds (hawks, vultures, eagles, owls and falcons) concentrate due to a high abundance of roosting sites, a good supply of prey species (small mammals and birds) and suitable hunting habitat (generally open brushland and grassland). As a raptor wintering area, however, the site is not of high significance within the context of regional biological resources. It was not, for example, called out as an area of high biological importance by the California Department of Fish and Game (1979) as was the area around Perris Reservoir because of its raptor habitat. A small area northeast of the project site within the Santa Gertrudis creekbed contains habitat occupied by Stephen's kangaroo rats. b. Project Impacts/General Plan Relationship Construction activities will result in the removal of physical habitats through cut, fill and other grading activities necessary for roads, building pads, utilities, fuel modification and flood control. The first order impacts of habitat loss will be the direct loss of vegetation and the destruction of less mobile wildlife forms. ' In and of itself, the. significance of vegetation loss • will depend on the diversity and availability of plant communities and associations affected. From the standpoint of biological diversity, the loss of introduced grassland from the site will not constitute a ' significant adverse impact. The same will be true for the loss of less mobile wildlife forms since they are highly habitat dependent and their abundance and diversity are directly related to those of their habitats. The impacts of vegetation loss through direct removal .will, in turn, have potential effects on wildlife. As vegetation is removed or otherwise destroyed, the associated wildlife will ' either be destroyed (as.mentioned above for less mobile forms) or will be displaced.to adjacent habitat areas where they will crowd and disrupt local populations. Although increased competition and predation will act rapidly to return population numbers to habitat carrying capacity levels, either displaced or local wildlife will be lost. Since the determinants of their severity are the relative importance of habitats lost to local and regional wildlife populations, the abundance and diversity of wildlife these habitats support, the availability of these habitats, and the habitat dependency of the associated wildlife, the loss of habitat from the site will not be significant. ' Harassment of Wildlife ' Causal factors generated during human activities resulting from the construction and inhabitation of urban land uses may be collectively termed "harassment". Harassment is defined as those activities of man and his associated domestic animals which increase the physiological costs of survival or decrease the probability of successful reproduction in wildlife. populations. The most common form of harassment expected to accompany development of the site include excessive construction -related noise, background noise, light ' and glaze and the introduction of feral cats, dogs and children which are unnatural predators and competitors for wildlife. ' Potentially Significant Adverse Impacts On -Site Conversion of the on-site introduced grassland biotic community to urban development will reduce areawide dryland farming foraging habitat for raptors. As mentioned above, ' however, the area is not considered to be of high significance in this regard, nor does it contain the habitat for rare and endangered species and the loss of habitat will not be significantly adverse. The same holds true for the loss of habitat supporting other grassland V-81 F species of wildlife. Based upon these findings, it is concluded that the proposed project will ' not result in significant adverse impacts. •' Potentially Significant Adverse Impacts Off -Site The small area located northeast of the subject property contains habitat occupied by SKR. ' This area will not be impacted by project development. These areas are anticipated to be ultimately channelized under the authority of the Riverside County Flood and Water Conservation District as part of improvements funded by Assessment District 16. Impacts 1 to these biological resources as a consequence of channel improvements should be addressed within environmental documentation for these channel improvements. ' Cumulative Impacts Although not significant in itself, the loss of introduced grassland habitat described above ' for the proposed project will contribute on an incremental basis to cumulative impacts to biological resources on a regional basis. These impacts are those which are now occurring ' in the region as a result of past and planned developments in the region. These impacts include: • An` overall reduction in the naturalized biotic resources of the region. ' • Loss of secondary foraging habitat for migratory populations of birds of prey which are winter visitors to the region. General Plan Relationship ' The Temecula Regional Center project site lies within the boundaries of the newly incorporated City of Temecula. However, given the absence of a City General Plan, land , use development standards, etc., this Environmental Impact Report evaluates the project in terms of the March 1984 "County of Riverside Comprehensive General Plan". (The fourth edition of the "Comprehensive General Plan" (February 1990) does not include the , area within the City of Temecula on the Environmental Hazards and Resources Maps, Public Facilities Maps, etc.). Such an approach is a standard land use planning practice for development proposed within newly incorporated cities. ' The project site is shown as lying within the range of the Stephen's kangaroo rat on the ' County's Map of Endangered, Rare and Threatened Wildlife Ranges and Habitats, as is all of Western Riverside County. No unique plant communities are shown as esdsting on- site, per the County's Map of Vegetation Resources. The Environmental Hazards and ' Resources Element of the Comprehensive General Plan contains the following Land Use Standards relative to Wildlife and Vegetation: V-82 II • Detailed biological reports, including inventories, impact assessment and mitigation shall be prepared and submitted. • Disruption of sensitive vegetation shall be kept to a minimum, and adequate measures to protect vegetative species shall be taken. • Where possible, landscaping shall be accomplished through the use of ' vegetation native to the project site. • Adequate provision shall be made for the, retention of existing trees and ' other flora, and where necessary,. immediate planting shall be planned and implemented. In accordance with these Land Use Standards, a Biological Assessment and a Stephen's kangaroo rat trapping survey, were prepared for the project and are submitted aspart of this Specific Plan/EIR document. (See Technical Appendices). Adherence to mitigations noted below will reduce impacts to the Stephen's kangaroo rat.= on a region -wide basis to a level acceptable to the local, state and federal regulatory agencies. c. Miti,ation Measures 1. The project will be required to participate in the County's Interim Mitigation Plan, ' requiring payment of $1,950 per acre of land developed within SKR range. (The City of Temecula is participating in this Mitigation. Plan). This mitigation will not eliminate the significant adverse impact upon the identified Stephens kangaroo rat habitat off-site but has ' been deemed to be a sufficient mitigation measure relative to the incidental. taking of the species by the County of Riverside and other regulatory agencies. ' 2. The developer shall participate in the Development Mitigation Fee Program, pursuant to the Southwest Area Community Plan (SWAP). These fees are used partially to fund habitat conservation and open space acquisition. ' 3. Project development shall conform to the above mentioned County. Wildlife and Vegetation Development Standards. d. Level of Signnificance After Miti a� tion . ' Based upon the mitigation measures proposed above, the level of impacts related to Wildlife/Vegetation have been reduced to an insignificant level V-83 12. ENERGY RESOURCES a. Existing Conditions e, In its existing vacant condition, the project site consumes little or no energy, except that needed in association with agricultural uses. ' b. Project Impacts/General Plan Relationship ' The Temecula Regional Center Specific Plan will increase consumption of energy for motor vehicle movement, space and water heating, lighting, refrigeration and air conditioning, operation and construction equipment, use of miscellaneous appliances, and energy required to produce the construction materials and all other material aspects of the project. As discussed in Section D, Public Facilities and Services Element, the project proposes two ' alternatives, the "Regional Center Alternative" and the "Power Center Alternative". The "Regional Center Alternative" is estimated to utilize a total of 28,647,260 kilowatts (kwh) ' per year, based on 8.8 kwh per square foot per year for office use, 11.8 kwh per square foot per year for retail use, and 6.8 kwh per square foot per year for hotel use. The "Power Center Alternative" is estimated to utilize a total of 29,534,200 kwh per year applying the , same factors. On-site natural gas consumption for the "Regional Center Alternative" is estimated to 7,726,660 cubic feet (c.f.) per month, based on 2.0 c.f. per month for office use, 2.9 c.f. per month for retail use, and 4.8 c.f. per month for hotel use. Utilizing the same factors, the "Power Center Alternative is estimated to consume 8,222,000 c.f. of natural gas per month. , Passive solar heating techniques will be encouraged whenever possible within the project. Passive systems involve orienting buildings properly, planting trees to take advantage of the ' sun, seeing that roof overhangs are adequate, making sure that walls are properly insulated and installing simple heat storage systems. General Plan Relationship ' The Temecula Regional Center project site lies within the boundaries of the newly , incorporated City of Temecula. However, given the absence of a City General Plan, land use development standards, etc., this Environmental Impact Report evaluates the project in terms of the March 1984 "County of Riverside Comprehensive General Plan". (The fourth edition of the "Comprehensive General Plan" (February 1990) does not include the area within the City of Temecula on the Environmental Hazards and Resources Maps, ' Public Facilities Maps, etc.) Such an approach is a standard land use planning practice for development proposed within newly incorporated cities. V-84 I The following Land Use Standard of the Riverside County Comprehensive General Plan is applicable to the proposed Specific Plan: 1) The use of solar energy for water heating in residential, commercial and industrial ' projects in all Land Use Categories shall be encouraged. Project layout design shall facilitate the use of passive and active solar systems. The use of solar, energy for space heating also should be developed in large scale commercial, industrial and residential projects, where feasible. As discussed in Project Impact/General Plan Relationship, the use of solar applications will ' be used where practical. C. Mitigation Measures The development of commercial and retail uses will provide local residents with shopping facilities that will reduce the length of vehicular trips. In addition, the following specific mitigation is recommended: 1. Building energy conservation will largely be achieved by compliance with Title 20 and 24 of the California Administrative Code. Title 24, California Administrative Code, Section 2-5307 (b) is the California Energy Conservation Standard for New Buildings which prohibits the installation of fixtures unless the manufacturer has certified to the CEC compliance with the flow rate standards. Title 24, California Administrative Code Sections 2-5452 (i) and 0) address pipe insulation requirements which can reduce water used before hot water reaches equipment of fixtures. Title 20, California Administrative Code Sections 1604 (f) and 1601 (b) are Appliance Efficiency Standards that set, the maximum flow rates of all plumbing fixtures and prohibit the sale of non -conforming fixtures. ' d. Level of Signnificance After Mitigation Based upon the mitigation measures proposed above, the level of impacts related to Energy Resources have been reduced to an insignificant leve[ 1 19 V-85 13. SCENIC HIGHWAYS a. Existing Conditions The Southwest Area Plan (SWAP) designates State Highway 79 South (Winchester Road) as an "Elieible County Scenic Hi¢hwav" in the project vicinity. b. Proiect Impacts/General Plan Relationshi The project proposes development of commercial center, composed of a mix of retail, office, and hotel uses. Along the south side of Winchester Road is Planning Area 1, which proposes retail, office and hotel uses, and Planning Area 2 which proposes a Commercial Core and Support Retail use. The relationship of these proposed uses to the SWAP policies is discussed below, under "General Plan Relationship". General Plan Relationship SWAP contains the following policies relative to uses proposed along Scenic Highways. Policy a: Outstanding scenic vistas and visual features shall be preserved and protected for the enjoyment of the traveling public. Project: No scenic vistas or visual features are present on-site. Policy b: Vista points with interpretive displays, roadside rests and information kiosks shall be developed along scenic corridors. Project: No features are present on-site which warrant displays, rests and/or kiosks. Policy c: When feasible, recreational trails and other compatible public recreation facilities shall be incorporated within scenic corridors. Project: No recreational trails are designated by SWAP for the portion of Winchester Road adjacent to the project site. Policy d: The design and appearance of new structures within scenic corridors shall be compatible with the setting or environment. Project: Section IV., Design Guidelines, of the proposed Regional Center Specific Plan are designed to serve as a method of achieving a high quality, aesthetically cohesive environment for the land uses that will develop within Temecula Regional Center. I Policy e: All new development within scenic corridors shall maintain at least a 50 foot setback from the edge of the right-of-way, whenever feasible. Project: As discussed in Section IV.C.3, Site Planning Guidelines, a`minimum building ' setback of 45 feet is required from the face of the curb along the south side of Winchester Road. This setback is less than the 50' setback recommended by the Scenic Highway policies. ' Policy f: The size, height and type of on-site outdoor advertising displays within scenic corridors shall be the minimum necessary for identification. The design, materials, color and location of the displays shall blend with the environment, utilizing natural materials where possible. ' Project: Section IV.E., Signage Guidelines, contains guidelines intended to produce a consistent signage design that reinforces the collective image of Temecula Regional Center. All signs shall be designed and constructed in conformance ' with these guidelines. The "Major Site Identity Sign" may be part of a freestanding architectural element or located on part of the building itself. Distinctive graphics, materials, colors and lighting devices should be used to ' incorporate this sign into the overall design theme of the Center. The sign should particularly be read from Interstate 15 and Winchester Road. Its height shall not exceed 45 feet. Policy g. Within scenic corridors, trees and other roadside planting shall. be utilized to protect and enhance the view from the road. ' Project: As discussed in Section IV.B.l,b, Landscape Guidelines, Winchester Road ' will be designed as a grand boulevard as it provides the main freeway access to the Center. Through a combination of strong landscape elements and clear graphic signage, Winchester Road will be immediately recognizable as the most significant street at the Regional Center. (See Figures 14 and 15.) Winchester Road streetscene has two Landscape Development Zone (LDZ) conditions. The south side of the street has a 32' wide minimum LDZ and ' the north side of the street has a 26' wide minimum LDZ. These LDZ widths may increase when, or if, slopes adjoin this streetscene. ' Policy h: Earthmoving operations which expose soil surfaces shall be required to reestablish vegetation to bind the soil, prevent water or wind erosion, and reestablish a natural vegetative appearance. 1 10 V-87 � F I Project: As stated in Section III.A.5.b., Grading Plan Development Standard No. 10, "Graded, but undeveloped land shall be maintained weed -free and planted with interim landscaping within 90 days of completion of grading, unless building permits are obtained." Policy is All new electric or communication distribution lines or the relocation of existing overhead facilities in proximity to, and which would be visible from, scenic corridors shall be placed underground whenever feasible, in accordance with Public Utilities Commission regulations. Project: All electric or communication distribution lines will be placed underground, whenever feasible. C. Mitigation Measures No adverse impacts are anticipated; therefore, no mitigation measures are proposed. d Level of Significance After Mitijeation Based upon the mitigation measures proposed above, the level of impacts related to Scenic Highways have been reduced to an insignificant level. 14. CULTURAL AND SCIENTIFIC RESOURCES The information contained below is a summary analysis of Archaeological and Paleontological Assessments for the Regional Center Specific Plan prepared by Christopher E. Drover Ph.D, Consulting Archaeologist and RMW Paleo Associates. These reports are included in their entirety as Appendix D of this document. a. Existing Conditions Archaeology A review of the archaeological site records on file at the Archaeological Research Unit (ARU), University of California, Riverside, showed no sites within the project boundaries. However, one site (RIV - 1730) is recorded immediately north of the project, northwest of the I-15 - Winchester Road intersection. The site, however, has been previously mitigated and is no longer in existence (Drover 1986). This site was estimated to be 4-5,000 years old (based on it's time sensitive artifact content) and consisted of a campsite -village which predominant artifacts consisted of food processing tools. Paleontology The project site is primarily recent alluvium with exposures of the Pauba Formation (See Figure 28, Geology). The Pauba is exposed mainly along stream channels, gullies and in road cuts. Recent grading monitoring has .produced large numbers of fossil vertebrate animals from this formation within the Rancho California and Murrieta area. Several ' specimens have been excavated and archived at the Los Angeles County Museum, while several are awaiting study. The earliest recorded fossils were exposed northeast of the Ynez Road and Winchester Road intersection (Mann 1955, Raschke 1988). Over 75 different taxa have been collected from the Pauba Formation and the "unnamed sandstone" unit within the Winchester Hills area. The Pauba Formation has contained large numbers of significant vertebrate fossils within the area of Rancho California, Murrieta and the Winchester Hills contributing great ' importance in understanding the Pleistocene paleontology of Southern California and possibly even North America (Raschke 1988). ' b. Project Impacts/General Plan Relationship Archaeology ' An on-site archaeological field survey was conducted in November 1988. The survey was accomplished in circular transects defined by the project boundaries and geographic ' contours. V-89 As a result of these efforts, no cultural resources were found on the project site. The absence of any significant archaeological sites or resources on-site eliminates any potential negative impacts that would be incurred as a result of development. Paleontology The paleontological assessment consisted of a literature review and records search at the Natural History Museum of Los Angeles and the San Bernardino County Museum, contact with Dr. J. D. Stewart of the Los Angeles County Museum and Mr. Robert Reynolds of the San Bernardino County Museum regarding known fossil localities both within the site and in the general vicinity, and a walkover survey of the property conducted on November 3, 1988. As a result of the assessment no paleontological resources were located on-site. The paleontological sensitivity of a rock unit is determined by its past history of fossil discovery. This sensitivity is a measure of the potential for the discovery of paleontological resources during earthmoving activities. Project implementation could expose fossils through grading and other developmental activities, but at the same time, can destroy these same remains. This would have a significant adverse impact on the paleontological resources of the region. The recent alluvial deposits are sediments laid down by streams that flowed across the region within the last 10,000 years. These sediments are considered to be too young geologically to contain any significant fossils. Considering its past history of fossil discovery, the Pauba Formation is considered to have a Moderate to High paleontological sensitivity. The recent alluvium is considered to have a low paleontologic sensitivity. However, the recent alluvium over the project site could be a thin veneer and grading could expose any underlying Pauba Formation. Proper mitigation measures are required to reduce the adverse impact of development and protect the paleontological resources of the study area. General Plan Relationship The Temecula Regional Center project site lies within the boundaries of the newly incorporated City of Temecula. However, given the absence of a City General Plan, land use development standards, etc., this Environmental ImpactReportevaluates the project in terms of the March 1984 "County of Riverside Comprehensive General Plan". (The fourth edition of the "Comprehensive General Plan" (February 1990) does not include the area within the City of Temecula on the Environmental Hazards and Resources Maps, Public Facilities Maps, etc.) Such an approach is a standard land use planning practice for development proposed within newly incorporated cities. The Riverside County Comprehensive General Plan Land Use Standards for cultural and scientific resources state that development proposals shall be assessed for impacts upon V-90 these resources. Further, development proposals found to have a significant impact upon cultural and scientific resources shall provide adequate mitigation. In accordance with these standards, both archaeological and paleontological. impact ' assessments were performed on the entire 201.3 acre Temecula Regional Center Specific Plan project site. The mitigation measures recommended in these assessments are presented under "Mitigation Measures". 'C. Mitigation Measures ' Archaeology 1. No cultural resources were observed on the subject property therefore no cultural resource constraints exist for the project and no mitigation measures are proposed. However, should any cultural resources be encountered during . grading of construction activities, work shall be halted or diverted in the immediate area and a qualified archaeologist shall be consulted for evaluation of resources and mitigation recommendations. Paleontology 2. The following measures are required to reduce. the adverse impacts of the development of the Regional Center Specific Plan to an acceptable level and to protect the fossil resources of the site. 'These mitigation measures are drawn from past efforts and have proven successful in protecting paleontological resources, while allowing timely completion of developments in Temecula and elsewhere in Southern California. ' a. A qualified paleontologist shall attend pre -grade meetings and be present on- site during grading to perform inspections of the site and to salvage exposed fossils. The frequency of these inspections will depend on the frequency of the discovery of fossils and the rate of excavation. b. The paleontologist monitor shall be allowed to divert or direct grading in the area of an exposed fossil in order to facilitate evaluation and, if necessary, ' salvage. The monitor should be equipped to salvage fossils as they are unearthed to avoid construction delays and to remove samples of sediments which are likely to contain the remains of small fossil mammals. The monitor must be empowered to temporarily halt or divert equipment to allow removal of abundant or large specimens. The most cost-efficient method of salvage of small fossils is to remove sediments containing the fossils to ' stockpiles off-site. The fossils can be removed by screen washing elsewhere while excavation continues on site. 1 19 V-91 1 I C. Due to the small "nature of some of the fossils present it may be necessary to •1 collect matrix samples for processing through fine screens. d. Preparation of recovered _ specimens to a point of identification, including 1 washing of sediments to recover small vertebrates. This will allow the fossils, to be described in a report of findings and reduces the volume of matrix 1 around specimens being stored. e. Identification and curation of specimens into an established museum 1 repository with retrievable storage. . L Preparation of a report of findings with an appended itemized inventory of 1 specimens. The report and inventory, when submitted to the appropriate Lead Agency, signifies completion of the. program to mitigate impacts to 1 paleontologic resources. d. Level of Significance After Mitigation 1 Based upon the mitigation measures proposed above the level of impacts related to Cultural and Scientific Resources have been reduced to an insignificant level. 1 N 1 Mi 1 V-92 1 D. PUBLIC FACILITIES AND SERVICES ELEMENT 1. CIRCULATION AND TRAFFIC The following discussion summarizes the "Temecula Regional Center EIR Traffic Impact Study" prepared by Wilbur Smith Associates (April, 1991). The Study is included in its entirety as Technical Appendix F. ' a. Existing Conditions The project lies adjacent to and is immediately served by Winchester, Margarita and Ynez Roads to the north, east and west, respectively. The southern portion of the project site is divided by General Kearny Road. Figure 36, Existing Traffic/Roadway Characteristics ' depicts the existing number of travel lanes and types of traffic control at intersections in the project area as well as estimated 1990 traffic volumes. The existing roadway facilities serving the subject property are discussed below. Winchester Road (State Route 79) is a regional State highway which provides regional access to and from the Hemet/Banning area (northeast of Temecula) ' as well as local access to and from Interstate 15. Winchester Road is designated as a four -lane Major Street west of Jefferson Avenue and a two to four -lane Urban Arterial east of Jefferson Avenue. Winchester Road west of Jefferson Avenue has been improved to its ultimate four -lane width. East of Jefferson Avenue, Winchester Road will ultimately provide six travel lanes. ' The improvement of Winchester Road east of I-15 is being funded by Assessment District 161. The widening of Winchester Road between I-15 and Margarita Road is currently underway and should be completed by Fall ' of 1991. Margarita Road/General Kearny Road is a two to four -lane Arterial Street ' which currently becomes General Kearny Road north of Solana Way. Margarita Road will ultimately be extended north across Winchester Road and continue north to Murrieta Hot Springs Road (see Figure 36, Existing ' Traffic Roadway Characteristics). Ynez Road is currently a four -lane road in the vicinity of Rancho California ' Road, but narrows to two lanes north of Rancho California Plaza. Adjacent to Palm Plaza, Ynez Road has been widened to its ultimate six lane cross- section. North of Winchester Road, Ynez has been improved to a full four - lane (Major) width cross-section. The County General Plan Circulation Element currently designates Ynez Road (between Winchester Road and Rancho California Road) an Urban Arterial roadway to be implemented as ' part of Community Facilities District 88-12. V-93 1 I I I I 1 1 1 T&R Planning Qmxul[mus ' �IY.IIWINNC A!nm NNLI NU. C4M. flA{TU.a�]lN JIannum am,.aertae S.NOO4(4 CAtM. flnl NNlaww SOURCE: WILBUR SMITH ASSOCIATES K.C.D.C. 27555 Ynez Road, Suite 202, Temecula, Ca. 92591 EXISTING TRAFFIC/ ROADWAY CHARACTERISTICS Legend Existing Road Planned or Proposed Road 8.8 Daily Traffic Volumes (In Thousands) 2L Number of Lanes 1 Road ;(In Thousands) Less than 1000 Vehicles oles Per Day Per Day Stop Sign action 4 -Way Stop 3 -Way Stop Signal TEMECULA REGIONAL CENTER V-94 FIGURE 36: I x Solana Way is a two-lane Major roadway which connects Ynez Road with Margarita Road. East of Margarita Road, Solana Way becomes a Secondary roadway serving residential areas in that area. ' Rancho California Road is a principal east -west roadway which provides access to I-15, the Tower Plaza and downtown Temecula business areas for residential areas east and west of the I-15 freeway/business corridor. East of Front Street, Rancho California Road is an Arterial roadway providing four travel lanes to a point east of Ynez Road and the Town Shopping Center. ' The Escondido Freeway (Interstate 15) is a major north -south freeway serving the Temecula area, linldng it to Riverside, the Los Angeles metropolitan area (via the Corona Freeway) and San Diego. In the vicinity of the proposed project, I-15 has eight through travel lanes. Project site ' access to and from I-15 is provided via a "modified diamond" type interchange located at Winchester Road (State Route 79) west of the project site. An interchange at Rancho California Road is located approximately one ' and three quarters mile south of Winchester Road. Jefferson Avenue, located west of and parallel to I-15, is currently designated as a four -lane Major Street within the project area. South of Winchester Road, Jefferson Avenue is improved to its ultimate width. The improvement of Jefferson Avenue to its ultimate width between Winchester Road and ' Date Street is currently underway and should be completed within one year. Nicolas Road is a two-lane east -west roadway which intersects Winchester Road northeast of the project site. Nicolas Road, a designated Arterial, ' currently serves residential areas east of Winchester Road. Traffic controls at principal intersections along major roadways serving the project area are currently limited to "stop" sign control with the exception of the Winchester Road/Jefferson Avenue, Winchester Road/I-15 Ramps, and Ynez Road/Rancho California Road intersections which are signalized. Four-way stop signs are in us at the intersections of ' Winchester Road/Ynez Road and Margarita Road/Solana Way. A three-way stop sign operates at the intersection of Ynez Road/Solana Way. ' The currently planned circulation system or the are is depicted in Figure 37, Circulation Element of the Riverside County General Plan. The review of 1990 traffic volumes and roadway capacities indicate that all existing roadway segments in the area are currently operating at a Level of Service C or better. However, field analysis of traffic conditions at the newly -signalized 1-15 ramp intersections with 1 V-95 I CIRCULATION ELEMENT 1 ; of the RIVERSIDE ob 11 COUNTY GENERAL PLAN r Legend )1C �/ Urban Arterial 134' R.O.W. Mountain 110' R.O.W. Arterial 0 / Arterial 110' R.O.W. ' o�01 ■�■ Major 100' R.O.W. 0a\\JE P �P 4:0 �9�m �;.�i�i ••.•••••••v,� Secondary 88' R.O.W. 00• 0 1 Freeway Variable 90 GP,,'ORNnunROAD unn,� I 1 1 1 1 A:T&B Planning as w1mnu unlwlun sun Yn swu.wn cuY. mvI muular.. SS��Y).M14 d1YL SUR A] I� S.W MCn, I%lY NISI AA fY�W K.C.D.C. 27555 Ynez Road, Suite 202, Temecula, Ca. 92591 1 TEMECULA REGIONAL CENTER V-96 FIGURE 37 ' Winchester Road indicates that these intersections operate at Level of Service "D" during morning and evening peak hours. According to the Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) Analysis performed by the Traffic ' Engineer, these ramps would operate at a Level of Service "C" or better if these signals were interconnected or synchronized. In addition, the Winchester Road/Jefferson Avenue intersection is not functioning at a Level of Service "C' as indicated by its ICU Analysis. ' This is due to eastbound traffic at the Winchester Road/1-15 backing up sufficiently as to not allow full utilization of signal time for eastbound traffic movements at the Jefferson Avenue intersection. ' b. Project Impacts/General Plan Relationship Prior to the assignment of project traffic and the assessment of project related traffic impacts, it was necessary to make certain assumptions regarding the configuration of area roadways which would serve the proposed project. The assumed post -project area roadway ' network depicted in Figure 38, Anticipated Transportation System, includes existing and planned roads as well as proposed roads which are internal to the project. ' The off-site improvements include the extension of Margarita Road from General Kearny Road to beyond Date Street, the widening of Winchester Road to six lanes from east of I-15 to Murrieta Hot Springs Road and the extension of Apricot Avenue west to Jefferson Avenue. These ultimate improvements are consistent with the Circulation Element of Riverside County General Plan (see Figure 37). Traffic Forecasting Methodology ' Traffic volumes generated by the proposed project were estimated using the traffic forecasting model previously developed for the Rancho California Regional Transportation Planning Study. The regional forecasting model consists of approximately 400 transportation analysis zones (TAZ's) and over 4,500 street links. The TAZ's were expanded to include the land uses proposed by the Temecula Regional Center project as well as the proposed Campos Verdes and Winchester Hills residential developments, the ' Margarita Meadows Commercial Center and the Winchester Meadows Industrial Park. The street network was assumed to reflect the anticipated on-site circulation network and off-site roadway access to these other four projects. Additional detail on traffic forecasting t methodology, including a copy of the base link-node/TAZ network is provided in the Traffic Study included as Appendix F. ' Existing Plus Project Traffic Forecasts An estimate of vehicle trips which would be generated by the proposed Temecula Regional ' Center project were developed, based on the two proposed land use mixes. Approximately 1P V-97 I 1 I t' Freeway R;T6B Planning Cio ilranrs (R/W 200') )M NN I.VNC SIAnM swrnuw cua. nan mu.o.vr snsrcemm�mr. su+r rn I S.W YII:O, l:Y i. y4 IIOI W [13! 1 SOURCE: WILBUR SMITH ASSOCIATES K.C.D.C. 27555 Ynez Road, Suite 202, Temecula, Ca. 92591 ANTICIPATED TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM Legend 2L Number of Traffic Lanes Collector. (R/W 66') SP Special Project Road (R/W 100-110') TEMECULA REGIONAL CENTER FIGURE 38 V-9 8 Freeway F (R/W 200') Urban Arterial VA (R/W 134') Arterial A (R/W 110') Major (R/W 100') ra Secondary 4 F (R/W 88') N 76 FL industrial Collector l/W ioo- IC (R/W 78') W/6L. Collector. (R/W 66') SP Special Project Road (R/W 100-110') TEMECULA REGIONAL CENTER FIGURE 38 V-9 8 1 1 1 1 1 1 i b 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 64,850 vehicle trips would be generated on a daily basis as a result of project development within either the "Regional Center" or "Power Center" Alternatives: Average daily and peak hour traffic associated with the project is calculated in terms of sub -areas which conform to the three principal project development areas (see Figure 39, Development Areas and Sub -areas and Figure 40, E)osting Plus Project Daily Traffic). The results of these calculations are depicted in Table XV, Vehicle Trip Generation Summary. TABLE XV VEHICLE TRIP GENERATION SUMMARY REGIONAL CENTER ALTERNATIVE Sub -Area lb 5,255 AM Peak PM Peak Hour Hour Total Total 881 1074 Retail 35 ksf Total Land Use/ 420 ksf Daily Development Area Size Unit Traffic Retail Sub -Area la ksf 8,000 14,099 Retail 250 ksf 8,750 Office 350 ksf 3,500 Hotel 212 * rooms 1,849 Sub -Area lb 5,255 AM Peak PM Peak Hour Hour Total Total 881 1074 Retail 35 ksf 1,225 Office 420 ksf 4,030 Sub -Area 2 44,000 2,258 Retail 250 ksf 8,000 Mall 1,125 ksf 36,000 Sub -Area 3 1,496 103 Retail 13 ksf 520 Office 40 ksf 976 Total 64,850 3,631 ksf = Thousand square feet (gross leasable floor area). * = Assumes 85 percent occupancy. V-99 397 3,139 114 4,724 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 'TGBPUnning Qw w1=m iun rauwaa surem �; .unuwu. cuv.umnw.uarw vo.wawavrvc wnx xe swww, ws. v¢� wms...w LEGEND: (3) Sub - Area Identification CHESTER MEADOWS CAMPOS VERDES SOURCE: WILBUR SMITH ASSOCIATES K.C.D.C. 27555 Ynez Road, Suite 202, Temecula, Ca. 92591 DEVELOPMENT AREA -AND SUB -AREAS Legend (2) Sub — Area Identification TEMECULA REGIONAL CENTER v-100 FIGURE 39 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 SOURCE: WILBUR SMITH ASSOCIATES K.C.D.C. 27555 Ynez Road, Suite 202, Temecula, Ca. 92591 Is) rods) ger Day EXISTING PLUS PROJECT DAILY VOLUMES Legend .�.e� Total Traffic (In Thousands) Project Traffic —0 —.,91(In Thousands) Less Than 100 Vehicles Per Day TEMECULA REGIONAL CENTER FIGURE 40 V-101 T&B Planning Cslnudsanss 1sw ' lulivas[sunr an s.wa.v:� au. nm rw wlsn l; ssn nenwosm.sunv 1.w0[GO. CNV. flVl Nlfl SW W SOURCE: WILBUR SMITH ASSOCIATES K.C.D.C. 27555 Ynez Road, Suite 202, Temecula, Ca. 92591 Is) rods) ger Day EXISTING PLUS PROJECT DAILY VOLUMES Legend .�.e� Total Traffic (In Thousands) Project Traffic —0 —.,91(In Thousands) Less Than 100 Vehicles Per Day TEMECULA REGIONAL CENTER FIGURE 40 V-101 i 1 1 1 1 1 4 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 p POWER CENTER ALTERNATIVE Total 64,850 3,641 4,812 ksf = Thousand square feet (gross leasable floor area). = Assumes 85 percent occupancy. Total vehicle miles of travel (VMT) generated by the Temecula Regional Center project was estimated by multiplying the total daily project vehicle trips by the average trip length estimated for all trips. The average trip length is based upon project -related vehicle trips originating both within and outside the Southwest Community Plan Area. It ,should be noted that the proposed Temecula Regional Center would intercept a significant number of existing and future vehicle trips which would otherwise leave the area and involve greater travel distances to other regional center type destinations. To a lesser degree, employment V-102 Total AM Peak PM Peak Land Use/ Daily Hour Hour Development Area Size Unit Traffic Total Total Sub -Area la 14,849 928 1,131 Retail 250 ksf 9,500 Office 350 ksf 3,500 Hotel 212 s rooms 1,849 Sub -Area lb 5,360 396 489 Retail 35 ksf 1,330 Office 420 ksf 4,030 Sub -Area 2 43,145 2,214 3,078 Retail 250 ksf 9,000. Power Center 800 ksf 28,800 Office 450 ksf 4,240 Hotel 127 ' rooms 1,015 Sub -Area 3 1,496 103 114 Retail 13 ksf 520 Office 40 ksf 976 Total 64,850 3,641 4,812 ksf = Thousand square feet (gross leasable floor area). = Assumes 85 percent occupancy. Total vehicle miles of travel (VMT) generated by the Temecula Regional Center project was estimated by multiplying the total daily project vehicle trips by the average trip length estimated for all trips. The average trip length is based upon project -related vehicle trips originating both within and outside the Southwest Community Plan Area. It ,should be noted that the proposed Temecula Regional Center would intercept a significant number of existing and future vehicle trips which would otherwise leave the area and involve greater travel distances to other regional center type destinations. To a lesser degree, employment V-102 opportunities offered by the proposed Regional Center will reduce the length of commuter work trips to more distant employment centers. The project could generate an estimated 564,195 vehicle miles of travel daily based on an average trip length of 8.7 miles. The distribution and assignment of project traffic was performed using the TranPlan traffic forecasting model. Existing traffic volumes (adjusted to reflect the post -project street network) were then added to project related traffic volumes to represent the existing plus project traffic conditions illustrated in Figure 40, Existing Plus Project Daily Traffic. Project -related trip assignments were nearly identical for both the "Regional Center" and Power Center" Alternatives. The resulting year 2000 traffic projections for the "existing plus project" impact scenario are depicted in Figure 41, Projected Daily Traffic (Year 2000, With Project), as well as Figure 42, Projected Daily Traffic (Year 2000, Without Project). However, any conclusions utilizing "existing plus project" projections would not consider increases in non -project related traffic to the year 2000. Existing Plus Project Roadway and Intersection Service Levels Volume capacity comparisons were made for all roadways which would provide primary access to the Temecula Regional Center project. Roadway capacities used in this analysis are based on Riverside County "standard" capacities developed for General Plan. Circulation Element roads and reflect the available traffic lanes assumed in the post -project area roadway network (see Figure 38, Anticipated Transportation System). The existing plus project roadway service level analyses indicate that all of the assumed project roadway segments would operate at Level of Service 'B" or better assuming the anticipated roadway network is implemented. Analyses were also made of forecasted existing plus traffic project movements at intersections located along primary access routes, to determine traffic service levels and signalization needs. The Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) procedure was used to evaluate evening peak hour traffic service levels at all major intersections in order to represent worst case conditions. All of the intersections analyzed are expected to operate at Level of Service B or better during the evening peak hour for existing plus project conditions. Cumulative Development (Year 2000) Analysis Traffic forecasts were developed to assess the cumulative traffic impacts of the Temecula Regional Center project and other major development projects. The assessment of cumulative development impacts with and without the project related traffic impacts and ultimate roadway needs in the area. V-103 1: I F 1 housands) PROJECTED DAILY TRAFFIC (Year 2000 with Project) Legend $�7 Traffic Volumes (In Thousands) TEMECULA ' ,' T&R PlanningUaaultantf REGIONAL CENTER Y0161 SOURCE: WILBUR SMITH ASSOCIATES K.C.D.C. 27555 Ynez Road, Suite 202, Temecula, Ca. 92591 V-104 FIGURE 41 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 N SOURCE: WILBUR SMITH ASSOCIATES K.C.D.C. 27555 Ynez Road, Suite 202, Temecula, Ca. 92591 sands) PROJECT DAILY TRAFFIC (YEAR 2000 without PROJECT Legend 8.7 Traffic Volume (In Thousands) TEMECULA REGIONAL CENTER V-105 FIGURE 42 j' .qfT&R Planning Cwmmltana �; 1]MIM.%ANI. I.LWtIANI UII. #AS pN)W.I11Y JfD1tl16N pM 4RItA SVIpICO, (AIR.#RINNIf��6 SOURCE: WILBUR SMITH ASSOCIATES K.C.D.C. 27555 Ynez Road, Suite 202, Temecula, Ca. 92591 sands) PROJECT DAILY TRAFFIC (YEAR 2000 without PROJECT Legend 8.7 Traffic Volume (In Thousands) TEMECULA REGIONAL CENTER V-105 FIGURE 42 ' The methodology used in the traffic operations analysis follows the requirements set forth in the '"Traffic Impact Study Report Preparation Guide" developed by Riverside County Road Department. The analyses include volume/capacity comparisons for: (1) key roadway segments; and (2) intersections that would be used by site -related traffic. The analyses focus more on the evaluation of. study area intersections since intersectionsare typically the limiting capacity factor when determining a roadway's traffic carrying ability. ' Local Access On-site access would consist of minor driveways, major roadways and internal -circulation ' roadways (not shown on the Site Plan). The minor driveways would be limited to right -tum movements in -and -out of the site along the major arteries which generally border the Regional Center site. Since these restricted access points do not allow movements which would cross the traffic flows on the major arteries, their potential impact on traffic operation is greatly reduced. Peak -hour traffic volumes projected at the restricted access driveways indicate moderate to low usage (less than 200 vehicles total in and out) in most ' cases. Specific recommendations regarding major and minor access points to be considered in the design of internal circulation roadways are provided as Mitigation Measures. ' Major access intersections along Winchester Road would be located at Regional Center Road and at North Mall Drive (Sub -area 2). With the Regional Center project, both access intersections would operate at service level "C" or better during peak hours. .� Major access intersections along Ynez Road would be limited to one intersection opposite the currently planned main access to Palm Plaza. This intersection would operate at service level "C' or better with the project Major access intersections along Margarita Road would be located at the proposed westerly extension of General Kearny Road midway between Winchester Road and General Kearny Road (opposite the proposed Campos Verdes Loop Road). With the Regional Center and the extension of General Kearny Road into the project, the intersection would operate at ' Level of Service "B" or better. The Campos Verdes Loop Road/Margarita Road intersection would operate at service level "B" with the project. ' Major access intersections along Apricot Avenue would be limited to one intersection at the southern terminus of Regional Center Road. With the Regional Center project, this ' intersection would operate at service level "A" or better during peak periods. Major intersections along Regional Center Road, other than those already discussed, would be on-site. With the project, all intersections would operate at service level "C' during peak periods. V-106 Off -Site Roadways Volume capacity comparisons were made for the study area roadways to assess the roadway service levels which would be expected for cumulative development traffic conditions. Findings of the cumulative development roadway segment service levels are summarized in Figure 43, Roadway Segment Service Levels- (Year 2000, with Project), Figure 44, Roadway Segment Service Levels (Year 2000, without Project), and Table XVI, Regional Center ICU Summary. Future year 2000 off-site traffic conditions were analyzed relative to future levels of service on affected roadway segments as well as principal intersections in the; area. Future traffic conditions were analyzed within three scenarios: 1. Future traffic on planned roadways without the proposed Temecula Regional Center Project;, 2. Future traffic on planned. roadways with the proposed Project; and 3. Future traffic conditions on planned roadways assuming additional traffic improvements. The comparison of with and without project conditions on area roadways provides a measure of the relative ultimate impact of the proposed project. Future Service Levels - Without Project As indicated in Figure 44, Roadway Segment Service Levels (Year 2000, Without Project), all off-site roadway segments in the area would operate at level of service "C" or better with the exception of the four roadway segments listed below: • Winchester Road from I-15 to Ynez Road - Level of Service "E/P"; • Jefferson Avenue between Winchester Road and Santa Gertrudis Creek - Level of Service "D'; • Date Street between Jefferson Avenue and Business Park Street - Level of Service "D'; and • Washington Avenue between Date Street and Cherry Avenue - Level of Service "D". As indicated in Table XVI, Intersection Capacity Utilization analyses in the study area indicate that in the year 2000 without the proposed project, three intersections would operate at a level of service "D", one intersection would operate at level of service "E", and one intersection would operate at level of service "F' within the "future traffic, no project" V-107 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 'T&D Planning Goadsancs • ` s'g laOins � ui�a�m ma �asm. l� srnfw.amvart.sustiu �I s.sn wcn, can sm nms.savc SOURCE: WILBUR SMITH ASSOCIATES K.C.D.C. 27555 Ynez Road, Suite 202, Temecula, Ca. 91591 ROADWAY SEGMENT SERVICE LEVELS (Year 2000 with Project) Legend 0.34 volume Capacity Ratio Level of Service TEMECULA REGIONAL CENTER V-108 FIGURE 43 11 11 F 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 I I f 10 ROADWAY SEGMENT SERVICE LEVELS (YEAR 2000 without PROJECT) Legend 0.34 Volume Capacity Ratio Level of Service 1 TEMECULA 1 T&B Pia ningGmwlmm REGIONAL CENTER ��s'�Qwu,vttuv ammo m.m. n SOURCE: WILBUR SMITH ASSOCIATES K.C.D.C. 27555 Ynez Road, Suite 202, Temecula, Ca. 92591 FIGURE 44 1 V-109 TABLE XVI TEMECULA REGIONAL CENTER ICU SUMMARY Without Project' Intersection AM/PM Ynez Rd./Rancho Year 2000 With w/Project' Improvements' AM/PM AM/PM California Rd. C/C D/D D/D Ynez Rd./ Winchester Rd. E/D Jefferson Ave./ Winchester Rd. F/D NB I-15 Ramps/ Winchester Rd. D/A D/E D/D F/D D/D C/A C/A ' Based upon Table 5A of the Temecula Regional Center Traffic Analysis. 2 Based upon Table 5B of the Temecula Regional Center Traffic Analysis. 3 Based upon Table 6 of the Temecula Regional Center Traffic Analysis. V-110 scenario for either the Am or PM peak hour. Those intersections operating at an AM or PM peak hour level of service "D", "E", or "F' are listed below: • Ynez Road/Winchester Road -Level of Service "E" for AM peak hour and Levels of Service "D" for PM peak hour. • Jefferson Avenue/Winchester Road - Level of Service "F' for AM peak hour and Level of Service' "D" for PM peak hour. • Northbound I-15 Ramps at Winchester Road - Level of Service "D" for AM peak hour. Without the project, three intersections operate at Levels of Service "D", "E" and "F', respectively while during the PM peak hour, two intersections operate at Level of Service Future Traffic Levels - With Project All of the off-site roadway segments impacted by the proposed project would operate at level of service "C" or better with the proposed project with the exception of ICU roadway segments listed below: • Winchester Road from I-15 to Ynez Road - Level of Service "E/F'. • Ynez Road from Winchester Road to Santa Gertrudis Creek - Level of Service "D". • Jefferson Avenue from Winchester Road to Santa Gertrudis Creek - Level of Service "D". • Date Street from Jefferson Avenue to Business Park Street - Level of Service • Washington Avenue from Cherry Street to Date Street - Level of Service "D" As indicated on Table XVI, Intersection Capacity Utilization analyses for the study area indicate that in the year 2000 with the proposed project, three intersections would operate at level of service "D". One intersection would operate at level of service "E' and one intersection at level of service 'Y within the "future traffic with project" scenario for either the AM or PM peak hour. V-111 Those intersections operating at an AM or PM peak hour level of service "D", "E" or "F' are listed below: 0 Ynez Road/Rancho California Road - Level of Service "D" during the AM and PM peak hours. • Ynez Road/Winchester Road - Level of Service "D" during the AM peak ' hour and Level of Service "E" during the PM peak hour. • Jefferson Avenue/Winchester Road - Level of Service "F' during the AM tpeak hour and Level of Service "D" during the PM peak hour. A further analysis of Table XVI indicates that as a consequence of project development the. intersection of the Northbound 1-15 .ramps ,at Winchester Road improves to Level of Service "C' from Level of Service "D" during the AM peak hour while the intersections of Ynez Road/Rancho California Road degrades from Level of Service "C' to Level of Service "D" during both the AM and PM peak hours. The intersection of Ynez, Road/Winchester Road improves from Level of Service "E" to "D" during the AM peak hour and degrades from Level of Service "D" to "E" during the PM peak hour. The intersection of Jefferson Avenue/Winchester Road remains unchanged in both scenarios. A project of the magnitude of the. proposed Temecula Regional Center. would unquestionably have an impact on area traffic conditions. The commercial -oriented Regional Center would serve as a major trip attractor in the Southwest Area Community. The Regional Center would be the destination of many residential based trips (both shopping and work trips) which would otherwise travel to other retail establishments or employment centers within and/or outside this region. Given the location of many of the already approved major residential projects (e.g., along Winchester Road northwest of the project site), a significant portion of the trips which would be destined to the Regional Center would pass directly by the site even if the project were not to be developed. The relatively small difference in projected daily traffic volumes on the area roadways with and without the project are partially due to this factor. The similarities in traffic projections on area roadways with and without the Regional Center can also be attributed to the likelihood that Regional Center traffic would displace some of the through traffic (longer trips) which would be using the area roadways because they are somewhat more convenient than other alternative routes. ' Future Traffic Level with Additional Improvements Additional intersection capacity utilization calculations were performed for all intersections found to operate at service level "E" or worse with the project. The analyses indicate that assuming project development with additional intersection improvements (see "Mitigation Measures"), peak hour service levels could be improved to "D" or better at all intersections. V-112 The proposed project would comply with minimum service level "D" policy for peak -hour intersection in areas designated as "Heavy Urban" (Category 1). This assumes that recommended improvements are implemented (see Figure 45, Recommended Future Circulation System). General Plan Relationship The Temecula Regional Center project site lies within the boundaries of the newly incorporated City of Temecula. However, given the absence of a City General Plan, land use development standards, etc., this Environmental Impact Report evaluates the project in terms of the March 1984 "County of Riverside Comprehensive General Plan". (The fourth edition of the "Comprehensive General Plan" (February, 1990) does not include the area within the City of Temecula on the Environmental Hazards and Resources Maps, Public Facilities Maps, etc.). Such an approach is a standard land use planning practice for development proposed within newly incorporated cities. The following are the Land Use Standards of the Public Facilities and Services Element of the Riverside County Comprehensive General Plan relative to circulation: 1. Road Right -of -Way and Dedication: Necessary right-of-way dedications shall be made by developers as part. of the land division and review process. All road dedications shall relate to the overall existing and proposed street systems of the immediate area surrounding a proposed development. 2. Roadway Design: Intensive urban land uses shall be served by streets and highways capable of handling high volumes of commuter and truck traffic. Through traffic movements shall be limited to General Plan roads and should avoid streets through residential neighborhoods. Provisions shall be made for highways, capable of carrying high volumes of through traffic between major trip generators. 3. Alignment: Curves and roads shall be designed to permit safe movement of vehicular traffic at the road's design speed. 4. Access: All weather access shall be provided to all developed areas. 5. Intersections: All street intersections shall be developed to assure the safe, efficient passage of through traffic and the negotiation of turning movements. 6. On -Site Road Improvements: Private land developments shall be required to provide all on-site road and auxiliary facility improvements necessary to mitigate any development -generated circulation impacts. A review of each proposed land V-113 I I I I i 1' I 11 1 P I 0 X* Denotes change in planned transportation system. RT&R Planning Gmxul,anu IVA SOURCE: WILBUR SMITH ASSOCIATES K.C.D.C. 27555 Ynez Road, Suite 202, Temecula, Ca. 92591 RECOMMENDED FUTURE CIRCULATION SYSTEM Legend 2L Number of Traffic Lanes Freeway F (R/W 200') Urban Arterial VA (R/W 1341 A Arterial (R/W 110') Major (R/W 100') ® Signal TEMECULA REGIONAL CENTER FIGURE 45 V-114 Secondary (R/W 88') Industrial Collector �C (R/W 78') Collector C (R/W 66') Special Project Road $P (R/W 100-110') MOD. Modified Urban Arterial UA (R/W Varies) ® Signal TEMECULA REGIONAL CENTER FIGURE 45 V-114 development project shall be undertaken to identify the project impacts to the circulation system and its auxiliary facilities. 7. Off -Site Road Improvements: All developments, shall be required to mitigate all project -related significant impacts upon the circulation system on a pro -rata basis. Off-site improvements will be provided by the developer or by other County and City approved financing mechanisms, including State or Federal funds. All identified impacts to the circulation system by proposed land developments shall be I mitigated by the developer in conformance to requirements established by the responsible agency. 8. Arterial Highways: Arterial highways, shall be identified on a map and improved as area development and highway needs warrant. Whenever possible, improvements shall be made with financing mechanisms which equally distribute the cost of road improvements among those who will benefit. 9. Collector Streets: Provisions shall be made for a comprehensive, efficient collector road system in developing the site. 10. Circulation Hazards: The circulation system should be designed to avoid or mitigate, significant environmental hazards. Adequate measures shall be taken to protect County residents from transportation - generated noise hazards. Increased setbacks, walls, landscaped berms, other sound absorbing barriers or a combination thereof shall be provided. 11. Congestion Relief/Levels of Service: Private developments which are projected to reduce levels of service on existing facilities below acceptable standards shall be ' required to provide appropriate mitigation measures. K, Traffic signals shall be constructed and improved at appropriate intersections. The project responds to General Plan Land Use Standards 1 through 11. The project will ensure proper roadway design through dedication and construction of public roads. Through traffic movements will avoid streets through residential neighborhoods. Curves and roads will permit safe movement of vehicular traffic at the road's design speed, and intersections will be designed to assure the safe passage of through traffic and the negotiation of movements. Final design and offer of dedication will occur at the land division stage. The circulation system as proposed will provide for all weather access to all portions of the project site. rJ V-115 r C. Mitigation Measures Mitigation measures recommended by the Traffic Engineer are presented in two categories: on-site improvements and off-site improvements. On-site roadway improvements are considered those which relate to new proposed roadways within and bordering the Regional Center project and existing roadways immediately adjacent to the project. Off-site roadway improvements relate to roadways away from the project which provide regional circulation to area residents. 1. The developer shall be responsible for direct project access improvements along the site boundaries and on-site improvements (as delineated in the Traffic Analysis) as well as a "fair -share" amount towards the implementation of needed off-site improvements. The property owner/developer is a principal participant in the Ynez Corridor Mello Roos District 88-12 which provides funding for the Apricot Avenue overcrossing, the Winchester Road interchange loop ramp, and the Ynez Road widening to six lanes. The developer is also a participant in Winchester Assessment District 161 which provides funding for the improvement of Winchester Road (six -lane Urban Arterial) and Margarita Road.(four-lane Arterial). Additional "fair -share" participation will be warranted for off-site improvements not addressed in the current improvements districts. The full extent of these off-site roadway improvements are depicted in Figure 45, Recommended Future Circulation System and within Section Y, Phasing Plan of the Traffic Analysis which is contained in Appendix F of this document. 2. In addition to the recommended roadway infrastructure improvements the Traffic Engineer also recommends that a number of Transportation Systems Management programs be implemented by the City of Temecula in the project vicinity including and throughout the Southwest Riverside County development area. The following recommendations are aimed at the City of Temecula with the intent of maximizing future roadway capacities and reducing vehicular travel during the critical peak hour periods: • The continued enforcement of the South Coast Air Quality Management District's Trip Reduction Plan. • The implementation of public transit services in the Temecula area such as: express transit into. and out of the area during the morning and evening commuter peaks; fixed route local bus service between higher density residential areas and major activity centers; and demand responsive transit services such as dial -a -ride for the lower density and more remote areas. V-116 ' • Promotion of*future public transit through the adoption of appropriate. planning ordinances which would require special transit oriented design features to be incorporated into future development projects. It should be noted, however, that as Park -and -Ride Facility (Caltrans Park -Ride 08-RIV-79-R2.5) is located at the northeast corner of the intersection of Winchester Road and 1-15. This facility, provided by Bedford Properties, contains 93 parking spaces and serves residents of the Temecula area. ' • The adoption of ordinances which would require larger employers in the area to implement carpool and/or vanpool programs., Large employers could also be. encouraged to implement staggered work hours or flex time programs for their employees. 3. In conjunction with future park-and-ride facilities to be provided by the Regional Center, provisions; should be made for development of a future transit transfer station to promote future use of public transit, reduce vehicular travel and reduce parking demand at the Regional Center. 4. A Supplemental Traffic Analysis shall be prepared for any and all individual projects (i.e. plot plan applications) within the Temecula Regional Center. This Supplemental Traffic Analysis shall be submitted to the City of Temecula for review and approval prior to approval of these individual projects. This Supplemental Analysis shall address the specific impacts of these individual projects as well as required mitigation measures, the 1pnature of which are listed above. d. Level of Significance After Mitigation Based upon the mitigation measures proposed above, the level of impacts related to Circulation and Raffic have been reduced to an insignificant level. r r I I V-117 2. WATER AND SEWER a. Existing Conditions Water The proposed project site is located within the Rancho California Water District (RCWD) water service area. RCWD relies on local groundwater and imported water from Metropolitan Water District of Southern California (MWD) for water supply. According to RCWD staff, water storage for the project site is provided'by the existing Norma Marshall Reservoir and the Ace Bowen Reservoir. The Metropolitan Water District is the sole water importer agency within the project area. MWD provides imported water for its member agency Eastern Municipal Water District (EMWD) who in turn provides wholesale water to Rancho California Water District. The imported water isavailable to RCWD from the MWD's San Diego Aqueducts. Further, RCWD has an abundant water supply capacity in its underlying groundwater basins within its service area. Currently, four existing wells are located within the project area. These wells would be the primary source of water to the project. The imported water could be utilized to supplement the groundwater supply. The proposed regional water distribution and storage system improvements for the project area are shown on Figure 7, Water Plan. The plan for providing water service to the area is based on RCWD's existing facilities and is compatible with future upgrades/extensions. Reclaimed Water Eastern Municipal Water District is in the process of Master Planning a District -wide reclaimed water system, although no reclaimed water lines or facilities currently are available in the project area. EMWD may require the project to construct reclaimed water lines on-site so that when the regional system is complete the project can ultimately utilize reclaimed water for certain types of irrigation. Sewer The proposed project is located within EMWD sewer service area. Currently, a Sewer Master Plan Study is being prepared by the District to identify the ultimate sewer facilities required within the Winchester Assessment District, of which the proposed project is a part. The ultimate Sewer Master Plan will involve the construction of two major trunk sewers which will convey the collected flows from the Winchester Assessment District to the Rancho California Regional Water Reclamation Facility (RCRWRF). The proposed 36 - inch Warm Springs trunk sewer will be located northwest of the project and the proposed 27 -inch, or greater, Santa Gertrudis trunk sewer, will run along Santa Gertrudis Creek, V-118 which is parallel to Winchester Road bordering the northern portion of the site. Currently, a 15 -inch sewer main runs southerly in Winchester and Ynez Roads within the project area, and then continues easterly to connect to the RCRWRF (see Figure 8, Sewer Plan). ' Sewage generated from the proposed project will be treated at the RCRWRF. The existing treatment capacity of the RCRWRF is 6 25 MGD. In addition, a 10.0 MGD tertiary filtration facility is scheduled to start treating secondary effluent from the RCRWRF in the fall of 1991. b. Project Impacts/General Plan Relationship Water Project development will incrementally increase the demand on the water supply in the area. The estimated water usage for the project is M 4,320 gallons per day,: per acre, with a peak demand of 17,280 gallons per day per acre. Demand for fire flows is 5,000 gallons per minute for a three hour duration with a residual pressure of.20 PSI (Pounds per Square Inch). This results in and average day demand of 869,616 gallons per day with a peak day demand of approximately 3.48 million gallons. RCWD has indicated that adequate water service can be provided to the Temecula Regional Center, with the existing facilities, including the water reservoirs, and with the extension/addition of water mains. The plan for providing water service to the project site is based on RCWD's existing facilities and compatibility with future upgrades/extensions. As shown, on; Figure 7, Water Plan, the District's existing transmission facilities in conjunction with the additional proposed water distribution mains will provide the backbone water infrastructure to serve the site. The water mains were sized to convey the maximum fire flow during a maximum day demand. Sewer The wastewater flows from the project area are tributary to the RCRWRF. The existing treatment capacity of the RCRWRF is 6.25 MGD. In addition, a 10.0 MGD tertiaryfiltration facility is scheduled to start treating secondary effluent from the RCRWRF in the fall of 1991. Per the EMWD design guide, the average sewage generated from commercial developments is 3,000 gallons per day per acre, with a peaking factor (the number EMWD utilizes in order ' to calculate the peak day sewage demands) of 2.0. Utilizing this factor, the Temecula Regional Center would generate an average day demand of approximately 0.53 million gallons per day with a peak day demand of approximately 1.06 million gallons. As shown in Figure 8, Sewer Plan, the Temecula Regional Center Specific Plan will be served by the existing 15" sewer lines located in Winchester and Ynez Roads, and by the proposed 8", 10" and 15" sewer lines in Margarita Road and Apricot Avenue as well as the V-119 proposed 8", 12" and 15" sewer lines in Loop Street "B". These proposed line sizes are preliminary at this stage of development. The proposed lines are sized in accordance with the Eastern Municipal Water District's requirements. Reclaimed Water As previously mentioned, no reclaimed water lines or facilities exist in the .project area. EMWD may require the Temecula Regional Center to construct reclaimed water lines on- site so that when the regional system, which is currently in the planning process, is complete, the project can ultimately utilize reclaimed water for specific irrigation purposes. General Plan Relationship The Temecula Regional Center project site lies within the boundaries of the newly incorporated City of Temecula. However, given the absence of a City General Plan, land use development standards, etc., this Environmental Impact Report evaluates the project in terms of the March 1984 "Countyof Riverside Comprehensive General Plan". (The fourth edition of the "Comprehensive General Plan". (February 1990) does not include the area within the City of Temecula on the Environmental Hazards and Resources Maps; Public Facilities Maps, etc.) Such an approach is a standard land use planning practice for development proposed within newly incorporated cities., The Public Facilities and Services Element of the Riverside County Comprehensive General Plan sets forth the following Land Use Standard relative to water and sewer: 1) Category I - (Heavy Urban Development) developments must be located within special districts authorized to provide water and sewer service. A Category I development must use a district water system and district sewer system. The development proponent must show that adequate water and sewer facilities, water resources availability and sewer treatment plant capacity will exist to meet the demands of the development. Commitments for adequate and available water and sewer service must be confirmed by the special districts.. 2) Water Use for Landscaping - irrigation systems shall be properly designed, installed, operated and maintained to prevent the waste of water. "Drip" irrigation and other water application techniques which conserve water should be considered prior to final grading plan approval. 3) • Wastewater Reuse - Where adequately treated wastewater is available it shall be incorporated into new development water plans for such things as irrigation for landscaping, golf courses, agriculture, and man-made lakes and ponds. V-120 The Temecula Regional Center Specific. Plan proposes Category I urban uses and, as such, must be located within special districts authorized to provide water and sewer service. In accordance with this requirement, the project is located within the Eastem Municipal Water District for water and sewer service. The District has indicated their ability to provide water. and sewer service to the project. In accordance with Land Use Standards for water use for landscaping, irrigation systems shall be properly designed, installed, operated and maintained to prevent the waste of water. Vegetation which uses less water will be utilized for landscaping purposes. Additionally, the project will construct on-site reclaimed water lines for irrigation purposes once the regional system is complete. C. Mitigation Measures 1. All conditions pertaining to water requirements and wastewater treatment requirements as specified by the Eastern Municipal Water District will be followed. 2. Water and sewerage disposal facilities shall be installed in accordance with the requirements and specifications of the Riverside County Health Department. 3. Assurance for provision of adequate water and wastewater service is required prior to approval of a subdivision map, in accordance with the State Subdivision Map Act. 4. The project will comply with any EMWD requirements for installation of on-site ' reclaimed water lines. In addition, the following State laws require water efficient plumbing fixtures in structures to minimize water use: • Health and Safety Code Section 17921.3 requires low -flush toilets and urinals in virtually all buildings. • Title 20, California Administrative Code Section 1604(f) (Appliance Efficiency ' Standards) establishes efficiency standards that set the maximum flow rate of all new showerheads, lavatory faucets, etc. ' • Title 20, California Administrative Code Section 1601(b) (Appliance Efficiency Standards) prohibits the sale of fixtures that do not comply with regulations. • Title 24, California Administrative Code Section 2-5307(6) (California Energy Conservation Standards for New Buildings) prohibits the installation of fixtures V-121 unless the manufacturer has certified to the CEC compliance with the flow rate standards. • Title 24, California Administrative Code Section 2-5452 (i) and 0) address pipe insulation requirements, which can reduce water used before hot water reaches equipment or fixtures. • Health and Safety Code Section 4047 prohibits installation of residential water softening or conditioning appliances unless certain conditions are satisfied. • Government Code Section 7800 specifies that lavatories in all public facilities be equipped with self-closing faucets that limit the flow of hot water: d. Level of Significance After Miti a� tion Based upon the mitigation measures proposed above, the level of impacts related to Water and Sewer have been reduced to an insignificant level. V-122 3. FIRE SERVICES a. Existing Conditions The Riverside County Fire Department, in cooperation with the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection, provides fire protection to the project area. The station serving the project site is the North Temecula Station #73, located at 27415 Enterprise Circle West, equipped with one 1250 GPM pumper, two full time (24 hour) fire fighters, augmented by volunteers. The Temecula Station #12 located at 28330 Mercedes Street will act as a backup or second station. This station is equipped with two 1250 GPM pumpers, two full time firefighters (the second firefighter is an augmentation of the basic level of service who works weekdays to provide coverage during low volunteer response times) augmented by ten to fifteen paid call (volunteer) firefighters. The Fire Department responds to medical aid calls for emergency first aid and rescue. Station #12 on an average, responded to approximately 5 emergency fust aid and rescue calls per day in 1991, while Station #73 responded to approximately 3 emergency first aid and rescue calls per day in 1991. Paramedic service and transportation are provided by the Goodhew Ambulance Company headquartered in the City of Riverside, located at 1044 East La Cadina. Ambulances responding to calls from Stations #12 and #73 are generally dispatched out of Murrieta or the City of Temecula. b. Project Impacts/General Plan Relationship Development of the proposed Temecula Regional Center Specific Plan will result in the increased demand for fire protection services which may includeadditionalfirefighters, additional equipment, and/or improvements to existing facilities. Project impacts are due to the increased. number of emergency or public service calls generated by additional residential and commercial development. The project applicant will be required to participate in fire protection measures necessary to adequately protect the project site (see. Mitigation Measures). A portion of the impacts associated with capital improvements or one-time costs such as lana buildings, and equipment will be mitigated by developer participation in the Fire Protection Mitigation Program lite annual costs necessary for an increased level of service are only partially offset by the additional, County structure tax and would require an increase in the Fire Department's annual operating ' budget. The Fire Protection Master Plan standard for Category. I (Heavy Urban) development is ' a fire station within 1-12 miles and a full first alarm assignment (3 fire engines responding to any reported fire) within 15 minutes. According to Michael Gray, Deputy Fire Marshal; the existing fire stations can provide Category I (Heavy Urban) protection in conformance with the Fire Protection Master Plan. V-123 The area has an ISO (Insurance Service Office) rating of "9", (undeveloped land) however, this rating will be reduced to a "6' (Fire Department Rating) as development (streets and domestic water) occurs. General Plan Relationship The Temecula Regional Center project site lies within the boundaries of the newly incorporated City of Temecula. However, given the absence of a City General Plan, land use development standards, etc., this Environmental Impact Report evaluates the project in terms of the March 1984 "County of Riverside Comprehensive General Plan". (The fourth edition of the "Comprehensive General Plan" (February 1990) does not include the area within the City of Temecula on the Environmental Hazards and Resources Maps, Public Facilities Maps, etc.) Such an approach is a standard land use planning practice for development proposed within newly incorporated cities. The following Land Use Standards - Fire Services of the Public Facilities and Service Element of the Comprehensive General Plan are applicable to the Temecula Regional Center Specific Plan proposal: 1) Fire Protection - All new developments must have an . adequate level of fire protection. Applicable development standards as well as any additional fire protection and preventing measures deemed necessary by the County shall be implemented. In accordance with County standards, an adequate level of fire protection will be provided from the existing stations in the area. 2) Service Commitments - Concurrent with the submittal of Category I, II or V project applications, fire protection service commitments, including fiscal commitments, will be evaluated in order to confirm that fire protection services will be adequate for the project. As the Temecula Regional Center Specific Plan proposes a Category I project, it will be subject to evaluation for adequacy of fire protection services. 3) Fire Facilities Improvements - As determined by the County Fire Department, Category I, II and V projects may be required to contribute to the improvement of fire protection services such as dedication of site(s), construction of new station(s) or upgrading of existing station(s), provision of new equipment or upgrading of existing equipment. The Temecula Regional Center will be required to participate in the fire protection impact mitigation program (See "Mitigation Measures"). 4) Fire Response Times - Category I, II and Vshall have a fire response time by emergency fire equipment of no greater than five minutes. The Temecula Regional Center Specific Plan is within an acceptable time/travel distance from an existing fire station. V-124 C. Mitigation Measures 1. As the project is located in a "State Responsibility Area' as defined by the California Administrative Code, all development within the Temecula Regional Center project shall be constructed with fire retardant roofing material. ' 2. The project developer will be required to participate in the eidsting Fire Protection I Impact Mitigation Program ($400.00 per dwelling unit and $.25 per sq. ft. for commercial/industrial) to be used for the purchase of land and to build and equip fire stations when necessary as development occurs. ld. Level of Sikniftcance After Mitigation Based upon the mitigation measures proposed above, the level of impacts related to Fire Service have been reduced to an insignificant level. I I I 1 1 1 is V-125 4. SHERIFF SERVICES a. Existing Conditions • The project lies within the service boundaries of the Riverside County Sheriff's Department The City of Temecula currently contracts with the County Sheriffs Department for police protection. ' The station serving the site is located southwest of the proposed project at 43172 Business Park Drive in the City of Temecula. According to Chief of Police, Rick Sayre, current staffing at the , Temecula station consists of 31 sworn field officers plus support personnel. The current staffing needs are based upon one deputy per one thousand in population. The Sheriffs Department is nearing completion of a new facility, the "Southwest Justice Center" on approximately 50 acres located at 30755 Auld Road According to Chief Sayre, response time to any location within the City limits range from under six minutes for emergency, life threatening calls to fifteen to twenty minutes for non -emergency calls. b. Project Impacts/General Plan Relationship The development of the Temecula Regional Center is anticipated to create between 7,289 and 8,126 new job opportunities. In addition, the "mixed-use" commercial center proposed on -sue will generate a maximum of 300 multi family residential units. These units could potentially generate a population of apprawnately 900 (utilizing a generation factor of 3.0 persons per unit). This increase in population will incrementally increase criminal activity such as burglaries, thefts, auto thefts and vandalism. As the population and use of an area increases, additional financing of equipment and manpower needs are required to meet the increased demand for adequate police protection. Utilizing the Police Department's criteria of 1 deputy per 1,000 in population, the proposed residential units would require I deputy for adequate police protection. The current level of service for the Temecula, Police Department is inadequate. The additional population associated with the project will further impact the service abilities of the Temecula Police Department. General Plan Relationship The Temecula Regional Center project site lies within the boundaries of the newly r incorporated City of Temecula. However, given the absence of a City General Plan, land ■ use development standards, etc., this Environmental Impact Report evaluates the project in terms of the March 1984 "County of Riverside Comprehensive General Plan". (The fourth edition of the "Comprehensive General Plan" (February 1990) does not include the area within the City of Temecula on the Environmental Hazards and Resources Maps, Public Facilities Maps, etc.) Such an approach is a standard land use planning practice for development proposed within newly incorporated cities. V-126 The following Land Use Standards - Sheriff Service of the Public Facilities and Services Element of the Riverside County Comprehensive General Plan is applicable to the project site: 1) Police Protection and Facilities Adequacy - The design of Category I projects will be reviewed for adequate safeguards for crime prevention. 2) Category I projects will be evaluated for police protection service commitments; in order to confirm that crime prevention and police protection services will be adequate for the project. In accordance with the Land Use Standards for Sheriff Services, crime prevention policies designated by the Sheriff's Department for the proposed Category I land uses will be Mowed. C. Mitigation Measures 1. Provision of Sheriff services will be guaranteed through the collection of property taxes, a portion of which is designated for law enforcement and subsequent finding of law enforcement activities by the County Board of Supervisors. 2. For future security and safety, the following crime prevention measures shall. be considered during site and building layout design: • The on -sue circulation system will be designed in order to provide pedestrians; vehicles and police patrols with a safe and efficient circulation network; • On-site streets, walkways and bikeways shall be illuminated in order to enhance night time visibility; • Roofs and windows shall be visible from the street and between buildings in order to discourage burglaries and potential suspect hiding places, • Fencing heights and materials utilized are intended to discourage climbing; • The numbering identification system utilized on-site shall be visible and readily apparent in order to aid the emergency response agencies in quickly finding specific locations. d. Level of Sig_nifiicance After Mitigation Based upon the mitigation measures proposed above, the level of impacts related to Police Protection have been reduced to an insignificant level. ko V-127 5. SCHOOLS •, a. Existing Conditions , The proposed project lies within the Temecula Valley Unified School District (TVUSD) for educational services and facilities. The District currently operates six elementary (grades K-5) , schools, two middle (grades 6-8) schools and two high (grades 9-12) schools. The following Table, provided by the District's Facility and Planning Departmen4 indicates the current enrollment, permanent building capacity, and relocatable (portable classrooms) capacity of each ' school. As the table indicates, most District schools are operating above their permanent building capacity. Relocatable classrooms are utilized to accommodate the overflow of students. It should be noted that the State of California does not consider relocatable classrooms as adequate student housing. It should also be noted that the enrollment numbers delineated in the table are effective through the end of 1991 and will be recalculated the fust quarter of 1992. The Temecula Valley Unified School District utilizes the following criteria to ' calculate student generation: Grades K-5 -.36 students per household; Grades 6-8 -.2 students per household; and, Grades 9-12 -.24 students per household. M 8,372 7,721 2,339 128 TABLE XVL4 TVUSD Enrollment Capacity Summary Permanent Relocatable School Enrollment Capacity Cal2aCLty Nicolas Valley Elementary 507 664 0- Rancho Elementary 887 705 240 , Red Hawk Elementary 650 722 0 Sparkman Elementary 574 598 0 ' Temecula Elementary 733 594 310 Vail Elementary 640 794 198 Margarita Middle 954 861 232 Temecula Middle 879 855 0 Rancho Vista H.S. 169 0 155 Temecula Vista H.S. 22.379 11.928 1_,204 8,372 7,721 2,339 128 b. Project Impacts/General Plan RelationshiQ The proposed 300 multi family residential units located mithin the "mixed-use" commercial area on -sue could potentially generate approximately 240 students (utilizing the T.V. U.S.D. criteria mentioned above). As no school facilities are proposed within the project boundaries; the ' estimated 240 students " generated by the Temecula Regional Center would require accommodation off-site. As previously mentioned, the District schools are all currently operating near or above permanent building capacity. The additional students generated by this Iproject will place an increased demand upon District facilities which are already impacted. Depending upon the need of the District, the impact of the students associated with the project may be mitigated by the applicant participating in, site dedication, developer agreements and/or payment of fees. It should be noted that the 300 multi family residential units are intended to be located over. commercial and office uses as residential flats. Generally, this type of housing does not attract families with school aged children. The estimated 240 students associated with the project portray a "worst-case" scenario. It is anticipated that, the number of students generated by the project will likely be much lower than the 240 total. General Plan Relationship The Temecula Regional Center project site lies within the boundaries of the newly incorporated City of Temecula. However, given the absence of a City General Plan, land use development standards, etc., this Environmental Impact Report evaluates the project in terms of the March 1984 "County of Riverside Comprehensive General Plan" (The fourth edition of the "Comprehensive General Plan" (February 1990) does not include the area within the City of Temecula on the Environmental Hazards and Resources Maps, Public ' Facilities Maps, etc.) Such an approach is a standard land use planning practice for development proposed within newly incorporated cities. The following Land Use Standards - Schools are applicable to the project site: 1. Service and Facilities Adequacy - Projects will be evaluated to determine the impact they Iwill have on school services and facilities. ' 2. Impacted Schools - Projects in school districts which are already impacted or are over capacity must make arrangements with the school districts to mitigate the additional effects of the project. These arrangements may include site dedication and/or developer agreements. V-129 In accordance with the above standards the Temecula Regional Center Specific Plan is being planned to conform with the Land Use Standards, in that the applicant shall cooperate with the. Temecula Unified School District to mitigate the student impact on, the District as a result of project development. C. Mitigation Measures 1. The applicant shall be required to pay school impact mitigation fees or fund school site acquisition and/or facility construction. A combination of school impact mitigation fees and other funding methods, including the formation of a Mello -Roos District, may be negotiated with the Temecula Valley Unified School District. These school impact mitigation fees may not exceed the State -mandated maximum amounts of $1.58 per square foot of residential space and $ 26 per square foot of commercial space. 2. The project applicant shall enter into a binding agreement with the Temecula Unified School District to insure the provision of adequate facilities at the time of project occupancy. d. Level of Significance After Mitigation Based upon the mitigation measures proposed above, the level of impacts related to Schools have been reduced to an insignificant level. V-130 6. PARKS AND RECREATION a. Existing Conditions The project area is served by several regional recreational facilities which include boating, fishing and other water activities. A Riverside County Regional Park is located at Lake Skinner, approximately 7 miles northeast of the project site. State. recreation areas include Lake Elsinore, approximately 14 miles northwest of the project site and Lake Perris, approximately 22 miles north of the project site. The Cleveland National Forest, encompassing the Santa Ana Mountains, lies to the west of the project site, and a portion of the San Bernardino National Forest is located to the east. These areas provide equestrian, camping and hiking activities. Local recreational facilities include community parks in the cities of Lake Elsinore and Temecula as well as recreational amenities on local school campuses. Facilities available on school campuses generally include playing fields (football, soccer, baseball), playing courts (basketball, volleyball; tennis) and playground equipment. The Santa Rosa Plateau, which is a cooperative venture between the County of Riverside, the Nature Conservacy, California Fish and Game Department, and the Federal Fish and Wildlife Service is located m Murrieta off of Clinton Keith Road. This facility consists of a 7,000 acre nature park which is open free to the public from sunrise to sunset. The park offers several trail systems, one of which is self guided (guide booklets and trail pamphlets are available). The park also offers "Saturday morning walks" (guided) each weekend beginning at. 9 am. Also, twice a month "bird walks" are conducted for the bird enthusiast. The park contains a vast array of natural 'habitat as well as the largest vernal pools in the entire State of Califomla. These pools are presently dry, however, they are known to be quite spectacular during the sprang months. The Bear Creek Village, located west of the project site approximately 5 miles, includes a private 18 -hole, 200 acre championship -style golf course, as well as swimming and tennis facilities. While none of these facilities are available for use by the general public, there is an equestrian network located along Murrieta Creek which is publicly available, serving as a link in the equestrian network extending throughout the entire southwest territory of Riverside County. b. Project Impacts/General Plan Relationship Development of the project could potentially, generate a population of 900 associated with the 300 residential unity located within the "mired -use" commercial area. The project will be required to meet State Quimby Act requirements. The State Quimby Act was established by the California Legislature for the purpose of preserving open space and providing park facilities for California's growing communities. The Quimby Act allows local agencies to establish their own V-131 ordinances relative to providing land or "in -lieu" of fees for park and recreation purposes. The Temecula Community Services District (TCSD) utilizes a factor of 5 acres of parkland per 1, 000 in population. In order to satisfy the Quimby Act requirement established by TCSD, 4.5 acres of parkland would be required. As the main core of the project consists of commercial and retail use, no parks. are proposed within project boundaries. The additional population associated with the proposed on-site residential use will place an increased demand upon existing recreational facilities within the area. The Temecula Regional Center will be required to satisfy the Park requirements mentioned above. Within the adjacent Winchester Hills Specific Plan, a total of 25.8 acres of parks are proposed. Within Campos Verdes,. a 13.5 acre park/detention basin is proposed. General Plan Relationship The Temecula Regional Center project. site lies within the boundaries of the' newly incorporated City of Temecula. However, given the absence of a City General Plan, land use development standards, etc., this Environmental Impact Report evaluates the project in terms of the March 1984 "County of Riverside Comprehensive General Plan". (The fourth edition of the "Comprehensive General Plan" (February 1990) does not include the area within` the City of Temecula on the Environmental Hazards. and Resources Maps, Public Facilities Maps, etc.) Such an approach is a standard land use planning practice for development proposed within newly incorporated cities. The Riverside County Comprehensive General Plan contains no Land Use Standards relative to parks and recreation facilities for commercial/industrial developments. C. Mitigation Measures The project applicant shall provide adequate park acreage and/or the payment of "in -lieu" fees necessary to satisfy the TCSD and State Quimby Act local park requirements. d. Level of Significance After Mitigation Based upon the mitigation measures proposed above, the level of impacts related to Schools. have been reduced to an insignificant level. V-132 I I 1 r I 1 7. UTILITIES a. Existing Conditions The project lies within the service area of the Southern California Edison Company (SCE), the Southern California Gas Company (SCG) and the General Telephone Company (GTE). SCE has an existing 12 KV (Thousand Volatage) . underground line within the project area located adjacent to Ynez Road. SCG has an existing 4 inch gas main located east of I-15, north of Winchester Road and south of Elm Street and Warm Springs Creek. The Gas Company has indicated that distribution lines could be extended from this main to serve the project without significant impact. Although General Telephone has no existing lines within the project boundaries they have indicated their ability to serve the site. b. Project Impacts/General Plan Relationship The Specific Plan for the Temecula Regional Center contains two alternatives, the "Regional Center Alternative" and the "Power Center Alternative". The following table indicates the difference in square footages proposed for both alternatives, hence the difference in estimated electrical demands. Tbese.demands are based upon SCE's criteria and assume ultimate project buildout. ESTIMATED ELECTRICAL DEMANDS "REGIONAL CENTER ALTERNATIVE" Office 810,000 sq.ft. x 8.8 kwh/sq.ft./yr. Residential 300 m f d u. T6,081 kwh/unit/year Retail (including detached and retail mall) 1,673,000 sq.ft. x 11.8 kwh/sq.ft./yr. 7,128,000 kwh/yr. = 1,824,300 kwh/yr. = 19,741,400 kwb/yr. Hotel (747 square feet per room - 350 rooms) 261,450 sq.ft. x 6.8 kwh/sq.ft./yr. = 1.777.860 kwh/yr. Total V-133 30,471,560 kwh/yr. "POWER CENTER ALTERNATIVE" Office 1,260,000 sq.ft. x 8.8 kwh/sq.ft./yr. Residential 300 mfd.u. X 6,081 kwh/unit/year 11,088,000 kwh/yr. 1,824,300 kwh/yr. Retail (including detached and Power Center) 1,348,000 sq.ft. x 11.8 kwh/sq.ft./yr. = 15,906400 kwh/yr. Hotel (747 square feet per room - 500 rooms) 373,500 sq.ft. x 6.8 kwh/sq.ft./yr. = 2.539.800 kwh/yr. Total 31,358,500 kwh/yr. Provided that there are no unexpected outages to major sources of electrical supply and the demand for electrical generating capacity does not exceed the Southern California Edison Company's estimates, it is anticipated that electrical requirements will be met over the next several years. Project implementation will also result in an increased demand for natural gas. The primary use of natural gas by the project will be for combustion to produce space heating, water heating and other miscellaneous heating and/or air conditioning. The Southern California Gas Company has indicated that they can provide service to the proposed project site 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. Once again, the table below indicates the difference in demand for both alternatives which are based on the Southern California Gas Company's criteria assuming total project buildout. V-134 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 b t 1 1 1 1 1 1 ESTIMA'T'ED NATURAL GAS CONSUMPTION "REGIONAL CENTER ALTERNATIVE" Office 810,000 sq.ft'x 2.0 c.f.*/mo. _ Residential 300 m f &m X 4,105 cf. */d m/mo. _ Retail (including detached and retail mall) 1,673,000 sq.ft. x 2.9 c.f.*/mo. _ Hotel (747 square feet per room - 350 rooms) 261,450 sq.ft. x 4.8 c.f.*/mo. _ Total = 70 IN I _m- 1,260,000 . 1,620,000 c.L*/mo. 1,231,500 cf.*/mo. 4,851,700 c.f.*/mo. . 1.254.960 c.f.*/mo. 8,958,160 cf. *Imo. "POWER CENTER ALTERNATIVE" 1,260,000 sq.ft. x 2.0 c.f.*/mo. = 2,520,000 c.f.*/mo. Residential 300 m f am X 4,105 cf. */d.u./mo. = 1,231,500 c f. *Imo. Retail (including detached and Power Center) 1,348,000 sq.ft. x 2.9 c.f.*/mo. = 3,909,200 c.f.*/mo. Hotel 747 square feet per room - 500 rooms) 373,500 sq.ft. x 4.8 c.f.*/mo. = 1.792,800 c.f.*/mo. Total = 9,453,500 c. f. */mo. * = cubic feet V-135 SCG has indicated that gas supply will be sufficient through the late 1990's to meet residential, commercial, industrial and some electric utilizing generation. While the proposed project will place additional demand upon the telephone services, these demands are well within the parameters of the General Telephone Company. General Telephone will need 6-12 months notice prior to any major construction beginning on the project. General Plan Relationship The Temecula Regional Center project site lies within the boundaries of the newly incorporated City of Temecula. However, given the absence of a City General Plan, land use development standards, etc., this Environmental Impact Report evaluates the project in terms of the March 1984 "County of Riverside Comprehensive General Plan". (The fourth edition of the "Comprehensive General Plan" (February 1990) does not include the area within the City of Temecula on the Environmental Hazards and Resources Maps, Public Facilities Maps, etc.) Such an approach is a standard land use planning practice for development proposed within newly incorporated cities. The Utility Land Use Standards of the Riverside County Comprehensive General Plan do not apply to this Specific Plan. C. Mitigation Measures The Southern California Edison Company and Southern California 'Gas Company encourages all customers to learn and utilize the programs developed by these companies to conserve energy; included among them are such concepts as daylighting and off-peak cooling. In addition, the following specific mitigations are recommended: 1. Development plans will be provided to Southern California Edison, the Southern California Gas Company and General Telephone as they become available in order to facilitate engineering, design and construction of improvements necessary to provide electrical service to the project site. 2. The applicant will comply with guidelines provided by the Southern California Gas Company in regard to easement restriction, construction guidelines, protection of pipeline easement and potential amendments to right-of-way in the areas of any existing Gas Company easements. 3. Building energy conservation will be largely achieved by compliance with Title 20 and 24 of the Energy Conservation Code. Title 24, California Administrative Code Section 2-5307 (b) is the California Energy Conservation Standard for New Buildings which prohibits the installation of fixtures unless the manufacturer has certified to the CEC V-136 compliance with the flow rate standards. Title 24, California Administrative Code Sections 2-5452 (i) and 6) address pipe insulation requirements which can reduce water used before hot water reaches equipment or fixtures. Title 20, California Administrative Code Sections 1604 (f) and 1601 (b) are Appliance Efficiency Standards that set the maximum flow rates of all plumbing fixtures and prohibit the sale of non -conforming fixtures. d. Level of Significance After Mitigation Based upon the mitigation measures proposed above, the level of impacts related to Utilities have been reduced to an insignificant level. 1 I 1 1 I 11 1 p V-137 8. SOLID WASTE a. Existing Conditions •� According to the County of Riverside Waste Management Department; the project lies within the service area of the Double Butte Landfill located at 31710 Grand Avenue in Winchester. However, Double Butte is approaching capacity and is estimated to be closed in early 1994. The County has chosen a system approach to meet Riverside County's facility needs. Currently, two scenarios are being considered depending on the future of the Double Butte Landfill Scenario #1 presumes that when Double Butte Landfill is closed a materials recovery facility (MRF), will be sited in the Mid -County Facility Service Area (appra)dmately coinciding with , the present Double Butte Landfill Regional Service Area). Solid wastes generated within the service area will be sent to the Mid -County MRF to be processed, with the residual wastes being , sent to Lamb Canyon Landfill located at 16411 Lamb Canyon in Beaumont for disposal Scenario #2 presumes that when Double Butte Landfill is closed, the wastes will be handled by neighboring facility service areas, such as the Moreno Valley and Lamb Canyon Service Areas. In this scenario, Mid -County is not included as a separate facility service area. Given the imminent closure of the Double Butte site, the proposed project will most likely utilize ' the Lamb Canyon Landfill for disposal of solid waste generated within its boundaries. However, the waste generated by the proposed project could be processed either in the Mid -County MRF . and the residue transported to and landfilled at Lamb Canyon, or in the Lamb Canyon MRF, depending on which scenario of the County's facility system is chosen. This landfill encompasses 788 -acres and serves a regional area of 515 square miles. Lamb ' Canyon has a permitted annual capacity of 682,000 tons with the average daily capacity of the second quarter of 1991 being 456 tons. , The total capacity of the landfill is 8 million tons with an approximate remaining capacity for the landfill (as of the end of 1990) being 6,880,000 tons. As of the end of 1990, approximately ' 1,220,000 tons of waste had been disposed of in the landfill The estimated lifespan of the Lamb Canyon Landfill is eighteen years from the beginning of , 1991. This projection is based on a growth study by linear regression which has accounted for the diverted wastes from Double Butte and Mead Valley Landfills after their closures. This estimate is considered conservative as the effects of recycling of materials on the Lifespan of the , landfill are not accounted for in the projection. The County Waste Department utilizes generating criteria of 1.75 tons per persons per year for , the City of Temecula. Solid waste generated by the project will be collected by one of the six following collection companies serving Permit Area 11: Canyon Lake Disposa4 Suburban , V-138 Disposal, Jess Rodrigues Disposal Co., Moreno Valley Disposal, C.R&R. and Waste Management of Inland Valley.. In addition, the California Assembly Bill 939, Integrated Waste Management Act (Statutes of 1989, Chapter 1095), which became law on January 1, 1990, requires all cities and counties to develop a waste stream resource reduction and recycling plan by July 1, 1991. Assembly Bill 939 requires landfill waste streams to be reduced 25% by 1995 and 50% by the year 2000. Through the successful implementation of source reduction and recycling programs of the County and the incorporated Cities in achieving•the waste diversion goals as set forth in AB 939, the lifespan of all solid waste landfills within the County are expected to be extended significantly. According to Joe Hreha of the City of Temecula, there is no formal source reduction. or 1 recycling program at this time in the City. All recycling is voluntary with refuse separation occurring at the landfill. b. Project Impacts/General Plan Relationship Project implementation will increase the amount of solid waste generated in the region, which in turn will increase the demand upon services of waste haulers in the project area. Industrial/commercial waste generated is typically based upon estimated persons employed, or type of use. However, in order to portray a "worst-case" assessment and utilizing factors provided by the National Solid Waste Management Association (NSWMA), office use proposed is estimated to generate 1 pound per day per 100 square feet, retail use (including retail mall) is estimated to generate 2.5 pounds per day per 100 square feet, hotel use is estimated to generate 4 pounds per room, and the 300 dwelling units (appro)dmately 900 residents) are estimated to generate 1.75 tons per year per resident. As the project proposed.two alternatives, the "Regional Center Alternative" and the "Power ' Center Alternative" the following table indicates estimated waste generated from each alternative. d r] V-139 Land Use Office Residential Retail Hotel "POWER CENTER ALTERNATIVE" Solid Waste Unit Factor Generated 1,260,000 sq.fL 1 lb/dy/100 sq.fL 12,600 lb/dy 300 du. 1.75/tonslpersonlyear 8,600 lb/dy 1,348,000 sq.ft. 2.5 lb/dy/100 sq.fL 33,700 lb/dy EM, 500 rooms 4 Ib/dy/per room01_00 lb/dy 56,900 Ib/dy or 28.4 tons/dy The solid waste generated by the Temecula Regional Center represents less than 2 percent of the permitted annual capacity of 682,000 tons for the Lamb Canyon Landfill Efforts made to recycle are not only encouraged but are necessary to aid the County of Riverside in meeting the State -mandated goals of Assembly Bill 939. Recycling will reduce the quantity of waste disposal and lower future annual percentage increases in daily per capita V-140 TABLE XVII ESTIMATED SOLID WASTE GENERATED "REGIONAL CENTER ALTERNATIVE" Solid Waste Land Use Unit Factor Generated Office 810,000 sq.fL 1 lb/dy/100 sq.ft. 8,100 lb/dy Residential 300 du. 1.75/tonslpersonlyear 8,600 lb/dy Retail 1,673,000 sq.ft. 2.5 lb/dy/100 sq.fL 41,825 16/dy Hotel 350 rooms 4 lb/dy/per room 1.400 lb/dy TOTAL 59,925 16/dy or 29.9 tons/dy Land Use Office Residential Retail Hotel "POWER CENTER ALTERNATIVE" Solid Waste Unit Factor Generated 1,260,000 sq.fL 1 lb/dy/100 sq.fL 12,600 lb/dy 300 du. 1.75/tonslpersonlyear 8,600 lb/dy 1,348,000 sq.ft. 2.5 lb/dy/100 sq.fL 33,700 lb/dy EM, 500 rooms 4 Ib/dy/per room01_00 lb/dy 56,900 Ib/dy or 28.4 tons/dy The solid waste generated by the Temecula Regional Center represents less than 2 percent of the permitted annual capacity of 682,000 tons for the Lamb Canyon Landfill Efforts made to recycle are not only encouraged but are necessary to aid the County of Riverside in meeting the State -mandated goals of Assembly Bill 939. Recycling will reduce the quantity of waste disposal and lower future annual percentage increases in daily per capita V-140 waste generation. The substantial benefits of recycling relate to the savings in energy and natural resources due to recycling. The energy and materials that go into producing new materials are substantially greater than that required for recycled materials. ' The County Waste Management District recommends that the Temecula Regional Center Specific Plan include methods to reduce the quantity of waste being landfilled, including proper site design for,the storage of recyclables separated for pick-up. Implementation of a. waste ' disposal strategy for the proposed project can assist Riverside County in achieving the mandated goals of the Integrated Waste Management Act by developing feasible waste programs that encourage source reduction, recycling and composting. In order to aid the County in achieving the mandated goals of the Integrated Waste Management Act, it is anticipated that the project will work with future contract refuse haulers ' to implement recycling and waste reduction programs for residential, commercial, and industrial wastes. General Plan Relationship The Temecula Regional Center project site lies within the boundaries of the newly incorporated City of Temecula. However, given the absence of a City General Plan, land use development standards, etc., this Environmental Impact Report evaluates the project in terms of the March 1984 "County of Riverside Comprehensive General Plan". (The fourth edition of the "Comprehensive General Plan" (February 1990) doesnot include the area within the City of Temecula on the Environmental Hazards and Resources Maps, Public Facilities Maps, etc.) Such an approach is a standard land use planning practice for development proposed within newly incorporated cities. Two Land Use Standards from the Public Facilities and Services Element of the Riverside County Comprehensive General Plan relative to solid waste are applicable to the Specific Plan. ' 1) Solid Waste Adequacy - Sufficient solid waste disposal capacity and life expectancy should exist or be planned within a reasonable. distance of the project site to accommodate the needs of the development, consistent with the County of Riverside Solid. Waste Management Plan. 2) Commercial/Industrial - All Community and Regional Commercial Centers along with Light, Medium, Heavy Industrial and Industrial Park developments shall have sufficient existing or planned solid waste collection services, capacity and life expectancy ' available for the development, consistent with the Solid Waste Management Plan. Sufficient solid waste disposal capacity is available at the Double Butte site with the Lamb ' Canyon site acting as an alternate site upon ultimate closure of Double Butte, thus the V-141 project is in conformance with Land Use Standards for Solid Waste Adequacy and Land • Use Standards for Commercial/Indust ial Use. C. Mitigation Measures The County Solid Waste Management Plan includes programs to reduce the quantities of waste being sent to landfills. These programs include source reduction, separation of recoverables, composting and high technology resource recovery. The County encourages the general public, schools and businesses to learn and utilize information regarding recycling and the use of recycled materials. The implementation of these programs will reduce the increase in solid waste generation associated with new development, which in turn will aid in extension of the life of affected disposal sites. Assembly Bill 939 requires landfill waste streams to be reduced 25% by 1995 and 50% by the year 2000. The County encourages large projects and other municipalities to implement methods for inclusion of separate and enlarged trash enclosures to store recycled materials (glass, newspaper, aluminum, etc.) particularly within multi -family and`commercial projects. In addition, the following specific mitigations are recommended: Me County is required to address the recently passed legislation, the Integrated Waste Management Act of 1989 (A,B. 939, Statutes of 1989, Chapter 1095) which became law on , January 1, 1990 requiring all cities and counties to develop a waste stream source reduction and recycling plan by July 1, 1991. 1. The project applicant shall work with the County Waste Management District and the City of Temecula participate in efforts to achieve the mandated goals of the Integrated Waste Management Act. Additionally, the proposed permitted refuse hauler for the project site shall be advised of the efforts the developer will be pursuing relating to recycling and waste reduction (i.e. curbside recycling, buy back centers, etc.) in accordance with County Resolution No. 90-402. 2. Prior to or concurrent with submittal of final tract maps or improvement plans for the ' project,` the applicant shall submit detailed plans delineating the number, location and general design of solid waste bin enclosures. These plans shall be approved by the City of Temecula with the intent of promoting visual aesthetics, routine cleaning and prevention of odors or disease vectors. 3. The developer shall participate in any established City-wide program to reduce solid , waste generation. The elements of this program may include: a. Developing and distributing brochures on residential and commercial recycling, , residential and commercial source reduction, waste management issues, the importance of using recycled goods, and litter control. , V-142 ' b. Development of curriculum guides and kits in cooperation with the Coity and the _ Temecula Valley Unified School District. C. Production of video programs which can be shown on local cable television stations in the project area. d. Pursue an environmental labelling program at local grocery stores, liquor stores, ' etc. which would educate consumers in recycling of packaging and other consumer goods. 1 e. Pursue a recycled products awareness campaign which would commend businesses which use recycled products. This program could issue stickers to businesses that use recycled products to display in their windows. f. Develop a library of media production on recycling and source reduction which can be borrowed by various citizen groups, agencies, and schools within the City. d. Level of Significance After Midi ag tion Based upon the mitigation measures proposed above, the level of impacts related to Solid Waste have been reduced to an insignificant level. V-143. 9. LIBRARIES a. Fodsting Conditions The Temecula branch is a 1,900 square foot storefront facility located at 27533 Ynez Road. This branch currently serves an estimated population of 59, 000. A new 15, 000 square foot library is currently under construction at the Walt Abrams Administrative facility. This building is anticipated to be completed by approximately April 1992 and is intended to replace the existing facility at 27533 Ynez Road. The new library will house a collection of approximately 51,900 volumes. Library staff has indicated that the library's current level of service has been recognized as substantially inadequate and has declined during the last decade due to the impact of rapid population growth throughout the entire County. b. Project Impacts/General Plan Relationship According to Library staff, the population (approximately 900 people) associated with the development of the. Temecula Regional Center will adversely affect existing library services as they are currently considered inadequate. The increase in population to be served would require an increase in funding to the County Library to maintain the current level of service. General Plan Relationship The Temecula Regional Center project site lies within the boundaries of the newly incorporated City of Temecula. However, given the absence of a City General Plan, land use development standards, etc., this Environmental Impact Report evaluates the project in terms of the March 1984 "County of Riverside Comprehensive General Plan". (The fourth edition of the "Comprehensive General Plan" (February 1990) does not include the area within the City of Temecula on the Environmental Hazards and Resources Maps, Public Facilities Maps, etc.) Such an approach is a standard land use planning practice for development proposed within newly incorporated cities. According to the Riverside County Comprehensive General Plan - Public Facilities and Services, in order to provide adequate library facilities and services consistent with community needs, the County can assist in providing library facilities through the provision of development and population information for long range library master plans developed by the City and County library System. V-144 1 1 1 i 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 i 1 C. Miti¢ation Measures 1. Library costs shall be mitigated by the assessment of a library facilities and collection fee in 1990 dollars at a cost of $381 per residential unit to maintain the current level of service, or $401 per residential unit to provide the desired level of service. it Level of S�iftcance After Mitigation Based upon the mitigation measures proposed above, the level of impacts related to Libraries have been reduced to an insignificant level. V-145 10. HEALTH SERVICES a. Emstin¢ Conditions The project is served by the following hospitals: Christian Hospital Medical Center (36 beds) located approximately 18 miles north of the project in the City of Perris, the Hemet Valley Hospital (242 beds) located approximately 21 miles, northeast of the project in the City of Hemel the Inland Valley Regional Medical Center (62 beds) located approximately 9 miles northwest of the project in Wildomar, and the Menifee Valley Medical Center (72 beds) located approximately 15 miles north of the project in Sun City. The Inland Valley Regional Medical Center is the primary emergency care facility in the project vicinity and is located at Interstate 15 and Clinton Keith Road offering 24-hour emergency service. Additional medical facilities such as the Riverside Community Hospital (406 beds) and the Riverside General Hospital University Medical Center (334 beds) are located in the City of Riverside. Several private care facilities that include retirement homes, substance abuse clinics, child and sexual abuse clinics and counseling, etc. are available throughout the entire County. b. Project Impacts/General Plan Relationship The additional population associated with the development of 300 dwelling units as proposed by the project will increase the need for medical services and facilities. The additional population will require emergency medicine as well as preventative medicine. These additional demands are not considered to be significant as the medical community generally increases commensurate with the increase in population. Occupancy rates are generally far under patient capacity in medical facilities located throughout the entire County. Health care service is a regional issue which normally responds to the current demand. Therefore, it is anticipated that adequate health care service and facilities will be available. General Plan Relationship The Temecula Regional Center project site lies within the boundaries of the newly incorporated City of Temecula. However, given the absence of a City General Plan, land use development standards, etc., this Environmental Impact Report evaluates the project in terms of the March 1984 "County of Riverside Comprehensive General Plan". (The fourth edition of the "Comprehensive General Plan" (February 1990) does not include the area within the City of Temecula on the Environmental Hazards and Resources Maps, Public Facilities Maps, etc.) Such an approach is a standard land use planning practice for development proposed within newly incorporated cities. According to the Public Facilities and Services Element of the Riverside County Comprehensive General Plan, the County shall coordinate with all health service agencies to ensure that adequate health facilities are available to meet the needs of the population. V-146 1 1 1 1 1 t 1 1 1 f 1 1 1 1 1 1 C. Mitigation Measures No mitigation is proposed. d. Level of Significance After Mitigation Based upon the lack of impacts and mitigation measures as noted above, the level of impacts related to Health Services have been reduced to an insignificant level. V-147 A 11. LIGHT AND GLARE a. Existing Conditions The property is currently vacant and emits an insignificant amount of light and glare. The property is within 30 miles of the Palomar Observatory. b. Project Impacts/General Plan RelationshiQ The Temecula Regional Center Specific Plan proposes 201.3 acres of retail/office/hotel space which will result in the placement and installation of street lights as required by Riverside County and/or the City of Temecula. Additionally, entry monumentation, signage and parking lots may also require illumination. These lighting requirements could potentially result in a condition known as "skyglow", which interferes with the use of the telescope at the observatory. General Plan Relationship The Temecula Regional Center project site lies within the boundaries of the newly incorporated City of Temecula. However, given the absence of a City General Plan, land use development standards, etc., this Environmental Impact Report evaluates the project in terms of the -March 1984 "County of Riverside Comprehensive General Plan". (The fourth edition of the "Comprehensive General Plan" (February 1990) does not include the area within the .City of Temecula on the Environmental Hazards and Resources Maps, Public Facilities Maps, etc.) Such an approach is a standard land use planning practice for development proposed within newly incorporated cities. The Riverside County Comprehensive General Plan - Mt. Palomar Observatory Street Lighting Policies state that all new lighting within the special lighting area will be low pressure sodium vapor (LPSV). The special lighting area is established as the area within a thirty mile radius of Mt. Palomar Observatory. C. Mitigation Measures 1. Because of the property's location with respect to Palomar Observatory, low-pressure sodium vapor lamps for street lighting will be employed. 2. Other potentially lighted areas (i.e., entry monumentation, business signage) shall orient and shield light to prevent direct upward illumination. 3. The project will be subject to County Ordinance No. 655 regulating light pollution, or similar City of Temecula ordinance. Such adherence shall occur during review and approval of utility improvement plans by the City of Temecula. V-148 1 1 1 1 1 1 b 1 1 1 i 1 1 1 d. Level of Significance After Mitigation Based upon the mitigation measures proposed above, the level of impacts related to Light and Glare have been reduced to an insignificant level V-149 12. DISASTER PREPAREDNESS a. Existing Conditions Earthquakes, floods and wildland fires are natural occurrences which cannot be prevented. In the event of a natural or man-made disaster the County Office of Disaster Preparedness is responsible for coordinating the various agencies to assure preparedness and recovery of such an event. These agencies include the Fire and/or Forestry Department(s), the Sheriff Department, utility companies, hospitals, etc. The County Office of Disaster Preparedness maintains a disaster preparation plan for response to natural and man-made disasters. The plan consists of information regarding the location of natural hazards, such as active and potentially active earthquake faults, landslide areas, dam inundation areas, 100 -year flood areas, and fire hazard areas. An ongoing communication system links County and City departments with each other as well as with safety agencies, utility agencies, etc. The plan also contains the organization and administration of disaster response efforts relating to evacuation, emergency communication, medical supplies, shelter,. emergency food, utility service, fire protection, etc. Information programs are also available to promote a well informed public. b. Project Impacts/General Plan Relationship Potential impacts to the proposed Temecula Regional Center Specific Plan such as seismic safety, slopes and erosion, wind erosion and blowsand, flooding, and fire services are discussed in their respective sections to this document. General Plan Relationship The Temecula Regional Center project site lies within the boundaries of the newly incorporated City of Temecula. However, given the absence of a City General Plan, land use development standards, etc., this Environmental Impact Report evaluates the project in terms of the March 1984 "County of Riverside Comprehensive General Plan". (The fourth edition of the "Comprehensive General Plan" (February 1990) does not include the area within the City of Temecula on the Environmental Hazards and Resources Maps, Public Facilities Maps, etc.) Such an approach is a standard land use planning practice for development proposed within newly incorporated cities. The disaster preparedness supplement to the Riverside County General Plan identifies the agencies with differing responsibilities and their role in assuring preparedness and recovery after a disaster has occurred. V-150 ' General Plan compatibility will be assured by following the mitigations proposed in sections V.C.1., Seismic Safety, V.C.2, Slopes and Erosion, V.C.4., Flooding and V.D.3, Fire Services. ' C. Mitigation Measures Refer to mitigations contained in sections V.C.1., Seismic Safety (Mitigation. Measures ' numbers 1 and 3), V.C.2., Slopes and Erosion (Mitigation Measures numbers 3 through 6), V.C.4., Flooding (Mitigation Measure number 1) and V.D.3, Fire Services (Mitigation Measures numbers 1 and 2). d. Level of &Oiflcance After Mid ation 1 1 11 1 Based upon, the mitigation measures proposed above the level of impacts related to Disaster Preparedness have been reduced to an insignificant level V-151 E. REGIONAL ELEMENT 1. Refdonal Growth (SCAG) Forecasts This portion of the report provides an analysis of the population projections for the region, including projections by Riverside County Planning Department and the Southern California Association of Governments, and discusses the project's impacts upon those growth forecasts. It is organized into three sections: the first is an identification of the regional growth forecasts for the project site; the second is a description of the growth forecast in the Southwest Area Community Plan Area in which the project is located; and the third is a comparative -analysis of the project's population with the population projected for the region. a. Identification of Regional Growth Forecasts for Project Site The Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) recently adopted a Growth Management Plan (GMP) which recommended a growth management policy for Southern California to the year 2010. The GMP discusses policies designed to attain more beneficial growth patterns, presents a growth forecast incorporating a previously approved jobs/housing balance growth management policy, and proposes an implementation policy for the GMP. The Temecula Regional Center Specific Plan is located within an area called "Central Riverside County" and designated as "urbanizing" in the GMP. Population within the central Riverside County area is projected to increase from 237,100 in 1988 to 581,400 by the year 2010. b. RSA/Land Use Planning Area Profile The project site is located within the Southwest Area Community Plan (SWAP) boundaries. An EIR prepared for the SWAP provides an analysis of the growth expected in the area. Based on data provided in that document, the Southwest Area Community is expected to grow to approxi- mately 142,439 by the by the year 2010. Defined Area Central Riverside (Growth Management Plan) Southwest Area Community Plan YEAR 1984 1988 2010 195,800 237,100 581,400 not given 30,192* 142,439 On June 30, 1989, the Riverside County Planning Department prepared a report entitled "Population Projections by RSA and Census Tracts". In that report it is noted that: "Population increases in Riverside County have set unprecedented growth rates in recent years. Similar trends V-152 ' in population increase were established throughout Southern California. However, all indicators point to Riverside County to outpace surrounding Counties." The County also notes that "present trends indicate residential, commercial/industrial growth will continue to be strongest in the Lake Elsinore, Penis Valley, Moreno Valley, and Rancho Califor- nia Region". The Riverside County report presents four potential growth scenarios for Riverside County, including two growth models reflective of natural trends based on building permit activity, one model which is based on data from the State of California Department of Finance, and one model based on SCAG's growth projections. The County report notes that the latter model best typifies the direction . whichpresent population trendsare. heading, . based on anticipated political and policy changes in which the emphasis, in growth is placed on a jobs to housing balance.; ' The project site is located within the Regional Statistical Area (RSA) 49.., Major communities located within RSA 49 include Rancho California, Elsinore and Temecula The County's growth projections for the area indicate that population within RSA 49 could increase from 78,574 in 1989 to up to 196,635 by the year 2000. Population Projections in RSA 49 by the Riverside County Planning Department YEAR Scenario 1989 1995 2000 RSA 49 78,574 130,346 196,635 ' Based on the recent projections by the County for this RSA (and the Temecula/Rancho California ' area in particular), growth can be expected to occur that will generate a need for and will support the mix of uses proposed by the Regional Center Specific Plan. The Regional Center site is a logical location for these uses due to its central location within the City and its proximity to ' major arterial transportation. C. Project Growth Forecast Comparative Analysis with Regional Growth Forecast Based on the data presented, the population within RSA 49 will increase by approximately 81 percent by the year 2000. 1 V-153 2. Applicable Emplovment/Housina Balance Policies The County of Riverside Comprehensive General Plan provides a program "to encourage and promote balanced development on a regional and countywide basis. ...The intent of these policies is to facilitate a mix of housing and employment opportunities to achieve job/housing balance." Specific items in the General Plan which endeavor to achieve a job balance in the area include Policies to: Adopt relatively high employment growth forecasts for the subregion. Support commercial and industrial development within the subregion. in SCAG's review of development proposals. Work with other governmental agencies (including federal agencies, the State of California, the South Coast Air Quality Management District and local governments) to incorporate this criterion in their project -approval process. • Work with local governments and the private sector tri identify and implement local economic development strategies. • The Temecula Regional Center Spec Plan proposes a variety of commercial uses including, , but not limited to, retail, office, and regional mall uses. On-site employment opportunities for local and regional residents will be generated as a result of the project development. Proposed land uses will be supportive of area -wide residential communities and will facilitate the County's ' policies for a job/housing balance. • I V-154 F. ADMINISTRATIVE ELEMENT 1. Land Use Policies/Specific Plan Time -Frames - Proiect Time -Frames for Development ' The City of Temecula requites that a phasing plan be adopted for each, Specific Plan and that each plan be monitored for seasonable progress toward implementation. A phasing program is outlined in the Temecula Regional Center Specific Plan in Section A.5. The applicants will work ' closely with the City to assure timely and logical completion of the project based on the phasing plan, subject to City approved modifications resulting from updated market and economic data ' 2. Fiscal Impact Summary A Fiscal Impact study for the Temecula Regional Center Specific Plan was prepared by The ' Levander Company and is included in the Technical Appendices to this report. According to the Fiscal Impact study, the Temecula Regional Center project will generate a substantial financial surplus to the City of Temecula as follows: ' Projected cash flows for both the "Regional Center" and "Power Center" Alternatives were very close. The Fiscal Impact. Report indicates that during the ten-year development period of the eproposed project, positive cash flows of $13.7 million to $152 million would result. At ultimate project development (Year 11 and beyond) a positive cash flow ranging from $2.3 million.to $2.8 million would result. koV-155 G. MANDATORY CEQA TOPICS 1. CUMULATIVE IMPACT ANALYSIS The proposed Temecula Regional Center Specific Plan'is located within an area undergoing rapid urbanization as a result of demand pressures for affordable housing. As the number of dwelling units approved and constructed increased, so did the need for a regional shopping and employment center. Initially, significant growth occurred in Corona, Norco and the City of Riverside. Growth restrictive measures were passed in some of these areas in efforts to preserve their rural -atmospheres. _These growth restrictions, coupled with low land costs and inexpensive housing prices, have created the current expansion of development in the Rancho California/City of Temecula area. In addition, the construction of I-15 to a full freeway and the improvement of 215 (formerly I -15E) has enhanced accessibility of the Temecula area and acts as an impetus to the development trends. The Temecula Regional Center project site is located within the 210,738 acres encompassed by Southwest Area Community Plan Final EIR No. 217 (December 1988) prepared by the Riverside County Planning Department. This document evaluates the environmental effects associated with the Southwest Area Community Plan and considers development under three scenarios. The "Project Scenario' is the, "worst case" assessment required by CEQA and proposes 318,145 d.u., 763,546 persons, 6,348 acres of commercial use and 6,105 acres of manufacturing. The uses proposed by the Temecula Regional Center project are in accordance with the densities set forth by the Southwest Area Community Plan. The "Project Scenario" also considers development associated with approved Specific Plans in the Southwest Area Community Plan area. Therefore, Southwest Area Community Plan Final EIR No. 217 (State Clearinghouse No. 86012001) can be considered a detailed assessment of Cumulative Impacts associated with development of the proposed project as well as other developments in the area. In accordance with Section 15150 of the Guidelines for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act this document is hereby incorporated by reference. Final EIR No. 217 is available for review at the Riverside County Planning Department as well as at public libraries in the project area. In order to summarize and supplement Southwest Area Community Plan Final EIR No. 217, the following additional information is provided. As previously indicated, a number of developments are planned in the vicinity of the proposed project, contributing to cumulative impacts in the project area. They are generally confined to the area east of I- 215 and south of Benton Road, as follows: V-156 ' CUMULATIVE PROJECTS Industrial • Office ' Total Residential Commercial Acres Units Acreage 1. Rancho Bella Vista Specific Plan 184 798 2,571 13 2. Roripaugh Estates Specific ' Plan 184 205 710 73 3. Dutch Village Specific Plan 106, Amended 1,248 1,240 150 4. Murrieta Hot Springs and Alta ' Murrieta Specific Plan 103 (also includes Winchester Mesa) 2,715 12,366" -36 ' S. Johnson Ranch Specific Plan 233* 1,765 5,269 64 6. Winchester Property Specific Plan 213 1,108 2,478 268 7. Warm Springs Specific Plan 220 475 1,983 35 ' 8. Margarita Village Specific Plan 199 1,272 3,639 13 ' 9. Winchester Hills Specific Plan 255* 570 1,948 109 10. Winchester Meadows Industrial Park** 118 0 118 ' 11. Campos Verdes* 133 1,017 24 12. Temecula Regional Center* 201 0 201 TOTAL 10,608 33,221 1,104 ' * Projects are proposed, but not approved. ** This Bedford Development project is in the preliminary planning stage and applications have not yet been submitted to the County of Riverside and/or the City of Temecula. It should be noted that projects #9412 of Table XVIII are proposed in accordance with approved SWAP designations. Cumulatively, the above listed major developments total an estimated 33,221 dwelling units, ., approximately 1,104 acres of office, commercial and industrial use, with a population total of approximately 99,663 (3.0 persons per d.u.). The Temecula Regional Center proposes ' construction of approximately 201 acres of retail, office and hotel use. This constitutes approximately 18% of the 1,104 acres of proposed and approved industrial/office/ commercial acreage listed in Table XVIII. , While the individual projects may contribute marginally to growth in the area, the collective , projects will create an overall change in the once rural and sparsely populated nature of the region. The overall increase in units and related demands along neighborhood roads and for local services and utilities will cumulatively impact the area. In addition, the ' development of these projects in what was once a semi -rural but steadily developing area could result in conversion of adjoining lands to similar uses. Therefore, ultimate urbanization of the project vicinity could potentially, indirectly influence expansion ' throughout the area. Projected cumulative impacts are discussed below. a. Seismic Safety, Slopes and Erosion ' Impacts resulting from grading for construction of numerous development projects in the area will potentially alter the natural topography of 10,608 acres in the region. Cut and fill ' operations will be necessary in areas designated for development of lots and pads. A large portion of the Rancho California/Temecula area is comprised of gently rolling hills with well defined water courses. This may, in, some cases, require extensive cut and fill operations which will impact landforms. Because of the presence of regional faults, the potential exists for impacts as a result of a seismic episode. Some of the cumulative projects, including the Temecula Regional Center, are proposed within the Dam Inundation , area of the Skinner Reservoir and could, therefore, be impacted by seismically induced flooding. However, the proposed improvement of Santa Gertrudis Creek via Assessment District 161 will eliminate this hazard. t b. Flooding and Water Quality Drainage patterns and the quality, velocity and composition of runoff will be altered by , large scale grading of areas planned for construction, as well as the creation of impervious 1 surfaces (such as roadways, driveways, parking lots, etc.). Runoff entering streams will contain minor amounts of pollutants typical of urban use, thereby impacting the downstream water quality in Murrieta and Temecula Creeks. Siltation resulting from ' exposed ground surfaces from grading also may affect downstream water quality. Infiltration of water used for irrigation of landscaped areas throughout the vicinity may affect the abundance and distribution of groundwater. It is anticipated that storm drain , systems will be constructed in accordance with the County's Master Drainage Plan in order to mitigate impacts on local drainage patterns. 1 V-158 I � � 1 to 1 C. Noise Noise during construction will impact noise conditions in the region on a short-term basis. Any cumulative construction noise impact would be mitigated, as the proposed projects are physically separate for the most part, and construction hours can be limited. The major cumulative noise impact in the area would result from the increased traffic volumes in the vicinity, impacting existing surrounding dwelling units -with noise levels greater than 60 CNEL. As discussed in Section V.C.S, Noise, future cumulative noise levels are projected to increase over existing noise levels -by more than 3 dba on, the CNEL scale for many of the roadways in the project area; however, in some instances the 3 dBA increase is reflective of the very low traffic volumes presently found in the area: Roadways that have a significant noise increase of 3dBA or greater- and are adjacent, to existing residential developments are of concern. These cumulative noise impacts are considered significant adverse impacts (see Section V.G.Z Unavoidable Adverse Impacts). Roadways along planned residential areas that are not yet developed can be mitigated by the developer at the time of construction. d. Climate and Air Quality Construction of numerous additional projects will cumulatively impact air quality in the vicinity... Air quality will be temporarily degraded during construction activities which occur separately or simultaneously. However, the greatest cumulative impact on the quality of the regional air cell will be in incremental additional pollutants from increased traffic in the area and increased consumption of energy by inhabitants of the various new projects. This is a significant impact, both as a result of individual projects and on a cumulative basis (see Section V.G.2, Unavoidable Adverse Impacts). e. Open Space and Conservation Development of numerous projects planned on 10,608 acres in the region would influence the existing atmosphere of passive rural open space and scattered development which typifies the outlying areas of the Temecula/Rancho California area. These proposed projects will influence the current open space character of the area, it is expected that uses proposed will be more compatible with the ongoing trend toward urban use. £ Agriculture Construction of various projects in the vicinity will continue and accelerate the trend towards development of agricultural lands in Riverside County. This involves some land designated as 'Prime Farmlands" on the Countywide Agricultural ResourcesMap. In general, development of these proposed urban uses may'increase the economic pressures on other agricultural properties to develop with urban uses. Due to the loss of 'Prime V-159 Farmlands", impacts to agriculture are significant on a project and on a cumulative basis (see Section V.G.2, Unavoidable Adverse Impacts). g. Wildlife and Vegetation The loss of introduced grassland= habitat resulting from implementation of the proposed project will contribute on an incremental basis to cumulative impacts to biological resources on a regional basis. Cumulativeimpacts are those which are now occurring in the region as a result of .past and planned developments. These impacts include: 1) an overall reduction in the native and naturalized biotic resources of the region; 2) loss of secondary foraging habitat for migratory populations:of birds of prey which are winter visitors to the region; 3) loss of coastal sage. scrubpotentially supporting rare, endangered and/or threatened species; and 4) harassment of wildlife within regionally significant riparian habitats. In regards to the Federally ,listed endangered Stephen's kangaroo rat, the cumulative loss of its habitat from the, region: would contribute further to its decline. However, the payment of fees of $1,950 per acre of land developed within SKR range is considered acceptable mitigation relative to the incidental taking of this endangered species. h. Historic and Prehistoric Resources Development of. the area will . disturb. any existing unknown archaeological or paleontological resources because of grading and excavation activities unless these areas are preserved as natural open space. However, if a certified archaeologist or paleontologist is present, where necessary, during the grading operations, these impacts may be largely mitigated. This impact may be.considered positive due to the discovery of resources which would have not otherwise been evaluated or uncovered. It is possible that. grading and excavation in the area will uncover valuable resources which would contribute to the paleo- environmental and archaeological record of the southwestern Riverside County area. i. Circulation and Traffic Ultimate development of additional dwelling units and office/commercial/industrial uses in the project area will generate a large increase in local and regional traffic volumes. Traffic generated by the developments will impact existing roadways, necessitating the expansion and improvement of existing roadways and construction of new regional roadway networks in order to accommodate additional traffic flows. Within developments it will be necessary to install circulation systems with sufficient capacity to accommodate traffic generated, in coordination with the impacts associated with cumulative development in the area. As indicated in Table XVI, ICU Summary, during either the AM or PM peak hour, four intersections would operate at a Level of Service "D", one would operate at Level of Service "E", and one intersection would operate at Level of Service "F' within the "future traffic with project" scenario for either the AM or PM peak hour. Additional ICU calculations were performed for all intersections found to operate at service level "E" or worse with the V-160 ' project. With additional intersection improvements, peak hour service levels could be improved to "D" or better at all intersections. j. Utilities and Services ' Increased development in the project area will incrementally increase the demand for public utilities and services, including waterand sewer service; electricity and natural gas ' services; telephone and cable television services; police and fire protection; school and park facilities; public transportation; hospital and ambulance service; and solid waste disposal service. This increased demand may be viewed as a growth inducement to existing systems, which may result in expansion or extension of existing service facilities to serve all anticipated projects. ' k. Water and Sewer Services Increased expansion in the project area will . increase the demand from the Eastern ' Municipal Water District, the Rancho California Water District and any other affected Districts for sewer and water service. Additional lines and facilities will be required and improvement districts formed to provide this service effectively to all developments in the area. Assuming approximately 200 gallons of water per dwelling unit per day, the 33,221 units proposed in the area will create an average day demand for 6,644,200 gallons of water. Assuming 4,320 gallons of water per acre of commercial/office/industrial use, the 1,104 acres of such uses proposed in the area will require an average of 4,769,280 gallons per day, for a cumulative average day demand of 11,413,480. gallons of water. With a cumulative residential population of 99,663 andan estimated sewage generation factor of 100 gallonsper persons per day, an average daily flow of approximately 9,966,300 gallons will result. Assuming a commercial/business sewage flow generation factor of 3,000 gallons ' per acre per day, the 1,104 acres of office/commercial/industrial uses proposed would generate 3,312,000 gallons of sewage per day, for a cumulative average day flow of 13,278,300 gallons. The Rancho California Regional Water Reclamation Facility (RCRWRF) would need to be expanded to accommodate these projected flows. These projections do not, however, exceed the Facility's planned ultimate capacity of 30-40 MGD. Costs associated with the expansion of water and sewer treatment, distribution and. storage ' facilities will necessarily be borne by the individual developers. ;Commitments to service must be confirmed by the water and sewer service providers. ' 1. Electricity and Natural Gas Service The addition of 33,221 dwelling units and 1,104, acres of office/commercial/industrial use to the area will create a need for additional electricity and natural gas service. Southern California Edison and the South Coast Air Quality Management. District (SCAQMD) utilize an estimated residential demand rate of 6,081 kwh/unit/year. With an estimated ' cumulative total of 33,221 dwelling units in the project area, the ultimate demand for V-161 electricity for the proposed residential uses alone may reach 202,016,900 kwh/year. • Additional electricity would be required to serve the 1,104 acres of office/commercial/ industrial uses proposed. The Southern California Gas Company and the SCAQMD generally utilizes a rate of 6,665 cubic feet/d.u./month. Considering the estimated cumulative dwelling unit total of 33,221 d.u., approximately 221,417,960 cubic feet per month of natural gas could be consumed. Additional natural gas would be required to serve the 1,104 acres of office/commercial/ industrial uses proposed. Additional Southern California Gas lines, as well as Southern California Edison lines, would be required to provide these services to the area. M. Police and Fire Protection Growth in the project area will increase the demand for fire and police services provided by the County of Riverside and State of California law enforcement and fire protection agencies. Based upon the City of Temecula factor of I deputy per 1,000 population, a cumulative residential population of 99,663 persons generates the need for an additional 100 deputies. Based upon the Riverside County factor of I fire station per 2, 000 dwelling units, the cumulative addition of 33,221 dwelling units results in the need for 17 new fire stations. The City of Temecula is contracting with the County Sheriff Department for police protection. It is expected that each project applicant will cooperate with local jurisdictions to assure that sufficient effective services are provided to serve each project, thereby ensuring a safe environment throughout the area. The payment of fire impact mitigation fees of $400 per residential unit and $.25 per square foot of commercial buildings will be applied towards construction of additional fire stations and the purchase of equipment. n. School and Park Although construction of the Temecula Regional Center Specific Plan proposal would not generate any additional population, development of surrounding areas will increase area population, and therefore, the demand on schools and park facilities. Based upon the factor of .8 students per household, the cumulative addition of 33,221 dwelling units results in the generation of 26,577 students. Based upon the TCSD factor of 5 acres of park per 1,000 population, the cumulative residential population of 99,663 persons generates the need for 498 acres of additional parkland. It is expected that each development will cooperate with local school districts so that sufficient facilities are collectively provided to accommodate the students generated. In addition, construction of schools will be funded through State Law AB 2926. It is anticipated that additional park facilities will be provided within the respective developments or park fees paid to alleviate demands upon existing parks. V-162 W 1 to: Solid Waste Development of the uses proposed by these cumulative developments could result in the generation of 483 tons of solid waste per day (assuming 9.7 lbs. per person per day). This ' factor represents the wastes generated both in homes and in commercial and light industrial uses. This would incrementally contribute to the decreased lifespan of the affected landfill sites. this accentuates the importance of long range planning for replacement landfill sites ' or alternative disposal systems. The County is required to address AB 939 which requires implementation of source reduction and recycling plans by July 1, 1991. p. Library Service Development of the cumulative projects will result in the need for additional library ' volumes, square footage and library staff. Based upon a Riverside County factor of .5 square feet of library space per person, the cumulative residential population of 99,663 persons results in the need for an additional 49,831 square feet of library space. Additional library facilities are funded through the Development Mitigation Fee. ' q. Health Service Expansive development in the project area may necessitate enlargement of existing hospital and medical facilities as well as expansion of ambulance service. 1 I* V-163 2. UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE IMPACTS CEQA and its associated Guidelines (California Administrative Code Section 15126 (b)) states that an EIR must describe any significant impacts which cannot be avoided .or eliminated if the project is,implemented. These impacts and associated mitigation measures have, been listed in Section II, Summary, and have been discussed in detail in the body of this EIR under various topical headings. Listed below are these impact areas along with a determination of whether they can be mitigated to a level ,of non -significance. Project Impact Level After Mitiag tion 1. Seismic Safety Non -Significant 2. Slopes and Erosion Non -Significant. 3. Flooding Non -Significant 4., Noise Project: Non -Significant Cumulative: Significant 5. Climate and Air Quality Project: Significant Cumulative: Significant 6. Water Quality Non -Significant 7. Toxic Substances Non -Significant 8. Open Space and Conservation Non -Significant 9. Agriculture On -Site: Significant Cumulative: Significant 10. Wildlife/Vegetation On -Site: Non -Significant Cumulative: Non -Significant 11. Energy Resources Non -Significant 12. Scenic Highways Non -Significant 13. Historic and Prehistoric Resources Non -Significant 14. Circulation and Traffic Project: Non -Significant Cumulative: Non -Significant 15. Public Facilities and Services Non -Significant 16. Light and Glare Non -Significant 17. Disaster Preparedness Non -Significant The significant adverse impacts noted above are listed and briefly described below. Each description is followed by a section cross-reference which may be utilized in order to secure additional detail. V-164 Noise. Cumulative noise impacts resulting from traffic generated by existing and future development in the area results in noise increases greater than 3 dBA and future noise levels greater than 65 CNEL on several roadways in the area (see Section V. C. S, Noise). ' Climate and Air Quality: Vehicular emissions generated by the proposed project exceed the threshold of ."significant" as defined by the South Coast .Air Quality. Management District for carbon. monoxide, nitrogen oxide, sulfur dioxide and particulates as well as ' particulates generated by project construction. Cumulative emissions also exceed the threshold of significance (see Section V.C.6, Climate and Air Quality). ' Agriculture: The proposed project results in the loss of "Prime" Agricultural soils which is considered a significant impact. The project also contributes incrementally to the County -wide decrease of "Prime" soils for agricultural use (see Section V.C.10, Agriculture). ' According to Section 15093 of the Guidelines for. ImRllementatiion- of the California Environmental Quality Act: (a) CEQA requires the. decision maker to balance the benefits t of a proposed project against its unavoidable environmental risks in determining whether to approve the project. If the. benefits of a proposed project outweigh the, unavoidable adverse environmental effects, the adverse environmental effects may be considered_ ' "acceptable"; (b) where the decision of the public agency allows the occurrence of significant effects which are identified in the final EIR but are not at least substantially mitigated, the agency shall state in writing, the specific reasons to support its action based on the final EIR and/or other information in the record; and (c) if an agency makes a Statement of Overriding Considerations, the statement should be included in the record of the project approval and should be mentioned in the notice of determination. ' In this case, the City of Temecula will be the decision maker and will be required to ' prepare the previously described Statement of Overriding Considerations for the impacts identified above as "significant", if the City approves the proposed Temecula Regional Center Specific Plan. 1 be V-165 3. ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT It is the intent of this section to present several alternatives to the proposed project. According to State EIR guidelines, an EIR must present alternatives which are capable of eliminating significant environmental impacts and state why they were rejected for the proposed project. Included in this section are alternatives addressing the following scenarios: a) the No Project Alternative; b) the Existing Zoning Alternative; c) the Residential/Commercial Alternative; and d) the Commercial/Industrial Alternative. The City of Temecula, as lead agency, must evaluate the comparative merits of these alternatives. The State EIR guidelines require a discussion of alternatives that are capable of mitigating or eliminating significant environmental impacts associated with a project proposal. The No Project Alternative eliminates all project impacts, while the Existing Zoning Alternative reduces several environmental impacts. Both of these Alternatives are considered "environmentally superior" to the current Temecula Regional Center Specific Plan proposal. Although the Residential/Commercial Alternative' and the Commercial/Industrial Alternative incrementally reduce some impacts, they are not considered to be "environmentally superior" to the current project proposal; as they do not eliminate any "unavoidable adverse impacts", as identified in Section V.G.2, Unavoidable Adverse Impacts. a. No Project Alternative The "No Project" Alternative would retain the site in its present undeveloped condition, supporting passive open space uses. This alternative maintains the existing environmental conditions of the subject property, as discussed in the "Existing Conditions' portions of Section V.C., Environmental Hazards and Resources Element, and Section V.D., Public Facilities and Services Element. This Alternative is considered the environmentally superior alternative for the following reasons: ' 1. Elimination of grading impacts and associated impacts upon landform, geology, hydrology, water quality, prehistoric resources, etc. 2. Reduction in traffic and associated air quality and noise impacts over development scenarios associated with the project proposal, or other alternatives considered herein. 3. Retention of on-site open space uses, potentially allowing resumed use of the "Prime" and Local Important Farmlands existing on-site. 4. Elimination of biological impacts related to the disruption of wildlife on-site resulting in reduced or displaced wildlife populations. V-166 ' 5.. Elimination of impacts associated with provision of public services and utilities. 6. Contribution of required school and park mitigation fees, as well as participation in the County Stephen's Kangaroo Rat mitigation fee program would be lost with this Alternative. REASONS FOR REJECTION OF NO PROJECT ALTERNATIVE ' This alternative would negate the benefits associated with the project objectives discussed in Section II.A.3, Project Objectives. These objectives include: "Providing commercial uses that will strive to accommodate an appropriate share of the projected community and regional work force"; '"ro respond to the rapidly growing retail and shopping center market demand with a strong highway, mixed use and community shopping areas, including ' population"; and "To attract commercial uses that will serve community needs and the needs of the surrounding area while supplying an employment base for local residents of Temecula and Riverside County, conveniently located to minimizing commuting distances". ' The No Project Alternative also eliminates the estimated 7,289 .to 8,126 employment opportunities which will accompany development of the Temecula Regional Center. These employment opportunities would _ enhance the jobs/housing balance of the ' Temecula/Rancho California area, as discussed in Section V.C.9, Open Space and Conservation. Other project benefits lost with the No Project Alternative include improving on-site roadways in accordance with the Riverside County Circulation Element. Due to the site's location within a developing urban area, as well as the site's SWAP designations for Commercial uses, long term agricultural/undeveloped use is not considered likely nor logical. Based upon these factors, as well as the easy availability of public services serving the area, the high cost of irrigation water, the limited distribution of the prime soils on-site, and the economic factors associated with development pressures, the ' No Project Alternative was rejected. b. Existing Zoning Alternative This Alternative considers development of the site pursuant to the Riverside County zoning designations as currently applied to the 201.3 acre project site. The acreage of on-site zoning designations is estimated to be as follows: Allowed Designation Acres Dwelling Units R -R (Rural Residential) 141.3 283 ' A-2-20 (Heavy Agriculture) 60.0 3 201.3 286 1 to V-167 Within the two dwelling units per acre limitation associated with the R -R (Rural Residential) zoning, the Existing Zoning Alternative allows development of 283 rural residential units on 141.3 acres. The remaining 60 acres are zoned A-2-20, which permits agricultural use and the development of one dwelling unit per 20 acres, for a total of 286 rural residential units or lots. This Alternative would not require a Change of Zone but would necessitate an amendment to the Southwest Area Policy Plan to "Urban Reserve (1-2 d.u./acre)" and "Agriculture". Environmental impacts associated with the Existing Zoning Alternative are anticipated as follows: Seismic Safety. Slopes and Erosion: Grading impacts would be reduced due to the low residential densities proposed. However, grading will occur, and may potentially occur without a Master Grading Plan for the entire site due to uncoordinated construction occurring on different parcels. Continued agricultural operations could also result in the potential for erosion of soils. Fewer project residents and residential structures would be exposed to regional seismic hazards. Hydrology and Water Quality: Impacts to hydrology and water quality associated with the Existing Zoning Alternative are anticipated to be reduced compared to those resulting from implementation of the Temecula Regional Center Specific Plan as currently proposed. Due to the rural residential densities, the large amount of undeveloped area associated with the A-2-20 zoning, and the absence of large concrete areas such as commercial pads and parking lots, the anticipated runoff generated by development of this Alternative is significantly reduced. Circulation: Alternative, Land Use In order to estimate traffic impacts associated with the Existing Zoning the following calculations were performed: Units/Acres Single Family Residential 286 units Generation Total Trips Rate Per Dav 10.0 trips/d.u. 2,860 The current Temecula Regional Center proposal is projected to generate 64,850 vehicle trips per day. The Existing Zoning Alternative generates .61,990 fewer vehicle trips per day, a 96% reduction compared to vehicle trips generated by the current project proposal. This would significantly reduce impacts to the area -wide circulation system. Locally, some conflict could result between the urban traffic flows found in the area and farm equipment traffic serving the site. 1: ' Noise: As discussed under "Circulation" the Existing Zoning Alternative will reduce total vehicle trips by an estimated 61,990 trips per day. This 96% reduction in vehicle trips will incrementally reduce both on- and off-site noise impacts. However, as discussed,in Section V.C.5, Noise, most of the projected noise impacts are due to other development projects ' already planned or approved in the area. Climate and Air Quality: As discussed under "Circulation", the Existing Zoning Alternative ' will generate 2,860 vehicle trips per day. Assuming an average trip length of 8.7 miles, this Alternative would generate 24,882 vehicle miles per day, compared to the 564,195 vehicle miles of travel per day generated by the Temecula Regional Center Specific Plan. The following Vehicular Emissions would result from implementation of this Alternative: MOTOR VEHICLE EMISSIONS CO = 24,882 VMT X 12.20 gm/mi. 1 lb/454 gm = 669 lbs/day NO` = 24,882 VMT X 1.35 gm/mi. 1 lb/454 gm = 74 lbs/day ' SO` = 24,882 VMT X 0.24 gm/mi. 1 lb/454 gm = - 13 lbs/day PART = 24,882 VMT X0.32 gm/mi. 1 lb/454 gm 18. lbs/day NMHC = 24,882 VMT X 1.07 gm/mi. 1 lb/454 gm = 59 lbs/day tAlthough the main source of emissions generated by the project will be from motor vehicles, additional emissions will be,generated off-site from the combustion of natural gas for space heating and the generation of..electricity. The agricultural activity permitted by the Existing. Zoning Alternative would also generate dust during planting, harvesting, ' plowing, etc. Air quality impacts associated with the spraying of pesticides and fertilizers are also anticipated. ' Implementation of this Alternative will eliminate the provision of a regional commercial land use, as proposed. This will result in automobiles travelling farther in order to reach similar regional commercial destinations. The emissions quantified for the Existing Zoning Alternative are less than anticipated to accompany development of the Temecula Regional Center Specific Plan. However, this ' is still considered a significant impact, according to the thresholds established by the "Air Quality Handbook for EIR's" prepared by the SCAQMD. ' Open Space and Conservation: The Existing Zoning Alternative would result in development of rural densities on the site and would allow future use of portions of the site for agriculture. The additional open space acreage proposed by this Alternative reduces t impacts to open space in the area. Long Term agricultural use may result in land use conflicts with adjacent urban uses as designated by SWAP. V-169 Agriculture: The Existing Zoning Alternative would allow dryland farming agricultural use in the southern portion of the site where A-2-20 zoning is found. However such use has been discontinued for 10 years and is not considered economically feasible. This Alternative would not preclude future agricultural use of "Prime" soils on the site; therefore, no significant impact would result. WildlifeNegetation: As a result of the reduced residential densities associated with the Existing Zoning Alternative, on-site biological impacts would be slightly decreased. However, any additional areas preserved within this Alternative are composed of Introduced Grassland which are not of biological significance. Historic and Prehistoric Resources: Potential impacts to any historic or prehistoric resources on-site associated with the Existing Zoning Alternative are reduced compared to the proposed project. Public Facilities: This Alternative proposes 286 dwelling units, while the Temecula Regional Center Specific Plan proposes none. The Existing Zoning Alternative would result in a decreased demand for sewer, water, fire and police protection, natural gas, electricity and reduced solid waste generation. The low densities proposed by this Alternative could potentially be accommodated by individual septic tanks and the use of on-site water wells rather than becoming apart of Rancho California Water District and Eastern Municipal Water District facilities. The Existing Zoning would result in increased impacts to school and parks as compared to the project proposal. The Parcel Map method of developing this Alternative would preclude the provision of park and school sites. This Alternative would also result in a reduced amount of park and school mitigation fees as compared to fees collected from the proposed project. REASONS FOR REJECTION OF THE EXISTING ZONING ALTERNATIVE The Existing Zoning Alternative contains significantly reduced impacts in the areas of traffic, noise, air quality and public facilities and utilities and is, therefore, considered to be "environmentally superior" to the current development proposal. However, this eliminates the 7,289 to 8,126 employment opportunities which. would accompany development of the Temecula Regional Center as presently proposed. The absence of employment opportunities associated with this Alternative would eliminate the benefits to the jobs/housing balance of the Temecula/Rancho California area represented by the current project proposal (see Section V.C.9, Open Space and Conservation). In addition, this Alternative would not fulfill the project objectives discussed in Section II.A.3, Project Objectives. .These objectives include: "Providing commercial uses that will strive to accommodate an appropriate share of the projected community and regional work force"; "To respond to the rapidly growing retail and shopping center market demand with a strong commercial and office program, including major regional shopping, highway, mixed use and community shopping areas, including potential hotel or restaurants to serve both the local V-170 ' and visitor population"; and "To attract commercial uses that will serve community needs and the needs of the surrounding area while supplying an employment base for local residents of Temecula and Riverside County, conveniently located to minimizing commuting distances". Project benefits lost with the Existing Zoning Alternative include improving on-site roadways in accordance with the Riverside County Circulation Element. In addition, this alternative is not compatible with the recently adopted SWAP. The Eldsting Zoning Alternative allows agricultural uses on the portion of the site zoned A-2-20. ' However, due to the easy availability of public services serving the area, the high cost of irrigation water, the limited distribution of the prime soils on-site, and the economic factors associated with development pressures, long term agricultural use is not considered feasible ' and was discontinued more than 10 years ago. For these reasons, the Erdsting Zoning Alternative was rejected. C. Residential/Commercial Alternative Figure 46, Residential/Commercial Alternative, presents the proposed site plan for this ' alternative, as well as a land use abstract. This Alternative proposes residential, school and park uses on 71.97 acres of the proposed Temecula Regional Center Specific Plan site, resulting in a concomitant reduction in commercial and office acreage compared to the ' current project proposal. This Alternative proposes that the 71.97 -acre Planning Area 1 be developed with 56.47 acres of Medium Density residential use (339 d.u. at a density of 6 d.u./acre). Also proposed in Planning Area 1 is a 10 -acre school site and a 5.5 -acre park site to serve future residents in these areas. A portion of Planning Area 1 is bordered by proposed residential uses to the east of Margarita Road. The proposed Campos Verdes Zone Change 5617 proposes apartments at the northeast corner of Margarita Road and North General Kearny Road. This Alternative would require Specific Plan approval, as well as an amendment to the Southwest Area Plan (SWAP) from the present designation ' of "Commercial" to "2-8 d.u./acre" in Planning Area 1. Impacts of the Residential/Commercial Alternative would be similar to the currently proposed Temecula Regional Center Specific Plan in the following areas: Seismic Safety; Slopes and Erosion; Hydrology and Water Quality; Open Space and Conservation; Wildlife/Vegetation; Agriculture and Historic and Prehistoric Resources. Impacts of the Residential/Commercial Alternative which would be different that those associated with the current project are as follows: Circulation: In order to estimate traffic impacts associated with the Residential/ Commercial Alternative, the following calculations were performed: �� V-171 .'fry RETAIL C01"POAL — a�rrcc .Z t 0 — CCRE SUPPCRr RETAIL z!r. p V up• �\ int ���j:yir 111 f RETAIVOFFICE HOTEL oRlvE Rin o, - 1 ,I T _ ` 4 IA' PR'T&Il Planning Gmeultante Uv JMM41NM5 SI.RI v: is�' .4XM.W.. Glp. A1P{OI4 YtTN �, �101 Mf4NIlAM. nlRly 1 sN.wco, cuu. nm um e.uus K.C.D.C. 27555 Ynez Road, Suite 101, Temecula, Ca. 92591 1 RESIDENTIAL/ COMMERCIAL ALTERNATIVE Planning Dwelling Area Land Use Acreage.._ DensityUnits 1 Medium 56.47 AC 6 D.U./AC 339 / School 10.00 AC 1 Park Site 5.50 AC 2 Retail/Office/ 50.25 AC Hotel 2 Retail/ 47.55 AC Commercial Core/ Support Retail 3Retail/Office 5.49 AC Sub -Total 175.26 AC 339 DU Roads 26.04 AC TOTAL 201.3 AC 339 DU TEMECULA REGIONAL CENTER V-172 FIGURE 46 ' krf = thousand square feet This alternative represents a reduction of 15,964 vehicle trips per day compared, to the 64,850 vehicle trips per day generated by the current Temecula Regional Center Specific Plan, or a 25% decrease. This decrease is attributable to the lower vehicle generation rate associated with residential use, compared to the rates associated with the regional retail, office and hotel uses presently proposed. For the Temecula Regional Center as presently proposed, the existing plus project condition (with recommended improvements) results in an ICU Level of "A" or "B" at all affected intersections except for the intersections of Ynez Road at Winchester and Rancho California Roads, which would operate at a Level of Service "C" during the evening peak hour. In the year 2000, combining traifc from the proposed project with other development trafJ"ic results in four intersections operating at a Level of Service "D'; one would•operate at a Level of Service "E", and one would operate at Level of Service "F' for either the AM or PM peak hour. Additional ICU calculations were performed for all intersections found to operate at service level "E" or worse with the project. The .analyses indicate that with additional intersection improvements, peak hour service levels could be improved to "D" or better at all intersections. 1' Also, it should be noted that while the Temecula Regional Center as presently proposed would serve as a major trip attractor in the Southwest Area Community Plan, it would also be the destination of many residential trips (both shopping and work trips) which would otherwise travel to other retail establishments or employment centers within and/or outside V-173 Generation Total Trips Land Use Units/Acres Rate Per Day aPlanning Area 1 Single Family Residential 339 units 10.0 trips/d.u. 3,390 Planninst Area 2 Retail/Office/Hotel 250 ksf 32.0 trips/day 8,000 * ' Regional Retail 1.125 ksf 32.0 trips/day 36,000 * Planning Area 3 Retail 13 ksf 40.0 trips/day 520 Office 40 ksf 24.4 trips/day 976 . TOTAL 48,886 ' krf = thousand square feet This alternative represents a reduction of 15,964 vehicle trips per day compared, to the 64,850 vehicle trips per day generated by the current Temecula Regional Center Specific Plan, or a 25% decrease. This decrease is attributable to the lower vehicle generation rate associated with residential use, compared to the rates associated with the regional retail, office and hotel uses presently proposed. For the Temecula Regional Center as presently proposed, the existing plus project condition (with recommended improvements) results in an ICU Level of "A" or "B" at all affected intersections except for the intersections of Ynez Road at Winchester and Rancho California Roads, which would operate at a Level of Service "C" during the evening peak hour. In the year 2000, combining traifc from the proposed project with other development trafJ"ic results in four intersections operating at a Level of Service "D'; one would•operate at a Level of Service "E", and one would operate at Level of Service "F' for either the AM or PM peak hour. Additional ICU calculations were performed for all intersections found to operate at service level "E" or worse with the project. The .analyses indicate that with additional intersection improvements, peak hour service levels could be improved to "D" or better at all intersections. 1' Also, it should be noted that while the Temecula Regional Center as presently proposed would serve as a major trip attractor in the Southwest Area Community Plan, it would also be the destination of many residential trips (both shopping and work trips) which would otherwise travel to other retail establishments or employment centers within and/or outside V-173 this region. Given the location of many of the already approved major residential projects ' along Winchester Road northwest of the project site, a significant portion of the trips •. would be destined to the Regional Center would pass directly by the site even if the project were not to be developed. The relatively small difference in projected daily traffic volumes on the area roadways with and without the project is partially due to this factor. The Residential/Commercial Alternative proposes 103.9 acres of Retail/Office/Hotel and ' Regional Retail uses, compared to 176.26 acres of such uses proposed by the current Specific Plan, a 71.97 acre (41.1%) reduction. This approximately 41% reduction in regional retail, office and commercial uses would incrementally reduce the benefits , associated with "capturing" trips which would already be passing by the site. Noise: The 25% decrease in traffic volumes associated with this Alternative will ' incrementally reduce on- or off-site traffic noise generation compared to the current Temecula Regional Center Specific Plan proposal. However, the construction of residential ' uses adjacent to Winchester Road and Margarita Road, as proposed by the Residential/ Commercial Alternative, will expose future project residents to noise levels exceeding. 60 CNEL. A more detailed acoustical analysis would be required at the final tract map or plot plan stage in order to determine the height and location of any noise barriers which will be required to mitigate noise impacts. Although no significant off-site impacts .will be generated as a result of the proposed Temecula Regional Center project or the Residential/ ' Commercial Alternative, cumulative noise increases are projected, largely as a result of increased traffic originating outside the project boundaries. Climate and Air Ouality: The reduction of 15,964.vehicle trips compared to.the current project proposal will reduce vehicular emissions by approximately 25% resulting in the following emissions: Carbon Dioxide 11,370 lbs/day Nitrogen Oxides 1,250 lbs/day Sulfur Dioxide 224. lbs/day Particulates 298 lbs/day Non -Methane Hydrocarbons 997 lbs/day As with the current Temecula Regional Center Specific Plan proposal, -this is considered a significant impact by SCAQMD. Public Facilities: The Residential/Commercial Alternative proposes 339 residential units, while the Temecula Regional Center Specific Plan -presently proposes no residential use. This Alternative proposes 103.9 acres of Retail/Office/1-lotel and Regional Retail uses, compared to 175.26 acres of such uses proposed by the current Specific Plan, a 71.97 acre 1 (41.1%) reduction. As a result of these changes, total average day water demand would be reduced to an estimated 537,540 gallons per day (assuming 200 gallons per day per d.u., 4,320 gallons per day per acre of retail/office/hotel/mall use, and 3,800 gallons per acre per ' V-174 day for park use). This is a reduction of 332,076 gallons per day compared to the 869,616 gallons per day required by the current "worst case" project proposal. The Residential/Commercial Alternative reduces sewage generation to approximately 345,600 gallons per day (assuming 100 gallons per day per d.u., and 3,000 gallons per day per acre of retail/office/hotel/mall use). This is a reduction of approximately 95,780 gallons per day compared ,to the 525,780 gallons of sewage per day estimated to be generated by the current "worst case" project proposal. Therefore, impacts to the Rancho California Water District and Eastern Municipal Water District would be incrementally reduced. Impacts ' and Mitigations relative to Fire and Police Protection would be similar to those discussed in the Draft EIR. Impacts to schools would be increased due to the 339 residential units proposed by this Alternative. The Temecula Valley Unified School ,District utilizes ' a 1 generation factor of .442 students per d.u. for single-family dwelling units for grades K-8; the the Residential/Commercial Alternative would generate approximately ,150 elementary students. Grades 9-12 utilize a "worst case" generation factor of .333 students per d.u., resulting in 113 high school students, for a total of 263 students. This Alternative proposes a 10 -acre elementary school site which would accommodate students generated by the project. This Alternative would be required to pay school impact mitigation fees of a maximum of $1.58 per square foot of habitable residential space and $0.26 per square: foot of commercial/industrial space. In order to meet Quimby Act requirements of 3 acres of local park per 1,000 in population, approximately 3.1 acres of park would be required ' to accommodate the 1,017 persons generated by this Alternative. The 5.5 acre park proposed by this Alternative meets this standard. This Alternative would result in a demand for an estimated 18,911,859 kwh per year, compared to 29,534,200 kwh per year estimated for the current "worst case" Specific Plan proposal. This Alternative would result in a demand for an estimated 6,400,635 cubic feet of natural gas per month, compared to 8,222,000 cubic feet per month required by the current "worst case" project proposal. REASONS FOR REJECTION OF THE RESIDENTIAIJCOMMERCIAL ALTERNATIVE As discussed above, the Residential/Commercial Alternative potentially results in incrementally reduced impacts in the areas of traffic, noise, air quality, water demand and sewage generation. Due to the residential component of this Alternative, the need for certain public facilities and services is increased. By reducing retail/office/hotel and regional retail uses by 41%, the project's function as "Regional Center" is diminished. This decrease in commercial/retail/office/hotel acreage generates, an estimated 2,741 jobs, rather than the 7,289 to 8,126 employment opportunities which would accompany development ' of the Temecula Regional Center as presently proposed. The reduction in employment opportunities associated with this Alternative would provide less benefit to the jobs/housing balance of the Temecula/Rancho California area than the current project proposal (see ' Section V.C.9, Open Space and Conservation). In addition, this Alternative would not fulfill the project objectives discussed in Section II.A.3, Project Objectives. These objectives include: "Providing commercial uses that will strive to accommodate an appropriate share ' V-175 of the projected community and regional work force"; "To respond to the rapidly growing retail and shopping center market demand with a strong commercial and office program, including major regional shopping, highway, mixed use and community shopping areas, including potential hotel or restaurants to serve both the local and visitor population"; and "To attract commercial uses that will serve community needs and the needs of the surrounding area while supplying an employment base for local residents of Temecula and Riverside County, conveniently located to minimizing commuting distances". Several surrounding projects are proposed and/or approved for residential uses, including the 1,017 dwelling units proposed on the Campos Verdes project to the east and the 1,948 dwelling units and business/commercial uses proposed on the Winchester Hills Specific Plan located to the north of Winchester Road. Therefore, the residential component of the Residential/ Commercial Alternative may be duplicating residential land uses that are proposed or approved elsewhere. In addition, this alternative is not compatible with the recently adopted SWAP. For these reasons, the Residential/Commercial Alternative was rejected. d. Commercial/Industrial Alternative As shown on Figure 47, Commercial/Industrial Alternative, this Alternative eliminates the concept of Regional Retail use or commercial core and replaces it with 97.80 acres of Industrial use (within Planning Area 2). Planning Area 1 retains commercial office and hotel uses. .Figure 47, Commercial/Industrial Alternative, includes a summary table of proposed acreages and land uses. Like the current Specific Plan proposal, this Alternative includes no residential use. This Alternative would require a zone change to "Specific Plan", as well as an amendment to the Southwest Area Plan (SWAP) from "Commercial" to "Light Industrial" within Planning Area 2. Impacts associated with the Commercial/Industrial Alternative would be similar to the proposed Temecula Regional Center Specific Plan in the following areas: Seismic Safety, Slopes and Erosion, Hydrology and Water Quality; Open Space and Conservation; Wildlife/ Vegetation; Agriculture and Historic and Prehistoric Resources. Impacts of this Alternative would differ in the following areas; Circulation: In order to estimate impacts associated with the Commercial/Industrial Alternative, the following calculations were performed: V-176 1 rf z ;, i — r r �: RETAIL/O EHOTE / 1 CIiJI i - �'—INDUSTRIAL K. OVERtµ t PR: 1 T&R Planning Gmwltants �' xwu..n ruu. nmstnow.t>H Yn nMYtW LMM SUrI l0'1 K.C.D.C. 27555 Ynez Road, Suite 202, Temecula, Ca. 92591 1 COMMERCIAL INDUSTRIAL ALTERNATIVE Planning Land Use Acreage Area 1 Retail/Office/ 71.97 AC Hotel 2 Industrial 97.80 AC 3 Retail/Office 5.49 AC Sub—Total 175.26 AC Roads 26.04 AC TOTAL 201.3 AC TEMECULA REGIONAL CENTER i V-177 FIGURE 47 I I C Industrial Planning Area 3 1,500,000 s.f. 6.97 trips/ksf Retail 13,000 s.f. Office 40,000 s.f. TOTAL ksf =' Per thousand square feet 40.0 trips/ksf 24.4 trips/ksf 10,455 520 976 38,550 The 38,550 ADT generated by this Alternative represents a reduction of 26,300 vehicle trips per day compared to the 64,850 vehicle trips per day generated by the current Temecula Regional Center Specific Plan, or a 41% decrease. This decrease is attributable to the lower vehicle generation rate associated with industrial use proposed within Planning Area 2, compared to the rates associated with the regional retail uses presently proposed. Industrial land use will characteristically have fewer employees per acre than most other business or commercial uses, and fewer non-employee visits. There are pronounced traffic peaks as employees arrive in the morning and depart in the evening. For the Temecula Regional Center as proposed, the existing plus project condition (with recommended improvements) results in an ICU Level of A or B at all affected intersections except4or the intersections of Ynez Road at Winchester and Rancho California Road, Which' would operate at a Level of Service "C' during the evening peak hour. In the year 2000, combining traffic from the proposed project with other, development traffic resulm inJour, intersections operating at a Level of Service "D'; one would operate at Level of Service "E", and one would operate at Level of Service "F" for either the AM or PM peak Hour. Additional ICU calculations were performed for all intersections found to operate at service level 'B" or worse with.the project. The analyses indicate that with additional intersection improvements, peak hour service levels could be improved to "D" or better at all intersections. V-178 Generation Total Trips Land Use Sq. Footage Rate Per Day ' Planning Area 1 Commercial Office 550,000 s.f. 550,000 s.f. 35 trips/ksf 10 trips/ksf 19,250 5,500 Hotel. 350 rooms 1,849 Planning Area 2 I I C Industrial Planning Area 3 1,500,000 s.f. 6.97 trips/ksf Retail 13,000 s.f. Office 40,000 s.f. TOTAL ksf =' Per thousand square feet 40.0 trips/ksf 24.4 trips/ksf 10,455 520 976 38,550 The 38,550 ADT generated by this Alternative represents a reduction of 26,300 vehicle trips per day compared to the 64,850 vehicle trips per day generated by the current Temecula Regional Center Specific Plan, or a 41% decrease. This decrease is attributable to the lower vehicle generation rate associated with industrial use proposed within Planning Area 2, compared to the rates associated with the regional retail uses presently proposed. Industrial land use will characteristically have fewer employees per acre than most other business or commercial uses, and fewer non-employee visits. There are pronounced traffic peaks as employees arrive in the morning and depart in the evening. For the Temecula Regional Center as proposed, the existing plus project condition (with recommended improvements) results in an ICU Level of A or B at all affected intersections except4or the intersections of Ynez Road at Winchester and Rancho California Road, Which' would operate at a Level of Service "C' during the evening peak hour. In the year 2000, combining traffic from the proposed project with other, development traffic resulm inJour, intersections operating at a Level of Service "D'; one would operate at Level of Service "E", and one would operate at Level of Service "F" for either the AM or PM peak Hour. Additional ICU calculations were performed for all intersections found to operate at service level 'B" or worse with.the project. The analyses indicate that with additional intersection improvements, peak hour service levels could be improved to "D" or better at all intersections. V-178 Climate and Air Quality: ,The reduction of 26,300 vehicle trips compared to the current project proposal will reduce vehicular emissions by approximately 41% resulting in the following emissions: Carbon Dioxide 8,945 lbs/day Nitrogen Oxides 984 lbs/day Sulfur Dioxide 176 lbs/day Particulates 235 lbs/day Non -Methane Hydrocarbons 785 lbs/day As with the current Temecula Regional Center Specific Plan proposal, this is considered a significant impact. Public Facilities: As shown on Figure 47, Commercial/Industrial Alternative, this Alternative eliminates the concept of a regional mall or commercial core and replaces it with 97.80 acres of Industrial use (within Planning Area 2). Planning Area 1 retains commercial, office and hotel uses. It is estimated that water demand and sewage generation associated with this Alternative would be similar to the demand associated with , V-179 Also, it should be noted that while the Temecula Regional Center as presently proposed would serve as a major trip attractor in the Southwest Area Community, it would also be ., the destination of many residential trips (both shopping and work trips) which would otherwise travel to other retail establishments or employment centers within and/or outside this region. Given the location of many of the already approved major residential projects along Winchester Road northwest of the project site, a significant portion of the trips would be destined to the Regional Center would pass directly by the site even if the project were not to be developed. The relatively small difference in projected daily traffic volumes on the area roadways with and without the project are partially due to this factor. The Commercial/Industrial Alternative eliminates the "Regional Center" type of commercial use which would capture many shopping existing trips in the region. Also, as previously discussed, industrial land use typically generates fewer employees per acre than commercial use. This alternative, therefore, reduces the number of employment opportunities compared to the current project proposal. Noise: The 41% decrease in traffic volumes associated with this Alternative will incrementally reduce on- or off-site traffic noise generation compared to the current Temecula Regional Center Specific Plan proposal. As with the current project proposal, , a more detailed acoustical analysis would be required at the plot plan stage in order to determine the height and location of any noise barriers which will be required to mitigate noise impacts to the proposed industrial, commercial and office uses. Although no significant off-site impacts will be generated as a result of the proposed Temecula Regional Center project or the Commercial/Industrial Alternative, cumulative noise increases are projected, largely as a result of increased traffic originating outside the project boundaries. Climate and Air Quality: ,The reduction of 26,300 vehicle trips compared to the current project proposal will reduce vehicular emissions by approximately 41% resulting in the following emissions: Carbon Dioxide 8,945 lbs/day Nitrogen Oxides 984 lbs/day Sulfur Dioxide 176 lbs/day Particulates 235 lbs/day Non -Methane Hydrocarbons 785 lbs/day As with the current Temecula Regional Center Specific Plan proposal, this is considered a significant impact. Public Facilities: As shown on Figure 47, Commercial/Industrial Alternative, this Alternative eliminates the concept of a regional mall or commercial core and replaces it with 97.80 acres of Industrial use (within Planning Area 2). Planning Area 1 retains commercial, office and hotel uses. It is estimated that water demand and sewage generation associated with this Alternative would be similar to the demand associated with , V-179 the Temecula Regional Center Specific Plan as presently proposed. The total sewage . generated by this Alternative is the highest total of the four development alternatives currently being considered. Therefore, impacts to the Rancho California Water District and Eastern MMunicipal Water District would be comparable to the current project proposal. Impacts and Mitigations relative to Fire and Police Protection would be similar to those discussed in the Draft EIR. No impacts to schools are anticipated as a result of the Commercial/Industrial Alternative, though this Alternative would be subject to school impact mitigation fees of a maximum of $0.26 per square foot of commercial/industrial space. No impacts to parks are anticipated, as no residential use is proposed. The demand for natural gas and electricity is also projected to be similar to that associated with the Temecula Regional Center Specific Plan as presently proposed. REASONS FOR REJECTION OF THE COMMERCIALIINDUSTRIAL ALTERNATIVE Although this Alternative potentially results in reduced traffic impacts in terms of "total trips generated",, the elimination of the "Regional Center" concept will mean that area ' residents will still have to travel longer distances to obtain commercial goods and services. The current Specific Plan proposal would,:have "captured" some of the trips that would otherwise be passing the site to obtain regional commercial services. Also, the industrial land use proposed within this Alternative generates fewer jobs per acre than commercial use, thereby inhibiting the opportunity for reducing the length of employee related work trips which would otherwise be destined for more distant employment centers. As with the Residential/Commercial Alternative, the project's function as a "Regional Center" is diminished by this Alternative. The reduction in employment opportunities associated with this Alternative would provide less benefit to the jobs/housing balance of the Temecula/ Rancho California area than the current project proposal (see Section V.C.9, Open Space and Conservation). In addition, this Alternative would not fulfill the project objectives discussed in Section H.A.3, Project Objectives. These objectives include: "Providing commercial uses that will strive to accommodate an appropriate share of the projected community and regional work force'; "To respond to the rapidly growing retail and shopping center market demand with a strong commercial and office program, including major regional shopping, highway, mixed use and community shopping areas, including potential hotel or restaurants to serve both the local and visitor population'; and "To attract commercial uses that will serve community needs and the needs of the surrounding area while supplying an employment base for local residents of Temecula and Riverside County, conveniently located to minimizing commuting distances". Also, several surrounding I projects are proposed and/or approved for industrial use, including the 120 acres of Business Park use proposed by the Winchester Hills Specific Plan to the north of Winchester Road. The Winchester Property Specific Plan 213 is approved for construction of 268 acres of Business Park/Industrial use. Specific Plan 213 is located further north along Winchester Road, just north of Nicolas Road. In addition, the Winchester Meadows Industrial Park, which is in the preliminary planning stage, includes approximately 118 acres V-180 of Industrial use. This site is located northeast of the intersection of Winchester Road and , Margarita Road. Therefore, the industrial component of the CommerciaVlndustrial . Alternative may be duplicating. -industrial land uses that are proposed or approved elsewhere. In addition, this alternative is not compatible with the recently adopted SWAP. For these reasons, the Commercial/Industrial Alternative was rejected. e. Alternate Sites The possibility of alternative locations for the proposed project was given general , consideration, including consideration of areas particularly north and east of the project site. Development in these areas was determined to be infeasible for a number of reasons. , Most significant is the difficulty in consolidating ownerships to equate to the size of the proposedTemeculaRegional Center site, as well as compatibility with existing Southwest Area Plan (SWAP) designations. In addition, the site's location near the intersection of I-15 and Winchester Road provides superior visibility and access that would not be available elsewhere. If the project were developed on one of the alternate sites and the subject property were preserved, the on-site project impacts would be eliminated or at least shifted to an alternate site. Preservation of existing uses on-site would' only preserve limited long-term agricultural potential and'a site offering limited aesthetic benefits. I V-181 4. GROWTH INDUCING IMPACTS OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT The proposed project is located in a rapidly urbanizing area of southwest Riverside County, within the newly incorporated City of Temecula. Inasmuch as the site is generally surrounded by future urban uses similar to that proposed here, it is difficult to envision it as having significant growth inducing impacts. In addition, the growth represented by this project and by surrounding projects is occurring in accordance with the recently approved Southwest Area Plan (SWAP). Land use development proposals have already been prepared for vacant, adjacent properties (Campos Verdes, Winchester Meadows, ' Winchester Hills); therefore,the Temecula Regional Center Specific Plan cannot be considered a growth -inducement to these surrounding properties. With the exception of minor extensions, the necessary, infrastructure is in place. Street improvements will, be required to accommodate projected traffic volumes and utilities will require extension. 1 The project will also provide residents of the City of Temecula, Murrieta, etc. with regional retail uses, thereby reducing the distance they must travel outside the community to obtain goods. and services. In this sense, the proposed project can be considered "Growth ' Accommodating", as growth typically begins with a proliferation of residential: uses, ultimately creating the need for a regional retail and employment center such as the one proposed by this project. ri 1 M F 1 1 1 V-182 5. THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN LOCAL SHORT-TERM USES OF MAN'S ENVIRONMENT AND THE MAINTENANCE AND ENHANCEMENT OF LONG- TERM PRODUCTIVITY The project site is currently undeveloped supporting limited agricultural uses. The property contributes to the overall rural character of the area. This land use conversion to urban use proposed by this project sacrifices any long-term productivity associated with the current use. It is doubtful, given the approvals recently granted for surrounding properties, that the subject property will remain non -urban over the long term. In addition, the recently adopted Southwest Area Plan (SWAP) designates the site for urban uses (Commercial), as proposed by the Temecula Regional Center Specific Plan. If the proposed project is approved, the long-term effect will be to convert vacant property to retail/office/residential hotel uses. In relation to this process, the characteristics of the physical, biological and human environment will be impacted, as with any form of urbanization, as discussed throughout this EIR. Consequences include increased traffic volumes, incremental degradation of air quality, an incremental increase in the demand for public facilities and services, and increases in energy consumption. Current populations of some wildlife and vegetation species will be destroyed in those areas proposed for development. Ultimate development of the Temecula Regional Center Specific Plan would create long- term environmental consequences such as those mentioned above (increased traffic volumes, incremental degradation the air quality, incremental increase in demand for public facilities and services as well as energy consumption, overcrowding of schools, increase in solid waste production, and the destruction of some wildlife and vegetation species) that are connected with any form of urbanization. However, the proposed project has been designed to benefit the City of Temecula, Riverside County and local area job opportunities. It is estimated that this project would generate approximately 7,289 to 8,126 jobs, thereby enhancing the areas job/housing balance. The proposed project will ultimately provide for a long-term productivity which appears highly compatible with human needs and growth pressures in the area. The project would provide increased opportunities for retail, office use, and hotel services. The project is also intended to be compatible with surrounding future urban uses. V-183 P 6. IRREVERSIBLE/IRRETRIEVABLE COMMITMENT OF ENERGY SUPPLIES AND OTHER RESOURCES SHOULD THE PROJECT BE IMPLEMENTED rApproval of the Temecula Regional Center Specific Plan would constitute the City of Temecula's intent to allow the development of the project site as proposed. Implementation of the proposed Specific Plan would result in the following primary environmental changes: a) Permanent commitment of land which will be physically altered to create access road, and commercial/business park sites; b) Removal of limited agricultural land uses as well as ' biological resources in order to develop various aspects of the project; c) Alteration of the human environment as a consequence of the development process. The project, which represents a commitment of land to urban use; continues the trend toward urbanization of these resources; d) Increased requirements for public services and utilities by the project representing a permanent commitment of these resources; and e) Utilization of various raw materials, such as lumber, sand and gravel for construction. Some of these resources are already being depleted worldwide. The energy consumed in developing and maintaining the site for urban use may be considered a permanent investment. i I I I V-184 6 a. ORGANIZATIONS AND PERSONS CONSULTED Technical Reports Christopher E. Drover, Ph.D Consulting Archaeologist 13522 Malena Drive Tustin, California 92680 An Archaeological Assessment of the Regional Center Specific Plan Riverside County, California. October 21, 1989 S. Gregory Nelson Consulting Biologist 24230 Delta Drive Diamond Bar, California 91765 Biolozical Assessment For Regional Center Rancho California. California. November 22, 1989 SJM Biological Consultants 706 Fresca Court Solana Beach, California 92075 (SKR Survey) The Planning Center 1300 Dove Street, Suite 100 Newport Beach, California 92660 Biological Survey For Rancho California Parcel BP7-1 Parcel Map No. 23336 MU 1988 RMW Paleo Associates 23352 Madero, Suite J Mission Viejo, California 92691 Paleontolofical Resources Assessment, Regional Center Rancho California. California. October 19. 1989 Mestre Greve Associates 280 Newport Center Drive Suite 230 Newport Beach, California 92660 V-185 lb [1 I I 1 E I I b. [1 1: Noise Assessment For The Regional Center EIR. City of Temecula. May 1, 1991. J.F. Davidson, Inc. 27349 Jefferson, Ste. 115 Rancho California, CA. 92390 Preliminary Engineering Report Wilbur Smith Associates 2406 S. 24th Street Suite E 210 Phoenix, Arizona 85034 Temecula Regional Center EIR Traffic Study, April, 1991 ICG Incorporated 1906 Orange Tree Lane, Suite 240 Redlands, California 92374 California. October 18, 1989 Hydrotech Consultants, Inc. 1832 So. Commercenter Circle, Suite A San Bernardino, California 92408 Persons Consulted Riverside County Fire Department Michael E. Gray, Deputy Fire Marshal Riverside County Sheriff Department Cois Byrd, Sheriff City of Temecula Rick Sayre, Chief of Police V-186 [e F5 City of Temecula Joe Hreha The County of Riverside Waste Management Robert A. Nelson, Director Southern California Gas Company Rogelio Rawlins Southern California Edison Bruce Wylie General Telephone Company Roy Daniels Documents Air Quality Handbook for Environmental Impact Reports; South Coast Air Quality Management District, revised April 1987. Riverside County Comprehensive General Plan; March 1984. Soil Survey. Western Riverside Area, California; U.S. Department of Agriculture, November 1971 Document Preparers Douglas Wood & Associates, Inc. Douglas Wood Pamella Wood Jamie Grady Alice Becker Sheri Long V-187 I I TEMECULA REGIONAL CENTER SPECIFIC PLAN NO. 263 EIR NO. 340 ' FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT RESPONSES TO PUBLIC COMMENTS ' Lead Agency: CITY OF TEMECULA ' 43174 Business Park Dr. Temecula, CA 92590 Contact Planner: Debbie Ubnoske (714) 694-6400 Prepared by: DOUGLAS WOOD & ASSOCIATES 567 San Nicolas Drive, Suite 301 ' Newport Beach, CA 92660 (714) 644-7977 I I I I 1 I I I LJ P 1 I EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The Temecula Regional Center Specific Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR No. 340) was circulated for public review by the City of Temecula between June 21, 1991 and August 4, 1991. This circulation was in conformance with Section 15086, et.seq. of the State CEQA Guidelines which state that, "The lead agency (City of Temecula) shall consult with and request comments on the Draft EIR from: 1) Responsible agencies; 2) Trustee agencies with resources affected by the project; and 3) Other State, Federal and local agencies which exercise authority over resources which may be affected by the project. The lead agency may consult directly with any person who has special expertise with respect to any environmental impact involved." This 45 -day public review period (per Section 15087(c) of the State CEQA Guidelines) resulted in the receipt of comments from a variety of governmental agencies and other responsible parties as listed below. As indicated in Section 15088 of the State CEQA Guidelines: 15088. Evaluation of and Response to Comments (a) The lead agency shall evaluate comments on environmental issues received from persons who reviewed the draft EIR and shall prepare a written response. The lead agency shall respond to comments received during the noticed comment period and any extensions and may respond to late comments. (b) The written response shall describe the disposition of significant environmental issues raised (e.g.,'revisions to the proposed project to mitigate anticipated impacts or objections). In particular, the major environmental issues raised when the lead agency's position is at variance with recommendations and objections raised in the comments must be addressed in detail giving reasons why specific comments and suggestions were not accepted. There must be good faith, reasoned analysis in response. Conclusory statements unsupported by factual information will not suffice. (c) The response to comments may take the form of a revision to the draft EIR or may be a separate section in the final EIR. Where the response to comments makes important changes in the information contained in the text " of the draft EIR, the lead agency should either: (1) Revise the text in the body of the EIR, or (2) Include marginal notes showing that the information is revised in the response to comments. Provided below is a listing of each agency or responsible party who responded to the Temecula Regional Center Specific Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report No. 340 accompanied by a listing of the respective concerns raised and followed by an indication of the nature of the response to that concern. Spec details concerning the comments made and responses provided can be found in the following Response to Public Comments package. Where revisions or additions to the Draft EIR text are required in response to these public comments, these revisions or additions are indicated in italics within the revised Draft EIR text. Agency/Responsible Party A. County of Riverside, Transportation Planning B. County of Riverside, Department of Health C. Riverside County Airport Land Use Commission D. California Archaeological Inventory, Eastern Information Center Concern Refinement of Traffic Data requested Additional Water/Sewer and Solid Waste data requested Project not within any Airport Influenced Area Additional mitigation measure regarding scientific resources requested Nature of Response Additional traffic data provided in Responses. Additional water/sewer and solid waste data provided in Responses and an additional mitigation measure added to pages II -30 and V-138 of the Draft EIR. No response required. Existing mitigation measure on pg. V-90 of Draft EIR cited as adequate in Responses. E. California Institute of Additional mitigation of light Adherence to Ordinance No. Technology and glare impacts requested 655 cited in Responses and revisions are made on pages II - 31 and V-142 of the Draft EIR F. Eastern Municipal Water Updated water/sewer data District requested Additional water/sewer data provided in responses and corrections made to pages II - 16, II -26, V-57, V-118, V-119, V-120, V-121, V-169 and V-174. G. State of California, Additional background Additional data regarding Department of Fish and concerning DF&G biological impacts and Game jurisdictional involvement mitigations provided in provided Responses. tAgency/Responsible Party Concern Nature of Response H. State of California, Department of Additional Traffic Data requested Additional traffic data provided in Responses. Transportation Traffic Demand Management Traffic Demand Management Plan required Plan recommendations provided in Responses. I. South Coast Air Quality Management District Additional Air Quality Data requested Additional air quality data provided in Responses. J. Southern California Additional Jobs/Housing data Additional project employment Association of requested andjobs/housing data provided Governments in Responses. Traffic Demand Management Traffic Demand Management Program required Plan recommendations provided in Responses. ' Additional Mitigation Measure Additional mitigation measure regarding SCAG review of added to pages I177 and V-55 of Mitigation Monitoring the Draft EIR. ' requested K. U.S. Department of the Clarification of Extent of Additional background Interior Biological Surveys requested concerning on-site Biological Surveys provided in Responses. Additional Data Concerning Additional data concerning Downstream and Runoff downstream drainage ' Impacts requested management provided in Responses. Status of Upstream Detention Additional data concerning Basin questioned upstream detention basin provided in Responses. Additional Mitigation Measure Additional mitigation measure Concerning Onsite Catchment added to pages II -13 and V-30 Basin requested of the Draft EIR. L. City of Temecula, Various concerns, corrections Responses to all concerns, Planning Department and revisions throughout the corrections and revisions ' Draft EIR. provided throughout the text of the Draft EIR. AGENCY COMMENTS/STAFF RESPONSES The following agencies commented on the Draft EIR. Each comment received is contained herein and is followed by a summary of the respective concern and the staff response. The following Responses to Comments in combination with the Draft EIR, Staff Report and any other attachments for this project constitute the Final EIR for the Temecula Regional Center Specific Plan. A. B: C. D. E. F. G. H. I. J. K. L. Page County of Riverside, Transportation Department (correspondence dated July 25, 1991) ................................ 1 County of Riverside, Department of Health (July 15, 1991) ...............................................4 Riverside County, Airport Land Use Commission (June 11, 1991) ...............................................8 California Archaeological Inventory, Eastern Information Center (June 17, 1991) ................................ 10 California Institute of Technology (June 18, 1991) .................... 13 Eastern Municipal Water District (August 1, 1991) .................... 15 State of California, Department of Fish and Game (June 27, 1991) ......................................... 21 State of California, Department of Transportation (July 18, 1991) .............................................. 24 South Coast Air Quality Management District (July 23, 1991) .............................................. 28 Southern California Association of Governments (July 18, 1991) .............................:................35 United States Department of the Interior (June 21, 1991) .............................................. 44 City of Temecula, Planning Department ............................ 49 I I I I I FRANKUN E SHERKOW Diu"dTnmpo rkm City of Temecula 43172 Business Park Drive Temecula, CA 92390 Attn: Oliver Mujica COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DIVISION July 25, 1991 RE: Draft Environmental Report (DEIR) for Temecula Regional Center Dear Mr. Mujica: The Riverside County Transportation Department has reviewed the above referenced project and has the following comments: 1. Correct street name on page 44 under "Roadway Improvement Needs Anticipated by 2000 (4th Quarter)". It is Winchester Road, not Winchester Plaza Road. 2. Include discussion in :the document to substantiate the traffic study's recommendation for four lanes in each direction on Winchester Road, between Regional Center Drive and Interstate 15, as shown on Exhibits 16 and 17.. The Transportation Department appreciates the opportunity to review the Draft EIR and we request a copy of the Final EIR when available. If you have any questions in this matter, please contact Ruthanne Taylor Berger, Associate Transportation Planner, at (714) 275=6759. ES:RTB:jw Sincerely, Edwin Studor Transportation Planning Manager FA A. COMMENTS FROM THE COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE, TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT Comment 1: Page 44 of the Traffic Analysis (included as Appendix F to the Draft EIR) proposes phased roadway improvements (Section X, Phasing Plan). Winchester Road is incorrectly referred to as Winchester Plaza Road on this page. Response: This correction to page 44 of the Traffic Analysis (Appendix F) is hereby incorporated into the Final EIR. This incorrect reference is not reflected in the Final EIR. Comment 2: The Traffic Analysis recommends four travel lanes in each direction for Winchester Road between Regional Center Drive and Interstate 15. This recommendation should be substantiated. Response: According to the Traffic Engineer, the analysis of study area build out traffic forecasts demonstrates that future traffic operation along this section of Winchester Road (including the Winchester/Ynez intersection) would warrant mitigation. Area build out traffic forecasts for Winchester Road (immediately east of I-15) are in the range of 60,000 to 65,000 vehicles per day. Standard Riverside County Level of Service E capacity for a six -lane Urban Arterial is 59,000 vehicles per day. Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) calculations for future morning and evening peak hour traffic conditions at the Winchester/Ynez intersection generated ICU values in the range of 90 to 94 percent. ICU values in this range typically suggest that peak hour operating conditions would be characterized as Level of Service E. It is recognized that the traffic forecasting methodology applied in this study contained assumptions which could be viewed .as conservative, thereby resulting in "conservatively high" projections. This not withstanding, the Traffic Engineer identified mitigation measures which would improve operating conditions to Level of Service D or better. These mitigation measures (best illustrated in Figure 16 of the Traffic Analysis) include provisions for four directional travel lanes along limited segments of Winchester Road. The requirement to identify mitigative improvements which would achieve peak period LOS D or better is clearly stated in County of Riverside Traffic Study Preparation Guide. It should be noted that the principal reason for providing four lanes per direction on Winchester Road as stated in the Traffic Analysis is to mitigate expected peak period congestion at the intersection of Winchester/Ynez. The proposed four lane section (eastbound and westbound) between I-15 and Ynez Road would actually consist of three through Janes and an outside auxiliary lane which would be dropped as a right -turn lane at the northbound I-15 on-ramp (westbound to northbound right turn) and at Ynez Road (eastbound to southbound right turn). On the east side of Ynez Road, concentrated morning peak hour flows warrant that four westbound lanes be carried through the Ynez Road intersection. In order to ensure the effective use of the outside curb lane it has been proposed to develop the fourth lane (transition fromthreeto four lanes) west of Regional Center Drive. Note that only three lanes are proposed in the eastbound direction, east of Ynez Road. As reflected in Figures 23 and 24 of the Traffic Analysis, the currently designed and constructed Assessment District 161 improvements combined with planned Community ' Facilities District 88-12 improvements should provide acceptable operating conditions well into the final phases of the Temecula Regional Center development. Modest reductions in area traffic generation due to future area Transportation Demand Management programs could .offset the need for the supplemental Winchester Road widenings which have been discussed here. ' The Traffic Engineer recommends that the precautionary measures be taken today, where possible, regarding acquisition of set backs and easements which would provide future mitigation opportunities for a worst case scenario. iJ I 1 11 N 1. WATER WELLS - Wells Nos. 105, 106, 107 and 205 are shown on Figure 7. All sanitary sewers (to be constructed) must be a minimum of fifth (50) feet away from these water wells. 2. RECLAIMED WATER LINES - Eastern Municipal Water District (EMWD) is requiring installation of these pipes, yet Waste Discharge Requirements from the State Water Quality Control Board are necessary. Specific sites to receive the reclaimed water should be identified. Estimated reclaimed water use would be helpful to determine pipe size(s) and demand. 3. TOTAL VOLUMES - Water and sewerage volumes are needed for the design of water and sewer mains including total volume .of wastewater entering EMWD's Treatment Plant. The following are Solid Waste Management Enforcement Program Staff comments on the above project. 1. The project should calculate the amount of solid waste to be generated daily or annually for the commercial development. 2. The project should address the impact, proper handling and recycling of construction waste generated during development of the project. The amount of construction waste which will be generated should be calculated as well. A DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH ' TO: CITY OF TEMECULA DATE: 07-15-91 Oliver Mujica , Q/(/�[/y/\ATTN: FROM: H.R. LOCHS, Land Use Supervisor Environmental Health Svcs. ' BE: SPECIFIC PLAN 263/EIR 1340 (TEMECULA REGIONAL CENTER). WATER/SEWER (JQhn Silva. Sr.. Public Health Engineer) , Environmental Health Services (EHS) offers the following comments regarding the proposed project: 1. WATER WELLS - Wells Nos. 105, 106, 107 and 205 are shown on Figure 7. All sanitary sewers (to be constructed) must be a minimum of fifth (50) feet away from these water wells. 2. RECLAIMED WATER LINES - Eastern Municipal Water District (EMWD) is requiring installation of these pipes, yet Waste Discharge Requirements from the State Water Quality Control Board are necessary. Specific sites to receive the reclaimed water should be identified. Estimated reclaimed water use would be helpful to determine pipe size(s) and demand. 3. TOTAL VOLUMES - Water and sewerage volumes are needed for the design of water and sewer mains including total volume .of wastewater entering EMWD's Treatment Plant. The following are Solid Waste Management Enforcement Program Staff comments on the above project. 1. The project should calculate the amount of solid waste to be generated daily or annually for the commercial development. 2. The project should address the impact, proper handling and recycling of construction waste generated during development of the project. The amount of construction waste which will be generated should be calculated as well. I [1 I City of Temecula Page Two Attn: Oliver Mujica July 15. 1991 3. Solid waste bin enclosures should be addressed for the commercial areas. An adequate number of permanent waste storage enclosures should be provided to promote visual aesthetics and routine cleaning and to prevent odors and propagation/harborage of disease vectors. 4. The project should estimate.the amount of solid waste which will be generated in the commercial areas. 5. Disposal of sewer system sludge generated as a result of this project should be addressed. If you should have any further questions regarding this Specific Plan 263/EIR #340 (Temecula Regional Center). please do not hesitate to contact me at (714) 275-8980. HRL:dr B. COMMENTS FROM THE COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE, DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH WATER/SEWER Comment 1: According to Figure 7 of the Specific Plan/EIR, there are several wells existing on-site. All proposed sanitary sewers must be constructed to be a minimum of fifty feet from these wells. Response: As indicated in the Draft EIR (Mitigation Measure #2), "Water and Sewage disposal facilities shall be installed in accordance with the requirements and specifications of the Riverside County Health Department". Such specifications as those noted above shall, in accordance with the Final EIR, be followed. Comment 2: As noted in Mitigation Measure #4 in the Draft EIR, Eastern Municipal Water District requires installation of on-site reclaimed water lines the specific sites to receive reclaimed water and the estimated amount of reclaimed water to be used would assist in pipeline sizing. Response: Precise design of reclaimed water facilities shall occur at the time of submittal of detailed Utility Improvement Plans. However, it is anticipated that on a commercial project of the nature currently proposed, reclaimed water would be utilized on major landscaped areas as illustrated on Figures 14, 16, 18, 20, 22, 23, and. 25 of the Specific Plan. The amount of reclaimed water to serve these landscaped areas is based upon the total amount of area to be irrigated and which of those areas is large enough to be economically and safely irrigated. This determination shall be made at the time of submittal of detailed utility improvement plans. Comment 3: The volumes of water and sewage to be required for or generated by the proposed project should be provided in order to assist in the design of water and sewer mains and treatment facilities. Response: As indicated in the Draft EIR, the proposed Temecula, Regional Center will generate an average day demand of 869, 616 gallons of water and a peak day demand of 3.48 million gallons. The proposed project will also generate an average day demand of 0.53 million gallons of wastewater with a peak day demand of approximately 1.06 million gallons (see Section F, Comments from Eastern Municipal Water District, Comment #2 and Response for further discussion). The precise design of the water and sewer lines to provide for these flows shall occur at the submittal of detailed utility improvement plans. SOLID WASTE Comments 1 and 4: The amount of solid waste to be generated by the proposed project should be calculated. A Response: As indicated in the Draft EIR, the proposed project will generate between 24.1 ("Power Center Alternative") and 25.6 ("Regional Center Alternative") tons of solid waste per day. These generation totals are based upon rates provided by the National Solid Waste Management Association (NSWMA). Comment 2: The amount and impact of solid waste generated during construction should be discussed. ' Response: According to the project applicant, the proposed project will generate a total of 21,000 tons of solid waste throughout the construction process. The proposed project shall be required to adhere to guidelines of the Integrated Waste Management Act of 1989 or Assembly Bill 939 which requires a 25% reduction in the waste stream by 1995 and a 50% reduction by the.year 2000. Any methods to recycle construction waste should be included within the construction bid process in order to adhere to these guidelines as ' well as the requirements of County Resolution No. 90-402. Comment 3: Solid waste bin enclosures should be addressed for all proposed commercial areas. Response: Prior to or concurrent with submittal of final tract maps or improvement ' plans for the project, the applicant shall submit detailed plans delineating the number, location and general design of solid waste bin enclosures. These plans shall be approved by the City of Temecula with the intent of promoting visual aesthetics, routine cleaning, ' and prevention of odors or disease vectors. Comment 5: Disposal of sewer system sludge should be discussed. ' Response: Sewage generated by the proposed project will be treated at the Eastern Municipal Water District's Rancho California Regional Water Reclamation Facility. Sludge ' produced as a by product of sewage treatment is disposed of through composting and landfill disposal. There are currently no constrains upon this disposal methods. However, landfill disposal of these wastes shall be subject to the State and local ordinances noted in the Response to Comment 2, above. F L, E ALUC RIVERSIDE COUNTY AIRPORT LAND USE CONMGSSION 3499 Tenth Street Riverside, California 92501 (714) 788-9770 (714) 788-1415 [FAX] June 11, 1991 TO: Oliver Mujica Cit of Temecula - Planning Department FROM: Mar ne� Development Specialist EDA/Aviation Unit SUBJECT: EIR NO. 340, SPECIFIC PLAN 90. 263 Thank you for the opportunity to review the above-mentioned project. Upon review, I found the project is not located within any Airport Influenced Area under the jurisdiction of the Riverside County Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC). Therefore, the project need not go before the ALUC for their review and determination. Should you have any questions, please contact me at (714) 369-9577. MH:sa sp263.aoi C. RIVERSIDE COUNTY AIRPORT LAND USE COMMISSION ' Comment: The proposed project is not located within any Airport Influenced Area under the jurisdiction of the Riverside County Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC). Therefore, the project does not need to be reviewed by the ALUC. Response: Given the lack of project -related impacts or required mitigation measures, no response is required. u 1 L I 1 I�- L J F 1 9 California Archaeological Inventory 17 June 1991 vJt Eastern Eastern Information Center Information Department of Anthropology Center rNro University of California Riverside. CA 92521 , MONO MVERSIDE (714) 767-5745 Oliver Mujica, Planner City of Temecula Planning Department 43172 Business Park Drive Temecula, CA 92390 re: SP No. 263/EIR No. 340 - Temecula Regional Center Dear Mr. Mujica: Please find enclosed our comments for one project transmittal as requested by the Develop- ment Review Committee. This transmittal, noted above, is scheduled for review on or following 26 July 1991. If you have any questions, please contact the Eastern Information Center at (714) 787-5745 and specify the transmittal number and the date on which we submitted our comments. Sincerely, Gwyn ock Inform tion Officer enclosure Archaeological Inventory 1 Information Center eryo MONO NVERa1DE Department of Anthropology University of California Riverside, CA 92521 (714) 787-5745 - CULTURAL RESOURCE REVIEW FOR THE CITY OF TEMECULA DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE ' Date: 17 /99J TO: City of Temecula Development Review Committee C] I 1 �1 L� RE: Case Transmittal Reference Designation:*3,41). Sf 263 Te scut- ' R— /DMZ al Records at the Eastern Information Center of the California Atchaeologicall Inventory have been reviewed to determine if this project would adversely affect prehistoric or historic cultural resources: The proposed project area has rat been surveyed for cultural resources and contains or is adjacent to known cultural resource(s). A Phase I study is recommended. Based upon existing data the proposed project area has the potential for containing cultural resources. A Phase 1 study is recommended. A Phase I cultural resource study (NF- ) Identified one or sure cultural resources. The project area contains, or has the possibility of containing, cultursl resources. However, due to the nature of the project or prior data recovery studies, an adverse effect on cultural resources Is not anticipated. Further study is not recommended. A Phase I cultural resource study (HF -2%Z-) identified no cultural resources. Further study is not recommended. _ There is a low probability of cultural resources. Further study is not recmmerded. If, during construction, cultural resources are encountered, work should be halted or diverted in the immediate area while s qualified archaeologist evaluates the finds and sakes recommendations. The submission of a cultural resource management report Is recommended follouing guidelines for Archaeological Resource Management Reports prepared by the California Office of Historic Preservation, Preservation tenni Buffettn 4(a), December 1989 or those report guidelines adapted by Riverside County. Phase I - survey. Phase II - Testing [Evaluate resource significance end integrity of known resources and/or resources identified from a field survey.) Phase III - [Propose additional investigations If required, evaluate project impacts, and propose measures to mitigate potential adverse effects.) �� L COMMENTS: Mi- G)ovr,.-rs Ij/aR✓f CMP — 20 Z5 ) rlp)L eL'! I'70 C(a&,-� tt M Qilrta A S6,2 -work candihSn A /rrbyxntpndid SA&PJd If you have any questions, please give us a call. Since ely, a ern forrirbtion �myn A�oc.t< - D. COMMENTS FROM THE CALIFORNIA ARCHAEOLOGICAL INVENTORY, ' EASTERN INFORMATION CENTER ' Comment: The Archaeological Report prepared for the project (which is included in its entirety in Appendix D of the Draft EIR) indicated no cultural resources on the project site. If, during construction, actual resources are encountered, work should be halted or. diverted in the immediate area while a qualified archaeologist , evaluates the finds and makes recommendations. Response: As indicated in the Draft EIR, "No cultural resources were observed on ' the subject property therefore no cultural resource constraints exist for the project and no mitigation measures are proposed. However, if any cultural resources are encountered as a result of grading, a qualified archaeologist shall be consulted." However; should any , cultural resources be encountered during grading or construction activities, work shall be halted or diverted in the immediate area and a qualified archeologist shall be consulted for evaluation of resources and mitigation recommendations. ' rI 1 1 In ' CALIFORNIA INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR PALOMAR OBSERVATORY 105-56 ' June 18, 1991 Mr. Oliver Mujica Planning Department .City of Temecula 43172 Business Park Drive Temecula, California 92390 ' Dear Mr. Mujica: - This note is to comment on the draft EIR 340(Specific ' Plan 263 -- Temecula Regional Center). Caltech's interest in this case derives from the possible adverse impacts on the Palomar Observatory resulting from the use of outdoor lighting on the project. I am pleased to see light pollution identified in the Environmental Assessment as an issue to be addressed in the EIR. This, and the reference to Riverside County ' Ordinance 655 (which, I understand, has been adopted by the City of Temecula), will help ensure this project will not contribute to the light pollution problem. The ' authors of the EIR do not explicitly note, however, that low-pressure sodium lights are required for parking lots, security and other similar applications in addition to street lighting. Nor do they note the ' specific requirements (shielding, timers) affecting decorative and sign lighting. It would be useful to remark on these mitigation measures in the EIR, even though they will be addressed later in the project when detailed plans are submitted for approval. I would appreciate receiving a copy of the final EIR ' when it becomes available. Thank you for your consideration. ' Sincerely yours, in Robe :%Bruca o Assistant Director RJB:pc File: LANDUSE/TSP263 1 PASADENA, CALIFORNIA 93125 TELEPHONE (619) 556.6055 TELECOPIER (913) 565-1317 TELEX 675425 CALTECH PSD E. COMMENTS FROM THE CALIFORNIA INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY Comment: The Draft EIR recognized light pollution as a potential environmental impact and proposed adherence to County Ordinance No. 655 relating to light pollution (which has been adopted by the City of Temecula). The EIR does not, however, explicitly note specifically requirements for low pressure sodium lights for parking lots or security or other applications in addition to street lighting nor specific requirements for shredding and timers affecting sign or decorative lighting. However, it is recognized that such detailed requirement are typically addressed at a later, more detailed phase of project approval. Response: Adherence shall insure adherence to th adherence shall occur during of Temecula. to Ordinance No. 655, as adopted by the City of Temecula, e specific lighting design requirements noted above. Such review and approval of utility improvement plans by the City 11 I i L, L lJ I C Genoa! Momper J. Andrew Schlange Legal Counsel Redwine and Sherrill Director of The Metropolitan Baur District of Southern California Doyle F. Born Trenaurer Rogm M. Co. Oliver Mujica, Planner Planning Department City of Temecula 43174 Business Park Drive Temecula, CA 92590 Dear Mr. Mujica: August 1, 1991 Bove/ o/ Dorno , Rodger D. Sicros, President Chesrer C Gilbert, Via Preside , Wm. G. Aldridge John M. Coudurrs Craig A. Wearer Am.: S"rea, Mary C W hire Subject: Temecula Regional Center Draft specification Plan No. 263 and EIR No. 340 Dear Mr. Mujica: As requested, the Eastern Municipal Water District (EMWD) has reviewed the subject document and offer the following comments: Pages II -5. III -25 The project phasing plan development with the core completed within a five to City shall monitor the rata occurs. Strict adherence 1 critical with regard to improvements that may be adequate level of service. Pages II -16. II -26. V-116 describes a ten year program of portion of the development to be seven year period. We assume the at which the proposed development :o a City approved schedule will be making timely wastewater system necessary in order to provide an Our estimate of the subject project's average daily wastewater flow is 0.53 MGD (peak daily flow = 1.06 MGD). This differs from the reported average daily flow of 0.603 MGD (peak daily flow of 1.21 MGD) which evidently considered roadways as part of of, wastewater generating acreage. We suggest the reported flows be revised, and the need for any proposed improvement be based on the revised plans. The permitted capacity for discharge of flow treated at the EMWD Rancho California Regional Water Reclamation Facility (RCRWRF) is 5.00 MGD. The current treated flow is averaging approximately 4.0 MGD with a total plant capacity of 6.25 MGD. t We suggest the report discussion be revised, accordingly. In addition, a 10.0 MGD tertiary filtration facility at this site , is scheduled to start treating secondary effluent from the RCRWRF and Rancho California Water District's BNR Plant this fall. Also, any reference of EMWD's treatment plant should be as the Rancho California Regional Water Reclamation Facility, not the Temecula Regional Water Reclamation Facility, as appears throughout 1 the subject document. Page III -15. Paragraph 3 Page V-117, Paragraph 4 ' page V-119. Paragraph 2 The discussions of EMWD's reclaimed water system should indicate EM:7D's may require the construction of reclaimed water facilities, onsite. Page III -18, Figure 8 ' Page V-119. Paragraph 1 It should be understood that all proposed sewer lines are considered strictly preliminary. Presented sizes and alignments of proposed facilities are subject to revision. Page V-118. Paragraphs 3.5 ' The existing treatment capacity.of the RCRWRF is 6.25 MGD. The discussions of the RCRWRF capacity should be revised, accordingly., Page V-120 The subject project is located within the sanitary sewer , service area of EMWD and not the Rancho California Water District, as stated. The ,report should be revised accordingly, and indicate that all conditions pertaining to wastewater treatment as specified by EMWD will be followed. Page V-159 ' The proposed development alternative (i.e. Commercial/Industrial Alternative) represents the most significant wastewater service demand of the four development alternatives. Improvement to the existing sewer system will likely be necessary to accommodate the flows which may be generated by alternatives b,c or d. It must be understood that the available capacity of EMWD's sewer system is continually changing due to development within the EMWD. As such, service will be provided based on the timing of the subject project, the service agreement with EMWD, and the status of EMWD's permit to operate. Should you have any questions regarding these comments, please contact Mr. Dave Crosley or me at (714) 925-7676. Sincerely, 1 X ' H. Al Spencer Director of Planning HAS/DGC:dl ' #91-2003 cc: Bill Plummer Joe Grindstaff Mike Garner Judy Conacher .1:\NORDGROC\W\VIANNING.33\TRCNUO H F. COMMENTS FROM EASTERN MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICT Comment 1: The proposed project involves phased development over a ten-year period. Adherence to this schedule will insure adequate and timely provision of wastewater system improvements. Response: As indicated in the Draft EIR, "Assurance for provision of adequate water and wastewater service is required prior to approval of a subdivision map, in accordance with the State Subdivision Map Act". In addition, page II -26 indicates that "monitoring of mitigation measures related to provision of water and sewer facilities shall occur through the Rancho California Water District and Eastern Municipal Water District during project construction". Comment 2: The Draft EIR utilized an average daily flowfactor of 0.603 million gallons per day (MGD) and a peak daily flow factor of 1.21 MGD. These factors were applied to the entire project acreage including 26.04 acres of on-site roadways. When deducting the on-site roadways from the project acreage total, an average daily wastewater flow of 0.53 MGD and a peak daily flow of 1.06 MGD results. Response: Utilizing a project acreage total of 175.26 acres rather than the 201.3 acres quoted in the Draft EIR, the Draft EIR is hereby revised to read as follows: "Per the EMWD design guide, the average sewage generated from commercial developments is 3,000 gallons per day per acre, with a peaking factor of 2.0. Utilizing this factor, the Temecula Regional Center would generate an average day demand of approximately 0.53 million gallons per day with a peak day demand of approximately 1.06 million gallons". The EIR Matrix -Summary are hereby revised to reflect an. estimated average day wastewater flow of 0.53 million gallons per day. Comments 3 and 7: The EMWD Rancho California Regional Water Reclamation Facility has a permitted capacity of 5.0 MGD with current flows averaging approximately 4.0 MGD. Total plant capacity is 6.25 MGD. In addition, a 10.0 MGD tertiary filtration facility is scheduled to start treating secondary effluent this fall. Response: The Draft EIR is hereby revised to read as follows: ,O "Capacity for discharge of flow treated at the RCRWRF is 5.0 MGD. The current treated flow is averaging approximately 4.0 MGD with a total plant capacity of 6.25 MGD. Additionally, a 10.0 MGD tertiary filtration facility at this site is scheduled to start treating secondary effluent from the RCRWRF beginning in the fall of 1991". ' In addition, the Draft EIR is hereby revised to read as follows: ' "The existing treatment capacity of the RCRWRF is 6.25 MGD. In addition, a 10.0 MGD tertiary filtration facility is scheduled to start treating secondary effluent from the ' RCRWRF in the fall of 1991". Comment 4: Any reference of EMWD's treatment plant should be as the Rancho ' California Regional Water Reclamation Facility, not the Temecula Regional Water Reclamation Facility, as appears throughout the subject document. Response: This comment is hereby incorporated into the Final Environmental Impact Report. ' Comment 5: The discussion is EMWD's reclaimed water system should indicate that EMWD may require construction of reclaimed water facilities on-site. Response: The tent references noted above are hereby revised to state that EMWD may require installation of on-site reclaimed water lines. ' Comment 6: All proposed sewer lines, the sizes of which are indicated in Figure 8, Sewer Plan and in the text of the Draft EIR are considered strictly preliminary sizes and alignments of proposed facilities are subject to revision. ' Response: This comment is hereby incorporated into the Final Environmental Impact Report. . Comment 8: The project is located within the sanitary sewer service area of EMWD not the Rancho California Water District as stated in the Draft EIR. Response: The Draft EIR has been revised to state that the project is located within ' the Eastern Municipal Water District for water and sewer service. "All conditions pertaining to water requirements and wastewater treatment requirements as specified by the Eastern Municipal Water District shall be followed". 19 Comment 9: The Commercial/Industrial Alternative represents the highest wastewater service demand of the four development alternatives. The estimated daily wastewater flows from the four Project Alternatives. summarized below. Alternative A. No Project B. Existing Zoning C. Residential/Commercial D. Commercial/Industrial Estimated Average Daily Wastewater Flow N/A 0.10 MGD 0.43 MGD 0.53 MGD Improvements to the existing sewer system will be required in order to accommodate flows from alternatives b) through d).noted above. Response: These comments are hereby incorporated into the Final EIR. In addition, the Draft EIR (Residential/Commercial Alternative) is hereby revised as follows: "rhis is a reduction of approximately 95,780 gallons per day compared to the 525,780 gallons of sewage per day estimated to be generated by the current "worst-case" project proposal." ?n I 11 Memorandum To - 1. Projects Coordin Resources Agency 2. Mr. Oliver Mujica City of Temecula P.O. Box 3000 Temecula, California From : Deportment of Fish and Game Date June 27, 1991 Subject: Regional Center Draft Specific Plan No. 263 and Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR), SCH 89020013, Riverside County The Department of Fish and Game (DFG) has received the Regional Center DEIR. The California Environmental Quality Act and the California Endangered Species Act require the lead agency to appropriately condition the project and fully implement the statutory mitigation and monitoring requirements to offset adverse impacts to the following resources which may be impacted by this project. 1. Endan9ered or threatened species of Plant and animals. If the project would result in take, on or off project site, of any State -listed species or habitat essential to its continued existence, the applicant must obtain authorization from the DFG pursuant to Fish and Game Code Section 2081. 2. Wetlands. Compliance with the DFG's Wetland Policy requires that there should be no net loss of wetland acreage or wetland habitat values, either on or off project site, due .to project development. A mitigation and monitoring plan subject to DFG approval should be required for loss of sensitive habitats, including, but not necessarily limited to, freshwater marsh, riparian woodland, oak woodland, and riparian scrub vegetation. 3. Watercourses. The DFG opposes the elimination of watercourses and/or their conversion into subsurface drains. All watercourses, whether intermittent or perennial must be retained and provided with setback buffers appropriate to preserve the riparian and aquatic habitat values. Earthen channels should be interconnected with adjacent large open space areas to increase their effectiveness as wildlife corridors in urban surroundings. The DFG has direct jurisdiction under Fish and Game Code sections 1601-03 in regard to any proposed activities that would divert or obstruct the natural flow or change the bed, channel, or bank of any stream. We recommend early consultation since modification of the proposed project may be required to avoid impacts to fish and wildlife resources. Formal 1. Projects Coordinator 2. Mr. Oliver Mujica June 27, 1991 Page Two notification (with fee) under Fish and Game Code Section 1603 should be made after all other permits and certifications have been obtained. Work cannot be initiated until a streambed alteration agreement is executed. The project sponsor is subject to the user fee provided by Fish and.Game Code Section 711.4, and the, fee is payable to the County Clerk at the time of or prior to filing the Notice of Determination by the lead agency. Pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21080(c), the user fee is $1,250 for a Negative Declaration and $850 for any type of Environmental Impact Report. It is our assessment that this project will result in cumulative loss of fish and wildlife resources. In conclusion, if your analysis reveals that the above- mentioned concerns have been fully addressed throughout your decision-making process, we would not object to the project approval. However, we request that you provide us a copy of the final environmental document immediately upon approval and prior to filing the Notice of Determination. If you have any questions, please contact Mr. Fred Worthley, Regional Manager of Region 5, Department of Fish and Game, 330 Golden Shore, Suite 50, Long Beach, California 90802, or by telephone at (213) 590-5113. �►-� Ash Pete Bontadelli Director iI I Cl G. COMMENTS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME Comment: The California Environmental Quality Act and the California Endangered Species Act require that the City of Temecula appropriately condition the project and fully implement the statutory mitigation and monitoring requirements to offset adverse impacts to the resources which may be impacted by this project. These resources include endangered or threatened species of plants or animals, wetlands and watercourses. The project applicant is subject; to all required permits (including Section 1603, Streambed Alteration Permits), policies. (including no net wetlands loss), codes (including Section 2081 of the Fish and Game Code regarding the taking of endangered or threatened species) and user fees'(provided by Fish and Game Code Section 711.4): In their opinion, the proposed. project will result in a cumulative loss of fish and wildlife resources. Response: As indicated in the Draft EIR, "the proposed project will contribute on an incremental basis to cumulative impacts to biological resources on a regional basis. These impacts are those which are now occurring in the region as a result of past and planned developments in the region. These impacts include: • An overall reduction in the naturalized biotic resources of the region. • Loss of secondary foraging habitat for migratory populations of birds of prey which are winter visitors to the region. Itis further recognized that the project will adhere to the required permits, policies, codes and fees noted above. 23 State of California Memorandum To : State Clearinghouse Office of Planning & Research 1400 10th Street Sacramento, CA 95814 Attention: Mr. Russ Colliau From : DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION District 8 subject: Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) for Temecula Regional Center/Specific Plan No. 263 Business, transportation ona mousing Agency Dote : July 18, 1991 File No.: 08.-Riv-79-2.2 t 08-Riv-15-6.6 SCH# 89020013 We have reviewed the above -referenced document and request consideration of the following comments: o Due to ongoing negotiations between the City of Temecula and Caltrans regarding State Route 79, access points that will be permitted are still being reviewed. If you would like to discuss this matter with Caltrans, you can contact Mr. Bob Harvey, Riverside County Coordination Branch, at (714) 787-7907. o It is recognized that there is considerable public concern about noise levels adjacent to heavily traveled highways. Certain types of land use may not be appropriate near a major highway and/or may require special noise attenuation measures. Development of this property should include any necessary noise attenuation. o All commercial development within Temecula should form a Transportation Management Association (THA), which includes: flex -time work scheduling, compressed work week, and use of on-site rideshare coordinators. The Specific Plan should indicate preferential parking areas for those who rideshare and location and standards for bus bays at the discretion of the local transit company. This project will require an encroachment permit if there is any work within the state highway right of way; t4s Department of ' Transportation would be a responsible agency and may require certain measures be provided as a condition of permit issuance. ' State Clearinghouse SCHM 89020013 July 18, 1991 Page Two 1 �J f LJ All matters relating to the Encroachment Permit process, which include access, grading, and drainage issues, should be sent to: Mr. Mike Sim Development Review California Department of Transportation P.O. Box 231 San Bernardino, CA 92402 If you have any questions, please contact Tony Calvillo at (714) 383-6285 or FAX (714) 383-4936. HARVEYW4.ief Transportation Planning CEQA/IGR TC:jll CC. Oliver Mejica, City of Temecula bcc: Ron Helgeson, Plan Coord Unit, DOTP Bruce Kean, Traffic Ops_ Frank Lehr, Traffic Ops. Mike Sim, Development)Review ..0 �t .. H. COMMENTS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Comment 1: Due to ongoing negotiations between the City of Temecula and Caltrans regarding State Route 79, permitted access points along that roadway is still being reviewed. Response: This comment is hereby incorporated into the Final EIR with the recognition that proposed project access points onto State Route 79 (Winchester Road) reflect recommendations made by the Traffic Engineer which are intended to provide for a safe and efficient circulation design. In addition, all final project roadway plans are subject to approval by the City Road Department. Comment 2: There is considerable public concern regarding noise levels adjacent to heavily travelled highways. Compatible land uses and all necessary noise attenuation measures should be measured. Response: Section V.C.5, Noise of the Draft EIR provides detailed information concerning existing and future noise levels including those adjacent to Interstate 15 and State Highway 79. It also provides an assessment of potential project impacts and lists all required mitigation measures necessary to achieve compatible on-site noise levels based upon the land uses proposed. This information is based upon the "Noise Assessment for the Temecula Regional Center" which is included in its entirety as Technical Appendix G. Comment 3: All commercial development within Temecula should form a Transportation Management Association. In addition, the Specific Plan should identify preferential parking areas for ridesharing, bus bays, etc. Response: Within the Draft EIR, the following mitigation measures are currently proposed: In addition to the recommended roadway infrastructure improvements the Traffic Engineer also recommends that a number of Transportation Systems Management programs be implemented by the City of Temecula in the project vicinity including and throughout the Southwest Riverside County development area. The following recommendations are aimed at the City of Temecula with the intent of maximizing future roadway capacitates and reducing vehicular travel during the critical peak hour periods: • The continued enforcement of the South Coast Air Quality Management District's Trip Reduction Plan. • The implementation of public transit services in the Temecula area such as: express transit into and out of the area during the morning and evening commuter peaks; 26 fixed route local bus service between higher density residential areas and major activity centers; and - demand responsive transit services such as dial -a -ride for the lower density and more remote area. ' • Promotion of future public transit through the adoption of appropriate planning ordinances which would require special transit oriented design ' features to be incorporated into future development projects. It should be noted, however, that as Park -and -Ride Facility (Caltrans Park -Ride 08-RIV- 79-R2.5) is located at the northeast corner of the intersection of Winchester Road and I-15. This facility, provided by Bedford Properties, contains 93 parking spaces and serves residents of the Temecula area. ' • The adoption of ordinances which would require larger employers in the area to implement carpool and/or vanpool programs. Large employers could also ' be encouraged to implement staggered work hours or flextime programs for their employees. ' • In conjunction with future park-and-ride facilities to be provided by the Regional Center, provisions should be made for development of a future transit transfer station to promote future use of public transit, reduce ' vehicular travel and reduce parking demand at the Regional Center. CI ` 77 ! RECEIVED J'_ , 2 u '�A' South Coast AIR QUALITY MANAGEMENT DISTRICT 9150 FLAIR DRIVE, EL MONTE, CA 91731 (818) 672-6200 July 23, 1991 Mr. Oliver Mujica Planner City of Temecula; 43172 Business Park Drive Temecula, CA, 92390 Dear Mr. Mujica: Re: Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Report for the Temecula Regional Center, Specific Plan No. 263 SCAQMD# RVC910611-01 The South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) has reviewed the Draft Environmental Impact Report (Draft EIR) for the Temecula Regional Center project. Based on our analysis, SCAQMD concludes this project will generate significant construction- and operational -related adverse air quality impacts. The impact analysis contained in the Draft EIR does not adequately address these adverse air quality concerns. SCAQMD is responsible for adopting, implementing, and enforcing air quality regulations in the South Coast Air Basm (Bann), which includes Riverside County. As a responsible agency, SCAQMD reviews and analyzes environmental documents for projects that may generate significant adverse air quality impacts. In this capacity, SCAQMD advises the lead agency. The proposed pro'ect presents significant air quality impacts due to its size, location, and character. SAQp D's comments are intended to advise the City of Temecula in addressing and mitigating these potential adverse air quality impacts caused by the project both during and after construction. A detailed discussion of SCAQMD's analysis is contained in the attached Staff Assessment. mulrca ury SCAQMD appreciates the opportunity to comment on the Draft EIR for the proposed Temecula Regional Center project. If you have any questions regarding our comments, please contact Connie A. Day, Program Supervisor, at (818) 307- 4507. Sincerely, qck P. Broadbent anning Manager JPB:CAD:VL Attachments SCAQMD STAFF ASSESSMENT OF TEMECULA REGIONAL CENTER Project Description Bedford Properties proposes to develop a re&ional commercial center which will include: 1,673,000 square feet of retail commercial (approximately 298,000 square feet will be detached clusters of retail); 810,000 square feet of office and institutional space; two hotels with a total of 375 rooms and possible conference facilities; major roadways totaling 26 acres; and residential dwelling units (an unspecified amount of either multi- family or residential flats over office or commercial uses). The project location is south and east of the Winchester and Ynez Road intersection, in the City of Temecula. The project will be constructed in two phases. Phase one will begin in 1994, and phase two is currentlyy scheduled to begin in 1995 with anticipated completion in 2000 (see Table II, page III -26). Air Quality Setting The project site is located in Source Receptor Area 26. SCAQMD does not operate an air monitoring station in this receptor area, and therefore, air quality data from the Perris air monitoring station was analyzed for the years 1986 through 1989. According to air quality data collected at the Perris Monitoring Station, during 1990 the area exceeded state and federal ozone standards on 116 and 62 days, respectively. PM10, which consists of fine particles with an aerodynamic diameter of 10 micrometers or less, exceeded the state standard approximately 52 percent of days sampled. The Final EIR should incorporate 1990 air quality data, which is attached for your convenience. Construction -Related Air Quality Impacts The Draft EIR defines construction -related air quality impacts as short-term, resulting from "construction or grading operations" (see pa$e V-47). While the Draft EIR identified exhaust emissions from construction equipment and fugitive dust as short- term, the exhaust emissions from the construction crew's motor vehicles was omitted. Exhaust emissions from motor vehicles of the construction crew should be quantified and added to emissions quantified for construction equipment operations (see Table VIII, page 48 and Table K page V49). The Draft EIR estimates fugitive dust emissions to be approximately 1,980 pounds per day during grading operations. The SCAQMD threshold of significance for PM10 is 150 Pounds per day. Therefore, emissions of PM10 will be significant. Consequently, specific mitigation measures are required to reduce construction -related air quality impacts. The attached Exhibit contains mitigation measures to reduce construction - related air quality impacts. All applicable mitigation measures should be appropriately incorporated to reduce and/or eliminate short-term air quality impacts. The Draft EIR states that particulate emissions released from project construction "is a small amount compared to the 146 tons per day of particulates currently released in Riverside County..." (see page VA8). To state that .99 tons per day is a small amount 1] I when compared to 146 tons per day currently emitted in Riverside County is nota valid analysis. To conclude that because regional levels are high, the additions from the pro ect must be treated as minor by comparison is to "trivialize the project's impact" (re'er to Kings County Farm Bureau et a]. v. City of Hanford 221 Ca1.App.3d at 718-721 [270 Ca1.Rpt. 650, 661-662]). L In addition, SCAQMD requests clarification of the statement that "dust generated by such activities usually becomes more of a local nuisance than a serious health problem" (see page V-48). The state and federal ambient air quality standards are health based standards: Therefore; if these standards are exceeded, they become health concerns rather than simply a "nuisance." ' Operational Air Quality Impacts The Draft EIR indicates that operational or long-term air quality impacts at the project site will occur from both stationary and mobile emission sources. The primary source of stationary emissions will be the combustion of natural gas and use of electricity. Mobile sources represent the largest source of emissions due to increased vehicular traffic. Several pollutants are directly emitted from motor.vehicles including carbon monoxide (CO), oxides of nitrogen (NO,), hydrocarbons (HC), and particulates. The Draft EIR (based on information provided in Table X111, page V-52 indicates that ' total daily emissions of CO, NO., HC (or non -methane hydrocarbons [NMHC]), and particulates will exceed the "significant threshold criteria established by SCAQMD. Specifically, daily emissions of CO, NO., HC and particulates are estimated to be 15,182 pounds, 1,794 pounds, 1,332 pounds, and 400 pounds, respectively. SCAQMD dailyy thresholds of significance are 550 pounds for CO, 100 pounds for NO,, 75 pounds for HC, and 150 pounds for particulates. r Mitigation measures are required to reduce the operational or long-term air quality impacts. The Draft E6 identified several mitigation measures to reduce air quality impacts. While several mitiggation measures were identified in the Draft EIR, others are feasible and should also be included (see attached Exhibit). The Draft EIR states: "air quality .=pa associated with development of Temecula Regional Center are considered sigmficant adverse impacts in the generation of carbon monoxide, nitrogen oxide, sulfur- dioxide and particulates and will require a Statement of Overriding Considerations" (see page V-53). SCAQMD agrees with this conclusion. Consequently, all mitigation measures are required to reduce air quality impacts to the maximum extent possible. Cumulative Impacts The Final EIR should assess the collective or combined effect of both the project in question and other projects within the vicinity (see Table XVIII, page V-150). This will help identify appropnate mitigation measures for cumulative impacts. For example, Transportation Demand Management (TDM) programs might be appropriate in mitigating cumulative impacts. I 1 31 I. COMMENTS FROM THE SOUTH COAST AIR QUALITY .MANAGEMENT DISTRICT Comment 1: Air quality data for 1990 from the Perris Monitoring Station should be incorporated into the Final EIR. Response: The 1990 air quality data from the Perris Monitoring Station became available in June, 1991. According to the 1990 data from that monitoring station, the area exceeded state and federal ozone standards on 116 and 62 days, respectively. PM10, which consists of fine particles with an aerodynamic diameter of 10 micrometers or less, exceeded the state standard approximately 52 percent of days sampled. Comment 2: Exhaust emissions from the construction crew should be included. Response: The following table provides the daily exhaust emissions from the construction crew and the construction equipment for the Temecula Regional Center Specific Plan. It also includes an estimate of the exhaust emissions that will occur over the entire construction period for this project. Construction Period Exhaust Emissions Emissions Significance Daily... Over Entire Primary Threshold Emissions Construction Pollutant (Lbs./D@ Lbs. a Period (Lbs.) Construction Equipment CO 550 56, 19,880 ROG 75 10 3,550 NO, 100 153 54,315 SO, 150 16 5,680 Particulates 150 11 3,905 Construction Crew CO 550 7 ,` 2,590 ROG 75 1 206 NON 100 1 480 sox 150 0 0 Particulates 150 Negl. Negl. ' Comment 3: The significance of PMIo emissions during construction should be determined by comparing them to the 150 ]Lbs./Day SCAQMD threshold of significance for particulates. Short-term impacts are not necessarily insignificant just because they are temporary. Response: PMIo emissions during construction can be.estimated by adding the fugitive dust emissions during grading to the portion of the particulate exhaust emissions that are PMIo (assuming 50% of the daily total suspended particulate emissions shown are PMIo). PMIo emissions are approximately 30.to 50 percent of the total particulate matter generated by the project. PMIo emissions during construction (594 to 990 lbs./day) will exceed the 150 pound/day significance threshold. Consequently, based upon a "worst case" scenario, short- term PMIo emissions will be significant during construction. As noted in the Draft EIR, the project proponent will adhere to SCAQMD Rule 403 to reduce fugitive dust emissions. 'i Comment 4: Clarify statements in the EIR that particulate emissions are a "small amount compared to the 146 tons per day of particulates currently released in * Riverside County" and that "dust generated becomes more of a local nuisance than a serious health problem". Response: It is recognized that the introduction of particulate matter due to the project is considered a significant impact. As stated on page V-48 of the Draft EIR, "This is at small amount compared to the 146 tons per day of particulates currently released in Riverside County; however, it still exceeds the threshold of significance established by the SCAQMD". In addition, this particulate generation is associated with project construction which is considered to be of relative short-term duration. Fugitive dust is typically chemically inert with large diameter particles that are readily filtered by human breathing passages and therefore do not represent a significant health concern. Dust generated during grading is usually considered a local nuisance rather than a serious health problem. In some cases grading may occur in close proximity to existing sensitive uses off-site. Although the direction, extent and frequency of these fugitive dust impacts are difficult to quantify, dust generated. by construction activities could, under extremely windy conditions, impact properties downwind of the project site. . ' Comment 5: Since CO, NO, and HC will exceed the "significant threshold criteria" established by SCAQMD, additional mitigation measures should be included to reduce long-term air quality impacts. Response: Attachment A to this Response to Comments package includes a list of site specific mitigation measures derived from the generalized list provided by the ' SCAQMD. These measures will be incorporated in the project as conditions of approval, where determined to be applicable by the City of Temecula. Comment 6: Cumulative impacts of other foreseeable projects should be quantified. Mitigation measures for cumulative impacts such as TDM programs might be appropriate. 33 Response: In the vicinity of the project site are two major development projects also under consideration by the City of Temecula. These two projects are summarized below: Campos Verdes: This project, located immediately east of the proposed Temecula Regional Center consists of 850 dwelling units and 24 acres of commercial and office uses on a total of 133 acres. Winchester Hills: Located immediately north of the proposed Temecula Regional Center, this project consists of 1,948 dwelling units and 147.1 acres of commercial, office,. and business park uses on a total of 570 acres. In total, the cumulative air- pollutant emissions from the proposed Temecula Regional Center, Campos Verdes and Winchester Hills projects are quantified below: Pollutant Campos Winchester Verdes(') Hills( ) Temecula Regional Center Total Carbon Monoxide 0.774 4.190 7.591 12.555 Nitrogen Oxddes 0.163 0.500 0.897 1.560 Sulfur Oxddes 0.031 0.010 0:154 0.195 Particulates 0.036 0.110 0.200 0.346 Hydrocarbons 0.061 0.360 .0.666 1.687 (') Source: Campos Verdes Specific Plan, Draft EIR 348, Page V-55 (2) Source: Winchester Hills Specific Plan, Draft EIR 324, Page V-56 It should be acknowledged that the cumulative totals provided above do not account for the interaction of motor Vehicle trips between these three projects. Inparticular, a significant number of automobile trips originating from the Campos Verdes and Winchester Hills projects will likely be destined for the Temecula Regional Center which will provide a significant number of commercial and employment opportunities. This interaction of motor vehicle trips would be expected to significantly reduce the cumulative pollutant totals presented above. I L I i 1 1 LI 1 1 1\LVLlvl—L1 JUL L L IJJI t 3' ;am /Oan1ERR CRUFORa1R - aUOCIa11O11 OF OMRAMEOU 818 West Seventh Street,12th Floor a Los Angeles, California 90017-3435 D (213) 236-1800 a FAX (213) 236-182; EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE Ptesidnl Riepp., Vnttua Cavy Jahn nyngS Y., Second Vice President ;k �. Imagi County bo14 Suprrvuror Les A.gal County Mlke Anlmovlch, Supervuar Dane UrM, SaP,,ua.r Orangc CountyCmty Herrlell Wleder, Supervisor Riverside County Melba Dunlap, Supervisor Sm Berna th,County Jon Mlkels, Supervisor Cities of Loc Angela County Robert Bsrtlek, Mayor Montnvu Cidu of Imperial Caumy Slella Men dosa,Maya, Brswley Cities of Onn a County Irwin Fried, CounciMember Yorba Linda Cities of Riverside County Judy Nleburger,Mayor Marcor Valley Cities of San Bernardino County rLongv111e,Mayor Cities of Vwure Counly John Mellon, C..Wiimamber Santa Paul. City of los Angela Tom Bradley. Mayor City of Long Beach Clarence Smith, Couacilaumber POLICY CHAIRS Judy wrlphs. Couarib v, .b,, Cianmont, CAair.Tanrportation and Communiations Diann Rlet, Mayor Pro Tran Clarnau m, Chair, Energy and Environment Robert Waignner, Mayor Lakewood, Chml, Camnunily. Ecmomlc, atd Human Developmm AT•LARCE DELEGATES July 18, 1991 Mr. Oliver Mujica Contact Planner City of Temecula Planning Department 43172 Business Park Drive Temecula; CA 92390 RE: Temecula Regional Center SCAG Clearinghouse Number RI-55004-EDR Dear Mr. Mujica: Thank you for submitting the Temecula Regional Center Draft Specific Plan/EIR to SCAG for review and comment. As areawide clearinghouse for regionally significant projects, SCAG assists cities, counties and other agencies to review projects,. programs and plans for consistency with the Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA), Regional Mobility (RMP), Growth Management (GMP), and Air Quality Management (AQMP) Plans, all of which are included in the State Implementation Plan (SIP). These comments are meant to provide guidance for completing the proposed program and plans within the context of our regional goals and plans, which are'based in.part upon state and federal mandates. While neither project sponsors nor lead agencies are required to undertake the specific actions recommended by SCAG or other agencies through the Inter -governmental Review Process, there are requirements in state and federal laws for consistency with regional goals and plans. If�'you have any questions about the attached contact 'Jim Birckhead, (213) 23.6=1915, or Paul 236-1809. They will be happy to work with y comments presented herein and, if necess mitigation plan which meets regional, st requirements. Sincerely, Judy Wright, Council.,ember ANNE BAKER Cie.., Robert Gentry, Councibrumbar Director of Environmental Planning I... Beach .. . Richard Kelly, Mayor Pro True Pah. Desert ALTERNATES Imperid Cama o Sam Sharp Supervisor a Lia Angeles County o Ed Edelman, Supervisor and Kenneth Hahn, aide C1-1 y o Putrid. Lenon, Supervisor o San Bernardino Canty a Larry Wdkert Supervisor o Venture Ca Sandw4 Jr„ Mayor. Westmorland o Cities of Le, Asada Count. o Abbe L.&Ceu.c.4u.,b r_ Wot Hal—cervi Us o Richard Alalorre, Couacllavmb, Salassr, Mayor Pro Tem. Montebello , rr o Michael Wen, Couecibeember o a Robert Lowk. Mayor Pro Tem. This comments, please Hatanaka, (213) yo to address the ary, develop a ate and federal o Orange Conray o Gaddl Vasquez, Supervisor o Rive I Howard, Supervisor o Cities of lorymrl County a Vkk )range Cra o Rulhelyh Plummer, Couneifmamber, Nev •Linde o Cilia of Venture County o (VitenQ o Cay 2nd position o Jeffrey Kellogg, CosuribaewSrr o Al Last July 18, 1991 Page 2 SCAG Comments on the Draft Specific Plan/EIR for the Temecula Regional Center Project Description The Temecula Regional Center Specific Plan combines retail, office, hotel, regional mall or retail commercial core, institutional uses and a road network within a comprehensive plan for a 201.3 acre site. The development is proposed as a quality mixed-use commercial center designed to reflect and respond to urban trends in the Temecula and: neighboring Rancho California areas. The Specific Plan is designed to consider access links, compatible land use transitions with neighboring properties, views and landform relationships. The project is located in the area designated. by SCAG as the Central Riverside Subregion. IMPACTS: POPULATION HOUSING UNITS JOBS Not given Not given 7,289 to 8,126 GROWTH MANAGEMENT Analysis The project is generally consistent with the policies of GMP with respect to job/housing balance performance ratios. It is proposed that the project will generate approximately 7,289 to 8,126 jobs in a subregion which is presently housing -rich and job -poor. However, an undisclosed number of Housing units may also be constructed in a. mixed-use area. Assuming the number of housing units will be minor relative to the number of jobs being created, the project will serve to`enhance the job/housing balance ratio for the subregion. However, GMP policies also seek to achieve a balance between the type of jobs being created with the price of housing. Typically, in a project of this type, a significant number of the new jobs will be in the low-income category. This may result .in a long commute' distance for these employees, if there is insufficient low-income housing in the surrounding community.. This "affordability relationship" issue needs further amplification in the EIR. There is a critical problem within this general area of Riverside County caused by a shortage of available capacity at the regional water reclamation facilities in the Eastern Municipal Municipal Water District (EMWD) service area. Information provided to SCAG by EMWD indicates that the total committed demand for wastewater treatment in the local service area exceeds current discharge limitations. EMWD is proposing to provide additional wastewater treatment capacity; however, in order to receive the necessary permits, a finding of conformity of the wastewater treatment project with AQMP is needed. Section V.D.2 of the Draft EIR fails to adequately address the severity and critical nature of this wastewater treatment problem. 7— ' July 18, 1991 Page 3 It is essential that the wastewater, treatment facilities be sized and service phased in accordance with GMP and that the conformity requirements of Chapter Three of Appendix IV -G of the AQMP,be met. Recommendations To the extent possible, the City of Temecula should attempt to ensure the creation of a balance between the type of jobs being created in the Temecula Regional Center with the price of housing in the community. The growth management -related questions that should be specifically addressed in the EIR include: (1) how many of the jobs being created will be low-income jobs, (2) where will the low-income workers live, (3) how will these low-income workers get from home_�to work, (4) how many vehicle miles of travel will this, involve, and (5) are the assumptions related to employment and the income composition of the workers consistent with those made for the circulation/traffic study and for the air quality analysis? M The City of Temecula should ensure that the Temecula Regional Center Specific Plan adequately addresses the provision of wastewater treatment facilities sized and phased in accordance with GMP and AQMP. The timing and phasing of the required wastewater facility ' construction should be compared with the schedule for the build -out of the total specific plan project. This may result in the need to examine alternative build -out schedules. TRANSPORTATION Analysis MThe Draft EIR (on pages V-115 and V-116) lists various Transportation Systems Management (TSM) programs to be considered for implementation by the City of ;Temecula to reduce peak -hour trips. It proposes, among other things, that the City of Temecula implement public transit services, ordinances to require larger ' employers to implement carpool and/or vanpool programs and development of a future transit transfer station. Brief descriptions of these programs are provided. This is a modest beginning but additional detail is needed. Also, a robust Transportation Demand Management, (TDM) Program should be added and -together, the TSM and TDM programs should include the following elements: .1. An adequately detailed description of TSM and TOM measures incorporated into the project as mitigation measures or. project ' conditions. y July 18, 1991 Page 4 2. Expected effect and VMT/VT reduction targets for each component of the TSM/TDM program. 3. Funding sources for each program component. 4. Identification of the agencies or persons responsible for monitoring and administering the TSM/TDM program. 5. An implementation schedule for each program component. Recommendations The proposals need to go beyond suggestions that certain measures be merely considered or examined. The project should be designed to include commitments to specific TSM/TDM programs with clear delineation of responsibilities. trip reduction targets, financial arrangements .and specific schedules for action on each specific measure. SIP CONFORMITY A project is found to be in conformance with the State Implementation Plan (SIP) when it has satisfied the following three criteria: 1. It improves the subregion's job/housing balance performance ratio. 2. It reduces vehicle trips and vehicle miles traveled to the maximum extent feasible by implementing transportation demand management strategies. 3. Its .environmental document. includes an air quality analysis which demonstrates that the project will not have a significant negative impact on air quality in the long term._ Findings As described in the Draft EIR, the Temecula Regional Center Specific Plan does not conform to the SIP at this time. Although the first criterion has been,met, the second and third have not. Recommendations: The EIR should address the cost of housing in the community in l relation to the incomes of the persons who will be employed in the Temecula Regional Center and the effect of this relationship upon commute patterns and air quality. Ju ly its, 19`!1 Page 5 The EIR should address the wastewater conformity and general development conformity requirements of the AQMP/SIP. The transportation systems management and transportation demand management elements of the project should be strengthened as recommended above. All mitigation measures associated with the project should be monitored in accordance with AB 3180 requirements and reported to SCAG through the Annual Reasonable Further Progress Reports. 9 3 J. COMMENTS FROM THE SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA ASSOCIATION OF ' GOVERNMENTS Comment 1: The proposed project will generate between 7,289 and 8,126 new jobs in a subregion which is bousing-ricb and jobs -poor. Assuming the number of housing units :on-site will be minor, .the project will serve to enhance the jobs/bousing balance ratio for the subregion. Response: The proposed Temecula Regional Center will generate a maximum of 300 affordable housing units within the proposed "mixed use" commercial center. This results in a project jobs/housing balance ratio of 24.3 to 27.1. These ratios significantly exceed the jobs/housing balance performance goal of the Central Riverside Subregion of .83 jobs per household. Comment 2: Growth management policies attempt to achieve a balance between the types of jobs created with the price of available housing. This affordability relationships should be discussed further in the Final EIR. Response: According to the Fiscal Impact Report for the Temecula Regional Center, the proposed project will generate between 7,289 and 8,126 employment opportunities. Utilizing the higher total for a "worst-case" analysis, these additional employment opportunities can be categorized into the following income categories: Income Level (Annual) 0-$20,000 $20,000 - $30,000 $30,000 - $50,000 $50,000 - $100,000 $100,000+ Number of Employees 410 3,376 2,285 1,175 880 8,126 Approximately 4,340 (or 53.4%) of the employment opportunities created by development of the Temecula Regional Center are estimated to fall within income categories which would be able to qualify for purchase of attached or detached housing within projects within the Temecula/Rancho California area. Employees within the $20,000 to $30,000 annual income category would be able to afford rental housing within the area. In addition, employees within the lowest two income categories could combine incomes with a second wage earner (i.e. spouse, relative, friend) to afford the rental or purchase of homes in the area. Those employees in the lowest two categories unable to combine incomes or find suitable rental housing would be forced to find housing elsewhere in the region. However, it should be acknowledged that it is beyond the scope or responsibility of a major commercial project such as that proposed to provide for or.insure housing for all employees generated by its development. rComment 3: There is a problem in the western Riverside County area due to a shortage of available wastewater treatment capacity at EMWD reclamation facilities as compared to committed demand. While EMWD is proposing additional wastewater treatment capacity, it will be necessary to receive the necessary findings conformity with AQMP in order to receive necessary permits. Response: As indicated in the Draft EIR, sewage from the proposed project will be treated at the Rancho California Regional Wastewater Reclamation Facility 1 (RCRWRF). Expansion of this facility for tertiary treatment of an additional 10 million gallons per day is scheduled for completion in fall of 1991. As indicated on page V-120 of the Draft EIR, "assurance for provision of adequate water and wastewater service is ' required prior to approval of a subdivision map, in accordance with the State Subdivision Map Act." Comments 4 and 5: State Implementation Plan (SIP) conformity requires that regionally significant projects such as the Temecula Regional Center Specific Plan implement transportation demand management (TDM) and transportation system management (TSM) strategies which reduce project related vehicle trips (VT) and vehicle miles of travel (VMT) to the maximum extent feasible. Response: The Temecula Regional Center (which is primarily comprised of commercial and office uses) could implement an array of TSM/TDM strategies which would effectively reduce VT/VMT for the project. While there are many strategies which exist and have been used on other similar projects, there are many factors which would need to be considered to develop an effective and feasible TSM/TDM program for this specific project. The development of a comprehensive TSM/TDM program would require a significant effort which would involve close coordination with the project sponsor, the City of Temecula, SCAG and other affected agencies. This effort would also need to coordinate with the ongoing City of Temecula General Plan development. Although a detailed TSM/TDM program cannot be provided at this time, the following TSM/TDM strategies appear to be the most promising program components for the Temecula Regional Center Specific Plan: Candidate Mitigation Measures for TSM/TDM Program A. Public Transportation ' 1. Provision of on-site transit transfer station and park and ride facilities. 2. Employer subsidies for employees who use public transit. 3. Commercial Establishment subsidies for shoppers who use public transit (through ticket validation). 4. Provision of on-site shuttle -bus services. 1 41 5. Adoption of on-site roadway design features which facilitate transit vehicle access and circulation. These measures would provide amenities and incentives for project related employees and shoppers to use transit instead of their private automobiles. , B. Ridesharing 1. Employer sponsored vanpool/carpool programs. 2. Employer dedication of convenient parking for vanpool/carpool , participants. These measures could be implemented by individually major employees and/or collectively by smaller employees within the project. The primary objective would be to increase vehicle occupancy. C. Work -Trips 1. Require that major employees initiate staggered work hours or flex time programs for their employees. D. Land Use 1. Require project to ensure ,that uses include a full range of service- oriented commercial such as banks, restaurants, postage services and day care facilities to maximize trip making within the project and minimize off-site non -home based trips. 2. Provide adequate on-site pedestrian walkways and related amenities (shade trees, bus shelters, cross -walks, etc.). 3. Provide adequate bicycle oriented facilities (bike racks, bike lanes, etc.). E. Other 1. Initiate a preferential hiring program for prospective employees who live within the region. Implementation and administration of a project specific TSMfMM program could be conditioned by the City of Temecula, VT/VMT reduction targets could be established by the City with assistance from regional agencies such as SCAG and ROTC. For the most part, the envisioned TSM(MM program would be funded by the tenants of the project (for employer oriented programs) or the project sponsor (for initial infrastructure requirements). Comment 6: All mitigation measures associated with the project should be monitored in accordance with AB 3180 requirements and reported to SCAG through the Annual Reasonable Further Progress Reports. Response: The Supplemental Draft EIR contains a Mitigation Monitoring Program within the Environmental Summary (pages II -7 through I1-31) in accordance with AB 3180 requirements which can be updated and reported to SCAG on an annual basis. Al United States Department of the Interior FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE Fish and Wildlife Enhancement Southern California Field Station Laguna Niguel Office Federal Building, 2400 Avila Road Laguna Niguel, California 92656 June 21, 1991 City of Temecula Planning Department 43172 Business Park Drive Temecula, California 92390 Attn: Mr. Oliver Mujica City of Temecula Planning Department Re: Temecula Regional Center Draft Specific Plan EIR Dear Mr. Mujica: The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) has reviewed the Temecula Regional Center Draft Specific Plan Number 263 and EIR Number 304, and submits the following comments. General Comments The Service is concerned about downstream effects on existing and potential Least Bell's Vireo habitat in the Murrieta Creek and Santa Margarita River drainages due to increases in runoff which will occur as a result of the proposed project. Also, Murrieta Creek is specified as a wildlife corridor in the Riverside County Multispecies Habitat Conservation Plan Draft Report dated 1/1/91. As you may be aware, corridors are essential to maintain gene flow between otherwise isolated populations of plants and animals. This type of genetic exchange is absolutely essential in maintaining populations through time. Therefore, the Service is particularly concerned over actions which will disturb or degrade existing or proposed corridors like Murrieta Creek. Specific Comments From the project site map (pq.III figure 3) Winchester Road indicates the northwest boundary for the project. The vicinity map in the biological assessment (pg 4, figure 1, appendix E) indicates that the project boundary is northwest of Santa Gertrudis Creek. It is unclear which is the correct boundary, resulting in problems in adequately assessing all biological impacts. From Figure 6 (pg.III-14) of the document, it appears that surface water runoff from the project will exit the site via the ! Mr. Oliver Mujica 2 Santa Gertrudis and Murrieta Creek drainages. Due to changes in land use, the proposed project will increase surface runoff. This will result in increased flow and higher velocities in Murrieta Creek, both of which will cause increased erosion. t Additionally, Santa Gertrudis Creek is currently being straightened and lined with concrete which will only exacerbate erosion problems in Murrieta Creek. Finally, the water quality of the surface water runoff may also adversely effect habitat down stream. The Draft Specific Plan EIR, (pg.III-14 figure 6), shows the Campos Verde Detention Basin located off site to the northeast. It is unclear if this basin already exists or .is proposed. If the basin is not built concomitant with the proposed project it will be of no use in reducing project impacts. Detention basins are most effectively placed on site so as to intercept surface runoff from the project rather than to the project. Also it is unclear if .the basin is.large enough to detain peak volumes and there is no indication of its release capacity. Detention basins can be helpful in lessening adverse impacts due to reduced soil permeability, as well as increasing wildlife values, but they must be designed and placed appropriately. It is unclear if the Campos Verde Detention Basin meets these criteria. I O I r-1 'L I 11 Additionally the Service recommends that catchment basins be used to trap toxic materials as it comes off the project site. A series of basins could be used to accomplish this goal. The use L� of bio -remediation to break down the more complex materials (ie. grease, oils, etc.) combined with a wetland would do much to reduce the toxic materials reaching the Santa Gertrudis and Murrieta drainages. In terms of cumulative impacts, the service feels that the proposed project, concomitant with other projects both approved and pending, such as the Warm Springs Specific Plan Number 220, Winchester Properties Specific Plan Number 213, Roripaugh Estates Specific Plan Number 164, Borel Airpark Specific Plan Number 265, Winchester Hills, Winchester Highlands Business Park, and Winchester Meadows, results in significant impacts on the hydrology of San Gertrudis Creek, Murrieta Creek, and associated drainages in the area. For this reason, the Service suggests that mitigation to offset these impacts may be appropriate. Such mitigation might entail riparian habitat recovery and improvement in Murrieta Creek or other wetlands in the area, purchasing wetlands to -be preserve in perpetuity for Least Bell's Vireo, the creation of wetlands, or purchasing conservation easements along wetlands. The Service is receptive to other reasonable mitigation measures. Finally, the proposed 2711, or greater, Santa Gertrudis trunk /_ sewer which will run along Santa Gertrudis Creek (pg.V-118) may (P require a 404 permit from the Army Corp of Engineers, pursuant to Mr. Oliver Mujica 3 the Clean Water Act. As a rule, the Service discourages running any pipelines along or through water ways since it inevitably interferes with wildlife resources. Based on the above comments, the Service.feels the proposed project has significant secondary impacts on existing wetlands in the proximity of the project and on existing. as well as potential Least Bell's Vireo habitat, also in the proximity of the proposed project. This concludes the Service's comments on the Temecula Regional Center Draft Specific Plan/EIR. If you have, any questions please feel free to contact us. Our contact person is Gerald Braden, who can be reached at (714) 643-4270. ncerel , ,,,Q Cr`/its Harper e Supervisor cc: Bruce Eliason, CDFG Long Beach Mary Butterwick, EPA, San Fransisco, Mark Durham, COE, Los Angeles ' Ic COMMENTS FROM THE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Comment 1: The vicinity map within the Biological Assessment (page 4, Figure 1 of Appendix E) indicates that the northwest boundary of the project abuts Santa Gertrudis Creek. However, the Draft EIR does not indicate this northern boundary which is now indicated as Winchester Road. The Draft EIR does not discuss potential runoff impacts into Santa Gertrudis Creek. rResponse: Subsequent to preparation of the Biological Assessment, the proposed project was reduced in area to only include areas south of Winchester Road Biological surveys of areas north of Winchester Road were left within Appendix E in order to provide an assessment of off-site impacts. However, given this reduction in the project to areas south of Winchester Road results in the elimination of direct project impacts upon Santa Gertrudis Creek. Comment 2: Due to changes in land use adjacent areas (including the proposed project) and improvements to Santa Gertrudis Creek, increase flows and velocities of runoff will cause increased erosion in Murrieta Creek. Response: The Riverside County Flood Control & Water Conservation District is currently preparing a Management Plan for Murrieta Creek from.. Wildomar to its confluence with Temecula. This Management Plan is required in order to achieve the goals of maintaining flood control and wildlife value in Murrieta Creek. The firm of Jones & Stokes Associates is involved in-the,preparation of this Plan. This regional approach to drainage improvements and wildlife habitat maintenance for Murrieta will provide a viable ' method of achieving these goals. Comment 3: The .Draft Specific Plan indicates a detention basin off-site and upstream of the Temecula Regional Center project site. Its status as to whether or not it is built is unclear. It is also unclear as to whether or not this detention basin is large enough to accommodate peak volumes of upstream runoff or the extent of release capacities. ' Response: The Campos Verdes detention basin has been designed and is currently ready for plan check by the City of Temecula. It has been designed to insure that upstream flows entering the Temecula Regional Center site do not exceed 1,250 cubic feet per ' second. This detention capacity will insure that drainage facilities downstream will not be overburdened. It is anticipated that design approval and construction of this facility will require from six to twelve months. As indicated in the Draft EIR, this detention basin facility is part of the project proposal. All drainage facilities for the Temecula Regional Center "shall conform to the requirements of the Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District". Comment 4: The Fish and Wildlife Service recommends provision of on-site catchment basins to trap toxic materials on-site in order to reduce the introduction of such toxic materials into the Murrieta Creek drainages. 47 Response: According to the Project Engineer, an on-site catchment basin would reduce potential water quality impact to downstream drainage areas. The runoff captured in this basin could be treated through bio -remediation methods currently being developed (see attached correspondence). An additional mitigation measure is recommended for addition to the Final EIR which states: "If a technically and economically feasible method is developed to catch and treat runoff from the project, such facilities shall be included within drainage plans to be submitted and approved by the City of Temecula. The City shall determine at that time as to whether such technology is available and whether its implementation is feasible from an economic and technical standpoint". Comment 5: Given the large number of Specific Plans proposed or approved in the project area, significant impacts upon the Santa Gertrudis and Murrieta Creek drainages are anticipated. Mitigations to offset these impacts may be appropriate. Response: The Santa Gertrudis Creek, which will not be impacted by the proposed project, is currently being improved as part of Assessment District 161. The Management Plan for Murrieta Creek currently being developed by the Riverside County Flood Control & Water Conservation District is discussed in Response to Comment #2 above. Comment 6: The proposed Santa Gertrudis Creek trunk sewer which.will run along Santa Gertrudis Creek will require a 404 permit from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Response: As previously indicated, the proposed project will not have any direct impacts upon Santa Gertrudis Creek. The need for any required permitting of the Santa Gertrudis Creek trunk sewer would be the subject of an application independent of the proposed project. TEMECULA REGIONAL CENTER EIR PLANNING DEPARTMENT COMMENTS General Comment relative to format - Use the following format for the EIR: Existing Conditions, Impacts/General Plan Relationship, Mitigation Measures, Level of Significance After Mitigation. All Tables should be formatted the same way and sourced. 1. Existing Conditions, page V-12, last paragraph, second sentence. Should word nearby be nearly? 2. Existing Conditions, page V-12 - provide an Exhibit showing the faults in the area, and the project sites' relation to these faults. 3. Existing Conditions, page V-14 - first paragraph needs a heading. 4. Liquefaction, page V-14, second paragraph. What is the "Revised Feasibility Geotechnical Study?" 5. Seismically Induced Flooding, page V-14 - provide an exhibit showing area that ' would flood providing dam fails. 6. Mitigation Measures, page V-17, item number 1. - what are the County Ordinances that are referenced here? What about City Ordinances? Add item number 4 to read "In order to mitigate potential inundation impacts associated with Skinner Dam, an evacuation plan shall be developed by the City of Temecula and approved by FEMA. All affected final subdivision maps will indicate that the proposed project lies in a potential inundation zone." 7. Project Impacts/General Plan Relationship, page V-21, Topography, second paragraph- statement that import material will come from the Campos Verdes project is presumptuous. This project has not yet been approved. Need to provide an alternative for import. ' 8. Slope Stability, page V-22, second paragraph, second sentence. This is a mitigation measure and should be moved to the section. proper 9. Road Grades, page V-23 - Take out all references to the County." 10. Slope Stability and Landscape Plans, page V-23 - substitute the word shall for ' the word may. SV'LMNINGVIEGEIR 11. Mitigation Measures, page V-23, item number 3 - take out the reference to the ' County. 12. Mitigation Measures, page V-24, first paragraph - take out the reference to the County. 13. Mitigation Measures, page,V-24, item number 6 - state that all development shall adhere to. the t Mitigation: Measures contained in the Revised Feasibility Geological Report. , 14. Flooding, page V-26, first paragraph - what does the Rancho California Commerce Center Study have to do with this project? ' 15. Project Impacts/General Plan Relationship, page V-28, third paragraph - what happens if the Campos Verdes Detention Basin is not constructed? How will f water flows be handled? 16. Mitigation Measures, page V-29 - what about mitigation for 100 year event for Skinner Dam? 17. Long Term Impacts, page V-33 - define "cumulative development." The last sentence states that Column 2 of Table V shows the change in future noise levels over future noise levels without the project. Column 2 of Table V is shown as future noise levels due to the project. Correct this discrepancy. 1 18. Page V-38, fourth paragraph - add a sentence which states that cumulative impacts will be significant. 19. Figure 32, page V-38 - why are 70 CNEL levels not shown? , 20. On -Site Noise Impacts,. page V-42, third and fourth paragraphs contradict each other with respect to buildings being impacted by the 70 CNEL. ' 21. Page V-43, second paragraph, last sentence - this sentence does not read well. This should be re -written. 22. Mitigation Measures, page V-45, item number 3 - reference to mall area should be deleted since it is not designated as such on the Specific Plan Land Use , Plan. 23. Climate and Air Quality, page V-46, second paragraph - why is there a t reference to an annual average temperature for the year 1978? S\PLANNING\REGEIR ' I 11 I 1 I I I I 24. Climate and Air Quality, page V-46, third paragraph - last sentence refers to the Temecula Area. Second paragraph refers to the Rancho California Area. Fourth paragraph refers to Rancho California Area. Be consistent. 25. Air Quality, page V-46, second paragraph, last sentence - leave this sentence out; there are no facts to support it. 26. Table VII, page V-48 - provide definitions of all of the abbreviations in this table. What is the Percent AGM Std. Exceeded? This table needs to be re- formatted. 27. Project Impacts/General Plan Relationship, page V-47, last sentence - should reference that long term impacts are associated with traffic generated by the project. 28. Short Term Impacts, page V-48, second paragraph - comparing the dust generated by this project with the dust generated in the County as a whole makes no sense. Take .this sentence out. Last sentence in this paragraph is a mitigation measure. Move this out of Impacts Section and place in Mitigation Section. 29. Table VIII, page V-48 - what does this mean? Is this an impact or not? 30. First paragraph, page V-49 - what if dirt is not from Campos Verdes? What would.the impacts be if dirt were brought in from another source? 31. Table IX, page V-49 - what does this mean? Is this an impact or not? 32. Table X, page V-50 - this Table needs to be explained. Also, need to draw a conclusion relative to motor vehicle emissions. 33. Use of Natural Gas and Electricity, page V-50 - this section does not read well. It is hard to follow. Place information in table and provide definitions. Draw conclusions., regard! ng impacts. Format of all tables should be consistent (reference Table XIII). All tables should be sourced. 34. Total Emissions, page V-52 - why is this project being compared to Riverside County as a whole? What does this tell us? 35. Table XIII, page V-52 - what is NMHC? Need to provide definitions for all abbreviations. STLANNING\REGEIR 36. Second paragraph, page V-53 - the SCAG-82 growth forecast did not utilize the SWAP which was adopted in 1988. Therefore, the logic does not follow that this Specific Plan is consistent with the AQMP. ' 37. Mitigation Measures, page V-54, item 2 - list bicycle facilities, such as bike lanes, racks and lockers. , 38. General Plan Relationship, page V-57, second sentence- should doses be uses? 39. Existing Conditions, page V-58 - are Group 1 Wastes the only type of wastes? If not, discuss the other types of wastes. Under Class II -1 Facilities there is a discussion of Group 2 and 3 Wastes which have not previously been discussed. , Define these wastes. 40. Page V-59, third paragraph - jurisdiction should read jurisdictional. , 41. Open Space and Conservation, page V-62, second paragraph - spell out the date SWAP was adopted by the Board of Supervisors. Last sentence on the page - spell out ACS. 42. Figure 33, page V-63 - provide a screen which delineates the project boundaries. A-2-20 designation is incorrect. A-2-20 -zoning allows one dwelling unit per 20 acres. ' 43. Project Impacts/General Plan Relationship, page V765 - third paragraph states that there are no residential uses proposed. This conflicts with the Project Description on page II1-2 of the Specific Plan which "states that the plan , includes mixed use residential. 44. Jobs/Housing Balance, page V-67 - why is this here? What does this have to do with Open Space and Conservation? �. 45. Mitigation Measures, page V-68 - take out item number 2. This does not belong in this Section. 46. Table XIV, page V-69 - this table does not match Figure 34. Why the difference? , 47. Figure 34, page V-70 - GyA and GyC2 have the same definitions (Greenfield Sandy Loam, 0-2% slopes). Correct this. , 48. Cost of Water, page V-71 - third paragraph, last sentence. Check with EMWD regarding policies with respect to reclaimed water. STLANNING\REGEIR - , 1 49. ' 50. Mitigation Measures, page V-90 - under Archaeology, last sentence. 51. Consultation by an archeologist is not sufficient mitigation. Propose additional 52. mitigation. 53. Project Impacts/General Plan Relationship, page V-73, third paragraph - discuss cumulative impacts. Mitigation Measures, page V-74 - correct the font. High Interest Species On -Site, page V-77 - define "endangered" and "species of special concern.". Mineral Resources, page V-82 - delete this discussion from the EIR since it was not identified in the NOP. Scenic Highways, page V-85 - under General Plan Relationship this format needs to be consistent with the previous format under this heading. 54:.; Mitigation Measures, page V-87 - what mitigationis proposed for the building setback along Winchester Road? 55. Mitigation Measures, page V-90 - under Archaeology, last sentence. Consultation by an archeologist is not sufficient mitigation. Propose additional mitigation. 56. Paleontology, page V-90, first paragraph - replace Rancho California with Temecula. 57. Circulation and Traffic, page V-92 - refer to Public Works comments relative to traffic and circulation. 58. Reclaimed Water, page V-117, second sentence - EMWP should be EMWD. 59. Second paragraph, page V-118 - when is expansion to 4.2 mgd expected to be completed? When is expansion to 6.25 mgd expected to be completed? 60. Project Impacts/General Plan Relationship, page V-118, first paragraph - "peak demand of 17,280 gallons per acre." Should this read "17,280 gallons per day, per acre?" Define PSI. 61. Sewer, page V-118, second paragraph - define "peaking factor of 2.0." ' 62.,, General Plan Relationship, page V-119, item number 1 - define Category 1. Items 2 and 3 need to be formatted correctly. ' 63. ,- Mitigation Measures, page V-120 - format for Mitigation Measures needs to be consistent. In this Section, Mitigation Measures are numbered, while in ' previous Section they were not. S\PLANNINGIREGEIR 64. Fire Services, page V-122 - define GPM. First paragraph contains incomplete sentence. Correct this. Provide information on the number of medical aid calls the Fire Department typically responds to. Provide additional information on the private ambulance company that provides service. 65. Project Impacts/General Plan Relationship, page V-122 - define what the demand for increased fire protection services will be. Will project generate need for additional equipment and/or personnel? 66. Mitigation Measures, page V-123, item number 1 - provide a statement that all development within the Temecula Regional Center will be required to have fire retardant roofing material. 67. Existing Conditions, page V-124, first paragraph - patrol cars and police stations are not staff. Re -write the last sentence. How far is the Lake Elsinore station from the site? Is the 20-30 minute response time an average? What is the emergency response time? 68. Project Impacts/General Plan Relationship, page V-124 - the development of the Regional Center will create more than several job opportunities in the area. Specify expected employment. Include a statement here that existing sheriffs' personnel is inadequate and this project will create further impacts relative to sheriffs' services. 69. Mitigation Measures, page V-125, item number 1 - explain what this means (what taxes and what expenditures?) Item number 2 - change the word considered to implemented. Re -word the crime prevention measures so that it is clear how these measures will increase security at the Center. 70. Existing. Conditions, page V-126 -.this Section does not read well: Re -write this. Provide information on existing enrollment for all the schools" as well as capacity for all the schools. Provide an exhibit showing the school locations. 71. Project Impacts/General .Plan Relationship, page V-126 - if there is in fact no residential proposed, the Specific Plan description needs to change. If Specific Plan description is correct, an analysis of impacts needs to be conducted. Second sentence in this paragraph is poorly constructed. This needs to be re- written. 72. Existing Conditions, page V-128 - reference to Rancho California should be changed to Temecula. Expand on the recreational opportunities available at local school campuses. What about the Santa Rosa Plateau? SPLANNINGVtEGEIR ' 73. Project Impacts/General Plan Relationship, page V-128 - reference to indirect impacts needs to state what these impacts are. What are the open space and recreation facilities within the adjacent Winchester Hills Specific Plan and the 1 Campos Verdes zone change? 74. Second paragraph, page V-129 - what is the statement that " flood control right-of-way,will be used for recreational purposes" based on? 75. Mitigation Measures, page V-129 - this Section is weak. Specify what the mitigation measures will be. ' 76. Existing Conditions, page V-130 - define KV. What is the size of the existing gas main? 77. First paragraph, page V-131 - shouldn't this read that the "electrical generating capacity does not exceed SCE's estimate:..?" 78. First paragraph, page V-132 - what is the Energy Commission report referenced in this paragraph? 79. Existing Conditions, . page V-134, first paragraph - where is 31710 Grand Avenue? Is.this in Temecula? Where is the EI Sobrante landfill? Talk about City's AB939 program (contact Joe Hreha at the City). 80. Second paragraph, page V-135 - how much will the lifespan of the affected landfills be shortened? 81. Mitigation Measures, page V-137 - the City is in the process of developing its' own Source Reduction and Recycling Plan. This needs to be discussed under ' Existing. Conditions, with Mitigation Measures proposed included in this Section. 82. Existing Conditions, page V-138 - this paragraph does"hot make sense. What does the statement.that the branch library has a current service area population of 43,500 mean? Population of Temecula is more than this. Will new facility be in lieu of existing facility, or in addition to? Is this facility open? Correct sentence that states that the facility will be open in the fall of 1990. 83.. Project Impacts/General Plan Relationship, page V-138`' what about indirect impacts? ' 84. Existing Conditions, page V-139 - how far are these hospitals from the project site? List the private care facilities in the City of Riverside and "surrounding communities" which are available. S\PUNNING\REGEIR - 85. Project Impacts/General Plan Relationship, page V-139, first paragraph - how will project implementation increase the need for medical services and facilities? Will there be an impact? Delete the last sentence; this belongs under General Plan Consistency. Statement that project consistency with the General. Plan is assured needs to be backed up. What facts support this statement? 86. Mitigation Measures, page V-140 - this may change depending on quantification of the need for medical facilities and services included in Project Impacts Section. If no impacts, simply state. that there are no impacts, and therefore no mitigation is proposed. 87. Airports, page V-142 - if this was not noted in the NOP, it should not be in the EIR. 88. Existing Conditions, page V-143 - does the City have a Disaster Preparedness Plan? If so, discuss it here. 89. Mitigation Measures, page V-144 - list the appropriate mitigation measures. 90. RSA/Land Use Planning Area Profile, page V-145 - under Defined Area in the Table, put Growth. Management Plan in parentheses behind Central Riverside. Provide the date the "Population Projections by RSA and°Census-Tracts" Report was prepared. If this Section is supposed to provide support for the Regional Center through an analysis of a jobs/housing market, it is unclear as to how this is shown. This Section is hard to follow and should be. re -written. 91. Table XVIII, page V-150 - first footnote should delete reference to the County. 92. Noise, page V-152 - state that impact is a significant one. 93. Open Space and Conservation, page V-152, second sentence - take this sentence out; there are no "large open space areas" which will be preserved, and the existing rural open space atmosphere will not be retained. In the last sentence, it is stated that the area currently has an open space and urban character. Which is it? 94. Agriculture, page V-152, first sentence - delete the word possibly. 95. Circulation and Traffic, page V-153 - why the mention of additional dwelling units? Is this project proposing development of residential units? Some portions of the EIR say residential is proposed and some portions say there will be no residential. Which is it? Last sentence°on the page - were the additional ICU calculations performed for all intersections ... with the project or with the future traffic with project? S\PLANNING\REGEIR 96. Police and Fire Protection, page V-155 - quantify cumulative impacts. 97. School and Park, page V-155 - quantify cumulative impacts. ' 98. First paragraph, page V-156 - check Assembly Bill number. ' 99. Library Service, page V-156 - quantify cumulative impacts. 100. Unavoidable Adverse Impacts, page V-157 - this Section is inadequate. Include a discussion for the following significant impacts: noise, open space and conservation, wildlife and vegetation, circulation and traffic, and public facilities ' and services. 101. Last paragraph, page V-158 - the City of Temecula will not prepare the ' Statements: of Overriding Considerations. This will be the responsibility of the EIR preparer. 102. Existing Zoning Alternative, page V-160 - discussion of the R -R zone needs to include the commercial uses which are permitted under Ordinance 348. This will require the environmental impacts discussion to change also. 103. Table ?, page V-166 - define ksf. First paragraph - is the statement that the "Temecula Regional Center as presently proposed .... results in an ICU level of A or B at all affected intersections .... consistent with the next sentence which states that "in the year 2000 ... four intersections would operate at a LOS "D", one at a LOS "E" and one at a LOS "F"? Please clarify. Same comment on page V-171. Include a Table in the discussion of Alternatives that allows the reader to compare alternatives at a glance. 104. Growth Inducing Impacts of the Proposed Project, page V-175, second paragraph - take out discussion of the jobs/housing balance; this has nothing to do with growth inducement. 105. The Relationship Between Local Short -Term Uses of Man's Environment and The Maintenance and Enhancement of Long -Term Productivity, page V-176, second paragraph -specify what the environmental consequences will be. ' 106. Irreversible/Irretrievable Commitment of Energy Supplies and Other Resources Should the Project Be Implemented, page V-177 - why is this format different from preceding Sections? Be consistent in format. 107. Include a list of document preparers. 11 S\PLANNING\REGEIR I 108. This EIR needs to be reviewed in terms of format (e.g. each Section should be formatted the same and all tables should be formatted the same). Additionally, there are numerous instances of awkward phrasing that should be addressed to facilitate ease of reading. All Mitigation Measures should be numbered to assist in the preparation of a Mitigation Monitoring Program. SIPLMNING%AEGE1R ' L COMMENTS FROM THE CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNING DEPARTMENT 1. Comment: The discussion of existing conditions relative to the Murrieta Hot Spring Fault zone within Section V.C.1, Seismic Safety should be reworded. Response: This comment is hereby incorporated into the Draft EIR. The first sentence of the subject paragraph within the Draft EIR is hereby revised as follows: "The Murrieta Hot Springs Fault Zone - this zone has been mapped by Kennedy and others, 1977, as being nearly ,continuous from the ' southeast portion of Murrieta Hot Springs." 2. Comment: The discussion .of seismic conditions should include provision of an exhibit showing the; faults in the area, and the project sites relation to these faults. Response: A figure has been inserted into the Draft EIR indicating the location of existing faults relative to the project site. 3. Comment: An additional heading is needed prior to the discussion of on-site soils within the Existing Conditions discussion in Section V.C.1. Response: A heading titled "Soils" was added prior to the first paragraph on page V-14 of the Draft EIR. 4. Comment: What is the "Revised Feasibility Geotechnical Study" referred to in the ' discussion of liquefaction? Response: As stated in the first paragraph of this section (Section C.1. Seismic Safety) "The following discussion is based on the "Revised Feasibility Geotechnical Report 230+ Acre Regional Center South and East of Winchester and Ynez Roads, Rancho California, California" prepared by ICG Incorporated (dated October 18, 1989). This report is included in its entirety as Technical Appendix B." ' S. Comment: Within the Draft EIR's discussion of Seismically Induced Flooding, provide an exhibit showing area that would flood providing dam fails. Response: The extent of the inundation area due to a dam failure at Lake Skinner is indicated in Figure 31, Existing Hydrology. ' 6. Comment: Mitigation Measure number 1: what are the County Ordinances that are referenced here? What about City Ordinances: Add Mitigation Measure number 4 to read "In order to mitigate potential inundation impacts associated with Skinner dam, an ' evacuation plan shall be developed by the. City of Temecula and approved by FEMA. All affected final subdivision maps will indicate that the proposed project lies in a potential inundation zone." 59 "Response: This comment is hereby incorporated into the Draft EIR. Mitigation ' number 1 within Section V.C.1, Seismic Safety is hereby revised as follows: "Design , of on-site structures shall be in accordance with the criteria contained in the Uniform Building Code and any applicable City of Temecula building ordinances. All structures shall be designed to , withstand earthshaking from the maximum credible earthquake that can be expected." , In addition, Mitigation Measure number 4 as mentioned above in comment number 6 has hereby been incorporated into the EIR as mitigation number 4 within Section V.C.1, Seismic Safety. , 7. Comment: .The assumption that import material may come., from the adjacent Campos Verdes project is presumptuous in that this project'hasmot been approved. What are the alternatives if this adjacent project is not developed. Response: The following addition has been made to the discussion of topographic i impacts within Section V.C.2, Slopes and Erosion in the Draft EIR: "In the event thati the Campos Verdes site is not an available r source for import material, areas outside the boundaries of the proposed Temecula Regional Center but under the applicant's , ownership will be utilized for this purpose". 8. Comment: The discussion of impacts related to Slope Stability contains a mitigation , measure and should be moved to the proper section. Response: Mitigation measure number 4, within Section V.C.2, Slopes and Erosion currently states "Fill slopes shall be properly compacted and all cut and fill slopes shall be planted with erosion resistant vegetation or other protective devices as soon. as possible once grading occurs." ' 9. Comment: Take out all reference to the County in the discussion of required on-site road grades. , Response: This comment is hereby incorporated into the Draft EIR. The discussion of required on-site road grades is hereby revised as follows: "All roads shall be graded to a finished grade of no more than fifteen (15) percent, or as recommended by the City of Temecula Road and , Survey Department:" 10. Comment: The word "shall" for the word "may" should be substituted in the , discussion of slope stability and landscape plans. Response: This comment is hereby incorporated into the Draft EIR. General Plan Relationships item number 3. Slope Stability and Landscape Plans is hereby revised as 1 follows: "Slope Stability and Landscape Plans - Where land uses are to be located on slopes subject to instability, erosion or slippage, an environmental assessment, rockfall study, a geologic report or engineering report shall be required." ' 11. Comment: Mitigation Measure number 3 within Section V.C.2, Slopes and Erosion - take out the reference to the County. ' Response: This comment is hereby incorporated into the Draft EIR. Mitigation number 3 is hereby revised as follows: "All cut and fill slopes shall be constructed at inclinations of no steeper than a 2:1 ratio unless otherwise approved by the City of ' Temecula." 12. Comment: Mitigation Measure number 5 within Section V.C.2, Slopes and Erosion - take out reference to the County. ReEponse: This comment is hereby incorporated into the Draft EIR. Mitigation number 5 is hereby revised as follows: "All grading procedures shall be in compliance with the City of Temecula Grading Standards including requirements for erosion control during rainy months. Stand engineering techniques will minimize the soil erosion and siltation potential to acceptable levels. ' Prior to Grading Plan approval, the project proponent shall submit to the City of Temecula, for review and approval, an erosion control program indicating proper control of siltation, sedimentation and other pollutants. The _erosion control measures will include revegetation of cut and fill areas, utilization of sediment control devices at construction sites, and diversion of storm runoff from development areas. All drainage will be conveyed in non-erosive. drainage devices to suitable disposal points. Energy dissipation and . methods for preventing scour and erosion should be part of any drainage improvements." ' 13: Comment: Mitigation Measure number 6 within Section V.C.2, Slopes and Erosion state that all development shall adhere to the Mitigation Measures contained in the Revised Feasibility Geological Report. ' Response: This comment is hereby incorporated into the Draft EIR. Mitigation measures number 6 is hereby revised as follows: 61 "All development shall adhere to the mitigation measures contained in the "Revised Feasibility Geotechnical Report" included as Technical Appendix B to this document, including the additional recommendations relative to Subdrainage; Fill -Over -Cut -Slopes, Slope Protection/ Maintenance, Transition Lots, Foundations, Surface and Subgrade Drainage, Foundation and Slab Recommendations, Lateral Load Resistance, Concrete Slabs/Flatwork, Set -Backs, Soil Sulfate Content, Utility Trench Backfill, Pavement Design, retaining Walls, and Construction Monitoring." 14. Comment: What is the relationship of the Rancho California Commerce Center to the proposed project? Response: The Rancho California Commerce Center was a 1,049 acre project which included the currently proposed Temecula Regional Center. This previous project was the source of hydrologic data which was used in the subsequent J.F.. Davidson study. 15. Comment: The assumption of provision of an upstream park/detention basin within the adjacent Campos Verdes project is presumptuous in that this project has not been approved. Response: The required upstream flood control facilities, including the proposed detention basin on the Campos Verdes site, would be constructed independent of any approvals for the Campos Verdes project. 16. Comment: What about mitigation of potential impacts due to failure of Skinner Dam. Response: A discussion of impacts and mitigation measures related to the seismically -induced failure of Skinner Dam is discussed in detail within Section V.C.1., Seismic Safety. 17. Comment: What is the "cumulative" development inferred to within the discussion of "Long -Term Impacts" within Section V.C.S, Noise. Table . V, Traffic CNEL Noise Increase must be clarified to indicate noise impacts related to the project and impacts related to cumulative development. Response: Long -Term noise impacts associated with cumulative development of the project area is based upon cumulative traffic volumes contained -within the Temecula Regional Center Traffic Study which is included as an Appendix to this EIR. Table V has been revised to clarify the fact that column 1 of that table relates to noise increases due to existing and cumulative development including the Temecula Regional Center project. Column 2 of Table V describes noise increases attributed solely to the Temecula Regional Center. A17 ' 18. Comment: Cumulative noise impacts are considered significant. ' Response: The discussion of cumulative noise impacts within Section V.C.5, Noise of the Draft EIR contains the following addition: ' These cumulative noise impacts are considered a significant adverse environmental impact". In addition, • Section V.G.2, Unavoidable Adverse Impacts has also been revised to reflect this addition. ' 19. Comment: Why are 70 CNEL levels not shown on Figure 32, Future On -Site CNEL Noise Levels? ' ResQonse: The 70 CNEL contours are not shown on Figure 32 in that these contours fall within or adjacent to the edge of right-of-way for the respective roadways within the vicinity of the subject property. 20. Comment: Section V.C.5, Noise contains contradictory information concerning impacts of 70 CNEL contour. Response: Section V.C.5 has been amended to read as follows: ' "Therefore, none of the proposed structures are expected to fall within or be impacted by the 70 CNEL contour". ' 21. Comment: The final sentence describing California Land Use/Noise Compatibility guidelines should be clarified. Response: The final sentence noted above has been reworded as follows: "According to the California Land Use/Noise Compatibility guidelines, commercial, retail and office land uses in the 65 to 70 CNEL are "normally acceptable" with the assumptiow that ' any building involved is of conventional construction without any special noise insulation requirements". 22. Comment: Mitigation measure number 3 within Section V.C.5 refers to the "mall area". Such references should be deleted. ' Response: References to the "mall area" within mitigation measure number 3 have been revised to "retail commercial use". 63 23. Comment: Reference is made within Section V.C.6, Air Quality to the average annual temperature in 1978. Response: Section V.C.6 has been amended to read as follows: "Temperatures in the Temecula area range from 20 to 109 degrees Fahrenheit with an average annual temperature of 64 degrees fahrenheit". 24. Comment: References are made in Section V.C.6, Air Quality to both the Temecula and Rancho California area. Response: All references to the project are revised as "Temecula". 25. Comment: The final sentence related to Monitoring of Carbon Monoxide and Nitrogen Dioxides should be deleted. Response: The final sentence noted above has been deleted. 26. Comment: Table VII, Air Quality Levels measured at the Perris Ambient Air Monitoring Station should provide definitions of all abbreviations. Response: Table VII has been amended to indicate that percentages of State Standard Exceeded for PM,0 particulates. Other abbreviations are defined below and have been added as footnotes to Table VII. ppm refers to parts per million ughn3 refers to microgram per cubic meter of air 27. Comment: Reference to "long-term" impacts should mention impacts associated with automobile use. Response: Section V.C.6. has been amended to read as follows: "Longterm impacts are associated with the buildoutcondition and the resultant mobile (automobile -related) _ and .stationary source (electricity and natural gas use) emissions." 28. Comment: Comparisons of project -related dust generation to County totals should be removed. Reference to ground watering as a means of redirecting fugitive dust should remain as a Mitigation Measure. Response: The comparison of project -related to County dust generation totals has been deleted from the Draft EIR. Mitigation measure number 1 for Section V.C.6, Air Quality provides sufficient mitigation. 29. Comment: What are the actual impacts related to in information contained in Table VIII, Project Related Emissions (Diesel Powered Scraper). LA Response: The information in Table VIII provides an estimate of short-term emissions associated with the operation of two pieces of heavy construction equipment to ' grade the project site. This assumes the equipment operated eight hours per day. These emissions are considered short-term and are not considered significant adverse impacts. 30. Comment: If import material is not taken from the Campos Verdes site, what are ' the impacts associated with importing fill material from an alternate source. ' Response: As previously indicated (see Response to Comment #7), in the event. that the Campos Verdes site is not an, available source for import material, areas outside the boundaries of the proposed Temecula Regional Center but under the applicant's ' ownership will be utilized for this purpose. The impacts of this transport activity involve short-term traffic, noise and air quality impacts associated with trucks hauling this material. Table IX, Heavy Duty Diesel Truck Emissions for Import of Dirt contains a quantification of air quality impacts associated with transport of fill material from the Campos Verdes site to the proposed Temecula Regional Center (haul distances assumed to be 0.6 miles). If an alternate site is selected, the impacts associated with thistransport can be determined through application of the proportional increase in transport distance to the, totals contained in Table IX of the Draft EIR. These impacts are considered short-term and do not, on their own, exceed thresholds of significance identified by the South Coast Air Quality Management District. 31. Comment: What is the significance of information contained in Table IX, Heavy Duty Diesel Truck Emissions for Import of Dirt. Response: See Response to Comment number 30 above. 32. Comment: Table X, Motor Vehicle Emissions as contained in the Draft EIR needs ' to be explained and conclusions must be reached regarding motor vehicle emissions. Response: Table X of the Draft EIR provides a detailed quantification of the various pollutants generated by automobile traffic associated with the proposed project. These estimates are based upon a "vehicle miles travelled" total provided by the Traffic Engineer. The emissions associated with motor vehicle use (as, quantified in Table X) are combined with emissions associated with power plant and natural gas emissions (see Tables XI and )UI, respectively). The sum of these various emissions are noted in Table XIII, Comparison of Emissions and subsequently compared with air quality thresholds of significance provided by the South Coast Air Quality Management District. 33. Comment: The information regarding electricity and natural gas consumption should be placed within a tabular summary. All tables should have their sources noted. Response: Section V.D.7, Utilities contains tabular summaries of natural gas and electricity consumptions associated with the proposed project. This section is referred to within the discussion of air quality impacts associated with this utility usage within the Draft EIR. Factors contained within Tables X through XIII are based upon data provided in the ' SCAQMD "Air Quality Handbook" (April, 1987) and the Air Quality Management Plan. 65 34. Comment: Why are project emissions compared to Riverside County's total emissions? Response: Table XIII, Comparison of Emissions compares project emissions to Riverside County totals in order to provide perspective as to the actual extent of project related air quality impacts to the Riverside County portion of the South Coast Air Basin. In contrast to other .project -related impacts the generation, of air pollutants produces impacts to the regional air cell rather than on a local basis. 35. Comment: Table XIII, Comparison of Emissions, requires an explanation of various pollutant abbreviations contained therein. Response: A definition of all abbreviations of pollutants is provided after Table XI on the page prior to.Table XIII within the Draft EIR.. NMHC stands for Non -Methane Hydrocarbons. 36. Comment:. SCAG-82 forecasts were prepared prior to adoption of the Southwest Area Plan (SWAP). As such, consistency between these two documents is questionable. Response: The SCAG Growth Forecasts are based upon the existing. General Plans of all involved jurisdictions. These forecasts are intended to be updated as General Plans are amended in order to maintain this consistency. The adoption of the Southwest Area Plan was accompanied by findings indicating SWAP's consistency with the AQMP. Since the proposed project is consistent with SWAP, consistency with the AQMP is also maintained. 37. Comment: Mitigation Measure number 2 should include provision of bicycle facilities such as bike lanes, racks and lockers. Response: Mitigation Measure number 2 within Section V.C.6, Climate and .Air Quality has been amended to reflect the bicycle facilities noted above as being integrated into the project design. 38. Comment: .Within Section V.C.7, Water Quality, the sentence stating "only pesticides and herbicides typical of urban doses are expected'.' should be amended to state "urban uses". Response: This sentence within Section V.C.7 of the Draft EIR has been amended as noted above. 39. Concern: The discussion of Group 1 wastes in Section V.C.8, Toxic Substances should include a definition of Group 2 and Group 3 wastes. I ' Response: The discussion of Existing Conditions within Section V.C.8, Toxic Substances has been revised to include the additional information as follows: ' "Group 2 Wastes: Special wastes such as asbestos and ash (not accepted in Group 3 wastes). ' Group 3 Wastes: Typical household rubbage." ' 40. Comment: Within Section V.C.8, the word "jurisdiction" should read "jurisdictional'. Response: This comment is hereby incorporated into the Draft EIR. Section V.C.8 is hereby revised as follows: "There are about 1,200 facilities that generate hazardous waste within the jurisdictional review. of the County Health Department" 41. Comment: The discussion of the adoption of SWAP with Section V.C.9, Open ' Space and Conservation should have the date of adoption written out rather than abbreviated. The same comment applies to the reference to the ACS site. Response: Section V.C.9 of the Draft EIR has been revised to indicate the full date of adoption of SWAP (November 28, 1989) and a full explanation of ACS (Advanced Cardiovascular Systems). 42. Comment: Figure 33, Project Site and Surrounding Zoning/Adjacent Land Use should be revised to more fully delineate the project site and to correct the definition of the A-2-20 zoning designation (one dwelling unit per 20 acres). R s once: These recommended revisions have been. made to Figure 33 within the Draft EIR. 43. Comment: The discussion of project impacts within Section V.C.9, Open Space and Conservation indicates that "as there are no residential uses proposed on-site, there should be limited land use conflicts between the on-site Retail, Office and Hotel uses". However, ' approximately 300 dwelling units are proposed within Planning Area 1. Response: Proposed residential uses within Planning Area .1 will be integrated into ' the design of proposed retail/office/hotel/institutional uses within Planning Area 1 in order to eliminate potential land use conflicts. The above statement replaced the previously - noted inconsistency with Section V.C.9 of the Draft EIR. ' 44. Comment: Why is the discussion of jobs/housing balance contained within Section V.C.9, Open Space and Conservation. ' Response: The format of the Draft EIR required by the City of Temecula does not contain an EIR section titled "Population and Housing" or "Land Use." as is often the case ' for other jurisdictions. As such, Section V.C.9, Open Space and Conservation provides the 67 most logical location for the discussion of land use issues including land use compatibility, compatibility with existing zoning designations and jobs/housing balance. 45. Comment: Mitigation Measure number 2 should be deleted from Section V.C.9, Open Space and Conservation. Response: This proposed mitigation measure has been deleted from the Draft EIR. 46. Comment: Table XIV, Soil Associations On -Site contains designations that do not correlate with the following Figure 34, Soils and Agriculture. Response: Table XIV within the Draft EIR has been revised to reflect the same soil associations noted on Figure 34. 47. Comment: Figure 34, Soils and Agriculture has the same definitions for two soil categories (GyA and GyC2). Response: Figure 34 has been revised to reflect specific definitions of the soil categories noted above. GyA signifies Greenfield Sandy Loam (0-2% slopes) while GyC2 signifies Greenfield Sandy Loam (0.2% Slopes/Eroded). 48. Comment: The comment in Section V.C.10 regarding the cost of water and, more specifically, EMWD's policy on reclaimed should be updated. Response: The discussion of Eastern Municipal Water District's policy on reclaimed water within Section V.C.10 has been amended to read as follows: "EMWD has a policy that may require Temecula Regional Center to construct reclaimed water lines on-site so that when the regional system, which is currently in the planning process is complete, the project can ultimately utilize reclaimed water for specific irrigation purposes. 49. Comment: The discission of project impacts within Section V.C.10, Agriculture Space and Conservation should include a discussion of cumulative impacts. Response: As indicated in Section V.C.10 of the Draft EIR, "Development of the property with urban uses could potentially hasten the conversion of other agricultural areas to urban uses by creating economic pressures and increasing land value for development. However, much of the surrounding land is also. being proposed for development with urban uses in accordance with the recently approved Southwest Area Plan (SWAP). As long-term agricultural use is not envisioned for this area, no land use conflicts are expected to result due to development of the Temecula Regional Center Specific Plan." 11 I J' 0 I C- 1 50. Comment: The subheading C. Mitigation Measures within Section V.C.10, Agriculture should be revised to conform with the format of the remainder of the Draft EIR. Response: This format revision has been integrated into the Draft EIR. 51. Comment: _The use of the terms "endangered" and "species of special concern" used within Section V.C.11, WildlifeNegetation ("High Interest Species On -Site") should be defined. Re§V nse: The term "endangered" within Section V.C.11 of the Draft EIR is applied to species which are formally listed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service as "endangered species". Other "species of special concern" relate to those species whose listing is advisory only, such as those bird species listed in Section V.C.11, which are on the Audubon Society early warning list (or "Blue List"). According to the Audubon Society, the Blue List is an early warning list of species whose populations indicate non-cyclical declines or range contractions and which are recommended for monitoring by wildlife agencies, conservation groups and individual researchers. 52. Comment: The entire discussion of Mineral Resources should be deleted from the Draft EIR in that it was not identified as a significant issue within the Initial Study. Response: The previous Section V.C.12, Mineral Resources has been deleted from the Draft EIR. 53. Comment: The format of Section V.C.13, Scenic Highways should be consistent with other topics discussed in the Draft EIR. Response: The discussion of "General Plan Relationship" within Section V.C.13 is organized in a policy/response format in that SWAP policies are highly specific and diverse in terms of their responses at the end of the subsection, given this specificity and diversity of responses, would create confusion and would be difficult to follow. 54. Comment: What mitigation is proposed for scenic highway impacts along Winchester Road. ; Response: As indicated in Section V.C.13, Scenic Highways of the Draft EIR, "As discussed in Section IV.C.3, Site Planning Guidelines, a minimum building setback of 45 feet is required from the -face, Of the curb along the south side of Winchester Road. This setback is less than the 50' setback recommended. by the Scenic Highway policies. Winchester Road streetscene has two Landscape Development Zone (LDZ) conditions. The south side of the street has a 32' wide minimum LDZ and the north side of the street has a 26' wide minimum LDZ. These LDZ widths may increase when, or if, slopes adjoin this street scene." 55. Comment: Mitigation Measure number 1 within Section V.C.14, Cultural and Scientific Resources is not sufficient. Response: Mitigation Measure number 1, of Section V.C.14 of the Draft EIR is hereby revised to include the following addition: "However, should any cultural resources be encountered during grading or construction activities, work shall be halted or diverted in the immediate area and a qualified archaeologist shall be consulted for evaluation of resources and mitigation recommendations." 56. Comment: Mitigation Measurenumber2 within Section V.C.14 should replace the term "Rancho California" with "Temecula". Response: Mitigation Measure number 2 is hereby revised as follows: "These mitigation measures are drawn from past efforts and have proven successful in protecting paleontological resources, while allowing timely completion of developments in Temecula and elsewhere in Southern California." 57: Comments: Comments from the City of Temecula Public Works Department should be reflected in the Draft EIR. Response: Any comments received by the City of Temecula; Public Works Department or other resolved agency which have been received as of thisdatehave been included in the Response to Comments package with any necessary revisions to the text of the Draft EIR also being made. 58. Comment: Within Section V.D.2, Reclaimed Water, "EMWP" should be changed to EMWD. Response: Section V.D.2 of the Draft EIR has been revised to read: "EMWD may require the project to construct reclaimed water lines on-site so that when the regional system is complete the project can ultimately utilize reclaimed water for certain types of irrigation." 59. Comment: When is the expansion of the Rancho California Regional Water Reclamation Facility (RCRWRF) to 4.2 mgd expected to be completed? When is expansion to 6.25 mgd expected to be completed? Response: As indicated in the Response to Comments received from Eastern Municipal Water District which has been added to Section V.D.2 of the.Draft EIR: "The existing treatment capacity of the RCRWRF is 6.25 MGD. In addition, a 10.0 MGD tertiary filtration facility is scheduled to start ' treating secondary effluent from the RCRWRF in the fall of 1991." 60. Comment: Section V.D.2, Water and Sewer of the Draft EIR indicates a "peak demand of 17,280 gallons per acre for the proposed project." Should this read "17,280 gallons per day, per acre?" The term PSI should also be defined. ' ResRonse: ;,Section V.D.2 of the Draft EIR has been "revised as follows: "The estimated water usage for the project is 4,320 gallons per day, per acre, with a peak demand of 17,280 gallons per day per acre. Demand for fire flows is 5,000 gallons per minute for a three hour duration with a residual pressure of 20 PSI (Pounds per Square Inch)." ' 61. Comment::,In Section V.D.2, a discussion of project -related sewage generation uses a peaking factor of 2.0. Response: Section V.D.2 has been revised as follows: "Per the EMWD design guide, the average sewage generated from commercial developments is 3,000 gallons per day per acre, with a peaking factor (the number EMWD utilizes in order to calculate the peak damage demands) of 2.0." 62. Comment: Section V.D.2 discusses the General Plan Relationship, of the project ' in terms of land use categories. Category 1 requires definition. Items 2. and 3 need to be formatted correctly. ' Response: The first sentence of General Plan Relationship, within Section V.D:2 is revised as noted below. In addition, the format of items 2 and 3 under General Plan Relationship, has been revised to correspond with the format of item number 1. "Category 1 - (Heavy Urban Development) developments must be located within special districts authorized to provide water and sewer service." ' 63. Comment: Mitigation Measures, within Section V.D.2 are numbered while in previous Section they were not. ResRonse:;.."Mitigation Measures" throughout the entire Draft EIR are numbered individually including within Section V.D.1, Circulation and Traffic in order to provide a consistent format throughout the document. ' 64. Comment: Within Section V.D.3, provide information on the number of medical aid calls the Fire Department typically responds to. Provide additional information on the ' private ambulance company that provides services. 71 Response: Section V.D.3, Fire Services has been revised as follows: "The Fire Department responds to medical aid calls for emergency first aid and rescue. Station #12 on an average, responded to approximately 5 emergency first aid and rescue calls per day in 1991, while Station #73 responded to approximately 3 fust aid and rescue calls per day in 1991. Paramedic service and transportation are provided by the Goodhew Ambulance Company headquartered in the City of Riverside, located at 1044 East La Cadina. Ambulances responding to calls from Stations #12 and #73 are generally dispatched out of Murrieta or the City of Temecula. 65. Comment: Define the extent of demand for increased fire protection services. Will the proposed project generate need for additional equipment and/or personnel. Response: Section V.D.3, Fire Services has been revised as follows: "Development of the proposed Temecula Regional Center Specific Plan will result in the increased demand for fire protection services which may include additional firefighters, additional equipment, and/or improvements to existing facilities. Project impacts are due to the increased number of emergency or public service calls •generated by additional residential and commercial development. The project applicant will be required to participate in fire protection measures necessary to adequately protect the project site. (See Mitigation Measures) A portion of the impacts associated with capital improvements or one-time costs such as land, buildings, and equipment will be mitigated by developer participation in the Fire Protection Mitigation Program. The annual costs' necessary for an increased level of service are only partially offset by the additional County structure tax and would require an increase in the Fire Department's annual operating budget" 66. Comment: Mitigation Measure number 1 within Section V. requires a statement that all development within the Temecula Regional Center will be required to have fire retardant roofing material. Response: This comment is hereby incorporated into the Draft EIR. Mitigation Measure number 1 within Section V.D.3, has been revised as follows: "As the project is located in a "State Responsibility Area" as defined by the California Administrative Code, all development within the Temecula Regional _ Center project shall be constructed with fire retardant roofing material." ' 67. Comment: Within the discussion of Existing Conditions, within Section V.D.4, Sheriff Services, patrol cars and police stations are not staff. Re -write the last sentence. ' How far is the Lake Elsinore Station from the site. Is the 20-30 minute response time an average? What is the emergency response time? ' Response: The entire Existing Conditions portion of Section V.D.4 has been revised as follows: ' "The proposed project lies within the service boundaries of the Riverside County Sheriffs Department. The City of Temecula currently contracts with the County Sheriffs Department for police ' protection. The station serving the site is located southwest of the proposed project at 43172 Business Park Drive in the City of Temecula. According to Chief of police, Rick Sayre, current staffing ' at the Temecula Station consists of 31 sworn field officers plus support personnel. The current staffing needs are based upon one deputy per one thousand in population. The Sheriff's Department is ' nearing completion of a new facility, the "Southwest Justice Center" on approximately 50 acres located at 30755 Auld Road which is located north of the proposed project. According to Chief Sayre, response time to any location within the ' City limits ranges from under six minutes for emergency, life threatening calls to fifteen to twenty minutes for non -emergency calls." 68. Comment: The discussion of. Project Impacts/General Plan Relationship, within Section V.D.4 states that the development of the Regional Center will create more than several job opportunities in the area. Specify expected employment. Include statement here ' that existing Sheriffs personnel is inadequate and this project will create further impacts relative to Sheriffs services. Response: Section V.D.4 has been revised as follows: The development of the Temecula Regional Center is anticipated to ' create between 7,289 and 8,126 new job opportunities. In addition, the "mixed-use" commercial center proposed on-site will generate a maximum of 300 multi -family residential units. These units could ' potentially generate a population of approximately 900 (utilizing a generation factor of 3.0 persons per unit). This increase in population will incrementally increase criminal activity such as burglaries, thefts, ' auto thefts and vandalism. As the population and use of an area increases, additional financing of equipment and manpower needs are required to meet their increased demand for adequate police protection. Utilizing the Police Department's criteria of 1 deputy per 1,000 in population, the proposed residential units would require 1 deputy for adequate police protection. The current level of service for ' the Temecula Police Department is currently inadequate. The 73 additional population associated with the project will further impact the service abilities of the Temecula Police Department." 69. Comment: Mitigation Measure number 1 within Section V.D.4 requires elaboration of the term "taxes and subsequent expenditures". Mitigation measure number 2 should be revised to use the term "implemented" rather than "considered". The crime prevention measures should be reworded so that it is clear how these measures will increase security at the Center. Response: Mitigation Measures numbers 1 and 2 of Section V.D.4 have been revised as follows: Mitigation 1. Provision of -Sheriff Services' -_will be guaranteed through collection of property taxes, a portion of which is designated for law enforcement and subsequent funding of law enforcement activities by the County Board of Supervisors. Mitigation 2. "For future security and safety, the following crime prevention measures shall be implemented during site and building layout design: • The on-site circulation system will be designed in;. order to provide pedestrians, vehicles and police patrols with a safe and efficient circulation network; • On-site streets, walkways and bikeways shall be illuminated in order to enhance night time visibility; • Doors and windows shall be visible from the street and between buildings in order to discourage burglaries and potential suspect hiding places; • Fencing heights and materials utilized are intended to . discourage climbing; • The numbering identification systemutilized on-site shall be visible and readily apparent in order to aid the emergency response agencies in quickly finding specific locations. 70. Comment: The Existing Conditions portion of Section V.D.5, Schools should be rewritten to reflect existing enrollment and capacities for all schools. R 1 H I 1 Response: The Existing Conditions portion of Section V.D.5 has been revised as follows: '"The proposed project lies within the Temecula Valley Unified School District (TVUSD) for educational services and facilities. The District currently operates six elementary (grades K-5) schools, two middle (grades 6-8) schools and two high (grades 9-12) schools. The following Table, provided by the District's Facility and Planning Department, indicates the current enrollment, permanent building capacity, and relocatable (portable classrooms) capacity of each school. As the table indicates, most District schools are operating above their permanent building capacity. Relocatable classrooms are utilized to accommodate the overflow of students. It should be noted that the State of California does not consider relocatable classrooms as adequate student housing. It should also be noted that the enrollment numbers delineated in the table are effective through the end of 1991 and will be recalculated the first quarter of 1992. The Temecula Valley Unified School District utilizes the following criteria to calculate student generation: Grades K-5 - .36 students per household; Grades 6-8- .2 students per household; and, Grades 9-12 - .24 students per household." TABLE XVIA TVUSD Enrollment Capacity Summary Permanent Relocatable School Enrollment Cal2aci1y Ca aci Nicolas Valley Elementary 507 664 0 Rancho Elementary 887 705 240 Red Hawks Elementary 650: 722 0 Sparkman Elementary 574 598 0 Temecula Elementary 733 594 310 Vail Elementary. 640. 794 198 - Margarita Middle 954 861 232 Temecula Middle 879 855 1 .0: , Rancho Vista H.S. 169 .0 155. Temecula Vista H.S. 23379 1,928 1.204 8,372 7,721 2,339 71. Comment: The Project Impacts discussion of Section V.D.5, Schools should be revised to reflect the residential uses proposed within the Specific Plan. 75 Response: The Project Impacts/General Plan Relationship, discussion within Section V.D.5 has been revised as follows: "The proposed 300 multi -family residential, units located within the "mixed-use" commercial area on-site could potentially generate approximately 240 students (utilizing the . T.V.U.S.D. criteria mentioned above). As no school facilities are proposed within the project boundaries; the estimated 240 students generated by the Temecula Regional Center would require accommodation off-site. As previously mentioned, the District schools are all currently operating near or above permanent building capacity. The additional students generated.by this project will place an increased demand upon District facilities which are already impacted. Depending upon the need of the District, the impact of the students associated with the project may be mitigated by applicant participation in site dedication, developer agreements and/or payment of fees. It should be noted that the 300 multi -family residential units are intended to be located over commercial and office uses as residential flats. Generally, this type of housing does not attract families with school aged children. The estimated 240 students associated with the project portray a "worst-case" scenario., It is anticipated that the number of students generated by the project will be much lower than 240." 72. Comment: Within Section V.D.6, Parks and Recreation, reference to Rancho California should be changed :to Temecula. This section should also expand on the recreational opportunities available at local school campuses as well as the Santa Rosa Plateau. Response: Section V.D.6 has been revised as follows: "Local recreational facilities include community parks in the cities of Elsinore and Temecula as well as recreational amenities on local school campuses. Facilities available on school campuses generally include playing fields (football, soccer, baseball), playing courts . (basketball, volleyball, tennis,) and playground equipment." The following information regarding the Santa Rosa Plateau has also been incorporated into the Draft EIR: "The Santa Rosa Plateau, which is a cooperative venture between the County of Riverside, the Nature Conservacy, California Fish and Game Department, and the Federal Fish and Wildlife Service is located in Murrieta off of Clinton Keith Road. This facility consists of a 7,000 acre nature park which is open free to the public from sunrise ' to sunset. The park offers several trail systems, one of which is.self guided (guide booklets and trail pamphlets are available). The park ' also offers "Saturday morning walks" (guided) every weekend beginning at 9 am. Also twice a month "bird walks" are conducted for the bird enthusiast. The park contains a vast array of natural habitat ' as well as the largest vernal pools in the entire State of California. These pools are presently dry, however, they are known to be quite spectacular during the spring months." ' 73. Comment: Within Section V.D.6, the discussion of indirect impacts needs to state what these impacts are. What are the open space and recreation facilities within the ' adjacent Winchester Hills Specific Plan and the Campos Verdes Zone Change? Response: The Project Impacts/General Plan Relationship portion of Section V.D.6 ' has been revised as follows: "Development of the project could potentially generate a population ' of 900 associated with the 300 residential units located within the "mixed-use" commercial area. The project will be required to meet State Quimby Act requirements. The State Quimby Act was established by the California Legislature for the purpose of preserving open space and providing park facilities for California's growing communities. The Quimby Act allows local agencies to establish their ' own ordinances relative to providing land or "in -lieu of fees for park and recreation purposes. The Temecula Community Service District (TCSD) utilizes a factor of 5 acres of parkland per 1,000 in ' population. In order to satisfy the Quimby Act requirement established by TCSD, ' 4.5 acres of parkland would be required. As the main core of the project consist of commercial and retail use, no parks are proposed within.project boundaries. The additional population associated with the proposed on-site residential use will place an increased demand upon existing recreational facilities in the area. The Temecula ' Regional Center will be required to satisfy the park requirements mentioned above." ' Within the adjacent Winchester Hills Specific Plan, a total of 25.8 acres of parks are proposed. Within Campos Verdes, 1 13.5 acre park/detention basin is proposed. ' 74. Comment: Within Section V.D.6, what is the basis for the statement that "flood control right-of-way will be used for recreational purposes". ' Response: As the flood control right-of-way no longer exists within the boundaries of the proposed Specific Plan, the paragraph containing this statement has been deleted for ' the Draft EIR. 77 75. Comment: Mitigation Measure number 1 within Section V.D.6 should be reworded to specify the required measures. Response: Mitigation Measure number 1 within Section V.D.6 has been revised as follows: "The project applicant shall provide adequate park acreage and/or the payment of "in -lieu of fees necessary to satisfy the TCSD and State Quimby Act local park requirements." 76.' Comment: Within Section V.D.7, Utilities, the term "KV requires definition. What is the size of the existing gas main? Response: Section V.D.7 has been revised as follows: "SCE has an existing 12 KV (Thousand Voltage) underground line within the project area located adjacent to Ynez Road. SCG has an existing 4 inch gas main located east of I-15, north of Winchester Road and south of Elm Street and Warm Springs Creek. 77. Comment: The discussion within Section V.D.7 regarding the capacity of Southern California Edison Co. should state that the "electrical generating capacity does not exceed SCE's estimate ...T Response: Section V.D.7 has been revised as follows: "Provided that there are no unexpected outages to major sources of electrical supply and the demand for electrical capacity does not exceed the Southern California Edison Company's estimates, it is anticipated that electrical requirements will be met over the next several years." 78. Comment: What is the Energy Commission report referenced in Section V.D.7, Utilities. , Response: Reference to the Energy Commission report within Section V.D.7 was revised to cite Southern California Gas Co. as the basis for the following statement. which has been integrated into the Draft EIR. "SCG has indicated that gas supply will be sufficient through the late 1990's to meet residential, commercial, industrial and some electrical utilizing generation." 79. Comment: Within Section V.D.8, Solid Waste, where is 31710 Grand Avenue? Is this in -Temecula? Where is -the El Sobrante landfill? :Additional discussion concerning the City's AB939 program is necessary. I I� 1 Cl I C] Response: The Existing Conditions discussion within Section V.D.8 has been revised as follows: "According to the County of Riverside Waste Management Department, the project lies within the service area of the Double Butte Landfill located at 31710 Grand Avenue in Winchester. However, Double Butte is approaching capacity and is estimated to be closed in early 1994. The County has chosen a system approach to meet Riverside County's needs. Currently, two scenarios are being considered on the future of the Double Butte Landfill. Scenario #1 presumes that when Double Butte Landfill is closed, a materials recovery facility (MRF), will be sited in the Mid -County Facility Service Area (approximately coinciding with the present Double Butte Landfill Regional Service Area). Solid wastes generated within the service area will be sent to the Mid -County MRF to be processed, with the residual wastes being sent Lamb Canyon Landfill located at 16411 Lamb Canyon Road in Beaumont for disposal. Scenario #2 presumes that when Double Butte Landfill is closed, the wastes will be handled by neighboring facility service areas, such as Moreno Valley and Lamb Canyon Service Areas. In this scenario, Mid -County is not included as a separate facility service area. Given the imminent closure of the Double Butte site, the proposed project will most likely utilize the Lamb Canyon Landfill for disposal of solid waste. However, the waste generated by the proposed project could be processed either in the Mid -County MRF and the residue transported to and landfilled at Lamb Canyon, or in the Lamb Canyon MRF, depending on which scenario of the County's facility system is chosen. The Lamb Canyon Landfill encompasses 788 -acres and serves a regional area of 515 square miles. Lamb Canyon has a permitted annual capacity of 682,000 tons with the average daily capacity of the second quarter of 1991 being 456 tons. The total capacity of the landfill is 8 million tons with an approximate remaining capacity for the landfill (as of the end of 1990) being 6,880,000 tons. As of the end of 1990, approximately 1,220,000 tons of waste had been disposed of in the landfill. The estimated lifespan of the Lamb Canyon Landfill is eighteen years from the beginning of 1991. This projection is based on a growth study by linear regression which has accounted for the diverted wastes from Double Butte and Mead Valley Landfills after their closures. This estimate is considered conservative as the effects of recycling of 79 r materials on the lifespan of the landfill are not accounted for in the projection. The County Waste Department utilizes generating criteria of 1.75 tons per person per year for the City of Temecula. Solid waste generated by the project will be collected by one of the six following collection companies serving Permit Area 11: Canyon Lake Disposal, Suburban Disposal, Jess Rodriques-Disposal Co., Moreno Valley Disposal, C.R.&R., and Waste Management of Inland Valley. In addition, the California Assembly Bill 939, Integrated Waste Management Act (Statutes of 1989, Chapter 1095), which became law on January 1, 1990, requires all cities and counties to develop waste stream resource reduction and recycling plan by July 1, 1991. Assembly Bill 939 requires landfill waste streams to be reduced 25% by 1995 and 50% by the year 2000. Through the successful implementation of source reduction and recycling programs of the County and the incorporated Cities in achieving the waste diversion goals as set forth in AB 939, the lifespan of all solid waste landfills within the entire County are expected to be extended significantly." According to Joe Hreha of the City of Temecula, there is no formal Source Reduction and Recycling Program at this time in the City. All recycling is voluntary with refuse separation occurring at the landfill. 80. Comment: How much will the lifespan of the affected landfills be shortened? ' Response: Section V.D.8 has been revised to state: "The solid waste generated by the Temecula Regional Center represent less than 2 percent of the permitted annual capacity of 682,000 tons for the Lamb Canyon Landfill." 81. Comment: The City of Temecula is in the process of developing its' own Source Reduction and Recycling Plan. This needs to be discussed under Existing Conditions, with ' Mitigation Measures proposed included in Section V.D.8. Response: Additional discussion concerning the current status of the City's Source ' Reduction and Recycling Plan is provided within the Response to Comment 79. Mitigation Measure number 3 has been added to Section V.D.8 as follows: "3. The _ developer shall participate in any established City-wide ' program to reduce solid waste generation. The elements of this ' program may include: a. Development and distributing brochures on residential and ' commercial recycling, residential and commercial source reduction, waste management issues, the importance of using recycled goods, and litter control. . b. Development of curriculum guides and kits in cooperation with the City and the Temecula Valley Unified School District ' c. Production of video programs.which can be shown on local cable television stations in the project area. ' d. Pursue an environmental labelling program at local grocery stores, liquor stores, etc. which would educate consumers in recycling of packaging and other consumer goods. e. Pursue a recycled products awareness campaign which would t commend businesses which use recycled products. This program could issue stickers to businesses that use recycled products to display in their windows. ' f. Develop a library of media production on recycling and source reduction which can be borrowed by .various citizen ' groups, agencies, and schools within the City." 82. Comment: Within Section V.D.9, Libraries, clarification of the branch library's ' current service area is necessary. Will new library be in lieu of existing facility, or in addition to? Is this facility open? ' Re§Ronse: The discussion of existing conditions within Section V.D.9 has been revised as follows: " The Temecula branch is a 1,900 square foot storefront facility .located at 27533 Ynez Road. This branch currently serves an estimated population of 59,000. A new 15,000 square foot library is currently under construction at the. Walt Abrams Administrative facility. This building is anticipated to be completed by approximately April 1992 and is intended to replace the existing facility at 27533 Ynez Road. The new library will house a collection of approximately 51,900 volumes. ' Library staff has indicated that the libraries current level of service has been recognized as substantially inadequate and has declined during the last ' decade due to the impact of rapid population growth throughout the entire County." ' 83. Comment: Section V.D.9 requires additional discussion concerning indirect impacts upon library services. 81 Response: The discussion of project impacts upon library facilities within Section V.D.9 has been revised as follows: "According to Library staff, the population (approximately 900 people) associated with the development of the Temecula Regional Center will adversely affect existing library services as they are currently considered inadequate. The increase in population to be served would require an increase in funding to the County Library to maintain the current level of service." 84. Comment: Within Section V.D.10, Health: Services, bow far are the existing hospitals from the project site? The Existing Conditions discussion should also list the private care facilities in the City of Riverside and "surrounding communities" which are available. Response: The .Existing Conditions discussion within Section V.D.10 has been revised as follows: "The project is served by the following hospitals: Christian Hospital Medical Center (36 beds) located approximately 18 miles north of the project in the City of Perris, the Hemet Valley Hospital (242 beds) located approximately 21 miles northeast of the project in the City of Hemet,the Inland Valley Regional Medical Center (62 beds) located approximately 9 miles northwest of the project in Wildomar, and the Menifee Valley Medical Center (72 beds) located approximately 15 miles north of the project in Sun City. The Inland Valley Regional Medical Center is the primary emergency care facility in the project vicinity and is located at Interstate 15 and Clinton Keith Road offering 24-hour emergency service. Additional medical facilities such as The: Riverside Community Hospital (406 beds) and the Riverside General Hospital University Medical Center (334 beds) are located in the City of Riverside.. Several private care facilities that include retirement homes, substance abuse clinics, child and sexual abuse clinics and counseling, etc. are available throughout the entire County." 85. Comment: With the discussion of Impacts upon health services, how will project implementation increase the need for medical services and facilities? Will there be an impact? Support for statement that the project consistent with the General Plan is necessary. Response: Section V.D.10 has been revised as follows: "The additional population associated with the development of 300 dwelling units as proposed by the project will increase the need for medical services and facilities. The additional population will require 01 I 1 1 1 1 1 [1 emergency medicine as well as preventative medicine. These additional demands are not considered to be significant as the medical community generally increases commensurate with the increase in population. Occupancy rates are generally far under patient capacity in medical facilities located throughout the entire County. Health care service is a regional issue which normally responds to the current demand. Therefore, it is anticipated that adequate health care service and facilities will be available" 86. Comment: The extent of Mitigation Measures related to any potential health services impacts are identified in the EIR. If no impacts are identified, simply state that there are no impacts, and therefore no mitigation is proposed. Response: No health services mitigation measures are proposed. 87. _ Comment: The entire discussion of Airports should be deleted from the Draft EIR in that it was not identified as a significant issue within the Initial Study. Response: The former Section V.D.12, Airports has been deleted from the Draft EIR. 88. Comment: A discussion of the City's Disaster Preparedness Plan should be included within Section V.D.12, Disaster Preparedness. Response: As indicated in Section V.D.12 of the Draft EIR, the County office of Disaster Preparedness maintains a disaster preparation plan for the area. An ongoing communication system links the County and City Departments. The plan contains the organizationand administration of disaster response efforts related to various potential emergencies. In lieu of this plan, the City of Temecula does not have a separate Disaster Preparedness Plan. 89. Comment: Reference is made within Section V.D.12 to mitigation measures contained in other sections of the Draft EIR. Specific measures should be cited. Response: References to specific mitigation measures have been added to Section V.D.12. 90. Comment: The Defined Area Table within Section V.E., Regional Element should have "(Growth Management Plan)" added to the reference to Central Riverside. Provide the date of the Population Projections Report. This section should provide support for the project.through discussion of the jobs/housing market. Response: These requested additions and revisions have been made to Section V.E., Regional Element of the Draft EIR. 91. Comment: The first footnote in Table XVIII, Cumulative Projects should delete the reference to the County. ju Response: The first footnote in Table XVIII of the Draft EIR has been revised to state, "Projects are proposed, not approved". 92. Comment: Cumulative noise impacts should be identified as significant adverse impacts. Response: Section V.G.1.C., Cumulative Impact Analysis (Noise) has been revised as follows: "Roadways that have a significant noise increase of 3dBA or greater and are adjacent to existing residential developments are of concern. These cumulative noise impacts are considered significant adverse impacts (see Section V.G.2, Unavoidable Adverse Impacts". 93. Comment: Within Section V.G.Le, Cumulative Impact Analysis (Open Space and Conservation), reference to preservation of large open space areas should be removed. Clarification of the 'current open space character of the area" is necessary. Response: Section V.G.I.e has been revised as follows: "Development of numerous projects planned on 10,608 acres in the region would influence the existing atmosphere of passive rural open space and scattered development which typifies the outlying areas of the Temecula/Rancho California area. These proposed projects will influence the current open space character of the area, it is expected that uses proposed will be more compatible with the ongoing trend toward urban use. 94. Comment: The word "possibly" should be deleted from the first sentence of Section V.G.Lf, Cumulative Impact Analysis (Agriculture)_. ' Response: The first sentence of Section V.G.Lf has been revised as follows: "Construction of various projects in the vicinity will continue 1 and accelerate the trend toward development of agricultural lands in Riverside County". , 95. Comment: Within Section V.G.Li, Cumulative Impact Analysis (Circulation and Traffic), why are "additional dwelling units" discussed? Why is reference made to , "additional ICU calculations". Were these additional calculations with or without the project? Response: The "additional dwelling units" mentioned in Section V.G.1.i refer to the ' additional 33,221 dwelling units discussed at the beginning of Section V.G.1. This dwelling unit total represents the total dwelling units within the cumulative development scenario ' OA ' (see Table XVIII, Cumulative Projects). The "additional ICU calculations" were performed on all intersections that operated at unacceptable levels (Level of Service "E") within the ' cumulative development traffic ("future traffic with project") scenario in order to determine the extent of need for additional roadway improvements. 96. Comment: Quantify cumulative impacts to police and fire protection. Response: The following statements have been added to Section V.G.Lm, Police ' and Fire Protection. "Based upon the City of Temecula factor of 1 deputy per 1,000 ' population, a cumulative residential population of 99,663 persons generates the need for an additional 100 deputies. Based upon the Riverside County factor of 1 fire station .per ' 2,000 dwelling units, the cumulative addition of 33,221 dwelling units results in the need for 17 new fire stations". 97. Comment: Quantify cumulative impacts to schools and parks. Response: The following statements have been added to Section V.G.Ln, Schools ' and Parks: "Based upon the factor of '.8 students per household, the ' cumulative addition -of 33,221 dwelling units results in the generation of 26,577 students. Based upon the TCSD factor of 5 acres of park per 1,000 population, the cumulative residential ' population of 99,663 persons generates the need for 498 acres of additional parkland". 98. Comment: Check the Assembly Bill number referred to is Section V.G.Lo, Solid Waste. Response: Reference to Assembly Bill 939 has been added to Section V.G.I.o. ' 99. Comment: Quantify cumulative impacts to library services. Response: The following statements have been added to Section V.G.Lp, Library ' Service. 'Based upon a Riverside County factor of .5 square feet of ' library space per person, the cumulative residential population of 99;663 persons results in the need for an additional 49,831 square feet of library space". ' 100. Comment: Section V.G.2, Unavoidable Adverse Impacts should include a discussion of the following impacts: noise, open space and conservation, wildlife and vegetation, ' circulation and traffic, and public facilities and services. 85 Response: As a consequence of revisions to the Draft EIR, the issue of cumulative noise impacts has been determined to be significantly adverse which cannot be reduced to a level of non -significance after mitigation measures are implemented. This determination of significance is reflected in Section V.G.2. The remaining issues noted above have been determined to be reduced to a level of non -significance after mitigation measures are implemented. 101. Comment: The City of Temecula is not responsible for preparation of the Statement of Overriding Considerations. Response: The Statement of Overriding Considerations will be submitted to the City of Temecula under a separate cover. 102. Comment: The Existing Zoning Alternative should include provision of commercial uses as allowed by the R -R (Rural Residential) zoning. Response: Commercial uses allowed by the R -R (Rural Residential) zoning was not included within the Existing Zoning Alternative for the following reasons: a) a project alternative totalling 286 dwelling units was not felt to be able to support on-site commercial uses; and b) inclusion of commercial uses within this Alternative will create additional impacts which were reduced to a level of insignificance by this Alternative. 103. Comment:. Within Section V.G.3, Alternatives to the Proposed Project, a definition of "ksf' should be provided. Clarification of the discussions of Levels of Service should be clarified relative to the "exnsting plus project" and "Year 2000" development scenarios. Response: A definition of KSF (thousand square feet) has been added, where applicable, to Section V.G.3. The following revisions were made to the discussion of Circulation impacts associated with both the Residential/Commercial and Commercial/Industrial Alternatives: "In the year 2000, combining traffic from the proposed project with other developmenttraffic results in four intersections operating at Level of Service "D", one would operate at Level of Service "E" and one would operate at Level of Service "F" for either the AM or PM peak hour". 104. Comment: The discussion of jobs/housing balance should be removed from Section V.G.4, Growth Inducing Impacts of the Proposed Project. Response: The discussion of jobs/housing balance was removed from Section V.G.4. 105. Comment: Section V.G.5, The Relationship Between Local Short Term Uses of Man's Environment and The Maintenance and Enhancement of Long term Productivity, should specify the long-term environmental :consequences of the proposed project ' ReWonse: Section V.G.S has been revised as follows: ' "Ultimate development of the Temecula Regional Center Specific Plan would create long-term environmental consequences such as those mentioned above (increased traffic volumes, incremental degradation the air quality, incremental increase in demand for public facilities and services as well as energy consumption, overcrowding of schools, increase in solid waste production, and the destruction of some wildlife and vegetation species) that are connected with any form of urbanization." 106. Comment: Section V.G.6, Irreversible/Irretrievable Commitment of Energy Supplies and Other Resources Should the Project Be Implemented, should have a format similar to previous sections. Response: Section V.G.6 has been revised in order to provide consistent document format. ' 107. Comment: Include a list of document preparers within Section V.G.7, Organizations and Persons Consulted. Response: A list of document preparers has been added to Section V.G.7. 108. Comment: The format of various EIR sections should be made consistent with mitigation measures numbered to assist in reference to the Mitigation Monitoring Program. Response: The mitigation measures contained within the text of the Draft EIR and EIR Summary have been numbered to assist in referencing. Format corrections made' throughout the Draft EIR as noted in comments 1 through 107 above and reflected in their respective responses are intended to achieve a consistency in format throughout the document. 1 1 I 1-W In response to the placement of "Catchment Basins" on site to reduce the flow of toxic pollutants Introduced Into Murrieta Creek, the term "feasible' must be defined. It is my understanding that the definition of "feasibility" in relation to the "Catchment Baslns" does not take Into account the "dollar Impact," but only Involves whether or not It can physically be done. Utilizing this definition of "feasible," It is our opinion that it may be physically possible to construct above ground "Catchment Basins" which would Include a wetland area. However, this could have a significant ' Impact on the usable space onsite, as well as a substantial cost for Installation and maintenance. A second alternative which may be possible would be a series of "underground" sand and grease traps which would aid In the removal of sand (by settlement) and grease/oil (by skimming from the surface). This second alternative could also have a significant Installation and maintenance cost. Should you have any questions or comments, please do not hesitate to contact me. Sincerely, fJ. F. DAVIDSON ASSOCIATES, INC. ' Kevin K. Elliott, P. . Senior Project Manager DJK:yb:rct cc: Greg Erickson, Bedford Properties, Inc. ' Iobs:G02 J. F. Davidson Associates, Inc. ENGINEERING PLANNING SURVEYING LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE September 20, 1991 Project No. 90-11877 Mr. Douglas Wood ' DOUGLAS WOOD AND ASSOCIATES 567 San Nicholas Drive, Suite 3 Newport Beach, California 92660 RE: RESPONSE TO COMMENTS, TEMECULA REGIONAL CENTER tDear Mr. Wood: In response to your letter dated August 20, 1991, we have the following Information: Per a telephone conversation with Hector Correa of NBS/Lowry, the Campos Verdes Detention Basin has been designed, and will control the storm flow to allow a cumulative release at Ynez ' Road of 1,250 cis. The Detention Basin Plans, as yet, have not been submitted for plan check; therefore, the construction date Is unknown. In response to the placement of "Catchment Basins" on site to reduce the flow of toxic pollutants Introduced Into Murrieta Creek, the term "feasible' must be defined. It is my understanding that the definition of "feasibility" in relation to the "Catchment Baslns" does not take Into account the "dollar Impact," but only Involves whether or not It can physically be done. Utilizing this definition of "feasible," It is our opinion that it may be physically possible to construct above ground "Catchment Basins" which would Include a wetland area. However, this could have a significant ' Impact on the usable space onsite, as well as a substantial cost for Installation and maintenance. A second alternative which may be possible would be a series of "underground" sand and grease traps which would aid In the removal of sand (by settlement) and grease/oil (by skimming from the surface). This second alternative could also have a significant Installation and maintenance cost. Should you have any questions or comments, please do not hesitate to contact me. Sincerely, fJ. F. DAVIDSON ASSOCIATES, INC. ' Kevin K. Elliott, P. . Senior Project Manager DJK:yb:rct cc: Greg Erickson, Bedford Properties, Inc. ' Iobs:G02 I I I I [) O I u ATTACHMENT A RECOMMENDED AIR QUALITY MITIGATION MEASURES I I - i ADDENDUM EIR TEMECULA REGIONAL CENTER SPECIFIC PLAN SPECIFIC _PLAN NO. 263 EIR NO. 340 i _- Lead Agency: CITY OF TEMECULA 43174 Business Park Drive Temecula, CA 92590 - (714) 694-6400 Prepared By: Associates . - - Douglas Wood & '567 San Nicolas Drive, Suite 301 Newport Beach, CA 92660 .(714) 644-7977 February 4, 1993 I I I 1 Cl I EXHIBIT RECOMMENDED MITIGATION MEASURES FOR THE TEMECULA REGIONAL CENTER Minimize Construction Activity Emissions: o Water site and clean equipment morning and evening. o Spread soil binders on site, unpaved roads and parking areas. o Reestablish ground cover on. construction site through seeding and watering, Employ activity. management techniques, such as extending the construction period;. reducing the number of pieces of equipment used simultaneously; increasing the distance between the emission sources; reducing or changing the hours of construction; and scheduling activity during off -peak -hours. o Pave construction roads, and sweep streets if silt is carried over to adjacent public thoroughfares. o Require a phased -schedule for construction activities to even out emission peaks. o Suspend grading operations during fist and second stage smog alerts. o Wash off trucks leaving the site. o Maintain construction equipment engines by keeping them tuned. o Use low -sulfur fuel for equipment. o Avoid using temporary power; use power from the grid. Reduce Construction -Related Traffic Congestion: o Provide rideshare and transit incentives for construction personnel. o Configure construction parking to minimize traffic interference. o Minimize obstruction of through -traffic lanes. o Provide a flapperson to guide traffic properly and ensure safety at construction sites. o Schedule operations affecting traffic for off-peak hours. Control Project Operation Emissions: o Install Best Available Control Technology. o Provide Emissions Offsets when necessary per Regulation XIII. Limit Emissions From Vehicle Trips: o Implement a Trip Reduction Plan per SCAQMD Regulation XV. o Promote Transportation Management Associations (TMAs). o Establish telecommuting programs, alternative work schedules, and satellite work centers. o Schedule goods movements for off-peak traffic hours. 0 Provide local shuttle and regional transit systems and transit shelters. S 11 o Provide bicycle lanes, storage areas, and amenities, and ensure efficientparking management. o Provide dedicated turn lanes as appropriate. o Work with cities/developers/citizens in the region to implement TDM goals. . Minimize Indirect -Source Emissions: o Implement energy conservation measures beyond state and local requirement's. o Include energy costs in capital expenditure analyses. o Install energy-efficient street ligghting. o Landscape with native drought resistant species to reduce water consumption and to provide passive solar benefits. o Provide incentives for solid waste recycling. Minimize Building Energy Requirements: o Improve the thermal integrity of buildings, and reduce the thermal load with automated time clocks or occupant sensors. o Introduce window glazing, wall insulation, and efficient ventilation methods. o Introduce efficient heating and other appliances, such as water heaters, cooking equipment, refrigerators, furnaces and boiler units. o Incorporate appropriate passive solar design, and solar heaters. o Use devices that minimize the combustion of fossil fuels. o Capture waste heat and reemploy it in nonresidential buildings. I CJ TABLE OF CONTENTS A. Introduction and Purpose ..................................... 1 B. Correspondence from the City of Temecula, Department of Public Works (dated August 31, 1992) ............................ 3 C. Additional Revised Mitigation Measures ......................... 18 IAttachments ' A - City Correspondence B - Correspondence dated July 29, 1992 ' C - Addendum Traffic Issues Letter dated October 15, 1992 D - CMP Traffic Impact Analysis dated November, 1992 E - Addendum Traffic Issues letter dated October 23, 1992 ' F - Basin Drainage Study dated December 4, 1992 G - Supplemental Traffic Analysis, General Kearny Road Extension H - Conditional Letter of Map Revision from FEMA (dated April 20, 1992) ' I - Final Traffic I slues Regarding Temecula Regional Center, Winchester Hills and Campos Verdes (February 18, 1993) J - Mitigation Monitoring Program i J I 1 1 1 I 1 I 11 I I ADDENDUM EIR TEMECULA REGIONAL CENTER SPECIFIC PLAN A. 1NTRADUCTION AND PURPOSE The Temecula Regional Center Specific Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR No. 340) was circulated for public review by the City of Temecula between June 21, 1991 and August 4, 1991. This; circulation was in conformance with Section 15086, et.seq. of the State CEQA Guidelines which state that the Lead Agency (City of Temecula) shall consult with and request comments on the Draft EIR from: responsible agencies, trustee or other State, Federal or local agencies as well as consulting directly with any person who has special expertise with respect to any environmental impact involved The purpose of this Addendum EIR is three -fold: 1) respond to various comments made by the City of Temecula as a result of their review of the Draft Environmental Impact Report for the Temecula Regional Center Specific Plan; 2) incorporate recently -prepared technical analyses (in the areas of trafiicicirculation and drainage/flooding) into the Final Environmental Impact Report; and 3) integrate any additional or revised mitigation measures resulting from the concerns raised by the City or as a result of the recently -prepared technical studies into the Mitigation Monitoring Program for the project (a copy of the revised Mitigation Monitoring Program is included as Attachment J to this Addendum EIR). The information contained herein is intended to provide decision -makers with clarification regarding the potential environmental impacts of and mitigation measures for the proposed project. The City correspondence (dated August 31, 1992 from the City of Temecula, Department of Public Works) contains comments on the Draft EIR and is included as Attachment A to this Addendum EIR. This correspondence as well as other City comments also include a significant number of comments directed toward the Specific Plan portion of the Specific Plan/Draft EIR document. Those comments and suggested project revisions which are independent of the Draft EIR will be addressed , within separate documentation submitted to the City of Temecula Planning Department. ' This environmental information is considered to be an Addendum to the Temecula Regional Center Draft EIR in accordance with Section 15164 of the State ' CEQA Guidelines which states: (a) The Lead Agency or a Responsible Agency shall prepare an addendum to an EIR if: ' (1) None of the conditions described in Section 15162 calling for preparation of a subsequent EIR have occurred (i.e. substantial project revisions, changes in circumstances surrounding the project, or additional project impacts, mitigations or alternatives becoming feasible or available); (2) Only minor technical changes or additions are. necessary to make the EIR, under consideration adequate under CEQA; and (3) The changes to the EIR made by the addendum do not raise important new issues about the significant effects > on the environment. (b) An addendum need not be circulated for public review but can be included in or attached to the final EIR. (c) The decision-making body shall consider the. addendum with the final EIR: prior to making a decision on the project. The City comments received which relate to the Draft EIR are summarized and followed by. their respective response. The actual comment received can be found in the copyof the respective City correspondence which are included in their'entirety within Attachment A to. this Addendum EIR: The following Responses contained within this Addendum, EIR in combination with the Draft EIR, Response to Comments package, Staff Report and other attachments and technical reports constitute the Final EIR. for the Temecula Regional Center Specific Plan. ' B. CORRESPONDENCE FROM THE CITY OF TEMECULA, DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS (Dated August 31, 1992) L Comment 1: The Traffic Analysis included within the. Technical Appendix of the Draft EIR should be updated to match the City's future General Plan and should be amended to reflect updated traffic analyses for both Winchester Hills and Campos Verdes. The comments of the City of Murrieta dated December 16, 1991 and May 26, 1992 and the County of Riverside, . dated December 11, 1991 and June 8, 1992 should also be addressed. . Response: According to the Traffic Engineer,. the Traffic Impact Study dated April, 1991 which was included within Appendix F of the Draft EIR is consistent with the updated traffic studies prepared for Winchester Hills (October 1991) and Campos 'Verdes (May, 1991 - Revised June 3, 1992). The Temecula Regional Center Traffic "Study is being further updated to be consistent with the proposed Circulation Element of the City's General Plan. The City of Murrieta comments,from their December 6, 1991 memo were superseded by a Letter of Understanding between Mr. Barry Burnell of T&B Planning Consultants and Mr. Ben Minamide of the City of Murrieta (a copy of this letter is included in Attachment B to this Addendum EIR). During a joint -meeting on August 3, 1992 with Mr. Hank Mohle (City, of Murrieta Traffic, Engineer), Mr. Doug Stewart (City of Temecula Public Works Department) and Mr. Bob Davis (Wilbur Smith Associates) procedures were developed and agreed upon for preparation of a supplemental analysis which would address City of Murrieta concerns related to traffic impacts and fair share implementation responsibilities. The results of this analysis are reported in the October 15, 1992 Addendum Traffic Issues,letter to Mr.. Robert Righetti, City of Temecula, Public Works Department. This analysis is included as Attachment C to this Addendum EIR. Comment 2: Special attention needs to be paid to the. requirements of the congestion management program for our region which is being administered by the Riverside County Transportation Commission (TCTC) to comply with the ' requirement of State Legislation AB471 and AB1791. This shall include full review of the Traffic Analysis Documents by RCTC prior to approval of the Specific Plan and the Tentative Maps. ' Response: A"CMP Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) has been prepared for the Campos Verdes, Winchester Hills, and Temecula Regional Center projects. The CMP ' TIA report (dated November, 1992) has been submitted to the City of Temecula. A copy of this report is included as Attachment D to this Addendum EIR. Comment 3: Access spacing along the south side of Winchester Road is limited to a minimum of one-quarter mile (pursuant to a Memorandum of Understanding between the City of Temecula and Caltrans). The access points ' shown on the Specific Plan do not conform with these requirements. Response: The issue of Temecula Regional Center access is addressed in the October '23, 1992 Traffic Issues letter to the City of Temecula Department of Public Works (a copy of which is included as Attachment E to this Addendum EIR). The currently proposed access points along Winchester Road include three restricted access driveways which would only allow right turns into the project (see attached exhibit titled "Recommended Future Off -Site Traffic Lanes and Regional Center Access Configuration"). Deceleration lanes would' also be provided to allow traffic entering the project to move out of the through lane in advance of the right turn maneuver. Within this proposed design, project traffic would not be allowed to exit the site at these locations, thereby eliminating the potential traffic conflicts which are of concern to the City. The Traffic Engineer believes that the current access proposal meets the spirit and intent of the access spacing terms in the Memorandum of Understanding between the City and Caltrans. Comment 4: The Drainage Analysis originally provided in the Draft EIR does, not adequately address the'impacts of stormwater runoff being conveyed from the Regional Center and adjacent properties. The determination of the need for on-site retention basins cannot be made with the existing information. The Specific Plan indicates that increased flow rates from the project willcontribute to cumulative downstream impacts and the potential for flooding of downstream facilities. .- Response: A "Drainage Basin Study for .the Campos Verdes and Temecula Regional Center Specific Plans" (dated December 4, 1992) has been prepared and submitted to the City of Temecula (a copy of this Study is included as Attachment F to this Addendum EIR). This Study discusses the following drainage issues: existing drainage facilities and capacities (pages 2 through' S), the, proposed drainage system to serve the project'(pages 8 through 11), potential floodplain impacts (page 11), NPDES stormwater runoff requirements (pages 13 through 14) and Conclusions,and Recommendations (page 15). As indicated therein (see Exhibit 6 of Drainage Basin Study), drainage will be conveyed through the proposed Temecula Regional Center site via a series of storm drains ranging in size from 36 to 60 inches and a r X 5' reinforced concrete box facility. On-site retention basins do not appear to be necessary. A detention basin is proposed upstream of the Temecula Regional Center within the .Campos Verdes Specific Plan to reduce peak storm flows (see Exhibit 4.1 of the Drainage Basin Study). As indicated on page 8 of the Drainage Basin Study: "The park/detention basins encompasses approximately 18 acres. The detention basin is designed to contain storm runoff, including debris load, without inundating either of the playing fields during a 100 -year storm. The 100 -year storm will inundate approximately 6.3 acres, leaving 11.7 acres of park area and playing fields "dry". The detention basin has also been -designed to account for the debris production within the tributary area". 1111113 M a M w M M M m M M� 111111110 a M N It. TRANS 2TOS N! 1 rN r /J7IRVIL LNo LU 2 -HESTER AD..) 11— r2 .4 11 `a LO . Nnr 0-1 JfL V; RIGHT ILA ONLY t_I S 3 73t7 RIGHT IN ONLY Ni rN L, N r. REGIONAL CTR. RD. —1 �„ •' , a v J .µA 0 pt A p0' 2 Z,� OeN�p1< kF H 1 N Y !� LEGEND Number of Traffic Lane M1M1/ 4r—' jM1 Trans Transition Recommended Future Off-Site.Traffic Lanes And Regional Center Access Configuration Regional Center EIR Traffic Study L JfL V; RIGHT ILA ONLY t_I S 3 73t7 RIGHT IN ONLY Ni rN L, N r. REGIONAL CTR. RD. —1 �„ •' , a v J .µA 0 pt A p0' 2 Z,� OeN�p1< kF H 1 N Y !� LEGEND Number of Traffic Lane M1M1/ 4r—' jM1 Trans Transition Recommended Future Off-Site.Traffic Lanes And Regional Center Access Configuration Regional Center EIR Traffic Study 1 11 1] As further indicated on page 15 of the Drainage Basin study, "The drainage and detention facilities improvements proposed in this Study are the recommended systems to convey storm water runoff through the projects., The proposed drainage system should be constructed prior to or in conjunction with the development of both the Campos Verdes and Temecula Regional Center Specific Plans. Phasing of the drainage facilities for Campos Verdes should coincide with the phasing plan as shown in the Specific Plan. The Temecula Regional Center drainage facilities should coincide with the phasing plan as shown in the Specific Plan. However•,, the detention basin, if not already constructed within the Campos Verdes Specific Plan, will need to be constructed when the amount of runoff entering the Palm Plaza/ACS ponding facility reaches approximately 1900 cfs." "The proposed detention basin will reduce the peak flows downstream of Margarita Road, thus minimising any detrimental impact on existing downstream drainage facilities and developments." "The proposed Campos Verdes and Temecula Regional Center ' development will not adversely affect any of the properties downstream to Murrieta Creek, but will reduce potential impact on these properties, ' provided the proposed drainage and detention facilities are implemented. Reducing the potentialimpact on.. the downstream properties is accomplished by restricting and detaining the flows upstream of Margarita Road The proposed drainage system is designed to reduce the runoff conveyed to Ynez Road, thereby reducing the runoff reaching downstream properties." ' Comment 5: Pursuant to. FEMA Regulations, provision should be made for "alternative vehicular access and escape routes" (i.e. an Evacuation Plan). This ® plan should be prepared and approved prior to the approval of tentative tract maps or development plans. ' Response: As indicated on page 12 of the "Drag Basin Study for Campos Verdes and the Temecula Regional Center" (see Attachment F to this Addendum EIR), "a catastrophic failure of the Skinner Dam would cause flooding over the majority of ' the Temecula Regional Center and a small portion of Campos Verdes". The Project Engineer (NBS/Lowry) believes that once the dam inundation boundaries are revised to reflect recent assessment, district improvements to Santa Gertrudis Creek, dam ' inundation would no longer be an issue for either of these projects. . The .City of Temecula will condition the Tentative Tract Maps or Development Plans such that an evacuation plan, if needed, would be required prior to recordation of the maps or prior to the issuance of building permits. Comment 6: Several revisions to mitigation measures on pages II -13 and V-24 ' are necessary to insure that grading is in compliance with City Grading Standards and that erosion control shall be maintained at all times once construction begins anywhere on the site. Response: Mitigation measure 5 on pages II -13 and V-24 of the Draft EIR should be amended to read (amendments underlined)': "All grading procedures shall be in compliance with the City of Temecula Grading Standards including requirements for erosion control. Standard engineering techniques will minimize the soil erosion and siltation potential to acceptable levels. Prior to grading plan approval, the project proponent shall submit to the City of Temecula for review and approval, an erosion control program which indicates proper control of siltation, sedimentation and other pollutants. The erosion control program measures will include, but not be limited to, revegetation of cut and fill areas, utilization of sediment control devices at construction sites, and conveyance of storm runoff from development areas. All drainage will be conveyed in non-erosive drainage devices to suitable disposal points. Energy dissipation and methods for preventing scour and erosion should be part of any drainage improvements." No revisions to the Mitigation Monitoring Program are necessary. Comment 7: On page II -14, paragraph 6 of the Draft EIR, reference is made to the "grand plan This reference should be clarified. Resvonse: Mitigation Measure 6 on page II -14 of the Draft EIR should be amended to read as follows (amendment underlined): "6. Adherence to recommendations within the Geotechnical Feasibility Report shall occur including preparation of detailed grading plans prior to di Plan approval". No revisions to the Mitigation Monitoring Program are necessary. Comment 8: The first paragraph on page II -16' of the Draft EIR states that the project might contribute to the erosion and sedimentation in Santa Gertrudis Creek. Drainage facilities shall be constructed to City of Temecula standards. Response: As indicated on page V-28 of the Draft EIR, ""the downstream (drainage) facilities from the (Temecula Regional Center) project site .ultimately discharge into Murrieta Creek". The precise methods and facilities associated with storm water conveyance through and downstream of the Temecula Regional ' Center. project site is further elaborated in the "Drainage Basin Study for the Campos Verdes and Temecula Regional Center Specific Plans" which is included as Attachment F to thisAddendumEIR. Mitigation Measure 1 on pages II -16 and V-29 of the Draft EIR. should be amended to read (addition underlined): 1. All drainage facilities for this project shall conform to the requirements and standards of the City of Temecula and the Riverside ' County Flood Control and Water Conservation District. The Mitigation Monitoring Program has been amended. accordingly. ' Comment 9: Requirements of the NPDES should be addressed.. ' Response: As indicated on pages 13 and 14 of the "Basin Drainage Study for Campos Verdes and the Temecula Regional Center", which is included in Attachment F to this Addendum EIR, "The State and Regional Water Quality Control Boards (RWQCB) currently administer the NPDES permit regulations. NPDES permits are issued by the, State under the authority of the EPA to selected industries, construction activities and municipalities. The Temecula Regional Center Specific Plan will be required to comply with the NPDES General Construction Activity Storm Water Permit as .well as any permit issued by the City " of Temecula The Permit, must be acquired through a Notice of Intent filed with the State RWQCB. The control of storm water quality by identifying point and non -point contaminates and mitigating these contaminates by the use . of Best Management Practices (BMP) and a Storm Water Pollution Prevention. ' Plan (SWPPP) to address the reduction of contaminates during construction and atter the completion of construction is required to comply with the Permit." ' The Study provides a detailed listing of Best Management Practices and criteria for ' the Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan. Comment 10: On page II -20 of the. Draft EIR, there is no discussion of the blue -line streams on-site or how development will impact them.. Response: In concert. with construction activities within all. jurisdictional on- site drainage areas, the California Department of Fish and Game will be notified and consulted pursuant to the California Fish and Game Code Sections 160171603 and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers in conjunction with their 404 permit, process... This ' permit process may result in the provision of suitable replacement habitat in order to mitigate the environmental impacts of habitat loss either on- or off-site.. '-This mitigation measure reduces potential impacts to on-site riparian habitats and drainage areas to a level of insignificance. Comment 11: The discussion of Cultural and Scientific Resources on page II -23 of the Draft EIR should mention the paleontological finds on the adjacent Campos Verdes site. ' Response: An updated Paleontological Assessment (dated December 7, 1992) was performed on the Campos Verdes site by the firm of RMW Paleo Associates. The complete teat of this Assessment is included as Attachment 1 to the Response to Comments package within the Campos Verdes Final EIR. This revised Paleontological ' Assessment includes: 1) an assessment of the existing paleontologic resources unearthed at the site. This assessment was based upon the original field surveys (performed in November, 1988) and new findings resulting from the site's recent use as a borrow area; 2) given this additional information concerning existing resources, an assessment of potential project impacts; and 3) an updated Mitigation Program in , response to the proposed Mitigation Program contained within the San Bernardino County Museum letter. Updated mitigation measures are reflected in the Mitigation Monitoring Program. This Paleontological Assessment provides the City of Temecula with an updated assessment of paleontological resources, the results of which are included in the Responses to Comments package within the Campos Verdes Final EIR. Comment 12: The discussion of traffic circulation impacts on page II -25 of the ' Draft EIR should mention. the extension of General Kearny Road to Nicolas Road. Response: At the request of the City of Temecula Planning Commission and Staff, Wilbur Smith Associates -prepared a Supplemental Traffic Analysis relative to the potential exclusion of the General KearnyRoad Extension between Margarita , Road and Nicolas Road from the City General Plan (this Analysis is included as Attachment G to this Addendum EIRP. , The supplemental analysis included the development and assessment of build- out traffic forecasts for two roadwaq`network alternatives which eliminate the General Kearny Road Extension. Alternative A, which elimina+mss the General Kearny Road e extension would result in approximately 4,500 vehicles. per day being added to the critical Winchester Road segment between • Margarita and Nicolas Roads. The projected volumes on the segment of Winchester Road would result in volume to ' capacity ratios ranging from 1.09 to 1.12. Level of Service remains at F as compared to the 1.02 to 1.06 volume capacity ratios for this segment of Winchester Road within the currently -proposed Circulation Plan as discussed in the Draft EIR. The increase ' in daily volume -to -capacity ratio indicates that severe congested traffic conditions could be expected during extended periods of the day. ' Alternative B, which also eliminates the General Kearny Extension but provides an extension of Nicolas Road to Margarita Road, results in a smaller increase of approximately 1,400 vehicles per day on Winchester Road (1.05 to 1.08 volume -to - capacity ratios). Traffic operation on Winchester Road would worsen by extending the period of severe traffic congestion, but not to the degree resulting from Alternative ' A. Both Alternatives A and B would result in a significant increase in traffic ' volume on Margarita Road (between Winchester Road and General Kearny Road) and would degrade the Margarita Road Level of Service from "C" to "D". These general findings were prepared for build -out conditions for the Circulation Element of the General Plan. These impacts are the result of traffic ' associated with General Plan build -out. These impacts are not directly attributed to the Temecula Regional Center nor should any required improvements be directly ' applied to the project. Comment 14: A portion of the Temecula Regional Center project site lies within the 100 -year flood hazard zone on the FEMA Insurance Maps, which is contrary to statements in the Draft EIR. ' Resoonse:Y According to the Conditional Letter of Map Revision dated April 20, 1992 from the Federal Emergency Management. Agency, once proposed channel improvements to Santa Gertrudis Creek are completed, "then the 100 -year flood will be contained within the identified channel banks of the Santa Gertrudis Channel from the confluence with Murrieta Creek to Joseph Road"., (A copy of this correspondence is included as Attachment H to this Addendum EIR.) Comment 15: What is the "graben valley" as noted in paragraph 4 on page V-12 of the Draft EIR? ' Response: A "graben valley" is defined as an "unusually elongated depression of the earth's crust between two parallel faults." It is used to describe the valley between the Corona and Wolf Valleys within the Elsinore Fault Zone. Comment 16: Mitigation Measure 4 on page V-17 of the Draft EIR should be trevised to indicate that an Evacuation Plan shall be prepared by the applicant. Response: Mitigation Measure 5 'on pages II -12 and V-17 of the Draft EIR should be revised as follows (additions underlined): ' "In order to mitigate potential. inundation impacts associated with Skinner Dam, an Evacuation Plan, if necessary shall be prepared by the applicant and submitted to the City prior to issuance of . building Qermits." The Mitigation' Monitoring Program has. been amended accordingly. ' Comment 17: All road grades, as noted on page V-23 of the Draft EIR, shall not exceed a minimum of 10%. ' Response: ` This information is hereby noted and incorporated into this Addendum EIR. Comment 18: Mitigation Measure 5 on page V-24 should be revised to note that erosion control shall be maintained at all times, not just during rainy months and that stormwater will be conveyed, not diverted Response: See Response to Comment 6, above. Comment 19: If the Campos Verdes retention basin is not constructed prior to development of the Temecula Regional Center, what will be the on-site and downstream drainage impacts? Response: See Response to Comment 4, above. Comment 20: The Area Drainage Plan (ADP) fee is $1970 per acre. The last paragraph on page V-26 of the Drab EIR should be revised to note that the project will be required to pay the ADP fee that is current at the,time of issuance of building permits. Response: The final sentence on page V-26 of the Draft EIR should be revised as follows (additions underlined): "The project site is located within the Temecula Valley Area of the Murrieta Creek Area Drainage Plan; drainage fees required at the time No revisions to the Mitigation Monitoring Program are necessary. Comment 21: Mitigation Measure 1 on page V-29 should indicate that all drainage facilities will be constructed per the requirements and standards of the City of Temecula. Response: The revised wording for this Mitigation Measure is contained in. Response to Comment 8, above. Comment 22: The discussion of urban runoff on page V-57 of the Draft EIR should be consistent with NPDES requirements. Response: See Response to Comment 9, above. Comment 23: There is no discussion of the existence of or mitigation for "blue - line streams" found on-site on page V-77 of the Draft EHL Response: See Response to Comment 10, above. Comment 24: How are the SWAP policies discussed on page V-86 consistent with the new General Plan. Response: According to the Temecula Regional Center Specific Plan, a Class II bikeway will be provided along the project's frontage of Winchester and Margarita Roads adjacent to the project. site. Comment 25: The discussions of "Paleontology" within the Draft EIR should discuss the recent finds on the borrow site in the adjacent Campos Verdes project site. The mound areas on the Regional Center site may also produce paleontological resources. Response: The Response to Comment 11, above, provides background as to the nature and extent of paleontological resources found on the Campos Verdes site. The revised mitigation measures which resulted from the updated Paleontological Assessment prepared for the Campos Verdes site have been integrated into the Mitigation Monitoring Program for this project in order to insure preservation of any resources found on the Temecula Regional Center site. Comment 26: The discussion regarding the existing conditions on Winchester Road, on page V-93 of the Draft EIR requires updating. Response: The discussion of existing conditions of Winchester Road on page V-93 should be amended as noted below (additions underlined): "Winchester Road/State Route 79 is a regional state highway which provides regional access to and from the Hemet/Banning area (northeast of Temecula) as well as local access to and from Interstate 15. Winchester Road is a four -lane Major Street west of Jefferson Avenue and a two to six lane Urban Arterial east of Jefferson Avenue. Winchester Road, west of Jefferson Avenue has been improved to its ultimate four -lane width. East of Jefferson Avenue, Winchester Road will ultimately provide six travel lanes. The improvement of Winchester Road west of I-15 is being funded by Assessment District 161. The widening of Winchester Road between 1-15 and Margarita Road has already been completed. Figure 36, Existing Traffic/Roadway Characteristics should be updated as shown on the attached exhibit also titled "Existing Traffic Roadway Characteristics": as provided by Wilbur Smith Associates, the Traffic Engineer. Comment 27: Page V-95 of the Draft EIR indicates that portions of Jefferson Avenue are under construction. This fact should be clarified or corrected. Other discussions of existing traffic facilities on this page require updating. Response: The discussion of existing conditions on Jefferson Avenue and ' existing intersection controls in the area on page V-95 of the Drab EIR should be amended as noted below (additions underlined). "Jefferson Avenue, located west of and parallel to I-15, is currently designated as a four -lane Major Street within the project area South of Date Street, Jefferson Avenue is improved to its ultimate width. Nicolas Road is a two-lane east -west roadway. which intersects Winchester Road northeast of the project site. Nicolas Road, a designated Arterial, currently serves residential areas of Winchester Road. it ■r r r r �o r r■ r r r■ r rI r r r Existing Traffic/Roadway Characteristics Regional Center EIR Traffic Study r i d Road s(In Thouss Ides Per DI I [1 1 Most intersections alone access roads serving the site are currently Comment 28: On Figure 37, Circulation Element of the Riverside County General Plan, found on page V-96 of the Draft EIR, General Kearny Road is incorrectly shown as extending to Apricot Street. Also, Margarita Road north of Winchester Road should be shown as an "Arterial" rather than a "Mountain Arterial". Response: On Figure 37 within the Draft EIR, Margarita Road should be shown as an "Arterial". General Kearny Road is correctly shown as extending to and aligning with Apricot Street, since this Figure is intended to reflect the County General Plan, which was the applicable document concerning future roadway alignments at the time of preparation of the Draft EIR. The Draft City General Plan, Circulation Element has relocated the alignment of General Kearny Road to the north. The City's alignment for this roadway is located north of and offset, from Apricot Street at its intersection with Margarita Road. Comment 29:: The first sentence in page V-97 of the Draft EIR (concerning the Winchester Road/1-15 on- and off- ramps) is not consistent with other statements in the EIR. Response: The first sentence of page V-97 ("According to Intersection. Capacity Utilization Analysis performed by the Traffic Engineer, these ramps would operate at Level of Service "C" or better if these signals were interconnected or synchronized") is correct. Comment 30: Figure 38, Anticipated Transportation System should reflect the Circulation Element proposed in the future City General Plan. Response: This figure is indicative of the anticipated circulation system at the time that the Traffic Analysis was prepared. This circulation system provided the basis for initial project circulation recommendations. This exhibit should not be confused with the "Recommended Circulation. System" exhibit, a copy of which is attached. This latter exhibit, according to the Traffic Engineer, reflects the City Draft General Plan Circulation Element roadway components. ' Comment 31: The assumption is made that restricted access drives leading from the project site would not conflict with traffic flows. Cross -lane movement to get to left turn lanes may significantly affect traffic flows. The spacing for proposed access points on Winchester Road is in conflict with the Memorandum of Understanding between the City and Caltrans. ' Response: See Response to Comment 3, above. Comment 32: The recommended traffic improvements shown in Figure 45, Recommended Future Circulation System, does not conform to the recommendations of the City Draft General Plan Circulation Element. Exhibits, tables and documents should be revised to reflect appropriate capacities and projections. Response: The attached exhibit titled "Recommended Future Circulation System" reflects the City Draft General Plan Circulation Element roadway components. This revised exhibit provides the basis for recommendations for upgrading area roadways and increasing capacities. The analysis which provided the basis for the previous exhibit provided a "worst-case" assessment of the traffic impacts. Comment 33: ' At t] Interstate 15 are not they be built? 11 .e present time, the Winchester Road loop ramps at part of Community Facilities District 88-12.' How will ' Resoonse: The construction of the Winchester Road loop ramps represent an off-site traffic improvement which is not currently covered by CFD 88-12. However, the design of these facilities is currently underway as part of Assessment District 88- 12. Funding for construction would be covered by Assessment District 88-12 contingent upon a successful bond sale. As also stated on page V-116 of the Draft EIR, "the developer will be responsible for direct project accessimprovements along the site boundaries and on-site improvements (as delineated in the Traffic Analysis) as well as a "fair share" amount toward the implementation of needed off-site improvements". The City of Temecula will determine the extent of "fair share" participation' in this traffic improvement attributed to the Temecula Regional Center project. Comment 34: Bicycle trails should be added to the measures listed on page V- 116 of the Draft EIR which are intended to reduce vehicular travel. Response: Mitigation Measure'2 on pages .II -25 andV-116 of the Draft EIR should be amended to include "provision of bicycle trails and bike rack facilities on- site" as an additional means of "maximizing roadway capacities and reducing vehicular travel during the critical peak hour periods." The Mitigation Monitoring Program has been amended accordingly. Comment 35: The Warm Springs and Santa Gertrudis trunk sewers, as mentioned on page V-118 of the Draft EIR, are. not anticipated to serve the project site. The available capacity of the 15 -inch sewer in Winchester and Ynez Road is in question. Response: The 15 -inch sewer lines in Winchester and Ynez Road are anticipated to -provide service to the project site. If capacity is not available ml the line, the proposed project will be subject to the requirements stated in Mitigation Measure 3 on page V-121 of the Draft EIR which states: MY LEGEND 2L Number OfTraffic Lanes F Freeway, R/W 200 Ft. UA Urban Arterial, R/W 101 FL A Arterial, R/W 110 Fl. M Major, R/W 100 Ft. 8 Secondary. R/W 68 FL IC Industrial Collector, R/W T8 C Collector, R/W 66 Ft. SP Special Project Road. R/W 110 FL MORD• Modified Urban Arterial, R/1 ♦ Denotes Change In Planned Transportation System 17, Signal Recommended Future Circulation System Regional Center EIR Traffic Study "3. Assurance for provision of adequate water and wastewater service is required prior to'approval of a subdivision map, in accordance with the State Subdivision Map Act." Comment 36: On page V-158, it is stated that the improved Santa Gertrudis Creek is designed to accommodate potential flooding from Skinner Dam. Additional information is needed to verify this. Response: See Response to Comment 5, above. Comment 37: A discussion of NPDES requirements should be included on page V-158 of the Draft .ElR, within discussions of cumulative impacts. Response: See Response to Comment 9, above. Comment 38: The borrow site excavation adjacent to the Temecula Regional Center site exposed significant paleontological resources. Response: See Response to Comment 11, above. C. ADDITIONAL REVISED MITIGATION MEASURES Several revisions to mitigation measures originally contained in the Temecula Regional Center Draft Environmental Impact Report were necessary in response to comments received from the City of Temecula (as contained in the Attachment A to this Addendum EIR). These revisions have been previously noted in the responses to the respective City comments. If these changes necessitate revisions to the Mitigation Monitoring Program, such revisions have also been noted within the respective responses to comments. Several of the technical analyses, which are included as Attachments to this Addendum EIR, contain recommendations which necessitate additional revisions to the mitigation measures contained within the Mitigation Monitoring Program. Provided below is a listing of these additional revisions which were not in direct response to City comments but have also been reflected within the Mitigation Monitoring Program. The fully revised Mitigation Monitoring Program is included as Attachment J to this Addendum EIR. Corresvondence dated July 29. 1992 (Attachment B) No additional mitigation measures or project recommendations are contained within this correspondence. Addendum Traffic Issues Letter dated October 15. 1992 (Attachment C) The Temecula Regional Center Specific Plan has been assigned by the Traffic Engineer the following percentage utilization of and percentage implementation responsibility for the off-site circulation improvements noted below. This implementation responsibility for the provision of off-site roadway improvements is intended to mitigate the project's portion of cumulative traffic impacts. These improvements and the project's implementation responsibility are listed below: Imyrovement 1. Construction of Jackson Avenue from the Temecula/Murneta City limits to Murrieta Hot Springs Road 2. Winchester Road interchange overpass widening and currently planned ramp widenings 3. Overland Drive overpass improvement (Jefferson Avenue to Ynez Road) 4. Ynez Road widening from Overland Drive to Rancho California Road Implementation Responsibility Assigned to Temecula Regional Center 5.0% 22.4% 3.0% 10.50% Assignee to Imorovement Temecula Regional Center 5. Winchester Road widening from Margarita 14.94% Road to Murrieta Hot Springs Road 6.• Four -lane Margarita Road improvement from Solana Way to Winchester Road 7. Four -lane Margarita Road improvement from Winchester Road to Murrieta Hot Springs Road 8. Four -lane Ynez Road improvement from its present terminus at Equity Drive to the Temecula/Murrieta City limits 9.• Four -lane improvement. of Overland Drive from Ynez Road to Margarita Road 10. Four -lane improvement of General Kearny Road from Margarita Road to the easterly Campos Verdes project boundary. 11. Four -lane improvement of General Kearny Road from the easterly project limit to Nicolas Road 12. • Widening of Solana Way from Ynez Road to Margarita Road 18. Widening of Murrieta Hot Springs Road from Date Street to Canyon Drive 14.• Project perimeter access signals on Winchester Road, Overland Drive, the Palm Plaza access and Costco Center access 15. Signals at the intersections of. Margarita Road/Wmchester Road, Margarita Road/ Overland Drive and Ynez Road/Overland Drive 16. Signals at the intersections of Jackson AvenuelMurrieta Hot Springs Road and Margarita Road/Solana Road 16.25°% 5.25°% 5.0% 20.0'% 9.0% 12.75% 4:50°% 1.50% 100.096 50:096** 25.0°%ss • On -Site Roadways •' This percentage implementation responsibility relates to all three Urban Core projects. Specific percentage responsibility by project is not available. Project participation in the circulation improvements noted above does not include any Assessment District contributions or reimbursements. Implementation responsibility for off-site circulation improvements noted above has been incorporated into the Mitigation Monitoring Program (see Attachment "A" to the Mitigation Monitoring Program). CMP Traffic Impact Analysis dated November. 1992 (Attachment D) This Analysis contained Findings which list "programmed and planned CMP roadway improvements". These improvements and the project's assignment of implementation responsibility are noted in detail above. Addendum Traffic Issues Letter dated October 23.`1992 (Attachment E) No additional mitigation measures or project recommendations are contained within this,Analysis. Basin Drainaee Study dated December 4. 1992 (Attachment F) The proposed Campos Verdes and Temecula Regional Center Specific Plans along with possible upstream development necessitates the need for improved drainage and detention facility upstream of Ynez Road. The proposed drainage and detention facilities improvements are the recommended systems to convey storm water runoff through the projects. The proposed drainage system should be constructed prior to or in conjunction with the development of both the Campos Verdes and Temecula Regional Center Specific Plans. The Temecula Regional Center drainage facilities should coincide with the phasing plan as shown in the. Specific Plan. However, the detention basin, if not already constructed within the Campos Verdes Specific Plan, will need to be constructed when the amount of runoff entering the Palm Plaza/ACS ponding facility reaches approximately 1900 cfs.. This phasing of provision of drainage facilities is reflected in revisions to the Mitigation Monitoring Program. Supplemental Traffic Analysis, General Kearny Road Extension (Attachment G) This; Supplemental Analysis contains no additional mitigation measures or project recommendations. Conditional Letter of May Revision from FEMA dated April 20. 1992 (Attachment H) This correspondence contains no additional mitigation measures or project recommendations. Final Traffic Issues Reearding_Temecula Regional Center, Winchester Hills and Campos Verdes dated February 18. 1993 (Attachment I) ' The Traffic Engineer prepared addendum material which addresses issues discussed at meetings with the City of Temecula. This addendum material addresses ' the following issues as they relate to the Temecula Regional Center project. 1. On-site circulation system recommendations for the Temecula Regional ' Center project; 2. Off-site roadway improvements which need to be constructed in order to ' adequately accommodate the vehicle trip generation limits set for the first year of Urban Core project implementation; and 3. An assessment of the effects of eliminating the General Kearney.Road extension on Temecula Regional Center traffic impacts. On -Site Circulation System Recommendations for Temecula Regional Center The original traffic study prepared for the Temecula Regional Center. was based on a Specific Plan site layout which included a north -south on-site roadway running from Winchester Road to Overland Drive. This project road represented the boundary between Specific Plan Sub -Areas 1 and 2 and was intended to serve internal circulation needs of the project. According to the Traffic Engineer, the elimination of this on-site roadway would not change the findings of the original traffic study (e.g. the projected distribution of on-site traffic ) as long as the future. on-site circulation system maintains "continuity" in its internal network of primary circulation aisles/roads. In this manner, all portions of the future developed site would be internally accessible to vehicular traffic once on the site. Similarly, on-site traffic would be able to exit the site via any of the perimeter access intersections from any point on the site. The importance of on-site circulation system "continuity" is that it significantly reduces the impact of project traffic on arterial roadways adjacent to the site. There is an infinite number of specific on-site circulation system configurations which would satisfy the network "continuity" requirement, and it would be premature to recommend a specific layout at this time. At this, time, the Traffic Engineer recommends that one or a combination of the following two design concepts be used: 1. Perimeter Rine Road Concegt - which is commonly used for traditional regional mall layouts, provides an on-site access restricted circular road near the outer perimeter of the site. The ring road, which generally surrounds the mall core and ' adjacent parking areas, distributes traffic to and from principal access points on the site rather than along the arterial streets; or 2. Radial Road Concept - which provides for on-site traffic distribution within large commercial centers where a traditional mall -type core does not exist. In this case, a radial network of on-site roads distribute traffic to a number of smaller clusters of commercial nodes. In the case of the Temecula Regional Center, the ultimate internal circulation system may include a combination of these two circulation design concepts. Regardless of which circulation design concept is applied, primarycirculation aisles should be designed with a higher degree of access control to reduce vehicle conflicts and maintain positive flow characteristics. Parking should also be restricted along primary circulation aisles wherever possible. Off -Site Roadway Improvement Summary for First Year (1993-1994) Project Implementation As identified in the Conceptual Circulation System Phasing Plan (see Addendum Traffic Issues Letter dated October '15,' 1992 included as Attachment C to this Addendum EIR), the following off-site circulation system improvements would be required to accommodate 1994 background traffic Dlus vehicle trip generation limits set for the first year of implementation of the three Urban Core Projects, Temecula Regional Center (TRC), Winchester Hills (ViH), and Campos Verdes (CV). Each improvement is followed by an indication of which project(s) are responsible for each improvement. • A minimum two-lane improvement (extension) of Margarita Road from Solana Way to Winchester Road (related to TRC, WH, and CV); • Implementation ofMargarita Road, afour-lane Arterial, from Winchester Road to Murrieta Hot Springs Road (related to WH only); • The widening of Winchester Road to six lanes, between Margarita Road and Murrieta Hot Springs Road (related to TRC and CV); • The widening of Ynez Road to six lanes, between the Overland Drive alignment and Rancho California Road (related to TRC, WH, and CV); • Extension of Ynez Road to the Date Street alignment (related to WH only); • Four -lane improvement of General Kearney Road from new Margarita Road alignment to the easterly limit of Campos Verdes project (related to CV only); • The widening of Solana Way to four lanes, between Ynez Road and Margarita Road (related to CV only); s New signal installations on Winchester Road at Margarita Road, Nicholas Road, and Murrieta Hot Springs Road (related to TRC, WH and CV); and iLl I I • The installation of a new signal on Margarita Road at Solana Way (related to CV only). Each of the above roadway improvements has been related to the individual Urban Core Project(s) which contributes to the need for that improvement. The identified roadway improvements would only be needed if one or more of the related projects actually experience development activity during the first implementation year. Fair share implementation responsibility by the individual Urban Core Projects for the identified 1994 roadway system improvement needs would be as previously assessed. Impact of the Elimination of General Kearney Road Extension The Traffic Engineer has reviewed the effects of not extending General Kearney Road on the Urban Core Project traffic study findings. Some of the impacts related to this issue have already been reported in previously submitted traffic study addendum documents (see Supplemental Traffic Analysis, General Kearney Road Extension included as Attachment G to this Addendum EIR). A summary of earlier reported findings as well as more recent assessments is presented below. • The resulting re -distribution of project -related daily traffic flows (at Project build -out) would result in an additional 800 project trips on: Margarita Road (between General Kearney and Winchester); Winchester Road (between Margarita and Nicolas); and Nicolas Road (between Winchester and General Kearney). • Implementation responsibility for the combined Urban Core Projects would increase by approximately 2 percent or less on the affected segments of Margarita Road and Winchester Road. • Implementation responsibility previously identified for the General Kearney Extension would be eliminated. ' MEM ORA?v'DUM TO: Planning Departzaent ' FROM: Dapartment of Pubhc Works Robert Righstti, Senior Project Manager ' DATE: August 31, 1992 SUBJECT: department of Public Works Development Review for Specific Pla.. 263 ' The Regional Cerate* The Department of Public Works has reviewed this case and have a number a` concerns about several issues discussed in the text of the specific plan. These issues will have a direct bearing upon both the analysis and the recommendations which are to be contained in the final language of the specific plan document. the ' technical appendix document, and the configuration of the final maps. As with Winehestsr Hills and Campos Verdes, our primary concerns center around circulation and congestion management, increased stormwater runeff, National ' Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) requiLements, and consist ency the City's future General Plan.. Our review of the current documoats indicates that the applicant has not adequately addressed these issues in a form that would allots staff to recommend approval at a public bearing. it is our recommendation that the following items be updated end/or addressed and ' collated into a flnal approved document: CTR 177M A TTOW The traffic analysis included within the tedInuical appendix should be updated to thatch the proposed circulation element for the City's future General Plan, and should be amended to reflect the updated analysis prepared for both Winchester Hills- and illsand Campos Verdes. Again, the comments of both the County- of Rive_+�side, dated December 11. 1991 and Suae 8; i992,'end the City of,Murr.eta, dated Decembers, 1991 and May 26, 1992, should be addressed and reflected in the updated analysis. Special attention needs to be paid to the requirements of the•congestion management program for our region, which is being administered by the Riverside County Transportation Commission (RCTC), to comply with the. requirements of. State ' legislation AE471 and AB1791. This, shall include full review of the Tragic Analyads Documents by RCTC prior to approval of the ;Specific Plan and any Tentative ]Maps. A copy of the Local Agency C51P F.andbook bas been provided to. the applicant with our comments on the Winchester Hills Specific Plan. It should also be noted that per a Memorandum of Understanding between the Ctrs of Temecula and Caltrans, dated August 26, 1991, access spacing on the south side ' of Mnchester Road is limited to one quarte: mile minimum. The acaess paints az 1 2 3 Regional Center Specific Pian. August 31, 1992 Pkge two, shown in the speeffic pian document do not conform With the requi—riaments of the MOU. All exhibits should be amended to agree with the terms of t.!:e MCU, or a waiver from Caltrans must be submitted to this department prior to approval of the Specific Plan or any tentative maps or plot plans. DRAINAGE The drainage analysis contained in the technical appendix and in the specific plan document does not adequately address the impasts of stor mmtor runoff. being Conveyed from tha Regional Center and adjacentproperties. The fechnlcai information contained in the appendix is incomplete as justification for the mitigation measures proposed. It is poasible that some retention area may be required withim the Regional Center specific plan, but this datermination car-aot be made from the information provided. The specMc pian document indicates that "the increased flow _etas from the project site will contribute to cumulative increased flow rates downstream and the potentia: for flooding 1A areas with undersized facilities." But 9he_-a is no discussion About mitigation of this impa_^t, nor what the extent of potentialfloodiag will be. tditiguticn of these impacts cannot be put off to the improvement of Mu_rrista Creek. it is ou_ recommendation that an updated preBmiaaryy d- auage study be submitted to reinforce the conclusions made for both tha Regional .Center and Campos Var de in ::,rder to adequately define and mitigate the potential impacts of tbi Dr oject. In addition to these drainage issues, the new requirements of the State Water Resources' Control Board for storm water runoff OWDES) should be a ddrassed within. the specific plan text with recommendations for implementation and monitoring. +SPECIFIC PLAN/BIR DOCUMENT COTM4LFNTS Page 11-12: Per section 60.22 of the FEMA Rulas and Regulations Handbook, •proviafon shall be made for "alternative vehicular access and escapes routes ...." Although, mention is made of this in the mitigation measures, the plan must be prepared by the developer and approved by the regulating community prior to approval of the tentative maps or development plans. Page II -13: A number of revisions should be made to paragraph 5 to make it consistent with current City policy. Erosion control shall be maintained at all ti=es,, no: just during the "rainy months." The third sentence fn this jera„graph, is incomplete. Also, it would be more appropriate to "convey" the storniweter through the vita, not "divert" it from development areas. Page r1 -14 - in pssagraph 6, mention is clads of a "grand plan." What is it? ' Regional Center Specific Plan August 31, 1992 page three Page 11-16: The first paragraph under impacts notes that this project might contribute to the erosion and sedimentation of Santa Ger-t udis Creek. How does it get there from this 8 project? also, it should be noted that the drainage faciL+ties will also be Constructed to the standards of the City a? Temecula where appropriate. Is Paragraph 4 meant to address the requirements of-NPDES7 It so; it should be ' expanded to more fully address this issue. Page 11-17: This page should address the issues relating to lr?DES. Also, the statemeni that 9 "control of nonpoint source waste is directed prim-a-zily toward agricultural activities" Is no longer completely true. Page II -20: There is no mention made here of the existence of the blue line streams onsite, or - O how the development of this sites impacts them. ' Page 1I-23: It should be mentioned within this discussion that paleontological finds were made 11 . on the adjacent property, Campos Verde, Which might indicate a high potential for signi'icant finds on the Regional Center site. Page II -25: Mention should also be made of the extension of General Kearny to Nicolas Road. Also, some of the comments under "Impacts" appear to be inconsistent with each 12 other. This section should be redrafted to make the discussion as- ree internally. ' Page 111-9.- This II-9:Thu exhibit (as well as all others) should be revised to make it co=L-tenttsith the Memorandum of Understanding between the City of Temecula and Caltrans. A copy of this memorandum is attached for yor review.: Please note that the allowable minimum spacing for a, -n, -ss on the south side of Winchester is one-quarter mile. Page III -13: It should be noted here that as long as a portion of the project is located within a FEMA mapped floodpiRrin, the developer shall be re-q'1i*ed to submit a -Development Permit application to the City for review and comment. This Development Permit shall include the design engineer's analysis and justification for permitting construction with an acknowledged flood plain. Paragraph 6 at the bottom of the page mentions"4♦1 on graded slopes." Please elaborate on what this means. Page III -15:. _,. , This discussion' on the capacity of the 15 -inch sewer facility does not tale into consideration that 'Lh:s same trtmk line is also serving Campos Verde and a portion ' of Winchester nils, as well as the-wdsting residential areas nearby. :ties EAM concurred that the existing 15 -inch line will accomodate a1 of these developments? Please provide =written verification of this issue and address in the text. 1 Regional Center Specific Plan August 31, 1992 page icor- Page III -18: The layout shown here is not consistent vdth the proposed sewer pia for Campos Verdes. Pleaae make the two consistent. Page III -19: Street gradients shall not exceed 10% unless othemise approved by the City. Page HMO: The proposed retaining wall does not allow for the punch through of General Kearn)- Road to 'Inez. This connection should be shown an the exhibit. Page III -28: CSA references should be changed to TCSD. Page III -31: ` Item number 2 should be revised to include the following verbage: ^Access to Planning Area 1 will be provided from Margarita Road, apricot Avenue, Loop Street :9' and Loop Street 'H'. The location of access points ee depicted are concepteal except for aL.vm+ment. Access locations to the individual planning area° shall be determined when tract maps or plot plans ere sub*._ittsd. The number of accea:s points and their allgnment shall be as depicted." Page III -33: Revise item number 2 under planning standards per the languaga shots for page 3:. Page III -35: : : Same comment as page 11I-33. Page SII -38: What is the spacing between: the driveway accass on Yne2 and the property to the south. Also, there appears to be an existing dirt road shown on the planning area easterly boundary. What is it? The existence of the road should be acknowledged and mitigated. Page IV -3: Show a median island in Winchester from Ynez easterly. Page IV -4: A bike trail should be included in the Winchester Street scene.:' Page IV -5 and 8. A bike trail should be included in the street scans, and also the !r-clusan of the 25 - foot transportation corridor. Page IV -7: The first and second paragraphs on this pegs need to be rewritten for alma-Eieation. `'What is the 30 -foot set back and where does it come from? also, the 25 -foo: it-Ensourtation corridor must be provided for. Also, the second to the 'iast paragraph discusses the LDZ dimensions. Hes this been adhered to and how does Regional Center Specific Plan August 31, 1992 ' page five, it match with the dimensions of the trarsporiation co_ ndcr and the 20 -foot Calt. az:a set back. This does not appear to be clearly addressed by either the extabits o_„ tbis description. Page lv-B: The transportation corridor should be included in the analyais, along ttitth the inclusion of bike trails on Ynaz and Yargarita. Page IV -9 thru 12• Show bike trai. ' Page IV -18 and 18: Plaase mote that there will be no decorative brick orpaving where t mffic signals with loop detectors are installed. ' Page IV -23: Please revise all reference to CSA to TCSD. Page IV -34: Again, are the setbacks and the addition of the 25 -foot transportation corridor consistent with one another? Page IV -38s This minimum setback of 25 feet will not work in conjunction with the transpwt&zon ' corridor. Please re-evaluate this setback criteria to all for suitable landacap;ae buffer from the edge of the corridor. Page IV -37: -Blease delete reference to Riverside County under "Parking Require=pnts. .Page V-1: { It is stated incorrectly that the site is outside of the 100 year flood plain". A portion 'of this site is show as being viithin a 100 year flood hazard zone on the F1'�SfA 13 insurance maps. I 1 1 I Page V-5: Under the policy regarding the transportation corridor, please ncte goat only "non- 14 required landscaping and parking" may be constructed within the 25 -foot corridor. 'Page V-12: What is a "graben valley" (See naragrrsph Q. 15 `Page V-17: Please revise note 4 to state that the developer Rall be preparing the evacuation plea 1 per FEMA requirements. Page V-23: Revise road grade slopes to ten percent (10%) minimum. 17 Regional Center Specific Plan I ' August 31, 1992 pap six t Page V-24: 1 Paragraph number 5 should be revised to note that erosion control shall be implemented at all times, and not just during "rainy months." Also, note that stormwater shall be conveyed, not "diverted". ' Page V-28 thru 28: The second to the last paragraph indicates that the drainagge facilities :aider the freeway are not adequate to accomodate the 100 year flows. Z the Campoa Verde I retention basin is not constructed to limit the flows reaching the freeway, What will be the effect onsite for the Regional Canter? There is rot enough information provided in this section, nor in the technical appendix, to backup the assumptions being made in this section. Plaese enhance and address the issues. Also, the current ADP Pee is S1970 per acre. Revise the last -paragraph to note that the projects will be required to pay the fee that is current at the tine of permit or2(J recordation of any final map, whichever occurs first. Page V-29: Under "mitigation measures" please add that all facilities shall per the requirements and standards of the City of Temecula. also be constructed 2) Page V-57: The "Urban runoff" paragraph on this page must be cc*.si=tent with the r equirs�xzs of MMES. Page V-77: There is no mention made in this discussion of the existence std mitigation oi: blueline streams as shown on the USGS maps. This should be a•^ owiedged and addressed. 2 21 Page V-86: • n� How are theae policies consistent with out new Genera: Pias. espe '' L y in regard to recreational trails and bike trails. Page V-80: Under "Paleontology," there should be some mention of thus finds of the borrow site 2 adjacent to this project, and that there is some probabiHty,of mlti eddifional :"lade within the mound areas on the Regional Center site. Page V-83: The discussion under Winchester Road is outdated, as is �s�b:t found on passe V-94. 2(.� Please update. ` l Page V-95: There is a comment under the Jeffarson Avenue discussion that states the rf� improvement of Jefferson between Winchester Road and Data is underway. . Hy whom? G Some portions of this page appear to be in need of updating. - - I I Regional Center Specific Plan August 31, 1992 page seven Page V-96: I General Kearney is incorrectly shown as connecting to Apricot. moo, ..11&rgu- itra Road Winchester be "arterial," "mountain no north of should shown as en Lot a 40 artarfal. u Page V-97: The first sentence on this page is not conaistent with = revicus comments made in this 29 document. This exhibit should refect the circulation element being proposed by our new futars 30 General Plan. Page V-106: Under local access, the assumption is made that the restricted access did es would I not conflict with traffic flows. Staff contends that crosa lane movement to get to lsat turn lanes may significantly affect traffic flow. Also, the spacing requirement for 31 Winchester road as recommended in this document is in c=^L-ct with a Memorandum_ of Understanding between the City and Caltrana. (See- attached MOU). Page V-113 and 114: I The "recommended improvements" shown on figure 45 do not match the circulation future Plan. Pr 2ase 3 element of the General t� revise exhibits, tables and doente G accordingly LYit l appropriate capacities and projections. ' Page V-118: At the present time the Winchester Road Loop Ramps are not Bart of CFD 85-12. F.cw 33 will the loop ramps be built ti not by CFD 88-12. Also, Margarita Road shell' be a.: Iarterial all the way to Murrista Hot Springs Road. 'Also, please add bike tr a-sem to the list of recommendations to reduce vehicular lar tragi1. 34 Page V-118 and 119: Under "sewer," reference is made to a sewer master plan being preps-'ad by the diBtriet. Please provide a copy of this document for reference by staff. '-iso, 35 ' please note that the Warm Springs Trunk and the Santa Gertrudis Trunk do not appear to be servicing this project, so why ara they mentioned? There still rasait:s some question as to the available capacity of the 18-inch sewer to service this project. Please address this issue more fully with backup information from tha district. Page V-158: 'aafety," ' Under "seismic the applicant states tbst the improved Santa Ger•unidia 36 Creek was designed to accomodate the potential fryco$ing from Sldnner Dem. Can information be provided to verity that this is the case? 'Also please include some discussion of the new NPDES requirements on. Chid papa. 37 I Regional Center Specific Plan August 31, 1992 page eight Page V-160: Again, please note that the borrowsite excavation adjacent to t1ldr. site did significant pale6ntalogical resources. TENTATIVE MAP COMMENTS Pending the submittal of new maps which will reflect the commen+s e --E recommendations of staff, no other review comments shall be mads here. The previous map submittals were deemed incomplete and were mferred to the applicant with recommendations for -revision. Until all of the above issues have been adequately addressed by the appli=t, the Department of Public 'Works cannot deem this application complete and give final approval to the FIR and any subsequent processing. - q ' Tb s b,en ozndtm of U^tiers andi g is betty: s the Stan of Cal fot^,.ia Deozent o= T:-=po�tt:o- (hereinafter Calm=) and the City of Temecula Utereina::er the City). ?bus Memcrat+.cum of Understanding constitutes solely a glide to Le respecti7+e obligations, intentions and policies of the Ci.- ' and Caltrans to use in approving new development alo; g ao:-,h and south Sate Route 79. This t= has not been designed ro authorize funding for project of or., nor is it a legally binding contact It is the intent of this MOU to establish a rtun ai policy Which vAM lead to a cooperative ao eemeru berweea Caltrans and the City within approximately twelve (12) months atter The execution of :his MOU. The basic underst miling is as follows: . ' NOR'r-i RO=E 79 (MNOrESTEF ROAD) 1. Route 79 a1:aI1 havt up to -&—ree laces for through traffic a.^.d up to two lavas for local ' eircLerion. Realgtunent may be necessay upon ;.:tura deveopnerc along Route 79. The C!cy shall protea the right-of-way for said realignment 2. Route 79 is to have 1/4 =Ra i ntersectior spacing wits 1/6 :!le spae:ing for iimirad access driveways (± e. right in, right out only) from 1-15 to Margarita Road ca the -,to—,h side and is to have 1/4 mile intersection spacing on true south side. 3. From Marge.-im Road to Mumota Hot Springs Road the spacing shall be 1/? mlle inrerseecorl. 4. Iaterwdon spacing beyond Muriate Biot Sp^_gs Road w$1 be 1/2 male. ' 5. Approvals prior to the date of this MOU art excepted. SQtMi ROUTE 79 1. Route 79 is to have 112 rale m'=Secdon spacing and 1/4 mile limited access driTaway spac4M, ' from 1-15 to Aria Road. 2. Approvals prior to the date of this MOU are excepted. PPLIES A'ORTH 8 SOM'ri ROUTn 79 1. 1 te:seedoa and limited access design shall be developed is attorda ice a:t. policies, procedures, practices and sandards normally allowed by Caltrans and the City. ' 2. Eventual reslignmerrr of Route 79 „.ay be necessary due to development along current Route 79. o- City shat provide Caltrats Ps« :e rig:%, -of --way protect=on for Route 79 realigt_manr ctrou& negotiations. I Corc:rr. :Z. ' SEEUF, Dissict Director RONALD J. PARIM, Mayor Mtrict 8 City of Temecula Date Date ' SFE ATrACJM MAPS ATTEST. S. OREM City Clerk Cry of Temecula . APPROVED AS TO FORiW Soots F. Field, City Mtomey 5-1Frvrmou wH w n it w nw • r w w .. .rraWlanall_ '{ r --';w nbl�� I to+wusb bur 09 nortu+o rwr \ T cu� H• MMlM9Yt r a R O ten O i{{ y y sornu M \ ev J TYPICAL STREET SECTIO! LA G u $ ILW.AL L M •7.7.. 1 z v x w > Q ti o in I n P i N b � ^ J � A — �n O �• u 1 U s Z fJ 79 > 'o u' t. �rmr o 0 O U f. ~ >vZ a OS y N -ci—lU .l[%WNGI �• y U y Y IA Z> C^ O N I+ V Y O O� i �� Ic - •� wt - fn ti r z t r m — •• NG. y 'If U of r� ni STATE ROUTE 7n APPROVED GALT ACCESS POIN RANCHO VILLAGES ASSESSMENT DISTRICT No ' l! !; ffi' ►Ar()f.0 errc,ra, i�b •Ic. 41. :Irh fit m m ' ' 0V B Planning Consultants ' I Santa Ana • San Diego l.:Tr luo t. t VF11K: 1. C:1'�+-p5 7141 62.274 FAX # s, 14, 662-2708 ' Job No. 168-074 July 29, 1992 Ben N. Minamide, PE ' Public Works Director/City Engineer City of Murrieta 26442 Beckman Court Murrieta, CA 92562 Dear Ben: ' T&B Planning Consultants represents Bedford Properties regarding Specific Plans for the Temecula Regional Center (SP 263), Campos Verdes (SP 1) and Winchester Hills (SP 255). We are in receipt through the City of Temecula of your letter of May 26, 1992. Your letter was written regarding the traffic and circulation aspects and impacts of those three projects. The letter was written in response to a distribution of a Preliminary Draft text of the Specific Plans by the City of Temecula on April 23, 1992. Your letter makes no reference to a previousletter written' by Chuck Mackey of BSI Consultants, dated December 6, 1991. It is my understanding based on my discussions with Debbie Ubnoske, Senior Planner at the City of Temecula, that your letter of May 26, 1992 serves to replace the BSI letter dated December 6, 1991. It is my understanding that Miss Ubnoske has had conversations ' with representatives of the City of Murrieta who have indicated this to her verbally. The.purpose of my letter is merely to confirm this in writing so that there is no misunderstanding regarding the City of Murrieta's concerns with respect to these projects. We and our traffic consultant, Bob Davis of Wilbur Smith Associates, are working closely with the City of Temecula to address any and all appropriate concerns regarding these projects. It is my ' expectation that Bob Davis and City staff will be working directly with Hank Mohle, your traffic engineer, and yourself regarding the City's concerns with respect to traffic. Itis our objective to be fair and reasonable in assessing all impacts and determining appropriate mitigations. Although your letter of May 26, 1992, was received considerably after the public review periods had ended on both Temecula Regional Center and Winchester Hills, it is our intention in cooperating with the City of Temecula to address your concerns in the Final EIR and Responses to Comments for those projects. Campos Verdes is currently out for public review, and it is our assumption that the comments in your May 26 letter still pertain and it is our intention to address ' those comments in the same manner. You should be aware that the technical appendix which was attached to your copy of the public review document distributed in early July does contain updated information with respect to traffic analysis that was requested by the City of Temecula prior to ' distribution for public review. This additional information may satisfy some of the comments you Ben N. Minamide, PE July 30, 1992 Page 2 made in your May 26 letter. We would encourage the City of Murrieta to provide us with any ' updated analysis or comments you may have regarding the Campos Verdes project during the public review period. Otherwise, it will be our assumption that you intend the May 26, 1992 letter to suffice as the City's public comment regarding Campos Verdes, and it will be addressed in the , Final EIR accordingly. Certainly, if you have any questions please don't hesitate to contact me or the City staff planners ' working on these projects. Thanks very much for your time and consideration. Very truly yours, ' T&B PLANNING CONSULTANTS, INC. Barry B ell Princip BB:tmdI002 , xc: Debbie Ubnoske, City of Temecula Planning Dept. Doug Stewart, Engineering Dept. ' Bob Davis, Wilbur Smith Associates ' WIN N ASSOCIATES ENGINEERS . PLANNERS ' 3600 Lime Street, Suite 226 • Riverside, CA 92501 . (714) 274-0566 . FAX (714) 274-9220 October 15, 1992 ' Mr. Robert Righetti Department of Public Works ' City of Temecula 43174 Business Park Drive ' Temecula, CA 92590 Re: Traffic Issues Regarding Temecula Regional Center, Winchester Hills, and Campos Verdes. rDear Bob: ' Wilbur Smith Associates (WSA) has prepared the following Addendum material which addresses specific traffic impact issues discussed at our August 25th, 1992 meeting. The Addendum material responds to the following requests made by you and your staff. 1) An assessment of individual and cumulative project -related traffic increases on study and roadways and the evaluation of project -related traffic utilization of future planned roadway system capacity. 2) An assessment of roadway improvement phasing requirements for each of the proposed projects. ' 3) A summary of recommended mitigation measures for each of the three projects. ' As requested, this material will be bound into individual comprehensive Traffic Study documents which will include all materials which have been generated for each project. If you have any questions regarding this material please give me a call. ' Sincerely yours, Wilbur Smith Associates Robert A. Davis ' Associate RAD:tj ' w•Narwa Iti1hTBOBRIGHTJ.EM4140 '-_BANY, NY. ALLIANCE. CH . CAIRO. EGYPT . CHARLESTON. SC • COLUMBIA. SC • COLUMBUS. CH . DES MOINES. IA . FALLS CHURCH. T -ONG KONG . HOUSTON, TX . KNOXVILLE. TN . LEXINGTON. KY . LONDON. ENGLAND . LOS ANGELES. CA . MIAMI. FL . NEENAH, ',;W HAVEN. CT . OAKLAND. CA . ORLANDO. FL • PITTSBURGH. PA . PORTSMOUTH. NH . PROVIDENCE. RI . RALEIGH. P C'SMCND. VA • RIVERSIDE. CA • ROSELLE. R • SAN FRANCISCO. CA • SAN JOSE. CA . SINGAPORE • TORONTO. CANADA . WASHudG10N. r Traffic Study Addendum Purpose and Scope Traffic impact study addendum material presented herein has been prepared by Wilbur Smith Associates in response to several issues of concern raised by City of Temecula and City of Murrieta ' Public Works Department staff. Specifically, the addendum material includes response to the following questions: ' 1) What is the incremental increase in traffic on planned area roadwaysdue to the projects and what portion of the future roadway system capacity would be used by the projects? 2) How will area roadway network improvement needs be affected by the projects development phasing plans? 3) What are the specific traffic impact mitigation measures which are recommended for the individual projects? Roadway System`TraMc Impacts The. distribution of project -related traffic on the planned future roadway network was derived using the same TRANPLAN-based computer model used to develop the long-range (year 2000) traffic ' forecasts reported in the project EIR Traffic Study. Origins and destinations of project trips have been derived using the standard "gravity model" approach. Once the trip origins and destinations were defined, project related vehicle trips were assigned to the roadway network based on ' unrestrained minimum travel time paths between the project zones and all other zones identified as either origins or destinations of project trips by the gravity model. Results of the model generated project traffic assignment for the three projects are illustrated in Figures la through Id. Rpres.la through Ic depict "project only" traffic assignments for Temecula Regional Center, Winchester Hills, and Campos Verdes respectively. Figure Id displays the cumulative traffic volumes for three Kemper/Bedford projects. As can be noted in these figures, project traffic on area roadways dissipates with distance from the ' project(s). This is due to project -related trips interacting with other land uses (existing and planned in the area Many of the trips generated by the three projects have origins or destinations in the assumed to be developed areas surrounding the project. It is important to recognize that every vehicle trip reported on the roadway network has two ends - an origin and a destination. The impact of each vehicle trip on the network is actually shared by the land uses on either end of the trip. Due to trip interaction between the three KemperBedfoid projects (e g. trips between the Temecula Regional Center and Winchester Hills or Campos Verdes eta) cumulative project traffic volumes reported on streets in the immediate project vicinity do not represent the sum total of the individual ' project Volumes. 1 The magnitude of project traffic impacts on area roadways and "fair share" responsibility has been evaluated based on the projected utilization of the planned roadway's capacity by project -related traffic. The future roadway system capacity utilization can be calculated for any given roadway segment by dividing the volume of project -related traffic on the segment by the roadway segments' planned capacity. The resulting numeric value represents the portion (percentage) of the ultimate roadway capacity which would be used by the project traffic. The percent capacity utilization by the project can also be correlated to the portion of the roadway segments' construction cost which could be attributed to the project For example, if project traffic utilized 50 percent of a roadway segments' capacity, the project could be responsible for funding 50 percent of the cost required to construct that roadway. If the roadway is a four -lane facility then the "fair share contribution would be equivalent to the construct of two traffic lanes or half -section improvement Future roadway classification (including number of through lanes and related daily capacity values) used in the analysis are depicted in Figure 2. Percent utilization of future roadway system capacity is illustrated in Figures 3a through 3d. Findings of the project -related traffic assigoment/distrbution and corresponding roadway system capacity utilization are summarized below. Impacts on City of Murrieta Stints - The cumulative impact of the three Kemper/Bedford projects is illustrated (in terms of traffic volume) in Figure Id and (in terms of future roadway capacity utilization) in Figure 3d. The cumulative project traffic volumes displayed in Figure Id indicate the following ' 1. The pattern of diminishing project traffic volumes along the Murrieta street system indicates that many of the vehicle trips associated with the three projects would'have either trip destinations or trip origins within .,the City of Murrieta The Murrieta Mall and Rancon Business Center areas, for example, appear to be attracting a significant number of project. trips (most hlrefy from Winchester Hills and Campos Verdes residential areas): It is also likely that the Winchester Hilts business park uses and Temecula Regional Center retail and employment related uses are attracting a significant number of trips from residential areas within Murrieta 2. It is also evident from the cumulative project traffic volumes that a portion of the project related trips are traveling 'through" Murrieta to access the I-15 and I-215 via interchanges located on Murrieta Hot Springs Road Considering the accessibility of the Winchester Road interchange to both the Temecula Regional Center and Campos Verdes projects sites, most of this "through" traffic can be attributed to the Winchester Hills project (e g. project traffic accessing I-215 and I-15 to and from the north). 2 3. Principal north -south streets (Washington Avenue, Jefferson Avenue, Madison Avenue, and Jackson Avenue) within the City of Murrieta would carry cumulative project traffic volumes which range between a, total of 17,000 vehicles per day (north of Date Street) to 12,400 ' vehicles per day (south of Hawthorn Street). ' 4. The Date Street/Ranson Center Boulevard corridor would carry cumulative project traffic volumes which range from 7;400 vehicles per day (on the overpass section) to 64,600 vehicles a) a maximum of 15.6 percent of the six -lane section capacity between Jackson Avenue and per day (immediately east of Diaz Road/Washington Avenue). I-215; 1 . b) 5. The Murrieta Hot Springs Road corridor would carry cumulative project traffic volumes which c) approximately 59 percent of the ahs -lane section capacity between Hancock Avenue and range from 9,200 vehicles per day (between I-215 and Jackson Avenue). to less than 2,000 I-15; and vehicles per day (west of I-15 and east of Jackson Avenue). d) 6. Jackson Avenue would serve the highest cumulative project traffic volumes,with volumes ranging from 11,400 vehicles per day (immediately north of the Temecula/Murrieta City limit) and west of I-15. to 9,900 vehicles per day (immediately south of Murrieta Hot Springs Road). by Utilization of future roadway capacity (within Murrieta) cumulative Kemper/Bedford project traffic is depicted in Figure 3d. Key findings of this analysis are as follows: ' 1. For principal north -south streets, the cumulative utilization of future roadway capacity by ' project traffic would be equivalent to 44.8 percent of a four -lane Major or Arterial roadway immediately north of Date Street and 32.6 percent of a Major or Arterial roadway south of Hawthorne Street. 2. Along the Date Street/Ranson Center Boulevard corridor, project traffic would utilize: a) 123 percent of the planned six -lane overpass capacity; ' b) 93 percent of planned six -lane capacity between Madison Avenue and Jefferson Avenue; and c) an average of 13.2 percent of the planned four -lane Arterial capacity between Jefferson Avenue and Washington Avenue. ' 3. Utilization of planned Murrieta Hot Springs Road capacity by project traffic would total:- otal:a) a) a maximum of 15.6 percent of the six -lane section capacity between Jackson Avenue and I-215; 1 . b) 11.0 percent of the six -lane section capacity between I-215 and Hancock Avenue; c) approximately 59 percent of the ahs -lane section capacity between Hancock Avenue and I-15; and ' d) approximately 3 percent or less of the six -lane section capacity east of Jackson Avenue and west of I-15. 1 3 4. The maximum utilization of planned roadway capacity within Murrieta would occur on the segment of Jackson Avenue immediately north of the Temecula/Murrieta City limit (30 percent). Itis estimated that project related 'through traffic' represents Avenue four -lane Arterial capacity. In summary, project related traffic impacts west of I-15 appear to be predominantly the result of trip interaction between the Kemper/Bedford projects and Murrieta development. Capacity utilization impacts and 'fair share' implementation responsbilides needed to recognize this future trip interaction. East of I-15, project trips would clearly contribute a significant component of 'through traffic' impacts on Jackson Avenue as well as a smaller component of traffic impacts associated with trip interaction between project land use and future development within, Murrieta Impacts on County of Riverside Streets - The cumulative project traffic volumes displayed in Figure 2d indicate the following.- 1. ollowing:1. The Margarita Road corridor would carry cumulative project traffic volumes which range from 3,900 vehicles per day (north of Date Street) to 2,400 vehicles per day (south of Murrieta Hot Springs Road). 2. Date Street, between Margarita Road and Murrieta Hot Springs Road, would serve the highest cumulative project traf c: volume within the County's jurisdiction, with 4,800 vehicles per day. 3. The Murrieta Hot Springs Road corridor would carry cumulative project volumes ranging from 4,600 vehicles per day (immediately east of W richester.Road) to 400 vehicles per day (immediately west of Date Street): 4. Though not a County highway; Winchester Road would carry cumulative project volumes ranging from 6,400 vehicles per day immediately (north of Murrieta Hot Springs Road) to less than 2,000 vehicles per day north of Benton Road - Utilization of future roadway capacity (within County of Riverside jurisdiction) by cumulative project traffic is illustrated in Figure 3d and summarized below. 1. Along the Margarita Road corridor, project traffic would utilize between 103 percent of the planned four -lane Arterial capacity between Date Street and Murrieta Hot Springs Road. 2. Project traffic utilization of planned Date Street capacity would be 12.6 percent for the four - lane segment between Margarita Road and Murrieta Hot Springs Road. 3. Utilization of planned Murrieta Hot Springs Road capacity by project traffic would represent: a) A maximum of 7.8 percent of the six -lane section capacity immediately east of Winchester Road, b) 6.1 percent of the six -lane section capacity immediately east of Canyon Drive; c) 6.8 percent of less of the six -lane section capacity between Date Street and Winchester Road; ' d) 4.2 percent'or less of the four -lane Arterial section capacity east of Leon Road; e) Approximately three percent of less of the six -lane section capacity between Margarita Road and Whitewood Road While the impact of cumulative project traffic on Riverside County roadways cannot be discounted ' as insignificant, the following factors need to be considered: • Most of the roadways identified in this section are either in the process of being improved, or are targeted'for improvement:via Winchester Assessment District 161. Kemper/Bedford is a principal contributor to this assessment District • . A major portion of the project trips (at least 70 percent) have one end either originating in or destined to e:atting' or planned development in the Temecula/Murrieta spheres' of ' influence. Without the Kemper/Bedford projects, there trips.would continue to impact the area roadways. ' 4. Project traffic utilization of planned Winchester Road capacity would be between 10.8 percent (immediately north of Murrieta Hot Springs Road) and approximately 5 percent or less (north ' of Benton Road). Impacts on City of Temecula Streets - The cumulative impact of the three Kemper/Bedford projects on City of Temecula street is discussed below. �. Cumulative project traffic volumes, illustrated in Figure Id, indicate the following:, 1. As discussed earlier, the patternof diminishing project traffic volumes on area streets reflects a high degree of trip interaction occurring between the projects and existing/future land uses within the City of Temecula. Retail and employment land uses within Temecula from residential development throughout the City. Residential uses within Winchester Huls and Campos. Verdei-would in turn be attracted to retail and employment uses (existing and planned) throughout the City. [II 1 5 2. It is also clear that the three projects would also generate a component of traffic which is either attracted into the area from the I-15 freeway condor or is destined to the I-15 freeway corridor (e g. commuters, shoppers, business-related etc.) These trips are most noticeable on Winchester Road and Ynez Road where these facilities provide access to and from the I-15 interchanges at Winchester Road and Rancho California Road. Segments of Margarita Road and Solana Way would also serve the fieewayoriented project traffic component. 3. The Date,Street corridor within the Winchester Hills project would carry cumulative project traffic volumes which range from approromately 5,000 vehicles per day (immediately east of Margarita Road) to 10,200 vehicles per day immediately east of Ynez Road 4. Ynez Road would serve cumulative project traffic volumes in the range of- a) f a) 10,400 vehicles per day immediately north of Date Street; b) 6,600 TO 13,800 vehicles per day between Date Street and Winchester Road; c) 15,800 vehicles per day immediately south of Winchester Road; d) 8,700 to 11,600 vehicles per day between Overland Drive and Rancho California Road; and e) 1,400 or less vehicles per day south of Rancho California Road 5. The Margarita Road corridor would carry cumulative project traffic volumes in the range of a) 3,300 to 7,700 vehicles per day between Date Street and Winchester Road; b) 6,300 to 7,100 vehicles per day between Winchester Road and Overland Drive; c) 12,700 vehicles per day between Overland Drive and Solana Way; d), 5,600 to 8,700 vehicles per day between Solana Way and Moraga Road; e) 2,700 to 3,100 vehicles per day between Moraga Road and La Serena Way; and f) 1,500 vehicles or less south of La Serena Way. . 6. The Winchester Road corridor would serve the highest cumulative project traffic volumes, with volumes ranging from 33,600 vehicles per day (between I-15 and Ynez Road) toless than 3,000 vehicles per day (between Diaz Road "and"Jefferson Avenue). 7. Overland Drive would carry project traffic volumes rWhiCh total 1,400 vehicles per day (on the . I-15 overpass) and between 8,900 and 7,500 vehicles -per day east of Ynez Road 8. Solana Way is projected to serve cumulative project traffic volumes approaching 3,900 vehicles per day. 9. Rancho California Road would carry a maximum of 7,600 cumulative project trips per day between I-15 and Ynez Road West of I-15 and east of Ynez Road, project traffic would total less than 2,000 vehicles per day. 6 ' 10. The Front Street/Jefferson Avenue corridor is projected to carry less than 1,500 cumulative project trips per day except north of Winchester Road where daily project trips would reach 3,400 vehicles per day. 11: General Kearney Road is projected to serve a maximum of 7,800 project trips per day within the limits of the Campos Verdes project. East of the Campos Verdes development, cumulative project -related traffic would drop from 4,200 vehicles per day to approximately 800 vehicles per day. ' 12. The Nicolas Road corridor would serve cumulative project traffic volumes ranging between 5,700 and 3,200 vehicles per day. Utilization of future roadway capacity (within the City of Temecula) by cumulative Kemper/Bedford project traffic is depicted in Figure 3d. Key findings of this analysis are summarized below: 1. Cumulative project utilization of future street capacity of principal roadways within or immediately adjacent to Winchester Hills project is as follows: a) between 10.8 and 173 percent of the sic -lane Urban Arterial capacity planned for Date Street; b) between 17.4 and 27.4 percent of the four -lane Arterial capacity planned for Ynez Road; and ' c) between 8.7 and 20.3 percent of the four -lane Arterial capacity planned for Margarita Road. ' 2. Utilization of future capacity (by cumulative project traffic for principal roadways surrounding the Temecula Regional project is as follows: a) between 28.5 and 35.8 percent of the six -lane Urban Arterial capacity of Winchester ' Road; b) appraodmately 26.8 percent of the six -lane Urban Arterial capacity. of Ynez Road; c) . between .l6 6 and 1&7 percent of the four -lane Arterial capacity of Margarita Road; and d) between 19.7 and 23.4 percent of the four -lane Major street capacity of Overland Drive. 3. Roadway system . capacity utilization (by cumulative project traffic for.. planned principal roadways within or abutting the Campos Verdes project is as follows: a) approximately 203 percent of the sur -lane Urban Arterial capacity of Winchester Road; b) Margarita Road (see item 2c); and c) . approximately 26 percent of the four -lane Secondary capacity of General Kearney Road. 1 7 4. Off-site cumulative project utilisation of planned Winchester Road capacity is highest (43.1 percent) between I-15 and Ynez Road. West of i-15 project -related capacity utilization would be 129 percent (from I-15 to Jefferson Avenue) and between 7.4 and 5.8 percent from Jefferson Avenue to Diaz Road. East of Roripaugh Road, project traffic would utilize 185 to 125 percent of the planned sic -lane Urban Arterial capacity. 5. Along the off-site segments of Ynez Road, project traffic would utilize: a) 363 percent of the four -lane Major street capacity immediately north of Winchester Road; b) a maximum of 19.7 percent of the six -lane section capacity between Overland Drive and Rancho California Road; and c) 3.7 percent or leu of the four -lane section capacity south of Rancho California Road 6. Off-site cumulative project traffic utilization of the planned Margarita Road corridor capacity would be: a) a maximum of 127 percent of the four -lane Arterial capacity between Overland Drive and Solana Way; b) between 8.7 percent and 5.6 percent of the four -lane Arterial capacity from Solana Way to Moraga Road; c) 7.7 percent of the four -lane Arterial capacity immediately north of Winchester Road; and d) 3.1 percent or leu of the four -lane Arterial capacity east of Moraga Road and south of U Serena Way. 7. Project traffic utilization of Rancho California Road capacity would be highest (129 percent) between 1-15 and Ynez Road All other segment capacities would be impacted by`5.5 percent or leu project traffic utilization. 8. Utilization of planned Nicolas Road capacity by project traffic would represent 5.7 percent of the four -lane section capacity west of General Kearney Road and 53 percent or less of it's capacity east of General Kearney Road. 9. Project utilization of other principal off-site roadway capacities would be as follows: a)' General Kearney Road - between 14.0 percent and 27 percent of the planned four -lane Secondary capacity; b) Solana Way - 10.3 percent of the planned four -lane Major street capacity; c) Moraga Road - 93 percent of the planned four -lane Secondary street capacity; d) Jefferson Avenue - between 8.9 percent (immediately north of Winchester Road) and 3.2 percent (south of Winchester Road) of the Four -lace capacity; e) Overland Drive - 4.7 percent of the planned four -lane overpass; and Q on all other access roadways - 5.0 percent or less. 8 ' Conceptual Circulation System Phasing Plan Findings of the traffic analysis indicate that, at projected buildout of the three Kemper/Bedford projects substantial roadway, improvements will be needed in the study area It is important to recognize that principal ,roadway improvements which comprise the planned City of Temecula ' Circulation Element will be needed in the future whether or not the proposed projects are implemented Although these new and improved roadway facilities would be serving the immediate access needs of these proposed projects and other numerous planned development projects within ' the study area, most of, the improvements would also play an important role in serving the general circulation needs of the Temecula commercial core area which straddles the I-15 corridor. Some of the improvements (e g. Winchester Road - S.R. 79 widening and 1-15/Wmchester Road interchange ' reconstruction) would even serve future regional circulation needs. Theintentof the 'conceptual circulation system phasing plan' developed in this study is to present a logical implementation sequence for the construction of needed area -wide roadway improvements which also considers the proposed phasing plan for the proposed Kemper/Bedford projects: It should be noted that project buildout (assumed Year 2000) roadway needs have essentially been based on full development (buildout) of all land uses within the immediate study area The market driven implementation rate of major development projects in the area will have very strong influence on, the tuning of future roadway improvement needs. As these area development ' projects are implemented, they will require access. Many of the phased roadway improvements suggested in this plan are intended to provide for those local access needs and at the same time work' towards completing the ultimate area -wide circulation network. In some cases, the phased improvement is over -designed for the anticipated local development access needs but considers ultimate needs and the desire to minimize future construction impacts related to phased widenings (e g., initiallybuilding two lana and the widening to four lanes at the later date). The assessment ' of fmancingrrmplementation responsibilities for area -wide roadway improvements should consider that the key elements of the planned circulation system (including the Overland overpass, Data Street: overpass, and Winchester. Interchange improvements) will be needed even if proposed Kemper/Bedford development projects are not implemented Since it is more difficult to predict the rate and pattern of long -term -(5 to 10 years) development than short-term (1 to 5 years) development, it should be recognized that the actual roadway needs for implementation periods beyond 5 years could. vary significantly from the conceptual plan presented in this, study. It is also important to consider that many of the roadway improvements identified would involve a multi-jurisdiction/agency review and coordination process which could timpact the conceptual implementation plan presented herein. 1 9 Anticipated Project Development Phasing - Project phasing assumed in this analysis is based on the Project Phasing Plan presented in the individual Specific Plan documents. Sue to changing market strategies, these phasing plans have been developed as a 'guideline' only for City review and monitoring. Future market demands may dictate varying approaches to phasing which could alter the currently expected rate and/or sequence of project implementation. Project Phasing Plan assumptions are illustrated in Figures 4, 11, and 18 for the Temecula Regional center, Wmchester Hills, and Camps Verdes projects respectively. A more detailed breakdown of project phasing assumptions including anticipated development status and corresponding trip generation (both incremental and cumulative) by sit analysis time periods is presented for each Kemper/Bedford project in Tables I through 3. Anticipated Background Development - In order to analyze roadway system implementation phasing needs, it was necessary to make general assumptions regarding the rate and location of other area development.. For the purposes of thisassessment it was assumed that other area development would build -out at a constant rate over the next eight years and in a manner which would evenly distribute the new development throughout the study area Conceptual Circulation System Phasing - Results of the circulation system phasing assessment are presented in Figures 5 through 10 (Temecula Regional Center), Figures 12 through 17 (Winchester Hills), and Figures 19 through 24 (Campos Verdes). It should be noted that the Conceptual Circulation System Phasing Plan is identical for each of the three projects. The'individual phasing plans differ only in terms of the specific project development status and the corresponding cumulative project trip generation given for each implementation period Our approach in preparing the Conceptual Circulation System Phasing Plan included planning level assessments which focused on the immediate access needs of each project as well as capacity of key congestion 'bottle necks' such as the Winchester RoadNnez Road intersection and Winchester Road/1-15 interchange The proposed roadway improvement implementation sequence has been formulated to provide incrementalstages of relief to these congestion prone areas. Additionally, Assessment District 161 and Community Facilities District 88-12 have been considered in the development of the Phasing Plan. It it important to recognize that the Conceptual Circulation systems Phasing Plan presented herein does not imply that the individual Kemper/Bedford projects would be responsible for implementing the roadway improvement needs identified in the Conceptual Phasing Plan. At the same time, it also needs to be recognized that the rate at which projects in the study area are permitted to develop should be correlated to the circulation systems' ability to adequately accommodate the traffic which these projects will generate. 10 1• ® M M = = = M = M = = = = M Table 1 Project Development Phasing Assumptions Used for Conceptual Circulation System Phasing Plan Temecula Regional Center Cumulative Portion Roadway System Incremental Project Trip of Total Implementation Period Anticipated Project Development Status Generation Project Trips 1993-1994 Project Phase I: 18 Percent Build Out of P.A. 2 7,900 Daily Vehicle Trips 12% 570 PM Peak Hour Trips 1994.1995 Project Phase I: 40 Percent Build Out of P.A. 2 9,700 Daily Vehicle Trips 27% 700 PM Hour Trips 1995-1996 Project Phan I: 55 Percent Build Out of P.A. 2 8,500 Daily Vehicles Trips 40% Project Phase 11: 10 Percent Build Out of P.A. 1 620 PM Peak Hour Trips 1996.1998 Project Phase 1: 100 Percent Build Out of P.A. 2 22,700 Daily Vehicle Trips 75% Project Phase II -25 Percent Build Out of P.A. 1 1,670 PM Peak Hour Trips 1998.1999 Project Phase L• 100 Percent Build Out of P.A. 2 050 Daily Vehicle Trips 85% Project Phase 11: 50 Percent Build Out of P.A. 1 470 PM Peak Hour Trip 100 Percent Build Out of P.A. 3 1999-2000 Project Phase 1: 100 Percent Build Out of P.A. 2 9,700 Daily Vehicle Trips 100% Project Phase 11: 100 Percent Build Out of P.A 1 cit 3 690 PM Peak Hour Trips P.A. m Planning Area Table 2 Project Development Phasing Assumptions Used for Conceptual Circulation System Phasing Plan Winchester Hills Roadway System Cumulative Portion Implementation Period Incremental Project Trip Anticipated Project Development Status Generation of Total Project Trips 1993-1994 Project Phase 1: 50 Percent Build Out of 8,656 Daily Vehicle Trips 19%b PA 3, 4, S, 6, 7, & 16 687 PM Peak Hour Trips 1994-1995 Project Phase I: 100 Percent Build Out of 8,656 Daily Vehide Trips 38%b P.A. 3i-4,5,6,7. & 16 686 PM Hour Trips 1995-1996 Project Phase I: 100 Percent Build Out of 22,550 Daily Vehicles Trips 85% PA 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, & 16 1,683 PM Peak Hour Trips Project Phase l 100 Percent'Build Out PA 8, 9, 10, 11, 12&15 19461998 Project Phase I: 100 Percent Build Out of 6,840 Dally Vehicle Trips 100% PA 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, & 16 526 PM Peak Hour Trips Project Phase II: 100 Percent Build Out of PA 8,9,10,11,12&15 Project Phase III: 100 Percent Build Out of PA 1 & 2 Project Phase IV: 100 Percent Build Out of PA 13 & 14 P.A. - Planning Area M i M M M M M M M M M M M M M M i M M M_ M M M IM M M M M M M M M a Table 3 Project Development Phasing Assumptions Used for Conceptual Circulation System Phasing Plan Campos Verdes Cumulative Portion Roadway System Incremental Project Trip of Total Implementation Period Anticipated Project Development Status Generation, Project Trips 1993-1994 Project Phase 1: 50 Percent Build Out of P.A 1, 6, & 7 1,030 Daily Vehicle Trips 6% 74 M Peak Hour Trips 1994.1995 Project Phase 1: 100 Percent Build Out of 1,030 Daily Vehicle Trips 13% P.A. 1, 6, & 7 74 PM Houi,Tdps 1995-1996 _Project Phase 1: 100 Percent Build Out of 9,248 Daily Vehicles Tdps 70% P.A. 1, 6, & 7 663 PM Peak Hour Trips Project Phase 11: 50 Percent Build Out of P.A. 3 100 Percent Build Out of P.A. 4 1996.1998 Project Phase I: 100 Percent Build Out of 4,V6,:Daily Vehicle Trips 100% P.A. 1,C & 7 368 PM Peak Hour Trips Project Phase 11: 100 Percent Build Out of P.A. 2, 3, & 5 As part of our roadway phasing assessment, we have identified a number of improvements which are currently anticipated to be critical (either directly or indirectly) to the development of the individual Kemper/Bedford projects. This does not suggest that the identified improvement, but rather the timely implementation of the identified improvement would influence the status of traffic congestion in the area The resulting congestion levels could influence the City's ability to issue building permits. Temecula Regional Center (Refer to Figure 5 through 10) • Projected 1943-1994 Implementation Period: Two-lane interim improvement of Margarita Road from Solana Way to Winchester Road - Ynez Road widening from project boundaysouth to Rancho California Road - Winchester Road widening from Margarita Road to Murrieta Hot Springs Road. - New signal installations on Winchester Road to, Margarita Road, Nicolas Road, and Murrieta Hot Springs Road • Projected 1994 to 1995 Implementation Period: - Extension of Overland Drive from Jefferson Avenue to Margarita Road - Four -lane widening of Margarita Road from Solana Way to Winchester Road - New signal installations on Overland Drive at Jefferson Avenue, Ynez Road, and Margarita Road - New signal installations on Winchester. Road at Temecula Regional Center access roads. - On-site circulation system improvements/access connections. Projected 1995 to 1996 Implementation Period - Winchester Road interchange ramp improvements - Two-lane interim Ynez Road/Jackson Avenue extension to Murrieta Hot Springs Road • Projected 1996 to 1998 Implementation Period:, Winchester Road interchange overpass widening. , New signal installations on Ynez Road'.at County Center Drive and Sate Street new signal intailation on Margarita Road at Date Street Two-lane extension of General Kearney Road easterly to Nicolas Road • Projected 1998 to 1999 Implementation Period: Date Street overpass improvements. • Projected 1999 to 2000 Implementation Period: Winchester Road widening between I-15 and Ynez Road. - Jackson Avenue widening from the Temecula City limit to Murrieta Hot Springs ' Road Winchester Hills (Refer to Figures 12 through 17) ' Projected 1993-1994 Implementation Period: ' - Four -lane widening of Margarita Road from Winchester Road to Murrieta Hot Springs Road - Two-lane interim improvement of Margarita Road from Solana Way to Winchester ' - Road Four -lane extension of Ynez Road to Date Street alignment. - tin -site loop street and connector street improvements as depicted inTigure 12 . Widening of Jefferson Avenue from Date Street to Murrieta Hot Springs Road - Ynez Road widening from Overland Drive alignment to Rancho California Road - New signal installation on Winchester Road at Margarita and Murrieta. Hot, Springs Road intersections. ' Projected 1994-1995 Implementation Period: Two-lane interim improvement of Date Street west of Ynez Road. ' - Four -lane improvement of Date Street from Margarita Road to Murrieta Hot Springs Road Extension of Overland Drive from Jefferson Avenue to Margarita Road ' - Widening of Margarita Road from Solana Way to Winchester Road 1 1 12 • Projected 1995-1996 Implementation Period- - Sit -lane and two-lane interim improvement on Date Street as depicted n Figure 14. - Four -lane on-site and two-lane interim off-site improvement of Ynez Road/Jackson Avenue to Murrieta Hot Springs Road - On-site loop street and connector street improvements as illustrated in Figure 14. - Four-way stop control at Date Street/Margarita Road, Ynez Road/Project Connector ' Street, and Date Street/Ynez Road intersections. - New signal installations at Date Street/Murrieta Hot Springs Road and Margarita ' Road/Projeci Connector Street intersections. improvements. - Winchester Road interchange ramp 1 1 12 • Projected 1996-1998 Implementation Period: - Winchester Road interchange overpass widening. - Date Street widening from Lincoln to Margarita Road. - New signal installations on Date Street at Ynez Road, Lincoln and Margarita Road intersections. - New signal installations on Ynez Road at County Center Drive and the Project Connector Street intersections. Projected 1998-1999 Implementation Period: - Construction of the Date Street overpass and, installation of.new signals on Date Street at Madison Avenue and the Business Park access street.. New signal installation at Jackson Avenue/North Business Park access street Projected 1999-2000 Implementation Period: Widening of Jackson Avenue between the City limit and Murrieta Hot Springs Road. Campos Verdes • Projected 1993-1994 Implementation Period Two-lane interim improvement of Margarita Road from ,Solana Way to Winchester Road Four -lane improvement of General kearney Road from the new Margarita Road alignment to the easterly project limits Solana Way widening between Ynez Road and Margarita Road Ynez Road widening from the Overland Drive alignment to Rancho California Road. Winchester Road widening from Margarita Road to Murrieta Hot Springs Road. New signal installations on Margarita Road at Winchester Road and Solana Way. • Projected 19941995 Implementation Period:. - Four -lane widening of Margarita Road from Solana Way to Winchester Road. - Extension of Overland Drive from Jefferson Avenue to Margarita Road. - New signal installations on Overland Drive at Jefferson Avenue, Ynez Road, and Margarita. - New signal installation at intersection of Margarita Road and General Kearney Road. • Projected 1995-1996 Implementation Period Winchester Road interchangq ramp improvements New signal installation at intersection of Margarita Road and Campos Verdes access road. 13 • Projected 1996-1998 Implementation Period: Winchester Road interchange overpass widening. Two-lane General Kearney Road extension from easterly project limits to Nicolas ' Road Projected 1998-2000Implemet♦tation Period: - (No system improvements assessed to be critical to the development of Campos Verdes ' Recommended Mitigation Measures The formulation of recommended mitigation measures for the three Kemper/Bedford urban core projects has been based on a number factors including:. ' 1. Findings of the original traffic impact studies prepared for the projects; ' 2. Findings of the project -related traffic utilization analysis of planned area roadway system capacity; and 3. Findings of the conceptual circulation system phasing analysis. ' wide-spreadsbut eary roadway capacity utilization reveal that cumulative'project traffic impacts are cantly in terms of magnitude.. Furthermore this analysis also reveals that project trips are comprised of a combination of new trips and diverted trips New trips consist of ' those project trips which would clearly be added to roadway network such as those vehicle trips which would have one end of the trip within the project and one end'outside of the 'study areaDiverted ' trips describe those project -related trips on area roadways which result from the interaction of land uses within the projects and other local area land uses (both existing and planned). With diverted trips, the associated traffic impacts can not be defined as the responsibility of the projects under study since the opposite end of these trips, in effect, is being generated by other area land uses. At best the impacts of these trips could be assessed as the responsibility of the land use which is closest to ' the location where the impact occurs. It would not be equitable for the Kemper/Bedford projects to assume full responsibility for the ;impact of these diverted trips since elimination of the Kemper/Bedford projects would not eliminate the land uses which are generating the opposite ends of these trips. Without the Kemper/Bedford projects these trips would essentially be redistributed to interact with other local or regional development 1 14 In terms of the dispersion of project related traffic impacts (e.g. roadway capacity utilization),it is not practical to assess widespread roadway implementation cost responsibilities when "fair share" assessments represent very small portions of the cost to implement individual roadway improvements. The approach taken in this assessment is one which recognizes the cumulative impacts over a widespread area and concentrates an equivalent mitigation effort in a strategic and more effective manner. Recommended mitigation measures for cumulative traffic impacts identified for the Kemper/Bedford projects are summarized below: .1. 50 percent implementation responsibility for Jackson Avenue from the Temecula/Murrieta City limits to Murrieta Hot Springs Road. • Winchester Hills is assessed 90 percent of the mitigation. • Temecula Regional Center is assess 10 percent of.the Mitigation. 2. 16.6 percent or 1/6th implementation responsibility for the Date Street overpass. • Winchester Hills is assessed 100 percent of the mitigation. 3. 28 percent implementation responsibility for the Winchester Road interchange overpass widening and currently planned, ramp widenings. • Winchester Hills is assessed 17 percent of the mitigation. Temecula Regional Center is, assessed 80 percent of the mitigation. . • Campos, Verdes is assessed 3 percent of the mitigation. 4. 5 percent implementation .responsibility for the Overland Drive overpass improvement (Jefferson Avenue to Ynez:Road). • Temecula Regional Center is assessed 60 percent of the mitigation. • Campos Verdes is assessed 40 percent of the mitigation. 5. 15 percent implementation responsibility for the Ynez Road widening from Overland Drive to Rancho California Road • Temecula Regional Center is assessed with 70 percent of the mitigation. • Winchester -Hills is assessed with 15 percent of the mitigation: • Campos Verdes.is assessed with 15 -percent of the mitigation. 6. 16.6 percent implementation responsibility for the Winchester Road widening from Margarita Road to Murrieta Hot Springs Road. • Temecula Regional Center is assessed with 90 percent of the mitigation. • Winchester Hills is assessed with 5 percent of the mitigation. • Campos Verdes is assessed with 5 percent of the mitigation. 15 ' 7. 25 percent implementation responsibility for the four -lane Margarita Road improvement from Solana Way to Winchester Road. • Temecula Regional Center is assessed with 65 percent of the mitigation. • Winchester Hills is assessed with 15 percent of the mitigation. • Campos Verdes is assessed with 20 percent of the mitigation. & 15 percent implementation responsibility for the four -lane Margarita Road improvement from Winchester Road to Murrieta Hot Springs Road. • Temecula Regional Center is assessed.with 35 percent of the mitigation. • Winchester Hills is assessed with 60 percent of the mitigation. • Campos Verdes is assessed with 5 percent of the mitigation. ' 9. 25 percent'of the implementation responsibility for the. four -lane Ynez Road improvement ' from its present tenninus,at Equity Drive to- the Temecula/Murrieta City limits. • Temecula Regional Center is assessed with 20 percent of the mitigation. • Winchester Hills is assessed with 80 percent of the mitigation.. 10. 16.6 percent of the implementation responsibility for the six -lane Date Street improvement from the I-15 overpass structure to Margarita Road. Winchester Hills is assessed with 100 percent of the mitigation. 11. 13 percent of the implementation responsibility for the four -lane Date Street improvement from Margarita Road to Murrieta Hot Springs Road • Winchester Hills is assessed with 100 percent of the mitigation. 12. 25 percent of the implementation responsibility for the four -lane improvement of Overland Drive from Ynez Road to Margarita Road . . • Temecula Regional Center is assessed with 80 percent of the mitigation. • Winchester Hills is assessed with 10 percent ;of the mitigation. • Campos Verdes is assessed with 10 percent of.the. mitigation. 13. 30 percent of the implementation responsibility for four -lane improvements responsibility for ' four -lane improvement of General Kearney Road from Margarita Road to the easterly Campos Verdes project boundary. ' Temecula Regional Center is assessed with 30 percent of the mitigation. • Campos Verdes is assessed with 70 percent of the mitigation. ' 14. 15 percent of the implementation responsibility for the four -lane improvement of General Kearney Road from the easterly project limit to Nicolas Road • Temecula Regional Center is assessed with 85 percent of the mitigation. • Campos Verdes is assessed with 15 percent of the mitigation. 1 16 15. 10 percent of the implementation responsibility for the widening of Solana Way from Ynez ' Road to Margarita Road. • Temecula Regional Center is assessed with 45 percent of the mitigation. • Winchester Hills is assessed with 10 percent of the mitigation. • Campos Verdes is assessed with 45 percent of the mitigation.. ' 16. 5 percent of the implementation responsibility for the widening of Murrieta Hot Springs Road from Date Street to Canyon Drive ' • Temecula Regional Center is assessed with 30 percent of the mitigation. • Winchester Hills is assessed with 70 percent of the mitigation. 17. Signal system implementation responsibilities would be as indication below. a) ,:100 percent responsibt7ity for on-site signals within the Winchester Hills project including. 9 Date Street signals at Business 'Park Access Street, Ynez Road, -Lincoln, and Margarita Road; • Ynez Road signals at Business Park Access Street, and Loop Road Connector Street ' (near Equity Drive); and • .'Margarita Road signal at southerly Loop Road Conne6w Street. ' b) 100 percent resp6nsbt7ity for Temecula Regional Center project perimeter access signals including.. ' • Winchester Road signal at westerly Regional Center Access Road; • Overland Drive signal at Regional Center Access Road; and • E fisting regional modification costs at Palm Plaza Access and Costco Center Access. ' c) 100 percent responsibility for Campos Verdes Access signals on Margarita Road at ' General Kearney Road and Campos Verdes Access Street. d) 50 percent responsibility for signalskxated at the following intersections: ' • Margarita Road/Winchester Road; • Margarita Road/Overland Drive; and • Ynez Road/Overland Drive. , e) 25 percent responsibility for the signal installations at: ' • Jackson Avenue/Murrieta Hot Springs Road; and. • Margarita Road/Solana Way. 17 ' It is important to note that the implementation responsibilities detailed herein do not take into account Kemper/Bedfords contributions toward Assessment District 161 and Community Facilities District W12 which together address many of the improvements included in the refined recommended mitigation measures. Kemper/Bedford should be given credit where appropriate for assessments involving the project properties and roadway improvements included in the 161 and 88-12 districts. Credits should also be considered for right-of-way dedications involving the recommended ' street improvements. ' In addition to the above listed mitigation measures, the individual Kemper/Bedford projects would be responsible for implementing all o -si a project street improvements which have not already been discussed. Individual project mitigation would also include preparation of Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Programs which meet the requirements of the City's *soon to be adopted" TDM ordinance. Please not that the Winchester Hills project, as part of its' mitigation program, has reserved an easement along the I-15 property frontage for a potential future collector -distributor road/interchange system involving Date Strut I I I I ' 18 M M M M W ® M M LEGEND: x.x Traffic voe \'•. 5 . A M i• � M M i• is iii! � Daily Project Traffic On Area Roadways Temecula Regional Center flair Figure m ■r == aim m m m= gy m m LEGEND. xx Traffic Voh m Daily Project Traffic On Area Roadways Winchester Hills 'N: Figure lb M M M No S " M M M = M LEGEND. X.X TrHOo Volui Daily Project Traffic On Area Roadways \MA Figure Ic Campos Verdes M i M== M m M ii• LEGEND X.X Traffic Vol M m M M M1111111110 9 ASA Daily Project Traffic On Area Roadways Figure 1c For Combined Winchester Hills, Temecula Regional Center, And Campos Verdes Projects 11111110 M M' W m mm IMM= IM M Assumed Roadway Classifications For Calculation Of Project Related Traffic Utilization Of Roadway System Capacity 9 Figure 2 Aa LEGEND Dal F-10 Freeway-tOLanes F-8 Freeway- 8Lanes F -a Freeway - aLanes Fd Freeway - e Lams UA -BL Urban Medal a -Lana UA Urban Medal 8-Lsml A Medal 4 -Lanes M Malor a -Uma S Secondary 4 -Lanes Ic h4ustrlal Cotlecta 2 -Lanes Assumed Roadway Classifications For Calculation Of Project Related Traffic Utilization Of Roadway System Capacity 9 Figure 2 IMI M M IM M® MM MIM M MIM M M M M LEGEND,. XXX Perml Of Rwr NOTE: Ro.Anr Cam 70 Percent Utilization Of Future Roadway Capacity Temecula Regional Center n Figure 3a ■i■ W m m m m m r err m m m w m m m LEGEND X%.x Percent Ot Ra NOTE Roadway Caps R Percent Utilization Of Future Roadway Capacity Winchester Hills m,mmm Figure 3b LEGEND XXX Percent Of Rosi NOTE: RosdwsY Caps - Percent Utilization Of Future Roadway Capacity Campos Verdes B'dilor Figure 3c i• i� fi• r i� fifO fill fi! i• i� fii• f1• i• fiiiiiiir ii• ii♦ ii1♦ LEGEND %%.R PMCaml Of Po flIdlap, Nola: Road.@y GPaelly Basad On Plarna0 FW Va MAMMY Oyalam iVwl cuaaor+raM P Is Percent Utilization Of Future Roadway Capacity Figure 3c For Combined Winchester Hills, Temecula Regional Center, And Campos Verdes Projects m m m m m m m= r w• = m m m= r rnvlk6 MOM \N!/ la/// LEGEND: Phase Sub -Area Implementation Period 1 2 1993-1998 { : . II & III IM 1998-2000 Temecula .Regional Center Conceptual Phasing Plan Reg]one) Center E3R Traft Study REV. 9/30/92 Figure 4 I 1 1 I I 1 1: :J IV41M 1D NI111R M HOT &-RINDS At) NOTE On -She Circulation Win Be Served By A System Of Primary Circulation Alsles/Roads Which Provide Continuity Throughout The Site. Primary Circulation Aisles Will Have Adequate Access Control And Parking Restrictions. ridaa Ms VAr Mean s rnt Ae>OCIAM Phase 15% Build -Out Sub -Area 2 Planning Sub -Arse Boundary Projected 1993-1994 Roadway Needs (12% Of Total Project Trip Generation) Regional Center EIR Traffic Study LEGEND: Existing Road Planned Or Proposed Road 2,7 Number OI Lanes Q Signal 3 -Way Slop ❑ 4 -Way Slop * Denotes Improvement Needl By The End O! Implementath Period Noted A Ramp Widening & Signallaalt Denotes Portion Of Project f Bulll-Out In Earlier Phase Denotes Portion OI Project S Being Developed During The Implimenlatien Period Noted INT. Interim Cross Section o- Proposed Aces" To Be Dev During A Leser Implementa k E Access Point Which Is Eilhei Developed During This impie tion Period Or Was Develops A Previous Implementation i REV. a- 16-93 Figure 5 NOTE: Or Sile Clrculallon Will Be Served By A System Of Primary Circulation A131t s/Roads Which Provide Continuity Throughout The Site. Primary Circulation Aisles Will Nave Adequate Acteal Control And Parking Restrictions. ,�� � ..... V% VA" 96451 AUDOAM Sub -Area Sup -Area 2 Projected 1994-1995 Roadway Needs (27 % Of Total Project Trip Generation) Regional Center EIR Traffic Study LEGEND: Existing Road --- Planned Or Proposed Road 21. Number Of Lanes O Signal 7 -Way Slop ❑ 4 -Way Slop 1k Dencles Improvemenl Needed By The End Of Implementation Period Noted Denotes Portion Of Project Site Bulli -Out In Earlier Phase Denotes Portion Of Project Site Being Developed During The Imolimentallon Period Noted INT. Interim Cross Section a- Proposed Access To Be Developt During A Later Implementation PI F Access Point Which Is Either Bel, Developed During This Implemen tion Period Or Was Developed Dt A Previous Implementation Perla REy.2-16-93 Figure 6 M M M T== M= Ml i• avrova TO NAINTHO W STREET a NOTE: On -Site Grculatlon Will Be Served By A System OI Primary Circulation Aisles/Roads Which Provide Continuity Throughout The Site. Primary Circulation Aisles Will Have Adequate Access Control And Parking Restrictions. Ramat vAiA NII ASMOYS WIX)V% M tAAR M HOr SPRa46 ROAD A Existing Road 1 Planned Or Proposed Road 2L Number 01 Lanes �a n Signal IJ � 3 -Way Slop �e 1 7Ir 1 By The End Of Implementallo Period Noted A 1 _ a Denotes Portion Of Project SI .L 6L of e phase SS% Build -Out Sub -Area 2 Phase S 10% Build -Out Sub -Area 1 Planning Sub -Area Boundary Projected 1995-1996 Roadway Needs (40% Of Total Project Trip Generation) Regional Center EIR Traffic Study LEGEND: Existing Road Planned Or Proposed Road 2L Number 01 Lanes O Signal 3 -Way Slop C] 4 -Way Slop 7Ir Dandles Improvement Nledet By The End Of Implementallo Period Noted A Ramp Widening 6 Slgnolisatic Denotes Portion Of Project SI BUaI-Out In Earlier Phase Denotes Porllon Of Project Si Being Developed During The Implimentallon Period Noted INT. Interim Cross Section o- Proposed Access To Be Deve During A Later Implemematlo F Access Point Which Is Either Developed During This Impler lion Period Or Was Develope, A Previous Implementation P REV. 2-16-93 Figure 7 NOTE: /1 On -Site Circulation Will Be Served By A System Of Primary Circulation Aisles/Roads Which Provide Conllnulty, Throughout The Silo. Primary Circulation Aisles Will Have Adeguals Access Control And Parking Restrictions. /ALVII, nn ..■■. �V1%n VA" srm Ate004B V( i Phase t 100% Bulld-Out Sub -Area 2 .foals 11 25% Build -Out Sub Area 1 Planning Sub -Area Boundary aL Projected 1996-1998 Roadway Needs (75% Of Total Project Trip Generation) Regional Center EIR Traffic Study 0.4 LEGEND: — Existing Road Planned Or Proposed Road 2L Number Of Lanes Q Signal -j 7 -Way Slop 4 -Way Stop * Denotes Improvement Need By The End Of Implemenlall Period Noted A Widen Winchester Rd. Overt Denotes Porllon Of Project Bulli -Out In Earlier Phase Denotes Portion Of Project 1 Being Developed During The ImDilmenlallon Period Noise INT. Inlerim Cross Section Proposed Access To Be Dei During A Later Implemenlall Access Point Which Is Elthe Developed During This Inrlpl lion Period Or Was Develop A Previous Implemenlallon REV. 2-1e-92 Figure 8 NOTE: :In -Site Circulation WAR Be Served By A SySlem :If Primary Circulation Aisles/Roads Which Provide Donlinulty Throughout The Silo. Primary Circulation Alalee Will Neve Adequale Access Control And Parking Restrictions. �,M� IMININFRAF \fi\MIror n V A VAAxI IAeiw ASM013 as+ROVE TO kkmm NOT SPOMM RD. phase 11 50% Build -Out Sub -Area 1 Plemdng Sub -Area 4 - Boundary Pha1000%Build Out Of Sub -Area J Projected 1998-1999 Roadway Needs (85% Of Total Project Trip Generation) Regional Center EIR Traffic Study 0 LEGEND: — Existing Road - - - Planned Or Proposed Road 2L Number Of Lanes O Signal 3 -Way Stop O '4 -Way Stop * Denotes Improvement Needed By The End O', Implementation Period Noted Denotes Portion Of Project But 21 81111 -Out In Earlier Phase Denotes Portion Of Protect Shl Being Developed During The Imolimentalion Period Noted INT. Interim Goss Section o- Proposed A -cess To Be Devek During A Later Implemenlatior Access Point Which Is Either E Developed During This Implem Pon Period Or Was Developed A Previous Implementation Pei REV. 2-16-e3 Figure 9 NOTE: Dn-Sile Circulation Will Be Served By A System Of Primary Circulation Alsles/Roads Which Provide Continuity Throughout The Site. Primary Circulation Aisles Will Have Adequate Access Control And Parking Restrictions. OORgvE >9 L@JFnM NOT SP MU Flo. Planning Sub -Area Boundary J N Sub -Area 1 r r LEGEND: — Existing Road --- Planned Of Proposed Road gL Number Of Lanes O Signal 3-WAYSIM ❑ 4 -Way Slop $ Densles Improvement Needed By The End Of Implementation Period Noted Denotes Porlion Of Project Silo Bulli-Oul In Earlier Phase Denoles Portion Of Project Silo 9✓":' Being Developed During The ImDlimentalion Period Noted INT. Interim Cross Section o- Proposed Access To Be Develc During A Later Implementation Access Point Which Is Either B Developed During This ImDleml lion Was Developed l Implementation A Previousevious ImDlemenlelion Per t CMMU � q Projected 1999-2000 Roadway Needs REV.2-16-93 (100% Of Total Project Trip Generation) Figure 10 VA" V^ASK°"6 Regional Center EIR Traffic Study w� ■ww w w wl nw w■ iw atw w w� w w w� iw +rw SA ► SA �oaOM LEGEND: Winchester Hills Conceptual Phasing Plan Winchester Hills Traffic Impact Study Update Figure 11 I 3,4.5,6.7& 16 1993-1995 II 8.9,10,11,12&15 1995-1996 III 1&2 1996-1997 ® IV 13&14 1997-1998 Winchester Hills Conceptual Phasing Plan Winchester Hills Traffic Impact Study Update Figure 11 � � i• s• � ilio � s• � s• f• � � � s• � s• a.snove To NAUKU Mor stmeg9 ep j , 1 1 r. I z L _Tat. F 1� ♦ Phase /90% Build -Out Sub -Areas 3.4,9.6.7 ale /%Mia. /f111111111110 M1�1� Projected 1993-1994 Roadway Needs Mli\ (19% Of Total Project Trip Generation) M16nMIM AUOON° Winchester Hills Traffic Study Update f 1 LEGEND: — Existing Road as-- Planned Or Proposed R 2L Number Of Lanes Q Signal -''7 J 3 -Way Slop ❑ 4 -Way Slop * Denotes Improvement N By The End Of Implemer Period Noted Ramp Widening 6 Signal Denotes Portion Of Prolt Built -Out In Eadler Pha: Denotes Portion 01 Prolt Being Developed During Implimenlalion Period Ni INT. Interim Cross Section Figure 12 •. ��.,� Projected 1994-1995 Roadway Needs \VA (38 % Of Total Project Trip Generation) VA" INMI ASKX>M Winchester Hills Traffic Study Update Ing Road ted Or Proposed Ri ter Of lanes J ly Stop ry Slop Isis Improvement Ni to End Of Implemen d Noted les Portion Of Prole 'Out to Earlier Mass '.es Portion Of Prole Developed During' nentation Period No m Cross Section Irie Plan Road Figure 13 M M 11111111M M M ® M M M m M M M M M M M MOMM 4TO"WrH01W SMET i VVS� VA" e.ON Avoona WROVII TO MLXMVA Nor SPM48 Rwp — A os—oo Planned Or Proposed Rc 21. Number Of Lanes O Signal 3 -Way Stop n� 4 -Way Stop 0 Ramp Widening 8 Slgnall; 7k Denotes Improvement Ne Photo it :%''.S.sw"<•'.`s`., Period Noted 100%Build-Out Denotes Portion Of Prolei Built -Out In Earlier Phan Sub -Arose 8.8.10.11. Impllmentation Period No 1 12A15 . Projected 1995-1996 Roadway Needs (85% Of Total Project Trip Generation) Winchester Hills Traffic Study Update LEGEND: — Existing Road os—oo Planned Or Proposed Rc 21. Number Of Lanes O Signal 3 -Way Stop ❑ 4 -Way Stop A Ramp Widening 8 Slgnall; 7k Denotes Improvement Ne By The End Of Implemeni Period Noted Denotes Portion Of Prolei Built -Out In Earlier Phan Denotes Portion Of Proler Being Developed During 1 Impllmentation Period No INT. Interim Cross Section SP Specific Plan Road Figure 14 Projected 1996-1998 Roadway Needs (100% Of Total Project Trip Generation) Winchester Hills Traffic Study Update Iting Road lned Or Proposed Rc nber Of Lanes ret an Winchester Rd. Ov, cotes Improvement Ne rhe End Of Implemen lod Noted ictes Portion Of Prole II -Out In Earlier Phase cotes Portion Of Proles ng Developed During 1 limenlation Period No vim Cross Section icilic Plan Road Vay Stop Figure 15 I Projected 1998-1999 Roadway Needs (Post Project Build—Out) Winchester Hills Traffic Study Update Road Or Proposed Roa Of Lanes Improvement Nee :no Of Implements [oleo Portion 01 Projeci it In Earlier Phase Portion Of Project eveloped During T1 nlation Period Noh ;ross Section Plan Roa] Figure 16 //I\\ FNN IR \!■// MA V4"90ffM ASSOCUa Projected 1999-2000 Roadway Needs (Post Project Build -Out) Winchester Hills Traffic Study Update 19 Road ed Or Proposed Re or OI Lanes as Improvement Ne e End Of Implement 1 Noted Ips Portion Of Prolix ut In Earlier Phase '.es Portion Of Prolix Developed During 1 nentation Period No tic Plan Road Figure 17 M M M ! M M M M M M=== r LEND: 'EM I 1,6,7 1993-1995 f II 2,3,4,5 1995-1998 M Campos Verdes Conceptual Phasing Plan f a mrbc VarrIme FIR Trnffh- Chow M M M tea iiQtw M M M M itis M M d M M ii• M .__L I wnt VA" 3vMAMD" a.naea TO runreltm "M n.aares ro t I ----------------- I Phase 50% Build -Out Sub -Areas 1.6&7 Projected 1993-1994 Roadway Needs (6% Of Total Project Trip Generation) Campos Verdes EIR Traffic Study 0.4 LEGEND: — Existing Road _ — — Planned Or Proposed Re 21. Number OI Lanes Q Signal 9 -Way Slop 4 -Way Slop * Denotes Improvement Ne By The End Of Implemen Period Noted Ramp Widening d Slgnall Denotes Portion Of Prole Built -Out In Earlier Phas Denotes Portion Of Prole Being Developed During' Implimenlalion Period Nc INT. Interim Cross Section Figure 19 M me= iiiiia v M W� M- M "IdI , KAFMMMIA 'W.i Projected 1994-1995 Roadway Needs WA (13 % Of Total Project Trip Generation) VA" � AMOCW"' Campos Verdes EIR Traffic Study Ing Road ied Or Proposed Rc mr Of Lanes it my Stop By Slop des Improvement No is End Of Implement ,d Noted les Portion Of Proles -Out In Earlier Phase lea Portion Of Prolec 1 Developed During 1 nentation Period No m Cross Section IIIc Plan Road . Figure 20 WROVII Td N,Er11,00M ST1En aa+npva TO MURRIM Apr !PAWS POW YBW A 50% Build -Out Sub -Area 3 AFAFM 11% ��� Projected 1995-1996 Roadway Needs WA (70% Of Total Project Trip Generation) ""1A2474 °"I' Campos Verdes EIR Traffic Study LEGEND: Existing Road — — — Planned Or Proposed Rt 21. Number Of Lanes O Signal 3 -Way Slop 4 -Way Stop Ramp Widening 6 Signall * Denotes Improvement N4 By The End Of Implemen Period Noted Denotes Portion Of Prole Built -Out In Earlier Phas Denotes Portion Of Prole Being Developed During Impllmentalion Period Nc INT. Interim Cross Section SP Specific Plan Road Figure 21 o= M tMIl o now M on io M a M M 0 0 M //A`t\ f/f\11 Projected 1996-1998 Roadway Needs (100% Of Total Project Trip Generation) AssocwB Campos Verdes EIR Traffic Study ling Road tried Or Proposed f %bar Of Lanes is[ an Winchester Rd. C ores Improvement IN rhe End Of Impleme od Noted Poles Portion Of Prof t-Oul In Earlier Pha oles Portion Of Prof tg Developed During Iimentallon Period N rim Cross Section ciric Plan Road lay Stop Figure 22 M,M M Mi m W .MI r� ;a it i a, r• ■� �. r• //I\\\ \ilff\e%% Projected 1998-1999 Roadway Needs ��,�,,,,�„� (Post Project Build—Out) Campos Verdes E1R Traffic Study Road Or Proposed Rc Of lanes Improvement No ?nd Of Implement toted I Portion OI Prole It In Earlier PAasi Portion Of Proia, eveloped During' ntation Period No ;rose Section Plan Road Figure 23 � i♦i Viii♦ �■u s� �n s si•a �f• ! int ' � s' ! itiii• s• //I►\\ Samoa% ��� Projected 1999-2000 Roadway Needs (Post Project Build—Out) Mian 91 Avon.,s Campos Verdes EIR Traffic Study ng Road ed Or Proposed F er Of Lanes I les Improvement F is End Of Impleme d Noted les Portion Of Pro -Out In Earlier Pna les Portion Of Prol I Developed Durins nentation Period f ilic Plan Road Figure 24 r 1 Bedford/Kemper 1 ' Temecula Urban Core Projects CMP Traffic Impact Analysis Riverside County Transportation Commission 1. 1 I ,,. AMID& 1 Wilbur Smith Associates November, 1992 Bedford/Kemper Temecula Urban Core Projects CMP Traffic Impact Analysis Riverside County Transportation Commission I Wilbur Smith Associates 3600 Lime Street, Suite 226 t Riverside, California 92501 Contact: Robert A. Davis. Telephone: (714) 274-0566 I Table of Contents (cont.) Illustrations Follows Page Figure 1 Project Location/CMPTIA Focused Study Area ...................... 3 Figure 2 RIVSAN Traffic Analysis Zones ................................. 9 Figure 3 Focused Model Traffic Analysis Zones ....... . .............. 9 Figure 4a RIVSAN Year 2010 Dwelling Unit and Employment Forecasts ......... 10 Figure 4b Re -Distribution of Dwelling Units and Employment ................. 10 Figure 4c Adjusted Year 2010 Dwelling Units and Employment Forecasts ......... 10 Figure 5 Year 2010 Focused RIVSAN Model Highway Network ............... 12 Figure 6 Assumed Roadway Classifications ............................... 13 Figure 7 Projected Year 2010 Daily Traffic Volumes on CMP System Without Project ............................................ 14 Figure 8 Projected Year 2010 Daily Traffic Volumes on CMP System With Project ............................................... 14 Figure 9 Projected Year 2010 Volume/Capacity Ratios and Levels of Service WithoutProject ............................................ 15 Figure 10 Projected Year 2010 Volume/Capacity Ratios and Levels of Service . WithProject ............................................... 15 Figure 11 CMP HCM Analysis Intersection Identification ..................... 16 Figure 12 CMP Intersection Approach Lane Configurations ................... 16 IV. Traffic Impact Assessment ....................................... 15 CMP Roadway Link Service ................................... 15 CMP Intersections Levels ..................................... 16 Other Regional Routes ....................................... 16 V. Findings .................................................... 19 11 1. 1 1 I Table of Contents 1 Chapters I. Introduction . .............................................Page . I ReportOrganization .......................................... 2 II. Proposed Project ............................................... 3 Land Use Development Proposal ............. 3 Project Proximity to CMP Roadway System .•..•....•..•........ 5 Project Trip Generation and Regional Significance ................... 6 M. Traffic Forecasts ............................................... 8 Traffic Analysis Zone Refinement .. 9 Data Refinements Socio -Economic.............................. 10 Trip Generation ............................................ 11 Roadway Network Refinements ................................ 11 Traffic Assignment Scenarios .................................. 13 1� Traffic Projections ............................................ 14 IV. Traffic Impact Assessment ....................................... 15 CMP Roadway Link Service ................................... 15 CMP Intersections Levels ..................................... 16 Other Regional Routes ....................................... 16 V. Findings .................................................... 19 11 1. 1 1 I Table of Contents (cont.) Illustrations Follows Page Figure 1 Project Location/CMPTIA Focused Study Area ...................... 3 Figure 2 RIVSAN Traffic Analysis Zones ................................. 9 Figure 3 Focused Model Traffic Analysis Zones ............................ 9 Figure 4a RIVSAN Year 2010 Dwelling Unit and Employment Forecasts ......... 10 Figure 4b Re -Distribution of Dwelling Units and Employment ................. 10 Figure 4c Adjusted Year 2010 Dwelling Units and Employment Forecasts ......... 10 Figure 5 Year 2010 Focused RIVSAN Model Highway Network ............... 12 Figure 6 Assumed Roadway Classifications ............................... 13 Figure 7 Projected Year 2010 Daily Traffic Volumes on CMP System Without Project ............................................ 14 Figure 8 Projected Year 2010 Daily Traffic Volumes on CMP System With Project ............................................... 14 Figure 9 Projected Year 2010 Volume/Capacity Ratios and Levels of Service Without Project ............................................ 15 Figure 10 Projected Year 2010 Volume/Capacity Ratios and Levels of Service With Project ............................................... 15 Figure 11 CMP HCM Analysis Intersection Identification ..................... 16 Figure 12 CMP Intersection Approach Lane Configurations ................... 16 1 11 '1 I I Table of Contents (cont.) Tabulations. Page Table 1 RIVSAN to CMPTIA Zone Correspondence ....................... 10 Table 2 Socio -Economic Summary ..................................... 12 Table 3 Year 2010 CMP Intersection Analysis ............................ 17 k Report Organization The CMPTIA report has been organized into five sections: I. Introduction - This section identifies the purpose of the study and describes the organization and content of the report. II. Proposed Project - Section II "Proposed Project" includes discussion of the project location, land use proposal, and regional significance of the project as it relates to peak -hour trip generation and the project's potential to impact the CMP roadway systems. III. Traffic Forecasts - This section outlines the RIVSAN modeling procedures agreed on by SCAG and applied by WSA and the resulting Year 2010 traffic forecasts for conditions without and with the project. IV. Traffic Impact Assessment - This section presents the traffic operations analysis and results for conditions on the CMP roadway system without and with the projem V. Findings and Recommendations - This section summarized the TIA findings regarding project related traffic LOS impacts and identifies mitigation requirements for the CMP roadway system. In addition to the five sections which comprise the body of the report, a series of appendices are provided which include substantial supplemental information pertaining to the Temecula Urban Core Projects, RIVSAN model and focussed model input/output, and HCM worksheets. r i 2 r I. Introduction The Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) contained herein has been prepared in response to and in accordance with Riverside County Congestion Management Program (CMP) requirements -regarding land use development proposals. The scope of work, analysis approach, and traffic forecasting methodology applied in this study was developed through discussions with Riverside County Transportation Commission (ROTC) and Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) staff members responsible for review and coordination of CMPTIA documents. We acknowledge that the CMPTTA guidelines are undergoing change and are — evolving along with the regional modeling tools which allow for this level of analysis. This not withstanding every effort has been made to comply with the intent and spirit of the CMP requirements. Congestion Management Program Traffic Impact Analysis guidelines have been established in response to statutory requirements which mandate the development of a program to analyze the impacts of land use decisions made by local jurisdictions on regional transportation systems. The regional transportation system, on which land use impacts are to be assessed, has been defined by RCTC as the CMP roadway network. The TIA process ■ involves: 1. An initial determination of whether a proposal development project is regionally significant based on its potential level of peak -hour trip generation. All developments which are expected to generate more than 200 peak -hour trips are required to be Ireviewed for possible impacts on the CMP roadway system. 2. Utilization of RIVSAN consistent traffic model to project year 2010 traffic forecasts for conditions without and with the proposed development project. _ 3. Analysis of year 2010 traffic conditions using HCM methodology for calculating Level of Service (LOS) on the CMP roadway systems. The minimum LOS standard for the CMP system is "E". Any location along the CMP system found to operate at an LOS below "E" would require the development of a LOS Deficiency Plan. I_ I I Report Organization The CMPTIA report has been organized into five sections: I. Introduction - This section identifies the purpose of the study and describes the organization and content of the report II. Proposed Project - Section II "Proposed Project" includes discussion of the project location, land use proposal, and regional significance of the project as it relates to peak -hour trip generation and the project's potential to impact the CMP roadway systems. III. Traffic Forecasts - This section outlines the RIVSAN modeling procedures agreed on by SCAG and applied by WSA and the resulting Year 2010 traffic forecasts for conditions without and with the project IV. Traffic Impact Assessment - This section presents the traffic operations analysis and results for conditions on the CMP roadway system without and with the project V. Findings and Recommendations - This section summarized the TIA findings regarding project related traffic LOS impacts and identifies mitigation requirements for the CMP roadway system. In addition to the five sections which comprise the body of the report, a series of appendices are provided which include substantial supplemental information pertaining to the Temecula Urban Core Projects, RIVSAN model and focussed model input/output, and HCM worksheets. 2 II. Proposed Project ' The Kemper Temecula Urban Core Projects consist of the following three Specific Plans: ' S.P. 1 - Campos Verdes • S.P. 255 - Winchester Hills • S.P. 263 - Temecula Regional Center The three proposed Specific Plan projects are all located within the northern portion of the City of Temecula, east of Interstate 15 and immediately north and south of Winchester Road (State Route 79). The exact location and configuration of the individual Temecula Urban Core Projects is illustrated in Figure 1. Land Use Development Proposal Proposed land use for the three Temecula Urban Core projects is presented below for the three Specific Plan projects. Detailed information pertaining to individual project land use is provided in Appendix A. ' Campos Verdes - As proposed, the Campos Verdes Specific Plan consists of approximately 132.9 gross acres. The Campos Verdes development would include the following proposed uses: • Single family detached residential (approximately 206 dwelling units); • Multi -family attached residential (approximately 644 dwelling units); • Neighborhood retail shopping center (13.5 gross acres); • Commercial office (10.4 gross acres); and • Open Space/Retention Basin (13.5 gross acres). For the purpose of the traffic study, the project was divided into seven development planning areas. These project planning areas are depicted in Appendix A in Figure CV -1 ' and proposed land uses are summarized in Table CV -1- 11 1 3 r. r r r r IMI M r MIr a.. Mw rr s r r Project Location/CMPTIA Focused Study Area Temecula Urban Core Projects .S (SP. 225) P. 1) LATER (S.P. 283) Figure 1 As reflected in Table CV -1, single family residential units would be located in development Planning Areas 6 and 7 (refer to Figure CV -1) which are adjacent to existing low density residential development. The proposed higher density multi -family residential development in Planning Areas 3 and 5 is, for the most part, arranged in a manner which would buffer the lower density residential development form commercial uses proposed along Ynez Road. The Campos Verdes neighborhood retail center and office park are planned to be located adjacent to Ynez Road at the Winchester Road and General Kearny Road intersections respectively. A park/retention basin is proposed for Planning Area 1. Winchester Hills - As proposed the Winchester Hills Specific Plan would consist of approximately 569.5 gross acres. The Winchester Hills development would include the following approximate development units for each of the proposed land uses: • Residential uses of various densities (totaling 1,948 dwelling unite on 339.6 acres); • Business Park uses (120 acres); • Commercial Office (11.4 acres); • Neighborhood Commercial (15.6 acres); • Elementary School (11.2 acres); and • Neighborhood Park (18.6 acres). The Winchester Hills project would consist of three principal development sub -areas. These project sub -areas are depicted in Appendix A in Figure WH -1. Proposed land use for each ' sub -area and planning area is summarized in Table WH -1. Sub -area A would consist of a ' mix of residential uses ranging in density from medium (2 to 5 DU/AC) to very high (14 to 20 DU/AC). Also included in this sub -area would be an elementary school and neighborhood parks. Sub -area B would consist of Business Park type uses including a mix of light industrial, commercial office and low intensity commercial. Sub -area C is designated as a Neighborhood Commercial Center. Temecula Regional Center - As proposed the Temecula Regional Center would consist of . approximately 201 gross acres. The Regional Center is assumed to include the following approximate development units for each of the proposed land uses: • Core retail center - 1,125,000 SFG"- • Fringe area retail - 548,000 SFGLA; • Fringe area office - 810,000 SFGLA; and • Hotels - 250 rooms. 4 • two of the three Specific Plan projects exceed the 2,000 peak -hour trip generation threshold which requires the CMPTIA to be based on findings of Year 2010 RiVSAN model -based forecasts which include the proposed projects in the model's socio- economic database. , The three Specific Plan land use proposals have been compared to the threshold land use intensity/trip generation examples given in Attachment "A" of the Local Agency CMP Handbook, and the findings regarding the need for a CMP Analysis and RIVSAN modeling effort have been verified. ' The precise number of rM based peak -hour trips is not needed since the RIVSAN modeling approach uses dwelling unit and employment input which, in this case, would be based directly on the project's proposed land use. I 7 ' Project Trip Generation and Regional Significance _ As required in the Local Agency CMP Handbook, project trip generation has been assessed for the three individual Specific Plan projects. Trip generation estimates developed for Specific Plan EIR Traffic Studies (for each individual project) are provided in Appendix A (Tables CV -2 and 3; Tables WH 2 and 3; and Tales TRC 2 and 3) and are summarized ibelow. - 'hip Generation Temecula Urban Core Project Daily AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour 1 Campos Verdes (S.P. 1) 16,184 997 1,179 Winchester Hills (S.P. 255) 46,702 3,058 3,582 Temecula Regional Center 263) 64,850 (S.P. 3,631 4,724 Total 127,736 7,686 9,485 Daily vehicle trip rates used for the Temecula Urban Core Projects are based on rates published in the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Manual. Peak -hour trip generation estimates developed in the Specific Plan EIR Traffic Studies were developed via TRANPLAN modeling procedures where the daily vehicle trip productions and attractions were factored by trip purpose (e.g. home-based work, home-based other, and non -home based). The factors used to develop peak -hour trip generation were based on ' NCHRP average factors which have been adjusted slightly to reflect SCAG's-RIVSAN model trip peaking characteristics. Although the peak -hour trip generation presented for the Temecula Urban Core Projects is not derived directly from ITE trip generation factors, the earlier study trip generation - results make this a mute point. Regardless of the peak -hour trip generation assessment methodology, the finding indicate: • all three of the Specific Plan projects exceed the 200 peak -hour trip generation threshold which establishes that the projects regionally significant, have potential to impact the CMP roadway system, and requires the submittal of a C IPTIA; and I 1 6 I • two of the three Specific Plan projects exceed the 2,000 peak -hour trip generation threshold which requires the CMPTIA to be based on findings of Year 2010 RIVSAN model -based forecasts which include the proposed projects in the model's socio- economic database. ' The three Specific Plan land use proposals have been compared to the threshold land use intensity/trip generation examples given in Attachment "A" of the Local Agency CMP , Handbook, and the findings regarding the need for a CMP Analysis and RIVSAN modeling effort have been verified. The precise number of rM based peak -hour trips is not needed since the RIVSAN modeling approach uses dwelling unit and employment input which, in this case, would be based directly on the project's proposed land use. ■ 1, 7 III. Traffic Forecasts The basic CMPTIA approach and RIVSAN modeling methodology for the Temecula Urban Core Projects was discussed with both ROTC and SCAG staff responsible for overseeing and reviewing CMPTIA efforts. In mid-August 1992 WSA and City of Temecula staff meet with RCTC staff to review general CMP requirements and to discuss the Temecula Urban Core Projects. At this meeting it was agreed that: 1. A CMPTIA would be prepared for the Temecula Urban Core Projects and that the study would address the potential cumulative impacts of the three proposed Specific Plan projects on the CMP roadway system. 2. Since the updated Year 2000 RIVSAN model impacts are yet available, the Year 2010 RIVSAN model would be used as the basis for the Temecula Urban Core Projects CMPTIA. 3. WSA would coordinate directly with SCAG regarding the methodology and procedures to be used during the modeling effort. Wilbur Smith Associates met with SCAG staff responsible for CMP analysis modeling coordination within Riverside County to discuss the basic modeling procedures which should be used for analyzing the Temecula Urban Core Projects. During this meeting it was agreed that: 1. A "focused" modeling approach would be used where the basic Year 2010 RIVSAN model (e.g. regional network, zones, and socio-economic inputs) would remain intact except in the immediate project study area. 2. The RIVSAN traffic analysis zone structure would be disaggregated in the vicinity of the Temecula Urban Core Projects along with roadway network refinements to allow for more detailed traffic loading on the local street network. 3. The Year 2010 RIVSAN roadway network would be refined (augmented) in the project vicinity to add existing and planned local roadways which would have an effect on traffic distribution on the CMP roadway system and at CMP system intersections to be analyzed in the study. 1 8 rir. .� �. l� .� +Ao �r Il♦I s•. a r � till a■� Ij� �. �. ------------ Kaman l\\A RIVSAN Traffic Analysis Zones V*" V,, ASIOCM Temecula Urban Core Projects Figure 2 M M M= w M �..LV. _.■.. •■.■11 \AFA WLAAs ASWoao as w M = w 4w M = M Focused Model Traffic Analysis Zones (TATS) For CMP Analysis Temecula Urban Core Projects Figure 3 Table 1 RIVSAN to CMPTIA Zone Correspondence Temecula Urban Core Projects RIVSAN Zone Equivalent TUCP CMPTIA Zones 434 434, 233, 234, 624, 625, 626, 627, 628, 629, 630, 706, 707 436 436, 205, 207, 209, 210, 211, 478, 482, 484, 485 437. 437,623 439 439, 235, 349, 350, 432, 433, 435, 438, 442, 443, 444, 445, 479, 489 440 440, 229, 429, 480, 481, 483, 708 441 441, 486, 487, 488 446 446, 336, 337, 338, 339, 341, 490, 620, 621, 622 447 447, 430, 431 Socio -Economic Data Refinements The disaggregation of socio-economic data for the eight affected RIVSAN zones was performed based on existing land use inventories and approved/planned development summaries available through WSA's involvement in the Temecula General Plan Program. The review of RIVSAN socio-economic data for the study area zones resulted in the need to re -distribute dwelling unit and employment forecasts within the "focused" study area. This was done in the development of the Year 2010 "focused" model input for the "Without Project' scenario. Special care was taken to maintain the RIVSAN control totals for Year 2010 socio-economic data. The manner in which dwelling unit and employment values were re-distnbuted is graphically depicted in Figures 4a through 4c. Original and modified versions of the RIVSAN Year 2010 "Socio-economic Data" for the zones within the focused study area are provided in Appendix B. 10 L._ 4940% `.�5p RIVSAN Year 2010 Dwelling Unit MA And Employment Forecasts VA"'° ANOC"'g Temecula Urban Core Projects ------------ Figure 4a /I\1 Re -Distribution Of Dwelling Units M,,,,M And Employment Temecula Urban Core Projects Figure 4b % 1 I LL.--•-----•— Cly ASA VW" 2.2101 wOOOM 447 434 r.?"ME. urw 4."t1 zNo EML 437 439.081Ou - '\ 4.421 EML IAMOU 873 FML 2.MDU LM EML 446 441 1 "I Our.Ui OU 1.47:M / E.E EL 40 2171 EML 436 3.108 OU \ �� L. •--•—•--�—�- . —— - ——. Adjusted Year 2010 Dwelling Unit And Employment Forecasts Temecula Urban Core Projects Figure 4c 12 ' For the "With Project" scenario, proposed land use for the Temecula Urban Core Projects ' was convened to socio-economic based data using "Land Use Density Conversion Factors" developed for SCAG by the Cordoba Corporation. In the case of residential land -use, the proposed number of single-family and multi -family dwelling units are used directly. Non-residential uses are converted to employment using factors which are applicable to the specific land use. The results of this procedure are summarized in Table 2. RIVSAN Year 2010 "Socio-economic Data" input for project -related zones in the focused model are provided in Appendix B. _ Trip Generation Socio-economic based trip generation for the CMP focused model was performed using standard RIVSAN modeling procedures. The trip generation component of the RIVSAN model is performed independent of the TRANPLAN software package. It involves a series of FORTRAN programs which have been developed by SCAG specifically for the RIVSAN model. Roadway Network Refinements ' Within the focused study area, the RIVSAN Year 2010 roadway network was augmented with local arterial streets to allow for more refined traffic loadings on the network. Network ' refinements were actually made in conjunction with the disaggregation of RIVSAN zones. The Year 2010 focused model highway network in the immediate study area is illustrated in Figure 5. Designated CMP roadways and selected CMP analysis intersections are also depicted in Figure 5. The degree to which the local network was augmented was based on several factors. These included: ' • The need to provide sufficient local street network detail to allow for more realistic ' traffic turning movements at CMP intersections which require HCM analysis; • Recognition that many of the programmed and planned local arterial roadways would be implemented by Year 2010 or well before that date; and ' • Recognition of programmed and planned improvements to the CMP roadway system in the study area. 11 12 m m= s m r m= r m m r r m= w LEOEM. i caw FWBCWay CAW Maya.Inlan go Year 2010 Focused RIVSAN Model Highway Network Temecula Urban Core Projects fltilh Figure 5 Roadway links included in the focused study area were coded using standard RIVSAN model link attributes to approximate the assumed focused area roadway network classifications depicted in Figure 6. The TRANPLAN based Interactive Network Information System (NIS) was used to build the augmented highway network within the focused study area. A reduced plot of the focused area network, including centroids and centroid connectors is provided in Appendix B. For comparison purposes a plot of the original Year 2010 RIVSAN highway network is also provided in Appendix B. - Traffic Assignment Scenarios . The Year 2010 CMP focused model was used to develop traffic forecasts for the 'without project" conditions. The 'without project" assignments were generated using the disaggregated RIVSAN socio-economic data. The 'with project" assignments included ' additional dwelling units and employment associated with the Temecula Urban Core Projects. Assignments for both the 'without project" and 'with project" conditions were developed using the same highway network. Using the RIVSAN Year 2010 TRANPLAN job stream, daily, and peak hour traffic ' forecasts were developed for the two analysis scenarios. Intersection turning movements were generated from the model output for all major intersections within the study area. Morning and evening period D I 17 13 Assumed Roadway Classifications Temecula Urban Core Projects Figure 6 Ase LEGEND Dell F-10 Freeway-tOLanea F -S Freeway- 8Lones F -B Freeway - B Lama F -a Frecwey - 4 Lanae UA -BL Urban Medal B -tarns UA Urban Medal B -Lams A Medal a -Lama M Major 4 -Lams S Secondarya-Lame IC Industrial Collector 2 -Lams Assumed Roadway Classifications Temecula Urban Core Projects Figure 6 ' The second form of adjustment involved factoring up all volumes on the non -freeway facilities in the study area. This adjustment was based on a comparison of RIVSAN Year 1990 traffic assignments on Winchester Road (the principal CMP roadway being analyzed) with existing traffic counts. This comparison indicates an approximate 5 percent under estimation by the model. Other local arterials revealed even greater deviations, however, these were more clearly attributable to the coarseness of the RIVSAN zone system and corresponding centroid connector locations. Year 1990 assignments for the freeway were ' somewhat higher than existing volumes so the factoring was limited to non -freeway facilities. The net effect of the post -processing effort was a general increase in the daily and peak ' hour traffic assignments for all of the CMP roadways and intersections except for the freeway segments. It should also be noted that Year 2010 RIVSAN traffic forecasts for this area generally appear low for an 18 -year forecast period. This observation does not suggest calibration related problems, however. For this area of the RIVSAN model is more clearly related to the relatively low incremental increases reflected in the Year 2010 socio-economic data. For ' the purpose of this study, we are not at liberty to make arbitrary changes in the official RIVSAN model socio-economic forecast data set. ' Traffic Projections Year 2010 daily traffic projections for the "without" and "With" project scenarios are depicted m Figures 7 and 8 respectively. In these figures, traffic volumes are posted only for CMP ' roadways and arterial roadways immediately adjacent to the CMP facilities. Peak -hour turning volume forecasts are provided in Appendix C as part of the HCM intersection analysis worksheets. I 11 Lj 11 1 14 � f, i• i� i• i� i• i• i• i• i• � i• i• i• i• � LEGEND. xx.x Deny vau On CAP i xxx Daily WMiM On NnH AtMeMN To G.p Nwd 40TE: Whin Am ERpoued In Projected -Year 2010 Daily Traffic Volumes On CMP System Without Project Temecula Urban Core Projects e Figure 7 l� ■� lig ijj■o iiia l� ■� l�■ � � � l� l� �■ r• � l� LEGEND: xn:x DORY VoW. On CIA )= M =*c on Nm �q.e.m ro w na NOTE: %bWnos N* Ea ® Projected Year 2010 Daily Traffic -Volumes On CMP System With Project Temecula Urban Core Projects Figure 8 IV. Traffic Impact Assessment The traffic impact analysis for the Temecula Urban Core Projects includes an assessment of Year 2010 service levels on CMP roadway segments and intersections within the focused study area. The same analysis has been performed for conditions without the development projects to evaluate the net change in service levels due to the projects. ' CMP Roadway Link Service Levels - Roadway link volume -to -capacity ratios were calculated for all CMP roadways within the study area. These volume -to -capacity ratios and corresponding service levels are summarized in Figure 9 (without project condition) and Figure 10 (with project condition). ' The results of this analysis indicates: • all freeway segments would operate at Level of Service D or better both with and ' without the project; and ' all segments of Winchester Road would operate at Level of Service A without the project and Level of Service B or better with the project. ' Freeway service levels were found to be identical for the with and without project conditions. Differences can be noted in the freeway segment volume -to -capacity ratios, however, the ' variance in 0.02 or less. On I-15, north of Winchester Road, volume -to -capacity ratios were found to be slightly lower with the project than without. South of Winchester Road, volume - to -capacity ratios were slightly higher with the project than without the project. Volume-to- capacity- ratios on I-215 were the same for both conditions. ' . Projected conditions on Winchester Road revealed more significant differences with the Temecula Urban Core Projects, particularly in the immediate vicinity of the Temecula Regional Center Specific Plan. Even with the relatively intense use associated with this project, however, service levels were. found to be well within acceptable limits. 15 .xx tbl~Icpeei" Ratb O im tblum*/Cpoclly Relic on Agoconl to CMP ibdnr % Lo.ol Of tlwtico On CW X =1018«Nco On im 'VV mmp (01 Projected Year 2010 Volume/Capacity Ratios And Levels Of Service MA Without Project �""�Temecula Urban Core Projects Figure 9 M M M M M LEGEND: X.XX Wkwn.ie.weNru.a XXX Vokme/CG clry Raft MIC"l To CLP IPImod X LwN Of 84"ke on a X Lw Of $.At* On No M M M M M M M M V n ® Projected Year 2010 Volume/Capacity Ratios And Levels Of Service With Project Temecula Urban Core Projects Figure 10 CMP Intersection Levels ' While the roadway link analysis provides a general indication of potential impact, the ' intersection analysis provides a more critical assessment. HCM signalized. intersection analysis was performed for CMP intersections identified in Figure 11. HCM analysis worksheets are provided in Appendix C. Intersection approach land assumptions are ' graphically summarized in Figure 12. ' The results of the HCM intersection analysis are summarized in Table 3. Findings of the HCM analysis indicate that all of the CMP intersections in the focused study area would operate at Level of Service C or better for both development conditions except for one ' intersection. Under the "with project" condition, the Winchester RoadNnez Road intersection would operate at Level of Service D during the P.M. peak -hour. In the majority of cases, service levels 'without" and 'with" the project were evaluated to be the same. Those intersection locations which were found to drop by a service level with the project, were typically those which are located on Winchester Road immediately adjacent to the ' Temecula Regional Center Specific Plan. At these and most other intersections analyzed the P.M. peak -hour delay was more significantly impacted by the Temecula Urban Core ' Projects than the A.M. peak -hour delay. Other Regional Routes Traffic forecasts were reviewed for both scenarios along principal regional routes which ' would provide access to and from the Temecula Urban Core projects. This review resulted in the following observations:. • As was noted earlier, traffic forecasts along the I-15 corridor, north of Winchester Road, were found to be slightly lower than with the project. ' • All other regional routes serving the area, including I-15 (south of Winchester Road), ' I-215, and Winchester Road were found to have minor increases in traffic of approximately 1,500 vehicles or less per day. tThe differences in forecasts on these regional routes become less significant with distance and typically drop to insignificant levels (less than 200 vehicles per day) ' within approximately five to ten miles from the project site. 16 i• i• i• � i• fiio i• i• � � i i• i• i• i• i• i• CMP HCM Analysis Intersection Identification Temecula Urban Core Projects Figure 11 mm m 11M ■■1 Mw M- M = mm m M mm M 2 1 f2 y WINCHESTERF0. 24 1 t1 4-2 WINCHESTER AD. ? h r► 24 1 2 f t, f3 .�iy r1 WINCHESTER RD. , ? h T r► 3i 2 2 1 f3 r1 WINCHESTER RD. I Eagq r� 3„� 1 1 t, f3 ININCHESTER RD. T r► 34 1 1 1 1 2 3 4 , t1 f3 �i4 t, i4 t1 f2 �yy f2 to 4-2 r� WINO ESTER RI). Si g 1 2 1 r2 NICOIAS RD r1 MURK TA NOr SPRINGS RIT 8 1 2 1 .� y r1 WINCND u RD. 2 ,,,), R%NCD U RD. 2 6 7 g g I I" "nom •was» IMUNRsM .IeTH wmH ♦TI00w CMP Intersection Appoach Lane Configurations Temecula Urban Core Projects Figure 12 i I 11 11 1 11 u I O 1 H ■0WAMb, aUNWAri .(j IV MURRIETA HOT SPRINGS RD. MURRIETA HOT SPRINGS RD. � + 0. ¢I co Z W r 11 F12 MURREITA HOT SPRINGS RD. MURRIEU HOT SPRINGS RD. <1 f> J.+ y m N N 13 14 ■0WAMb, aUNWAri Table 3 Year 2010 CMP Intersection Analysis — Temecula Urban Core Projects I.D. No. Intersection Peak Hour Scenario W/O Project With Project LOS Delay LOS Delay 12 Murrieta Hot Springs RdA-15 - NB On and 'Olf Ramps AM B 12.7 B 9.2 PM B 13.1 B 10.3 13 Murrieta Hot Springs Rd./I-215 - SB On and Off Ramps AM B 12.2 B 133 PM C 24.9 C 223 14 Murrieta Hot Springs RdJI-215 - NB On and OH Ramps AMB 13.5 B 10.9 PM C 21.6 C 19.9 18 [l I M I I 1 I I Table 3 Year 2010 CMP Intersection Analysis Temecula Urban Core Projects I.D. No. Intersection Peak Hour Scenario W/O Project With Project LOS Delay LOS Delay 1 Winchester RdJ1-15 - SB On and Off Ramps AM B 10.2 B 11.0 PM B 15.8 C 163 2 Winchester Rd41-15 - NB On and OH Ramps AM B 128 B 127 PM B 13.0 C 21.0 3 Winchester Rd4Tnez Rd. AM C 233 C 23.6 PM C 21.2 D 31.4 4 Winchester Rd./Regional Center Dwy. AM A 4.2 B 6.9 PM A 3.5 B 93 5 Winchester Rd./Regional Center Rd. AM C 15.5 C 183 PM C 16.2 C 16.2 6 Winchester Rd./Margarita Rd. AM C 20.7 C 23.8 PM C 19.6 C 19.8 7 Nicolas.Rd./Winchester Rd. AM A 4.1 A 4.6 PM A 3.5 A 4.4 8 Murrieta Hot Springs RdJWincbester Rd. AM C 17.5 C 17.9 PM C 18.0 C 225 rio Rancho Calif RdA-15 - SB On and Off Ramps AM B 124 B 10.4 PM C 17.8 C 227 Rancho Calif RdA-15 - NB On and Off Ramps AM C 21.1 C 228 PM B 203 C 224 11 Murrieta Hot Springs Rd,11-15 - SB On and Off Ramps AM B 7.8 B 10.0 PM C 220 C 15.8 17 Table 3 Year 2010 CMP Intersection Analysis Temecula Urban Core Projects I.D. No. Intersection Peak our Scenario W/O Project With Project LOS Delay LOS Delay 12 Murrieta Hot Springs Rd./I-15 - NB On and'Off Ramps AM B 127 B 92 PM B 13.1 B 103 13 Murrieta Hot Springs RdA-215 - SB On and Off Ramps AM B 122 B 13.5 PM C 24.9 C 223 E Murrieta Hot Springs RdA-215 - NB On and OH Ramps AM B 13.5 B 10.9 9 PM C 21.6 C 19.9 18 ' V. Findings i The CMP traffic impact analysis for the Temecula Urban Core Projects has generated the findings summarized below. 1). Level of service on the CMP roadway network would not drop below Level of Service D with the proposed projects. 2). Programmed and planned CMP roadway improvements reflected in this analysis need t_ to be implemented to accommodate cumulative development represented in the Year 2010 RIVSAN socio-economic forecast data. These improvements include: ' a). The widening of Winchester Road to six lanes between Margarita Road and Murrieta Hot Springs Road; - b). The widening of Winchester Road to a minimum of four lanes north of Murrieta - r Hot Springs Road; ' c). Improvements to the Winchester Road/1-15 interchange including widening the Winchester Road bridge section to a minimum of four lanes and 1-15 off -ramp widenings; and ' d). Improvements to the Murrieta Hot Springs Road interchanges at I-15 and I-215 including widening of the freeway off -ramps. 3). Various programmed and planned local arterial street improvements reflected in this analysis would need to be implemented to assure that service levels on the CMP roadway system do not fall below LOS E These improvements include: a). The construction of the Overland Drive overcrossing as a four -lane facility; b). The extension of Margarita Road as a four -lane facility north to Murrieta Hot Springs Road; c). The extension of Ynez Road/Jackson Avenue to Murrieta Hot Springs Road ' (minimum two-lane facility to accommodate the CMP model forecast); and 1 19 I I Appdendix A i I 1 I I I rAWW& na» klyffir 1WwAr V� GEND: Assumed I 1,6,/ IYYJ-1M :RDES Campos Verdes Conceptual Phasing Pian Campos Verdes EIR Traffic Study 2.3.4,5 1995-1998 Fieniro rv_-f I I Table CV -1 Assumed Land Use Campos Verdes A RY PT _ANNTNG ARRA Development Planning Area Tentative Tract No. Gross Acres Appmm Size Unit Land Use D.U.'s 25213 644 D.U.'s Neighborhood Retail Center Area 1 Pace18 & 9 13.5 10.4 Open Space Area 2 Parcel 7 10.4 9.3 Net Ac Commercial Office. Area 3 Parcel 4,5 & 6 22.2 377 D.U.'s' Multi Family Residential Area 4 Pacel 1 13.5 10 Net Ac Neighborhood Retail Center Area 5 Parcel 2 & 3 15.7 267 D.U.'s Multi Family Residential Area 6 25214 27.1 141 D.U.'s Single Family Residential Area 7 25215 21 65 D.U.'s Single Family Residential Total 123 I A 1 1 I 1 B. BY LAND USE CATEGORY Land Use • D.U. - Dwelling Unit Unit Note: An additional 9.5 peas sae ate involved in onsite toads I A 1 1 I 1 B. BY LAND USE CATEGORY Land Use Size Unit Single Family Residential 206 D.U.'s Multi Family Residential 644 D.U.'s Neighborhood Retail Center 13.5 Ac. Commercial Office 10.4 Ac. Bulk ii LEGEND: (B) Sub - Area Identification :STER MEADOWS MPOS VERDES 'c j� Development Area And Sub -Areas •II} L L •If11� •I,_ J_• _ Fianro Wu_+ B. Land Use Table WH—lb Assumed Land Use Winchester Specific Plan Land Use Size Unit Residential - Medium Density 946 D.U. - Medium High Density 152 D.U. - Very High Density 532 D.U. - Mobile Home 318 D.U. Residential Total 1,948 D.U. Elementary School 11.2 Acres Neighborhood Park 25.8 Acres Business Park 120.1 Acres Commercial Office 248.0 KSFFA Community Commercial 170.0 KSFFA ' A. Sub-area/Planning Arra I I l� I I I FJ Table WH—la Assumed Land Use Winchester Hills Specific Plan Sub -area•/ Traffic Planning Area** Model TAZ Acres Size Unit Land Use A 1 398 13.8 235 D. U. Residential (14 to 20 du/ac) 2 217 47.0 179 D. U. Residential (2 to 5 du/ac) 3 399 31.5 155 D. U. Residential (2 to 5 du/ac) 4 401 17.8 297 D. U. Residential (14 to 20 du/ac) 5 390 29.5 152 D. U. Residential (5 to 8 du/ac) 6 395 7.2 72 Acres Neighborhood Park 9 213 60.8 258 D. U. Residential (2 to 5 du/ac) 10 212 18.6 18.6 Acres Neighborhood Park 11 212 11.2 112 Acres Elementary School 12 402 54.9 179 D. U. Residential (2 to 5 du/ac) 13 403 44.6 175 D. U. Residential (2 to 5 du/ac) 14 216 39.7 318 D. U. Mobil Home ( 5 to 8 du/ac) 376.6 B 7 404 11.4 248.0 KSFFA Commercial Office 15 215 49.6 49.6 Acres Business Park 16 214 70.5 70.5 Acres Business Park 131.5 C 8 400 15.6 170.0 KSFFA Neighborhood Comm. Cntr 523.7 ' Notes Acres do not include major streets, internal roadways, gree -belt pazeoc (consisting of 458 acres) KSFFA - 7bousand square fat of floor ars. D.U. - Dwelling UniL B. Land Use 'Fable WH—lb Assumed Land Use Winchester Specific Plan Land Use Size Unit Residential - Medium Density 946 D.U. - Medium High Density 152 D.U. - Very High Density 532 D.U. - Mobile Home 318 D.U. Residential Total 1,948 D.U. Elementary School 11.2 Acres Neighborhood Park 25.8 Acres Business Park 120.1 Acres Commercial Office 248.0 KSFFA Community Commercial 170.0 KSFFA a i; i M!! i! i i i i i i XAMIVA� nOUR tuffiri wii LEGEND: (3) Sub - Area Identification :NESTER MEADOWS CAMPOSYERDES Development Area And Sub -Areas Regional Center EIR Traffic Study Figure TRC. Table CV -2 Vehicle Trip Generation Rates Campos Verdes LAND USE UNIT DAILY ? ' LOCATION OF TRIP RATE LAND USE Residential: k . Single Family D.0 ' , 10 0 Planning Areas 6&7 Multi -Family D U `> b b Planning Areas 3& 5 rc Retail: Neighborhood Center (Approx. 110 ksf " Net Ac $DO Planning Area 4 Office: Y Office Park Net Ac 700 Planning Area 2 Souroc r E Trip Generation, Fourth Edition. - D.U. denote Dwelling Unit •• • kaf denotes Thouund Squue Feet L� I I [1 Table 1 RU -1 Assumed Land Use Regional Mall Alternative Temecula Regional Center Development Area • Net Acres APMM Size Unit Land Use Sub -Areal ksf Retail 548 la 39.20 810 ksf Hotel 250 250 ksf Retail 350 ksf Office 250 rooms Hotel Ib 32.77 35 ksf Retail 420 ksf Office Sub -Area 2 97.80 1,125 ksf Retail (Mall) 250 ksf Retail (Detached from Mall) Sub -Area 3 5.49 13 ksf Retail 40 ksf Office otal 1 175.26 • Refer to Faure 1. • ksf -Thousand aq WR Feet (GressLeasable Flow Area) BY LAND USE I^ATFGORY Land Use Size Unit Retail Mall 1,125 ksf Retail 548 ksf Office 810 ksf Hotel 250 rooms Nae Land use allocations and square footap stated in the table are baud m the developers current 'bail guess• approximations of how the site may be developed. Table CV -2 Vehicle Trip Generation Rates Campos Verdes LAND USE UNIT pAII Y .:: LOCATION OF TRIP..RATE: LAND USE Residential: Single Family D.0 ` 10.0 Planning Areas 6 & 7 Multi -Farm] D.U.6 6 PlanninR Areas 3 & 5 Retail: Neighborhood Center (Approx. 110 ksf " Net Ac Planning Area 4 � x Office: ` Office Park Net Ac 200 Plannin¢ Area 2 Souroe ITE Trip Genm6on. Fourth Edition. - D.U. denote Dwelling Unit •• - ksf denotes Thousand Squaa: Feet Table CV -3 Vehicle Trip Generation Summary Campos Verdes • D.U. • Dwelling Unit PROJECT VEHICLE TRIPS LAND USE/ SIZE UNIT TOTAL AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour DEVELOPMENTAREA DAILY In Out Total In Out Total PLANNING AREA 2 Commercial Office 9.3 Net Ac 1 860 127 18 145 33 113 146 PLANNING AREA 3 Multi Family Residential 377 D.U's.' 2,495 30 138 168 118 59 177 PLANNING AREA 4 Neighborhood Retail Center 10 Net Ac. 8,000 295 114 409 223 351 574 PLANNING AREA 5 Multi Family Residential 267 D.U.'s 1,769 24 98 122 93 41 134 PLANNING AREA 6 ' Single Family Residential 141 D.U.'s 1,410 17 93 110 70 33 103 PLANNING AREA 7 Single Family Residential 65 D.U.'s 650 8 35 43 31 14 45 Project Total 16,184 501 496 997 568 611 1,179 • D.U. • Dwelling Unit (Table WH -3 continued; Table. WH -3 Vehicle Trip Generation Summary Winchester Hills Specific Plan Project Vehicle Trips AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Land Use Type by Sub -area P.A. TAZ Size Unit Daily in Out Total In Out Total Elementary School 11 212 11.2 Ac. 448 71 6 77 5 35 42 Neighborhood Park 6 395 7.2 Ac. 288 2 2 4 8 18 26 10 212 18.6 Ac. 744 8 6 14 15 27 42 Business Park 15 215 49.6 Ac. 6,448 452 61 513 128 391 519 16 214 70.5 Ac. 9,236 635 89 724 168 557 725 Commercial Office 7 404 248 KSFFA 2,753 196 27 223 55 168 223 Neighborhood Commercial 8 400 170 KSFFA 10,540 296 150 446 287 461 748 Total 46,702 1,850 11208 3,058 11543 2,039 3,582, M= M 111111111 MM M i 1IIM M �1111111111 mw. m = M M M 1IN11 >•. M MIM M M io so 111110 I11011 Ili w Table WH -3 Vehicle Trip Generation Summary Winchester Hills Specific Plan Project Vehicle Trips AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Land Use Type by Sub -area P.A. TAZ Size Unit Daily In Out Total In Out Total A) Single Family Residential 2 217 179 D.U. 1,790 19 69 88 105 42 147 3 399 155 D.U. 1,555 13 86 99 93 37 130 5 390 152 D.U. 1,520 18 84 102 89 34 123 9 213 258 D.U. 2,580 32 143 175 134 61 95 12 402 179 D.U. 1,790 21 97 118 96 43 139 13 403 175 D.U. 1,750 18 97 115 94 41 135 Multi Family Residential 1 398 235 D.U. 1,551 19 86 105 78 36 114 4 401 297 D.U. 1,960 30 108 138 99 47 146 Mobil Home Park 14 216 318 D.U. 1,749 20 97 117 89 41 130 Mble WH -3 continued; 'Fable WH -3 Vehicle Trip Generation Summary Winchester Hills Specific Plan Project Vehicle Trips AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Land Use Type by Sub -area P.A. TAZ Size Unit Daily In Out Total In Out Total Elementary School 11 212 11.2 Ac. 448 71 6 77 5 35 42 Neighborhood Park 6 395 7.2 Ac. 288 2 2 4 8 18 26 10 212 18.6 Ac. 744 8 6 14 15 27 42 Business Park 15 215 - 49.6 Ac. 6,448 452 61 513 128 391 519 16 214 70.5 Ac. 9,236 635 89 724 168 557 725 Commercial Office 7 404 248 KSFFA 2,753 196 27 223 55 168 223 Neighborhood Commercial 8 400 170 KSFFA 10,540 296 150 446 287 461 748 Total 46,702 1,850 1,208 3,058 19543 2,039 3,582 Table TRC -2 Vehicle Trip Generation Rates Regional Mall Alternative Temecula Regional Center Source: rrE Trip Generation, Fouts Edition except where noted ' - Sire noted only where site it used to determine trip rate. Floor area values ate based on current approximations. • - Estimated based on , ., ity to Regional Mall. bf - Thousand Square Feet (Gross Leasable Floor Mo) DAILY LOCATION OF LAND USE SIZE` UNIT ". TRIP RATE LAND USE RETAIL: Regional Mall 1,125 ksf 32 0 ` Sub -Area 2 Adjacent to Mall 32 0 ! " ' Sub -Area 2 Within Core Area 35 0 < " ": Sub -Area la & lb Fringe Area 40 0 `: " ' Sub -Area 3 OFFICE: small 40 ksf 24 4 Sub -Area 3 1, 350 ksf r l0 0 Sub -Area la Lar a 420 ksf 9 6 Sub -Area lb HOTEL room 87 _ > .... Sub -Area la Source: rrE Trip Generation, Fouts Edition except where noted ' - Sire noted only where site it used to determine trip rate. Floor area values ate based on current approximations. • - Estimated based on , ., ity to Regional Mall. bf - Thousand Square Feet (Gross Leasable Floor Mo) I U r Appdendix B I I I I I I I I I ' RIVSAN YEAR 2010 SOCIO-ECONOMIC DATA (INPUT FOR TRIP GENERATION) OCCUPIED MEDW( 1 SINGLE MULTI -FAMILY RETAIL TOTAL TOTAL IN COME TAZ D.U.'S D.U.S EMPLOYMENT EMPLOYMENT POPUUITION (1087 VS) 434 3979 1218 280 2420 13381 9729 ' 436 2843 872 145 985 9563 9729 437 1155 354 286 873 3885 9729 439 3463 1061 448 4421 11644 9729 440 1993 619 8 421 6713 9729 441 2295 704 1512 2970 7720 9729 446 4308 1321 455 6476 14491 9729 ' 447 5340 1635 680 4154 17956 9729 1 11 I 0 I I FOCUSED MODEL YEAR 2010 SOCIO—ECONOMIC DATA WITHOUT PROJECT roa oocLrm SPOCAZ FFAMY o0cupsm k% �AAMILY MAIL E/PLOYM ff TOM BM%DYMEM SAL PoruLA7W„ MEMM FAWY 1,a�7 VW 205 881 270 15 79 2965 9729 207 57 17 15 99 191 9729 209 85 26 7 49 287 9729 210 85 26 7 49 287 9729 211 0 0 22 20 0 9729 229 399 124 0 21 1343 9729 233 0 0 17 194 0 9729 234 597 183 43 169 2007 9729 235 35 11 9 111 116 9729 336 86 26 91 971 290 9729 337 0. 0 91 324 0 9729 338 0 0 159 583 0 9729 339 0 0 68 324 0 9729 341 0 0 46 466 0 9729 349 0 0 99 265 0 9729 350 485 149 90 221 1630 9729 429 307 95 2 84 1034 9729 430 0 0 170 415 0 9729 431 641 196 102 415 2156 9729 432 1143 350 18 88 3843 9729 433 848 260 0 44 2853 9729 434 645 197 70 678 2168 9729 435 745 228'. 383 2887 2503 9729 436 426 131 7 49 1435 9729 437 866 266 200 611 2914 9729 438 0 0 31 177 0 9729 439 242 74 90 442 815 9729 440 120 37 0 21 403 9729 441 344 106 184 1040 1158 9729 442 0 0 40 177 0 9729 443 0 0 40 177 0 9729 444 52 16 27 44 175 9729 445 294 90 31 44 990 9729 446 1292 396 68 324 .4347 9729 447 5324 1630 408 3323 17911 9729 478 227 70 29 79 765 9729 479 242 74 67 177 815 9729 480 16 5 2 84 54 9729 481 20 6 1 63 67 9729 482 142 44 22 197 478 9729 483 30 9 1 63 101 9729 484 398 122 22 25 1339 9729 485. 114 35 7 39 383 9729 486 115 35 151 386 386 9729 487 964 296 45 149 3242 9729 488 872 268 30 297 2934 9729 489 568 174 22 66 1910 9729 490 775 238 137 971 2608 9729 620 0 0 23 971 0 9729 621 0 0 70 971 0 9729 622 0 0 70 971 0 9729 623 289 89 86 262 _ 971 9729 624 1830 560 126 460 6155 9729 625 358 110 70 242 1204 9729 626 0 0 70 128 0 9729 627 0 0 17 218 0 9729 628 0 0 17 218 0 9729 629 80 24 0 0 268 9729 630 239 73 17 109 803 9729 706 597 183 17 85 2007 9729 707 398 122 17 121 1338 9729 708 1102 1d7 1 0• "I- ____ FOCUSED MODEL YEAR 2010 SOCIO-ECONOMIC DATA ' WITH PROJECT ocasFa SMU FAKW oauPm A6AI1-FAWIY FETAL To7AL TMAL UEDM FAWY 9ICOAIE TAZ .DALS DAYS ENROlMEM EAVkOAIEM POPUU010% (1967 VS) 205 881 270 15 79 2965 9729 207 57 17 15 99 191 9729 209 85 26 7 49 287 9729 210 85 26 7 49 287 9729 211 0 0 22 20 0 9729 229 399 124 0 21 1343 9729 ' 233 0 0 17 194 0 9729 234 597 183 43 169 2007 9729 235 35 11 9 111 116 9729 336 86 26 91 971 290 9729 337 0 0 91 324 0 9729 338 0 0 159 583 0 9729 339 0 0 68 324 0 9729 341 0 0 46 466 0 9729 349 0 0 99 265 0 9729 ' 350 485 149 90 221 1630 9729 429 307 95 2 84 1034 9729 430 0 0 170 415 0 9729 431 641 196 102 415 2156 9729 432 1143 350 18 88 3843 9729 433 848 260 0 44 2853 9729 434 645 197 70 678 2168 9729 435 436 745 426 228 131 383 7 2887 49 2503 1435 9729 9729 437 866 266 200 611 2914 9729 438 0 0 728. .3533 0 9729 439 242 74 90 442 815 9729 440 120 37 0 21 403 9729 441 344 106 184 1040 1158 9729 442 0 0 1202 1358 0 9729 ' 443 0 0 1127 1127 0 9729 444 206 644 311 1122 2189 9729 445 294 90 31 44 990 9729 446 1292 396 68 324 4347 9729 447 5324 1630 408 3323 17911 9729 478 479 227 242 70 74 29 67 79 177 765 815 9729 9729 480 16 5 2 84 54 9729 481 20 6 1 63 67 9729 482 142 44 22 197 478 9729 483 30 9 1 63 101 9729 484 398 122 22 25 1339 9729 485 114 35 7 39 383 9729 486 115 35 151 386 386 9729 487 964 296 45 149 3242 9729 488 872 268 30 297 2934 9729 489 568 174 22 66 1910 9729 490 775 238 137 971 2608 9729 620 0 0 23. 971 0 9729 621 0 0 70 971 0 9729 622 0 0 70 971 0 9729 623 289 89 86 262 971 9729 624 1830 560 126 460 6155 9729 625 358 110 70 242 1204 9729 626 0 0 70 128 0 9729 627 0 0 0 1128 0 9729 628 629 0 493 0 0 0 0 794 0 0 1269 9729 9729 630 923 532 359 1362 3746 9729 706 597 183 17 85 2007 9729 it i I r7 l I I �I I L n 1 1 RSVSAM 2OlO FOCUSED AREA NETWORK CNP ANALYSIS FOR TENECULA URBAN CORE PROJECTS 02DEC92 19: 19: !2 n LJ I 1 i 1 I I 1 1 11 1 =12 1 ORIGINAL RIVSAN 2030 NETWORK. CMP ANALYSIS FOR TEMECULA URBAN CORE PROJECTS 03OECB2 OG: !B: as 1 I 1 I 1 1 I L 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Appdendix C I HCM Intersection Analysis Worksheets ' Year 2010 Without Project I I I I ' NCM: SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION SUMMARY Center For Microcomputers In Transportation asassssassssssssssssssssssass..arisassasassssasussssaassssuvss ' Streets: (E -W) WINCHESTER RD (N -S) 1-15 SB RAMPS Analyst: ERIC UNDERWOOD File Meme: 5106AMWD.HC9 I.D. 1 Area Type: Other 10-28-92 AM PEAK Comment: CMP/RIVSAN 2010 WITHOUT PROJECT; MODE 5106 susysysusuessssassauusussasssosssssavussssssasasssssaasv Eestbourd Westbound Northbound I Southbm L T. R L T R L T R I L T R �____ ---- -------- ---- -------- ---- -------- ---- Mo. Lanes 1 2 1 2 1 ---- 2 Volume 1 434 1231 689 1 1 32 182 ' Lane Width 1 12.0 12.01 12.0 1 112.0 RTOR Vols 01 01 12.0 0_ _.__....__.. ..__ ______________!___________ Signal Operations Phase combination 1 2 3 4 1 5 6 7 8 ' ES Left IMB Left Thru • 1 Thru Right • Right Pew • IPads WB Left • 136 Left • Thru 1 Thru Right Right . • ' Peds 'Peds MB Right JEB Right SB Right • INS Right ' Green 8A 33A I Green 27A Yellow/A-R '4 4 IT*ttm/A-R A Lost Tiny 3.0 3.0 Lost Tim 3.0 Cycle Length: 80 sees Phase comblnstion order- tt 02 05 1 ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Intersection Performance Sumery Lane croup: Ad) Sat V/c ac Approach: Mvnts Cap Flow Ratio Ratio Daisy LOS Delay LOS .--.. ---- ._•---- ----- ----- •---- •_. _- EB T 3561 1515 0.32 0.43 9.9 B 9.8 __. B R 1515 6" 0.20 0.43 9.4 B WB T 3561 1515 0.50 0.43 11-1 B 11.1 B SB L 1Si5 530 0.06 0.35 13.1 B 8.7 B R 3029 1401 0.14 0.46 8.0 B Intersection Delay a 10.2 (see/veh) Intersection LOS • 8' --------------------------------------------- ---------------------- I F NCM: SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION SUMMARY Center For Microcomputers In Transportation Streets: (E -W) WINCHESTER RD (N -S) 1-15 SR RAMPS Analyst: ERIC UNDERWOOD File Name: 5106PM610.HC9 I.D. D 1 Area Type: Other 10-28-92 PM PEAK Coaaent: OMP/RIVSAM 2010 WITHOUT PROJECT; MODE 5106 •a.oacsts ascsca•ccsceocsccesccssccacscc•csv Eastbound Westbound Morthbcx Southboud L T R L T R L T R L T R No. lanes 2 1 2 1 2 Volume 1 608 3271 663 1 100 600 Lane Width 1 12.0 12.01 12.0 1 112.0 12.0 RTOR Vols 1 01 01 1 0 .........................................^•....._._-.....-....-..-.... Signet Operations Phase combination 1 2 3 4 1 5 6 7 8 ER Left IND Left Thru I Thru Right I Right Peds 1 Pegs • NO Left • 'Iss Left Thru • Thru Right Right Peds •. Pads • NO Right JEO Right SO Right • jN Right Orem 25A 26A lGreen 27A Yellow/A-R 4 4 jYalloN/A•R 4 Lost Tim 3.0 3.0 ILosit Tim 3.0 Cycle LwVth: 90 sees Phase combination order: 61 62 #5 Intersection Performrce Suaoery Lary Group: Ad1 Sat V/C g/C Approwh: "Vete ..... Cap Flow Ratio Ratio Delay LOS Delay LOS EO T -"' 35" """' 1069 ----------""• 0.63 0.30 18.3 --- C ----- --- 19.7 C R 1515 455 0.76 0.30 22.6 C NO T . 3564 1069 0.69 0.30 19.0 C 19.0 C 'SO L 1515 471 0.22 0.31 17.5 C 7.6 O R 3029 1817 0.37 .0.60 6.0 O Intersection Delay • 15.8 (see/Veh) Intersection LOS • C NCM: SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION SUMMARY Center For Microcomwters In Transportation axacxxaa:xsaaaxx.....xxxxsasaaxaxax.......... ............ sxxxxa:asxa Streets: (E -W) WINCHESTER RD (N -S) I-15 NR RAMPS Analyst: ERIC UNDERWOOD File Name: 51D9AMWD. HC9 I.D. D 2 Area Type: Other 10-28-92 AM PEAK Comment: CMP/RIVSAN 2010 WITHOUT PROJECT/ MODE 5109 Eastbound L T R I_... ---- __-- _--- No. Lanes 1 2 Volume 271 218 Lane Width 112.0 12.0 RTOR Vols 10 -------------------------- Westbound I Morthbaed I Scuthba■id L T R L T R L T R --- ---- ---- I ---- ---- ---- I ---- ---- ---- 2 1 11 2-1 918 1721 2731 12.0 12.012.0 12.0 -_ OI_ 8' 1 L� Signal Operations Phase combination 1 2 3 4 1 S 6 7 8 Es Left • INS Left Thru • • Thru Right Right ' Peds NB Left Peds ISO Left Thru I Thru Right I Right Peds I Peds ' MR Right JES Right Sl Right INS Right Green 15A 28A Green ISA Yellow/A-R 4 4 ITelloW/A-R 4 ' Lost Time 3.0 3.0 It.ost Time 3.0 Cycle Length: 70 sees Phase combination order: 01 82 05 ' --------------------------------------------- .. .------------- Intersection Performance Summary ----------- Lw Group: Adj Sat V/e a/c Approach: "Vats Cap Flow Ratio Ratio Delay LOS Delay LOS 1 --------- ER L ------- 1693 ----- 387 0.74 ---------- 0.23 24.0 --- C ----- 14.1 --- R T 35" - 2444 0.10 0.69 2.4 A W T 3564 1477 0.69 0.41 11.6 R 11.2 8 R 1515 626 0.29 0.41 8.9 R NR L 1515 346 0.30 0.23 17.1 C 16.0 C . R 2673 611 0.49 0.23 15.6 C Intersection Delay • 12.8 (see/veh)Intersection LOS • R 1 _--------------•_----.-•---_-..____ _--_--.---- ___. 1 L� MCH: SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION SUMMARY t Center For Microcomputers In Transportation aaaaxxaavaaasaazaaa—axeeczaaaa_-cvaaxavxaasaasaazzasaasaaa_-xaaaaaax Streets: (E -W) WINCHESTER RD (M -S) 1.15 M8 RAMPS , Analyst: ERIC UNDERWOOD File Nage: 5109PMWO.MC9 I.•D• 2 Area Type: Other 10-28-92 PM PEAK Cement: CMP/RIVSAN 2010 WITHOUT PROJECT) NODE 5109 as asasaaasvaaaaaasa ' Eastbound West" I Morthbourd I Southbaad L T R L T R L T R L T R �..__ "" -------- ---- ------_- ---- -------- No. Lanes 1 2 2 1 1 1 2 1 ---- ---- ' Volumes 199 499 1 686 881 223 542 Lane Width 112.0 12-0 1 12.0 12.012.0 12.0 . RTOR Vo(s._I____......._ OIOI ' .............0' Signal Operations Phase combination 1 2 3 4 1 5 6 7 8 ER Left • IMB Left • , Thru • • Thru Right Right - Peds Peds WB Left JSB Left ' Thru • Thru Right • Right Peds Peds , MB Right JED Right $B Right JWB Right Green IDA 2011 jGrean 28A Yellom/A-R 4 4 iYellam/A-R 4 ' Lost Tina 3.0 3.0 Lost Tim 3.0 Cycle Length: 70 secs Phase Combination order: 91 g2 g5 ----'------------------------------------------------ ----- -C"" - Intersection Performance Summery ' Lane Group: Ad) Sat v/C g/c Approach: " mvmts Cap Flom Ratio Ratio Delay LOS Delay LOS EB L 1695 266 0.79 0.16 31.3 D 13.5 -B- 1 3564 1782 0.31 0.50 6.7 B WO T 3564 1069 0.71 0.30 15.4 C 15.0 B R 1515 455 0.20 0.30 11.8 B ' MB L 1515 628 0.37 0.41 11.0 B 10.5 B R 2675 1107 O.S4 0.41 10.4 B Intersection Delay • 13.0 (set/veh)----------Intersection-LOS a B- _------------------------------------- --- , fl NCM: SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION SUMMARY Center For Microcmaputers In Transportation cscaaazzzxxxzazsssazzaazasazaaesazcnasacez:sseszassassazzsszsszussuu ' Streets: (E -W) WINCHESTER RD (N -S) YNEZ RD Analyst: ERIC UNDERWOOD File None: 3727AMWO.HC9 Area Type: Other 10-28.92 AN PEAK I.D. 3 Comment: CMP/RIVSAN 2010 WITHOUT PROJECT; NODE 3727 ' ......s...... s .....moxasavzzuasasussasaussssuuazassuussus Eastbo4 I Westbound I Morthbo4 I Sauthbou+d L T R I L T R l L T R I L T R ' No. Lanes I---- ---- .------- ---- _--'---- -_.----- 1---- ---- 1 1 3 1 1 1 3 1 1 2 2 1 1 1 2 .___ 1 Volumes 1 61 300 1311 2S5 650 ibl 319 199 1811 37 242 121 lane Width 111.0 11.0 12.0112.0 12.0 10.0111.0 12.0 12.0111.0 11.0 11.0 ' RTOR Vols 0101 01 0_ Signet Operations Phase combination / 2 3 4 1 S 6 7 8 ' EB Left • 1NB Left Thru 1 Thru Right 1 Right Peds a 1 Pads WS Left ISB Left Thru • I Thru Right • I Right ' Pads 1 Peds NB Right • IEB Right SB Right • 1WB Right ' Green yellow/A-R 37A 17A 4 4 (Green I" 16A ITeltow/A-R 4 4 Lost Time 3.0 3.0 ILost Time 3.0 3.0 Cycle Length: 100 sees Phase combination order: 01 92 65 06 - "'.'.--""'.-""---_-.--------.-. - ___"-_-.---._."'----- -- ---------- Intersection Perforssnce Summary Lane Group: Adj Sat V/c g/c Approach: Nvmts Cap Flow Ratio Ratio Delay LOS Delay LOS ER l 1642 624 0.10 0.38 15.2 C 20.6 C 7 5186 933 0.37 0.18 23.4 C R 1515 Soo 0.28 0.33 16.0 C WB l 1693 643 0.42 0.38 17.6 C 25.0 C T 5346 962 0.78 0.18 27.8 D R 1409 254 0.19 0.18 22.5 C MB L 3181 477 0.74 0.15 35.0 D 24.9 C ' - T 3564 606 0.36 0.17 23.9 C R 1515 833 0.23 0.55 7.5 8 SB L 1642 246 . 0.16 0.1S 28.1 D 19.7 ,C T 3457 588 0.46 0.17 24.5 C R 1469 808 0.16 0.55 7.2 B Intersection Delay • 23.3 Csee/veh) Intersection LOS a C _--. _.."---- ---------"' _"_-. _.'---_..."---_--'. _------. _. _...--... _ 1 NCM: SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION SUMMARY Center For Microcoaputers In Transportation ua..s.......... s.a.a........ .sass... ..... ............ .......... Streets: ():-W) WINCHESTER RD (N -S) YNEZ RD . Analyst: ERIC UNDERWOOD File Nam: 3727PMWO.HC9 - I.D. 3 Area Type: Other 10-28-92 PH PEAK Comment: CMP/RIVSAN 2010 WITHOUT PROJECT; NODE 3727 Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound L T R L T R L T RL T R �._-- ---- -------- ------------ ------------ ---- ---- No. Lanes 1 3 1 1 3 1 1 2 2 1 1 1 2 1 Volumes 150 6% 1971 334 459 591 183 401 2781 61 291 132 Lane Width 111.0 11.0 12.012.0 12.0 10.011.0 12.0 12.011.0 11.0 11.0 RIM Vols I 111 01 01 0 ---------------------------------------------- ------------------- Signal Operations Phase combination 1 2 3 4 1 5 6 7 8 ER Left • INS Left Thru I Thru Right I Right Pads I Peds We Left ISII Left Thru • Thru Right • Right Pads • Peds • . NR Right • IES Right S8 Right • jug Right Green 25A 34A IGreen IDA ISA Yellow/A-R 4 4 ITellow/A-R 4 4 Lost Tim 3.0 3.0 ILost Tim 3.0 3.0 Cycle Length: 100 sect Phase combination order: 81 82 85 06 -__•.......................•__..........---.--.------------------------ Intersection Performance Sua try Lane Group: Adj Sat V/c a/c Approach: "vats ----- Cap ----------- Flow Ratio ----- Ratio Delay ----- ----- LOS --- Delay LOS EB L 1642 427 0.37 0.26 23.3 C ----- --- 16.3 C T 5186 1815 0.44 0.35 16.3 C R 1515 697 0.30 0.46 11.0 8 We L 1693 440 0.80 0.26 33.2 D 21.8 C T 5346 1871 0.28 0.35 15.2 C R 1409 493 0.13 0.35 14.3 8 NO L 3181 350 0.58 0.11 33.9 D 25.8 D T 3564 570 0.78 0.16 30.0 D R 1515 636 0.46 0.42 13.8 R SS L 1642 181 0.35 0.11 31.8 D 23.1 C T 3457 553 0.58 0.16 26.1 0 R 1469 617 0.23 0.42 12.0 8 Intersection Delay • ----------------------------------------------------------------------- 21.2 (sec/vah) Intersection LOS • C 1 MCM: SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION SUMMARY Center For Microcaiputers In Transportation __asst&;s 4Waasasasaasasaussaaasaaasasaassaasaaaammssassssasaasaa Streets:: (-) WINCHESTER RD (N -S) REGIONAL CTR. DRIVE Analyst: HAS File Mame: 1397ANWO.NC9 Area Type: Other 11-11-92 AN PEAK I.D. 4 Coeemnt: CMP/RVSAN 2010 WITHOUT PROJECT; MODE 1397 msssmaasasammmassssasavmaosaavvaaasaoasasassssmasaa 1 Eastbound 1 Westbound I Northbasri I Southbmrd I L T R I L T R 1 L T R I L T ---- ----I---- ---- R I---- ----I---- -.-- ----I---- ---- No. Lanes 1 3 1. 1 1 3 1 1 1 1 --.- Volumes 1 479 381 13 939 1 12 41 Lane Width 1 12.0 10.0112.0 12.0 112.0 12.01 . 01 RTOR Volt 1 OI _.01_____.______ . Signal Operations Phase coebirution 1 2 3 4 I . 5 6 7 EB Left JOB Left 8 Thru I Thru Right 1 Right Pads I Pads ' NO left • ISS Left Thru • 1 Thru Right 1 Right Peds 1 Peds .NB Right 1EB Right SB Right JIM Right Green 50A IGreen 22A ' Yelton/A-R 4 IYaI(or/A-R 4 Lost Timm 3.0 (Lost Tim 3.0 Cycle Length: 80 sees Phase combination order: 01 05 . ------------------------- •__.__.-__--.-.-•--""---------------•------- Intersection Performance Sum ary na LaGroup: Adj Sat V/c a/c Approach: Nvmts Cap Flow Ratio Ratio Delay LOS Delay LOS ---------------- ----- ----- -----"- ----- EB T 5346 3408 0.16 0.64 3.8 A 3.3 --- A R 1409 .898 0.04 0.64 3.5 A WB L 933 595 0.03 0.64 4.1 A 4.3 A T 5346 3408 0.32 0.64 4.3 A NO L 1515 436 0.03 0.29 15.6 C 15.0 B R 1515 436 0.01 0.29 13.2 B Intersection Delay• 4.2 (see/vtl)Intersection LOS • A _--__----•--_---..-------"'--------'_---._----- ---- 1 MCM: SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION SUMMARY Center For Microcomputers In Transportation Streets: (E -N) WINCHESTER RD (M -S) REGIONAL CTR. DRIVE Analyst: HAS File Name: 1397PMW.MC9 Area Type: Other 11-11-92 PM PEAK I.D.-4 Comment- CMP/RVSAN 2010 WITHOUT PROJECT; NODE 1397 ••s•ss•�s•mss•uva•as•s•as•evvse�•m•••avH••vaaa•ayss• Eastboud I Westbound Northbound I Southbovd L T R I L T R 1 L T R 1 L T R - �---- ---- ----1---- ---- .._'---- ---- ----1---- ---- ---- No. Lanes 1 3 1 1 1 3 1 1 1 1 Volumes 1 1010 261 12 814 1 39 161 Lane Width 1 12.0 10.0112.0 12.0 112.0 12.01 RTOR Vols 1 01 01 01 ....................................................................... Signal Operations Phase combination 1 2 3 4 1 5 6 7 e EG Left IMG Left a Thru • I Thru Right • I Right Pads I Peds MG Left ISO Left Ther • I Thru Right I Right Peds I Peds MG- Right 1ES Right SB Right 1we Right Green SGA [Green 18A Yellow/A-R 4 IYellw/A-K 4 Lost Time 3.0 ILost Time 3.0 Cycle Length: 80 mace Phase combination order: 61 05 ---------------------------------- ------------------------------------ . Intersection Performance Summery Law Group: Ad) Sat v/e g/c Approach: "vote ..... COP Flow Ratio Ratio Delay LOS Delay LOS EG T ---- -"'--- 5346 3675 ----- 0.32 ----- ----- 0.69 3.2 --- A ----- --- 3.2 A' R 1409 969 0.06 0.69 2.6 A MG L 401 276 0.05 0.69 3.1 A 3.1 A T 5346 3675 0.26 0.69 3.1 A. MG L. 1515 360 0.11 0.24 18.2 C . 17.3 C R 1515 360 OAS 0.24 15.2 C Intersection Delay a --_-...-•------------------------------------------------'_--_-----_--- 3.5 (sec/veh) Intersection LOS • A NCM: SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION SUMMARY Center For Hicrocomputers In Transportation Streets: (E -V) NINCHESTER RD (N -S) REGIONAL CENTER RD Amiyat: ERIC UNDERWOOD File Name: 1988AMWO.NC9 I.D. 5 Area Type: Other 10-28-92 AN PEAK Camnent: CHP/RIVSAN 2010 WITHCUT PROJECT; NODE 1988 =i==i=ii==i=i=t=ii=iii=i. i==iii.....iiiiitiiiiii==ii 1 Esstta I Westbound I Morthbor Southbound I L T R I L T R I L T R I L T R Mo. lanes I---- ---_ ----I---- ---- 1 1 3 1 1 1 3 ----I---- ---- ----1---- ---- ---- 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1< Volumes I .40 439 41 2 942 181 2 2 21 7 2 15 Lane Width 112.0 12.0 10.0112.0 12.0 10.0112.0 12.0 12.0112.0 12.0 RTOR Vols ---- I. O'_ - -__ ..._-.-I--------------I..-.._---._ Signet Operations Phase combination 1 2 3 4 1 5 6 7 a ' Ea. Left • IMB Left Thru • I Thru Right • I Right Pada •I Pads . WB Left • ISB Left Thru • I Thru Right • I Right Pads I Peds ' MB Right • JEB Right SB Right 1WB Right Gree0 17A 30A (Green SA 22A Yellow/A-R 4 4 1TelloN/A-R 4 4 Lost Tine 3.0 3.0 (Lost Time 3.0 3.0 Cycle Length: 90 sees Phase combination order: a1 02 05 96 - Intersection Performance Sumary Lane Group: Adj Sat V/c a/c Approach: NVWU Cap Flow Ratio Ratio Delay LOS Delay LOS --------- EB L """' ----- 1693 339 0.12 ---------- ... ..... "' 0.20 22.5 C 14.5 a ' T 5346 1841 0.28 0.34 13.8 a R 1409 $79 0.01 0.41 10.1 a WB L 1695 339 0.01 0.20 21.9 C 16.0 C T 5346 1841 0.59 0.34 16.0 C R 1409 485 0.04 0.34 12.7 a 118 L 1693 113 0.02 0.07 29.8 D 18.2 C T 1782 455 0.00 0.26 16.1 C R 1515 690 0.00 0.46 6.6 a SB L 1695 113 0.06 0.07 29.9 D 20.1 C TR Intersection 1544 395 0.05 Delay • 15.5 (see/veh) 0.26 16.3 C Intersection LOS • C __ """"" """"""""""' -- ----._----- "'-""""""" NCM: SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION SUMMARY Center For Microcmputer$ In Transportation .....z....z..............................sz................va..say. Streets: (E -W) WINCHESTER RD (M -S) REGIONAL CENTER RD Analyst: ERIC UNDERWOOD Fite Name: 1988PNW'.HC9 I.D. 5 Area Type: Other 10-28-92 PN PEAK Comment: CNP/RIVSAN 2010 WITHOUT PROJECT; NODE 1988 - ---------------------------•--_-----__._------------------------------- Eastbound Westbound Morthboi ( Southbound L T R L T R L T R L T R Mo. Lanes �---- ---- ---- 1 3 1( __-- ---- -------- ---- ---- 1 3 1 1 1 1 1 ---- ---- ---- 1 1 1 < Volumes 1 42 981 31 2 M 191 2 2 21 35 9 54 Lane Width 112.0 12.0 10.012.0 12.0 10.0112.0 12.0 12.012.0 12.0 RTOR Vols 1 01 01 111 0 - ---------------------------•--_-----__._------------------------------- Signal Operations Phase combination 1 2 3 4 1 . 5 6 7 B EB Left • INS Left Thru I Thru Right I Right Peds I Pads WB Left • ISB Left Thru • Thru Right • Right Peds • Peds • . MB Right • SEB Right SR Right INS Right Green M 3M 1 Green ICA 2M TettoN/A-R 4 4 IYalloN/A-R 4 4 Lost Tin 3.0 3.0 fLost Tim 3.0 3.0 Cycle Length: 90 secs Phase combination order: 61 92 /5'06 ....................................................................... _ Intersection Performance Summary Lane Grail: AdJ Sat We g/c Approach: Nob --------- Cap ------- Flow Ratio ----- Ratio Delay ----- ----- LOS Delay LOS ES L 1693 132 0.33 0.06 30.4 --- D ----- --- 16.6 C T 5346. 1841 0.62 0.34 16.3 C R 1409 658 0.00 0.47 8.3 B WB L 1693 132 0.02 0.06 29.1 0 15.1 C T 5346 1841 0.48 0.34 15.1 C R 1409 485 0.04 0.34 12.7 B BB L. 1693 207 0.01 0.12 26.4 D 16.7 C T 1782 574 0.00 0.32 13.4 B _ R 1515 606 -0.00 0.40 10.5 B $B L 1693 207 0.18 0.12 27.0 0 18.6 C TR 1552 500 0.13 0.32 14.0 B Intersection Daisy . --••--------------------••-----•-- 16.2 (see/veh) ------------------------------------ Intersection LOS . C 11 J NCM: SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION SUMMARY Center for Microcomputers In Transportation ' .u.a... mi ........................................... Streets: (E -W) WINCHESTER RD CN -S) MARGARITA RD Analyst: ERIC UNDERWOOD file Name: 2154AMWO.HC9 I.D. 6 Area Type: Other 10-28-92 AM PEAK Comment: CNP/RIVSAN 2010 WITHOUT PROJECT; NODE 2154 ' C.ii.iS.Lii2i.iiiO•..Ri....iY {Ri.iiiRf.ip Eastboo Westbot Northbmnd Southbound L T R L T R L T R L T R No. Lanes 1 3 1 1 3 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 2 1 Voluoes 1 113 858 251 132 762 331 14 41 1091 26 41 59 Lane Width 112.0 12.0 10.0112.0 12.0 10.012.0 12.0 8.012.0 12.0 8.0 ' RTOR Vols__I____.______. OI O!___________. 01.:.________ O_ Signal Operations ' Phase combination 1 2 3 4 ER Left -• 1 5 6 7 1615 Left a Thru • Thru Right • Right Pals • Pads Wit Left • ISO Left Thru I Thru • Right . I Right Peds I Pads YR Right • IEg Right so Right • IWe Right Green - 11A 29A IGreen I" 28A yellow/A-R 4 4 ITellow/A-R 4 4 Lost Time 3.0 3.0 dost Tian 3.0 3.0 Cycle Length: 100 sen Phase combination order: 01 02 85 06 ____•______..____•________________________•--_•-"""""""""""- . - Intersection Performance Summary Lana Grarp: Adj Sat We a/c Approach: Meats Cap- flow Ratio Ratio Delay LOS Delay LOS ""' Ell L "" """' ----- 1693 203 0.59 ----- ----- --- ----- 0.12 34.8 D 21.2 --- C T 5346 1604 0.62 0.30 19.9 C R 1409 662 0.04 0.47 9.2 9 NO L 1693 203 0.68 0:12 38.2 D 21.6 C T 5346 1604 0.55 0.30 •19.2 C R 1409 423 0.08 0.30 16.2 C Ng L 1693 288 0.05 0.17 26.4 0 14.6 g ' T 3564 1034 0.04 0.29 .16.5 C R 1318 S40 0.21 0.41 12.3 8 SB l 1693 288 0.09 0.17 26.6 D 16.4 C T 3564 1034 0.04 0.29 16.5 C ' R 1318 540 0.11 0.41 11.8 8 Intersection Delay • 20.7 (see/veh) Intersection LOS • C 1 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 11 J NCH: SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION SUMMARY Center For Microcomputers In Transportation sssacaa_=sasaasasaasasasaawaaassasaasaaaasaaaaasaaa .....:awes. Streets: (E -W) WINCHESTER RO (N -S) MARGARITA RD Analyst: ERIC UNDERWOOD File Name: 2154PHW.NC9 ' D. 6 Area Type: Other 10-28-92 PM PEAK Comment: CMP/RIVSAN 2010 WITHOUT PROJECT; MODE 2154 No. Lanes volumes Lane width RTOR Vols Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound L T R L I R L T R L T R 1 3 1 1 3 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 2 1 54 402 121 136 791 271 15 15 861 29 37 111 12.0 12.0 10.012.0 12.0 10.012.0 12.0 8.012.0 12.0 8.0 01 01 01 0 ----------------- Signal Operation Phase combination 1 2 3 4 1 5 6 7 8 ER Left • Approach- SNS Left Thru Cap "" Flow """' I Thru Delay Right Delay LOS I Right 1693 Peds •"" 0.26 0.13 29.9 I Peds ----- 18.5 WS Left • T SSR Left 0.29 Thru 17.4 • Thru Right 1409 • 0.02 Right 9.5 Peds • WS I Posts 1693 NO Right • 0.13 35.9 JE8 Right 21.5 SS Right • T 53" JW Right 0.57 Green 12A 29A lGreen TSA 28A Telles/A-R - 4 4 0.07 Irillow/A-R 4 4 Lost Tim 3.0 3.0 NS Lost Tim 3.0 3.0 Cycle Length: 100 sees Phase combination order: 81 42 15 06 ............................................................ Intersection Performance Summery Lana Gra*: Adl get We g/d Approach- Mvmts ----- Cap "" Flow """' Ratio Ratio -----""- Delay LOS Delay LOS ER L 1693 220 •"" 0.26 0.13 29.9 "' D ----- 18.5 --- C T 5346 1604 0.29 0.30 17.4 C R 1409 648 0.02 0.46 9.5 8 WS L 1693 220 0.65 0.13 35.9 D 21.5 C - T 53" 1604 0.57 0.30 19.4 C R 1409 423 0.07 0.30 16.1 C NS L 1693 271 .0.06 0.16 27.1 D 14.3 9 T 3564 1034 0.02 0.29 16.4 C R 1318 554 0.16 0.42 11.7 8 S8 L 1693 271 0.11 0.16 27.3 D 15.5 C T 3564 1034 0.04 0.29 16.5 C R 1318 554 0.21 0.42 11.9 8 Intersection Delay • 19.6 (sec/veh) Intersection LOS a C 1 1 NCH: SIGNALIZED INTERSEC710N SUMMARY Center For Microcomputers In Transportation ussvxsaza•saaza•zusazsaesaxzzuzazzszzsuuuuaaaszzaasazuzzzv Streets: <E-Y)N tCOLAS RD SN -S) WINCHESTER RD ' Analyst: ERIC UNDERWOOD File Name: 3726AIW.HC9 I.D. 7 Area Type: Other 10-28.92 AN PEAK Comment: Oro/RIVSAN 2010 WITHOUT PROJECT/ NODE 3726 s vz•az•suaas•azsza•azzuza Eastbound I Westbound I Northbound 1 Southbound L T R I L T R I L T R I L T R --__ -___ ••••i- • •••• ---- -___ -_ ; 3-- --•• •• •••• No. Lanes 2 3 Volumes I 1 27 1371 436 31 37 780 Lane Width I 112.0 12.01 12.0 11.0112.0 12.0 RTOR Vols I I 01 --------••••• O •••••-_•-_ ----• Signet Operation Phase combination 1 2 3 A l S 6 7 8 ' ES Left IN Left Thru 1 Thru Right 1 Right Peds I Pada ' W Left • MSB Left Thru 1 Thru Right • I Right Pads) Peds VB Right IES Right SR Runt IWB Right Green 15A (Green 57A Yellow/A-R A 1TelloN/A-R A ' Lost Tim 3.0 ILost Tine 3.0 Cycle Length: 80 sees Phase combination order: 01 05 ' .. Intersection Performance Summary Lana Group: AdJ gat v/C aft Approach: Nvata Cap FIoN Ratio Ratio Delay LOS Delay LOS ----- .... ____ _______ _____ _____ ___ _ __• -•-•• M L 2673 535 0.05 0.20 19.7 C 19.2 1 •-_ C R 1515 303 0.48 0.20 19.1 C HB T 53" 3876 0.13 0.73 2.2 A 2.2 A R 1A69 1065 0.00 0.73 2.0 A SS L 1019 739 0.05 0.73 2.4 A 2.4 A T 53" 3876 0.23 0.73 2.4 A Intersection Delay • 1,.1 (see/veh) Intersection LOS • A 1 —•__••___•-•_•___--___••-___-•_______________________••-••-•---•••---___ 1 1 MCi: SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION SUMART Center For Microcomputers In Transportation .... ...... ...u..n...................................a.:..... Streets: (E -W) NICOLAS RD (M -S) WINCHESTER RD Analyst: ERIC LMR)ERWOOD Fite Mame: 3726PNWO.HC9 Area Type: Other 10-28-92 PH PEAK I.D. 7 Comment: CMP/RIVSAN 2010 WITHOUT PROJECT; MODE 3726 Eastbound Wastboud Northbound Southbound L T R L T R L T R L T R �____ ---- ---- ---- -"' _--- ---- ---- -------- ---- ---- No. Lanes 2 1 1 3 1 1 1 3 Volumes 17 1111 819 301 158 756 Lane Width 112.0 12.01 12.0 11.012.0 12.0 RTOR Vols 1 01 01 0 ----------------------------------------------------------------------- . Signal operations Phase combination 1 2 3 4 1 5 6 7 8 Et Left SMB left Thr Thr Right Right Peds Pads WB Left • JSB Left • Thr Thr Right • Right Pods Pads M8 Right JE8 Right \SB Right JIB Right Green 15A lGreen 57A Telles/A-R 4 ITellor/A-R i Lost Tim 3.0 Lost Tim 3.0 Cycle Length: 80 secs Phase combination order: 61 05 ------------------------------•-----•-------------------_--•----------- Intersectlon Performance Summary lw Gray: Adj Sat we a/c Approach: Nvwts Cap Flow Ratio Ratio Delay LOS Delay LOS -•--- ----------- ..... ----- --- ----- -.. W L 2673 535 0.04 0.20 19.6 C 18.5 C R 1515 303 0.39 0.20 18.3 C W T 5346 3876 0.24 0.73 2.4 A 2.4 A R 1469 1065 0.03 0.73 2.0 A ,SB L 586 425 0.39 0.73 3.5 A 2.5 A T 5346 3876 0.23 8.73 2.3 A Intersection Daly • 3.5 (sec/veh) Intersection LOS • A _-•____••____...____••--_-____•_____-.-•-----------------•-"""'----- HCM: SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION SIMMART Center For Microcomputers In Transportation :ssss.z.sss..zz....s.z..v..z....... z................................z: Streets: (E -W) MURRIETA NOT SPRINGS (M -S) WINCHESTER RD Analyst: ERIC UNOERWODD File Maine: 3517ANWO.HC9 Area Type: Other 10-28-92 AN PEAK I.D. 8 Comment: CMP/RIVSA)l 2010 WITHOUT PROJECT; MODE 3517 Eastbound I Westborad I Northbound I Southbound L T R I L T R I L T R I L T R I---- ---- ----t---- ---- ----I---- ---- ----I---- ---- ---- No. Lanes 1 1 2 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 2 1 Valvas 1 196 335 681 11 $43 1141 56 342 181 75 210 119 Lane Width 112.0 12.0 8.0112.0 12.0 8.0112.0 12.0 10.0112.0 12.0 10.0 RTOR vela 1 01 01 01 0 ---------------------------------------------------- Signal Operations Phase combination 1 2 3 4 1 5 6 7 8 EB Left INB Left Thru • I Thru Right 1 Right Peds • I Peds • WB Left • 1SB Left Thru • I Thru Right • I Right Pada •. I Pads RB Right 1EB Right SB Right 1WB Right Green 13A 20A (Green 9A 22A Yellow/A-R 4 4 ITelloW/A-R 4 4 Lost Time 3.0 3.0 1Lost Time 3.0 3.0 Cycle Length: 80 sees Phase combination order: 81 02 /5 06 -_ --------- _----------- .------._____.______.____.__ Intersection Performance Summry Lane Group: Adj Sat V/a a/c Approach: Mw ----- Cap ------- Fla Ratio Ratio Delay LOS Delay LOS EB L 1693 296 ----- 0.70 ----- ----- 0.17 28.3 --- ----- 0 19.7 --- C T 3564 936 0.40 0.26 15.8 C R 1318 346 0.21. 0.26 14.9 8 14 L 1693 2% 0.04 0.17 20.8 C 17.5 C T 3564 936 0.64 0.26 17.8 C R 1318 346 0.35 0.26 15.7 C NO L 1695 212 0.28 0.13 24.3 C .15.9 C 7 3564 1025 0.37 0.29 14.8 B R 1409 405 0.05 0.29 13.3 a SB l 1693 212 0.36 0.13 24.9 C 16,1 C T 3564 1025 0.23 0.29 14.0 B R 1409 405 0.31 0.29 14.5 B Intersection Delay a 17.5 Caen:/veh) Intersection LOS • C NCM: SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION SUMMARY Center For Microcomputers In Transportation usaaasaaasasuasu--------au:aassuasuessuassasasazzsssaxaasssxaa Streets: (E -W) MURRIETA NOT SPRINGS (N -S) WINCHESTER RD Analyst: ERIC UNDERWOOD File Name: 3517PMWO.HC9 Area Type: Other 10-28-92 PM PEAK I.D. 8 Convent: CMP/RIVSAN 2010 WITHOUT PROJECT; NODE 3517. ssuas asassmoazsasasaa:aasasaaaaaz Eastband Westbasd Northbasd I Southbound L T R L T R L T R I L T R �_--- ------------ ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- I ---- ---- ---- No. Lanes 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 2 1 valuses ( 226 300 661 14 524 .1361 60 367 211 34 111 63 Lane Width 112.0 12.0 8.0 12.0 12.0 8.012.0 12.0 10.0 12.0 12.0 10.0 RTOR Vols 1 01 01 01 0 ................. Signal Operations Phase Combination 1 2 3 4 1 S 6 7 e ER left • 1N8 left Adj get Thru g/C • Thru Right Marts ----- • Flow ------- Right Ratio Peds LOS • LOS ' Peds L WB Left • ----- 0.75 JSg Left --- D Thru --- C • T Thru 936 Right 0.26 • C Right Peds R • 3" Peds 0.26 NS Right S JES Right L $8 Right 317 0.05 0.19 IWS Right C Green I" 20A T jareen 9A 21A Yellow/A-R 4 4 C jYettw/A-R 4 4 Lost Time 3.0 3.0 3" jLost Time 3.0 3.0 Cycle Length: 80 sees Phase Combination order: S1 92 05 66 ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Intersection Performance Summery Lane Group: Adj get V/C g/C Approach: Marts ----- Cap ---- Flow ------- Ratio Ratio Delay LOS Delay LOS ER L 1693 317 ----- 0.75 ----- 0.19 ----- 29.8 --- D ----- 20.8 --- C T 3564 936 0.35 0.26 15.6 C R 1318 3" 0.20 0.26 14.9 S NO L 1693 317 0.05 0.19 20.2 C 17.3 C T 3564 936 0.62 0.26 17.6 C R 1318 3" 0.41 0.26 16.2 C RR L 1693 212 0.30 0.13 24.4 C 16.5 C T 3564 980 0.41 0.28 15.5 C R 1409 387 0.06 0.28 13.8 S SS L 1693 212 0.17 0.13 23.8 C 15.7 C T 3566 980 0.13 0.28 14.1 S R 1409 387 0.17 0.28 14.3 8 Intersection Delay • 18.0 (ace/veh) ---------------------------------- •___-...."----""'----------------- Intersection LOS • C ' HCM: SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION SUMMARY Center For MicrocoffWters In Transportation vaevaaszvvaazaasaavassasaaas•avmumsmeasavasaaavvaaavaaaavvavvaaaaaass Streets: (E -W) RANCHO CALIF. RD (N -S) 1-15 SS RAMPS ' Analyst: HAS File Name: 5095AMW.NC9 Area Type: Other 11-9-92 AN PEAK I.D. 9 ' Comment: CMP/RIVSAN 2010 WITHOUT PROJECT. NODE 5095 uaawuvasaswuouwaaauuvaawaaaamaaaaaaaauusuasaaawu { Eastbound Westbo4ad Northbound Southbound I L T R I L T R I L T R I L T R ' �---- ---- ----I---- ---- ----I---- ---- ----I---- ---- No. Lanes 2< 11 2 i 2 ---- 1- Votumes 353 2581 367 748 I 21 116 Lane Width I 12.0 112.0 12.0 I 112.0 12.0 RTORVola1 01 OI I O ---_____ ___________ ----_ Signal Operations Phase combination 1 2 3 4 I 5 6 7 8 ' EB Left INB Left Thru • Thru Right • Right ' Peds Peds WB Left Ise Left Thru I Thru Right I Right • , Peds I Pada NB Right IEB Right SB Right IWO Right Green 20A 18A (Green 20A Yellow/A-R 4 4 ITeltoN/A-R 4 ' Lost Tim 3.0 3.0 ILeat Tim 3.0 Cycle Length: 70 sap Phase combination order. 81 02 05 ' ______________•-------------------------------------------------------- Intersection Performance Sunmsry Lens Group: Adl get V/t a/c Approach: 1l40ts Cap . Flow Ratio Ratio Delay LOS Delay LOS ---------------- ----- ----- ----- --- ----- EB TR 3339 906 r- 0.75 0.27 17.1 C 17.1 --- C WB L 1693 . 508 0.76 0.30 21.4 C 9.8 B T 35" 2189 0.38 0.61 4.4 A SB L 2675 802 0.03 0.30 13.1 B 12.3 B R 1515 455 0.27 0.30 12.1 B Intersection Delay a 12.4 (est/Veh) Intersection LOS a B _ _____----------------------------- _____________________________________ RCM: SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION SUMMARY Center For Microcomputers In Transportation .sass.—x.s=x....... =sz.. sass..zmszzz..=........ .... =ass==zzxz Streets: (E -V) RANCHO CALIF. RD (N -S) I -IS SS RAMPS Analyst: HAS File Name: 5095PKW.HC9 Area Type: Other 11-9-92 PM PEAK I.D. 9 Comment: CMP/RIVSAM 2010 WITHOUT PROJECT; NODE 5095 ..ma ov..aa+vzas.azz..s:v.a.s Eastbound Wastboud I Northbound I Southbound L T R L T R I L T R L T R No. Lanes 2 < 1 2 volumes 658 5591 334 686 1 124 151 Lane Width 12.0 112.0 12.0 1 112.0 12.0 RTOR Vols 01 01 10 Signal operations Phase combination 1 2 3 4 1 We 5 6 7 8 EB Left IMB Left Thru • COP "" Thru Ratio Right • Delay Right Delay Peds Ell TR Peds """' 1411 VB Left • ""' 0.43 jSB Left • Thru • • --- C Thru 1695 Right 0.79 Right 27.4 Peds 10.4 Peds T NB Right 2564 JEB Right 0.73 $B Right A JWB Right Green 20A 33A 2673 jOreen ISA Yellow/A-R 4 4 20.6 jTellow/A-R 4 Lost Tice 3.0 3.0 R ILost Tim 3.0 Cycle Length: 80 sou Phase combination order: 81 02 85 -------------------------------- Intersection Performance Summary Lana Group: Adz Bat We g/c Approach: Nvmts --"' COP "" Flow Ratio Ratio Delay LOS Delay LOS Ell TR 3319 """' 1411 ""' 0.95 ""' 0.43 --"' 23.4 "' C ""' 23.4 --- C No L 1695 444. 0.79 0.26 27.4 D 10.4 B T 3564 2564 0.29 0.73 2.5 A SR L 2673 S35 0.26 0.20 20.6 C 20.1 C R 1515 303 0.52 0.20 19.6 C 'Intersection Delay • 17.8 (sae/veh) Intersection LOS a C NCM: SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION SLeOURY Center For Microconmters In Transportation Streets: (E -W) RANCHO CALIF. RD (N -S) 1-15 NB RAMPS Analyst: HAS File Mame: 5098AMNO.HC9 I.D. 1 0 Area Type: Other 11-9-92 AM PEAK Comment: CMP/RIVSAM 2010 WITHOUT PROJECT; MODE 5098 •aa•••a•s•se••samvas••sas•••s• aa•a•auua•• Eestboued Westbound Morthbo, Southbound L T R L T R L T R L T R ---- _--- ____.... _... _..'"" ____ ____I____ "" ---- No. "Mo. Lanes 1 2 2< 1 1 Volumes 1 117 258 1 754 2501 361 2DOI Lane Width 112.0 12.0 1 12.0 112.0 12.0 01 RTO- Vols_____________ __ .______---__________. -- __ Signal Operations Phase combination 1 2 3 4 1 ER Left Thru --- --------- Right two Pada AdJ Set V/C B/C WB Left Approach: Thru Momts Right Flow Ratio Ratio Peds LOS Delay NB Right _____ EN L SN Right ------- ..... 402 0.31 ----- 0.24 Green LG 29% Yellow/A-R 4 4 Lost Tim 3.0 3.0 Cycle length: 80 sees Phase 5 6 7 a NN Left Thru Right Pads $R Left TAN tight Peds EY Right WB Right Green 22A Yellow/A-R 4 Lost Tim 3.0 an order: #1 62 65 1 1 1 - ---- Intersection Performance Sumary --- --------- two Group: AdJ Set V/C B/C Approach: Momts Cap Flow Ratio Ratio Delay LOS Delay LOS _____ EN L ---- 1693 ------- ..... 402 0.31 ----- 0.24 ..... 19.2 ___ C ----- 8.4 _-- B T 35" 2272 0.13 0.64 3.7 A UB TR 3420 1240 0.92 0.36 22.8 C 22.8 C NO L Isis 436 0.87 0.29 32.7 D 26.7 D R 1515 436 0.48 0.29 15.8 C Intersection Delay a 21.1 (ree/veh) Intersection LOS • C ------------------------------- ________________________________________ 1 1 1 NOM: SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION SLLINARY Center For Microcomputers In Transportation assaavaaaaa•vasaaassasaaasaava.... aaaasa.....aasassaaasaaasaaaae Streets: (E -W) RANCHO CALIF. RD (N -S) 1.15 MS RAMPS Analyst: HAS File Name: 5098PMWO.HC9 Area Type: Other 11-9-92 PM PEAK I.D. 10 Comment: CMP/RIVSAN 2010 WITMWT PROJECT; NWE 5098 - aawaa.a:.a:.va..saem..a .aaa Emstbowd Westbmad Northbound. Southam L T R L T --- R L T R L. T R ---- . .... .... ---- No. Lars 1 2 2 c ---- I---- -------- I---- ---- 1 1 ---- Volumes 1 51 731 1, 775 2011 265 556 Len* Width 112.0 12.0 1 12.0 112.0 12.0 RTOR Vols 1 01 01 01 _....................................................................... Signal Operations Phase combination 1 2 3 4 1 5 6 7 8 EB left • INS Left Thru I Thru Right I Right Peds I Pads NO left ISO Left Thru • -I Thru —' Right I Right Peds I Peds we Right JEs Right SO Right JWg Right Green IIA 27A lGreen 30A . Yellor/A-R 4. 4 ITellow/A-R 4 Lost Tim 3.0 3.0 dost Tim 3.0 Cycle Length: W sacs Phase combination order. g1 $2 05 ....................................................................... _ Intersection Performance Summary Lar Group: Ad1 Sat v/c g/C Approach: Meats Cap Flow Ratio ----- ----------- ----- Ratio Delay LOS Delay ----- ..... .-- LOS EB L 1693 254 0.21 ----- 0.15 22.8 C * 8.2 --- s T 35" 1916 0.42 0.54 7.2' 8 Wil TR 3452 1208 0.89 0.35 21.2 C 21.2 C Mg L 1515 587 0." 0.39 14.1 g 31.6 D R 1515 587 1.00 0.39 39.3 D Intersection Delay a 20.3 (set/vah) ....................................................................... Intersection LOS a C NCM: SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION SUMMARY I 1 1 Center For Microcomputers In Transportation saaasaaaasaaaa:saaasaaaasaaaaaaaaaaaasaassasa ' Streets: (E -W) MURRIETA NOT SPRINGS 1750"Saasaaaar_aavasaaaasa (NS) 1.15 58 RAMPS Analyst: HAS File Name: 5089AKW.NC9. I.D. 11 Area Type:. Other 11-13-92 AN PEAK ' Comment: CMP/RIVSAN 2010 WITHOUT PROJECT aaaasssauasaaassaaeasassasaasesaasaasam•stseasasaaaassaevssaasasn Eastbound Westbound Northbound ) Southbound L T R L T It L T R L T R ' No. Lanes �_.__ ---- ---- •------. ---- 1 1 1 1 -------- ---- "'--"' ---- ---- 1 1 Volumes 214 sad 2 408 1 ISO 33 Lane Width 1 12.0 12.012.0 12.0 1 112.0 12.0 ' R7OR Vola III III I ----- -I---..--_---- -------------- --- '__-------.0 Signal Operations Phase combination 1 2 3 4 1 5 6 7 a ' Ea Left . 118 Left Thru • Thru Right • Right Peds Pads Na Left • ISO Left Thru I Thru Right • ( Right Peds I Peds ' N8 Right . IE8 Right SS Right IWO Right Green 11A 29A Green I&A Yet lou/A-R 4 4 IYelloN/A-R 4 ' Lost Time 3.0 3.0 11.0st Time 3.0 Cycle Length: 70 sect Phase combination order: #1 82 b ' ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Intersection Performance Summary Lary .Group: Ad) Set V/c 9/c Apprasch: Vmws Cap Flow Ratio Ratio Delay LOS Delay LOS E9 7 1792 764 0.29 0.43 8.5 R 8.4 a R Isis 649 0.07 0.43 7.6 0 WR L 1695 290 0.01 0.17 18.3 C 4.0 A T 1782 1146 0.37 0.64 3.9 A SIS L 1515 411 0.38 0.27 16.1 C 15.4 C R 1515 411 0.09 0.27 12.3 9 Intersection Delay • 7.8 (see/Veh) LOS • a _----------------"'-------""""•"'--- .-.-_Interaction ""'-"""'---- I 1 1 NCM: SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION SUMMARY ' Center For Micrecmputers In Transportation aaaaaaasxxsxxsassaxcaasvvsascaxscxsxxaaysvasssmasvvsexaaaaasxasxx-_ Streets: (E -W) MURRIETA NOT SPRINGS (N -S) 1-15 SB RAMPS ' Analyst: HAS File Name: 5089PMW0.NC9 I.D. 11 Area Type: Other 11-13-92 PM PEAK Comment: CMP/RIVSAM 2010 WITHOUT PROJECT ' vav+avvvsysv vavvsmsasssysysaysysvvs Eastbound I Westbound I Morthbourd I Southbound L T R I L T R I L T R I L T R I---- ------------ -------- ---- ---_ ----I---- ---- ---- ' No. Lanes I 1 1 I 1 1 I 11 1 Volumes I 515 491 6 552 I 1 5% 11 Lane Width 1 12.0 12.0112.0 12.0 1 112.0 12.0 I RTOR Vols I_____________OI O_ .OI_ signal Operation Phase combination 1 2 3 4 1 5 6 7 8 EB Left IMB Left ' Thru • I Thru Right • I Right Peds I vela WB Left • IS8 Left • . ' TAN • •. I Thru ' Right • I Right • Peds • • I Peds ' NB Right _ IEB Right s8 Right IWO Right Green M 22A (Green 30A Yellow/A-R 4 4 IYe1loN/A-R 4 ' Lost Time 3.0 3.0 .ILost Tim 3.0 Cycle Length: 70 sees Phase Caabination order: f1 02 05 ---------------------------- _____________________•____-•-_____----" Intersection Performance Swsry " : Lane LeGroup: Ad) Sat v/C a/o Approach- ' Meats Cap Flow Ratio Ratio Delay LOS Delay LOS ------------•--- •_--- ----- ----- "' ----- "' ' EB T 1782 586 0.93 0.33 27.4 0 25.9 0 R 1515 498 0.10 0.33 10.6 B WB L -1695 169 0.04 0.10 21.6 C 10.9 T 1782 840 0.69 0.47 10.8 B B - SB l 1515 671 0.93 .0." 28.8 0 28.4 D R 1515 671 0.02 0." 7.1 a Intersection Delay • 22.0 (sae/veh)Intersection LOS • --_---...-_ C ' NCM: SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION SUMMARY Center for Microcoaputers In Transportation -aaacaazr_zaaaaaa:zsazzaazzzzazamzzzzzzz:zzszsszszuzzssazzszzzs..zaazz Streets: (E -W) MURRIETA NOT SPRINGS (N -S) 1-15 NB RAMPS Analyst: HAS Fite Nene: 5088AMYO.NC9 I.D. D 1 2 Area Type: Other 11-13-92 AM PEAK Cement: CMP/RIVSA11 2010 WITHOUT PROJECT Eastbound Westband Rorthtwund ( Southbmi d L T R L T R ( L T R L T R I---- --- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ------------ ---- ---- No. Lanes 1 1 1 1 1 1 Volumes 9 355 376 5"1 34 51 Lane Width 112.0 12.0 1 12.0 12.012.0 12.01 RTOR Vols 1 01 01 01 ----------------------------------------------------------------------- signet Operations Phase combination 1 2 3 4 1 EB Left Intersection Perforsnoe Sumery Thru Right Group: Adl Sat Peds B/e WB Left Approach: Thru Cap Flow Right Ratio Delay Peds Delay LOS RB Right 1693 290 SB Right 0.17 18.4 Green 11A 29A Yellow/A-R ♦ G Lost Tim 3.0 3.0 Cycle Length: -------•--------------------- 70 saes Phase Left Thru Right Peds Left Thru Right Pads Right Right 5 6 7 8 ft an IBA low/A-R 4 t Tine 3.0 order. 01 02 05 Intersection Perforsnoe Sumery two Group: Adl Sat We B/e Approach: Mvets Cap Flow Ratio Ratio Delay LOS Delay LOS EB L 1693 290 0.03 0.17 18.4 C 4.0 A T 1782 11A6 0.33 0." 3.7 A WB T 1782 7" 0.52 0.43 9.9 B 16.0 C R 1515 6A9 0.89 0.43 20.3 C RB L Isis 411 0.09 0.27 14.5 B 14.2 B R 1515 411 0.01 O.Z7 12.0 a Intersection Delay a 12.7 (see/veh) ---------------------------------------------------------------'"'-.-- Intersection LOS • B NCM: SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION SUMMARY Center For Microcomputers In Transportation .....aauaxmammas..z...aaassaasauaasuaaasussuaaaussxxsxr_summa Streets: (E -N) MURRIETA NOT SPRINGS (N -S) 1-15 NB RAMPS Analyst: HAS Fite Name: 50aBPMNO.NC9 I.D. 12 Area Type: Other 11-13-92 PM PEAK Comment: CMP/RIVSAM 2010 WITHOUT PROJECT rsssssssvaaaasaassusauau aeeuxzae�su Eastbound Vestbovd I Morthbound I SouthboU d L T R I L T R I L T R I L T R 1---- ---- ----I---- ---- ----I---- ---- ----1---- ---- ---- No. Lanes 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Volumes 1 z8 ics 1 496 3271 62 31 Lane Width 112.0 12.0 1 12.0 12.0112.0 12.01 RTOR Vols I DI 01 01 ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Signal Operations Phase combination 1 2 3 4.1 5 6 7 8 EB Left • INB Left ' Thru 1 Thru Right 1 Right Pad I Pees W Left ISI Left Thru • 1 Thru Right • I Right Ped ( Peds MI Right IEP Right SI Right . Iwo Right Green I" 29A IGreen ISA Yellow/A-R 4 4 ITelloN/A-R 4 Lost Time 3.0 3.0 ILost Tim 3.0 Cycle Length: 70 saes Phase combination order: 61 92 95 ....................................................................... .. Intersection Performance Starry Lana Group: Adj Sat V/c 2/c Approach: Mvmts Cap FIoN Ratio Ratio Delay LOS Delay LOS --------- --_-"' ""' ----- ----- --- ----- --- EB L 1693 363 0.08 0.21 16.7 C 14.2 B T 1782 1222 0.93 0.69 14.2 I MO T 1782 764 0.68 0.43 11.9 I 11.2 a R 1515 649 0.53 0.43 10.1 11 1111 L 1515 346 0.19 0.23 16.6 C 16.4 C R 1515 346 0.01 0.23 13.5 8 Intersection Delay a 13.1 (sec/vah) Intersection LOS a 8 ....................................................................... I 1 1 1 NCM: SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION SUMMARY Center For Microcomputers In Transportation Streets: (E -Y) HURRIETA NOT SPRINGS (N -S) 1-215 SB RAMPS Analyst: ERIC UNDERWOOD File Mame: 5195AHNO.NC9 I.D. 13 Area Type: Other 10-28-92 AN PEAK 5 6 7 a EB Left Comment: CMP/RIVSAN 2010 WITHOUT PROJECT/.MODE 5195 IMB Left asaassavaaaaaassszessaaasazsasaa------- • I asaa .. Right I Eastboad I westba Northbound I Southbound I Right I L T R I L T R I L T R -------- .... ----I---- I L T R No. Lanes I---- I.... ---- ----I---- I 1 1 1 1 1 ( ---- 1 1 ---- 1 Volumes I 467 361 140 945 1 I 71 112 Lane width 1 12.0 12.0112.0 12.0 1 112.0 12.0 RTOR Vols 1 01 01 1 0 _ Signal Operation Phase combination 1 2 3 4 1 5 6 7 a EB Left a IMB Left Thru • I Thru .. Right • 1782 I Right Pads • 10.1 I Pale wB Left • 398 ISO Left Thru • • C 16.2 C I Thru Right 398 0.30 I Right Peds • Intersection Delay a I Pads • NO Right Intersection LOS a B . IEB Right SB Right IM Right Green 13A 3SA 16reen 20A Yellow/A-R 4 4 IYellow/A-R 4 Lost Time 3.0 3.0 (Lost Time 3.0 Cycle Length: 80 mea Phase combination order: 01 /2 05 -------------------•--------------------------------------------------- Intersection Performance Summary -- Lane Grog: Ad) Sat v/c ii/e Approach: Mvets Cap Flew Ratio Ratio Delay LOS Delay LOS _____ EB T ____ _______ 1782 802 _____ _____ _____ ___ _____ --- 0.61 0.45 11.7 8 11.4 8 It 1515 662 0.06 0.45 8.0 a WS L 1693 2% 0.50 0.17 23.8 C 11.9 B T 1782 1181 0.84 0.66 10.1 a $0 L 1515 398 0.19 0.26 17.4 C 16.2 C R 1515 398 0.30 0.26 15.4 C Intersection Delay a 12.2 (see/veh) Intersection LOS a B RCM: SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION SUMMARY Center For Microcomputers in Transportation vuasassuaaaauaasausuasaeaazsssusasaauaaaaeaaaaa:aasa:=aauaasxa Streets: (E -W) MURRIETA"ROT SPRINGS (N -S) 1-215 SB RAMPS - ' Analyst: ERIC UNDERWOOD File Name: 5195PMWO.RC9 - I.D. 1 3 Area Type: Other 10-28-92 PM PEAK Comment: QIP/RIVSAN 2010 WITHOUT PROJECT; MODE 5195 ' Eastbound Westboi I Morthbasd I Southbound L T R I L T R I L T R I L T R ---- -•-- ----I---- ---• ----I---- -----...---- --- Mo. Lanes I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 t _ Volumes 1 1233 631 34 8% 1 I 66 143 Lana Width 1 12.0 12.0112.0 12.0 1 112.0 12.0 RTOR Vols I 0!0!_ 1 0_ 1 ... Signal Operations Phase combination 1 2 3 4'1 5 6 7 8 ER Left INR Left , Thru • I Thru Right • I Right Peds • I Pack NO Left • ISR Left , _ Thru • • ' I TAN — Right I Right • Peds • I peps ' Mg Right IE8 Right SR Right IWe Right Green 6A 5" IGreen 9A Yellom/A-R 3 4 IYetloWA-R 4 ' Lost Timm 3.0 3.0 ILost Timm 3.0 Cycte Length: 80 seas Phase combination order: g1 R 05 ------•--•------------------------------------------------------------- Intersection Performance Summery , -. Lane Group: Adj Set. vac - a/c "vats Cap FIoW Ratio Ratio Detay LOS Delay LOS E8 T 1782 1225 1.06 0.69 40:9 E 39.0 D R 1515 1042 .0.06 0.69 2.6 A W8 L 1695 127 0.28 0.08 26.9 D 3.8 T 1782 1426 0.66 0.80 2.9 A A , SO L 1515 189 0.36 0.13 24.9 C 31.0 D R 1515 189 0.80 0.13 33.8 D Intersection patsy a 24.9 Case/veh)Intersection LOS • .-----..--- C ' 1 I 1 1 0 1 I 1 11 BCM: SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION SIMNART Center For Microcomputers In Transportation saaasaaa:aa•asasacaaaaaaaaasaasasasaavaaaauava••aaas•saaaaasaaaaasss Streets: (E -V) MURR ZETA XOT SPRINGS (N•S) 1-215 MB RAMPS Analyst: ERIC UNDERWOOD Fite Name; 5198AMW.XC9 Area Type: Other 10-28-92 AN PEAK I.D. 14 Comment: CMP/RIVSAN 2010 WITHOUT PROJECT; MODE 5198 •a::: Eestba Westbound Northbound I Southbound L T R L T R L T R I L T R �.--- ------------ ---- ----I---- ---- ---- I---- ---- ---- No. Lanes 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 Volumes 58 473 968 u) 38 511 Lem Width 112.0 12.0 1 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 RTOR Vols 1 OI" ---------- -------""--" 01 OI ---"' Signal Operation Phase combination 1 2 3 G 1 EB Left 1782 1292 Thru 0.73 2.8 Right W8 T 1782 Peds 0.45 0.61 WB Left C 17.2 C R - Thru 928 0.05 Right 4.0 A Pads 1515 303 NO Right 0.20 20.0 SR Right R 1515 Green 6A 48A Tetlow/A-R 3 A Lost Tim 3.0 3.0 Cycle Length- 80 sen Phase Left TAN Right Peds Left Thru Right Peds Right Right S 6 7 8 Green 15A TeltoN/A-R 4 Lost Time 3.0 on order. 81 R R Intersection Performance Summary Lem Group: Adj Sat v/e a/c Approach- Nvats Cap Flow Ratio Ratio Delay LOG Delay LOS .. ....... ..... ..... ..... ... ..... --- Ell L 1693 127 0.48 0.08 29.2 0 5.7 B T 1782 1292 0.39 0.73 2.8 A W8 T 1782 1001 0.45 0.61 17.6 C 17.2 C R - 1515 928 0.05 0.61 4.0 A NO L 1515 303 0.13 0.20 20.0 C 18.4 C R 1515 303 0.18 0.20 17.2 C intersection 'Delay • 13.5 (seWveh) Intersection LOS • 6 NCM: SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION SLIKKARY Center For Microcomputers In Transportation zzazaazusaaezzvazaszauzaaazaa:zuzuasazuszzzaauaasaaas _ Streets: (E -Y) MURRIETA NOT SPRINGS (N -S) 1•215 NO RAMPS Analyst: ERIC UNDERWOOD File Name: 5198PMu0.NC9 I.D. 1 4 Area Type: Other 10-28-92 PM PEAK Coament: CMP/RIVSAN 2010 WITHOUT PROJECT, NODE 5198 Eastbound West baad Morthband Southbound L T R L T R ( L T R L T. R ---- ------------ ------------ ------------ ---- ---- No..Lones 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 Volume 80 1218 886 391 47 247 Lane Width 112.0 12.0 1 12.0 12.012.0 12.0 RTOR Vols 1 01 01 01 ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Signal Operatics . Phase teObination 1 2 3 i 5 6 7 8 EB Left_ • in Left Thru • • Thru Right • Right • . Peds • Padt NO left ISO Left Toru • Thru Right • Right Peds • Pads NO Right JEB Right SB Right IW Right Green 6A 47A lGreen I" Telles/A-R 3 f IYellw/A-R i Lost Time 3.0 3.0 Lost Tim 3.0 Cycle Length: 80 saes Phase combination order: Ol #22 65 Intersection Performer" Sucary Lair Group: Adl Sat V/C. O/C Approach: MHts --------- COP Flw ------- Ratio Ratio Dalry LOS Delay LOS EB L 1693 127 ----- 0:66 ----- 0.08 ----- 35.4 --- D ----- 26.6 --- D T 1782 1270 1.01 0.71 26.0 D NO T 1782 1069 0.87 0.60 13.6 8 13.2 B R 1515 909 0.05 0.60 4.2 A NO L 1515 322 0.15 0.21 19.5 C 26.3 D R 1515 322 0.81 0.21 27.5 0 Intersection Daisy • 21.6 (tee/veh) Intersection LOS • C E ' HCM Intersection Analysis Worksheets Year 2010 With Project I ' HCH: SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION SUMMARY 1 1 Center For Microcomputers In Transportation Zrzmi;:a a s as as av vCav ssusaaafivasaaa asuasssasiaysuual a avvaav Streets: (E -Y) YINCXESTER RD (M -S) I-15 SB RAMPS Analyst: ERIC UNDERWOOD File Mame: 5106ANWP. MC9 I.D. 1 Area Type: Other 10-28-92 AN PEAK Comment: CNP/RIVSAN 2010 WITH PROJECT: NODE 5106 ' vu+uavmvuvaasuvvatsysvaausauu.ammsuv.vuu..v Esetboud I Wsetbound I Northbound I Sarthbou d L T R L T R L T R L T R ' ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- No. Lanes 2 1 2 -•-- -•-- -------- -•-- 1 ---- 2 Volume 117 1171 806 1 217- 339 Lane Width 1 12.0 12.01 12.0 1 112.0 12.0 ' RioR vola' -------------------------------------------------------------- Signal Operations ' Phase combination 1 2 3 1 ER left 1 5 6 7 SNR Left 8 Thru • Thru Right • Right Pads • Pads ' WB Left • 15B Left Thru • TAru - Right Right • Peds • . Pada • . ' Ms Right JEB Right SB Right • INS Right Green SA 33A jrreen 27A Tallow/A-R 1 1 ITellw/A-R 1 Lost Time 3.0 3.0 Lost Timm 3.0 Cycle Length: 80 sees Phase commination order: 91 02 R 1 -------------------- .-smSummery-------------------- Intersection Perforree Sery •-_-_.__-----__•- _- : Lena. Group: AdI got •/c g/c Approach: Mumu Cap Flow Ratio Ratio Delay LOS Delay LOS ----- ---- --•---- ----- EB T 3561 1515 0.30 ----- ----- --- ----- 0.13 9.8 R 9.7 --- B R 1515 6" 0.19 0.43 9.3 8 WB T 35" 1515 0.59 0.43 11.8 8 11.8 B SB L 1515 530 0.13 0.35 15.5 C 11.2 8 -R 3029 1101 0.27 0.16 8.5 s Intersection Delay • 11.0 (see/veh) Intersection LOS a s 1 1 NCM: SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION SUMMARY Center For Microcogxners In Transportation Streets: (E -W) WINCHESTER RD (N -S) 1-15 SB RAMPS Analyst: ERIC UNDERWOOD File Name: 5106PNYP.HC9 Area Type: Other 10-2B-92 PH PEAK Consent; CNP/RIVSAN 2010 WITH PROJECT; NODE 5106 I.D. 1 I Eastbound Westboo I MorthboW South' , I L T R I L T R I L T R I L T R I---- ---- ----I---- ---- •------- ---- ----I---- ---- -•-- Mo. Lanes 1 2 1 I 2 - I 1 1 2 Volumes I 960 3411 1106 1 1241 325 Lane Width 1 12.0 12.01 12.0 1 112.0 12.0 RTOR Vols 1 01 01 1 0 ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Signal Operations Phase combination 1 2 . 3 4 1 5 6 7 8 EB left IMB Left Thru I Thru Right • I Right Peds I Peds UB Left • ISS Left Thru • I Thru Right I Right Pala • I Pada MB Right IEB Right 'SR Right • IUB Right Green 20A 361 1Green 22A Yellow/A-R 4 4 IYetlow/A-R 4 Lost Tier 3.0 3.0 11.0st Tim 3.0 Cycle Length: 90 sees Phase combinetion order. #1 02 05 ---------------------------------------------------------.------------ _ Intersection Performance Summary two Group: Ad) Sat v/c we Approach: Mats Cap Flow Ratio Ratio Delay LOS Delay LOS --------- ------- ----- ----- ----• --- -•--- --- EB T 3564 1465 0.72 0.41 15.4 C 15.1 C R 1515 623 0.58 0.41 14.0 B a T 3564 1465 0.83 0.41 17.9 C 17.9 C SO L Isis 387 0.66 0.26 25.6 D 15.6 . C R 3029 1481 0.24 0.49 8.6 8 Intersection Delay • 16.3 (see/veh) Intersection LOS • C -------------------------•.----.----------------------------.-----.---- 7 I L1 1 I NCM: SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION SUMMARY Center For Microcomputers In Transportation aaaaaaae...... ..... .sasaa.... sasasussassassssasasssasaasasassss Streets: (E -W) WINCHESTER RD (M -S) 1-15 NB RAMPS Analyst: ERIC UNDERWOOD File Name: 5109AMW.HC9 I.D. 2 Area Type: Other 10-28-92 AM PEAK Cement, CMP/RIVSAN 2010 WITH PROJECT; MODE 5109 aa.ssasaasasaauass.aaaaaaaamaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaesoiaaeoaaaaaagsva East' Westbound Morthbourd Southbound L T R L. T R L T R L T R �•--- ---- ------------ ---- ----I---- ---- -------- ---- --_- No. Lanes 1 2 2 1 1 1 2 Velums 1" 4112 1053 2431 98 573 Lane Width 112.0 12.0 1 12.0 12.012.0 12.0 RTOR Vols 1 01 01 01 Phase combination 1 SiOneL Operations 2 3 4 1 EB Left 7 8 Intersection Perfonrn:e Sumary Thru Right Group: Adz Sat Peds B/C NO Left Approach: Thru Cap FIoW Right Ratio Delay Peds Delay LOS RB Right 1695 ------- 266 SB Right ----- 0.16 ----- 22.9 Green IDA 28A Yellow/A-R 4 4 Lost Time 3.0 3.0 Cycle Length: 70 soft Phase combi left Thru Right Peds' Left Thru Right Peds Right Right 5 6 7 8 Intersection Perfonrn:e Sumary in 20A 4W/A-R 4 t Tim 3.0 )rder: e1 92 g5 1 Intersection Perfonrn:e Sumary two Group: Adz Sat V/C B/C Approach: Mvots --------- Cap FIoW Ratio Ratio Delay LOS Delay LOS EB L 1695 ------- 266 ----- 0.57 ----- 0.16 ----- 22.9 --- C ---•• 8.2 --- s T 3564 2189 0.24 0.61 4.0 A WB T 3%4 1477 0.)9 0.41 13.3 B 12.6 B R 1515 628 0.41 0.41 9.5 B NO L 1515 455 0.23 0.30 14.0 B 17.2 C R 2673 802 0.79 0.30 17.7 C Intersection Delay a 12.7 (sae/veh) Intersection LOS a B 1 NCM: SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION SUMMARY Center For Microcomputers In Transportation Streets: (E -W) WINCHESTER RD (M -S) 1-15 NB RAMPS Analyst: ERIC UNDERWOOD File Name: 5109PMWP.HC9 I.D. 2 Area Type: Other 10.28-92 PM PEAK Cement: CMP/RIVSAM 2010 WITH PROJECT; NODE 5109 Eastbound Wastbasd Northbound Southbound L T R L T R L T R L T R �---_ --•--------- No. Lanes 1 2 .-.....-_--• ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- 2 1 1 1 2 V volrnes 1 258 897 1 1341 362) 220 613 Lane Width 112.0 12.0 1 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 RTOR Vols 1 01 0l 01 ----_---••------------------------------------------------------------• Signal Operations Phsu combination 1 2 3 4 1 5 6 7 8 Ell Left • INB Left Thru I Thru Right I Right Pads I Peds WB Left jS8 Left Thru 1477 I Thru Right 29.4 I Right Pads D I Peds NB Right 628 SEB Right Sg Right 11.4 jWB Right - Green 12A 28AGram 18A - TeI(ow/A-R 4 4 411 ITellow/A-R 4 Lost Tim 3.0 3.0 18.0 Last Time 3.0 Cycle Length: 70 sees Phase eoebination order. 91 02 05 ------------------------------ - Intersection Performance Suamary Lar* Group: Adj Sat We g/e Approach: Rusts Cap flow Ratio Ratio Delay LOS Delay LOS E8 L 1695 314 0.87 0.19 35.8 D 10.9 8 T 3564 2291 0.43 0.64 4.1 A W T 3564 1477 1.00 0.41 29.4 D 25.7 D R 1515 628 0.61 0.41 11.4 B Mt L 1515 411 0.56 0.27 18.0 C 25.3 D R 2,673 726 0.93 0.27 27.8 D Intersection Delay 21.0 (see/veh) Intersection LOS a C L u u L I NCH: SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION SUMKART Center For microcomputers In Transportation uzzsaaaaaaaasdadaaazaassasasaszazsazaussazasanzzsauuzauzszzssszau Street c: (E -W) WINCHESTER RD (N -S) TNEZ RD Analyst: ERIC UNDERWOOD File Name: 3727AHWP.HC9 I.D. 3 Area Type: Other 10-28-92 AN PEAK Comment: OMP/RIVSAM 2010 WITH PROJECT; NODE 3727 Esstboud Westbound Morthbaad Southbound L T R L T R L T R L T R I.-.. •.-_ .--.�---- ---• -------- --•- ---- ---- •--- ---- No. Lanes 1 3 1 1 3 1 1 2 2 1 1 1 2 1 Volumes 1 241 593 2221 286 678 1261 344 2% 2331 255 388 275 Lane Width 111.0 11.0 10.012.0 12.0 10.011.0 12.0 12.011.0 11.0 11.0 RTOR 01 Vols 01 -- -----' OI-' ----------------- O ----- Signal Operations Phase combination 1 2 3 4 1 5 6 7 8 EB Left • Joe Left Thru • Thru • _ Right • Right Pub • ' pa WB Left • SSB Left Thru • 7hru Right • Right pads •. Peds NB Right • JEB Right SB Right • JWB Right " Green 21A 28A I Green 18A 17A Tenon/A-R 4 4 ITellw/A-R 4 A Lost Tian 3.0 3.0 ILost Time 3.0 3.0 Cycle Length: 100 sees Phase Combination order: 01 62 05 66 1 T Intersection Performance Summary Lw Group: Adj Sat We a/c Approach: Nvista Cap Flow Ratio Ratio Delay LOS Delay LOS •_. •- EB L 1642 -•••--• 361 •••-- 0.70 ---------- ----' -- 0.22 31.5 0 20.0 C 1 T 5186 1504 C.46 0.29 18.9 C R 1409 676 0.35 0.48 10.6 8 WB L 1693 372 0.81 0.22 36.7 D 23.4 C T 5346 1550 0.51 0.29 19.3 C R 1409 409 0.33 ' 0.29 18.1 C MB L 3181 604 0.63 0.19 29.8 D 23.9 C T 3564 642 0.51 0.18 24.4 C " R 1515 606 0.40 0.40 14.1 B SB L 1642 312 0.86 0.19 K.1 E 28.0 D T 3457 622 0.69 0.18 26.7 D R 1469 580 0.49 0.40 14.9 B intersection Delay • -----•-•-------------------••-•-•-----------------•-•---------•------- 23.6 (sec/veh) Intersection LOS • C Rd: SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION SUMMARY Center For Microcanputers In Transportation Streets: (E -W) WINCHESTER RD (N -S) YNEZ RD . Analyst: ERIC UNDERWOOD File Name: 3727PMWP.HC9 Area Type: Other 10-28-92 PM PEAK I.D. 3 Comment: CMP/RIVSAM 2010 WITH PROJECT; NODE 3727 Eetboud I Westbound I North' I Southbound L T R I L T R I L T R I L T R I---- ---- ----I---- ---- ----I---- ---- ----1---- ---- ---- No. Lane 11 3 1 1 1 . 3 1 1 2 2 1 1.1 2 1 Volumes 1467 567 2221.501 794 4041 425 469 4011 256 341 485 Lane Width 111.0 11.0 12.0112.0 12.0 10.0111.0 12.0 12.0111.0 11.0 11.0 RTOR Vols 1 01 01" 01 0 ----------------------------------------------------------------------- _ Signal Operations Phase combination 1 2 3 4 1 5 6 7 8 EB Left • IMB Left • Thru • I Thru Right I Right Pads I Pads WB Left • ISO Left Thru • I Thru Right • I Right Pads I Peds MB Right • IEB Right • , SB Right • IWO Right Gram 30A 20A (Green 17A 17A Yellow/A-R 4 4 IYellow/A-R 4 4 Lost Time 3.0 3.0 Ilost Time 3.0 3..0 Cycle Length: 100 sacs Phase combination order: 01 02 NS g6 -------------------------------------------------------------•--------- Intersection Performance Summary Lana Group: Adj Sat We g/e Approach: Mvmts Cap FIoW Ratio Ratio Delay LOS Delay LOS - ----- ----------- ----- ----- --•-- --- ----- --- EB L 1642 509 0.97 0.31 49.1 E 34.9 D T 5186 1069 0.92 0.21 32.8 D R 1515 591 0.40 0.39 14.4 B WB L 1695 525 1.00 0.31 57.5 E 34.4 D T 5346 . 1123 0.82 0.21 273 D R 1409. 550 0.77 0.39 21.2 C MB L 3181 573 0.82 0.18 36.3 D 26.8 D T 3564 642 0.81 0.18 29.9 D R 1515 742 0.57. 0.49 12.3 B SB L 1642 296 0.91 0.18 52.0 E 26.9 0 T 3457 622 0.61 0.18 25.4 0 R 1469 720 0.71 0.49 14.8 B Intersection Delay a 31.4 (sec/veh) Intersection LOS a D ' ' NCM: SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION SIAWART Center For Microcomputers In Transportation ' as—azsaasaaaaazssasaaaasussauasuz:aaassassaazzzmazscassazzzzzzzs:a Streets: (E -W) WINCHESTER RD (N -S) REGIONAL CTR. DRIVE Analyst: HAS File Name: 1397ANW.HC9 I.D. 4 Area Type: Other 11-11-92 AM PEAK ' Comient: CMP/RVSAN 2010 WITH PROJECT: MODE 1397 zazaavasazsaasasmmsassaa.avazuaa Eastbard Westbound Morthbmrd I Southbound L T R L T R L T R I L T. R ' �_--- ---- --------"" ---• ""-"' "" ---- ---- "" ---- No. Lanes 3 1 1 3 1 1 Volumes 1 677 4041 188 %6 1 123 671 Lane Width 1 12.0 10.012.0 12.0 112.0 12.0 ' RTOR Vols 01, -I------------ O'_ -------.__ -------------- Signal Operatics ' Phase combination 1 2 3 4 1 5 6 7 Ell Left INS Lett • 8 Thru • I Thru Right I Right Pads I Pads ' WB Lett • IS8 Left Thru I Thru – Right I Right Pads I Pals ' NS Right JES Right a Right IWS Right Green SOA Irreen ZZA yellow/A-R 4 ITellon/A-R 4 Lost Tim 3.0 Ilost Time 3.0 Cycle Length: 80 sect Phase combination order. gi 95 ' Intersection Perlormrm nee Stemry Lane Groep: Ada Sat v/c g/c Approach: Manta Cap Flow Ratio Ratio Delay LOS Delay LOS ""' "" "'---" ----- "-----" ' -'------ ' ' ES 16 T 53 3408 0.23 0.64 4.0 A 4.4 ' A R 1409 898 0.47 0.64 5.1 S WS L 360 230 0.86 0.64 27.4 D 7.8 0 T 5346 3408 0.33 0." 4.3 A Ng L Isis 436 0.30 0.29 17.0 C 15.8 C R - Isis 436 0.16 0.29 13.8 6 Intersection Delay • 6.9 (see/veh)._-_--Intersection LOS • S ' ---_•-----_••_---•--------------------------_--•-------....- N04: SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION SUIeIARY Center For Microcomputers In Transportation u.s........ .......... ...... .a ..... sass..........s..ssv..sss....s.� Streets: (E -W) WINCHESTER RD (N -S) REGIONAL CTR. DRIVE Analyst: HAS File Name: 1397PNNP.NC9 I.D. 4 Area Type: Other - 11-11-92 PH PEAK Comment: CNP/RVSAN 2010 WITH PROJECT; NODE 1397 Cycle Length: 80 amu Phase combination order: 91 05 ...................................................... .. Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound Intersection Performance Summary L T R I L T R I L T R I L T R �---- No. Lanes ---- 3 ---'I---- ------------ ---- 1 I 1 3 11 ----I---- ---- ---- 1 I Volumes 691 4161 213 1017 1262 6LI Lane Width 1 12.0 10.0112.0 12.0 112.0 12.01 RTOR Vols 1 01 01 01 •............................................•------------------.-----. LOS Signal Operations ---- 5316 Phase combination 1 2 3 4 1 S 6 7 8 ER left --- A INB Left --- A Thru • Thru 0.45 Right • Right - Peds WB L Peds 229 WB Left • 1SB Left E Thru • Thru 5346 Right 0.32 Right 3.3 Pads Peds M L NB Right 360 - 1EB Right 0.24 SB Right D 1WB Right 0 Green SAA joreen Ish Tal(oWA-R 4 ITellor/A-R 4 Lost Tim 3.0 ILost Time 3.0 Cycle Length: 80 amu Phase combination order: 91 05 ...................................................... .. Intersection Performance Summary Lara Group: Adj Set V/c a/c Approach: ' Nvote ----- Cap Flow Ratio Ratio Delay LOS Delay LOS ER T ---- 5316 ------- 3675 ----- 0.22 ----- 0.69 ----- 3.0 --- A ----- 3.3 --- A R 1409 969 0.45 0.69 3.9 A - WB L 333 229 0.98 0.69 49.0 E 10.6 B T 5346 3675 0.32 0.69 3.3 A M L Isis 360 0.77 0.24 28.2 D 25.7 0 R ISIS 360 0.19 0.24 15.7 C Intersection Delay • 9.3 (sec/Veh) __________________________________•_____------------------------------- Intersection LOS s B NCM: SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION SU KART I Center for Microcomputers In Transportation r_usuzzszsuzzzzzzzzuzzazzzzzzzzezzzszuzszsusuzzzzzszzuzszuzzu Streets: (E -N) WINCHESTER RD (M -S) REGIONAL CENTER RD Analyst: ERIC UNDERWOOD File Name: 198BANW.HC9 I.D. 5 Area Type: Other . 10-28-92 AN PEAK Camment: CMP/RIVSAN 2010 WITH PROJECT; MODE 1988 uuzumu-Eastbuamzzuzzz-bound zI Eastbound I Yectbourd Morthzzzzzzzzs Southbzzzzzz � Northbound' I Southbound L T R I L T R I L T R I L T R No. Lanes I---- __._ ---- I ---- 1 3 1 1 ---- -"'I-"' 3 1 ---- ---- I---- '--. ---- 1 1 1 1 1 e Volumes 1 33 629 831 2 1132 291 13 3 21 9 2 9 Lane Width 112.0 12.0 10.012.0 12.0 10.012.0 12.0 12.012.0 12.0 ' RTOR Vols 101 -!------------------------- - ----- .._ -- --.--_ Signat Operation Phase combination 1 2 3 4 1 S 6 7 _ 8 EB Left • INS Left Thru • ( Thru Right I Right Peds I Pam WB Left • ISB Left Thru I Thru Right • Right Peds ' Pa N8 Right • �El Right SB Right I(6 Right Green 7A 27A Green 11A 29A yellow/A-R 4 4 ITeltm/A-R A 4 �. Lost Time 3.0 3.0 ILoat Time 3.0 3.0 Cycle Length: 90 sect Phase combination order: 01 92 05 86 _________________________________________________________r Intersection Perfor enee SL ry Lane Groups Adj Sat v/c B/C Approach: . Mw Cap Flom Ratio Ratio Delay LOS Delay LOS ..... EB Ll .... ....... 1695 ISO ..... 0.23 ..... ..... ... ..... 0.09 29.1 0 15.9 ... C T 5346 1663 0." 0.31 16.1 C R 1409 626 0.14 C." 9.6 B NB L 1693 ISO 0.01 0.09 28.4 D 19.7 C T 5346 1663 0.79 0.31 19.8 C R 1409 438 0.07 031 14.1 B NB L 1693 226 0.06 0.13 25.9 D 22.2 C T 1782 594 0.01 0.33 12.9 B R 1515 640 0.00 0.42 9.7 a SB L 1695 226 0.04 0.13 25.8 D 18.8 C TR 1563 521 0.02 Intersection Delay • 16.3 (sec/veh)_-._--__•--Intersection 0.33 13.0 B LOS • C _ I NCM: SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION SLIKKARY Center For Microcomputers In Transportation aaasaaaszsaaseaaaas--------ssassausasassasassaaasssaaaaaaaassaasssaasa Streets: (E -W) WINCHESTER RD (N -S) REGIONAL CENTER RD Analyst: ERIC UNDERWOOD File Name: 198WKwP.HC9 I.D. 5 Area Type: Other 10-28-92 PM PEAK comment: CMP/RIVSAN 2010 WITH PROJECT. NODE 1988 Eastbound I Weatboad I Northbound I Southbound IL T R IL T R T R.IL T R I---• ---- -••- •------- ---- ----I---- ---- ----1-... ---- ---- No. Lams 11 3 1 I 1 3 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1< Volumes 1 40 681 871 1 1180 311 27 2 11 12 1 6 Lara Width 112.0 12.0 10.0112.0 12.0 10.0112.0 12.0 12.0112.0 12.0 RTOR Vols -_ 0- 0- 0- _______.___ __....-----• ..........._ O ___ Signal Operations Phase combination 1 2 3 t 1 S 6 7 8 EB Left • INS Left Thru • I Thru Right' • I Right . Peds • 1 Pada WB Left • 1SB Left TAN • I Thru • Right • I Right Pads • - I Peds MB Right • (EB Right SB Right 116' Right Green 10A 26A 1Green 1211 ZSA Yellom/A-R 4 4 IYelleW/A•R 4 S Lost Tier 3.0 3.0 ILost Tier 3.0 3.0 Cycle Leath: 90 secs Phase combination order: #1 g2 95 g6 Intersection Performance Summary Lane Grow: AdJ Sat v/C 01/c Approach: wits Cap Flow Ratio Ratio Delay LOS Delay LOS ....... ..... ..... ..... ... ..... ... ER L 1693 207 0.20 0.12 27.1 D 16.6 C T 5346 1604 0.49 0.30 16.9 C R 1409 626 MS 0." 9.6 B WB L 1693 207 0.00 0.12 26.4 0 21.8 T 5346 1604 0.85 0.30 21.9 C R 1409 423 0.08 0.30 14.6 B MB L 1695 245 0.11 0.14 25.5 D 24.2 T 1782 S35 0.00 0.30 14.3 S R 1SiS 640 0.00 0.42 9.7 B $B L 1693 245 O.OS 0.14 25.2 0 21.4 TR 15S2 466 0.02 0.30 14.3 8 Intersection Delay • 19.8 (sWveh) Intersection LOS • C i C C C I I Y 1 1 I I I 1 NCM: SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION SLMMARY I 1 Center For Microcomputers In Transportation ' saaazaaazcasuxaesaasssaaexsxaaacacccaacssssasaaxasazasaaasazs:azaazszs Streets: (E -Y) WINCNESTER RD (N -S) MARWRITA RD Analyst: ERIC UNDERWOOD File New: 2154AMWP:NC9 I.D. 6 Area Type: Other 10-28-92 AM PEAK Co went: CMP/RIVSAN 2010 NITM PROJECT; NODE 2154 zaaszzzzss zzzsazmzszsa:vszazzazzaszzsvazzzzssaavazszuzza Eastbound I Westbaad I Morthbosd I southbound L T R I L T R I L T R I L T R I No. Lanes I---- ---- 11 3 ----I---- 1 1 ---- 1 3 ---- I ---- ---- ----I---- ---- 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 2 ---- 1 VoUoes 1 47 411 1811 240 850 1011 147 141 1001 66 214 161 Lane Width 112.0 12.0 10.0112.0 12.0 10.0112.0 12.0 8.0112.0 12.0 8.0 RTOR Volt I 01 ........--- .._.._...---01---..._-----01....'----••0. Signal Operations Phase eoabination 1 2 3 4 1 5 6 7 8 EB Left • IMB Left Thru I Thru Right I Right Pads I Paas WB Left • ISO Left Thru • I Thru Right • I Right Pads • I pads MB Right • IEB Right SB Right• IWB Right ' Green Yellow/A-R 20A 4 20A 4 IGreen I" 30A IYallow/A-R 4 4 Lost Tier 3.0 3.0 ILost Tisa 3.0 3.0 Cycle Length: 100 saes Phase eosbination order: 01 62 85 96 ------------------- ,_ -----------------------------------------Apprwdu.-- Intersection Perfmsance Suamary Lana Group: Adj Sat V/e a/c Mvats Cap Flow Ratio Ratio Delay LOS Delay LOS ----- EB L ---- ------- 1693 356 ----- 0.14 ----- ----- --- ----- 0.21 24.4 C 20.6 --- C T 5346 1123 0.42 '0.21. 22.3 C R 1409 507 0.38 0.36 15.5 C WB L 1693 356 0.71 0.21 32.4 D 29.5 D T SX6 1123 0.88 0.21 29.6 0 R 1409 2% 0.36 0.21 Z2.1 C ' MB L T 1693 3564 254 1105 0.61 0.14 OAS 33.2 D 20.5 0.31 16.1 C C - R ' 1318 685 0.15 0.52 8.1 a SB L 1693 254 0.27 O.1S 28.8 D 15.4 C T 3564 1105 0.21 0.31 16.5 C R 1318 685 0.25 0.52 8.6 R Intersection Delay.- 23.8 (see/veh) Intersection LOS a C ------------------------------------•---------------------------------- I 1 NCM: SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION SIAWART Center For Micr000epaters In Transportation Streets: (E -W) WINCHESTER RD (N -S) MARGARITA RD Analyst: ERIC UNDERWOOD File Name: 2154FMWP.NC9 Area Type: Other 10-28-92 PM PEAK Comment: CMP/RIVSAN 2010 WITH PROJECT; NODE 2154 No. Lanes Volumes Lane Width RTOR Vole Eastbrrd Westbonrd Morthbovd Southboird L T R L T R L T R L T R ---- ---- -------- "" _------- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- 1 3 1 1 - 3 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 . 2 1 93 404 1971 259 857 1141 174 238 IIJI 76 267 180 12.0 12.0 10.012.0 12.0 10.012.0 12.0 8.0112.012.0 8.0 01 01 01 0 .___•__________•__•_• ...............-------............-"" Im Sinal Operations Phase combination 1 - 2 3 4 1 5 6 7 8 ER Left • ING Left Thru I Thru Right I Right Peds I Peds N Left • ISR Left Thru I Thru Right I Right Peds I Peds RR Right • JEB Right SB Right • _ jWg Right Green 20A 20A lGreen 14A 3GA Yellow/A-R 4 4 ITellow/A-R 4 4 Lost Tim 3.0 3.0 Lost Tian 3.0 3.0 Cycle Length: 100 sed Phase combination order: g1 /2 05'06 ....................................................................... ._ Intersection Performance Su®ry Lane Groep: Adj Sat v/e g/c Approach: Nvats --------- Cap ------- flow Ratio Ratio Delay LOS Delay LOS ES L 1693 356 ----- 0.28 -----..... 0.21 25.3 ... D ..... ... 20.9 C T 5346 1123 0.42. 0.21 22.2 C R 1409 S07 0.41 0.36 15.8 C WO L 1693 356 0.77 0.21 34.9 0 30.3 D T 5346 1123 0.88 0.21 30.0 D R 1409 296 0.41 0.21 22.5 C Re L 1693 ZS4 0.72 0.15 37.2 0 21.6 C T 3564 1105 0.24 0.31 16.6 C R 1318 685 0.17 0.52 8.2 g 5111 L 1693 254 0.32 0.15 29.1 D 15.8 C T 3564 1105 0.27 0.31 16.8 C R ' 1318 685 0.28 0.52 8.7 g Intersection Delay a 24.1 (sae/veh) Intersection LOS a C INCM: SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION SU KARY 1 I I Center For Microcomputers In Transportation zzeuzsszusazzzazazzzzsuzvzzzzzzva:uzuusazsvaazuvaauaauvauaa Streets: (E•U) MICOLAS RD (N -S) UIMCNESTER RO Analyst: ERIC UNDERWOOD File Nm: 3726ANWP.NC9 I.D. 7 Area Type: Other 10-28-92 AN PEAK ' [eminent: CKP/RIVSAN 2010 WITH PROJECT; MODE 3726 . a+u:szzazszzsuaasazavzzazvzavmz+azazmuzasmzszauavasoazz Eastbasd I Uestbol I Northbound I Southbard 1 L T R I L T R I L T R I L T R r I--_. ____ ____I____ ____ __..---- ..-. _------- ____ .--- No. Lanes I 1 2 1 1 3 1 1 1 3 Volumes I 1 48 1001 509 181 36 1017 Lane Width 1 112.0 12.01 12.0 11.0112.0 12.0 RTOR Volt I 1 OI._.______.. O_ Signal Operations Phase combination 1 2 3 4 1 5 6 7 8 EB Left IWO left Thru I Thru Right I ,Right Peds I Pads WB left ISB Left Thru I Thru Right • I Right Peds Ivada Ng Right IEB Right SB Right IUB Right Green 20A (Green 52A TelloN/A-R 4 ITelloN/A-R 4 Lost Tim 3.0 ILost Tim 3.0 Cycle length: BO sees Phase combination order: 01 05 ., Intersection Performance Suasry Lena tromp. Adl Sat v/e a/c Approach: Mwts Cap Flow Ratio Ratio Delay LOS Delay LOS ----- -"' ...... ..... ..... ..... ... ..... --- weL 2673 702 0.08 0.26 16.9 C 15.8 C R 1515 396 0.26 0.26. 15.2 C 98 T 5366 3542 0.17 0.66 3.3 A 3.3 A R 1469 973 0.02 0.66 3.0 A SB L 922 611- 0.06 0.66 3.6 A 3.8 A T 5346 3542 0.33 0.66 3.8 A ' Intersection Delay • 4.6 (sec/veh) -----.Intersection LOS • A _________________________________________ ________________----_-_ 1 I I NCM: SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION SUMMARY Center For Hitroconputers In Transportation sssssusamususmausussaasmssuasaysssaasausasaaumaaamu Streets: (E -W) NICOLAS RD (N -S) WINCHESTER RD Analyst: ERIC UNDERWOOD File Name: 3726PMW.HC9 I.D. 7 Area Type: Other 10-28-92 PH PEAK Comment: CMP/RIVSAN 2010 WITH PROJECT; NODE 3726 Esstbound 1- Wastbcm I Northbound I Southbound L T R I L T R I L T R I L T R I---- ---- ----1---- ---- ---- I..-- -------•---- ---- ---- No. Lanes I 12 1 1 3 1 1 1 3 Volumes I I S7 691 974 1741 26 957 Lane Width 1 112.0 12.01 12.0 11.0112.0 12.0 RTOR Vols 1 1 01 01 0 ------------------------------- Signal Operations Phase Combination 1 2 3 4 1 5 6 7 a Ea Left INR Left Thru I Thru • . Right I Right Peds I Peds NO Left • ISR Left • Thru I Thru Right • I Right Pods I Peds NO Right 1Eg Right SO Right Iwo Right Green 20A (Green 52A Yellow/A-R 4 1TelloW/A-1 4 Lost Tim 3.0 ILost Tim 3.0 Cycle Length: 60 sees Phase Cabination order: 01 65 ....................................................................... .. Intersection Performance Sumsry Lary Group: Adj Sat V/C a/c Approach: Nests ----- Cap ---- Flow Ratio Ratio Delay ------- LOS Delay LOS we L 2675 ----- ----- ----- 702 0.09 0.26 16.9 --- C ----- --- 15.8 C R 1515 398 0.24 0.26 15.0 C R8 T . 5346 _3542 0.31 0.66 3.7 A 3.7 A R 1469 973 0.19 0.66 3.4 A SO L 324 215 0.13 0.66 3.8 A 3.7 A T 5346 3542 0.31 0.66 3.7 A Intersection Delay a ---------•----•-------------------------------------------------------- 4.4 (sae/veh) Intersection LOS a A INCM: SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION SUWARY I 1 Center For Microcomputers In Transportation - exzzxxsszzazssa::xaavaaazazsa:axaascaza:asssaasaa:sssavazaazsssasxsaaza ' Streets: (E•Y) MURRIETA XOT SPRINGS (N-5) YINCXESTER RD Analyst: ERIC UNDERWOOD File Name: 3517AMYP. HC9 I.D. 8 . Area Type: Other 10-28-92 AN PEAK Comment: CMP/RIVSAN 2010 WITH PROJECT; ssssasaazsasmssaaa. MODE 3517 ' Eastbound Yestboud northbound Southboud L T R L T R L T R L T R No. lanes 1'-r- -------- 1 2 1 "" ---- 1 2 1 ""---- ---- -------. ---- 1 1 2 1 1 1 2 ---- 1 Voluaes 156 327 711 12 660 1401 65 314 121 81 227 163 Lane Width 112.0 12.0 8.012.0 12.0 8.012.0 12.0 10.012.0 12.0 10.0 RTOR Vols I 01 01 01 ----- --_-------' -- -- -- -------- --------------0 Signal Operations Phase combination 1 2 ES left • 3 4 5 6 7 INS Left 8 Thru I Thru Right • ( Right Pads •' Peds WB Left • 19111 Left Thru • Thru - Right I Right Peds I Peds NO Right IEB Right SB Right IWB Right Green 11A 21A IGreen 12A 20A Yellw/A-R 4 4 .IYellow/A-R 4 4 ' Lost Time 3.0 3.0 ILost time 3.0 3.0 Cycle length: 80 sets Phase combination order. 01 82 05 96 ' ----------------------- ---" --------•__-------------'_------'---------_ Intersection Performance Sumrry Lane Group: Adj Sat V/c g/c Approach: Masts Cap Flow Ratio Ratio Delay LOS Delay LOS ----- EB L ---- "" ... 1693 254 ..... 0.65 ..... ..... ... ..... 0.15 28.2 0 18.7 --- C T 3564 980 0.37 0.28 15.2 C R 1318 362 0.21 0.28 14.4 B WB L 1693 254 0.05 0.15. 22.1 C 18.4 C T 3564 960 0.74 0.28 18.9 C - R 1318 362 0.41 0.28 15.6 C NB L 1693 275 0.25 0.16 22.3 C 16.7 C ' T 3564 936 0.37 0.26 15.7 C - R 1409 370 0.04 0.26 14.2 B SB L 1695 275 0.31 0.16 22.7 - C 16.9 C T R 3564 936 1409 370 0.27 0.47 0.26 15.2 C 0.26 16.6 C Intersection Delay ` .17.9 ------•-_----•__--------••--_-------•-----------------------"'-------• (see/veh) Intersection LOS ` C I 1 NCM: SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION SUMMARY Center For MitrecomWters In Transportation aaasaansaaxaa.......... ..... .aa ... .............. 2.......saaaaaaasxs Streets: (E -W) MURRIETA NOT SPRINGS (N -S) WINCHESTER RD Analyst: ERIC UNDERWOOD File Name: 3517PMWP.HC9 I.D. 8 Area Type: Other 11-16-92 PM PEAK - Comment: CMP/RIVSAN 2010 WITH PROJECT; NODE 3517 asa:asaaaaa aaaasaaaaaasaaaasaaasaaaaa-saasaaz Eastbound I Westboud I Northbound I Southboud l L T R I L T R I L T R I L T R I---- ---- ----I---- ---- ----I---- -------- I---- ---- ---- No. Lanes 11 2 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 2 1 Volumes 1 200 656 361 23 633 1451 87 385 201 204 479 251 Lane Width 112.0 12.0 8.0112.0 12.0 8.0112.0 12.0 10.0112.0 12.0 10.0 RTOR Vols l 01 01 01 0 ....................................................................... Signal Operations Phase combination 1 2 3 4 1 S 6 7 8 ER Left • IRB Left Thru • I Thru Right • I Right • - Fads • I Peds WB Left • 15B Left Thru • I Thru Right • I Right Peds • I Pads NO Right JEB Right So Right IWO Right Green 17A 19A lGraan 12A I" YelloN/A-R 4 4 lYellow/A-R 4 4 Lost Time 3.0 3.0 ILost Time 3.0 3.0 Seca Cycle Length: 80 Phase combination order: 01 92 05 06 ----------------------------------------------------------------------- intersection Performance sumary Lana Group: Ad) Set V/c a/c Approach: Nymts ----- Cep ---- Flow Ratio Ratio Delay LOS Delay LOS EB L ------- 1693 381 ----- 0.55 ----- ----- 0.22 22.2 --- C ----- --- 21.6 C T 3S64 891 0.81 0.25 21.8 C R 1318 330 0.12 0.25 15.0 1 WB L 1693 381 0.06 0.22 18.5 C 20.1 C T 3564 891 0.78 0.25 20.8 C R 1318 330 0." 0.25 17.1 C NO L 1693 275 0.33 0.16 22.8 C 19.4 C T 3564 757 0.56 0.21 18.8 C R 1409 299 0.07 0.21 16.3 C SB L 1693 275 0.78 0.16 33.6 D 27.0 D T 3564 757 0.70 0.21 20.5 C R 1409 299 0.98 0.21 34.5 D Intersection Delay • ----------------------------------------------------------------------- 22.5 (see/veh) Intersection LOS a C -' NCM: SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION SUMMARY Center For Mierocamputers In Transportation cfifiiiiffsiiiiviicifiisiiasiiifiaiifififiifi isiiffiiffffiiffifsisisifi ' Streets: (E -W) RANCHO CALIF. RD (N -S) 1-15 SB RAMPS Analyst: MAS File Name: 5095~, HC9 I.D. 9 Area Type: Other .11-9-92 AM PEAK Comment: CMP/RIVSAN 2010 WITH PROJECT; NODE 5095 ' Eastimm Westbound Northbo4 Southbound L T R L T R L T R L T R �---- ---- ____---- ---- ____---- ____ ____---- ---- No. Lanes 2< 1 2 2 ---- 1 Volues 296 2161 285 768 1 21 118 Lane Width 1 12.0 112.0 12.0 1 112.0 12.0 I RTOR Vols 01 0 _ .Signal Operations Phase combination 1 2 3 1 1 5 6 7 EB Left IMB Left 8 Thru I Thru Right • Right Peds I Peds WB left • ISO left Thru I Thru _ Right I Right Peds I Peds us Right JES Right SB Right INS Right Green 20A 18A IGreen 20A Yellor/A-R A 1 ITa(loWA-R 1 Lost Time 3.0 3.0 ILost Time 3.0 Cycle Length: 70 sees Phase combination order: g1 02 05 - .'_""'___"-"'_"_'.__."------_____________________________"___--- _ Intersection Performance Summary Lana Group: Ad) Sat V/e a/c Approach: Mvmts Cap Flow Ratio Ratio Delay LOS Delay LOS ---------------- ----- ----- ----- --- _____ EB TR 3339 906 0.62 0.27 15.3 C 15.3 ___ C WB L 1693 508 0.59 0.30 17.2 C 7.8 B T 3561 2189 0.39 0.61 1.5 A SB L 2673 802 0.03 0.30 13.1 8 12.3 B R 1515 1S5 0.27 0.30 12.1 B Intersection Delay • 10.1 (sec/veh) Intersection LOS a 8 - ---------------------•___•______-------------------------___----------- 1 I I NCM: SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION SUMMARY Center For Microcomputers In Transportation casvanesasesesasaaavasaaasauasa .sous•esss•sa....aeeoaesattaasa:se Streets: (E -W) RANCHO CALIF. RD (M -S) I -IS SS RAMPS Analyst: MAS File Mame: SO95P)IWP.HC9 Area Type: Other 11-9.92 PM PEAK I.D. 9 Comment: CMP/RIVSAN 2010 WITH PROJECT: NODE 5095 Signal Eastboud I Westbound I Morthboud 1 Southba+d L T R I L T R I L T R I L T R No. Lanes 1 I4__ 2 c ---- ---- ---- ----I---- ---- ----I---- 1 1 2 I ---- 1 2 ---- 1 Volums I 558 7441 404 712 . I 1192 158 Lane Width 1 12.0 112.0 12.0 1 112.0 12.0 RTOR Vols ^ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ I , ___ _ ____ _____ 01 01 _ _ _ _ _ ________ _ _ _ _"--------------------------- ---"------------"'---"'- 1 0 Signal Operations - Phase combination 1 2 3 4 1 . S 6 7 8 EB Left IMB Left Thru • 1 Thru Right 1 Right Pads I Peds . WB left • ISB Left Thru • • I Thru - Right 1 Right • Pads I Pods N9 Right IEB Right SB Right IWB Right Green 2" 3" 1Green to Tenor/A-R 4 4 IYellow/A-R 4 , ' Lost Time 3.0 3.0 Ilost Tisa 3.0 Cycle Length: 80 sect Phase combination order: 81 #2 I5 _____________________________________________________---"'------------ Intersection Perform ce Summary Lane Group: Ad) Sat V/C a/c Approach: Mvmts ----- Cap ---- Flow Ratio Ratio Delay LOS Delay LOS EB TR 3259 "----- 1426 ----- ----- ----- 1.01 0." 31.9 --- D ----- --- 31.9 D WR l 1693 529 0.80 0.31 25.2 0 9.8 B T 3564 2807 0.28 0.79 1-S A SB L 2673 368 0.58 0.14 26.2 D 29.0 0 R 1515 208 0.80 0.14 32.5 D Intersection Delay a ----------------------------------------------------------------------- 22.7 (sec/Veh) Intersection LOS a C ' NCM: SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION SUMMARY I L Center For Micrawputers In Transportation ' ..s..................s.............s............................is..... Streets: (E -W) RANCHO CALIF. RD (N -S) 1.15 NB RAMPS Analyst: MAS File Nasse: 5098AMW.HC9 I.D. 10 Area Type: Other 11-9-92 AM PEAK Comment: CMP/RIVSAN 2010 WITH PROJECT; MODE 5098 Emsthoud I Nestbwsd I Northbound I Southbound L T R 1L T R I L T R I L T R I I---- ---- ----I---- ---- ----I---- ---- ----I---- ---- No. Lanes [ 1 2 ( 2 < [ 1 1 [ ---- Volumes 1 83 234 1 657 2391 396 3431 Lane Width 112.0 12.0 1 12.0 112.0 12.01 ' RTOR vols [ 01 01 01 Signal Operations Phase combination 1 2 3 4 1 5 6 7 8 ES Left INB. Left Thru • • [ Thru Right 1 Right Pads I Pads NO Left Ise Left Thru • I Thru Right • I Right Paoli I Pads NB Right IEB Right SB Rightjug Right Green ZOA 25A [Green 23A ' yellow/A-R 4 4 Iyellw/A-R 4 Lost Tien: .3.0 3.0 ILost Time 3.0 Cycle Length: 80 mea Phase combination order: !1 02 05 ----------------------------------------------- .-----------.----- Intersection Performance Summary Lane Group: Adl Sat v/c a/c Approach: Mvnts Cap Flow Ratio Ratio Delay LOS Delay LOS - --•-- ----------- ----- ----- ----- --- ----- EB L 1693 4" 0.20 0.26 17.5 C %7.3 --- B T 3564 2228 0.12 0.63 3.9 A NO TR 3420 1112 0.89 0.32 22.2 C 22.2 C NO L 1515 PSS 0.92 0.30 37.3 0 30.3 0 R 1515 455 0.79 0.30 Z2.1 C Intersection Delay . 22.8 (sec/wh) Intersection LOS a C ....................................................................... I L HCM: SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION SIMMART Center For Mierocomputers.1n Transportation ••vuaassa•••es•u•••••••sasez•sss•sassss•...=..•sa........... ... Streets: (E -W) RANCHO CALIF. RD(N-S) 1-15 NB RAMPS Analyst: HAS File Name: 5D98PMNP.HC9 I.D. 10 Area Type: Other 11-9-92 PM PEAK Comment: CMP/RIVSAM 2010 WITH PROJECT; NODE 5098 Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound L T R L T R L T R L T R �---- ---- -------- ---- ---.I---- ..-- -------- ---- ---- No. Lanes 1 2 2 c 1 1 Volumes 1 40 709 1 7% 1621 320 559 Lane Width 112.0 12.0 1 12.0 112.0 12.0 RTOR Vols 1 01 01 01 _-__---...--••---_••--•------•----------------------------------------- Signal Operations Phase combination 1 2 3 i 1 5 6 7 a EB Left • 11111 Left Thru • • Thru Right Right Peds Peds WB Left JSB Left Thru • Thru Right • Right Peds Peds NS Right JEB Right S8 Right IWB Right Green 13A 25A lGreen MR Tallow/A-R i G IVellow/A-R G Lost Time 3.0 3.0 ILost Time 3.0 Cycle Length: 80 sees Phase combination order: 01 R 05 ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Intersection Performance Sumery Lane Grog: Adj Sat VA g/C - Approach: Pivots Cap Flow Ratio Ratio Delay LOS Delay LOS --------- ------- ----- ----- ----- --- ----- --- Ell L 1693 2% 0.14 0.17 21.2 C 7.9 B T 35" 1916 0.41 0.54 7.2 B WB TR 3475 1129 0.94 0.32 25.9 D 25.9 D NB L 1515 587 0.57 0.39 1S.7 C 31.4 D R 1515 587 1.00 0.39 40.5 E Intersection Delay a 22.4 (see/Veh) Intersection LOS e C INCM: SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION SUMMARY . Center For Microcomputers In Transportation aazaa:aaxxaaa=azaaaaaxaaxxxxxxxxaaxaxasaasasxxxzzazzzsaaxasasaaaaaaxas. r Streets: (E -W) MURRIETA ROT SPRINGS (N -S) 1.15 SR RAMPS Analyst: HAS File Name: 5089AMWP.RC9 I.D. 11 ' Area Type: Other 11-13.92 AM PEAK Comment: CMP/RIVSAN 2010 WITH PROJECT r sasazzasaaszzasaxsazaxxzzszazxszaszvvassxxzsosysysssssssssuz� Eastboud I Westbound 1 .Northbound I Swthbourd L T R I L T R I L T R I L T R r No. Lanes I---- -------•---- ---- ----I---- I 1 1 1 1 1 ---- ----I---- ---- ---- I 1 1 1 Volumes 1 192 381 4 367 I 1 160 35 Lane Width RTOR Vols 1 12.0 12.0112.0 12.0 01 1 112.0 12.0 01 1 0 Signal Operations Phase combination 1 2 3 4 1 5 6 7 8 r EB Left IN8 Left Thru • I Thru Right • I Right Pals I Pala WR Left • ISO Left Thru • • I Thru Right • 1 Right Peds 1 Peds NB Right 1EB Right SB Right IWB Right r Green Yellow/A-R 6A 20A 4 4 (Green 32A IYellow/A-R f Lost Tine 3.0 3.0 ILost Tim 3.0 Cycle Length: 70 sacs Phase combination order: gi !2 g5 -"'-ice -G ------'------------------------------------------------ -"'"-------"''--------""'---A� "'--- Intersection Performance Summary Lane Group: 1 Sat V/e B/e Approach: Mwts Cap Flow Ratio Ratio Delay LOS Delay LOS EB T 1782 535 0.38 0.30 12.7 B 12.5 B R 1515 455 0.09 0.30 11.4 B WB L 1693 169 0.02 0.10 21.6 C 9.4 B T 1782 789 0.49 0.44 9.3 'B SB L 1515 714 0.24 0.47 8.4 B 8.0 B R 1515 714 0.05 0.47 6.5 B Intersection ____________________________________ Daley • 10.0 (see/veh)----_--_---Intersection LOS --B -_---_______ r r r NCM: SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION SUMMARY Center For Microcomputers In Transportation sx_axxxxxxxxxcxxxxxxxxxxxxsxaxxsxxsxxsxssssasxxxxssxxsssssxxxxsssxscxa Streets: (E -W) MURRIETA NOT SPRINGS (N -S) 1-15 SR RAMPS Analyst: HAS File Name: 5089PMWP.NC9 I D 1 1 Area Type: Other 11-13-92 PM PEAK Co ment: CMP/RIVSAN 2010 WITH PROJECT assvxassaass—xsxxss Eastbound I Westbound I Northbound I Southbourd L T R I L T R I L T R I L T R I---- ---- ----I---- ---- ----I---- ---- ----I---- ---- ---- No. lanes 1 1 t l t 1 I 11 1 - Volumes 1 469 541 7 483 1 1 477 12 Lane Width I 12.0 12.0112.0 12.0 1 112.0 12.0 RTOR vats 1 01 DI 1 0 ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Signal Operations Phase combination 1 2 3 4 1 5 6 7 8 ER Left INR, Left Thru • 1 Thru Right 1 Right Pads 1 Peds IS Left • ISR Left Thru • • 1 Thru Right • 1 Right • - Peds I Peds NO Right IES Right SR Right INR Right Green 6A 21A (Green 31A Yellow/A-R 4 4 IYellow/A-R 4 Lost Tim 3.0 3.0 host Time 3.0 Cycle Length: 70 secs Phase combination order: g1 f2 gs ----------------------------------------------------------------------- - Intersection Perforomme Su®ary Lane Group: Adj sat v/c a/c Approach: (hots --------- Cap ------- Plow Ratio Ratio Delay LOS Delay LOS ES T 1782 560 ----- 0.88 ----- ----- 0.31 23.8 •-- C ----- --- 22.5 C R 1515 476 0.12 0.31 11.1 R WS L 1695 169 0.04 0.10 21.6 C 10.4 S T 1752 ISIS 0.62 0.46 10.2 R Se L 1515 693 0.72 0.46 14.4 a 14.2 S R 1515 695 0.02 0.46 6.7 R Intersection Delay • ----------------------------------------------------------------------- 15.8 (sec/veh) Intersection LOS • C ' NCM: SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION SLRWART I.D. 12 Center For Microcomputers In Transportation ' axxxaaaaaacxxxaaaasacaaaa:aszazza..........................Z......... Streets: (E -W) MURRIETA NDT SPRINGS (N -S) 1-15 NS RAMPS Analyst: HAS File Name: 5DBS,~.RC9 Area Type: Other 11-13-92 AM PEAK C'maont: CNP/RIVSAN 2010 WITH PROJECT .az.zas..z.a.caaazzzrzzvccasv:v. Adj Sat v/c .zzza r Eastbound I Westbm I Northbound I Southbad R R R I L T I L T R I L T 1 L T r I---- ---_ ..-.I---- ------------- ---- ----I---- ____ _--. No. Lanes 1 1 1 1 1 1, 1 1 1 volumes 1 6 344 1 338 4371 32 61 Cap Lane Width 112.0 12.0 1 12.0 12.0112.0 12.01 Ratio RTOR Volt OI_._..__...__ 01 OI. LOS __._.. Signal Operations LOS Phase combination 1 2 3 4 1 5 6 7 a ' EB Left • INS Left """' ""' 290 0.02 Thru • • I Thru ----- 18.3 Right I Right • ----- 3.9 Peds • • I Peds WB Left ISO Left 1792 Thru • I Thru 0.64 Right • I Right A Peds I Peds NB Right IEB Right WB T SB Right IWB Right 7" 0.47 Green 11A 29A (Green ISA Teller/A-R 4 4 ITe(lor/A-R 4 9.5 Lost Time 3.0 3.0 ILost Time 3.0 11.3 Cycle Length: 70 sees Phase Combination order: ti 62 85 I.D. 12 I .. Intersection Performance SummaryLane Group: Adj Sat v/c S/C Approach pproach:Murata - "M a Cap Flow Ratio Ratio Delay LOS Delay LOS "'"' EB L "" 1693 """' ""' 290 0.02 ""- 0.17 ----- 18.3 --- C ----- 3.9 -" A T 1792 1146 0.32 0.64 3.7 A WB T 1782 7" 0.47 0.43 9.5 a 11.3 B R 1515 649 0.71 0.43 12.7 a NS L 1515 411 0.08 0.27 -14.4 B 14.1 B • R 1515 411 0.01 0.27 12.0 a Intersection Delay • 9.2 (sec/veh)...__-__--_Intersection .................................... LOS . B .___._------..____ I NCM: SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION SUMMARY Center For Microcomputers In Transportation caxx:xxxccasxxcacccaxxxcxccacxxccxxxccccxccxcscccx.....cxxxxxxxcxxxxce Streets: (E -W) MURRIETA NOT SPRINGS (N -S) 1-15 NO RAMPS Analyst: RAS File Name: 508 PNWP.NC9 I.D. 1 2 Area Type: Other 11-13-92 PM PEAK Comment: CNP/RIVSAN 2010 WITH PROJECT - macas:ass.cexmussxcoaxsavxxxssmmt.soxse.xxsexx Eastboasd I Westboud I Northbound I Southbasd L T R I L T R I L T R I L T R I---- ---- ----I---- ---- ----I---- ---- ----I---- ---- ---- No. Lanes 1 1 1 I 1 1 I 1 1 1 Volumes .I 31 915 ( 435 2841 56 51 Lane Width 112.0 12.0 1 12.0 12.0112.0 12.01 RTOR Vols I OI 01 01 ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Signal Operatioru Phase combination 1 2 3 4 1 S 6 7 a Ea Left • IND Left Thru • • I Thru Right I Right Peds • • I Pads Wa Left ISO Left Thru • I .Thru Right • I Right Peds I Peds NO Right In Right SO Right IWa Right Green IIA 29A IGreen IIIA Yellow/A-R 4 4 IYellow/A-R 4 Lost Time 3.0 3.0 ILost Time 3.0 Cycle Length- 70 sees Phase combination order- 91 92 R ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Intersection Performance Summary Lane GroqP- Adj gat V/c 0/0 Approach- Rants --------- Cap ------- Flow Ratio Ratio Delay LOS Delay LOS Ea L 1693 290 ----- 0.11 ----- 0.17 ----- 18.6 --- C ----- 10.0 --- a T 1782 1146 0.84 0.64 9.7 a WO T 1782 764 0.60 0.43 10.8 0 10.3 a R Isis '649 0.46 0.43 9.S 8 NO L 1515 411 0.14 0.27 14.7 8 14.5 0 R 1515 411 0.01 0.27 12.0 g Intersection Delay a ----------------------------------------------------------------------- 10.3 (see/veh) Intersection LOS a 0 NCM: SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION SUMMARY 1 Center For Micracaryuters In Transportation ........... xaaa..ass.... axs.xxaazxxa.a..= ...............aaxxxxas.aaa Streets: (E -W) MURRIETA NOT SPRINGS (N -S) 1.215 SB RAMPS Analyst: ERIC UNDERWOOD File Name: 5195AMWP.NC9 I.D. 13 Area Type: Other 10-28-92 AN PEA[ Cosaent: CMP/RIVSAN 2010 WITH PROJECT; MODE 5195 ' .as....o.says..m....a.....as.s.a..a.s.m...e.a..ms..a.a...o Easttassd Westbour:d Morthbasd Southbound I L T R I L T R I L T R I L T R �---- ---- "".--- ---- ----I---- No.Lanes 1 1 I 1 1 ---- .--'I-.-. ---- 11 ---- "No. 1 Volumes 516 271 136 817 I 143 139 Lane Width I 12.0 12.0112.0 12.0 I 112.0 12.0 RTOR Vols 01 1 O' __.01"""...-" Signal Operations Phase combination 1 2 3 i EB Left 1 5 6 7 IMB Left 8 Thru • 1 Thru Right • Right Peds • Pads WB Left • ISB Left Thru I Thru Right I Right Penh I Peds MB Right IES Right W Right IW Right Green 13A 31A IGrmn 2" Yellow/A-R A < ITelloN/A-R A Last Tim 3.0 3.0 ILost Tisa 3.0 Cycle Length: 80 sou Phase combination order: gt 82 05 -/,c -c _. Intersection Performance Sumery Lsrr Group: AdJ sat V g_/ AppeoedN: Mvmts Cap Flow Ratio Ratio Delay LOS Delay LOS ••___ ____ _______ _____ EB T 1782 713 0.76 _____ _••__ __. _•___ 0.40 16.2 C 15.9 ___ C R 1515 606 0.05 0.40 9.5 B W L 1693 296 0.AB 0.17 23.6 C 11.8 B T 1782 1091 0.79 0.61 9.8 B SB L 1515 473 0.32 0.31 16.1 c 14.9 B R Isis 473 0.31 0.31 13.6 B Intersection Dalry . 13.5 (see/veh) LOS • B ' _________••___-___•--•...............•--••___ _-.Intersection """"""""" 1 NOH: SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION SIAHNART Center For Microcarputers In Transportation aaaaaaasaaaraaaaaasaaaaaaasasar_acaaaasasaasaassas.aaaaasasaaaaaaaa Streets. (E -W) MURRIETA NOT SPRINGS (M -S) 1-215 SB RAMPS Analyst: ERIC UNDERWOOD File Name: 5195PMWP.NC9 I.D. 13 Area Type: Other 10-28.92 PM PEAK Coreent: CNP/RIVSAN 2010 WITH PROJECT; NODE 5195 intersection Performance Sumary Lane Eastbound 1 Westbound Northboo SouthboHrd L T R 1 L T R 1 L T R 1 L T R ---- No. Lanes 1 ---- 1 -----.-- 1 1 1 ---- -.-.1---- ---- ---- ---- ---- 1 1 1 ---- 1 Volumes 1 1149 691 41 873 1 105 128 Lane Width 1 12.0 12.0112.0 12.0 1 112.0 12.0 RTOR Vols ----------------------------------------------------------------------- ----- 37.3 01 01 0 R 1515 Signal Operations 0.07 Phase combination 1 2 3 4 1 5 6 7 8 EB Left 127 0.34 0.08 JOB Left D Thru A • 1782 Thru 0.68 Right 3.8 • Right so L Peds 246 • 0.16 Pads C WB Left C R 1515 15B Left 0.55 Thru • • 1 Thru Intersection Delay a 22.3 (ane/veh) ---------- o------------------------------------------------------------ Right Intersection LOS • C 1 Right Peds Pada MB Right 1EB Right SB Right 1w Right Green 6A SIA 1Green 12A Tetlov/A-R 3 4 1TelloN/A-R 4 Lost Time 3.0 3.0 1Lost Time 3.0 Cycle length: -----------------------------------------••-.-----------•-------------- 80 sees Phase combinatian order: 81 B2 05 intersection Performance Sumary Lane Group: Ad) Sat v/c a/c Approach: "rats --------- Cap Flow Ratio ----- Ratio ----- Delay LOS Delay LOS EB T 1782 ------- 1158 1.04 0.65 ----- 37.3 --- 0 ----- 35.4 --- 0 R 1515 985 0.07 0.65 3.3 A Wo L 1693 127 0.34 0.08 27.3 D 4.9 A T 1782 1359 0.68 0.76 3.8 A so L 1515 246 0.45 0.16 23.9 C 22.6 C R 1515 246 0.55 0.16 21.6 C Intersection Delay a 22.3 (ane/veh) ---------- o------------------------------------------------------------ Intersection LOS • C I.D. 14 NCM: SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION SUMMITRY ' Center For Microcomputers In Transportation IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIILIIII II3�1'IIZ iLiiii.�II �T.?.�� ��---may Y.yY.:Yi.yii_�iiiIIi�i Streets: (E -W) MURRIETA NOT SPRINGS (N -S) 1-215 MS RAMPS Lane Analyst: ERIC UNDERWOOD File Name: 51964MWP.NC9 Adj Sat. v/c Area Type: Other 10-28-92 AN PEAK Comment: CMP/RIVSAM 2010 WITH PROJECT; NODE 5198 Approach: I Eastboiid 1 Westbound 1 Northbound Southbound 1 L T R 1 L T R 1 L T R I L T R ---- Cap ---- I---- ---- ----I---- ----I---- ---- ----I---- ---- ---- No. Lanes 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I Volumes 1 53 606 1 897 421 S7 541 Ratio Lane Width 112.0 12.0 1 12.0 12.0112.0 12.01 LOS RTOR Vote 1 01 01 01 f _____________________••__. ------ ---------- _ Signal Operations EB L Phase combination 1 2 3 4 1 S 6 7 a ----- 127 0." ES Left • IMB Left • ----- 28.5 Thru • • I Thru ----- 5.6 Right • I Right Peds • I pads 1782 NO left 1SB Left 0.71 Thru • I Thru A Right • I Right Peds • I Peds WB T NB Right 1ED Right. 1069 0.88 SB Right 1WB Right 14.2 _ Green 6A 47A 1Green I" 13.7 Yellow/A-R 3 4 1YelloN/A-R 4 'lost Time 3.0 3.0 (Lost Time 3.0 1515 Cycle Length: 80 secs Phase combination order: 01 t2 R I.D. 14 Intersection Performance Summary ' Lane Group: Adj Sat. v/c B/m Approach: Mvmts ------ Cap ---- Flow Ratio ------- Ratio Delay LOS Delay LOS EB L 1693 ----- 127 0." ----- 0.08 ----- 28.5 --- D ----- 5.6 --- a T 1782 1270 0.50 0.71 3.6 A WB T 1782 1069 0.88 0.60 14.2 a 13.7 B R 1515 909 0.05 0.60 4.3 A RB L 1515 322 0.19 0.21 19.7 C 18.2 C R 1515 322 0.18 0.21 16.7 C Intersection Delay a 10.9 (sae/veh) Intersection LOS a B ....................................................................... NCM: SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION SUMMARY Center For Microcomputers In Transportation Streets: (E -W) MURRIETA NOT SPRINGS (N -S) 1.215 NR RUMPS Analyst: ERIC UNDERWOOD File Name: 5198PMWP.NC9 I.D. 14 Area Type: Other 10-28-92 PM PEAK Comment: CMP/RIVSAN 2010 WITH PROJECT: NODE 5198 Emstbiound I Westbound I Northbound I Southbound L T R I L T R I L T R I L T R I---- --_- ----I---- ---- ---- I---- -------- I---- ---- ---- No. Lane* 11 1 I 1 t I 1 1 I ' Volumes 1 115 1139 I 827 321 87 2421 Lane Width 112.0 12.0 1 12.0 12.0112.0 12.01 RTO( Vola 1 01 01 01 ------------------------------------------------------- ---------------- Signal Operations Phase combination 1 2 3 4 1 5 6 7 a EB Left • INS Left Thru • • I Thru Right LOS --- • I Right Peds 275 • I Peds WB Left 16.1 C ISS Left Thru 0.91 • 15.3 I Thru Right • 1782 I Right Peds 0.51 • - I Peds RB Right R 1515 776 IEB Right SB Right 6.3 B INS Right Green 13A 40A 0.29 1Green 16A Yellow/A-R 3 4 C ITellow/A-R 4 Lost Tim 3.0 3.0 0.21 ILost Ties 3.0 Cycle Length: 80 sees Phase combination order: 01 02 05 Intersection Performance Summary Lane Gras: Adj Sat We 0/e Approach: Nvmt* ----- Cap ---- Flow ------- Ratio ----- Ratio ----- Delay ----- LOS --- Daisy ----- LOS --- ES L 1693 275 0." 0.16 23.7 C 16.1 C T 1782 1270 0.91 0.71 15.3 C WB T 1782 913 0.95 0.51 24.2 C 23.5 C R 1515 776 0.04 0.51 6.3 B NO L 1515 322 0.29 0.21 20.2 C 24.9 C R 1515 322 0.79 0.21 26.6 0 Intersection Delay • 19.9 (see/veh) Intersection LOS - C ' SMITH ASSOCIATES ENGINEERS . PLANNERS 3600 Lime Street, Suite 226 • Riverside, CA 92501 • (714) 274.0566 • FAX (714) 274-9220 October 23, 1992 Mr. Robert Righetti Department of Public Works City of Temecula 43174 Business Park Drive Temecula, CA 92590 Re: Kemper Urban Core Projects - Site Access and On -Site Traffic Circulation Related Issues. Several issues have surfaced during the course of responding to City comments and concerts related to the three Kemper/Bedford urban core Specific Plans. The purpose of this Addendum material is to respond to and/or provide clarification for the following specific issues: 1) Bicycle lane safety concerns along the Winchester Hills internal loop road. 2) Winchester Bills neighborhood shopping center ingress/egress. 3) limited access driveways located along the Winchester Road frontage of the Temecula ' Regional Center. 4) Fast -west on-site circulation roadway within the Temecula Regional Center. Wilbur Smith Associates will incorporate this material into the final updated traffic study documents. Please call if you have any questions regarding this material. ' Sincerely yours, Wilbur Smith Associates 4&4 'l% ' Robert A. Davis Associate ' RAD:tj 3ANY. NY - ALLIANCE. OH - CAIRO. EGYPT - C ARL ESION. SC - COLUMBIA. SC - COLUMBUS. OH - DES MOINES, IA - FALLS CHURCH, VA NG KONG - HOUSTON. TX - KNOXVIL.E. TN - L6X!NG'ON. KY - LONDON. ENGLAND • LOS ANGEL -ES. CA . MIAMI, FL - NEENAH. WI Traffic Study Addendum Purpose and Scope Addendum material presented herein includes discussion of the following issues: 1) While City staff concurs that the recommended two-lane Collector Street would adequately accommodate trafBe volumes projected for the Winchester Hills internal loop road, concerns have been expressed regarding potential bicycle -vehicle conflicts along this facility. 2) This location and configuration of the proposed neighborhood commercial center within the Winchester Hills Specific Plan does not allow standard spacing to be provided along Date Street or Ynez Road for a full movement access intersection serving the commercial site. In lieu of a full access intersection, what alternatives exist for providing adequate access to and from the site? 3). City staff has expressed concern regarding proposed right -in and right -out access driveways serving the Temecula Regional Center along Winchester Road. Are there any alternatives which would further minimize the potential for disruption to traffic flows using Winchester Road while still providing favorable access to the site? 4) A Specific Plan road has been designated in the Draft General Plan Circulation Element to run east -west within the Temecula Regional Center site and provide connections with Ynez Road (at the Palm Plaza Main Access Drive) and Margarita Road (at the General Kearney Road). What type of facility does this need to be from an areawide circulation viewpoint?, Winchester Hills Loop Road Based on the results of the Specific Plan traffic study a standard two-lane Collector street was recommended to serve forecasted traffic volumes ranging from 1,600 vehicles per day (south of Date Street) to 8,400 vehicles per day (east of C-Street/Ynez Road connector street). A standard Collector street cross-section, depicted in Figure la, provides a 44 -foot wide paved roadway within a 66 -foot right-of-way. 2 I I 1 1 I Typical Section I... ........ r..����w���r����r���r ��r ������• I r In I Modified Option With Bike Lanes 1 Standard Collector Street Cross Sections ' In response to the City's request for the provision of curb side parking along one side of the ' street and designated bicycle lanes, the modified cross-section (with 46 -foot paved roadway) depicted in Figure lb was developed. In both proposals, a 13 -foot landscape easement was ' added on both sides of the right-of-way. With this cross-section, left -turn movements from the loop road to local side streets are made from the same lane carrying through traffic. It is our understanding that City staff concerns' relate to a potential situation where a vehicle wanting to turn left from the loop road onto a local side street is forced to wait while opposing traffic passes. The specific concern, is that a vehicle following the vehicle which has paused to make the left turn may, be tempted to veer around the stopped vehicle (in order to avoid stopping) and encroach on the bike lane where cyclists may be present. ' One possible mitigation for this concern, which has been requested by City staff to be considered, involves the construction of a principal collectorimdustrial collector instead of ' a standard collector or street. The principal collector cross-section depicted in Figure 2a provides a 56 -foot paved roadway within a 78 -foot right-of-way. ' The 56 -foot pavement width allows for a continuous left -turn lane in addition to one through lane in each direction and curb parking on both sides. A modified version of this cross- section, which provides curbside parking on one side only and a bike lane on both sides, is depicted in Figure 2b. ' Our evaluation of this issue is focused on the bicycle safety issue, however, related community design issued cannot be ignored. A detailed review of the Bikeway Planning and ' Design Chapter of the Caltrans Highway Design Manual revealed the following: • The stated purpose of a Class II Bikeway (bike lane) is to improve conditions for bicyclists in a travel corridor by delineating the right-of-way assigned to bicyclists and ' motorists and to provide for more predictable movements by each. • There is no reference to the inappropriateness, undesirability or safety concern in providing a bike lane along a two-lane street which does not have separate left -turn bays at intersections. • While it is stated that most auto/bicycle accidents occur at intersections, none of the ' most common auto/bicycle conflicts involve the safety concern raised for the Winchester Hills loop road. Typical bicycle/auto movements at intersections are illustrated in Figure 3. The typical bicycle movements depicted in Figure 3 are allowed and should be accomplished in accordance with the normal rules of the road. � A ' CURBSIDE CVRBSiDE PAM,,* PNW.NG I 11 to' IZ' 121 i2' 5Co' PA�� 78' R •O, W . Typical Section .rrrrrrn.�r.�rr rrrrrrrrrrrr rr.�rrrr rrrrrrrrrrrrr�.w CURBSIDE M PARKMG fit 78' K.O, W, Modified Option With Bike Lanes ' . Principal Collector llndustrial Collector Cross Sections IUUU-I4 HIGHWAY DESIGN MANUAL ' Jams• y, 1997 1 Typical Bicycle/Auto Movements at Intersections of Multilane Streets 1 I � LM 1 I erg +I I I 1 I I I ' +�— Ped. Crossing 1 -- - - ` I I I — — — 1 ` 11 If i► I t 1 — — — — — -�►� I 1 Ped. Crossing �l e i"" ( JIXE LEGEND Bike Travel ►Motor Vehicle Travel I ' Wilbur Smith Associates has also reviewed the projected peak -hour traffic forecasts and expected turning movements along the Winchester Hills loop road. In this review, we ' assessed the general likely hood and frequency of conditions which could result in the auto/bicycle conflict presented by City staff. Results of this review indicate the projected peak -hour traffic volumes for the loop road reflect a maximum flow rate of approximately ' two vehicles per minute in each direction. The probability that a vehicle wanting to turn left will encounter an opposing vehicle at arty given intersection is quite low based on these ' traffic flow rates. If is assumed that this particular conditions will occur from time to time, then it should also be stated that the probability is even lower that a second vehicle would ' be in a position behind the vehicle paused momentarily (before turning left) where the trailing driver would be delayed by the vehicle turning left. Even if it is assumed that, on occasion, both of these conditions would be satisfied, in our judgement, most motorists would recognize and accept the momentary delay rather than intentionally violate the bike lane right-of-way. Without even considering the likelihood of a cyclist behind present in the bike ' lane and in a position of potential conflict, we would conclude that the combination of vehicle movements and exact vehicle positioning would not occur at a frequency which should be recognized as a safety problem. Similarly these findings would not in our ' professional judgement warrant the need to implements a street cross-section containing a continuous left -turn lane. When put into perspective, typical bicycle/auto movements (in Figure 3), which occur at ' intersections throughout the City, represent a much greater safety risk than the issue in question. As long as bicycles are allowed to operate on the road with vehicular traffic, there Jl be a potential for auto/bicycle conflicts and even with the best bike lane design standards ' available, the potential of auto/bicycle conflicts will always be highest at intersections. In addition to the findings and recommendations already given, Wilbur Smith associates would like to make the following suggestions regarding the potential loop road cross-section and striping designs: • Assuming that the City accept our recommendations to maintain a standard collector ' road for the loop road, we would recommend either of the two cross-section and striping options presented in Figure 4. ' Should the City decide that a continuous left -turn lane must be provided on the loop road, then we would recommend the cross-section and striping option depicted in ' Figure 5. This reduced cross-section would minimize the expanse of pavement needed while at the same time accommodate the relatively low left -turn volumes in 4 q CURBSIDE PARKMG w 44' VAN -/So 11 faro' ft •o w. 12, FY (:� L III Recommended Cnllertor Street Cross Sections. 5 CURBSVE PAFWJMG n ----------------- 53P 78' Modified I'v l v 1_ 12.5 Principal Collector/Industrial Collector Cross Section a separate lane. Wide street sections tend to encourage motorists to drive at a higher rate of speed and from a neighborhood design perspective, this would not be desirable. Regardless of which option is selected by the City, we recommend that: • Travel lanes should not be striped wider than 12 feet; and • The bike lane adjacent to the parking lane should be delineated by two white strips (e.g. one on each side of the bike lane) in order to more clearly define the presence of the bike lane. This is particularly important in situations where there are no vehicles parked along the curb and the combination bike-lane/parking lane area could be mistaken as a travel lane. Winchester Hills Neighborhood Shopping Center Access The intent of the Winchester Hills site layout was to On access to the neighborhood commercial center from Date Street and Ynez Road as well as the internal loop road. From a marketing and economic viability standpoint, both visibility and access from the two arterial streets are very important features of this site. From a community design standpoint, this commercial center is intended to provide for the day -today shopping and service commercial needs of the surrounding neighborhood. The placement of the commercial center allows a major portion of the residential trade area traffic to access the center via the internal Winchester Hills loop road. The remainder of the trade area traffic would be approaching the site via Date Street and Ynez Road. Wilbur Smith Associates concurs with City staff that site access along Date Street should be restricted to right-in/right-out traffic movements. This. due to the long-range (build -out) projected traffic volumes (approximately 38,000 vehicles per day) and Urban Arterial status of this road. In the case of Ynez Road, its Arterial status and lower long-range (build -out) traffic forecast (28,000 vehicle per day), would in our opinion, allow consideration of two restricted access conditons. These include a signle access driveway with: 5 a) The prolubition of left -turn movements out of the site and the allowance of left -turns into the site as well as right -turn in -and -out of the site; or b) The restriction of access to right-in/right-out traffic movements only. Option (a) would eliminate the most difficult movement (the outbound left -turn) which has the greatest number of conflicting traffic movements to contend with (e.g. northbound, and southbound through traffic as well as southbound left -turns entering the site driveway). The southbound left -turn movement into the site, which is allowed in Option (a) must only yield to northbound traffic. The right -turn movements out of and into the driveway involve even less potential traffic conflicts and would be allowed under either option. In our evaluation of Option (a), we first estimated the evening peak -hour traffic movements which are expected to occur at the intersection. These traffic projections (illustrated in Figure 6) represent build -out of the project and build -out of the City's Draft General Plan. Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) procedures were used to analyze Level of Service at this unsignalized intersection. The results of this analysis (see attached worksheet) indicate that the southbound left -turn movement into the site driveway would operate at Level of Service D or better during the evening peak -hour and Level of Service C or better during other periods of the day. The outbound right -turn movement would operate at Level of Service $ or better during aU periods of the day. Intersection analysis work sheets are provided in the attached Appendix. The level of service analysis indicates that even under the projected "worst ease" condition that southbound left -turn movement would operate at a acceptable service level. Since the analysis methodology inherently assumes a "random" arrival pattern for northbound traffic and the actual arrival pattern (with the planned signal at "C' Street) would be more accurately characterized as a "platooned" pattern, southbound left -turn traffic would have longer and more favorable gaps in northbound 4raffic then the HCM analysis results indicate. In our judgement, the southbound left -turn movement into the site could be served in a safe and efficient manner without measurable impact on Ynez Road traffic operation. The only remaining issue with this access option pertains to left -turn movement at Date Street and the southbound left -turn movement at Date Street and the southbound left -turn movement at the commercial center driveway. ., L 158 r 4-5, COM MACIAL r^Z4M DRIVEWAY t- r N m WMI Ov78wmD IXFr-74W PAORl8lrED L 158 COMAjCW41-'CF.M£R ARtvE4i{y i«P. M. Peak Hour Volumes w V Y�.7\ PRDJEC-MD BUILD-Owr �'- - The total left -turn bay storage requirement on Ynez Road was based on HCM methodology for the signalized intersection approach at Date Street and Caltrans Highway Design Manual ' methodology for the unsignalized intersection approach at the commercial center driveway approach. A summary of the projected build -out left -turn volumes and calculated left -turn storage requirements are illustrated in Figure 7. The analysis results indicate the need for a ' northbound double left -turn storage bay length of 325 feet and southbound single left -tum storage bay length of 150 feet. Assuming a 150 -foot overlapping taper length, the total ' minimum storage bay length would be 625 feet. The accommodation of the southbound left. turn bay in addition to the northbound left -turn bay would result in a minimum intersection spacing requirement of approximately 700 feet. Since the southernmost lot line of the 1 commercial center is approximately 800 feet south of the Date Street centerline, access Option (a) could be accommodated if the driveway were to be located within 100 feet of the ' site's southern boundary. Temecula Regional Center Winchester Road Access In the Temecula Regional Center EIR Traffic Impact Study, the proposed access plan for ' the site included three right-in/right-out minor access driveways (evenly spread along the Winchester Road frontage) in addition to the two principal site access intersections which ' would be signalized. This plan was conceived based on an attempt to balance the following goals: ' • Provide easy access to all development areas within the Regional Center, • Maintain the maximum possible between full -movement signalized access intersections along Winchester Road; • Provide additional non -signalized access points along the projects Winchester Road frontage; and ' Design non -signalized access points in a manner which would minimize disruption to ' through traffic flows along Winchester Road. 7 11 V 4 S 0 R DAM Sr. /t COMAKAWAL CEUMA DkIVZWAy Summary Of Restricted Access Option (a) ' In view of recent concerns expressed by both the City of Temecula and Caltrans regarding the need to maintain a high degree of access control along Winchester Road, Wilbur Smith ' Associates has re-evaluated the proposed site access plan. Our re-evaluation is focussed on the proposed right-in/right-out driveway access points. While we still believe that access points which are restricted to right -in and right -out movements have very little disruptive ' effects on the operation of "through lane" traffic we have considered addition restrictions which would all but eliminate the potential four traffic conflicts between project -related ' traffic utilizing auxiliary access drives and 'through lane" traffic on Winchester Road. The proposed access modification is depicted in Figure 8. This schematic layout calls for the elimination of right -turn movements g},ji of the restricted access driveways. In essence, . only right -turns 1= the site would require the provision of a 12 -foot wide deceleration/right- enun lane along the project frontage in advance of the right -in currently designed full - movement signalized intersections along the Winchester Road frontage it would be possible to provide approximate 50D -foot deceleration lanes in advance of each of the three "right -turn -in only" access points. With this access concept, all movements out of the site along Winchester Road would be made at a signalized intersection. Temecula Regional Center East-West On-SIte Circulation Roadway ' The issue of whether or not an east -west roadway facility is needed crossing the Regional Center site from Ynez Road (at the Palm Plaza main access) to Margarita Road (at General Kearney Road) is one which has received much attention and debate. This concept was not considered in the original Specific Plan Traffic Study primarily due to site planning ' considerations. Based on site planning and project implementation strategy considerations, a two-lane public street passing through the project would: 1 • in essence cut the useable site area in half; • preclude development of the western portion of the site as a more regional -oriented commercial center, • encourage through traffic and discourage on site pedestrian travel; and ' e undermine the. potential for developing a portion of the site in a more neo -traditional fashion. ' 8 �161M:va Recommended Future Off -Site Traffic Lanes And Regional Center Access Configuration Regional Center EIR Traffic Study _2 j- Number of Tratfle La 1 Tram TransMon Figure 8 ' During the City's General Plan process Wilbur Smith Associates was requested to develop build -out traffic projections with an east -west street located on the site. The daily traffic assignment. indicated that up to 12,000 vehicles per day would use this roadway if it were implemented. A closer review of the Traffic Analysis Zone (TAZ) centroid loadings reveals that approximately 7,000 to 8,000 vehicles per day would be directly attributable to the Regional Center and the remainder would be through traffic (e.g. approximately 4,000 to 5,000 vehicles per day). In the Draft Circulation Plan, this east west roadway facility was designated as a Specific Plan Road for the following reasons: • Projected traffic flows on this facility appeared to warrant some form of "continuous" facility between Ynez Road and Margarita Road; and • Due to numerous project design concepts which were discussed as part of the General Plan Land Use Element and being considered by Bedford/Kemper, special ' esthetics and functional design treatments would be highly desirable for this facility. These include features which would provide a more pedestrian friendly environment and would promote a more cohesive and destination oriented activity center. In the analysis we are focusing on the traffic operation and circulation system issues related to the facility rather than the land-use/project design concept issues. To better understand the impacts of the east -west Regional Center street connection, we first identified the ' components of traffic which would use the connection. The layout component of traffic would be generated by the Regional Center itself. The accommodation of project traffic would not warrant a "through street" in the technical sense, but rather a well planned on-site circulation system which provides convenient access in and out of the site and a contiguous access system within the site. This means that all portions of the site would be conveniently accessible from all other portions of the site without the need to use off-site arterial streets. This could be accomplished without the construction of ' an east -west public street connecting Ynez Road with Margarita Road. ' Components of traffic involving non -project traffic passing "through" the project were identified based first on a minimum travel path criteria, and secondly on a possible perceived ' travel time savings (avoidance of heavily used intersections and roadway segments). Figures 9a through 9f illustrate the principal through traffic components which would be likely to use the east -west connection. These through traffic components are presented in order of their ' relative magnitude. 9 i 1 tEoerm: .._.. Or1pLr� Rooftop Antlopwed ppmslon Anticipated Through Traffic - Component A Temecula Regional Center Figure ga LEGEND: •••... Ofloklel Pwkv — Antki sled Olvealen Anticipated Through Traffic — Component B Temecula Regional Center Flgure.9b LES: oltotnal ttwtkv -- Aallck"ted Olvanbn Anticipated Through Traffic - Component C Figure 9c Temecula Regional Center M M M MIIIIIIIIN MIIIIIIIIN= i• M= M= M11111110=11111110 LEGEND: ..•••• Grl91nd PwJ q Pdadld DAmlon Anticipated Through Traffic - Component D Figure gd Temecula Regional center = = = M i M = M = M M = = = = = lift, LEGEW. www %Ulb, Anticipated Through Traffic - Component E Figure go Temecula Regional Center M LEGEND: •.•••• Qfglnd Rwlfng — Paler" 01"I'slon Anticipated Through Traffic - Component F Figure st . Temecula Regional Center ' Based on the configuration of the area street network, and an assumed "direct routing" through the project, the most attractive routing of through traffic using the east -west facility ' (Component A) would he between General Kearney and the Winchester Road interchange (see Figure 9a). Component B of the through traffic would consist of traffic traveling ' between General Kearney Road and north Ynez Road (see Figure 9b). Traffic routing Components A. B, and C would make up the major portion of through traffic ' using the east -west street since these three routing patterns are the gD routing alternatives which result in a shortened travel path when using the east -west connector street. Through traffic Components D, F. and F (depicted in Figures 9d through 9f) represent other possible routings which may be "perceived" by motorists as being sharteuts (or more econvenient) even though they result in longer travel distances. ' Of the three principal components of through traffic, Components A and B would result in reduced turning movements at the Margarita Road/Winchester Road and Margarita Road intersections while turning movements would increase. at the Ynez Road/Palm Plaza Driveway intersection. Overall it is estimated that the traffic volumes on Winchester Road between Ynez Road and Margarita Road would be decreased by an estimated 2,500 to 3,000 ' vehicles per day with the east -west street. While decreases in traffic volumes on Winchester Road can be beneficial, the section of Winchester Road between Ynez Road and Margarita Road is not considered a critical section (as is the portion between Margarita Road and Winchester Road). Potential ' negative impacts of the traffic redistribution could more than offset the positive impacts. As can be noted in Figure 9a, the principal component of through traffic projected to use the east west connector street would result in increased left -turn movements at the northbound Ynez Road approach to Winchester Road. Based on our EIR Traffic Study the ' northbound left -turn movement is a critical movements at this intersection and will be required to accommodate heavy left -turn volumes being generated from within the Ynez Road corridor. In our judgement it would be better to accommodate this traffic at the ' westbound approach (through lanes) than encourage more traffic to use the northbound left - turn on Ynez Road. 10 Based on our assessment of this issue we find that: 1. The proposed east -west facility would accommodate primarily project related traffic; Z. Project related traffic could be accommodated by a well planned on-site (non-public) , circulation system; 3. Not many of the traffic movements in the area would likely be attracted to the , connector road; 4. Traffic routings encouraged by the east -west connector street would actually exacerbate the critical traffic movements at the heavily used Ynez Road/Winchester ' Road intersection; and 5. Through traffic found to be served by the proposed facility could be accommodated in a more effective manner on the currently planned arterial street system Cl 7 11 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Appendix 1995 PCM: UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS PRBe•1 •fftffff fffffNffNiNffNffNfNfflNfNfffffNfNlfN{iNNffffMlf IDENTIFYING INFORMATION ..................................................................... AVERAGE RUNNING SPEED. MAJOR STREET.. 40 PEAK NOIR FACTOR ..................... .95 AREA POPULATION ...................... 250000 NAME OF THE EAST/NEST STREET ......... ACCESS DRIVEWAY NAME OF THE NORTH/SCUTN STREET....... THU ROAD NAME OF THE ANALYST .................. RAD DATE OF THE ANALYSIS (mNdd/yy)...... 10-22-1992 TIME PERIOD ANALYZED ................. P.M. PEAK NCAA OTHER INFORMATION.... BUILD -OUT CONDITION ; ALL MOVEMENTS PERMITTED INTERSECTION TYPE AND CONTROL ..................................................................... INTERSECTION TYPEM T -INTERSECTION MAJOR STREET DIRECTION: HORTH/SOUTH CONTROL TYPE NESTROM: STOP SIGN TRAFFIC VOLUMES U IA NB SB .... .... .... .... LEFT -• 45 0 90 THOU -- 0 1512 055 NIGHT 150 45 0 NUMBER OF LANES ..................................................................... EB Al NB SB ------- ....Z.. ....... LANES 2 ADJUSTMENT FACTORS Pole -2 PERCENT RIGHT TURN CURB RADIUS (ft) ACCELERATION LANE GRADE ANGLE FOR RIGHT TURNS FOR RIGHT TURNS ................ ....... .......... EASTBOUND ..... ••. ................. ••. WESTSOIND 0.00 90 25 N NORTHBOUND 1.00 90 20 N SOUTHBOUND .1.00 90 20 M VEHICLE COMPOSITION X SU TRUCKS X COMBINATION AND RV42 VEHICLES X MOTORCYCLES .. ......... ............. EASTSCUND ... ............. ... _.. WESTBOUND 2 0 0 NORTHBOUND 9 0 0 SOUTHBOUND S 0 0 CRITICAL GAPS --------------------------------------------------------------- ------ . TABULAR VALUES ADJUSTED SIGHT DIST. FIHAL (Table 10.2) -------------- VALUE ADJUSTMENT CRITICAL GAP NINOR.RISNTS -------- ----------------------- YS 5.90 5.40 0.00 5.40 MAJOR LEFTS BB 5.70 5.20 0.00 9.20 MINOR LEFTS N 7.00 7.10 0.00 7.10 IDENTIFYING INFORMATION ...................................................... NAME OF THE EAST/WEST STREET...... ACCESS DRIVEWAY NAME OF THE NORTH/SOUTB STREET.... TNE2 ROAD DATE AND TIME OF THE ANALYSIS..... 10-22-1992 ; P.N. PEAK NOUN OTHER INFORMATION.... BUILD -OUT CONDITION ) ALL MOVEMENTS PERMITTED ' CAPACITY AND LEVEL-OF-SERVICE ................................... Page-3 ........ ................... ' POTEN. FLOW- TIAL ACTUAL MOVEMENT SNARED RESERVE RATE CAPACITY CAPACITY CAPACITY CAPACITY V&V MENT v(poph) a (peph) a Cpeph) a (peph) e - c - v LOS ' ...._.. M ._SM R SN MINA STREET ' us LEFT AO 72 46 t,6 -1 F RIGHT 166 496 <96 696 328 R MAJOR STREET SR LEFT 92 213 213 213 121 D IDENTIFYING INFORMATION ..... .. _••.................................................. MAKE OF THE EAST/WEST STREET...... ACCESS DRIVEWAY NAME OF THE NORTH/SQMTN STREET.... TMEZ ROAD DATE AND TIME OF THE ANALYSIS..... 10.22-1992 I P.N. PEAK MOOR ' OTHER INFORMATION....WILD-MY CONDITION I ALL MOVEMENTS PERMITTED 1985 HCN: UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS PABt-1 IDENTIFYING INFORMATION AVERAGE RUNNING SPEED, MAJOR STREET.. 40 PEAK M" FACTOR ..................... .95 AREA POPULATION ...................... 250000 NAME OF THE EAST/WSST STREET......... ACCESS DRIVEWAY NAME OF THE MONTM/SOITN STREET....... YNEZ ROAD NAME OF THE ANALYST .................. RAID DATE OF THE ANALYSIS (NW&LIVY)...... 10-22-1992 TIME PERIOD ANALYZED ................. P.N. PEAK NOUN DINER INFORMATION.... NUILD-Ott CONDITION ) WESTSOUND (OUTBOUND) LEFT -TURN PROHIBITED INTERSECTION TYPE AND CONTROL ......................•_•_._-_....____............................... INTERSECTION TYPE: ?-INTERSECTION MAJOR STREET DIRECTIONt NORTH/SGUTM CONTROL TYPE WES79OM: STOP SIGN TRAFFIC VOLUMES EB WB NB SB .... .... .... .... LEFT -• 0 0 90 TNAU •- 0 1312 BSS RIGHT IN AS 0 WINNER OF LANES - ....--....•.......................................................... Be YR MR $R LANES •• 1 2 2 ADJUSTMENT FACTORS Page -2 ..................................................................... PERCENT RIGHT TURN CURB RADIUS (ft) ACCELERATION LANE GRADE ANGLE FOR RIGHT TURNS FOR RIGHT TURNS ................. rmsom WESTBOUND 0.00 90 25 r MORTHSOUMO 1.00 90 20 M SOUIMSOIMD -1.00 90 20 N VEHICLE COMPOSITION X SU TRUCKS X COMBINATION AND RVIS VEHICLES X MOTORCYCLES ............. WESTROUND 2 0 0 NORTHBOUND S 0 0 SOUTNBOAID S 0 0 CRITICAL GAPS ..................................................................... TASULANN VALUES ADJUSTED $[GMT DIST. FINAL (Table 10.2) VALUE ADJUSTMENT CRITICAL GAP .............. ........ ............ NINON RIGHTS No 5.90 7.40 0.00 5.40 MAJOR LEFTS Q S.70 - 5.20 0.00 5.20 MINOR LEFTS . NO 7,60 7.10 0.00 7.10 IDENTIFYING INFORMATION .................................................................. NAME OF THE EAST/WEST STREET...... ACCESS DRIVEWAY NAME OF THE NORTN/SOUYN STREET.... YME2 ROAD DATE AND TIME OF THE ANALYSIS..... 10-22-1992 ) P.M. PEAN HOLM OTHER INFORMATION.... BUILD-OtR CONDITION ; WESTBOUND (OUTBOUND) LEFT -TURN PROHIRITEO CAPACITY AND LEVEL-OF-SERVICE Page-3 POTRM- ACTUAL FLOW- TIAL MOVEMENT SHARED RESERVE RATE CAPACITY CAPACITY CAPACITY CAPACITY MOVEMENT V(Pcph) c (peph) a (peph) a (Pqh) e > e - V L05 P N SH R SN MINOR STREET W6 LEFT 0 RIRNT 166 A% A% > A% > 326 > • MAJOR STREET S• LEFT 92 213 213 213 121 0 IDENTIFYING ImfumT1OM NAME OF TME EAST/YEST STREET...... ACCESS DRIVEWAY HANE OF TRE NORTN/SOUTH STREET.... YMEZ ROAD DATE AND TIME Of THE ANALYSIS..... 10-22-1992 I P.M. PEAK RDUR DINER INFORMATION.... BUILD -OUT CONDITION 7 WESTBOUND (OUTBOUND) LEFT-II1RN PRONIB1TED 110 Basin Drainage Study for Campos Verdes and The Temecula Regional Center Specific Plans For: Bedford Development Company 28765 Single Oak Drive Suite 200 Temecula, California 92590 UN NBS/Lowry Engineers and Planners 40925 County Center Drive Suite 120 Temecula, CA 92591 December 4, 1992 R78 -M.118 ENGINEERS d PLANNERS ' Table of Contents Introduction History of Watershed ' Basis for Study ........................................................................... ' General Considerations Project Description........................................................................... ' Campos Verdes........................................................... Temecula Regional Center Watershed Description........................................................................... ' Existing Drainage Facilities............................................................. Methodology Hydrology........................................................................... Hydraulics........................................................................... DesignCriteria........................................................................... System Proposal ' System Description........................................................................... ' Floodplain Impacts ' Introduction............................................................................ Federal Emergency Management Agency .............................................. Lake Skinner Dam Break........................................................................ Assessment District 161.......................................................................... Environmental Considerations ' National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System ................................... Conclusions and Recommendations....................................................... Technical Appendix Appendix ' Hydrology Calculations Appendix 11 Hydraulic Calculations Page 1 2 2 3 3 3 6 6 1:1 12 12 12 13 13 15 Exhibits , Exhibit No. Location Map 1 Study Limits of Previous Reports 1.1 Drainage Basin 2 , Existing Drainage Facilities 3 , Existing Downstream Drainage Facilities 3.1 Hydrology Map ' Area Tributary to Park/Detention Basin 4 Proposed Park/Detention Basin 4.1 ' Hydrology Map Campos Verdes and Temecula Regional Center 5 ' Proposed Drainage Facilities 6 ' 100 Year Flood 7 Lake Skinner Dam Inundation Map 8 , ii ' ' Introduction History of Watershed ' The proposed Campos Verdes and Temecula Regional Center Specific Plans are located in the City of Temecula, within the Temecula Valley Sub -Watershed Basin of the Murrieta Creek Area Drainage Basin (See Exhibit No. 1). The development trends begin with commercial developments, Palm Plaza and Advanced Cardiovascular Systems (ACS), adjacent to Interstate 15 at the downstream end of the Study Area. Meadowview, a ' residential development, located upstream of Margarita Road, consists of single family homes on 1/2 acre lots located along ridge lines and open space in the valleys. Roripaugh Estates and Margarita Village are Specific Plan residential developments, e located in the mid to upper reaches of the drainage basin, consisting of low to medium density homes. Agricultural developments, Callaway Winery and Hart Winery, dominate the upper limits of the Study Area. Previous drainage reports have been prepared for projects within the Study Area (See Exhibit No.1.1), these reports are: ' 1. The Village at Rancho California,NBS/Lowry, May 1987 2. The Rancho California Commerce Center,Robert Bein, William Frost; April 1989 3. Preliminary Storm Drain Analysis for Campos VerdeS,NSS/Lowry,Sept. 1989 The above reports used various aspects of the three reports listed above as a basis for ' analysis and conclusions, as described below. However, since the reports have been written there have been changes in land use and other hydrologic data for the Study Area. ' The Village at Rancho California report was a preliminary drainage investigation for a proposed shopping plaza located at the site of the existing Palm Plaza. The report assumed a condominium development for what is now the site of the Temecula Regional Center and a portion of Meadowview development. The Village at Rancho California ' report established a pond elevation at Interstate 15 of 1043.7 feet for the three culvert systems at Interstate 15, two in ACS and one in Palm Plaza. The pond elevation was established based on the amount of runoff (per the assumed land use) reaching the ' existing culvert systems and the capacities of the existing culvert systems to convey the runoff under Interstate 15. This pond elevation of 1043.7 feet was used in all subsequent reports and is evident in the finish floor elevations of Palm Plaza and ACS. The Rancho California Commerce Center report was a preliminary drainage investigation performed as part of the Environmental Impact Report/General Plan Amendment for approximately 1049 acres located to the north and southeast of the ' Winchester Road and Interstate 15 interchange. This report established off-site flow rates to the Campos Verdes development and established Master Plan Drainage Facilities through the specific plan area. The report also noted the undersized culverts at Interstate ' 15 at Palm Plaza and ACS and accepted these culvert capacities established by The Village at Rancho California report. The Preliminary Storm Drain Analysis for Campos Verdes report was prepared to examine the hydrologic considerations appropriate to the development of the Campos Verdes project. The Preliminary Storm Drain Analysis for Campos Verdes report utilized the off-site flow rates established for the Campos Verdes area within The Rancho California Commerce Center report. For the purpose of preliminary hydrologic analysis ' for the Campos Verdes report, the off-site flows were accepted and utilized to size the preliminary storm drain system within Campos Verdes. ' Basis for Studv This Basin Drainage Study was requested by the City of Temecula to clarify. and ' consolidate the information from the previous reports. This Study was also made necessary, because land uses have changed and rainfall data has been revised. This Basin Drainage Study will serve as a guideline in mitigating and implementing the ' °negative declaration" for the proposed Specific Plans and the development of improvement conditions for the Tentative Maps. 1 I 1 Additionally, the existing drainage facilities from Campos Verdes to Interstate 15 will be analyzed and recommendations for future drainage facilities for the Specific Plans will be provided. General Considerations Project Description The proposed Campos Verdes and Temecula Regional Center Specific Plans encompass approximately 320 acres of planned residential, commercial, professional office development and park improvements as described below: Campos Verdes The Campos Verdes Specific Plan includes low, medium and high density housing, community commercial and open space parks. Campos Verdes is located to the west and southeast of Roripaugh Estates and to the northeast of the proposed Margarita Road realignment. Campos Verdes contains approximately 135 acres including a proposed 18 acre park/detention facility. 2 Temecula Regional Center The Temecula Regional Center is located within the area bounded by Winchester Road, Ynez Road, realigned Margarita Road.and the proposed alignment of Overland Drive. The Temecula Regional Center contains approximately 185 acres of Professional Office and Commercial developments, with no proposed on-site detention. Watershed Description The Study Area encompasses approximately 2500 acres northeast of Interstate 15 and for study purposes has been divided into two sub -areas; Area A and Area B (See Exhibit No. 2). Storm flows generated from these sub -areas confluence on the west side of Interstate 15 before reaching Murrieta Creek. Area A contains approximately 2300 acres including portions of Margarita Village, Meadowview, proposed Campos Verdes and Temecula Regional Center and ACS. Area B encompasses approximately 200 acres including portions of Roripaugh Estates, the proposed Campos Verdes and Temecula Regional Center and Palm Plaza. The Study Area is approximately 70% developed at this time with the majority of development located upstream of Margarita Road. The Study Area Watershed consists of residential developments upstream of Margarita Road with open space used as natural drainage channels and a vineyard at the upstream limit. In addition, the area upstream of Margarita Road is complemented with rolling hills and gently sloping valleys. The area downstream of Margarita Road to Murrieta Creek consists of existing or proposed commercial developments, and is relatively flat in nature. Existing Drainage Facilities(See Exhibit No.3) Interstate 15 The runoff generated in the Study Area has proven to exceed the existing Interstate 15 culverts' capacities and therefore has traditionally ponded upstream of Interstate 15. Developments along Interstate 15, such as Palm Plaza and ACS, have been designed to accept this ponding within their parking lots and the Interstate 15 Right of Way. The existing main line drainage facilities upstream of Interstate 15 consist of earthen channels with culverts at road crossings, reinforced concrete boxes(RCB), concrete channels and reinforced concrete pipes (RCP). The runoff generated in both Area A and Area B are presently conveyed from Ynez Road to the existing Interstate 15 culvert systems via concrete channels and KCBs. A double 8'x 4' RCB and double 6' x 4' RCB under Interstate 15, located at the southwest corner of ACS, accepts 3 runoff from an existing double 14' x 5' RCB designed by JF Davidson for the ACS project. The double 8' x 4' RCB and double 6' x 4' RCB culvert system under Interstate 15 conveys approximately 820 cfs, as determined by this Basin Drainage ' Study. A second culvert system located adjacent to the double 8' x 4' RCB and the double 6' x 4' RCB consist of a 48" reinforced concrete pipe. The capacity of the 48" RCP is approximately 98 cfs, as determined by this Basin Drainage Study. The double 8' x 4' RCB, double 6' x 4' RCB and 48" RCP confluence on the west side ' of Interstate 15 discharging into an existing double 10' x 5' RCB (Line C, Riverside County Flood Control, Master Drainage Plan for Murrieta Creek). This double 10' x 5' RCB, as designed by To -Mac Engineering, conveys a flow rate of 1250 cfs as indicated by the Riverside County Flood Control, Master Drainage Plan for Murrieta Creek Line C (See Exhibit No. 3.1). This Basin Drainage Study calculated the runoff reaching the existing double 10' x 5' RCB to be 920 cfs. The calculated runoff which reaches the existing double 10' x 5' RCB is less than the design flow, therefore the proposed upstream developments will not adversely affect the downstream drainage facilities. ' A third culvert system under Interstate 15 located at the southwest corner of Palm Plaza consists of a 7' x 3' RCB. The capacity of this system has been calculated to ' be approximately 242 cfs, as determined by this Basin Drainage Study. The runoff that reaches this culvert system was calculated by JF Davidson for the Palm Plaza project to be approximately 500 cfs. The excess flow was designed to pond within the parking lot of Palm Plaza and the Interstate 15 Right of Way to an elevation of 1043.7'. The excess flow inundates approximately 5 acres within the Palm Plaza parking lot with a maximum depth of 3.7 feet (See Exhibit No.3). The existing double 54" RCP (Line C-1, ' Riverside County Flood Control, Master Drainage Plan for Murrieta Creek) west of Interstate 15 was designed by To -Mac Engineering to accept 410 cfs as indicated by Riverside County Flood Control, Master Drainage Plan for Murrieta Creek Line C-1 (See Exhibit No. 3.1). The runoff which reaches the existing double 54" RCP ;as determined by the culvert capacity calculations, is less than the design flow, therefore the proposed upstream developments will not adversely affect the downstream drainage facilities. ' Ynez Road In addition to the existing culverts crossing Interstate 15, there are existing culverts ' crossing Ynez Road in Areas A and B, and Margarita Road in Area A. An existing double 10' x 5' RCB under Ynez Road, designed by To -Mac Engineering to convey 1250 cfs, in Area A, located upstream of the existing double 14' x 5' RCB in ACS, accepts runoff from an existing earthen channel. This earthen channel was designed by NBS/Lowry to convey a flow rate of 1250 cfs and flows southwesterly ' from Margarita Road along the boundary of Lot 6 and Lot 7 of Tract 3334. ' 4 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 ENGINEERS t PlAY6[AS I 10925 Canty tents ' e TeMWk Caf ' 2591 J P F 916 O (2) 30"RCP Qcap=80cfs C -D CUA G�� rO R Q R ( /, •• 10'X5' R.C.B Qcap=670cP Q p=400cfs EARTHEN ��\� CHANNE �\ Qccl 25 fs PALM �O 'LAZA T .C.S. map=640cf 2)7'X5' R. C. Q. (2 10'X5' R.I Qc p=1250c 42" 300-fs EAM 36" CAM N VERiI- NOT SCALE BASIN DRAINAGE PLAN FOR CAMPOS VERDE AND TEMECULA REGIONAL CENTER SPECIFIC PLAN 1 EXISTING DRAINAGE FACILITES EXHIBIT NO. 3 1 1 i 1 1 1 1 1 1 i 1 1 1 i ENCIMEEAS 40925 Canty C Tamadq Cdifa (114) 616-6125 P 616-1916 TEMECULA REGIONAL CENTER SPR R 0 PALM 90 'LAZA VE�LAND DR `V'�— LINE . c. s. _a 421 INE YI SCALE BASIN DRAINAGE PLAN FOR CAMPOS VERDE AND TEMECULA REGIONAL CENTER SPECIFIC PLAN EXISTING DOWNSTREAM DRAINAGE FACILITIES EXHIBIT NO. 3.1 An existing double 7' x 5' RCB culvert crossing Ynez Road located at the boundary of Palm Plaza and ACS, as designed by JF Davidson for the Palm Plaza project, conveys a design flow rate of 420 cfs. An existing earthen channel paralleling Ynez Road, as shown on Exhibit No.3, intercepts runoff generated in Area B and conveys the flow to the aforementioned existing double Tx 5' RCB. The capacity of this double '7'x 5' RCB was calculated by this Basin Drainage Study to be approximately 640 cfs. Margarita Road An existing 10' x 5' RCB in Area A under Margarita Road, located approximately 2,500 feet north of Solana Way, conveys runoff generated upstream of Margarita Road. The ' capacity of the 10' x 5' RCB has been calculated by this Basin Drainage Study to convey approximately 670 cfs before overtopping Margarita Road. The 100 -year runoff that reaches the 10'x 5' RCB was calculated by this Basin Drainage Study to be 1233 ' cfs. At the present time this excess runoff will overtop Margarita Road, but in the future the proposed detention basin will mitigate this overtopping problem. ' At the present time, Margarita Road Extension Interim Improvements, designed by RBF, are under construction from Winchester Road to North General Kearny Road. A double 30" RCP culvert system located approximately 200 feet southeast of ' Winchester Road was designed to convey approximately 40 cfs in each pipe. A 60" RCP culvert system located approximately 950 feet southeast of the double 30" RCP culvert system was designed to convey approximately 85 cfs as an interim condition, ' but has the capacity to convey approximately 300 cfs. A 24" RCP culvert system under realigned North General Kearny Road at Margarita Road collects street flows from realigned North General Kearny Road and conveys them southerly under existing ' North General Kearny Road outletting in the location of the proposed detention basin. ' The previously mentioned earthen channel, located along the boundary of Lot 6 and Lot 7 of Tract 3334, is a "blue -line' stream according to the United States Department of the Interior Geological Survey, Murrieta Quadrangle Map. This "blue -line" stream continues ' upstream under Margarita Road in the existing 10' x 5' RCB and through the proposed detention basin in Campos Verdes (See Exhibit No.3). Before any construction activity can ' take place within a "blue -line' stream, an approval and permit by the Army Corps of Engineers, The California Department of Fish and Game and The Regional Water Quality Control Board (San Diego Region) must be obtained. These permitting Agencies require ' written descriptions and exhibitsdepicting the proposed construction activity, and any impact on wildlife and fish habitats. For exact requirements, the permitting Agencies must be contacted to obtain the most current application packages and guidelines. L ' 5 Methodology Hydrology The hydrology performed in this study was completed under the guidelines of the Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District (RCFC&WCD) Hydrology Manual. The procedures utilized are documented in the RCFC&WCD Hydrology Manual and incorporated into" the computer programs RATRVSD for the Rational Method and FLOODSC for the Synthetic Unit Hydrograph by Advanced Engineering Software(AES). The Rational Method of Hydrology was used to determine the 100 -year peak discharge for drainage areas of 300 acres or less and is based on the equation: 0 = CIA Where: 0 = Runoff (Cubic feet per second, cis) C = Coefficient of Runoff I = Rainfall Intensity (Inches per hour) A = Area of Land (Acres) The Rational Method of Hydrology is a conservative approach to runoff quantity determination because the method calculates runoff using cumulative time of concentration in conjunction with the individual sub -areas. The Synthetic Unit Hydrograph was used to determine the 100 -year peak discharge for drainage areas greater than 300 acres and for design of storm water detention facilities. The Synthetic Unit Hydrograph is based on the principle of transposing rainfall -runoff data from a gaged drainage basin to an ungaged drainage basin, on the basis of differences in physical basin characteristics such as rainfall, shape, area, lag time and loss rates. Hydraulics The preliminary hydraulic study was based on the runoff quantities determined using the hydrologic methods previously discussed. The proposed main line storm drain systems were studied using the computer program StormPlus by Civilsoft (WSPG). Stormplus is based on the Los Angeles County Flood Control's Hydraulic Design Manual and was used to determine water surface elevations, velocity, head, pipe velocity and head water for the individual main line storm drain systems. The proposed detention basin located in the Campos Verde Park area was analyzed using the computer program HELEII by AES. HELEII performs detention basin routing calculations based on runoff determined by an inflow unit hydrograph, depth vs. basin storage and depth vs. outflow. Based on these parameters, the detention basin routing P ' program determines maximum detention basin depth, maximum detention basin storage and maximum outflow. ' Existing culvert capacities were determined using the criteria set forth in King's Handbook of Hydraulics (sixth edition, 1976) Section 4-23, Culverts. The capacity of each culvert was determined by calculating entrance and exit losses, friction losses in the culverts and '. tailwater conditions. Tailwater conditions were used as a conservative approach to calculating culvert capacities. The criteria used to determine these losses are based upon culvert length, area of flow, roughness coefficient, hydraulic radius and culvert inverts. Design Criteria The following assumptions were utilized to develop design flow rates: 7 Design Frequency: 100 -year and 10 -year storm runoff for all proposed storm drain main lines. 100 -year storm runoff for retention basin and culvert capacities. ' Manning's Roughness 0.015 for RCB Coefficient 'n": 0.013 for RCP 0.030 for natural channel Storm Drain System: Minimum of free board of one foot to proposed ' finished surface. Detention Basin Sizing: Volume determination by land area available, allowable ' depth, flow rate and debris production. Debris Production: 100 -year storm debris production based on Los ' Angeles County Flood Control District, Dams and Conservation Branch, November 1959. Culvert Capacity: outlet, soffit, and tailwater control conditions Entrance Losses, Exit Losses and Friction Losses. Runoff Coefficients: .76 - .78 Single Family 1/4 acre development ' .87 - .88 Commercial Development Rainfall Intensity: 100 year 10 minute - 3.48 in./hr. t100 year 60 minute - 1.40 in./hr. 7 System Proposal System Description Drainage Area A Drainage Area A encompasses approximately 2,300 acres easterly of Interstate 15. Area A generates a 100 -year runoff of approximately 400 cfs more than the calculated capacities for the culverts at Interstate 15; therefore, a detention basin located upstream of the existing drainage facilities is proposed by this Study. The location for the proposed detention facility is part of the park area set aside in Campos Verdes (See Exhibit No. 4, Hydrology Map,ln Sleeve). The park/detention basin encompasses approximately 18 acres. The detention basin is designed to contain storm runoff, including debris load, without inundating either of the fields during a 100 -year storm. The 100 -year storm will inundate approximately 6.3 acres, leaving 11.7 acres of park area and playing fields 'dry'. The detention basin has also been designed to account for the debris production within the tributary area. Debris Production was calculated using the Report on Debris Reduction Studies for Mountain Watersheds by the Los Angeles County Flood Control District, Dams and Conservation Branch. The 100 -year runoff generated within the 1,670 acres tributary to the detention basin, as shown on Exhibit No. 4 was calculated to be 1,233 cis. The area also produces 8,376 cubic yards (5.2 acre-feet) of debris. The total available storage volume for the park/detention basin was calculated to be approximately 90 acre-feet The outlet structure, a double 6' x 5' RCB, was used to limit the outflow from the basin. For aesthetic reasons, a minimum 50 foot setback from Margarita Road Right of Way for the downstream end of the detention basin was used as a design criteria for sizing the basin (See Exhibit No. 4.1). The detention basin characteristics as proposed at maximum stage are as follows; the storage volume utilized for debris and storm flows was 38 acre-feet, a depth of 12.2 feet above the flow line of the outlet, corresponding to elevation 1069' and an outflow of 733 cfs. The 38 acre-feet of storage utilized at maximum stage represents a debris storage of approximately 5.2 acre-feet and a storm flow storage of approximately 32.7 acre-feet. Approximately 70 acres of drainage area from Campos Verdes and Roripaugh Estates will be routed from Area B to Area A (See Exhibit No. 5, Hydrology Map,ln Sleeve). This routing of storm flows from Campos Verdes and Roripaugh Estates will not divert any flows to other drainage basins. This routing will not increase the amount of runoff tributary to the Ynez Road culvert at Palm Plaza, but will result in a reduced runoff reaching this culvert system. The runoff reaching the Ynez Road culvert system at ACS will also experience a reduction from the design flow rate due to the increased storage capacity and reduced outflow from the detention basin upstream of Margarita Road. The purpose of rerouting runoff and increasing detention capacity is to lessen [] the existing flooding problem at Interstate 15 in Palm Plaza and ACS. The total reduction in runoff reaching the Interstate 15 culverts was calculated to be approximately 230 cfs. This reduced runoff equates to a 12% reduction in flow reaching the Interstate 15 culverts. Although the flow to these culverts will be reduced, existing limits of inundation should remain intact to avoid encroachment into the existing limits of inundation. Line A ' The main storm drain line, Line A, in Area A (See Exhibit No. 6) commences just downstream of Roripaugh Estates. Line A begins at the existing outlet of a 36" RCP located at the southerly corner of Roripaugh Estates and meanders through Campos Verdes in a 48" RCP southwesterly until it reaches Margarita Road. From there, Line A continues south in Margarita Road in a 60' RCP until its confluence with Lateral A-2. ' Line A conveys a total developed runoff of 214 cis from 91 acres in a 60" RCP, at the confluence with Lateral A-2. Downstream of Lateral A-2, Line A transitions into a double 8' x 5' RCB, and conveys a 100 -year flow rate of 947 cfs. Line A continues ' south in Margarita Road until the intersection of proposed Overland Drive and Margarita Road. At this point, Line A turns westerly down proposed Overland Drive until it reaches the property line between Lot 6 and Lot 7 of Tract 3334. At the ' intersection of Overland Drive and the property line of Lot 6 and Lot 7, Line A confluences with Lateral A-1. Line A transitions into a double 10' x 5' RCB after the confluence and conveys a 100 -year flow rate of 1107 cts to the existing double 10' x ' S' RCB at Ynez Road. Line A continues to Interstate 15 through a double 14'x 5' RCB along the southerly property line of ACS conveying a total calculated flow of 1215 cfs. This calculated flow exceeds the Interstate 15 culvert capacities by approximately 300 ' cfs, but is less then the previously calculated runoff of approximately 1380 cis per the double 14'x 5' RCB storm drain system and ACS on-site hydrology, per JF Davidson. ' Lateral A-1 Lateral A-1 is located in the southern portion of the Temecula Regional Center and collects runoff generated south of proposed North General Kearny Road and north of proposed Overland Drive. Lateral A-1 is composed of a series of RCPs ranging from ' a 36" RCP at the upstream end to a 60" RCP at Line A. Lateral A-1 conveys a 100 - year developed flow rate of 173 cfs from 76 acres. ' Lateral A-2 Lateral A-2 begins at the outlet of the proposed detention basin. Consisting of a ' double 6' x 5' RCB which restricts the outflow from the detention basin, Lateral A-2 in conjunction with the detention basin, reduces the runoff from 1233 cfs to 733 cfs. ' 9 RE EMCIMEEAS k P 10925 Camly Ca lerD Ternaad4 Cdderrye 4P' AS i/ . �� EXIST. ' (SEE EXH. N0. (2) 30 RCP CUA ��� 48" RCP ) N AA\\� , �09 R Vv 6° LATERAL "�t2" \ LINE "B" . L% 54" RCP•yfi .p 4a TERAL "B-1"-7 "m I � ' 3) .C.S. �l P�q a°B L ERAL "A-1" 7'X5' b j6E7)8•XS' RC8 �CP N0. 3) All " — (2)6'X5' RCB LATERAL "A-2 —LINE.. W�_ n _CAME' VER[: i NOT_,,y SCALE BASIN DRAINAGE PLAN FOR CAMPOS VERDE AND TEMECULA REGIONAL CENTER SPECIFIC PLAN PROPOSED DRAINAGE FACILITES IN EXHIBIT NO. 6 L 1 I I 0 Area B Area B (See Exhibit No. 5, Hydrology Map) contains approximately 200 acres which drains to the existing double 7' x 5' RCB under Ynez Road at Palm Plaza. Area B begins in the portion of Campos Verdes adjacent to Winchester Road and Roripaugh Estates. Line B The main storm drain line in Area B is Line B (See Exhibit No. 6). Line B originates in the portion of Campos Verdes adjacent to Winchester Road and Roripaugh Estates. Line B collects runoff generated from approximately 32 acres in Campos Verdes and conveys storm flows under Margarita Road in an existing double 30" RCP system. Line B traverses the Temecula Regional Center in a southwesterly direction collecting runoff from 45 acres. Line B conveys 116 cis in a 54" RCP before transitioning into a 60" RCP. The 60" RCP continues southwesterly collecting runoff from an additional 40 acres. Line B then transitions into a 5' x 5' RCB and continues south before confluencing with Lateral B-2. Downstream of Lateral B-2, Line B turns southwesterly along the proposed North General Kearny Road alignment until its confluence with Lateral B-1. At this point, Line B transitions into a 7' x 5' RCB traversing in a southwesterly direction until reaching the existing double 7' x 5' RCB at Ynez Road. The 7' x 5' RCB conveys a total developed 100 -year storm runoff of 324 cfs. Downstream of Ynez Road, Line B continues through an existing concrete channel to Interstate 15. The total calculated runoff reaching the existing 7'x 3' RCB culvert under Interstate 15 is 432 cfs with a total tributary area of approximately 189 acres. This runoff exceeds the Interstate 15 culvert system by approximately 200 cfs, but is less then the previously calculated runoff of approximately 500 cfs per the concrete channel plans and the on-site hydrology of Palm Plaza, per JF Davidson, due to the rerouting of storm flows from Campos Verdes and Roripaugh Estates. Lateral B-1 ' Lateral B-1 is a 42"' RCP which collects 59 cfs of runoff from approximately 23 acres in the Temecula Regional Center, bounded by proposed General Kearny Road, Winchester Road and Ynez Road.. Lateral B-2 1 Lateral B-2 consists of a 54" RCP which collects 120 cfs of runoff from 42 acres in the Temecula Regional Center, bounded by proposed North General Kearny Road and Margarita Road. Table 1 on the following page summarizes the proposed drainage system for both Area A and Area B to Ynez Road. 10 Proposed Drainage Facilities Table 1 Drainage Area A Line Designation Runoff Drainage Length (cfs) Facility (feet) Line A 105 48" RCP 1460 151 60" RCP 650 214 60" RCP 1670 947 2-8'x 5' RCB 1730 1107 2-10'x 5' RCB 840 Lateral A-1 23 36" RCP 350 Lateral B-1 53 42" RCP 410 Lateral B-2 92 48" RCP 350 108 54" RCP 790 173 60" RCP 340 Lateral A-2 733 2-6' x 5' RCB 150 Drainage Area B Line Designation Runoff Drainage Length (cfs) Facility (feet) Line B 40 36" RCP 470 85 (2) 30" RCP 770 116 54" RCP 460 136 60" RCP 1200 175 5' x 5' RCB 760 324 7' x 5' RCB 1680 Lateral B-1 59 42" RCP 550 Lateral B-2 44 36" RCP 390 68 48" RCP 680 96 54" RCP 80 11 Floodplain Impacts ' Introduction ' The proposed Campos Verdes and Temecula Regional Center Specific Plans are located in the vicinity of the Santa Gertrudis Creek which is located northwest of Winchester Road. Although the Santa Gertrudis Creek is located in the Santa Gertrudis ' Valley Sub -Watershed, it is the main source for potential flooding in the Study Area adjacent to Interstate 15. ' However, it should be noted, that recent improvements along Santa Gertrudis Creek will relieve flooding downstream of the Temecula Regional Center but, this will not be evident until such time that the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) issues a letter of Map Revision and reprints the affected Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRM). ' Federal Emergency Management Agency FEMA is the responsible agency for floodway determination and 100 -year Flood ' Boundaries within a drainage area. FEMA details inundated areas through the use of FIRMs. According to FIRM panel 2745 of 3600 for the Unincorporated Areas of Riverside County, 1984, the 100 -year Flood Boundary for Santa Gertrudis Creek does not inundate any of the proposed Campos Verdes and Temecula Regional Center Specific Plan Area (See Exhibit No. 7). ' Lake Skinner Dam Break Lake Skinner is a 41,700 acre-foot storage reservoir located northeast of the City of ' Temecula. An earthen dam retains the lake within natural canyons. In the event of a dam failure, flooding would result along Tecalota Creek and Santa Gertrudis Creek ' from Winchester Road to Murrieta Creek (See Exhibit No. 8). The inundated areas and all other information shown on the Lake Skinner Dam Inundation Map provided by Metropolitan Water District(MWD) of Southern California have been accepted but not ' been verified by this Study. From the information obtained from MWD, depths of inundation are not readily available. However, it appears that a catastrophic failure of the Skinner Dam would cause flooding over the majority of the Temecula Regional Center and a small portion of Campos Verdes. No residential properties within Campos Verde will be affected by this potential catastrophe. ' It should be noted that the inundation plan has not taken into consideration any improvements along either Tecalota or Santa Gertrudis Creeks. Also, the plan was recently to the Office of Emergency Services for approval. 12 ' Assessment District 161 Assessment District 161 proposes no improvements to storm drain facilities within the proposed Campos Verdes and Temecula Regional Center Specific Plans. Environmental Considerations ' National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES ' The State and Regional Water Quality Control Boards (RWQCB) currently administers the NPDES permit regulations. NPDES permits are issued by the State under the authority of the EPA to selected industries, construction activities and municipalities. The Campos Verdes and Temecula Regional Center Specific Plans will be required to comply with the NPDES General Construction Activity Storm Water Permit (Permit) as well as any permit issued by the City of Temecula. The Permit must -be acquired through a Notice of Intent ' filed with the State RWQCB. The control of storm water quality by identifying point and non -point contaminates and mitigating these contaminates by the use of Best Management Practices (BMP) and a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) to ' address the reduction of contaminates during construction and after the completion of construction are required comply with the Permit. The SWPPP encompasses the following criteria: ' • Erosion and Sediment Control Measures • Waste Management and Disposal • Non -storm Water Management (Urban Runoff) • Construction Management Practices • Training Program ' • Maintenance, Inspection and Repair of SWPPP Documentation 13 Some of the general recommended construction practices that will be included in the site SWPPP are as follows: • Keep pollutants from entering the storm drain • Keep pollutants off of exposed surfaces • Prevent pollutant contact with rainfall or runoff • Minimize the generation of wastes and dispose of them properly • Prevent spills and leaks, and clean up accidents immediately • Cover and store all materials that could become storm water pollutants • Keep concrete and cement mortars out of storm drains and streams • Avoid over -application of fertilizers, pesticides and herbicides • Use care during pavement construction with petrochemicals and bitumens • Minimize the extent of the disturbed area and duration of exposure • Stabilize and protect disturbed areas as soon as possible • Keep runoff velocities low • Retain sediment within the construction site area with silt fences, straw bales and other devices • Implement a thorough maintenance and follow-up program Post -construction storm water pollution prevention BMP's are aimed at reducing the amount of contaminates entering the storm water system. Some typical non-structural BMP's that will be used as post -construction control include: • Stenciling of catch basins warning of dumping wastes • Good housekeeping manuals distributed to the homeowners at the time of purchase • Good housekeeping requirements for business and industry within the project • Limits on the use pesticides and fertilizers in common areas Determination of the best use of structural BMP's should be made during final design phase of the project. 14 IConclusions and Recommendations ' The proposed Campos Verdes and Temecula Regional Center Specific Plans along with possible upstream development necessitates the need for improved drainage and ' detention facility upstream of Ynez Road. The drainage and detention facilities improvements proposed in this Study are the recommended systems to convey storm water runoff through the projects. The proposed drainage system should be constructed ' prior to or in conjunction with the development of both the Campos Verdes and Temecula Regional Center Specific Plans. Phasing of the drainage facilities for Campos Verdes should coincide with the phasing plan as shown in the Specific Plan. The Temecula Regional Center drainage facilities should coincide with the phasing plan as shown in the Specific Plan. However, the detention basin, if not already constructed within the Campos Verdes Specific Plan, will need to be constructed when the amount of runoff entering the Palm Plaza/ACS ponding facility reaches approximately 1900 cfs. The proposed detention basin will reduce the peak flows downstream of Margarita Road, ' thus minimizing any detrimental impact on existing downstream drainage facilities and developments. The on-site drainage systems for the Specific Plans are proposed to be constructed of reinforced concrete pipes and boxes. The type of conveyance chosen is ' based on availability, familiarity and long life expectancy. The proposed Campos Verdes and Temecula Regional Center development will not ' adversely affect any of the properties downstream to Murrieta Creek, but will reduce potential impact on these properties, provided the proposed drainage and detention facilities are implemented. Reducing the potential impact on the downstream properties ' is accomplished by restricting and detaining the flows upstream of Margarita Road. The proposed drainage system is designed to reduce the runoff conveyed to Ynez Road, thereby reducing the runoff reaching downstream properties. J C 15 `E /��•.'_�'z4 ������ `` .a,�`sfl `�J/� EV TUAE %!r '•�_ ^� HIGHSCHOOL WE HILLS A. l:: r`"'•1� �' l� ♦} � 'in7�y .. Y •I •r.relR•.nR• ' � ';;J '1...� ;i r��)! "%',yy`?� i •icunr/ , '' V?LLE a/ � .9 �\ nE. / • / I I •'�•�}E' 'ltd 1<-E L1 BUSINESS. NIGMLANOS 'r \'.°'•' ' - L s ... k•' r 1 ''I I .y, I I �7`�ABK ^ O dJ! f r �. • • •Ill r ` . f- „]� ! S' • / ' W I QO•- Ltd. •f•- J \ \^ ;/j O _� �� � _ EL TAK'1C L . EGE D /� \ COY4ERLIK �. i\ .�T- i. LC •nM SI.YI IYM \` lNN 1MR SRrMO ' \ C' • • • LMRIXER / T/, "\ ). - • -- MYYERM Rrrr•tl - \ ♦L'YRR / . % � 4 ��llr•E M . ' Introduction I SUPPLEMENTAL TRAFFIC ANALYSIS GENERAL KEARNY ROAD EXTENSION City of Temecula General Plan Circulation Element At the request of the City of Temecula Planning Commission and Staff, Wilbur Smith Associates has prepared supplemental analysis relative to the potential exclusion of the General Kearny Road Extension between Margarita Road and Nicolas Road. In more specific terms, the supplemental analysis included the development and assessment of build -out traffic forecasts for two roadway network alternatives which eliminate the General Kearny Road Extension. The two network alternatives identified by the Planning Commission to be studied are as follows: A. Removal of General Kearny Road Extension without addition roadway network modifications; and B. Removal of General Kearny Road Extension and additional of Nicolas Road Extension easterly to Margarita Road. The supplemental analysis also included a "select link" analysis to identify the zonal (geographic) origins and destinations of vehicle trips projected to use General Kearny Road under the currently recommended Circulation Plan. This addresses the basic question regarding who (e.g. which development areas) would use the General Kearny Road Extension if it were implemented. Build -Out Dailv Traffic Forecasts ' Daily traffic forecasts representing build -out conditions within the City of Temecula and surrounding communities were developed for the two roadway network alternatives using the Temecula Circulation Element traffic model. The results of the traffic forecasting procedure are illustrated in Figure 1 through 3. Traffic forecasts for key roadway segments impacted by the elimination of the General Kearny Extension are as follows: I� o- J Try - ^ •.. O . •.•'b' } j • pLOl1} J m °•t♦ 4q .• N q lT !f. J•} a 5 � . •�J b q0 N orPt.MD De 19 at � J • u +1.1 J e °o .•� 9 0.O f ?O 9 y b ' 1 50 0 M f f J N u op%y•' 14 i�p. ♦0 p •} 7 25 0 °00 °�y 6 N r : w.wtNo °p 19 19 11 14 u�10 JO EGEND �ttt \ 11 0 24 DAILY TRAFFIC VOLUME (IN THOUS ANDSI IIS\11 12 wn ► 10 000000000000. c♦ J •. I O 000000000000 w . b o N o 4 r u o p m � 0 o 0000no0o0 °n 0 0 I ♦ f o ! ° onlrl. wn ' p °O OOY r 29 •..Tw wo ?f at ^ O 1e ° p 0 d �' .'b 1o•�B' 79 0 Yww\t�• a J o H^ b• { 2 5 ° 0 M ° p • !j • 0 o 19 0 o q OO1 of 11gIM01 •O e A m •' v ' 05 n A o O 11Uf.• NO b ^ •.•.••• 120 O Q ° o- J Try - ^ •.. O . •.•'b' } j • pLOl1} J m °•t♦ 4q .• N q lT !f. J•} a 5 � . •�J b q0 N orPt.MD De 19 at � J • u +1.1 J e °o .•� 9 0.O f ?O 9 y b ' 1 50 0 M f f J N u op%y•' 14 i�p. ♦0 p •} 7 25 0 °00 °�y 6 N r : w.wtNo °p 19 19 11 14 u�10 JO EGEND �ttt \ 11 0 24 DAILY TRAFFIC VOLUME (IN THOUS ANDSI IIS\11 12 wn ► 10 000000000000. c♦ J •. I O 000000000000 "UN'WN Build -Out Daily Traffic Forecasts - Alt. A WA(Circulation Plan Without General Kearney Road Extension) N16l1 mm. ' " City 01 Temecula G,--ral Plan Program Figr -- 1 w . b 10 Y 20 17 NJ "UN'WN Build -Out Daily Traffic Forecasts - Alt. A WA(Circulation Plan Without General Kearney Road Extension) N16l1 mm. ' " City 01 Temecula G,--ral Plan Program Figr -- 1 OVIALANO OR ••Y q0+'♦76 p Y NbJ ,1 30 Of 1 1' 1, 7 a• •'.�. w.N •r`�115 o° 4i ��13 19 .+11` Y 95 n♦d Nc. 15 '• •♦♦•1 JB P 6 0 J M 10 1 If '•�O ` 5 V 1 1 0 1 1 0', O �'if 5 i2N N 5� 3B r RANCHOVIII. 00 flj •VJ15 J n •� •• ?� 6 • ♦ Y 9 . 0 19 19 17 .. V d0 �?^ d 10Ntoi♦ °o o000p a� a EGEND 24 DAILY TRAFFIC VOLUME (IN THOUSANDS)1•• //n�� IIMAn 1 11 v- 1"� Build -Out Daily Traffic Forecasts - Alt. B V A (Circulation Plan With Nicolas Road Extension And Without General Kearney Road Extension) W40,I1"11AS MMS Oily Of Temecula General Plan Program nn Figure 2 • O 0 f N O N O O o N m O ° J• P O V ) O OOOOn000on Y °0000 O n 1 IlMiO 00 2� •f 1° � n J 00011. f0 0 20 J1 wry • 0 O 16 0 ••d OO w^ 29 t R° 0 0 1 0 0• 25 0 i ^ p Jj O ° 0 • O.N 1. 0t ♦p a ft 19 0 u t• not° `, t 54 ,55 0 noc. on 5 r 50 m .•...••••... 12 P 0 °f 9 ^ 4e 52 77 .Q b• o° j Dry •' ^ �•• a .° ► 0 o 0,• % 0^ 5 .• ••. •; •� E 10 0000000000000 n of Ido r°^ • • •'• f0 • Jt40 J '1 •• • 0 • 0` 1 .,CO • �0, ♦ G � '•••• 41 f 5 •°0°000°°0000 OVIALANO OR ••Y q0+'♦76 p Y NbJ ,1 30 Of 1 1' 1, 7 a• •'.�. w.N •r`�115 o° 4i ��13 19 .+11` Y 95 n♦d Nc. 15 '• •♦♦•1 JB P 6 0 J M 10 1 If '•�O ` 5 V 1 1 0 1 1 0', O �'if 5 i2N N 5� 3B r RANCHOVIII. 00 flj •VJ15 J n •� •• ?� 6 • ♦ Y 9 . 0 19 19 17 .. V d0 �?^ d 10Ntoi♦ °o o000p a� a EGEND 24 DAILY TRAFFIC VOLUME (IN THOUSANDS)1•• //n�� IIMAn 1 11 v- 1"� Build -Out Daily Traffic Forecasts - Alt. B V A (Circulation Plan With Nicolas Road Extension And Without General Kearney Road Extension) W40,I1"11AS MMS Oily Of Temecula General Plan Program nn Figure 2 \�J Y 000000000000 O 000000000000 •ORIOI• 1 e0 Y •••••••: 1r J� i O 12 40 • i � : , J• � � � IID N °° ° .0 5 000 ?!••••• MEND 24 DAILY TRAFFIC VOLUME (IN THOUSANDS) •'.- �? 's •\ ry.ar +, Ja iWiiir Build -Out Daily Traffic Forecasts (Preferred Draft Circulation Plan Serving Preferred Draft Land Use Plan) \AFA nssooNa City of Temecula G, feral Plan Program Figv-e ° ° - pOD Doe n rwR11 Io ?� '0 211 31 ^Iy ' . b 10 0 0 d' °° •^ 29 1 K, 25 ° o a ST o !J ° 0 0 19 w ♦ 0 o °p, 1/4IMD) 4, [ 14 of , k 3.5 ry 34 ° MUCK an \�J Y 000000000000 O 000000000000 •ORIOI• 1 e0 Y •••••••: 1r J� i O 12 40 • i � : , J• � � � IID N °° ° .0 5 000 ?!••••• MEND 24 DAILY TRAFFIC VOLUME (IN THOUSANDS) •'.- �? 's •\ ry.ar +, Ja iWiiir Build -Out Daily Traffic Forecasts (Preferred Draft Circulation Plan Serving Preferred Draft Land Use Plan) \AFA nssooNa City of Temecula G, feral Plan Program Figv-e Alternative A - Without General Kearny Extension • Winchester Road between Margarita Road and Nicolas Road would serve between 81,000 and 83,000 vehicles per day. • Nicolas Road between Winchester Road and Roripaugh Road would carry an average of 26,000 vehicles per day. • Margarita Road between Winchester Road and General Kearny Road would serve an average of 35,000 vehicles per day. Alternative B - Without General Kearny Extension and with Nicolas Road Extension to Margarita Road • Winchester Road between Margarita Road and Nicolas Road would serve between 78,000 and 80,000 vehicles per day. • Nicolas Road between Winchester Road and Roripaugh Road would carry an average of 28,000 vehicles per day. • Nicolas Road between Winchester Road and Margarita Road would carry an average of 10,000 vehicles per day. • Margarita Road between Winchester Road and General Kearny Road would serve an average of 34,000 vehicles per day. Other shifts in traffic would occur as a result of eliminating the General Kearny Extension which are not explicitly noted on Figure 1. These generally include increases in traffic along the following roadways: - the Butterfield Stage Road corridor between Borel Road and Paula Road; - the Bore] Road/Hunter Road corridor west of Butterfield Stage Road; - the La Serena Way corridor west of Butterfield Stage Road; and - the Margarita Road corridor between Rancho Way and Rancho California Road. 2 Draft Circulation Plan - With General Kearny Extension • Winchester Road between Margarita Road and Nicolas Road would serve between 76,000 and 79,000. • Nicolas Road between Winchester Road and Roripaugh Road would carry an average of 21,000 vehicles per day. • Margarita Road between Winchester Road and General. Kearny Road would serve an average of 30,000 vehicles per day. Traffic Operation Impacts The assessment of forecasted volume to capacity ratios and corresponding Level of Service is summarized in the following table: Winchester Road Nicolas Road (East) Nicolas Road (Extension) Margarita Road Draft Circulation Plan V/C LOS. 1.02-1.06 F Alternative A VIC LOS 1.09-1.12 F Alternative B VIC LOS 1.05-1.08 F 0.50 A 0.62 B 0.67 B N.A. N.A. N.A. N.A. 0.59 A 0.71 C 0.83 D 0.81 D V/C - Volume to capacity ratio LOS - Level of Service N.A. - Not applicable to alternative 3 0 Select Link Analvsis The "select link" analysis is a tool offered by the traffic forecasting computer model which allows the user to identify the origins and destinations of vehicle trips assigned to a roadway segment (link) or segments in the highway network. This procedure was used to identify the general geographic location of origins/destinations of vehicle trips which would use the General Kearny Extension. The results of the General Kearny Extension 'select link" analysis are illustrated in Figure 4. For the purpose of graphically showing geographic origins/destinations of trips which would use General Kearny, the Temecula Circulation Element Traffic Model traffic analysis zones were grouped into larger zones which represent the geographic locations of the trip ends. The numeric value shown in each area represents the number of vehicle trip ends either "originating in" or destined to" the area which would use the General Kearny Extension. ' Number shown next to arrows indicate the general directional location and magnitude of trip ends outside of the City. ' In response to questions regarding the general contribution of trips to and from the proposal Kemper Urban Core Projects (e.g. Temecula Regional Center, Campos Verdes, and ' Winchester Hills), the contribution would total approximately 1,620 trip ends for the three projects. Temecula Regional Center, which will offer shopping and employment opportunities to area residents in the principal contributor of the three Urban Core Projects. I 1 It should be noted however, that if these shopping and employment opportunities are not provided at this location, residents would seek these opportunities elsewhere in the community or outside the area. Since most other shopping and employment opportunities are oriented along the I-15 corridor (within and outside the City) the trip routings would still maintain the same general orientation. ' Findings I I The projected build -out traffic volume and traffic operation analysis result in the following key findings: 1. Alternative A, which eliminates the General Kearny Extension 4 would result in approximately 4,500 vehicles per day being added to the critical Winchester Road segment. The projected volumes on the segment of Winchester Road would result in volume to capacity ratios ranging from 1.09 to 1.12. Level of Service remains at F (as compared to the Draft Circulation Plan) only because service levels are not defined beyond the point that traffic volume exceed the maximum roadway capacity. The increase in daily volume to capacity ratio essentially indicates that severe congested traffic conditions could be expected during extended periods of the day. 2. Alternative B, which also eliminates the General Kearny Extension but provides an extension of Nicolas Road to Margarita Road, results in a smaller increase of approximately 1,400 vehicles per day on Winchester Road. Traffic operation on Winchester Road would worsen by extending the period of severe traffic congestion, but not to the degree resulting from Alternative A. Although the analysis suggests that the Nicolas Road Extension would offset most of the traffic increase on Winchester Road resulting from the elimination of the General Kearny Extension, data generated by the General, Kearny "select link" analysis indicates that the Nicolas Road Extension serves less than 400 of the approximate 11,000 vehicle trips which would otherwise have used the General Kearny Extension. In other words, the shift in traffic from General Kearny is still being added to the critical Winchester Road segment, and other traffic on Winchester Road is being shifted to the Nicolas Road extension. 3. Both Alternative A and'B would result in a significant increase in traffic volume on Margarita Road (between Winchester Road and General Kearny Road) and would degrade the Margarita.Road level of service from "C' to 'D". 5 450 15440 2150 250 I / 102��� iniiii Select Link Analysis Nwii \A)ZA Vehicle Trin Oriains And Destinatinnc J.. ......� .. ...�., Washington, D.C. 20472 riECEI �'�� 4 4PR 2 2 int L..,'Ftc Date: APR- 2 0 199fA"Pae rq Case No.: 91-09-48R Re: Santa Certrudis Creek�- Community: Riverside County, California E2 4-; " With a letter dated July 12, 1991, Mr. Arthur C. Krueger, Senior Civil Engineer, Riverside 'County Flood Control and Water Conservation District, 1 requested a Conditional Letter of Map Revision (CLOMR) for Panels 2745 B and 2765 A of the effective Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) for Riverside County, California, dated April 15, 1980, and May 1, 1984, respectively. Mr. Krueger's request is based on the proposed channel improvements and the construction of a concrete -lined channel along Santa Certrudis Creek from its confluence with Murrieta Creek to Joseph Road, and along Tucalota Creek from its confluence with Santa Certrudis Creek to approximately 3,500 feet upstream. This request is also based upon proposed improvements to Nicolas Road from.Joseph Road to Winchester Road, and the proposedconstruction of North Ceneral Kearney Road and Winchester Road bridges across the Santa Certrudis Channel. All data required to evaluate this request were submitted with Mr. Krueger's July 12 and October 1, 1991, letters, and with letters dated January. 24, February 6, and February 14, 1992, from Mr. Chuck Collins, Project Manager, RANPAC Engineering Corporation. Fees necessary to process this request (a total of $1,47D) have been received. We have completed our review of the data submitted and the data used to ' produce the effective FIRM. We believe that if the proposed channel _mprovements are constructed as shocln on the undated topographic plans, Sheets 1 through 6, entitled "Map 34, 77S, R3W, SBB&M," "Map 35, 77S, UW, SBB&Y," "Section 19, T7S, R2W, SBB&M," "Section 20, 77S, R2W, SBB&M," "Section 24, 77S, R3W, SBB&M," "Section 25, 77S, UW, SBB&M," "Section 26, �7S, R3W, SBBLM," and "Section 30, T7S, R2W, SBBLM" and if the proposed street improvements to Nicolas Road are constructed as shown on Sheets 1 ' through 9 of the plans entitled "County of Riverside Street Improvement Plans Assessment District No. 161, Nicolas Road," dated December 1, 1967, both prepared by RANPAC Engineering Corporation, then the 100 -year flood will be ' contained within the identified channel banks for the Santa Certrudis channel from the confluence witb Mur-ieta Creek to Joseph Road, for Tucalota Channel from the confluence with Santa Murrieta Creek to approximately 3,50D feet upstream and within Nicolas Road from Winchester Road to Joseph Road. I The Honorable Patricia Larson Chairperson, Riverside County ' Board of Supervisors 4800 Lemon Street, 14th Floor Riverside, California 92501 Dear Ms. Larson: riECEI �'�� 4 4PR 2 2 int L..,'Ftc Date: APR- 2 0 199fA"Pae rq Case No.: 91-09-48R Re: Santa Certrudis Creek�- Community: Riverside County, California E2 4-; " With a letter dated July 12, 1991, Mr. Arthur C. Krueger, Senior Civil Engineer, Riverside 'County Flood Control and Water Conservation District, 1 requested a Conditional Letter of Map Revision (CLOMR) for Panels 2745 B and 2765 A of the effective Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) for Riverside County, California, dated April 15, 1980, and May 1, 1984, respectively. Mr. Krueger's request is based on the proposed channel improvements and the construction of a concrete -lined channel along Santa Certrudis Creek from its confluence with Murrieta Creek to Joseph Road, and along Tucalota Creek from its confluence with Santa Certrudis Creek to approximately 3,500 feet upstream. This request is also based upon proposed improvements to Nicolas Road from.Joseph Road to Winchester Road, and the proposedconstruction of North Ceneral Kearney Road and Winchester Road bridges across the Santa Certrudis Channel. All data required to evaluate this request were submitted with Mr. Krueger's July 12 and October 1, 1991, letters, and with letters dated January. 24, February 6, and February 14, 1992, from Mr. Chuck Collins, Project Manager, RANPAC Engineering Corporation. Fees necessary to process this request (a total of $1,47D) have been received. We have completed our review of the data submitted and the data used to ' produce the effective FIRM. We believe that if the proposed channel _mprovements are constructed as shocln on the undated topographic plans, Sheets 1 through 6, entitled "Map 34, 77S, R3W, SBB&M," "Map 35, 77S, UW, SBB&Y," "Section 19, T7S, R2W, SBB&M," "Section 20, 77S, R2W, SBB&M," "Section 24, 77S, R3W, SBB&M," "Section 25, 77S, UW, SBB&M," "Section 26, �7S, R3W, SBBLM," and "Section 30, T7S, R2W, SBBLM" and if the proposed street improvements to Nicolas Road are constructed as shown on Sheets 1 ' through 9 of the plans entitled "County of Riverside Street Improvement Plans Assessment District No. 161, Nicolas Road," dated December 1, 1967, both prepared by RANPAC Engineering Corporation, then the 100 -year flood will be ' contained within the identified channel banks for the Santa Certrudis channel from the confluence witb Mur-ieta Creek to Joseph Road, for Tucalota Channel from the confluence with Santa Murrieta Creek to approximately 3,50D feet upstream and within Nicolas Road from Winchester Road to Joseph Road. I He will make a final determination on revising the affected FIRM panels for the County of Riverside upon. completion of the project and receipt 'of "as -built" plans, re-tified by' a-_ registered professional engineer, for the above-mentioned proposed project:';;; - The basis of this CLO.MR is a proposed, channel improvement project. National Flood Insurance Program Regulation:: 44 CFR 60.3(b)(7) requires that communities "assure that the flood -tarrying capacity within the altered or relocated portion of any watercourse- is maintained." This provision is incorporated into your community's-. existing floodplain management regulations. Consequently, upon, completion of this proposed project, the ultimate responsibility for maintenance= of the channel modifications will rest with your community. Should you have any questions concerning this matter, please call Kr. Karl F. Mohr of my staff in Washington, D.C., at (202) 646-2770. 1 Sincerely, LJ - William R. Locke Chief, Risk Studies Division Federal Insurance Administration cc: Mr. Arthur C. Krueger Senior Civil Engineer Riverside County Flood Control and Hater Conservation District Mr. Chuck Collins Project Manager RANPAC Engineering Corporation 1 _ 1 ATrACHIIENT I iFINAL TRAFFIC ISSUES REGARDING TEMECULA REGIONAL CENTER, 1 WINCHESTER HII.LS AND CAMPOS VERDES (FEBRUARY 18,.1993) ' 1 _ - 1 1 - 1 - - i . 1 - ASSOCIATES ENGINEERS • PLANNERS anon i IMI Sun I I • P.IVr esnx . cA 929;11 (9119)'274 u,nn • I AX (9IFn :lin 92/0 February 18, 1993 Mr. Raymond A. Casey, P.E. Principal Engineer/Land Development Department of Public Works City of Temecula ' 43174 Business Park Drive Temecula, CA 92590 Re: Final Traffic Issues Regarding Temecula Regional Center, Winchester Hills, and Campos fVerdes. Dear Ray: Wilbur Smith Associates (WSA) has prepared the following Addendum material which addresses specific traffic impact issues discussed at our February 12th, 1993 meeting. The Addendum material responds to the following requests made by you and your staff: ' 1) Clarification of on-site circulation system recommendations for the Temecula Regional Center project. 2) A summary of off-site roadway improvements which need to be constructed in order to adequately accommodate the vehicle trip generation limits set for the first year of project implementation. ' 3) An assessment of the effects of eliminating the General Kearney Road extension on ' Urban Core Project traffic impacts. The following sections provide a discussion of these remaining issues. I 'ALBANY. NY • ALLIANCE. OIl CAIRO. LGYPI • CHAIN I SION. SC COI IIMIIIA. SC • COI IRAUIIS. OI I • UCS MOINES. IA • FALLS CHURCH. VA HONG KONG • HOUSTON. IX KNOXVIIIE. 1N • [LYING ION. KY IONDON. FNGIANU • I 0 ANGI LES. CA • MIAMI. FL • NEENAH, WI NEW HAVEN. CT • OAKLAND. CA • ORIJWUO. EI • I'LL ISUURGII. PA PORISM0I1111. NII • PROVIFANCt. RI RALEIGH. NC On-site Circulation System Recommendations For Temecula Regional Center The original traffic study prepared for the Temecula Regional Center was based on a Specific Plan site layout which included a north -south on-site roadway running from Winchester Road to Overland Drive. This project road, in essence, represented the boundary between Specific Plan Sub -Areas 1 and 2, and was intended to serve internal circulation needs of the project. As discussed in our recent meeting, the elimination of this on-site roadway would not change the findings of the original traffic study (e.g. the projected distribution of site traffic) as long as the future on-site circulation system maintains "continuity" in its' internal network of primary circulation aisles/roads. In this manner, all portions of the future developed site would be internally accessible to vehicular traffic once on the site. Similarly, on-site traffic would be able to exit the site via any of the perimeter access intersections from any point on the site. The importance of on-site circulation system "continuity" is that it significantly reduces the impact of project traffic on arterial roadways adjacent to the site. There is an infinite number of specific on-site circulation system configurations which would satisfy the network "continuity" requirement, and it would be premature to recommend a specific layout at this stage of site planning. At this time, WSA recommends that one or a combination of the following design concepts be used: ■ Perimeter Ring Road Concept - This concept, which is commonly used for traditional regional mall layouts, provides an on-site access restricted circular road near the outer perimeter of the site. The ring road, which generally surrounds the mall core and adjacent parking areas, distributes traffic to and from principal access points on the site rather than along the arterial streets. ■ Radial Road Concept - This internal circulation concept provides for on-site traffic distribution within large commercial centers where a traditional mall -type core does not exist. In this case, a radial network of on-site roads distribute traffic to a number of smaller clusters of commercial nodes. In the case of the Temecula Regional Center, the ultimate internal circulation system may include a combination of these two circulation design concepts. Regardless of which circulation design concept is applied, primary circulation aisles should be designed with a higher degree of access control to reduce vehicle conflicts and maintain positive flow characteristics. Parking should also be restricted along primary circulation aisles wherever possible. Fa I I LJ Off -Site Roadway Improvement Summary For First Year (1993-1994) Project Implementation As identified in the Conceptual Circulation System Phasing Plan (refer to October 15, 1992 "Traffic Issues" letter addressed to Mr. Righetti), the following off-site circulation system improvements would-be required to accommodate 1994 background traffic plus vehicle trip generation limits set for the first year of Urban Core Project implementation: ■ A minimum two-lane improvement (extension) of Margarita Road from Solana Way to Winchester Road (related to TRC, WH, and CV); ■ Implementation of Margarita Road, as four -lane Arterial, from Winchester Road to Murrieta Hot Springs Road (related to WH only); ■ The widening of Winchester Road to six lanes, between Margarita Road and Murrieta Hot Springs Road (related to (related to TRC and CV); ■ The widening of Ynez Road to six lanes, between Overland Drive alignment and Rancho California Road (related to TRC, WH, and CV); ■ Extension of Ynez Road to Date Street alignment (related to WH only); ■ Four -lane improvement of General Kearney Road from new Margarita Road alignment to Easterly limit of Campos Verdes project (related to CV only); ■ The widening of Solana Way to four lanes, between Ynez Road and Margarita Road (related to CV only); ■ New signal installations on Winchester Road at Margarita Road, Nicholas Road, and Murrieta Hot Springs Road (related to TRC, WH and CV); and ■ The installation of a new signal on Margarita Road at Solana Way (related to CV only). Note that each of the above roadway improvements has been related to the individual Urban Core Project(s) which impacts the need for that improvement. The identified roadway improvements would only be needed if one or more of the related projects actually experience 3 development activity during the first implementation year. Fair share implementation , responsibility, by the individual Urban Core Projects, for the identified 1994 roadway system improvement needs would be as previously assessed by WSA. It is WSA's understanding that , requested information regarding the extent to which transportation related mitigation measures identified for the Urban Core Projects (at project build -out) are covered by roadway , improvements already included in A.D. 161 and C.F.D. 88-12, is being provided to you by RBF. The timing of off-site roadway improvement needs identified in the Conceptual Circulation System Phasing Plan for subsequent implementation periods (years) would be checked and , verified through initiation of the recommended project -related impact/mitigation monitoring program. Impact Of The Elimination Of General Kearney Road Extension ' WSA has reviewed the effects of not extending General Kearney Road on the Urban Core , Project traffic study findings. Some of the impacts related to this issue have already been reported in previously submitted traffic study addendum documents. A summary of earlier reported findings as well as more recent assessments is presented below. , ■ The resulting re -distribution of project -related daily traffic Flows (at project build -out) ' would result in an additional 800 project trips on: Margarita Road (between General Kearney and Winchester); Winchester Road (between Margarita and Nicolas); and , Nicolas Road (between Winchester and General Kearney). ■ Implementation responsibility for the combined Urban Core Projects would increase by ' approximately 2 percent or less on the affected segments of Margarita Road and Winchester Road. , ■ Implementation responsibility previously identified for the General Kearney Extension would be eliminated. 4 — 1 I trust that this supplemental information will assist you and your staff in your review of the 1 Urban Core Projects. If you have any questions regarding this material please feel free to give me a call. 1 Sincerely yours, 1 Wilbur Smith Associates 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 5 1 Robert A. Davis 1 Associate 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 5 1 ri e r r rr ■r �■■ r� r ■r r� r r �■ �r r r r� r MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM Provided on the following pages is a listing of the proposed mitigation measures associated with the Temecula Regional Center Specific Plan. Following each mitigation or set of mitigations is an indication of the stage of development and parties involved in implementation of the proposed mitigation(s). This determination is intended to respond to the requirements of AB 3180 (Cortese) which requires a monitoring program to insure the implementation of these mitigation measures. In addition to these requirements, the project proponent is responsible for obeying all other local, State and Federal regulations which may relate to this project. The developer will be responsible for any costs associated with the implementation of this monitoring program. RESPONSIBLE PREREQUISITE GENERAL MMG47ION SPECIFIC MMG47ION MONrrORING AcnoN IMFQ4T ME4SURE(P )CESS MILEMNE PAM FOR: A. Noise 1. Short-term noise 1. Coostruclimsedw 1-1. Onsite grading During project grading Gly of Temecula, Final Grading Inspec. impacts associated with Ities adjacent to exist- inspection. and construction. Public Works Depart- tion. project construction. Ing residential develop- ment treat should be limited , to the houn of 7 a.m. to 7 p.m. on Monday through Friday. Con- struction should not be allowed on weekeads or federal hofidayc. . 2. Long-term noise 2. Reduce interior 2.1. Implementation Prior to approval of City of Temecula, Development Plan impacts to commercial and exterior noise of noise reduction Development Plena. Public Works Depart• approval. and residential uses levels to less than 45 measures as identified ment from adjacent road- CHER, and 60 01121, in detailed acoustical way& respedh*. studies. Reduce interior noise 2.2. Review and ap• Prior to the issuance of _ City of Temecula, Issuance of Building levels In commercial proval of Building Building Permits. Budding and Safety Permits. uses to 50 CNEL or Construction Plans. Department _less. 2-3. An acoustical Prior to the issuance of City of Temecula, Issuance of Building Participation Ia the report shall be mm- Building Permits. Building and Safety Permits. funding of offsite pleted prior to [nuance Department Win mitiptions. of Building Permits to Identify necessary mid- ption measures relat- ed to proposed com- mercial, retail office and hotel buildin¢ 24. Review and ap• Prim to the [suance of City M Temecula, Issuance of Building pmvA of Building Building Permits. ' Building and Safety Permits. Construction Plans. Department Cr1Y VERIFICATION GENERAL IMPACC B. CBmab and Air Quality 3. Air quality impacts due to generation of particulate matter during grading. 4. Airqualityimpacts from long-term site operations and motor vehicle use. MMGATION MEASURE 3. Pollutants will be seduced throughwater- ing graded surfaoa and planting ground - cover as .dust paBla- fves in accordance with SCAQMD Rule 403, 4. Integration of transit facilities, eaer- gy-efficient buildings solar power, bicycle 6cilitia, the design of etBcient, and direct traffic .flow patterns and implementation of Transportation De- mand Strategies. SPECIFIC PROCESS 2-5. TheprojectappB- ant SMU participate on a pro -rats basis in any minty pm -train in place at the time of Plot plan approval to mitigate offsite high- way noise impacts. 3.1. Onsite grading Inspection. 4.1. Review and ap• proval of Development Plans. 4-2. All mitigation measures associated with the project should be monitored in accor- dnnoe with AB 3180 requirements and se - ported - to SCAO through the Annual Reasonable Further Progress Reports. 43 Review and ap- proval of TDM Plans. r Prior to the issuance of Building Permits. During project grading and aasiartlnn. Prior to approval of Development Plans. During pmjert grading and construction. Prior to the issuance of Budding Permits. RESPONSIBLE MONITORING PAS 6ty of Temecula, Building and Safety Department. City of Temecula, Public Works Depart. menL City of Temecula, Public Worts Depart- ment City of Temecula, Public Works Depart- ment. My of Temecula, Planning Department. PREREQUISITE ACTION U01 Issuance of Building Permits. Final Grading Inspec- tion. Final Development Plans. Foal Grading Inspec- tion. Issuance of Building Permits. GENERAL IMPACT C. Seismic Safety S. Ground shaking and acceleration from maximum credible earthquake. 6. Liquefaction haz- ards. 7. Inundation from Lake Skinner. MITIGATION MEASURE S. Design of the on- site structures to with- stand a maximum credible earthquake. Q Mitigation mea- sures will include but M be handed to the use of a compacted fill mat, gravel blankets, pat -tensioned slabs, and additional footing reinforcement. Ile design of this system shall be performed during the grading plan review 1'. in as cordance with recorn- mendatbns included in additional geotechoial reports. 7. An Evacuation Plan, if necessary, shall be prepared by the applicant and submit- ted to the City prior to issuance of building permits. All affected final development plans will indicate the proposed project ties in ■ potential inundation site. SPECIFIC PROC 5-1. Review and ap- prom of structural design in accordance with the Uniform Building Code and City ordinances. 3-2. Review and ap- proval of Building Construction Plana. bl. Submittal of goo - technical reports and review and approval of Grading Pines. 62 Review and app proval of monthly hispection­ CRs.. of grading operations. 7-1. Review and ap• proval of Evacuation Plans. 7-2 Review and sp- provel of Development Plans and PavWomen- W Constraints Shcets. MITIGATION MILESPONE Prior to the issuance of Building Permits. During project con- struction. Prior to issuance of Grading Permits. During project grading and construction. Prior to the approval of Development Plans or issuance of Building Permits. Prior to the approval of Development Plans. RESPONSIBLE MONITORING PARTY City of Temecula, Building and Safety Department. City of Temecula, Public Works Depart- ment. City of Temecula, Public Works Depart- ment City of Temecula, Public Works Depart- ment City of Temecula, Public Works Depart- ment and Budding and Safety Departments. City of Temecula, Public Works Depart- ment. PREREQUISITE ACTION FOR: Isanance of Building Permits. Final Inspection. Issuance of Grading Permits. Final Grading Inspec- tion. Development Plan approval or issuance of Building Permits. Development Plan approval. CfTV VERIFICATION GENERAL IM D. Slopes and Erosion B. Proper constru- lion of cut and fill dopes. 9. Increased soil erosion and sedimenta- tion due to the cre- ation of exposed wile. MITIGATION MEASURE B. Ali cut and fill dopa shall be con- structed at odinaticas of no steeper than a 21 ratio unless other- wise approved by the City of Temecula. 9. TbePrcjestProP0- nent shill submit to the City for review and approval, an erosion control program which indicates that proper control of dilation, sedimentation and other pollutants.. The eradon control pro- gram measures will include ravegetalion of cut and fill cera-+, utW- ralion of sediment control devices at con- struction sites, and conveyance of storm runoff from develop - meat aeras. AB drain- age will be conveyed in non<rodve drainage devices to suitable disposal points. Ener gy dissipation and methodsforpreventing scour and erosion should be part of any drainage improve- ments SPECIFIC PROCESS B -L A Slope Stability Report shall be per. pared by the toile engi- neer or engineering geologist and submit- ted for approval to the City of Temecula Prior to Project flooding. 8.2 Review and ap• proval of Grading Plea. 9.1. Review and ap. proval of Erosion One. trot Program. 9.1 Review and ap- proval of Grading 9.1 On-aite grading laspectim. MITIGATION Prior to issuance of Grading Permits. Prior to ban= of Grading Permits. Prior to issuance of Grading Permits. Prior to issuance of Grading Permits. During Project $radio$ and construction RESPONSIBLE MON IORING _PARTY City of Temecula, Public Works Depart- ment. City of Temecula, Public Worts Depart- ment. City of Temecula, Public Works Deport- ment. City of Temecula, Public Works Depart- ment. City of Temecula, Public Worts Depart- ment PREREQuTSITE ACTION FORi Issuance of Grading Permits. Issuance of Orading Permits. Issuance of Grading Permits. Issuance of Grading Permits. Final Grading Inspec- tion. F. Floodtry 11. Increased storm 11. Drainage facilities 11.1. Review and Prior to approval of RESPONSIBLE PREREQUISRE GENERAL MITIGATION SPECIFIC MITIGATION MONITORING ACTION IMPACT MEASURE PROCESS MILESTONE PAM FOIL 10. Proper site preps. 10. Applications for 10.1. Review and Prior to issuance of. City of Temecula, Issuance of Grading ration, grading, eta development permits approval of grading Grading Permits. Public Works Depart. Permits. within the Temecula plans, Inspection Report went. Water Conservation Regional Center Spe- approval. Public Works Depart. District Phasing of cilla Plan shad provide ment. drainage facilities shall detailed grading plans coincide with the pro- which include inciade estimates ject's phasing plan. of grading magnitude tion badn, if nes td- and slope contours. reagwnstructed,than This detailed grading be Constructed when plan shall be submitted the amount of runoff to the City of Tem. entering the Palm - ecula prior to grading pin approval. In the event that this detailed grading concept con. forms to the previous. tyapproved Specific Plan, no further envi- ronmental analysis is necessary. If the gad. . Ing plan does not con. form, the (Sty shall _ prepare an Initial Study to determine the extent of any necessary additional enviroomen- W documentation. F. Floodtry 11. Increased storm 11. Drainage facilities 11.1. Review and Prior to approval of City of Temecula, Issuance of Grading runoff due to the cre- shall conform to the approval of Drainage Drainage Plans and Public Works Depart. Permits. ation of impermeable requirements and sten. Plans. issuance of Grading ment. surface. dards of the (Sty of Permits. Temecula and the Riverside County Flood Control and 11.2 Inspection of Inspection Report City of Temecula, Inspection Reports. Water Conservation construction. approval. Public Works Depart. District Phasing of ment. drainage facilities shall coincide with the pro- ject's phasing plan. The upstream deten- tion badn, if nes td- reagwnstructed,than be Constructed when the amount of runoff entering the Palm MY VERIFICATION RESPONSIBLE PREREQUISITE GENERAL MITIGATION SPECD7C MITIGATION MONITORING AC77ON CITY IMPACT MEASURE PROCESS MILPMNE PART'_ VERIFICATION Piaxa/ACS ponding facility reaches approx- imately 1900 efs. Any development project . within the Temecula Regional Center shall provide to the Director of Public Works of the City of Temecula ado- quote studies or analy. six to identify whether drainage flows entering the Palm Plea/ACS ponding area will ex. . wed 1900 cis as a result of the proposed development. If the Director of Public Wofks determines that flows will exceed 1900 cfs, the Campos Verdes detention ba- sic, or other facilities acceptable to the DI. - rector of Public Works, will be constructed . prior to occupancy within the proposed development project 12. Participation in 11 The project devel- 12.1. Payment of Prior to the Inuance of City of Temecula, Issuance of Building funding for regional oper shall pay drainage drainage fees. Building Permits. Public Works Depart- Permits. drainage facilities. feesinaorordaocewith meat. the Murrieta Creek Drainage Plan. 13. Increased erosion 13. Soll on graded 13.1. Review and Prior to issuance of City of Temecula, Issuance of Grading and sedimentation due slopes shill be approval of Erosion Grading Permits. Public Works Depart- Permits. to the creation of ex- strengthened by Control Plana. ment and Planning posed soils. planting to reduce the Department. potential of erosion. During the interim 13.2. O"te_ grading During project grading City of Temecula, Final Grading tncpec- period before the inspection. and construction. Public Works Depart- tion and/or Bond ground - ewer takes ment. Release. hold stmv. wood chips . and plastic (visqueen) . con be used as atabilir. ing agents. . GENERAL IM 14. Potential impacts upon downstream "ter quality. 't l l= =A 15. Increased erosion and sedimentation due to the creation of exposed soils. 16. Potential impacts upon groundwater quality. MITIGATION MEASURE 14. Methods to catch and treat runoff from the project shag be In. cluded within drainage plans to be submitted and approved by the City of Temecula. The City shall determine at that time as to whether such technology is available and whether Its Implementation Is feasible from a techni- cal standpoint. 15. Use of erosion control devices during grading, such as tem. poruy berme, culverts, sand -bagging or de. adding basins in order to amid sedimentation Impacts to water quad- ty 16. The project will comply with the re- quirements of the California State Water Quality Control Board, San Diego Region. All facililties will be con- nected to fewera and storm drains. SPECIFIC PROCESS 14-1. Review sad approval of Drainage Plans. 15.1. Review and approval of monthly inspection reports of grading operations. 15-2. Cleaning and restoration of all on - sad offsite erosion devices, deposits and siltation. 16.1. Review and approval of Develop- ment Plans and/or Issuance of Building Permits. Prior to approval of Drainage Plans and issuance of Grading Permits. During project grading and construction. During project grading and construction. Prior to approval of Development Plans and/or issuance of Building Permits. RESPONSIBLE MONITORING PARTY (Sty of Temecula, Public Works Depart. meat. Qty of Temecula, Public Works Depart- ment. City of Temecula, Public Works Depart. meat. City of Temecula, Public Works Depart. meat or Building and Safety Department PREREQUISITE AcnoN FOR: Issuance of Grading Permits. Final Grading Inspec- tion. Final Grading Inspec. tion. Development Plan approval or issuance of Building Permits. CITY VERIFICATION GENERAL IMPACT IL Tome Substances 17. Potential for hay ordous materiels being found onsite. 18. Determination of appropriate commer- cial uses. 1. WIIdlUo and Vegetation 19. Participation in funding of Habitat Contention Plan. 20. Participation in funding of Develop- meat evelopmeat Mitigation Pees. M177GATION MEASURE 17. A sampling and chemical analysis pro- gram And be complet- ed prior to issuance of grading permits to determine if net sur - fat soils contsm haz- ardous subgtan n in excess of FPA limits. In the event that any hazardous materials are (mad o"te quali- fied authorities shall be contacted immediately. I& AppeopristeCoun. ty agencies or the City of Temecula shag ry view proposed corm- mervial and business part developments to determine potential for existence and use of toxic materiels. 19. Mitigation of im- pacts of local and regional growth on the . Stephens Kenproomt. 20. Payment into in the Development Miti- gation Fee Program for the acquisition of m lW open space. SPECIFIC PROCESS 17-1. Sampling and chemical analysis of sou. 17-1 Removal or any hazatilm materials. t Prior to issuance. of Grading Permits. During project grading and construction. 17-7. Proper disposal During project grading Of materiels. and construction. 174. Onsite grading monitoring. 18-1. Submittal of Chemical Reports and BPA Required Mated. al. 18-1 Review of on- site chemical storage and proposed commer- eW uses. 19.1. Payment of Im. pact Mitigation Pees. 20.1. Payment of De- velopment Mitigation Pees. Dudngprqcctf7adm& Prior to the issuance of Building Permits. Prior to the issuance of Building Permits or Oavpsory Permits. Prior to issuance of Grading Permits. Prior to issuance of Grading Permits or Building Permits. RESPONSIBLE MONITORING PARTY City of Temecula, Public Worts Depart- ment. City of Temecula, Public Works Depart. went. City of Temecula, Public Wort Depart- meot. City of Temecula, Public Worts Depart- ment. City of Temecula, Planning Department. County of Riverside, Fre Department and Health Department. City of Temecula, Public Works Depan- meat. City of Temecula, Public Works Depen. ment or Budding and Safety Department. PREREQUISITE ACTION FOP Issuance of Grading Permits. Final Grading Inspec- tion. Final Grading Inspec- tion. Final Grading Inspec. tion. Issuance of Building Permits. Issuance of Building Permits or Occupancy Permits. Issuance of Grading Permits. Issuance of Grading or Building Permits. M M M! M MW MM MM M ='M MM MMM GENERAL IMPACT J. Energy Resoorces 21. Increased energy demands R. Cultural and Selentille Resources 22, Potential impacts to unknown cultural raourca. 23. Potential impacts upon paleontological tesourca. MMGATION MEASURE 21. The use of passive solar hating and cool- ing techniques In addition, building energy conservation measures for both residential and com- mercial unlit. 22. Retain on-site cultural resources whenever site grading Is being conducted on the subject propeNy. B my cultural fasourc- a be encountered during grading or construction activities, work shall be halted and a qualified archae. ologist shag be consult- ed to evaluate resoum es, determine their signifuence and devel- op a plan to collect and study them for the purpose of mitigation. 23. A qualified verte- brate paleontologist shall develop aPaleon- tologic Resource Im- pact Mhigation Pro- gram mgram prior to issuance of grading permits. The qualified paleon- tologist shag be. re- tained ssined to perform peri- odic inspections of excavations and, Ir necessary, selvage ex- posed fossil, The fre- quency mquency of hispatMos SPECIFIC PROCESS 21.1. Review and approval of Building Construction Plans. 21-2. Compliance with Title 20 and 24 of the California Administm tive Code. 22-1. Onsite grading monitoring. 23.1. Review and approval of qualifies. tion of proposed pa. leontologist and Re - scums impact Mitigs- tion program. 23.2. Onsite grading monitoring. 233. Cataloging and Preserving resources MITIGATION MILESTONE Prior to issuance of Building Permits Prior to issuance of Building Permits During projectgrading. Prior to issuance of Grading Permits During project grading. During project grading. RESPONSIBLE MONITORING PARTY City of Temecula, Building and Safety Department. City of Temecula, Building and Safety Department. City of Temecula, Pub0c Works Depart. ment. City of Temecula, Planning Department. Appointed paleontolo. gist and/or the Qty of Temecula, Public Works Department. Appointed paleoatolo- PREREQUISITE ACTION FQR;_ Issuance of Building Permits. Issuance of Building Permits. Final Grading Inspec- tion. Issuance of Grading Permits Final Grading Inspec. tion. Final Grading Inspec- tion. CRY VERIFICATION RESPONSIBLE PREREQuism GENERAL MITIGATION - SPECIFIC MITIGATION MONrIURING ACIION CITY IMPACT' MEASURE MOCESS lMILESTONE UM FOI14_ VERIFICATION will depend on the rate 23-4. Preparation of Prior to the issuance of Appointed paleontohs Issuance of Building Of excavation, the report findings. Building Permits, gist. Permits. materials being exca- vated, and the abun- - daoce of fotdls. a. The paleontologist shall be allowed to divert or direct grading In the area of an a - posed fossil to fee& tate evaluation and, if necessary, salvage. b. Because of the small nature of some fowls present in these rock units, matrix sam- ples should be collect- ed for processing through fine mesh MUM C. Provisions for preparation and eua- tion shall be .merle . before the fosdls are donated to their final repository. d. Allfosailscollected should be donated to a suitable repository. e. Because of the - &bundaece of fossils discovered during the walkover survey one ducted during this study, it will be neces- sary to resurvey the site prior to grading The soft nature of the Psuba Formation al- lows it to erode easily, - exposing fossils. Therefore, the winter rains may expose sig. nifiant fossils. If GENERAL IMpACf L Circulation 24. Impacts of project traffic on offsite road- ways. 25. Impacts of project traffic on offsite road- ways. MITIGATION MEASURE significant fossils art discovered during this new walkover, it will be necessary to collect those fossils. This me. ommendation Is aeoes- eery only if the. devel- opment of this proper- ty takes place after the winter rates.. 24. -The developer shall be responsible for direct project access improvements along the site boundaries and onsite improvements as well as a'fafrshem' amount towards the implementation of needed offsite im- provements. The Went of this .'fair share' participation Is delineated within At- tachment 'A' to this Mitigation Monitoring Program. 2S. The property own- er/developer wn.er/developer its a Frio- dpd participant in the Ynm Corridor Mello Rom District 98.12 which provides funding for the Apricot Avenue overcrossing, the Win. cheater Road later - change loop amp, the Rancho California Road interchange loop ramp, and the Ynea Road widening to tis leave The developer Is also a participant in WinchesterAsseument SPECIFIC PROCESS 24.1. Review and approval of find Grad- ing Plena and Develop. ment Plans. 24.2. Construction of iofrestructuraimprove- meats. 25.1. Participation in onsite roadway im- provements. 25-L Review and approval of Building Construction Plane MITIGATION MILESTONE Prior to issuance of Grading Permits and approval of Develop- ment Plans. Inspection Report approval Prior to approval of Development Plana. Prior to issuance of Building Permits RESPONSIBLE MONITORING PARTY City of Temecula, Public Works Depart- ment. City of Temecula, Public Works Depart- ment. City of Temecula, Public Works Depart- ment. City of Temecula, Public Works Depart- ment. PREREQUISITE ACTION �IL* Issuance of Grading Permits and/or ap- proval of Development Plans. Final Inspection Development Plan approval. Issuance of Building Permits CITY VERIFICATION GENERAL IMPACT 26. Impacts of project traffic on offsite road. wayL 27. Participation in TransportationSystems Management Pro- grams. MITIGATION MEASURE District 161 which provides funding for the improvement of Winchester Road (six - but: Urban Arterial) and Margarita Road (four -lane Arterial} Additiond •Wrsham• participation will be warranted for other offsite Improvements. 26. In addition to the identified roadway im. provementa,, the apps. cont will participate in the provision of road- way improvement. 27. A Transportation Demand Management (MM) Plan shall be prepared and submit. ted to the City ofTem- acorn prior to or con- current with Develop- ment Plan approval. In addition to the recommended roadway infrastructure improve- ment the Traffic Engi. neer also recommends that a number of Transponationsystems Management programs be implemented by the ©ty of Temecula in the project vicinity indudingtheoontinued enforcement of the South Coast Air Quad. ty Management Dia triols Trip Reduction Plan; the implementa- tion of public transit services In the Teme. cula area such u a) SPECUIC issue 261. Review and approval of find Omd- ing Plans and Develop. ment Plans. 262. Comtruction of inf rastructuraimprovc- ments. 27-1. Review and approval of Develop. meat Plan 27-2. Review and approval of. Budding Canatrucdon PIaoL 27-1 Review and approval of TDM Plans. MITIGATION MHZMKE Prior to issuance of Grading Permits and approval of Develop. meat Plans. Inspection Report approval. Review and approval of Development Plan. Prior to Issuance of Building Permits. Prior to issuance of Building Permits. RESPONSIBLE MONMRING PARTY City of Temecula, Public Works Depart. ment. City of Temecula, Public Works Depart. meat. City of Temecula, Public Works Depart. ment. City of Temecula, Public Works Depart. meat. City of Temecula, Planning Department. PREREQUISITE AC170N FOR:. Issuance of Grading Permits and/or ap- proval of Development Pians. Final Inspection. Development Plan approval. Issuance of Building Permits. Issuance of Building Permits. 2 mm M M = mm M M M M M M m = m m m i 26. Participation in TransportationSystems Management Pro- grams. MITIGATION MLr 1S11RE express transit into and out of the area during the morning and eve- ning commuter peaks, b) fixed mule local bus service between higher density residential areas and major activi- ty cenleis, c) demand responsive transit ser- viaasuehudial+ride for the Iver density and more remote ar- eas•, and d) provision of bicycle trails and bike rack facilities on- site, promote of future public transit through the adoption of appro- priate planning ordi- nances which would require special transit oriented design fea- tures to be incorpo- rated into future de- velopment projects; the adoption of ordinances which would require larger employen in the area to implement carpool and/or van - Pool programs- 2L rograms2L Inconjunctionwith future park and ride facilities to be provided by the Regional Cen- ter, providoas should be made for develop meet of a future tran- sit transfer station to promote future use of public tramit, reduce vehicular travel and reduceperkingdemand at the Regional Center. SPECIFIC PROCESS 26-1. Review and approval of Develop ment Plana. MITIGATION MILESPONE Review and approval of Development Plans, RFSPONSIBLE MONrWRING PARIY City of Temecula, Public Works Depart- ment. PREREQUISITE ACTION FOR: Development Plan approval. CITY VERIFICATION GENERAL. IMPACT 29. Impacts of project traffic on ofrsite road- ways. M. Water and Sewer 30. Adequate capacity of water and sewer line serving the pro- ject. 31. Increased demand for water supplies. N. Tin Services 32. Increased demand for fire protection servio a. MRIGATION MEASURE 29. A Supplemental Traffic Analysis shall be prepared for any and W individual pro jecrs (ice. plot plan applications) withia the Temecula Regional Center. Thk Supple- mental Traffic Analysis shall be submitted to the City of Temecula for review and spprov- al prior to approval of these individual pro. jccM 30. Assure provision of adequate water and wastewater service is availabk .prior to ap• proval of Development Plana or Building Per- mits. 31. The project will comply with any requirements of EMWD, ,Riverside County Health Depart- ment and the Rancho California Water Dis. trict for installation of onsite rectaimedwater fines. 32. The project devel- oper will participate in the existing Fire Pro- tection Impact Mitip. tion Program. SPECIFIC PROC 29-1. Submittal of supplemental Traffic Analyse. 341. Review and approval of Develop- ment Plane and/or issuance of Bu0ding Permits. 31-1. Review and approval of Improve- ment mprovment Plans. 32-1. Payment of Fire Protection Impact Mitigation Fees ($W.M per dwelling unit and g.2d per q. ft. for commerrkl/indus- UW uses). MrnGA1ION MILEMNE Review anal approval of Development Plans. Prior to approval of Development Plans or issuance of Building Permits. Prior to approval of Improvement Plans. Prior to the approval of Development Plans or issuance of Building Permim RESPONSIBLE MONfPORING FASB City of Temecula, Public Works Depart- menL City of Temecula, Public Works Depart- ment or Building and Safety Department. Eastern Municipal Water District, Rancho California Water Dis- trict and the Riverside County Health Depart- ment. City of Temecula, Public Works or Building and Safety Department. PREREQUISITE ACTION FORS Development Plan approval. Development Plan approval and/or Wu - once of Building Per- mits. Improvement Plan approval. Development Plan approval or issuance of Building Permits. M M M M M = M M M = M = M = = M M r GENERAL IMPACT O. Sheriff Services 33. Project design which enhances law enforcement services. P. Schools 34. Increased demand for educational facid- tiet Q. Parks and Recreation 35. Increased demand for local park facilities. MITIGATION MEASURE 33. For future security and safety, the crime prevention measures as recommended to the BIR shall be con" cred,. 31. The payment of the school impact mitigation fees for funding -.school site acquisition and/or facility 000sttuetbo as negotiated with the Temecula Valley Uni- fied School District and according to State Lary. These school impact fm may not eaeM the Sate -man. dated amounts of $165 per square foot for residential cmastruo- . tion and $1.27- per square foot of com- merchd space or what- ever fee or mitigation agreement amount Is in effect at the time that building permits are issued. 35. Provide adequate park acreage and/or the payment of 'in -Bees of" fees to satisfy the TCSD said the Stale Quimby Act local park requirements SPECIFIC PROCESS 331. Review and approval of Building Construction Plant 341. Payment of School Impact Ntip- lion Feer. The project applicant shall enter into a binding agree - meat with the Teme- cula Valley Unified School District. 331. Payment of in - lieu park fees or dedt- cdon of patio. MITIGATION MILESTONE Prior to the Issuance of Building Permits Prior to the isawnce of Building Permits Prior to approval of Development Plans or Issuance of Building Permita. RESPONSIBLE MONITORING PAKIT Qty of Temecula, Building and Safety Department. Temecula Valley Uni. fied School District and the City of Teme. cula, Building and Safety Department. Temecula Community Services District. PREREQUISITE ACTION FOR; Issuance of Building Permits. Issuance of Building Permits Development Plan approval or Issuance of Building Permits. CITY VERIFICATION GENERAL IMPACT R. Utilities 36. Increased demand for utility services. S Solid Waste 37. Increased solid waste generation. 38. Increased solid waste generation. 39. Increased solid waste generation. T. Libraries 10. Impacts to existing library facilities. MITIGATION MEASURE 36. Building energy conservation will be largely achieved by compliance with Title 20 and u of the Baer- gy Conservation Code. 37. Provide recycling facilities at appropriate loestlOas to reduce solid waste in oompli- ance with AB 939. 38. The applicant shad submit detailed plana delineating the num- ber, location and Fn - am[ design of solid caste bin enclosures. These plans shall of promote visual aesthet- les, routine Cleaning, prevention of odors or diseaae vector and provide for noise re- duction. 39. The developer shall participate in any established City-wide program to reduce wild waste generation. 10. Participation in funding of library fees. SPECIFIC PROCESS 36.1. Review and approval of Building Construction Pians. 37-1. Provision of recycling containers and enclosures. 38.1. Detailed plans providing for recycling containers, enclosures, trash container and enclosures. 394. Participation In City wide program to reduce solid waste. 10.1. Payment of Ii. brary hes. Prior to the issuance of Building Penults. Prior to issuance of Building Permits. Print to issuance of Building Permits. Prior to the issuance of Occupancy Permits. Prior to the issuance of Building Permits. RESPONSIBLE MONITORING PARTY City of Temecula, Building and Safety Department. City of Temecula, Building and Safety Department. City of Temecula, Building and Safety Department. City of Temecula, Building and Safety Department. City of Temecula, Building and Safety Department. PREREQUISITE ACTION F01 Issuance of Building Permits. Issuance of Building Permits. Issue= of Building Permits. Issuanceof Certificates of Occupancy. Issuance of Building Permits. RESPONSIBLE PREREQUISITE GENERAL MITIGATION SPECIFIC MITIGATION MONITORING ACTION CITY IM MEASURE PROCESS MILEMME PARTY FOw VERIFICATION U. U4M and Glare 41. Generation of light and glare. 42. Generationoflight and glare. 41. The use of low. pressure sodium vapor lamps for atreet and security lighting. 42. The orientation of ther potentially lighted cress (i.e., entry monu- mentation, business signage) shall prevent direct upward illumi. nation. 41-1. Review and approval of Improve- ment Plana. 42.1. Review and approval of Iruprove- meat Plana. Prior to approval of Improvement Plana. Prior to approval of Improvement Plans. 0 City of Temecula, Building and Safety Department. City of Temecula, Building and Safety Department. 0 Improvement Plan approval. Improvement Plan approval. LN Prior to Issuance of Grading Permits. 6, 8, 9, 10, ll, 13, 14, 17, 19, 20, 21, 23, 24, 26 City of Temecula, Public Works Department. 13,23 City of Temecula, Planning Department. Prior to the Approval of Drainage Plans 11.14 Cary of Temecula, Public Works Department. Prior to Approval of Improvement Plana 31, 41, 42 Pastern Municipal Water District, Rancho California Water District and the Riverside County Health Department. Prior to Approval of Development Plant - $ 4, 7, 16, 24, 25, 26, 27, 26, 29, 30, 32 City of Temecula, Public Works Department 35 Temecula Community Services District. Prior to the Issuance of Building Permits 2, 5, 7, 16, 20, 23, 30,32-34, 36-38,40 City of Temecula, Building and Safety Department. 12, 25, 27 City of Temecula, Public Works Department. 18 Riverside County FireandHealth Departments. 4, 18, 27 City of Temecula, Planning Department. 23 Appointed Paleontologist. 34 Temecula Valley Unified School District. 35 Temecula Community Services Department. During Project Grading and Construction. 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 9, 13, 15, 17, 22, 23 City of Temecula, Public Works Department. 23 Appointed Paleontologist Inspection Report Approval, 11, 24, 26 City of Temecula, Public Works Department. Prior to the Issuance of Occupancy Permits IB County of Riverside Fre and Health Departments. 39 City of Temecula, Building and Safety Department. LJ ATTACMI IENT W TRAFFIC IMPROVEMENTS ASSIGNED TO PROPOSED PROJECT I (to be provided at a later date) 1 1 1 1 I ' ADDENDUM EIR #2 TEMECULA REGIONAL CENTER SPECIFIC PLAN SPECIFIC PLAN NO. 263 ' EIR NO. 340 ' Lead Agency: CITY OF TEMECULA 43174 Business Park Drive Temecula, CA 92590 567 San Nicolas Drive, Suite 106 (714)694-6400 ' Prepared By: Douglas wood & Associates, Inc. 567 San Nicolas Drive, Suite 106 Newport Beach, CA 92660 (714) 6447977 ISeptember, 1994 TABLE OF CONTENTS I. Introduction and Purpose A. Background..........................................1 B. Purpose.............................................1 C. Summary Analysis ..................................... 3 H. Environmental Analysis ................................. ..... 3 Attachments A. Planning Commission Recommended Circulation Conditions of Approval B. Mitigation Monitoring Program i ADDENDUM EIR. TEMECULA REGIONAL CENTER SPECIFIC PLAN ' I. INTRODUCTION AND PURPOSE A. Background The Temecula Regional Center Specific Plan Drat Environmental Impact Report (EIR No. 340) was circulated for public review by the City of Temecula between June 21, 1991 and August 4, 1991. This circulation was in conformance with Section 15086, et.seq. of the State CEQA Guidelines which state that the Lead Agency (City of Temecula) shall consult with and request comments on the Draft EIR from: responsible agencies, trustee or other State, Federal or local agencies as well as consulting directly with any person who has special expertise with respect to any environmental impact involved. In February, 1993, an Addendum to the Draft EIA for the Temecula Regional Center Specific Plan was prepared. The purpose of this first Addendum EIR was three -fold: 1) to respond to various comments made by the City of Temecula as a result of their review of the Draft Environmental Impact Report for the Temecula Regional Center Specific Plan; 2) incorporate subsequently -prepared technical analyses (in the areas of trafficAcirculation and drainage/flooding) into the Final ' Environmental Impact Report; and 3) integrate any additional or revised mitigation measures resulting from the concerns raised by the City or as a result of the subsequently -prepared technical studies into the Mitigation Monitoring Program for the project. In July, 1993, the City of Temecula considered and approved a development application for a proposed Wal-Mart Store (Plot Plan 243) within the 201.2 acre Temecula Regional Center site. The Final Environmental Impact Report (EIR No. 340) was certified as complete by the City of Temecula at that time. The certified Final EIR imposed certain mitigation measures on the Wal-Mart proposal which were intended to respond to and mitigate impacts associated with that project. At that time, it was decided to delay consideration of the remainder of the Temecula Regional Center to a future date. B. Purpose In the course of reviewing the Temecula Regional Center Specific Plan, the City of Temecula Planning Commission and City staff focussed on certain mitigation ' measures identified in the Temecula Regional Center Final EIR with the intent of identifying those mitigations that have already been accomplished through developer participation in Assessment District No. 161 and Community Facilities District No. 88-12 and to maximize the benefit to the City of other mitigation requirements. This second Addendum to the Final EIR analyzes the mitigation requirements for the Temecula Regional Center Specific Plan as contained in the Planning Commission's ' Recommended Conditions of Approval as compared to the mitigations specified in the Final EIR including the changes analyzed in first Addendum to the Draft EIR. The information contained herein is intended to provide decision -makers with clarification regarding the potential environmental impacts of and mitigation measures for the proposed project. This environmental information is considered to be an Addendum to the Temecula Regional Center Final EIR in accordance with Section 15164 of the State CEQA Guidelines which states: (a) The bead Agency or a Responsible Agency shall prepare an Addendum to an EIR if: (1) None of the conditions described in Section 15162 calling for preparation of a subsequent EIR have occurred (i.e. substantial project revisions, changes in circumstances surrounding the project, or additional project impacts, mitigations or alternatives becoming feasible or available); (2) Only minor technical changes or additions are necessary to make the EIR under consideration adequate under CEQA; and (3) The changes to the EIR made by the Addendum do not raise important new issues about the significant effects on the environment. (b) An Addendum need not be circulated for public review but can be included in or attached to the Final EIR. This Addendum EIR in combination with the previously -certified Final EIR, which includes the Response to Comments package, the previously -prepared first. Addendum to the Draft EIR, Staff Report and any other attachments and technical reports, constitute the revised Final EIR for the Temecula Regional Center Specific Plan. This Addendum to the Temecula Regional Specific Plan Final Environmental Impact Report has been prepared for the City of Temecula in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), as amended, and City Guidelines for the Implementation of CEQA. More specifically, the City has relied on Section 15084(d)(3) of the State Guidelines which allow acceptance of drafts prepared by the applicant, consultant retained by the applicant, or any other person. The City of Temecula, as Lead Agency, has reviewed and edited as necessary the submitted "screencheck" copies of the Draft EIR, the Response to Comments package, the previously -prepared Addendum EIR which comprised the previously -certified Final EIR, and this Addendum to the Final EIR to reflect their own independent judgement 2 7 L ' to the extent of their ability. In accordance with Section 15021 of the State EIR. Guidelines, this Addendum ' to the Final EIR is intended to enable the City of Temecula, as Lead Agency, to evaluate environmental effects associated with the proposed Temecula Regional Center Specific Plan and to further analyze measures to reduce the magnitude of any adverse effects. The Lead Agency has an obligation to balance possible adverse effects of the project against a variety of public objectives, including economic, environmental and social factors, in determining whether the project is acceptable and approved for ' development. C. Summary Analysis s Based upon the analyses and discussions contained in Section II., Environmental Analysis of this Addendum to the Final EIR, the currently -proposed traffic and circulation -related Conditions of Approval relates to and conforms with similar mitigation requirements and implementation responsibilities contained within the Temecula Ronal Center Mitigation Monitoring Program. These Conditions of Approval refine and assist in the implementation of Mitigation Measures contained in the Final Environmental Impact Report. H. ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS The Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the Temecula Regional ' Center Specific Plan and the first Addendum to the Draft EIR identified various roadways, intersections, freeway interchanges and other traffic control devices to be impacted, either directly or cumulatively, by the Temecula Regional Center project. The extent of implementation responsibility of the Temecula Regional Center project to mitigate these project- related impacts was assigned through analyses contained in the first Addendum to the Draft EIR (pages 18 through 20 of the text and in more detail on pages 10 through 18 of Attachment C of the first Addendum). In considering the Temecula Regional Center Specific Plan in light of the analyses and changes noted above, the City Staff analyzed the current status of roadway and intersection improvements which have been completed or are committed I to under Assessment District No. 161 and Community Facilities District No. 88-12 against the mitigation responsibility requirements previously assigned to the Temecula Regional Center project. As a result of all of these above considerations, the City Staff has formulated and the Planning Commission has recommended a total of ten Conditions of Approval related to circulation. (A complete listing of these circulation -related Conditions is included as Attachment A to this Addendum.) These Conditions of Approval require a variety of traffic plans, reports and physical circulation improvements which are either attributed partially or solely to the Temecula Regional Center project. These Conditions are intended to mitigate impacts generated by or otherwise associated with the Temecula Ronal Center project. 1 3 Provided below is a summarized listing of these recommended circulation - related Conditions of Approval followed by an indication of the related Final EIR mitigation measure (as listed in the Mitigation Monitoring Program, a copy of which is included as Attachment B to this Addendum.) Also noted below is the respective Responsible Monitoring Party and the milestone in the development process at which point the Condition would be implemented (pursuant to the Mitigation Monitoring Program and/or recommended Conditions of Approval). CONDITION OF APPROVAL: Developer must enter into an agreement with the City for a "Trip Reduction Plan" per Ordinance No. 93-01 (see recommended Conditions of Approval included as Attachment A). Related Mitigation Measure: Mitigation Measure 27 (see Mitigation Monitoring Program included as Attachment B) requires preparation of a Transportation Demand Management Plan prior to any subsequent development applications in accordance with Ordinance No. 93-01. Resnonsble Monitoring Parties: City of Temecula, Planning Department. Mitigation Milestone: The Mitigation Monitoring Program requires implementation of this Condition prior to the approval of Development Plans or the issuance of Building Permits. This conforms with the requirement in the recommended Condition of Approval for inclusion of a Plan as a condition with "any subsequent Development Application". CONDITION OF APPROVAL: Adequate primary and secondary access will be provided for each development phase. Related Mitigation Measure: Mitigation Measure 24 requires the developer be responable for diced project access improvements along the site boundaries and other off-site improvements. Resoons'ble Monitoring Party: City of Temecula, Public Works Department Mitigation Milestone: The - Mitigation Monitoring Program requires implementation of this Condition prior to the issuance of Grading Permits, Development Plan approval, and at Final Inspection. This conforms with the requirement within the Condition of Approval for review of access plans at the time of submittal of individual development applications. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: All street sections shall correspond with Typical Roadway Cross Sections and requirements of the Circulation Element of the City General Plan, City ordinances and standards. All intersection intervals shall comply with City and Caltrans approvals. 4 F7 ' Related Mitigation Measure: While no mitigation measures in the Final EIR relate directly to these Conditions, all of the environmental analyses and traffic studies prepared for the Temecula Regional Center Specific Plan assume conformance with City General Plan requirements, City standards and ordinances and Caltrans requirements in effect at the time of project development. CONDITION OF APPROVAL: The Developer shall provide bus bays and shelters and any associated rights-of-way within the Specific Plan, the location and ' number of which are subject to approval by the City of Temecula and the Riverside Transportation Department. ' Related Mitigation Measure: Mitigation Measure 27 requires "promotion of future public transit through the adoption of appropriate planning ordinances which would require special transit -oriented design features". Resvonsible Monitoring Parties: City of Temecula, Planning Department. Mitigation Milestone: The Mitigation Monitoring Program requires implementation of this Condition prior to the issuance of Grading Permits, Development Plan approval, and at Final Inspection. CONDITION OF APPROVAL: All improvements have been or will be Conditions based on project traffic studies and phasing plans from Section III.A.7. of the Specific Plan. Any substantive rephasing of the project must be approved by the Planning Commission. All on- and off-site circulation improvements must be constructed and/or bonded as required by the Department of Public Works. Related Mitigation Measure: While no Mitigation Measures in the Final EIR relate directly to this Condition, all of the environmental analyses and traffic studies prepared for the Temecula Regional Center Specific Plan assume development of roadway improvements pursuant to the Temecula Regional Center Specific Plan. ' CONDITION OF APPROVAL: Traffic reports analyzing traffic. impacts associated with subsequent development stages of the Specific Plan shall identify implementation and timing of the necessary improvements to mitigate cumulative traffic impacts. Related Mitigation Measure: Mitigation Measure 29 requires preparation of ■ Supplemental Traffic Analyses prior to approval of any individual projects (i.e. plot plan applications, etc.). Responsible Monitoring Parties: City of Temecula, Planning Department. Mitigation Milestone: The Mitigation Monitoring Program requires implementation of this Condition prior to the approval of Development Plans. This 1 5 conforms with the requirement in the recommended Condition of Approval for submittal of studies with subsequent development applications. CONDITION OF APPROVAL: The following infrastructure improvements/reimbursements shall be completed by the Developer prior to the issuance of occupancy permits (unless otherwise noted): - Winchester Road parkway improvements adjacent to Phase One of the project including sidewalks, landscaping and street lights. - Bonding for traffic signals and any associated street improvements at the project accesses from Overland Drive, Ynez Road, and Winchester Road prior to recordation of Final Subdivision Maps or issuance of Grading Permits. Signals will be installed in accordance with subsequent traffic signal warrant analyses. - Dedication of all necessary right-of-way for the construction of the Winchester Road overpass at Interstate 15 and interchange ramps and additional right-of- way necessary for widening of Winchester Road from Ynez Road to the interchange. The developer, the City and CFD 88-12 shall enter into a reimbursement agreement for costs of right-of-way acquisition. - Execution of a reimbursement agreement between the City and the Developer to reimburse the City for the cost of the existing improvements along Margarita Road from Solana Way to Winchester Road. Related Mitigation Measure: Mitigation Measure 24 requires the developer be responsible for direct project access improvements along the site boundaries and other off-site improvements. Mitigation Measure 25 requires that the property owner/developer be a principal participant in the Ynez Corridor Community Facilities District 88-12 and the Winchester Assessment District 161. Responsible Monitoring Party: City of Temecula, Public Works Department Mitigation Milestone: The Mitigation Monitoring Program requires implementation of this Condition prior to the issuance of Grading Permits, Development Plan approval, and at Final Inspection. This conforms to the requirement within the Condition of Approval for submittal of studies with subsequent development applications and provision of improvements prior to issuance of any Occupancy Permits, Final Subdivision Map recordation, or the issuance of Grading Permits. CONDITION OF APPROVAL: The following infrastructure improvements/reimbursements shall be completed by the Developer prior to the issuance of Occupancy Permits for any development above a cumulative total of 750,000 square feet: - Support the Community Facilities District 88-12 Supplemental Bond Sales necessary for the construction of Overland Drive, from Ynez Road to Jefferson 0 Avenue (including the I-15 overpass) in accordance with the City General Plan which will include traffic signals at the intersections of Overland Drive with Ynez Road, Jefferson Avenue, and Margarita Road. - Bonding for improvements to Margarita Road from Solana Way to Winchester Road in accordance with the City General Plan prior to Final Map recordation or issuance of Grading Permits. - Bonding for full street improvements to Overland Drive from Margarita Road to Ynez Road in accordance with the City General Plan prior to Final Subdivision Map recordation or issuance of Grading Permits. ' Related Mitigation Measure: Mitigation Measure 24 requires the Developer be responsible for access improvements along the project boundaries. Mitigation Measure 25 requires that the property owner/developer be a principal participant in the Ynez Corridor Community Facilities District 88-12 and the Winchester Assessment District 161. ' Responsible Monitoring Party: City of Temecula, Public Works Department. Mitigation Milestone: The Mitigation Monitoring Program requires implementation of this Condition prior to the issuance of Grading Permits, Development Plan approval, and at Final Inspection. This conforms to the requirements in the Condition of Approval for bonding of improvements prior to recordation of the Final Subdivision Maps or issuance of Grading Permits and 1 completion of these improvements prior to issuance of Occupancy Permits for any development above a cumulative total of 750,000 square feet. CONDITION OF APPROVAL: The Developer shall bond for and construct traffic signals at the following intersections. The Developer shall analyze traffic signal warrants and install the signals accordingly: -Margarita Road at Winchester Road (upgrade existing signal) -Margarita Road at North General Kearny Road Related Mitigation Measure: Mitigation Measure 24 requires the developer be responsible for access improvements along the project boundaries. Responsible Monitoring Party: City of Temecula, Public Works Department ' Mitigation Milestone: The Mitigation Monitoring Program requires implementation of the Condition prior to the issuance of Grading Permits, Development Plan approval, and at Final Inspection. Bonding of improvements occur 1 prior to recordation of Final Subdivision Maps or issuance of Grading Permits which is consistent with the intent of the Mitigation Measure. rCONCLUSION: Based upon the analyses contained within this Addendum to the Final EIR, the proposed circulation -related Conditions of Approval refine and ' assist in the implementation of the Mitigation Measures contained within the certified Final Environmental Impact Report. 1 7 I 1 1 PLANNING COMMSION I 1 H 11 1 I I 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 ATTACEMU,NT A CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL CITY OF TEMECULA CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL ® ��1 Specific Plan No. 263 (Regional Center) 1 Project Description: A Specific Plan proposing a 1,375,000 square foot commercial core, 810,000square feet of Office\Institutional with possible Multi -Family Residential, and an additional 298,000 square feet of Retail Commercial with an accompanying ' Change of Zone request changing the zoning from R -R (Rural Residential) and A-2-20 (Heavy Agriculture, 20 acre minimum) to SP (Specific Plan). Assessor's Parcel No.: 910-130-046and 047,921-090-005,006 and 007 Approval Date: Expiration Date: PLANNING DEPARTMENT General Conditions 1. The applicant shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City of Temecula, it agents, officers, and employees from any claim, action, or proceeding against the City ' of Temecula, its advisory agencies, appeal boards or legislative body concerning Specific Plan No. 263, which action is brought within the tirne period provided for in California Government Code Section 66499.37. The City of Temecula will promptly i notify the applicant of any such claim, action, or proceeding against the City of Temecula and will cooperate fully in the defense. If the City fails to promptly notify the applicant of any such claim, action, or proceeding or fails to cooperate fully in the defense, the applicant shall not, thereafter, be responsible to defend, indemnify, or hold harmless the City of Temecula. ' 2. All development within this site shall be in accordance with the requirements of all City ordinances, except as expressly modified herein, and State laws, and shall conform with the approved Specific Plan. Regulations or procedures not covered by the Specific ' Plan or appurtenant documents shall be subject to the City ordinances in effect at the time entitlement is required. I 3. This project and all subsequent projects within the site shall comply with all mitigation measures identified within EIR No. 340 and the adopted Mitigation Monitoring Program. 4. Prior to issuance of grading permits, approval of development permits, recordation of final maps, issuance of building permits and issuance of occupancy permits for any subsequent projects or activities within the site the applicant/developer shall demonstrate by submittal of a written report that all mitigation measures identified in ' the Mitigation Monitoring Program within EIR No. 348 have been satisfied for the stage of development that permits are being issued for. 5. Prior to the City Council hearing, Planning Area 3 shall be changed to Business Park and the appropriate zoning and development standards shall be established for Business Park designation. R:=AFFRPrt2WP.P0 9/1/9 vrw 12 I` 6. The Landscape Development Zone (LDZ), which includes the Transportation Corridor, , along Winchester Road shall be thirty-seven feet (37') in width and shall be shown on all subsequent development proposal site plans and tentative maps. ' 7. Prior to approval of any map or development proposal within each Planning Area within the Specific Plan, a detailed design manual for each Planning Area shall be submitted for review and approval by the Planning Commission. 8. Within thirty (30) days of the final approval of the project by City Council, the Specific , Plan and the Final Environmental Impact Report shall be submitted to the. Planning Department in final form for review and approval. The final form shall include all conditions of approval and all modifications made by the Planing Commission and City Council. A master print copy (8'F!' X 11') and four (4) copies of the documents shall be submitted. 9. Prior to approval of any development plans, all subsequent projectsshall receive j , appropriate clearances, conditions and approvals from all agencies with jurisdiction on project review. These agencies shall be determined by the Planning Director and the City Engineer. 10. The developer or the developer's successor -in -interest shall be responsible for maintaining the undeveloped portion of the site including weed abatement and litter , removal. 11. The applicant shall deposit sufficient funds with the City o, Temecula to retain the , services of a qualified consultant to administer and implementtne Mitigation Monitoring Program approved for this project as part of Environmental Impact Report 340 in compliance with Assembly Bill 3180. Prior to the Issuance of Building Permits 12. Prior to issuance of any occupancy permits for the project, the project applicant shall ' enter into a binding mitigation agreement the with the Temecula Valley Unified School District to ensure the mitigation of the new students generated by this Specific Plan. 13. If any, of these conditions of approval differ from the commitment by the Developer made in the Specific Plan text or map exhibits or any other documents, the conditions enumerated herein shall take precedence. ' 14. Any proposed amendment to this Specific Plan shall require public hearings and review by the Planning Commission and City Council, and/or shall be reviewed in accordance with such rules and regulations for the review of Specific Plan Amendments as may have been adopted by the City and which are in effect at the time of any proposed amendment is submitted. ' 15. The developer shall satisfy all the Quimby Act requirements for the project. A:WAFFRFr2 3P.PC3 911194 vrw• 13 !_9 PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT The following are the Department of Public Works Conditions of Approval for this project, and I shall be completed at no cost to any Government Agency. All questions regarding the true meaning of the conditions shall be referred to the appropriate staff person of the Department of Public Works. GENERAL CONDITIONS 1 16. All utility systems such as electric, including those which provide direct service to the project site and/or currently exist along public rights -of -ways adjacent to the site (except electrical lines rated 33 kv or greater), gas, telephone, water, sewer, and cable TV shall be placed underground, with easements provided as required, and designed and constructed in accordance with City Codes and the utility provider. ' 17. Prior to the issuance of any grading permit, as deemed necessary by the Department of Public Works, the Developer shall consult with the State of California Department of Fish and Game, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to determine if permits or approvals are necessary from such agencies for any action contemplated by this proposal. Such consultation shall be in writing, and copies of said correspondence, including responses from agencies, shall be submitted to the City. Where appropriate, the terms, conditions, and recommendations of the noted agencies ' shall be incorporated as Conditions of Approval into the areas of development. - 18. Prior to issuance of building permits for the various phases of development, the Developer shall pay any capital fee for road improvements and.public facilities imposed upon the property or project, including that for traffic and public facility mitigation as required under the EIR/Negative Declaration for the project. The fee to be paid shall be in the amount in effect at the time of payment of the .fee. If an interim or final public facility mitigation fee or district has not been finally established by the date on which the Developer requests its building permit for the project or any phase thereof, the ' Developer shall execute the Agreement for payment of Public Facility Fee. Concurrently, with executing this Agreement, the Developer shall post a bond to secure payment of the Public Facility Fee. The amount of the bond shall be 82.00 per square foot, not to exceed 810,000. The Developer understands that said agreement may require the payment of fees in excess of those now estimated (assuming benefit to the project in the amount of such fees). By execution of this Agreement, the Developer will 1 waive any right to protest the provisions of this. condition, of this Agreement, the formation of any traffic impact fee district, or the process,.levy, or collection of any traffic mitigation or traffic impact fee for this project; provided that the Developer is not 1 waiving its right to protest the reasonableness of any traffic impact fee, and the amount thereof. 19. Landscaping and permanent irrigation facilities shall be installed with street ' improvements. Perimeter walls if constructed shall be treated with graffiti -resistant coating and shall be installed adjacent to street improvements within each phase. 1 JL' AFFRFrUWP.PC3 9/1/9 Tv 14 20. A phasing plan addressing the schedule of necessary infrastructure requirements shall be approved by the Department of Public Works and the Planning Director prior to approval e€any for each subsequent development application. (Amended by Planning Commission on July 18, 1994) CIRCULATION 21. Asa condition of approval for any subsequent development application associated with this Specific Plan, the Developer must enter into an agreement with the City for a "Trip Reduction Plan" in accordance with Ordinance No. 93-01. 22. Adequate primary and secondary access shall be provided for each phase of development as approved by the Department of Public Works. Access to office and commercial areas shall be reviewed by the Department of Public Works at the time of submittal of individual development applications. 23. All street sections shall correspond with Typical Roadway Cross Sections and requirements of the Circulation Element of City's General Plan, City ordinances and standards. 24. All intersections intervals shall comply with City and Caltrans standards and requirements. Accesses shown from Winchester Road to the site are conditional upon Caltrans' approval. Approval for accesses not currently shown on the City's Memorandum of Understanding with Caltrans will be required prior to subsequent discretionary approvals or any permits being issued by the City.. . 25. The Developer shall provide bus bays and shelters within the Specific Plan. Location and number of bus bays shall be subject to approval of.the City and Riverside Transportation Agency (RTA). If required additional rights-of-way dedications associated with bus bays shall be provided by the Developer. 26. Necessary improvements have been/will be conditioned based on the project traffic studies and the conceptual phasing plan shown on Section III. A. 7: of the Specific Plan. Any substantive rephasing of the development must be approved by the Planning Commission through a rephasing application. A rephasing of the development considered to be minor or in substantial conformance with the construction phasing plan approved with the adoption of the Temecula Regional Center Specific Plan, as determined by the Department of Public Works and the Planning Director, may be approved administratively through applicable City procedures. Prior to the issuance of occupancy permits within any phase, all on and offsite improvements as referred to in the Traffic Reports and subsequent addenda along with additional requirements set herein, or as set by conditions on individual tracts, must be constructed and/or bonded as required by the Department of Public Works. 27. Ensuing Traffic Reports, analyzing traffic impacts associated with subsequent development stages of the Specific Plan, shall be submitted to identify implementation and timing of the necessary improvements to mitigate cumulative traffic impacts. 28. The following infrastructure improvements/reimbursementsshall be completed prior to issuance of ,any occupancy: R:WAFFRPn20SP.P0 9111% vsw 15 I • Winchester Road parkway improvements, adjacent to Phase One, including sidewalks, landscaping, and street lights shall be completed by the Developer. ' • Prior to Final Map recordation or issuance of Grading Permit, the Developer is responsible to bond for the traffic signals at the project's accesses from Overland Drive, Ynez Road, and Winchester Road, as required, including the ' associated street improvements, based on traffic signal warrants analysis relative to subsequent development applications. • Dedicate all necessary right-of-way for the construction of the Winchester Road overpass at Interstate 15 (1-15) and the interchange ramps along with associated additional right-of-way necessary for the widening and improvements ' to Winchester Road from Ynez Road to the interchange.. The Developer, the City, and CFD 88-12 shall enter into an agreement that provides for the reimbursement of acquisition cost of the required right-of-way. (Added by ' Planning Commission on July 18, 1994) • A reimbursement agreement shall be executed between the Developer and the City to reimburse the City the cost of the existing improvements along Margarita Road from Solana Way to Winchester Road. 29. The following infrastructure improvements/reimbursements shall be completed prior to issuance of occupancy for any development above a cumulative total of 750,000 SF. • The Developer shall support the Community Facilites District (CFD) 88-12 ' supplemental bond sales necessary for the construction of Overland Drive, from Ynez Road to Jefferson Avenue (including the 1-15 overpass), in accordance with the Typical Roadway Cross, Section of City's General Plan classifying ' Overland Drive as a Secondary Highway with 88 foot full width right-of-way, and including the traffic signals at the intersections of Overland Drive and Ynez Road, Jefferson Avenue, and Margarita Road. I I [J I I Prior to Final Map recordation or issuance of Grading Permit Developer shall bond for the improvements to Margarita Road, from Solana Way to Winchester Road, including a 14 foot wide raised landscaped median, in accordance with the Typical Roadway Cross Section of City's General Plan classifying Margarita Road as an Arterial Highway with 110 foot full width right-of-way with a reimbursement agreement. Prior to Final Map recordation or issuance of Grading Permit, the Developer shall bond for full street improvements to Overland Drive, from Margarita Road to Ynez Road, including a 12 foot wide raised landscaped median, in accordance with the Typical Roadway Cross Section of City's General Plan classifying Overland Drive as a Major Highway with 100 foot full width right-of-way with a reimbursement agreement. A:=AFFRPn2633P.PC3 9/I/% vrw 16 30. The Developer is responsible to bond for pFieF and construct the traffic signals at the intersections listed below. The Developer shall analyze the traffic signal warrants and shall install the traffic signals accordingly and/or as directed by the Department of Public Works at the following intersections: (Amended by Planning Commission on July 18, 1994) Margarita Road and Winchester Road (upgrade the existing signal) Margarita Road and North General Kearny Road Drainage 31. Drainage and flood control facilities shall be provided in' accordance with the requirements of the City and/or Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District (RCFC&WCD). 32. Prior to approval of any subsequent development applications, the Developer shall submit the master drainage plan to the City and RCFC&WCD to review the adequacy of the proposed and existing downstream drainage facilities. 33. Drainage facilities within each phase shall be constructed immediately after the completion of the site grading and prior to or concurrently with the initial site development within that phase. 34. All drainage facilities shall be designed to carry 100 year storm flows, subject to the approval of the Department of Public Works and RCFC&WCD.as applicable. 35. The Developer shall construct the proposed on and offsite drainage facility improvements and the offsite detention basin provision as recommended in the Specific Plan and Drainage Study documents and/or as directed by the Department of Public Works and RCFC&WCD, as applicable. 36. As required by the Department of Public Works, additional Hydrology and Hydraulic Reports shall be submitted with subsequent development applications to study the drainage impacts and analyze necessary measures to mitigate the runoff created as part of the development of this project. 37. The Developer shall accept and properly dispose of all off-site drainage flowing onto or through the site. ' 38. The Developer shall protect downstream properties from damages caused by alteration of the drainage patterns: i.e., concentration or diversion of flow. Protection shall be provided by constructing adequate drainage facilities, including enlarging existing facilities or by securing drainage easements. Water and Sewer 39. Water and sewer facilities shall be installed in accordance with the requirements and , specifications of the City, Rancho California Water District (RCWD), and Eastern Municipal Water District (EMWD). Such requirements shall be applied at the subdivision or plot plan stages of the development. R:1STAFFRP11I633P.PC5 911194 vrw 17 , ,I 40. Prior to the approval of subsequent development applications, the Developer shall submit the master water plan to RCWD to check for adequacy of the proposed water facilities. The Developer shall obtain written approval for the water system from ■ RCWD. 41. Prior to the approval of subsequent development applications, the Developer shall submit the master sewer plan to EMWD to check for adequacy of the proposed sewer facilities. The Developer shall obtain written approval for the sewer system from EMWD. 42. Prior to the recordation of any tract map, commercial parcel map, or appr(wal of any plot plan application, the Developer shall provide the City with evidence that adequate wastewater treatment facilities are being provided to meet the needs of the Temecula Regional Center Specific Plan development. ' Grading. 43. No grading shall be permitted for any development area prior to tentative map or plot plan approval and issuance of grading permits for the specific area of development unless approved by the Director of Public Works for street purposes. (Added by Planning Commission on July 18, 1994) 44. Grading plans and operations shall be in accordance with the Uniform Building Code, City Grading Standards, the recommendations contained in the Geotechnical Report, or any subsequent reports prepared for the project, the cnnditions of the grading ' permit, and accepted grading construction practices and the recommendations and standards specified in the Specific Plan and Environmental Impact Report (EIR) document. 45. Prior to issuance of any grading permit, Erosion Control plans shall be prepared in conformance with applicable City Standards and subject to approval by the Department ' of Public Works. The Developer shall post security and enter into an agreement guaranteeing the grading and erosion control improvements. 46. The Developer shall comply with the requirements of the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit regulated by the State Water Resources Control Board, and the Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) implemented by the San ' Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board. 47. Each subsequent application for a phase of development shall include a conceptual grading plan to indicate at a minimum: • Preliminary quantity estimates for grading. 11 I Techniques and methods which will be used to prevent erosion and sedimentation during and after the grading process in compliance with the City Standards and NPDES requirements. Preliminary pad and roadway elevations. 1:VSrAFFRFr%2W3P.PO 9111% K• 18 Designation of the borrow or stockpile site location for import/export material Approximate time frames for development including the identification of areas which will be graded during the rainy months. Hydrology and hydraulic concerns and mitigations. 48. Major grading activities shall be scheduled during the dry season wherever possible, or as otherwise approved by the Department of Public Works. 49. Soils stabilization, which may include revegetation of graded areas, shall occur within 30 days of final grading activities as directed by the Department of Public Works. 50. The site shall be watered during grading operations to control dust. 51. Temporary drainage and sediment control devices shall be installed as directed by the Department of Public Works. 52. An import/export route shall be submitted to the Department of Public Works prior to issuance of any grading permit. The plan shall include limitation to the duration of the grading operation and construction activities, a Traffic Control Plan, and a daily time schedule of operations. 53. Prior to issuance of any grading permit, a soils reports shall be submitted to the Department of Public Works for review and approval, to addrPss.engineering, geologic, seismic, and soils engineering concerns for each tentative reap or commercial parcel map for each phase of proposed development. 54. All public streets shall be maintained and cleaned if necessary on a daily basis during grading operation and construction activities. Cash deposit, letter of credit or posting of bond to guarantee maintenance of all public rights-of-way affected by the grading operations and construction activities, shall be posted prior to issuance of grading permits. 55. If subsequent Geotechnical and Soils Reports determine that dewatering of the site is necessary during construction, necessary permits (ie. in compliance with NPDES permit) shall be obtained from appropriate agencies prior to approval of the grading plans. Phasing 56. Construction of the development permitted by the Specific Plan, including recordation of final subdivision maps, may be carried out in stages provided that, adequate vehicular access is constructed for all dwelling units in each stage of development and further provided that such development conforms substantially with the intent and purpose of the Specific Plan Phasing Plan. 57. Development applications shall be submitted for each planning unit in each phase. Total acreage and land uses within each phase shall be substantially in accordance with the specifications of the Specific Plan. R:WrAFFRP dMP.PC5 9111% vrr 19 TEMECULA COMMUNITY SERVICES DEPARTMENT The Temecula Community Regional Center Specific Plan was originally presented to staff as ' a mixed-use commercial development combining retail, office, hotel, institutional, and regional mall facilities. However, the possibility exists that multi -family residential development could occur within Planning Area 1. In the event that residential development is approved, the Temecula Community Services District (TCSD) provides additional conditions for the Temecula Regional Center, as follows: General Requirements 58. The developer, his successor or assignee, shall satisfy the park land dedication requirements in accordance with City Ordinance No. 460.93 (Quimby). Upon determination of the actual park land dedication requirement, the City of Temecula shall have the final decision of requiring the developer to dedicate land for public park ' purposes, or pay the equivalent 'in -lieu' fee. 59. Exterior slopes contiguous to public streets that are adjacent to commercial/industrial development and multi -family residential development shall be maintained by a private property owner's association. ' 60. All perimeter walls, interior slopes and open space shall be maintained by the individual property owner or an established property owner's association. 61. Class II bike lanes shall be designed in conformity with the City's Park and Recreation ' Master Plan and constructed in concurrence with the street improvements. 62. • The landscaped medians shall be improved in conformance with the City of Temecula Landscape Plan Guidelines and Specifications. 63. The developer, his successor or assignee, shall maintain the landscaping and medians until such time as those responsibilities are accepted by the TCSD. 64. Construction of all proposed TCSD maintenance areas shall commence pursuant to a pre -job meeting with the developer and City Maintenance Superintendent. Failure to comply with the TCSD review and inspection process may preclude acceptance of these areas into the TCSD maintenance program. ' Prior to Recordation of the Final Map 65. All proposed TCSD maintenance areas (medians) shall be identified and offered for dedication on the final map. ' 66. Prior to recordation of the respective final map, construction drawings for proposed landscape medians shall be reviewed and approved by TCSD staff. 1 67. Prior to recordation of the respective final map, the subdivider shall post security and enter into an agreement to improve all proposed TCSD maintenance areas. I R:=AFFRPrVAiSP.PCS 911/91 vrr 20 1 I 1 I 1 1 I j 1 1 1 1 1 1 I I 1 1 I MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM � M it = M M M= M= M M= r M= M MITIG. ION MONITORING PROGRAM Provided on the following pages is a listing of the proposed mitigation measures associated with the Temecula Regional Center Specific Plan. Following each mitigation or set of mitigations is an indication of the stage of development and parties involved in implementation of the proposed mitigation(s). This determination is intended to respond to the requirements of AB 3180 (Cortese) which requires a monitoring program to insure the implementation of these mitigation measures. In addition to these requirements, the project proponent is responbible for obeying all other local, State and Federal regulations which may relate to this project. The developer will be responsible for any costs associated with the implementation of this monitoring program. GENERAL IMPACT A. Ndw L Short-term noise impacts associated with project eonstsuc� tion. MITIGATION _MEASURE 1. Construction adiv- Itia adjacent to exist- ing residential devel- opment should be limited to the hours of 6:30 a.m. to 6:30 p.m. on Monday through Friday. Comtructlou should not be allowed on weekends or fed- eral holidays. SPECIFIC PROCESS 1-1. On -rite grading Inspection. 1.2 Onsite Construe - t' -ion Inspection. 2. Longterm noise : 2. Reduce Interior 2.1. Implementation impacts lotommerdal and exterior none or noise reduction and residential uses levels to len than 45 measures as Identified From adjacent rod- CNEL and 60 CNBI, in detailed acoustical ways. respectively. studies. Reduce interior noise levels in commercial uses to 50 CNEL or less. Participation in the funding of off-site noise mitigations. 2-2. Review and ap- proval of Building Construction Plan. 23. An acoustical report shall be com- pleted prior to Inu- ance of Building Per- mits to Identify news- . ary mitiptioo mea- sures related to pro- posed commercial, retail office and hotel buildings. MITIGATION MILESTONE During project grad - Ing. During project con- struction. Prior to approval of Development Plana Prior to the issuance of Building Permits. Prior to the issuance of Building Permits. RESPONSIBLE MONITORING PARTY Qty of Temecula, Public Works Depart. ment. City of Temecula, Building and %rely Department. City of Temecula, Planning Department. City of Temecula, Planning Department. City of Temecula, Planning Department. PREREQUISITE ACTION FORt Grading Inspection. Final Inspection and/ or Bond Rekau. Development Plan approval. Issuance of Building Permits. Issuance of Building Permits. CITY/AGENCY VERIFICATION GENERAL IMPACT B. Climate and Air Quality 3. Airquality impacts due to generation of particulate molter during grading. 4. Airqualityimpacts from long-term site openticm and motor vehicle use. MITIGATION MEASURE 3. Pollutants will be reduced through wa. tering graded surfaces and planting ground - cover as dust pallia- liva in accordance with SCAQMD Rule 483. 4. Integration of transit facilities, ener. p -efficient buildings solar power, bicycle facilities, the design of efficient and direct traffic flow patterns and Implementation of Transportation De- mand Strategies. SPECIFIC PROCESS 24. Review and ap- proval of Building Construction Plans. 2-5. The project appli- ant shall participate on a pro -rain basis in any County pro -gram In place at the time of plot plan approval to mitigate off --site high. way noise Impacts. 3.1. On-site grading inspection. 4-I. Review and ap- provalof Development Plans. 4.2. All mitigation measures associated with the project should be monitored in Seoul. dance with AB 31110 requirements and re- ported to SCAG through the Annual Reasonable Further Progress Reports. Copia of reports shall be given to the Plan- ning Department. 43 Review and ap- proval of TDM Ptsna MITIGATION MILESTONE Prior to the issuance of Building Permits. Prior to the issuance of Building Permits. During project grad- ing. Prior to approval or Development Plena During project grading and construction. Prior to the Issuance of Building Permits. RESPONSIBLE MONITORING PARTY City of Temecula, Planning Department. City of Temecula, Planning Department. City of Temecula, Public Works Depart- ment. City of Temecula, Public Works Depart- ment. City of Temecula, Public Works and Building and Safety Departments. City of Temecula, Planning Department. PREREQUISITE ACTION FOR: Issuance of Building Permits. Issuance of Building Permits. Grading Impection. Final Development Plans, Final Grading Inspeo lion. Issuance of Building Permits. CI7TIAGENCY VERIFICATION rr r r r r r r r r■ r r r r� r r r r r r RESPONSIBLE PREREQUISITE GENEkv.... MITIGATION SPECIFIC MITIGATION MONITORING ACTION CITY/AGENCY IMPACT MEASURE- PROCESS MILESTONE PARTY FOR- VERIFICATION C. Selsnsle Safety S. Ground shaking and acceleration from maximum credible earthquake. 6. liquefaction has - ads. 7. Inundation from take Skinner. S. Design of the on- site structures to with- stand - a maximum credible earthquake. 6. Mitigation mea- sures will include but not be limited to the use of a compacted fill mal, gravel blankets, post -tensioned slats, and additional footing reinforcement The design of this system shall be performed during the grading plan review process in accordance with rec, ommendailoro includ- ed In additional gees technical reports. 7. An Evacuation Plan, If necessary, shell be prepared by the applicant and submit- ted to the Qty prior to Issuance of building permits. AB affected Bnal development plans wig indicate the proposed project lies In a potential Inunda- tion area 5-1. Review and ap- proval of structural design in accordance with the Uniform Building Code and City ordinances. 5-2 On -silt construc- Ilon inspection. 6-1. Submittal ofgeo- technical reports and review and approval of Grading Plans. 6-2 Review and ap- proval of monthly inspection reports of grading operalions. 7.1. Review and ap- proval or Evacuation Plant 7.2 Review and ap- provalof Development Plans and Environ - menial Constraints Sheets. Prior to the issuance of Building Permits. Inspection Report Approval. Prior to issuance of Grading Permits. During project grad. ing. Prior To the approval of Development Plans. Prior to The approval of Development Plana City of Temecula, Building and Safety Department. City of Temecula, Building and Safety Department. City of Temecula, Public Works Depart. ment. City of Temecula, Public Works Depart - meal. City of Temecula, Public Works and Planning Departments. City of Temecula, Public Works Depart- ment. Issuance of Building Permits. Final Inspection and/ or Mond Release. Issuance of Grading Permits. Grading Inspection. Development Plan approval. Development Plan approval. GENERAL IMPACT D. Stipa and Erosion B. Proper conalruo- lion of cot and fill slopes. 9. Increased soil erosion and sedimen- tation due to the cm - allow of exposed mils. MITIGATION MEASURE S. All cut and- rill slopes shall be con. structed at inclinations of no sleeper ohm ■ 2:1 ratio unless other. wise approved by the City of Temecula. 9. The project propo- nent shall - submit to the City for review and approval, an erosion control program which indicates - that proper control of siltation, sedimentation and Other pollutants. The erosion control pro- gram mensurea. will Include tevegetation or cut and rill area, utiB- tation of sediment control devices at eon- struction tiles, and conveyance of slam runoff from develop- mentarea. Ali drain- age will be conveyed In noneiaive drain- age devices to suitable disposal points. Ener. gy dissipation and methods for prevent- ing sonar and erosion should be part of any drainage Improve- ments. SPECIFIC PROCESS 8-1. A Slope Stability Report shall be pre- pared by the suits engineer a engineer- In8 geologisl and sub- mitted for approval to the City of Temecula prior to project grad- ing. B-2 Review and ap- proval of Grading Plans. 9.1. Review and ap- proval of Erosion Con- trol Program. 9.2. Review and ap- proval of Grading Plans. 9-3. On-site grading inspection. 9.1. Obtain NOI from SWRWOCB, submit SWPDD to SDRW- QCB and Public Works Department. MITIGATION MILESTONE Prior to issuance of Grading Permits. Prior to issuance of Grading Permits. Prior to issuance of Grading Permits. Prior to issuance of Grading Permits. During project grad. ing. Prior to Issuance or Grading Permits. Prior to Issuance of Grading Permits. Prior to luoance of Grading Permits. RESPONSIBLE MONITORING PARTY City of Temecula, Public Works Depart- ment. City of Temecula, Public Works Deput. mens. City of Temecula, Public Works Depart- ment. City of Temecula, Public Works Depart. ment. . City of Temecula, Public Works Depart - meal. City of Temecula, Public Works Depart- ment. SWRWOCB SDRWOCB PREREQUISITE ACTION FOR: Issuance of Grading Permits. Issuance of Grading Permits. Issuance of Grading Permits. Innsce of Grading Permits. Grading Inspection. lssua exe of Grading Permits. Issuance of Grading Permits. Issuance of Grading Permits. CM/AGENCY VERIFICATION r r r� �r � �r �r � � ■r �r r� � � r i. r r r RESPONSIBLE PREREQUISITE MITIGATION SPECIFIC MIr tGAT1ON MONITORING ACTION CITY/AGENCY IMPACT' MEASURE PROCESS MILESTONE PARTY FOR: VERIFICATION IQ Proper site Preps- ralion, grading, elm F. It. Increased storm runoff due to The cre- ation of impermeable surfaces. 10. Applications for development permits within the Temecula Regional Center Spe- .ciGc Plan shall provide detailed grading plans which include esti- mates of grading mag. nitude and slope con- tours. This detailed grading plan shall be submitted to the City of Temecula prior to grading plan approval. In the event that this detailed grading oon- apt conform to the previously -approved Specific Plan. no fur- ther environmental analysis Is necessary. If the grading plan does not conform, the Cry shall prepare an Initial Study to deter- mine The went of any necessary additional environmental docu- mentation. 11. Drainage fadlities shall conform to the requirements andsta l - dards of the City of Temecula and the Riverside. County Flood Control and Water Conservation District, (RCFC A WCD). Phasing of drainage tadlides shall coincide with The pro- ject's phasing plan. The upstream deten- tion basso, if not at- ready Fready constructed, shill be oomisucted 161. Review and approval of grading pians. 11-1. Review and approval of Drainage Plans. 11.2. Inspection of construction. Prior to issuance of Grading Permits. Prior to -approval of Drainage Pilots and issuance of Grading Permits. Prior to approval of Drainage Plan. Inspection Report approvaL Inspection Report approval. City of Temecula. Public Works Depart- ment. City of Temecula, Public Works Depart- ment. RCFC a WCD on Master Drainage Fa. cililies. City of Temecula, Public Wats Depart- ment. RCFC d WCD on Muter Dnionage Facilities. Issuance of Grading Permits. Issuance of Grading Permits. Issuance of Grading Permits. Final Inspection and/ or Bond Release. Final Inspection and/ or Bond Release. RFSI'ONSIIIIE mp'.m.Quisri-E GENERAL MITIGATION SPECIFIC MITIGATION MONITORING ACTION CITY/AGENCY IMPACT MEASURE PROCESS MILESTONE PARTY PORT VERIFICATION when the amount of runoff entering the Palm Plaza/ACS pond - ins facility reaches. approximately 1900 cfL Any development project within the Temecula Regional Center &ban provide to the Director of Public Works of the City of Temecula adequate studies or analysis to idenlirywhether drain- age nos entering the Palm Plaza/ACS ponding area will ex- ceed 1900 clsas a mull of the proposed development. If the , Director of Public Works determines that flows will exceed 1900 efs, the Campos Verdes detention ba- sin, or other fadlitiea acceptable to the D1, rector of Public Works, will be con- structed prior to ocnr- paoq within the pro- posed development project. IL Participation In 12 The projectdevel- 12.1. Payment of Prior to the Issuance City of Temecula, Issuance'of Grading ------------------------ funding for regional oper shall pay drain. drainage fees. of Grading Permits. Public Works and Permits. drainage facilities. age fees in accordance Nanning Departments. ........................ with the Murriets Creek DrAnase. Plan. 13. Increased erosion 13. .Son on graded 13.1. Review and Prior to issuance of City of Temecula, Issuance of Grading ------------------------ and sedimentation due slopes, shall be approval. of Erosion - Grading Permits. Public Works Depart. Permits. to the creation of err strengthened. by Control Plana meat and Planning - . ..................... posed soils. planting to reduce the Department. potentialof erosion. During .the , Interim 13-L On-site grading During project grad- City of Temecuk Grading Inspection. ........................ period before the Inspection. Ing. Public Works Depart. ground corer takes mem. ._� hold straw, wood chips G. Water Quality 13. Increased erosion and sedimentation due to the creation of exposed soils. 16. Potential Impacts upon groundwater quality. IS. Use of erosion control devices during grading, such as tem- porary berms. culverts, sand -bagging or de- sGling basins In order to avoid sedimentation Impacts towater quali- ty. 16. The project will comply with the re- quirements of the California State Water Qusiity Control Board, San Diego Region. All (¢albite will be connected to sewers and storm drainL I5-1. Review and approval of monthly Inspection reports of grading operations. Iii Cleaning and rextoration of all on - and off-site erosion devices, deposits and dltstlon. 16.1. Review and approval of Develop - mens Plana During project grading and construction. Inspection Report Approval. Prior to approval of Development Plain. City or Temecula, Public Works Depart- ment. City or Temecula, Public Works Depart- ment. City of Temecula, Public Works Depart- ment. Grading Inspection, Final Inspection and/ or Bond Release. Find Inspection and/ or Bond Release. Development Plan Approval- RESPONSIBLE PREREQUISITE GEM MITIGATION SPECIFIC MI. .TION MONITORING ACTION ./AGENCY IMPACT MEASURE PROCESS MILESTONE PARTY F0 III VERIFICATION and plastic (visqueen) can be used as stabiliz- ing agents. 14. Potential impacts 14. Methods to catch 141. Review and Pricer to approval of City of Temecula, Issuance of Grading ................... _... upon downstream and treat runoff from approval of Drainage Drainage Plans and Public Works Depart. Permits. water quality. the project shall be in. Plans. issuance of Grading meni. duded within drainage Permits. ' Plans to be submitted and approved by the Prior to approval or RCFC A WCD on Issuance of Grading ........................ City of Temecula. Drainage Plans. Master Drainage Fa- Permits. The qty shall deter. cilities. mine as that time as to whether such technol. off Is available and whether Its implemen. tation is feasible from ■ leehnical standpoint. G. Water Quality 13. Increased erosion and sedimentation due to the creation of exposed soils. 16. Potential Impacts upon groundwater quality. IS. Use of erosion control devices during grading, such as tem- porary berms. culverts, sand -bagging or de- sGling basins In order to avoid sedimentation Impacts towater quali- ty. 16. The project will comply with the re- quirements of the California State Water Qusiity Control Board, San Diego Region. All (¢albite will be connected to sewers and storm drainL I5-1. Review and approval of monthly Inspection reports of grading operations. Iii Cleaning and rextoration of all on - and off-site erosion devices, deposits and dltstlon. 16.1. Review and approval of Develop - mens Plana During project grading and construction. Inspection Report Approval. Prior to approval of Development Plain. City or Temecula, Public Works Depart- ment. City or Temecula, Public Works Depart- ment. City of Temecula, Public Works Depart- ment. Grading Inspection, Final Inspection and/ or Bond Release. Find Inspection and/ or Bond Release. Development Plan Approval- GENERAL IMPACT H. Toxic Subslaneas 17. Potential for haz- ardous materials being found on-site. Ill. Determination of appropriate commer- cial uses L VAMM and Vegaladon 19. Participation in funding of Habitat Conservation Plan. 2% Participation in Funding of Develop- meat evelopmeat Mitigation Fees MITIGATION MEASURE 17. A sampling and chemical analysis pro. gram shall be complet- ed prior to Issuance of grading permits to determine If near mr- face soils com ain haz- ardous substances in excess of FPA limits. In the event that any hazardous materials are found on-site qualified authorities shall be contacted Immediately. 18. Appropriate Cou- nty agencies or the City of Temecula shall review proposed com- mercialand business park developments to determine potential For existence and use of toxic materials.. 19. Mitigation of im- pacts of local and regional growth on the Stephens Kangaroo rat. 20. Payment Into in the Development Mid- gadoa Fee Program for the acquisition of regional open space. SPECIFIC PROCESS 17.1. Sampling and chemical analysis of soil. 17-2. Removal of any hazardous malerpls. 17.3. Proper disposal of materials. 174. On -tile grading monitoring. 18.1. Submittal of Chemical Reports and EPA Required Materi- al. 18.2. Review of on- site chemical storage and proposedcommer. eW uses. 19.1. Payment of Stephens Kangaroo Rat Fees. 244 Payment of De- velopmeal Mitigation Fees. MITIGATION MILESTONE Prior to issuance or Grading Permits. During project grading and construction. During project grading and construction. During project grad - Ing. During project con- struction. Prior to the approval of Development Plans. Prior to the approval of Development Plans or the issuance of Occupancy Permits. Prior to Issuance of Grading Permits. Prior to issuance of Building Permits. RESPONSIBLE MONITORING PARTY City of Temecula, Public Works Depart- ment. City of Temecula, Public Works Depart- ment. City of Temecula, Public Works Depart- ment. City of Temecula, Public Works Depart- ment. City of Temecula. Building and Safety Department. City of Temecula, Planning Department. County of Riverside, Fire Department and Health Department. City of Temecula, Planning Department. City of Temecula. Building and Safety Department. PREREQUISITE ACTION FOR: Issuance of Grading Permits. Grading Inmpectiun, Final Inspection, and/ or Bond Release. Grading Inspection, Final Inspection, and/ or Bond Release. Grading Inspection, Final Impecilon, and/ or Bond Release. Final Inspection and/ or Bond Release. Development Plan Approval. Development Plan approval or the issu. ance of Occupancy Permits. Issuance of Grading Permits. Issuance of Building Permits. CITY/AGENCY VERIFICATION RESPONSIBLE PREREQUISITE, GENEL._ MITIGATION SPECIFIC MI`1k_..fION MONITORING ACTION C. - -,AGENCY IMPACT MEASURE PROCESS MILESTONE PARTY FORT VERIFICATION J. Energy Resourew 21. Increased energy demands. R. Cultural and Selealgk Resoureas 22. Potential impacts to unknown cultural resources. 23. Potential Impacts upon paleontological resources. 21. The use of passive solar heating and cool- ing techniques. In addition, building energy conservation measures for both residential and oom- mercial units. 22. Retain - on-site cultural- resources whenever site grading 6 being conducted on the subject property. , If any cultural resourc- es esourcees be encountered during grading or construction activities. work shall be halted and a qualified archae- ologist shall be con- sulted to evaluate resources, determine their significance and develop a plan to col- lect and study them for the purpose of mitigation. 23. A qualified verte- brate paleontologist shall develop a Paleon- tologic Resouroe Im- pact Mitigation Pro- gram prior to Issuance of grading permits. The quafified paleoo- tologisl shall be re- tained to perform peri- odic inspections of eacavatlau and, If nemssary, salvage ex- posed fossils. The fre. 21-I. Review and approval of Building Construction Plans. 21-2 Compliance with Title 20 and 24 of the California Administra- tive Code. 22.1. On-sile grading monitoring. 23.1. Review and approval of qualifies - tion of proposed pa- leonloingisl and Re- sources Impact Miligs- tion program. 232 On-site grading monitoring. 233. Calah*ng and preserving resources. Prior to issuance of Building Permits. Prim to issuance of Building Permits. During project grad- ing. Prior to inuance of Grading Permits. During project grad - Ing. During project grad- ing. Cly of Temecula, Building and Safety Department. City of Temecula, Building and Safety Department. City of Temecula, Public Works Depart- ment. City of Temecula, Planning Department. Appointed paleontolo- gist and/or the City of Temecula, Public Works Department. City of Temecula, Planning Department. Issuance of Building Permits. Issuance of Building Permits. Grading Inspection. Issuance of Grading Permits. Grading Inspection. Grading Inspection. RFSIY/NSIIIIX I•RIiR1 12UISITF GENERAL MITIGATION SPECIFIC MITIGATION MONITORING ACTION CITY/AGENCY IM PA MEASURE PROCESS MIIESTONB PARTY FOR: VERIFICATION quency of Inspections 23-4. Preparation of Prior to the issuance City of Temecula, Issuance or Building Will depend on the report findings. or Building Permits. Planning Department. Permits. rale of excavation, the materials being exca- vated, and the abun- dance or rossils. - a. Thepaleonlologisl shall be allowed to divert or direct grad- ing in the area of an exposed fossil to facili- tate evaluation and, it accessary, salvage. b. Because of the smell nature of some faults present in these rock units, matrix &am. pis should be coileet- ed for processing through fine mesh smem. c. Provisions for preparation and curs - lion shall be made before the fossils are donated to their final repository. d. All fossils collect- ed should be donated to a suitable reposilo- ry• e. Because of the abundance of fossils discovered during the walkover survey con- ducted during this ssudy, it will be nems- sary to resurvey the site prior to grading. The soft nature of the Paubs Formation al - Ian It to erode easily, exposing fossils. Therefine, the winter , M M M M M r M M M M r M M M M r M r= GENL.. — IMPACT L Circulation 20. Impacts of project traffic on off-site road- ways. 25. Impacts of project traffic on off-site road- ways. MITIGATION MEASURE rains may expose sig- nificant raids. If significant rossi4 are discovered during this new walkover, it will be necessary to collect those fossila This rec- ommendatimt Isneas- sary only if the devel- opment of this proper- ty takes place after the winter rains. 24. The developer shall be responsible for direct project access improvements along the site bound. aries and oft -site im- provements as well as improvements. to Mar. garita Road and right- of-way dedication for The Winchester Road/1-15 off ramp. 25. The property own. er/developer is a prin- cipal participant in the Ynes Corridor Mello Roos District 88-12 which providesfusding rat the Overland Road overcrusslag, the Ran. cho California Road interchange .loop ramp, and the Ynex Road widening to sir lanes. The developer is also a participant in Winchester Assess- ment District 161 which providesfunding SPECIFIC PROCESS 241. Review and approvalofsubsequent Traffic Studies in con- junction with future development applica- tions prior to approval of final Grading Plans and Development Plans. 242. Bonding with approval of Develop- ment Plans. 21.3. Review and approval of Strut Improvement Plana 241. Construction of infruwcture improve- ments. 25.1. Review and approval of Develop. ment Plans. 252. Continued par- ticipstion with AD 88- 12 and CFD 88.12 253. Participation in off-site roadway Im- provements. 11#11'1...ATION MILESTONE Prior to issuance of Grading Permits and approval of Develop- menl Plans. Prior to approval of Devek:pmenl Plans. Prior to approval of Development Plans. Inspection Report approval. Prim to approval of Deneiopment Plans. Prior to approval of Development Plans. Prior to approval of Development Plans. RESPONSIBLE MONITORING PARTY City of Temecula, Public Works Depart- ment. City of. Temecula. Public Works Depart- ment. City of Temecula, Public Works Depart. menl. City of Temecula, Public Works Depart- ment. Gry of Temecula, Public Works Depart- ment. City of Temecula, Public Works Depart- ment. City or Temecula, Public Works Depart- ment. PREREQUISITE ACTION FOR: Issuance of Grading Permits and/or sp. proval of Development Plans. Development Plan approval. Development Plan approval. Final Inspection and/ or Bond Release. Development Plan approval. Development Plan approval. Development Plan approval. M La Y/AGENCY VERIFICATION GENERAL IMPACT 26. Impacts of project traffic on on-site road- ways. 27. Participation in Transportation Sys- lems Management Programa. MITIGATION MEASURE for the improvement of Winchester Road (six -lane Urban Arted- A) and twolane im- provenlents to Marga- rita Road, north of Winchester Road. 26. In addition to the identified roadway im- provements, the appli- cant will participate in the provision of road- way improvements. 27. A Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Pun shall be prepared and submit - (ed to the City of Temecula prior to or concurrent with Devel- opment Pun approval. In addition to the recommended roadway infrastructure improve - menu the Traffic Engineer also recom- mends that a number or. Transportation Systems Management programa be Imple- mented by the City of Temecula In the pro jed. vicinity Including the continued enforce - meat of the South Cour Air Quality Management DisUW% Trip Reduction Pun; the implementation or public transit services In the Temecula area such as a) express M a ■■ SPECIFIC PROCFSS 25-4. Review and approval of Improve- ment Plans. 25-5. Construction of infrastuclure improve- ments. 26-1. Review and approval of final Grad- ing Plana and Devel- opment Plans. 26-2. Review and approval of Street Improvement Plant. 263. Construction of infrastructure improve - menu. 27-1. Review and approval of Develop ment Puns. 27.2. Review and approval of Building Construction Puna. 27-3. Review and approval of IDM Plana. MITIGATION MILESTONE Prior to approval of Development Plans. Prim to the issuance of Occupancy Permits. Prim to issuance of Grading Permits and approval of Develop- Meet evelopmeet Pum. Prior to approval of Development Plans. Inspection Report approval. Prior to approval of Development Puns. Prior to Issuance of Building Permits. Prior to issuance of Building Permits. RESPONSIBLE MONITORING PARTY Cily of Temecula, Public Works Depart. ment. City of Temecula, Public Works Depart- mcnl. City of Temecula, Public Works Depart- ment. City of 'Iemecula, Public Works Depart. ment. City of Temecula, Public Works Depart- ment. City of Temecula, Planning Department. City of Temecula, Punning Department. City of Temecula, Planning Department. PREREQUISITE ACTION FOR. Development Plan approval. Issuance of Occupancy Permits. Issuance of Grading Permits or Develop mens Plan approval. Development Plan approval. Final Inspection and/ or Bond Release. Development Plan approval. Issuance of Building Permits. Issuance of Building Permits. CITY/AGENCY VERIFICATION �r �■ r r r ■r r� r� �■ ■r r■ r� r r ■r r� � � r RESPONSIBLE PREREQUISITE GEN�__.L MITIGATION SPECIFIC Mil WATION MONITORING ACTION CITY/AGENCY IMPACT' MEASURE PROCESS MILESTONE PARTY FOR- VERIFICATION 28. Participation in Transportation Sys- tems Management Programs. transit into and out of the area during the morning and evening commuter peaks. b) fixed route local bus service between higher density residential areas and major activi- ty centers, c) demand responsive transit ser- vices such as dial -a - ride for the lower density and more remote areas; and d) provision of bicycle trails and bike rack facilities on-site, pro- mote of future public transit through The adoption of appro- priate planning ordi- nances which would require special transit 'oriented design fea- tures to be incorpo- rated into future de- velopment project the adoption of ordi- nations which would require larger employ- ee .in the area to implement carpool and/or vanpool pro- grams. 28. In conjunction with future park and ride facilities to be provided by the Be - 810"1 Center, provi- sions should be made for development of a future transit transfer station to promote future use of public transit, reduce vehicu- lar travel and reduce parking demand at the Regional Center. 281. Review and Review and approval approval of Develop of Development Plans. mens Plans. City of Temecula, Planning Department. Development Plan approval. GENERAL IMPACT 29. Impacts of project traffic on off-site road- ways. M Water and Sewer 30. Adequate capacity or water and sewer linea serving the pro - Jed. 31. Increased demand For water supplies. MITIGATION MEASURE ,9. A -Supplemental TrafrKAnalysis shall be prepared- for any and all individual pro- ject: (i.e. plot plan applications) within the Temecuia Region- al Center. This Sup- plemenial Traffic Anulysis shall be sub- mitted to the City cf Temecula, for review and approval prior to approval of them indi- vidual projects. 30.. Assure provision of adequate water and wastewater aarvice is available prior to ap- proval of Development Plans or Building Per- mits. 31. The project will comply with any requirements of EMWD, Riverside County Health De- parlment and the Rancho California Water.District for in- stallation of on-site reclaimed water lines. SPECIFIC PROCESS 29.1. Submittal of Supplemental Traffic Analyses. 3&1. Review end approval of Derrolep ment Plans and/cr Issuance of Building Permits. 31.1. Review and approval of Develop went Plans and/or Issuance of Building Permits. 31-2. Review and approval of Improve- ment Plena MITIGATION MILESTONE Review and approval or Development Plans. Prior to approval of Devolopnmat Plans or lasuanct - of Building Permits. Prior to approval of Development Plans or issuance of Building Permits. Prior to approval of Improvement Plana RESPONSIBLE MONITORING PARTY City of Temecula, Planning Department. City of Temecula, Public Works Depart- meal or Building and Safety Department. City of Temecula, Public Works Depart- ment or Building and Safety Department. City of Temecula, Public Works Depart- ment. Eastern Municipal Water District. Rancho California Water District. Riverside County Health Department. PREREQUISITE ACTION PORs Development Plan approval. Development Plan 'approval and/or issu- ance of Building Per- mits. Development Plan approval and/or Issu- ance of Building Per- mits. Improvement Plan approval. Improvement Plan approval. Improvement Plan approval. Improvement Plan approval. CITV/AGENCY VERIFICATION RESPONSIBLE PREREQUISITE GENET- MITIGATION SPECIFIC MITr..nT10N MONITORING ACTION C.../AGENCY IMPACT MEASURE PROCESS MILESTONE PARTY FOR: VERIFICATION N. Fin Services 32. Increased demand for fire protection services. O. Sheriff Services 33. Project design which enhances law enforcement services. P. Schools 34. Increased demand for educational facia. lice. 32. The project devel. oper will participate in the existing Fro Pro- tection Impac4,Mitiga- lion Program. 33. Forfuturesecurity and safety, the crime prevention _ measures as recommended in the EIR shall be con- sidered. w 34. The payment - of the school impact mitigation fees for funding school site acquisitionand/or facility construction as negotiated with the Temecula Valley Uni- fied School District and according to State Law. These &door Impact fees may not exceed the State -man- dated amounts : or whatever fee or miti- gation- agreement amount Is In effect at the time that building permits are Issued -as determined by the Qty or'.. Temecula, City, Council. 32-1. Payment of Fire Protection Impact Mitigation Fees ($400.00 per dwelling unit and $.2S per sq. B. for commercial/ industrial uses). 33.1. Review and approval of Building Construcrion Plans. 341. The project applicant shall enter Into a binding agree, menl with The Teme- euts Valley Unified School D'atricl. Prior to the issuance of Building Permits. Prior to the issuance of Building Permits. Prior to the Issuance of Building Permits. . City of Temecula, Building and Safety Department. City of Temecula, Police Department. Issuance of Building Permits. Issuance of Building Permits. Temecula Valley ilni- Issuance or Building Bed School District Permits: and the Qty of Teme.- - culs. Building and Safely Department. F I . 32. The project devel. oper will participate in the existing Fro Pro- tection Impac4,Mitiga- lion Program. 33. Forfuturesecurity and safety, the crime prevention _ measures as recommended in the EIR shall be con- sidered. w 34. The payment - of the school impact mitigation fees for funding school site acquisitionand/or facility construction as negotiated with the Temecula Valley Uni- fied School District and according to State Law. These &door Impact fees may not exceed the State -man- dated amounts : or whatever fee or miti- gation- agreement amount Is In effect at the time that building permits are Issued -as determined by the Qty or'.. Temecula, City, Council. 32-1. Payment of Fire Protection Impact Mitigation Fees ($400.00 per dwelling unit and $.2S per sq. B. for commercial/ industrial uses). 33.1. Review and approval of Building Construcrion Plans. 341. The project applicant shall enter Into a binding agree, menl with The Teme- euts Valley Unified School D'atricl. Prior to the issuance of Building Permits. Prior to the issuance of Building Permits. Prior to the Issuance of Building Permits. . City of Temecula, Building and Safety Department. City of Temecula, Police Department. Issuance of Building Permits. Issuance of Building Permits. Temecula Valley ilni- Issuance or Building Bed School District Permits: and the Qty of Teme.- - culs. Building and Safely Department. GENERAL IMPACT Q. Parka and Recreation 35. Increased demand for local park facilities. R. Utilities 36. Increaseddemand for utility services. S. Solid Waste 37. Increased solid waste generation. 38. Increased solid waste generation. 39. Increased solid waste generation. MITIGATION MEASURE 35. Provide adequate park acreage and/or the payment of In -lieu or Pecs to satisfy the TCSD and rthe State Quimby Act local park requirements. 36. Building energy conservation will be largely achieved by oompliance with Title 20 and 24 of the Ener- gy Conservation Code. 37. Provide recycling faeilitin at appropriate locations to reduce rolA waste id compli- ance with AB 939. 38. Th,sapplicantshall submit detailed plans delineating :he num- ber, location and gen- eral design of solid waste bin enclosures; These plans shall of promote visual aes- thetics, routine clean- ing, prenmion of odors or disease vec, ton and provide for noise reduction. 39. The developer shall participate in any established City-wide program to reduce solid waste generation. SPECIFIC PROCESS 35-I. Payment of in - lieu park fees or dedi. ction of parks. 36-1. Review and approval of Building Construction Plana 37-1. Provision of recycling containers and enclosures. 38.1. Detailed plana providing for recycling containers, enclosures, trash comainen and enclosures 39-1. Participation In City wide pnogr in. to reduce solid waste. MITIGATION MILESTONE Prior to approval of Development Pianos or Issuance of Building Permits. Prior to the issuance of Building Permits. Prior to issuance of Budding Permits. Prior to issuance of Building Permits. Prior to the Issuance of O=pamy Permits. RESPONSIBLE MONITORING PARTY . Temecula Community Services District. City of Temecula, Building and Safety Department. City of Temecula, Community Services Department. City of Temecula, Community Services Department. City of Temecula, Community Servbzs Department. PREREQUISITE ACTION FORt Development Plan approval or Issuance of Building Permits. Issuance of Building Permits. Issuance of Building Permits. Issuance of Building Permits. Issuance of Occupancy Permits. CITY/AGENCY VERIFICATION IM = M = = = = •= r = = = = == = = . -1 RESPONSIBLE PREREQUISITE GENEhu MITIGATION SPECIFIC MITIGATION MONITORING ACTION CPIY/AGENCY IMPACT MEASURE PROCESS MILESTONE PARTY FOR: VERIFICATION T. IJbrarles 40. Impacts loesisling library facilities. U. Llgbt and Glen 41. Generation of light and glare. 42 Generation of light' and glare. .I Iii -, '. ti . 40. Participation in Wading of library fees. 41. The use of low- pressure sodium vapot Lamps for street and ieehrity, lishlinj 4Z The orientation of Ther poleatfi* lighted areas (Le" auto mon- umenlalion, business signage) shall prevent direct upwaid Iiluml- nalion. .' i•u i 14t'i. •i ` i 40.1. Payment of li- brary fees. 41-I. Review and approval of Improve- ment Pians. 42-1. Review and ipproval of signage. a Ai rl� Prim to the issuance of Building Permits. Prim to approval of Improvement Plans. Prior to approval of Sign Permits. .•f Ili'{:' 1 L.If` t•1 v . , City of Temecula, Building and Safety Department. Issuance of Building Permits. City of Temecula, Improvement Plan Public Works Depart- approval. ment. city of Temecula, Issuance of Sign Per- BuiWins and Safety mits. b4artment. ' � .yt ! zx•tt- ?fie la til.. t ,i•nR MITIGATION MILESTON MITIGATION MFASURR RKSPONSIgLIK MONITORING. PARTY Prior to Issuance. o[Oratlitt!l Permits, - 6, 8, 9,10, ll, 12, 13, 14.17, 2}, 26 City of Temecula, Public Works Department 13, 19, 23 Qty of. Temecula, Planning :Department 9 SWRWOCB and SDRWQCB Prior to the Approval or Drainage Plans 11,14 - Qty of Temecula. Public Works Department 11,14 Riverside County flood Control d Water Conservation District Prior to Approval of Improvement Pons ' 31 - Eastern Municipal Water District, Rancho California Water District and the Riverside County llealth Deparnoent 31,41 City of Temecula, Public Works Department Prior to Approval of Development Plana 4.7. 16, 24, 25, 26, 27, 30 City of Temecula, Public Works Department 18 City of Temecula. Fire and Health Departments 35 Temecula Community Services Department 2, 7, 18, 28, 29 City of Temecula. Planning Department Prior to the Issuance of Bulwing Permits.- •. 5, 20.21t 30,3Z 34.36, 40. .City, of Temecula. Building and Safety Departmeot;, ' 2, 4, I8, 23,27 Cityof Temecula, Planning Dep ailment 33 Gry of Temecula, Police Department 34 Temecula Valley Unified School District 35, 37, 38 Temecula Commp+nity Services Department - During Project Grading and/or Comtrwkx. 1, 3.4,6,9.13, 17, 22, 23 - City of Temecula, Public Works Department . 4 City of Temecula, Building and Safety Department 23 Appointed Paleontologist 23, City of Temecula. Planning Department. Inspection Report Approval. _ Il, 15.24, 26 City of Temecula, Public Works Department S City of Temecula. Building and Safety Department 11 Riverside County Flood Control R Water Conservation District Prior to the Imam or Ottvpincy Permits. 18 County of Riverside. Fre and Ilealth Departments 39 City of Temecula, Community Services Department ' �. �= CAI i"mecuL.J'yblic VjWpaft