Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
2nd Revised Draft Environmental Imapct Report Appendices Vol 2 of 2
O , f . 2 N REVISED 0 Draft r Environmental 4 ' 4 w , Impact Report A P P E N D I C E S ' ��•, Volume 2 of 2 • • � � ,a• . •fit ;� •� yn c _-_ PREPARED FOR �T^� Ruripa�i;f R;I11(JIIt 0 � PREPARED By ' t • • 4,41 i The Keith Compare csl ■ ■ , t I FEBRUARY, 2002 ' 2nd REVISED DRAFT ' ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT RORIPAUGH RANCH SPECIFIC PLAN VOLUME 2 OF 2 EIR APPENDICES ' SCH # 97121030 ' Prepared for: ' CITY OF TEMECULA 43200 Business Park Drive ' Temecula, CA 92590 Contacts: Dave Hogan Saied Naaseh (909) 694-6400 Prepared by: The Keith Companies 11n<C I ' 22690 Cactus Avenue, Suite 300 Moreno Valley, CA 92553 ' Contact: Kent Norton ' (909) 653-0234 i RORIPAUGH RANCH SPECIFIC PLAN ' REVISED DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT VOLUME 2 OF 2 FIRAPPENDI-CES TABLE OF CONTENTS Appendix A Notice of Preparation (NOP) and Initial Study ' Appendix B NOP Responses/Previous DEIR Comment Letters Appendix C Geotechnical Appendix D Hydrology Appendix E Traffic Appendix F Air Quality Appendix G Biological Resources ' Appendix H Noise Appendix I Scientific Resources Appendix J Phase I Hazardous Materials NOTE: Technical data sheets for Appendix C(Geotechnical),Appendix D ' (Hydrology),Appendix E (Traffic), and Appendix J(Hazardous Materials) are available at the City of Temecula Planning Department. 1 I APPENDIX A 1 Notice of Preparation (NOP) and Initial Study 1 i 12- 9-97: 6:32PM:Ci Ly Ot -emeco 13 :9096946477 a 2/ !7 City of Temecula Community Development Department Notice of Preparation To: Attached Mailing List ' Subject: Notice of Intent to Prepare a Draft Environmental.Impact Report 1 Lead Agency: City of Temecula Consulting Firm (if applicable) Community Development Dept Firm Name: Keith Companies 43200 Business Park Drive Street Address: 22690 Cactus Avenue Temecula, CA 92590 City/State/Zip: Moreno Valley, CA 92553 Contact: John DeGange Contact: Tom Nieves Phone Number: (909) 694-6400 Phone Number. (909) 653-0234 ' The City of Temecula Community Development Department will be the Lead Agency and will prepare an environmental impact report for the project identified below. We need to know the views of your agency as to r the scope and content of the environmental information which is germane to your agency's statutory reVonsibrlitm in connection with the proposed project. Your agency will need to use the ETR prepared by our agency when considering your permit or other approval for the project. The project description, location, and initial environmental study are contained in the attached materials. Due to the time limits mandated by State law, your response must be sent at the earliest possible date but not later than 30 days after receipt of this notice. Please send your response to John DeGange with the City of Temecula at the address shown above. We will also need the name for a contact person in your agency. Project Title: Ronpaugh Ranch Specific Plan (Planning Application PA94-0074) Project Location: City of Temecula, Riverside County, California Project Description: The adoption of a Specific Plan, and related prezoning and annexation actions, for ' approximately 1,800 dwelling units, with 11 acres of commercial.development, 56 acres of park and school facilities, and 160 acres of natural open space on approximately 790 acres northeast of the City of Temecula. (At the present time only 154 acnes of the project are located within the limits of the City of Temecula.) This is the second Notice of Preparation for this project, the fust NOP was issued on Apid 7, 1995. 1 8EVIFov PCA10 D IZ IO - K7 to I - 9 933 Planning Manager Date r Y10EQAX%PA7a_2NOP Deeewbw 5.1997 12- 9-97: 6:32PM:C1ty of 7emecula :9096946477 a 3/ 17 City of Temecula Community Development Department Agency Distribution List PRoJECr: NOP for the Roripaugh Ranch Specific Plan DISTRIBUTION DATE: 12/8/97- CASE PLANNER: John DeGange CITY OF TEMECULA: CITY OF mURRIETA: Building & Safety . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ( ) Planning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (X) Fire Department . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. (X) ( ) Sheriff . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (X� Parks &Recreation (TCSD) . . . . . . . . . (X) Planning : O RIVERSIDE COUNTY: Public Works . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . : (X) 'Airport Land Use Commission . . . . . . . (X) ( � Engineer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (X) Flood Control M I�caith Department . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ( ) STATE: Parks and Recreation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (X) Caltrans . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ( ) Planning Department . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (X) Fish & Game . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ( ) Habitat Conservation Agency (RCHCA) . (X) Mines&Geology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . O Riverside Transit Agency . . . . . . . . . . . (Jl) Regional Wates Quality Control Bd . . : . ( ) ( ) State Clearinghouse . . . . . . . . . . . . . . State Clearinghouse (10 Copies) . . . . . . . (X) Water Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . O UTIIdTY: ( ) Pastern Municipal Water District . . . . . . (X) Inland Valley Cablevision . . . . . . . . . . (X) Rancho CA Water District, Will Serve . . (X) FEDERAL: Southern California Gas . . . . . . . . . . . . (X) Army Corps of Engineers . . . . . . . . . . (X) Southern California Edison . . . . . . . . . . (X) Fish and Wildlife Service . . . . . . . . ... . (X) Temecula Valley School District . . . . . . (X) . . . . . ( ) Metropolitan Water District . . . . . . . . . (X) OTHER: REGIONAL: Pechanga Indian Reservation . . . . . . . . . ( ) Air Quality Management District . . . . . .. (X) Eastern Information Center . . . . . . . . . . (X) SCAG . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ()o Local Agency Formation Comm . . . . . . (73) Western Riverside COG . . . . . . . . . . . . M RCTC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (IQ O Homeowners' Association . . . . . . . . . . ( ) ILNCEQAMPA74 2NOP . .. Dmnmbv J,1997 1-14-98; 11 :40AM:C1 [Y 04 T6m2cula :909694647 # 19/ 19 1 15 D Encourage employers to utilize TDM measures identified in the Western Riverside County Detailed Implementation Strategy. ' Non-motorized Transportation D Provide facilities that support non- The EIR needs to address non-motorized motorized means of transportation transportation and the provision of facilities (e.g., walking, bicycling, to support such uses. telecommuting), and are designed to provide for safety. The Non-Motorized Transportation Plan is O Is the project consistent with the available on the WRCOG website at 1WRCOG Suhregional Non- www wreox cog ca us. The Plan contains Motorized Transportation Plan 7 information on opportunities to enhance non- 42 Encourage major employers to motorized transportation in project planning. utilize telecommuting and other 7DM measures and provide incentives to do so. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS The above comments are being submitted based on the project description and environmental ' checklist submitted to WRCOG by the City of Temecula. Lacking more specific information, these comments are of a general nature given the understanding that the City intends to have a full EIR prepared for this project. We will look forward to the opportunity to review the draft ' document and make further comment at that time. r ' 12- 9-97: 6:32PM:CIty 0+ Temecula ;9096946477 # 4/ 17 ' City of Temecula ' Planning Department Initial Environmental Study ' I. BACKGROUND MFORMATTON ' 1. Name of Project: Roripaugh Ranch 2. Case Numbers: 3. Location of Project: 34000 Nicolas Road Temecula, CA 92590 4. Description of Project: (see attached) 5. Date of Environmental Assessment: 6. Name of Proponent: Norm Dyer, President ' 7. Address and Phone Gentry Hawaii, Ltd. Number of Proponent: PO Box 295 Honolulu, Hawaii 86809 808/599-8300 IT. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS (Explanations to all the answers are provided in Section III) Mavbe �4 ' 1. Earth. Will the proposal result in: a. Unstable earth conditions or in changes geologic substructures? _ X Ib. Disruptions, displacements, compaction, or over covering of the sail? X C. Change in topography or ground surface relief features? X d. The destruction, covering or modification of any unique ' geologic or physical features? _ X _ e. Any increase in wind or water erosion of soils, either on or off the site? X f. Changes in siltation, deposition or erosion? X ' g. The modification of any wash, channel, creek, river or lake? X _ h. Exposure of people or property to geologic hazards such as ' earthquakes, landslides, mudslides, liquefaction, ground _ X _ failure, or similar hazards? ' R;%FORMSICEQAJES l Rnad llyq, 12- 9-97: 6=32PM:Cl CY of Temecula :9096946477 tt 5/ 17 1 Yes Maybe IVB L Any development within an Alquist-Priolo Special Studies Zone? — — X 2, Air. Will the proposal result in: X 1 a. Air emissions or deterioration of ambient air quality? — — — X b. The creation of objectionable odors? — — — C. Alteration of air movement, temperature, or moismr6 or any X 1 change in climate, whether locally or regionally? — — — 3. Water. Will the proposal result in: a. Changes in currents, or the course or direction of water X movements, in either marine or fresh waters? — — — 1 b. Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the rate and X amount of surface runoff! C. Alterations to the course or flow of flood waters? % — — d. Change in the amount of surface water in any water body? — X — e. Discharge into surface waters, or in any alteration of surface water quality, including but not limited to, temperature, X , dissolved oxygen or turbidity? — — — f. Alteration of the direction or rate of flow of ground waters? — X — g. Change in the quantity of ground waters, either through direct additions, withdrawals, or through interception of an aquifer X by cuts or excavations? — — — h. Reduction in the amount of water otherwise available for public X water supplies? L Exposure of people or property to water related hazards such as flooding? — R 4. Pliant Life. Will the proposal result in: a. Change in the diversity of species, or number of any native species of plants (including trees, shrubs, grass, crops, and X aquatic plants)? — — — b. Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare, threatened, or endangered species of plants? X RAFO MCEDQAJU 2 R,.iw 118191 1 i 12- 9-97: 6:32PM:CitY Of Temecc la _19096946477 # 6/ 17 ' Yej Mavbe NQ C. Introduction of new species of plants into an area of native vegetation, or in a barrier to the normal replenishment of existing species? — R — ' d. Reduction in the acreage of any agricultural crop? X — 5. Animal Lire. Will the proposal result in: a_ Change in the diversity of species. or numbers of any species of animals (animals includes all land animals, birds, reptiles, fish, amphibians, shellfish, benthic organism, and/or insects)? — R ms b. Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare, threatened, or endangered species of animals? — X — C. The introduction of new wildlife species into an area? _ — X ' d. A barrier to the migration or movement of animals? % — — e_ Deterioration to existing fish or wildlife habitat? X — — 6. Noise. Will the proposal result in: a. Increases in existing noise levels? X — — b. Exposure of people to severe noise levels? — X — C. Exposure of people to severe vibrations? — X 7. Light and Glare. Will the proposal produce or result in light or glare? 8. Land Use. Will the proposal result in: a. Alteration of the present land use of an area? X — b. Alteration to the future planned land use of an area as described in a community or general plan? X 9. Natural Resotarees. Will the proposal result in: a. An increase in the tate of use of any nanttal resources? _ X ' b. The depletion of any nomenewable natural resource? — X — 10. Risk or Upset. Will the proposal result in: a. A risk of an explosion or the release of any hazardous substances Iin the event of an accident or upset conditions (hazardous ' a:cnrtwr�.Es 3 ae,:m urm 1. 12- 9-97; 6:32RM;CItY 0f TeMeCVl3 ;9096946477 9 7. 17 Yes Maybe No substances includes, but is not limited to, pesticides, chemicals. X oil or radiation)? — — — b. The use, storage, transport or disposal of any hazardous or toxic materials (including, but not limited to oil, pesticides, chemicals, , or radiation)? — x — C. Possible interference with an emergency response plan or an emergency evacuation plan? 11. Population. Will the proposal alter the location, distribution, density, X or growth rate of the human population of an area? — — — 12. Housing. Will the proposal affect existing housing or create a demand for additional housing? X 13. Transporlation/Cirodation. Will the proposal result in: a. Generation of substantial additional vehicular movement? % b. Effects on existing parking facilities, or demand for new parking? X — — C. Substantial impact upon existing transportation systems, including public transportation? d. Alterations to present patterns of circulation or movement of X people and/or goods? — — — e. Alterations to waterborne, rail or air traffic? — — X f. increase in traffic hazards to motor vehicles. bicyclists or X pedestrians? — — — 14_ Public Services. Will the proposal have substantial effect upon, or result in a need for now or altered governmental services in any of the following areas: a. Fire protection? X — — b. Police protection? X C. Schools? X — — d. Parks or other recreational facilities? % — — 1 C. Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? X — — RAFORNRCSQA113 4 Rned 11R ' 12- 9-97: 6:32PM:CILy 0f Temecula :9096946477 tt B/ 17 f. Other governmental services: Medical. Services X 15. Energy. Will the proposal result in: 1 a. Use of substantial amounts of fuel or energy? _ X _ b. Substantial increase in demand upon existing sources or energy, ' or require the development of new sources of energy? _ X _ 16. Utilities. Will the proposal result in a need for new systems, or substantial alterations to any of the following utilities: a. Power or natural gas? X _ _ ' b. Communications systems? X _ _ C. Water systems? X ' d. Sanitary sewer systems or septic tanks? X _ _ e. Storm water drainage systems? X _ _ f. Solid waste disposal systems? X _ ' g. Will the proposal result in a disjointed or inefficient pattern of utility delivery system improvements for any of the above? _ g _ ' 17. Human Health. Will the proposal result in: a. The creation of any health hazard or potential health hazard? _ _ X b. The exposure of people to potential health hazards, including the exposure of sensitive receptors (such as hospitals and schools) to toxic pollutant emissions? _ _ X 1 18. Aesthetics. Will the proposal result in: ' a. The obstruction of any scenic vista or view open to the public? X b. The creation of an aesthetically offensive site open to public view? _ X _ C. Detrimental visual impacts on the surrounding area? _ X _ 19. Recreation. Will the proposal result in an impact upon the quality or quantity of existing recreational resources or opportunities? X 20. Cultural Resources. Will the proposal result in: ' RAMACrQA.1a2 5 R.V" Itrim 12- 9-97: 6:32PM;City Ot TemeCUIa ' ;90969+6477 # 9/ 17 , Yes Maybe No a. The alteration or destruction of any paleontologic, prehistoric. X archaeological or historic site? — — — b. Adverse physical or aesthetic effects to a prehistoric or historic building, structure. or object? — R — C. Any potential to cause a physical change which would affect unique ethnic culturatvalues? X d. Restrictions to existing religious or sacred uses within the X potential impact area? — — — L R:\FOiMSCEQA.ifiS �/ - htewsd IMM ' 12- 9-97: 6:32PMUCi [Y 0+ Temecula :9096946x79 9 t0/ 17 rV. -tIANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE ' _yZ Maybe N4 1. Does the project have the potendai to either: degrade. ' the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish, wildlife or bird species, mse a fish. wildlife or bird population to drop below self sustaining ' levels, threaten to eliminate a plant, bird or animal species, or eliminate important examples of the major X periods of California history or prehistory? _ — — I2. Does the project have the potential to achieve short ' term, to the disadvantage of long term, environmental goals? (A short trrm impact on the environment is one which occurs in a relatively brief, definitive period of time while long term impacts will endure well into the ' future.) — X — ' 3. Does the project have impacts which are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? (A project's impact on two or more separate resources may be ' relatively small, but where the effect of the total of those impacts on the environment is significant.) R 1 4. Does the project have environmenal effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, ' either directly or indirectly? V. DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME "DE MIl MMS" MWACr FE-MINGS Does the project have the potential to cause any adverse effect, either individually or cumulatively, on fish and wildlife resources? ' Wildlife is defined as .'all wild animals, birds, plains, fish, amphibians, and related ecological communities, including the habitat upon which the wildlife depends on for it's contimud viability" (Section 711.2, Fish and Game Code). X — ' JU%RnMVAMQA187 7 *.""A IL7M 12- 9-97: 6:32PM:CIty Of Temecula :9096946477 tt 1 :/ 17 E wmoNMENTAL DETERMINATION On the basis of this initial evaluation: I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment. and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. — 1 find that although the proposed project could have a significam effect on the environment, there WILL NOT be a significant effect in this ease , because the Mitigation Measures described on the amched sheets and in the Conditions of Approval that have been added to the project will mitigate any potentially significant impacts to a level of insignificance, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. — I find the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the % environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. _ Prepared by: Saundra F. Jacobs, Sr. Eriv. Platuier, The Keith Cesnpetiies 4/7/95 S Name acrd Tide Date , 1 1:W0.I6ACEQAa3 8 lewd llllgl , 1 ' f2- 9-97; 6:32PM:City 0Y Temecula :90969a6n77 # 12/ t7 RORIPAUGH RANCH SPECIFIC PLAN ' PROJECT DESCRIPTION The Roripaugh Ranch property encompasses approximately 788.3 acres in the northeastern comer of the City of Temecula in Riverside County (see Figure 1). Approximately 154.6 acres of the property, commonly referred to as the panhandle, are within the City of Temecula, while the ' remaining 633.7 acres are presently within unincorporated Riverside County. Abutting the northern and eastern boundaries of Roripaugh Ranch is the Johnson Ranch Specific Plan area, while the Mountain View/Rancho Bella Vista Specific Plan area abuts the project site north of the panhandle. Existing residential developments are located along the southern, westem and southeastern boundaries of the Roripaugh Ranch. The surrounding area,including the subject property,consists of rolling hills and valleys,and has been actively famed since the early 1900'x. However, the area has experienced considerable growth pressure from the neighboring communities of Murrieta and Temecula during the 1990's. Regional ' access to the site is available from the I-15 and 1-215 Freeways to the west, while local access is planned from the future extensions of Butterfield Stage Road from Rancho California Road to the south and Murrieta Hot Springs Road from the west. ' The Roripaugh Ranch property is being proposed for development into a residential community with a maximum of 2053 dwelling units, resulting in an overall density of 2.6 units per acre. A Specific ' Plan will be prepared to guide the overall development of the property. In addition to new homes, the project will also contain supporting land uses including,educational,commercial, recreational and nahrral open space(see Figure 2). Table 1 provides a statistical summary of the overall land use plan. ' A statistical summary of land uses by Planning Area is provided in Table 2 which are also shown in Figure 2. Table i PROPOSED LAND USES M OP `w s Rex r .Yr z Yfx w""xi "sW>�+.yR..a. A" �1 w yr•'e '�I�.aritt lyse � .. Acrea a�la . M A 2xw. Zl`xi.f lli" a�4i;���ettta .- 'SS lC (`�' e9F��l Residential 543.3 68.9 Commercial 16.0 2.0 Educational 30.0 3.8 Neighborhood Parks 11.7 1.5 ' Community Park 18.0 2.3 Open Space 142.3 18.1 Streets/Circulation 27.0 3.4 .e'�t� .,.ldtal ...s ^�': _ , ,. ��$.� ':,� ^ t ,tY. � .•. �'>I00.11..,,x �: t5 k Y. , 1 ' 12- 9-97: 6:32PM:City of Temecul2 :9096946477 # 13/ 17 Lake Mathews Lake Perris � 1 v 1 ' Canyyon \ Lake Lake �►� O�/� Elsinor G - Lake Skinner PR*c — Riverside County SaIT Di go 'rounry— REGIONAL LOCATION MAP ' RORIPAUGH RANCH - EIR © City of Temecula Figure 12- 9-97: 6:32PM:City of TemeCu1a :9096946477 # 14/ 17 11 II 3 11 I� 79 MURME-rA H T A SPRINGS ROAD n /; II P AJJ�E;VT II / TA rn m N�Gp Il Il r" rn n II v WAY � zll � oll � c 11 9c�\/ RpPo i •, RAID 0 II 9�c �Tq PO �' GNp J\S�p O� 15 It �`11 VICINITY MAP ' RORIPAUGH RANCH SPECIFIC PLAN - EIR © City of Temecula Figure 1 ' 12- 9-97: 6:32PM:CICJ of T-meCu1 :3096946477 K 15/ 17 it 1 1 t 1 7 en r y 1�'>)t �IV't����-�c j1� � 1-C aw�� S�1 ., •�,I� � tit �; ��(� A, J 31 1 '.� ` ``7(/l AS^/S[ X211,\ i / ) . 1 t J •y+ / �' Ir ® " ,. .it 11, . ..J' `•\. (0. U' I -4k! `�� •�` � i�, 1 `I. `�� ' ; ' ` - �11d ! ✓- Z.Ir.,, 11 1., .1.1C '3' , 31 11, • ' If 714'; ,III ' !!.•- .} 10.�i aff��'. � m.�� �g� _'/ a'�:vi ��i 1r p., i� '(1 r � T Al ! III's KI I 3g 2 u t� u m a r 12- 9-97: 6:32PM:City of TeMeCVld :9096946a77 tt 16/ 17 TABLE 2 1 LAND USES BY PLANNING AREAS ����. ray+1� ,� < � , ��x � -�`"'� �•� d�� s 1P Residential (M) 44.4 5.6 249 1 2P Neighborhood Park 3.0 N/A - 3P Elementary School 10.0 N/A - 4P Residential (H) 27.0 12.0 324 5P Neighborhood Park 3.0 N/A - 6P Residential (Ivi) 22.0 5.6 123 7P Commercial 16.0 N/A 8N Residential (I1) 36.3 12.0 436 9N Residential(M) 9.0 5.6 50 1 ION Residential (M) 16.3 5.6 91 11N Residential (M) 19.0 5.6 106 12N Community Park 18.0 N/A - 13N Residential (lv1] 25.2 4.8 121 14S Middle School 20.0 N/A - 15S Neighborhood Park 5.7 N/A - 16S Residential (L) 48.4 1.9 92 , 17S Residential (L) 100.1 2.2 220 18S Residential (L) 65.9 0.7 49 19S Residential (L) 75.4 1.9 143 ' 20S Residential (L) 54.3 0.9 49 5UB TOTAL 624 Open Space/Conservation 142.3 Major Roads/Circulation 27.0 a,� ,� 2,sYxwt 54.c Li �}.;a` ..Vc kill W NO OMM 'D•" ��,«. `a.xIMMUNE .w (L) =Low density residential M=High density residential (II) =I-Lgh density residential 4 ' 12- 9-97: 6:32PM:CI1Y a4 TIMeCU13 :9096946477 tt 17/ 17 ' SPECIFIC LAND USES Residential The Roripaugh Ranch project will provide single family homes on a variety of 1 minimum lot sizes, ranging from 5,000 square feet to over two and one-half acres. The overall residential density for the 788.3 acre community is 26 dwelling units per acre. The density proposed for the 543.3 residential acres is slightly less than 3.8 dwelling units per acre. ' Commercial A total of 16.0 acres are devoted to a community oriented commercial center,to be located at the intersection of Butterfield Stage Road and Murrieta Hot Springs Road. 1 Education The project will provide a ten-awe elementary and a 20-acre middle school site. Parks An 18-acre community park is proposed along the south side of Santa Gertrudis Creels, and ' will include baseball, softball, and soccer fields facilities, restrooms, and parking. The community park is intended to serve the larger community of Temecula, serving citizens residing beyond the Roripaugh Ranch community. In addition,three neighborhood parks,comprising approximately 11.7 ' awes each, are proposed to provide recreational facilities for project residents. Open Space The open space proposed as part of this project are comparable with the regional open space/habitat conservation programs established within the adjacent Johnson Ranch and Mountain View/Rancho Bella Vista Specific Plan areas. Approximately 142.3 awes are reserved as Natural Open Space/Conservation The project will help create a contiguous open space corridor connecting ' Skinner Lake to the north, Santa Gertrudis Creek to the south, and Skunk Hollow to the west. Trails The entire Roripaugh Ranch community will be connected by a series of pedestrian and ' bicycle trails which will offer non-vehicular access to educational, commercial and recreational facilities within the property. ' 5 1T .V .U .S .D . ID :909-695-4253 JUN 18 '98 14 :57 No .004 P .01 BQARU OF EDUCATION ratio Smnn TEMECULA VALLEY Rlrhardyna,ar' «r. Unified School District Ed Eloel Mrrrpr Jerry H0005 1111. T ' SUPERINTENDENT a:nb;aa Tooker nAviO a.AlLngn war Juno 16, 1998 Mr.Scott Dailey Keith international Inc. 22690 Cactus Avenue,Suite 300 Moreno Valley,CA 92551 SUBJF,CT: School Facilities,Roripaugh Ranch Area ' Dear Mr.Daily: The following is in response to your letter dated June 11, 1998 requesting information regarding the facilities of the ' Temecula Valley USD. r Resources of Temecula Valley USD Temecula Valley 11SD currently has two comprehensive high schools,one continuation high school,throe middle schools,and nine elementary achouls. There is an anticipated need to build 21 additional school over the next 20 years, based on new home construction projections from approximately 80 ' developers(homebuilders. Schools serving the project area ' The purposed Roripaugh Ranch develupmtnt balls into the following attendance areas! Nicolas Valley Elementary School:Grades K-5 ' 39600 N.General Kearny Road Temecula,CA 92591 Permanent Capacity:615 Current Enrollment: 964 Future Enrollment*: 1605 ' Margarita Middle School:Grades 6.8 30600 Margarita Road Temecula,CA 92591 Permanent Capacity: 940 Cunrcnt Enmilment: 1154 Furure Enrollment*: 1666 ' 31350 Rancho Vi6ta Read/Temecula.CA 925921(909)6762661 T .V .U .S .D . ID :909-695-4253 JUN 18 '98 14 :57 No .004 P . 02 School Facilities,Rorlpaugh Ranch Area Juno 16.1998 Page 2 Chaparral Hlgb School:Grades 9-11 in 1998/1999,Grades 9.12 in 1999/2000. t 27215 Nicolas Road Temecula,CA 92591 Permanent Capacity: 2100 , Current Enrolhncut: 960(Grados 9 and 10 only) Future Enrollment': 2724 (Grades 9-12) *Future enrollment includes students from current housing and from approved but not yet constructed developments. Current enrollment exceeding permanent capacity is housed in temporary(interim)facilities. Elementary and middle school capacities arc based on multi-track enrollment. • Developer Fees ' The Temet:ula Valley USD will require a school facilities mitigation agreement in accordance with City of Temecula Resolution 96-119 if the project is processed through the City,or Riverside County Resolution 94-138 if the project is processed through tho County of Riverside. • Student Generation Tables 1 Grades Single Family Detached Multi-Family Attached K-5 .39 _ .298 , 6.8 .24 1 9-12 .25 .17 Total 88 .64 ' 11 you have any additional questions,please feel free to call my office at(909)695-7115. Sincerely, Temecula Valley U �y� 1 et Dixon Cuurdinatur of Facilities Services 1-14-98; 11 ;40AM;CIty of TeMeCuI8 ;9096946417 0 21 19 T ursday JenuarY 6, 1998 1:07pa -- Fr m 1909 695 42531 -- Page 1 T.V.U..S.D. ID;909-695-4253 JAN 08'98 12:52 No.003 P.01 BOARD OF EDWATION J TEMECULA VALLEY ' Rbwa taider ' WOW Magi DIS BO'ba,a Tod" SUPERWRND11m '43bv - PatAda&Nurobmr,ECA. January 8,1993 POd4pFaxNote 7671 'an P- b ® ._._ City of TwaecoFav1e a G Cnarnity Davolapmerd ' 432001 Park Drive Fx.a Y77 ""' QS Z53 Teotauh.CA 92590 SURJJf M RW*m WA Amuck SpvdP Pfoa(PA94-0071) Dear Mr.DbCADSM Twnecalo Valley Unified baa da:following comments regarding Ow p gmacd Romm9h SpocifiC Plan.based on Bee way mfmmahm coubmed in the Notice of Prcpatabm dood 12110/97: PROVISION FOR STUDENT 13NROLLMMT: '11e projo t contains up to 2053 dwelling tmib(1617 aiogle-fhmily.436 mull-family)that will sweraw eppaoaimudy the&B&W g member of smdaits: t 13kmmtary SWmd. 753 Middle School: 471 High School: 478 Tool SOrdena: 1702 There is inadequate school&C91ty capacity within the Tdnocula Valley Ik ffied School D mWd to[ergo these additional aludeats. The District will rcrpue a signed ariligadon agrerareat wf0i 0ic Jevntoper in aeA:esdanCe wkL G&ty RaalaNais 95- 36 and 9(x119 to provide®tiyptim for the atadent enro8nmd gemmed by thk project . ' l CUMLSM]LADCATIONSr Two school sibs are pagmaed(am 10-acne eleaxmtary and a 20-mm middle).and we project deet both will be aceded in here loam to move Rorhough Ranch.Amonlmg to Sole Law,the prtlpomcd school*flea toQpue Sole Depardrient ofHd, lion approval,and most be reviewed for a number of faaom,kchWiog,but Dot limited to: Afrpert ProXmltyr Any School Sias IOCA"within two miles of an aftpmt runway mast be Mmlyacd to demnahm lite tadobf6ty of die she by die State Depuarant orAcrommtics. ProxhuRy to erar"make fm*m Laeaum near em#Wake faults would effect whool aft. Preodmify to dam flood inundation sones: State hw pminmut location of a whool in a flood fnopdmica rwtwi8wutmit:gption of tiskfaclom. 31350 Raeirhn Vkta Road I TWMOAa,Ca 92592/(909)678-21161 1-14-98: 11 :40AM:CltY O4 Temecula :9096946477 # 3/ 19 IThursday iaw ry 8 1998 1:OTEm -- From 1909 695 4253' -- Page 2 , T .V.U.S.D. ID:909-695-4253 JAN 08'98 12:52 No .003 P.02 Sauey and sake: School skss should be■ppFo riately located in reladonsbip to major trallic arteries to mmm a&ty ml Boise comideratiom. Mygmunds and paPoa to and from school dlotdd alm bo separated from ease]®by fences m ather barrios to mmut swdent safely. Itand scup: Ila bog(opprox.1500 fed)frontage on the loop mad shown for the middle school to adogow dgwndtag on the traffic volusax,but the ttmmtlry ficntage is hmdogpdD rmlcsa saWmicat 2- mad am=is pmv dod.Both seboW Sotos nood fmther review. rcmemla Valloy tft&od requests War the above iso be mikkesled r"part of the Romaugh Ranch FIR,and is ' sysnd&an mgmt widt reprasentsh a of Radpaugh Manch to dwmm dme usam Soo=*, - Totteatla Valley School Diarist Dave Crallahor I>irecloc of i?tecilfim Saviea cc: Patricia B.movomey,PA D.,9upannt mdcm Dave Adnan,Aa9iicant Supero Acadent of Bos®ess Support S� 1-14-98: 11 :4CAM;Clty 04 Temecula ;9096946477 it 4/ 19 C I T Y O F M U R R I E T A ' 26442 Beckman Court,Mumeta CA 92562 Internet Address: Telephone: 909-698.1040 Fax: 909-698-4.509 http.//ci.murrieta.ca_us ' December 17, 1997 ' Mr. John DeGange Community Development Department City of Temecula 43200 Business Park Drive Temecula, CA 92590 ' Subject: Roripaugh Ranch Specific Plan (Planning Application PA 94-0074); Notice of Intent to Prepare Draft EIR; Notice Dated December 10, 1997 ' Dear Mr. DeGange: According to the Notice, this project will develop a maximum of 2053 dwelling units. At a unit traffic generation rate of 10 vehicle trips per dwelling unit, a traffic volume total could be in excess of 20,000 vehicle trips per day. ' The shortest access route from the project area to the freeway system will be along Murrieta Hot Springs Road to the I-215 interchange and westerly along Murrieta Hot Springs Road to the I-15 interchange. Murrieta.Hot Springs Road and the two interchanges in the City of Murrieta could be significantly impacted by project generated traffic. We respectfully request that the traffic analysis for the project provide specific analyses of the level of service (LOS) impact from project traffic on Murrieta Hot Springs Road and the two interchanges. ' If you have any questions on this request or need additional information, please contact our Traffic Engineer, Hank Mottle, at (909) 698-1040, ext. 242. ' Thank you for y ur consideration of our concerns- cerely, i es Mill elopment Services Director / lb �15ys M ' 1-14-98: 11 :401M:CitY of Temecula :9096946477 V 5/ 19 Western Riverside Council of Governments WRCOG County of Riverside, City of Banning,City of Beaumont, City of Calimesa,City of Canyon Lake,City of Corona, ' City of Hemet, City of Lake Elsinore, City of Moreno Valley, City of Murrieta, City of Norco,City of Perris, City of Riverside, City of San Jacinto,City of Temecula January 6, 1998 ' John DeGange City of Temecula Community Development Department t 43200 Business Park Drive Temecula, CA 92590 Re: WRCOG Comments Regarding the Notice of Preparation addressing the Roribaugh Ranch Specific Plan submitted by Gentry Hawaii,LTD. IGR#19700663 Dear Mr. DeGange: ' Thank you for submitting the Notice of Preparation addressing the above referenced project to the Western Riverside Council of Governments(WRCOG) for review and comment. WRCOG is now conducting intergovernmental review of regionally significant plans and projects for consistencywith ' adopted regional plans. Federal and State law mandates that designated regional agencies review projects of regional ' significance for their consistency with adopted regional plans. This is called intergovernmental review or IGR. Specifically, the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires that projects deemed to be of "statewide, regional or areawide significance"be reviewed for consistency ' with regional plans (Section 15206). CEQA also requires that the contents of an EIR include a discussion of the project's regional setting and any inconsistencies with applicable general and regional plans(Section 15125). If there are any inconsistencies,an explanation and rationale for such ' inconsistencies should be provided. Policies of WRCOG's Subregion(.Comprehensive Plan and of SCAG's RCPG that may be ' applicable to your project are outlined in the attachment. We suggest that the appropriate policies be addressed in the Draft EIR. ' Please provide a minimum of 45 days for WRCOG to review the Draft EIR when this document is available. Thank you for your cooperation in this matter. We look forward to a positive and productive working relationship with your agency. Please address any questions regarding the ' attached comments or WRCOG's new role in IGR to Steve Ruddick, Director of Planning or Gabrielle De Gange, Associate at(909) 787-7985. We will be happy to assist you. ' S ely ve Ruddickhn Jaques , ger ' Director of Planning pecial Prol e " 3880 Lemon Street, Suite 399 • Riverside, CA 92501 • (909)787-7985 • fax(909)787-7991 1-14-98; 11 :40AM:City O{ Temecula ;9096946477 # 6/ 19 January 6, 1998 2 Mr. John DeGange NOP for Roribaugh Ranch Specific Plan COMMENTS ON THE NOP ADDRESSING THE RORIBAUGH RANCH SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT DESCRIPTION The adoption of a Specific Plan, and related prezoning and annexation actions, for a maximum of 2053 dwelling units(at an overall density of 2.6 dwelling units per acre),with 16 acres of commercial development, 59 acres of park and school facilities, and 142 acres of natural open space on approximately 788 acres northeast of the City of Temecula. (At the present time only 154 acres of the project are located within the limits of the City of Temecula.) ' CONSISTENCY WITH SUBREGIONAL COMPREHENSIVE PLAN (SRCP)POLICIES The SRCP consists of eight elements: Growth Management, Economic, Mobility, Air Quality, Housing, Open Space and Habitat Conservation, Water Resources and Solid Waste. All eight elements contain guiding goals, policies and objectives addressing the care policies of the RCPG. , The SRCP(sub)regional goals,policies and objectives that may be applicable to the proposed project are being listed for your consideration. Please note that a single SRCP policy may address several issues in the various goal categories; however, the policy is only fisted once. WRCOG's intent in providing this information is to encourage, guide and assist local agencies and project sponsors in their efforts toward attaining (sub)regional goals and policies. All ' recommendations and comments are advisory in nature only, and should not be inferred as regional mandates. The lead agency is still responsible for making the final decision of whether a plan or project should be approved. ' 1-14-98: 11 :40AM:CItY of Temecula :9096940477 4 7/ 19 3 ' SRCP POLICIES RELATED TO GROWTH FORECASTS tWRCOG prepares growth projections for western Riverside County in the areas of ' population, housing and employment. Projections are developed with the assistance of local jurisdictions, and through modeling ' programs such as the Disaggregate Residential Allocation Model and the EmploymentAllocationModel. SCAG adopts ' regional growth projections based on subregional figures to be used in modeling efforts for transportation,air quality,and other ' regional programs. GROWTH MANAGEMENT ELEMENT ' POLICIES- 42 The EIR should discuss whether the The EIR needs to discuss the projects ' project's growth projections are consistency with SCAG's regional growth consistent with the population, projections and other regional plans including housing and jobs forecasts for the Western Riverside Subregional Comprehensive ' Western Riverside County subregion. Plan, Regional Transportation Plan, Subregional Comprehensive Transportation Plan. ' SRCP POLICIES RELATED TO ' STANDARD OF LIVING The policies addressing Standard of Living promote the regional strategic goal to ' stimulate the economy. The listed goals are aimed at developing urban environments that enable individuals to spend less income on ' housing, minimize public and private development costs, and enable firms to be more competitive. ' GROWTH MANAGEMENT ELEMENT: 1 1-14-98: 11 :40AM:CIty Ot TeMeCUI3 :9096946477 9 e/ 19 4 Overall Goal - Manage growth to ensure the ability to provide the public services and facilities needed to maintain the quality of life for current and future residents of Western Riverside County. Goal 11-Attach urban development to existing urban centers to establish a balanced subregional land use pattern 1 which maintains the quality of life,provides for efficient service delivery, and helps attain other subregional goals while accommodating a range of life styles. O Riverside Couivy should reflect a balanced land use pattern, with development and growth of urbanization attached to existing urban centers. O Local government must lead a The EIR should discuss the relationship ofthis public/privote coalition to achieve project to the existing development pattern of 1 growth management goals through the City of Temecula. It should also discuss support of high standards for the the relationship to existing infrastructure quality of life, implementation of improvements and public services, and future effective planning and land use infrastructure and public services master plans. decisions, and provision of adequate infrastructure and service capacity. O Use natural open space and The EIR should discuss how the project will ' agricultural preserves to create impact existing natural open space and buffers between urban centers and to agricultural lands. link remaining natural areas with federal and state-owned wildlife mrd open space areas. D Specific areas should be retained for The EIR should discuss the relationship of the long-term agricultural uses consistent proposed reduction of agricultural land to the with balanced community plans(e.g., planned long term agricultural uses for the the Temecula area vineyards). City. O Establish an effective growth management framework to direct growth in a manner consistent with ' Growth Strategy policies. Goal 3-Develop a stable and equitable 1 1-14-98; 1t :40AM;CILY 0+ Temecula ;9096946477 ]s 9/ 19 5 financing structure which will enable government and the private sector to provide the services and facilities necessary to accommodate growth and maintain the quality of life in the subregion. ' O Financing for growth-related The EIR should address"fair share"mitigation infrastructure and services should be for public service impacts such as fire, school, based on the ';fair share"principle park, library, health,transportation. and should include consideration of economic feasibility and fair-share ' contributions by developers, taxes or land-based assessments on all property owners, and pricing ' mechanisms to capture users'share of the total costs. Costs should also be apportioned at the countywide, ' subregional, Area Planning District, and local levels to support the differing costs of the infrastructure and services needed to support growth ' at those levels. Goal 4-Provide adequate services and facilities to maintain and improve the quality of life as the subregion's population increases. a A (sub)regional wastewater master ' plan should be developed to ensure The EIR should discuss consistency with the sufficient wastewater treatment Regional 208 Water Quality Plan,and the local facilities are available to service wastewater master plan and treatment plant increased urban growth. capacity constraints. ' O Implementation ofa subregional solid ' waste disposalplan whichprovidesfor The EIR should address solid waste generation rec yclingandwaste stream separation and consistency with Source Reduction And is required to ensure that waste Recycling Element of the City of Temecula. ' generated by projected growth does not exceed landfill capacity. ECONOMIC ELEMENT: 1 1-14-93; 11 :40AIN:CI ty O{ TeMi1c I a :9C96946477 9 1C/ 18 6 Overall Goal-Provide an adequate number and variety of jobs to meet the employment needs of Western Riverside County residents. D Diversify the job base within the The EIR should discuss the project's number, subregion type, timing, and phasing of jobs as proposed by the specific plan. Goal 4-Increase economic growth and job creation in Western Riverside County. D Increase the number and variety of jobs in the subregion to reduce commuting to other employment The above comment applies to these policies centers. as well. D Provide a range of employment opportunities to meet the education, experience and skill level of residents in the subregion. ' D Increase the amount of retail and service employment to meet the purchasing needs of residents and businesses within the subregion. Goal 5-Achieve economic growth and prosperity while preserving natural beauty and the social quality of life. t D Provide employment near workers' places of residence. The above comments applies to these policies D Eliminate negative air quality impacts as well. and reduce excessive use of the transportation system. HOUSING ELEMENT: Goal I-Provide housing in convenient proximity to jobs and employment centers. 0 Support economic developmentefrorts The EIR should discuss how the project 1-13-98: 11 :40AM:Clty o4 TemeCuI8 :9096546477 # 11/ 19 1 7 designed to reduce commuting times contributes to the jobs-housing balance for the and effects by attracting jobs to the subregion ' subregion O Encourage a balanced land use The Draft E1R should address the manner and pattern with development and the illustrate how the proposed specific plan will ' growth of urbanization attached to be phased to help achieve balanced urban centers. development 6obsthousing)within the City of Temecula. The SCAG Standing Committee on Implementation has previously expressed the concern that, in housing rich subregions, the housing is likely to be constructed first and the employment producing land uses never materialize.Conversely,in job rich subregions, the employment producing office buildings, shopping centers, schools or industrial buildings are built first and the housing components are brought in much later or not at all. The objective of a phasing plan is to encourage the implementation of balanced development and work toward the reduction of Vehicles Miles Traveled in the early phases of development rather than leaving such issues until after substantial build-out of the project has occurred or allowing for the indefinite postponement of such issues. Goal 4-Provide a selection of housing choices to preserve residential and community life style choices. O Encourage higher residential densities The EIR should discuss the relationship of the near job opportunities and along project to transportation and transit corridors adequate transportation and transit and how the proposed project densities may corridors. O Support local government land use relate to existing and/or planned transit policies which discourage systems. ' development in locations without adequate infrastructure to support the ' growth. 1 1-14-98: 11 :40AM:CltY of 7eMeCUl3 :9096946477 12/ 19 1 8 1 OPEN SPACE and HABITAT CONSERVATION ELEMENT: O Preserve and maintain agricultural The ErR should discuss the amount of landsforfarm use as an important agricultural land that is being removed from industry in the subregion and as a production and relationship of that to the desirable open space use, consistent remaining amount of agricultural land in the with existing and future needs for City of Temecula and its sphere of influence. agricultural products and open ' space. WATER RESOURCES ELEMENT: ' O Fstablish stable, reliable and secure Section 10910 of the Public Resources Code water supplies of adequate and requires cities and counties to request at the quality to meet the needs of the Notice Of Preparation stage(for a project existing population and projected that will result in a net increase in the stated growth. population density or building intensity)an assessment of whether the projected water demand associated with the project was included as part of the most recently adopted , "urban water management plan". As part of this assessment, the public water purveyor is required to indicate whether the total projected water supplies available during normal, single-dry, and multiple-dry water years included in the 20 year plan will meet the projected water demand associated with the proposed project, in addition to the water system's existing and planned future uses. Goal 5-Schedule future development at a 1 1-14-98; 11 :40/.M:CitY Of TeMeC415 ,9096946477 Ii 13/ 19 9 pace consistent with the provision of public infrastructure facilities and available funding. O Manage the rate, sequence and The EIR should discuss the project phasing ' location of development in a manner and timing relative to the provision of that recognizes and preserves the adequate infrastructure, facilities and jurisdiction's fiscal capacity services, and in relation to growth forecasts. ' O Ensure that future growth and It should also discuss the phasing of project development is supported by revenues and the relationship to required city adequate infrastructure. infrastructure and service costs. 1 SRCP POLICIES RELATED TO OUALITY OF LIFE Quality of life policies are intended to ' enhance and preserve the quality of the physical and social living environment. The underlying goals of the policies include ' creating urban environments that preserve open space and natural resources, are aesthetically pleasing, preserve the character of the community, and offer a variety of lifestyles. Issues regarding mobility and clean air are also included in this category. GROWTH MANAGEMENT ELEMENT: O Natural reserves(mountain ridges, The EIR should discuss how the proposed stream beds, etc)should be set aside specific plan design is responsive to this to serve as ecological preserves, policy. ' habitat for endangered species, and open space for residents. Urban development should be clustered to preserve these areas. ' MOBILITY ELEMENT: O Require new development to The EIR should address existing and planned ' contribute to public transit facilities. transit stations and bus stops in the area. The 1 1-14-98: 11 :40AM:C1tY 04 Temecula :9096946477 tt 14/ 19 10 O Support mixed uses which encourage analysis should include accessibility, funding, walking and bicycling, trip reduction and coordination with this O Encourage mixed use development. project. O Locate jobs and housing near each other to produce shorter work An analysis of walking and bicycling trails in commutes. the project should be completed. O Require new development to preserve and/or mitigate sensitive habitat An analysis of jobsthousing balance for the areasproject and the city should be included. ' An analysis of existing sensitive habitats and suggested mitigation measures needs to be ' included. HOUSING ELEMENT: Overall Goal: Provide a sufficient number and variety of housing units to meet the lifestyle requirements of all Western Riverside County residents. O Support public policies designed to A discussion of the projects housing types increase housing opportunities for and price ranges needs to be included. The residents of all economic groups. relationship to the City's affordable housing policies should be reviewed. OPEN SPACE and HABITAT CONSERVATION ELEMENT: O Support sustainable development The EIR should include how these policies that will reduce the loss and are being addressed by the project. fragmentation of native species and habitats. D Maintain,protect and preserve as permanent open space those natural areas and habitats with sensitive biotic species O Preserve and protect scenic and visual resources. D Support sustainable development 1-14-98; 11 :40AM:Clty O{ Temecula ;9096946477 # 15/ 19 1 11 which avoids or reduces adverse environmental effects on natural and sensitive resources. O Limit development or use special The project includes land that is of marginal design requirements for lands with suitability for development. The EIR should lower suitability for development. clearly address how the project has handled O Protect residents and structures from these areas. man-made and natural hazards. 1 SRCP POLICIES RELATED TO SOCIAt_, (POLITICAL. AND CULTURAL EQUITY ' Policies addressing social, political and cultural equity are intended to promote the ' regional strategic goal to minimize social and geographical disparities and achieve equity among all segments of society. The listed goals are aimed at developing urban environments that avoid economic and social polarization of communities. MGROWTH MANAGEMENT ELEMENT: O A cooperative program between local government and school The project provides for school sites. The districts is necessary to provide EIR should address school student tadequate facilities and programs in population and their classroom requirements. both public and private schools. The EIR should discuss how the project proposes to meet these needs. O Programs and financing to reserve open space and recreation areas is The project proposes improved and necessaryfor the healthy enjoyment unimproved open space within its 1 of residents. boundaries. The EIR should address how these lands will be maintained. 1-14-98; 11 :40AM:CltY 0f TemeCU18 ;9096946477 # 10/ 19 12 HOUSING ELEMENT: 1 O Guide the development process in a See above comments on project phasing and fashion which will allow for levels of the community's ability to accommodate that growth consistent with our rate of growth in relation to existing and communities'ability to provide the proposed infrastructure and community facilities and services needed to services. protect our quality of life. WATER RESOURCES ELEMENT: O Ensure that water supply and See above comments on the requirements for facilities sufficient for domestic water system standards. The EIR should also consumption and fire protection, and address system capability for fire protection capable of serving both existing and needs including water storage and delivery proposed development needs, are systems. available or assured prior to , approving new development. SRCP POLICIES RELATED TO AIR OUALTTY The Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP) contains measures to reduce air pollution from both stationery and mobile sources. AQMP policies to reduce mobile emissions are aimed at influencing people to drive less. This influence can be applied directly or indirectly through land use design. The goal of both strategies is to either reduce the number or shorten the length of vehicle trips. O Relieve congestion to reduce emission through the Implementation The EIR should address the consistency of of TSM techniques through the the project to the South Coast Air Quality Riverside County Congestion Management District 1997 Air Quality Management Program and the Management Plan and the related thresholds Comprehensive Transportation Plan. for significance. Mitigation measures should O Develop and maintain a process be incorporated as necessary. toward attaining air quality standards. Specific TSM or TDM measures relevant to 0 Implement measures to support the project should be identified in the EIR to l 1 r 1 r COMMENT LETTERS ON ORIGINAL DRAFT EIR M r 1 r r r r r r r t r r APPENDIX B ' NOP Response / Previous DEIR Comment Letters 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 RORIPAUGH RANCH SPECIFIC PLAN ' RECIRCULATION DRAFT EIR (Volume 2 of 2) Comment Letters Received on Original Draft EIR 1. Federal Agencies (2) ' a. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service b. Pechanga Indian Band 2. State Agencies (4) a. CPR - State Clearinghouse b. Calif. Department of Fish and Game c. Calif. Department of Transportation (Caltrans) d. Calif. Department of Transportation (Caltrans) 3. County Agencies (4) a: Flood Control and Water Conservation District b. Flood Control and Water Conservation District c. Airport Land Use Cornmission (ALUC) d. Department of Health 4. Other Agencies (3) a. Metropolitan Water District of Southern California b. Rancho California Water District c. Temecula Valley Unified School District 5. Individuals (11) a. John Augustine ' b. Ronald Knowles c. Bob/Karen Larson d. Don/Lois Miller e. Gregory/Dianne Nash . f Michael/Patti Payne g. Albert Pratt ' h. Ralph Saez i. Debra Seal j. Larry/Joyce Williams k. Bruce/Anne Yoder 1 Unireii States Depm=ent of the Interior Fish and Wildlife Service Ecological Services Carisbad Frdt and Wr7dlife Office MO LokerArerm West _ i x"f' C..s.bsd Glifa.ma 42008 - John DeCrange JUL I G Mcg City ofTemecula 43200 Business Paric Drive. Temecula, California 92590 Re: Draft Eaviromaental Impact Report for Roripaugh Ranch Specific Plan(SC! 97121030), Riverside Courty, C-difornia Dear Mr. DeCrange: We have reviewed the draft =vim r nenral impact report(DEIR) for the Roripaugh Rancfi Specific Plan in western Rig emide County, California. The following commems and recommendation are based on our 3mowiedge of sensitive and declining habitattypes and species in Riverside County. The proposed project is loci ted in the northeast comer of-the City of Temecula,and south of the proposed Rancho Be[a Vista and Jobnsoa Ranch specific plan areas According to the DEIR, a " total of 788 acres will be deieloped upon full implementation of the proposed project, which consists of 2,058 residential units on 483 arses, three neighborhood parks on 10 aces, major roads on 51 acres,and 181 �"cres of open space. The proposed project will make improvements in water, sewer, flood cr,u=l, and roads,including Murrieta Hot Springs andButterfieId Stage roads. We are concerned about"ta ce"of federally listed species protected under the Endangered Species Act(Act) of 1973,as amended. Section 9 of the Act prohibits the rake of awry federally listed endangered species br/any person subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. Take includes "harass'and`Imm",as def fined by section 3 of the AcL Huss in the definition of take means "an intentional or negligent act or omission which crates the likeliibood of injury to wildlife by annoying it to such an ex=-t as to significantly disrupt normal behavioral patterns which include, but are not limited to, breeding,feeding or sheltering." Hams in the definition of take'in the Act means "an act which acwaUy kills or injures wildlife. Such an act may include significant habitat modification or degrdatiar where it actually kills or injures wildlife by.significantly ;]Mpn3n+g essential behavioral pattern 4 including breeding, feeding or sheltering." (50 CFR 117-3). Take incidental to an otherwise lawful activity may be authorized ander sections 7 or 10 of the Act- 00 f2i ct00f2i 33I'1TII8 @!V HSI3 S7 izsa rC6 091 Yd3 10=9r HH/9I/LO \ • 1 • : - 1 . • \II•M 1 O - •1 w`I♦ 1 • 1 . 1�♦ - •1 � \Y Y• • 1 11 11 1 1 i Af wM4 1♦ • 1 1 ' II • 1 ♦Ut� �L. i IIIIY•• • Y.N q.• 1 IL 1.1 11 • ' n•1 .Ilww 1 - • 1. _J•111 • 1 1 i 111. •1 • •: � ' •.• 1• Itl•- w •1 .1 -w 1 i1 iwi 11 I t • 1 •x•111 • \ 1 ` • 1 1 •.1. . • :.• .-.1 1./ 1» "11 ♦ 1 1 • 1 �• Ir �1• 1 r •" u 1 u Ru • • u � � • \III :I ..• .0 ♦ ♦ 1 • .0 �• • i :u.. I v ••. • U um: wa n b m-� 1..• :Ira . • .n' �1' 11 • • •1 I : 1 IiuLn 1• .1 � 1 F -. lu' • 1 w •!.r 11 11 11 - I 1 I 1 �-• N•• :n • • i� ✓: I In 1 w� / v -• 1 . Y.• YII •-w :. U .1 t r-u 1 1 u. 1 1 1 1 '.-• . . 1 •RI • 1 1 IP . . ♦ vl 1 1 / • 1 •-• •1 tl .1•I. ' I1 :I. 1 •- 1 1.� / 1Y_Y/ ♦1 _ • 1 .I lil 1 • • 1 1 • 1 .11 1 I - I • i• 1l1 11:1. 1 . •.1•. 1 I• • 1~ ` 11 1 • / 1 :1111 : •i • 1 M• 1 : •. 1" • • / ♦•: I- • :..1 `JI i.1 • • • - 1• w. • Y• 1 � •1. 1 I .1 +1 II li• 1' w w •1 :1 • .w 1 1 1 •I '1 1 • • •1• • - 1 • • ••• 1 - • • 1 • ` \ • •- 11 i/ •II 1 1 •wf •• I I 1 Il - • • I♦ i1 • • • ' •• 1 ` - i1 il• • I I I � / w / I/ • I I ♦ • art Ir O - 1 1 b .l 1 . • :1 11 =.11 • F1•111 �♦ •• ..•.11 1 . - 11� •• -• 1 ♦I. • R • ♦ IN • 1 1• :•1 • . 1 • KI I 1 1 r I • 1 MI • r1 •11 i1 •i • 1 II II � IIS 11 • 1 •i1 w 1 1 _ 1 1 1 • M w I _L : '� :q 1 • r F w I •91• A I NO I I . M y ♦ •: 11 1 ✓. • 1 1 .11 .N I q 1 F y 1 • •I ' 1.1 .J 1 /11 . J • i• .11 I • ••i1 11 ♦ 1 1 11 11 11 1 1 -1 1 l I .111 1 1 ` /1 1 :1 . • ` i1 • _Y . 1 .11 1• Y. 1 i 1 Y •1 • \•iM1i• 1- • I. " • • •• 1 I .1 '1 I I• q♦♦ \• i• 1 1 - •I 1. 1 1 •.� YY• • 1 1 1 I 1 �1• I i1 M 1 �. -1 ..: R • •• _J/ .1 •RN 1 4 '• I I • I . I I • -.� w : r .0 I w .0 1 11 i11 : it • u ♦ ♦- •• r w :.•1 1I n • 1. I • I I • 1 • • 1 •iY1 I 1 `M 1 1 l . 1 • 1 • 1 •• i/- w•.1 d1 � i -I 1 - 1� RII f1 • 1 :1 II I I I I 1. . 1 YML 1 1 1 /1 • I .Y •1 Illd .1• �+ • • I ' • 1 11'.� r 11 - • • •• i/ • • M • • I. IaY 1': 1 • '_J14 MI •.. 111 ..r +� I 1 . 1 • I 1��. • • iw ••I • q I 11 • .1 /1 u - w 1 1 .11• •. 1 I _VI: •F 1 •1 1 ♦ _J i' •• 1. 1 Y• 1 • 1 1 r�I.11 • i I I • • •• i1 • • - [ 1 L1 JO M M 1 •I • 1" I II - • • 1 • �.�`• 1 w' I 11 11• w11 .H 11 - • .1 we 1 1 ♦1 M • • 1 • 110:1 dl' 1 •w ♦-. • 1 1 1' • • I 1:. • • •• �• • • • • 1 ` w11• • /1 1 iM � - • 1 • ` IN• • 1 I 1 • • • 1 ♦ • 1 •• 1 • 1♦ • • •i1 .11 1 . • • I •+ I 1 Y 11 1 it .• 1 • 1 11 11 •. .1 �.. _ •. + •• 1111 •. i 1 I • � �1• 1-14-98: 11 :40AM:C1tY 0f Temecula :9096946477 # 17/ I_ 13 walking, hiking, ridesharing, the degree that any are proposed to address telecommuting, and the use of air quality requirements. 1 transit. O Provide for the mitigation of projects'air quality impacts, ' consistent with the legal requirements of CEQA. O Evaluate new projects for air quality impacts under CEQA, utilizing information and technical guidance contained in the SCAQMDs CEQA 1 Air Quality Handbook and/or other appropriate technical information sources. MOBILITY ELEMENT: ' O Coordinate transportation The EIR should discuss how the project improvements with RCTC, RTA and relates to the existing and proposed plans of other transportation providers to the transportation agencies with regard to assure a multi-modal mix. multi-modal opportunities. SUP POLICIES RELATED TO WATER ' QUALITY Water Quality policies are based on two underlying goals: to restore and maintain the chemical, physical and biological integrity of the nation's water supply, and to achieve and maintain water quality objectives necessary to protect all beneficial uses of all waters. O Support the retention (reclamation) The EIR should address the manner in which and reuse of wastewater. the project proposes to reclaim and reuse O Protect surface and groundwater wastewater within the project or the from degradation. community. O Develop water conservation and reuse Best Management Practices. ' O Encourage maximum reuse of 1-14-98: 11 :49PM:C1ty Of TeMeCUI@ ;9096946477 # is/ 19 14 reclaimed wastewater and other non- potable waters. SRCP POLICIES RELATED TO REGIONAL MOBILITY The SRCP Mobility Element goals and objectives are intended to refine and implement the goals and policies identified by SCAG in its Regional Comprehensives Pian and Guide. SCAG's goals and policies regarding regional mobility address system mobility, reducing energy consumption, promoting transportation friendly development patterns, fostering economic development and enhancing the environment. In addition, SCAG policies regarding 1 regional mobility relate directly to regional strategic policies for Quality of Life. Transportation Demand Management O Provide additional park and ride or The EIR should identify all proposed other similar facilities. Transportation Demand Management O Encourage mixed land use strategies that are proposed within the development project. O Support planned land use patterns that locate homes near emplovment centers. Streets and Highways/Freeways/HOV O Support the implementation of site The EIR should address these four policies design standards that reduce as they relate to the proposed project. localized roadway congestion for the safety of motorists,pedestrian and Any TDM plan for Vehicle Miles Traveled bicyclists. reduction should indicate how many O Design all future traffic signals for estimated project trips will be reduced traffic actuated operationthrough the use of the measure. O Restrict on-street parking when necessary to reduce traffic congestion. Jo1mDcGange 3 8 outanes the mitigation mcssa¢es for impacts to gnatc:atche•rs Eom the proposed project These measures are too genes al to d etesmine whether the mitigation offsets the proposed impacts to the 13 pairs of gnattstchm s on di c site. Therefore, we consider this impact to be sigi .. 1 7ahnDcGrange 4 �pc=mib Scam Caidoaes Depxkment of Fish mod Game and U-&A=y Corps afFagincem These mc==arenctde=3bedmtheDEIKmod,thacfize,mievalatiamofwhcthrrthrse nwmm ss adequd*tf §d signfflc=t itnI I m wedands is not pOSMEW This anal should be ior3uded inthe FEIIt_ 1 We appreciate the opFmtcmiy to comment on the DEIR. ,Given the spi5eance ofthe RmipanghRanch site to endangered species„we want to wmdc with the p geet pmpamtnt an a project design*Ani jb=s effects to 5sted wr'ldtfe and is compmtR&with regional . reserve considemCmin. If yrnr have any gnestioos please contact Dile Shangbessp of my staff at(760)431-9441 Spy 11 A.Bartel Assistant Field Supervisor I-699-HC-=9 cc: Glean Black(CDFC Chino Hills) Robin Maloney-Raaies(CDFG Chinn Hills) 11 1 S00ln 2RI'ITIIA 0NV BSI3 SR fZ96 rc6 09L YV3 60:9T 66/9T/L0 5 46ed -_ ,9Z96 10 09Lr WOJi -- Q=£ 666L '9L Al^r Aept 10day Jul 16,.1999 4:21 -- Fran 176074618151 -- Page 2 _ 07/1671999 17:05 7607461815 OILS PAGE 02 CALIFORNIA INDIAN LEGAL SERVICES 609 SOUTH ESCONDIDO BOULEVARD ESCONDIDO, CALIFORNIA 92025 . (760)746-8941 TELECOPIER(760) 746-1815 m�tArn�c,mou� . srerr,nswnnea _ UWtfl�R5iIDtlA![ DCHARKA LL SWRT�i OSWA �1PONMM MOC JO�[AAP1Da R AW 40Rf MUS 1�SWN6Vr Jwrmn wa]aIOI'1 July 16, 1999 Mr.John DeGange Project Plam= City of Temecula,Planning Department 43200 Business Park Drive Temecula,CA 92589-9033 Re: Comments on the Envimnmental Impact Report for the Roripaugh Ranch Specific Plan . Dear Mr.DeGange: California Indian Legal Services submits the following comments on the Environmental Impact Report(EIR)for the proposed Roripaugh Ranch Specific Plan on behalf of the Pechauga Band of Luiseno Indians, a federally recognized Indian Tribe(hereinafter,the"Pecbanga,Band'). PROJECT GENRRALLY The Pechanga Indian Reservation is the closest reservation of the Luiseiio Indians to the proposed project site, and the Pechanga Band considers any Luiseiio cultural items and any Native American human remains which may be found in the vicinity of this project to belong to their ancestors_The Pecbanga Band is not opposed to this project by the City.of Temecula. The Pechanga Band's primary concerns stem from the project's likely impacts on Native American cultural and archaeological resources. The Pechanga Band is concerned about both the protection of unique and irreplaceable cultural resources,such as Luiselto village sites and archaeological items which would be displaced by ground-disturbing work on the project,and on the proper and lawful treatment of cultural items,Native American human remains and sacred , items likely to be discovered in the course of the work. PROJECT IMPACTS ON CITI.T DRAT. RES01MMS The Temecula Valley is extremely rich in Luiseiio cultural and archaeological resources. qq As stated in the E R, one site,Roripaugh 1,was recorded within the project boundaries in 1989 L by Drover(EIR, 3.14 Scientific Resources,pg. 3-176)with an array of sites located in areas surrounding the project . Although Roripaugh 1 has been described as an area of lithic scatter, it is important to Friday July 16,- 1999 4:21pu -- Fram •76074618151 -- Page 3 87/16/1999 17:05 7687461815 CILS PAGE 03 1! Letter to Mr.John DeGange,Project Planner City of Temecula,Planning Department Re:Comments on the Environmental Impact Report for the Roripaugh Ranch Specific Plan , July 16, 1999-p-2 note that Drover states that"a potential for subsurface deposit is expected."(Drover,pg. 8). I Drover's report states that'ltnripaugh 1 may actually be part of a larger,possible contemporaneous,complex of interrelated sites on the upper Santa Gettntdis Creek drainage Z including both residential and seed processing locales."(Drover,pg. 8). The Pechanga Cultural Resowx,cs Committee agrees with this assessment and would like the City to understand that because there are many recorded sites on the upper Santa Gertrudis Creek as well as 14 sites 1 recorded on the Johnson Ranch property,the potential for the project area in question to contain more extensive cultural resources is extremely tremendous. The Pechanga Band believes that a current survey may reveal significant archaeological resources and Lu isedo sites not identified by 1 the 10 year old walk-over survey completed in 1989 by Drover. FAIR C'ON i ATRIONSIDETERMINATIONS �I The 1989 report by Drover,indicated that the survey of the subject property was mainly "intuitive in nature"and clearly omits any mention of research methods in the field, except to describe the surface of the land in question One can only deduct that the archeological survey this agency is basing its EIR findings upon, did not consist of any subsurface or extensive archaeological testing at all,but merely a surface`walk-ova"of the site. Because an extensive archaeological survey of this property has not been completed, conclusions and determinations of impact to cultural resomces can not be made with accuracy. Mitigation measure 3.14.6 states 3 that". . . .no significant. . . .atabaeological resources were observed or are expected on the site, . . ."(FIR,pg. 3-177). The Pechanga Band, fervently disagrees with this assessment because: 1)Drover's walk-over survey report indicates that subsurface and additional resources are a distinct possibility,2)Further extensive surveys on this property were never completed in preparation for assessments regarding the project's impacts,even though this was a recommendation by Drover in 1989; and 3)The Pecbanga Band was never consulted in regard to the potential impacts of this project on Luiseflo sites. Rather,this agency bas.chosen to rely, solely,upon a 10 year old walk-over survey to determine the impacts this development project .pill have on important Luisedo cultural resources. The Pechanga Band disagrees with the City's assessment and believes that"(I)t is quite likely that eventual development will result in a direct impact"to Luiseflo sites(Drover,pg. 8� and therefore,the Pechanga Band recommends the following mitigation measures for this Prof RFQITFSTFD INVOI VEMFNT AND MTTIC:ATION MEASURES Based upon the mature of the identified Luiseflo site, Roripaugh 1, and the possibility of its relatedness to other Luiseiio sites which have already been recorded in the area, the Pechauga Band requests the following mitigation measures for this project: 1. Pechanga Tribal representatives assist the agency with developing pertinent and reasonable mitigation measures for this project. These mitigation measures are to be included in '.1daY July 16 1999 4:21pm -- Fram 17607461815, -- Page 4 07/16/1999 17:85 7687461815 CILS PACE 84 I ' Letter to W.Jolm AeGange,Project Planner City of Temecula,Planning Department Re: Coraments on the Environmental Impact Report for the Roripaugh Ranch Specific Plan July 16, 1999-p.3 the Final EM, to the satisfaction of the Pechanga Band and may include,but are not limited to subsurface testing,permanent avoidance of site through redirection of project; site relocation, surface collection,locational mapping, and capping. 2. The Pechanga Band requests the presence of Native American monitors daring groundbreaidng activities for this project,to be compensated by the developer.The Pechanga Band has art effective and frilly operational culhual resources committee which is committed to preserving Luisefio euUruat resources. The Pechanga Cultural Resources Com suttee is an expert on Luiseno culture and can contribute invaluable advice which will ensure your project complies with all pertinent state and federal laws. The Pechanga Band appreciates the opportunity to provide comments on this Environmental Impact Report for the Roripaugh Ranch Project The Pechanga Band looks forward to working together with City of Temecula and other interested agencies in protecting the invaluable Native American cultural and archaeological resources found in the area of this proposed project Sincerely, C ALIFORNIA INDIAN Lj;GAL SERVICES Laura Y.11 irattda Attorneys for the Pmhanga'Band S'1'A I' 1' U f• CA L I FU R N I A :f S J Y Governor's Office of Planning and Research a 1400 TENTH STREET SACRANENTO,CALIMR.41A 95311-1014 Gray Dads 916-122-x1[8 FAX 916-322-5185 �.41pr.u.g0v Lnrerm Lynch ll1M1lCTUR GOVERNOR STATE CLEARINGHOUSE ACICNOWLEDGEMENT OF RECEIPT DATE: June 3, 1999 iTO: JOHN DEGANGE CITY OF TE.'vfECULA 43200 Business Park Drive Riverside, CA 92590 FROM: State Clearinghouse RE: RORIPAUGH RANCH SCHR: 97121030 rThis is to acknowledge that the State Clearinghouse has received yyour environmental document for state review. The review period assigned by the State Clearinghouse is: rReview Start Date: Wednesday, June 02, 1999 Review End Date: Friday, July 16, 1999 The State Clearinghouse will provide a closing letter and forward all state agency comments on your environmental document to your attention on the date following the close of the review period. Thank you for your participation in the State Clearinghouse review process. i 1 1� 2q 11.-`21-99 16.07 FROM-CITY OF TEMECULA I0,9096946477 PAGE 2/10 i 97/19/1999 15:21 4775 O1IM3 F6 PAGE 92 snoeaexarasw-esleaa+tss�uo�Y aaro�wtea�er =WAWnWM OF ROH APD aArAE Ewen Surra-NEW Desats Regim 4775 ted Farm Road - Chh o Fps.CafGwnie 91709 Jury 16, 1 gS9 John DeGrartge Cly of Temeaufa Tent muff City Hall 4:1200 Buri I= Park Drive Tarrwcwla, CA 82590 11 Re: Rcripaugh Ranco Specific Plan Envkc omental Wiped Report , SC7 9997121030 W. DeGa'ang9: 1 The Califamis Department of Fish and Game(Department) thanks you for the opportunity to Comment on the Envfrorurfentat Impact Report prepared by The Keith Companies for the Ashby Devetcpmant Company, Mr. and GRC Development Company, LLC. The proposed development description includes` a maximum of 2,058 residential } units-, 10 arras of aorrmerdW with 100,000 square reek 2 sduxA sites on 30 acres;23 aces of parka; a 3 acre of-site parts and 181 acres of open apace. .The site consists of 788 acus, of which 154 aces are in Temecula and 634 acres are in unincorporated ,1 Riverside Comity. 1_ Proposed Proied impacts )f1 a. Wwac%an Feum s' The EIR identt7ies as 3kraficant impacts the lb&w ng dried impacts on wildlife: 1) . the direct removal of habitat for the federally listed endangered Gum checkersp6t butterfly (Euphydras eo2lta grdnol 2)the removal of 12C 59 acres of federally threatened 1 California coastal giatcatcher(Pbkpffa=ff=ica caffi nir a)habitat resitting in the direct rake of 2 pairs of gr atc2trhers in Phase I and 11 Pairs of gnatcalct s in Phase 11, and direct removal of habitat of the Federally.wed and California Th estanad Stept Nw kangaroo rat(apodomys stepbem). The site coritam and supports Mwierous sensitive speces of fauna. Federal and ,I . 2 b , 1 -21-99 10.07 FROM.CITY OF TEMECULa I0=9096946477 PAGE 3/30 87/19/1949 15.21 a775 aiIIl] r6 PAGE a3 Rar~Ranh Spoo is Plan Enviro wner"bnpad Report ' SCH#97129030 sW e of concern fend at the site irickxkx the Orange luxated vWliptail (CNwxkP/"w ftpwvmvs> the San Diego Hanel I(Phrynosoma ovrav� bbbMal aordhom Cagamin ,mow(AkxWn7a rukq=ca»escarts). <3eIPs sage sparrow 0mPW;p=beff bet. the FernVkmw hm*(&rdeo regaft San Dimgo bkx*-tabd pdaabW(Lepra caamiaa brlef6r) and the Loa ArWies pocket Mowe(Perqp)adjgj:i ftnqhmnhr&hmvft3=� A federal species of conmm 8n4 California Special p ninwWound on the site is the Coastal VAISOM whi W(Cra*cphaw 99de nuftcu{ l=u Farm dewwgded solsty as a Cafdania Species of Carom ir)cizrdo Cooper's Hawk (A=pd9rcionperJ% glen E20W (A4&&7b T4s) Prairie Falcon(Falco mex=nus), Northam Harrier.(C=cyaneus). Yedow Warbler(Drendraic'a per). California horned lark(Erernopfab alpesfrisacSa). Loggerhead strike(LanPrr fu*vxonrrs� and Burrowing owl (Atfiew amucz&w). The White-tailed kite panics i currrs) and the CaasW westem whiptail(Ctemidophorus b"gris mu*=tahrs) are designated as Caldbmia Special Animals. b. Senses Plant Ccmr v vft es ' Implementation of the proposed devekP TK"will result in the loss of 83.09 acres of Riversidian sage scrub(RSS).4242 acres of trarnscb"onal areas, 018 acres of native gasslarids, and 8.18 acres of alkMal fan scrub, 016 acres of muk t scrub. 0.38 acres of riga n scrub, and 1.16 acres of sandy wash habitat. The loss of all of this habitat acreage is identified in the EIR as a sign ficant irnpacl. The ©R notes that RNergidm sage scrub is amsidered a sensitive habitat by the Departrnent because of the scarcty of the habitat the nuat er of sensitive species associated with it and the loss of habitat due to agriarittre, ranching and urban expansion. j ' Impacts to the various On-site native plait=rnrritnibas include.the deed removal cf 83.08 acres of Riversidan sage scrub, me remorat of 65.67 acres of transitional scrub and grassland habitats; the direct.iarnoval of M8 acme of alkwad fan scrub, 0.16 acres of niuletat scrub, 038 acres of riparian scrub, and 1.16 aeras of sandy wash habitat. The FJR reports that there are also 17 acres of alluvial fan sage scrub, of%tuc i 8 acres will be kilt. Riversidian Alluvia! Fan Sege Scrub(RAFSS)is a rare natural plait corrurxnity which is raNced S1.1 (very threatened)with local. regional, and state-;wide r �- The kms d these habitats is identified in the EJR as significant r r -39. 07 FROM:CISY OF TEMECULA I0=9096946477 PAGE 4/10 87/19/1999 15.21 4775 CHIM FG PAGE 84 3 ,I Aorostl0h it9ndn SpOaTic Plat . E7nvrmrvner"Npwt Report �n7z1M 11 1. CarxxKtio t with Reoional Reserves l Thor ER states that the site is located in the vicnq of three large and regionally ,1 habitat areas and that wildrdb movement between large patdnes of Rrversidlen sage Scrub is Of PwGmdw krIP0rt0n= Mwdw wit V t o rekbm to these this r0giOrL HowAver. the EIR does not ind%jde a other critical resw,.v mom the EIR afar f� 1 Vw site is bounded on the northeast and the south by LICR lands. The EiR does not show either(JCR site in relation to the project Further.there is no connedivity between the Riversidian sage scrub in the nordw=st corner of the site and the U C. reserve sits in the south. Z The docuin ent di= the irnportance of the area reserves but does not .Vec ficaW and COmprehen3ivefy document bow the preservation of the our-sits RSS in the north-eastern portion of the site beneft vAldlife movement or connects with these reserve areas. The OR domes regional W&Tde movement It is Hkely that w ekifda moves between the native habitats within these natural areas via a num of routes, indu Ing sorne that cross the Ranpaugh Ranch site, espec aity within the Santa Gertrudis Creek vt®tershed. Howwer, the©R does not state what vmldlife crosses the site or how development of the site will impact regional vwldlife movement This is a serious omission. in fact; the EIR section an wildlife movernm t states that arlenaenffition of the project will have an 'I adverse impact In that R would obstruct w1dlife movement between Santa Gertrudis Creek and Skunk Hollow. Additionally, the EIR does not state rvheiher chis is a significant or Insignificant obstrurdtan• There is no evidence discernible in the EIR record to support a of col Amort esherway_ �I Further the EIR does not state what fauna wrll benefit from preservation of the RSS and what vAidfde w R be unmoved fiorn the site as a result of the development Neither 3 does the EIR poke on how vNldife connecflvity could be improved or an alternatives Wiich would be more beneficoal to wdsting wrTdit iucltrding federariy listed endangered it is an oversight that thane is no graphic in the EIR shmv ing areas of contiguous habitat or reserve and how this development does or does not fit into the regional scheme. It is an additionai ove r&VA that two is no analysis of the vernal pool system on the adoining property end how this proposed development vwf or YAR not impact the vernal F pool The panhandle portion of the proposed development is located adjacent to Rark:no Bella VWW and the Steatk HoNmw venal Pool on the north. The pnpmsed uses for the pantraruge portion d the site are residential, roads, schools. park and 6 awes of open spat There is no analysts the potardial W pacts of this development cn the Skunk _ •i- . _ •.• • mac• _ 1. .•r. r - _ _ • a.r• • f II o �• � '.M - ••r :..!Il 1[.='�1 I :.Y.. • LL•�'=.i 11•��Ic : • 1(.: l.q•', •t o :{1 ' + o v :1_� • : • - •' IJ. �:� • - • • - '•.: rcr 1: - r !Il 11 •': - ..►1: . rl IRA 3.1 r � rl '.• I • • :I •. • • : : 1 • • 1 •: Y • :,• .f • • • • •: � •151 r:: -� i•• I 1 .: � � ._ r •• � ♦' III 1!11 • 1 : Y Y• I •ral •, 1 • • : 1 • 0 11 1 • •' • • Y lam• _ J!�r :1•.. • •. 1 - f1_ 11 IL-21-99 1e= 09 PROM=CITY OF TEMECULA 10.9096946477 PAGE 6./10 '87/19/1999 15:= 4775 CDC FG PAM e5 , S 'I RamsZ ph Rauh Spedfic Alan 6tiri WMenml Loped Repart Smi 1097121030 maasrres wars setectad. The Guidef nes hrthsr state= 'Faarurta tm of mitigation measures ahmM not be deferred tarti!some futrre tine. However, measures may specify 5 perfartaanee starld�vltlich would mitigate to agrtifignt effect of the project and Wxh iiia,,be acoompftshed in more churl one specified wey- Fuukay, via Gcaderrter require that mitigation measures be'fuh enforceable through permit conditions, agreements, or other legally6�instruments. b bf&ga§MMaasureArtalvsis i There are several problems vrtih trAgation measures identified in the aRL For I isia M the in�jo*dband vhch is designated as habitat preservation areas is alreadydeaigrtated as open space in esu General Plan Land Use Ebement It is not clear to the Departrnent and Service how Comptying wrlh=sWV land use designations is deemed mitigation for natural resources stated for deveia mwt It world be different if the areas,to 1 be preserved were coned for development and the developer instead of developing it ded>cated it as open The EIR on page 3-12 also states that: 'The most --W .1 pa tiarls of the site are the areas with prime agricultural sacs, and the steeper 7 upland areas are important as biological habitat far protected speaes.' A rase can be made that the lower, developable portions of the site are critical for site raptors, which induce spades of concern. Another im is is the fad that marry of the proposed mitigation measures reit'on fuhra acdtoris_ Thera are no standards specified as to replacement ratios for habitat or ') even a management plan for the emstuV onsite amus proposed as mitigation. These issues are discussed in detail fiuther in this section Project mitigation measures nvchdng ftam action induda $} payurnrX of Stephens kangaroo rat mitigation fee' ,I 9} implementation of resource management measures to maintain the native character of preserved portions of the site; 10) Sidon of federal pemuTs for imparts to the coastal California Wtateatchler t and the Quino chedwrapot butterff r, 11) acquisition of appropriate permits from the ACCE and the CDFG for adverse ,I impacts to npw=areas. Wildlife Corridors—The FSR indudes mitigation measures intended to martage the prepay preserved RSS aceage in the northeastern portion of the sate over the long term The mitigation treasure is entified WildU3 Species of the Scrub, Grassland, and Riparian Habitats.' This entire section requires darificadom Proposed mitigation a' 'i measures ' -'a'refer to measures to prated wildlife in 'the caridor(s)'. The BR does not 4 �I .. . • 0..1 . . . 1 . :., .•� I . .r . .1 r - • 1. 1 1 1 -1 I � _ :• .• - Y•: I ': Ili •: I f• • _ r _ - 111-: 1 - • • : 1• • ••1' w �• I 1 11 p 1 ': •♦ = w :•• a 1'• 1 • •'• r - v,t• : . •I•: •• s• - - - t 1 '.• it - ••:. :'I I' , - •.•• 11• 1 • • 1 I _ •S w _• • • r •. ••- •+.►• • • � Ira • • •I • '•► :•-: s • 1. IL-!21-SS 18: 09 FROM:CI.Y OF TEMECULA ID:9096946477 PAGE a/30 11 87/19/1999 15.21 4775 Or1N] FG PAGE 88 RorVaugh Rench Spedfic Plan Il Enuvi mvrterrtal knead Rapart SCii#97121= rasourCSIL Howoever it does not discuss WW biological reaousrss are present, how would be Impacted ornhat inkigattort measures, ifany. could be implemented to ev wd or Z IesSM the signi um t impacts. The tad that a CDFG SLrearnbed Aftra iOn llgrsernent or an AnY Cmw 404 Pence mW be re -mmd does not moove ft OR preF.,of the nQsP +brMY Gtr g mi6gatim measures or project alternatives"hil""Mibi avoid or leasers 341ficatlt impacts in the trod of the©p- PUVA iDes-,wEM also i dudwOther mftaonr ,bc,MqWre 1 LThe er aped8dtj- For irmton e, the dR states chat the-=*SUM for the removal of Saag of RSS,V-Q Scree of trwMonal arses, and Q 18 acres of native g msbrsds vnell be t tv the peservvdm of 78-17 acres of RSS and 15,14 acres of barnaitiorlal habitat. I Dqm m lmlos ypaintedoutihdtheFMpreservationareaIsalready3ad as open space n the Land Use Element of the General Ptah. The o' sting t corrtains mmmous sensitive species offlora and fa m The Depa trent normallyes that soerna+6M habitat(RSS) be replaced on a�1 ratio by dedcafed,o space:1 ratio hAW[effects existing on-a to dedicated open speca end oft-site d�cated space. The Department also nequiras that rhe proposed off-site dedicated open, 1 be of contparaUe gLiWq and coni.= of in-" mitigation. The urn measures include 7evegetstian of RSS in appropriate areas of the [taken ta' and file 1xrdsase of preserved RSS habitats in the vianilY of The site_' These are not itigation moazuaas, but statements of intent Where and how much revegetation is Proposed? Will luaus be a monitoring and mainte woe plan? What measures vA l be to buffer sensitive resources from exotic vegetation and from human ilaasiDnT Will e Preserved area be dedicated for conservation is perp Who vNli be nespornsrbie for marlagalg and averwouV the preserved ani? What are the quralificadans and i experience of the persons managing the preserved area? Wtsat about the probable use of 11 bwYcfas and mob cycles in sers&m areas? These are questions vAch'have not been addressed In the 13R and need to ba dsa.rssed. Measures aboard be taken is1� pro>fed the habitat value and tlrndion of proposed mitigation in perpen* issues that shoulid be addressed ndsade sufriC*r t buffers arotand Sensitive habitat% restrictions on vehiCle and people acmes. proposed land dedications, On*=9 and mariagwowt programs, om*W of ipegW du ¢ming, restrictions on Iightfrte [rt naftirW areas and contrd of introduced woobc plant fiW WrM&rp native IIEats. The ER does not address any of these issue artjas. The applicant should I e maoepemed plan Which addresses the terns of the Speafio mitigation pians to hely offset II far the wrrnllstive' ' indud�proposals mifigatirtg snpacb of dircd and ')indirect habitat toss, degradation, or mod icati n* sfxx be considered Adverse project-{elated i"oft to upland habitats 11 should be mitigated through the prsaerration, sealion, ard/ar restoration k cf r ind habitat types. Unavoidable wetlands impls~s atxuid be mitigated by the roestorwion and/or creaern of in-khri habitats. Mtig&= neees should c rmWer temporal tosses of habitat JUL-21-99 18.09 FROM=CITY OF TEMECULA lU=tltl.�JO.�JYOY / / r•+..� �. •.. 07/19/1999 15.21 4775 CHIPU FG PAGE 09 8 - Ronpaugh Raric h Spedbc Plan Envionnrerrfal b"d Repot sC>i#9s,z1o3a 1 - The FSR should also include an analysis of how adverse impacts to federally listed endangered species. the Quino cheokerspot butterfly, the Stephens kangaroo rat, and the Coastal Catifarnia pnatcatctw, can be avoided or reducel In addition, the EIR states that the development poses significant adverae impacts to sensitive raptors, sensitive reptiles, and sensitive bird species through the rernoval of foraging habitat The biologics!report in Apperxft A states that there are significertt impacts to wildlife and sensitive plat communities, but that these significant impacts would be offset by the preservation of approximately 140 acres of natural open sparse_ Although it is true 8 that preservation of wdsting RSS habitat in the northeast would maintain habitat far some wdsting animal species, it dues not mitigate for the Foss of faunal species. in other words, preservation of 140 acres of existing high quality, occupied habitat does not fully mitigate for the toss of ocarpbed habitat watch will be developed. Loss of significant habitat is Lm itigated by the repiacemert of equal quality habiW at a 3:1 ratio. ARemafwes Analysis Aside frtxn the'no project' alternative, all four alternatives have the same interior cir� system. The Department does rot regard the EIR attemative analysis as IQ adequate_ The Department points wt in the mitigation measures portion of this tetter that f one obvious altemative, not considered in the E1R, is to eliminate parcel 113 and its associated roads and include a portion of parcel 21 with the oarcet 15)dedicated coert space area The afternatbves analysis is remiss in not consiaenna having pane i o arra n polton or parcel 21 as open space areas logically amcuded with the sleeper nnnsbde portions of parcel 19. !Gonclusions R is the opinion of the California Department of Fish and Game that the EIR is inadequate in several respects. First, the alternatives analysis(foes not address aiter►auvos which would lessen or avoid the sigruticant adverse impacts on site fauna and flora This letter indudes an example of an alternative which would reduce some adverse uripac t& Second, the mitigation nmum res proposed in the EIR are not specific or 12o aorrrpr ehensive enough and vwff rot serve to adequately protect sensitive biological rssources. Third, the Department does not believe that the proposed mitigation measures reduce the project i npads on biological resources to a level of insignifi(atra. Forth. the EIR does not k chrde an assessment of the potential adverse impact of this project on the Skunk Hollow Vernal Pod. Filth, the EIR does not contain an analysis of the potential adverse imparts of buildout of this project on sensitive on-Me and acjacont biological resources, particularly human incursion, domestic animals, schools, and exotic vegetation. Sb^ the EIR idenbT=significant adverse impacts which are not mitigated in the FJR UL-21-99 18. 10 FROM,CITY OF TEMECULA I0.9O96946477 PAGE ~ 07/19/1999 15:21 4775 --- CHL40 FG PAIS 18 9 Raipaugh Ranch Specht Plan ' r ErNbUrTnerttal tnpact Report SCFE X97121090 Section 21002 of CEOA requires that'--public agencies should not approve prow as propmed N two are feasible afternatives or feasible mitigation rneasrues 2 available vAii h would sttistardfalfy lessen the signif=t environ nentai effects of such 1 projects, and that the procedures required by this divWm are intended to assist public agenicies in systmalically boat the aienificant effects of proposed projects and the ruble afternarmw or feasible w0gation nummir+es W ictt will avoid or substmrtialy j lessen such sigrn!ic t effects..' it is the Deparbnenf3 opinion that ft©R does not meet the test of avox*V or mitigating significant effects. In addition,the Department believes that the lead public agency cannot approve the project as proposed because it does not amply with Section 21081 of CEQA which 2 2 that the lead public agerwy not approve projects with one or more significant eftcts unless changes or alterations in the project are required which mitigate cr avoid the significailt effects on the envirormert or the public agency finds that there are overriding considerations which outweigh the significart eftcts on ttiaenvirorxnent The Deparhnerd requests that the deficiencies noted above be addressed to our 2 3 satisfaction in the final EIR and that the project be changed to avoid significant impacts or that mitigation ntee8tl= be proposed consistent with the mnments In this letter_ H you have any questions please call Robn Malcney-Rames at the California Deparbnent of Fish and Game, Chino Hills office, at(714)817-0585_ 'I S'irtcarey, Glenn Black Environunentsi Services SupernsOr Habitat Conservation -South Region 6 1� i - .fait Newman,USFVU5 'i i IrE OF CAUFORNW BUSINESS.TRANSPORTATION AND HOUSING AGENCY _ GRAY OAVIS.Gwemm IJPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION — TR1CT 8 W Fourth Street 6th Floor MS 726 In Semardino.CA 92401-1400 NE(909)383-6327 (909)383-6890 June 14, 1999 08-Riv-79-R3 . 980/R4 . 777 SCH #97121030 Mr. John DeGange AICP, Project Planner 43200 Business Parc Drive P.O. Box 9033 Temecula, CA 92509 Dear Mr. DeGange: Draft Environmental Impact Report Roripaugh Ranch Specific Plan Thank you for submitting the DEIR' ard appendices for the above- mentioned project. The traffic study has been submitted to our traffic engineers for review. Their comments will be forwarded to you, as they become available. If you have any questions, please contact Jim Belty at (909) 383- 4473 or FAX (909) 383-5936. iSincerely, Original signed by Linda Grimes - LINDA GRIMES, Chief Office of Forecasting/ IGR/CEQA Review cc : Mosie Boyd,. State Clearinghouse Kent Norton, The Keith Companies Pat Hsu, Highway Operations, D-3 - i 1 2c TATE OF CALIFORNIA—BUSINESS.TRANSPORTATION AND HOUSING AGENCY GRAY DAVIS.Gorenpr ' 1 )EPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION )ISTRICT 8 1 164 W Fourth Street;6th Floor MS 726 San Bemardino, CA 92401-1400 )HONE(909)383-6327 -AX (909)383-6890 July 7, 1999 �I 08-Riv-79-R3 . 980/R4 . 777 SCH #97121030 �I Mr. John DeGange 1' AICP, Project Planner 43200 Business Park Drive P.O. Box 9033 Temecula, CA 92509 O I Dear Mr. DeGange : Draft Environmental Impact Report Roripaugh Ranch Specific Plan [111-215 he traffic study review has been completed for the above- entioned project and our traffic engineers have the following C n the attached Traffic Study, dated May 21, 1999, various ocations are identified as I-5 . Please correct to reflect either or I-15 . 15th Street is called out as crossing Rancho California Road. We C annot locate this . street on the.. Thomas Brother' s. Guide. Please provide reference to this street location. { [We strongly recommend that the applicant be required to agree that if this project upon completion, adversely impacts State Highway 79, Interstate 15 or 215, more than the traffic study assumes, then the applicant will take the necessary steps to M itigate those impacts . [Please furnish this office with an updated copy of the Traffic Study, as it becomes available. 2d II Mr. John DeGange July 7, 1999 Page 2 If you have any questions, please contact Jim Belty at (909) 383- 4473 or FAX (909) 383-5936_ Sincerely, Original signed by Ramakrishna Tadi for LINDA GRIMES, Chief Office of Forecasting/ IGR/CEQA Review tcc: Mosie Boyd, State Clearinghouse Kent Norton, The Keith Companies Pat Hsu, Highway Operations, 0-8 tote of California The Resources Agency Memorandum ,AIL 6 W a 1. Project Coordinator - Resources Agency 2. Mr. John DeGange ' City of Temecula 43200 Business Park Drive Temecula, California 92590 �rn Department of Water Resources �biect' SCH #97121030 Draft Environmental Impact Report Roripaugh Ranch Specific Plan Riverside County The Division of Safety of Dams has completed the review of the May 21, 1999 Draft Environmental Impact Report for the Roripaugh Ranch Specific Plan. Based on the information provided, we could not determine if the proposed detention basins mentioned in the report are under State jurisdiction. As defined by Part 1 of Division 3 of the California Water Code, dams 25 feet or higher having a reservoir storage capacity of more than 15 acre-feet, and dams higher than six feet having a storage capacity of 50 acre-feet or more are under our jurisdiction. If the proposed detention basins fall under our jurisdiction, a construction application, together with plans and specifications, must be filed. All dam safety related issues must be resolved prior to approval of the application, and the work must be performed under the direction of a civil engineer registered in California. The Design Engineering Branch at (916) 445-3092, is responsible for the application approval process. Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on the Draft Environmental Impact Report. If you have any questions, please contact Area Engineer Aspet Ordoubigian at (916) 227-4755 or Regional Engineer Richard Sanchez at (916) 322-6206. Alt1 Stephen W. Verigin, Acting Chief Division-of Safety of Dams (916) 445-7606 I^ L 2c . V �DAV:D P. Z?PFE eooxrr r 1995 MARKET STREE" eral Manager-Chief Engineer .,°� �0po RIVERSBMSCA 92501 909.955.1200 909.788.9965 FAX c �nnno+° RIVERSIDE COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL AND WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT July 15, 1999 Mr. John De Ganae City of Temecula 43200 Business Park Drive Temecula. California 92590 Dear Mr. De Gange: Re: Notice of Completion of Draft Environmental Impact Report for Roripaugh Ranch Specific Plan This letter is written in response to the Notice of Completion of Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) ' for Roripaugh Ranch Specific Plan. The Roripaugh Ranch property is presently located within two governmental jurisdictions. Approximately 154 acres of the property are within the city of Temecula and the remaining 634 acres are within unincorporated Riverside County. ' 1he Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District (District) has reviewed the document aTd it appears that most of our general comments are adequately addressed, t' [Based on the information from this DEIR, it appears that concerns regarding NPDES are addressed propriately and measures are proposed to mitigate potentially significant impacts to surface and/or oundwater recharge. The District is very concerned with potential adverse impacts to downstream properties due to development. The proposed specific plan should be designed to maintain tributary flows in the Santa Gertrudis Creek and 3 Long Valley Creek channels at the present level. It is our understanding that the increased runoff from the development will be mitigated by constructing three detention basins. Any changes to this proposal should be further evaluated and adequately mitigated to continue to ensure that the conditions of downstream properties are not aggravated by this development. For further information please refer to the District's enclosed May 12, 1999 letter regarding the project. Thank you for this opportunity to review the DEIR. Any questions concerning this letter may be referred to me at 909.955.1233 or Shaheen Mooman at 909.955.1318. Very truly yours, ZULLY SMITH Senior Civil Engineer Enclosure - SKNl:lib:bjp:slj iu 3a DAVID P. ZNPPE o`�YI T, 1995 MARKET STREE neral Manager-Chief Engineer �� RIVERSIDE,CA 9250 909.955.1200 909.788.9965 FAX r 'moo 57030.1 y title ' RIVERSIDE COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL AND WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT May 12, 1999 Mr. Ronald J. Parks Deputy Director of Public Works City of Temecula Post Office Box 9033 Temecula, CA 92589-9033 Dear Mr. Parks: Re: Roripaugh Ranch Specific Plan Long Valley Wash This is in response to your letter of April 28, 1999 asking for the District's review and comments with regard to the referenced specific plan currently being processed by the City. As you know, we do not prepare flood hazard reports for proposed development cases within incorporated cities. In this case, however, we understand that the improvement of Long Valley Wash is under consideration. In addition, you mentioned in our earlier meeting that the City would ask that any such improvement be accepted for maintenance by this District. For this reason we do offer the following comments specifically regarding the proposed improvement of Long Valley Wash. We have not reviewed the balance of the project in any detail and our comments do not in any way constitute or imply District approval or endorsement of the proposed project with respect to flood hazard, public health and safety or any other such issue. tThe drainage area tributary to Long Valley Wash at the point where it enters the Roripaugh Ranch Specific Plan generates an estimated Q100 .of almost 3,800 cfs. The natural wash is a fairly wide bottomed canyon (averaging about 350 feet wide) between moderately steep hills. The natural slope of the wash averages around .75%. A review of aerial photography taken over the last 35 years indicates-the wash is fairly stable. Any change to this wash, even nominal encroachment as is proposed by Roripaugh, will change the characteristics of this natural channel. In considering the advisability of the proposed channel improvements, four areas need to be addressed: collection, conveyance, discharge, and maintenance: Collection- At the point where improvements are projected to start, the stream is fairly well concentrated and improvements to collect flows into the channel will be fairly minimal. However, any collection effort will impact the flood plain so care must be taken to ensure that neighboring properties are not negatively impacted. Convevance• The conveyance of flows through the property is ultimately a safety concern. As stated above, any change to the natural cross section of the wash will affect the flow characteristics. Velocity of flow is the major worry. The narrowing of the channel will increase flow velocities and erosion potential. iv 36 'i 57030.1 Mr. Ronald J_ Parks 2 - May 12; 1999 Re: Roripaugh Ranch Specific Plan Long Valley Wash I To offset the likelihood of lateral erosion, Roripaugh is proposing the use of rock riprap sideslope 1l protection. While this would counter lateral 'Migration, it does not address the potential for streambed degradation: Most likely flow line erosion, or degradation will occur in the upstream reaches with aggradation in downstream reaches. This process could lower the streambed in some areas to such a degree that the slope protection would be undermined and compromised. In other areas deposition or If aggradation may occur to a point where flow capacity is lost and areas thought safe would be flooded. Also, the conveyance capacity of proposed road crossings may be put at risk. If the ,I proposed channel section is allowed, we would advise that a thorough sediment/scour analysis be performed by a qualified expert who specializes in such issues. It is all but certain that such an analysis would demonstrate the need to incorporate a number of drop structures or grade stabilizers in ,I the unlined streambed to maintain channel stability. �I Discharge: I At the point where the wash exits the property, a road crossing is proposed. This will be problematic. The narrower the wash is at this point, the more economical the crossing. On the other hand,. �I concentration of the flows as they enter downstream properties will likely cause negative impacts that �I will need to be mitigated. Also, narrowing of the cross section at the crossing may exacerbate sediment deposition problems on the upstream side. A full width bridge (preferably on pile 7 foundations) rather than a box culvert is recommended. Bridge pier walls should be solid (not individual columns) and debris noses should be provided. Maintenance: Along with any improvements to the wash, continuing maintenance will need to be addressed. No matter how well designed such an improvement may be, the need for continuing maintenance cannot be ignored. The vegetation in the bottom of the wash is of major concern. As we have seen time and again, when an area transforms from minimal density, rural type development to a more urban setting, flood control facilities become subject to the "urban slobber" resulting from car washing; excess lawn watering, etc. The effect of this slobber is to produce dense, fast growing vegetation in the channels`. Without regular maintenance, this will quickly affect the hydraulic capacity and put the public's health and safety at risk. As you are well aware, this District has only minimal funds available for maintenance in this zone and soft bottom channels are particularly high maintenance. The developer's engineer has indicated a willingness to investigate funding mechanisms to provide for the continuing maintenance. We would strongly encourage that such a mechanism be put into place. Given the above concerns, the City may want to consider leaving the wash in it's natural state and not allowing any encroachment into the flood plain. Even with this approach, some of the potential problems outlined above are still of concern; specifically, urban slobber and road crossings. Below are a number of points that should be considered: 1. Because the natural watercourse would not be "maintained" in the normal sense, a conservative hydraulic analysis would be appropriate using high Manning's n values Av (0.800 to 0.120 range) to account for overgrown vegetation. Bulking should also.be considered. i 57030.1 Mr. Ronald J. Parks - 3 - May 12, 1999 Re: Roripaugh Ranch Specific Plan Long Valley Wash 2. An unmaintained system should have conservative freeboard to account for aggradation of tthe streambed and bank setbacks to account for lateral erosion. Obstruction of the in Watercourse by overgrown vegetation could encourage aggradation by slowing flow and lateral erosion by forcing flow toward the banks. Freeboard in a range of 3 to 5 feet and erosion setbacks in a range of 50 to 100 feet would probably be appropriate. 3. Bridge crossings should be used in lieu of culverts to minimize disruption of the natural gradient of the stream. Bridges should be on pile foundations, span the entire watercourse, and have the longest individual spans possible. They should also have solid pier walls (not individual columns in bents) with debris noses. Narrow box culverts with filled approach embankments will promote upstream degradation and fixed invert culverts would establish a control resulting in downstream degradation. Also, the number of 'j crossings should be kept to the minimum possible. 4. The number of discharge points to the creek .from storm drains in adjacent developed areas should be limited to minimize disruption of the streambanks. Access to numerous small storm drain outlets on the steep streambanks has proven to be a problem. 5. Provision for off-stream storage of nuisance and low flows should be considered at the outlets of major storm drain systems entering the wash_ This could minimize excessive growth of vegetation in the creek resulting from continuous urban runoff. 6. Development near a natural urban stream corridor which becomes overgrown could be subject to serious fire hazard. The many fires which ravage the Santa Ana River corridor demonstrate that today's natural urban stream corridor can easily become tomorrow's urban firestorm. For this reason, the natural watercourse should probably be owned and maintained by some public entity such as a CSA or County Parks to ensure it is kept clean of trash and dead vegetation. A long term funding mechanism should be developed to provide for the required maintenance. Maintenance costs would probably be high since the resource agencies would probably not allow mechanized maintenance. . Finally, the developer should be required to obtain long term maintenance permits from the California Department of Fish and Game (1601 Agreement), the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (404 1 Permit), and the San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board (401 Certification). I hope the above gives you some insight into the concerns we believe should be addressed by this proposed development. If you should have any questions or wish to discuss this matter in more detail, please feel free to call me at 909/955-1275. QVerylyyo DUSTY WILLIAMS DW:dw:bjp Chief of Planning Division EASIDE u N r r DA NON IC,' �.y June 9. 1999 R— Keith International 22690 Cactus Avenue Moreno Valley, CA 92553 Attn: Kent Norton i v RE: EIR Roripaugh Ranch Mr. Norton, z .= [ALUC eceived the Draft E!R from the City on June 8`" regarding the projectwe had discussed e previous week. As l had mentioned, a portion of the project is within the 'Influence ea of the French Valley Airport.' I did not review every portion of the document, but aw no mention of the Adopted Comprehensive Land Use Plan (CLUP) for the facility. ��p id notice that the report indicated that a Notice of Preparation had been sent to the 4 q in December of 1998. 1 did not receive it and it may have been a problem with the evious address. t • The document needs to reference the plan and address the four major concerns of o Safety, Noise, Land Use and Obstruction potential; and where necessary, the mitigation for those concerns. The Noise Report does mention that"Light aircraft noises constitute an occasional short-term noise intrusion (p.2). A school within the TPZ is a "discouraged y use" as is any facility with a concentration of people within the Park. x Last year I had sent the attached letter to all cities that have an 'Influence Area' within their Spheres or city limits describing the procedures for reviewing projects such as yours. Included was a copy of the letter from Caltrans Aeronautics describing their role a b in reviewing projects within two miles of an airport I have underlined the relevant passages of the letters. Assuming the Specific Plan is a separate document, I will need _ . to review it as well as the responses to comments. You can file for an ALUC review at y any time, but it would be preferable to include the needed references and mitigation prior to filing. I have includes the application form to assist you and the avigation easement v that will be needed by the Airport operator. he western portion of the proposal is under a flight track that receives regular transit and will affect the residents below. The noise study should be amended to include a prospective noise profile indicating expected activity and noise levels at the site from a single event' and 'time above' scenario: iI f 3c Page 2 June 9, 1999 r� If you need any further assistance please feel free to call me at 909-955-5990. 1� Very truly yours, Keith owns ALUC Coordinator ,I r� cc: John Degange ALUC Commissioners Enclosures: FVAP Map r� Caltrans Letter, Feb 2, 1998 ALUC letter, June 12, 1998 r ALUC application form Avigation Easement rI 1' S' 1� (F:.USERSEDCO"RPC Sf ALUC.RCRiPAUGH-LTR.wpp) - r +� �■r- �� ■� �- mss- M_ me--- s- s s- =W- r- s,, C . r m • I m Ig - o • A Eahibil 2-AIRPORT INFLUENCED AREA IThe$ul@ of Caldennla eessuLm,die use of dM Conmundty Nolse Equiva lens level ICNELJ noise mwic to,id4w noise alud;n.This meufc luu n? all rola,otncdng wen a 24.how period,adding S ot"Ibrl and 10 deci•y`, / aClm'•d`'a' I t I` bel penalties lot,.mina andnoltime noise to aaounl la'the Vera:@'^ r{ / j lable 1 shawa the Land Uw Slandand,to,Noise Cnxgwdbilily in give' aide Counts.Residential uses ata nes compatible with and an, nes q penmBted in awes bil"ted by noise above 40 CNEL Vanillas inslilutio.. IUe lYl at uses,bKludiN aehools,fimplu s.and nuaing home,,ase ewnpa:ibe . 1 n.,m.ntl ' u'd Ynnnrm e.f •' wuh noise b,tweeo 60 and 65 CNEL but ase not permBlcd In ana,0 "� ------ I aflected by roles above 63 CNEL.Most comneKul and inns iil uses: \ i a `\ _\ ti e, {{��))f111 ` v we crump lible wig,noise up to 60 CNEL,aldumgh sound losula6w f nuy be"qulfel In ol(lu I'm$an pvbllc gathefinB areas. C FaNbh],how the abgd In0u,nrod au Ip@ hmcS Valley AOpo:.S 1 `Jr 1 h shove abenah noise evauowa based on do uldr,we a0pun Jayar.anK jansi ted all naf0c In the Veal 2012.Not. WM=linea shmr CNR �(j lawl,.160.45,and 70 dcclWi.As shove b.Eahibll S,ahcult nom aboro W CNEL Is almY u ,nplod,mall.d W du abpon pn bar,. � . j', _.—San '!_i_-__,/ PIY � O 7 — Pu•ftlNE _ .. At. ..+...+ YY \, To uaa 07 1 �. r•Z: 1 B B B e .lI u 4Mv l:.( "hf F^w,!'; p . EAC'.\J . ,I, (/� w -r.•. C Tr_ 1 - 7P2 ♦\ �`1 ♦., \ arwn owmaq' EAC1. rclawe Ra.n cwar@w i.W.C. _ - ^^�����^? 11'n,x.•.'F / r' OM1Ia„h TPS lgtta laY.n Lo,a w ^�� ^�^ WIJI-C' M?41 1 4 1' E a!�1h� 1 _ \" 1 v' ,♦ \ \ una..car,lwl ma canlull Bvnaw Nan /+\'` {� ♦ \ \ tl2 En,a,p,^ryTximrn2w IS2 WvnGbM1 Tun ^_ a 1 •.�� X1`. \ �� ,,'1 ♦ ' t. \Y ♦ -� "�� \ OBE Oae paaey Ton •-fulq Nnpo@BxtlaM1 ' � I e ay l.:'G,. \\\ !I y. �.Y� �(� ♦♦', li 7 'ilOb711�:1t%� �-ora.. 7E AIRPORT LAND USE COMMISSION DATE: June 11-1999 TO: Planning .agencies Within Riverside Countv Recently. you should have received the attached letter from the CALTR4NS Division ofAeronautics (D.O.T ). This letter outlined that agency's role and included a Handbook to assist you in land use planning around any airport or heliport. As stated in the letter, and the Public Utilities Code, certain actions undertaken within the boundaries of Comprehensive Land Use Plans (C.L.U.P.$) must be consistent with those plans. More specifically: j� All legislative actions within the boundaries of the C.L.U.P. must be reviewed by the Airport Land Use Commission (A.L_U.C.) for consistency; and ► All actions, whether legislative or quasi-judicial, must be reviewed if the plans and regulations of the jurisdiction have not been previously reviewed by the A.L_U.C. and found consistent with the adopted C.L.U.P. Attachment B indicates the airports within the County that have adopted C.L.U.P.s. As also stated in the D.O.T. letter, if a C.L_U.P. has not yet been adopted for a public-use airport. all actions, whether legislative or quasi-judicial. must also be reviewed by the A.L.U.C. for consistency. Most actions within the County have not been reviewed by the A_L.U.C. for consistency and as such, may be subject to challenge. The A.L.U.C. has regularly scheduled meetings and has been reconstituted under the state rules with membership from the County. cities, and airport managers as part of the membership. As you are aware, we live in a dynamic part of the State with rapid and continuing growth. The expected one million people to be added to the County will require transportation services at an increased level, but with no greater number of airports available. Ensuring continuance of the existing facilities is important to the local economy and public safety, and ensuring compatibility between those facilities and the future-growth around them is the responsibility of all planning agencies. I have enclosed an application form for you to use when referring project sponsors to the A.L.U.C_ If your City/Agency is in need of such a review or has questions regarding these matters. please feel free to call me (909) 955-5990. Sincerelv. AIRPORT LAND USE CO\vh�tISSION Keith D. Downs, AICP Senior Development Specialist KD:rs ! Enclosure cc: Airport ManaLerS a �SFN�kOCn�t.Htna ro+.:ctmes i.ra, CLUP STATUS Rtverside County Afrports A" °� Status A. Corona Adopted B. Riverside - Draft C. FLABOB (public use airport-privately owned) None D. French Valley Adopted E. Hemel Ryan Adopted F. Bear Creek(private airport) None G. Banning Adopted H Palm Springs Adopted L Bermuda Dunes Adopted J. Thermal Adopted K. Chiriaco Summit Adopted L. Desert Center Adopted M. Blythe Adopted r i LLST A Legislative Item such as: General Plans General Plans Amendment Specific Plans and Amendment Zoning Changes Building Regulations Amendments LIST B Other Actions such as: Plot plans Conditional Use Permits r Land Divisions Building-Permits 1 i . r r r r r - t;F CJI JMRNU%_8USINESS,TPANSPORTATION AND HOUSING AGENCY PETE Gaaw•Ef ZARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION AUTICS PROGRAM M.S.#40 STREET-ROOM 3300 PDX 942874 EMO, CA 94274-.7001 59 - (916)653-9531 iFearuar�2. 1998 To: City and County Planning.agencies In accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act(CEQA), the Aeronautics Prom grahas an obligation to review and consider local projects to ensure compatibility between airports and the surrounding community. As a responsible agency having permitting authority for s-L .crs and heliports, the Aemnautics Program rev;ews and comments on env mamerM documents prepared for airports, heliports,airport master plans and airport improvement projects. As an interested agency with technical expertise, the Aeronautics Program also frequently comments on environmental documents associated with local general plans, specific plans, and individual development projects near airports_ We, therefore, request your assistance in providing us-with Copies Ort-he envim.—ental documents that ycu prepare for these proposals. We can also assist you 1 with any questions that you may have regarding the enclosed,airport Land Use Planning Handbook (Handbook). The mission of the California Department of Transportation's Aeronautics Program is to foster and promote the development of a safe, efficient, dependable and environmentally compatible air transportation system. The State Aeronautics Act(Public Utilities Code Sections 21001, et seq.) is the foundation for the Department's aviation policies.The Aeronautics Proeram provides a variety of important services for the general public and the aviation community including: _ • Issuing airport and heliport permits in accordance with CEQA; • Conducting annual safety inspections for hospital heliports and public-use airports; • Providing grants and loans for safety,maintenance and capital projects at airports; • Intcgra ting aviet=n into t arzpc=licn v,ste^: r!W..^„^g c^g'e icna!,M2te Nide and na_ticra! basis; • Encouraging environmental mitigation measures through the CEQA process to lessen noise and safety impacts, as well as air pollution and other impacts caused by aviation. Legislation was enacted in 1994 governing the preparation of environmental documents for projects within two nautical miles of a public-use airport. Public Resources Code(PRC)Section 21096 requires that the Caltraris Handbook shall be used as a technical resource in the preparation of an environmental impact report or negative declaration as the environmental document relates to airport-related noise and safety impacts for a project"situated within airport comprehensive land use plan boundaries, or, if a comprehensive land use plan has not been adopted, for a project within two nautical miles of a public airport or public-use airport” Proposals must, of course, also be consistent with adopted airport comprehensive land use plans. City and County Planning Agencies �I February 2, 1998 ll Page 2 '1 As a responsible agency and in accordance with CEQA, the Aeronautics Program should receive copies of environmental documentation for all airport or heliport projects. As an interested agency with technical expertise in the areas of airport-related noise, safety and land use issues,we also request copies of environmental documents for projects within two nautical miles of an airport. Proposals of particular concern to us include uses which are considered noise sensitive or people intensive; e.g.,residential,Hospitals,nursing homes,elementary and secondary schools,college campuses and other similar land uses for which the significant common element is the inability of the people occupying the space to vacate an area. ,I The Aeronautics Program is required by law(Education Code Sections 17215 and 31033) to conduct evaluations for school and community college sites within two nautical miles of an airport runway. Public Utilities Code Section 21655 requires that we also investigate proposed construction sites for new state buildings within two nautical miles of an airoort runway. Often,the CEQA process provides the best opportunity to ensure that affected parties are aware of these.laws. It should be noted that in accordance with Federal Aviation Regulations Part 77,the Federal Aviation Administration(FAA)may require submission of a Notice of Proposed Construction or Alteration (Form 7460-1) for proposed construction near airports. The FAA then conducts an airspace study and makes a determination as to whether or not the proposal constitutes a hazard to air navigation. In addition, enclosed foryour information is the FAA Advisory Circular 150/5200-33 entitled Hazardous Wildlife Attractants on or Near Air parts. This circular provides guidance when proposing to locate certain uses;e.g.,waste disposal facilities, in the vicinity of a public-use airport. In summary, projects that fall under PRC Section 21096 must use the Handbook as a technical resource in the preparation of an environmental impact report or negative declaration. Proposals must also be consistent with adopted airport comprehensive land use plans. As a responsible agency, we require copies of all environmental documents pertaining to airport or heliport projects including airport master plans and comprehensive land use plans. As an interested agency with technical expertise,we request copies of all environmental documents including general plans, specific plans and individual development proposals for projects within two nautical miles of an Thank you for your time. If you have questions regarding this letter, please contact our Environmental Planner,Ms. Sandy Hesnard, at 916/654-5314. For assistance with the Handbook, please contact our Aviation Planner, Ms. Christa-Maria Engle,at 916/654-5553. Sincerely, ORIGINAL.SIGNED BY MARLIN BECKWFM, Program Manager ✓fano er Aeronautics Program ' Enclosures c: Airport Land Use Commissions,Airport Managers, State Clearinghouse ' - 7 •3525 14th STREET• RIVERSIDE.CA 925013813 (9091955-&W..(9091955 ZM Fax APPLICATION, FOR DEVELOPMENT REVIEW APPLICANT INFORMATION: �A. Representative: Mailing Address: Telephone No.: Owner. --------------- Mailing Address: = Telephone No.: tROJECT INFORMATION: Project Description: `• Location of Project: f. Approving Jurisdiction: County City of 2." Project Reviewer Name (Planner) 4. Thomas Bros. Map, Page & Coordinates: 5. Address of Project: (Building Permit Only) 6. Assessor Parcel Number. -- Project Type: Residential _ Commercial/Industrial_ Other _ Change of Zone # _.__General Plan Amendment # Parcel Map # _Tract Map # _ Plot Plan/Site Plan # _Conditional Use Permit # —S pecific Plan # _ Other. Type # tLICANT CERTIFICATION: ertify that the information provided is true and accurate as it relates to this proposal. SUBMISSION PACKAGE: ALUC REVIEW STAFF REVIEW "" 1. . . . . . Project Site Plan -Folded 1 . . . . Project Site Plans=Folded 1. . . . . . Elevations of Buildings Folded 1 . . . . Elevations of Buldings - Folded - 1 Each . 8 V2 x 11 Acetate-of the above-_ i . . . . 8 %2-x 11 Vicinity Map. 1. . . . . . 8 %2 x 11 Acetate showing project 1 Set . Gummed address labels of the in relationship to airport owner and representative i 2 Sets. . Gummed address Labels of the 1 Set . Gummed address labels of the Owner and representative. approving jurisdiction project 1 Set Gummed address labels of all reviewer. property owners wftin a 600' radius of the project site or where less than 25 property owners are located within 600', expand the area until 25 owners are yielded or to a maximum distance of 2,400 from project boundaries. - 2 Sets . .Gummed address labels of the approving jurisdiction project reviewer. FEE SCHEDULE (Effective July 1, 1990): ALUC REVIEYV wilding Permit Review General Plan Element Review Initial Project Review $310.00 Initial Project Review $2,000.00 Amended Project Review $210.00 Amended Project Review $1,330.00 fnange of Zone Review Other Environmental Assessments Review itial Project Review $720.00 Initial Project Review $905.00 Amended Project Review $480.00 Amended Project Review $600.00 mmunity Plan Review Parcel Map Review - nitial Project Review $2,000.00 Initial Project Review $720.00 ended Project Review $1,300.00 Amended Project Review $480.00 nditional Use Permit Plot/Site Plan Review Initial Project Review $720.00 Initial Project Review $720.00 mended Project Review $480.00 Amended Project Review $480.00 nvironmental Impact Report Review Specific Plan Review ilial Project Review $1,650.00 Initial Project Review $1,765.00 mended Project Review $1,100.00 Amended ProjectReview $1,180.00 a eral Plan Amendment Review Tract Map Review itial Project Review $720.00 Initial Project Review $820.00 mended Project Review $480.00 Amended Project Review $550.00 Review $98.00 ■inimum Deposit - $98.00) i U i i1 ' 2 AVIGATION EASEMENT ' 3I WHEREAS , herein 4 called Grantor , is the owner in fee of that certain parcel of 5 land situated in the County of Riverside, State of California , more particulariv described as : 6 ■ 7 8 i9 10 herein called the Servient Tenement. i11 NOW, THEREFORE, for valuable consideration, the receipt 12 and sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged , Grantor, for itself , its heirs , administrators, executors , successors and '13 assigns , does hereby grant and convey unto the County of Riverside, California , herein called Grantee, its successors , 14 assigns , lessees , sublessees , licensees and invitees , for the use and benefit of the public, an easement and right-of-way, 15 appurtenant to the Airport, herein called Dominant Tenement, an avigation easement, i16 For the free and unobstructed passage of all aircraft 17 ( "aircraft" being defined for the purposes of this instrument as any . contrivance now known or hereafter invented , used, or 18 designed for navigation of or flight in the air) , by whomsoever owned and operated, in the airspace over, through, across and �19 adjacent :to the Servient Tenement, 20 Together with the right to cause in said airspace such noise, sound or shock waves, vibrations, odors , fumes, dust, fuel i21 particles, smoke, light, thermal waves, air quality changes and other results transmitted from the operation of aircraft of all 22 types now known or hereafter designed and used for navigation of or flight. in the air, by reason of any use ancillary or 123 incidental to the operation of the Dominant Tenement and by reason of any operational incidental effects thereof including such as may occur in and from take-off, landing and approach 4 patterns into and from the Dominant Tenement. 25 To have and to hold said easement and right-of-way and 16 all tights appertaining thereto unto Grantee, its successors , assigns , lessees , sublessees, licensees and invitees, until the 27 Dominant Tenement shall be abandoned and shall cease to be used for public airport purposes, it being understood and agreed that 8 these ,covenants and agreements shall run with the land . 1 1 11 Grantor, for itself , its heirs , administrators, 2 executors , successors and assigns , does hereby waive , remise and release any right or cause of action which it may now have or 3 which it may have in the future against Grantee, its successors and assigns , due to such noise, sound or shock waves, vibrations . 4 odors , fumes , dust,. fuel particles , smoke, light, thermal waves , air quality changes and other results in said airspace that may 5 be caused or may have been caused by the operation of aircraft of 11 all types now known or hereafter designed and used for navigation 6 of or flight in the air , by reason of any use ancillary or incidental to the operation of the Dominant Tenement and by 7 reason of any operational incidental effects thereof including such as may occur in and from take-off , landing and approach '! 8 patterns into and from the Dominant Tenement. Said waiver and release shall include, but shall not be limited to, claims , known 9 or unknown, for damages for physical or emotional injuries , discomfort, inconvenience, property damage, death, interference 10 with use and enjoyment of property, diminution of property values , nuisance or inverse condemnation or for injunctive or 11 other extraordinary or equitable relief . Grantor, for itself , its heirs , administrators , executors, successors and assigns , 12 agrees that Grantee shall have no duty to avoid or mitigate such damages by, without -limitation, setting aside or condemning 13 buffer lands, rerouting air traffic, erecting sound or other barriers, establishing curfews , noise or other regulations . 14 Grantor, for itself; its heirs , administrators . �+ 15 executors , successors and assigns, agrees not to construct or permit the construction or growth of any structure, tree or other ,1 16 object that obstructs or interferes with the use of the rights 1 herein granted or that creates electrical interference with radio 17 communication between any installation within said airport and aircraft, or to cause difficulty for pilots to distinguish 18 between airport lights and other lights, or to impair visibility in the vicinity of said airport, or to otherwise endanger the 19 landing, take-off or maneuvering of aircraft. Grantor, for itself , its heirs, administrators, executors, successors and 20 assigns , agrees that Grantee shall have the right to mark and light as obstructions to air navigation any such building, 21 structure, tree or other object now upon, or that in the future may be upon the Servient Tenement, together with the right of 22 ingress to, egress from and passage over and within the Servient Tenement for the purpose of accomplishing such marking and 23 lighting. 24 25 26 27 / / / / 28 2 i ` I i 1 Executed this day of , 19 ' 2 GRANTOR _ 3 4I 5 i 6 7 8 STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) 9 ) ss COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE) 10 On before me,, the undersigned, a Notary 11 Public in and for said State, personally appeared personally known to me to be the person who � 2 executed this instrument and acknowledged to me that (s)he ��■1` executed the same . 3 WITNESS my hand and official seal . �4 15 NAME (Typed or Printed) 6 (notarial seal ) �7 8 �9 20 12 3 25 ,7 r �� 3 �01-99 17. 00 FRom:CITY OF TE14ECULA I I ID.9096946477 FACE 5/14 County of Riverside 1 DEPARTMENT OF ENViRONIVIE,ITAL HEALTH DATE: June 10, 1999 ' TO: CITY OF TEMECL`LA PLANNT-VG DEPARTMENT 11), ATTl is John De Gange FROM: JOHv C. SILvA P E., Senior °ublic Health Endneer RE: RORIPAUGH RANCH—Environmental Impact Reoor. iThe proposal to construct 2058 dwelling units on 788 acres including 10 acres of commercial development; two (2) schools; approximately 200 acres of park and open space; and various other ac:ivities has been reviewed. The Agency responsible for providing water and sanitary sewer to the project is Eastern Municipal Water District(E-MWD). According to the project report, water consumption will be 1,120,000 gallons per day- EMWD ' advises that pipeline extensions from 1-3 miles will be required to provide service. Wastewater flows are projected to be 870,000— 890,000 gallons per day_ EMWD advises in 1998 that current flows into their Temecula valley Plant are six (6) MGD and the facility is capable of treating eight (8) MGD. However, with the huge development activities that have been on-going for the past 18 months, it is doubtful char any capacity will be available unless EMWD proposes to expand their ' facility to handle the increased flows that are being projected from this and other developments, i.e., Johnson Ranch. JEThe use of tertiary treated reclaimed water should be utilized throughout the parks and open space. Please feel free to contact me at(909) 955-8980 with any questions. JCS:dr (909) 955-8980 ex Juby 16 1999.3:11 - Frm 1213 217 7MI -- Page 2 Sul. 16. 1999 3:55PM PLANNING RESC I1TH No. 5839 P. 2/11 MWD METROPOLITAN WATER DISTRICT OFSOUTHERN CAUFORNO iOffice ofoe Gener d Manver ' July 14, 1999 W.John DeGange City of Temecula Community Development Department 43200 Business Park Drive Temecula, CA 92590 Dear Mr.DeGange: Roripaugh Ranch Specific Plan and Draft Environmental Imnact Report(SCR#97121030)in the City of Temecula The Metropolitan Water District of Southern California(Metropolitan)has received a Specific Plan and Draft Environmental Impact Report(M) for the Roripaugh Ranch Project in the City of Temecula(City). The proposed project consists of 2,058 units on 788 acres with a gross density of 261 units per acre and a net density of 4.26 units per acre- The project includes 1,589 single family units, 360 multi-f=amily units, 10 acres of commercial uses, 30 acres for 2 school sites (elementary and middle schools 23 acres for 3 onsite parks plus a 3-acre offsite pari:; and 181 acres of open space- The proposed Specific Plan contains a comprehensive land use plan;master plans for circulation,phasing, grading, open space and recreation, landscape, walls and fences, master utility plans for drainage, water, sewer,planning area and development standards;site planning design guidelines; and architectural guidelines. This letter contains our response as a potentially affected public agency_ General Comments As indicated in previous correspondence with the applicant,Metropolitan has ongoing concerns regarding the impact of the proposed project on several of our existing facilities- Attached for your reference are Metropolitan's letters to Mr. lurk Shimek of David Evans and Associates 1 dated March 10 and April 26, 1999. It will be necessary for the applicant to consider the facilities as described in these letters in the applicant's project planning and address our concerns in the Final Specific Plan and EIR- In addition,we request that any plans for any activity in the area of Metropolitan's pipelines and rights-of way be submitted for our review and written approval. Enclosed for your reference is a copy of the"Guidelines for Developments in the Area'of Facilities,Fee Properties, and/or Easements of The Metropolitan Water District of Southern (� California" I C, 70a It AWnefta Street,Las Anoeles.Cafifomia 90012.1taifmo adtres:Bunt UI53.Ins AnaelPs.Uifamia QMSA-at i7.T.1wih ,o n111717-um iday July 16, 1999 3:11pm -- From 1213 217 7778' -- Page 3 1! Jul. 16. 1999 3:55PM PLANNING RESC 11TH No. 5839 P. 3/11 7MAUB IAV w.aHl a'mmBA'cv(7�91u ,I Mr. JohnDeCrange Page 2 _ July 14, 1999 Specific Comments ,I • Section 1-d(Other Environmental Documentation),page 1-9 Please revise the follawmg sentence: "In addition, the Rancho CaLforma Water District and the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California are in the process of preparing eovironmcptal documentation for a new water pipeline to be constructed in the vicinity of the z project." This sentence should read: In addition,the Rancho California Water District has prepared and released for public review a draft environmental impact report for its EM-2o Turnout and Transmission Main project, a new water pipeline to be constructed in the vicinity of the proposed project. Further north of the proposed project, the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California is preparing its own environmental documentation for its conversion of the existing San Diego Pipeline No. 3 from a raw to a treated water transmission facility." • Secrion ZS(Intended Use nfIke FlR),Page X14 3 Please add an item that states: "Consideration and approval by Metropolitan where Metropolitan's existing fee property and easement rights of way are crossed or utilized (e.g., 0 drainage facilities, utilities and traffic facilities)." • Section 3.121 (Water)page 3-152 (Environmental Setting),Paragraphs 3 and 4;and page r 3-I5(Consumption and Onsite System) Metropolitan is a regional imported water wholesaler whose service area covers the 1 Roripaugh Specific Plan- Metropolitan does not provide retail water service. The proposed project is located within the Eastern Municipal Water District's (EMWD) service area, a Metropolitan member agency. Metropolitan's service connection"turnouts,"such as LM-17 and TM l 1 referenced in the Speck Plan, provide wholesale water supply to member agencies such as EMWD, and only upon their request These service connections are not and can not be indicative of any commitment to provide retail water service- Requests for retail water service should be coordinated through EMWD and not Metropolitan. Contacts with EMWD indicate that they do not currently or in the future plan to request service from 1 Metropolitan at the EM-11 location indicated in the Specific Plan • Secdon..IZ1 (Consumpiion)page 3-IS3 , The Draft EIR contains water demand projections ofapproximately 1,254 AFY for the proposed project These calculations assume 200 gallons per capita per day(gpcd)- Metropolitan's estimate of 200 gpcd is for residential developments in Riverside County only. The proposed project is a mixed use development that includes 250 employees, as well as schools and parks, among other uses. Although the number of employees is low compared to the population, the presence of nonresidential uses makes total water use factor rather than residential use factor more appropriate. Metropolitan recommends that the applicant use a V higher factor, for example 213 gpcd, as contained in EMWD's 1995 Urban Water day JutY 16, 1999 3c11pa -- From '213 217 7TMI -- Page 61 Sal. 16. 1999 3:56H PLANNING to RESC LITH No. 5839 P. 4/11 r nEtff awz&vWaRaga7arsx)mwCIAM rMr_ John Derange Page 3 ' July 14, 1999 SManagement Plan- Using 218 gpcd, the demand for the proposed project would be 068 AFY, nine percent higher than the current estimate_ Conclusion Metropolitan requests that the City analyze the consistency of the proposed project with the growth management plan adopted by the Southern California Association of Governments ' (SCAG)_ Metropofctan uses SCAG's population,housing and employment projections to determine fugue water demand. Development above these forecast provisions may increase demand on Metrapolitan's resources and facilities beyond that anticipated rAdditionally,Metropolitan encourages projects within its service area to include water conservation measures. While Metropolitan continues to build new supplies and develop means r �7 for more efficient use of current resources, projected population and economic growth will I increase demands on the current system. Water conservation, reclaimed water use, and groundwater recharge programs are integral components to regional water supply planning. Metropolitan supports mitigation measures such as using water efficient fixtures, drought-tolerant landscaping, and reclaimed water to offset any increase in water use associated with the proposed ' project. We appreciate the opportunity to provide input to your planning process and we look forward to receiving future environmental documentation on this project. lfwe can be offiuther assisrance, please contact me at(213)217-6242. ' Very truly yours, Laura J. Simonek Principal Environmental Specialist ' DTF: rEnclosures r r r iday July 16, 1999 3:11pn -- Fran 1213 217 77781 -- Page 5 Jul. 16. 1999 3:56PM PLANNING & BESC 11TH No. 5839 P. 5/11 MWD ME7AOPOUTANWgTERpISTRICTOFSDUTNEANCAUfOAN/A 0/rice of the Genera!N,agager MWD San Diego Pipelines Nos. l and 2 11 Sta. 1191+00 to 1193+00 1 R/W Parcels SDN-22-78 and-22-2P-78 MWD San Diego Pipelines Nos.3,4,and 5 �I Sta. 1276+00 to 1303+00 R/W Parcels I42-2-3 and-5 (Fee) and SDA-P-3-9 and-13 Substr. Job No.2029-98-005 Mr. Kirk Shimek David Evans and Associates 800 North Haven Avenue, Suite 300 1� Ontario, CA 91764 Dear Mr. Shimek: Roripauoh Ranch 4 Thank you for your letter of transmittal dated February 8, 1999,submitting prints of Sheet I of I 'I of the School/Park site exhibit plans, Sheets 1 through 5 of 5 of the pipeline crossing plans,and Sheets 11 and 16 of the sewer plans for the proposed Roripaugh Ranch development in the City of Temecula. �l Metropolitan's rights-of--way and facilities will be affected by your proposed project;therefore, we require a deposit in the amount of 55,000 to apply towards the cost of our engineering review of your project. The final billing will be based on actual cost incurred,and will include engineering plan review, inspection, and administrative overhead charges calculated in accordance with our standard accounting practices. If the cost is less than the deposit, a refund will be made; however, if the cost exceeds the deposir,an invoice will be forwarded for payment of the additional amount_ �I We have reviewed your preliminary plans, and our continents and requirements are as follows: �I I. The locations of Metropolitans 50-foot and 170-foot-wide permanent easements and 70-foot-wide fee property, the horizontal locations of our 54-inch, 48-inch,and 75-inch-inside-diameter precast concrete San Diego Pipelines Nos. 1.2, and 3, and 99-inch and 96-inch-inside-diameter prestressed concrete San Diego Pipelines Nos 4 and' �I 5, as shown on your plans, are generally in agreement with our records. However-please y MY 16 1999 3:11 -- Fran 1213 217 7778• ---Page 6 Jul. 16. 1999 3:57PI PLANNING & RESC ISTS Na. 5839 P. 6/I1 7W MMMU=V>WM MW jr=MWCghW" Mr.Kirk Shimek FAQ 1 41999 Page 2 ' check the vertical elevations of our San Diego Pipeline Nos. 3,.4, and 5 as shown on Sheets 2 through 4 of 5 of your pipeline crossing plans and Sheets 11 and 16 of your Sewer plans as our review indicates that discrepancies exist between these elevations and those shown on our existing pipeline plan and profile drawings for this area We have enclosed prints of our Plan-and-Profile Drawing Nos. B-69679,B-13751 through B-13753,B-50404 through B-50406,and B-67078 through B-67080 which delineate our pipelines through this area,for your information and use. Potholing,under Metropolitan's supervision, should also be performed to confirm the actual depth of our pipelines at the proposed street, sewer line, and water line crossings. Please indicate the station numbers for Metropolitan's pipelines-on the revised plans. 2. Sheet 1 of 1 of your SchooLT3rk Site exhibit plans indicates a proposed additional soccer field over our San Diego Pipelines Nos.3, 4, and 5. Please revise this sheet so that the additional soccer field is located outside of our tights-of--way. 3. The proposed street grade for Murrieta Hot Springs Road and San Nicolas Road over our San Diego Pipelines Nos. 3, 4,and 5,as shown on Sheets 3 and 4 of 5 of your pipeline 3 crossing plans, is unaccepta6Ie since it exceeds the maximum allowable cover. Subject to settlement limitations,the maximum allowable cover over our pipelines within the limits of your project are as follows: ' San Diego Pipeline No. 3 ' Maximum Allowable Cover(FL) Sta. 1278+40 to 1283+50 14 Stn 1283+50 to 1288+00 18 Sta. 1299+90 to 1304+30 19 San Diego Pipeline No. 4 Sta. 1278+30 to 1288+20 17 Sta. 1299+80 to 1305+10 17 San Diego Pipeline No. 5 Stn 1278+00 to 1288+00 15 ' Stn 1299+60 to 1306+90 15 Please modify the proposed grade over our pipelines in accordance with the above requirements, and submit the revised plans for our review and comment. 4. To maintain access along our right-0f-way, 16-foot-wide driveway approaches aligned to our access road must be provided on both sides of any streets which cross our right-of- way. Also, the grade of the ramps from the driveway approaches must not exceed idaY Juty 16, 1999 3:11pm -- Frw 1213 217 7779• •- Page 7 1 Jul. 16. 1999 3:57PY PLANNING & RESC 11TH No. 5939 P. 7/11 • �I 7tF reE7aoA7uAr lvma az>7�ro�zr777�z►car�u �i Mr.Kirk Shimck 1 0 Page 3 10 percent Where the ramps are paved, the grade on these ramps may increase to a maximum of 20 percent 5. A settlement analysis where the proposed additional fill over our pipelines exceeds 3 feet must be submitted for our review and written acceptance prior to grading operations within our right-of-way. This data should be carried past the zero point of change in each direction with the actual size and varying depth of the fill being considered when detemtining the settlement profile. 6. There appears to be a discrepancy between Sheet 4 of 5 of your pipeline crossing plans, i which shows a 60-inch water line and a 21-inch sanitary sewer line along Nicolas Road ,! which cross over our San Diego Pipelines Nos.3,4,and 5,whereas on Sheet 16 of your sewer plans,the sewer line is proposed to cross under our pipelines. Please revise these � plans to show the correct alignment Sheet 5 of 5 of your pipeline crossing plans and U! Sheet 11 of your sewer line plans also indicate that these proposed facilities will cross our San Diego Pipelines Nos. 1 and 2. Please finalize the alignment of the proposed crossings and show all of our pipelines in profile on your plans at these crossings. —� Fmclosed is a copy of our"Guidelines for Developments in the Area of Facilities, Fee Properties and/or Fasements of The Metropolitan Water District of Southern California," for your information- Drawing Nos. C-11632 and C-9547 from these guidelines detail our requirement for utilities which cross our pipelines. PIease incorporate these requirements into your plans Where po=-ble a minimum of one foot of clearance should be maintained between our existing water lines and your proposed utilities 7. Any sewer line which crosses our pipelines must be encased in a minimum of 4 inches of concrete with minimal reinforcement over our pipelines,for a distance of at least 10 feet on either side of the pipelines. As an alternative, ductile iron pipe with mechanical joints may be used in lieu of the encasements Please submit details of the sewer line crossing for our review and written approval. Installation of the sewer line should also conform with the local and county health code ordinances and/or California's Department of Health Services' requirements as they relate to installation of sewers in the vicinity of pressure water lines. Please incorporate into your plans the applicable requirement at the proposed sewer line crossing. 8. Prestressed concrete cylinder pipe (PCCP) is subject to catastrophic failure if damace occurs to the prestressing wire..Such damage could occur by direct impact of construction equipment upon the pipe. Such damage could also occur if the mortar coating which protects the prestressing wires were in some way damaged or cracked and t corrosion occurred. Therefore, extreme care must be taken when working in its vicinity. Ilay Jul' ib 1999.3:11 -- Frw 1213 217 7778• -- Page 8 lul. 16. 1999 3:58PM PLANNING & RESC I1TH No. 5839 P. 8/11 rW riF7HaWZtr arab DCS U XMMM CAYMW Mr. Kirk Shimek MAR 10 '1m Page 4 The mortar coating shall not be cracked,chipper scratched, or otherwise damaged. When potholing or excavating,power equipment,including a backhoe,must not be used within 2 feet of the pipe. Hand equipment only must be used- 9. sed9. A list and the specifications of all construction cgnipment to be used that will impose loads greater than AASHTO H-20 loading on our pipelines must be submitted for our review and written approval at least 2 weeks prior to their use. 10. During construction,Metropolitan's field personnel will make periodic inspections. Please add a stipulation on all pertinent plans to notify Ms.Henriette Hoang of our Operations Maintenance Brancb,telephone(21.32)217-7820, at least two working days (Monday through Thursday)prior to starting any work in the vicinity of our facilities ' 11. Please submit copies of permanent easement deed for the existing public street and utility rights-of-way over Metropolitan's fee property in this area; otherwise, an easement must ' be obtained for any street and utility over Metropolitan's fee property. The corresponding legal description and plat must be in accordance with our"Guidelines for Legal Descriptions and Accompanying Exhibit Maps; copy enclosed,and should be submitted for our review and subsequent processing of the required easements. Also, appropriate entry rights must be obtained for any work proposed outside the rights-of--way for the proposed streets within our fee property. Please contact Mr.Daniel T.Clewley of ors Property Management Section, telephone (213)217-7576, concerning this matter. Please revise your plans in accordance with our requirements and submit prints of the revised plans for our review and written approval prior to construction. We are returning prints of Sheets 1 through 5 of 5 of your pipeline crossing plans, Sheets 11 and 16 of your sewer plans, and Sheet 1 of 1 of your School/Park Site exhibit plans, stamped "REVIEWED -CORRECTIONS NOTED RESUBMITTAL REQUIRED." Plans for any landscaping,storm drain, or other activities proposed within Metropolitan's right- of-way must also be submitted for our review and prior written approval. Please note that no trees are allowed within our right-of-way, but ground cover is permitted. The landscape plans must contain provisions to maintain access along our rights-of-way. Facilities constructed within Metropolitan's fee property and easement shall be subject to the paramount right of Metropolitan to use the fee property and easement for the purpose for which they were acquired. If at any time Metropolitan or its assigns should,in the exercise of their rights,find it necessary to remove any of the facilities from the fee property and easement, such removal and replacement shall be at the expense of the owner of the facility. •iday JUty 16, 1999 3:11pa -- Frm '213 217 777& -- Page 9 �I Jul. 16. 1999 3:59PM PLANNING & IESC 11TH Na, 5839 P. 9/11 KAR 2 0 lggg O W.Kirk Shimek Page 5 �I If the foregoing terms and conditions are acceptable,please have the owner or his authorized representative so indicate by signing the duplicate original of this leiter and returning it to �+ Metropolitan. Upon receipt of the deposit and the executed duplicate of this letter and the submittal of the revised plans,we will proceed with our review of your project,and provide you with our comments and requirements �I For any further correspondence with Metropolitan relating to this project please make referencc to the MWD Substructures Job Number shown in the upper right-hand comer of the first page of this letter. Should you require any additional information,please contact Mr.Jose Bautista, telephone(213)217-6092- Very truly yours, h M Lahouti,P-E.,LS- Senior Engineer t General Design,Relocations,and Substructu=Section Manager KMCJJM/gs DOCK: 309-Shimck Enclosures(3) In Duplicate CONFIRM ACCEPTANCE By: wu� Date: T-111e: Vl[£ cc: City of Temecula Public Works Department 43200 Business Park Drive Temecula, CA 92589 J ,. By- July ib 1999 3:11 -- Fr= 1213 217 7M, -- Page 10 ' Jul. 16. 1999 3:59PM PLANNING & RESC 11TN No- 5839 P. 10/11 ' APR 2 S 1999 ' MWD San Diego Pipelines Nos. 1 and 2 Sta. 1191+00 to 1193+00 R/W Parcels SDN-22-78 and-22-2P-78 ' MWD San Diego Pipelines Nos.3,4,and 5 Sta- 1276+0010 1303+00 R/W Parcels 142-2-3 and-5(Fee) ' and SDA-P-3-9 and-13 Project No. 701488 ' Substr.Job No. 2029-9&005 ' Mr. Kirit Shimek David Evans and Associates 800 North Haven Avenue, Suite 300 ' Ontario, CA 91764 Dear Mr. Shimck RoripauFh Ranch ' Reference is made to the meeting held at our office on March 30, 1999,between Mr. Kirk Shimek and Mr.Je$ey Ruff ofyour office,Mr. Wesley Hylen of Pacific Summit Consultants, and Mr Kieran Callanan and Mr. Jose Bautista of Metropolitan,regarding the proposed Roripaugh Ranch development in the City of Temecula. At this meeting you submitted Check No. 10017,dated March 23, 1999, is the amount of $5,000 from Ashby Development Company, Inc.,as a deposit to apply towards the cost of our engineering review of your project Included with this submittal was an executed copy of the ' duplicate original of our March I0, 1999,letter to you for this project,which confirms your acceptance of the terms and conditions of this letter- In response to our concerns regarding your proposed street improvements for Murrieta Hot Springs Road and San Nicolas Road over our San Diego Pipelines Nos. 3,4, and 5,it was agreed at the meeting that the following items will be submitted to Metropolitan to facilitate our review of your proposed road crossings over our pipelines: I. Preliminary drawings conceptually showing a separate protective slab over each of our pipelines_ If the concept is found to be acceptable, calculations and detailed drawings of the proposed protective slabs must be submitted for our review and written approval. Construction joints must be provided in the protective slabs at every 20 feet ".daY JutY 16, 1999 3:11pa -- FrM -213 217 7778' -- Page Jul. 16. 1999 3:59PM PLANNING 6 RESC 11TH No. 5839 P. 11/11 J APR 2sim �I W. Kirit Shimek Page 2 I �1 2. A soils report for the areas of the proposed road crossings across Metropolitan's right-of- way. Please note that an entry permit will be required to perform any boring within the 70-foot-wide fee property strip of our right-of-way. �I It was also agreed that a permanent access easement will be granted to Metropolitan for the propos access road that will be outside our right-of-way on the south side of Murrieta Hot '{ Springs Road. As also discussed is the meeting, the rem-utiag concerns from our March I0 letter will also be addressed Please submit prints of your revised plans for our review and prior written approval For any further correspondence with Metropolitan relating to this project,please make reference ,) to the MWD Substructures Job Number shown in the upper right-hand corner of the first page of this Ietter_ Should you require any additional information,please contact Mr.Jose Bautista, telephone(213)217-6092. ,I Very truly yours, NOWskjW br 11 Mach U.UW Mitch M Lahouti,PJF.,L.S. Senior Engineer General Design,Relocations,and Substructures Section Manager KMCIJB/Jtm DOC#: 1425raraacb-2 cc: City of Temecula Public Works Department 43200 Business Park Drive Temecula,CA 92589 bcc: J. P. Kelly D. E.Forsyth K M. Callanan G. Castro B. J. Folsom J. Bautista K Hoang A. Hassam Civil Substructures File K L. King M.M Lahouti ' July 12, 1999 ' John DeGange, Case Planner Wabr City of Temecula 43174 Business Park Drive Temecula, CA 92590-3606 ' Board of Di. : Ralph H.Daily SUBJECT: RORIPAUGH RANCH SPECIFIC PIAN ' Doug a.RWberg [PROJECT NO. D08101 Doug S.vice Preaidm[ Liao D.Herman Dear Mr. DeGange: 'caaba F.K. SeottANelntyre Thank you for the opportunity to provide comments on the Draft Environmental JefheyLAiWtler Impact Report for the Roripaugh Ranch Specific Plan. The following comments are George X wand. provided as additional information or clarification to the water utilities section of the Draft Environmental Impact Report: om[e.a: 'J hn Man'., 1. The entire Roripaugh Ranch Specific Plan area is outside the boundaries of the General Nana4er Phillip L Forbin Rancho California Water District (RCWD) and water service will be provided ° ° alF�anR. to the Roripaugh Ranch Specific Plan area by Eastern Municipal Water cb"Lemon District (EMWD): Due to the phasing of the proposed development and the construction of EMWD water service facilities, the project proponent Kenneth C.Dewy anticipates acquiring temporary water service for portions of the Roripaugh Ranch Specific Plan area from RCWD until water service is made available by Nawanmce nnne er RLouck 1 EMWD. RCWD has preliminarily indicated that sufficient capacity is Caa� ar available from RCWD's 1610 Pressure Zone water facilities located near the da k Ftegoao ssec:<ua.<.m--^^dm - southwest boundary of the Roripaugh Ranch Specific Plan area. In order for as Manager RCWD to provide temporary water service the project applicant needs to Qws[&Krieger LLP submit a request to EMWD for EMWD to enter into an agreement with �C.,'' RCWD for the temporary water service to the Roripaugh Ranch Specific Plan e n area. Depending upon the size of the area that will require temporary water service, the project applicant may be required to perform a hydraulic analysis ' of RCWD's 1610 Pressure Zone area to verify hydraulic capacity and to construct temporary water service facilities if required, as determined in the ' hydraulic analysis. 2. RCWD is proposing to construct several potable water system facilities not ' required for the Roripaugh-Ranch Specific Plan but within the project vicinity, 2.. as noted below. fc (� I l , 0 Transmission Main (Project No. DO810): This project will L l� 6(t4;A of a 54-inch diameter pipeline . within Nicolas Road from ' I JUL15 199 '1ester Road to the proposed Butterfield Stage Road and within the LIJ pr sed Butterfield Stage Road from Nicolas Road to Borel Road. By L t Rancho Califarrtia water Diatrlet John DeGanget0ty of Temecula July 12, 1999 Page Two I B. Nicolas Reservoir (Project No. 98016): This project will consist of a single 7.0-million- gallon reservoir within the Rancho Bella Vista and Winchester Properties' (Silverhawk) Specific Plan areas. C. Nicolas Reservoir Inlet/Outlet Transmission Main (Project No. 98018): This project Will consist of a 30-inch diameter pipeline within the proposed RCWD easement from the Nicolas Reservoir site to the proposed Murrieta Hot Springs Road and within the proposed Murrieta Hot Springs Road from Seraphim Road to Butterfield Stage Road. D. Nicolas Road 1485 Pressure Zone Pipeline (Project No. 98017): This project will consist of a 12-inch diameter pipeline within the proposed Nicolas Road from Butterfield Stage Road Zto MWD's Second San Diego Aqueduct. E. 1610 Pressure Zone Pipeline (Project No. 98017): This project will consist of 16-inch 7 diameter pipeline within the proposed Butterfield Stage Road. from La .Serena Way.to Calle Chapos and within Calle Chapos from Butterfield Stage Road to Riverton Lane. F. Butterfield Stage Road 1485 Pressure Zone Pipeline (Project No. 98020): This project ,) will consist of 30-inch diameter pipeline within the proposed Butterfield Stage Road from Chemin Clinet to La Serena Way, and within the proposed Butterfield Stage Road from Murrieta Hot Springs Road to Calle Chapos; and within Calle Chapos from Butterfield Stage Road to Walcott Lane. G. La Serena Way 1485 Pressure Zone Pipeline (Project No. 98020): This project willI consist of 30-inch diameter pipeline within La Serena Way from Butterfield Stage Road to Walcott Lane and a 24-inch diameter pipeline within La Serena Way from Walcott Lane to Calle Medusa. The aforementioned projects may be constructed before or after the proposed construction activities associated with the Roripaugh Ranch Specific Plan. If possible, RCWD will coordinate the pipeline construction activities with the proposed road improvements within the project area. If you have any questions or need additional information, please call me. Sincerely, RANCHO CALIFORNIA WATER DISTRICT l� Andrew L. Webster, P.E. Planning & Capital Projects Manager 991AW:mc0281n0810 cc: Steve Brannon,Development Engineering Manager ' 01-99 17-: 00 FROM=CITY OF TEMECULA 10.9096946477 PACE 3/14 60M0 Of EDUCAMN Paw SHWh A.doay TEMECULA VALLEY ;rcnaro Srmiw ' Unified Schoai OiStrict Ea Saw SUPE+ONT-=NOENT :airy Hobba 1 MMIOT Cav�C 9..vlmm 9=wa Tooke frwear 1 lune 11, 1999 W. John DeGange ' City of Temecula Planning Department 43200 Business Park Drive Temecula, CA 92590 1 SUBJECT: Roripaugh Ranch EIFL Dear Mr. DeGange. 1 Temecula Valley Unified School District has reviewedhe Draft EM for Roripaugh Ranch 1 elementary and middle school site located within the plan. Each school site The proposed project has an requires road access an 2 adjacent sides, one for bus access, one for automobile access, for student drop- off and pick-un.The length of frontage shall exceed the minimums of 700 feet long side and 500 feet short side for tic elementary school sites, and exceed the minimums of 1000 feet long side and 700 feet 1 short side for the middle school site. The.elementary school site is shown as being 10 acres. The school site is also adjacent to a park site. CLuTent California Deparment of Education Guidelines currently require a minimum 12-acre elementary school site_ The school could rely on the adjacent park for some of its playing fields, only if the school is given exclusive access and use of a portion of the park area during school hours. If exclusive access is 1 not possible, the school site size would need to be increased to 12 acres. The fallowing information should be updated in your section relating to schools_ ,We Temecula Valley Unified School District will be implementing a single track school calendar beginning in August of 1999- The project area will initially be served by the James L.Day Middle School- The permanent capacities of the schools currently serving the Roripaugh Ranch are_per state 1 loading standards are.Nicolas Valley Elementary,550; James L.Day Middle School,864; Chaparral High School,2,052. 1 The number of students expected hithe s hoof Roripaugh Ranch development are 850 elementary students, 366 middle school students, high On , ay 4 1999, the Governing Hoard of the Temecula Valley Unified School District in accordance with Government Code Section 65995.5,65995.6 and 65995.7,adopted Level Two and Level Three alternative fees on residential construction. These fees, which are updated on an annual basis, are currently 33.01 per square foot for Level 2 fees, and 56.01 per square foot for Level 3 fees. The then 1 current fees would be applicable to residential building permits within[the Roripaugh Ranch Specific 37350 Rancho Testa Read/Tamecwa.CA 92592/(909)076-2667 1 UL.r01-99 17,00 FRoM.CITV OF TE14ECULA ID-9096846477 PACE 4/14 1� Roripaugh Ranch EM June 11, 1999 Page 2 L+ t1plaL Commercial building permits would be subject to the statutory school impact fee, which is urrently 50.31 per square foot,and will be updated in January 3000,and every two years thcresfter- If you have any questions•please contact the Facilities Smites Department at(909)695-7115. Sincerely, Temecula Valley TJpged School -'trict 1! /J,antt Dixon (�oordinatar ofFacilities Services 1� cc: Dave Gallaher,Director of Facilities Services 1 1� 1� 11 Is Il Il 1 11 1 09-99 11 :24 FROM:C I TY OF TEMECULA ID=9096946477 PAGE 2/4 Western Riverside Council at Governments ' CovnolOfMVs�a't►'o,• CItyofSuo rtOWofa�FMM&atra�a of Canna WRGG =. OorNanetartyatLaW l0vM0hotAknne W.aYdUwdm.�Yo/xmeaCllYdParis aydR&Vfsidt MYafsoJaeuact my aTWVcu a July 12, 1999 btr. Jahn DeGange ' Temeeula(Sty pall 43200 Busiam Path Dr1ve TemeMls, CA 92590 RE C =Ants an the Draft Fstviroumental Impart Report for the Goripaugh Ranch Spearee ' PLan-SCAG No.I990t1265 ' Dear aI+Fr >x GSSG DeDn$IIR for the above referenced project to the Wescaa erside RivCouna7 of Thank you You for x sB(WR-COG)far lcview and..,,, nc WRCOG isassisting Souchern Califbmia As oa of Cxn' rg Guvetn:1s(SCAG)in reviewing regionally srrrficant Prof on thcr bcJsaIf for consistency with adopted regional pians SCAG sraff, of the Community. Econnoue and 73urmm Development Contour', as vpropriaza,manus with tree tamnicnM- ' Federal and state law m mbfts that d.t��age es renewPreJcd3 of regional signifimnce for with adopted rea onai plans. 'Ibis is called B=Wvcrnmmtal review of IGR. Sp��Y, their ; ,y 1 Aa (CEQA) zequiresthatprojeczdecmedtobeof stat wi rrOmd ' the ejwi& E oij5ca cc-b Q ty for ,ft is=cy with mgional plans (Section 152t>t7_ CFQA also or arciwide Wit "be ten EM en's �� stains and any requires that the contents of as F1R include a discussion of tfra proj in mistencies vritb app>ic able general and rcgkuml plans(Section 15125)• If there arc any ioconsistc r an tacplanatioo and rationale for such incoasi tics should be provided- SCAG mcownger subrcgioeal 38cneics like WRCOG, to assist for GK=Vonsibthy. �nty�TGR ' proj�)oc=tet within their sobregional arca SCAG Provides a sp Vi1RCOG mm I GF rcspoufairy as outlined in their' Inrergovemmental Review Prnc&&m Horaftolr p this process. tcd which included a finding that WRCOG's Subregional Compr6"sivc Plan (SACT') was ' ve Play and Guide (RCPG). Based on this Sndttlg IG IL with SCAG's Regional Comprehem; R conducted by VIRCOG for the we'tem Riverside County subregion will be based on the 8101 and policies of Subreajoad Cnmprelumshve Plat ' TWarum the comments are meant w provide guidance for mnsideriug the proposed project within Z Context of our tegional goals and Policia_Please semi WRCOG a copy of the Final F.IILonce it bewmrs avaaabia If you have any questions regarding the =ached wmmet>ts, please contact me or Sandra ' Paulsen, Staff Analyst, at(909)787-7985. Sin ' Steve Studdicc Director of Planning 3830 Lcman Sltccf, Suite 300 • 7 v2fsfd4, Gt 92501 • (909)787-7985 • Far f909)787-79V . UG-09-99 11 :24 FROM= CITY OF TEMECULA I023096946477 PACE 3/4 �I MMMM IS ON TSE DRAT[MR FOB THE ROMAVGH RANCH SPF.CMC pIAN.SCAG No.B90065 PROJE T DESCIUM9—M i development of 2,058 residences on 788 acres with a Sross density of 2.61 dulae Ile project involves dee d a Ile[density of 4.26 du/ac. The project includes 1,589 single family residences, 360 multi-family an mm,n 10 saes of mmmecrrW uses.30 aces for two school sites,23 acres for paries and 181 acres of open i 3 space_ Tho Draft ETR,has been prepared with Chapter 4 devowd to General plan and WRCOG consistency.The ,Goals and polices rated in dw 7aonary 6,1999 letter from WRCOG r"wading to the Notice of preparation of this EM have been discussed adequately.The reader is also referred to appropriate sections of the E R fix further irdormatioA on E=cu at issues We concur that the pmject is generally mn��M sth policies of the SCI'. Howeves the following general comments should be Airthcr addressed in �� e Irani 7F� GROWTH MANAGEMENT Fl-EMENT- SGiG 3'.01 O Die EIR should discuss whether dIe prof cer'I grOKM projecrions are cc Iwl.nr wide the population,hour tg and Jobs foreceru for erre Western Riverside Cmmry g WRCOG Scoff UL As SCAG has designated subregions. this Project is within the numbers Subregion. The Haat EiR sbould include an analysis of rhe population,housing and employment numbers I consistent with SCAG allocation to WRCOG;and the dissagagragation to the City of Temecula. The subregionai forer�ts (from the 1998 XM and C1tY of Temecula forxssu follow 'i WRCOG 2000 20W 2010 2015 2020 Subregion al Population 1,315,300 1,564,900 1,814,100 2.033 900 2.264,000 424,600 504,800 585.400 647,300 730,900 households 'f 366employment ,700 464,800 563,200 644 900 740,300 Temeohls 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 s400 72,100 89,900 105,600 122,000 population - housaholds 16,800 21,800 26,800 30,700 35,900 30,200 34.100 employment 191700 23.200 27,000 s •} I Inti 09-99 11 .24 FROM:CITt OF TEMECULA 10 =9096946477 PAGE 4/4 L the proposed it Matt is conusrmt wnh nearly all of tha Welt&M llltCrSlde SubrrIoo C4xvmAVWtWX=P0Jki=which are in nun,=sisteor wilt SCAG's Ii'egtcnd C&,FrIsh0tTL`4CR= S gra Gae. it 1x13 &acus= ceguxfing to Redfwtal 7lmatporr®'ae Pfmr relative m Regional '1Le Final M shot& include&Scwma regarding Gro%th MaffiBement poptIl a win.4 Goosing and employrtreat£oreosa. �Z 'pee FUW EM jw uld include discssion of the consistency berwera fie plan and the applicable urban tiara maaarCegtoent per.putsuaa to CSQA§21151.9. impacts 7 C 3 All tlNe Measars needed to mitigate any ply negativeassociated with lunar dtvelopmea aKxM be implemented and wasaaced as reyu¢ed by CEQA_ 4. MW SCAG Co®amity, Ewwmlc and Altman Development Committee (OIM) has conststen ly ==5ed*ADraft F M S lbr sirtnlar Yroje=shouldaddress the mam=in which the proposes!Project ' will be&MOPM an that provision of service to new bossing units or jobs producing commercial, k bssu W cc atba uses wM be singed a phased to help achieve gteater3obs/hOusing balance within the jurisdiction acrd the Subregion. The bas previously ezpzessad the concern that,in bowing richt subregions.the bmsmg will likely be constructed Sat and the employment Producing land lues may never materialize. Conv=dy, in jobs rich subregions, the emploYmcm Producing office 6w3dings, shopping mmecs, schools or itdasuial buildings could be built &SE, and the housing con2ponmts could be brought in much lata, or never. The objective of a phasing or developm=t staging plan would be to encourage the impleshaatation of types of development tLat would addle=the jobvboasing balance issue and work toward the rrducwn of Vehicle Miles Traveled in the early phases 1 or stages of developtma tether than leaving such uses until Later(or allowing indefinite postponement). The Dia$EIR should clearly define development phasing ad tithing for residential attd cormnerci3l tans and essential kdrastrt=R For guidance regarding the development of such phasing plans please comad the Cly of Los Angeles and request a ropy of the phasing plan for the Cenral City Wen Spec Plan. r . r r r r r ■ f June 24, 1999 Mr. John De Gange City Planning Department City of Temecula 43200 Business Park Dr. Temecula, California 92590 Dear Mr. De Gange: I am a resident of the Calle Contento Neighborhood in the wine country. I am writing to you regarding the upcoming city council review of the Roripaugh Ranch Master planned Community. I have attended a meeting with the developers to evaluate impacts on our neighborhood. The developers have taken into consideration our concerns and have responded favorably in their master plan. iSpecifically, f and my neighbors are requesting that the dead end of Calle Contento road remain as a cul-de-sac and not accessible from the Roripaugh development. Any planning concern about access and safety can be accommodated by a crash gate or other emergency measures. Our primary concern is the residents of the Roripaugh development will use the rural area for off road vehicles, motor cycles, and speed tracks. The developers of this project have given this neighborhood consideration by planning open space and low density residence as a barrier between the two neighborhoods. The Calle Contento road is not planned to connect through now or in the future. I am requesting that the city planning department record this letter and notify the residents of Calle Contento neighborhood if there is any decisions to change the design. Additionally, I am requesting the city planning department give consideration to the Calle Contento neighborhood in approving the street lighting density and low power in order to preserve the rural environment that both neighborhoods can appreciate. The Keith Company has done an excellent job of responding to our concerns and have worked hard to provide a plan for this community. We are grateful for their efforts and we hope the city will give us the same consideration- Thank you for your attention to this matter. Sincerely, 1 i � „5 I JUL 7 ;999 !1,1 ', i33jLS VY qD (Ll a6/ 1 PGN P/'L' I/r 1±_41 C1_7 meq / - - ■ ,� Ott, xroarlea. PIC 39675 Cantrell Rd (909) 693-5555 Temecula, CA 92591 Fax (909) 693-0994 email : rmk®354.com web site: www.354.com June 28, 1999 Vh. John De Gane City of Temecula, 43200 Business Park Drive Temecula, CA 92590 RE: Case No: PA94-0075 Roripaugh Ranch Specific Plan I am very concerned about the"downstream" impact of this plan on adjacent property owners. My tax parcel No: 95713 0005 is also my residence. The northwest portion of my property is next to Santa Gertrudis Creek. Past diversions of the natural water flow have already caused over twenty feet of my property to now"be in the creek". The most recent attempts to change the creek bed were stopped by the City only last week. A fence had been constructed in the middle of the creek, and it appeared attempts were being started to "fill-in" parcel no: 95713 0002 (a 2.87 acre parcel) that had become part of the water flow during heavy rains. This parcel was represented to me as part of an "off-site" park for the above plan. Steve Brown of the City called me on June 24, 1999 and indicated the recent work on the creek bed were without permits and the activity would be stopped. During February and March, 1998, the water flow in the creek exceeded 150' in width and 3' in depth. Information I received on June 15, 1999, from Andrew Daymude and Wes Hylen regarding the Roripaugh Ranch plan, indicated the placement of box culverts across the creek for the extension of Butterfield Stage Road. The major downstream impact to my property and others would be the planned diversion of Santa Gertrudis Creek using a culvert to divert the water flow from the planned development and dump the water downstream. The compression of a water flow of 150' to 200' into a 6' to 8' culvert would seem to create a water cannon effect that would erode most of my property including my house and outbuildings. I am also concerned about the proposed water detention facilities for Santa Gertrudis and Long Creek since my property and others are between these two creeks. After the rains of 1998, I spent $9,000 constructing new culverts and road repairs over Long Creek. Since Cantrell Road was never accepted by the City or the County, I have maintained the road in order to enter and leave my property. [pptrp,0 isnot my intent to impede the development of the city, but I do not want to end up with myrerty eroded and/or with no way to enter or leave my property. If the water diversion ofthe posed plan destroys my property and road, what recourse do I have? Please respond. Sincerely,, _ !lir j j JtiL 1 2 1999 IIJ!� Temecula Planning b Commission: [and e are residence living in the County Service Area 149, an area adjacent to East of the proposed Roripaugh Ranch Master Planned Community. e Attended the "Calle Contento Neighborhood Meeting" held June 16L'99 at Temecula Elementary School. We have attended many meetings regarding the planning of this proposal. Ever since this project has been in the planning stages we have requested that there be some kind of barrier placed between the proposed planned community and County Service Area 149 where Calle Contento joins the two areas. We believe this permanent barrier is an essential part of the plan, as it will curtail city traffic from entering a quiet, rural community selected by us years ago. Rural country roads in the Wine Country have been traditionally an area of reduced traffic and congestion, and we would like to ' keep it that way. The proposed barrier, on the plan to be submitted, will assure us that this road will not become a thoroughfare and it will keep our area agricultural and rural. Opening Calle Contento to through traffic would lend itself to becoming a link between Highway 79 North and 79 South and the traffic would eventually overburden both the proposed Roripaugh tract ' and the wine country, rural roads. We would in tum lose the serenity and peaceful rural atmosphere we purchased when we decided to live in the Wine Country of Temecula. ' If this area is to be annexed as part of Temecula, we ask you to honor our proposal by not opening the Roripaugh Ranch Master Planned Community, Calle Contento Street into the County Service Area 149, and accept it as planned in the proposal being submitted by GRC Development. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, 3470o Ci't� z cc a Cx Ilii .)Ul_ 7 1999 Mr. Don Miller By1-4 A 79700 Avenida Ar zom S Tmenda,CA 92691-6011 01-99 17+ 02 FROM:CITY OF TEMECULA 10:90969464'11 Mr. John DeCrange (cc. All Planning Commission Members) City Planning Department City of Temecula 43200 Business Park Dr. Temecula, California, 92590 Dear Wfr. DeGange: We have a residence in the County Service Area 149, an area adjacent to and East of the proposed Roripaugh Ranch Master Planned Community. We Attended the "Calle Contento Neighborhood Meeting" held June 16`h, 1999 at Temecula Elementary School. We have attended many meetings regarding the planning of this proposal. Ever since this project has been in the planning stages we have requested that there be some kind of barrier placed 'between the proposed planned community and County Service Area 149 where Calle Contento joins the two areas. We believe this permanent barrier is an essential part of the plan, as it will curtail city traffic from entering a quiet, rural community selected by us years ago. Rural country roads in the Wine Country have been traditionally an area of reduced traffic and congestion, and we would like to keep it that way. The proposed barrier, on the plan to be submitted, will w assure us that this road will not become a thoroughfare and it will keep our area agricultural and rural. Opening Calle Contento to through traffic would lend itself to becoming a link between Highway 79 North and 79 South and �\ the traffic would eventually overburden both the proposed Roripaugh tract and the wine country, rural roads. We would in tum lose the serenity and peaceful rural atmosphere we purchased when we decided to live in the Wine Country of Temecula. If this area is to be annexed as part of Temecula, we ask you to honor our proposal by not opening the Roripaugh Ranch Master Planned Community, Calle Contento-Street into the County Service Area 149, and accept it as planned in the proposal being submitted by GRC Development. . Thank you for your consideration. I I, II JUN 2 9 1999 Pr r7 �01-99 17t02 FROMICITY OF TEMECULA I0.9096946477 PACE 10/14 Debra Seal ' 3GS75 Avenida Aruna Tome ia.Ci 22SG7 - June=0, 1999 City of Temecula Planning Commission 43174 Business Park Drive Temecula, Ca. 92590 Re: Roripaugh Ranch Project and Calle Coatento extension —Dear Planning Commissioners, I recently attended a meeting at Temecula hfiddle School regarding the Roripaugh Ranch project adjacent to Calle Contento. There were a handful of local residents who live in the adjacent Wine Country. This particular group. for reasons I do not understand, were very adamant about the possible extension of Calle Contemo to the project_ There seemed to be an isolationist attitude by the few who attended the meeting. They felt that by having Calle Contento extended from the existing pavement on through the project was going to create some enormous amount of traffic. I do not feel, as I know there are others, that this is so. It would seem a terrible waste of an existing road to have it dead end when it could tie one and of town to another and thereby possibly alleviating traffic, I also feel that the issue of emergency access should be considered as well. Please do not be swayed by a few but consider the welfare of the whole and connect Calle Contento to and thus through this project. 1 Thank you for your consideration, JUN 2 2 1999 �I BY 1 s . �L-16-99 11 = 14 FROM•CITY OF TEMECULA ID=9096946477 PAGE 2/3 Dear Planning Commis and Planning Commission- Dear would like to voice a few opinions and concerns rega dmg the proposad Roripa Ranch Development. For our area of 2 'A acre parcels m the urine country to remain a rural community, we are asking for a few considerations, and hopefully concessions; one being that Calle 1 Conteato does not go through to the development. A crash gate;hr emergency services, with care taken to block the sides to prohibit unauthorized access would be as appropriate solution appreciated by both our comamnity as well as the developer. Another item we would like addressed is lighting 1lnlitasions both in the developmem itself and in the CC & R's of the larger parcels that are adjacent to our Z comity. We highly prize our night sky and owl sightings, and &eel that the ligluing from this ject,espeaally stadium lights slated for the parks. etc.would be very ' itta sive to the Savor and attraction of our area one final area of concern is the larger parcels that are adjacent to our'su-ea We ' would like some assurance that this area will not be held and eventually sold to another developer, as we have seen happen in other projects, such as Chardonnay Hill:-;. We 3 understand that this area encompasses Phase 1 ofRoripaugh's project,and would like to see some more concrete evidence that this area will be developed as presented. As it stands now, Rorinaugh is not planning on putting any streets in, or making any improvements of any sort that would make this area very attractive to potendd buyers of ' larger parcels. Perhaps purring is streets, etc. would show their dedication to t1le preserving of this area as a true buffer and transitional zone into the wine covutry. Thank you so much for your time and consideration of these issues. Most sincerely and respecdOy, EMr. Ralph T-saez PO Box 890217 mecula CA 9ZU9-0217 Q ' repo Cars 1 .�- �a�r , AIR sive��3a�usr�mstc (WO)Cy-"-SMOG. 1 • Cmftuedfrom m During the tests i tlt belch Crow diesel true and durtrtg. '+�h hcum cc l buses, toric gases shit as bensere twice the pollutants •- le�sked into the vehicles no. matter � at less congested tltn t Oftwhat, the research showed. PQcole in carpo tl &e2thing the LOS Angelesre- cleaner air. Their t 4 99 gas's outdoor air is known to be a two to five tunes less bad ler health. but tl e,new study is those inregular 12 rrSdas Lvvtsat%QEX1AL Wruss the am to show how high the because the Lanes PcHution levels are iz! i can un- gested and farther$` t�2e air peevie breathe msAe der a vmriety of&lying cmditlons. More than half of their arscan be as much as IO POUutiOm levels of ' da� f inside the test can x, limas marc polIxtsed than even the ctm pollutants are at least twice as the yeiticie In iroui.a Unnktar.ditty bumorair irrthe L.as bad hL de can as outside, and The twn-year at. g0ift 2-fU according to a study levels o -otherss are 10 tiarAM WO •se. ducted on wverai re d"llursday by Ca;ayda.air 'We're ie3r►ing that people's : County freeway$ $+ splaty daily to'air Phu- ` Monte, the rnotort ■ And the-rewArqtbvft foam tilere tarts May be during theiteammute Interstates lo. 110, 41 is littlie that extarists and passen- to and friaar WWk,"said Jed. Similar teats were aI9 I Ci dt-toproter: themselves Peau—man of the Laluoraia Air ate- Sacrranwnto. While 44-7-fravRYfrom ruk. s' sotirc� AM partictaar, thastudy with t1La Satifi. Jk heavflY , hitate' bei,ind cam- i kY Maaa@=ent D 6o mad ca:-s;_ t lis tie SuNty.WhicbC M $40 1: 3L� tit c, ;o f �o!'etaa ti fPe lvtitm redtscit eat i. attl�ea.svitil a di"'nag: Oleg tem Za ... to a v sr, -T C( 16n that •air .in. H.. . is ambient outdoor air powa "hear. I99i 3a� Us L> ` '� ytict sy r to Souihlarld :tte., d tom. 2EYy g ",h OW Margfxw Saces3 in. 3llerstaia;_ the AD's buw eegises 6 ff .out tiny soot- particles. tile_3m eneetn`ve o ."�° M Atbtr-tan- leis scot.thanQJ&W-+bpi f1r=t cutnmutem face an adds- mw AM Tlie worst pi li , ti t s breal?&g the polluted tiny,.. rA t -rte. cGme- d 'lite study found'tha a tin: acid Ls�+6 C fh aetraaey expose to less of some n ; i;# PID1111tants than a pernd son Cause .i a a car. That ig probably which is a car because tar ars¢ particles I�se2 exhauseIa! sized by t-afflc accumulate in the lung cancer and aaq Ve"lucles, Which contain Only a small Parci€les jx�. 4060* volume Of air in Which #Uuamr can be ri& of deah,Amm re dam: The homes C' tmd in- the -,r C.Xentr;as of hive been b-ked ta::3 -qty d site the . were cc 1pl=ogy s. mrltxi.^.g jUng ar-Dient air ,assure- Beca , - are ar taken.t n-9 rest-..3 MOr,! .or^g n=010 5. ; the Califon* Air Re"urem Board located neo: � . has begun IKSt-1 to�"^�.if`,re tl`.e risks ne study rev that chEcLTn face in scluxl buse& drivir_e behind a UII1tIlUt,u1� t11ay UG 1 VU�.ilC1 Vll ' Longer rides could pose greater health risks, experts sa r y�7a�(� (� �]vee�•� Ity Hera senwam ronmeomfly triggered. He wound up E d �.L��__-..__ .. Twe PrcarE,trwve needing M Inlmler. ' Donald Palmers voice quavers when A recent California Environmental he recalls his scum years as a road PT eCtla1 Agency study CDOhrr19 what warrior who did daily battle with the Partner esperlenced Fitpomre to some smog and vehicular mayaen-of the air pollutants and toxic compounds may Southern California freeway system. be up to 10 tines i igaide er msvehicles "t came bane so stressed Irritable Man In me surrounding air.Thesmdy a and.U ed.i didn't w.Up do aniftUi " only me lalm addition. m a W of said Farmer• 43. - dauurievled aamrrls Commuters race. From 1988 to 1993.Parmer commut- inland.Empire commuters have moLq ' ed 43 miles between. Riverside and ca=m to.be concerted.said Jerry Star- Huntington Beaca,where he worked as Un. Spokesman the California Air J a Iogisllcai MgUk for McDonnell They Jpend more Douglas He usually spent 90 allnu'm titre driving toes anyone else is South. getting to work and up to two tours ern ralifdrnia• .......:..., . ' getting home. Researchersalo;ative nw)d mat the rs - . After veeof Sucking ia,blghway longer the trip, me greeter We risk.of fumes. Parmer devebped.sharmess of chronic fatigue and Arm which — tuest$which 6b Aoettr said Bras amt- Pfease see 51n awkii ce commuters"health Lanq�aaw6%by car can uclemiais ptys cat and amotiarial health. iAapoBafJbQtenemalpasonars .. .. . '-fdrOrffibonland carbonmoroxxda "&ft -aNtwob-lataneshierihsdalle Diltiafaeei7th►A6'Pl ptaEp +*+ls reside pian by Me mamide_Dmers d ior+g•dkRanoa ddry ep(T>tii &: also may be,exposed.to smear 4re8 ■AYold�nsn•riocr rdf y' of Bovc-m orbic Co!npoulds. `r`taerG it kgac .gyp .,::.: erraede IP 7 or tdpewnat . 'fa Dfatraaelflrrs:115.'19 ce onmis �(WMO aot�+tfilsbteayr tl�a7WlwAnwRR aflQfYla�. reednq ale newspaper.siudhag aro - makeup:6"oriirilkig.coreemay 1 Useaarpout Wwwnermx-Porept.SAtwcRrrastmaesuLiaer. %WtDaccidants_ :fatiraand truck anwaing, '■.strew:sludes stew Lra onger i.Nova aroutldijprpobtatna ar>molslq ratlicMbtM SaWFf aeaf AV ttla dstarce and tr*e or tt a ca-mute 0111110 hl f OD Xt 31{BPCUTSMM M8-7WN T?*dWW e,a i a e Cdr-tdws a'e dressed out xli�flb b adv d p>tia bcsear up aNr rniwaMR.'' Y.. ' et.worlcR al hdnl9. "�.)a®rbm yolewefaCe:k180r�`drlba>8tdtlaaef bide phAtBori yCR1 � . f Road rap;The bnger drvefs as nrlrgli9,QaeiS mgrait110r Alan Qler ani vehicle d are ghgFy ad :: 'on Te rosa me greeter Lie rtgk of _Maieba coltfdleyateistl operala p0hkyc ercor>tanng our driers whosemistakes or rudw� Rpeyesenmr�ElemrtrrdYtmc4gatffw'tea sidr as rrwulg ear Pis ahem ndw9w argee Tara ..,�A�9eMstdir SO001116% �"aaadar dherae: if yot11'Wntar a`arahovii aiilOs"gs wtiwa 3s easy sped-ore Man 90 b sea and b rssdt Unft apardril lanae b pogrom b aagiaAy a shy on the mad toad tx .:_x♦aiad fllrraitu& .. .. smiss or — ucm Oi+ev take nobs walis mhnq PlDalfie'soef�b ptriotoa - . cause manges m the-nervous �Iap b the nolo.matte akr�imd apes s fie ihasecart em,witch nay afracr ma t'ea.K. boo pass ria kms.nsla M c mr uln ntdtybe,and radhhcwssass Canonic fatWLM many commuters ■Ptariess a car wth AP=rx brw%rade and wher c9rlaok riot a a. - skknp on SIM to beat Me rush hoer _;._aesy tr reach nrd*oOwuW - - txrcaraedWaly.damandc -.. .. :. - /Dori wan a111til01yo r snorer dyer b' La" eebad rami,We:Often apt rax an Un you tib a sxiip k=*_txx Oommuters e W sTMNt of MOWditywe've made wydeniing.This will hell you Daon ansekerds .. ora brpimq d otrs s s lora. ittrle:he q ■conedrr takng to Twadagmar Y deo muse,wttidh machn tow •� bed end sect be hFd lha wheel wh W CcIr Isd w+m you own exp Or ft 390ift rib !n"OfOtW',Ca"a ala hneri:arthemaa kir FWM Nwrry at(110M 6W-8001.The r1 flat's Weh sae adtea3'a x_. - -MIR ea.e Seiwi•Cawmweramam a Oer.weuw:t�.ot+r 40ar � e^'e^i r+nv.a+vrareoao rwwaae GfrPtw.Catty Mleraar Mw. INAtll1p gjl5 -- -_� being spewed by the Dig vehicles , blamed ror deteriorating family Trams safety and air quality around you.' Said Norman. relatiorbhlp6 and explosive rads— experts stress that many commit- Ford Motor Co. contends that a nre..mwsre`dng problem whetb- ers drive much further and longer cabin Ghers can do only so much. erMe rage is one's own or anomer than these averages and that its more important to cut commuter's "This Is just one more element pollution at the tailpipe. Const Permer soraetlme-rede in an long-distance commuter are con- quenUy. the Dearborn. Michigan helped at ills. roof: van, which fronted with.' says Martin. "It's manufacturer is putting Its biggest tuelped . h1>vsrts level but did something(lo ng-distarrce commut- effort into developing tow-emission Stl;fe. ta. -his exprbtrre to ea) may not want to think about- vehicles. said company spokes- pt =The EPA study re But our data snows it is something woman Ellen Dickson. vesieQ drat It made no difference to consider." as older cars leave the whl afr conditioners were on Most or air vet were open Alf com- existing automobile air dl- road. that will make an impact. said- maters were exposed to Similarlerlog systems do a good job keep- too.• Dickson said. amoauls of pollution.0,0fm tug oat Particulate matter such as Better technologies Such as ad- The two-year,144 "study by diesel 900!'road dot and tire and vanced catalytic converters and the Air Resources Board and the brake wear but don't work well for electronic engine controls are South Coast Air.quality Manage. leu pollutant. Martin said. working,according to Gloria Berg- [�art Di5ir1CL istheam ever to A fR manuilacirrie . such as quilt of the Alliance of Automobile gather data on particulates inside - Mercedes-Benzand Fort. now of- Manufacturers in Washington.D.f vaticks, tet alters they saY are effective for ''Today's vehicles are 98 percent The study found that the highest both particulate and gaseous ems- cleaner in California than 1970 sons others car makers are work- models" Bergquis said. "And ezbasmv may occur during com- iig on similar devices expected to even-technology is on the borizon-" mutes to and from work. when became available aver the ne_ct Until e iSveb of hy+drocarLoas and carbon few yearspoisonous pall lifts. . rt3oaoxtde were two to IO times commuters can reduce their expo. I igtter Imide veDldes than at the In Mercedes-Beta' automatic sure by ruing car pool lanes or roadside.They aliki Identiaed sem{. climate control 21tradon sysem. avoiding rush-hour traIDc.- says �y Tar ieVets of volatile organic com- on and S-dass models, interior ,Martin of the Air Resources Board. pounds such as-benzene. toluene. air Passes through three alters: an He said drivers who use car pool formaldehyde and methyl tertlary electrostatic large-particle Clter lanes are exposed to pollutant butyl ether (,MTBE). and two activated charcoal Altem levels well below those found in "We don't want to alarm peo- The electrostatic tllter removes other lanes—possibly because car ple,"said Martin."But they at leas dust and diesel particulates as pool lanes are fess congested and need to be aware, that they're small as 5 microns In size. It also further removed from tuck lanes. _ exposed to high levels of these clemm the air of allergens such As Parmer discovered. bad air j compounds.which ram.cause can. as flower and grass pollen. The isn't the only risk awaiting long- ) cer. birth defects and other rata- charcoal titters out airborne gas- range commuters: He faced daily .rOrppbic coadlUorts.'• eau pollutants such as hydrocar- threats to his safety from impa- ,+-tlihe 1888 "State of the Com- Dons and carbon monnidde, said tient. careless or aggressive driv- mute" a report published by theDenise Norman,spokeswoman for ars. -bra California Assoclation of Mercedes-Benz U.S-A- "There were these idiots who Gmarfmartr,_ said, the average The system features a smog drove along the shoulder.- he re- _Z)1111!w817 travel distance is 221 sensor that automatically shuts off Called. "It really upset me to see Miles for San Bernardino County incoming air and recircuiates hl- someone flying by in the right lane cornmtdtrs and 21 miles for River- tered cabin air for up to 20 minutes who I didn2 expect:- J she.County commuters. if certain pollutants reach a preset Then there were drivers who IPY Ca(dT2s. commuters from threshold and outside air tempera- used aa-ramps to $boort over and Impeiat County drove the shortest lure exceeds 40 degrem Norman around Others. Partner said. and average distance. 121 miles, com- said those on cell phones,weaving back pared wit 15.3 miles for Los I commute from Hollywood and forth. oblivious to what was Angeles commuters and 14.2 for Hills to Costa. Mesa — about one going an around them �f iNv rnmmnf..e hoar each way —anA ir'c niro in The more time commuters `Sp ? oa the a more Iia who Alaska "fhored a course "Calito ia;7ssffikTffi-eWWNft they'll encounter drivers whose called "Roadrageous' for the to the limit." he said- "They work attitude or mistakes will make Amerism Institute for Public Safi ail day.don't get enough test then 'Tina angry. said Dr. Arnold P. ty in Los Angeles. arc up again in the early morning.- Nerenberg,a Whittler clinical psy- More than half of Americans Lack of sleep also contributes to chologist and national authority an have angry-driving problems Ner- sires"and anger,which can lead to road rage. enberg said- violent behavior on the freeway. "And anger stresses the whole OIDcer Eric Phipps. spokesman said Phipps. body.- he said "Including the for the California Highway Patel All that misery is far behind ham- Divisional Headquarters. San Ber- Donald Panner. -Tuggers may range from blur• nardino. likens cats to "great Today. he teaches math and ing horn and [lashing lights to equalisers" when drivers jump in. science for the Moreno valley cutting dnvm off or braking to "Suddenly they feel they can Untfled School District. His drive "teacn them a lesson' Nerenberg hide behind that cloak of anonym- to work takes about 15 minutes said. ity.-observed Phipps,who lectures along Alessandro Boulevard. Journeys lasting two hours or on aggressive 'driving. "This is a dream compared to more a day put commuters at risk The biggest commuting problem what it used to be.' Partner said of becoming very angry. lie said. In the inland Empire is failing "If you're cut aft once.that's one asleep behind.the wheel. Phipps Yfike Schwartz can be reached thing But by Ne dfth time. you're said. especially In the Higb Desert by e-mail at.srhwvr(a)atex. .Lam ready to blowup."said Nerenberg. and Cajon Pas areas. or by phone at !9091 7,Q2-'/-,724 i FUNDING NDI� to open spate RInlr tltt' rcta.n . [ V rr+rterdtip LOC4Wc ar.a t,w tr. __ — If t be Icd.a place )d Ct ire the snald be ut place before the plant expo ted •,doption ahr,ur of open ,pat a taelwren cxpind tttiee ,rx%fr-i. rm . '� _. mstnrics "fhr nmr is rtnw. Busret Mullen w cnunn;K on rho saal "hisd•ulity rld Pric r :� federal gorrmmeeit f•,c moth n nn m this count. L.rnd once. lourcethe mosev nerderf to huv per. air Mani, . And 1' -tr an are�x Inancrit",petl%pact that to p•or,g r„ `-Penne mai!-r. /'� But Ist Ihstrict.Supervtsur -wallh•nrng - ion the kind of V Bubb Buser rrhn rerrcscrwt� place here are moving ,tote!,of Srwthwa+c foam v n f ,=n:here ro.exape.' thraxea al%n tc_nrogto nevi' a %'het her-i Sacs tax wnoolid fly lricaf fund"W source:to help From pnlit•cilh-is dlffiodt rn Prrnccr- Col1IIf3t ![I�3QViSd- mss_ loropen space; Buucr said he ,iunrs nfficials %aid: But one OU :.wnuld lilts ort a%k mirty covens p,lf - %nrd•iated n t.earlv.I'r`:' 92csts Saks tax wide uearly,as VuremberZtupt Cv the f .ctc31a.4alk+.is..aza 6o1:1d..Lssw -ropo"ajclswrier<ent.%ale::tax- itnrt if c,:is-etnment% - aUQ. as one lurtherit: Californiaw .;,Feu;%tech a meare.it teaar pwE 00100"E7cnwuy did:scxir•J'gar :aqc, it 'o-'uld uanda d,ancc. s> c nxapptvctuMndiRve ".? Cork. Lor os:_ 'fiC as.oCra o `Idem -hwk_vwarrf;•,t+gctn t,nr..exmiotn-eatretrnrar,t pAJ be Able-to_get:enough money _ former acwmv .uperx rwr_ said. As aplan togtude-Rnenisle � ftnmthe:fedora[:"9vrerrmenrto '.+l,c pullfhund' Z'? percent, At WAY t:anrtlZ:tlirovAft:.the ..make purcha%es A'open space ..rot:: •rodents %ir,ingiv Info. to-take . land nr devebjp tierp,rght-.'he ported J: .tei cenc vlrs.rax R+Cxts"show catd. f„r open 'Dace while iS r*rrrent IraR'flr�tr the cnuniv c:ruld o.haose tr, _, ,.aid then vimewlvat suppuried spm z `.tie land •.u•r+ght .-W ria: thennnon 5ss3II: 'andnwners t • leave their fan- : Siipp"ri W. Rmeralls airtsts salt s. e cm: plaix tem. +rtslnsN seekakc bet--tern 9200 milbun Su$em.soRrn�'titt7son. who 'acid SJW trubun from CorWrIs. tZ'baw-t6et'. -- represents- the 4th Distnct. i`0" Mar I::.the..e�+inq hired whtch ermti%rs mr-aihr�ao! dreg r+..,:mt�ucnnaf'.frirmer concrr«a �� ` `. :said.he- +. ulJ he-wiltiniz to 41 rren-- Bill L,..rry of jirt LArgn i�aF, itafd �� t ayt n hair their`.Ac' xt rFe noir and DiLk FaAw-,U Sacramrrr-, : 4t ter. hnr ra!Itd a kale+ ac `d —'tt Bible..federal7egMaror,,tis. totudt'!U- _ t,tnJ t�ambitious tittdcxta{tmg - Tr., trotgh on 2nd:Dutricr.!u• . -Midlen %aid't+te. ,-"Jprw tt g+ �(yo�,�I Fcnr•r T hn.TasaclMile cvi. inr to plea the dulto f6OM r'. errtrr.� � mos:• n III: -fedthat the mien wnrk toward that Erial over Thr. rr Jifirwh-is kwokin¢to ask rof- next III mortrhs. raiAn rfdceasfwr�s the -' en to extern, the half cent 1Eee.- There is talk nE 'eatoing:up ta+ttst� Offitriais ctE>.m sine A,alio as.set to ecptrr in xruh oEttciala trorn.San Utegn." eo sec ride httQe swaths of MR- 144? pica:trr:iran%parm `Ln•- Angeles:.Orange and Sar �rr for convene non n! nen pr•.leets. - - Be.nardino cnunric� t•t: cis'c- s% pmrec•,an••f.en-.to- He Aid:"# rrnrtld he mtrb: Riverside, htd marc sc1 andliofuosa{ � preaers�ntm ` ea•ier-t.a vela approval Iry ori � i�fout in Wrhinintxi open• pacr bond But Riverside Cnuntr...ciw: Trwastfione and Wthon: are- tont all in that hasket. _ agreed with Bwteri contentxnt Mullen %aid th.-rmrtry al,,) •hat a Inial funding source 1% +noopare% rrcrn7rut190 rnub-n rwederi vi en alvn %4Lb the ted- for •+pen -pace tf;rou& ter% efa! ','•"+ ch4%t•.d to customc�-ar !-1 �' Sur 3rd rb-tict Supormiwr hr;utw r,andrdl wiurh of Gimna -Jim Vtnable said the federal And d Statele4slanxs pervade funding mos be ennugh, based Gin. Gra.- harts to sin a hili no, C7rrent prnlec-iuns that it placrtg a nark iv,nd,,n the baUt'c - _could con 5350 million to 1"Ir• nest March.— and if Ca!ifnttua chane ape" .pace to the Vail voters apr nne it — Mullen fist . Lake And.A,trere areas vier Roe-side Cuunty w,uld be . 1hi.lvn aid Rnrr%iJe CvunR 11 fine 6,r aiwthrr 511191 millxin �1\D itime 61lilt In the counly 41-uld Thies 044ilct Alin hrh niodv. and arpprrt people is araplwed Ll,�N .. T purchases m areas III'' lit nlallrgtC the pryp0lheh,Ahaka n'' c.rwa:na.�t f/,m'':Mullort. :Sth Irntrlct tvmen tides, with the µort,of kud . Count�n"�}1ec i :. cuunly rupervllor,.mid varmu+ ImepNg them spoil.hewed ': . >t a nsuU 45.peKen(of the ies JJ aµencles h+ve +pptaved AOM !iunovn.i uratiloy h•h tken dihuict w ft S i1" a Annual n n al or'watcrsh id lands for hous ho-nwi in urbiui Am cumpured to buy devvinptoeht rights, not Midget docs(nr outgoing inarnit Iltl� way indlraici uidev% Ihehannet wiihQl.0010inrundarea the'land %G01,;Frrmarsretain: ndoce leannv'yerylupefor . I ml/lextro11dcitio,Kn mm said: Dolaqu County's strale jy of the talid kilt Ari presenled(mm new atyunllo ns, Milik* sAld "I I's not even drhafihle ' he metra num growtA thro4, since limiding shipping centers or fhr money Is Auind Nr put out to protect I Sold +ening would nor work 1oc+llF huu.iri na"So"it lire.. guard aµalnsl Inv"itin of Ndt ever)nno is happy Willi said (ft lhstrxt Supsrvuur 14,b lu (mules 11!IM Wulh. rentq plat l4 and dvaK oft rod 1(�y1(� 111 the Ordinance. I S, years later .Neuer, who mptis"mi much of where pmpeny tares lured an tehlcira Iyr1 u1 weildnd. and land Formers In plrntcular.du.nut :.Southwesi County (he puhlit n(1an•Jp" program. the Rratt �rn�I hhr 41r�1aI.IrCa\.he ldld like hrvmg torso their land at wnukl Ill wlppon u,hvvld µy r\ Ilterent. Matto County Um pg>ryMgy agrtcttllurpl paces when their bit( flurtcr %aid Rivemldc OIKn Space District has par counterparts to other cuunties Counly could follow the esam., chased IJSM acres outright J Ire wUing pameh At intuit(Arm ple.uf Sora-MA (iuunly, Which since 191,,sod RIMI 1,114a.pun /1� rlla��r4 ily subdlrtsura pr1vtN, Kromm prvscd a yuanareent ulrs las {wy{endaiqunlnnnmriwµer emdenta ql $oleno s,ud. in 1100 to raise money it) buy , there +re durdvantaµr+ to Cllmny In the Saw Frra But this policy has heart des• (open %pace Volcrs .reaetd A. trah stratep". Fie arca have Italy{ cnura l" Ira dru dc�eln $ou/,m,l County Ag rlctdtural IrIStvlrlmrrGnml murvland uxu y N g 1 R N y, Mhered !n the krlwo- I :merit. Only about 6 percent of Preservation and h wo Sp.co ha, hggn preaarrod by putcha, tNrr that wban :'t lir lioun Cutulryx.W.060 nevi 11wrict o rwi the pmµ,om,said . Ains dvvelutRrant ngh4 Jur Its went should he It" to -� � dents hie to tha;cuuulrv: he titeve:ahrrpe, acting µrnerpl; thin a would c�sf) to hos the .rid.Thi rent ae'concenlaaltid manaper land itself, Sharprr .aid;.Bw cilia*: When :'glfidrals I In the Cltlae of Fairfield,VAN:ji Thr money hvgAn 11o.winit in thele.has been• pubik nulcry rrlkad`00. 4 rAe and VacasUlr IrF�l:;fhts to:,ishlcb dtilerateh 'ao ux,the lands they have Itcn "We have iviWerpKpininthe $12 Million yvor, tvplrvi.In 'v4ying Ia■as for and there n mhawRx conjoiyrporatrd areas ralaUve N, 2011.:: calk nLhuymd pnmc areae Int #isd in 14H4 our.tufil population than +nv (list the lap t}ecde,`Shar{Ic acv ream tt lr said prlrafd r rediltal hallus other;counly 111 the slue, s+id,,;Sonoma- Cuunti has "fhr land i\ pretened, but wMtany � to ? Knimmsrld hlockkd nearly 2q.000 acres of the public is linked out salol tall may. 3Q"M Lounly In comra\t .,6 percent :ref farmland, scenic IandKapas \bike, whs, resides in,%onuma SegtMrlsos khfrnr i.'. u�i utitriceixpontad prtY . as accord it isall hAhii�st nfwdenilandered CirLnrrui Ciiitnry,because all Ft nrtrMrt sec/71 I . Tia stiieaal7 o• ing to lite $l ilt'Geprtmenl n( specs+ from urtsrn-derelup ' of the open pack l+ puhhciv ht Th owncre OtI w in hlnsocr, :arid the (ratttlon 'Uf :Mot. owned, a .fill of 20 plarinors, I nahlydlnls. ecuh,gisll, rangers Illlll{lUfhlraldel areas I - Ir,art rctnning rµritm m ALBERT S. PRATT 'Since 1919" ' 40470 Brixton Cove Temecula, CA 92591 (Email: sampratt@nctimes.net) ' (909) 699-8689 Caliromia Registration: ' civil Fnghe No.7647 struemnl Fngi Na 650 Murrieta Hot Springs Road (east),Butterield Stage Road (north and south), 13 Nicolas Road (east), and Calle Chapos (east)_ In the City of Temecula Calle Chapos would channel traffic into Nicolas Road and La Serena and Margarita ' Road; Butterfield Stage Road would channel traffic south to Rancho California Road. ' 44. The initial phase of the development would use Calle Chapos and Butterfield Stage Road (after connections are completed)impacting the existing traffic stagnation in the morning and afternoon periods of congestion for indefinite periods depending ' on the residential sales and build out of the balance of the (RRSP). .This will result in unacceptable LOS "F"at major intersections served by Winchester Road (SR79N), Rancho California Road, Nicolas Road, La Serena, Margarita, and ' Butterfield Stage Road. 45. [The present public transit system is not adequate for serving City and County residents. 46. Mass bus transportation with sufficient capacity, convenient, effective and ' affordable, funded and in operation prior to occupancy of the new proposed residential projects is mandatory. This option to proceed with the proposed projects will not be available unless CEQA requirements of Section 21000(d) have been mitigated and approved. 47. [Annexation of the portion of the Project not now in the city limits of the City of emecula is proposed subsequent to the adoption of the proposed Specific Plan. 48. The City of Temecula cannot guarantee the full development of this project if the developer cannot proceed with the Specific Plan. Should this occur the environment will be irreversible damaged, but the traffic circulation plan will not be complete and inadequate. The City will he required to complete unforeseen and unplanned infrastructure at public expense. ' 49. Annexation of the entire Project in accordance withthe proposed Specific Plan will provide contiguous projects of the planned Johnson Ranch and Rancho Bella Vista - the "domino effect". This will allow these proposed projects when completed to effectively use the City of Temecula public resources, roads, parks, etc. without contributing to the City s tax base except through sales taxes. ' 7 ' ALBERT S. PRATT Since 1919" 40470 Brixton Cove i Temecula, CA 92591 (Email: samprattC3a nctimes.net) (909) 699-8689 ! Cadfw R p� Ctvi}Fugfrms Na 7697 Strucoirai F�Om Na 650 50. The completion of the proposed Johnson Ranch and Rancho Bella Vista developments will further damage the environment and contribute further to the traffic stagnation of the Temecula/Murrieta"hub", 5 I This Project must not be approved until the existing traffic stagnation of the �! [Temecula Valley is mitigated-not exacerbated -by new residential development. e eIy sub 'tte 1 i Albert S. Pratt California Registered Professional Engineer CE 47697, SE 9650 Attachments: Four news articles e e� eti t� t� g ei ALBERT S. PRATT 'Since 1919" ' 40470 Brixton Cove Temecula, CA 92591 (Email: sampratt@nctimes.net) (909) 699-8689 California RegL a on: ' Civil Engw« ,No.7697 StruchunJ Fns No.650 28. [country. ril 26, 1994 - City of Temecula Planning Commission. Debbie Ubnoske, Senior ' nner. Public Comments: (Excerpts)Density is a concern_ This project is much re dense that the SWAP plan. Plan does not work well with surrounding velopment. Propose 2 1/2 acre minimum lot sizes. Traffic. Impact on wine 1 French Valley residents do not want this project at all. 29. [Apr"laimer- 26, 1994 - City of Temecula Planning Commission. Debbie Ubnoske, Senior "Commissioner Fahey feels the project does not ft with the area". ommissioner Sayler. " - - questioned "market responsiveness" He feels this hould be a secondary consideration to project design and fit the area. 30. January 6, 1995 - County ofRiverside Transportation and Land Management ' Agency- Johnson Ranch Project. Edwin D. Studor, Transportation Planning Manager: "The response to Item 5 regarding the Traffic Mitigation Monitoring Program Focused Traffic Analysis does not respond to the issue that 400 peak ' hour trips are significant, twice what is required for CMP analysis". 31. January 24, 1995 - City of Temecula Planning Commission. Tim D. Fain, Assistant ' Engineer: TRAFFIC (excerpts) What does 30,000 trips look like? How will Johnson Ranch residents access the freeway? ' 32. May 23, 1995 - County of Riverside Transportation and Land Management Agency - Johnson Ranch Project. Edwin D. Studor. "The project is a major traffic generator and as part of the traffic impact analysis the project will require a traffic ' model to assess cumulative traffic impacts from the project at buildout". ' 33. June 8, 1995 - County of Riverside Transportation and Land Management Agency - Johnson Ranch Specific Plan_ The specific plan is in the area designated as a Specific Plan/Rural Transition Area(SP/RTA). "These higher densities are ' inconsistent with the SP/ATA and are incompatible with the lower densities surrounding the site and its rural character". ' 34. August 14, 1995 - County of Riverside Transportation and Land Management Agency -Johnson Ranch Project. David E. Barnhart, Director of Transportation: "We have also asked' thecity staff[Temecula] to notify us of any proposed changes to the project/at may have transportation or transportation related projects". 35. August 29, 1995 - County of Riverside Transportation and Land Management Agency-Johnson Ranch Project. Louis C. Gamache, Transportation Planning 5 1 ALBERT S. PRATT "Since 1919" 40470 Brixton Cove Temecula, CA 92591 (Email: sampratt@nctimes.net) (909) 699-8689 CahfPo a Regmualim Civic Esyrcc 140.707 n suumual Engineer`Ia 650 ■' 3S Engineer: "The City of Temecula should consult with our Department in order to U assess potential traffic impacts from buildout of the proposed project which may affect the circulation system within the County". 36. August 30, 1995 - County of Riverside Transportation and Land Management Agency -Johnson Ranch Project. "Supervisor Ceniceros and the Department are concerned about area wide circulation, potential traffic impacts to the local residents - - - 37. he comments of Items 28 - 36 are applicable comments to the proposed The of the Roripaugh Ranch Project. 38. January 15, 1995-A summary of Cumulative Projects was a part of the package of review before the Temecula Planning Commission. Thirteen(13) proposed residential developments are listed destroying the environment on 11,247 acres and producing 3 8,666 new residential units - more than the present City of Temecula. The proposed Roripaugh Ranch Project of 2058 new residential units is not ,I included in that summary. 39. he inclusion of the Roripaugh Ranch Project will provide a new summary of ,I ICT umulative Projects of 12,035 acres and 40,424 residential units. 40. CEQA does not allow a project, which in context with proposed projects, is incrementing the development of the southwest Riverside County area without the significant environment impacts mitigated in a MSIR 41. Present traffic stagnation of the City of Temecula exceeds unacceptable Level of Service(LOS) "F" and existing major intersections. This condition is in question as to effective mitigation which will not endanger the health, safety and welfare of the citizens ofthe area. 42. A major portion of the traffic from the Roripaugh Ranch Development will use Winchester Road (SR791) for access to the I-15 freeway. The proposed development of the Johnson Ranch and Rancho Bella Vista will further exacerbate traffic stagnation. Traffic mitigation is not possible "in situ"by providing corridors, increasing road width and other currently accepted traffic mitigation L-proposals used in the preparation of the Environmental Impact Report (EIR). 43. The proposed project Roripaugh Ranch Specific Plan(RRSP) Comprehensive Land Use Plan, Figure 2-2, specifies traffic circulation for ingress and egress via 6 ' ALBERT S. PRATT Since 1919" ' 40470 Brixton Cove Temecula, CA 92591 ' (Email: sampratt@nctimes.net) (909) 699-3689 Calffi m Rrgistra = ' Civd Paga rXm 7697 ftuc=ral Engi No.650 ' 12. ET, Table ES-1, 3.2, Demographics: Proposed housing of 5,351 new residents in Lea,"ho using rich" area aprovides unneeded housing at the expense of the environment. 13. EIR, Table ES-1, 3.3, Earth Resources: "Project may expose new residents- - - to potentially significant seismic hazards" by providing unneeded housing in a ' "housing rich" area exposing the residents to avoidable seismic hazards. 14. EIR, Table ES-1, 3.5, Transportation and Circulation:Project Impacts and ' Cumulative Impacts are significant as unneeded housing is provided in a "housing rich" area destroying the environment adding to presently unmitigated traffic stagnation. ' 15. EIIL, Table EA-1, 3.6, Air Quality: Project Impacts and Cumulative Impacts are significant as unneeded housing is provided in a "housing rich" area destroying the ' environment adding to presently unmitigated air quality resulting from traffic stagnation. ' 16. EM, Table ES-1, 3.7,Biological Resources: Project Impacts and Cumulative Impacts are significant as unneeded housing is provided in a "housing rich" area ' destroying the environment exacerbating the impact on all existing biological resources by cumulative destruction of existing habitat. 17. EIR,Table ES-1, 3.10, Noise: Project Impacts and Cumulative Impacts are significant as unneeded housing is provided in a "housing rich" area destroying the environment adding to presently unmitigated noise resulting from traffic stagnation. I9. EIR, Table ES-1, 111,Public Services: Project Impacts and Cumulative Impacts are significant as unneeded housing is provided in a "housing rich" area destroying the environment and adding indirect overload to existing public services. 19. [EMfT ableES-1, 3.13, Aesthetics: Project Impacts and Cumulative Impacts are gnicantasunneeded housing is provided in a "housing rich" area destroying the nvironment. 20. EM Table ES-1, 3.14, Scientific Resources: Project Impacts and Cumulative Impacts are significant as unneeded housing is provided in a "housing rich" area destroying the environment and the existing scientific resources, known and unknown. 1 3 ALBERT S. PRATT 'Since 1919" 40470 Brixton Cove Temecula, CA 92591 (Email: sampratt@nctimes.net) (909) 699-8689 California Regm== CMI Fade Na 7697 SVumnl Fa&4 allo.650 2I. [The economic gains of further residential development benefit the land owner andedeveloperattheexpenseofthenvironmentofpresent residents of the area tem4). Economicgainforspecialinterests isnotanoverri&ng circumstance for proval of an Ea by either a City or County agency. 22. The availability of new residential housing in developing areas causes prospective buyers to speculate in real estate by moving from their present residence into a new residence as a motive for profit. The vast majority of new housing sales in this area are a matter of choice not shelter. 23. This negatively impacts the environment by causing traffic stagnation on the only existing ingress and egress traffic arteries and further exacerbates the present unmitigated traffic stagnation, freeway and secondary highway "road rage" and 1 affects the health, safety and welfare of the present population of the southwest Riverside County area. 11 24. New secondary roads and corridors provided by developers will impact the capacity of the present egress and ingress traffic arteries, and result in unacceptable 1� LOS 7" at existing intersections now at LOS "D" or better. 25. Public Resources Code: Sections 21000-21178.1 (CEQA) and Appendix VI, 'I CEQA Guidelines. Section 21000(d), "The capacity of the environment is limited and it is the intent of the Legislature that the government of the state take immediate steps to identify any critical thresholds for the health and safety of the people of the states and take all coordinated actions necessary to prevent such thresholds being reached". 26. Section 21001(b), "Take all action necessary to provide the people of this state with clean air and water, enjoyment of aesthetic, natural, natural, scenic and historic environmental qualities, and freedom from excessive noise". 27. The proposed projects Roripaugh, Johnson Ranch and Rancho Bella Vista have a potential combined developed residential development of 8,000 units, an estimated additional 24,000 residents approximately 112 of the present population of the City of Temecula; and require mitigate traffic circulation of a minimum of 16,000 new vehicles. This amount of development in combination with the City of Temecula and the County of Riverside will completely change the present rural environment. 4 ALBERT S. PRATT "Since 1919" 40470 Brixton Cove Temecula, CA 92591 (Email: sampratt@nctimes.net) (909) 699-8689 califo Regstrnt= ' C"Eogac=No.7697 Strucanal Engin No.650 CERTIFIED NIAII. Friday, July 09, 1999 ' Temecula Planning Commission ' TemecuIa City Hall 43200 Business Park Drive Temecula, CA 92390 Subject: Case No.: Planning Application No.: PA94-0075 (Roripaugh Ranch ' Specific PIan) Applicant:. Ashby Development Co./GRC Development Co. Location: The northeast section of the City near the eventual intersection of Murrieta Hot'Springs Road and Butterfield Stage Road Proposal: The approval of a Specific Plan, Annexation, General Plan Amendment, and Zone Change for an area consisting of 788 acres. The ' proposed specific plan includes 2,058 dwelling units, ten acres of commercially zoned property, two schools, three parks and 181 acres of ' open space. ' 1. Albert S. Pratt attended the Planning Commission workshop, June 30, 1999, in the City of Temecula, Council Chambers, on the above stated Planning Application, and is opposed to this project which increases the residential density of the ' Temecula Valley and southwest Riverside County. 2. Albert S. Pratt, is and has been a resident and taxpayer of the City of Temecula for a period exceeding ten years, and a registered voter residing at 40470 Brixton Cove directly south of the project and would have a major portion of the final development in full view. ' 3. Albert S. Pratt is a Registered Professional Engineer in the State of California. Civil Engineer No. 7697 (1949), Structural Engineer No. 650 (1953); is concerned that Respondent performs under the law inasmuch as the approved development affects the environment and quality of life of the residents of Temecula, involves ' the public interest, and he has a direct and beneficial interest in compliance b th Temecula City Council with the requirements of the California Environm falx Quality Act (CEQA), and the.CEQA Guidelines. �� I 1 JUL 1 2 19C�9 ALBERT S. PRATT I J 'Since 1919" 40470 Brixton Cove Temecula, CA 92591 j (Email: sampratt@nctimes.net) (909) 699-8689 Califama Regisvation: Civic Fagmzcr Na 7697 strum rn&i Vo.650 4. The result of non-compliance with CEQA and CEQA Guidelines is irreversible i damage to our environment and will further contribute to the traffic stagnation of the Temecula/Murrieta "hub" affecting the health, safety and we�o e of the citizens of the City of Temecula and the Temecula Valley. 1 5. Three recent attached reprints of news articles support this Letter of Opposition - "Commuting may be rougher on Inland drivers", "Air Inside Cars Found Dirtier '{ Than Outside", "Counties find ways to protect land 6. The present ambience of the existing environment is shown in the EIR, Figure 8, 3.13a and Figure 3.13b. The proposed development destroys the existing environment. 7. The "determined event" of the geographical location Temecula/Murrieta "hub" at the confluence of the most.important -and only - access to 1-15, 1-215, SR79S and SR79N mandates a Master Environmental Report (MEIR)including the area covered by the original Southwest Area Cornmurrity Development Plan(SWAP), -vdsting incorporated cities, and residential developments in unincorporated areas. 11 8. The TemecuIa/Murrieta "hub"will become untenable for traffic circulation with the opening of the New Promenade Mall. This development will serve local area residents and attract customers from the entire southwest Riverside County area. 9. Entertainment, commercial, tight industrial, residential and apartment projects which concentrate large numbers of persons either on an event basis, continuing event basis or permanent housing will exacerbate the present traffic stagnation of the Temecula/Murrieta "hub" and make a significant negative impact on the vironment. 10. Continuing residential development of the southwest Riverside County without a MEIR mitigating existing traffic stagnation and the environmental impact of increased residential growth violates CEQA and CEQA Guidelines. 11. EIR,Table ES-1, Summary of Impacts and Mitigation: 3.1 Land Use and Planning, eI Impact after Mitigation, Loss of prime agricultural land- cannot effectively be mitigated at a local level. 2 1 Temecula, Ca. ' 6-19-99 ' Planning Commission: We are residence living in the County Service Area 149, an area adjacent to and East of the proposed Roripaugh Ranch -Master Planned Community. We Attended the "Calle Contento Neighborhood Meeting" held June 16'', 1999 at Temecula Elementary School. ' We have attended many meetings regarding the planning of this proposal. Ever since this project has been in the planning stages we have requested that there be some kind of barrier placed between the proposed planned ' community and County Service Area 149 where Calle Contento joins the two areas. We believe this permanent barrier is an essential part of the plan, ' as it will curtail city traffic from entering a quiet, rural community selected by us years ago. Rural country roads in the Wine Country have been traditionally an area of reduced traffic and congestion, and we would like to ! keep it that way. The proposed barrier, on the plan to be submitted, will assure us that this road will not become a thoroughfare and it will keep our ' area agricultural and rural. Opening Calle Contento to through traffic would Iend itself to becoming a link between Highway 79 North and 79 South and the traffic would eventually overburden both the proposed Roripaugh tract and the wine country, rural roads. We would in turn lose the serenity and peaceful rural atmosphere we purchased when we decided to live in the Wine Country of Temecula If this area is to be annexed as part of Temecula, we ask you to honor our ' proposal by not opening the Roripaugh Ranch Master Planned Community, Calle Contento Street into the County Service Area 149, and accept it as planned in the proposal being submitted by GRC Development. Thank you for your consideration. ' Sincerely, Mr&Mrs Michael Payne 39790 Avenida Arizona Temecula CA 92591-5012 01-99 17 : 02 FROH:CITY OF TEHECULA ID•9096946477 .-. ..c .�. _ . June 24, 1999 Mr. John De Gange City Planning Department City of Temecula 43200 Business Park Dr. Temecula, California 92590 Dear Mr. De Gange: ' I am a resident of the Calle Contento Neighborhood in the wine country. I am writing to you regarding the upcoming city council review of the Roripaugh Ranch Master planned Community. I have attended a meeting with the developers to evaluate impacts on our neighborhood. The developers have taken into consideration our concerns and have responded favorably in their master plan. ' specifically, I and my neighbors are requesting that the dead end of Calle Contento road remain as a cul-de-sac and not accessible from the Roripaugh development_ Any planning concern about access and safety can be accommodated by a crash gate or other emergency measures. Our primary concern is the residents of the r j Roripaugh development will use the rural area for off road vehicles, motor cycles, and speed tracks. The developers of this project have given this neighborhood 1 consideration by planning open space and low density residence as a barrier between the two neighborhoods. The Calle Contento road is not planned to connect through now or in the future. ( am requesting that the city planning department record ' this letter and notify the residents of Calle Contento neighborhood if there is any decisions to change the design. Additionally, I am requesting the city planning department give consideration to the 1 Calle Contento neighborhood in approving the street lighting density and low power in order to preserve the rural environment that both neighborhoods can appreciate. ' The Keith Company has done an excellent job of responding to our concerns and have worked hard to provide a pian for this community. We are grateful for their efforts and we hope the city will give us the same consideration. rThank you for your attention to this matter. �a ry7 Sincerely, / 3 1 io '73 G C f i JUN 2 9 7999 G�tvGlti/ �� S 6y June 24, 1999 Mr. John De Gange City Planning Department City of Temecula 43200 Business Park Dr. Temecula, California 92590 Dear Mr. De Gange: I am a resident of the Calle Contento Neighborhood in the wine country. I am writing to you regarding the upcoming city council review of the Roripaugh Ranch Master planned Community. I have attended a meeting with the developers to evaluate impacts on our neighborhood. The developers have taken into consideration our concerns and have responded favorably in their master plan. Specifically, I and my neighbors are requesting that the dead end of Calle Contento road remain as a cul-de-sac and not accessible from the Roripaugh development. ' Any planning concern about access and safety can be accommodated by a crash gate or other emergency measures. Our primary concern is the residents of the Roripaugh development will use the rural area for off road vehicles, motor cydes, and speed tracks. The developers of this project have given this neighborhood consideration by planning open space and low density residence as a barrier between the two neighborhoods. The Calle Contento road is not planned to connect through now or in the future. I am requesting that the city planning department record this letter and notify the residents of Calle Contento neighborhood if there is any decisions to change the design. Additionally, I am requesting the city planning department give consideration to the Calle Contento neighborhood in approving the street lighting density and low power in order to preserve the rural environment that both neighborhoods can appreciate. The Keith Company has done an excellent job of responding to our concerns and have worked hard to provide a plan for this community. We are grateful for their efforts and we hope the city will give us the same consideration. Thank you for your attention to this matter. y _ i_,, L I�. Sincerely, - _ J(IL 71999 Bruce Yoder 39825 Aa,CA Ave. 5 k Temecula,CA 92591 IUL-16-SS 11 : 15 FROM.cITY OF TEMECULA ID:9096946477 PAGE 3/3 I 12, 1999 Mr. John De Gange City Plalmmg Department City of Temecula 43200 Business Park Drive Temecula, CA 92590 Dear Mr. De Gauge: We are residents of the Calle Coatento Neighborhood in the wine country (CSA 149). We are writing to you regarding the upcoming city council review of the Roripaugh Ranch Master_Planned Coffiuunity. We have attended many meetings with the developers to evaluate tha impact on our neighborhood. Ever since this project has been in the planning stages, we have requested that there be some kind of barrier placed between the proposed planned community and CSA 149 where Calle Contento joins the two areas. We believe this permanent barrier is an essential part of the plan as it will curtail city traffic from entering a quiet,rural community selected by us years ago. Rural country roads in the Wine Country have been traditionally as area of reduced traffic and coagestion and we would like to keep it that way. The proposed barrier, on the plan to be submitted,wz71 assure us that 1 this road will not become a thoroughfare and it will keep our area agricultural and rural. Opening 1 Calle Contento to through traffic would lend itself to becoming a link between Highway 79 North and 79 South and the traffic would eventually overburden both the proposed Roripaugh tract and the wine country, rural roads. We would, in turn, lose the serenity and peaceful, rural atmosphere we purchased when we decided to live in this area. If this area is to be armexed as part of Temecula, we ask you to honor our proposal by not opening the Roripaugh Ranch Master Planned Cornmunity, Calle Contento Street into the County Service Area 149, and accept it as planned in the proposal being submitted by GRC Development. Additionally,we are requesting the city planning department give consideration to the Calle Contento neighborhood in approving the street lighting density and low power in order to preserve the rural environment that both neighborhoods can appreciate. The Keith Company has done an excellent job of responding to our concerns and bave worked hard to provide a plan for this community. We are grateful for their efforts and we hope the city will give us the same consideration. Thank you for you consideration in this matter. Sincerely, IDA JUL e� W. Nash Dianne!VL Nash Ill 1 t LI3 y I Se APPENDIX C Geotechnical 1 - ah'11W fo Py Leighton and Associates o 1 9 6 1 - 2 0 0 1 GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTANTS o6Qr0 PRELIMINARY GEOTECHNICAL EVALUATION PORTION OF RORIPAUGH RANCH TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 29661 CITY OF TEMECULA RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA May 22, 2001 1 Project No. 11990013-001 I 1 i Prepared For. ASHBY DEVELOPMENT COMPANY INC. 470 E Harrison Corona,California 92879-1314 41715 Enterprise Circle N. Suite 103, Temecula, CA 92590-5661 (909) 296-0530 • FAX (909).296-0534-•-wwwaeightonge6.com Gc.1,rating K N� Leighton and Associates �® 1 9 6 1 - 2 0 0 1 GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTANTS May 22,2001 1 Project No. 11990013-001 ' To: Ashby Development Company Inc. 470 E. Harrison Corona,California 92879-1314 Attention: Mr.Wesley Hylen ' Subject: Preliminary Geotechnical Evaluation, Portion of Roripaugh Ranch, Tentative Tract No. 29661,City of Temecula,Riverside County,California ' In accordance with your request, Leighton and Associates, Inc. (Leighton) has completed this preliminary geotechnical evaluation of the Roripaugh Ranch property located in the City of Temecula, Riverside County, California (See Site Location Map, Figure 1). The purpose of this report is to fulfill the Geology and Soils section of the Environmental Impact Report being prepared by The Keith Companies (TKC).This report summarizes our findings, conclusions and recommendations regarding the known geotechnical conditions encountered within the property. The geotechnical constraints identified include potentially compressible alluvial soil and the secondary effects caused by estimated design seismic event. Both of these conditions may be mitigated by following the pertinent sections of the current and adopted Uniform Building Code and the recommendations presented in this report. It is our opinion that the proposed development is feasible from a geotechnical point of view, provided the findings and preliminary recommendations presented herein are implemented in the design and construction of the Roripaugh Ranch project. The geotechnical consultant should review and perform additional analysis of future grading and development plans and provide additional recommendations as needed. IIf you have any questions regarding this report, please do not hesitate to contact this office. We appreciate this opportunity to be of service. Respectfully submitted, QAOFESStO rq_D QttOQ�,N T. GVgc` LEIGHTON AND ASSOCIATES,INC . RT F, yo CERT m GE 2320 m LNGINEE GE IST * s t9tP 12-31"03 !a .sli`�!� Robert F. Riha,CEG 1921 (Exp.02/28/62 Q� drew T. Guatelli,PE, GE 2320 �� ��� Principal Geologist/Office Manager OF CA1�� Senior Project Engineer ATG/RFR/dIMIL&A 1999/990013-OOIEIRGwEval.dm Distribution: (1) Addressee (6) The Keith Companies,Attention: Mr.Kent Notion(1 unbound) 41715 Enterprise Circle N. Suite 103, Temecula, CA 92590-5661 (909) 296-0530 • FAX (909) 296.0534 • www.leightongeo.com 11990013-001 TABLE OF CONTENTS Section page i1.0 INTRODUCTION/PURPOSE.....................................................................................................................1 1.1 Scope of Work......................................................................................................................................l 2.0 SUMMARY OF GEOTECHNICAL FINDINGS......................................................................:................3 2.1 Proposed Development and Site Description......................................................................................3 I 2.2 Regional Geology.................................................................................................................................3 2.3 Site Geologic Units..............................................................................................................................4 2.3.1 Topsoil (not a mapped unit) ......................................................................................................4 2.3.2 Artificial Fill-Undocumented(Map Symbol Afu)....................................................................4 2.3.3 Alluvium/Colluvium(Map Symbol—Qal/Qc).........................................................................4 2.3.4 Quaternary Pauba Formation(Map Symbol—Qps)........................................... .......5 2.3.5 Cretaceous Granitic Bedrock(Map Symbol-Kgr)...................................................................5 2.3.6 Geologic Structure.....................................................................................................................5 2.4 Rippability............................................................................................................................................5 2.5 Faulting and Seismicity........................................................................................................................6 2.6 Secondary Seismic Hazards.................................................................................................................7 2.6.1 Ground Rupture.........................................................................................................................7 2.6.2 Liquefaction,Densification and Lateral Spreading..................................................................7 2.6.3 Seiches/Tsunamis ....................................................................................................................8 ' 2.6.4 Flooding.....................................................................................................................................8 2.6.5 Seismically-Induced Landsliding,Rockfalls............................................................................8 2.6.6 Seismically-Induced Settlement................................................................................................8 ' 2.7 Seismic Design Parameters..................................................................................................................9 2.8 Groundwater.........................................................................................................................................9 3.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS....................................................................................10 3.1 General................................................................................................................................................10 3.2 Earthwork...........................................................................................................................................10 ' 3.2.1 Removal and Site Preparation.................................................................................................10 3.2.2 Structural Fills and Oversize Materials...................................................................................11 3.2.3 Utility Trenches.......................................................................................................................11 3.2.4 Shrinkage and Bulking............................................................................................................12 3.3 Settlement...........................................................................................................................................12 3.3.1 Settlement from Building Loads.............................................................................................12 3.3.2 Settlement of Fill Soils—Static and Dynamic........................................................................12 3.4 Slope Stability—Cut and Fill Slopes.................................................................................................13 3.5 Drainage....................................................................................................................................:.........14 3.5.1 Subdrainage.............................................................................................................................14 3.6 Tentative Foundation Design.............................................................................................................14 3.6.1 Lateral Earth Pressures and Retaining Wall Design Considerations...................................144 3.7 Footing Setback......................................................................................................................... ...15 _ �``__ 11990013-001 Table of Contents (continued) 3.8 Concrete and Corrosion........................... .........................................................................................16 3.9 Grading of Expansive Soils................................................................................................................16 3.10 Transition Lots and Lot Capping.......................................................................................................16 3.11 Preliminary Pavement Design Parameters........................................................................................16 4.0 GEOTECHIVICAL REVIEW....................................................................................................................18 4.1 Plans and Specifications.....................................................................................................................18 4.2 Construction Review..........................................................................................................................18 5.0 LIMITATIONS...........................................................................................................................................19 Accompanyine Ficoses.Tables.Plates and Appendices Figures Figure 1 —Site Location and Geologic Index Map Page 2 Figure 2—Typical Alluvial Removal Detail End of Text Plate . Plates 1—2 Geotechnical Map In Pocket Plates 3—6 Fault Trench Logs In Pocket Appendices Appendix A—References Appendix B—Geotechnical Logs of Exploratory Trenches and Borings Appendix C— Laboratory Test Results - Appendix D—General Earthwork and Grading Specifications -ii- �e ' 11990013-001 1.0 WTRODUCTION/PURPOSE i The subject property addressed by this report consists of an approximately 602-acre portion of the approximately 800-acre Roripaugh Ranch Property located east of Temecula, Riverside County, California. The Site Location and Geologic Index Map (Figure 1), shows the approximate location of the subject site. This office previously evaluated the remaining portion of the property know as the "Panhandle" (also dedicated as Tentative Tract No. 29661)in the referenced report dated February 28, 2001 (Appendix A). We understand that development will include single family to multi-faurily residential, schools, commercial, park sites and open space areas. The purpose of this preliminary geotechnical evaluation is to summarize pertinent geologic/geotechnical data obtained to date, and evaluate this data with respect to the current plan for the subject site. Our current work included a geologic field investigation of the enfue,Roripaugh Ranch property that included borings, trenches and an extensive fault evaluation. The site development plan utilized for this review was prepared by The Keith Companies (TKC, 2001). We understand that the information included in this report will be incorporated into the environmental impact report for the subject property. The scope of services conducted during our study is provided below: ' 1.1 Scope of Work Our scope of work performed specifically within the subject property included the following items: • Review of provided information, including review of the 100-scale tentative tract lotting lay out study (Plate 1) prepared by the Keith Companies (2001), and review of reports presented in Appendix A. • Geologic site reconnaissance and review of sequential pairs of aerial photographs. ' Excavation, sampling and logging of 40 exploratory backhoe trenches, 37 hollow stem auger borings and 4 bucket auger borings(Appendix B) • Excavation,preparation,logging and analysis of 7 fault trenches(Plates 3-6). • Laboratory testing of selected samples to determine optimum moisture, maximum dry density, expansion potential, sulfate content, grain size distribution, collapse potential, and shear strength. The results of our laboratory testing along with summaries of our testing procedures are presented in Appendix C. • Compilation and analysis of the geotechnical data obtained form the current field investigation and laboratory testing. • Review, technical analysis,and presentation of geotechnical data onto the preliminary tentative tract site development plan(Plates 1 &2). • Preparation of this report, presenting our conclusions and preliminary recommendations regarding �+ the proposed grading and development of the site. The Division of the State Architect would require a detailed investigation for the proposed school site(s) or assisted care facilities, if planned. This preliminary evaluation is not meant as a substitute for a site specific school or health care facility geotechnical report. It is our understanding that an evaluation of any potential presence of hazardous materials at the subject site would be prepared by others.The evaluation of hazardous 1 materials or the presence of methane are beyond the scope of this report. 1 �_ {� ( 'ff�tlii7tt burn k Murrieta Hot Springs Road' �Jj�' oP go 3 MsRoaa ,1,' ' SITE , w ' t` :Calle L `{ -C� -�.. ChapoS:- UG d { M laps deo/ \t Y.. _ O rw It 77 14 LE if �++. w r�� •s� its \ r so' -1, Roams w iF� +, r ♦'ILC' 'r / ✓ �'_ l a 4 tsir f. 1 < < � 1{ I1 l � l f'n 7 i � ✓ w 1 � Y' sP� 5 BASE MAP: Kennedy 1977, Recency and Character of Faulting along (See text for geologic legend) the Elsinore Fault Zone in Southern Riverside County, California CDMG Special Report No. 131 0 2500 5000 v Existing Road 1"=2,500' f� Scale o Proposed Road Roripaugh Ranch Site Location & Tract 29661 and s Long Valley Area (PA-13-22) Geologic Index Project No. 11990013-001 Temecula, California Map Date May 2001 Figure No. 1 11990013-001 1 2.0 SUMMARY OF GEOTECHNICAL FINDINGS 2.1 Proposed Development and Site Description The subject site is generally located east of the present unimproved end of Nicolas Road in the north eastern portion of Temecula, California (See Figure 1). Based on our review of the provided 300-scale site development map (TKC, 2001) the proposed grading will consist of conventional cut and fill hillside grading to create 824 single family residential graded lots, 2 Multi-Family parcels (28.1-acres), a 20-acre school site, a 20.6-acre park site, 4 commercial parcels (54.9-acres), 4 Open Space parcels (223.5-acres) and associated roadways. We anticipate the proposed residential structures to be one- to two- stories in height, with typical wood-frame construction and slab-on-grade foundations. The commercial parcels are anticipated to be up to three stories in height, with wood frame, steel frame, concrete tilt-up or masonry block construction with slab on grade foundations. Based on,review of the provided tentative tract development plan, (TKC, 2001) the proposed maximum ' excavation and fill depths are on the order of 60 feet and 36 feet respectively. Removal of unsuitable surface soils will increase the fill thickness to approximately 60 feet. All proposed cut and fill slopes are assumed to be at inclinations of 2:1 or flatter. ' Topographically the site varies in elevation from a high of 1,423 feet above sea level (msl) located on a prominent ridge line in the northeastern portion of the property to a low elevation of approximately ' 1,180 feet(msl) within the Long Valley Wash, along the south-central property boundary. The property is characterized as a gently southwest sloping elevated plain with two major southwest and westerly trending drainages. The generally flat lying and gentle sloping portions have been utilized for dry farming. Sand has been locally excavated from the channel areas near the existing entrance to the ranch. ' Vegetation on site consists of a moderate growth of grasses and weeds, which cover the majority of the site to a relatively thick growth of brush present along the drainage slopes. A mature stand of eucalyptus trees exists near the main ranch entrance area and several other species were observed in the drainage ' areas. Previous grading and improvements on site include several access roads, a dirt airfield, water wells 1 several residences and storage buildings. Based on our field observations, the adjacent properties are rural residential, agricultural and open space preserve. 2.2 Regional Geologv The subject property is located within a prominent natural geomorphic province in southwestern California known as the Peninsular Ranges. It is characterized by steep, elongated ranges and valleys that generally trend northwestward. The most common rock types found in the Peninsular Ranges consist of 140 to 105 million-year-old formations (Silver and Chappel, 1988), including the metasedimentary Bedford Canyon Formation, and Santiago Peak Volcanics. These formations were intruded by granodiorite, quartz monzonite, and other granitics of the Southern California Batholith during the Cretaceous Period (Kennedy, 1977). Tectonic activity along the numerous faults in the region created the geomorphology present today. Specifically,the subject site is situated in the southern portion of the stable Perris Block, an eroded mass of Cretaceous and older crystalline and metamorphic rock. The Perris Block is bounded by the San Jacinto fault zone to the northeast, the Elsinore fault zone to the southwest, and the Cucamonga fault zone to the northwest. The southeast boundary,along the fringes of the poorly defined Temecula basin. ' 3 �_ 11990013-001 The Perris Block in the Temecula Valley region has had a complex geologic history. The Perris block has undergone relative changes in elevation of several thousand feet in response to movement within the Elsinore and Sar.Jacinto fault zones. Tectonic movement of the past, in conjunction with the semi-arid climate and the weathering resistance of the rock, are responsible for the formation and preservation of ancient,generally flat-lying erosional surfaces now present at various elevations. The sedimentary units of the subject site were deposited on these erosional surfaces. Alluvial deposits fill in the lower valley and drainage areas. The Site Location and Geologic Index. Map, Figure 1, depicts the location of the subject site in relation to the regional geology as mapped by Kennedy (1977) for the area. 2.3 Site Geologic Units The earth materials encountered on site consist of undocumented artificial fill, topsoil, terrace material, two generations of alluvium, a sedimentary unit, and a crystalline granitic bedrock unit. :These units are discussed in-the following sections in order of increasing age. Anticipated removal depths within each of these units (when known) have also been provided in this section for ease of reference. General removals are discussed in Section 3.2 of this report. 2.3.1 Topsoil(not a mapped unit) Topsoil mantles the majority of the site and may also underlie undocumented fill soils and alluvium. Topsoil composition and depth will vary depending upon which near-surface bedrock material it overlies. Topsoil generally consists of dark brown, silty sand with rare lenses of clay and minor to abundant roots depending on agricultural use. Generally, the topsoil unit will range from 1 to 3 feet thick, but thicker accumulations may be encountered. All topsoil materials should be removed from any areas that will receive structural fill soils and/or structural improvements. Topsoil materials cleared of debris and organic material are suitable for use as compacted fills. 2.3.2 Artificial Fill-Undocumented (Map Symbol Afu) Undocumented fill was observed at several locations at the site and it is associated with past Q access road construction, sand pit mining, agricultural water retention and other agricultural use. B Undocumented fill is also associated with all exploratory excavations. The undocumented fill is considered unsuitable for support of additional fill and/or structural improvements in its present a density and moisture content. The clean undocumented fill soils may be used as compacted fill. Artificial fill may be on the order of 3 to 10 feet thick and locally deeper. 2.3.3 Alluvium/Colluvium(Map Symbol—Oal/Qc) Alluvial and colluvial soils will be encountered in drainage areas and along sloping hillsides e throughout the site. These soils generally consist of light to dark brown, loose to locally medium dense, porous, sand, silty sand and clayey sand. All porous compressible alluvium and all colluvium should be removed from any areas that will receive structural fill and/or structural improvements. Removal depths are anticipated to range from approximately 5 to over 25 feet and locally deeper depending upon location.The alluvial/colluvial soils may be used as compacted fill material. 4 11990013-001 2.3.4 Quaternary Pauba Formation(Map Symbol—Qps) The Pauba Formation is present over the majority of the subject site. The Pauba formation consists of light brown to red-brown to olive, dense, massive sandy silts, silty sands and local silty clay. The material is generally considered suitable for support of fill and/or structural improvements. However, weathered porous or friable materials exposed during grading may require removal or overexcavation. Removal depths in areas of proposed structural fill will be I on the order of 3 to 5 feet. Cut slopes exposing friable, non-cohesive sands, or adversely orientated clay seams soft clayey silt may require removal and replacement. ' 2.3.5 Cretaceous Granitic Bedrock(Map Symbol-Ker) Granitic bedrock is locally exposed along the base of northerly natural slopes in the northeastern portion of the property located within the planned open space area. The granitic bedrock underlies the entire site at varying depths.The granite consists of dense to very dense, white to light brown to gray-green, coarse-grained granodiorite. The granitic bedrock is not anticipated to be encountered during grading of the subject area addressed in this report. 2.3.6 Geologic Structure Geologic structure of the subject area is largely controlled by sequences of erosion and deposition. The site is underlain by granite at varying depths, due to the undulatory erosional surface of the granite bedrock. Granite is exposed however along the north facing slopes in the northeast portion of the site. The massive Pauba Formation bedrock unit was deposited on the unconformable surface of the granite. As a result, the Pauba. Formation is exposed throughout the property, and recently deposited younger alluvium and colluvium derived from the Pauba formation and granitic sources east of the site fills the bottom of the drainages. The Pauba formation as observed in our borings (LB-4,LB- 5, LB-6 and LB-7), indicate the Pauba formation is generally massive to interbedded with variable silt and clayey silt inter-beds that are rarely continuous and generally horizontal to sub-horizontal. Several clay seams were encountered in Borings LB-7 slightly dipping (6 to I P) to the south and southeast. Mapping of field exposures in the ' westerly portion of the site however encountered some beds within the Pauba formation that were dipping to the northwest and northeast (22 to 27). This dipping is believed to be related to the regional tectonics of the region. 2.4 Rippability Rippability of on-site earth materials is variable depending on the type of material and depth. The Pauba Formation, topsoil, alluvium and colluvium underlie the majority of the site. These materials ' should be rippable with typical conventional grading equipment such as the Caterpillar D9. Isolated lenses of well-cemented soils can be expected within the topsoil that are expected to be rippable using conventional equipment. s -- -5 �� 11990013-00] 2.5 Faulting and Seismicity The subject site, like the rest of Southern California,is located within a seismically active region as a result of being located near the active margin between the North American and Pacific tectonic plates. The principal source of seismic activity is movement along the northwest-trending regional faults such as the San Andreas, San Jacinto and Elsinore fault zones. These fault systems accommodate approximately 55 millimeters per year of slip between the plates. The Elsinore fault zone is estimated to accommodate a slip rate of 4-5 millimeters per year(mm/yr.)(WGCEP, 1995). By definition of the State Mining and Geology Board, an active fault is one which has had surface displacement within the Holocene Epoch (roughly the last 11,000 years). The State Mining and Geology Board has defined a potentially active fault as any fault which has been active during the Quaternary Period(approximately the last 1,600,000 years). These definitions are used in delineating Earthquake Fault Zones as mandated by the Alquist-Priolo Geologic Hazard Zones Act of 1972 and as subsequently revised in 1994 and 1997 (Hart, 1997),as the Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act and Earthquake Fault Zones. The intent,of the act is to require fault investigations on sites located within Special Studies Zones in order to preclude new construction of certain inhabited structures across the trace of active faults. The subject site is not included within any earthquake Fault Zones as created by the Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act (Hart, 1997). The nearest zoned active fault is the Temecula segment of the Elsinore Fault-Zone located approximately 3.4 miles (5.4 km) southwest of the southwest corner of the site. No features indicative of active faulting were observed within the project boundaries during our supplemental investigation of the subject site. Several lineaments identified by Kennedy (Kennedy, 1977) enter or project into the west central, south boundary and east boundary areas of the tract area (See Figure 1, Plate 1 and Plate2). Based on our recent trenching of these lineaments, it was determined that they are not fault related. There are several significant active faults within southern California that could affect the site in terms of ground shaking. Of these,the San Andreas, San Jacinto, and Elsinore-Temecula Fault Zones are the most prominent due to their proximity and relative high seismic potential. Evidence supporting probable Holocene-aged faulting was observed and documented along the main trace of the Murrieta Hot Springs Fault in an earlier investigation for the tract located to the northwest (Leighton, 1999). Along this fault, located approximately 0.5 mile west to northwest of the subject tract, probable offset Holocene-aged soils and fissure in-filling was observed. Details of the site specific, subsurface fault investigation, sequential stereoscopic aerial photo review and lineament analysis is contained in the report for that tract prepared by Leighton dated March 23, 1999 (Appendix A). aw t -6- _fie 11990013-001 ' 2.6 Secondary Seismic Hazards Secondary hazards generally associated with severe ground shaking during an earthquake are ground rupture, liquefaction, densification, lateral spreading, seiches or tsunamis, flooding (dam or levee failure), landsliding, rockfalls, and seismically-induced settlement. 2.6.1 Ground Rupture I Ground rupture is generally considered to most, likely occur along pre-existing active faults. As no evidence of active faulting was observed within the subject site, the potential for site ground rupture is considered unlikely. ' 2.6.2 Liquefaction,Densification and Lateral Spreading Liquefaction of cohesionless soils can be caused by strong vibratory motion due to 1 earthquakes. Research and historical data indicate that loose granular soils below a near surface ground water table are most susceptible to liquefaction, while the stability of most clayey silts, silty clays and clays deposited in fresh water environments are not adversely ' affected by vibratory motion.Liquefaction is characterized by a loss of shear strength in the affected soil layers; thereby causing the soil`to flow as a liquid. This effect may be manifested at the ground surface by settlement and/or sand boils. In order for the potential effects of liquefaction to be manifested at the ground surface, the soils generally have to be granular, loose to medium dense, saturated relatively hear the ground surface and must be subjected to a sufficient magnitude and duration of ground shaking. ' Based on our observations and the findings of referenced geotechnical reports, the near surface loose/soft alluvial deposits (soils susceptible to liquefaction) on the site will be completely removed and recompacted during remedial grading. In addition, a review of the boring data indicate that an existing shallow (30- foot) groundwater condition is present within the Pauba Formation but not within the alluvial soils. Therefore, given the subsurface conditions observed, it is our opinion that the potential for adverse liquefaction and associated dynamic settlement to surface structures due to the design earthquake event is considered negligible to low for this site. When considering future or potential rise in groundwater due to irrigation of the proposed residential development, the potential for liquefaction to affect surface improvements within the low lying Long Valley Wash areas underlain by alluvium is considered low. Areas underlain by compacted fill over Pauba formation materials have a negligible potential for liquefaction.. Improvements that cross natural alluvial earth materials within Long Valley Wash or Santa Gertrudis Creek, i.e., utilities, bridges, roadway embankments, should either incorporate some liquefaction mitigation or remove the natural earth materials to bedrock (Pauba Formation) and replace them with compacted artificial fill. The latter may not be feasible when considering the contrasting permeability of natural alluvium and artificial fill and the potential increased impedance of groundwater flow. This does not preclude the densification of dry granular ' soils onsite above groundwater during strong ground shaking. Ground accelerations generated from the design seismic event (10% probability of exceedance in 50 years) may produce settlement in relatively dry sands or granular earth materials located above the water table (ASCE, 1994). Based on visual inspection of the retrieved samples, blow counts recorded during drilling, and laboratory test results, we conclude that there is a low potential for the onsite materials above the water table to densify Jim �� 11990013-001 during strong ground shaking. Following remedial grading and development, the primary area of potential densification will be within the unimproved Long Valley Wash above the groundwater table. Refer to the settlement section of this document for estimated magnitudes of settlement. The phenomenon of lateral spreading is associated with liquefaction of soils adjacent to a body of water or water course (river, stream, canal). Lateral spreading is therefore considered as a liquefaction-induced ground failure whereby block(s) of surficial intact natural or Artificial fill soil displaced downslope or towards a free face along a shear zone that has formed within the liquefied sediment (Bartlett and Youd, 1995). The displacement of the ground surface associated with this lateral spreading may be on the order of several inches to several feet at the edge of a creek channel. Due to the relatively dry nature of the Alluvial materials within the creek, the elevation of the bedrock below the creek, the creek cross-sectional geometry, and the planned remedial grading along the Long Valley Wash, the potential for lateral spreading to affect the development is very low. When considering the rise in groundwater within the alluvial materials in the Long Valley Wash, this potential for lateral spreading is considered very low to low. 2.6.3 Seiches/Tsunamis Due to the inland location of the site, the possibility of Tsunamis is considered nil. Based on the elevation and proximity of the subject site to Lake Skinner, a seiche hazard is considered very low. 2.6.4 Floodine The Metropolitan Water District Aqueduct system traverses near the western boundary. Rupture of this pipeline could pose some local temporary-flooding risk. 2.6.5 Seismically-Induced Landsliding,Rockfalls Based on our review and subsurface investigation, no significant landslides have been identified during this investigation. The major earth materials observed, both granitics and the Pauba Formation, are generally not prone to landsliding,however surficial failures are known to occur. Due to the relatively flat-lying nature of the Pauba formation and the massive granitic bedrock, Landsliding due to seismic activity is not anticipated. Since development is not proposed below potential rock fall areas,no hazard exists. 2.6.6 Seismically-Induced Settlement Seismically Induced Settlement (dynamic densification) generally occurs within areas of loose granular soils with relative low moisture and density. Provided the recommended earthwork removals outlined in Section 3.2 are performed, the potential for dynamic densification is considered low. We estimate the post-construction (grading) dynamic densification potential to be in accordance with Section 3.3. Additional evaluation of estimated dynamic densification may be performed during the review of rough grading plans and preparation of remedial earthwork guidelines or after the time of rough grading. - 8 - ®tom ' 11990013-001 2.7 Seismic Design Parameters Our evaluation of the regional seismicity included a deterministic analysis utilizing EQFAULT and EQSEARCH,' (Blake, 2000). The nearest known zoned active fault and source of the design earthquake is the Temecula Segment of the Elsinore Fault Zone located approximately 3.4 miles (5.4 km) southwest of the southwest comer of the site. The maximum credible earthquake is estimated to be magnitude 6.8. The Uniform Building Code (UBC) established Seismic Zones (often accepted as minimum ' standards) based on maps showing ground motion with a 475-year return period or a 10% probability of exceedance in 50 years. Our analysis indicates a 10% probability that a peak ground acceleration of 0.57g may exceeded in 50 years. The design earthquake therefore, is considered a magnitude 6.8 event on either the Temecula segment of the Elsinore Fault Zone or the Murrieta Hot Springs Fault that would generate a probabilistic peak ground acceleration of 0.578 (FRISKSP, Blake 2000). The effect of seismic shaking may be mitigated by adhering to the 1997 Uniform Building Code (UBC) and seismic design parameters suggested by the Structural Engineers 1 Association of California. Seismic design parameters are presented below: Seismic Zone = 4 Seismic Source Type = -B Near Source Factor,Na = 1.0 Near Source Factor,N„ = 1.2 Soil Profile Type = SD Horizontal Peak Ground Acceleration = 0.57g (10%probability in 50 years) ' 2.8 Groundwater ' Groundwater water was locally encountered during out recent field investigations at the subject site (see boring logs Appendix B). The ground water encountered during our 1999 investigation was _ found only within the Pauba formation bedrock and was found to be generally more than 29 feet below the ground surface (Appendix B). It should be noted that future irrigation water might impact proposed cut slopes or fill over cut slopes. ' Cut slopes that expose the Pauba formation with interbedded siltstone, sandstone and claystone may present some future seepage related problems. This should be evaluated on a case-by-case basis during grading. 1 ; & Z- -9- 11990013-001 3.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 3.1 General Based on our geotechnical evaluation, it is our opinion that the proposed development is feasible from a geotechnical standpoint and may be constructed provided the following recommendations are incorporated into design and implemented during grading and construction. The following sections discuss the principal geotechnical concerns affecting site development and grading, and provide preliminary recommendations for planning purposes. 3.2 Earthwork Earthwork should be performed in accordance with both the General Earthwork and Grading Specifications in Appendix E, and the following preliminary recommendations. The recommendations contained in Appendix E are general grading specifications provided for typical grading projects. Some of the recommendations may not be strictly applicable to this project. The specific recommendations contained in the text of this report supersede the general recommendations in Appendix E and may be amended during future plan review studies. The contract between the developer and earthwork contractor should be worded such that it is the responsibility of the contractor to place fill properly, in accordance with the recommendations of this report, notwithstanding testing and observation by the geotechnical consultant. Care should be taken by the contractor when grading along project boundaries to protect existing offsite structures and properties.The developer may wish to include pre-construction photographic documentation and/or monitoring of adjacent improvements and properties prior to and during construction of this project. 3.2.1 Removal and Site Preparation Prior to grading of the subject site, the proposed structural improvement areas (i.e. all structural fill areas, pavement areas, buildings, etc.) should be cleared of surface and subsurface obstructions, heavy vegetation, roots and debris. These materials should be disposed of offsite. Removal of unsuitable, compressible materials should be anticipated within areas to receive fill, and within some areas of cut where unsuitable materials extend 1 below proposed cut grades. Minor offsite grading may be necessary to achieve the desired removals. Unsuitable materials consist of undocumented fill, topsoil, alluvium, colluvium and highly weathered bedrock, and they should be totally removed prior to fill placement. The removal depths of these materials will vary with location. Non-weathered to moderately weathered, non-porous, Pauba formation bedrock is considered competent material. Keyways will be necessary at toe areas of all proposed fill slopes throughout the site. Keyways o are also required for the fill portions of fill over cut slopes. Schematics of these keyways are provided in the General Earthworks and Grading Specifications, Appendix E. Keyways should be excavated into dense, non-porous competent material, and geologically mapped prior to fill placement. For fill over cut slopes, a keyway should be excavated at the interface of the cut to fill transition (after removal of unsuitable surficial soils) and after excavation of the underlying cut portion of the slope. Keyways for fill over cut slopes should be a minimum of 18 feet wide and inclined into slope a•minimum of 2 percent. Keyways for larger (greater than 40 feet high) fill slopes will require key excavations on the order of 20 feet wide into approved bedrock. In addition, benching should be performed into dense, competent material as fill placement proceeds adjacent to all slopes steeper than 5:1 (horizontal:vertical). A minimum bench height of 2 feet into approved,competent material should be maintained at all times. aia- - 10- e , 11990013-001 ' Overexcavation of cut to fill transition pads should be performed to a minimum of 3 feet below pad grade. Overexcavation limits may encompass entire lots or extend to approximately 10 feet outside building footprint(s). Overexcavation to depths greater than 3 feet maybe recommended in order to minimize the differential fill thickness to less than 20 feet within any structural lot. Actual limits can be determined during rough grading procedures. It is expected that most 1 transition lots will not be overexcavated until rough-grading procedures occur on each of the individual pads. After completion, of the removal of unsuitable soils and overexcavation of transition lots, approved removal bottoms should be scarified a minimum of 6-inches, moisture conditioned as necessary to near optimum and compacted. ' 3.2.2 Structural Fills and Oversize Materials The onsite soils are suitable for use as compacted fill, provided they are relatively free of ' organic materials and debris. If boulders larger than four feet are encountered, they should be crushed/broken in place to a size less than four feet or removed from the fill area. Fills containing appreciable percent of rocks (greater than 20 percent)with diameters greater than 12 ' inches should be placed in accordance with the alternatives presented in Appendix E. Areas to receive structural fill and/or other surface improvements should be prepared in ' .accordance with Section 3.2 and scarified to minimum depth of 6 inches, brought to near optimum moisture content, and compacted. The optimum lift thickness to produce a uniformly compacted fill will depend on the type and size of compaction equipment used. In general, fill should be placed in uniform lifts not exceeding 8 inches in thickness. Fill soils ' should be placed at or above the minimum optimum moisture content and compacted to minimum 90 percent (95 percent for fills greater that 40 feet in depth) based on ASTM Test Method D1557. Fills placed on slopes, steeper than 5 to 1 (horizontal to vertical) should be ' keyed and benched into approved formational soils (see Appendix E for benching detail). Placement and compaction of fill should be performed in accordance with the City of Temecula Grading Ordinance under the full-time observation and testing of the geotechnical 1 consultant. 3.2,3 Utility Trenches ' The onsite soils may generally be suitable as trench backfill provided they are screened of rocks over 6 inches in diameter and organic matter. Trench backfill should be compacted in uniform lifts (not exceeding 8 inches in compacted thickness) by mechanical means to at least 90 percent relative compaction (ASTM Test Method DI557). Excavation of utility trenches should be performed in accordance with the project plans, specifications and all applicable OSHA requirements. The contractor should be responsible for providing the 'competent person" required by OSHA standards. Temporary utility trench walls should be constructed at 1:1 (horizontal to vertical) slope inclinations or flatter. Alternating ' shoring, designed in accordance with a structural engineer's recommendations should be used. Contractors should be advised that sandy soils(such as fills generated from the onsite alluvium) can make excavations particularly unsafe if all safety precautions are not taken. In addition, excavations at or near the toe of slopes and/or parallel to slopes may be highly unstable due to the increased driving force and load on the trench wall. Spoil piles due to the excavation and construction equipment should be kept away from the sides of the trenches. - 11 - �� 11990013-001 3.2.4 Shrinkage and Bulking The volume change of excavated onsite materials upon recompaction is expected to vary with materials, density, insitu moisture content, location and compaction effort. The in-place and 1 compacted densities of soil materials will vary and accurate overall determination of shrinkage and bulking cannot be made. Therefore, we recommend site grading include, if possible, a balance area or ability to adjust import quantities to accommodate some variation. Based on our experience with similar materials,the following values are provided as guidelines: Topsoil,Alluvium,Colluvium, 10 to 15 percent shrinkage Undocumented-reusable Fill and Weathered Pauba formation Bedrock Pauba Formation Bedrock,non-weathered 10 percent shrink to 5 percent bulking 3.3 Settlement Settlement of onsite fill materials is expected to mostly occur during and within 90 days following fill placement. However, following the placement of fill and construction of residences, additional settlement may occur due to(a)new footing/foundation loads and (b)compression within the fill due to the effects of landscaping irrigation. Settlements of buildings on bedrock pads (cut) or settlement of fills, of less than 10 feet thick overlying properly prepared bedrock is not expected to be significant. 3.3.1 Settlement from Building Loads Buildings located on compacted sandy fill soils (90 percent relative compaction) should be designed in anticipation of 1/2 inch of total settlement and 1/4 inch of differential settlement in 40 feet. This settlement is anticipated to occur during construction as the load is applied. These settlements and angular distortions are for imposed building loads and do not include compression within the fill itself. 3.3.2 Settlement of Fill Soils —Static and Dynamic Fill thickness on this portion of the Roripaugh project site (Tract 29661) is expected to be up to approximately 36 feet. Fill thickness including the planned removal depths will increase this estimate to near 60 feet. Our evaluation of compression within the planned fill soils assumes that the fill thickness variation within the limits of a residential lot is limited to 20 feet or less. 1 In addition, as previously discussed, Leighton recommends that fills in the upper 40 feet be compacted to 90 percent relative compaction while planned compacted fills greater than 40 feet (40 feet of thickness below finished grades) be compacted to 95 percent relative compaction with the fill moisture conditioned to/or above optimum. If the fill is compacted in this manner, settlements are anticipated to be relatively low. Post-construction differential settlements for areas underlain by 40 feet or less of compacted fill over dense bedrock, (Pauba Formation) is anticipated 1 inch in 40 feet or less. Laboratory tests on the onsite alluvial material indicated Hydrocollapse(hydro consolidation)potential of 0 to 10.63 percent. Due to the planned grading to remove these materials to the Pauba Formation, this hydrocollapse potential will be reduced to a less than significant amount. Further evaluation of the estimate of fill settlement should be performed when final grades and/or grading plans are provided. - 12- 1 11990013-001 ' Fill soils that are above the regional water table and described as sands (Unified Soil Classification System, SP, SM or SW) and compacted to near optimum moisture content, may be susceptible to dynamic densification during strong ground shaking. For this particular site, densification is anticipated to be low on fill soils compacted from 90 to 95 percent relative compaction and moisture conditioned to near optimum. Additional analysis of dynamic effects on compacted fills should be performed when final grading plans are provided to this office. Although most utilities should tolerate the seismic distress anticipated, gravity drainage utilities should be evaluated for the effects of the potential static and dynamic settlement. Settlement and resultant cracks in asphalt, flatwork and curbs are likely when subject to seismic shaking ' and may not be practical nor economical to design these improvements to mitigate these effects. Settlement due to liquefaction is not anticipated to significantly contribute to this dynamic settlement due to the planned preparation of the site with primarily fill over prepared bedrock. ' Liquefaction and associated settlement is possible within the Long Valley Wash that is present onsite. Final designs for roads, utility crossings and bridges should evaluate the potential for liquefaction and associated settlement. 3.4 Slope Stability—Cut and Fill Slopes ' Our geologic mapping indicates that highly weathered or loose friable sands within the Pauba formation bedrock or unfavorable bedding may locally be exposed in the proposed cut slopes. ' Recommendations for alternative slopes can be provided during future grading plan reviews or on a case-by-case basis based on conditions encountered in the field during grading. ' Cut slopes should be geologically mapped during grading to evaluate the exposed conditions. Care should be taken not to over-cut during excavation of proposed cut slopes. Care should be taken to not attempt a"sliver"fill back into these areas. Cut and fill slopes should be provided with appropriate surface drainage features and landscaped with drought-tolerant, slope-stabilizing vegetation as soon as possible after grading to reduce the potential for erosion. Berms should be provided at the top of fill slopes, and brow ditches should be constructed at the top of all cut slopes. The v-ditch should be founded in dense fill or bedrock, but not in topsoil or colluvium. Lot drainage should be directed such that runoff on slope faces in minimized. Inadvertent oversteepening of cut and fill slopes should be avoided during fine grading ' and building construction. If seepage is encountered in slopes, special drainage features may be recommended by the geotechnical consultant. In addition, due to the granular nature of some of the site soils, construction of the fill slopes may warrant blending of cohesive soils into very sandy soils in order to increase surficial slope stability. This should be further evaluated during future plan reviews. Medium to highly expansive clayey 1 soils,if placed within 15 feet of the slope face, may be subject to surficial instability or slope creep. We recommend that clayey soils be thoroughly mixed with poorly graded sands to prixluce a better quality fill material which will be more effective in reducing erosion and increasing surficial ' stability. Although the provided plans did not depict the final slope geometry for all slopes, it is anticipated that cut and fill slope inclinations will be primarily 2:1 (horizontal to vertical)All slopes are to be ' designed to a minimum factor of safety of 1.5 for static and pseudostatic analysis, respectively, when considering gross (global) stability. All slopes should be constructed in accordance with the most current version of the Uniform Building Code (UBC) guidelines and County of Riverside requirements. 13 - = 11990013-001 1 All 2:1 fill slopes over 40 feet in height should be constructed with 90 percent relative compaction in the upper 40 feet and 95 percent relative compaction below that. This 95 percent compaction should extend from the slope face a minimum horizontal distance equal to the overall height of the slope or approved bedrock. The outer portion of fill slopes should be either overbuilt by 2 feet(minimum)and trimmed back to 1 the finished slope configuration or compacted in increments of 5 feet (maximum) by a sheepsfoot roller as the fill is placed and then trackwalked to achieve the final configuration. 3.5 Drainage Over-the-slope drainage should not be permitted. All drainage should be directed away from slopes and structures by means of approved permanent/temporary drainage devices. Adequate storm drainage of the super pads should be provided to avoid siltation of temporary catch basins. Linear sandbagging of the super pads tangential to flow directions in periodic intervals, should reduce erosion potential of runoff over these pads. 3.5.1 Subdrainaae Subdrains will be necessary in canyons where fills exceed 10 feet in thickness and in fill-over- cut keyways. Fills generally saturate at or near the contact with impermeable bedrock and the subdrains should outlet this excess water to suitable discharge areas. Contacts on fill-over-cut slopes which daylight bedrock can present seepage problems once irrigation of the slopes and upper pad areas begins.. The subdrainage within the fill over cut keyways should mitigate this seepage problem. Subdrain details are provided in Appendix D, General Earthwork and Grading Specifications. Canyon subdrains up to 500 lineal feet should consist of 6-inch diameter perforated pipe. Canyon subdrains that are greater than 500 lineal feet should consist of 8-inch perforated pipe and greater than 1,000 lineal feet should consist of 12-inch perforated pipe. A 20-foot section of non-perforated pipe should be placed at the outlet location. The connection between the perforated and non-perforated pipe should be sealed with a minimum 6- inch thick,concrete cut-off wall placed a minimum of 2-feet beyond the perimeter of the gravel "burrito". All outlets should be protected with a concrete apron and cover. Subdrain pipe may be schedule 40 PVC (or equivalent)placed in accordance with Appendix D. 3.6 Tentative Foundation Design Foundations and slabs should be designed in accordance with structural considerations as provided by the project structural consultant and the minimum recommendations presented herein. Foundations are anticipated to be conventional shallow footings with slab on-grade floors. All foundation designs should be in general accordance with the UBC (UBC, 1997 edition or currently adopted) and the recommendations herein. Alternative foundations may be provided if needed, following the review of the as-graded conditions.We recommend that as grading progresses,building pads should be evaluated for their expansion potential and differential fill thickness. The final footing and slab design for each proposed structure should be designed based on the results of that evaluation. 3.6.1 Lateral Earth Pressures and Retaining Wall Design Considerations 1 The site retaining walls should be designed for lateral pressures using the low expansive site soil(expansion index less than 50 per UBC 18-I-13)and level or sloping backfill. 14- 11990013-001 ' Embedded structural walls should be designed for lateral earth pressures exerted on them. The magnitude of these pressures depends on the amount of deformation for the "active" case that the wall can yield under load. This magnitude of deformation is typically in the 1 range of 0.0005 to 0.001H, where "IT' is height of wall. If the wall can yield enough to mobilize the full shear strength of the soil, it can be designed for "active" pressure. If the wall cannot yield under the applied load, the shear strength of the soil cannot be mobilized ' and the earth pressure will be higher. Such walls should be designed for "at rest" conditions. If a structure moves toward the soils, the resulting resistance developed by the soil is the "passive" resistance. Surcharge loading effects from the adjacent structures should be evaluated by the geotechnical and structural engineer. All retaining wall structures should be provided with appropriate drainage and waterproofing. The outlet pipe should be sloped to drain to a ' suitable outlet. Wall backcut excavations less than 5 feet in height can be made near vertical. For backcuts greater than 5 feet in height, but less than 15 feet in height, the backcut should be flattened to a gradient of not steeper,than 1:1 (horizontal to vertical) slope inclination. Alternatively, the contractor may elect to install shoring in lieu of a 1:1 layback of trench walls. Shoring should be properly designed by a structural engineer. For backcuts in excess of 15 feet in height, specific recommendations should be requested from the geotechnical consultant. The granular and native backfill soils should be compacted to at least 90 percent relative compaction(based on ASTM Test Method D1557). The granular fill should extend horizontally to a minimum distance equal to one-half the wall height behind the walls.The walls should be constructed and backfilled as soon as possible after ' backcut excavation. Prolonged exposure of backcut slopes may result in some localized slope instability. For site walls over 5 feet or that present a life/safety hazard, the lateral earth pressures ' should be increased to reflect the increment of additional pressure caused by the design earthquake. Accordingly, an increment of lateral pressure equal to 19 HZ, where H is the height of the wall, should be applied at a distance of 0.6H above the toe of the wall. Under the combined effects of static and earthquake loads on the wall, a factor of safety between 1.1 and 1.2 is acceptable when evaluating the stability (sliding, overturning) of the wall (NAVFAC DM 7.2). All retaining wall structures should be provided with ' appropriate drainage and waterproofing. ' 3.7 Footine Setback We recommend a minimum horizontal setback distance from the face of slopes for all structural footings and settlement-sensitive structures (i.e. fences, walls, signs, etc.). This distance is measured form the outside edge of the footing,horizontally to the slope face(or to the face of a retaining wall) as indicated in the UBC. Additional setback recommendations should be provided upon review of the final grading plan. We should note that the soils within a slope setback area posses poor, long term lateral stability, and improvements (such as retaining walls, sidewalks, fences, pavement, underground utilities, etc.) ' constructed within this setback area may be subject to lateral to lateral movement and/or differential settlement. ' 15 �� 11990013-001 3.8 Concrete and Corrosion Laboratory Sulfate tests from the overall Roripaugh site and nearby projects indicate a negligible to moderate concentration of soluble sulfates for onsite surficial soils (Appendix A). Additional testing of exposed subgrade soils should be performed at or near the completion of grading. Concrete in contact with onsite earth materials soil should comply with Table 19-A4 of the 1997 Uniform Building Code. Additional corrosion evaluations of onsite soils should include buried metals in contact with site soils. A qualified corrosion specialist should review the results of additional test results with respect to the project plans. 3.9 Grading of Expansive Soils Although the majority of the onsite soils will have a low to medium expansion potential, localized pockets of alluvium, topsoil and the Pauba formation may have a medium to very high expansion potential. If expansive soils are utilized at pad grade, typical expansive soil-related distress (such as cracked flatwork and stucco, poor vegetation growth, etc.) may be expected over the life of the project. Accordingly, we recommend that if possible, expansive soils encountered during grading operations be placed in fill areas below a depth of 5 feet measured from the finished grade and not within 15 feet of the face of any slope. Expansive soils exposed at finished pad elevations should likewise be removed to a depth of 5 feet and replaced with very low to low expansion potential compacted fill unless special foundation design recommendations for expansive soil are implemented. 3.10 Transition Lots and Lot Capping In order to reduce the potential for differential settlement in areas of transition (cut-fill lots), we recommend that the entire cut be overexcavated to a minimum depth of 3 feet, (or deeper to maintain a maximum fill differential of 20 feet), and replaced with properly compacted fill of very low to low expansion potential. The overexcavation and recompaction should laterally extend a minimum of 5 feet beyond the building perimeter or extend laterally across the treated area of the lot. The base of the overexcavated portions of the lot should slope at approximately 2 percent toward the fill side to avoid ponding water, which may.result in future seepage problems. In addition, final determination of lots that require undercutting due to transition or large differential fill thickness (greater than 20 feet) conditions should be determined in the field. 3.11 Preliminary Pavement Design Parameters Traffic Index (TI) data was not available to us at the time of preparation of this report. This TI information will be necessary to finalize the flexible pavement sections(AC and base rock). However, for planning and estimating purposes we have made some assumptions based on the anticipated usage. The recommendations provided below are for an assumed R-value of R=40. Tests of the exposed subgrade should be performed at the completion of rough-grading to confirm the appropriate pavement section. Appropriate TI data should be selected by the project civil engineer or traffic engineering consultant for finalization of the pavement section and should be in general accordance with local, county and industry standards. - 16- �`� 11990013-001 ' The subgrade soils in the upper 6 inches of the streets, driveways and parking areas should be properly compacted to at least 95 percent relative compaction (ASTM D1557) and should be well moisture- conditioned to near optimum and kept in this condition until the pavement section is constructed. ' Minimum relative, compaction requirements for aggregate base rock should be 95 percent of the maximum laboratory density as determined by ASTM D1557. Base rock should conform to the ' "Standard Specifications for Public Works Construction" ("Green Book")current edition or (Caltrans) California Department of Transportation, Standard Specification Section 26, Class 2 aggregate base having a minimum R-value of 78. Asphaltic Concrete, Portland Cement Concrete and base materials ' should conform to and be placed in accordance with the current and adopted Green Book, Standard Specifications for Public Works Construction. The pavement sections provided in this section are meant as minimum, if thinner or highly variable pavement sections are constructed, increased maintenance and repair may be needed. The use of concrete cutoff or edge barriers should be considered at the perimeter of the common parking or driveway areas when they are adjacent to either open(unfinished)or landscaped areas. 1 1 1 ' - 17- � 11990013-001 4.0 GEOTECIINICAL REVIEW Geotechnical review is of paramount importance in engineering practice. The poor performance of many 1 foundation and earthwork projects have been attributed to inadequate construction review. We recommend that Leighton and Associates be provided the opportunity to review the following items. 4.1 Plans and Specifications The geotechnical engineer should review the project rough grading plans and specifications prior to release for bidding and construction. Such review is necessary to determine whether the geotechnical recommendations have been effectively implemented. Review findings should be reported in writing by the geotechnical engineer. 4.2 Construction Review Observation and testing should be performed by Leighton and Associates representatives during 1 construction.. It should be anticipated that the substrata exposed during construction may vary from that encountered in the test borings or trenches. Reasonably continuous construction observation and review during site grading and foundation installation allows for evaluation of the of the actual soil conditions and the ability to provide appropriate revisions where required during construction. Site preparation, removal of unsuitable soils, approval of imported earth materials, fill placement, foundation installation and other site geotechnically-related operations should be observed and tested by representatives of Leighton and Associates. As noted in this report, pre-construction activities may include photographic or summary documentation of adjacent properties. The adjacent sites should be periodically monitored during construction,particularly when working in close proximity to property lines. Additional laboratory tests of subsurface materials to confirm compacted density and moisture content, corrosion potential, expansion potential, compression of deep fills and resistance value (R-value) should be performed during grading. Now 18 � 44;;z 1 11990013-001 ' 5.0 LIMITATIONS ' This report was prepared for Ashby Development, based on Ashby Development's needs, directions and requirements at the time. ' This report was necessarily based in part upon data obtained from a limited number of observances, site visits, soil and/or samples, tests, analyses, histories of occurrences, spaced subsurface explorations and limited information on historical events and observations. Such information is necessarily incomplete. The ' nature of many sites is such that differing characteristics can be experienced within small distances and under various climatic conditions. Changes in subsurface conditions can and do occur over time. ' This report is not authorized for use by, and is not to be relied upon by any party except, the Ashby Development, its successors and assigns as owner of the property, with whom Leighton has contracted for the work. Use of or reliance on this report by any other party is at that party's risk. Unauthorized use of or reliance on this Report constitutes an agreement to defend and indemnify Leighton & Associates from and ' against any liability which may.arise as a result of such use or reliance, regardless of any fault,negligence, or strict liability of Leighton and Associates. 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 - 19- � tl /Design Flll rM,3 40, CE 20' Channel T Yylf4� yy k a 5.. �. ig"" ' I�v�k'rxY '.aJ (ti}: 5xf ar A rs. ,S \ Y "£ X. x€fF .+k+Lry / z f',%jf & f c�{,Y 2 ^v^ 1UYx1 Pi-t t.•.e/ •^s;Y'}YA�yo y .I}_ S r »lu a'' " `fxK°yi.'�/6$rt x r mz•.s.r �£ f#i.,T'++.35t"'3i,�t� r\. / ', rir ,'a y*.y..::s leRemoval ♦ AIluvlum�Y.ftis44,h'X i �v'.�` �>�r�\ ✓!i ��y+Jxk'gf .+'..�� / ts;.���y'�' $S .'�,qA�M �xr+.c�§^t1- rry -:.' \`�¢ .,,` �M'w and,.,...�_ ,e.:s.sw..,2.... ir1 Tt'>r r �'��`nR' '�`+.�� {k ^?+' Fa w f xr�" 1 ':, ✓ Y �! ""x i � � �`° d>^ -ter � 6 s .�' Re , OoVa�It ✓'p✓ : t ,� iy7 f �w���,jf..� 1� \� d,5a.�/��+�+ ,�!'a �:`ti � >M4�'�x...ti"+^ Bedrock - Pauba Formation NTS TYPICAL ALLUVIAL REMOVAL DETAIL Project No.Scale Not to KAB scale Engr./Geol. ATG/RFR Long Valley Wash , Roripaugh Ranch Drafted By KAB City of Temecula Date May 2001 Riverside County, California Leighton and Associates, Inc. Figure No. 2 ' 11990013-001 ' APPENDIX A References Abrahamson, N. A., and Silva, W. J., 1997, Empirical Response Spectral Attenuation Relationships for Shallow Crustal Earthquakes, in Seismological Research Letter, Vol. 68, No. 1, January/February 1997. 1 Adkan Engineers, 2000, Preliminary Grading Plan, Tentative Tract No. 29661, Roripaugh Ranch Specific Plan, Plot Date January 20, 2000. ' Albee, A.L., and Smith, J.L., 1996, Earthquake Characteristics and Fault Activity in Southern California, in Lung, R., and Proctor, R., ed., Engineering Geology in Southern California, ' Association of Engineering Geologists, Special Publication,dated October 1966. American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE), 1994, Settlement Analysis, Technical Engineering and ' Design Guides as Adapted from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, No. 9, ASCE Press, 1994. ' Blake, T.F., 2000a, EQSEARCH A Computer Program for the Estimation of Peak Horizontal Acceleration from Southern California Historical Earthquake Catalogs,User's Manual. , 2000b, EQFAULT, A Computer Program for the Deterministic Prediction of Peak ' Horizontal Acceleration from Digitized California Faults, User's Manual, 79 pp. , 2000c, FRISKSP, A Computer Program for the Probabilistic Estimation of Seismic ' Hazard Using Faults as Earthquake Sources, User's Manual, 116 pp. , 2000d, Annual Update of California Seismicity Database, Thomas F. Blake Computer ' Services and Software. Bolt, B.A., 1973, Duration of Strong Ground Motion, proc. Fifth World Conference on Earthquake IEngineering, Rome, Paper No. 292,pp. 1394-1313,dated June, 1973. Bonilla, M.J., 1970, Surface Faulting and Related Effects, in Wiegel, R., ed., Earthquake Engineering, New Jersey, Prentice-Hall,Inc.,p. 47-74. Boore, David M., Joyner, William B., and Fumal, Thomas E., 1997, Empirical Near-Source Attenuation Relationships for Horizontal and Vertical Components of Peak Ground ' Acceleration, Peak Ground Velocity, and Peudo-Absolute Acceleration Response Spectra, in Seismological Research Letter Vol. 68,No. 1,January/February 1997. BSSC, 1994, NEHRP Recommended Provisions for Seismic Regulations for New Buildings, Part 1 — Provisions, FEMA 222A4, NEHRP Recommended Provisions for Seismic Regulations for New Buildings, Part 1 — Provisions, FEMA 222A, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 290p. ' California, Department of Water Resources, 1971, Water Wells and Springs in the Western Part of the Upper Santa Margarita River Watershed,Bulletin No. 91-20. California, State of, Department of Conservation, Division of Mines and Geology, 1997, Guidelines for Evaluation and Mitigating Seismic Hazards in California, Special Publication 117, ' Adopted March 13, 1997. _ 1 ' A-1 11990013-001 APPENDIX A (continued) California, State of, Department of Transportation, 1987, Peak Acceleration from Maximum Credible Earthquakes in California,Modified from Maulchin and Jones, CDMG Map Sheet 45. 1 California, State of, Department of Special Studies Zone Map, Murrieta Quadrangle, Preliminary Review Map,dated July 1, 1979,Scale 1"=2000'. Campbell, Kenneth, W., 1996, Strong Motion Attenuation Relationships, in Seismic Hazards Analysis, AEG Short Course,Thomas F. Blake Program Coordinator,January 20, 1996. Earth Consultants International (ECI), 1999, Letter Report, Geomorphic Soils Analysis and Fault Trench Review for the Roripaugh Ranch Project, near Temecula, in Riverside County, California, (Leighton and Associates Project No. 990013-001), Project No. 998100-002,dated April 1, 1999. Geocon, 1990, Geologic Feasibility Study and Fault Evaluation for Roripaugh Property, 800 Acre Site, Rancho California Area,Riverside County, California, dated August 24, 1990,File No.04301-03-01. Hart, E.W., 1997, Fault-Rupture Hazard Zones in California, Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning with Index to Special Study Zones Maps: Department of Conservation, Division of Mines and Geology, Special Publication 42. Idriss,I. M., 1994, Attenuation Coefficients for Deep and Soft Soil Conditions, personal communication. , International Conference of Building Officials, 1997 Uniform Building Code, Volumes 1-3. 1998, Maps of Known Active Fault Near - Source Zones in California and Adjacent Portions of Nevada Ishihara, K., 1985, "Stability of Natural Deposits During Earthquake", Proceedings of the Eleventh International Conference on Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, A.A. Belkema Publishers,Rotterdam,Netherlands. Jennings, C.W., 1994,Fault Activity Map of California and Adjacent Areas, California Division of Mines , and Geology, Geologic Data Map Series,No. 6, Scale 1:750,000. Keith Companies, The, 2001, Tentative Tract Map 29661 100 Scale Drawings (undated) received May 18, 2001. Kennedy, M.P., 1977, "Recency and Character of Faulting Along the Elsinore Fault Zone in Southern Riverside County,California", Special Report 131. Kramer, Steven,L., 1996, Geotechnical Earthquake Engineering, Prentice Hall, 1996. Krinitsky, E., L., Gould, J., P., Edinger, P., H., 1993, Fundamentals of Earthquake-Resistant Construction,John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 1993. Leighton, 1990, Geotechnical Investigation and Evaluation of Possible Faulting, Proposed Roripaugh 1 High School, Southwest of the Proposed Intersection of Murrieta Hot Springs Road and Butterfield Stage Road,Temecula,Riverside County,California,dated October 24, 1990, Project No. 11901094-01. 1999, Supplemental Fault Investigation, Winchester Properties, Planning Area 6, 7 and 8, Murrieta Hot Springs Area, Riverside County, California, Project No. 11861432- , 072,dated March 23, 1999. aim'- A-2 A, , ' 11990013-001 ' APPENDIX A(continued) 2000, Geotechnical Review of Preliminary Design Report Submittal, Long Valley Wash Channel Improvements, Walcott Lane to the Eastern Boundary of Proposed Roripaugh Ranch Development, City of Temecula,Riverside County, California, Project No. 11990013- 001,dated May 1,2000. ' 2001, Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation, Portion of Roripaugh Ranch, Tentative Tract No. 29661, City of Temecula, Riverside County, California, dated February 28, 2001, Project No. 11990013-001. ' McGuire, R. K., 1978,FRISK: Computer Program for Seismic Risk Analysis Using Faults as Earthquake Sources,U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 78-1007, 69p. Petersen, M. D., Bryant, W. A., Cramer, C. H., Cao, T., Reichle, M. S., Frankel, A. D., Lienkaemper, J. J., McCrory,P.A., and Schwartz,D.P., 1996,Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Assessment for the State of California, California Department of Conservation, Division of Mines and ' Geology Open-File Report 96-08•U.S.Geological Survey Open-File Report 96-706 Saul, R. B., 1978, Elsinore fault zone, south Riverside County, California: California Division of Mines and Geology Fault Evaluation Report FER-76 and supplements(unpublished). ' Schnabel, P.B., and Seed, H.B., 1973, "Accelerations in Rock for Earthquakes in the Western United States",Bull. of the Seismol. Soc. of Am.,Vol. 63,No. 2,pp 501-516. ' Seed, H.B.,Idriss,I.M., and Kiefer,A W., 1969, Characteristics of Rock Motions During Earthquakes,Journal of Soil Mechanics and Foundation Division,ASCE,V. 95,No. SMS,Proc.Paper 6783, pp. 1199-1218. ' Silver, L. T., and Chappel, B. W., The Peninsular Ranges Batholith: An Insight into the Evolution of the Cordilleran Batholiths of Southwestern North America, Transactions of the Royal Society of Edinburgh: Earth Sciences, 79, 105-121, 1988. Tokimatsu, K., and Seed, H.B., 1987, Evaluation of Settlements in Sands Due to Earthquake Shaking, ASCE Journal of Geotechnical Engineering,Vol. 113,No. 8, dated August, 1987. ' U.S. Navy, 1986, Naval Facilities (NAVFAC) Engineering Command, Foundations and Earth Structures, Design Manual 7.02(DM 7.02),Revalidated by Change 1, September, 1986. Wells, D. L., and Coppersmith, K. J., 1994, New Empirical Relationships among Magnitude, Rupture ' Length, Rupture Width, Rupture Area, and Surface Displacement: Seismological Society of America Bulletin,V.84,No. 4,pp 974-1002. ' Willis, C. J., 1988, Ground cracks in Wolf and Temecula Valleys, Riverside County: Division of Mines and Geology Fault Evaluation Report FER-195 (unpublished). WGCEP - Working Group on California Earthquake Probabilities, 1995, Seismic Hazards in Southern California: Probable Earthquake Probabilities,Bull. Seismol. Soc. Amer.,Vol. 85,No. 2,pp 379-439. ' AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHS REVIEWED Year Flight No. Agency January 30, 1962 398,399 Riverside Flood Control ' June 20, 1974 879,880 May 4,2980 907,908 December 8, 1983 399,400 " September 16, 1990 29,30,31 ' September 16, 1990 38,39,40 A-3 �` ' APPENDIX C ' Geotechnical ' May 22, 2001 ' Copies of the Geotechnical Report Support Material is available for review at the City of Temecula's Planning Department 1 1 1 1 1 �lebrattnS o y 1 Leighton and Associates 19 61 - 2 0 01 GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTANTS 1 �e P PRELIMINARY GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION PORTION OF RORIPAUGH RANCH 1 TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 29661 CITY OF TEMECULA RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA i 1 1 February 28, 2001 1 Project No. 11990013-001 1 i 1 Prepared For: WESLEY HYLEN—PMB#116 1 31566 Railroad Canyon Road Canyon Lake,California 92587 1 1 41715 Enterprise Circle N. Suite 103, Temecula, CA 92590-5661 (909) 296-0530 • FAX (909) 296-0534 • www-.Ieightongeo.com ' Ge�brating s o� 1 � N ' -- Leighton and Associates 1961 2001 GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTANTS February 28,2001 Project No. 11990013-001 To: Wesley Hylen—PMB#116 ' 31566 Railroad Canyon Road Canyon Lake, California 92587 ' Attention: Mr. Wesley Hylen Subject: Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation, Portion of Roripaugh Ranch, Tentative Tract No. 29661, City of Temecula,Riverside County, California ' In accordance with your request, Leighton and Associates, Inc. (Leighton) has completed a preliminary geotechnical investigation and review of the 100-scale tentative tract map for the subject site located in the City of Temecula, Riverside County, California (See Site Location Map, Figure 1). Our investigation and ' plan review consisted of a subsurface investigation and geotechnical evaluation of the subject property and boundary area. This report summarizes our findings, conclusions and recommendations regarding the known geotechnical conditions encountered within the property of Tentative Tract No. 29661. ' The geotechnical constraints identified include the removal and recompaction of compressible alluvial soil and the secondary effects of the estimated design seismic event. Both of these conditions may be mitigated by following the pertinent sections of the current and adopted Uniform Building Code and the recommendations presented in this report. If you have any questions regarding this report, please do not hesitate to contact this office. We 1 appreciate this opportunity to be of service. Respectfully submitted, LEIGHTON AND ASSOCIATES,INC. pED tiaTF9l0 �QPGFr�/0�9 / Nu. Well N ��Q2oQrcW U4T`OP �� iIGI EERI C =;- ENGIc r NEERING # NO.OE2S20 m ' R ` GEOLOGIST m 1241-03 obert F.Riha,CEG 1921 (Exp. 021� 2$l0_) ?P Andrew T. Guatelli,PE, 0 Principal GeologisUOffice Manager CA``FpP Senior Project Engineer ATG/RFR/dlmi-&A 19991990013-001 Prelgminvst.dm CALt ' Distribution: (2) Addressee (10) Ashby Development,Attn: Mr. Richard Ashby (1 copy unbound) ' 41715 Enterprise Circle N. Suite 103, Temecula, CA 92590-5661 (909) 296-0530 • FAX (909) 296-0534 • www.leightongeo.com 1 11990013-001 ' TABLE OF CONTENTS Section Page 1 1.0 INTRODUCTION/PURPOSE .............................................................................................................. 1 1.1 Scope of Work.....................................................................................................................................1 2.0 SUMMARY OF GEOTECHNICAL FINDINGS ..................................................................................3 ' 2.1 Proposed Site Development and Site Description..............................................................................3 2.2 Regional Geology................................................................................................................................3 2.3 Site Geologic Units.............................................................................................................................4 ' 2.3.1 Artificial Fill-Undocumented(Map Symbol Afu)...................................................................4 2.3.2 Topsoil(not a mapped unit).....................................................................................................4 2.3.3 Alluvium(Map Symbol—Qal)................................................................................................4 ' 2.3.4 Quaternary Terrace Material and Older Alluvium,Undifferentiated(Map Symbol —Qt)....4 2.3.5 Quaternary Pauba Formation(Map Symbol—Qps)................................................................5 2.3.6 Cretaceous Granitic Bedrock(Map Symbol-Kgr)..................................................................5 ' 2.3.7 Geologic Structure....................................................................................................................5 2.4 Rippability...........................................................................................................................................5 2.5 Faulting and Seismicity.......................................................................................................................5 2.6 Secondary Seismic Hazards................................................................................................................6 2.6.1 Ground Rupture........................................................................................................................6 2.6.2 Liquefaction..............................................................................................................................6 ' 2.6.3 Seiches/Tsunamis ...................................................................................................................7 2.6.4 Flooding....................................................................................................................................7 2.6.5 Seismically-Induced Landsliding.............................................................................................7 ' 2.6.6 Seismically-Induced Settlement...............................................................................................8 2.7 Seismic Design Parameters.................................................................................................................8 2.8 Groundwater........................................................................................................................................8 3.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS .................................................................................9 3.1 General.................................................................................................................................................9 ' 3.2 Earthwork............................................................................................................................................9 3.2.1 Removal and Site Preparation..................................................................................................9 3.2.2 Structural Fills and Oversize Materials........................................................................ .........10 3.2.3 Utility Trenches......................................................................................................................10 3.2.4 Shrinkage and Bulking...........................................................................................................11 ' 3.3 Settlement..........................................................................................................................................11 3.3.1 Settlement from Building Loads....................................................................................:.......ll ' 3.3.1 Settlement or Fill Soils-Static and Dynamic........................................................................l l 3.4 Slope Stability-Cut and Fill Slopes.................................................................................................12 3.5 Drainage.............................................................................................................................................13 ' 3.5.1 Subdrainage............................................................................................................................13 3.6 Tentative Foundation Design............................................................................................................13 3.6.1 Lateral Earth Pressures and Retaining Wall Design Considerations............................... d i �� 1 11990013-001 Table of Contents(continued) 3.7 Footing Setback.............................:...................................................................................................15 1 3.8 Concrete and Corrosion ....................................................................................................................15 3.9 Grading of Expansive Soils...............................................................................................................15 1 3.10 Transition Lots and Lot Capping......................................................................................................15 3.11 Preliminary Pavement Design Parameters.......................................................................................16 4.0 GEOTECENICAL REVIEW................................................................................................................ 17 1 4.1 Plans and Specifications.....................................................................................................................17 4.2 Construction Review..........................................................................................................................17 1 5.0 Limitations........................................................................................................................................... 18 Accompanying Figures,Tables,Plates and Appendices 1 Figures 1 Figure 1 —Site Location and Geologic Index Map Page 2 1 Tables Table 1 —Minimum Foundation and Slab Design Recommendations End of Text 1 Plate 1 Plate 1 —Geotechnical Map In Pocket Plates 2 and 3—Fault Trench Logs In Pocket 1 Appendices 1 Appendix A—References Appendix B—Geotechnical Logs of Exploratory Trenches and Borings, Current Investigation 1 Appendix C—Geotechnical Logs of Exploratory Trenches and Borings,Previous Investigation Appendix D—Laboratory Test Results Appendix E—Slope Stability Analyses Appendix F —General Earthwork and Grading Specifications 1 1 a- -_ 1-ii - a 11990013-001 ' 1.0 INTRODUCTION/PURPOSE ' The subject site is a portion of the approximately 800-acre Roripaugh Ranch Property located east of Temecula, Riverside County, California. The Site Location and Geologic Index Map, Figure 1, shows the approximate location of the subject site. The purpose of this preliminary geotechnical investigation and plan review is to summarize pertinent geologic/geotechnical data obtained to date, and evaluate this data with respect to the current plan for the subject site. Previous work done at the property includes a geologic feasibility study and fault evaluation by Geocon, Inc. (1990), and a geologic review by Leighton (1990) of a portion of the subject area that was intended as a school site. Our current work included a geologic field investigation of the entire Roripaugh ' Ranch property that included borings, trenches and an extensive fault evaluation (ECI, 1999). The tentative tract plan utilized for this review was prepared by Adkan Engineers(Adkan, 2000). During our plan review, the general grading concept and preliminary depth of removals were evaluated. In addition, rippability ' characteristics, slope stability and preliminary foundation design considerations were developed. The entire scope of services conducted during our study is provided below: ' 1.1 Scope of We Our scope of work performed specifically within the subject property included the following items: • Review of available information, including review of the 100-scale Tentative Tract Plan (Plate 1) for the Tentative Tract No. 29661, prepared by Adkan Engineers (2000), and review of reports ' presented in Appendix A. • Geologic site reconnaissance and review of sequential pairs of aerial photographs. ' • Excavation, sampling and logging of 18 exploratory backhoe trenches, four hollow stem auger borings and three bucket auger borings (Appendix B) • Excavation,preparation,logging and analysis of four fault trenches(Plates 2 and 3). • Laboratory testing of selected samples to determine optimum moisture, maximum dry density,, expansion potential, sulfate content, grain size distribution, collapse potential, and shear strength. The results of our laboratory testing along with summaries of our testing procedures are presented ' in Appendix D. • Analysis and geotechnical review of geologic constraints including the evaluation of slope stability, removal of compressible soils, and bedrock rippability. • Review, technical analysis, and presentation of geotechnical data onto the Tentative Tract Map (Plate 1). ' • Preparation of this report, presenting our conclusions and preliminary recommendations regarding the proposed grading and residential development of the site. �5 1 Fdu P k- I �d, j nm ul y � uettalTots Spun s Rod' ary" i ; vocy r/ YF O \ {� � / f u ll�y �V 'rJ of - -r �� , / w/� tt7 . 7..•, wf 1i/' 2+�y, ' b y Y' 29 Cr�,��L AaJ,/tom-�.` �� _-- fr � [. `�1 t�+'C2As `t �''' i L Rita -, •� �-�,.ous PROJECT � �� qtv / \\�` yf a°t -1>' $ITE .r.- 4 �: ".,T 77 0 28 r �SOps _ .--^ ,_vim _u'i ✓��m 1 _ c_'"`_\a � (: // `' . ,i sow �� 80 Lr' _.� .�•.. - .,N00 R T H (See :text The geologim legend_) BASE MAP: Kennedy, 1977,Recency and Character of Faulting along - - the Elsinore Fault Zone in Southern Riverside County,California, 1 CDMG Special Report No. 131 0 2500 5000 ® Existing Road 1"=2,500' Scale in Feet .met. Proposed Road Project No. SITE LOCATION g Roripaugh Ranch 1.1990013-001 & 1 Tentative Tract 29661 & GEOLOGIC INDEX Temecula, CaliforniaDate MAP February 2001 Figure No. 1 11990013-001 ' 2.0 SUMMARY OF GEOTECHNICAL FINDINGS ' 2.1 Proposed Development and Site Description The subject site is generally located south of the recently graded eastern extension of Murrieta Hot ' Springs Road, Temecula, California (See Figure 1). Based on our review of the referenced Tentative Tract map (Adkan, 2000) the proposed grading will consist of conventional cut and fill hillside grading to create approximately 459 graded lot areas, a 12-acre school site, a 3-acre park site, and associated ' roadways. Proposed maximum excavation and fill depths are on the order of 30 feet and 55 feet respectively (DEA, 1999). Removal of unsuitable surface soils will increase the fill thickness to approximately 67. ' Cut and fill slopes are proposed at inclinations of 2:1 (horizontal to vertical) with maximum heights of approximately 12 and 75 feet respectively. ' Topographically the site varies in elevation from a high of 1,370 feet above sea level (msl) in the northeastern portion to a low of approximately 1,260 along the southern,central property boundary. The parcel is characterized as a gently southwest sloping elevated plain with southwest trending intervening drainages. The flat lying portions have been utilized for dry farming. Vegetation on site consists of a moderate growth of grasses and weeds, which cover the majority of the site to a relatively thick growth of brush present along the drainage slopes. Previous grading and improvements on site include several access roads. ' 2.2 Regional Geology ' The subject property is located within a prominent natural geomorphic province in southwestern California known as the Peninsular Ranges. It is characterized by steep, elongated ranges and valleys that generally trend northwestward. The most common rock types found in the Peninsular Ranges consist of 140 to 105 million-year-old formations (Silver and Chappel, 1988), including the ' metasedimentary Bedford Canyon Formation, and Santiago Peak Volcanics. These formations were intruded by granodiorite, quartz monzonite, and other granitics of the Southern California Batholith during the Cretaceous Period (Kennedy, 1977). Tectonic activity along the numerous faults in the ' region created the geomorphology present today. Specifically, the subject site is situated in the southern portion of the stable Perris Block, an eroded mass ' of Cretaceous and older crystalline and metamorphic rock. The Perris Block is bounded by the San Jacinto fault zone to the northeast, the Elsinore fault zone to the southwest, and the Cucamonga fault zone to the northwest. The southeast boundary, along the fringes of the Temecula basin, is poorly ' defined. The Perris Block in the Temecula Valley region has had a complex geologic history. The Perris block ' has undergone relative changes in elevation of several thousand feet in response to movement within the Elsinore and San Jacinto fault zones. Tectonic movement of the past, in conjunction with the semi-arid climate and the weathering resistance of the rock, are responsible for the formation and preservation of ' ancient, generally flat-lying erosional surfaces now present at various elevations. The sedimentary units of the subject site were deposited on these erosional surfaces. Alluvial deposits fill in the lower valley and drainage areas. The Site Location and Geologic Index Map, Figure 1, depicts the location of the subject site in relation to the regional geology as mapped by Kennedy(1977)for the area. dill 1 3 11990013-001 2.3 Site Geologic Units The earth materials encountered on site consist of undocumented artificial fill, topsoil, terrace material, two generations of alluvium, a sedimentary unit, and a crystalline granitic bedrock unit. These units are discussed in the following sections in order of increasing age. Anticipated removal depths within each of these units (when known) have also been provided in this section for ease of reference. General removals are discussed in Section 3.2 of this report. 2.3.1 Artificial Fill-Undocumented(Map Symbol Afu) 1 Undocumented fill was observed at several locations at the site and it is associated with past 1 access road construction and agricultural use. Undocumented fill is also associated with all exploratory excavations. The undocumented fill is considered unsuitable for support of additional fill and/or structural improvements in its present density and moisture content. The 1 clean undocumented fill soils may be used as compacted fill. Artificial fill may be on the order of 3 to 10 feet thick and locally deeper. 2.3.2 Topsoil (not a mapped unit) Topsoil mantles the majority of the site and may also underlie undocumented fill soils and alluvium. Topsoil composition and depth will vary depending upon which near-surface bedrock 1 material it overlies. Topsoil generally consists of dark brown, silty sand with rare lenses of clay and minor to abundant roots depending on agricultural use. A hardened layer of clay-rich, carbonate-cemented sand was observed by Geocon (1990) at approximately 2 feet in depth, in 1 several trenches at the site. A surficial debris flow consisting of topsoil and colluvium has occurred along the steep southerly facing slopes (see plate 1). Generally, the topsoil unit will range from 1 to 3 feet thick, but thicker accumulations may be encountered. All topsoil and debris flow materials should be removed from any areas that will receive structural fill soils and/or structural improvements. Topsoil materials cleared of debris and organic material are suitable for use as compacted fills. 2.3.3 Alluvium(Map Symbol—Oal) Alluvial soils will be encountered in drainage areas throughout the site. The alluvial soils generally consist of light to dark brown, loose to medium dense, porous, sand and silty sand. All alluvium should be removed from any areas that will receive structural fill and/or structural improvements. Removal depths within the alluvium will range from approximately 3 to 10 and locally deeper depending upon location. The alluvial soils may be used as compacted fill material. 2.3.4 Ouatemary Terrace Material and Older Alluvium.Undifferentiated (Map Symbol—Qt) Terrace materials and Older Alluvial soils, undifferentiated, were observed mantling bedrock within the west portion of the subject site (Leighton, 1990). Terrace materials consist of yellow to red brown dense clayey sand to coarse sand with moderate porosity where close to the surface. The older alluvium generally consists of light to dark brown, medium dense to dense, silty sand. The dense non-porous older alluvium is typically considered suitable to support fill and/or 1 structures. The older alluvium observed within our exploratory trenches was moderately porous. The porous, compressible portions of the older alluvium and terrace materials should be removed in areas to receive structural fill and/or structural improvements. Removal depths will 1 1 11990013-001 ' range from approximately 3 to 5 feet and locally deeper. The materials are suitable for use as compacted fill. ' 2.3.5 Ouatemary Pauba Formation (Map Symbol—Ops) The Pauba Formation is present over the majority of the subject site. The Pauba formation ' consists of light brown to red-brown to olive, dense, massive sandy silts and silty sands. The material is generally considered suitable for support of fill and/or structural improvements. However, weathered porous or friable materials exposed during grading may require removal or ' overexcavation. Removal depths in areas of proposed structural fill will be on the order of 3 feet. 2.3.6 Cretaceous Granitic Bedrock(Map Symbol-Ker) ' Granitic bedrock is locally exposed at the west portion of the site, however, it underlies the entire site at varying depths. The granite consists of dense to very dense, white to light brown to gray- green, coarse-grained granodiorite. Removal of the upper, weathered portions of the grantic rock ' to the proposed grades should be possible with conventional heavy-duty earth moving equipment. 2.3.7 Geologic Structure Geologic structure of the subject area is largely controlled by sequences of erosion and deposition. The site is underlain by granite at varying depths, due to the undulatory erosional surface of the granite bedrock. Granite is exposed however at the surface at the west portion of the site. The massive Pauba Formation bedrock unit was deposited on the unconformable surface of the ' granite. Pauba Formation thicknesses at the site exceeds 65 feet as observed in the Leighton Boring LB-1 (Appendix B). Terrace materials and older alluvium form a relatively thin veneer of younger materials over the Pauba Formation that were eventually eroded away within ' current drainage areas. As a result, Pauba Formation is exposed on erosion surface drainage areas, and recently deposited younger alluvium derived from the Pauba formation fills the bottom of the drainages. 1 2.4 Rippability Rippability of on-site earth materials is variable depending on the type of material and depth. The majority of the site is underlain by the Pauba Formation, terrace deposits, topsoil,and alluvium. These materials should be rippable with typical conventional grading equipment such as the Caterpillar D9. ' Isolated lenses of well-cemented soils can be expected within the topsoil that are expected to be rippable using conventional equipment. Generally the near surface granite bedrock should be rippable (with a good condition, well-operated D9L single shank dozer or equivalent) to proposed grades. However, localized areas of oversized material and non-rippable granite core-stones may be locally encountered. Some of this material will be weathered enough to be crushed/ripped in-place by large, well-maintained excavating dozers or by ramming/blasting in-place. 2.5 Faulting and Seismicity The subject site, like the rest of Southern California, is located within a seismically active region as a result of being located near the active margin between the North American and Pacific tectonic plates. The principal source of seismic activity is movement along the northwest-trending regional faults such ' as the San Andreas, San Jacinto and Elsinore fault zones. These fault systems accorrill -5 - �t� 11990013-001 approximately 55 millimeters per year of slip between the plates. The Elsinore fault zone is estimated to accommodate a slip rate of 4-5 millimeters per year(mm/yr.) (WGCEP, 1995). By definition of the State Mining and Geology Board, an active fault is one which has had surface displacement within the Holocene Epoch (roughly the last 11,000 years). The State Mining and Geology Board has defined a potentially active fault as any fault which has been active during the Quaternary Period(approximately the last 1,600,000 years). These definitions are used in delineating Earthquake Fault Zones as mandated by the Alquist-Priolo Geologic Hazard Zones Act of 1972 and as subsequently revised in 1994 and 1997 (Hart, 1997), as the Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act and Earthquake Fault Zones. The intent of the act is to require fault investigations on 1 sites located within Special Studies Zones in order to preclude new construction of certain inhabited structures across the trace of active faults. The subject site is not included within any earthquake Fault Zones as created by the Alquist-Priolo 1 Earthquake Fault Zoning Act (Hart, 1997). The nearest zoned active fault is the Temecula segment of the Elsinore Fault Zone located approximately 4.9 miles southwest of the site. No features indicative of active faulting were observed within the project boundaries during our supplemental investigation of the subject site. A lineament identified by Kennedy (Kennedy, 1977) enters the west central portion of the tract area (See Figure 1). Based on our recent trenching of this lineament, this lineament is not fault related. There are several significant active faults within southern California that could affect the site in terms of ground shaking. Of these, the San Andreas, San Jacinto, and Elsinore-Temecula Fault Zones are the most prominent due to their proximity and relative high seismic potential. Evidence supporting probable Holocene-aged faulting was observed and documented along the main trace of the Murrieta Hot Springs Fault in an earlier investigation for the tract located immediately to the northwest (Leighton, 1999). Along this fault, located approximately 0.3 miles north of the subject tract, probable offset Holocene-aged soils and fissure in-filling was observed. Details of the site specific, subsurface fault investigation, sequential stereoscopic aerial photo review and lineament analysis is contained in the report for that tract prepared by Leighton dated March 23, 1999 (Appendix A). The Murrieta Hot Springs Fault is believed to be a previous alignment of what is now known as the Elsinore Temecula Fault Zone. It is postulated that the current tectonic framework is such that the recent fault activity has been transferred to the Elsinore-Temecula Fault Zone and subsequent seismic activity on the Murrieta Hot Springs Fault is likely diminishing (unpublished research by Dr. Thomas Rockwell of SDSU,personal communication). 2.6 Secondary Seismic Hazards Secondary hazards generally associated with severe ground shaking during an earthquake are ground 1 rupture, liquefaction, seiches or tsunamis, flooding (dam or levee failure), landsliding, rock falls, and seismically-induced settlement. 2.6.1 Ground Rupture Ground rupture is generally considered to most, likely occur along pre-existing active faults. As no evidence of active faulting was observed within the subject site, the potential for site ground rupture is considered unlikely. t 2.6.2 Liquefaction 11990013-001 ' Liquefaction of cohesionless soils can be caused by strong vibratory motion due to earthquakes. Research and historical data indicate that loose granular soils below a near surface ground water table are most susceptible to liquefaction, while the stability of most ' clayey silts, silty clays and clays deposited in fresh water environments are not adversely affected by vibratory motion. Liquefaction is characterized by a loss of shear strength in the affected soil layers, thereby causing the soil to flow as a liquid. This effect may be manifested ' at the ground surface by settlement and/or sand boils. In order for the potential effects of liquefaction to be manifested at the ground surface, the soils generally have to be granular, loose to medium dense, saturated relatively near the ground surface and must be subjected to a ' sufficient magnitude and duration of ground shaking. Based on our observations and the findings of referenced geotechnical reports,the near surface ' soft alluvial deposits (soils susceptible to liquefaction) on the site will be completely removed and recompacted during remedial grading. In addition, a review of historical well data indicated that a permanent shallow (30-foot)groundwater condition is not present. Therefore, ' it is our opinion that the potential for adverse liquefaction and associated dynamic settlement to surface structures due to the design earthquake event is considered very low for this site. This does not preclude the densification of dry granular soils onsite above groundwater during strong ground shaking. Ground accelerations generated from the design seismic event (10% probability of exceedance in 50 years)may produce settlement in relatively dry sands or granular earth materials located above the water table (ASCE, 1994; Kramer 1996). Based on visual inspection of the retrieved samples, blow counts recorded *during drilling, and laboratory test results, we conclude that there is a low potential for the onsite materials above the water table to densify during strong ground shaking. Refer to the settlement section of this document for estimated magnitudes of settlement. ' The potential for damage to surface improvements due to liquefaction during the design life (50 years)of the project is considered negligible across the site. 2.6.3 Seiches/Tsunamis ' Due to the inland location of the site, the possibility of Tsunamis is considered nil. Based on the elevation and proximity of the subject site to Lake Skinner, a seiche hazard is considered very low. 2.6.4 Floodine The Metropofitan Water District Aqueduct system traverses near the eastern boundary. Rupture of this pipeline could pose some local temporary-flooding risk. ' 2.6.5 Seismically-Induced Landsliding ' Based on our review and subsurface investigation, no significant landslides have been mapped by others nor were identified during this investigation. A surficial slump was identified along the steep sided natural slope along the southern boundary area. The major earth materials ' observed, both granitics and the Pauba Formation, are generally not prone to landsliding, however surficial failures are known to occur. Due to the relatively flat-lying nature of the Pauba formation and the massive granitic bedrock, landsliding due to seismic activity is not -7 �_ 11990013-001 anticipated. The identified slump feature will be removed during grading and will not pose a risk to the subject development. 2.6.6 Seismically-Induced Settlement 1 Seismically Induced Settlement (dynanvc densification) generally occurs within areas of loose granular soils with relative low moisture and density. Provided the recommended earthwork removals outlined in Section 3.2 are performed, the potential for dynamic densification is considered low. We estimate the post-construction (grading) dynamic densification potential to be in accordance with Section 3.3. Additional evaluation of estimated dynamic densification may be performed at or after the time of rough grading. 2.7 Seismic Design Parameters 1 Our evaluation of the regional seismicity included a deterministic analysis utilizing EQFAULT and EQSEARCH, (Blake,2000).The nearest known zoned active fault and source of the design earthquake is the Temecula Segment of the Elsinore Fault Zone located approximately 4.4 miles southwest of the site.The maximum credible earthquake is estimated to be magnitude 6.8. The Uniform Building Code (UBC) established Seismic Zones (often accepted as minimum standards) based on maps showing ground motion with a 475-year return period or a 10%probability of exceedance in 50 years. Our analysis indicates a 10% probability that a peak ground acceleration of 0.55g may be exceeded in 50 years. The design earthquake therefore,is considered a magnitude 6.8 event on either the Temecula segment of the Elsinore Fault Zone or the Murrieta Hot Springs Fault that would generate a probabilistic peak ground acceleration of 0.55g (FRISKSP, Blake 2000). The effect of seismic shaking 1 may be mitigated by adhering to the 1997 Uniform Building Code(UBC)and seismic design parameters suggested by the Structural Engineers Association of California. Seismic design parameters are presented below: Seismic Zone = 4 Seismic Source Type = B Near Source Factor,Na = 1.3 Near Source Factor,N,, = 1.6 Soil Profile Type = Sp Horizontal Peak Ground Acceleration = 0.55g (10%probability in 50 years) 2.8 Groundwater Groundwater water was not encountered during recent or previous field investigations at the subject site. It is our opinion that perched groundwater may exist within the deeper portions of the Pauba Formation, and above unfractured portions of the Cretaceous granite. Fractures and joints within the granite would allow transmission of water, however. The regional groundwater table is assumed to be more than 50 feet below the lowest elevation of the subject site(Leighton, 1990). It should be noted that future irrigation water might impact proposed cut slopes or fill over cut slopes. Cut slopes that expose the Pauba/granite bedrock contact may present some seepage problems. This should be evaluated during grading. 11990013-001 3.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ' 3.1 General Based on our geotechnical evaluation, it is our opinion that the proposed development is feasible from a geotechnical standpoint and may be constructed provided the following recommendations are ' implemented during grading and incorporated into design and construction. The following sections discuss the principal geotechnical concerns affecting site development and grading, and provide preliminary foundation design recommendations for planning purposes. 1 3.2 Earthwork ' Earthwork should be performed in accordance with both the General Earthwork and Grading Specifications in Appendix E,and the following recommendations. The recommendations contained in ' Appendix E are general grading specifications provided for typical grading projects. Some of the recommendations may not be strictly applicable to this project. The specific recommendations contained in the text of this report supersede the general recommendations in Appendix E. The contract ' between the developer and earthwork contractor should be worded such that it is the responsibility of the contractor to place fill properly, in accordance with the recommendations of this report, notwithstanding testing and observation by the geotechnical consultant. Care should be taken by the contractor when grading along project boundaries to protect existing offsite structures and properties. ' The developer may wish to include pre-construction photographic documentation and/or monitoring of adjacent improvements and properties prior to and during construction of this project. ' 3.2.1 Removal and Site Preparation Prior to grading of the subject site, the proposed structural improvement areas (i.e. all structural fill areas, pavement areas, buildings, etc.) should be cleared of surface and subsurface obstructions, heavy vegetation, roots and debris. These materials should be disposed of offsite. Removal of unsuitable, compressible materials should be anticipated ' within areas to receive fill, and within some areas of cut where unsuitable materials extend below proposed cut grades. Minor offsite grading may be necessary to achieve the desired removals. Unsuitable materials consist of undocumented fill, topsoil, alluvium, and highly weathered bedrock, and they should be totally removed prior to fill placement. The removal depths of these materials will vary with location. Non-weathered to moderately weathered, non-porous, Granite, Pauba formation bedrock, Terrace materials and Older Alluvium are considered competent material. Keyways will be necessary at toe areas of proposed fill slopes throughout the site. Keyways are also required for the fill portions of fill over cut slopes. Schematics of these keyways are ' provided in the General Earthworks and Grading Specifications, Appendix E. Keyways should be excavated into dense, non-porous competent material, and geologically mapped prior to fir11 placement. For fill over cut slopes, a keyway should be excavated at the interface of the cut to fill transition (after removal of unsuitable surficial soils). Keyways for fill over cut slopes should be a minimum of 18 feet wide and inclined into slope a minimum of 2 percent. Keyways for the larger, (>40 feet high) southerly perimeter fill slopes will require ' key excavations on the order of 10 feet deep and 20 feet wide into approved bedrock., In addition, benching should be performed into dense, competent material as fill placement proceeds adjacent to all slopes steeper than 5:1 (horizontal:vertical). A minimum bench height of 2 feet into approved, competent material should be maintained at all times. WHO-- __ 9 11990013-001 Overexcavation of cut to fill transition pads should be performed to a minimum of 3 feet below pad grade. Overexcavation limits may encompass entire lots or extend to approximately 10 feet outside building footprint(s). Overexcavation to depths greater than 3 feet maybe recommended in order to minimize the differential fill thickness to less than 20 feet within any structural lot. Actual limits can be determined during rough grading procedures. It is expected that most transition lots will not be overexcavated until rough-grading procedures occur on each of the individual pads. After completion of recommended removals of unsuitable soils and overexcavation of transition lots, approved removal bottoms should be scarified a minimum of 6-inches, moisture conditioned as necessary to near optimum and compacted. 3.2.2 Structural Fills and Oversize Materials The onsite soils are suitable for use as compacted fill, provided they are relatively free of organic materials and debris. If boulders larger than four feet are encountered, they should be crushed/broken in place to a size less than four feet or removed from the fill area. Fills containing appreciable percent of rocks (greater than 20 percent) with diameters greater than 12 inches should be placed in accordance with the alternatives presented in Appendix E. Areas to receive structural fill and/or other surface improvements should be prepared in accordance with Section 3.2 and scarified to minimum depth of 6 inches, brought to near optimum moisture content, and recompacted to at least 90 percent relative compaction, (based on ASTM Test Method D1557-91). The optimum lift thickness to produce a uniformly compacted fill will depend on the type and size of compaction equipment used. In general, fill should be placed in uniform lifts not exceeding 8 inches in thickness. Fill soils should be placed at or above the minimum optimum moisture content and compacted to minimum 90 percent (95 percent for fills greater that 40 feet in depth) based on ASTM Test Method D1557. Fills placed on slopes, steeper than 5 to 1 (horizontal to vertical) should be keyed and benched into approved formational soils (see Appendix E for benching detail). Placement and compaction of fill should be performed in accordance with the City of Temecula Grading Ordinance under the full-time observation and testing of the geotechnical consultant. 1 3.2.3 Utility Trenches The onsite soils may generally be suitable as trench backfill provided they are screened of rocks over 6 inches in diameter and organic matter. Trench backfill should be compacted in uniform lifts (not exceeding 8 inches in compacted thickness) by mechanical means to at least 90 percent relative compaction(ASTM Test Method D1557-91). Excavation of utility trenches should be performed in accordance with the project plans, 1 specifications and all applicable OSHA requirements. The contractor should be responsible for providing the "competent person" required by OSHA standards. Temporary utility trench walls should be constructed at 1:1 (horizontal to vertical) slope inclinations or flatter. Alternating shoring, designed in accordance with a structural engineer's recommendations should be used. Contractors should be advised that sandy soils (such as fills generated from the onsite alluvium) can make excavations particularly unsafe if all safety precautions are not taken. In addition, excavations at or near the toe of slopes and/or parallel to slopes may be highly unstable due to the increased driving force and load on the trench wall. Spoil piles due to the excavation and construction equipment should be kept away from the sides of the trenches. 10 11990013-001 3.2.4 Shrinkage and Bulking The volume change of excavated onsite materials upon recompaction is expected to vary with materials, density, insitu moisture content, location and compaction effort. The in-place and compacted densities of soil materials vary and accurate overall determination of shrinkage and bulking cannot be made. Therefore, we recommend site grading include, if possible, a balance area or ability to adjust import quantities to accommodate some variation. Based on our experience with similar materials,the following values are provided as guidelines: ' Topsoil,Alluvium, Colluvium 10 to 15 percent shrinkage and Undocumented-reusable Fill ' Pauba Formation Bedrock 10 percent shrink to 5 percent bulking (Weathered upper 5 feet) ' Heavy Ripping,deeper than 5 feet 0 to 10 percent bulking 3.3 Settlement Settlement of onsite fill materials is expected to mostly occur during and within 90 days following fill placement. However, following the placement of fill and construction of residences, additional ' settlement may occur due to(a)new footing/foundation loads and (b)compression within the fill due to the effects of landscaping irrigation. Settlements of buildings on bedrock pads (cut) or settlement of fills, of less than 10 feet thick overlying properly prepared bedrock is not expected to be significant. 3.3.1 Settlement from Building Loads Buildings located on compacted fill soils (90 percent relative compaction) should be designed in anticipation of 1/2 inch of total settlement and 1/a inch of differential settlement in 40 feet. This settlement is anticipated to occur during construction as the load is applied. These settlements and angular distortions are for imposed building loads and do not include compression within the fill itself. ' 3.3.2 Settlement of Fill Soils—Static and Dvnamic Fill thickness on this portion of the Roripaugh project site (Tract 29661) is expected to be up ' to approximately 67 feet including the planned removal depths. Our evaluation of compression within the planned fill soils assumes that the fill thickness variation within the limits of a residential lot is limited to 20 feet or less. In addition, as previously discussed, 1 Leighton recommends that fills in the upper 40 feet be compacted to 90 percent relative compaction while planned compacted fills greater than 40 feet (40 feet of thickness below finished grades) be compacted to 95 percent relative compaction with the fill moisture ' conditioned to or above optimum. If the fill is compacted in this manner, settlements are anticipated to be relatively low. Post-construction total settlements for areas underlain by 40 feet or less of compacted fill over dense bedrock is anticipated to be on the order of�/2 to 1.4 inches with differential settlements on the order of 3/a- inch in 40 feet. The deepest fill areas, (fill soils up to 67 feet in thickness) may exhibit static post-construction total settlements of 1 to 2 inches with differential settlements of approximately 1 inch in 40 feet. I1 - �`A� 1 11990013-001 Fill soils that are above the regional water table and described as sands (Unified Soil Classification System, SP, SM or SW) and compacted to near optimum moisture content, may be susceptible to dynamic densification during strong ground shaking. For this particular site, densification is anticipated to be very low to low on fill soils compacted to 95 percent relative compaction and moisture conditioned to near optimum. However,fills compacted to 90 percent in the upper 40 feet may be subject to post-earthquake effect of to 1/2 inch of additional fill settlement in 40 feet due to dynamic densification. The project architect and structural engineer 1 may wish to consider the effect of this dynamic distortion in the seismic performance of the residential buildings. Although most utilities should tolerate the seismic distress anticipated, gravity drainage utilities should be evaluated for the effects of the above noted potential static 1 and dynamic settlement. Settlement and resultant cracks in asphalt, flatwork and curbs are likely when subject to seismic shaking and may not be practical nor economical to design these improvements to mitigate these effects. Settlement due to liquefaction is not anticipated to significantly contribute to this dynamic settlement due to the planned preparation of the site with fill over prepared bedrock or dense older terrace formation surfaces within the residential pads and the absence of regional groundwater. 3.4 Slope Stability—Cut and Fill Slopes 1 Based on our review of the referenced grading plan, cut and fill slope are proposed at inclinations of 2:1 (horizontal to vertical) with maximum heights of approximately 12 feet and 75 feet, respectively. 1 Slope stability calculations for fill slopes are presented in Appendix E. The shear strength parameters used in the analysis were obtained from laboratory test data presented in Appendix D. Cut slopes however should be observed by an engineering geologist during grading to provide any additional recommendations if warranted by any adverse geological conditions. All slopes should be constructed in accordance with the most current version of the Uniform Building Code (UBC) guidelines and County of Riverside requirements. All 2:1 (horizontal to vertical) fill slopes with 90 percent relative compaction (95 percent below 40 feet) are considered stable (static and pseudo-static factor of safety greater than 1:5 and 1:1, respectively) to a maximum height of 75 feet. All 2:1 fill slopes over 40 feet in height should be constructed with 90 percent relative compaction in the upper 40 feet and 95 percent relative compaction below that. This 95 percent compaction should extend from the slope face a minimum horizontal distance equal to the overall height of the slope or approved bedrock. All cut and fill slopes designed and constructed in accordance with the recommendations contained 1 in this report are considered stable and possess a minimum static and pseudo-static factor of safety of 1.5 and 1.1,respectively. Cut and fill slopes constructed at inclinations of 2:1 (horizontal to vertical) are considered surficially 1 stable,i.e.FOS>_ 1.5. Granular site materials may be subject to erosion if left implanted or unprotected. Cut and fill slopes should be provided with appropriate surface drainage features and landscaped (with 1 drought tolerant vegetation) as soon as possible after grading to reduce the potential for erosion. Berms should be provided at the top of fill slopes, brow ditches should be-constructed at the top of cut slopes. Lot drainage should be directed such that surface runoff on the slope face is minimized. The 1 outer portion of fill slopes should be either overbuilt by 2 feet (minimum) and trimmed back to the finished slope configuration or compacted in increments of 5 feet (maximum)by a sheepsfoot roller as the fill is placed and then trackwalked to achieve the final configuration. - 12 - �`� 1 11990013-001 ' 3.5 Drainage Over-the-slope drainage should not be permitted. All drainage should be directed away from slopes and structures by means of approved permanent/temporary. drainage devices. Adequate storm drainage of the super pads should be provided to avoid siltation of temporary catch basins. Linear sandbagging of the super pads tangential to flow directions in periodic intervals, should reduce erosion potential of runoff over these pads. ' 3.5.1 Subdrainage Subdrainage will be necessary in canyon fills where fills exceed 10 feet in thickness and in fill over cut keyways. Fills generally saturate near the contact with less permeable bedrock and the subdrains should outlet this excess water to suitable outlets. Contacts on fill over cut slopes which daylight cut bedrock can present seepage problems once irrigation of the slopes and upper pads begins. The subdrainage within the fill over cut keyways should mitigate this seepage problem. Subdrain details are provided in Appendix F,General Earthwork and Grading Specifications. Subdrains greater than 500 lineal feet should consist of 8-inch diameter PVC perforate pipe. Subdrain location should be as-built by the project civil engineer. Outlets should be protected by construction of a concrete encased outlet. ' 3.6 Tentative Foundation Design . Foundations and slabs should be designed in accordance with structural considerations as provided by ' the project structural consultant and the minimum recommendations presented in Table 1, Minimum Foundation'and Slab Design Recommendations. We recommend that as grading progresses, building pads should be evaluated for their expansion potential and differential fill thickness. The final footing and slab design for each proposed structure should be designed based on the results of that evaluation. 3.6.1 Lateral Earth Pressures and Retaining Wall Design Considerations The recommended lateral pressures for the site soil (expansion index less than 50 per UBC 18-I-B) and level or sloping backfill are presented in the following table. 1 Lateral Earth Pressures Conditions Equivalent Fluid Weight(pcf)' Level Backfill 2:1 Slope Backfill Active 45 65 At-Rest 65 95 Passive 250(maximum 2 ksf) 125(Sloping Down) I-Assumes drained conditions in accordance with Appendix F. 2-Assumes the finished grade adjacent in all directions to the retaining wall will remain for the life of the project. Embedded structural walls should be designed for lateral earth pressures exerted on them. The magnitude of these pressures depends on the amount of deformation for the "active" case that the wall can yield under load. This magnitude of deformation is typically' tdt = - - 13 - �`� 11990013-001 range of 0.0005 to 0.001H, where "IT' is height of wall. If the wall can yield enough to mobilize the full shear strength of the soil, it can be designed for "active" pressure. If the wall cannot yield under the applied load, the shear strength of the soil cannot be mobilized and the earth pressure will be higher. Such walls should be designed for "at rest" conditions. If a structure moves toward the soils, the resulting resistance developed by the soil is the "passive" resistance. For design purposes, the recommended equivalent fluid pressure (active, at-rest) for walls founded above the static ground water and backfilled with soils of very low to low expansion potential is provided in the above table. The equivalent fluid pressure values assume free-draining conditions. If conditions other than those"assumed above are anticipated the equivalent fluid pressure values should be provided on an individual-case basis by the geotechnical engineer. Surcharge loading effects from the adjacent structures should be evaluated by the geotechnical and structural engineer. All retaining wall structures should be provided with appropriate drainage and waterproofing. The outlet pipe should be sloped to drain to a suitable outlet. Typical wall drainage design is illustrated in Appendix F(presented at rear of text). For sliding resistance, the friction coefficient of 0.35 may be used at the concrete and soil interface. In combining the total lateral resistance, the passive pressure or the frictional resistance should be reduced by 50 percent. Wall footings should be designed in accordance with structural considerations. The passive resistance value may be increased by one-third when considering loads of short duration, including wind or seismic loads. The horizontal distance between foundation elements providing passive resistance should be a minimum of three times the depth of the elements to allow full development of these passive pressures. The total depth of retained earth for design of cantilever walls should be the vertical distance below the, ground surface measured at the wall face for stem design or measured at the heel of the footing for overturning and sliding. Wall backcut excavations less than 5 feet in height can be made near vertical. For backcuts greater than 5 feet in height, but less than 15 feet.in height, the backcut should be flattened to a gradient of not steeper than 1:1 (horizontal to vertical) slope inclination. For backcuts in excess of 15 feet in height, specific recommendations should be requested from the geotechnical consultant. The granular and native backfill soils should be compacted to at least 90 percent relative compaction (based on ASTM Test Method D1557). The granular fill should extend horizontally to a minimum distance equal to one- half the wall height behind the walls. The walls should be constructed and backfilled as soon as possible after backcut excavation. Prolonged exposure of backcut slopes may result in some localized slope instability. Foundations for retaining walls in competent formational soils or properly compacted fill should be embedded at least 18 inches below lowest adjacent grade and in accordance with Section entitled Footing Setback. At this depth, an allowable bearing capacity of 2,500 psf may be assumed. For walls over 5 feet or that present a life/safety hazard, the lateral earth pressures should be increased to reflect the increment of additional pressure caused by the design earthquake. Accordingly, an increment of lateral pressure equal to 18.9 HZ, where H is the height of the wall, should be applied at a distance of 0.6H above the toe of the wall. Under the combined effects of static and earthquake loads on the wall, a factor of safety between 1.1 and 1.2 is acceptable when evaluating the stability (sliding, overturning) of - 14- s� 11990013-001 the wall (NAVFAC. DM 7.2). All retaining wall structures should be provided with appropriate drainage and waterproofing. ' 3.7 Footing Setback We recommend a minimum horizontal setback distance from the face of slopes for all structural footings and settlement-sensitive structures (i.e. fences, walls, signs, etc.). This distance is measured form the outside edge of the footing,horizontally to the slope face(or to the face of a retaining wall). Slope Height Recommended Footing Setback ' <5 feet 5 feet minimum 5-15 fee[ 7 feet minimum > 15 feet H/2, where H is the slope height,not to exceed 10 feet for 2:1 slopes 1 We should note that the soils within a slope setback area posses poor, long term lateral stability, and improvements (such as retaining walls, sidewalks, fences, pavement, underground utilities, etc.) constructed within this setback area may be subject to lateral to lateral movement and/or differential settlement. 3.8 Concrete and Corrosion ' Laboratory Sulfate tests from the overall Roripaugh site and nearby projects indicate a negligible to moderate concentration of soluble sulfates for onsite surficial soils (Appendix A). Additional testing of exposed subgrade soils should be performed at or near the completion of grading. Concrete in contact with onsite earth materials soil should comply with Table 19-AA of the 1997 Uniform Building Code. 3.9 Grading of Expansive Soils Although the majority of the onsite soils will have a low to medium expansion potential, localized pockets of the alluvium and topsoil may have a medium to very high expansion potential. If expansive soils are utilized at pad grade, typical expansive soil-related distress (such as cracked flatwork and stucco, poor vegetation growth, etc.) may be expected over the life of the project. Accordingly, we recommend that if possible, expansive soils encountered during grading operations be placed in fill areas below a depth of 5 feet measured from the finished grade and not within 15 feet of the face of any slope. Expansive soils exposed at finished pad elevations should likewise be removed to a depth of 5 feet and replaced with very low to low expansion potential compacted fill unless special foundation design recommendations for expansive soil are implemented. I3.10 Transition Lots and Lot Capping In order to reduce the potential for differential settlement in areas of transition (cut-fill lots), we recommend that the entire cut portion of transition (cut-fill) building areas be overexcavated to a minimum depth of 3 feet and replaced with properly compacted fill of very low to low expansion potential. The overexcavation and recompaction should laterally extend a minimum of 5 feet beyond ' the building perimeter or extend laterally across the treated area of the lot. The base of the - 15 - ®`s 11990013-001 overexcavated portions of the lot should slope at approximately 2 percent toward the fill side to avoid .ponding water, which may result in future seepage problems. In addition, final determination of lots that require undercutting due to rock or transition conditions should be determined in the field. 3.11 Preliminary Pavement Design Parameters Traffic Index (TI) data was not available to us at the time of preparation of this report. This TI information will be necessary to finalize the flexible pavement sections (AC and base rock). However, for planning and estimating purposes we have made some assumptions based on the anticipated usage. The recommendations provided below are for an assumed R-value of R=40. Tests of the exposed subgrade should be performed at the completion of rough-grading to confirm the appropriate pavement section. Appropriate TI data should be selected by the project civil engineer or traffic engineering consultant for finalization of the pavement section and should be in general accordance with local, county and industry standards. AC Pavement Section Thickness (assume R=40) TI Asphaltic-Concrete(AC) Class 2 Aggregate Base(AB) Thickness(inches) Rock(R=78)Thickness (inches) 5.0 3 6 5.5 3 6 6.0 1 3 1 8.5 The subgrade soils in the upper 6 inches of the driveways and parking areas should be properly 1 compacted to at least 95 percent relative compaction (ASTM D1557) and should be well moisture- conditioned to near optimum and kept in this condition until the pavement section is constructed. Minimum relative, compaction requirements for aggregate base rock should be 95 percent of the maximum laboratory density as determined by ASTM D1557. Base rock should conform to the "Standard Specifications for Public Works Construction" ("Green Book") current edition or (Caltrans) California Department of Transportation, Standard Specification Section 26, Class 2 aggregate base having a minimum R-value of 78. Asphaltic Concrete, Portland Cement Concrete and base materials should conform to and be placed in accordance with the current and adopted Green Book, Standard Specifications for Public Works Construction. The pavement sections provided in this section are meant as minimum, if thinner or highly variable pavement sections are constructed, increased maintenance and repair may be needed. The use of concrete cutoff or edge barriers should be considered at the perimeter of the common parking or driveway areas when they are adjacent to either open (unfinished)or landscaped areas. - 16- �`� 11990013-001 4.0 GEOTECHNICAL REVIEW ' Geotechnical review is of paramount importance in engineering practice. The poor performance of many foundation and earthwork projects have been attributed to inadequate construction review. We recommend that Leighton and Associates be provided the opportunity to review the following items. 4.1 Plans and Specifications The geotechnical engineer should review the project rough grading plans and specifications prior to ' release for bidding and construction. Such review is necessary to determine whether the geotechnical recommendations have been effectively implemented. Review findings should be reported in writing by the geotechnical engineer. ' 4.2 Construction Review ' Observation and testing should be performed by Leighton and Associates representatives during construction. It should be anticipated that the substrata exposed during construction may vary from that encountered in the test borings or trenches. Reasonably continuous construction observation and ' review during site grading and foundation installation allows for evaluation of the of the actual soil conditions and the ability to provide appropriate revisions where required during construction. ' Site preparation, removal of unsuitable soils, approval of imported earth materials, fill placement, foundation installation and other site geotechnically-related operations should be observed and tested by representatives of Leighton and Associates. ' As noted in this report, pre-construction activities may include photographic or summary documentation of adjacent properties. The adjacent sites should be periodically monitored during construction,particularly when working in close proximity to property lines. Additional laboratory tests of subsurface materials to confirm compacted density and moisture content, corrosion potential, expansion potential, compression of deep fills and resistance value (R-value) Ishould be performed during grading. - 17- f�`� 11990013-001 5.0 LIMITATIONS This report was prepared for Ashby Development, based on Ashby Development's needs, directions and requirements at the time. This report was necessarily based in part upon data obtained from a limited number of observances, site visits, soil and/or samples, tests, analyses, histories of occurrences, spaced subsurface explorations and limited information on historical events and observations. Such information is necessarily incomplete. The nature of many sites is such that differing characteristics can be experienced within small distances and under various climatic conditions. Changes in subsurface conditions can and do occur over time. This report is not authorized for use by, and is not to be relied upon by any party except, the Ashby 1 Development, its successors and assigns as owner of the property, with whom Leighton has contracted for the work. Use of or reliance on this report by any other party is at that party's risk. Unauthorized use of or reliance on this Report constitutes an agreement to defend and indemnify Leighton & Associates from and against any liability which may arise as a result of such use or reliance, regardless of any fault, negligence, or strict liability of Leighton and Associates. - 18 - 11990013-001 TABLE I MINIMUM FOUNDATION AND SLAB DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS U.B.C.Expansion Index U.B.C.Expansion Index U.B.C.Expansion Index, 0.20 21-50- 51-90 Very Low Expansion Low Expansion Medium Expansion I-Story Footings All footings 12"deep.Reinforcement for continuous footings: All footings 12"deep.Reinforcement for continuous footings: All footings 18"deep.Reinforcement for continuous (See Note 1) one No.4 bar top and bottom. one No.4 bar top and bottom. footings:one No.4 bar top and bottom. 2-Story Footings All footings 18"deep.Reinforcement for continuous footings: All footings 18"deep.Reinforcement for continuous footings: All footings 18"deep.Reinforcement for continuous (See Note 1) one No.4 bar lop and bottom one No.4 bar top and bottom. footings:one No.4 bar top and bottom. Minimum Footing Width Continuous: 12"for 1-story Continuous: 12"for 1-story Continuous: 12"for 1-story Continuous: 15"for 2-story Continuous: 15"for 2-story Continuous: 15"for 2-story Isolated column:24"(18"deep minimum) Isolated column:24"(18"deep minimum) Isolated column:24"(18"deep minimum) Garage Door Grade Beam A grade beam 12"wide x 12"deep A grade beam 12"wide x 12"deep A grade beam 12"wide x 18"deep (See Note 2) (18"deep for 2-story)should be provided across the garage (18"deep for 2-story)should be provided across the garage should be provided across the garage entrance. entrance. entrance. Living Area Floor Slabs Minimum 4"thick slab.6x6-10/10 WWF reinforcement at Minimum 4"thick slab.6x6-10/10 WWF reinforcement at Minimum 4"thick slab. 6x6-6/6 WWF or No.3 bars (See Notes 3,4 and 6) midheight.2"clean sand over 10 mil moisture barrier. midheight.2"clean sand over 10 mil moisture barrier over 2" Q 18"each way or No.4 bars(a)24"each way. 2"clean clean sand. sand over 10 mil Visqueen over 2"clean sand. Garage Floor Slabs Minimum 4"thick on 2"sand base over moisture barrier on Minimum 4"thick on 2"sand base over moisture barrier on Minimum 4"thick on 2"sand base over moisture barrier (See Notes 4,5 and 6) pad.6x6-10/10 WWF reinforced at midheight.Slab should be pad.6x6-10/10 WWF reinforced at midheight Slab should be on pad. 6x6.6/6 WWF or No.3 bars @ 18"each way or quarter-sawn. quarter-sawn. No.4 bars @ 24"each way. Slab should be quarter-sawn. Presoaking of Living Area Near optimum to a depth of 6". 1.2 tunes the optimum moisture content to a depth of 12". 1.3 times optimum moisture content to a depth of 18". and Garage Slabs . Allowable Bearing Capacity 2,000 pounds per square foot 2,000 pounds per square foot 2,000 pounds per square foot (one-third increase for short term (one-third increase for short term loading) (one-thud increase for short term loading) (one-third increase for short term loading) loading) Notes: (1) Depth of interior or exterior footing to be measured from lowest adjacent finish grade or drainage Swale flowline elevation. (2) The base of the grade beam should be at the same elevation as that of the adjoining footings. (3) Living area slabs should be fled to the footings as directed by the structural engineer. (4) 10-mil Visqueen sheeting or equivalents are acceptable. All laps and penetrations should be sealed. (5) Garage slabs should be isolated from stem wall footings with a ininimum 3/8"felt expansion joint. (6) Sand base should have a Sand Equivalent of 30 or greater(e.g.washed concrete sand). (7) Low and Medium Expansive soil lots using conventional foundation should comply with Section 1815 of the 1997 UBC. (8) Unless staled in the attached report,for E1=21-50 use PI=25,and EI=51-90 use PI=35 r11990013-001 APPENDIX A r References ' Abrahamson, N. A., and Silva, W. J., 1997, Empirical Response Spectral Attenuation Relationships for ' Shallow Crustal Earthquakes, in Seismoloeical Research Letter, Vol. 68, No. 1, January/February 1997. Adkan Engineers, 2000, Preliminary Grading Plan,Tentative Tract No. 29661, Roripaugh Ranch Specific rPlan,Plot Date January 20, 2000. Albee, A.L., and Smith, J.L., 1996, Earthquake Characteristics and Fault Activity in Southern California, r in Lung, R., and Proctor, R., ed., Engineering Geology in Southern California, Association of Engineering Geologists, Special Publication, dated October 1966. r American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE), 1994, Settlement Analysis, Technical Engineering and Design Guides as Adapted from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, No. 9, ASCE Press, 1994. rBlake, T.F., 2000a, EQSEARCH A Computer Program for the Estimation of Peak Horizontal Acceleration from Southern California Historical Earthquake Catalogs, User's ' Manual. 2000b, EQFAULT, A Computer Program for the Deterministic Prediction of Peak Horizontal Acceleration from Digitized California Faults, User's Manual, 79 pp. r2000c, FRISKSP, A Computer Program for the Probabilistic Estimation of Seismic Hazard Using Faults as Earthquake Sources, User's Manual, 116 pp. r2000d, Annual Update of Califomia Seismicity Database, Thomas F. Blake Computer Services and Software. rBolt, B.A., 1973, Duration of Strong Ground Motion, proc. Fifth World Conference on Earthquake . Engineering, Rome, Paper No. 292,pp. 1394-1313, dated June, 1973. rBonilla, M.J., 1970, Surface Faulting and Related Effects, in Wiegel, R., ed., Earthquake Engineering, New Jersey, Prentice-Hall,Inc.,p. 47-74. Boore, David M., Joyner, William B., and Fumal, Thomas E., 1997, Empirical Near-Source Attenuation Relationships for Horizontal and Vertical Components of Peak Ground Acceleration, Peak Ground Velocity, and Peudo-Absolute Acceleration Response rSpectra, in Seismological Research Letter Vol. 68, No. 1,January/February 1997. BSSC, 1994, NEHRP Recommended Provisions for Seismic Regulations for New Buildings, Part 1 — r Provisions, FEMA 222A4, NEHRP Recommended Provisions for Seismic Regulations for New Buildings, Part 1 — Provisions, FEMA 222A, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 290p. rCalifornia, State of, Department of Conservation, Division of Mines and Geology, 1996, Draft Guidelines for Evaluation and Mitigating Seismic Hazards, dated October 1, 1996. JAIN r - A-1 `a 11990013-001 APPENDIX A (continued) California. State of, Department of Transportation, 1987, Peak Acceleration from Maximum Credible Earthquakes in California,Modified from Maulchin and Jones, CDMG Map Sheet 45. California, State of, Department of Special Studies Zone Map, Murrieta Quadrangle, Preliminary Review Map,dated July 1, 1979,Scale 1"=2000'. Campbell, Kenneth, W., 1996, Strong Motion Attenuation Relationships, in Seismic Hazards Analysis, AEG Short Course,Thomas F. Blake Program Coordinator, January 20, 1996. David Evans Associates (DEA), 1999, Roripaugh Ranch, Exhibit A, Mass Grading (Cut/Fill), 200-scale, dated 2/04/99. Earth Consultants International (ECI), 1999, Letter Report, Geomorphic Soils Analysis and Fault Trench Review for the Roripaugh Ranch Project, near Temecula, in Riverside County, California, (Leighton and Associates Project No. 990013-001), Project No. 998100-002,dated April 1, 1999. Geocon, 1990, Geologic Feasibility Study and Fault Evaluation for Roripaugh Property, 800 Acre Site, Rancho California Area,Riverside County, California, dated August 24, 1990, File No. 04301-03-01. Hart, E.W., 1997, Fault-Rupture Hazard Zones in California, Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning with Index to Special Study Zones Maps: Department of Conservation, Division of Mines and Geology, Special Publication 42. Idriss, 1. M., 1994, Attenuation Coefficients for Deep and Soft Soil Conditions, personal communication. International Conference of Building Officials, 1997 Uniform Building Code,Volumes 1-3. 1998, Maps of Known Active Fault Near — Source Zones in California and Adjacent Portions of Nevada Ishihara, K., 1985, "Stability of Natural Deposits During Earthquake", Proceedings of the Eleventh International Conference on Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, A.A. Belkema Publishers, Rotterdam, Netherlands. Jennings, C.W., 1994,Fault Activity Map of California and Adjacent Areas, California Division of Mines and Geology, Geologic Data Map Series,No. 6, Scale 1:750,000. Kennedy, M.P., 1977, 'Recency and Character of Faulting Along the Elsinore Fault Zone in Southern Riverside County, California", Special Report 131. Kramer, Steven, L., 1996,Geotechnical Earthquake Engineering,Prentice Hall, 1996. Leighton, 1990, Geotechnical Investigation and Evaluation of Possible Faulting, Proposed Roripaugh High School, Southwest of the Proposed Intersection of Murrieta Hot Springs Road and Butterfield Stage Road,Temecula,Riverside County, California, dated October 24, 1990, Project No. 11901094-0 1. dill A-2 Q APPENDIX C 1 ' Geotechnical February 28, 2001 Copies of the Geotechnical Report Support Material is available for review at the ' City of Temecula's Planning Department 1 1 1 1 ' GEOLOGIC FEASIBILITY STUDY AND FAULT EVALUATION ' FOR RORIPAUGH PROPERTY - 800-ACRE SITE RANCHO CALIFORNIA AREA ' RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA PREPARED FOR RANPAC ENGINEERING CORPORATION tTEMECULA, CALIFORNIA 1 PREPARED BY GEOCON INCORPORATED ' SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA ' AUGUST 1990 GEOCON - - ' Geotechnical Engineers and Engineering Geologlsls ' File No. 04301-03-01011, August 24, 1990 epo, RANPAC Engineering Corporation 27447 Enterprise Circle West Temecula, California 92390 Attention: Mr. Ron Williams ' Subject: RORIPAUGH PROPERTY - 800-ACRE SITE RANCHO CALIFORNIA AREA ' RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA GEOLOGIC FEASIBILITY STUDY AND FAULT EVALUATION ' Gentlemen: In accordance with your request, and our proposal dated January 4, 1989, we have ' performed a geologic feasibility study and fault evaluation for the subject site. The accompanying report presents the findings of our study and preliminary recommendations based on those findings relative to the geotechnical aspects of developing the site as presently proposed. If you have any questions regarding our report, or if we may be of further service, please ' contact the undersigned at your convenience. Very truly yours, ' GEOCON INCORPORATED Michael W. Hart James L. Brown CEG 706 RCE 43824 ' JLB:MWH:slc ' (6) addressee 1 1 6960 Flanders Drive ' San Diego, CA 92121-2974 619 558-6900 FAX 619 558-6159 1 ' TABLE OF CONTENTS PURPOSE AND SCOPE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 SITE AND PROJECT DESCRIPTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 PREVIOUS STUDIES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 ' SOIL AND GEOLOGIC CONDITIONS . . . . . . . . . . : _ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 Undocumented Fill Soils (Qudf) . 4 Topsoil (unmapped) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 ' Alluvium (Qal) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 Alluvium/Colluvium (Qal/Qc) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 Debris Flows (Qdf) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 Terrace Deposits (Qt) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 ' Pauba Formation (Qps) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 Granodiorite Basement Rock (Kgd) and associated Metasedimentary Rock . . . 6 ' GROUNDWATER . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 GEOLOGIC HAZARDS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 Ancient Landslides . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 ' Rockfall Potential . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 LocalFaulting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 Regional Faulting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 ' Seismicity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 Flooding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 Erosion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 Regional Subsidence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 Liquefaction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 ' General . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 Grading . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 Slope Stability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 Foundation Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 ' Retaining Walls and Lateral Loads . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 Drainage and Maintenance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 LIMITATIONS AND UNIFORMITY OF CONDITIONS LIST OF FIGURES AND ILLUSTRATIONS ' Figure 1, Vicinity Map Figure 2, Geologic Map Figure 3, Log of Fault Trench No. 1 ' APPENDIX A FIELD INVESTIGATION Figures A-1 through A-22, Logs of Test Trenches ' Figure A-23, Log of Fault Trench No. 2 APPENDIX B LABORATORY TESTING Table B-I, Summary of Laboratory Compaction Test Results Table B-II, Summary of In-place Density and Direct Shear Test Results Table B-III, Summary of Laboratory Expansion Test Results ' File No. 04301-03-01 August 24, 1990 GEOLOGIC FEASIBILITY STUDY AND FAULT EVALUATION ' PURPOSE AND SCOPE This report presents the results of our geologic feasibility study for the 800-Acre Roripaugh ' Site located in the Rancho California area of Riverside County, California. In addition, an ' evaluation of the inferred trace of the Murrieta Hot Springs Fault was performed in the northwestern approximately 160 acres as of the project. The purpose of this feasibility study ' is to provide preliminary geotechnical information with respect to the proposed development. The purpose of the fault evaluation was to determine if the Murrieta Hot ' Springs Fault, as mapped by Kennedy (1977), projected into the "panhandle" portion of the property. ' The scope of our services consisted of reviewing the following geologic literature, stereoscopic aerial photographs and plans: o Recency and Character of Faulting along the Elsinore Fault Zone in Southern Riverside County, California, California Division of Mines and Geology, Special Report, Kennedy, M.P., 1977. ' o Geology of a Portion of the Elsinore Fault Zone, California, California Division of Mines and Geology, Special Report 43, Mann, J.E., 1955. o Stereoscopic aerial photographs of the subject 800-Acre site (Riverside County Flight of January 30, 1962, Nos. 3-397, 398:2 and Riverside County Flight of June 20, 1974, Nos. 879, 880). 0 Roripaugh Specific Plan:for Leo Roripaugh: by The Planning Associates, prepared by Ranpac Engineering, dated March 23, 1990. ' The scope of our field investigation consisted of geologic mapping, the excavation of two trenches across the inferred trace of the Murrieta,Hot Springs Fault, and 23 additional soil ' test pits and trenches across minor faults. Detailed logging of fault trenches and test pits 1 1 File No. 04301-03-01 August 24, 1990 was performed. The trench logs are presented in Appendix A along with a more detailed desorption of the procedures and methods utilized during the field investigation. Limited laboratory tests were performed on selected soil samples obtained at various depths 1 within the exploratory excavations to determine pertinent physical characteristics. The results of the laboratory testing program are presented in Appendix B. SITE AND PROJECT DESCRIPTION The subject property encompasses approximately 800 acres of essentially undeveloped land located in the Rancho California area of Riverside County, California (See Vicinity Map, Figure 1). The site consists of 640 acres (Section 21, Township 75, Range 2 West) and a "panhandle" area (approximately 160 acres) immediately to the west occupying approxi- mately the north quarter of Section 20, Township 75, Range 2 West. The site is bordered on all sides by essentially undeveloped land, with the exception of several residences scattered along the southern and western property lines. A large portion 1 of the site has previously been utilized for agricultural purposes. A windmill, 3 known water wells, a residential structure and associated out-buildings, a decomposed granite borrow pit 1 and several earthen embankments are located on the site. In addition, the Second San 1 Diego Aqueduct traverses the central portion of the site trending in a north-south direction. Topographically the site consists of flat or very gently sloping valleys with steep walls. The "panhandle" portion consists of northeasterly trending drainages which bisect the mesa top. The 640-acre portion consists of 2large northeasterly and easterly drainages with prominent associated parallel ridges. Elevations range from a low of approximately 1,418 feet Mean - 2 - File No. 04301-03-01 1 August 24, 1990 ' Sea Level (MSL) near the northeastern property corner to a high of approximately 1,888 MSL at the western site boundary. ' Vegetation types vary according to terrain and land use activity. Most of the steeper areas support chaparral, and grass. The lower gentler slopes are generally covered with native ' grasses. Several groves of eucalyptus trees were also noted within the property limits. ' A review of the earlier referenced Specific Plan indicates that it is proposed to develop the site to receive a master-planned community with detached single-family residential ' structures, condominiums and apartments, industrial structures and associated access roads ' and improvements. Two community parks, two school sites and a championship golf course are also planned. Grading plans were not available at this time. However, based upon our ' review of the Specific Plan, it is anticipated that cut and fill slopes on the order of 85, and 70 feet, respectively, constructed at maximum inclinations of 2.0 to 1.0 (horizontal to ' vertical) are proposed. PREVIOUS STUDIES ' Few published geologic studies have been conducted concerning the subject site or the immediate area. The most extensive work is that of Mann (1955), who mapped general geology and several faults and Kennedy (1977), who performed additional mapping and identified several faults within the bedrock units. The Murrieta Hot Springs Fault has been ' mapped by Kennedy (1977) through the "panhandle" portion of the site and has been ' classified as active by other geotechnical firms on property located to the west of the site. - 3 - 1 File No. 04301-03-01 August 24, 1990 1 SOIL AND GEOLOGIC CONDITIONS 1 Two geologic formations and six types of surficial deposits were observed during our field investigation. The surficial deposits consist of undocumented fill, topsoil, alluvium, 1 colluvium,landslide deposits and debris flow materials. The two geologic formations include 1 the Pleistocene Pauba Formation and the Granodiorite Basement Bedrock and associated metasediments. Each of the surficial soil types and geologic units is described below in order of increasing age. 1 Undocumented Fill Soils (Oudf] The fill soils observed on the property are generally of limited depth and extent and are 1 associated with several unimproved roads,earthen embankments and small trash fills related 1 to past agricultural uses. Additional fill soils are located within the Second San Diego Aqueduct. No documentation as to the degree of compaction of the fill soils on the site was 1 available. In general, the undocumented fill soils present on the site are not considered suitable for support of additional fill and/or structural loading in their present condition and 1 will require removal and recompaction. 1 Topsoil (unmapped) Both tilled and undisturbed topsoils were encountered during our field investigation. In general, the topsoils are anticipated to vary in thickness from 1 to 2 feet. The topsoils 1 generally consist of silty, fine- to medium-grained sands. A layer of clay rich, carbonate cemented sands approximately 2 feet below the ground surface was encountered in the 1 "panhandle" area. This cemented zone may cause moderate excavation difficulties during mass grading. 1 1 - 4 - 1 ' File No. 04301-03-01 ' August 24, 1990 Due to the generally unconsolidated condition of the topsoils remedial measures such as recompaction, deeper than normal side-slope fill benching and undercutting of cut pads and ' cut-fill transition pads may be necessary. ' Alluvium (Oal) ' Stream deposited sediments have been mapped as alluvium. In general,where encountered, the alluvial materials consisted of loose, fine- to coarse-grained, silty sands. The alluvial ' materials within the 640-acre portion of the site generally are located within the low lying areas and drainages. A determination of the depth, compressibility characteristics and ' liquefaction potential of the alluvium was beyond the scope of this report. ' Alluvium/Colluvium (Oal/Oc) ' Where alluvial soils have been interbedded with colluvium the areas are depicted on.the Geologic Map (Figure 2) as Qal/Qc. Where encountered these materials consisted of silty, ' fine- to coarse-grained sands with silt and clay interbeds of finer material. ' Debris Flows (Odf) ' Several small debris flows were observed in the "panhandle" portion of the property. The features occur primarily on north facing slopes with relatively steep gradients. It is ' anticipated that these materials consist of compressible topsoils and colluvium. The debris flows will require removal and recompaction in areas to receive additional fill and/or ' structural loading. 1 - 5 - 1 File No. 04301-03-01 1 August 24, 1990 1 Terrace Deposits (Otl 1 Quatemary-aged terrace deposits were mapped on the mesa top at the northeastern end of the 640-acre section. It is anticipated that these materials will consist primarily of silty 1 sands. 1 Pauba Formation (Oos) 1 The Pleistocene-aged Pauba Formation is present over the majority of the site (Kennedy, 1977). As exposed in outcrops and the trench excavations, the Pauba Formation generally 1 consists of silty fine to coarse sandstone with interbeds of sandy siltstone and occasional claystone. The depositional environment of the Pauba consisted of alluvial fans and fluvial 1 channels,resulting in the presence of occasional cohesionless sand lenses. With the excep- tion of the intermittent cohesionless sands,the Pauba Formation possesses satisfactory shear 1 strength and low expansive characteristics in either an undisturbed or properly compacted 1 condition. 1 # For preliminary planning purposes, it may be assumed that cut and flu slopes constructed at inclinations of 2.0 to 1.0 (horizontal to vertical) should have factors-of-safety of at 1 least 1.5 to heights of at least 50 feet. The gradation characteristics and occasional lack of 1 cohesion can present a significant erosion potential. A well planned and maintained slope planting and irrigation plan provided immediately after grading is complete should 1 significantly reduce the erosion potential. _ 1 Granodiorite Basement Rock (Ked) and associated Metasedimentary Rock Cretaceous-aged plutonic bedrock is exposed in the northeast corner of the 640-acre site and 1 in a borrow pit at the western end of the "panhandle" area. Basement rock observed 1 - 6 - 1 ' File No. 04301-03-01 ' August 24, 1990 ' consists of coarse-grained granodiorite with inclusions of Jurassic to Triassic Metasediments. Narrow quartz-rich dikes have cut through both rock units. 1 Deep excavations within the bedrock will likely require blasting and can be expected to tgenerate a substantial amount of oversized material (rocks in excess of 12 inches in ' maximum dimension). Bedrock exposed at finish grade will also require undercutting and replacing with compacted fill soils to facilitate the placement of building foundations and ' underground utilities. ' The bedrock units typically possess good shear strength and bearing characteristics. Cut slopes inclined as steep as 1.5 to 1.0 should be stable to heights of at least 50 feet if free 1 from adversely oriented fractures or joints. ' GROUNDWATER ' No groundwater was observed at the time of this investigation. The permeable nature of the Pauba Formation and the joints and fractures within the underlying granodioritic ' bedrock allow for the transmission of water. The groundwater level will most likely tend to ' fluctuate depending upon seasonal rainfall variation. It is anticipated that a groundwater table exists within the deeper alluvial deposits in the 640-acre portion of the site. In ' addition, the geologic units encountered on the site have permeability characteristics and/or fracture systems that could be susceptible under certain conditions to water seepage. It is ' recommended that periodic observations be made by the soil engineer or engineering geologist during grading for the presence of groundwater. Mitigative measures can be ' provided at that time. - 7 - t File No. 04301-03-01 August 24, 1990 1 GEOLOGIC HAZARDS 1 �t Ancient Landslides Several areas within the southeastern end of the site primarily within the Pauba Formation were mapped as suspected landslides. In order to accurately determine the presence, size and subsurface geometry of these suspected landslides it is recommended that additional exploratory borings and trenches be performed within these areas. Where landslides are present in areas to be developed, earthen buttresses or other remedial measures can be provided during site development to properly stabilize the ancient landslides. In addition, 1 slide debris typically possess zones of compressible materials and some recompaction of these soils may also be required. Rockfall Potential Due to the steep natural terrain and large boulder outcrops within the granitic rock on the 1 northeastern portion of the site, the potential hazard for future rockfalls should be a consideration in developing this portion of the property. Typical mitigative measures for potential rockfall areas consist of selected rock removal, rock pinning, rock grouting and constructing protective fences and earth berms. Local Faultine 1 The Murrieta Hot Springs Fault mapped by Kennedy (1977) extends towards the western edge of the site and has recently been evaluated as being an active fault. The subsurface investigation within the "panhandle" area was primarily directed toward the evaluation of the possible presence and degree of activity associated with the Murrieta Hot Springs Fault. Fault trench Nos. 1 and 2 were excavated to intercept the primary photo-lineament as mapped by Kennedy (1977) to determine if the lineaments were an extension of the 8 - File No. 04301-03-01 l August 24, 1990 ' I• ll.'r,', .v�J , I ' Murrieta Hot Springs Fault. Logs of the exploratory trenches are presented on Figur-'50 and Figure A-22. Our observations during the trenching and a review of the trericli logs ' indicates that no evidence of significant faulting in either trench was present. Both trenches exposed poorly-cemented, sandy stream deposits within the Pauba Formation. It is likely ' that the lineament 4represents an Olde_sr m chann_ which was preferentially eroded ' and served as a water conduit, creating tonal changes in vegetation. It is the opinion of Geocon Incorporated that the Murrieta Hot Springs Fault does not trend through the site ' in the location mapped by Kennedy (1977). In addition, there is no other evidence to suggest that the fault is present elsewhere on the site. Several faults were observed in the Cretaceous bedrock in Trench Nos. I and 23. Since the 1 faults do not appear to have offset the overlying Pauba Formation, it is our judgement that they are inactive. ' Limited geologic reconnaissance mapping in the eastern portion of the site indicated the presence of a fault that displaces the Pauba Formation. Where development is planned in these areas, it is recommended that additional subsurface explorations be performed to delineate this feature. ' Regional Faulting The regional geological structure is dominated by northwest trending faults associated with ' the San Andreas Fault System. The Elsinore Fault zone is one of the major fault zones in this system, which is known to be seismically active and is located approximately 4 miles ' southwest of the site. The Elsinore Fault zone is thought to be capable of producing a 7.6 ' Magnitude (maximum credible) earthquake (Envicom, 1976). - 9 - File No. 04301-03-01 1 August 24, 1990 Seismicity The subject site is located within a seismically active area of Southern California. The site may experience relatively high levels of shaking as a result of earthquakes along the San e Andreas,San Jacinto or Elsinore Fault zones. The maximum potential ground accelerations for the site would most likely be generated from earthquakes from the Elsinore Fault Zone. Floodins I It is understood that potential flood plain limits will be determined by others. However, in addition to flooding caused by heavy rainfall and associated surface runoff, floodwaters resulting from a failure of one of the several earthen embankments on the site should also be considered during the conceptual studies for development of the property. Erosion Excavations within the alluvium and the Pauba Formation may expose low cohesive silts and sands which are highly susceptible to erosion. However, the incorporation of erosion- resistant ground cover on manufactured slopes immediately after completion of grading, providing and maintaining proper surface drainage and landscape irrigation procedures which do not result in slope over watering should significantly reduce the erosion potential. This additionally applies to fill slopes constructed of soils derived from the alluvium and the Pauba Formation. _ 1 10 - File No. 04301-03-01 August 24, 1990 Regional Subsidence Intense seismic shaking and groundwater withdrawal may result in settlement of uncon- solidated sediments in alluvial valleys. Additional geotechnical investigations should be performed within proposed development of the alluvial soils to evaluate the compressibility characteristics and to determine if mitigative measures will be required. ' Liquefaction ' The potential for liquefaction as a result of seismic shaking is greater for soils which are relatively loose and located below the groundwater table. Such conditions likely exist within the deeper alluvial deposits. Additional studies should be performed to specifically evaluate ' the liquefaction potential of the deeper alluvium. The relatively high density of the formational soils indicates that for these units the liquefaction potential is remote. 1 1 - 11 - 1 File No. 04301-03-01 August 24, 1990 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS General 1. In our opinion, no soil or geologic conditions exist it the site which would preclude the development of a master-planned community as proposed; provided that addi- tional detailed geotechnical investigations are performed and the recommendations of this report and future reports are followed. Specifically the additional investigations should address the following: o Compressibility characteristics and liquefaction potential of the deeper alluvial soils in the 640 acre portion of the site. This will assist in determining the depth of removal and recompaction of the alluvial materials or other methods of in situ densification. o Verification of the presence of landslides and their vertical and lateral extent within the southeastern portion of the 640 acre site. Stabilization methods should also be provided. o Rippability characteristics of the granitic basement rock. Placement specifications for oversize rock generated from cuts within the granitic rock should also be provided. o The delineation of possible potentially active faults within the eastern portion of the site as indicated from our field mapping and review of stereoscopic aerial photos. This would require additional subsurface exploration and field mapping. o The stability of existing earthen dams. It is recommended that all such structures be temporarily breached so that they do not present a flood hazard. 2. The site is underlain by surficial deposits consisting of undocumented fill soils, topsoils, alluvium, alluvium/colluvium, debris flow materials and possible landslide deposits. The surficial soils in their present condition are not considered suitable for the support of fill and/or structural loads and will require remedial grading. 12 - 1 ' File No. 04301-03-01 1 August 24, 1990 Gradine 3. Grading recommendations can be provided once additional geotechnical investiga- tions have been completed and more detailed grading plans are available for review. Specific details regarding remedial grading, slope stabilization and oversize rock placement procedures can be included within the additional reports. ' 4. It is anticipated that excavations within the surficial materials and the Pauba Formation will require a light to moderate effort with conventional heavy duty grading equipment. Excavations within the granitic basement rock will likely require ' blasting. Slope Stability ' S. Preliminary slope stability analyses performed utilizing average drained direct shear strength parameters indicate that cut and fill slopes up to 50 feet in height ' constructed of sandy materials of the Pauba Formation at inclinations of 2.0 to 1.0 (horizontal to vertical) have calculated factors of safety of at least 1.5 for both deep ' seated and shallow sloughing conditions. Detailed specific slope stability analyses ' were beyond the scope of this report and should be performed during future geotechnical studies. 6. Cut slopes within granitic hardrock do not lend themselves to conventional slope 1 stability analyses. Observations of the very steeply inclined ridges within the granitic bedrock areas and our experience with similar soil and geologic conditions indicates ' that cut slopes inclined at 1.5 to 1.0 (horizontal to vertical) should be stable with respect to deep seated and surficial instability to heights of at least 50 feet where 13 - File No. 04301-03-01 B August 24, 1990 there are no adversely oriented planes of weakness such as faults or fractures. Where adverse geologic conditions are encountered the slopes should be inclined at 2.0 to 1.0. 7. The outer 15 feet of fill slopes should be composed of properly compacted granular "soil" fill to reduce the potential for surface sloughing. All fill slopes should be compacted by back-rolling at maximum vertical fill height intervals of 4 feet and should be track-walked at the completion of each slope, or over-built a minimum of 3 feet and cut back to finish grade such that the fill soils are uniformly compacted to the face of the finished slope. S. All slopes should be planted, drained and properly maintained to reduce the potential for erosion. Foundation Recommendations 9. Foundation recommendations can be provided in additional geotechnical investiga- tions and in final compaction reports. In general, the foundations may be designed for an allowable soil bearing pressure of 2,000 psf (dead plus live loads). The minimum dimensions will typically vary from 12 inches to 24 inches in depth and 12 inches in width, dependent upon the anticipated foundation loading, expansion potential of the finish grade soils (upper 3 feet) and the geometry of the fill materials underlying a particular building pad. 14 - File No. 04301-03-01 ' August 24, 1990 10. The above recommended allowable soil bearing pressure is for dead plus live loads only and can be increased by up to one-third for transient loads such as those due to ' wind or seismic forces. 11. Foundations should not be placed within 7 feet horizontally from the tops of slopes. Footings that must be located within this zone should be extended in depth such that the outer bottom edge of the footing is at least 7 feet horizontally from the face of ' the finished slope. Retaining Walls and Lateral Loads ' 12. Retaining walls not restrained from movement at the top and having a level backfill surface should be designed for an active soil pressure equivalent to a fluid weight ' of 30 pcf. Where the backfill will be inclined at no steeper than 2:1, an active soil pressure of 43 pcf is recommended. 13. Unrestrained walls are defined as those walls that are allowed to rotate more than 0.001H at the top of the wall. Where walls are restrained from movement at the ' top, an additional uniform horizontal pressure of 7H (H equals the height of the wall in feet) should be added to the above active soil pressure. 14. All retaining walls should be provided with a drainage system adequate to prevent the ' buildup of hydrostatic forces and should be waterproofed as required by the Project Architect of Design Engineer. The above recommendations assume a properly ' compacted granular backfill with no hydrostatic forces or imposed surcharge loads. 15 - 1 i File No. 04301-03-01 i August 24, 1990 1 If conditions different from those described are anticipated the Geotechnical Engineer should be contacted for additional recommendations. i 15. For resistance to lateral loads,we recommend a passive earth pressure equivalent to a fluid weight of 300 pcf for footings or shear keys poured neat against properly compacted fill soils or undisturbed natural soils. This lateral pressure assumes a horizontal distance extending at least 5 feet or three times the height of the surface generating passive pressure, whichever is greater. The upper 12 inches of material not protected by floor slabs or pavement should not be included in the design for lateral resistance. 16. If friction is to be used for lateral resistance, we recommend using a coefficient of friction between soil and concrete of 0.40. Drainaee and Maintenance 17. Good drainage is imperative to reduce the potential for soil movement, erosion, and subsurface seepage. Positive measures should be taken to finish grade the building pads and other improvements so that drainage is directed away from foundations and the tops of slopes to controlled drainage devices. Experience has shown that even i with these provisions, a shallow groundwater or subsurface water condition can and may develop in areas where no such conditions existed prior to development; this is particularly true where a substantial increase in surface water infiltration results from an increase in landscape irrigation. i 16 - File No. 04301-03-01 ' August 24, 1990 ' LIMITATIONS AND UNIFORMITY OF CONDITIONS 1. The recommendations of this report pertain only to the site investigated and are based upon the assumption that the soil conditions do not deviate from those disclosed in the investigation. If any variations or undesirable conditions are ' encountered during construction, or if the proposed construction will differ from that anticipated herein, Geocon Incorporated should be notified so that supplemental rec-ommendations can be given. 2. This report is issued with the understanding that it is the responsibility of the owner, or of his representative, to ensure that the information and recommendations contained herein are brought to the attention of the architect and engineer for the ' project and incorporated into the plans, and the necessary steps are taken to see that the contractor and subcontractors carry out such recommendations in the field. 3. The findings of this report are valid as of the present date. However, changes in the conditions of a property can occur with the passage of time, whether they be due to ' natural processes or the works of man on this or adjacent properties. In addition, changes in applicable or appropriate standards may occur, whether they result from legislation or the broadening of knowledge. Accordingly, the findings of this report may be invalidated wholly or partially by changes outside our control. Therefore, this ' report is subject to review and should not be relied upon after a period of three ' years. 1 File No. 04301-03-01 - 1 \. SITE \\-SAN DIEGO \ AQUEDUCT O P O w Q z w PS -A , GOV r„ c N a a 2 �P D �P S Q I NOT TO SCALE VICINITY MAP RORIPAUGH PROPERTY - 800-ACRE SITE RANCHO CALIFORNIA AREA RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA Figure 1 e 1 1 1 1 _ i 1 1 i 1 APPENDIX A 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 File No. 04301-03-01 ' August 24, 1990 APPENDIX A FIELD INVESTIGATION The field investigation was performed during the period of January 18 through January 23, 1989 and consisted of a visual site reconnaissance, the excavation of 24 backhoe pits and 2 ' elongated fault trenches. The approximate location of the exploratory excavations are shown on Figure 2 (Map Pocket). ' The trenches were advanced to depths varying from 3.5 feet to 12 feet below existing grade using a JD555 backhoe equipped with an 18-inch-wide bucket. Disturbed bulk and chunk ' samples were obtained at selected locations within the trenches. ' The soils encountered in the trenches were visually examined, classified and logged. Logs of the backhoe trenches are presented on Figures A-1 through A-22, and Figure 3 (Map ' Pocket). The logs depict the soil and geologic conditions encountered and the depth at which samples were obtained. 1 1 1 Individual data sheets for field investigations (Appendix A of the Geologic Feasibility Study and Fault Evaluation) are available at the City of Temecula Planning Department. 1 1 1 1 1 APPENDIX .B 1 1 1 1 File No. 04301-03-01 August 24, 1990 APPENDIX B LABORATORY TESTING 1 Laboratory tests were performed in accordance with the generally accepted test methods of American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) or other suggested procedures. Selected relatively undisturbed chunk samples were tested for their in-place dry density, moisture content and shear strength characteristics. The maximum dry density and optimum moisture content of selected bulk samples were determined in accordance with ASTM Test Procedure D1557-78, Method C. Portions of 1 the bulk samples were then remolded to selected densities and subjected to direct shear tests and expansion tests. File No. 04301-03-01 August 24, 1990 TABLE B-I Summary of Laboratory Compaction Test Results ASTM D1557-78, Method C Maximum Dry Optimum Sample Density Moisture No. Description pcf % Dry Wt. T10-1 Brown, fine to coarse Silty 138.6 7.3 SAND with trace clay and gravel T21-2 Dark brown, Clayey fine to 126.7 10.6 coarse SAND with Little silt and trace gravel TABLE B-H 1 Summary of Tn-Place Moisture Densitxand Direct Shear Test Results Angle of Dry Moisture Unit Shear Sample Density Content Cohesion Resistance No pcf % psf Deuees T10-1 124.4 7.6 350 32 1 T11-1 1115 4.6 130 30 121-2 114.2 10.5 480 20 T23-1 115.9 63 660 34 1 File No. 04301-03-01 August 24, 1990 1 TABLE B-lII Summary of Laboratory Expansion Index Test Results Moisture Content Before After Dry Test Test Density Expansion Sample No. % % pef Index 721-2 9.7 17.9 111.7 15 i' t r r GEOLOGIC CONSTRAINTS o / Cls PROPERTYOPsi — c 9d Ops ;1 Cps 3 s �ii 7 8 V 14 CPs 15 Igd Kg d 1 fps .Qps a + a QpsI / A I Kgd gd 1 DPS J� ° cs q0 16 17 10 11 12 f LEGEND I 13 I / •� "mOftlxf —� iI Qudf UNDOCUMENTED FILL 4 /—, ' 21 Cal ALLUVIUM "f =_J( —— � 20 CaVQc UNDIFFERENTIATED ALLUVIUM AND COLLUVIUM "% ° df 22 Q Odf DEBRIS FLOW MATERIAL QIs LANDSLIDE DEPOSITS ) I/ 23 Q 2 25 26 I ' Ops Qt TERRACE DEPOSITS !i Qal/'IQc QaVQc Ops PAUBA FORMATION I \ 27 Q Kgd GRANODIORITE(BEDROCK FORMATION) ) 26QIs - °o+ t ---- POSSIBLE FAULTING 30 32 29 F+�o °""EQIs cn.."os 31 Is QIs li p 1 � GEOCON I N C 0 a l0 a •T Cu Gactachnical Englncara and Enginaering Coologists 1 File No. D4301-MOl November 7, 1989 1 RANPAC Engineering Corporation 1 27447 Enterprise Circle West Temecula, California 92390 Attention: Mr. David Dillon Subject: 800-ACRE SITE - RORIPAUGH PROPERTY RANCHO CALIFORNIA AREA 1 RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA CONSULTATION Gentlemen: In accordance with your request, we have performed geotechnical services for the 800-acre Roripaugh property located in the Rancho California area of Riverside County, California. 1 Specifically, we have performed the following services: o Reconnaissance geologic mapping of the 800-acre site. 1 o Lineament analysis of features suggestive of faulting on site. o Trenching in the area of the proposed Murrietta Hot Springs Fault and field review with Dr. Roy Shlemon. 1 o Trenching on the 160-acre "panhandle" site to assess general geologic conditions. o Limited laboratory testing on selected soil samples to provide general 1 subsurface soil characteristics. Based on our limited subsurface investigation, the following are general conclusions and 1 recommendations which are currently being finalized in report form. o Review of lineaments observed on stereoscopic aerial photographs and subsequent field reconnaissance mapping indicates the presence of several features suggestive of faulting. The most prominent feature is the eastern extension of the Murrietta Hot Springs Fault. Subsequent trenching across 6980 Flanows Drive San Diego.CA 92121-2974 819 55"900 FAX 819 55M159 File No. D-4301-MOI November 7, 1989 this lineament indicates the lack of faulting in the Pleistocene-aged Pauba Formation. Field review with Dr. Roy Shlemon also concluded that the active Murrietta Hot Springs Fault does not cross the site. Other lineaments observed will necessitate additional subsurface work to delineate the presence or absence of faulting on site. o Trenching and laboratory testing of selected soil samples indicated the presence of undocumented fill, topsoil, alluvium, ancient landslides, the Pauba Formation and granitic bedrock at the site. General characteristics of each soil will be described in our forthcoming report. o Recommendations to be presented will include the need for additional subsurface work, especially in the eastern half of the site, to address slope stability and the characteristics of the underlying soils. Additional trenching in the areas of the lineaments in the eastern half will also be necessary. We appreciate this opportunity to be of service. Please feel free to contact the undersigned at your convenience should you have any questions regarding this letter. ' Very truly yours, GEOCON INCORPORATED Michael W. Hart Dorian E. Kuper CEG 706 CEG 1302 DEK:MWH:dmc (2) addressee 1 1 1 SEISMIC CHARACTERISTICS OF REGIONAL FAULTS 1 Marmmm.Probable Earthquake 1 Direction and Peak Horiz Max Duration Distance Potential Bedrock Accl. Repeat of strong Earthquake from Fault to Richter at site ground shaking Fault Site miles Magnitude (gravities) (vay.) (seconds) San Andreas (south of Garlock) 35SW 8.25 .23 NA 36 San Jacinto 15SW 7.5 .32 .21 26 Newport- Ingelwvod 35NE 6.5 .07 NA NA Whittier- ELanare (Wildomar) 4NE 7.5 .38 .25 18 Sierra Madre/ Cucamonga 50SE 6A .05 NA NA Murrieta Hot Springs On-Site 6.0 .65 .42 18 • The repeatable high ground acceleration taken as 65 percent of the peak acceleration for sites within 20 miles of the epicenter,may be more applicable for design analysis. Source: Table 10 (DWA 1997 ) APPENDIX C Geotechnical August 1990 Copies of the Geotechnical Report Support Material is available for review at the 1 City of Temecula's Planning Department 1 1 1 1 1 APPEN IX D i 1 Hydrology 1 1 1 . 1 1 1 1 1 !i 1 1 1 1 1 r 1 SPECIFIC PLAN DRAINAGE REPORT for 1 RORIPAUGH RANCH ' TEMECULA, CALIFORNIA Prepared for ' GRC Development Company, L.P. ' and Ashby Development Company, Inc. 1 ' Prepared by Keith International, Inc. 22690 Cactus Ave., Suite 300 ' Moreno Valley, CA 92553 (909) 653-0234 1 1 Ss August 1998 y�`�e �tiG Job No. 30602.000 4 Na 29048 1 ' sjgTf F'CAIIFORN\P RORIPAUGH RANCH SPECIFIC PLAN DRAINAGE REPORT ' Table of Contents ' A. Introduction............................................................................................................................1 B. Purpose...................................................................................................................................1 C. Existing Conditions....................................... ............................................ ..........................1 .. D. Hydrology..............................................................................................................................2 ' E. Hydraulics Analysis...............................................................................................................3 ..................... F. Proposed Drainage Facilities ............................... .............................................3 ' Figures: 1. Project Location Map ' 2. Project Site Map Appendix: ' A. Design Criteria B. Long Valley - Unit Hydrograph Calcs- 3, 6 and 24-Hour ' (On & Off-site Existing Condition, 100-Yr) C. Long Valley - Unit Hydrograph Calcs- 3, 6 and 24-Hour (On & Off-site Developed Condition, 100-Yr) D. Santa Gertrudis Valley- Unit Hydrograph Calcs- 3, 6 and 24-Hour (On & Off-site Existing Condition, 100-Yr) E. Santa Gertrudis Valley - Unit Hydrograph Calcs- 3, 6 and 24-Hour (On & Off-site Developed Condition, 100-Yr) F. Long Valley—HEC-RAS Water Surface Calculations G. Santa Gertrudis Valley - HEC-RAS Water Surface Calculations H. Northerly Tributary to Santa Gertrudis Valley-HEC-RAS Water Surface Calculations ' I. F1owMaster Culvert Calculations J. Rational Method Calculations - Areas North of Murrieta Hot Springs Road 1 K. Rational Method Calculations —Murrieta Hot Springs Road L. Detention Basin Calculations ' M. Storm Drain Sizing—Murrieta Hot Springs Road and Areas E &F Exhibits: ' A. Watershed Area B. 100 Year Flood Plain Delineation ' C. Drainage Master Plan ' NUW2-000twC� 2doth 1 RORIPAUGH RANCH SPECIFIC PLAN DRAINAGE REPORT A. INTRODUCTION KJI was authorized by GRC Development Company, L.P., and Ashby Development Company Inc. to prepare this drainage report as supporting documentation for the Roripaugh ' Ranch Specific Plan, in Temecula California. 'It was prepared during the months of June and July 1998. B. PURPOSE The purpose of this report is to develop hydrology and hydraulic analysis to aid in the preliminary design of drainage infrastructures in support of the Specific Plan drainage elements within the Roripaugh Ranch development. The drainage data are evaluated and studied to provide an economic drainage plan for the proposed development. ' The drainage concept as proposed in the specific plan is founded on two basic premises: 1) Since there are no master plan flood control facilities available for discharge of on-site ' runoff, the increase in developed condition runoff will be mitigated through on-site detention basins. 2) The natural drainage courses are to be maintained as natural streams or soft bottom ' channels to the extent practical. The findings and conclusions of this study are in support of these goals. C. EXISTING DRAINAGE CONDITION ' The project site is subject to drainage flows from areas offsite, generally flowing from east to west. Long Valley and Santa Gertrudis Valley are the two major drainage courses traversed through the site. Both Long and Gertrudis Valley watershed consist of mostly undeveloped areas with some sparse low-density development. Terrain is generally hilly and rugged. Hydraulics analysis is also made to determine the 100-year flood effect of the natural drainage course impact to the Roripaugh Ranch development and to identify on-site impacts and infrastructure required to mitigate those drainage issues. This report presents the results of the unit hydrograph, HEC-RAS and rational method calculations for the drainage impacting the Roripaugh Ranch development. M1V0603000�DOC1i0�9999.doc 11 ' RORIPAUGH RANCH SPECIFIC PLAN DRAINAGE REPORT D. HYDROLOGY Two hydrologic methods were used to determine design discharges. For smaller tributary areas, up to 500 acres in size, the Rational Method was used. The Synthetic Unit Hydrograph method was used for larger areas. As in the case of this study, the Rational Method was used to calculate discharges for smaller tributary areas at the northerly and southerly boundaries. The Hydrograph method was used mainly for the Long Valley and Santa Gertrudis Valley drainage. The Rational Method and Unit Hydrograph Calculations are included in the Appendix of this report. Methodology and supportive data for the hydrologic calculations may be found in this report, and in the "Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District Hydrology ' Manual", dated April 1978. The Off-site Drainage Map is include_d in this report as Exhibit A. The On-site Drainage Map is included as Appendix B. Rainfall Isohyetal Maps were based on Plate D-4 of the Riverside County Hydrology Manual. Run-off Curve Numbers (RCN's) and Impervious covers (ai's) were based on Plates D-5.5 and D-5.6 of the Manual. Copies of these Plates are included in Appendix A of 1 this report. Proposed culverts were conceptually sized based on 100-year hydrology. , All hydrology analyses were modeled using the Civil CADD/Civil Design Hydrology- Hydraulics program packaged by Joseph E. Bonadiman & Associates, Inc. based on criteria as set forth in the County of Riverside Hydrology Manual. This program package includes modules for preparing Rational Method calculations, Unit Hydrographs and Flood Routing. To reduce the developed peak discharges, and sizes of proposed culverts, the developed condition flood hydrographs for the Long Valley and Santa Gertrudis Valley Creeks were routed through proposed detention basins. The peak outflow for each of these basins was determined based on the inlet control chart for the appropriate culverts, using 20' of ponding in the basin. The maximum outflow for each basin determined from the chart was plotted on the corresponding developed condition hydrograph. The calculated volume above the maximum outflow for each basin is the volume required. The Detention Basin calculations are included in Appendix K of this report. Normal design practice for detention basins is to detain the difference between developed and undeveloped run-off. In this case, the delta Q is very small, and the site offers opportunities to detain significantly more volume than the delta Q, thereby reducing the size and therefore cost of the downstream facilities, as well as creating potential for fee credits for reducing capacity requirements of downstream flood control facilities. N UWZ 000V 4029999 11 2 1 RORIPAUGH RANCH 1 SPECIFIC PLAN DRAINAGE REPORT 1 E. HYDRAULICS ANALYSIS 1 Hydraulics analysis of the existing and proposed facilities utilized the HEC-RAS computer program developed by the U.S. Army Corp of Engineers. HEC-RAS was used to model the 100-year flood limit for Long Valley, Santa Gertrudis Valley and the tributary to Santa 1 Gertrudis located immediately east of Butterfield-Stage Road. The reason for modeling this tributary is due to its potential impact to the alignment of Butterfield Stage Road. The HEC- RAS calculations are included in this report as Appendices F, G & H. The Manning's "n"value used in the analysis, of the above-mentioned creeks, is 0.03. ' Hydraulic analysis of the proposed culverts was performed using F1owMaster, a program that computes flows based on well-known formulas such as Darcy-Weisbach (Colebrook-White), ' Hazen-Williams, Kutter's, and Mannings. The program allows the user to choose an unknown variable, then automatically computes the solution after the known parameters has been entered. The Manning's equation was selected for the proposed culverts, with a 1 Manning's "n" value of 0.015. The FlowMaster calculations are included in this report as Appendix I. 1 F. PROPOSED DRAINAGE FACILITIES The conceptual drainage design provides sufficient conveyance and storage capacity to accommodate project site runoffs and the offsite flows. The main drainage coursed of Long and Santa Gertrudis Valleys will remain mostly in its natural state with minimum ' encroachment. The alignment and location of the facilities proposed by this study are general in nature. 1 Exact location will be determined during the final design phase. The site drainage facilities consist of a system of pipes, reinforced concrete box structures and detention basin facilities. ' Of the two larger detention basins on-site, preliminary sizing of those basins utilized the physical areas and hydraulic head available upstream. By maintaining a basin height to a maximum of 20-feet, the capacity of the basin volume can be maximized up to 50 Acre-Feet to reduce the size downstream facilities without invoking State Division of Safety Dams of J urisdiction. The detention basins were designed for 50 Acre-Feet of storage, which exceeds the approximate 30 Acre-Feet calculated for either Long or Gertrudis Valleys. This allows for 1 future design refinements to maximize the economies of basin geometrics and downstream facilities design. The free board of the basins includes volume to contain the 200-year storm to eliminate the 1 need for spillway structures across butterfield stage road. N.U06020001d 4029999.doll 3 Hill Z' ;'4F �:7- 175 \r1' L Lee Zo =- F . V:: L It A ;L �'�y4E u uL clkHul Lx n R O R I P A U G H RANCH 100-YEAR-3-HOUR The Kelth Companies GRC DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, L.P. PRECIPITATION Inland FmpJm DKUbn i s 3 i x . Vv yr , l• F \ > f• > -� � � _ tt - 'T D4 - � 1 �. b Y.'".S: 't E.E1 ti`^ N/ •"� ,`� 41�`A{ 7 rn, 1 Y. vf( \ r Ss ' r �a��i:.r�` ♦ 1 T 1vDlYs N' .fes _ i •,R.bO m-,rt .t FlWfW AtgUNTr1WYjS,.E ,,- N'' �'=� 1 r,( '• 3 �A v.0 u J.: l,nk,.ru �r4w s It v lir R., ih I ' �✓ -- T- t i:— .� -c-�' t \ ' •l• �? _ ��� ` / � �R°.�r�v. �vrri � vrn:... .\vr.;:'f? .J-. (• all Y �`. . t�` x=`_— �"Rd.c. '•' '-f d zz` f . 6^p.e KEf ''.Ru21E 1 `���• — �� - / ' '��' .ass ✓'- N:tl: T 'i r� 1 - - ♦L Ir m '` "'\•'2t� �'. Dl�(YC II. � �� \..., a S _. �`T_.tea' ���� . , i.•' a.. ""•� /��°? .` - ... t}1z. �� ' i 5 <� \ �,� r��vrrn. ���� !^ ;.'� S i (!l ':. � t ; •�•\�1T1[U`\ C� ,4-�.FSER �4N \ R{� :AN; Y. y/ r. r ��dy„�nw i +vsM,•e ��. T" ..' r - ; 14 Le..0 i{ v� 6 n `-/ 3',F� r. ..4�. 2 Y D . y � �tyi � -• X00L,4 LI �rrr, ' f rnor.r T t t /":•. '- Y.A i .ro 7' � SV. ./✓p; .� _.VC, �9 .•cn.r "f -f, <. � CA�tn.J l\Jti '�4��• A rJ 9i'A•- Ste_: �S'-IE1fA.q. Y �` _ ... 'T- _._ - -"" :�� " 1 ( >r ?3.0 , .. _ „ :,o,: �>✓ i - H.:i,.. ,J � , //� i � °rw•ww ,. 1L E..s vie - // �J r v.�. I .': RORIPAUGH RANCH 100-YEAR-6-HOUR The Kelm Companip GRC DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, L.P. PRECIPITATION / Inland Empin DIVWM ' ♦•\ K mom $, wl ;�31 ,-�� •� 1�)! $. lid^'.`"�' f'� �" eny�J -�♦� ^� � 4 )-1/!>>' rr �.er {=Y-` _ Ytw •1� ,� }3 -2 � �w G. a,1j t ^r •::T j -'.P.a � , _ moi• 1 �I{+2•C Jisc r- f..- w i y •�L 4 1 `.. AN F V�. .i •-S` Fj.., Z I / .✓ .: _M1 ..�. � •SI -�"f !i4%. _ tn4" ', yy.. - M✓ r .. .. Z.. r'� .i' l`�♦e./' 'i y - moo;. 'E P - + 'Y .. �vS "'i o i ,y 1 �it: f. •( ,I .c 9.r — .. a" oo,e.rr�— t L• iEYJEW GtQUNiAU(S(y 3 - [` r I Y:.� ��•. /� C r' S i .q�4" W•' /t r :- IVa �. - _•3 ,e.. f R[ 6 11 \ •^.'� �.4 �,. p t /' �11 i k R�•ya.. �[ .//�: =:3.p°� Y'o�� 2 y�t a Il - �'. eDq E r� �ee •�' Y a�: r5/i 1 � aa,p^rr re ' ' ,wn � 'S unq"�y�.. rz i s s. 6 F E S east anH1 T'•'1` { l_ ,° .ih; ', � •v.n c �j �1 ! �. �' ± _,t,ti � .'�{ynV •rt w � fR^fR �� {+t, r T ;f c-� a o,wne Ib' n r.N�R �. 7 ra'•_ '?r' �'1 -- RIX f ♦ 1 . s ����_J ...mm ,,vt e�'° '`_� I `'6c,1. F •-4ra i` I j v ,.. �ee� `� iE �.,, hWmm. tr_ _ ♦ .�w.. ti r�� Cr$^e" � ♦ .'7• _ 4 :��::,. pr / � .I uo'ipo.nwvv .s +' r • � `�-'M ' � J .� L . yo •,.. d/��9= IF = \t1 i -. w `r .T, 'i. ��'ySS.` q" ' CY, r" i•• -' - It\ /.- .?�' � ♦ ,♦ R _� I ,llllila .i w r _\ Hrri(u'a7i�tw,. w •moi ON��,,,,, ui \ v xp[ KMs3 - n ER < • .N a� .. \ �x.1� ' h{ �� }f' = .artLctn ?..1-t,?�.' vy�,�r� I i 7. d �, µ1l ♦, •i `-, —t I - Sr. Q• L k\ ^ . - �rtr: T Hy. ,v-' r%• ` t " I. '„..` � .• �f: � �� Y r .-iii � ..e�Htlisyk iNDlA!l81 �a•s•FISi .�I��-T_�_' R O R I P A U G H RANCH 100-YEAR-24-HOUR The Keith Companlea GRC DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, L.P. PRECIPITATION a Inland Emplm DMabn ' 11990013-001 ' APPENDIX A (continued) McGuire, R. K., 1978, FRISK: Computer Program for Seismic Risk Analysis Using Faults as Earthquake Sources, U.S. Geoloeical Survey Open-File Report 78-1007, 69p. ' Petersen, M. D., Bryant, W. A., Cramer, C. H., Cao, T., Reichle; M. S., Frankel, A. D., Lienkaemper, J. J., McCrory, P. A., and Schwartz, D. P., 1996, Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Assessment for the State of California, California Department of Conservation. Division of Mines and Geology Open-File Report 96-08 U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 96-706 Saul, R. B., 1978, Elsinore fault zone, south Riverside County, California: California Division of Mines and Geology Fault Evaluation Report FER-76 and supplements (unpublished). Schnabel, P.B., and Seed, H.B., 1973, "Accelerations in Rock for Earthquakes in the Western United States", Bull. of the Seismol. Soc. of Am., Vol. 63, No. 2, pp 501-516. ' Seed, H.B., Idriss, I.M., and Kiefer, F.W., 1969, Characteristics of Rock Motions During Earthquakes, Journal of Soil Mechanics and Foundation Division, ASCE, V. 95, No. SMS, Proc. ' Paper 6783, pp. 1199-1218. Silver, L. T., and Chappel, B. W., The Peninsular Ranges Batholith: An Insight into the Evolution of the ' Cordilleran Batholiths of Southwestern North America, Transactions of the Royal Society of Edinburgh: Earth Sciences, 79, 105-121, 1988. U.S. Navy, 1986, Naval Facilities (NAVFAC)Engineering Command, Foundations and Earth Structures, Design Manual 7.02 (DM 7.02), Revalidated by Change 1, September, 1986. Wells, D. L., and Coppersmith, K. J., 1994, New Empirical Relationships among Magnitude, Rupture ' Length, Rupture Width, Rupture Area, and Surface Displacement: Seismological Society of America Bulletin, V.84, No. 4,pp 974-1002. ' Willis, C. J., 1988, Ground cracks in Wolf and Temecula Valleys, Riverside County: Division of Mines and Geology Fault Evaluation Report FER-195 (unpublished). WGCEP - Working Group on California Earthquake Probabilities, 1995, Seismic Hazards in Southern Califomia: Probable Earthquake Probabilities, Bull. Seismol. Soc. Amer., Vol. 85, No. 2, pp 379-439. AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHS REVIEWED Year Flight No. Agency January 30, 1962 398, 399 Riverside Flood Control June 20, 1974 879, 880 ' May 4,2980 907, 908 " December 8, 1983 399;400 September 16, 1990 29, 30,31 ' September 16, 1990 38,39,40 ' A-3 �� DESIGN CRITERIA 1 1 F:\30602.000IDOQHYDROL—I.WPDI I August 4.1998 1 RUNOFF INDEX NUMBERS OF HYDROLOGIC SOIL-COVER COMPLEXES FOR PERVIOUS AREAS-AHC II Cover 'type (3) Quality of Soil Group Cover (2) A B C D NATURAL COVERS - ' Barren 78 86 91 93 (Rockland, eroded and graded land) Chaparrel, Broadleaf Poor 53 70 80 85 (Manzonita, ceanothus and scrub oak) Fair 40 63 75 81 Good 31 57 71 78 Chaparrel, Narxowleaf Poor 71 82 88 91 (Chamise and redshank) Fair 55 72 81 86 ' Grass, Annual or Perennial Poor 67 78 86 89 Fair 50 69 79 84 Good 38 61 74 80 ' Meadows or Cienegas Poor 63 77 85 88 (Areas with seasonally high water table, Fair 51 70 80 84 principal vegetation is sod forming grass) Good 30 58 72 78 ' Open Brush Poor 62 76 84 88 (Soft wood shrubs - buckwheat, sage, etc.) Fair 46 66 77 83 Good 41 63 75 81 Woodland Poor 45 66 77 83 (Coniferous or broadleaf trees predominate. Fair 36 60 73 79 Canopy density is at least 50 percent) Good 28 55 70 77 Woodland, Grass Poor 57 73 82 86 ' (Coniferous or broadleaf trees with canopy Fair 44 65 77 82 density from 20 to 50 percent) Good 33 58 72 79 URBAN COVERS - ' Residential or Commercial Landscaping Good 32 56 69 75 (Lawn, shrubs, etc.) ' Turf Poor 58 74 83 87 (Irrigated and mowed grass) Fair 44 65 77 82 ' Good 33 58 72 79 AGRICULTURAL COVERS - ' Fallow 76 85 90 92 (Land plowed but not tilled or seeded) 1 R C F C & W C D RUNOFF INDEX NUMBERS ' HYDROLOGY MANUAL FOR PERVIOUS AREA PLATE D-5.5 0 of 2) RUNOFF INDEX NUMBERS OF HYDROLOGIC SOIL-COVER COMPLEXES FOR PERVIOUS AREAS-AMC II Cover Type (3) Quality of Soil Group ' Cover (2) A B C D AGRICULTURAL COVERS (cont.) - 1, Legumes, Close Seeded Poor 66 77 85 89 (Alfalfa, sweetclover, timothy, etc. ) Good 58 72 81 85 ' Orchards, Deciduous See Note 4 (Apples, apricots, pears, walnuts, etc.) ' Orchards, Evergreen Poor 57, 73 82 86 (Citrus, avocados, etc. ) Fair 44 65 77 82 Good 33 58 72 79 Pasture, Dryland Poor 67 78 86 89 (Annual grasses) Fair 50 69 79 84 ' Good 38 61 74 80 Pasture, Irrigated Poor 58 74 83 87 , (Legumes and perennial grass) Fair 44 65 77 , 82 Good 33 58 72 79 Row Crops Poor 72 81 88 91 , (Field crops - tomatoes, sugar beets, etc.) Good 67 78 85 89 Small Grain Poor 65 76 84 88 (Wheat, oats, barley, etc.) Good 63 75 83 87 Vineyard See Note 4 Notes: 1. All runoff index (RI) numbers are for Antecedent Moisture Condition ' (AMC) II. 2. Quality of cover definitions: ' Poor-Heavily grazed or regularly burned areas. Less than 50 per- cent of the ground surface is protected by plant cover or brush and tree canopy. ' Fair-Moderate cover with 50 percent to 75 percent of the ground sur- face protected. Good-Heavy or dense cover with more than 75 percent of the ground , surface protected. 3. See Plate C-2 for a detailad description of cover types. ' 4. Use runoff index numbers based on ground cover type. See discussion under "Cover Type Descriptions" on Plate C-2. ' 5. Reference Bibliography item 17. R C F C A W C D RUNOFF .INDEX NUMBERS HYDROLOGY MANUAL FOR PERVIOUS AREA , PLATE D-S.S (2 of 2) ' ACTUAL IMPERVIOUS COVER Recommended Value ' Land Use (1) Range-Percent For Average Conditions-Percent(2 ' Natural or Agriculture 0 - 10 0 Single Family Residential: (3) 40,000 S. F. (1 Acre) Lots 10 - 25 20 20,000 S. F. (12 Acre) Lots 30 - 45 40 7,200 - 10,000 S. F. Lots 45 - 55 50 Multiple Family Residential: ' Condominiums 45 - 70 65 Apartments 65 - 90 80 ' Mobile Home Park 60 - 85 75 Commercial, Downtown 80 -100 90 Business or Industrial Notes: ' 1. Land use should be based on ultimate development o€- the, watershed. Long range master plans for the County and incorporated cities should be reviewed to insure reasonable land use assumptions. 2. Recommended values are based on average conditions which may not apply to a particular study area. The percentage impervious may ' vary greatly even on comparable sized lots due to differences in dwelling size, improvements, etc. Landscape practices should also be considered as it is common in some areas to use ornamental grav- els underlain by impervious plastic materials in place of lawns and ' shrubs. A field investigation of a study area should always be made, and a review of aerial photos, whereavailable may assist in estimat- ing the percentage of impervious cover in developed areas. ' 3. For typical horse ranch subdivisions increase impervious area 5 per- cent over the values recommended in the table above. R C F C 8► W C C IMPERVIOUS COVER FOR HYDROLOGY MANUAL DEVELOPED AREAS ' PLATE D-5.6 �'� vl yr •(� E. � s , ru�(i f. a }� �r A1f I qq ; �, Y M1M1 , I mea42 f . VA o 0 20 e rcm , --� Ai& RBE777-:� dA I N;T+0M T ?To 77 2 C', � rl_-M oll -yr .7 7� R 41 % -NiT o��i X f,W4 7. u , j NOAH Yb&" -c.mor 5a 1973 %Ali U5 —7 v, ,�q�j �HylpS�Doy-Ll JA"JA z 5 r E PAF RIVERSIDE COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL 7. 2-7- WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT 100-YEAR-3-HOUR PRECIPITATION r<R7W RE+Y_ r .+__. 5W -.. ,.�- ? +w�ZiY r..,f , _-..•:: .�£_:-_ -A4E r �5E 1 R6E 177E i .RBE p - A 715 5- ��G--oft. - �' / • `', -?i ;�ry t��..r r30-'R '` ..^''`e.,' =` u ov '".i ' f 1 zl r ib U - a - T2S 1 (� 9 f �._v_ ,-\�`•y.�,�( f ,_ \ .F ---1'`d-� w^ 3� , t 3. y_ `' � s, ! r' 7S ,~ l `4 <,}� �F- \ a r v ! �,f �• >! rAr_ r< i, ,l"L -�-....:. f . y I ... 25 a .>.- H 1.... ' .t_ �.tm.': - � <. � :�"' 1, -'n y '°�'..�-.• r r .2?6 \.. 1,. . �\ 'C �L c 77T3S 7R<� 4 .'� _ � t'9` �\ -I',,fiY 2J .. :l✓'. �. � .. \\ I ! }'.� Y I _% F .: dA—`� \ Tls�i tjdls irutzNO'G 21�•I75 r/,, jx \ v _ ti Jr.� g� ,:� 3 'm3x uRre FL CaIJornia,197as- :\\ 30 7y�fi44UYSLL "':R.TBn :.Lk-...'- RBE ., RIVERSIDE COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT f 100-YEAR- 6-HOUR PRECIPITATION I 1 ¢ I ' � to ' ✓ .�1�1.� • I�r s \ -�,-� { ,! r3 -m ' Q3 ' I r'f, f ! r` �. I__� /', s7 {{rf u .JI I rr i•N a i FW j Ili h 3 l v j�, t -.` �� 1Jl r' � ', / / ' .+.I� \• _� f '~F :pohr 93 � O + v ,i � i° rr.�Ac -3 rA5 Q lxr }r {a cr rL . � r ' u• .4t ' I I r. a pr I" ',I r7{` Y ' vl wxl t -- '{R�r �'• rd '�3 x I ' � t'/�at I .n , p ...r de"�''1 'til ,\v 'r. '1 � ' I�1 4Y Sr),, '✓ R. �`�� ♦\ cl � 1 i �.T i nl _ IP1l � fy- 1 r �. i 1 I'r -Il I 1 9 •- 444--- j�� V '� �^ �,�!♦ Cit .�� 31 '45���� �! ��,r� � II t { t t� 1.5�� ��� ' � I Ir lyo m ... � l',.(� 1.1 ..i\i I• + G,vl �`Ir '.' I 1 1 � I � S��'� R`ti !'S I.I 1,"tl / � l �._r. �y.,u "J\ ` �,..1 � I �. '..Ir r� fr'�• L � 4 'I� I,� 1.7.^. _vy�llj �v C ��0 5 i .�� o, +. I l'. s I 1,1♦ F ,' 'I 3 r - T �i , 1• � �J !. . I y \ �� , � '/` k. y� I � (' I .I ~)gid 1 /+.Y �,'',iQ Clll I.' h r i �1 { vr- I � F � p .,.�13, lyh 31_ O 1 , ..•., ! r " f�. (. A al. �rl� J ' 15 A \ 3 1 ,T a{�•'I '•5' _ NS 1,' � � 1 1 , 1 I7 1' "_fltl I irk- { ,I I ' � r, F 513 r�+„ I, t` r {' ( I 1 �" ♦ � :� .� 1, �Iw •� 1 ' J I #. 1 ♦JS' 1, 5S I r�4 rf },t`\ I I '.;, I 't'{�.' I'- �. .. � +I I� 1 I� g t ti ty4r I ftl by�,;� � ♦ r a {t '�r I Y 1 I `I.9 ,I r G I: �ri�>. O I h. y.t , 'r.: 1-•r 11�,�. 1 1 1 1 Individual data sheets for the Drainage Report are available at the City of Temecula Planning Department. 1 1 1 i DRAFT RORIPAUGH RANCH ' PRELIMINARY DESIGN REPORT FOR ' LONG VALLEY WASH IN THE COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE ' Prepared for: ASHBY DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, INC. ' 14785 Village Drive, Fontana, CA 92337 Phone: (909) 356-1597 Fax: (909) 823-8769 ' Contact: Mr. Wesley Hylen ' Prepared by: DAVID EVANS AND.ASSOCIATES, INC. 800 N. Haven Ave., Suite 300, Ontario, Ca 91764 Phone: (909) 481-5750 Fax: (909) 481-5757 Contact: Mr. Jeffrey Rupp, P.E. February 29, 2000 r, DAVID EVANS AND ASSOCIATES, ' - PRELIMINARY DESIGN REPORT LONG VALLEY WASH ' 1.0 INTRODUCTION tThis Preliminary Design Report has been prepared for the proposed improvements to Long Valley Wash, which.is located in the unincorporated area of Riverside County, east of the City of Temecula in southern Riverside County. The improvements to a segment of Long Valley Wash are proposed as part of planned ' residential developments along the wash,just east of the City of Temecula. This Preliminary Design Report provides preliminary design plans that identify the location, size, and capacity of proposed drainage facilities for Long Valley Wash, along with the supporting documentation and calculations. A cost estimate of planned ' improvements and maintenance costs are also provided. ' PROJECT OBJECTIVES As designed, the primary objectives of planned improvements to Long Valley Wash and this Preliminary DesignReportare: ❑ To maintain the existing drainage patterns to the extent possible; ❑ To avoid diversion of natural flows from existing drainage courses; ' ❑ To incorporate off-site upstream flows in the design of community drainage facilities; ❑ To maintain or reduce off-site downstream flows over existing conditions; ' ❑ To minimize disturbance of the existing vegetation and riparian habitat within the channel; ❑ To control soil erosion and sedimentation from natural slopes and manufactured slope banks; ' ❑ To confine the limits of the 100-year flood within the channel right-of-way and prevent flood hazards to proposed developments adjacent to the wash; ' ❑ To provide improvements necessary to allow adequate protection from flooding of downstream areas; and ❑ To convey storm flows through the site at approximately the same velocity as existing channel ' conditions. 1 1 1 RORIPAUGH RANCH I PRELIMINARY DESIGN REPORT , LONG VALLEY WASH - PROJECT AREA Long Valley Wash is a natural stream channel that carries.flows during seasonal rains from the Pauba area, ' within Long Valley. The wash is located within the Santa Gertrudis Valley watershed of the Murrieta Creek drainage area. The drainage basin for Long Valley Wash covers the southern and eastern sections of the Santa Gertrudis Valley watershed and is approximately 8,013 acres in size. This area is defined by ' moderately steep hills, vacant and agricultural lands, and rural developments. Long Valley Wash is approximately .11.8 miles long and originates from the vicinity of Black Hills and Magee Hills in the Sage community, to its convergence point with Santa Gertrudis Creek in the City of Temecula. Flows within the ' .wash travel generally toward the west, ending approximately 2,000 feet west of the Second San Diego Aqueduct alignment, and near the intersection of Calle Girasol and Nicolas Road, where it joins Santa Gertrudis Creek. ' Other nearby drainage channels include Santa Gertrudis Creek to the north and a small tributary channel to the south. Santa Gertrudis Creek is located north of Long Valley Wash and drains the northern section of the ' Santa Gertrudis Valley watershed, including the Buck Mesa area and the area southwest of Tucalota Hills. This tributary drainage area covers 5,205 acres and the creek is approximately 8.7 miles long. Santa Gertrudis Creek, also flows in a general east-west direction and crosses Butterfield Stage Road just south of Nicolas Road (approximately 1,200 feet north of Long Valley Wash). A separate design report will address ' Santa Gertrudis Creek. A small tributary drainage channel is located south of Long Valley Wash, approximately 1.000 feet to the south on Butterfield Stage Road. This channel drains a small area to the south and joins Long Valley Wash within the City of Temecula. ' Long Valley.Wash is characterized as a fairly wide-bottomed canyon, with an average width of 350 feet. Based on aerial photographs of the area, the confines of the wash have been fairly stable over the last 35 ' years. An approximately one-mile segment (5,500 feet) of Long Valley Wash is located within the property boundaries of Roripaugh Ranch. See Figure 1, Project Area Site Boundaries. This segment is located near the western end of Long Valley Wash, approximately 3,350 feet from its terminus at Santa Gertrudis Creek. , The wash enters the Roripaugh Ranch site at the eastern boundary (approximately one mile east of Butterfield Stage Road) with an estimated 100-year flow of 3,768 cubic feet per second and exits the western boundary of the site (at Butterfield Stage Road) at 4,460 cubic feet per second. This segment of Long Valley Wash drains ' an approximately 8,013-acre area. The flood limits of the wash within this property vary in width from 200 to 520 feet. The wash is incised along most of its reach and the overbanks of the wash are presently used for agricultural purposes. As part of planned development within Roripaugh Ranch, several improvements to Long Valley Wash are , proposed. These are outlined in Section 4.0. ROR/PAUGHRANCH 2 ' 1 ' PRELIMINARY DESIGN REPORT - LONG VALLEY WASH - ' PREVIOUS STUDIES - The Roripaugh Ranch property is an approximately 790-acre parcel that is proposed for development into a ' residential community under the Roripaugh Ranch Specific Plan. As part of this development, a number of studies have been completed to design the project and to obtain the needed development and environmental permits and approvals. These studies include the following: , Specific Plan and EIR The Keith Companies has prepared a Specific Plan and Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the Roripaugh Ranch development. This planning process started in 1997 and is currently being reviewed by the Temecula Planning Commission. The Specific Plan proposes development on approximately 790 acres of land within the northeastern section of the City of Temecula and Riverside County. Only 154 acres of the project site is located within the City of Temecula, with the remaining 634 acres within unincorporated Riverside County. The Specific Plan calls for the development of 1,625 dwelling units, an elementary school and middle school ' on 32 acres, 10 acres of neighborhood commercial uses, 20.65 acres of parks (with 7.75 acres off-site), and 270 acres of open space. See Figure 1 The EIR evaluated the changes to the environment that would occur with full development of the Specific Plan. The EIR also outlined measures to avoid or reduce significant ' adverse environmental changes and discussed development alternatives to the Specific Plan. The Specific Plan and EIR for Roripaugh Ranch were submitted to the City of Temecula for approval of the annexation of unincorporated County land into the City, and to obtain planning and development permits for the project. The EIR was circulated for public review by City of Temecula in November 1999. 1 As part of the Specific Plan and EIR preparation, a number of other plans and studies were developed for the project site, including Long Valley Wash. These include: ' ❑ A traffic study that defined the design of roadways and intersections that would be located on-site and those that would serve the project. A Circulation Master Plan was developed which provides the general. ' alignment of proposed roadways on and near the site and typical roadway cross sections. Butterfield Stage Road and two local roads would cross the wash. ' ❑ An infrastructure study that outlined the needed water, sewer, and other utility infrastructure improvements needed to serve the project. Infrastructure lines are proposed to be extended into the site along planned roadways and easements. ❑ A biological resources study that identified plant and animal species found on-site, as well as measures to prevent the disturbance or destruction of habitats for sensitive species. Long Valley Wash supports riparian and grassland communities, within the site boundaries. ' ❑ A grading plan that outlined the extent of ground disturbance and grading activities needed to prepare the site for development. This plan shows that the alignment of Long Valley Wash low flow channel would ' be primarily left ungraded, except for the detention basin site just east of Butterfield Stage Road. ❑ A Phase I Environmental Site Assessment that determined the presence of hazardous materials on-site and near the site, including the necessary clean-up activities that may be needed prior to development. No specific environmental or hazardous material concerns were identified along Long Valley Wash. ' ❑ A Conceptual Drainage Master Plan that identified the major drainage improvements needed on and off- site to provide adequate storm drainage and prevent flood hazards in the project area. See Figure 3. As part of the Drainage Master Plan,Keith International prepared a drainage report for the Roripaugh Ranch Specific Plan, which included proposed storm drain facilities along Long Valley Wash. RORIPAUGH RANCH 3 PRELIMINARY DESIGN REPORT , LONG VALLEY WASH Parcel Map ' Aside from the Specific Plan and EIR, a parcel map has been filed to subdivide the project site for Roripaugh ' Ranch within the unincorporated County area,into four parcels. Parcel Map 29352 is shown in Figure 4. Long Valley Wash is located within Parcel 4 of this parcel map. In addition, a large lot tentative tract map or Master Tentative Map has been prepared to further subdivide the four parcels into smaller lots corresponding generally to the different types of land use and planning areas on-site. This large lot tentative map would facilitate the development of individual tracts and phased development on-site. The proposed large lot tentative tract map has not been filed, but a draft of the map (TT 29353) is provided in ' Figure 5. Long Valley Wash would be located in lettered Lots D and F of this tentative map and would occupy approximately 27.81 acres. Subsequently, individual tentative tract maps would be filed for the ' subdivision of large lots into individual lots for residential development. As part of the large lot tentative tract, a mass grading plan would be submitted to enable the property owner to , grade the site and allow for the development of individual tentative tracts. However, before a grading plan could be finalized, planned improvements to Long Valley Wash need to be constructed. Other studies for the drainage area include the Master Drainage Plan for the Murrieta Creek Area, which , outlines the proposed channelization of Murrieta Creek and its major tributaries (including segments of Santa Gertrudis Creek, Warm Springs Creek, and Tucalota Creek). Open channels are primarily proposed along Murrieta Creek to carry runoff from the 100-year frequency storm. Underground systems are only proposed in areas where existing development, access restrictions, or other constraints prevent the provision of an open channel. The Master Drainage Plan does not include any improvement to Long Valley Wash. 2.0 PURPOSE This Preliminary Drainage Report has been prepared into order to proceed with the proposed development of the site; to meet the requirements for the grading permit; and to implement.the EIR measure calling for compliance with requirements of the City of Temecula and the Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District (RCFCWCD)regarding drainage improvements proposed on-site. This Preliminary Design Report has been prepared to provide the City of Temecula and the RCFCWCD with , the design and supporting calculations for the planned improvements to Long Valley Wash and to obtain approval from RCFCWCD for these improvements. As part of the plan approval process, this report also addresses the RCFCWCD's concerns outlined in letter dated May 12, 1999 to Mr. Ronald J. Parks, the ' Deputy Director of Public Works in the City of Temecula. 1 RORIPAUGH RANCH 4 ' PRELIMINARY DESIGN REPORT LONG VALLEY WASH !' 3.0 METHODOLOGY The preliminary design for planned improvements to Long Valley Wash were made in accordance with the RCFCWCD's Hydrology Manual, dated April 1978. Since the tributary area for Long Valley Wash is over ' 500 acres, Keith International used the Synthetic Unit Hydrograph Method to find the peak runoff flows for 100-year rainfall events of 3-hour, 6-hour and 24-hour durations. Data on soils and rainfall in the project area were derived from the Hydrology Manual. The analysis indicated that, at existing conditions and with a worst case scenario of a 100-year, 6-hour rainfall event, Long Valley Wash enters the eastern boundary of the site at ' 3,768 cubic feet per second (cfs) and exits the site at Butterfield Stage Road at 4.460 cfs. With the proposed developments in Roripaugh Ranch north and south of the wash, this flow would increase to 4,480 cfs at Butterfield Stage Road. Hydrograph printouts for the Long Valley Channel for the existing and proposed ' conditions, using the worst-case 100-year 6-hour rainfall are provided in Appendix A. The hydraulic analysis for Long Valley Wash utilized the HEC-RAS computer program which was developed ' by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. This computer program was used to model the 100-year flood limit for Long Valley Wash and to determine the water level, velocity, and flows at each reach of the channel, under the existing conditions and with the proposed improvements along the channel. The HEC-RAS model was ' created using existing aerial topographic data and grading slope design constraints. Peak flows used in the model were the 100-year 6-hour Q's from the Keith International Drainage Report. The results for the HEC- RAS modeling for existing conditions along the wash are provided in Appendix B. ' DESIGN CRITERIA The hydraulic calculations for the proposed improvements to Long Valley Wash were based on the following ' design criteria: 1. All drainage facilities have been designed for the worst case 100-year, 6-hour rainfall. ' 2. All hydraulic calculations and Manning's "n" factors used in design are recommended by WEST Consultants' sedimentation report. Manning's "n" factors ranged from 0.028 to 0.034, according to ' surface conditions at each river station. 3. Channel widths were established and channel stabilizers were added to lower velocities within the "soft bottom" channel area to 12 feet per second (f/s) or below, to prevent channel bottom scouring as recommended by WEST Consultants. ' 4. Bank protection and cut-off wall below grade consisting of rock riprap is proposed.-The cut off wall will be constructed to a depth recommended by the US Army Corps of Engineers. Freeboard of 3 feet minimum was incorporated into the design. RCFCWCD standards of 2.5 feet proved inadequate, and 5 ' feet of free board seems excessive due to the fact that the downstream construction plans of Santa Gertrudis Creek have only 2 feet of freeboard and 2 times the flow of Long Valley Channel within the Roripaugh Ranch site. The drainage design uses the same standards as FEMA watersheds for establishment of 100-year flood plain limits. 5. Culvert crossings would act as a bottom grade control and would help hold back sedimentation that would otherwise impact downstream development. There are three road crossings proposed on Long Valley ' Wash within the Roripaugh Ranch site. l RORIPAUGH RANCH 5 PRELIMINARY DESIGN REPORT , LONG VALLEY WASH 6. While the final lot and street layout and local storm drain structures have not been designed, the number , of discharge points will be minimized because curbs and gutter and on-site storm drains will collect local runoff from lots and direct them to discharge points approved by the RCFCWCD. 7. RCFCWCD basin criteria requires that "positive' drainage through basin facilities must be unrestrained and that no "dead" storage is allowed. Roripaugh Ranch will work with RCFCWCD staff towards a possible solution to reduce the direct discharge of off-stream nuisance flows into the channel. ' 8. Roripaugh Ranch is working closely with the California Department of Fish and Game, the US Army Corps of Engineers, and the San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board to obtain necessary permits t and address their requirements, which will be incorporated into final design plans and documents as required for approval by RCFCWCD. The channel design was initially set at an average of 150 feet wide, with 20-foot wide shoulders to serve as ' access roadways. Based on concerns of the RCFCWCD regarding sediment transport, WEST Consultants was commissioned to study the potential for sedimentation based on the probable velocities of runoff through , the wash. The preliminary sedimentation study by WEST Consultants indicated that a 150-foot wide channel would lead to velocities which would lead to extensive scouring of the soft bottom channel, excessive sediment transport, and future degradation of the wash. The channel width was then widened to an average of 250 feet, including 16-foot wide shoulders. This wider channel design would provide a larger capacity, , slower velocities, and lower water surface levels. The results of the HEC-RAS modeling for the 250-foot wide channel are provided in Appendix C. Table A summarizes the flows, water levels, and channel velocities for the existing and proposed conditions for the 250-foot wide channel. ' After channel geometry was set, the HEC-RAS model was forwarded to WEST Consultants for final sedimentation analysis and recommendations. , In order to reduce off-site flows at Butterfield Stage Road from the estimated 4,480 cfs down to 4,460 cfs (existing flow) or lower, a detention basin is proposed at the western end of the wash. This basin has been , designed in accordance with the RCFCWCD Hydrology Manual and within the 50-acre-foot capacity limit and 20-foot height limit of the California Department of Water Resources, Division of Safety of Dams. The maximum water level at the basin is estimated at 18 feet and the maximum water volume is 36 acre-feet. ' Also, off-site flows from the detention basin are estimated at 4,360 cfs. The design calculations for the detention basin are provided in Appendix D. Two drop structures are proposed along the channel to reduce channel velocities. These structures would be ' located at River Stations 114 and 120, where velocities are nearing 12 f/s. With the addition of the drop structures, the velocities are maintained below 12 f/s, as shown in Table A. Calculations for the drop structure design are provided in Appendix E. ' t RORIPAUGH RANCH 6 ' PRELIMINARY DESIGN REPORT LONG VALLEY WASH - ' " TABLE A i COMPARISON OF EXISTING AND PROPOSED FLOWS AND VELOCITIES ' RIVER STATION O 100 TOTAL (CFS) WATER SURFACE E LEVFT) VELOCITY (F/S) Existing Proposed Existing Proposed Existing Proposed Existing Proposed 16440 3768 1247.51 10.55 16360 3768 1246.13 10.33 16170 3768 1244.74 5.16 15985 3768 1243.30 10.07 15810 3768 1242.50 11 .10 15750 3768 1241 .71 10.72 . ' 15690 _ 3768 1241 .18 11 .25 . 6620 15620 37681 3768 1239.80 1239.64 10.38 10.43 15550 37681 3768 1239.18 9.42 6506 '15500 37681 3768 1237.39 1238.39 14.25 9.92 15445 3768 3768 1238.54 4.97 6400 15400 3768 Culvert 1238.39 6.45 6314 15355 3768 3768 .1237.29 1236.85 11 .54 8.61 6250 15250 3768 3768 1235.00 1236.44 16.76 8.87 6128 15130 3768 3768 1233.68 1235.30 11 .36 11 .25 6000 15000 3768 3768 1232.15 1234.11 14.28 11 .09 5850 14850 3768 3768 1230.64 1234.31 6.48 5725 14725, 3768 3768 1230.641 1234.32 4.68 ' 5575 14575 3768 3768 1230.101 1234.24 4.66 5400 14400 3768 3768 1229.26 1234:23 3.84 5250 14250 3768 3768 1228.07 1234.17 4.05 5075 14062 3768 3768 1233.69 5.79 ' 14000 3768 Culvert 13936 3768 4480 1225.73 14.87 4900 13900 4460 4480 1226.921 1227.15 10.58 7.81 4800 13800 4460 4480 1225.07 1226.48 13.87 9.70 ' 4700 13700 4460 4480 1225.08 1225.58 11 .47 11 .97 I 13600 4460 4480 1224.66 15.05 11 .70 4400 13400 4460 4480 1222.29 1223.00 12.18 11 .45 4200 13200 4460 4480 1221 .75 1221 .71 11 .69 ' 12900 4460 4480 1217.96 11 .40 3600 12600 4460 4480 1214.05 1215.32 14.53 11 .33 3300 12300 4460 4480 1211 .30 1213.51 13.24 12.08 3000 12000 4460 4480 1209.60 1209.82 _ 10.99 11 .97 ' 2500 11500 4460 4480 1205.19 .1206.51 6.60 11 .73 11400 4460. 4480 1204.82 11 .97 1200 11300 44601 4480 1189.00 1204.69 8.85 8.50 11000 4460 4480 1204.95 3.76 10500 4460 4480 1204.96 2.28 10200 4460 4480 1204.06 7.43 10124 4460 4480 1204.08 6.64 900 10000 4460 Culvert 1191 .62 4.69 9876 4460 3900 1192.96 13.56 9850 4460 3900 1191 .33 6.99 600 9600 4460 3900 1191 .23. 1191 .36 5.92 4.88 500 9500 4460 3900 1190.74 1191 .26 8.01 5.70 ' 400 9400 4460 3900 1190.43 1191 .19 9.04 5.60 375 9375 4460 3900 1 191 .39 1191 .16 8.74 5.68 l ROR/PAUGH RANCH PRELIMINARY DESIGN REPORT 1 LONG VALLEY WASH - 4.0 PRELIMINARY DESIGN ' The final lot layout and street design for the area within Roripaugh Ranch which drains into Long Valley 1 Wash has not been developed. Thus. actual storm drain outlets into Long Valley Wash have not been determined. On-site flows that would be generated by the Roripaugh Ranch project would generally be carried within curbs and street rights-of-way. When stormwater rises to the curb level, underground storm ' drains and catch basins would be provided. From the curbs and underground storm drains, flows would be directed into Long Valley Wash at several points along the wash. PLANNEDIMPROVEMENTS ' The proposed improvements to Long Valley Wash are provided in the set of plans in the back pocket, ' attached as Figure 8 to this report. Based on the design criteria and methodology outlined above, the following improvements are proposed: Right-of-Way ' Property between Walcott Lane and Butterfield Stage Road currently does not have right of.way dedication , for construction of improvements. Riprap Riprap would be provided along both sides of Long Valley Wash, with the bottom of the existing low flow , _ wash maintained in its natural condition, except at culvert crossings, splash aprons, the detention basin, and 1 approximately 500 feet upstream of the detention basin. The riprap would be placed along the 250-foot wide ' right-of-way, the 500-foot wide channel transition and on the east side of Butterfield Stage Road. An approximately 4- to 8-foot high riprap with a 2:1 slope would be provided on both sides of the 250-foot wide right of way and 500-foot wide channel transition. The banks of the channel would then be filed and raised to ' elevations of 1,190 feet above sea level at the western end to 1,252 feet above sea level on the eastern end. The riprap design was made in consideration of the preservation of biological resources at the channel bottom and the ACOE concerns for wetland disturbance. No grading or ground disturbance is proposed within the ' channel bottom, except as noted above. This area will be graded to create a sloping bottom and to channel runoff into the detention basin. Detention Basin ' The proposed development adjacent to the channel would lead to an increase in the outlet flow from the ' existing 4,460 cfs to 4,480 cfs. In order to reduce this flow down to existing levels or less, a detention basin is proposed at the western end of the wash along the east side of Butterfield. Stage Road. A 3.5-acre detention basin (approximately 380 feet by 400 feet) within a capacity for 36 acre-feet and a t maximum height of 18 feet is proposed on Long Valley Wash at the end of the project site and just easterly of Butterfield Stage Road. The detention basin would reduce the peak discharge and collect sedimentation from channel flows. The detention basin would be graded to create side slopes with a maximum of 4:1 incline, and ' a flat bottom(0.5% slope). Riprap would be provided on side slopes to approximately 20 feet. The basin will accommodate the 100-year post development runoff, with 3 feet of freeboard, adequate to prevent overtopping of Butterfield Stage Road in a 100-year rainfall event. This will prevent the need for i emergency spillways at Butterfield Stage Road. The basin will contain approximate 36 acre-feet of storage. RORIPAUGH RANCH 8 1 ' PRELIMINARY DESIGN REPORT LONG VALLEY WASH ' Culverts ' There are three locations along the channel where proposed roads would cross and underground storm drain pipes or culverts are proposed. Culverts would be located at the western boundary of the site under Butterfield Stage Road (4-lane arterial roadway) and under the proposed extension of Calle Chapos ' (approximately 1,500 feet west of the easter boundary of the site). The proposed culverts would consist of three 10 feet by 8 feet reinforced concrete box culverts under these roads. Two 36-inch reinforced concrete pipes are also proposed under an on-site roadway (2-lane local street), located approximately 200 feet from the eastern boundary of the site. The roadway would also be designed with a dip to allow for major flows ' across the road. Drop Structures As indicated earlier, two drop structures are proposed along the channel to reduce runoff velocities through the wash, specifically at River Stations 114 and 120. These drop structures would also serve to reduce ' sediment transport along the wash. These structures would serve as grade controls within the channel bottom and would consist of 1/A ton rock rip rap and concrete. ' Rock Splash Apron As part of the project, an outlet structure would need to be provided on the west side of Butterfield Stage ' Road. Downstream of Long Valley Wash and off-site of Roripaugh Ranch, a rock splash apron is proposed just west of Butterfield Stage Road. This apron would serve to reduce velocities through the box culverts under Butterfield Stage Road and into the natural channel farther west. This would involve grading and the provision of riprap along the south side of the channel for approximately 400 feet. This riprap would provide I' slope erosion protection at the initial point where the on-site runoff discharges. Calculations for the rock splash pad are provided in Appendix F. ' The implementation of these proposed improvements within Long Valley Wash would accomplish the objectives of the project, as outlined above. Detailed engineering design of drainage facilities will be done during the preparation of construction plans and in accordance with the requirements of the RCFCWCD. ' Downstream Conditions Construction of a rock splash apron at the west side of Butterfield Stage Road and the placement.of riprap along existing slope downstream of Butterfield Stage Road are proposed to return flows to the existing conditions as they approach the east side of Walcott Lane. 1 I_ ROR/PAUGH RANCH q 1 PRELIMINARY DESIGN REPORT ' LONG VALLEY WASH ( 5.0 RESPONSES TO RCFCWCD LETTER ' As part of the City of Temecula's review of the Roripaugh Ranch Specific Plan, the City requested the , Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District (RCFCWCD) to review and provide comments on the proposed improvements to Long Valley Wash. The RCFCWCD responded by sending a , letter outlining the District's concerns regarding future improvements to the wash. This letter is provided in Appendix G. The planned improvements to Long Valley Wash have been designed in accordance with the RCFCWCD's ' Hydrology Manual and consider all concerns raised by the District. To clarify and explain modifications to the planned improvements and in response to the comments received from the RCFCWCD, responses to individual concerns raised by the letter are provided below. The District's concerns are written verbatim and ' a response provided after each concern. Comment: Collection ' At the point where improvements are projected to start, the stream is fairly well concentrated and improvements to collect flows into the channel will be fairly minimal. However, any collection effort will. ' impact the flood plain so care must be taken to ensure that neighboring properties are not negatively impacted. Response: ' A channel transition has been designed starting from the eastern boundary of the site to approximately 400 feet within the site. The channel transition starts at a width of approximately 360 feet, similar to the width of ' the natural channel and slightly narrows to 235 feet after 400 feet. This transition will allow the flows into the site to be conveyed into a narrower channel without increasing upstream water levels by more than one foot. In addition, a channel transition is also provided west of Butterfield Stage Road to Walcott Lane and ' extending downstream approximately 500 feet. A rock splash pad would be provided west of the box culverts under Butterfield Stage Road, along with riprap along the southern banks of the wash for 400 feet. HEC-RAS calculations for these two areas show that changes in flows, velocities, and water levels would be less than ' existing conditions and no negative impact on surrounding adjacent property would occur. Comment: Convevance ' The conveyance of flows through the property is ultimately a safety concern. As stated above, any change to the natural cross section of the wash will affect the flow characteristics. Velocity of flow is the major worry. ' The narrowing of the channel will increase flow velocities and erosion potential. Response: ' While the proposed channel has been widened from the initial plans, it is still narrower than the width of the natural channel. Channel velocities have been designed not to exceed 12 feet per second (f/s) as recommended by the Sedimentation Transport Study prepared by WEST Consultants (see Appendix H). This , study indicates that the design of proposed improvements would have limited potential for erosion and sediment transport would not be greater than existing conditions. Rock slope protection and cut-off walls along the channel will be constructed to lessen erosion and drop ! structures will be constructed at two locations to reduce flow velocities. All cut off wall depths have been designed per Army Corps of Engineers criteria. Table A shows the existing and proposed flows, water levels ' RORIPAUGH RANCH 10 PRELIMINARY DESIGN REPORT LONG VALLEY WASH ' and velocities through the channel. While velocities would exceed 12 Us right after the culverts, the addition ( of drop structures at River Stations 114 and 120 would reduce these velocities to less than 12 f/s, as shown in ' Table A. Comment: Discharge ' At the point where the wash exits the property, a road crossing is proposed. This will be problematic. The narrower the wash is at this point, the more economical the crossing. On the other hand, concentration of the flows as they enter downstream properties will likely cause negative impacts that will need to be.mitigated. t Also, narrowing of the cross section at the crossing may exacerbate sediment deposition problems on the upstream side. A full width bridge (preferably on pile foundations) rather than a box culvert is recommended. Bridge pier walls should be solid (not individual columns) and debris noses should be ' provided. Response: ' The wash exits Roripaugh Ranch at Butterfield Stage Road. Impact on downstream properties will be mitigated by construction of a detention basin before Butterfnled Stage Road, which has been designed to ' reduce storm discharge to below historical levels. Based on the detention basin design, off-site flows would be 4,360 cfs, which is 100 cfs lower than existing flows of 4,460 cfs. Also, energy dissipation structures or drop structures will be provided along the channel and have been designed to reduce concentrated velocities ' to existing conditions and not to impact downstream properties. In addition, slope protection will be constructed downstream from Butterfield Stage Road to Walcott Lane to further ensure that design flows do not impact existing slopes and cause erosion. Sedimentation deposition at the crossing at Butterfield Stage ' Road is shown on Figure 2 in the WEST Consultants report. 1 The provision of a bridge structure at Butterfield'Stage Road was not considered to be necessary because existing velocities would be maintained at the outlet structure, runoff flows would be less than existing levels, ' and downstream effects would be the same or less than existing conditions. Comment: Maintenance ' Along with any improvements to the wash, continuing maintenance will need to be addressed. No matter how well designed such an improvement may be, the need for continuing maintenance, cannot be ignored. The vegetation in the bottom of the wash is of major concern. As we have seen time and again, when an area transforms from minimal density, rural type development to a more urban setting, flood control facilities become subject to the "urban slobber" resulting from car washing, excess lawn watering, etc. The effect of this slobber is to produce dense,fast growing vegetation in the channels. Without regular maintenance, this will quickly affect the hydraulic capacity and put the public's health and safety at risk ' As you are well aware, this District has only minimal funds available for maintenance in this zone and soft bottom channels are particularly high maintenance. The developer's engineer has indicated a willingness to investigate funding mechanisms to provide for the continuing maintenance. We would strongly encourage ' that such a mechanism be pat-into place. Response: The preservation of the vegetation at the channel bottom is a requirement of the affected resources agencies (ALOE and the CDFG) and not a design element proposed by the project. As such, this vegetation cannot be i easily disturbed and replaced with riprap or a concrete line channel. The maintenance of the proposed RORIPAUGH RANCH 11 PRELIMINARY DESIGN REPORT ' LONG VALLEY WASH . channel improvements is discussed below. In addition, public information programs regarding stormwater ' 1 pollution prevention would be disseminated to area residents and users to prevent urban slobber. Roripaugh Ranch has investigated a number of maintenance options for the proposed improvements on-site and is presently considering the benefits and disadvantages of each option. These would include the formation of a county service area (CSA), annexation to a community service district, dedication to the City of Temecula, the, County of Riverside (RCFCWCD), or a homeowners association. Roripaugh Ranch , recognizes the fact that maintenance of the Long Valley Channel will have a separate funding mechanism for sharing in the maintenance of the channel plans. Comment: Given the above concerns, the City may wart to consider leaving the wash ill its natural state and not ' allowing any encroachment into the flood plain. Even with this.approach, some of the potential problems outlined above are still of concern; specifically, urban slobber and road-crossings. Below are a number of points that should be considered. ' Response: Roripaugh Ranch has investigated the option of leaving the wash in its natural state and has found that it significantly reduces the number of lots to a level that it makes the project infeasible. However, with the width of the channel right-of-way at an average of 250 feet, all of the criteria parameters of RCFCWCD are satisfied without jeopardizing project viability. ' Comment: ' 1. Because the natural watercourse would not be maintained in the normal sense, a conservative hydraulic 1 analvsis would be appropriate using high Manning's n values (0.080 to 0.120 range) to account for overgrown vegetation. Bulking should also be considered. ' Response: Manning's n values for the hydraulic analysis used values ranging from 0.028 to 0.034, according to surface ' conditions at each river station, as recommended by WEST Consultants. Bulking was not accounted for in the design of the drainage improvements since the wash has a generally flat slope and does not exhibit extensive erosion and bulking as generally found in steep hillsides and mountains. Comment: 2. An unrnaintained system should have conservative freeboard to account for aggradation of the streambed and bank setbacks to account for lateral erosion. Obstruction of the main watercourse by overgrown vegetation could encourage aggradation by slowing flow and lateral erosion by forcing flow toward the ' banks. Freeboard in the range of 3 to 5 feet and erosion setbacks in the range of 50 to 100 feet would probably be appropriate. 1 Response: Freeboard was set at a minimum of 3 feet (see Design Criteria 3 above). As proposed. '/4 ton riprap would be provided on both sides of the channel to prevent lateral erosion. ROR/PAUGH RANCH I2 1 ' PRELIMINARY DESIGN REPORT LONG VALLEY WASH Comment: 3. Bridge crossings should be used in lieu of culverts to minimize disruption of the natural gradient of the ' stream. Bridges should be on pile foundations, span the entire watercourse, and have the longest individual spans possible. Thev should also have solid pier walls (not individual columns in bents) with debris noses. Narrow box culverts with fulled approach embankments would promote upstream degradation and fixed invert culverts would establish a control resulting in downstream degradation. Also, the number of crossings should be kept to the minimum possible. ' Response: As indicated earlier, leaving the wash in its natural state would significantly reduce the amount of land that ' may be developed within Roripaugh Ranch if future residents are protected from flood hazards.. Only three crossings are proposed on Long Valley Wash. Bridge crossings were not found to be necessary because existing velocities would be maintained and flows would be less than existing conditions. See response to Discharge comment above. Comment: i4. The number of discharge points to the creek from storm drains in adjacent developed areas should be limited to minimize disruption of the streambanks. Access to numerous storm drain outlets on the steep ' streambanks has proven to be a problem. Response: Since the final lot layout and street design has not been developed, the number of storm drain outlets along the wash have not be determined. A minimum number of storm drain outlets would be proposed, subject to approval by the RCFCWCD criteria. Comment: 5. Provision of off-stream storage of nuisance and low flows should be considered at the outlets of major storm drain systems entering the wash. This could minimize excessive growth of vegetation in the creek resulting from continuous urban runoff. Response: ' Final lot layout, street design and storm drain facilities have not been finalized. As stated in Design Criteria 6, alternatives to the off-stream storage of nuisance flows would be considered in coordination with the RCFCWCD when such facilities are designed. ' Comment: 6. Development near a natural urban stream corridor which becomes overgrown could be subject to serious fire hazard. The manv fires which ravage the Santa Ana River corridor demonstrate that today's natural urban stream corridor can easily become tomorrows' urban firestorm. For this reason, the natural watercourse should' probably be owned and maintained by some public entity such as a CSA or County Parks to ensure it is kept clean of trash and dead vegetation. Long term funding mechanism should be developed to provide for the required maintenance. Maintenance costs would probably be high since the i resource agencies would probably not allox, mechanized maintenance. Finally, the developer should be ' required to obtain long term maintenance permits for the California Department of Fish and Game (1601 ROR/PAUGH RANCH 13 1 PRELIMINARY DESIGN REPORT ' LONG VALLEY WASH Agreement), tire U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (404 Permit), and the San Diego Regional Water Quality j Control Board(401 Certification). - Response: The costs of construction and maintenance and the funding mechanism for the proposed improvementsto Long Valley Wash are discussed below. Permits from resource agencies are currently being obtained as part of construction and maintenance of the Roripaugh Ranch development project. 6.0 COST ESTIMATES ' CONSTRUCTION COSTS ' Planned improvements to Long Valley Wash would be constructed during the initial stage of development of the Roripaugh Ranch. The costs of these improvements are estimated in Table B below. These improvements would be funded by the developer. TABLE B PREUMNARY CONSTRUCTION COSTS t n9 H r`Mit' CO6I5 1 t a _ a i �� a.,4`a,�= 'Jj5 r.LF±• � 7�}( '� ,?'.-' DESCRIP[IOIJ w.;" Ql1ANT7TY�;I�&T-ICOSf/UMT'r:�ry'•„Tl7rAL. .°_: ' 1 Earthwork 120,000 CY 5.00 600,000.00 2 1/4 Ton Caicreted Rock RipRap 18,000 CY 45.00 810,000.00 , 3 Triple 10'Wz8'H 366 LF 1,000.00 366,000.00 4 Double 36”RCP . 9D LF 2110.00 18,000.00 ' 5 WirlgNalls 230 LF 200.00 46,000.00 6 1/4 Tan Concreted Rock Splash Apron 916 CY 50A0 45,870.00 _ 7 Drop Structure 2 EA 120,000.00 240,000.00 8 Fencing 12,000 LF 10.00 120,000.00 TOTAL S{245,800 1 1 RORIPAUGH RANCH 14 1 PRELIMINARY DESIGN REPORT 'LONG VALLEY WASH MAINTENANCE COSTS ' Roripaugh Ranch has investigated cost and funding mechanisms and, with the help of RCFCWCD staff, has prepared a preliminary maintenance breakdown. Based on maintenance costs obtained from RCFCWCD, the maintenance of open space areas and public facilities within Roripaugh Ranch, including Long Valley Wash, is estimated at $176,700 per year. Table C provides these estimates. TABLE C PRELMNARY MAINTMANCECOSTS PES 04 a`,'A. Y.'aFYWttTY, 'l�dT OtUlA;!(JT \ MAL. 1 OPENSPACE 33 AC 10.00 330.00 2 TRASH PICIO.P 40 HR 110.00 4.400.00 3 STORM DRAIN PIPE 160 IS 5.00 900.00 4 ROOENT CONTROL 2 YR SM.00 1.00D.00 5 RPRAP CHANNEL. 6,200 FT 10.00 62,000.00 6 OErENTION BASIN 5 AC 5,000.00 25.000.00 7 GRAFFTn REMOVAL 52 WK 370.00 10.400.00 6 FENCE RPAJRMAINTRAANCE 12070 LF 1.00 12000.00 TOTAL $1161030 ' 7.0 SUMMARY Based on current criteria, existing conditions, and reports submitted to David Evans and Associates for review, the design of Long Valley Channel noted in this report and its attachments is proven to be justified ' from a hydraulic standpoint. David Evans and Associates requests that this report be submitted as a preliminary design report for Long Valley Channel and that RCFCDWCD staff respectfully review and issue the Roripaugh Ranch Project standard "conditions of approval", so design plans and documents, along with ' planning of a funding mechanism, may be started. 1 1 RORIPAUGH RANCH 15 PREUmINARY DESIGN REPORT ' LONG VALLEY WASH 8.0 REFERENCES AND PERSONS CONTACTED • Gradient Engineers, Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Report, June 30, 1999. • Keith International. Inc.. Specific Plan Drainage Report, August 1998. • Lukos and Associates, Recommendations for soft bottom channels. • Pacific Surmnits Consultants Ltd. , • RCFCWCD, Hydrology Manual, April 1978. • RCFCWCD, Master Drainage Plan for the Murrieta Creek Area, March 1986. • The Keith Companies, Roripaugh Ranch Specific Plan and Environmental Impact Report, October 1999. • US Army Corps of Engineers, HEC-RAS River Analysis System Software Version 2.2, September 1998. • WEST Consultants, Inc., Long Valley Wash Sedimentation Study, February 2000. 1 • WEST Consultants, Long Valley Wash Sediment Transport Study, October 25, 1999. 9.0 CONSULTATIONS AND COORDINATION As part of the design and development of, planned improvements to Long Valley Wash, a number of coordination meetings and consultations have been made with responsible agencies. Previous activities ' associated with the proposed improvements to Long Valley Wash are outlined below. 1) As indicated earlier, Keith Companies has prepared a drainage study which analyzed the existing and , post-development flows and velocities on drainage channels found within the Roripaugh Ranch, including Long Valley Wash, using the Synthetic Unit Hydrograph Method and Rational Method. The study identified the flood limits along Long Valley Wash and calculated the volumes and flows of Long Valley , Wash under the existing and developed conditions. The results of this analysis are provided in Appendix A. 2) Glen Lukos Associates has surveyed and delineated the locations of wetlands on the site (see Figure 6) , and is coordinating the project with the State Department of.Fish and Game and the US Army Corps of Engineers.. Long Valley Wash has been identified as a wetland area and the channel bottom should be left undisturbed to the extent possible. , 3) Natural Resource Consultants has prepared gnatcatcher, butterfly, and biological assessment surveys, while David Evans and Associates, Inc. (DEA) has prepared comprehensive maps delineating this information on the project site(see Figure 7). There is a riparian area at the western end of the wash, near Butterfield Stage Road. 4) DEA met with RCFCWCD to discuss the project and the needs of the RCFCWCD. A copy of meeting ' t minutes from the March 24, 1999 meeting with the District is provided in Appendix I. RORIPAUGH RANCH 16 ' PRELIMINARY DESIGN REPORT . LONG VALLEY WASH 5) As suggested by the RCFCWCD; DEA sent a letter to Ron Parks at the City of Temecula to request that RCFCWCD review of the drainage plans for Long Valley Wash. A copy of the March 26. 1999 letter from Jeff Rupp to Ron Parks requesting the District to review plans on behalf of the City is provided in Appendix 1. 6) The RCFCWCD sent a letter to the City of Temecula regarding the proposed improvements to Long Valley Wash and their concerns on the project. A copy of the May 12, 1999 letter from Dusty Williams to Ron Parks, addressing design and maintenance issues for Long Valley Wash, is provided in Appendix G r7) David Evans and Associates, Inc. (DEA) ran a hydraulic analysis of Long Valley Wash and prepared preliminary plans for the design of the drainage channel within an approximately 150-foot wide right-of- way, based on the conceptual plans for the wash. Since the wash bottom would be left undisturbed, the riprap was limited to both sides of the channel. 8) On July 13, 1999 Jeff Rupp, Kirk Shimek, and Wes Hylen met with Dusty Williams and Stuart McKibbin of RCFCWCD to discuss the issues raised in the May 12, 1999 letter of the RCFCWCD. It was determined at the meeting that as long as erosion potential could be mitigated in the channel design and a ' mechanism to fund maintenance is provided, such as a Community Service District, plans may be submitted for plan check with the District. The District recommended a sediment transport study be prepared to address erosion along the channel. 9) WEST Consultants prepared a preliminary sediment transport study which evaluated the effects of proposed improvements on Long Valley Wash on the sediment transport regime. The study uses the 6- hour rainfall duration since this generated the highest peak runoff rate. The study indicated that scouring of the channel and sediment deposition behind the proposed culverts at Butterfield Stage Road and the on- site road would occur over time. This study provided in Appendix H. ' 10) Based on the findings of the preliminary sediment transport study and additional coordination with RCFCWCD and WEST Consultants. DEA expanded the width of the proposed limits to Long Valley Wash to an average width of 250 feet and revised the hydraulic analysis and planned improvements to ' Long Valley Wash. 11) Based on the revised plans, WEST Consultants prepared a final sediment transport study on the wider channel design. The study indicates that sediment transport within the 250-foot wide wash would be similar to existing conditions. This study is provided in Appendix H. ' 12) David Evans and Associates, Inc. and Pacific Summits Consultants. Ltd. have had numerous meetings with both the City of Temecula and the Riverside County Flood Control District to discuss the design and maintenance for the improvements to the channels through the Roripaugh Ranch project. 13) Roripaugh Ranch and adjacent property representatives have ongoing meetings with the County of Riverside regarding the development of a special zone within CSA 152 for the funding of continuing management and maintenance of Long Valley Wash. 1 RORIPAUGH RANCH 17 PRELIMINARY DESIGN REPORT , LONG VALLEY WASH i 10.0 PREPARERS AND SUBMITTALS a PREPARERS OF THE REPORT David Evans and Associates, Inc. Jeff Rupp. Project Manager Kirk Shimek, Project Designer REPORT SUBMITTALS RCFCWCD Mr. Warren D. "Dusty"Williams Mr. Stuart McKibbin.. Project Engineer City of Temecula Mr. Ronald J. Parks, Project Engineer—Deputy Director of Public Works Keith Company International Mr. Kevin Everett , County of Riverside Mr. George Johnson , Ashby Development { Mr. Richard Ashby Leighton and Associates Mr. Robert Riha 1 i RORIPAUGH RANCH 18 PRELIMINARY DESIGN REPORT LONG VALLEY WASH TABLE OF CONTENTS ' SECTION PAGE ' 1.0 Introduction................................................................................................................................... 1 ProjectObjectives......................................................................................................................... 1 ProjectArea ..................................................................................................................................2. PreviousStudies.........................................................................................................................:..3 2.0 Purpose..........................................................................................................................................4 ' 3.0 Methodology.................................................................................................................................5 DesignCriteria..............................................................................................................................5 . ' 4.0 Preliminary Design .......................................................................................................................8 PlannedImprovements..................................................................................................................8 5.0 Responses to RCFCWCD Letter.................................................................................................10 6.0 Cost Estimates..........:..................................................................................................................14 ' 7.0 Summary.....................................................................:...............................................................15 8.0 References...................................................................................................................................16 ' 9.0 Consultations and Coordination..................................................................................................16 ' 10.0 Preparers and Submittals.............................................................................................................18 LIST OF TABLES - Table A—Comparison of Existing and Proposed Flows...................................................................7 Table B -Construction Costs...........................................................................................................14 ' Table C—Maintenance Cost Estimate..............................................................................................15 ' LIST OF FIGURES FigureI —Project Area.....................................................................................................................19 ' Figure 2— Specific Plan Land Use Plan ..:..................................4.......................4..... .......................20 Figure 3 —Conceptual Drainage Master Plan...................................................................................21 Figure4—Parcel Map 29352...........:...............................:................................................................22 ' Figure 5 —Large Lot Tentative Map.................................................................................................23 Figure6—Permit Exhibit IA............................................................................................................24 Figure 7—Biological Resources Map...............................................................................................25 Figure 8—Drainage Plans.................................................................................................Back Pocket RORIPALIGH RANCH i 1 PRELIMINARY DESIGN REPORT LONG VALLEY WASH APPENDICES A Keith International Hydrology Calculations for Long Valley Wash ' B Existing Hydraulic Conditions Existing condition HEC-RAS (DEA) ' Cross section output Table 1 output Table 2 output ' Cross section plots C Proposed Hydraulic Conditions , Proposed condition HEC-RAS (DEA) Cross section output Table 1 output Table 2 output ' Cross section plots D Detention Basin Calculations , E Drop Structure Calculations F Rock Splash Apron Calculations 1 I G RCFCWCD letter dated May 12, 1999 , H WEST Consultants Long Valley Wash Sediment Transport Study Dated October 25, 1999 , Long Valley Wash Sediment Transport Study Dated February 4, 2000 I Correspondence ' Minutes of March 24, 1999 meeting with RCFCWCD DEA letter to City of Temecula dated March 26, 1999 i RORIPAUGH RANCH 1 PRELIMINARY DESIGN REPORT LONG VALLEY WASH 1 1 r 1 APPENDICES r 1 r 1 1 1 RORI PAUGH RANCH r om _ � I _ .III II I I A II-- va4 I f m II ri il' r" 2 2 h n T IIS w�tj1 u Ij N ` �-k 'tll A rn ...r o f S f DJ O aS'1�y> yb�� sI'�tzl Itipp ,,���Aµ P'V'InPU'� '11'Y �rhllt, rn� i r t)F { / t w t 0 ', 0 . - (R4 1 II rll A k'tlj� II Ilrlh. ! I I L 1-A iSWAY �REN m _o rrlfr.�iL lt+� d hevtlrr I u�1 ( ,I: 71 C— . - ITIITI DAVID EVANS AND ASSOCIATES, C boo NOil]i HAVbH AVRIUE.6IRi[loo ry OMAtlO,G.9064V 9rf 190914&? G E ainSi3 ' HONVd Honvdiaoa 1 S. All mar t ' o _ a e � y � � � 1 � �11i�u ) �n• d • s� Y -�i gtl , 1 E \ RIS . ;Kiu how A Eg21 i i6 At, R i 1 C Eg xb Y � Jv Conceptual Drainage_Master.,Plan _ . HSVM A317VA ONOI LdOd.9&N9193Q A8VNIWn3Hd ' -0 0 :lj TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 29352 lll 14 Fj[�,%A 10.4. rn NIA. 71 �7 dq 'In 146- ZZ, O r U � � m TCNTATIVE TRACT MAP N0, 29353 = uu�. r� ,.o.r ct¢tt l Ulunu 1 rn r- L Jn.7 ,F, NMI,07 fP+A n'1 7'PrK, prr Y .._...._ < � I II• j k r I I j N /. t �i S` �� �.• i I i r ! � r r Y•f't' � � v !' j �j 4!} �I �jr� M'€' t�•a s— y'al r' 1.: �� llrr II ,•, �I�'-^^'��,.�k �>,i r I� 1 , ,� (� �` 1e. ,,.,- j n I A m quil Y 4w/YurJn'c .Or.L o �1r��C�IC+yl POOI CR no ur� t��l"�1A ��� I pqC/G11 Y71uoI(:i.... o on n TrQ r �• �AAe 'G,^r p 11 yI ill 'nl w "3 'C:4 OYI '10 •i ,�✓�' r y \ C o C �'O a \ 'n o.�w�,wt by rGI 4A o-t✓\���ac �c� 1 rnu,+� C� VIi�Y.�'. 9 rr � �' Y;d 'S �,` ,BOG�� 1 Y.77aj}7DJc�t i11�1`let� .yi �4�(r�,s3ti"+ 30 .l� r w S A� C+r''r;4.�i"�a'7llRO d! .7�1C9D�Iii0�77r�,1J�r gyp' at`fr,00E��7�k:�` 8 r/ - � ,.. , . it ��r" '`� • p G`9iGQ�(3 I , u Errf/lf�1"y,,"gq)`1r.11'1t+,1:1rtrri V!P �IIIf/ltlr�/i�tT+Im:�i nfI,(G;.�.GIGnn.��•wnnn nC tuwA.ln]f riChprtepATlOD ir r fbtl1e nn �1x13lY�ipCtrY�Yhpl+Jl�r�AI+irl';V4GjVr�4 Ia/1QGn f �4.fa er p 4 n L1 .r AA Mq 4 �i y�KA rOI ?144V^11:311¢fll�� C w•44�14�17 'U.4. Y^/\Ip�nlY, �? p �if^" YYY=YYIIYYYII~ � u rr yYP Ar�,C7:1 c11`. .\fir..' litiii/^r4C��naglrt{Ilny L In�iq�n l� dye r f 'rIngiGrlupfr�iaVn/.rlp+�0 wv���!• y �mDrrtl7 //IIY�J4a>_—,I�� p �fl`^ . "✓ YiIlN I Y�YYYY' Nf Y�y"'i y• ij�r4�if�v,t1 P Rlf af'rr r Y „u. m�'r`dF_- f �.Y dt�i� nw ;r�}p'•;I]ji t. � �j�� nFY M/Jlv / 'X/23 i.v"a.:1x "`r C^Rj rl. OkIII�� , itj a t1]I^G GC t1 C1 1 Ct CL r cur "'I 141s a.� ..�, X.J$ /QE" h a r n.+�l �d Grj M M Y•.i z`a in Y.t.Iri t oi� 3��� I inl e"Jjl^'I I 1' r r t'O'lgnv ,.1rc • Y 7 i �' •, 'moi Ei ��3t i�ll�nvr`��lr,.�'t ,o IF...r- ,�,li ■ • I t n . r I>V:' i 1 t d5xcERPT5 DRAFT 1 STORM WATER POLLUTION PREVENTION PLAN for RORIPAUGH RANCH MASS GRADING ACTIVITIES t Temecula, California 1 1 Prepared for. ASHBY DEVELOPMENT COMPANY,INC. ' 470 East Harrison Street j Corona, CA 92879 Phone: (909) 898-1692 1 Prepared by: DAVID EVANS AND ASSOCIATES, INC 800 North Haven Avenue, Suite 300 Ontario, California 91764-4915 Phone (909)481-5750 1 August 3, 2001 1 ' Equipment Storage and Maintenance - Equipment will be stored at various locations on-si shown in SWPPP Site Plan. Equipment fueling, cleaning and maintenance will take place v designated staging areas. Major equipment overhauls or repair would take place off-site. Sai facilities will be maintained and treated regularly. ' Materials Storage and Disposal - Materials will be stored on pallets in designated storage until use. Wastes will be placed in dumpsters at designated waste containment areas and err weekly. Excess excavated soils and construction waste materials will be temporarily stockpil ' site, prior to disposal offsite into an approved waste facility. BMP Objectives This Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP)_has been developed in accordance wil requirements of the California State Water Resources Control Board and the City of Temecula in compliance with the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) General P for Construction Activity. The SWPPP identifies erosion, sedimentation and pollution a measures that would be implemented during mass grading activities of the project sit ' Roripaugh Ranch, and seeks to minimize the discharge of pollutants into the stormwate: existing drainage channels to the maximum extent practicable. Figure 2 shows the ex drainage patterns through the site. Figure 3 shows the off-site areas that drain into the site. ' Figure 4 shows the proposed mass grading plan for the site. It is estimated that 8 million ' yards of cut and 7 million cubic yards of fill materials would be needed for mass grading actii As discussed above, the various activities or substances utilized during mass grading of th. could result in pollutants, other than sediments, entering the storm water discharges. These in loose soils, sediments, organic materials, wastes, equipment/vehicle fluids, construction mate '. soil amendments, and other materials brought to the site. Measures to prevent pollutants entering the storm drain system are discussed below. The owner and contractor are responsib taking the steps necessary to minimize or prevent any discharge in violation of the NPDES Ge Permit. Thus, it will be of critical nature that the contractor and owner are educated in the B to ensure their implementation. In order to minimize the possibility of introducing loose soils, debris, pollutants from const , materials and equipment, or vehicle wastes into the existing drainage channels and storn system, the following general provisions will be implemented: 1. All construction materials will be stored in designated areas outside of any drainage path ' 2. All equipment will be fueled and maintained in a designated area away from exis� , proposed watercourses. The designated area will be bermed to contain accidental spills. 3. The following additional BMP objectives will be observed: , • Good Housekeeping: Maintain a clean, orderly project site by putting construction ' demolition wastes, and trash in its proper place and avoiding fuel spills. • Disturbed Areas: Clear land that will be graded within the near term (within next si? ' months) and minimize new land disturbance during the rainy season. • Stabilize Areas: . Provide temporary stabilization of disturbed soils after mass gradin , permanent stabilization during finish grading and landscaping of the site. • Protect Slopes: Avoid disturbing steep and unstable slopes and natural channels. t convey runoff from top of slope. Stabilize temporary and permanent channel crossi quickly as possible and ensure that increase in runoff velocity does not erode channels. , • Wind Erosion: Graded areas.will be watered regularly or stabilized at the earliest time p, in order to minimize wind erosion. Stockpiled soils shall not be left on site for long per , time. • Sediment Control Practices: Runoff from the site should be free of excessive sedime , other pollutants. Detention basins shall be provided at various locations. Sandbags a fences will be installed in the nearby streets and along on-site drainages to reduce the a of silt that could potentially enter the existing drainage courses on site and the inlets loc ' the surrounding area. • Road Trackoff:• In order to reduce sediment tracking onto the adjacent roadways,access site will be restricted and on-site construction roads stabilized. • Sweeping: Sweeping of dry solids from paved areas exposed to precipitation or Operate street sweeper on paved roads adjacent to project construction area on a regular as necessary, and before any storms. • Upstream Runoff. Divert around or safely convey through the site. Diversions must not downstream property damage or runoff diverted into another watershed. , • Vehicle and Equipment Washing: Will be done within the area where berms are insta collect wastewater and keep it away from the storm water system. ' 1 Table of Contents Section 1 Project Description........:......................... ' Site Description........................................................................................:...................... BMPObjectives .............................................................................................................. ' Section 2 Best Management Practices (BMPs) .............................................................................. ' Section 3 Inspection and Maintenance Responsibility.................................................................... Section 4 Storm Water Sampling and Monitoring...............:..........:%.............................................. Section 5 Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan(SWPPP)Worksheet....................................... ' Appendices: ' A -BMP Details B - SWPPP Site Plan C - Erosion Control Plan 1 D- San Diego Basin Plan Water Quality Objectives 1 Materials Storage: Protect construction materials by covering them with a tarp when sl ' are expected. Cover areaswhereliquids or solids in containers are stored. Anchor these and cover with rocks or stakes. All potentially hazardous materials will be collected prc and stored in designated areas on site prior to the disposal by owner or contractor authorized disposal site. • Outdoor Storage: Store containers, drums, and bags away from direct traffic rout ' eliminate accidental spills. Designated areas shall. also be located away from dra channels. • Waste Containment: Dispose wastes in designated areas and keep storm water from flc on or off these areas Y 1 1 Section 2 , Best Management Practices (BMPs) The following Best Management Practices (BMPs), in accordance with the California Storm Best Management Practice Handbook and the City of Temecula guidelines, are applicable 1 , project. They will be utilized to prevent or reduce the potential for contamination of storm during mass grading activities proposed on the project site. 1. Non structural BMPs , The following non-structural BMPs shall be practiced on-site during mass grading activities: , BMP 1.1 -Education of Crew Prior to the mass grading activities,the contractor and owner will provide educational ma , and training for construction crew who will be responsible for general housekeeping pr to protect stormwater quality. They will distribute the BMP fact sheets from this S' (Appendix A) to all site personnel. Training would be provided at start of grading acti ' The training subjects will include appropriate storage practices, trash disposal procedure the correct methods for vehicle and equipment fueling and maintenance. , BMP 1.2 - Existing Vegetation Areas that would not be graded shall not be cleared of existing vegetation. These areas ii , areas to be preserved as open,space at the western, southern and northeastern boundaries panhandle, the area surrounding.the existing residences at the northern central section site, the 100-year floodplain of Long Valley Wash (approximately 218-feet wide corridor , the wash), and the habitat conservation area at the northeastern section of the site, traver. Santa Gertrudis Creek. These areas shall be left undisturbed. BMP 1.3 - Scheduling ' The contractor shall phase grading to minimize the amount of exposed area at one time. should not be cleared until grading is scheduled to begin. Exposed areas should be stat as soon as grading is complete. Grading shall be minimized during the rainy season (Octc April), to the extent possible. BMP 1.4- Litter Control Existing trash and debris found on the site would be collected and disposed prior to any g activities. This includes tires, drums, containers, trash piles, abandoned equipment, , wood, pipes, concrete, as well as demolition wastes from abandoned buildings and s structures. , During grading, trash and solid wastes will be collected into covered dumpsters and rot disposed off-site to reduce the potential for pollution of drainage water. Wastes shall be ' in designated areas and shall not allowed to remain on-site for over two weeks. A sweeper shall be used on paved roads adjacent to project construction area on a regular ba necessary, and before any storms. ' 1 1 BMP 1.5-Slope Protection Any slopes with disturbed soils or denuded of vegetation must be stabilized within two r. ' of final grading completion, so as to inhibit erosion by wind or water. Stabilizatioi include planting, use of chemical soil binders/stabilizers, blankets, netting, fiber temporary seeding, use of mulch, gravel, decomposed granite, or wood chips, tem ' vegetation, permanent seeding, or other acceptable methods. Oil treatment or use of s chloride is not acceptable. Exposed slopes would also be terraced to slow down runt ' allow sediment settlement. Trackwalking, raking, and disking along the slope woulc down runoff. ' BMP 1.6- Graded Areas Graded areas shall be subject to daily surface watering to reduce fugitive dust and erosion, until temporary or permanent stabilization is provided. ' BMP 1.7-Hazardous Materials Hazardous wastes present on-site shall be collected and disposed in accordance-with e, regulations. Any soil remediation activity shall be conducted in coordination with regi agencies and in compliance with pertinent regulations. ' Any hazardous material used for the mass grading activities at the site shall be trans] stored, used, and disposed in accordance with existing regulations. ' BMP 1.8- Truck Circulation Vehicle, equipment, and truck access shall occur only at designated access roads, with m loading and unloading within designated staging areas on the site. Trucks hauling soi wastes shall be covered when leaving the site. ' BMP 1.9- Fueling and Maintenance Vehicle and equipment fueling, washing, and maintenance activities shall be conducted designated areas. Crew shall be instructed to avoid topping off of fuel tanks and sh: ' secondary containment, such as drain pan or drop cloth to catch spills, when fueling contractor shall comply with federal and state regulations regarding construction, us maintenance of fuel tanks. Major equipment overhauls or repair would take place off-sitz ' BMP 1.10- Stockpiles Stockpiles of excavated soils shall not be stored for extended periods of time. They sl covered with tarp, stabilized through vegetation or chemical means, or transported for c disposal. BMP 1.11 - Sanitary Facilities Sanitary facilities shall be well-maintained and wastes treated or disposed in accordanc State and local requirements. Regular service and disposal for these facilities shoe provided. 1 BMP 1.12 -Accidental Spills , Where pollutants have been released on-site by accident, malfunction, leakage, or sp pollutants shall be immediately contained and properly cleaned up prior to a storm event. 2. Structural BMPs , These structural BMPs shall be provided on-site, as shown in the SWPPP Site Plan in Appe ' and the Erosion Control Plan in Appendix C. BMP 2.1 -Access Roads , Designated access roads shall be designated and clearly signed. The contractor shall st all construction entrances and on-site access roads would be gravel paved. ' BMP 2.2 - Staging and Storage Areas Staging areas for on-site equipment and materials storage shall be designated at s ' locations on the site, which are located away from access roads, direct traffic route drainage channels. These areas shall be bermed to prevent runoff from entering or fl across these areas. All equipment and materials shall be stored in this area, and vehicle fi ' washing, and maintenance shall be confined to these areas. Fuels, hazardous materials, and other pollutants shall be stored on water-tight contair , buildings or under a water tight roof. Construction materials shall be stored on pallets an be covered with tarp when storms are expected. These tarps and covers shall be anchore rocks or stakes. All potentially hazardous materials will be stored in designated areas ( t and collected properly prior to the disposal by owner or contractor at an authorized di site. , Similarly, waste storage areas shall be designated on-site and bermed to prevent runof flowing in or through them. t BMP 2.3 - Clearing Limits Limits of grading shall be marked along areas preserved for, open space, the 10 floodplain of Long Valley Wash, and the area along Santa Gertrudis Creek to p disturbance by grading activities. In addition, temporary limits shall be placed around small areas of petroleum staining tha observed at scattered locations near the airstrip and at the central section of th( Remediation of identified soil stains would also be made in cooperation with apprc ' regulatory agencies, prior to any grading activities within this area. BMP 2.4- Inlet Protection ' In addition to sand bags, inlet protection shall be provided for area drains and curb inlet the project site (downstream of site). These may consists of a filter fabric fence, bloc ' gravel filter, gravel and wire mesh filter, sand bag barrier, or excavated drop inlet sec trap. BMP 2.5 - Temporary Detention Basins Temporary detention basins would be located at various locations throughout the projet and constructed at the start of grading activities. These basins would be located with. ' relatively same area as the proposed permanent detention basins and would be locate( existing drainage channels and in areas that would collect sediment and debris from 1 prior to entering the drainage outlets off-site, as well as serve to reduce runoff velocities, ' outlets shall be provided with protection to prevent erosion and scour of the einbankmet channel. ' BMP 2.6- Runoff Diversions Offsite runoff that enters the site at the southeastern corner near Butterfield Stage Road the northwestern section of the site at Pouroy Road and Murrieta Hot Springs Road sh diverted to flow along the southern and northern site boundaries, respectively. This div would prevent runoff to flow across graded areas on the site. This diversion shall be tem: ' until storm drain lines are installed along Murrieta Hot Springs Road and along the extJ of Calle Chapos and Butterfield Stage Road. BMP 2.7- Channel Crossings Channel crossings shall be provided at Santa Gertrudis Creek and Long Valley Wash to equipment and vehicles to cross the creek for on-site soil movement. The crossings sl ' marked and all equipment and vehicle drivers informed of their locations. Two crc would be located at the area where Santa Gertrudis Creek would cross the proposed Butt Stage Road extension and two crossings would be located across Long Valley Wash. ' BMP 2.8-Sandbags ' Sandbags will be installed around storm drain inlets located along designated access roat near the site boundaries (downstream of the site) to reduce the amount of silt that potentially enter the inlets located in these areas. Also, sandbags will be placed along th ' of the channel crossings to minimize the amount of silt entering Santa Gettrudis Cm Long Valley Wash at these areas. ' BMP 2.9- Check Dams Check dams shall be located at various locations to collect sediment and reduce velocities. These dams shall be provided after the channel crossings, prior to Santa Ge Creek crossing the MWD right-of-way and on Long Valley Wash, prior to Butterfrelc Road. ' BMP 2.10- Earth Dikes Earth dikes shall be provided throughout the site to divert runoff from directly enter existing drainage courses on-site. BMP 2.11 - Silt Fences Silt fences shall be provided along the grading limit line, to prevent sediment and si ' entering the designated habitat area at the northeastern section of the site. The silt fen proposed along Butterfield Stage Road (on the west) and the boundary of the habitat a ' the northernmost tract boundary (on the south). More specific discussion of these individual BMPs is provided in Appendix A. ' Erosion and sediment control (ESC) measures should be installed as soon as reasonably practi< , following construction crew mobilization and site clearing, and shall remain in place until grading, planting, and paving of project construction site is complete. An erosion control plan details has been prepared and included in this report and shall be implemented by the contract ' necessary. Since this SWPPP has been developed for mass grading activities only, it does not in( ' construction or post-construction BMPs. Permanent improvements along Long Valley N Santa Gertrudis Creek and other on-site drainages are also not proposed at this time, except ft ' temporary detention basins which would be converted to permanent detention basins at a later - 1 1 Section 3 Inspection and Maintenance Responsibility for BMPs ' The following procedures will be performed in order to determine the performance of previously outlined Best Management Practices and ensure that they are being implemented. 1. Site Inspections The owner and the City of Temecula will perform site inspections required by the general pe The purpose of the inspection is"to determine the effectiveness of existing BMPs to analyz need to add, delete, or modify any BMPs and to determine maintenance required to keel structural BMPs functioning properly. A written record of the inspection results will be including the date of the inspection, the person(s) who performed the inspection, the observai and the actions taken. Forms have been provided at the end of this SWPPP for the inspe reports. Specifically, the following activities would be made: • Examine integrity of containment structures and BMPs • .Verify adequacy of trash receptacles • Verify waste disposal practices ' • Look for evidence of spills and resulting clean-up procedures • Examine sediment accumulation at BMPs • Look for evidence of excessive downstream sedimentation • Look for evidence of construction materials washed off-site ' Initially, an inspection shall be conducted after site clearing is complete and erosion and sed control measures have been installed. After which, inspections shall be conducted before an( storm events (rainfall of 0.5" or more) and once each 24-hour period during extended storm e Pre-storm inspections will ensure that pre-storm BMPs are properly installed and maint 1 Post-storm inspections would ensure that BMPs have functioned adequately. Repairs and.( changes shall be implemented as soon as feasible depending upon field conditions. Equil ' materials, and workers must be available for rapid response to BMP failures and emergencie corrective maintenance to BMPs shall be performed as soon as possible after the conclus each storm, depending on worker safety. If the inspector observes improper construction measures or pollution, the inspector shall infc site personnel of proper or correct way along with follow up inspections and further training. 2. Repair and Maintenance ' The following activities shall be conducted after inspections for repair and maintenance BMPs: • Sediment will be removed from sandbag barriers and inlet protection when sedim. reaches 113 of total available depth. 1 • Sediment shall be removed from detention basins when sediment reaches 1/3 of tc available capacity. • Sediment and silt shall be removed from silt fences after major storm events. • Stabilized areas that are eroded shall be reseeding or mulched. , Y Any damaged or disrupted BMP will be replaced or repaired within 48 hours of discovery. 3. Certification of Compliance ' Based on the results of the inspections, compliance with the requirements of the NPDES G ' Permit and this SWPPP.will be certified annually and completed by July i of each year. inspection indicates non-compliance, actions to be taken to achieve compliance, and < ' schedule in which compliance is to occur should be provided. 4. Record Keeping Records of all inspections, compliance certifications, and non-compliance reporting, and regi Professional Engineer certifications, as required, will be retained on-site during the entire dr of mass grading activities and for three years after the date the reports are generated or after I completion. In addition, records of maintenance activities, as well as material spills and cls actions, will be kept by the owner. , 5. Plan Review and Modifications This plan will be revised if an inspection indicates a need to drop an ineffective BMP, add ' BMP, or modify an existing BMP. If there is a new, deleted, or relocated activity, the plan i modified if the change significantly affects the amount of contaminants in the storm water. ' 1 1 Section 4 Storm Water Sampling and Monitoring ' Stormwater sampling and monitoring shall be conducted, as required under the Califomi; ' Water Resources Control Board's NPDES General Permit for Construction Activity. The site for Roripaugh Ranch does not discharge directly into a water body listed in Attachn Therefore, this SWPPP does not include procedures for sampling sedimentation, siltatio ' turbidity. The majority of the site is used for dry farming, with small areas of residential use, storm airstrip. Based on the Phase 1 ESA, there are no significant levels of agricultural chemicals site. There are tires, old equipment, pipes, and drams and containers on the central section site, which contain waste oils, fuel, and paint. In addition, there are fuel tanks and abovel ' tanks at various locations. Small areas of petroleum staining were also observed at sc locations near the airstrip and at the central section of the site. All above ground debris, i equipment, and tanks would be removed and disposed at an approved waste facility, p. grading activities. Remediation of identified soil stains would also be made in cooperatio appropriate regulatory agencies, prior to any grading activities within the identified areas. ' Heavy equipment and vehicles would be brought on site for use during grading activities grease, and petroleum hydrocarbons from these equipment are potential stormwater poll tConstruction materials would also be stored and used on-site, and could pollute the stormwai 1. Stormwater Monitoring ' During mass grading activities, stormwater sampling will be conducted to verify the prese absence of non-visible pollutants in the storm water. Runoff samples will be collected f. least two storms during the wet season (October 15 to April 30). Samples will be taken storm drain outlets (discharge points) during the first two hours of discharge during a r event, with safe access to the site and sampling locations ensured. The sampling lo< correspond to the points on-site which discharge on-site runoff into off-site facilities, as shi ' the SWPPP Site Plan. The samples will be analyzed for pH; total dissolved soils, & conductance, biological oxygen demand, nitrates, and oil and grease. ' Sampling and stormwater analysis shall be conducted by trained personnel. Samples v collected and preserved in accordance with Method 1060 of Standard Methods for the Exami of Water and Waste Water (20`s Edition). Sampling would generally involve the following t, ' ■ Monitor weather forecasts and alert sampling crews when probability of rain excec percent during the next 24 hours and is likely to create a sampling event ' ■ Samples are to be taken during first two hours of discharge and collected from discharg. occur during grading operations in daylight hours and when preceded by at least three w ' days without stormwater discharge. At start of sampling event, disperse sampling crews to designated outfalls with saml provided by the environmental laboratory. 1 • Sampling crew shall collect manual grab samples. To collect samples, place sample cot with open-end facing upstream directly into the stream of water. Be sure not to contai , the inside of container. Do this for each container in the kit. ■ Once samples are collected, sampling crew will complete test sample log and chain of c , report (provided in Appendix D). • Sample crews will deliver samples to SWPPP manager. SWPPP manager will assure d( of samples to designated environmental laboratory within 24 hours of sample collection. ' 2. Monitoring of Spills In addition, other discharges that are identified through visual monitoring to be pote ' contaminated by pollutants shall also be sampled and monitored. If a pollutant spill cannot t contained and cleaned prior to a rain event, stormwater sampling shall be conducted. Wt leak occurs during a rain event, sampling shall be conducted at that time. Sampling shall o ' the point that drains the contact areas, within the fust two hours of discharge (runoff) fro events, and during the daylight hours (sunrise to sunset). However, no sample is requires sample location(s)cannot be safety accessed. ' In addition, a location that is not affected by the pollutant shall be selected for collect uncontaminated sample for comparison purposes. This may include outlets that collect rano ' undisturbed areas on-site, from area where run-on from offsite areas are diverted around the where there are no activities that could contribute to pollutants in the runoff. , Test results will be kept on file at the site until filing of the Notice of Termination. 3. Corrective Action ' Corrective actions shall be initiated where stormwater sample test results indicate site run( cause or contribute to water quality exceedance,based on comparison of the test results wit , quality objectives of the receiving water body (as contained in the Comprehensive Water Control Plan for the San Diego Basin). Appendix D provides excerpts of the Basin Plan contain these water quality objectives. Corrective actions may include repair of the existing , use of an alternative BMP, or implementation of additional BMPs (cover and/or cone which further eliminate contact between stormwater and pollutants at the site or whist polluted stormwater on-site for treatment prior to off-site release. , 1 { HYDROLOGY/HYDRAULIC STUDY FOR Tract No. 29661 LOCATED IN THE COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE, CA PREPARED FOR: ' Ashby USA, L.L.C, Prepared by: adkan ENG/NEEP.S '( 6820 Airport Drive Riverside, CA 92504 Tel: (909) 688-0241 ' Fax: (909) 688-0599 ' adkan JOB NO. 5516 ' January 23, 2001 1 CHARISSA LEACH, R.C.E. NO. 53390 DATE EXP. 6/30/02 i t 'i HYDROLOGY & HYDRAULIC STUDY FOR ' Tract No. 29661 City of Temecula, California ' TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF CONTENTS SECTION ' REPORT SCOPE 1 EXISTING CONDITIONS ' DEVELOPED CONDITIONS/METHOD OF ANALYSIS ' BASIN SUMMARY 2 UNDEVELOPED & DEVELOPED RATIONAL METHOD 3 UNDEVLOPED UNIT HYDROGRAPH q ' DEVELOPED UNIT HYDROGRAPH- BASIN 1 5 DEVELOPED BASIN ROUTING- BASIN I DEVELOPED UNIT HYDROGRAPH- BASIN 2 6 ' DEVELOPED BASIN ROUTING- BASIN 2 1 1 1t SECTION 1 REPORT SCOPE 1 1 1 1 1 '! REPORTSCOPE ' Tentative Tract No. 29661 is an 119± acre site located east of Highway 79 on the south side of Murrieta Hot Springs Road. East of Chandler drive and west of Butterfield Stage Road. The scope of this study is to provide initial hydrologic calculations for the construction of the project.site. This report will be utilized in the conditioning of the Tract as well as the basis for the final report and construction of the site. The included calculations are sufficient for the support of the site drainage scheme as proposed. ' EXISTING CONDITIONS ' The project site is bounded to the north by Murrieta Hot Springs Road. This street is currently partially.graded and others will construct that portion of the street. This portion of Murrieta Hot Springs also includes a 60 inch storm drain that carries a large portion of the offsite flows that historically drained via arroyos through the Tentative Tract 29661 project site. The Santa Gertrudis Creek is located approximately 1400 feet south of the project site. The site currently slopes form north to south in the direction of ' the creek with varying slope rates. (I% to 12.5%natural gradient range). Vegetation on the project site consists primarily of grasses and scattered shrubs. i 1 ,i 1 1 1 SGQE IN FaT t'- 150' 1 1 t _Elkan HNG1AVHH RS ' CIVIL ENGINEERING-SURVEYING-PLANNING ' 6820 AWORT DRIVE, R/VERSaE, CA 92504 TEL (909) 688-0241 • FAXi (BOB) 688-0599 g/R�1 im i 1 1 DEVELOPED CONDITION In the developed condition on-site flows are conveyed in streets and storm drains. ' Increased flows due to project development are mitigated through detention basins and flows are released via storm drain/headwall outlets to existing drainage paths. The intent is to mitigate flows, using Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation ' District (RCFC&WCD) methods so that downstream properties are not negatively impacted. ' METHOD OF ANALYSIS The hydrology for the site was based on the Riverside County Flood Control & Water Conservation District (RCFC&WCD) Hydrology Manual, dated April 1978, from which pertinent information such as soil and rainfall data was obtained. Rational hydrology calculations were generated using "RATIONAL METHOD ' HYDROLOGY COMPUTER PROGRAM", Riverside County Flood Control & Water Conservation District 1978 Hydrology. Manual, produced by Advanced Engiheering Software (AES). ' Reference is made to the Tentative Tract 29661 prepared by adkan EN,-WEEPS for preliminary alignment and size of the proposed site improvements. 1 1 SECTION 2 BASIN SUMMARY 1 - 1 1 TRACT 29661 BASIN AREA 1 ' PEAK FLOWS FLOOD VOLUME DEPTH. UN-DEV(RA7) UN-DEV(UHYD) DEV(Routed) UN-DEV DEV(Routed)' ' 10YR-6HR 39.8 7.1 3.0 3.6 5.06 100YR-6HR Q100=82.2 67.7 49.3 5.9 4.1 5.62 10YR-24HR 7.6 8.8 2.1 3.6 5.08 100YR-24HR 22.9 22.1 .6.3 3.8 5.26 BASIN AREA 2 10YR-6HR 29.0 2.9 1.9 5.8 5.67 100YR-6HR Q100 =68.7 49.1 68.6 3.8 5.8 4.88 10YR-24HR 4.8 12.4 1.3 6.3 6.12 100YR-24HR 15.3 25.7 3.9 6.5 6.3 Indicates detention basin volume with routed peak flow. 1f 1 I 1 ' SECTION 3 UNDEVELOPED & DEVELOPED RATIONAL ' METHOD 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Bc c c 8 c c: a D Ly p `/ J.(`1D}9 8_�~ •• p 1, D - •D .`� - tD f `'� D D. C C •tv c (� �/J1 c C B G B.. �� C D. -gi L t11J D. m e. \ D L ' Q � Q , _rM1 _ — B °BCS C-� D 6 f� t t C B B cq � 7 B B E eC C- - — •- J, C C y D 8 c c 8 8 C B6 : r; C- C u 86 D B ,g.. _ C D _ C7 BC S 8 J B. a �✓ :'Ve.:- -9 C. g g B BC,„ cam.rx1a D '(/G:7JUln' D '+� .D C BC p ^•� C p { pC� p y D r^PR 75�\C C ,_BC t C Q.A i D•' C 8 Bc �h•D L !' C. = 9- '-4 B i vP� �x BC\=\�J^ Dg'-�lj� Ili RQ 0. Op - -� a o - _.. ' ( 0 D D L h' a 8� i BC BAC -B C,: BC B `c %—. ? �—•/ BC 6 -0. BC Df�S B N D /" C C BC •pC•� ^D A B.. ply„ :.�, B 0 :BC 0 �9 �rs� eC D D Bc DA —18 0 -ate R A' BC_ �,,. ..�'B�" Ci `3 .` - �^�yj.• .r t ,C �. &• ko"t C BC C B _�Aa �2 BG-0'. p. B� : e, r - B B B .,A`.a A . t "e tre17r. cnacat A B A B BC BC BC BC \a6 LEGEND I HYDROLOGIC SOILS GROUP MAP SOILS GROUP BOUNDARY ' A SOILS GROUP DESIGNATION ! FOR ' R C F C a W C D i BACHELOR MTN. HYDROLOG' o FEE- 5000 ra S, i -•� �.11c - .- 0 ` � _ •a -+.� ^4- m �' , a 5.-� [rc srvfirroEe -. - �. �s.'!� _ YZ •'p', �I Ton f `.^.�' 'oµ t,,. o " Ste` ALL `^a.c � �F r ti 71 , 71 Wil'- � / w � �f' r� f •��S�- � � I' S'� � .�,, w . .<�\* r �nf .' } L ,N- :er n 3-;✓ .r... - � __. . - '_-, - ..�yf � � 'J �.,.,� � < rw-.IouNumz ,r J 13 , a ?'-PAM- 4' .a 4- a� * � - 4 1 \/ 1 r.\q• . it '•> y�, ..� I\✓r LS'L� it r_ � �^` � .� ' ��,.'L. •wC< �u� .J""P'Nh ', r '\ � . ..n,+�. / �l.T � Q�. t � a..�wiw �F _ . - -�. , - / � 1 • _ '°� .. � RA rU Bit to PCmy.ET-Clk 1. '(� \� '? -, !„,r ! \iiY: .gCrds. C` •.� } < r`N 14, R?W R6W — d i; F75 V..- ti.� 1N., v. -"� rr-•. ''F37W R6W '"" ' 325W R :..�..'�,..d • f ? , n ._.. E _ '. �.[- -� _ e, _ •". , fir E yY�f ,� 'y .S.1411i [ I .......... — _ - _- .Y�:' • _ sP' +-•1 - l A '_TL`t^ Via: -`rv^I •vel :.��.,...,^ _ � r ' 1 Z �� --s• 'n[- .�'�, a pie nrn `� - �3 +. t.t Y' I YS T - .nu _A.u. • .�^ \-Y[� ...: r 1 1 s ti <-�g. `5{5'1��,;y_' Y `.:... vC\ _ � � y[, eCi�'-"� 1 ..7 .-i ..:.A,e,.•. �fIY-"- � y.� '- r ` •—.. �' � M.,SIYf MOV i1Mf( l N _ S,.- .l y ✓ �'x / �y, yt YX`/7/ �•,,r I -��� —sem jt r[ t,?1 �. ,.•/.. ":�+s.,�' -� tl !tp ,R SUE J:5 t -XZ :J � 'f l + � (p( mew• 1 �t :cw�u.�: ? J w..^. .,...• r T °� �r I v .w TC` � � F a'U BJ i1 3a ._- 1 y r �� ._1,_TY � ,n 1 {J/ � �:" { ( l�� \ � M•b _[.r L' • a s.r ar.7j r.i �� '"[ , ii !�t' � ;..[.6 1 •{rC'� / /4ui .,�-.� ti 5.e. 1 / � [ .aYc F� � / .es3.. 11 r...a w... �_,� * - IYeb. w'!•` +\� i r lv f i,...,,� >�'.R•yYF- { ' 7.95 yorc�k �' i :~F 'G a Z r-a Ry;.c tE� '!!- �"" [.lfb[.W , _.+ 'xi E � 1" ff :w •.., R7iW .50 2 S.w At, Jill fd !N V., ILL 4.50 45 If 72fLt tL— lie ri 7v 1 .r,,K T, --- .1 'ate ;Li .e- 50 o—I I v I.,A — ,50i nMn P,ca,P R, p7AU '(. Riverside County Rational Hydrology Program CIVILCADD/CIVILDESIGN Engineering Software, (c) 1989 - 2000 Version 6.3 -- --Rational-Hydrology Study ---- --Date_ 06/24/01 File: 551610u.out --------------- ----------------------------- +++++++++ Hydrology Study Control Information ********** English (in-lb) Units used in input data file ------------------------------------------------------------------------ ' Adkan Engineers, Riverside, California - SIN 561 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Rational Method Hydrology Program based on ' Riverside County Flood Control 6 Water Conservation District 1978 hydrology manual Storm event (year) = 10.00 Antecedent Moisture Condition = 2 ' 2 year, 1 hour precipitation = 0.500(In. ) 100 year, 1 hour precipitation = 1 .200(In. ) Storm event year = 10.0 Calculated rainfall intensity data: 1 hour intensity = 0.768 (In/Hr) ' Slope of intensity duration curve = 0.5500 1 ` +++}}+.....++++++++++++rf+++++++++.+++++++++++++++++++++++++}+++++++++ ' Process from Point/Station 100.000 to Point/Station 101. 000 **** INITIAL AREA EVALUATION **** Initial area flow distance = 1000. 000(Ft. ) ' Top (of initial area) elevation = 1615.000(Ft. ) Bottom (of initial area) elevation = 1495.000(Ft. ) Difference in elevation = 120.000 (Ft. ) ' Slope = 0. 12000 s (percent)= 12.00 TC = k(0.710) * [ (length^3) / (elevation change) ] ^0.2 Initial area time of concentration = 17.196 min. Rainfall intensity = 1.567 (In/Hr) for a 10.0 year storm UNDEVELOPED (fair cover) subarea . Runoff Coefficient = 0.734 Decimal fraction soil group A = 0.000 Decimal fraction soil group B = 0.000 Decimal fraction soil group C = 1.000 Decimal fraction soil group D = 0.000 RI index for soil (AMC 2) = 79.00 - ' Pervious area fraction = 1.000; Impervious fraction = 0.000 Initial subarea runoff = 5. 750(CFS) Total initial stream area = 5.000(Ac. ) , Pervious area fraction = 1.000 1 Process from Point/Station 101.000 to Point/Station - 102.000 **** NATURAL CHANNEL TIME + SUBAREA FLOW ADDITION **** Top of natural channel elevation = 1995.000 (Ft . ) , End of natural channel elevation = 1355.000 (Ft. ) Length of natural channel - = 1370.000 (Ft. ) Estimated mean flow rate at midpoint of channel = 13. 915(CFS) Natural mountain channel type used ' L.A. County flood control district formula for channel velocity: Velocity = 5. 98 (q^.33) (slope^.992) , Velocity using mean channel flow = 4 . 25 (Ft/s) Correction to map slope used on extremely rugged channels with drops and waterfalls (Plate D-6.2) ' Normal channel slope = 0. 1022 Corrected/adjusted channel slope = 0. 1022 Travel time = 5. 37 min. TC = 22. 56 min. ' Adding area flow to channel UNDEVELOPED (fair --over) subarea ' Runoff Coefficient = 0.713 Decimal fraction soil group A = 0.000 Decimal fraction soil group B = 0. 000 ' Decimal fraction soil group C = 1.000 Decimal fraction soil group D = 0.000 RI index for soil (AMC 2) = 79. 00 Pervious area fraction = 1. 000; Impervious fraction = 0. 000 ' Rainfall intensity = 1.349(In/Hr) for a 10.0 year storm Subarea runoff = 13. 657 (CFS) for 19 .200 (Ac. ) ' Total runoff = 19.407 (CFS) Total area = 19.200 (Ac. ) , ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Process from Point/Station 102.000 to Point/Station 103.000 ' **** NATURAL CHANNEL TIME + SUBAREA FLOW ADDITION **** Top of natural channel elevation = 1355.000(Ft. ) End of natural channel elevation = 1333.000 (Ft. ) ' Length of natural channel = 625.000(Ft. ) Estimated mean flow rate at midpoint of channel = 39 .013(CFS) Natural mountain channel type used ' L.A. County flood control district formula for channel velocity: Velocity = 5. 98 (q^.33) (slope^.992) Velocity using mean channel flow = 3. 38 (Ft/s) , Correction to map slope used on extremely rugged channels with drops and waterfalls (Plate D-6.2) ' Normal channel slope = 0.0352 Corrected/adjusted channel slope = 0. 0352 Travel time = 3.08 min. TC = 25. 69 min. Adding area flow to channel ' UNDEVELOPED (fair cover) subarea ' 1 ' Runoff Coefficient = 0. 693 Decimal fraction soil group A = 0.000 Decimal fraction soil group B = 0.100 Decimal fraction soil group C = 0. 900 Decimal fraction soil group D = 0.000 RI index for soil (AMC 2) = 78.00 Pervious area fraction = 1. 000; Impervious fraction = 0.000 ' Rainfall intensity = 1.258 (In/Hr) for a 10.0 year storm Subarea runoff = 25.181 (CFS) for 28. 900 (Ac. ) Total runoff = 44 . 589(CFS) Total area = 48.100(Ac. ) Process from Point/Station 103. 000 to Point/Station 104.000 NATURAL CHANNEL TIME + SUBAREA FLOW ADDITION **** Top of natural channel elevation = 1333.000(Ft. ) End of natural channel elevation = 1312. 000(Ft. ) Length of natural channel = 575. 000 (Ft. ) Estimated mean flow rate at midpoint of channel = 53. 627 (CFS) 1 Natural mountain channel type used L.A. County flood control district formula for channel velocity: Velocity = 5.48 (q^.33) (slope^.492) Velocity using mean channel flow = 4 .00(Ft/s) LCorrection to map slope used on extremely rugged channels with drops and waterfalls (Plate D-6.2) 1 (. Normal channel slope = . 0. 0365 - Corrected/adjusted channel slope = 0.0365 Travel time = 2.39 min. TC = 26.04 min. Adding area flow to channel UNDEVELOPED (fair cover) subarea Runoff Coefficient = 0.704 �. Decimal fraction soil group A = 0.000 Decimal fraction soil group B = 0.000 Decimal fraction soil group C = 0. 600 Decimal fraction .soil group D = 0.200 RI index for soil (AMC 2) = 80.00 Pervious area fraction = 1.000; Impervious fraction = 0.000 ' Rainfall intensity = 1. 197 (In/Hr) for a 10.0 year storm Subarea runoff = 16.438 (CFS) for 19.500 (Ac. ) Total runoff = 61. 027(CFS) Total area = 67. 600(Ac. ) Process from Point/Station 104.000 to Point/Station 105.000 **** NATURAL CHANNEL TIME + SUBAREA FLOW ADDITION **** Top of natural channel elevation = 1312.000 (Ft. ) End of natural channel elevation = 1275.000 (Ft. ) Length of natural channel = 835.000(Ft. ) Estimated mean flow rate at midpoint of channel = 72.447 (CFS) Natural mountain channel type used 1 L.A. County flood control district formula for channel velocity: ' Velocity = 5.46 (q^. 33) (slope^. 492) Velocity using mean channel flow = 4 .86(Ft/s) Correction to map slope used on extremely rugged channels with drops and waterfalls (Plate D-6.2) Normal channel slope = 0.0443 Corrected/adjusted channel slope = 0.0443 ' Travel time = 2. 86 min. TC = 30. 90 min. Adding area flow to channel ' UNDEVELOPED (fair cover) subarea Runoff Coefficient = 0.711 Decimal fraction soil group A = 0.000 ' Decimal fraction soil group B = 0.000 Decimal fraction soil group C = 0.500 Decimal fraction soil group D = 0.500 RI index for soil (AMC 2) = 81.50 Pervious area fraction = 1.000; Impervious fraction = 0. 000 Rainfall intensity = 1. 135 (In/Hr) for a 10. 0 year storm Subarea runoff = 20.404 (CFS) for 25. 300 (Ac. ) ' Total runoff = 81.431 (CFS) Total area = 92. 900 (Ac. ) Process from Point/Station 105.000 to Point/Station 106.000 **" NATURAL CHANNEL TIME + SUBAREA FLOW ADDITION ***' Top of natural channel elevation = 1275.000(Ft. ) End of natural channel elevation = 1260. 000 (Ft. ) Length of natural channel = 700.000 (Ft. ) ' Estimated mean flow rate at midpoint of channel = 88. 881 (CFS) Natural mountain channel type used L.A. County flood control district formula for channel velocity: Velocity = 5. 48 (q^. 33) (slope^.492) Velocity using mean channel flow = 3.64 (Ft/s) Correction to map slope used on extremely rugged channels with drops and waterfalls (Plate D-6.2) Normal channel slope = 0.0214 Corrected/adjusted channel slope = 0.0214 1 Travel time = 3.21 min. TC = 34 .11 min. Adding area flow to channel ' UNDEVELOPED (fair cover) subarea Runoff Coefficient = 0.713 Decimal fraction soil group A = 0.000 ' Decimal fraction soil group B = 0.000 Decimal fraction,soil group C = 0.300 Decimal fraction soil group D = 0.700 RI index for soil (AMC 2) = 82.50 �. Pervious area fraction = 1.000; Impervious fraction = 0.000 ( Rainfall intensity = 1.075 (In/Hr) for a 10.0 year storm Subarea runoff = 13.022(CFS) for 17.000(Ac. ) Total runoff = 94 .453 (CFS) Total area = 109. 900 (Ac. ) +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++t++++++++++++++++++++++++- ' Process from Point/Station 200. 000 to Point/Station 201.000 **** INITIAL AREA EVALUA.TI'ON **** Initial area flow distance = 875. 000 (Ft. ) Top (of initial area) elevation = 1367.000(Ft. ) Bottom (of initial area) elevation = 1340.000 (Ft. ) Difference in elevation = 27.000 (Ft. ) ' Slope = 0. 03086 s (percent)= 3.09 TC = k(0. 710) * [ (1ength^3) / (elevation change) ] ^0.2 Initial area time of concentration = 21.389 min. Rainfall intensity = 1.390 (In/Hr) for a 10.0 year storm UNDEVELOPED (fair cover) subarea Runoff Coefficient = 0. 629 Decimal fraction soil group A = 0.000 ' Decimal fraction soil group B = 1. 000 Decimal fraction soil group C = 0.000 Decimal fraction soil group D = 0. 000 ' RI index for soil (AMC 21 = * 69.00 . Pervious area fraction = 1.000; Impervious fraction = 0.000 Initial subarea runoff = 6.292 (CFS) Total initial stream area = �7.200 (Ac. ) ' Pervious area fraction = 1.000 Process from Point/Station 201.000 to Point/Station 202.000 **** NATURAL CHANNEL TIME + SUBAREA FLOW ADDITION **** Top of natural channel elevation = 1340.000 (Ft. ) End of natural channel elevation = 1330.000(Ft. ) Length of natural channel = 690. 000(Ft. ) Estimated mean flow rate at midpoint of channel = 12.759(CFS) rNatural mountain channel type used L.A. County flood control district formula for channel velocity: Velocity = 5. 48 (q^. 33) (slope^.492) Velocity using mean channel flow = 1.58 (Ft/s) Correction to map slope used on extremely rugged channels with drops and waterfalls (Plate D-6.2) Normal channel slope = 0.0145 Corrected/adjusted channel slope = 0.0145 ' Travel time = 7.27 min. TC = 28. 66 min. Adding area flow to channel ' UNDEVELOPED (fair cover) subarea Runoff Coefficient = 0.597 Decimal fraction soil group A = 0.000 Decimal fraction soil group B = 1.000 Decimal fraction soil group c = 0.000 [ Decimal fraction soil group D = 0.000 - RI index for soil (AMC 2) = 69.00 Pervious area fraction = 1.000; Impervious fraction— 0. 000 ' Rainfall intensity = 1. 183 (In/Hr) for a 10.0 year storm Subarea runoff = 10.461 (CFS) for 14 .800 (Ac. ) Total runoff = 16.753(CFS) Total area = 22.000 (Ac. ) ' ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Process from Point/Station 202. 000 to Point/Station 203.000 **** NATURAL CHANNEL TIME + SUBAREA FLOW ADDITION **** Top of natural channel elevation = 1330.000 (Ft. ) , End of natural channel elevation = 1320.000(Ft. ) Length of natural channel — 600.000 (Ft. ) Estimated mean flow rate at- midpoint of channel = 20. 979 (CFS) Natural mountain channel type used L.A. County flood control district formula for channel velocity: Velocity = 5.48 (q^. 33) (slope^. 492) , Velocity using mean channel flow = 2.00(Ft/s) Correction to map slope used on extremely rugged channels- with drops and waterfalls (Plate D-6.2) , Normal channel slope = 0. 0167 Corrected/adjusted channel slope = 0.0167 Travel time = 5.01 min. TC = 33. 67 min. ' Adding area flow to channel I UNDEVELOPED (fair cover) subarea ' Runoff Coefficient = 0.579 Decimal fraction soil group A = 0.000 Decimal fraction soil group B = 1. 000 ' Decimal fraction soil group C = 0.000 Decimal fraction soil group D = 0. 000 RI index for soil (P.MC 2) = 69.00 Pervious area fraction = 1. 000; Impervious fraction = 0.000 ' Rainfall intensity = 1.083 (In/Hr) for a 10.0 year storm Subarea runoff = 6. 963 (CFS) for 11. 100(Ac. ) Total runoff = 23.716(CFS) Total area = 33. 100(Ac. ) ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Process from Point/Station 203.000 to Point/Station 204 .000 , **** NATURAL CHANNEL TIME + SUBAREA FLOW ADDITION **** Top of natural channel elevation = 1320.000(Ft. ) End of natural channel elevation = 1294 .000(Ft. ) t Length of natural channel = 1560. 000 (Ft. ) Estimated mean flow. rate at midpoint of channel = 30. 595 (CFS) Natural mountain channel type used , L.A. County flood control district formula for channel velocity: Velocity = 5.48(q^. 33) (slope^. 492) Velocity using mean channel flow = 2.26(Ft/s) ' Correction to map slope used on extremely rugged channels with drops and waterfalls (Plate D-6.2) Normal channel slope = 0.0167 ,( Corrected/adjusted channel slope = 0.0167 Travel time = 11 .50 min. TC = 45.17 min. Adding area flow to channel UNDEVELOPED (fair cover) subarea Runoff Coefficient = 0. 618 Decimal fraction soil group A = 0.000 Decimal fraction soil group B = 0.300 ' Decimal fraction soil group C = 0.700 Decimal fraction soil group D = 0. 000 RI index for soil (P.MC 2) = 76.00 Pervious area fraction = 1 .000; Impervious fraction = 0. 000 ' Rainfall intensity = 0. 921 (In/Hr) for a 10. 0 year storm Subarea runoff = 10. 923 (CFS) for 19.200 (Ac. ) Total runoff = 34 . 640 (CFS) Total area = 52.300 (Ac. ) Process from Point/Static,+ 205. 000 to Point/Station 204 . 000 SUBAREA FLOW ADDITION UNDEVELOPED (fair cover) subarea ' Runoff Coefficient = 0.555 Decimal fraction soil group A = 0.000 Decimal fraction soil group B = 0. 900 Decimal fraction soil group C = 0. 100 Decimal fraction soil group D = 0. 000 RI. index for soil (AMC 2) = 70. 00 Pervious area fraction = 1. 000; Impervious fraction = 0. 000 Time of concentration = 45. 17 min. Rainfall intensity = 0. 921 (In/Hr) for a 10.0 year storm Subarea runoff = 6.293 (CFS) for 12.300(Ac. ) Total runoff = 40. 932 (CFS) Total area = 64 . 600 (Ac. ) ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Process from Point/Station 204.000 to Point/Station 206.000 **** NATURAL CHANNEL TIME + SUBAREA FLOW ADDITION **** Top of natural channel elevation = 1299.000(Ft. ) ' End of natural channel elevation = 1270.000(Ft. ) Length of natural channel = 660.000 (Ft. ) Estimated mean flow rate at midpoint of channel = 43.530 (CFS) ' Natural mountain channel type used L.A. County flood control district formula for channel velocity: Velocity = 5.48 (q^.33) (slope^. 992) ' Velocity using mean channel flow = 3.73(Ft/s) Correction to map slope used on extremely rugged channels with drops and waterfalls (Plate D-6.2) Normal channel slope = 0.0364 Corrected/adjusted channel slope = 0.0364 ( Travel time = 2. 95 min. TC = 48.13 min. j' Adding area flow to channel ' UNDEVELOPED (fair cover) subarea Runoff Coefficient = 0. 677 ' Decimal fraction soil group A = 0.000 Decimal fraction soil group B = 0. 100 Decimal fraction soil group C = 0. 100 ' Decimal fraction soil group D = 0.800 RI index for soil (AMC 2) = 82.00 Pervious area fraction = 1.000; Impervious fraction = 0.000 Rainfall intensity = 0. 890 (In/Hr) for a 10. 0 year storm ' Subarea runoff = 4 . 940 (CFS) for 8 .200 (Ac. ) Total runoff = 45. 872 (CFS) Total area = 72.800(Ac. ) Process from Point/Station 300.000 to Point/Station 301.000 **** INITIAL AREA EVALUATION Initial area flow distance = 775.000 (Ft. ) Top (of initial area) elevation = 1369.000(Ft. ) Bottom (of initial area) elevation = 1329.000(Ft. ) Difference in elevation = 40.000(Ft. ) Slope = 0.05161 s (percent)= 5.16 TC = k(0.710) * [ (length^3) / (elevation change) ] ^0.2 Initial area time of concentration = 18. 383 min. ' Rainfall intensity = 1 .510(In/Hr) for a 10. 0 year storm UNDEVELOPED (fair cover) subarea Runoff Coefficient = 0. 644 Decimal fraction soil group A = 0.000 Decimal fraction soil group B = 1.000 Decimal fraction soil group C = 0.000 , Decimal fraction soil group D = 0.000 RI index for soil (AMC 2) = 69.00 Pervious area fraction = 1.000; Impervious fraction = 0.000 Initial subarea runoff = 6. 423 (CFS) ' Total initial stream area = 6. 600 (Ac. ) Pervious area fraction = 1.000 Process from Point/Station 301.000 to Point/Station 302.000 **** NATURAL CHANNEL TIME + SUBAREA FLOW ADDITION Top of natural channel elevation = 1329.000 (Ft. ) End of natural channel elevation = 1309.000 (Ft. ) ' Length of natural channel = 490.000(Ft. ) Estimated mean flow rate at midpoint of channel = 10.073(CFS) Natural mountain channel type used ' L.A. County flood control district formula for channel velocity: Velocity = 5.48 (q^.33) (slope^.492) Velocity using mean channel flow = 2. 43 (Ft/s) , ( Correction to map slope used on extremely rugged channels with drops and waterfalls (Plate D-6.2) Normal channel slope = 0.0408 , i ' ( Corrected/adjusted channel slope = 0.0408 Travel time = 3.35 min. TC = 21 .74 min. Adding area flow to channel UNDEVELOPED (fair cover) subarea _ Runoff Coefficient = 0. 627 - Decimal fraction soil group A = 0.000 Decimal fraction soil group B = 1. 000 Decimal fraction soil group C = 0. 000 Decimal fraction soil group D = 0. 000 RI index for soil (AMC 2) = 69.00 Pervious area fraction = 1.000; Impervious fraction = 0.000 Rainfall intensity = 1.377 (In/Hr) for a 10.0 year storm Subarea runoff = 6. 479(CFS) for 7. 500 (Ac. ) Total runoff = 12. 902 (CFS) Total area = 14 . 100(Ac. ) Process from Point/Station 302. 000 to Point/Station 303.000 **** NATURAL CHANNEL TIME + SUBAREA FLOW ADDITION **** Top of natural channel elevation = 1309.000 (Ft. ) ' End of natural channel elevation = 1298. 000(Ft. ) ' Length of natural channel = 380.000 (Ft. ) Estimated mean flow rate at midpoint of channel = 18.255 (CFS) Natural mountain channel type used - ' I L.A. County flood control district formula for channel velocity: Velocity = 5. 48 (q^. 33) (slope^. 492) Velocity using mean channel flow = 2.50 (Ft/s) Correction to map slope used on extremely rugged channels with drops and waterfalls (Plate D-6.2) Normal channel slope = 0. 0289 Corrected/adjusted channel slope = 0. 0289 Travel time = 2. 53 min. TC = 24 .27 min. Adding area flow to. channel UNDEVELOPED (fair cover) subarea Runoff Coefficient = 0.616 ' Decimal fraction soil group A = 0.000 Decimal fraction soil group B = 1.000 Decimal fraction soil group C = 0.000 ' Decimal fraction soil group D = 0.000 RI index for soil (AMC 2) = 69.00 Pervious area fraction = 1.000; Impervious fraction = 0.000 Rainfall intensity = 1.296(In/Hr) for a 10. 0 year storm Subarea runoff = 9.336(CFS) for 11.700(Ac. ) Total runoff = 22.238 (CFS) Total area = 25.800(Ac. ) Process from Point/Station 303.000 to Point/Station 304.000 **** NATURAL CHANNEL TIME + SUBAREA FLOW ADDITION **** Top of natural channel elevation = 1298.000(Ft. ) ' End of natural channel elevation = 1267.000 (Ft. ) Length of natural channel = 950. 000(Ft. ) - Estimated mean flow rate at midpoint of channel = 27.065 (CFS) ' Natural mountain channel type used L.A. County flood control district formula for channel velocity: Velocity = 5. 48 (q^.33) (slope^.492) Velocity using mean channel flow = 3.02(Ft/s) Correction to map slope used on extremely rugged channels with drops and waterfalls (Plate D-6.2) Normal channel slope = 0.0326 Corrected/adjusted channel slope = 0. 0326 Travel time = 5.24 min. TC = 29.51 min. Adding area flow to channel UNDEVELOPED (fair cover) subarea Runoff Coefficient = 0. 651 Decimal fraction soil croup A = 0. 000 , Decimal fraction soil group B = 0. 600 Decimal fraction soil group C = 0.000 Decimal fraction soil group D = 0. 400 RI index for soil (AMC 2) = 75.00 , Pervious area fraction = 1.000; Impervious fraction = 0. 000 Rainfall intensity = 1. 164 (In/Hr) for a 10.0 year storm Subarea runoff = 8.492 (CFS) for 11 .200 (Ac. ) ( Total runoff = 30. 731 (CFS) Total area = 37 . 000 (Ac. ) ' Process from Point/Station 305. 000 to Point/Station 304 .000 **** SUBAREA FLOW ADDITION **** UNDEVELOPED (fair cover) subarea Runoff Coefficient. = 0. 623 Decimal fraction soil group A = 0. 000 Decimal fraction soil group B = 0.800 Decimal fraction soil group C = 0.000 Decimal fraction soil group D = 0.200 RI index for soil (AMC 2) = 72.00 Pervious area fraction = 1.000; Impervious fraction = 0.000 , Time of concentration = 29.51 min. Rainfall intensity = 1. 164 (In/Hr) for a 10.0 year storm Subarea runoff = 6.814 (CFS) for 9.400 (Ac. ) Total runoff = 37 .544 (CFS) Total area = 46.400(Ac. ) Process from Point/Station 304 .000 to Point/Station 306.000 **** NATURAL CHANNEL TIME + SUBAREA FLOW ADDITION **** Top of natural channel elevation = 1267.000(Ft. ) ' End of natural channel elevation = 1258.000(Ft. ) Length of natural channel = 275.000(Ft. ) Estimated mean flow rate at midpoint of channel = 38.475(CFS) r ( Natural mountain channel type used L.A. County flood control district formula for channel velocity: Velocity = 5. 48 (q^. 33) (slope^.492) Velocity using mean channel flow = 3.40 (Ft/s) Correction to map slope used on extremely rugged channels with ' drops and waterfalls (Plate D-6.2) Normal channel slope = 0.0327 Corrected/adjusted channel slope = 0.0327 ' Travel time = 1 . 35 min. TC = 30. 86 min. Adding area flow to channel UNDEVELOPED (fair cover) subarea Runoff Coefficient = 0. 736 Decimal fraction soil group A = 0.000 Decimal fraction soil group B = 0.000 Decimal fraction soil group C = 0.000 Decimal fraction soil group D = 1.000 RI index for soil (AMC 2) = 84 .00 Pervious area fraction = 1.000; Impervious fraction = 0.000 Rainfall intensity = 1. 136(In/Hr) for a 10.0 year storm Subarea runoff = 1 . 922(CFS) for 2.300 (Ac. ) Total runoff = 39. 466(CFS) Total area = 48.700 (Ac. ) ( Process from-Poinz/Station 400.000 to Point/Station 401.000 **** INITIAL AREA EVALUATION **** Initial area flow distance = 215. 000 (Ft. ) 1 Top (of initial area) elevation = 1312. 000 (Ft. ) Bottom (of initial area) elevation = 1280.000(Ft. ) Difference in elevation = 32. 000(Ft. ) ' Slope = 0. 14884 s (percent)= 14 .88 TC = k(0.710) * [ (length^3) / (elevation change) ] ^0.2 Initial area time of concentration = 8.906 min. - Rainfall intensity = 2.250 (In/Hr) for a 10.0 year storm UNDEVELOPED (fair cover) subarea Runoff Coefficient = 0.745 Decimal fraction soil group A = 0.000 Decimal fraction soil group B = 0.500 Decimal fraction soil group C = 0.500 Decimal fraction soil group D = 0.000 RI index for soil (AMC 2) = 74 .00 ' Pervious area fraction = 1.000; Impervious fraction = 0. 000 Initial subarea runoff = 1.508 (CFS) Total initial stream area = 0. 900(Ac. ) Pervious area fraction = 1.000 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ t ' Process from Point/Station 402. 000 to Point/Station 403.000 **** INITIAL AREA EVALUATION **** I ' Initial area flow distance = 355.000 (Ft. ) Top (o£ initial area) elevation -= 1319.000(Ft. ) Bottom (of initial area) elevation= 1270.000(Ft. ) Difference in elevation = 49.000 (Ft. ) Slope = 0. 13067 s (percent)= 13.07 ' TC .= k(0. 710) * [ (length^3) / (elevation change) ) ^0.2 Initial area time of concentration = 11.419 min. Rainfall intensity = 1. 962 (In/Hr) for a 10.0 year storm , UNDEVELOPED (fair cover) subarea Runoff Coefficient = 0. 734 Decimal fraction soil group A = 0. 000 Decimal fraction soil group B = 0. 400 , Decimal fraction soil group C = 0. 600 Decimal fraction soil group D = 0. 000 RI index for soil (AMC 2) = 75. 00 Pervious area fraction = 1. 000; Impervious fraction = 0.000. Initial subarea runoff = 2. 304 (CFS) Total initial stream area = 1. 600(Ac. ) Pervious area fraction = 1.000 ' Process from Point/Station 404 .000 to Point/Station 405. 000 **** INITIAL AREA EVALUATION **** Initial area flow distance = 670.000 (Ft. ) , Top (of initial area) elevation = 1328.000 (Ft. ) Bottom (of initial area) elevation = 1265.000 (Ft. ) Difference in elevation = 63.000 (Ft. ) I Slope = 0. 09403 s (percent)= 9.40 ' TC = k(0.710) * [ (length^3) / (elevation change) ]^0.2 Initial area time of concentration = 15. 383 min. Rainfall intensity = 1. 666(In/Hr) for a 10.0 year storm ' UNDEVELOPED (fair cover) subarea Runoff Coefficient = 0. 702 - Decimal fraction soil group A = 0.000 Decimal fraction soil group B = 0. 500 ' Decimal fraction soil group C = 0.500 Decimal fraction soil group D =_ 0. 000 RI index for soil (AMC 2) = 74 .00 ' Pervious area fraction = 1.000; Impervious fraction = 0.000 Initial subarea runoff = 4 .564 (CFS) Total initial stream area = 3. 900 (Ac. ) Pervious area fraction = 1. 000 , Process from Point/Station 404 .000 to Point/Station 406. 000 **** INITIAL AREA EVALUATION **** Initial area flow distance = 310.000 (Ft. ) , Top (of initial area) elevation = 1328.000 (Ft. ) Bottom (of initial area) elevation = 1278. 000(Ft. ) Difference in elevation = 50.000 (Ft. ) Slope = 0.16129 s (percent)= 16. 13 TC = k(0.710) * [ (length^3) / (elevation change) ] ^0.2 Initial area time of concentration = 10.146 min. ' 1 Rainfall intensity = 2.094 (In/Hr) for a 10.0 year storm ' f UNDEVELOPED (fair cover) subarea Runoff Coefficient = 0.770 " Decimal fraction soil group A = 0.000 Decimal fraction soil group B = 0.000 Decimal fraction soil group C = 1.000 ' Decimal fraction soil group. D = 0.000 RI index for soil (AMC 2) = 79.00 Pervious area fraction = 1.000; Impervious fraction = 0. 000 Initial subarea runoff = 2.579(CFS) ' Total initial stream area = 1. 600 (Ac. ) Pervious area fraction = 1.000 Process from Point/Station 407.000 to Point/Station 408.000 **** INITIAL AREA EVALUATION **** Initial area flow distance = 375.000 (Ft. ) Top (of initial area) elevation = 1327. 000(Ft. ) Bottom (of initial area) elevation = 1272. 000 (Ft. ) 1 Difference in elevation = 55.000(Ft. ) Slope = 0. 14667 s (percent)= 14 . 67 TC = k (0.710) * [ (length^3) / (elevation change) ] -0.2 1 Initial area time of concentration = 11. 158 min. Rainfall intensity = 1 . 986 (In/Hr) for a 10.0 year storm UNDEVELOPED (fair cover) subarea Runoff Coefficient = 0.746 �. Decimal fraction soil group A = 0.000 ' Decimal fraction soil group B = 0.500 Decimal fraction soil group C = 0. 000 ' Decimal fraction soil group D = 0.500 RI index for soil (A.MC 2) = 76.50 Pervious area fraction = 1 .000; Impervious fraction = 0.000 Initial subarea runoff = 2. 966(CFS) Total initial stream area = 2.000(Ac. ) Pervious area fraction = 1 . 000 Process from Point/Station 409.000 to Point/Station 410.000 **** INITIAL AREA EVALUATION **** Initial area flow distance = 490.000(Ft. ) Top (of initial area) elevation = 1346.000(Ft. ) Bottom (of initial area) elevation = 1300.000 (Ft. ) Difference in elevation = 46.000(Ft. ) Slope = 0.09388 s (percent)= 9.39 TC = k(0.710) * [ (length^3) / (elevation change) ] ^0.2 Initial 'area time of concentration = 13.578 min. Rainfall intensity = 1.784 (In/Hr) for a 10.0 year storm UNDEVELOPED (fair cover) subarea Runoff Coefficient = 0. 686 Decimal fraction soil group A = 0.000 Decimal fraction soil group B = 0. 900 Decimal fraction soil group C = 0.000 ' Decimal fraction soil group D = 0.100 RI index.for soil(AMC 2) = 70. 50 ' j Pervious area fraction = 1.000; Impervious fraction = 0.000 Initial subarea runoff = 4 . 281 (CFS) Total initial stream area = 3. 500 (Ac. ) Pervious area fraction = 1.000 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ , Process from Point/Station 410.000 to Point/Station 411.000 **** NATURAL CHANNEL TIME + SUBAREA FLOW ADDITION **** Top of natural channel elevation = 1300.000(Ft. ) , End of natural channel elevation = 1260.000(Ft. ) Length of naturai channel = 425. 000 (Ft. ) , Estimated mean flow rate at midpoint of channel = 7.707 (C FS) Natural mountain channel type used L.A. County flood control district formula for channel velocity: ' Velocity = 5. 48 (q^.33) (slope^. 492) Velocity using mean channel flow = 3.36(Ft/s) Correction to map slope used on extremely rugged channels with drops and waterfalls (Plate D-6.2) Normal channel slope = 0.0941 Corrected/adjusted channel slope = 0. 0941 Travel time = 2.11 min. TC = 15. 69 min. Adding area flow to channel ' UNDEVELOPED (fair cover) subarea Runoff Coefficient = 0. 721 Decimal fraction soil group A = 0. 000 ' Decimal fraction soil group B = 0. 500 Decimal fraction soil group C = 0:000 Decimal fraction soil group D = 0. 500 RI index for soil (AMC 2) = 76.50 Pervious area fraction = 1 .000; Impervious fraction = 0. 000 Rainfall intensity = 1.646 (In/Hr) for a 10. 0 year storm Subarea runoff = 6. 653(CFS) for 5. 600 (Ac. ) ' Total runoff = 10. 935 (CFS) Total area = 9. 100(Ac. ) Process from Point/Station 412.000 to Point/Station 413.000 **** INITIAL AREA EVALUATION **** Initial area flow distance = 375.000 (Ft. ) , Top (of initial area) elevation = 1345.000 (Ft. ) Bottom (of initial area) elevation = 1265.000(Ft. ) Difference in elevation = 80.000(Ft. ) , Slope = 0.21333 s (percent)= 21.33 TC = k(0.710) * ( (length^3) / (elevation change) ]^0.2 Initial area time of concentration = 10. 353 min. �X Rainfall intensity = 2. 071 (In/Hr) for a 10.0 year storm UNDEVELOPED (fair cover) subarea { Runoff Coefficient = 0.802 Decimal fraction soil group A = 0.000 ' 1 Decimal fraction soil group B =0.000 Decimal fraction soil group C = 0.000 Decimal fraction soil group D = 1.000 ' RI index for soil (AMC 2) . = 84 .00 Pervious area fraction = 1 .000; Impervious fraction = 0.000 Initial subarea runoff = 3. 985(CFS) ' Total initial stream area = 2. 400 (Ac. ) Pervious area fraction = 1. 000 Process from Point/Station 414 . 000 to Point/Station 415.000 **** INITIAL AREA EVALUATION **** ' Initial area flow distance = 380. 000 (Ft. ) Top (of initial area) elevation = 1356.000(Ft. ) Bottom (of initial area) elevation = 1290.000(Ft. ) Difference in elevation = 66.000 (Ft. ) Slope = 0. 17368 s (percent)= 17 .37 TC = k(0. 710) * [ (1ength^3) / (elevation change) ] ^0.2 Initial area time of concentration = 10. 845 min. ' Rainfall intensity = 2.019(In/Hr) for a 10. 0 year storm UNDEVELOPED (fair cover) subarea Runoff Coefficient = 0.748 ' Decimal fraction soil group A = 0. 000 Decimal fraction soil group B = 0.500 Decimal fraction soil group C = 0. 000 Decimal fraction soil group D = 0.500 �. RI index for soil (AMC 2) = 76. 50 ' Pervious area fraction = 1.000; Impervious fraction = 0.000 Initial subarea runoff = 2. 719 (CFS) Total initial stream area = 1.800(Ac. ) Pervious area fraction = 1.000 Process from Point/Station 416. 000 to Point/Station 417. 000 **** INITIAL AREA EVALUATION **** Initial area flow distance = 350.000 (Ft . ) Top (of initial area) elevation = 1356.000(Ft. ) Bottom (of initial area) elevation = 1305. 000(Ft. ) Difference in elevation = 51.000 (Ft. ) Slope = 0. 14571 s (percent)= 14.57 TC = k(0.710) * [ (length^3) / (elevation change) ] ^0.2 ' Initial area time of concentration = 10.869 min. Rainfall intensity = 2. 017 (In/Hr) for a 10.0 year storm UNDEVELOPED (fair cover) subarea Runoff Coefficient = 0. 694 Decimal fraction soil group A = 0.000 Decimal fraction soil group B = 1.000 Decimal fraction soil group C = 0.000 Decimal fraction soil group D = 0.000 RI index for soil (AMC 2) = 69.00 Pervious area fraction = 1.000; Impervious fraction = 0.000 Initial subarea runoff = 1.819(CFS) Total initial stream area = 1.300 (Ac. ) Pervious area fraction = 1 .000 1 Process from Point/Station 418. 000 to Point/Station 419. 000 **** INITIAL AREA EVALUATION **** Initial area flow distance = 685.000 (Ft. ) 1 Top (of initial area) elevation = 1366.000(Ft. ) Bottom (of initial area) elevation = 1294 .000 (Ft. ) Difference in elevation = 72. 000(Ft. ) 1 Slope = 0. 10511 s (percent)= 10.51 TC = k(0.710) * [ (length^3) / (elevation change) ] ^0.2 Initial area time of concentration = 15. 178 min. 1 Rainfall intensity = 1. 678 (In/Hr) for a 10. 0 year storm UNDEVELOPED (fair cover) subarea Runoff Coefficient = 0. 759 Decimal fraction soil group A = 0.000 1 Decimal fraction soil group B = 0.200 Decimal fraction soil group C = 0.000 Decimal fraction soil group D = 0.800 1 RI index for soil (AMC 2) = 81 .00 Pervious area fraction = 1.000; Impervious fraction = 0. 000 Initial subarea runoff = 7.257 (CFS) Total initial stream area = 5.700 (Ac. ) , Pervious area fraction = 1.000 Process from Point/Station 420.000 to Point/Station 421.000 **** INITIAL AREA EVALUATION **** Initial area flow distance = 600.000 (Ft. ) ' Top (of initial area) elevation = 1370.000(Ft. ) Bottom (of initial area) elevation = 1290.000 (Ft. ) Difference in elevation = 80.000(Ft. ) , Slope = 0. 13333 s (percent)= 13.33 TC = k(0.710) * [ (length^3) /(elevation change) ] ^0.2 Initial area time of concentration = 13.726 min. 1 Rainfall intensity = 1.774 (In/Hr) for a 10.0 year storm UNDEVELOPED (fair cover) subarea Runoff Coefficient = 0.776 Decimal fraction soil group A = 0.000 Decimal fraction soil group B = 0.100 Decimal fraction soil group C = 0.000 Decimal fraction soil group D = 0.900 RI index for soil (AMC 2) = 82.50 Pervious area fraction = 1 . 000; Impervious fraction = 0.000 Initial subarea runoff = 4 .405(CFS) Total initial stream area = 3.200 (Ac. ) 1 Pervious area fraction = 1.000 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ r` [ Process from Point/Station 422.000 to Point/Station 423.000 **** INITIAL AREA EVALUATION **** i 1 Initial area flow distance = 870.000 (Ft. ) ( Top (of initial area) elevation = 1369.000 (Ft. ) Bottom (of initial area) elevation = 1285.000 (Ft. ) Difference in elevation = 89 .000(Ft. ) Slope = 0.09655 s (percent)= 9. 66 TC = k(0.710) * [ (length^3)%(elevation change) ]^0.2 Initial area time of concentration = 16. 987 min. ' Rainfall intensity = . 1.577 (In/Hr) for a 10.0 year storm UNDEVELOPED (fair cover) subarea Runoff Coefficient = 0.751 Decimal fraction soil group A = 0.000 Decimal fraction soil group B = 0.200 Decimal fraction soil group C = 0.000 Decimal fraction soil group D = 0.800 _ ' RI index for soil (AMC 2) = 81.00 Pervious area fraction = 1.000; Impervious fraction = 0. 000 Initial subarea runoff = 6_ 635 (CFS) Total initial stream area = 5. 600 (Ac. ) Pervious area fraction = 1:000 End of computations, total study area = 270.50 (Ac. ) The following figures may ' be used for a unit hydrograph study of the same area. Area averaged pervious area fraction(Ap) = 1.000 Area averaged RI index number = 76.2 1 t [ Riverside County Rational Hydrology Program ' CIVILCADD/CIVILDESIGN Engineering Software, (c) 1989 - 2000 Version 6. 3 , Rational Hydrology Study Date: 06/24/01 . File:5516100u.out ---------------------=-----------------------=-------------------------- ********* Hydrology Study Control Information English (in-lb) Units used in input data file ---------------------------------------------------------- ------- ' Adkan Engineers, Riverside, California - SIN 561 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Rational Method Hydrology Program based on , Riverside County Flood Control & Water Conservation District 1978 hydrology manual Storm event (year) = 100.00 Antecedent Moisture Condition = 2 , 2 year, 1 hour precipitation = 0.500(In. ) 100 year, 1 hour precipitation = 1.200(In. ) ' Storm event year = 100.0 - Calculated rainfall intensity data: 1 hour intensity = 1.200(In/Hr) ' Slope of intensity duration curve = 0.5500 Process from Point/Station 100.000 to Point/Station 101. 000 **** INITIAL AREA EVALUATION **** Initial area flow distance = 1000. 000(Ft. ) Top (of initial area) elevation = 1615.000 (Ft. ) Bottom (of initial area) elevation = 1495.000(Ft. ) , Difference in elevation = 120.000(Ft. ) Slope = 0. 12000 s(percent)= 12.00 TC = k(0.710) -� [ (length^3) / (elevation change) ] ^0.2 Initial area time of concentration = 17.196 min. Rainfall intensity = 2.386(In/Hr) for a 100. 0 year storm UNDEVELOPED (fair cover) subarea Runoff Coefficient = 0.789 , Decimal fraction soil group A = 0.000 Decimal fraction soil group B = 0.000 Decimal fraction soil group C = 1.000 Decimal fraction soil group D = 0.000 , RI index for soil(AMC 2) = 79.00 Pervious area fraction = 1.000; Impervious fraction = 0. 000 Initial subarea runoff = 9.349(CFS) ' Total initial stream area = 5.000 (Ac. ) Pervious area fraction = 1.000 i Process from Point/Station 101.000 to Point/Station 102.000 **** NATURAL CHANNEL TIME + SUBAREA FLOW ADDITION **** Top of natural channel elevation = 1495.000 (Ft. ) ' End of natural channel elevation = 1355.000 (Ft. ) Length of natural channel = 1370.000(Ft. ) Estimated mean flow rate at midpoint of channel = 22. 624 (CFS) Natural mountain channel type used L.A. County flood control district formula for channel velocity: Velocity = 5. 46 (q^.33) (slope^. 492) Velocity using mean channel flow = 4 . 99(Ft/s) Correction to map slope used on extremely rugged channels with drops and waterfalls (Plate D-6.2) Normal channel slope = 0. 1022 Corrected/adjusted channel slope = 0. 1022 Travel time = 4 . 57 min. TC = 21.77 min. ' Adding area flow to channel UNDEVELOPED (fair cover) subarea ' . Runoff Coefficient = 0.770 Decimal fraction soil group A = 0. 000 Decimal fraction soil group B = 0. 000 Decimal fraction soil group C =1 .000 j Decimal fraction soil group D = 0. 000 RI index for soil (AMC 2) = 79. 00 Pervious area fraction = 1 .000; Impervious fraction = 0.000 ' Rainfall intensity = 2.096(In/Hr) for a 100. 0 year storm Subarea runoff = 22. 911 (CFS) for 14 .200 (Ac. ) Total runoff = 32.259 (CFS) Total area = I19.200 (Ac. ) 1 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ ' Process from Point/Station 102.000 to Point/Station 103. 000 **** NATURAL CHANNEL TIME + SUBAREA FLOW ADDITION **** Top of natural channel elevation = 1355.000(Ft. ) ' End of natural channel elevation = 1333.000 (Ft. ) Length of natural channel = 625.000(Ft. ) Estimated mean flow rate at midpoint of channel = 56.538 (CFS) ' Natural mountain channel type used L.A. County flood control district formula for channel velocity: - Velocity = 5.48 (q^.33) (slope^. 492) ' Velocity using mean channel flow = 4 .00(Ft/s) Correction to map slope used on extremely rugged channels with drops and waterfalls (Plate D-6.2) ' Normal channel slope = 0. 0352 Corrected/adjusted channel slope = 0.0352 (. Travel time = 2. 60 min. TC = 24 .37 min. Adding area flow to channel ' UNDEVELOPED (fair cover) subarea Runoff Coefficient = 0.756 ' Decimal fraction soil group A = 0.000 Decimal fraction soil group B = 0. 100 Decimal fraction soil group C = 0. 900 , Decimal fraction soil group D = 0.000 RI index for soil (AMC 2) = 78 . 00 Pervious area fraction = 1 .000; Impervious fraction = 0. 000 Rainfall intensity = 1. 970 (In/Hr) for a 100.0 year storm ' Subarea runoff = 43. 014 (CFS) for 28.900(Ac. ) Total runoff = 75.274 (CFS) Total area = 48. 100 (Ac. ) t ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Process from Point/Station 103. 000 to Point/Station 104 . 000 **** NATURAL CHANNEL TIME + SUBAREA FLOW ADDITION ++++ Top of natural channel elevation = 1333.000 (Ft . ) , End of natural channel elevation = 1312.000(Ft . ) Length of natural channel = 575. 000 (Ft. ) Estimated mean flow rate at midpoint of channel = 90.532 (CFS) Natural mountain channel type used , L.A. County flood control district formula for channel velocity: Velocity = 5. 48 (q^.33) (slope^.492) , ( Velocity using mean channel flow = 4 .76 (Ft/s) Correction to map slope used on extremely rugged channels with drops and waterfalls (Plate D-6.2) ' Normal channel slope = 0. 0365 Corrected/adjusted channel slope = 0.0365 Travel time = 2.01 min. TC = 26.39 min. Adding area flow to channel UNDEVELOPED (fair cover) subarea ' Runoff Coefficient = 0.765 Decimal fraction soil group A = 0.000 Decimal fraction soil group B = 0. 000 Decimal fraction soil group C = 0.800 ' Decimal fraction soil group D = 0.200 RI index for soil (AMC 2) = 80.00 Pervious area fraction = 1.000; Impervious fraction = 0.000 , Rainfall intensity = 1. 885 (In/Hr) for a 100.0 year storm Subarea runoff = 28.117 (CFS) for 19.500(Ac. ) Total runoff = 103.390 (CFS) Total area = 67. 600 (Ac. ) Process from Point/Station 104 .000 to Point/Station 105. 000 **** NATURAL CHANNEL TIME + SUBAREA FLOW ADDITION **** l Top of natural channel elevation = 1312.000(Ft. ) ' End of natural channel elevation = 1275.000 (Ft. ) 'j Length of natural channel = 835.000(Ft. ) Estimated mean flow rate at midpoint of channel = 122.736 (CFS) ' Natural mountain channel type used L.A. County flood control district formula for channel velocity: ' Velocity = 5.48 (q^.33) (slope^.492) Velocity using mean channel flow = 5. 78 (Ft/s) Correction to map slope used on extremely rugged channels with ' drops and waterfalls (Plate D-6.2) Normal channel slope = 0. 0443 Corrected/adjusted channel slope = 0.0443 Travel time = 2.41 min. TC = 28.79 min. Adding area flow to channel UNDEVELOPED (fair cover) subarea Runoff Coefficient = 0. 770 Decimal fraction soil group A = 0. 000 ' Decimal fraction soil group B = 0. 000 Decimal fraction soil group C = 0.500 Decimal fraction soil group D = 0. 500 RI index for soil (AMC 2) = 81 . 50 ' Pervious area fraction = 1.000; Impervious fraction = 0.000 Rainfall intensity = 1. 797 (In/Hr) for a 100. 0 year storm Subarea runoff = 35. 020 (CFS) for 25.300 (Ac. ) Total runoff = 138. 410(CFS) Total area = 92. 900(Ac. ) I Process from Point/Station 105.000 to Point/Station 106. 000 +**+ NATURAL CHANNEL TIME + SUBAREA FLOW ADDITION +*** ' Top of natural channel elevation = 1275. 000(Ft. ) End of natural channel elevation = 1260.000 (Ft. ) Length of natural channel = 700.000 (Ft. ) Estimated mean flow rate at midpoint of channel = 151.074 (CFS) Natural mountain channel type used L.A. County flood control district formula for channel velocity: Velocity = 5.48 (q^.33) (slope^.492) Velocity using mean channel flow = 4 .33 (Ft/s) ' Correction to map slope used on extremely rugged channels with drops and waterfalls (Plate D-6.2) Normal channel slope = 0.0214 Corrected/adjusted channel slope = 0.0214 Travel time = 2. 69 min. TC = 31.49 min. Adding area flow to channel ' UNDEVELOPED (fair cover) subarea Runoff Coefficient = 0.772 Decimal fraction soil group A = 0. 000 Decimal fraction soil group B = 0.000 1 Decimal fraction soil group C = 0.300 , j Decimal fraction soil group D = 0.700 RI index for soil (AMC 2) = 82. 50 Pervious area fraction = 1 .000; Impervious fraction = 0.000 ' Rainfall intensity = 1 .711 (In/Hr) for a 100. 0 year storm Subarea runoff = 22. 462 (CFS) for 17 .000 (Ac. ) Total runoff = 160.872 (CFS) Total area = 109. 900 (Ac. ) Process from Point/Station 200. 000 to Point/Station 201.000 **** INITIAL AREA EVALUATION **** Initial area flow distance = B75.000 (Ft. ) , Top (of initial area) elevation = 1367 .000 (Ft. ) Bottom (of initial area) elevation = 1390.000(Ft. ) Difference in elevation = 27. 000 (Ft. ) ' Slope = 0. 03086 s(percent)= 3.09 TC = k(0.710) * [ (length^3) / (elevation change) ) ^0.2 Initial area time of concentration = 21. 389 min. ' Rainfall intensity = 2.116(In/Hr) for a 100.0 year storm UNDEVELOPED (fair cover) subarea Runoff Coefficient = 0. 701 Decimal fraction soil group A = 0. 000 Decimal fraction soil group B = 1. 000 Decimal fraction soil group C = 0. 000 Decimal fraction soil group D = 0. 000 RI index for soil (AMC 2) = 69. 00 Pervious area fraction = 1.000; Impervious fraction = 0. 000 Initial subarea runoff = 10. 688 (CFS) Total initial stream area = 7 .200(Ac. ) Pervious area fraction = 1.000 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ 1 Process from Point/Station 201.000 to Point/Station 202. 000 **** NATURAL CHANNEL TIME + SUBAREA FLOW ADDITION Top of natural channel elevation = 1340. 000 (Ft. ) End of natural channel elevation = 1330.000 (Ft. ) Length of natural channel = 690.000(Ft. ) , Estimated mean flow rate at midpoint of channel = 21. 672 (CFS) Natural mountain channel type used , L.A. County flood control district formula for channel velocity: Velocity = 5.98 (q^.33) (slope^. 992) Velocity using mean channel flow = 1.88 (Ft/s) Correction to map slope used on extremely rugged channels with ' drops and waterfalls (Plate D-6.2) Normal channel slope = 0.0195 t� Corrected/adjusted channel slope = 0.0195 Travel time = 6. 11 min. TC = 27.50 min. 1 Adding area flow to channel UNDEVELOPED (fair cover) subarea Runoff Coefficient = 0. 679 Decimal fraction soil group A = 0.000 Decimal fraction soil: group B = 1.000 Decimal fraction soil group C = 0.000 ' Decimal fraction soil group D = 0. 000 RI index for soil (AMC 2) = 69.00 Pervious area fraction = 1.000; Impervious fraction = 0.000 Rainfall intensity = 1.843(In/Hr) for a 100.0 year storm Subarea runoff = 18.529(CFS) for 14 .800(Ac. ) Total runoff = .29.217 (CFS) Total area = 22.000 (Ac. ) Process from Point/Station 202.000 to Point/Station 203. 000 **** NATURAL CHANNEL TIME + SUBAREA FLOW ADDITION **** Top of natural channel elevation = 1330. 000(Ft. ) End of natural channel elevation = 1320. 000 (Ft. ) Length of natural channel = 600. 000 (Ft. ) Estimated mean flow rate at midpoint of channel = 36. 586 (CFS) ' Natural mountain channel type used . L.A. County flood control district formula for channel velocity: Velocity = 5. 48 (q^.33) (slope^.492) Velocity using mean channel flow = 2. 40 (Ft/s) ' ( Correction to map slope used on extremely rugged channels with drops and waterfalls (.Plate D-6.2) ' Normal channel slope = 0.0167 Corrected/adjusted channel slope = 0. 0167 Travel time = 4 . 17 min. TC = 31.67 min. Adding area flow to channel UNDEVELOPED (fair cover) subarea Runoff Coefficient = 0. 666 Decimal fraction soil group A = 0.000 Decimal fraction soil group B = 1.000 Decimal fraction soil group C = 0.000 ' Decimal fraction soil group D = 0.000 RI index for soil (AMC 2) = 69.00 Pervious area fraction = 1.000; Impervious fraction = 0.000 ' Rainfall intensity = 1.705(In/Hr) for a 100.0 year storm Subarea runoff = 12. 609(CFS) for 11.100(Ac. ) Total runoff = 41. 826(CFS) Total area = 33.100 (Ac. ) ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Process from Point/Station 203.000 to Point/Station 204 . 000 ' **** NATURAL CHANNEL TIME + SUBAREA FLOW ADDITION **** Top of natural channel elevation = 1320.000 (Ft. ) End of natural channel elevation = 1294 .000(Ft. ) 1 Length of natural channel = 1560.000 (Ft. ) , j Estimated mean flow rate at midpoint of channel = 53. 957 (CFS) Natural mountain channel type used ' L.A. County flood control district formula for channel velocity: Velocity = 5. 48 (q^. 33) (slope^.492) Velocity using mean channel flow = 2.73 (Ft/s) ' Correction to map slope used on extremely rugged channels with drops and waterfalls (Plate D-6.2) Normal channel slope = 0. 0167 , Corrected/adjusted channel slope = 0. 0167 Travel time = 9.54 min. TC = 41.20 min. Adding area flow to channel ' UNDEVELOPED (fair cover) subarea Runoff Coefficient = 0.700 , Decimal fraction soil group A = 0.000 Decimal fraction soil group B = 0.300 Decimal fraction soil group C = 0.700 ' Decimal fraction soil group D = 0.000 RI index for soil (AMC 2) = 76.00 Pervious area fraction = 1 .000; Impervious fraction = 0. 000 Rainfall intensity = 1 .476(In/Hr) for a 100. 0 year storm. , Subarea runoff = 19. 837 (CFS) for 19.200(Ac. ) Total runoff = 61 . 662 (CFS) Total area = 52.300(Ac. ) I ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Process from Point/Station 205.000 to Point/Station 204 .000 , '*** SUBAREA FLOW ADDITION **** UNDEVELOPED (fair cover) subarea , Runoff Coefficient = 0. 649 Decimal fraction soil group A = 0.000 Decimal fraction soil group B = 0. 900 Decimal fraction soil group C = 0. 100 , Decimal fraction soil group D = 0. 000 RI index for soil (AMC 2) = 70.00 Pervious area fraction = 1 . 000; Impervious fraction = 0.000 ' Time of concentration = 41.20 min. Rainfall intensity = 1. 476(In/Hr) for a 100.0 year storm Subarea runoff = 11.774 (CFS) for 12.300(Ac. ) Total runoff '= 73.437 (CFS) Total area = 64 . 600 (Ac. ) ' Process from Point/Station 204 .000 to Point/Station 206.000 **** NATURAL CHANNEL TIME + SUBAREA FLOW ADDITION **** Top of natural channel elevation = 1294 .000 (Ft. ) End of natural channel elevation = 1270.000(Ft. ) Length of natural channel = 660. 000 (Ft. ) Estimated mean flow rate at midpoint of channel = 78. 098 (CFS) ' 1 ,I Natural mountain channel type used L.A. County flood control district formula for channel velocity: ' Velocity = 5. 98 (q^.33) (slope^.992) Velocity using mean channel flow = 9 .52 (Ft/s) ' Correction to map slope used on extremely rugged channels with drops and waterfalls (Plate D-6.2) Normal channel slope = 0. 0369 Corrected/adjusted channel slope = 0.0364 ' Travel time = 2. 43 min. TC = 43. 69 min. ' Adding area flow to channel UNDEVELOPED (fair cover) subarea Runoff Coefficient = 0.747 Decimal fraction soil group A = 0.000 ' Decimal fraction soil group B = 0. 100 Decimal fraction soil group C = 0. 100 Decimal fraction soil group D = 0. 800 RI index for soil (AMC 2) = 82. 00 Pervious area fraction= 1. 000; Impervious fraction = 0.000 Rainfall intensity = 1 . 430 (In/Hr) for a 100. 0 year storm Subarea runoff = 8.758 (CFS) for 8.200(Ac. ) ' Total runoff = 82. 195 (CFS) Total area = 72. 800 (Ac..) ' I +++++++++.+++.++++.+++++++++++.+++++.+++++++++.++....+++++++++++++++'f'+ Process from Point/Station 300.000 to Point/Station 301 . 000 **** INITIAL AREA EVALUATION **** rInitial area flow distance = 775. 000 (Ft. ) Top (of initial area) elevation = 1369.000 (Ft. ) Bottom (of initial area) elevation = 1329.000 (Ft. ) ' Difference in elevation = 90. 000 (Ft. )- Slope = 0. 05161 s.(percent)= 5.16 TC = k(0.710) * [ (length^3) / (elevation change) ] ^0.2 1 Initial area time of concentration = 18.383 min. Rainfall intensity = 2.300(In/Hr) for a 100.0 year storm UNDEVELOPED (fair cover) subarea Runoff Coefficient = 0.719 ' Decimal fraction soil group A = 0.000 Decimal fraction soil group B = 1.000 Decimal fraction soil group C = 0.000 1 Decimal fraction soil group D = 0.000 RI index for soil (AMC 2) = 69. 00 Pervious area fraction = 1 .000; Impervious fraction = 0.000 Initial subarea runoff = 10.839(CFS) 1 Total initial stream area = 6.600 (Ac. ) Pervious area fraction = 1.000 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Process from Point/Station 301.000 to Point/Station 302. 000 NATURAL CHANNEL TIME + SUBAREA FLOW ADDITION **** 1 ( Top of natural channel elevation = 1329. 000 (Ft. ) , End of natural channel elevation = 1309.000 (Ft. ) ' Length of natural channel = 490.000 (Ft. ) Estimated mean flow rate at midpoint of channel = 16. 998 (CFS) Natural mountain channel type used ' L.A. County flood control district formula for channel velocity: Velocity = 5.48 (q^. 33) (slope^. 492) Velocity using mean channel flow = 2. 89(Ft/s) Correction to map slope used on extremely rugged channels with- drops and waterfalls (Plate D-6.2) Normal channel slope = 0.0406 , Corrected/adjusted channel slope = 0. 0408 Travel time = 2.82 min. TC = 21.21 min. Adding area flow to channel ' UNDEVELOPED (fair cover) subarea Runoff Coefficient = 0. 702 , Decimal fraction soil group A = 0.000 Decimal fraction soil group B = 1. 000 Decimal fraction soil group C = 0. 000 Decimal fraction soil group D = 0.000 ' RI index for soil (AMC 2) = 69. 00 Pervious area fraction = 1. 000; Impervious fraction = 0. 000 Rainfall intensity = 2. 126(In%Hr) for a 100.0 year storm ' ( Subarea runoff = 11. 197 (CFS) for 7. 500(Ac. ) Total runoff = 22.036(CFS) Total area = 14 . 100 (Ac. ) ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Process from Point/Station 302.000 to Point/Station 303. 000 ' **** NATURAL CHANNEL TIME + SUBAREA FLOW ADDITION **** Top of natural channel elevation = 1309.000 (Ft. ) End of natural channel elevation = 1298.000 (Ft. ) Length of natural channel = 380.000 (Ft. ) Estimated mean flow rate at midpoint of channel = 31.179 (CFS) Natural mountain channel type used ' L.A. County flood control district formula for channel velocity: Velocity = 5. 48 (q^.33) (slope^.492) Velocity using mean channel flow = 2. 98 (Ft/s) , Correction to map slope used on extremely rugged channels with drops and waterfalls (Plate D-6. 2) Normal channel slope = 0.0289 ' Corrected/adjusted channel slope = 0. 0289 Travel time = 2. 12 min. TC = 23.33 min. Adding area flow to channel UNDEVELOPED (fair cover) subarea Runoff Coefficient = 0. 694 ' 'I Decimal fraction soil group A = 0.000 Decimal fraction soil group B = 1.000 Decimal fraction soil group C = 0.000 ' Decimal fraction soil group D = 0. 000 RI index for soil (AMC 2) = 69.00 Pervious area fraction = 1.000; Impervious fraction = 0. 000 ' Rainfall intensity = 2.018 (In/Hr) for a 100. 0 year storm Subarea runoff = 16. 381 (CFS) for 11. 700(Ac. ) Total runoff = 38.917 (CFS) Total area = 25. 800 (Ac. ) ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Process from Point/Station 303. 000 to Point/Station 309 .000 **** NATURAL CHANNEL TIME + SUBAREA FLOW ADDITION **** Top of natural channel elevation = 1298.000(Ft. ) End of natural channel elevation = 1267.000 (Ft. ) Length of natural channel = 950. 000 (Ft. ) Estimated mean flow rate at midpoint of channel = 46.756 (CFS) Natural mountain channel type used L.A. County flood control district formula for channel velocity: Velocity = 5. 98 (q^. 33) (slope^. 992) ' Velocity using mean channel flow = 3. 62 (Ft/s) Correction to map slope used on extremely rugged channels with drops and waterfalls (Plate D-6. 2) ( Normal channel slope = 0. 0326 Corrected/adjusted channel slope = 0. 0326 Travel time = 4 .38 min. TC = 27. 70 min. Adding area flow to channel UNDEVELOPED (fair cover) *subarea Runoff Coefficient = 0.725 Decimal fraction soil group A = 0.000 Decimal fraction soil group B = 0. 600 ' Decimal fraction soil group C = 0.000 Decimal fraction soil group D = 0. 900 RI index for soil-(AMC 2) = 75.00 Pervious area fraction = 1.000; Impervious fraction = 0.000 ' Rainfall intensity = 1.836(In/Hr) for a 100. 0 year storm Subarea runoff = 14 . 896(CFS) for 11.200 (Ac. ) Total runoff = 53.313 (CFS) Total area = 37.000 (Ac. ) 1 ' Process from Point/Station 305. 000 to Point/Station 309.000 **** SUBAREA FLOW ADDITION **** UNDEVELOPED (fair cover) subarea Runoff Coefficient = 0.702 Decimal fraction soil group A = 0.000 ( Decimal fraction soil group B = 0. 800 1 Decimal fraction soil group C = 0.000 Decimal fraction soil group D = 0.200 ' (, RI index for soil (AMC 2) = 72. 00 Pervious area fraction = 1. 000; Impervious fraction = 0. 000 , Time of concentration = 27.70 min. Rainfall intensity 1.836(In/Hr) for a 100. 0 year storm Subarea runoff = 12.108 (CFS) for 9.400(Ac. ) Total runoff = 65.421 (CFS) Total area = 46.400(Ac. ) ' Process from Point/Station 304 .000 to Point/Station 306.000 **** NATURAL CHANNEL TIME + SUBAREA FLOW ADDITION Top of natural channel elevation = 1267 .000 (Ft. ) ' End of natural channel elevation = 1258.000 (Ft. ) Length of natural channel = 275.000(Ft. ) ' Estimated mean flow rate at midpoint of channel = 67.043 (CFS) Natural mountain channel type used L.A. County flood control district formula for channel velocity: ' Velocity = 5. 48 (q^.33) (slope^. 492) Velocity using mean channel flow = 4 .08 (Ft/s) Correction to map slope used on extremely rugged channels with ' drops and waterfalls (Plate D-6.2) Normal channel slope = 0. 0327 Corrected/adiusted channel slope = 0.0327 ' Travel time = 1. 12 min. TC = 28. 83 min. Adding area flow to channel ' UNDEVELOPED (fair cover) subarea Runoff Coefficient = 0.768 Decimal fraction soil group A = 0. 000 ' Decimal fraction soil group B = 0.000 Decimal fraction soil group C = 0.000 Decimal fraction soil group D = 1.000 RI index for soil (AMC 2) = 84 .00 ' Pervious area fraction = 1.000; Impervious fraction = 0.000 Rainfall intensity = 1.796(In/Hr) for a 100. 0 year storm Subarea runoff = 3.257 (CFS) for 2.300(Ac. ) , Total runoff = 68. 678 (CFS) Total area = 48.700 (Ac. ) Process from Point/Station 400.000 to Point/Station 401.000 **** INITIAL AREA EVALUATION Initial area flow distance = 215.000(Ft. ) Top (of initial area) elevation = 1312.000 (Ft. ) Bottom (of initial area) elevation = 1280.000(Ft. ) ' Difference in elevation = 32.000(Ft. ) Slope = 0. 14884 s (percent)= 14 .68 TC = k(0.710) * ( (length^3) / (elevation change) ] ^0.2 Initial area time of concentration = 8. 906 min. ' Rainfall intensity = 3.926(In/Hr) for a 100.0 year storm UNDEVELOPED (fair cover) subarea Runoff Coefficient = 0.792 Decimal fraction soil group A = 0. 000 Decimal fraction soil group B = 0.500 Decimal fraction soil group C = 0. 500 ' Decimal fraction soil group D = 0.000 RI index for soil (AMC 2) = 79 . 00 Pervious area fraction = 1.000; Impervious fraction = 0.000 Initial subarea runoff = 2. 992 (CFS) ' Total initial stream area = 0. 900 (Ac. ) Pervious area fraction = 1.000 Process from Point/Station 402.000 to Point/Station 903. 000 ' **** INITIAL AREA EVALUATION **** Initial area flow distance = 375.000 (Ft . ) Top (of initial area) elevation = 1319.000 (Ft. ) Bottom (of initial area) elevation = 1270.000 (Ft. ) Difference in elevation = 99.000(Ft. ) Slope = 0. 13067 s (percent)= 13. 07 ' TC = k (0. 710) * [ (length^3) / (elevation change) ] ^0.2 - Initial area time of concentration = 11.419 min. Rainfall intensity = 2. 989(In/Hr) for a 100.0 year storm UNDEVELOPED (fair cover) subarea ' ( Runoff Coefficient = 0.783 Decimal fraction soil group A = 0. 000 Decimal fraction soil group B = 0. 400 ' Decimal fraction soil group C = 0. 600 Decimal fraction soil group D = 0. 000 RI index for soil (AMC 2) = 75. 00 Pervious area fraction = 1 .000; Impervious fraction = 0.000 Initial subarea runoff = 3. 746(CFS) Total initial stream area = 1. 600 (Ac. ) Pervious area fraction = 1.000 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Process from Point/Station 909 .000 to Point/Station 905.000 **** INITIAL AREA EVALUATION **** ' Initial area flow distance = 670.000(Ft. ) Top (of initial area) elevation = 1328. 000(Ft. ) Bottom (of initial area) elevation = 1265.000 (Ft. ) Difference in elevation = 63.000(Ft. ) ' Slope = 0.09903 s(percent)= 9-40 TC = k(0.710) * [ (length^3) /(elevation change) ] ^0.2 Initial area time of concentration = 15. 383 min. Rainfall intensity = 2.537 (In/Hr) for a 100.0 year storm UNDEVELOPED (fair cover) subarea Runoff Coefficient = 0.760 ( Decimal fraction soil group A = 0.000 ' Decimal fraction soil group B = 0.500 Decimal fraction soil group C = 0.500 ( Decimal fraction soil group D = 0. 000 RI index for soil (AMC 2) = 74 . 00 ' Pervious area fraction = 1. 000; Impervious fraction 0.000 Initial subarea runoff = 7.516(CFS) Total initial stream area = 3. 900 (Ac. ) Pervious area fraction = 1.000 , Process from Point/Station 404 .000 to Point/Station 406. 000 **** INITIAL AREA EVALUATION **** Initial area flow distance = 310. 000 (Ft. ) , Top (of initial area) elevation = 1328.000 (Ft. ) Bottom (of initial area) elevation = 1278.000(Ft. ) ' Difference in elevation = 50.000 (Ft. ) Slope = 0. 16129 s (percent)= 16.13 TC = k(0.710) * [ (length^3) / (elevation change) ] ^0.2 Initial area time of concentration = 10. 146 min. ' Rainfall intensity = 3.189(In/Hr) for a 100.0 year storm UNDEVELOPED (fair cover) subarea Runoff Coefficient = 0. 810 Decimal fraction soil group A— 0.000 ' Decimal fraction soil group B = 0.000 Decimal fraction soil group C = 1.000 Decimal fraction soil group D = 0.000 , RI index for soil (AMC 2) = 79.00 Pervious area fraction = 1 . 000; Impervious fraction = 0. 000 Initial subarea runoff = 4 . 133(CFS) Total initial stream area = 1. 600(Ac. ) , Pervious area fraction = 1. 000 Process from Point/Station 407.000 to Point/Station 408. 000 **** INITIAL AREA EVALUATION **** ' Initial area flow distance = 375.000(Ft. ) Top (of initial area) elevation = 1327.000(Ft. ) , Bottom (of initial area) elevation = 1272.000(Ft. ) Difference in elevation = 55.000 (Ft. ) Slope = 0.14667 s (percent)= 14. 67 TC = k(0.710) * [ (length^3) /(elevation change) ] ^0.2 , Initial area time of concentration = 11.158 min. Rainfall intensity = 3. 027 (In/Hr) for a 100.0 year storm . UNDEVELOPED (fair cover) subarea t Runoff Coefficient = 0.793 Decimal fraction soil group A = 0.000 Decimal fraction soil group B = 0.500 Decimal fraction soil group C = 0.000 Decimal fraction soil group D = 0.500 RI index for soil (AMC 2) = 76.50 Pervious area fraction = 1.000; Impervious fraction = 0.000 Initial subarea runoff = 4.799(CFS) ' ' Total initial stream area = 2.000(Ac. ) Pervious area fraction = 1.000 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ ' Process from Point/Station 409.000 to Point/Station 410.000 **** INITIAL AREA EVALUATION **** Initial area flow distance = 490.000 (Ft. ) ' Top (of initial area) elevation = ' 1346.000 (Ft. ) Bottom (of initial area) elevation = 1300.000 (Ft. ) Difference in elevation = 46.000(Ft. ) ' Slope = 0. 09388 s (percent)= 9.39 TC = k(0.710) * [ (lenoth^3) / (elevation change) ] ^0.2 Initial. area time of concentration = 13.578 min. Rainfall intensity = 2.717 (In/Hi) for a 100.0 year storm ' UNDEVELOPED (fair cover) subarea Runoff Coefficient = 0.747 Decimal fraction soil group A = 0.000 t Decimal fraction soil group B = 0. 900 Decimal fraction soil group C = 0.000 Decimal fraction soil group D = 0. 100 RI index for soil (AMC 2) = 70. 50 ' Pervious area fraction = 1.000; Impervious fraction = 0. 000 Initial subarea runoff = 7. 101 (CFS) Total initial stream area = 3.500(Ac. ) Pervious area fraction = 1.000 Process from Point/Station 410.000 to Point/Station 411. 000 **** NATURAL CHANNEL TIME + SUBAREA FLOW ADDITION **** ' Top of natural channel elevation = 1300.000 (Ft. ) End of natural channel elevation = 1260.000 (Ft. ) Length of natural channel = 425.000(Ft. ) ' Estimated mean flow rate at midpoint of channel = 12.782 (CFS) Natural mountain channel type used L.A. County flood control district formula .for channel velocity.: Velocity = 5. 48 (q^.33) (slope^.492) Velocity using mean channel flow = 3. 97 (Ft/s) ' Correction to map slope used on extremely rugged channels with drops and waterfalls (Plate D-6.2) Normal channel slope = 0.0941 Corrected/adjusted channel slope = 0.0941 Travel time = 1.78 min. TC = 15.36 min. Adding area flow to channel ' UNDEVELOPED (fair cover) subarea Runoff Coefficient = 0.775 Decimal fraction soil group A = 0.000 ' Decimal fraction soil group B = 0.500 1 Decimal fraction soil group C = 0.000 Decimal fraction soil group D = 0.500 RI index for soil (AMC 2) = 76. 50 ' Pervious area fraction = .1 . 000; Impervious fraction = 0.000 Rainfall intensity = , 2 .539 (In/Hr) for a 100. 0 year storm Subarea runoff = 11. 018 (CFS) for 5. 600(Ac. ) Total runoff = 18. 119 (CFS) . Total area = 9. 100 (Ac. ) ' Process from Point/Station 412. 000 to Point/Station 413.000 **** INITIAL AREA EVALUATION '*** Initial area flow distance = 375. 000 (Ft. ) ' Top (of initial area) elevation = 1345. 000 (Ft. ) Bottom (of initial area) elevation = 1265.000(Ft. ) ' Difference in elevation = 80. 000(Ft. ) Slope = 0.21333 s (percent)= 21. 33 TC = k(0.710) * [ (length^3) / (elevation change) ] ^0.2 Initial area time of concentration = 10. 353 min. Rainfall intensity = 3. 154 (In/Hr) for a 100.0 year storm . UNDEVELOPED (fair cover) subarea Runoff Coefficient = 0.833 Decimal fraction soil group A = 0. 000 ' Decimal fraction soil group B = 0.000 Decimal fraction soil group C = 0. 000 Decimal fraction soil group D = 1 . 000 ' RI index for soil (AMC 2) = 84 .00 Pervious area fraction = 1. 000; Impervious fraction = 0.000 Initial subarea runoff = 6. 305 (CFS) Total initial stream area = 2.400(Ac. ) ' Pervious area fraction = 1 .000 Process from Point/Station 414 .000 to Point/Station 415. 000 **** INITIAL AREA EVALUATION **** ' Initial area flow distance = 380.000(Ft. ) Top (of initial area) elevation = 1356.000 (Ft. ) ' Bottom (of initial area) elevation = 1290.000(Ft. ) Difference in elevation = 66.000 (Ft. ) Slope = 0.17368 s (percent)= 17.37 TC = k(0.710) * [ (length^3) / (elevation change) ] ^0.2 , Initial area time of concentration = 10. 845 min. Rainfall intensity = 3. 075 (In/Hr) for a 100.0 year storm UNDEVELOPED (fair cover) subarea ' Runoff Coefficient = 0.794 Decimal fraction soil group A = 0. 000 Decimal fraction soil group B = 0.500 Decimal fraction soil group C = 0. 000 Decimal fraction soil group D = 0.500 RI index for soil (AMC 2) = 76. 50 Pervious area fraction = 1.000; Impervious fraction = 0.000 ' Initial subarea runoff = 4 .395 (CFS) 1 Total initial stream area = 1.800(Ac. ) ( Pervious area fraction = 1. 000 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ ' Process from Point/Station 916.000 to Point/Station 417.000 **** INITIAL AREA EVALUATION **** Initial area flow distance = 350.000 (Ft. ) Top (of initial area) elevation = 1356. 000(Ft. ) Bottom (of initial area) elevation = 1305.000(Ft. ) Difference in elevation = 51. 000(Ft. ) Slope = 0. 14571 s (percent)= 19 .57 TC = k(0. 710) * [ (length^3) / (elevation change) ] ^0.2 Initial area time of concentration = 10. 869 min. Rainfall intensity = 3.071 (In/Hr) for a 100.0 year storm ' UNDEVELOPED (fair cover) subarea Runoff Coefficient = 0.753 Decimal fraction soil group A = 0. 000 ' Decimal fraction soil group B = 1. 000 Decimal fraction soil group C = 0. 000 Decimal fraction soil group D = 0. 000 RI index for soil (AMC 2) = 69.00 ' Pervious area fraction = 1. 000; Impervious fraction = 0.000 Initial subarea runoff = 3.006(CFS) Total initial stream area = 1.300 (Ac. ) ' ( Pervious area fraction = 1.000 Process from Point/Station 918. 000 to Point/Station 919.000 **''* INITIAL AREA EVALUATION **** t Initial area flow distance = 685.000(Ft. ) Top (of initial area) elevation = 1366.000 (Ft. ) Bottom (of initial area) elevation = 1294 .000(Ft. ) ' Difference in elevation = 72.000(Ft. ) Slope = 0. 10511 s (percent)= 10.51 TC = k(0.710) * [ (length^3) / (elevation change) ]^0.2 Initial area time of concentration = 15. 178 min. ' Rainfall intensity = 2:556 (In/Hr) for a 100.0 year storm UNDEVELOPED (fair cover) subarea Runoff Coefficient = 0. 802 ' Decimal fraction soil group A = 0.000 Decimal fraction soil group B = 0.200 Decimal fraction soil group C = 0.000 Decimal fraction soil group D = 0. 800 ' RI index for soil (AMC 2) = 81.00 Pervious area fraction = 1.000; Impervious fraction = 0.000 Initial subarea runoff = 11. 681 (CFS) Total initial stream area = 5.700(Ac. ) ' Pervious area fraction = 1.000 I, r ++++++++++++++++++;r++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ , 920.000 to Point/Station 921.000 Process from Point/Station **+* INITIAL AREA EVALUATION **** ow distance Initial area fl = 600.000 (Ft- ) ' Top (of initial area) elevation = 1370.000 (Ft. ) Bottom (of initial area) elevation = 1290.000(Ft. ) , Difference in elevation = 80.000 (Ft. ) Slope = 0. 13333 s (percent)= 13. 33 TC = k(0.710) * [ (lenoth^3) / (elevation change) )^0.2 Initial area time of concentration/Hr) 13.726for a m100.0 year storm ' Rainfall intensity = UNDEVELOPED (fair cover) subarea Runoff Coefficient = 0.815 ' Decimal fraction soil group A = 0.000 0. 100 Decimal fraction soil group B _ 0.000 Decimal fraction soil group C Decimal fraction soil group D82 00900 ' RI index for soil (AMC 2) - Pervious area fraction = 1.000; Impervious fraction = 0.000 Initial subarea runoff = 7.092 (CFS) - Total initial stream area = 3.200 (Ac. ) ' Pervious area fraction = 1 .000 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++422+000+to+Point/Station++++++923+000+ ' { Process from Point/Station **** ' **** INITIAL AREA EVALUATION Initial area flow distance = 870. 000(Ft. ) Top (of initial area) elevation = 136926005.000 (Ft. ) ' Bottom (of initial area) elevation = Difference in elevation = 89 .000 (Ft9) 66 Slope = 0.09655 s (percent)= TC = k(0.710) * [ (length^3) / (elevation change ) ) ^0.2 ' Initial area time of concentrra0tion/Hr) for9a7 min0.0 year storm Rainfall intensity = UNDEVELOPED (fair cover) subarea , Runoff Coefficient = 0.796 Decimal fraction soil group A = 0.000 Decimal fraction soil group B = 0.200 Decimal fraction soil group C = 0.000 , Decimal fraction soil group D .800 RI index for soil (AMC 2) - 81.0 Pervious area fraction = 1.000; Impervious fraction = 0.000 , 2 (CFS) Initial subarea runoff = 10.715.600(Ac. ) Total initial stream area = Pervious area fraction = 1.000 270,50 (Ac. ) End of computations, total study area = ' The following figures may be used for a unit hydrograph study of the same area. Area averaged pervious area fraction(Ap) = 1.000 ' Area averaged RI index number = 76.2 1 ' Additional Appendices are on file at the City Planning Department APPENDIX E ' Traffic 1 1 1 1 1 i 1 1 1 1 RORIPAUGH RANCH REVISED TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS TEMECULA, CALIFORNIA 1 ' Prepared for: ' Mr. Richard Ashby ASHBY DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, INC. 470 E. Harrison Street Corona, CA 92879-1314 Prepared by: URBAN CROSSROADS, INC. QPpFES& 41 Corporate Park, Suite 210 �o oTr T Irvine, CA 92606 yG �Fy2 0 ' a No.C 02 cc Exp. ' John Kain, A.I.C.P. 9Tf- Scott Sato, P.E. n Tom Huang, EIT 1 ' Original Submittal May 25, 1999 City Screencheck ' Revised May 18, 2001 Revised November 26, 2001 00044-08 JK:SS:TH:ko ' TABLE OF CONTENTS ' SECTION PAGE 1.0 INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY ..................................................................... 1-1 ' A. Purpose of Report and Study Objectives B. Executive Summary ' 1. Site Location and Study Area 2. Development Description 3. Principal Findings ' a. Required Level of Service b. Existing Levels of Service C. Year 2003 Levels of Service ' d. Year 2007 Levels of Service e. General Plan Buildout Levels of Service 4. Recommendations ' 2.0 PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT ............................................................................ 2-1 ' A. Location B. Land Use and Intensity C. Site Plan D. Phasing and Timing ' 3.0 AREA CONDITIONS ........................................................................................... 3-1 A. Study Area ' 1. Area of Significant Traffic Impact B. Study Area Land Use 1. Existing Land Uses ' 2. Other Development C. Site Accessibility 1. Area Roadway System ' 2. Traffic Volumes and Conditions 3. Transit Service 4. Traffic Signal Warrants ' 4.0 PROJECTED TRAFFIC ...................................................................................... 4-1 A. Site Traffic 1. Trip Generation 2. Trip Distribution 3. Modal Split 4. Trip Assignment B. Other Development Traffic ' 1. Method of Projection 2. Through Traffic 1 1 C. Total Traffic, Year 2003 ' D. Total Traffic, Year 2007 E. Total Traffic, General Plan Buildout ' 5.0 TRAFFIC ANALYSIS ........................................................................................... 5-1 A. Capacity and Level of Service and Improvement Analysis, t Year2003 1. Level of Service at Year 2003 Without Project , 2. Level of Service at Year 2003 With Project B. Capacity and Level of Service and Improvement Analysis, Year2007 ' 1. Level of Service at Year 2007 Without Project 2. Level of Service at Year 2007 With Project C. Capacity and Level of Service and Improvement Analysis, , General Plan Buildout 1. Level of Service at General Plan Buildout without Project 2. Level of Service at General Plan Buildout with Project 1 6.0 FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS ....................................................................... 6-1 A. Site Access , B. Traffic Impacts C. Need for Improvements Off-Site to Achieve , Required Level of Service 7.0 RECOMMENDATIONS ....................................................................................... 7-1 , A. Roadway Improvements ' 1. On-Site 2. Off-Site B. Transportation System Management Actions , C. Traffic Mitigation/Monitoring Program 1 1 APPENDICES CALCULATION OF INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE - EXISTING...................................................................................................................... A TRAFFIC SIGNAL WARRANTS ................................................................................... B CALCULATION OF INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE - YEAR 2003 WITHOUTPROJECT ................................................................................................... C ' CALCULATION OF INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE - YEAR 2003 WITHPROJECT ........................................................................................................... D ' CALCULATION OF INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE-YEAR 2007 WITHOUTPROJECT ................................................................................................... E ' CALCULATION OF INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE - YEAR 2007 WITHPROJECT ........................................................................................................... F ' CALCULATION OF INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE - GENERAL PLAN BUILDOUT WITHOUT PROJECT ................................................................................ G CALCULATION OF INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE -GENERAL PLAN BUILDOUT WITH PROJECT ....................................................................................... H ' AD 161 PLANNED IMPROVEMENTS AND WINCHESTER ROAD PROJECT STUDY REPORT ..................................................... I 1 1 1 LIST OF EXHIBITS ' EXHIBIT PAGE ' 1-A LOCATION MAP .................................................................................. 1-3 2-A SITE PLAN ........................................................................................... 2-2 ' 3-A EXISTING NUMBER OF THROUGH LANES AND ' INTERSECTION CONTROLS .............................................................. 3-4 3-B CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN CIRCULATION ' ELEMENT ............................................................................................. 3-5 3-C CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN ROADWAY ' CROSS-SECTIONS ............................................................................. 3-6 3-D RIVERSIDE COUNTY GENERAL PLAN CIRCULATION , ELEMENT ............................................................................................ 3-7 3-E RIVERSIDE COUNTY GENERAL PLAN ROADWAY ' CROSS-SECTIONS................................................................................ 3-8 3-F EXISTING AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC (ADT) .................................... 3-10 ' 3-G EXISTING AM PEAK HOUR INTERSECTION VOLUMES ................. 3-15 3-H EXISTING PM PEAK HOUR INTERSECTION VOLUMES ................. 3-16 , 4-A PROJECT TRAFFIC ANALYSIS ZONE (TAZ) MAP ............................ 4-3 , 4-B YEAR 2003 PROJECT TAZ 1 TRIP DISTRIBUTION ........................... 4-7 , 4-C YEAR 2007 PROJECT TAZ 1 TRIP DISTRIBUTION .......................... 4-8 4-D YEAR 2007 PROJECT TAZ 2 TRIP DISTRIBUTION .......................... 4-9 , 4-E YEAR 2007 PROJECT TAZ 3 TRIP DISTRIBUTION .......................... 4-10 ' 4-F YEAR 2007 PROJECT TAZ 4 TRIP DISTRIBUTION .......................... 4-11 4-G YEAR 2007 PROJECT TAZ 5 TRIP DISTRIBUTION .......................... 4-12 , 4-H GENERAL PLAN BUILDOUT PROJECT TAZ 1 ' TRIP DISTRIBUTION............................................................................ 4-13 1 1 4-1 GENERAL PLAN BUILDOUT PROJECT TAZ 2 TRIP DISTRIBUTION.......................................................................... 4-14 4-J GENERAL PLAN BUILDOUT PROJECT TAZ 3 TRIP DISTRIBUTION.......................................................................... 4-15 4-K GENERAL PLAN BUILDOUT PROJECT TAZ 4 TRIP DISTRIBUTION.......................................................................... 4-16 4-L GENERAL PLAN BUILDOUT PROJECT TAZ 5 TRIP DISTRIBUTION.......................................................................... 4-17 t4-M YEAR 2003 PROJECT AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC (ADT) .............. 4-19 ' 4-N YEAR 2003 PROJECT AM PEAK HOUR INTERSECTION VOLUMES .......................................................................................... 4-20 ' 4-0 YEAR 2003 PROJECT PM PEAK HOUR INTERSECTION VOLUMES .......................................................................................... 4-21 ' 4-P YEAR 2007 PROJECT AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC (ADT) .............. 4-22 4-Q YEAR 2007 PROJECT AM PEAK HOUR INTERSECTION VOLUMES .......................................................................................... 4-23 ' 4-R YEAR 2007 PROJECT PM PEAK HOUR INTERSECTION VOLUMES .......................................................................................... 4-24 4-S GENERAL PLAN BUILDOUT PROJECT AVERAGE DAILY ' TRAFFIC (ADT) .................................................................................. 4-25 ' 4-T GENERAL PLAN BUILDOUT PROJECT AM PEAK HOUR INTERSECTION VOLUMES .............................................................. 4-26 4-U GENERAL PLAN BUILDOUT PROJECT PM PEAK HOUR INTERSECTION VOLUMES............................................................... 4-27 ' 4-V YEAR 2003 WITHOUT PROJECT AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC (ADT)................................................................................... 4-29 ' 4-W YEAR 2003 WITH PROJECT AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC (ADT)................................................................................... 4-30 ' 4-X YEAR 2007 WITHOUT PROJECT AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC (ADT)................................................................................... 4-32 4-Y YEAR 2007 WITH PROJECT AVERAGE DAILY ' TRAFFIC (ADT)................................................................................... 4-33 4-Z GENERAL PLAN BUILDOUT WITHOUT PROJECT AVERAGE ' DAILY TRAFFIC (ADT) ....................................................................... 4-34 4-AA GENERAL PLAN BUILDOUT WITH PROJECT AVERAGE ' DAILY TRAFFIC (ADT)........................................................................ 4-36 5-A YEAR 2003 WITHOUT PROJECT AM PEAK HOUR ' INTERSECTION VOLUMES............................................................... 5-4 5-8 YEAR 2003 WITHOUT PROJECT PM PEAK HOUR ' INTERSECTION VOLUMES............................................................... 5-5 5-C YEAR 2003 WITH PROJECT AM PEAK HOUR INTERSECTION VOLUMES................................................................. 5-9 5-D YEAR 2003 WITH PROJECT PM PEAK HOUR ' INTERSECTION VOLUMES............................................................... 5-10 5-E YEAR 2007 WITHOUT PROJECT AM PEAK HOUR ' INTERSECTION VOLUMES............................................................... 5-14 5-F YEAR 2007 WITHOUT PROJECT PM PEAK HOUR ' INTERSECTION VOLUMES............................................................... 5-15 5-G YEAR 2007 WITH PROJECT AM PEAK HOUR ' INTERSECTION VOLUMES............................................................... 5-20 ' 5-H YEAR 2007 WITH PROJECT PM PEAK HOUR INTERSECTION VOLUMES............................................................... 5-21 t 5-1 GENERAL PLAN BUILDOUT WITHOUT PROJECT AM PEAK HOUR INTERSECTION VOLUMES ................................................... 5-26 ' 5-J GENERAL PLAN BUILDOUT WITHOUT PROJECT PM PEAK HOUR INTERSECTION VOLUMES ................................................... 5-27 ' 5-K GENERAL PLAN BUILDOUT WITH PROJECT AM PEAK HOUR INTERSECTION VOLUMES ................................................... 5-30 ' 5-L GENERAL PLAN BUILDOUT WITH PROJECT PM PEAK HOUR INTERSECTION VOLUMES ................................................... 5-31 ' 6-A CIRCULATION IMPROVEMENT CONSIDERATIONS ..................... 6-2 6-B AUGMENTED ARTERIAL ROADWAY CROSS-SECTIONS ............ 6-3 ' 1 t LIST OF TABLES ' TABLES PAGE 3-1 INTERSECTION ANALYSIS FOR EXISTING ' CONDITIONS ...................................................................................:... 3-14 4-1 PROJECT LAND USE BY ZONE.......................................................... 4-2 t4-2 TRIP GENERATION RATES ............................................................... 4-4 ' 4-3 PROJECT TRIP GENERATION .......................................................... 4-5 5-1 INTERSECTION ANALYSIS FOR YEAR 2003 WITHOUT ' PROJECT CONDITIONS...................................................................... 5-2 5-2 INTERSECTION ANALYSIS FOR YEAR 2003 WITH PROJECT CONDITIONS...................................................................... 5-7 ' 5-3 INTERSECTION ANALYSIS FOR YEAR 2007 WITHOUT PROJECT CONDITIONS...................................................................... 5-12 ' 5-4 INTERSECTION ANALYSIS FOR YEAR 2007 WITH PROJECT CONDITIONS...................................................................... 5-18 5-5 INTERSECTION ANALYSIS FOR GENERAL PLAN BUILDOUT WITHOUT PROJECT CONDITIONS.................................................... 5-24 ' 5-6 INTERSECTION ANALYSIS FOR GENERAL PLAN BUILDOUT WITH PROJECT CONDITIONS............................................................ 5-28 ' 6-1 PROJECT TRAFFIC CONTRIBUTION................................................. 6-7 1 1 RORIPAUGH RANCH REVISED TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS TEMECULA, CALIFORNIA 1.0 INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY A. Purpose of Report and Study Objectives ' The purpose of this traffic impact analysis is to evaluate the development of the Roripaugh Ranch project from a traffic circulation standpoint. This report updates the Roripaugh Ranch Traffic Impact Analysis dated May 18, 2001. This updated traffic study addresses the following changes in comparison to the ' previous traffic study completed in May, 20001: (1) an update of the project site plan; (2) extension of the Opening Year scenario to address Year 2003 traffic conditions; (3) analysis of an additional Interim Year scenario to address Year 2007 traffic conditions; and (4) revision of all intersection traffic delay calculations to reflect current City of Temecula analysis requirements. ' Study objectives include (1) documentation of existing traffic conditions in the vicinity of the site; (2) evaluation of traffic conditions for Year 2003 without and with the project; (3) analysis of Year 2007 traffic conditions without and with the project; (4) calculation of traffic conditions for General Plan Buildout using the City of Temecula General Plan traffic model; and (5) determination of on-site and off-site improvements and system management actions needed to achieve City of 1 Temecula level of service requirements. Based on the anticipated General Plan buildout traffic volumes with the proposed Roripaugh Ranch project, the following three intersections along Butterfield Stage ' Road require an additional northbound through lane beyond its General Plan classification of a four-lane facility (see Table 5-6): 1 1-1 Butterfield Stage Road (NS) at: Murrieta Hot Springs Road (EW)—to be provided by project • Nicolas Road (EW)— to be provided by project • La Serena Way (EW) ' To accommodate the additional capacity needed along Butterfield Stage Road between Murrieta Hot Springs Road and Nicolas Road, an augmented Arterial cross-section (See Exhibit 6-13) shall be constructed in conjunction with project ' development for this segment of Butterfield Stage Road. To accommodate the additional northbound through lane needed at the ' intersection of Butterfield Stage Road and La Serena Way, the cross-section along Butterfield Stage Road should be widened when approaching the intersection and then be narrowed back to the General Plan roadway cross- section width away from the intersection. B. Executive Summary ' 1. Site Location and Study Area The approximately 820 acre project site is located east of Winchester Road S (SR-79) and north of Rancho California Road in the City of Temecula , Sphere of Influence. Exhibit 1-A illustrates the traffic analysis study area. Pursuant to discussions with City of Temecula staff, the study area includes the following intersections: ' 1-215 Freeway SB Ramps (NS) at: , Murrieta Hot Springs Road (EW) 1 1-2 1 EXHIBIT 1-A LOCATION MAP 1 1 3 v PR/y N of Ha0 =1 POURROY RD. ' > Z f 21 I SPRINGETq HOS O "—' u0ilT---------I ' ZI'---------, 1 SITE CALLE � O1 1— I I DELLAGO �; N\ i In s C I ?y O I ,•Z�F CALLE CHAPOS %O I LA SERE NA — 1 N.GENERAL KEARNY RD. 1 I / UTTERFIELD STAGE RD. OVERLAND DR. rmi RANMEADOWS PKWY. ' v 1 1 1 1 � RORIPAUGH RANCH,Temecula,Calffomia.00044:01 URBAN 1-3 1-215 Freeway NB Ramps (NS) at: ' • Murrieta Hot Springs Road (EW) 1-15 Freeway SB Ramps (NS) at:, ' • Winchester Road (EW) • Rancho California Road (EW) ' 1-15 Freeway NB Ramps (NS) at: ' • Winchester Road (EW) • Rancho California Road (EW) Ynez Road (NS) at: , • Winchester Road (EW) • Rancho California Road (EW) ' Margarita Road (NS) at: ' • Murrieta Hot Springs Road (EW) • Winchester Road (EW) ' • La Serena Way (EW) Rancho California Road (EW) ' Winchester Road (NS) at: , • Murrieta Hot Springs Road (EW) ' • Nicolas Road (EW) N. General Kearny Road (NS) at: ' • Nicolas Road (EW) ' Meadows Parkway (NS) at: ' • La Serena Way (EW) • Rancho California Road (EW) 1-4 Pourroy Road (NS) at: • Murrieta Hot Springs Road (EW) Project Entrance (NS) at: • Murrieta Hot Springs Road (EW) Butterfield Stage Road (NS) at: • Murrieta Hot Springs Road (EW) • Nicolas Road (EW) • Calle Chapos (EW) • La Serena Way (EW) ' • Rancho California Road (EW) Calle Contento (NS) at: ' • Rancho California Road (EW) ' 2. Development Description The project site is proposed to. be developed with single-family detached residential, recreation center, park, elementary school, junior high school, and ' commercial retail land uses. The Year 2003 has assumed Planning Areas 1 to 4 will be built within TAZ 1 only. Table 4-1 summarizes the project land use. ' 3. Principal Findings a. Required Level of Service: "D" ' b. Existing Levels of Service: For existing traffic conditions, the following ' study area intersections are operating at Level of Service "E" or "F" during the peak hours: 1 1-5 1-215 Freeway NB Ramps (NS) at: • Murrieta Hot Springs Road (EW) Traffic counts taken while improvements were under construction 1-15 Freeway SB Ramps (NS) at: ' • Rancho California Road (EW) Ynez Road (NS) at: • Winchester Road (EW) — Overland Drive overcrossing of the 1-15 Freeway has been completed since the traffic counts were ' taken Butterfield Stage Road (NS) at: • Rancho California Road (EW) The existing number of lanes at the study area intersections is based on a recent t field review. However, the following improvements were under construction when the traffic counts were taken at the study area intersections: 1-215 Freeway SB Ramps (NS) at: ' • Murrieta Hot Springs Road (EW) — Interchange Improvements Currently Under Construction 1-215 Freeway NB Ramps (NS) at: ' • Murrieta Hot Springs Road (EW) Interchange Improvements Currently Under Construction 1-6 1 Currently the intersection of Butterfield Stage Road/Rancho California Road meets traffic signal warrants (See Appendix "B"). 1 C. Year 2003 Levels of Service: For Year 2003 with project traffic conditions, the following study area intersections are projected to operate at Level of Service "E"or"F" during the peak hours, without improvements: 1-15 Freeway SB Ramps (NS) at: • Rancho California Road (EW) 1 Ynez Road (NS) at: • Winchester Road (EW) • Rancho California Road (EW) N. General Kearny Road (NS) at: • Nicolas Road (EW) Butterfield Stage Road (NS) at: • Rancho California Road (EW) For Year 2003 with project traffic conditions, the study area intersections are projected to operate at Level of Service "D" or better during the peak hours with the improvements listed in Table 5-2. However, for Year 2003 traffic conditions, the following study area intersection is projected to operate at an unacceptable Level of Service during the peak hours with or without feasible improvements: Ynez Road (NS) at: • Winchester Road (EW) 1 1-7 1 Additional General Plan analysis of long-term future service levels along SR- 79 in the vicinity of the Temecula Valley Mall is currently being conducted by the City of Temecula. ' For Year 2003 without project traffic conditions, a traffic signal is projected to , be warranted at the following additional study area intersection (see Appendix"B"): N. General Kearny Road (NS) at: i Nicolas Road (EW) ' d. Year 2007 Levels of Service: For Year 2007 with project traffic conditions, i the following study area intersections are projected to operate at Level of Service "E" or"F" during the peak hours, without improvements: 1-15 Freeway SB Ramps (NS) at: ' • Winchester Road (EW) • Rancho California Road (EW) ' 1-15 Freeway NB Ramps (NS) at: • Winchester Road (EW) • Rancho Califomia.Road (EW) i Ynez Road (NS) at: , • Winchester Road (EW) • Rancho California Road (EW) Margarita Road (NS) at: i • Winchester Road (EW) • Rancho California Road (EW) 1-8 i Winchester Road (NS) at: • Nicolas Road (EW) ' N. General Kearny Road (NS) at: • Nicolas Road (EW) Butterfield Stage Road (NS) at: • Rancho California Road (EW) ' For Year 2007 with project traffic conditions, the study area intersections are projected to operate at Level of Service "D" or better during the peak ' hours with the improvements listed in Table 5-4. However, for Year 2007 traffic conditions, the following study area intersections are projected to ' operate at an unacceptable Level of Service during the peak hours with or without feasible improvements: 1-15 Freeway SB Ramps (NS) at: ' • Winchester Road (EW) • Rancho California Road (EW) Ynez Road (NS) at: • Winchester Road (EW) ' . Rancho California Road (EW) ' Margarita Road (NS) at: • Winchester Road (EW) Additional General Plan analysis of long-term future service levels along SR- 79 in the vicinity of the Temecula Valley Mall is currently being conducted by the City of Temecula. 1-9 For Year 2007 with project traffic conditions, traffic signals are projected to , be warranted at the following additional study area intersections (see Appendix 'B"): r Project Entrance (NS) at: ' • Murrieta Hot Springs Road (EW) , Butterfield Stage Road (NS) at: ' • Nicolas Road (EW) • Calle Chapos (EW) ' • La Serena Way (EW) e. General Plan Buildout Levels of Service: For General Plan Buildout with project traffic conditions, the study area intersections are projected to ' operate at Level of Service "D" or better during the peak hours with the improvements listed in Table 5-6. However, for General Plan Buildout traffic ' conditions, the following study area intersections are projected to operate at an unacceptable Level of Service during the peak hours with or without , feasible improvements: 1-15 Freeway SB Ramps (NS) at: • Winchester Road (EW) , Ynez Road (NS) at: , • Winchester Road (EW) 1 Margarita Road (NS) at: • Winchester Road (EW) , Additional General Plan analysis of long-term future service levels along SR- , 79 in the vicinity of the Temecula Valley Mall is currently being conducted by the City of Temecula. ' 1-10 1 For General Plan Buildout without project traffic conditions, traffic signals are projected to be warranted at the following additional study area intersections (see Appendix 'B"): Pourroy Road (NS) at: • Murrieta Hot Springs Road (EW) Meadows Parkway (NS) at: • La Serena Way (EW) Butterfield Stage Road (NS) at: Murrieta Hot Springs Road (EW) ' 4. Recommendations The proposed project will have access to Murrieta Hot Springs Road and Butterfield Stage Road. Site-specific circulation and access improvement considerations are ' depicted on Exhibit 6-A. ' The Assessment District 161/Southwest Area RBBD program boundaries are included in Appendix "I". The reconstruction and widening of Winchester Road ' (SR-79) has been partially completed. ' The Roripaugh Ranch development is participating in the current extension of Murrieta Hot Springs Road east of its existing terminus at Calistoga Drive. The project site is included within the boundaries of the Southwest Area RBBD. The project shall participate on a pro-rata basis in the District to build areawide roadway improvements. However, it should be noted that Roripaugh Ranch is programmed to construct Murrieta Hot Springs Road and Butterfield Stage Road 1-11 1 within the project site at their ultimate cross-section widths, in addition to providing off-site improvernents to provide site access. For Phase 1 (development of up to 511 dwelling units) traffic conditions, Murrieta Hot Springs Road and Nicolas Road should be extended to the project site with a minimum 34 foot pavement section to provide site access. ' For Phase 2 (development beyond 511 dwelling units) traffic conditions, Butterfield ' Stage Road should be extended from Rancho California Road to the project site with a minimum 34 foot pavement section to provide site access. Construction of Butterfield Stage Road north of the project site has not been assumed for Year 2007 traffic conditions. Based on the anticipated General Plan buildout traffic volumes with the proposed , Roripaugh Ranch project, the following three intersections along Butterfield Stage Road require an additional northbound through lane beyond its General Plan , classification of a four-lane facility (see Table 5-6): 1 Butterfield Stage Road (NS) at: • Murrieta Hot Springs Road (EW) —to be provided by project , • Nicolas Road (EW) —to be provided by project • La Serena Way (EW) t To accommodate the additional capacity needed along Butterfield Stage Road , between Murrieta Hot Springs Road and Nicolas Road, an augmented Arterial cross-section (See Exhibit 6-B) shall be constructed in conjunction with project , development for this segment of Butterfield Stage Road. To accommodate the additional northbound through lane needed at the , intersection of Butterfield Stage Road and La Serena Way, the cross-section 1-12 , 1 1 along Butterfield Stage Road should be widened when approaching the 1 intersection and then be narrowed back to the General Plan roadway cross- section width away from the intersection. 1 For General Plan Buildout traffic conditions, the construction of Butterfield Stage 1 Road north of the project site has been assumed. 1 Construct Butterfield Stage Road from Murrieta Hot Springs Road to Nicolas Road at its ultimate width as an Augmented Arterial highway (118 foot right-of-way) in 1 conjunction with development. (See Exhibit 6-B) 1 Construct Butterfield Stage Road from Nicolas Road to the southerly boundary of traffic analysis zone 4 at its ultimate width as an Arterial highway (110 foot right-of- way) in conjunction with development. 1 Construct Butterfield Stage Road from the Southerly Boundary of traffic analysis zone 4 to the southerly project boundary at its ultimate half-section width as an 1 arterial highway (110 foot right of way) in conjunction with development. 1 Since the analysis presented in this study indicates that the project traffic adds less than 300 ADT to Calle Contento for General Plan Buildout traffic conditions, the 1 City should consider eliminating the designation of Calle Contento east of the 1 project boundary as a Principal Collector on the City of Temecula General Plan. 1 Since Nicolas Road is projected to serve less than 14,200 ADT west of Butterfield Stage Road for General Plan Buildout with project traffic conditions, the City of 1 Temecula should consider amending the Circulation Element to downgrade Nicolas Road from an Arterial to a Secondary (88 foot right-of-way) between Calle Girasol and Butterfield Stage Road. In addition, the City of Temecula should consider 1 amending the General Plan Circulation Element to eliminate Nicolas Road east of 1 Butterfield Stage Road as a Major highway (100 foot right-of-way). 1 1-13 1 Sight distance at each project entrance should be reviewed with respect to ' standard City of Temecula sight distance standards at the time of preparation of , final grading, landscape and street improvement plans. Transportation system management actions and a traffic mitigation/ monitoring t program are described in Section 7.0 of this report. ' 1 t 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1-14 , 2.0 PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT A. Location The project site is located east of Winchester Road (SR-79) and north of Rancho ' California Road in the City of Temecula Sphere of Influence. B. Land Use and Intensitv ' The approximately 820 acre project site is proposed to be developed with single- family detached residential, recreation center, park, elementary school, junior high ' school, and commercial retail land uses. The Year 2003 has assumed Planning Areas 1 to 4 will be built. Table 4-1 summarizes the project land use by traffic ' analysis zone JAZ). ' C. Site Plan ' Exhibit 2-A illustrates the project site plan and Planning Areas. ' D. Phasing and Timing The proposed project (Planning Areas 1 to 4 within TAZ 1 only) is anticipated for opening in Year 2003. This traffic analysis is based upon four years of background 1 traffic growth (2003). Year 2007 assumes the entire project. This traffic analysis is based upon eight years of background traffic growth (2007). For General Plan Buildout traffic conditions, the City of Temecula traffic model has been utilized. 1 2-1 EXHIBIT 2-A , SITE PLAN < 6 W wen r .1wen 4 13 12 jI N^° wK 1 , M •728 i; 16 v� D K Y9 / 14 1e �n an i 1 37A n ]D 29 :K e �/;K oeiD 27 a+ 10 ' „< ze 2eM.r 24 zS 2e .wK rDn 20 wu 21 D�. 1]2 t RORIPAUGH RANCH,Temecula,California•00044:48 URBfit4 2-2 ' ' 3.0 AREA CONDITIONS ' A. Study Area 1. Area of Significant Traffic Impact ' Pursuant to discussions with City of Temecula staff, the study area includes the following intersections: ' 1-215 Freeway SB Ramps (NS) at: Murrieta Hot Springs Road (EW) ' 1-215 Freeway NB Ramps (NS) at: ' • Murrieta Hot Springs Road (EW) ' 1-15 Freeway SB Ramps (NS) at: Winchester Road (EW) • Rancho California Road (EW) ' 1-15 Freeway NB Ramps (NS) at: Winchester Road (EW) ' . Rancho California Road (EW) ' Ynez Road (NS) at: Winchester Road (EW) • Rancho California Road (EW) ' Margarita Road (NS) at: ' • Murrieta Hot Springs Road (EW) Winchester Road (EW) 3-1 1 • La Serena Way (EW) • Rancho California Road (EW) , Winchester Road (NS) at: ' • Murrieta Hot Springs Road (EW) • Nicolas Road (EW) , N. General Kearny Road (NS) at: 1 Nicolas Road (EW) Meadows Parkway (NS) at: • La Serena Way (EW) , • Rancho California Road (EW) Pourroy Road (NS) at: Murrieta Hot Springs Road (EW) , Project Entrance (NS) at: • Murrieta Hot Springs Road (EW) , Butterfield Stage Road (NS) at: ' • Murrieta Hot Springs Road (EW) • Nicolas Road (EW) ' • Calle Chapos (EW) • La Serena Way (EW) , • Rancho Califomia Road (EW) Calle Contento (NS) at: • Rancho California Road (EW) , 3-2 , ' B. Study Area Land Use 1. Existing Land Uses The site is currently undeveloped and relatively low traffic generation is ' currently being generated from the project. ' 2. Other Development ' Areawide growth calculations were added to existing volumes in the vicinity of the site for Year 2003 and 2007 traffic conditions. For General Plan ' Buildout traffic conditions, the City of Temecula traffic model has been utilized. ' C. Site Accessibility ' 1. Area Roadway System ' Exhibit 3-A identifies the existing roadway conditions for study area roadways. The number of through traffic lanes for existing roadways and the existing intersection controls are identified. The City of Temecula General Plan Circulation Element is depicted on ' Exhibit 3-B. Exhibit 3-C illustrates the City of Temecula arterial street cross- sections. 1 Exhibit 3-D shows the Riverside County General Plan Circulation Element ' and Exhibit 3-E illustrates the Riverside County arterial street cross-sections. 1 ' 3-3 EXHIBIT 3-A ' EXISTING NUMBER OF THROUGH LANES r AND INTERSECTION CONTROLS LEGEND: !— ril 1 ! ! ® =TRAFFIC SIGNAL ' ® =ALL WAY STOP STOP SIGN —) r —� 4 =NUMBER OF LANES , D =DIVIDED D RTD— O ' u, r VAP PRi POURROY RD. U =UNDIVIDED N 3 2U ^ ^ ui G 1 t— To=RIGHT TURN OVERLAP D p 1 �— =FREE RIGHT TURN 9D Hb ZQ 1 N 1 ,pURN SETA Hp's o Q D 4D s =�'-------- J SITE O C ALLE �� n N u0i1 DEL LAGO , Y j 1 �������\}f dG QD NCO�SpO• Pvrolm 2U� O%y , O 1 ��F Ip �� O J CALLE CHAPOS ~ ��TO , < 3 '1' WY.- O J L N.GENERAL b K RNV RD. 4 o iu dL iV .yJ 'a0 Fit P• p0 �G 4D �p 2D UTTERFIELD STA RD. ' O < 4D OCP' ✓ OVER NO DR. N NCN ?O EADOWS P 60 X O a RORIPAUGH RANCH,Temecula, California.00044:30 URBAn 3-4 , ' EXHIBIT 3-13 ' CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN CIRCULATION ELEMENT LECIENDs .A IL Ulu.A1.141 ly. .•r S sa..�.,f •yy,,� b ' In.[IpI C.l4rw w 'F� Sptlfk Ik.Rud • '-r''I I— Sur vrnu j• } .\ e e Ivurr Rrrnkn/ ; Y •jf •'';"i ' I_I—I Tnu11CMiNr • it t l� •;IN.._.... LcIrrrr.p lup.wru S. «.�,«..1Yj • �, ��i �� ri YET}� ��e / • !T�^u' '� r~^-•-• ..���' 1: rrE '•� "'� \ 17 l ' s SOURCE:CITY OF TEMECULA RORIPAUGH RANCH,Temecula,California-00044:15 URB#t1 3-5 EXHIBIT 3-C ' CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN ROADWAY CROSS-SECTIONS , R/W 136'.150' R/I 12' i t6'-t30' 12' f ' 14' 12' 3T11 14' S'-11'—f-5'-11' 14' 12' IIT1 � I UR URI CUR CURBED MEDIAN URBAN ARTERIAL HIGHWAY R/W (8-LANE) R/W 134' —12,— J , 6' 6' 10' 12' 12' 14' )'t)' 14' 12' ti' 1 ••URB T I CUR URB I CUR CURBED MEDIAN URBAN ARTERIAL HIGHWAY (6-LANE) R/W R/W 110' t2' Q 2' 10' •• T1D,• URB 12' 14 7 J-7' 14' 12' TUL RB I R CURBED MEDIAN ARTERIAL HIGHWAY 'R W too' R/W 0' 80' 0' .•0 ti' CU =T1 URB t2• CURo •� —1/ �.'.-....._.. Imo— , CURBED MEDIAN MAJOR HIGHWAY R/W R/W ' f T �p—�-1112' 13' 1�12' fi'---E–<• I UR`d� �— CUR • I ' SECONDARY HIGHWAY R/yy R/W TS2 , ST6'�UR 12 PAINTED MEDIAN 1 CUR�sO� 6.Y5. PRINCIPAL COLLECTOR HIGHWAY l�I / R , R W 74'46' /W 16'27' S' 14' f 14' 25'-36' , T CUR • URB I OPTIONAL RURAL ARTERIAL F4i SOURCE:CITY OF TEMECULA , 6 SIDEWALK 6i TO BE USED FOR[URB MARKING.BIKE UNE,OR AREAS LANE 6*4 FOR INTERIM USE 1N SEMIAURAL AND URGE LOTT AREAS , WITHIN THE OTY IN MAJOR.SECONDARY,AND COLLECTOR RIGHTl FFWAYS RORIPAUGH RANCH,Temecula,California•00044:17 IJBAli 3-6 1 EXHIBIT 3-D 1 RIVERSIDE COUNTY GENERAL PLAN CIRCULATION ELEMENT r .e AULO LA.r VALLEY �`- / if fil- { 1/{AiR1ET1 r � WE • .`- 1�-i r { • 1 • r • OTT OF TEAIECULA� `L � I i de 1 / _ • I 4 \ ,\ - �- It LFQM ' aArr�Ts AAi110•AT Tl�y lffco xT w --Y Y•x Z SpVxTAS1 ARR111AS 111, •� 1 '"w AT vS,wAKA Qv rxnTIAT Ty4AlA - row ( EIA•IIE d rulocl ZKi:l"" 14v v nm Ai Rl1ExLL llx•A M�s*:..'s;e>,x°`.'L.%'!;::r:", 1/E AWE ACCESS AESTMCTI.x� TMA+rrT ccvw r s • r r SOURCE:COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE RIPAUGH RANCH,Temecula,California-00044:16 URBAN CROSSROADS 3-7 EXHIBIT 3-E RIVERSIDE COUNTY GENERAL PLAN ROADWAY CROSS-SECTIONSAM RjW , tl MIH. MIN. p 12'' 1=' 14' ]' )' 1/' 13' lY ip 6 6 ��NRB • SNE CURB�_� [URB` SmEw�A R — \\ CURBED OR PAINTED MEDIAN ' URBAN ARTERIAL HIGHWAY R/W ,ltl NW 66' MIH T MIN. IDFWA URB 1--I NRB 5 MEDIAN ,'= ,Y CURB SIDEW 6 LANE CURB =% CURBED OR PAINTED MEDIAN , ARTERIAL HIGHWAY R/VF tl Ivw 1 'r—T- 2 r e _:1 MAK. E:1 MAIL , MOUNTAIN ARTERIAL HIGHWAY •CONCRETE NRB.GUTTER AND SIDEWALK MAY BE REQUIRED AS DETERMINED BY THE DIRECTOR OF TRANSPORTATION. R/W IBp R/W ' 76' MINI, MIN. 6 6' e1r�1YI MEDIAN 'YTF 6�6 IDEWA [URB I I I I CU0.B SIDEW 'J =% TAINTED MEDIAN =I MAIOR HIGHWAY , R/SV N, R/W F' MIM. i MIN. EWA NRB =%� 1 I =-_ I URB IDEWA 11 SECONDARY HIGHWAY ' R/W Tr R/W l/'• MIN. TF MIN. lY 11 SIDEWA NRB T I TNRB SIOFWIX PAINTED MEDIAN =% I INDUSTRIAL COLLECTOR •PART WIDTH STREET SECTION FOR AN INTERIOR ' COMMERCIAL OR INDUSTRIAL STREET 0./W EE. R/W M' N, =L�FARTWI M P W UNF MIN MIH. TL 5��6' ltl��IY lY UR 6' S I"'EWA CURB I 1 CURB IDFWP R J% FX COLLECTOR , •PART WIDTH STREET SECTION FOR ALL COLLECTOR STREET 3/'IMPROVEMENTS ON/e'R/W SOURCE:COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE ' U RORIPAUGH RANCH,Temecula,California-00044:18 RBAN 3-8 ' ' 2. Traffic Volumes and Conditions Existing average daily traffic (ADT) on arterial highways throughout the study ' area are shown on Exhibit 3-F. Existing ADT volumes are based upon the latest traffic data collected by the City of Temecula, 1999 Traffic Volumes on ' California State Highways by Caltrans, and factored up from peak hour counts conducted for Urban Crossroads, Inc. staff, using the following ' formula for each intersection leg: ' PM Peak Hour (Approach Volume + Exit Volume) x 12 = Leg Volume ' The current technical guide to the evaluation of traffic operations is the 1997 Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) (Transportation Research Board Special ' Report 209). The HCM defines level of service as a qualitative measure which describes operational conditions within a traffic stream, generally in terms of such factors as speed and travel time, freedom to maneuver, traffic interruptions, comfort and convenience, and safety. The criteria used to ' evaluate LOS (Level of Service) conditions vary based on the type of roadway and whether the traffic flow is considered interrupted or ' uninterrupted. ' The definitions of level of service for uninterrupted flow (flow unrestrained by the existence of traffic control devices) are: 1 • LOS "A" represents free flow. Individual users are virtually ' unaffected by the presence of others in the traffic stream. ' • LOS "B" is in the range of stable flow, but the presence of other users in the traffic stream begins to be noticeable. Freedom to ' select desired speeds is relatively unaffected, but there is a slight ' decline in the freedom to maneuver. 3-9 EXHIBIT 3-F EXISTING AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC (ADT) o , > 1:1 q > 19 'POURROY RD. 1 ' > N bZ Q O 1 \ I N 1 I Q -- SPRINGETq NOS �$1 n 30 w 1 �.��===4'"`r ---�------- I 269 cc RD eq �6 ~ > U Ir' CII __� 2.9Z�CALLE I-------- SITE 1 wl V. t 1 o DEL LAGO 2 0 3 SRO ?A>•f� ----------' N\CO 6. ' °� ? I In °-' 11.4 k'° 1 11 1 Icy a CALLE CHAPOS -+,.. 1 LA SERE .O -1--- WY. 1 ry 1 1 1 6� °i N.GENERAL AS ; % Oj` 19 c KEARNY RD. MO 60 47.4 03 .g 99 ' S \UTTERFIELD STAGE RD. n OVERLAND DR. O N N 23.6 IL,4NCN0 9'' \EADOWS PKWY. �6 3 , .4 90 'O LEGEND: , 90.0-VEHICLES PER DAY(1000'5) 1 RORIPAUGH RANCH Temecula Cal'rfomia-00044:14 URBAN 3-10 LOS "C is in the range of stable flow, but marks the beginning of ' the range of flow in which the operation of individual users becomes significantly affected by interactions with others in the ' traffic stream. ' LOS "D" represents high-density but stable flow. Speed and freedom to maneuver are severely restricted, and the driver ' experiences a generally unacceptable level of comfort and convenience. • LOS "E" represents operating conditions at or near the capacity ' level. All speeds are reduced to a low, but relatively uniform value. Small increases in flow will cause breakdowns in traffic ' movement. • LOS "F" is used to define forced or breakdown flow. This condition exists wherever the amount of traffic approaching a ' point exceeds the amount, which can traverse the point. Queues form behind such locations. The definitions of level of service for interrupted traffic flow (flow restrained by the existence of traffic signals and other traffic control devices) differ slightly depending on the type of traffic control. The level of service is typically dependent on the quality of traffic flow at the intersections along a roadway. The HCM methodology expresses the level ' of service at an intersection in terms of delay time for the various intersection approaches. The HCM uses different procedures depending on the type of intersection control. The levels of service determined in this study are determined using the HCM methodology. ' 3-11 For signalized intersections, average total delay per vehicle for the overall , intersection is used to determine level of service. Levels of service at ' signalized study area intersections have been evaluated using an HCM intersection analysis program. ' The study area intersections which are stop sign controlled with stop control ' on the minor street only have been analyzed using the unsignalized intersection methodology of the HCM. For these intersections, the , calculation of level of service is dependent on the occurrence of gaps occurring in the traffic flow of the main street. Using data collected ' describing the intersection configuration and traffic volumes at the study area locations, the level of service has been calculated. The level of service ' criteria for this type of intersection analysis is based on average total delay per vehicle for the worst minor street movement(s). , The level of services are defined for the various analysis methodologies as ' follows: 1 AVERAGE TOTAL , LEVEL OF DELAY PER VEHICLE SERVICE (SECONDS) SIGNALIZED UNSIGNALIZED A 0 to 10.00 0 to 10.00 ' B 10.01 to 20.00 10.01 to 15.00 C 20.01 to 35.00 15.01 to 25.00 , D 35.01 to 55.00 25.01 to 35.00 E 55.01 to 80.00 35.01 to 50.00 F 80.01 and up 50.01 and up ' The LOS analysis for signalized intersections has been performed using ' optimized signal timing. This analysis has included an assumed lost time of three seconds per phase in accordance with HCM recommended default ' values. Signal timing optimization has considered pedestrian safety and signal coordination requirements. Appropriate time for pedestrian crossings ' 3-12 1 have also been considered in the signalized intersection analysis. Saturation flow rates of 1,800 vehicles per hour of green (vphg) for through lanes and 1,600 vehicles per lane for left and right turn lanes have been assumed for all capacity analysis. ' A default peak hour factor (PHF) of 0.95 has been used in the HCM ' calculations. In addition, a five (5%) truck adjustment factor has been used in all HCM calculations. 1 Existing peak hour traffic operations have been evaluated for study area ' intersections. The results of this analysis are summarized in Table 3-1, along with the existing intersection geometrics and traffic control devices at ' each analysis location. Existing intersection level of service calculations are based upon manual AM and PM peak hour turning movement counts obtained from the Roripaugh Ranch Traffic Impact Analysis dated May 25, 1999, the Meadows Village Traffic Study (prepared by Urban Crossroads, ' May, 2001), the Sweetwater Specific Plan EIR (prepared by Wilbur Smith Associates, 2000), Walker Basin Traffic Impact Analysis (Urban Crossroads, March, 2001), and the Winchester Square Traffic Study (Urban Crossroads, 2000) (see Exhibits 3-G and 3-H). ' For existing traffic conditions, the following study area intersections are ' operating at Level of Service "E" or "F" during the peak hours: ' 1-215 Freeway NB Ramps (NS) at: • Murrieta Hot Springs Road (EW) ' — Traffic counts taken while improvements currently under construction 1 1-15 Freeway SB Ramps (NS) at: ' • Rancho California Road (EW) ' 3-13 TABLE 3-1 INTERSECTION ANALYSIS FOR EXISTING CONDITIONS , INTERSECTION APPROACH LANES' NORTH- SOUTH- EAST- WEST- DELAY' LEVEL OF ' BOUND BOUND BOUND BOUND (SECS.) SERVICE TRAFFIC INTERSECTION CONTROL' L T R L T R L T R L T R AM I PM AM PM t 1-215 Fwy. SB Ramps (NS)at: • Murrieta Hot Springs Rd. (EW) TS 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 14.8 44.7 B D 1-215 Fwy. NS Ramps(NS)at: • Murrieta Hot Springs Rd. (EW) TS 2 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 12.6 -° B F , 1-15 Fwy. SB Ramps(N S) at: • Winchester Rd. (EW) TS 0 0 0 1.5 0 1.5 0 3 0 0 3 1>> 10.0 14.7 A B Rancho California Rd. EW TS 0 0 0 1.5 0 1.5 0 3 0 2 3 0 20.2 - C F ' 1-15 Fwy. NB Ramps(NS)at: • Winchester Rd. (EW) TS 1.5 0 1.5 0 0 0 0 3 1» 0 2.5 1.5 8.1 11.6 A B • Rancho California Rd. (EW) TS 1.5 0 1.5 0 0 0 0 3 1» 0 3.5 1.5 11.1 11.5 B B Ynez Rd. (NS)at: , • Winchester Rd. (EW) TS 2 2 1> 1 2 1 1 2.5 1.5> 2 3 0 37.0 55.1 D E • Rancho California Rd. (EW) TS 2 2 1 2 2 2> 2 2 1> 1 3 0 34.5 38.8 C D Margarita Rd. (NS)at: Murrieta Hot Springs Rd. (EW) TS 1.5 0.5 1 0 1 1 1 2 1> 1 2 1 23.5 24.2 C C , • Winchester Rd. (EW) TS 2 2 1> 2 2 0 1 3 1> 2 3 0 25.8 53.5 C D • La Serena Wy. (EW) TS 0 2 1 1 2 0 0 0 0 2 0 1 13.6 12.0 B 8 • Rancho California Rd. (EW) TS 2 2 0 2 2 0 1 2 1 1 2 1 37.3 42.2 D D ' Winchester Rd. (NS) at: • Murrieta Hol Springs Rd. (EW) TS 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 2 1 24.9 27.4 C C • Nicolas Rd. (EW) TS 1 3 1 1 3 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 38.1 36.3 D I D N. General Kearny Rd. (NS)at: , • Nicolas Rd. (EW) CSS 0 1 1 1 0 1 0 1 2 1 1 2 1 19.4 22.7 C I C Meadows Pkwy. (NS)at: • La Serena Wy. (EW) CSS 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 2 1 1 2 0 11.4 10.9 B B • Rancho California Rd. (EW) TS 2 2 0 2 2 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 26.6 29.2 C C , Butterfield Stage Rd. (NS)at: • Rancho California Rd. EW CSS 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 33.2 36.8 D E Calle Conlenlo (NS)at: • Rancho California Rd. EW CSS 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 12.8 13.4 B B ' When a right tum is designated,the lane can either be striped or unstriped. To function as a right tum lane them must be sufficient width for right turning vehicles to travel outside the through lanes. ' L=Left;T=Through;R=Right:>>=Free Right Turn;>=Right Tum Overlap Z Delay and level of service calculated using the following analysis software:TraRx.Version 7.1.0607(1999). Per the 1997 Highway Capacity ' Manual,overall average intersection delay and level of service are shown for intersections with traffic signal or all way stop control. For intersections with cross street slop control,the delay and level of service for the worst individual movement(or movements sharing a single lane)are shown. 7 TS =Traffic Signal CSS=Cross Street Stop . ° --=Intersection Unstable,Delay High,Level of Service'I". E:\UcJobs\00001--1\00044\exceh[00044-0039-05,xisp-1 3-14 , ❑ EXHIBIT 3-G `155 EXISTING AM PEAK HOUR INTERSECTION VOLUMES —664 451— 1� LEGEND: ❑ 0 SIE =SOURCE: MEADOWS VILLAGE TRAFFIC STUDY, YEAR 2001 TRAFFIC COUNTS 1 `2 rt X107 vim X12 JIL -213 r306 I L —78 ❑ =SOURCE: SWEETWATER SPECIFIC PLAN EIR, x105 YEAR 2000 TRAFFIC COUNTS 220 llf 1 � If 176J IIr 202r °.1 28r mac 104— enm =SOURCE:WALKER BASIN TRAFFIC IMPACT ' m� m ANALYSIS,YEAR 2001 TRAFFIC COUNTS y VIP P O =SOURCE:WINCHESTER SQUARE TRAFFIC STUDY, n 2(+ ui YEAR 2000 TRAFFIC COUNTS D > to I POURROY RD. I ' MUR w, 3 i \I SPRINGETq S 1A01 03 w i't____L�..- -i---------I ] s , Ij--- RD. ��r zl1I ' } ZI'---------, 0I1 SITE CALLE ❑ DELLAG W �I �'I nom__ ♦ I v I -) ♦ I CAJ 10 V ♦y` ' 'd506p� CALLE CHAPOS %0 El El5 C LASERENA ♦♦ -��-- yyY. `♦ ♦ N.GENERAL �� i ♦♦ J �229 K RNY RD . 289- 28r BUTTERFIELD STAGE D. SP O RG XI ♦P MEA WS PKWY. El l P4 . VE ND D N NCN° ✓1 p6 ' 13 3 '1696 N 'p `6 sl L-4 ✓3'545 ✓3�i� lTT x732 eJFs�y✓�1A 9�eo /�b6 /��3 116 $N r \� \�io� ,\ 1 — ❑ mom o �F 1 ��.�ey✓� 13p ✓1,6� /1�4yry Nm X209 /'L� JIL , 50 l 90� \1s J v 377— I / o 4�,i s° 114— min '♦A� ' RORIPAUGH RANCH,Temecula, Cal'rfomia-00044:31 URBAN 3-15 EXHIBIT 3-H ' `596 EXISTING, PM PEAK HOUR INTERSECTION VOLUMES � 18 1lf 973— LEGEND: ' ❑ O O SOURCE:MEADOWS VILLAGE TRAFFIC STUDY, YEAR 2001 TRAFFIC COUNTS �2 �mpo X153 S�N 1-12 ' J L x3003 J I L 236 J I L —49 ❑ =SOURCE: SWEETWATER SPECIFIC PLAN EIR, r YEAR 2000 TRAFFIC COUNTS 434J 6J v 269J =SOURCE:WALKER BASIN TRAFFIC IMPACT 405 m e 10-� ,o^a 148-1 o�v+ ANALYSIS,YEAR 2001 TRAFFIC COUNTS ' N J\P O =SOURCE:WINCHESTER SQUARE TRAFFIC STUDY, N 3 n W o YEAR 2000 TRAFFIC COUNTS 'POURROY\1 > 2 a O 1MU 1 SPRIryGETq HO< Occ S no. � > s ♦r.'SII ��__� I ZII-------- 1 SITE CALLE wlDELLAG L•- I , El V 1 -) ♦ I Aryl 1r, 'rte �Z; �vry%missy's o 1 V N O I ♦ F ' A 1 LA SERE N_A ♦ El Vw. 1 ♦ 1 \ mmN.GENERAL \\ / ♦♦' J L 59 K RNY RD . 1 842- 43� BUTTERFIELD STAGE D. ' O PSG R\SP \p MEA WS PKWY. O 1 OVE LAND D . N NCNp� ✓7,lp'1 ❑ �F,g ✓�'1<<, ` 7 7. �l°6� J L 155 m�,9�ti3� ss'✓l06 �l 171 r-5 2fi� MNM 6� S,yy3 310ti ❑st O �F aj✓/1�� ✓19�g ✓^ � ao�m "252252 %P /'♦1, a'ss <1 TTT r 21 l 685:f 1 I f 1's 250, 11,00, 9yo ♦��gb/ 9 ,�ry�^� mea0 •Lb1'`'L/' RORIPAUGH RANCH,Temecula,California•00044:32 URBAN 3-16 Ynez Road (NS) at: ' Winchester Road (EW) Overland Drive overcrossing of the 1-15 Freeway ' has been completed since the traffic counts were taken 1 Butterfield Stage Road (NS) at: ' • Rancho California Road (EW) ' Existing HCM calculation worksheets are provided in Appendix "A". 3. Transit Service 1 The study area is currently served by Riverside Transit Agency (RTA) ' Routes 23, 24, 37 and 39 along Murrieta Hot Springs Road, Winchester Road (SR-79), Ynez Road, Rancho California Road, and Margarita Road. ' 4. Traffic Signal Warrants ' Currently the intersection of Butterfield Stage Road/Rancho California ' Road meets traffic signal warrants (See Appendix "B"). 1 1 3-17 1 1 1 1 THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK ' 1 3-18 , 1 4.0 PROJECTED TRAFFIC A. Site Traffic 1. Trip Generation Trip generation represents the amount of traffic which is attracted and ' produced by a development. The traffic generation for the project is based upon the specific land uses which have been planned for the development. The project site is proposed to be developed with the land uses listed in Table 4-1. Exhibit 4-A illustrates the project traffic analysis zones (TAZ) ' map. In order to quantify the land uses within the project site, the project ' was divided into five (5) TAZ's as illustrated on Exhibit 4-A. ' Trip generation rates for this project are shown in Table 4-2. The trip generation rates are based upon data collected by the Institute of ' Transportation Engineers (ITE). Both daily and peak hour trip generation for the proposed project are shown in Table 4-3. The proposed development is projected to generate a total of ' approximately 30,748 trip-ends per day with 2,573 vehicles per hour during the AM peak hour and 3,261 vehicles per hour during the PM peak hour. ' 2. Trip Distribution Trip distribution represents the directional orientation of traffic to and from ' the project site. Trip distribution is heavily influenced by the geographical location of the site, the location of residential, commercial, employment, and ' recreational opportunities and the proximity to the regional freeway system. ' 4-1 TABLE 4-1 ' PROJECT LAND USE BY ZONE ' ANALYSIS ZONE LAND USE QUANTITY UNITS' 12 Single-Family Detached Residential 511 DU ' Recreation Center/Park 4.8 AC 2 Single-Family Detached Residential 9 DU 3 Commercial Retail 120 TSF ' Park 4.8 AC 4 Single-Family Detached Residential 162 DU 5 Single-Family Detached Residential 1,376 DU ' Jr. High School 1,200 ST Elementary School 800 ST Recreation Center/ Park 4.0 AC Park 19.7 AC ' 1 1 OU = Dwelling Units ' ST = Students AC = Acres TSF = Thousand Square Feet , 2 The Opening Year has assumed TAZ 1 to be built for Year 2003. This alternative woul consist of Planning Areas 1 to 4 (see Exhibit 2-A)for Year 2003 traffic conditions. ' E:\UcJobs\00001--1\00044\exceNO0044-0039-05.xis]4-1 ' 4-2 , EXHIBIT 4-A PROJECT TRAFFIC ANALYSIS ZONE (TAI) MAP 0 . Do 0 C ' a MURRIETA HOT SPRINGS RD. - -- - — — — - - - - - - -- - Z —/ - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - / NICOLAS RD. /x/ LEGEND: I 1 ' LEGEND: Q1 =ZONE NUMBER 1 ' RORIPAUGH RANCH,Temecula,CaRfomia-00044:19 URBAN CROSSRO^nS /. O TABLE 4-2 ' TRIP GENERATION RATES' ' PEAK HOUR ' AM PM ' LAND USE UNITS' IN OUT IN OUT DAILY 1 Single-Family Detached Residential DU 0.19 0.56 0.65 0.36 9.57 2 Park/ Recreation Center AC 1.00 1.00 4.00 4.00 25.00 ' 3 Elementary School ST 0.17 0.12 0.01 0.01 1.02 4 Jr. High School ST 0.26 0.20 0.08 0.08 1.45 ' 5 Commercial Retail TSF 0.91 0.58 2.83 3.07 63.87 1 1 Source: Institute of Transportation Engineers, Trip Generation, Sixth Edition, 1997, , Land Use Categories 210, 412, 520, 522 and 820. ' ' DU = Dwelling Units TSF = Thousand Square Feet t AC = Acres ST = Students ' C:\Data%Work\000441Exce0100044-0039-05.xls14-2 ' 4-4 ' 1 1 TABLE 4-3 1 PROJECT TRIP GENERATION 1 PEAK HOUR AM PM TAZ' LAND USE IN OUT IN OUT DAILY ' 1 Single-Family Detached Residential 97 286 332 184 4,890 Recreation Center/Park 5 5 19 19 120 SUBTOTAL 102 291 351 203 5,010 1 2 Single-Family Detached Residential 2 5 6 3 86 3 Commercial Retail 109 70 340 368 7,664 Park 5 5 19 19 120 1 SUBTOTAL 114 74 359 388 7,784 4 Single-Family Detached Residential 31 91 105 58 1,550 5 Single-Family Detached Residential 261 771 894 495 13,168 Jr. High School 312 240 96 96 1,740 1 Elementary School 136 96 8 8 816 Recreation Center/Park 4 4 16 16 100 Park 20 20 79 79 493 1 SUBTOTAL 733 1,130 1,093 694 16,317 TOTAL 1 9821 1,5911 1,9151 1,346 30,748 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 'TAZ=Traffic Analysis Zone Z Source: Trip generation estimates provided by the City of Temecula. EAUcJobs\0000 1--1\00044\exce1400044-0039-05.xls14-3 1 1 4-5 1 The directional orientation of traffic was determined by evaluating existing ' and proposed land uses and highways within the community and existing ' traffic volumes. The trip distributions for this study have been based upon near-term conditions, based upon those highway facilities which are either in place or ' will be contemplated over the next two years, which represents the opening occupancy time-frame for the project. The Year 2003 trip distribution pattern ' for the project is shown on Exhibit 4-13. For Year 2003 traffic conditions, Murrieta Hot Springs Road and Nicolas Road are recommended to be , extended to provide access. The Year 2007 trip distribution patterns for the project are illustrated on Exhibits 4-C to 4-G. Construction of Butterfield Stage Road north of the ' project site has not been assumed for Year 2007 traffic conditions. The General Plan Buildout trip distribution patterns for the project are ' graphically depicted on Exhibits 4-H to 4-L. For General Plan Buildout traffic conditions, the construction of Butterfield Stage Road north of the project ' site has been assumed, based on the funded roadway system identified in the City of Temecula traffic model. ' 3. Modal Split ' The traffic reducing potential of public transit has not been considered in this ' report. Essentially.the traffic projections are 'conservative" in that public transit might be able to reduce the traffic volumes. 4-6 , EXHIBIT 4-B YEAR 2003 PROJECT TAI 1 TRIP DISTRIBUTION b �, VAP PRi a o > tag Kj POURROY RD. 1 33 .S1 3g h 3 0 5 i 3 v~i 01 8 SPRINGS O . 1 � z11 1� I =� -------A, ; SITE 1 CALLE `r WIF��� I DEL LAGO J� ��� �`��_ "`♦ I > Ir_—________r ♦% j f ; 1(1 S 1 \y ' 1 ♦IFN � CALLE CHAPOS n 1 ♦O 1 LA SERE NA -1' WY. �`. i 1 n 3p 1 % N.GENERAL KEARNY RD. \ 1 n 3 1 Pp\S Q•O � P�' ♦P / �♦P Q,O �\E00 UTTERFIELD STAGE RD. OVERLAND DR. m AH %EADOWS PKWY. A 1 O W 3 ? >O LEGEND: ' 10=PERCENT TO/FROM PROJECT RORIPAUGH RANCH,Temecula,Califomia-00044:02 URBAN 4-7 EXHIBIT 4-C YEAR 2007 PROJECT TAI I TRIP DISTRIBUTION in � V\P Pq�y %OURROY RD. 9 » 21 3 3 m 63 �i 0 SPRINGS 53 O '-'S - .��_=-� -T---- -I �___� I ■ J: ry ZI -L ------' % SITE � ■ CALLE i n u0i� DEL LAGOh 'O CALLE CHAPOS y L LA_SERE NA �% I �0 N.GENERAL N �� W KEARNY RD. m �` 3 , T GQ'p\C R erP P� UTTERFIELD STAGE RD. , OVERLAND DR. N %EADOWS PKWY. O 1' W 1 7 LEGEND: 10-PERCENT TO/FROM PROJECT URBA RORIPAUGH RANCH,Temecula,CalifOMIa-00044:03 4-8 ' EXHIBIT 4-D DEAR 2007 PROJECT TAZ 2 TRIP DISTRIBUTION _ W in VAP' P'Qi z > V OURROY RD. 17 10 21 y 3 3 0 m 63�i N 68 SPRING 3D S3 O w , �.��===D��6 --z— I SII 1 1 Z; ---------, 32 1 SITE I CALLE ti ry WI 8 /.� I DEL LAGOA �, I '�♦ I � `gym I � • l`��(! �F CALLE CHAPOS ANT ♦� ��♦♦ ♦, ' S , N.GENERAL N �� / ♦ KEARNY RD. v ♦ ' 3 3 �1 � S GP,F P UTTERFIELD STAGE RD. 2 3 6 B \ OVERLAND DR. N EADOWS PKWY. W 7 1 �? LEGEND: 10 s PERCENT TO/FROM PROJECT RORIPAUGH RANCH,Temecula,Califomia•00044:04 URBAN 4-9 1 EXHIBIT 4-E YEAR 2007 PROJECT TAZ 31 TRIP DISTRIBUTION qljo r q � , 6 '^ Q O 1 \I 13 ,y 1 Z OY RD 036 7 1 q3 SPRINGS RD• s 31 11--------- r SITE CALLE ry 0I /. I DEL LAGO W �1 1� 1 ��♦ 1 v 1 N J -� ♦ 1 1a cc� 10 r F? 1 In 10 %iT,♦�r0 r CALLE CHAPOS v 1 ♦ 'Y Q � LA SERE NA ♦ ♦ WY. ��♦ � S 1 1 6 &GENERAL N �♦ i KEARNY RD. °p ♦♦ 1 3 '1�• 3 s GPp\C R I lrP PO UTTERFIELD STAGE RD. 1a �� s OVERLAND DR. N EADOWS PKWY. G 19 W 1 7 , LEGEND: 10-PERCENT TO/FROM PROJECT RORIPAUGH RANCH,Temecula,California•00044:05 URBA 4-10 EXHIBIT 4-F YEAR 2007 PROJECT TAI 4 TRIP DISTRIBUTION i Z q > W j URROY,R\1 in 17 10 ?1 3 3 ° ro 1 38 ; SPRING 30 O w SITE O y1 ♦ I DEL LAGO V 1 % I � I i 9< j1 I--------- 1 s N CALLE CHAPOS -V. 1 `INTO 1 � N. GENERAL N S �� i KEARNY RD. 1p 3 J. �GPR\t 1 LISTAGE RD. < � 16 1 5 OVERLAND DR. h EADOWS PKWY. O�5 W 1 !W ' LEGEND: 10-PERCENT TO/FROM PROJECT i RORIPAUGH RANCH,Temecula,California-00044:07 URBAN 4-11 I EXHIBIT 4-G YEAR 2007 PROJECT TAZ 51 TRIP DISTRIBUTION .n N V\P PRi W z y a o n a > 0 I OURROY RD. � u+ 9 17 .tio 71 w 3 3 m 38�i SPRING28 O W �.��_= L -- -- ---------I S Rp• ,r 33 r. oil i I f - ZI'--= ---- SITE r CALLE tiW ry wl 1A 27 61 I DEL LAGO W -'� ��I ��♦ I V 1 18 . h ) n-� ♦ I 3 ------� 15 ,n `2 CALLE CHAPOS -vi p 'b LA SERE NA ♦♦ ♦♦ 1 6 � \ 6 N.GENERAL1 3 KEARNY RD. N o♦♦ ♦ 9 Lp 3 Q. R UTTERFIELD STAGE RD. < 16 5 OVERLAND DR. N EADOWS PKWY. 015 W 1 !W LEGEND: , 10-PERCENT TO/FROM PROJECT RORIPAUGH RANCH,Temecula,Cal'ifomia-00044:08 URBAN= 4-12 • EXHIBIT 4-H GENERAL PLAN BUILDOUT PROJECT TAI 1 TRIP DISTRIBUTION N ui VAP P'Qi ¢ r r n W to °D t7 OURROY RD. �g 13 5�i 1 .-�---'c --------I N m 1 SPRING O 6 0 w 1 G9 .1 -__-L 1 S HO, 3lJ 41 �•' 1� 3 --3 1 I 1 m �'------ 4ry�, ; SITE DEL LAGOS n i I ♦ I ----------- -'--------� ♦% s � i O 1 IOylf CALLE CHAPOS -c'+ 1 �`�• 1' LA SERE NA �` ♦ 1 A 1 1 A N.GENERAL 1♦ i KEARNY RD. a. ♦ 1 ♦ � n 3 a GP'R� / �,P�pO• UTTERFIELD STAGE RD. ' OVERLAND DR. A EADOWS PKWY. O ' LEGEND: 10-PERCENT TO/FROM PROJECT ' RORIPAUGH RANCH,Temecula,California-00044:10 URBAt1 4-13 EXHIBIT 4-1 GENERAL PLAN BUILDOUT PROJECT TAZ 2 TRIP DISTRIBUTION i �\P n N ^ > \a7 OURROY RD. n T 12 �A 1$ y = a 0 i 4 �1 33 ' SPRINGS 18� 33 O .3 m % A �I RD, ;'----- -�� h I' SITE 'Y CALL' '♦' ^'+ I J•. I DEL LAGO- I 'I n '�♦ 1 'O o I `yf �f- CALLE CHAPOS ^ .O SERE NA ♦ A � � °I N.GENERAL KEARNY RD. m ♦♦ .S n 3 A �� UTTERFIELD STAGE RD. i Z � OVERLAND DR. N EADOWS PKWY. O 1 LEGEND: ' 10-PERCENT TO/FROM PROJECT RORIPAUGH RANCH,Temecula,Cal'rfomia-00044:06 URBAN 4-14 EXHIBIT 4-J r GENERAL PLAN BUILDOUT PROJECT TAZ 3 TRIP DISTRIBUTION 1 i N (1 0 r8 ^' 6 H ^Z Q i OURROY RD. 13 15 ' ? 33 v~i 1 3A 1 SPRING 10 2 O W -' m 1 '�— C''�: - -Z --------I S RD• 2T r'�6:1 � --.1 I } zI'---------, 38 , SITE CALLS y n W DEL LAGO = �; 1A� I ♦ �_ ."♦ I ♦ I -1 - 1 I ,3 9 11 i --' .F O 1 ♦2TF � CALLS CHAPOS -v+ 1 �.'1'T R 1 .O � LA SERENA � ♦ ^ � 9 � WY. `♦ � r ' � N.GENERAL � �♦ j % KEARNY RD. p ♦ 1 2 9 OVPR,j ,i 1 UTTERFIELD STAGE RD. t 6 1 OVERLAND DR. rl EADOWS PKWY. 1 O a 1 rLEGEND: 10-PERCENT TO/FROM PROJECT �. RORIPAUGH RANCH,Temecula,Califomia-00044:11 URBAN 4-15 I EXHIBIT 4-K GENERAL PLAN BUILDOUT PROJECT TAZ 41 TRIP DISTRIBUTION N ' ,n J\P P'9i ac T � 1�1 T 12 7S h = Q 00 ; UURRDY RD. 3s sp 3 m 23 \1 3g _z -----I SPRING 170 8 O �.��_= L�`�� Z;'--- ---' `43 6 SITE CALLE .- 01 21 I DEL LAGO W �1 I �� __ ��♦ I v 110 � � �� ♦ I i 16 '� 11--�--------' � k 1Oy �- CALLE CHAPOS O 1 ♦TF V 1 ' ,y c 1 `�NrO 1 LA SERE NA - NVY. �. ^ 1 1ti ♦♦ � 1 \ 6 \ N.GENERAL i KEARNY RD. ''i �♦ 1 3 0 GPg\t P , UTTERFIELD STAGE RD. 2M OVERLAND DR. N 6 1 EADOWS PKWY. O � ti v LEGEND: ' 10-PERCENT TO/FROM PROJECT U�tBA RORIPAUGH RANCH Temecula Califomia-00044:12 o 4-16 / r EXHIBIT 4-L GENERAL PLAN BUILDOUT PROJECT TAI 5 TRIP DISTRIBUTION r 1 1 N N m rq ^ ui Q of ' 11 '^ y _ Q 0 , OURROY RD.� ; �n '6 14 3 �_ 3 , SPRING 6G CI w , .1=__ �-�-34 — ♦ --------I S RD Q 20 y.�oil } W - Z;I - % SITE ' i--- - f CALLE OWI "535 10 DEL LAGO.`.°Wj�� I ' N s^ 21 v 7 d " 30---- 'r I 8 .O �t ^ O ♦yrF CALLE CHAPOS 1' i LA SERE NA `0 1 ' ^� N.GENERAL � �� � % KEARNY RD. r 1 N y 4 � 9 G UTTERFIELD STAGE RD. c 6 OVERLAND DR. em+ C EADOWS PKWY. r N rLEGEND: 10 a PERCENT TO/FROM PROJECT 1 � RORIPAUGH RANCH,Temecula,Califomia-00044:13 URBAN 4-17 4. Trip Assignment The assignment of traffic from the site to the adjoining roadway system has been based upon the site's trip generation, trip distributions, proposed t arterial highway and local street systems. Based on the identified project traffic generation and distribution, Year 2003 project related ADT volumes ' are shown on Exhibit 4-M. Year 2003 project only AM and PM peak hour ' intersection turning movement volumes are shown on Exhibits 4-N and 4-0, respectively. t Year 2007 project related ADT volumes are shown on Exhibit 4-P. Year ' 2007 project only AM and PM peak hour intersection turning movement volumes are shown on Exhibits 4-Q and 4-R, respectively. General Plan Buildout project related ADT volumes are shown on Exhibit 4- S. General Plan Buildout project only AM and PM peak hour intersection turning movement volumes are shown on Exhibits 4-T and 4-U, respectively. B. Other Development Traffic ' 1. Method of Prosection ' To assess Year 2003 and Year 2007 traffic conditions, project traffic is combined with existing traffic and areawide growth. For General Plan Buildout traffic conditions, the City of Temecula traffic model has been utilized. 2. Through Traffic To account for areawide growth on roadways, Year 2003 and 2007 traffic volumes have been calculated based on a 7.0 percent annual growth rate of 4-18 EXHIBIT 4-M ' YEAR 2003 PROJECT AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC (ADT) PHS oe . n �( o D "' Q POURROY RD.i > l7 he ZQ O I \I r I SPRIIyjfTq HO•C 19 0 >' 7.7 i C S � > aa ,ci:T3--�';-----�- I � r' fW 4.2 z: --------- ,NSITE ' CALLE WI 'O- DELLAGO W �I �l i��_ '�♦ I I I 1 I 0 0.1 o i ♦OyTF 0 CALLE CHAPOS -vi 01 Q i LASE N_A_ -I' WY. ♦ �. i 1 N.GENERAL O6 �� i ♦. KEARNY RD. ♦ I 01 ♦ 0 v .4 O J PR1tP ,� �,o• O` GQ. 01 0• ��P \UTTERFIELD STAGE RD. 7. OVERLAND DR. Fes.+N RAHCNO o EADOWS PKWY. O7 LEGEND: 0.1 -VEHICLES PER DAY(1000'S) RORIPAUGH RANCH,Temecula,Cal'domia-00044:21 VdtBAti 4-19 EXHIBIT 4-N YEAR 2003 PROJECT , �' 3AM PEAK HOUR INTERSECTION VOLUMES g- r 1 000 108 0�0 3 00 -111 , JlL 3 JILf-o JIL �10s 0- 1} 1— }r 30 } \Iz N q � 3 > 'POURROY RD. I D N za O 1MURft/ SPR N S q HO.S :j: ; N T===L� -- ; --------I NG RO, s f zi -------- 11 SITE r CALLE �� 01 DEL LAG CAI oo� .-61 JI1. 1— N zo s 0-j 21— oon v0 0-1 CALLE CHAPOS LA SERE NA 1 --�� -1� NVY. � 1 1 � 1 � r o� N.GENERAL 1\ % J L -49 K RNY RD. �% 17— 0� BUTTERFIELD STAGE D. O , PSG P\SP �P, MEA WS PKWY. 0 OVE NDD N NCNO(p' t0 ro o r r d r X61 /qj JIL �3'-3 �9 J I J I L r0 ,00�C 0 � olzi 8:2 Us' :!q 0-j RORIPAUGH RANCH,Temecula,Cal'rfomia-00044:33 VSB« 4-20 , EXHIBIT 4-0 L32 YEAR 2003 PROJECT 116_ -;� PM PEAK HOUR INTERSECTION VOLUMES B� o0 o00 L-05 � m L-A0 J1 � r2 J1 � ro JYL �7� O� ..r 1tr 13o'J ,} r 3 JSP ry q O N > 'POURROY RD. i D \ MURRIFT S H 3 3 SPRINGS A HO z O > ===� ---i---------I RO. II-------- SITE CALLE /�W 01 I DELLAG % I _ �• A v � I L—Z d l ' ooa J 1 L ra — ii n 74' F CALLE CHAPOS I 4% L % I A SERE NA e I 0� N.GENERAL �c i �% J L -3S K RNY RD. 60-- 1 0- BUTTERFIELD STAGE D. p�SP ,�O• PRG gyp. MEA WS PKWY. OVE ND D m INC NO 10n 022 �f� O Q O --4�Z d�� J YL J I L ,-o t JAL 9 %�° JILL JI ,� c, ' � 1 D--) RORIPAUGH RANCH,Temecula,Califomia-00044:34 URBAN 4-21 EXHIBIT 4-P YEAR 2007 PROJECT AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC (ADT) , 1 1 N ��P pAi o ' r3 Z a D jIP OURROY RD.1 N ^ z Q Or 1 N 1 ' M RRIE S 58 G NOp 3 7 1 .� ===Aw�-----r--- - Q ? 1 4.9 RO. ^! 6;9 h- > U p1112.8 II I 9.7 - SII---------,,2.a ,,,SITE CALLE � wl DEL LAGO I v^ 6 I 4; 7 0.6 . Ir 10 I 3 p0 D• Pv f� `UI ------ j p6 t � 1 In �j Io 10 '♦' 3.3 0 I o ♦'y o O I� ♦Tf a CALLE CHAPOS LA SEES A ♦♦ YVY. `♦ 1 1 o SS i o31 0 N.GENERAL ♦ , ,� KEARNY RD. �♦ 1 O• M 's♦ s .5 s , RGPA`09 a ♦P 00 66 �P PO ♦F �6 \ UTTERFIELD STAGE RD. OVERLAND . °� N 4.1 c RANCHO MEADOWS PKWY. O '3$ oy, 3.5 , LEGEND: , 0.3 a VEHICLES PER DAY(1000'5) RORIPAUGH RANCH,Temecula,Califomia-00041:22 4-22 1 EXHIBIT 4-Q L,26 YEAR 2007 PROJECT 142 AM PEAK HOUR INTERSECTION VOLUMES ,62_ -� r o� o0 1JL- is �1i f-? 4 .Jlfc66LL4 N 3 n a o •` ^' > j POURROY RD. i D Z a O 1 \I t- SPRIN ,S HOS G O — 3 .�====Lr-- t---------I GS -------- SITE CALLE W 01 I I DEL LAG W ji •"I`-'� __ "``♦ I 4-16 JL i 3z :% �s o' 'Itr ° 1 42-1 o0o p ; ♦tiTFryTO 0-1 ry CALLE CHAPOS Q LA SERE NA ♦♦ -,� WY. ♦ 1 onN.GENERAL 1 J L x-142 K RNY RD. ♦ 1 86+ 0� BUTTERFIELD STAGE D. ZP O 1 RG a\ MEA INS PKWY. 96 OVE ND D N NCO 10(--0 0' 1�j' -11 1 vOo3 v�6 �ry X32 �Aa o L-0 ao•o 0 /a f� 81 1 0 262 nwo� JAL ` 2 a�,� -T T- JiLr-o 3:; off 171� o00 8� ompo 09 J 1 L '113 15 A JIL ; 6 ro �ILi48 ,1$1 �o I ,� '� 12zo°� �o f r ,a =! loot b RORIPAUGH RANCH,Temecula,Califomii -00044:35 URBAN 4-23 EXHIBIT 4-R I t-lD3 YEAR 2007 PROJECTS 311— -, r PM PEAK HOUR INTERSECTION VOLUMES 0� oo -0i 3° 1 �s72 2 JLLii 3655°- ,0� 1 r 430f in > JSP P iy s N q � 3 > 'POURROY RD. SPR RRIETq 1{O� ¢ O m .'�----C��� t---------I ryeS - ` Z��------- SITE CALLE tiW 0: V+ I DEL LAG W L4 S -} % I 11 I L-13 oo� x-65 5p0. Pvs � J� --------- .(F J I_ ry N��p`A °< 3 in 100 ,oma r V ,�y`Fti `R 0'1 ^' CALLE CHAPOS IA SERE NA � .o N.GENERAL J L -1113 K RNY RD. 165 0-1 BUTTERFIELD STAGE D. O MEA WS PKWY. tr 0 O OVE ND D N NCN QQQ fO9 " V� J�^ ,�:? b ,50 m X246 ,>` A0 1221 anm X19 f-- J1� �9 J4� �—o0 , 200 '1 t r 310 0}r 409- '1 t g `i 1 f—;35 J� JY� � 1 24 � oor++ � u-i RORIPAUGH RANCH,Temecula,Califomia-00044:36 URBAN a-24 r EXHIBIT 4-S ' GENERAL PLAN BUILDOUT PROJECT AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC (ADT) 1 r v, > VIP P'Qi rc , 3 y q o D > w i POURROY RD. N Z a O I \Iw 1 SPRINGS I{O� 4.3 p 3 7 ��_===L��----~--------I 3j 11D. M S6 r > ,��. ply 9.8 17.3------ 64 - 1 6.4 mII 11.0 I 1 I ZI -------- I °SITE CALLE 4' i ' DEL LAGO o 1 ' 4 A 1.1 � COLDS FO spm Z - %% NI p.9 ,n s ro 4.1 0 to ,O ^, CALLE CHAPOS -� P Oa 3 LA SER_ENA n `I 0 3 a N.GENERAL 3' KEARNY RD. 4.I I 03 b !� O � .9 1 3 '9 �GPµI 0 PO ,tia \\\ UTTERFIELD STAGE RD. 7. OVERLAND DR. N 1.6 c RANCHO $ ly1EADOWS PKWY. O N ' 15 1.S i ' LEGEND: 1.3-VEHICLES PER DAY(1000'S) r r � RORIPAUGH RANCH,Temecula,Califomia-00044:23 URBAN 4-25 EXHIBIT 4-T GENERAL PLAN BUILDOUT PROJECT , 4-80GENERAL AM PEAK HOUR INTERSECTION VOLUMES „3- � r o-, oo 000 rf; L77 onn �5 om^ 1-104 J X397 21816 274 335 J4Lf 'f zJ1 � f J1� ( 41� � t Jll. f-�Z'� O� � } r 0-j 0-j 0:! x !_7 344--Wmm0 16-1 133- 000 10� 0v 168- 6= 231+ m� min t-451 �� 112- }r 0� 0� �� 0-1 53-1 �nm� J L f-56 39� � J n } v\P F i2 n w 0 353 }r 3 H > 'POURROY R i nn_ L793 —57 MURBIf D y ; 3 i J L f-90 SPRING5 Tq 1"A z 0 j -z --- ---I 0 37- Z1 •I---------, SITE Q ' ' CALLE tiW 01 L. I DELLAG 1 r � I 0 1-16 ` i J { L f-1073 2 N1Cp�`5 FO yNOfT i �-----------' `n �O S'q 65- V 1 �ZTFZ CALLE CHAPOS 1 LA SERE NA 1 ` N. GENERAL J L -704 K RNY RD. 64+ 0- BUTTERFIELD STAGE D. �G tlt �P EA WS PKWY. 1 OVE ND D . N NCO Cp' 1--0 v9gp A o� (--0 10 00 F-0 Q3 61p� 0� o00 0-, n ' r 1-0 140 t r 62 r 82' 1} r J � Lr3z f 112 110--j 1a 505 1}r 6 RORIPAUGH RANCH,Temecula,California•00044:37 L1R6�1� 4-26 , EXHIBIT 4-U 1�7 GENERAL PLAN BUILDOUT PROJECT 226_ -,f- PM PEAK HOUR INTERSECTION VOLUMES 0--1 00 NGOD 1-0 m� L-7rfjTiwi- 1-7 4POURROY 95 r + dom X247 000 •-189 oN� 13 246323 Nom 112 .I L 1-13 ,f 1--159 X29 134 69_1 , �I Ix1390� ' ' 0--) ' 0� '� } (� } �' 1_2 535-1 N� 19' 1 } r 268 oom 19-? o00 343 ono yon Nd� 376 `�'- 172—YIN p� rvm J + x148381 nN d 47421fr0 160 D R Qooiooi (-122 SPRING�A HOI z O 3 0 1 '� --z ---I x'-56 S > a� v'� 011 -- I 0:! I I 55— oaon ZiI-------- ; SITE ' 0-) pm ' LA ti WI DELEL LAG V (�. ♦ I ooh 4-13 O, vyf�i�' _------ `�-�<<J ► � ----------- F N� In >s OJ -) } r i �O 123- cam O I ♦tiTf� 0-1 m CALLE CHAPOS1 �.T a I ♦O � Lp SERE N_A_ � 1 ' om -9N. GENERAL �♦ i ♦♦ J L 3 K RNY RD. I 130- ' 0� BUTTERFIELD STAGE D. ZP O aG Al ♦P EA WS PKWY. �♦E OVE ND D m� NCNO aw L-0Qpm 1 0 0�� JwNa I —0 JrL `o9 ,N�n 11� -1} (- 13� }r 0-v m ' v�, v 1'♦ on L-1 7L-0 COO 1--0 ovo 1-19 ' N 253— Caw cc O 1 � L 178 � J04 Z7 JTOL 83 �¢b 215 'COt r $ ♦' 9r� �oo l0 10r � ^ 0 U , RORIPAUGH RANCH,Temecula,Califomia-00044:38 U6Ati ' 4-27 existing traffic volumes over the timeframes in which the traffic data was collected. Areawide growth has been derived from the Traffic Volumes on ' California State Highways by Caltrans. Growth rates were calculated for Winchester Road (SR-79), east of the 1-15 Freeway for the past 10.years. ' An average of the past 10 years of growth calculated to an approximate annual growth rate of 7.0 percent. , Generally areawide growth has been added to daily and peak hour traffic , volumes on surrounding roadways, in addition to traffic generated by the project. However, due to the congestion relief provided by additional ' infrastructure improvements included in the General Plan Buildout forecasts, the interim Year 2003 and 2007 forecasts may exceed General Plan ' conditions. Therefore, Year 2003 and 2007 forecasts have been developed to apply a minimum growth beyond existing conditions (Year 2003 = ' minimum of 10% above existing conditions, Year 2007 = minimum of 20% above existing conditions) while limiting overall growth to 10 percent above General Plan Conditions. It is important to note that the Year 2003 without project turning movement volumes for the 1-15/Rancho California Road intersections were based on ' the Walker Basin Traffic Study forecasts. C. Total Traffic, Year 2003 Exhibit 4-V shows the ADT volumes which can be expected for Year 2003 without project traffic conditions. Exhibit 4-W shows the ADT volumes which can be ' expected for Year 2003 with project traffic conditions. For Year 2003 without project traffic conditions, a traffic signal is projected to be warranted at the following additional study area intersection (see Appendix "B"): 1 4-28 , EXHIBIT 4-V YEAR 2003 WITHOUT PROJECT AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC (ADT) N q D 'POURROY RD. I y c Z Q O 1 \I MURK/ 0 3 v+ I I SPRINGETq HO'l •17..1 m a O u' -' , �.��= EXHIBIT 4-W , YEAR 2003 WITH PROJECT AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC (ADT) r NSP PR�2 z r a O ri " D h a O I POURROY RD. MURR N Z 3 SPRINGETq NO4 2a� e p m 3 , �.�?4.3 --.`r---- ---------I 9qj RD ui F7.1 ~ > v O�II O.j�__� f7.6 II-------- ,-.SITE Z, ' CALLE WI V_ I DEL LAGO i0 I L. C41< 1I 14.1 is z< .l° CALLE CHAPOS �` n-- WY. �� I N.GENERAL 6• �9� ' b KEARNY RD. Mme• .� 4.PS 8.5 0� •"' 1�'' PRS P ti N 0� oti �F S3 UTTERFIELD STAGE RD. Z OVERLAND DR. N 28.9 N RANCH 23' %EADOWS PKWY. �2 •3 6.6 ' LEGEND: ' 66.6-VEHICLES PER DAY(1000'S) 1 RORIPAUGH RANCH,Temecula, Calffomia-00044:25 URBAN 4-30 1 1 N. General Kearny Road (NS) at: ' 9 Nicolas Road (EW) D. Total Traffic, Year 2007 ' Exhibit 4-X shows the ADT volumes which can be expected for Year 2007 without project traffic conditions. Exhibit 4-Y shows the ADT volumes which can be ' expected for Year 2007 with project traffic conditions. ' For Year 2007 with project traffic conditions, traffic signals are projected to be warranted at the following study area intersections (see Appendix "B"): 1 Project Entrance (NS) at: ' • Murrieta Hot Springs Road (EW) ' Butterfield Stage Road (NS) at: • Nicolas Road (EW) • Calle Chapos (EW) ' . La Serena Way (EW) ' E. Total Traffic, General Plan Buildout The General Plan Buildout ADT volumes without and with the project have been derived from the forecasts developed for the City of Temecula General Plan using accepted procedures for future forecast refinement and smoothing. The General Plan Buildout without project ADT volume forecasts are presented on Exhibit 4-Z. The ADT volumes, particularly on the regional facilities, reflect the high ' areawide growth rate anticipated between now and General Plan Buildout. The General Plan Buildout with project ADT volumes have. been calculated by adding ' the project ADT volumes to the General Plan Buildout with project ADT volumes. 4-31 EXHIBIT 4-X , YEAR 2007 WITHOUT PROJECT AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC (ADT) .n > V\P PRiy m o , N 3 r > ro > aV j POURROY RD. N H Z Q O \I S�RIRNG,S A Hp1 2q o� p 7 i` .�?==LC ------c---------I 43 RD. a 17.2 i 4.7 Zig , SITE , CALLE upi: DEL LAGO S� n JN -.---------' I 18.3 O o-�A titi CALLE CHAPOS Q ; LA SERE NA OJ�N`p ' N � j 4 9 N.GENERAL h m KEARNY RD. 5.2 o- 109 .s, 1'J•3 a 8j '+ \ypP 316 ^N• ` UTTERFIELD STAGE RD. , OVERLAND DR. o N 37 9 N RANC EADOWS PKWY. a O 4� 1 72.6 ' LEGEND: ' 72.6 a VEHICLES PER DAY(1000'S) 1 RORIPAUGH RANCH,Temecula,Califomia-00044:26 URBAN 4-32 , ' EXHIBIT 4-Y YEAR 2007 WITH PROJECT AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC (ADT) � r JIP PRi � 3 yn o > a N H QPOURROY RD.I� D N 2 F 1 I� SPRINGIE7q VA 3a9 a wpw n 1 ��---i---------I 4gs RD 191 I- > v v'�61j 12.8 1Z.9 I 1 14.4 - M11---------, 12.8 0 ; SITE W� 01 I- ; DEL LAGO u a G; ' 4 0.6 10.2 ♦% I I 3 66 << `>` v ev 21.6 O i ♦p�T ' .,' CALLE CHAPOS 1 Q3FNTp y ti� a LA SERENA 9- WY. ��\ % 1 N 1 \ ' ~ IN. N.GENERAL 5 q KEARNY RD. ON 1 $a 6.7 a 1ti3 �S It U ' 9 a P,Rtt P to a p0 '`A a PP�Q. 32.5 ��♦S ��♦P / � O 9.0 UTTERFIELD STAGE RD. OVERLAND DR. N 42 0 d RANCH 3p. EADOWS PKWY. 4� S ' 76.1 ' LEGEND: 75.6-VEHICLES PER DAY(1000'S) RORIPAUGH RANCH,Temecula,California-00044:27 URBAP1 4-33 EXHIBIT 4-Z ' GENERAL PLAN BUILDOUT WITHOUT PROJECT AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC (ADT) , z^ q � Iry MURRIET POU RROY RD. IN o , t n cd p 3 SPRINGA V; a3a O O 6j6 Rp. 3 .9 � > i I 4D.3 ZiI-------- I�SITE CALLE 0I L. SIO• DEL LAGO v u 6.6 1 c 3.9 � i N\C 16.5 In H26.8 00 :,i �Zr /- CALLE CHAPOS u -y? R LA SERE NA -1-�' WY. �. \ N.GENERAL T• ! �6" , 6 n KEARNY RD. M v tiro 8.4 13' ? 9 P�GOQ\19, N \ �O. ,,\6 •s IC6 R N �`S00 �S8 UTTERFIELD STAGE RD. ' OVERLAND OR. N 34.7 N RAHC EADOWS PKWY. O p00 W ' 4y. 6.0 ' LEGEND: ' 66.0-VEHICLES PER DAY(1000'S) RORIPAUGH RANCH,Temecula,California-00044:28 U llmh 4-34 ' Exhibit 4-AA shows the ADT volumes which can be expected for General Plan ' Buildout with project traffic conditions. ' The General Plan Buildout peak hour forecasts were developed using the previously described ADT forecasts, along with existing peak hour traffic count data collected at each analysis location. The traffic model zone structure is not designed to provide accurate turning movements along arterial roadways unless extensive ' refinement and reasonableness checking is performed. ' The initial estimate of the future General Plan Buildout peak hour turning movements has then been reviewed for reasonableness. The reasonableness checks performed include review of flow conservation, as well as comparison to both the existing actual counted volume and the overall relationship between the forecast peak hour volume and daily volume on each individual intersection leg. Where necessary, the initial estimates were adjusted to achieve flow conservation, ' reasonable growth, and acceptable relationships between the peak hour and daily traffic volume forecasts. ' For General Plan Buildout without project traffic conditions, traffic signals are projected to be warranted at the following additional study area intersections (see Appendix 'B"): Pourroy Road (NS) at: ' • Murrieta Hot Springs Road (EW) Meadows Parkway (NS) at: • la Serena Way (EW) Butterfield Stage Road (NS) at: ' • Murrieta Hot Springs Road (EW) 4-35 EXHIBIT 4-AA , GENERAL PLAN BUILDOUT WITH PROJECT , AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC (ADT) . r �\P PR, o ' N mO N a > ta7 POURROY RD. , , y n ccZ Q O R N 1 1^ ,p 1 SPRIpGSTq HOS 69, o O0 > J /'�13 - L j ----� -------'I RD. 39. s r' ci I 3 --� I 3 S 46.7 z11 33.5 1 I W� -----, ^SITE CALLE 14 DEL LAGO "g;L' 1 �N 11.6' ♦ I b 0 1 G� p 5.0 N H\C ASA 'T 30.9 k 1 of ♦Zr CALLE CHARDS o S ,�0 R 1 _ S ♦O ' Lp,SERE NA Y WY. �� 1 N 1 �♦ 1 1 1 9, � to N.GENERAL �O6 M KEARNY RD. .Pa♦ 1 0� e 0.3 �5' vo 1A 8 a\SP O Pp. 1A0 9 ^ �P \LITTERFIELD N `�OP 76STAGE RD. I � Opo \\ i OVERLAND DR. N 36.3 RANCH 9• MEADOWS PKWY. 9y. 7.5 , LEGEND: ' 67.3-VEHICLES PER DAY(1000'S) URBAN RORIPAUGH RANCH,Temecula,California.00044:29 4-36 , 5.0 TRAFFIC ANALYSIS 1 A. Capacity and Level of Service and Improvement Analysis, Year 2003 1. Level of Service at Year 2003 Without Project Year 2003 intersection levels of service for the proposed roadway network without the proposed project are shown in Table 5-1. Table 5-1 shows HCM calculations based on the geometrics at the study area intersections without and with improvements. Year 2003 without project HCM calculation worksheets are provided in Appendix "C". Year 2003 without project AM and PM peak hour intersection turning movement volumes are shown on Exhibits 5-A and 5-B, respectively. ' For Year 2003 without project traffic conditions, the following study area intersections are projected to operate at Level of Service "E" or "F" during ' the peak hours, without improvements: 1 1-15 Freeway SB Ramps (NS) at: • Rancho California Road (EW) ' Ynez Road (NS) at: ' . Winchester Road (EW) • Rancho California Road (EW) ' N. General Kearny Road (NS) at: ' . Nicolas Road (EW) ' Butterfield Stage Road (NS) at: • Rancho California Road (EW) 5-1 1 TABLE 5.1 , INTERSECTION ANALYSIS FOR YEAR 2003 WITHOUT PROJECT CONDITIONS ' INTERSECTION APPROACH LANES NORTH- SOUTH- EAST- WEST- DELAY2 LEVEL OF , BOUND BOUND BOUND BOUND SECS. SERVICE TRAFFIC INTERSECTION CONTROL' L T R L T R L T R L T R AM PM AM PM I-215 Fwy.SB Ramps(NS)at: ' • Murrieta Hot Springs Rtl. EW TS 0 0 0 2 0 2 0 3 1 0 3 1>> 8.6 9.0 A A I-215 Fwy.NB Ramps(NS)at: • Murrieta Hot Springs Rd. EW TS 2 0 2 0 0 0 0 3 1>> 0 3 1 6.0 9.1 A A 1-15 Fwy.SB Ramps(NS)at: • Winchester Rd.(EW) TS 0 0 0 1.5 0 1.5 0 3 0 0 3 1>> 10.2 35.0 B C • Rancho California Rd.(EW) -Without Improvements TS 0 0 0 1.5 0 1.5 0 3 0 2 3 0 27.6 - C F -With Improvements TS 0 0 0 2 0 1>> 0 3 1>> 2 3 0 18.9 48.5 B D ' I-15 Fwy.NB Ramps(NS)at: • Winchester Rd.(EW) TS 1.5 0 1.5 0 0 0 0 3 1>> 0 2.5 1.5 8.2 25.5 A C • Rancho California Rd. EW TS 11.5 0 1.5 0 0 0 10 3 1>> 0 3.5 1.5 11.3 12.3 B B nez Rd.(NS)at: , • Winchester Rd.(LAW) -Without Improvements TS 2 2 1> 1 2 1 1 2.5 1.5> 2 3 0 43.7 - D F -With Improvements TS 2 2 1> 1 2 1> 1 2.5 1.5> 2 3 0 42.9 's D F • Rancho California Rd.(EW) , -Without Improvements TS 2 2 1 2 2 2 2 2 1> 1 3 0 42.3 - D F -With Improvements TS 2 2 1 2 2 2> 2 3 1> 1 3 0 41.8 51.5 D D Margarita Rd.(NS)at: • Murrieta Hot Springs Rd.(EW) TS 1.5 0.5 1 0 1 1 1 2 1> 1 2 1 24.0 26.1 C C • Winchester Rd.(EW) TS 2 2 1> 2 2 0 1 3 1> 2 3 0 32.1 47.1 C D ' • La Serena Wy.(EW) TS 0 2 1 1 2 0 0 0 0 2 0 1 13.0 13.1 B B • Rancho California Rd. EW TS 2 2 0 1 2 2 0 11 2 1 11 2 1 143.0 46.3 D D t When a right tam is designated.the lane can either be striped or unstriped. To function as a right Nm lane there must be sufficient width for right timing vefdtlas to baval outside the through lanes. ' L=Lett T=Through;R=Right->=Free Right Tum;>=Right Tum Overlap:l=Improvement g Dela and level of service calculated using Ne following analysis Y g g soffware:Trafix,Version 7.1.0607(1999). Per the 1997 Highway Capacity Manual,overall average intersection delay and level of service are shown for intersections with traffic signal or all way stop Control. For ' intersections with cross street a"control.the delay and level of service M the worst indiNdual movement(or movements sharing a single lane)are shown. 'TS =Traffic Signal ' CSS=Cross Street Stop r-=Intersection Unstable.Delay High.Level of Service'P. a• =Additional General Plan analysis of lenoemt future service levels along SR-79 In the vidndy of the Temecula Valley Mag Is currently, , being conducted by tin City of Temecula. U1UcJobs%00001•00299N0044bsroN000440N9e6.xla)S-t ' 5-2 , TABLE 5-1 (CONT•D) ' INTERSECTION ANALYSIS FOR YEAR 2003 WITHOUT PROJECT CONDITIONS ' INTERSECTION APPROACH LANES NORTH- SOUTH• EAST- WEST- DELAY LEVEL OF BOUND BOUND BOUND BOUND SECS. SERVICE TRAFFIC ' INTERSECTION CONTROL' L T R L T R L T R L T R AM PM AM PM Winchester Rd.(NS)at: • Murrieta Hot Springs Rd.(EW) TS 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 2 1 26.1 36.6 C D • Nicolas Rd. EW TS 1 3 1 1 3 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 41.9 45.4 D D ' N.General Kearny Rd.(NS)at: • Nicolas Rd.(EW) -Without Improvements CSS 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 2 1 1 2 1 35.1 40.9 E E -With Improvements TS 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 2 1 1 2 1 10.8 8.2 B A Meadows Pkwy.(NS)at: • La Serena Wy. (EW) CSS 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 2 1 1 2 0 12.9 12.0 B B • Rancho Califomia Rd. EW TS 2 2 0 2 2 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 ju.jI ji.fl C C Butterfield Stage Rd.(NS)at • Rancho California Rd.(EW) -Without Improvements CSS 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 67.0 78.7 F F -With Improvements TS 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 9.9 9.2 A A Calle Contento(NS)at: • Rancho Califomia Rd.(EWL CSS 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 15.3 166L_C C 1 1 r When a right Nm is designated.the tans tan either be striped or unstripetl. To function as a right turn lane there must Ee suMwient wkM for right turning vehides to travel outside the through lanes. ' L=Left;T=Through;R=Right,»-Free Right Tum;>=Right Tum Overlap;l`hnprovement a Delay and level of service calculated using ft rdlowing analysis software:Traffix,Version 7.1.0607(1999). Per the 1997 Highway Capacity Manual,overall average intersection delay and level of service are shorn for intersections wim traffic signal a all v,ay stop=W. For intersections with cross street stop control.Me delay and level of service for the wast individual rnmernant(o movements sharing a single lane)are shown. 3 TS =Traffic Signal ' CSS=cross Street Stop U;\U W o6s100 W dlExceef W OM-003"2alsl`'-I ' 5-3 1 EXHIBIT 5-A L-191 YEAR 2003 WITHOUT PROJECT �" AM PEAK HOUR INTERSECTION VOLUMES , 526 'I 2r[� 132 mL-15 L �so 9n ,f- 7XI � 36 J�L 12 292' 1 }r 1tr 293' , tr , 248 ti�� �3140 mwN 128^ � ¢ j POURROY RD. , D N MURRIET t H 3 3 1 AO - -------- SPRINGg H z 0 � � � �.'�1--=��.--�__� I RD. S Y =�'-------- % SITE CALLE y 0I -�� 1 DEL LAG "In�n C y Joamr1 mmL X118 \ '1 --961 ;f-18z n ' s 380J 1 r 0 1 10 T 380 n,u O 6E9� ^^`° CALLE CHAPOS a `NTO I Lp,SERE NA_ a_n N. GENERAL J L --600 K RNV RD. 1` 3 ' � BUTTERFIELD STAGE D. O MEA WS PKWY. ' VE NDD . A NC OCp' N L- __ _2 , / O r L X276 Ain 149' �� r O26 ' �o����bh J moa �s9��3�� J I L (-'570 -444a J�'L /-90 aeo 1t ' ai0Z1 ;2231� 183- L-209- rr , mw L-169 u�iv�in L-257 JTZ --1165 �f p --1331 "' 023 1' .I ` L f-332 ( ` f-103 .I i L 742 66-J 56, 343 1 t r 111� 397 + r P y,r 77YS 464 1 N01 1 /Y E 3~ DYl�1140:; 69-1 ��� 42 ., maw 1'31 RORIPAUGH RANCH,Temecula,California-00044:39 URBAN , 5-4 EXHIBIT 5-B )7369 YEAR 2003 WITHOUT PROJECT PM PEAK HOUR INTERSECTION VOLUMES 1197--22--1 (-2 rffo� t-188 moO1 t-15 �5a3 �i90 J i%05 534 t 72 f r 2852 t 498 m N 12� apam 782 man 1 i N q � 3 N > 'POURROY RD. I > ZMU a O I \i SPRRRIETq t{O� O 3 .�=-==C�i ---------I NGS Z�I-------- SITE 1 ' - CALLE of DEL LAG = •' I ' mmm102 J `393 L NtcptA 7f 347 } I X02 q 1378~ mmm O I `TF 121 �Nm CALLE CHAPOS Q I _ �'1'T LA SERE NA �� I _ - I 1 mN.GENERAL �1 L -594 K RNY RD. %` 1053-- 1 -� BUTTERFIELD STAGE D. O PRG R7tP �p 0 MEA WS PKWY. VE ND D m NCNO Cp' f-iss 376J � }� 1�tin 32� N 1 1 699A A.y9 v X191 �;r��ti9� J `209 9 J f L f—s9 d 384 v }v \ ���90 274 } 224 1 }r Nnn1� L-71 J I L nrN1-214J rO�14-31 27 — q -iof- 66f122 f0i C 554 �� 695_1197-J ^1� 1520— } r i a°m 1506— } r 643_ } o ONn �� /\ S mmn 247 mmm 't6 759 rnnm� 308 avmio ��h RORIPAUGH RANCH,Temecula,California-00044:40 URBAN ' 5-5 1 For Year 2003 without project traffic conditions, the study area intersections are projected to operate at Level of Service "D" or better during the peak , hours with the improvements listed in Table 5-1. However, for Year 2003 traffic conditions, the following study area intersection is projected to , operate at an unacceptable Level of Service during the peak hours with or without feasible improvements: ' Ynez Road (NS) at: , • Winchester Road (EW) ' Additional General Plan analysis of long-term future service levels along SR- , 79 in the vicinity of the Temecula Valley Mall is currently being conducted by the City of Temecula. ' 2. Level of Service at Year 2003 With Prosect , Year 2003 intersection levels of service for the proposed roadway network ' with the proposed project are shown in Table 5-2. Table 5-2 shows HCM calculations based on the geometrics at the study area intersections without ' and with improvements. Year 2003 with project HCM calculation worksheets are provided in Appendix "D". Year 2003 with project AM and PM peak hour ' intersection turning movement volumes are shown on Exhibits 5-C and 5-D, respectively. ' For Year 2003 with project traffic conditions, the following study area ' intersections are projected to operate at Level of Service "E" or "F" during the peak hours, without improvements: ' N. General Kearny Road (NS) at: , Nicolas Road (EW) 5-6 , TABLE 5.2 INTERSECTION ANALYSIS FOR YEAR 2003 WITH PROJECT CONDITIONS INTERSECTION APPROACH LANES NORTH- SOUTH- EAST. WEST- DELAY' LEVEL OF BOUND BOUND BOUND BOUND SECS. SERVICE TRAFFIC INTERSECTION CONTROLS L T R L T R L T R L T R AM I PM AM PM ' 1-215 Fwy.SB Ramps(NS)at: • Murrieta Hot Springs Rd. EW TS 0 0 0 2 0 2 0 3 1 0 3 1>> 8.6 9.5 A A 1-215 Fwy.NB Ramps(NS)at: • Murrieta Hot Springs Rd. EW TS 2 0 2 0 0 0 0 3 1>> 0 3 1 5.8 8.8 A A 1-15 Fwy.SB Ramps(NS)at: ' Winchester Rd.(EW) TS 0 0 0 1.5 0 1.5 0 3 0 0 3 1» 10.2 35.7 B D • Rancho California Rd.(EW) -Without Improvements TS 0 0 0 1.5 0 1.5 0 3 0 2 3 0 4 • D F -With Improvements TS 0 0 0 2 0 1» 0 3 1>>12 3 0 18.9 48.8 B I D ' 1-15 Fwy.NB Ramps(NS)at: • Winchester Rd.(EW) TS 1.5 0 1.5 0 0 0 0 3 1>> 0 2.5 1.5 8.0 27.6 A I C • Rancho California Rd. EW TS 11.5 0 1.5 0 0 0 10 3 1>> 0 3.5 1.5 11221123 B B Ynez Rd.(NS)at: ' Winchester Rd.(EW) -Without Improvements TS 2 2 1> 1 2 1 1 2.5 1.5> 2 3 0 44.9 - D F -With Improvements TS 2 2 1> 1 2 1> 1 2.5 1.5> 2 3 0 44.2 'S D F • Rancho California Rd.(EW) ' -Without Improvements TS 2 2 1 2 2 2> 2 2 1> 1 3 0 42.3 - D F -With Improvements TS 2 2 1 2 2 2> 2 3 1> 1 3 0 41.8 51.7 D D Margarita Rd.(NS)at: • Murrieta Hot Springs Rd.(EW) TS 1.5 0.5 1 0 1 1 1 2 1> 1 2 1 25.0 28.7 C C • Winchester Rd.(EW) TS 2 2 1> 2 2 0 1 3 1> 2 3 0 36.9 48.5 D D • La Serena Wy.(EW) TS 0 2 1 1 2 0 0 0 0 2 0 1 14.2 16.5 B B • Rancho California Rd. EW TS 1 2 2 0 1 2 2 0 11 2 1 1 2 1 43.2 46.41 D I D 11 ' t When a right Wm is designated.Vre lane can ether be striped W pna ped a unstriped. To function as a right Wm lane here must be sulfidml witlh for right turning vehicles to travel cul.4de he through lane. ' L=Lell;T=Through;R=Right;»-Free Right Tum;>=Right Tum Overlap:l=Improvement ' Delay and level of service calculated using the following analysis soMware;Tralfix,Version 7.5.1015(2000). Per he 1997 Highway Capacity Manual.overall average intersection delay and level W service are shovm for intersections with traffic signal or all way stop control. For ' intersections with toss street stop comm.he delay and level of service la he worst individual movement(a movements sharing a single lane)are shorn. s TS -Traffic Signal ' Cs5=Crass street Stop 4_=Intersect.WSW..Delay High-Level of Seivice'F•. ' e• •Additional General Plan anal s d y51 Imo-term W Wre service levels alae SR-79 in the WdNry W na Terrccule Valley Mall Is curtm0y being conducted by he City of Temecula. U1UCJcbst00001-00299rDW14XexceN00044-0039-05Asl5.2 ' S-7 TABLE 5-2(CONTD) ' INTERSECTION ANALYSIS FOR YEAR 2003 WITH PROJECT CONDITIONS , INTERSECTION APPROACH LANES NORTH- SOUTH- I FAST- I WEST- DELAY2 LEVEL OF , BOUND BOUND BOUND I BOUNDSECS. SERVICE TRAFFIC INTERSECTION CONTROL' L T R L T R L T R L T R AM PM AM PM inchester Rd.(NS)at: ' • Murrieta Hot Springs Rd.(EW) TS 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 2 1 26.5 35.2 C D • Nicolas Rd. EW TS 1 3 1 1 3 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 42.7 44.8 D D N.General Kearny Rd.(NS)at: • Nicolas Rd.(EW) , •Without Improvements CSS 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 2 1 1 2 1 36.1 41.9 E E -With Improvements TS 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 2 1 1 2 1 10.8 8.4 B A Meadows Pkwy.(NS)at: • La Serena Wy.(EW) CSS 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 2 1 1 2 0 13.5 12.6 B B • Rancho California Rd. EW TS 1 2 2 0 1 2 2 1 11 2 1 11 2 1 130.3 31.71 C I C ' Butterfield Stage Rd.(NS)at: • Rancho California Rd.(EW) -Without Improvements CSS 01 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 69.9 88.6WAA -WithIm Improvements TS 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 9.9 9.4Calle Contento(NS)at Rancho California Rd. EW CSS 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 15.4 167 t When a right tum is designated,the lane can either be striped or unsNped. To function as a tight hon lane there must be sufficient width for ' fight hating veNdes to travel outside tiro tiaough lanes. L-Left;T-Through:R-Right;»-Free RigM Tum:>•PoDnt Tum Overlap:I-Inp xmr ent 2 Delay and level of SeMce calmlaled using Me following analysis softmm:Tra@i Version 7.5.1015(20DO). Per the 1997 Righmy Capacity ' Manual,overall average intersection delay and level of service are shown fn Intersections with traffic signal or all way slop control. For Intersections with crass SUM stop control,the delay and level of service for the mist indMdual movarenl(a rrovenenb sharing a single tane)are shown. ' 3 T -Traffic Signal CSS-Crosti Sneer Stop , U:%UUobs100001-0029900044bxceR00044-W39-0SAs75.7 1 5-8 , ' EXHIBIT 5-C L-238 YEAR 2003 WITH PROJECT X66 5AM PEAK HOUR INTERSECTION VOLUMES 26, 1 r c �2 4 w -2 mamo� �4q J � L �36 t376 JILf-234 . 30 }r 1234 26 , r�3 � } 248--t4Ir -1 v N y q O 3 H > < j POURROY RD. 1 D �l MURRIE z 3 0 l SPRINGSTA HOS z O j S ; �.-1�_==L�_-----i---------I rill =�1-------- 1 SITE CALLE DEL LAG = OJ' "In �_ ���♦ L-1 21 J 1 L f-2022 N\cOLPS 's J � } r o 1 689 m�� CALLE CHAPOS V l AF �' Q l �O l LA SERE NA_ l `I,al k-282 N.GENERAL i �% J L -- K RNY RD. l 372+ 34-1 BUTTERFIELD STAGE D. a\SP �O PSG �P MEA WS PKWY. � R OVE ND . m NcO CA !-2 I L (-277 ,tsi-jI ► r 0 (-10 1�'1 °Dma L-29 �e f-411 .�s v 9 ^� r720 mm.- «i49 54Lf-4J1Lf-57 J1L `90 tI4 220 z1a� 89-1 '�t mem L-23 1'J3S� o^o�o L-16 u�i�� L2 57 '+%1 JILL354 �, J �� �101 J�L (�Iz3 ' 3669 \ 3472335_1 46441-_j 4 _ j=L'2.1 4 v�iv+ery 140 maw 'ti1,�,`� 'RORIPAUGH RANCH,Temecula,California-00044;41 URBAN 5-9 EXHIBIT 5-D ' YEAR 2003 WITH PROJECT 771 1313_ r PM PEAK HOUR INTERSECTION VOLUMES 22-1 mm , e� L2 j-, L188 mmo 1-35 JAL - 6s 11-290 JILf-i33 664' }r „: 283—J 498 m 12_ mN� 162 in > j POURROY RD. > N Z a O 1 SPRIN A \, z O - N . I--- GS ---- SITE 1 CALLE DEL LAG S JI •' '_����_ ",i I II ` L704 , J { L f-367 347 } r v i ,OyTfti ^L 1452 `2 121 mNd CALLE CHAPOS 1 LA -1' - WY. 1 � ' ' N.GENERAL �� � i L X29 K RNY RD. \% 1 1096+ , 53-) BUTTERFIELD STAGE D. O MEA WS PKWY. OVE ND D . N NCN N 4-2 P-9� -.,, O J L 1-759 ' 1 3 1� 32 }r 1 ' lb q`A.� / ��� 193 9 �/19� ^^n X99 N�n, L..1443 ' `'v'� J 4 L f-8 �ti��` J 4 L r20 J { L f-59 210--1 b� 3g7---1 1-J 361 , }� � 721- 1 r 84-1 a 274-1 oMm 228 NN, L7Nm' 75 L214 oWN L31Q J 1 L f-269 %�/\ J 1 L i=� 4 J 4 L 5 J , } r f y,,,q 695-J 197-1 1539-� e" 5 843 2474-1 mmmnm 'I�pb"'1 1759-, }r 3 8-1 RORIPAUGH RANCH,Temecula,Califomia-00044:42 �1RBA�t 5-10 ' Butterfield Stage Road (NS) at: ' • Rancho California Road (EW) For Year 2003 with project traffic conditions, the study area intersections are projected to operate at Level of Service "D" or better during the peak hours with the improvements listed in Table 5-2. However, for Year 2003 traffic conditions, the following study area intersection is projected to operate at tan unacceptable Level of Service during the peak hours with or without feasible improvements 1 Ynez Road (NS) at: ' • Winchester Road (EW) ' Additional General Plan analysis of long-term future service levels along SR- 79 in the vicinity of the Temecula Valley Mall is currently being conducted by ' the City of Temecula. B. Capacity and Level of Service and Improvement Analysis, Year 2007 ' 1. Level of Service at Year 2007 Without Project Year 2007 intersection levels of service for the proposed roadway network ' without the proposed project are shown in Table 5-3. Table 5-3 shows HCM calculations based on the geometrics at the study area intersections without ' and with improvements. Year 2007 without project HCM calculation worksheets are provided in Appendix "E". Year 2007 without project AM ' and PM peak hour intersection turning movement volumes are shown on Exhibits 5-E and 5-F, respectively. 5-11 TABLE 5.3 ' INTERSECTION ANALYSIS FOR YEAR 2007 WITHOUT PROJECT CONDITIONS , INTERSECTION APPROACH LANES NORTH- SOUTH- EAST- WEST- DE(AY2 LEVEL OF t TRAFFIC BOUND BOUND BOUND BOUND SECS. SERVICE INTERSECTION CONTROL? L T R L T R L T R L T R AM PM AM PM 1-215 Fivy.SB Ramps(NS)at: ' • Murrieta Hot Springs Rd. EW TS 0 0 0 2 0 2 0 3 1 0 3 i» 8.9 9.7 A A 1-215 Fwy.NB Ramps(NS)at: • Murrieta Hot Springs Rd. EW TS 2 0 2 0 0 0 0 3 1>> 0 3 1 6..3 10.1 A B 1-15 Fwy.SB Ramps(NS)at: • Winchester Rd.LEW) ' -Without Improvements TS 0 0 0 1.5 0 1.5 0 3 0 0 3 1>> 10.6 -' F F -With Improvements TS 0 0 0 2 0 2 0 3 1 0 3 1>> 10.0 '5 A F • Rancho California Rd.(EW) -Without Improvements TS 0 0 0 1.5 0 1.5 0 3 0 2 3 0 - - F F ' -With Improvements TS 0 0 0 2 0 1>>10 3 i» 0 3 1>> 15.6 B E 1-15 Fwy.NB Ramps(NS)at: • Winchester Rd.(EW) -Without Improvements TS 1.5 0 1.5 0 0 0 0 3 1>> 0 2.5 1.5 8.4 - A F , -With Improvements TS 2 0 1>> 0 0 0 0 3 i» 0 2.5 1.5 7.8 9.7 A A • Rancho California Rd.(EW) -Without Improvements TS 1.5 0 1.5 0 0 0 0 3 1>> 0 3.5 1.5 12.9 - B F -With Improvements TS 2 0 2 0 0 0 0 3 1>> 0 3.5 1.5 111.4 28.7 B I C 11t nez Rd.(NS)at: • Winchester Rd.(EW) -Without Improvements TS 2 2 l> 1 2 1 1 2.5 1.5> 2 3 0 - - F F -With Improvements TS 2 2 1> 2 2 1> 2 2.5 1.5> 2 3 0 43.2 D F • Rancho California Rd.(EW) , -Without Improvements TS 2 2 1 2 2 2> 2 2 1> 1 3 0 F F -With Improvements TS 2 2 1 2 2 2> 2 3 1> 2 3 0 F F Margarita Rd.(NS)at: • Murrieta Hot Springs Rd.(EW) TS 1.5 0.5 1 0 1 1 1 2 1> 1 2 1 25.2 34.4 C C , • Winchester Rd.LEW) -Without Improvements TS 2 2 1> 2 2 0 1 3 1> 2 3 0 51.6 -With Improvements TS 2 2 1> 2 2 1 2 3 1> 2 3 0 51.5 50.7 D D La Serena Wy.(EW) TS 0 2 1 1 2 0 0 0 0 2 .0 1 15.2 11.7 B B • Rancho California Rd.(EW) ' -Without Improvements TS 2 2 0 2 2 0 1 2 1 1 2 1 52.2 -With Improvements TS 2 2 0 2 3 0 2 2_1�-jj 2 2 1 42.7 54.8 D D t What a d8M aan b desiputed.Sts lana an eller E svpe0 m"tmW To hradbn as a dpN em lane Orem i l E saRtdent width tm , ngm tumsg veidas b travel pulside On Nrpph tares. L a Lett:T-Thm gh;R-Right»=Free Rale Tum;>•RIpM Tum Ovedap:1-Irpiv erneM ? DdeY erW laval d service mkdaled mtn8 cite tolpw4q ereNsb edhrara:Tnith-Varabn 7.1.0907(18981 Per the I99714grtwsy Capacity ' Mara L ovens avm W late mee deby and WW d service are shown la iaenxeoru with tragic sgrtd ar al waY amp arttrd. For bterseckni,v ams street slop caned.the delay and level d service for Na vorst (or rtgverrenls sharkV a srgb lana)era sheen. 3 TS .Traffic SWW , CSS.Cross Street Stop a- Intersedlon tlmlade.Delay High.Level of Service'P. , ?- w Add ilorW Ombnl Plan analysis of WV(erm futon service levels a"SR-79 in the vies*of Sts Tartncda Valley Mal is=I&'*eeirg axMucted by Ow City d Temecula. U:WrJ0W0)00i.00299000aa19aoeh(000aa-0039-05.xla15-3 ' 1 5-12 ' TABLE 5-3(CONT-D) ' INTERSECTION ANALYSIS FOR YEAR 2007 WITHOUT PROJECT CONDITIONS ' INTERSECTION APPROACH LANES NORTH- SOUTH- EAST- I WEST- I DELAY' I LEVEL OF BOUND BOUNDTj BOUND BOUND (SECS) SERVICE TRAFFIC ' INTERSECTION CONTROL' L T R L T R L T R L T R I AM I PM AM I PM Winchester Rd.(NS)at: • Murrieta Hot Springs Rd.(EW) TS 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 2 1 30.5 47.3 C D • Nicolas Rd.(EW) ' -Without Improvements TS 1 3 1 1 3 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 71.9 83.6 E F -With Improvements TS 1 3 1> 1 3 1 1 1 0 2 1 1 39.9 41.4 D D N.General Kearny Rd.(NS)at: • Nicolas Rd.(EW) -Without Improvements CSS 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 2 1 1 2 1 —a — F F ' -With Improvements TS 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 2 1 1 2 1 11.3 8.6 1 B A Meadows Pkwy.(NS)at: • La Serena Wy.(EW) CSS 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 2 1 1 2 0 15.5 13.8 C B • Rancho Califomia Rd. EW TS 2 2 0 2 2 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 50.1 41.6 D D ' Butterfield Stage Rd.(NS)at: — — • Rancho California Rd.(EW) -Without Improvements CSS 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 F F -With Improvements TS 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 12.4 11.0 B B Calle Contento(NS)at: • Rancho Califomia Rd. EW CSS 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 20.5 23.4 C C 1 1 1 ' 1 When a right turn a designated.the lane wn either W striped or uutrimcL To hxidion as a right Ian lane here must tie suf itsent width fm right tuning vehicles to travel outside the ft gh lanes. L-Left;T=Tlvotgh;R=Right:»=Free Right Tan;>-Right Tum Overlap;1=Improvement ' 7 Delay ar level d service tlkvlared using de fdbn am"software:Tmf b,Version 7.1.0607(1999} Per the 1997 Hgtw y Capacity Manual,overall average mtersectbn delay and level of service are shorn for interseciials with IreHic signal a as way slap conlyd. For intersections with r s street step caned.the delay ai M level of service fa the wast Indhidtal movement(a rmve m ras sharing a save lane)are shown. ' s Ts a Trefrc signal Css=cross street slop ' 4_z Imorseclicn lJmtaale,Delay High.Level of service F. ..- U:U:JdisnnWa IkEviceNOWaa 9411.0 ISJ ' 5-13 1 EXHIBIT 5-E X250 YEAR 2007 WITHOUT PROJECT 1 726_ (�69 AM PEAK HOUR INTERSECTION VOLUMES 1 34-10 N b rfT �3 aam x_172 amine 1--19{-662 J1L �493 JILr169 3822 'I } (• 1� } r 122- } 325 m�N 45� 167 �c� 1 in T V\P P iy d q O 3 N > cj POURROY RD. � 1 D ^ Z Q 0 Zi I SPHRRffTq N01 O O1 in Ti NGS RD > s �\ f Z�I-------- ; SITE 1 CALLE hW w0: -.i DEL LAG v m�nmq 1-155 gyp.J ��I. X1257 N O\,AS 0 2 �r-�--------' .% 238 \C < in 1p 97 1 } I- 4 �omn 90� o CALLE CHAPOSvlfy- I LA SERE NA � �` wrn N.GENERAL It ! ,` 1 J -186 K RNY RD. ` 445_ BUTTERFIELD STAGE D. 1 p\Z P Qp' MEA W$ PKWY. 1 VE NDD N NCO 4--3 `393 1 a� �91i'i �1v39 o L-104--34.mm-�m X34 ��N 1-5 1 +535 a� x-942 '-586 r-2 '��, ` J T L f-74 J i L `718 3n� ,� r bass 591 }� 2726.x► a�yr 1 p6� g6�gn 26� O N 2801 m�N 240 NN3 voi�m 1-26 �/�'�y� ymy+mgn� 1-221 omvi 1-336 JN 1 ~4355 _/` J 1 I. (�-13452 JNr L X140 . r n�a 16699 49 145 154 "l a}67J -1 5 984 RORIPAUGH RANCH,Temecula,Califomia-00044:43 5-14 EXHIBIT 5-F )�-483 YEAR 2007 WITHOUT PROJECT PM PEAK HOUR INTERSECTION VOLUMES ,567 29� 1 1-3 246 3X ° Ja01-19 ri ,iX9'0is 7 699' �� r 10""! } r 121318:; jjJ 1 } r 652 din i6� o�e 238 1 u+ > J1P P '^ > ¢j POURROY RD. Y z H < E > °V Z', SP SPRINSqHO ¢ rO 3a W �1;II�--Li -- I---i---------I 4: z It' SITE CALLE OII DEL LAG W �� ��•�l� j��_ ��♦ I V i -} ♦ I z c v I i I perm L-1341 II -___�� j•-G4C<J { 906 \C \AS RO �ro� F- N O Z 'sI 454-1 1 1467' aNa O 'eNVv�i CALLE CHAPOS -V+ LASERENA _ ♦% -P WY. `♦ I \ 1 N. GENERAL �� ♦` L -776 K RNY RD. ♦ I 1356- 69 356y69BUTTERFIELD STAGE D. SP O RG R\ ♦P MEA WS PKWY. a ��♦Fo OVE ND D m NCO -3 `103 133 n 4432 3 1 v11S63 �J, �11(j0 a 10a'I, oom X24 1-2 .�♦ e`'� /1 N.- -250 d',p�i v 30 +26 J i NL ~725 o� r� � f--8 � � �iLr 2752 1 ,y059/ ��ms� 163pA� 104- �S �epo 943' ,}: 5672 } r 9 -1 359 lima 293 N.-m 1 1 rma 1-93 �11p30 n^� 1-280 aoo 1-806 J TL ;-349 T� r-2967 r 1 L f-132 7252 910J 258_1 1 1990. } r / } � 1103- 32 4 mm, 190 "'�''�' 1 99~ a°"° u�cN maa 1' e�N 403 1 RORIPAUGH RANCH,Temecula,California-00044:45 URBAN 5-15 r r For Year 2007 without project traffic conditions, the following study area intersections are projected to operate at Level of Service "E" or "F" during the peak hours, without improvements: r 1-15 Freeway SB Ramps (NS) at: • Winchester Road (EW) • Rancho California Road (EW) r 1-15 Freeway NB Ramps (NS) at: • Winchester Road (EW) r • Rancho California Road (EW) Ynez Road (NS) at: ' • Winchester Road (EW) • Rancho California Road (EW) ' Margarita Road (NS) at: ' • Winchester Road (EW) • Rancho California Road (EW) Winchester Road (NS) at: • Nicolas Road (EW) N. General Kearny Road (NS) at: • Nicolas Road (EW) r Butterfield Stage Road (NS) at: r • Rancho California Road (EW) ' 5-16 r For Year 2007 without project traffic conditions, the study area ' intersections are projected to operate at Level of Service "D" or better during the peak hours with the improvements listed in Table 5-3. 1 However, for Year 2007 traffic conditions, the following study area intersections are projected to operate at an unacceptable Level of Service ' during the peak hours with or without feasible improvements: 1-15 Freeway SB Ramps (NS) at: • Winchester Road (EW) • Rancho California Road (EW) ' Ynez Road (NS) at: • Winchester Road (EW) • Rancho California Road (EW) Additional General Plan analysis of long-term future service levels along SR- 79 in the vicinity of the Temecula Valley Mall is currently being conducted by the City of Temecula. ' 2. Level of Service at Year 2007 With Project Year 2007 intersection levels of service for the proposed roadway network ' with the proposed project are shown in Table 5-4. Table 5-4 shows HCM calculations based on the geometrics at the study area intersections without ' and with improvements. Year 2007 with project HCM calculation worksheets are provided in Appendix "F'. Year 2007 with project AM and PM peak hour ' intersection turning movement volumes are shown on Exhibits 5-G and 5-H, respectively. 5-17 1 TABLE 5-4 INTERSECTION ANALYSIS FOR YEAR 2007 WITH PROJECT CONDITIONS INTERSECTION APPROACH LANES NORTH- SOUTH- EAST- WEST- DELAY LEVEL OF , BOUND BOUND BOUND BOUND ISECS. SERVICE TRAFFIC INTERSECTION CONTROL L T R L T R L T R IL T R AM PM AM PM 1-215 Fwy.SB Ramps(NS)at: • Murrieta Hot Springs Rd. EW TS 0 0 0 2 0 2 0 3 1 0 3 1>> 9.3 11.0 A A ' 1-215 Fwy.NB Ramps(NS)at: • Murrieta Hot Springs Rd. EW TS 2 0 2 0 0 0 0 3 1>> 0 3 1 5.7 9.9 A A 1-15 Fwy.SB Ramps(NS)at: • Winchester Rd.(EW) ' -Without Improvements TS 0 0 0 1.5 0 1.5 0 3 0 0 3 1>> 10.7 -' B F -With Improvements TS 0 0 0 2 0 3 0 3 1 0 3 1>> 9.9 'S A F • Rancho California Rd.(EW) -Without Improvements TS 0 0 0 1.5 0 1.5 0 3 0 2 3 0 - - F F ' -With improvements TS 1 0 0 0 2 0 1>>10 3 1>> 0 3 1>>i 15.6 B F 1-15 Fwy.NB Ramps(NS)at: • Winchester Rd.(EW) -Without Improvements TS 1.5 0 1.5 0 0 0 0 3 1>> 0 2.5 1.5 8.2 - A F -With Improvements TS 2 0 1>> 0 0 0 0 3 1>> 0 2.5 1.5 7.5 9.7 A A , • Rancho California Rd.(EW) -Without Improvements TS 1.5 0 1.5 0 0 0 0 3 1>> 0 3.5 1.5 14.1 - B F •With Improvements TS 0 2 0 0 0 0 3 1>> 0 3.5 1.5 12.4 29.6 B C Ynez Rd.(NS)at: , • Winchester Rd.(EW) •Without Improvements TS 2 2 1> 1 2 1 1 2.5 1.5> 2 3 0 - - F F -With Improvements TS 2 2 1> 2 2 1> 2 2.5 1.5> 2 3 0 53.6 D F • Rancho California Rd.(EW) -Without Improvements TS 2 2 1 2 2 2> 2 2 1> 1 3 0 - - F F ' -With Improvements TS 2 2 1 2 2 2> 2 3 1> 2 3 0 F F Margarita Rd.(NS)at: • Murrieta Hot Springs Rd.(EW) TS 1.5 0.5 1 0 1 1 1 2 1> 1 2 1 38.2 44.8 D D • Winchester Rd.(EW) ' •Without Improvements TS 2 2 1> 2 2 0 1 3 1> 2 3 0 36.5 - D F -With Improvements TS 2 2 1> 2 2 1 2 3 1> 2 3 1 33.9 ' C F • La Serena Wy.(EW) TS 0 2 1 1 2 0 0 0 0 2 0 1 15.9 27.9 B C • Rancho California Rd.(EW) -Without Improvements TS 2 2 0 2 2 0 1 2 1 1 2 1 - - F F -With Im ro'am ents TS 2 3 0 2 3 1 2 2 1> 2 2 1 42.4 53.9 D D t When a right burs is des"ted.Ohs lane can slow W stuped or h+adpad. To funchgn as a rigM tum lana Otero nrwst be sNfwiam wdlh fa ' right h1Nq val W travel Walla the thrmo lam. L+Left:T+TMagh;R.Plight;»+Free Right Turn;>+Fdght Tun Ovsriap:l+toprovrnrenf 2 Dolay and level of ser ca nbaated using the folwllg analysis sdhwm:TraAbl Version 7.5.1015(20001 Per Ons 1987 y Capacity Manual,overall average Masection delay enld WM of service are shorn for intemscli"w WRc signal or tl way stop coot For Marsendlorts wIM one steel slop coned.cite delay and level d service far Ole worst FIr➢Wdml rrioaraO(a mnwnerW ehoMg a ttgla lane)ane shown ' s TS +Track Slprml CSS+cross steres Slap a-.Intersection thhslade.Delay Flgh,Level of Service F. ' 5' +AdMonal Gerwal Ran analyse of krgtann knee service Wels along SR-79 In the vicinity of the Tw ease Valley Mal is cur sly tent comhMod by the City,of TwnwM. ' U WWoes` Wi-002990DWalawceN0001a-0CG9-05.ds1St 5-18 ' TABLE 54(CONTD) INTERSECTION ANALYSIS FOR YEAR 2007 WITH PROJECT CONDITIONS ' INTERSECTION APPROACH LANES NORTH- I SOUTH- I EAST- WEST- I DELAY' LEVEL OF ' BOUND BOUND BOUND BOUND SECS. SERVICE TRAFFIC INTERSECTION CONTROL L T R I L T R L T R IL T R I AM I PM AM I PM Winchester Rd.(NS)at: ' Murdeta Hot Springs Rd.(EW) TS 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 2 1 29.7 52.0 C D • Nicolas Rd.(EW) -Without Improvements TS 1 3 1 1 3 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 -4 — F F .With Improvements TS 2 3 1> 2 3 1 1 1 0 2 1 1 41.4 46.7 D D N.General Kearny Rd.(NS)at: — • Nicolas Rd.(EW) -Without Improvements CSS 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 2 1 1 2 1 — F F -With Improvements TS 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 2 1 1 2 1 10.8 9.4 B A Meadows Pkwy.(NS)at: • La Serena Wy.(EW) CSS 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 2 1 1 2 0 17.2 15.9 C C • Rancho California Rd. EW TS 2 2 0 2 2 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 52.9 36.5 D D Butterfield Stage Rd.(NS)at: • Rancho California Rd.(EW) ' -Without Improvements CSS 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 — — F F .With Improvements T 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 16.2 26.9 8 C Calle Conlento(NS)at: • Rancho California Rd. EW CSS 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 21.4 24.6 C C ' t When a right tun Is desiputed.me lane can ei0m be stoped or cramped. To hmclim as a rlyY asn bre Olen mist be sutficlerd wish for right honing vehicles m trod outside the thmgh lanes. L•Lea:T.Though:R.Rpnt;»:Free Right Tom:>-Right Tun Werlap:,j=Impovenlam a Delay and level of service calculated osI g the following arelys0 sollwan:TmflbC Version 7.5.1015(20001 Par Ow 1667 highway Calm ty MamA overall average Mersection delay and level of service an shown for ademecoons wm traffic swo or al way stop oormd. For m6mblCil vtth cross sbael stop control,the delay,and level of Serlce for On worst individual m ven at(n no+emems sharing a sbgla lane)am shown. ' s TS •Traffic Signal CSS.Cross Seset Stop ' 4—•Wersedon Unateble,Delay High.Lave)of Service F. U:III0cbeN0001.001gBu0W44b CONDOW -=9-0S.sk)54 ' 5-19 EXHIBIT 5-G X376 YEAR 2007 WITH PROJECT 121 BAM PEAK HOUR INTERSECTION VOLUMES ' 34 1 r; 3 aeon N V1 b L-3 mv1OWun �-172 �`+m 4--99 , J + L827 J+ Lr-659 J � Lr43 573J y r 22J ,1 r 3462 }a 325: m m 45--1 eeN 167 ' P 1n ) j POURROY RD. 1 Y 2 a O 1 \ I MURRIPTq Oq o a 3 i .r--\-�-�- -----------I SPRINGS RD �. I I--- f oil-------- SITE CA LLE M WI DEL LAG 41 �� �i��l n�� �."♦ I _ 734 __ N\cO� J 0 SRO' �s�T --- ---' f-270 I�_ —— In 510J '� } r i �O2r 539 um. VO 1 ♦`F,y 902 oho CALLE CHAPOS ¢ `�O 1 LA SERE NA � ♦♦ -1' WY. `. 1 1 ♦ 11 1 _ ♦ nm N.GENERAL 11 i ` J L -928 K RNY RD. ♦♦ 1 551+ , 45--� BUTTERFIELD STAGE D. O PaC� R\jP ` MEA WS PKWY. ' OV ND D m NcNO 5 b 'D J } L X303 ' / O 3 1.g� 211 oNmN '11 1 91p6 19°y�,�1 vei o L-42 A 9�9 uY1inN 1--34 ��� 1-15 16 v�0 m +- 204 1AO1 586 J4Lr;57 JILT118 O o n 6� o rVi 76 28012 58 1 n ' 1-41 ,1$b wmn 1-221 cmvO1i 1-336 NN 1734 v�1 uxvao 1925 ""^"' +1 5 . JILT-451 / J1Lr151 J4L �, 87-P 1 1tr 145. 1 } r Q 1554-1 14884-► arae �9tb^ RORIPAUGH RANCH,Temecula,Califomia-00044:46 URB�►�11, 5-20 1 EXHIBIT 5-H )1-583 YEAR 2007 WITH PROJECT PM PEAK HOUR INTERSECTION VOLUMES ,878 29� as 1-3 mon L-246 �_ )-4339 J � Lr-846 J1Lr17 J1L ,o144-J '1 t z3 '1 t r 34740:-2J 65216238 'N 3 �1P P V Ld p ^' > j POURROY RD. MRRz O 1 H SPU G/STq NOS � � O -I RD• ,�� �I� I t f I -------- ) SITE CALLE OI DEL LAG = �i /F_'��- ♦♦ I L747 c 9rrm JI - - ' aON -971N`CO,A50.D �JO _---_---� `♦n J I L x489 454-3 190 3 '� } r aNn O i ♦ti 467 'nom CALLE CHAPOS .�+ rFtTO Q � LA SERE NA -I' WY. �♦ � I ♦ ' m 1 L• N.GENERAL i % J L -891 K RNY RD. ♦ 1521 69-1 BUTTERFIELD STAGE D. ' 0.6 �` ♦p. MEA WS PKWY. p' P OVE ND D . N NCNO .o L- J I L �3�x �. 1 ' 1 ' v1'1L61ry ��. vB 11• a so 1-35 �1�'1. �000m L-24 oNaimn' �- 1 J� L �Ss6 � �� �555 J ✓ L � 35 gg Z5Z5 _J \ � 127-J33qq55 77 3116/ ��0 169po^ 109 e �� 1359-v 1 m L % Mm X280 aoo C-p16 J3tL (-5619 �� jJgS Lr=3 '41 , Lf- 7 �� C 1 232J m}r Q 2993 r ,35 +3 ��t 223 maa 1y1 -1 a$N 4 RORIPAUGH RANCH,Temecula,California•00044:47 URBAN ossft�5-21 For Year 2007 with project traffic conditions, the following study area intersections are projected to operate at Level of Service "E" or T" during ' the peak hours, without improvements: 1-15 Freeway SB Ramps (NS) at: • Winchester Road (EW) , • Rancho California Road (EW) 1-15 Freeway NB Ramps (NS) at: • Winchester Road (EW) • Rancho California Road (EW) Ynez Road (NS) at: • Winchester Road (EW) • Rancho California Road (EW) ' Margarita Road (NS) at: • Winchester Road (EW) • Rancho California Road (EW) ' Winchester Road (NS) at: • Nicolas Road (EW) N. General Kearny Road (NS) at: Nicolas Road (EW) , Butterfield Stage Road (NS) at: • Rancho California Road (EW) 5-22 ' ' For Year 2007 with project traffic conditions, the study area intersections are projected to operate at Level of Service "D" or better during the peak hours with the improvements listed in Table 5-4. However, for Year 2007 traffic conditions, the following study area intersections are projected to operate at an unacceptable Level of Service during the peak hours with or without feasible improvements: 1-15 Freeway SB Ramps (NS) at: Winchester Road (EW) • Rancho California Road (EW) Ynez Road (NS) at: • Winchester Road (EW) ' • Rancho California Road (EW) ' Margarita Road (NS) at: • Winchester Road (EW) Additional General Plan analysis of long-term future service levels along SR- 79 in the vicinity of the Temecula Valley Mall is currently being conducted by the City of Temecula. C. Capacity and Level of Service and Improvement Analysis, General Plan Buildout 1. Level of Service at General Plan Buildout Without Project General Plan Buildout intersection levels of service for the proposed roadway network without the proposed project are shown in Table 5-5. Table 5-5 shows HCM calculations based on the geometrics at the study area intersections with improvements. General Plan Buildout without project 5-23 TABLE S-S INTERSECTION ANALYSIS FOR GENERAL PLAN BUILDOUT WITHOUT PROJECT CONDITIONS INTERSECTION APPROACH LANES ' NORTH- SOUTH- EAST- WEST- DELAYS LEVEL OF BOUND BOUND BOUND BOUND (SECS. SERVICE TRAFFIC ' INTERSECTION CONTROL L T R L T R L T R L T R AM PM AM PM 1-215 Fwy.SB Ramps(NS)at: • Murrieta Hot Springs Rd. EW TS 0 0 0 2 0 2 0 3 1 0 3 1>> 21.0 13.6 C B 1-215 Fwy. NB Ramps(NS)at: • Murrieta Hot Springs Rd. EW TS 2 0 2 0 0 0 0 3 1>> 0 3 1 5.8 12.7 A B 1-15 Fwy.SB Ramps(NS)at: • Winchester Rd. (EW) TS 0 0 0 2 0 2 0 4 1» 0 4 1» 29.5 '6 C F • Rancho California Rd. (EW) TS 0 0 0 2 0 1 0 3 1>> 0 3 1>> 17.5 41.1 B D 1-15 Fwy, NO Ramps(NS)at: • Winchester Rd.(EW) TS 1.5 0 1.5 0 0 0 0 3 1» 0 3 1» 20.1 C F • Rancho California Rd. EW TS 1.5 0 1.5 0 0 0 0 3 1» 0 3.5 1.5» 11.3 16.8 B B Ynez Rd. (NS)at: • Winchester Rd. (EW) TS 2 2 1> 2 2 1> 2 2.5 1.5> 2 3 0 F F • Rancho California Rd. EW TS 2 2 1 2 3 I>J2 3 1>> 2 3 1 48.6 51.6 D D Margarita Rd. (NS)at: Murrieta Hot Springs Rd.(EW) TS 1.5 0.5 1 0 1 1 1 3 1> 1 3 0 29.1 36.4 C D • Winchester Rd. (EW) TS 2 2 1> 2 2 1> 2 3 1> 2 3 1 40.0 • D F • La Serena Wy.(EW) TS 0 2 1 1 2 0 0 0 0 2 0 1 18.3 28.9 B C • Rancho California Rd. EW TS 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 2 1> 2 2 1> 46.3 49.4 D D _ Winchester Rd. (NS)at: • Murrieta Hot Springs Rd.(EW) TS 2 4 1 2 4 1 2 3 1 2 3 0 41.2 46.1 D D • Nicolas Rd. EW TS 1 2 4 1>> 2 4 1 1 1 1> 3 1 0 48.2 47.9 D D N. General Kearny Rd. (NS)at: _ • Nicolas Rd. EW TS 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 2 1 1 2 1 26.7 31.7 C C ' Meadows Pkwy. (NS)at • La Serena Wy. (EW) TS 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 2 1 1 2 0 7.0 7.3 AA Rancho California Rd. EW TS 2 2 0 2 2 1 1 2 1 i. 2 1 44.5 34.4 D C Pourroy Rd.(NS)at: , • Murrieta Hot Springs Rd. EW TS 0 0 0 2 0 1> 2 2 0 0 2 1 29.5 28.4 C C Butterfield Stage Rd.(NS)at: • Murrieta Hot Springs Rd.(EW) TS 2 3 0 0 2 1>> 2 0 1>> 0 0 0 25.5 22.2 C C Nicolas Rd. (EW) TS 2 2 0 0 2 1 2 0 1 0 0 0 15.9 20.7 B C Calle Chapos(EW) TS 1 2 0 0 2 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 31.3 19.1 C B • La Serena Wy.(EW) TS 1 2 1 1 2 1 2 1 0 1 1 0 27.8 38.1 C D • Rancho California Rd. EW TS 1 2 0 1 2 0 2 2 0 1 2 0 32.5 37.3 C D Calle Contento(NS)at: ' • Rancho California Rd. EW CSS 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 2 0 1 2 0 15.4 16.8 C C t II should be noted that imp-memenls have been constructed by the City of Temecula and Caltrans at the study area intersegiors. These , additional lanes have been accounted forwithin the lane configurations with improvements. t When a right tum is designated,the tans can either be striped or unstnped. To function as a night turn lane ' there must be sufficient width for right fuming vehicles to travel outside the through lanes. L=Leg:T=Through:R=Right;»=Free Right Turn:>=Right Tum Overlap;1=Lana Improvement a Delay and level of service calculated using the following analysis sore:Treffx,Version 7.1.0607(1999). , Per the 1997 Highway Capacity Manual,overall average intersection delay and level of service are shown for intersections with traffic signal or all way stop control. For intersections with cross Shelf slop control,the delay and level of service for the worst individual movement(or movements sharing a single lane)are shown, 4TS =TmMc Signal CSS=Cross Street Stop s' •Additional General Plan analysis of long-ern future service levels along SR-79 in the vicinity orthe Temecula Valley Mail is currently being conducted by the City of Temecula. E\UGobst00001-_11000441exoeNfbO44-0039-05.AS)" 5-24 ' HCM calculation worksheets are provided in Appendix "G". General Plan Buildout without project AM and PM peak hour intersection turning movement volumes are shown on Exhibits 5-1 and 5-J, respectively. For General Plan Buildout without project traffic conditions, the study area ' intersections are projected to operate at Level of Service "D" or better during the peak hours with the improvements listed in Table 5-5. However, for General Plan Buildout traffic conditions, the following study area intersections are projected to operate at an unacceptable Level of Service during the peak hours with or without the project: 1-15 Freeway SB Ramps (NS) at: ' • Winchester Road (EW) ' 1-15 Freeway NB Ramps (NS) at: • Winchester Road (EW) Ynez Road (NS) at: ' • Winchester Road (EW) Margarita Road (NS) at: Winchester Road (EW) ' Additional General Plan analysis of long-term future service levels along SR- 79 in the vicinity of the Temecula Valley Mall is currently being conducted by the City of Temecula. ' 2. Level of Service at General Plan Buildout With Project ' General Plan Buildout intersection levels of service for the proposed roadway network with the proposed project are shown in Table 5-6. Table 5-25 1 EXHIBIT 5-I ' )897 GENERAL PLAN BUILDOUT WITHOUT PROJECT AM PEAK HOUR INTERSECTION VOLUMES r 2241 _ yO+m v°0im 1yO+gn. ion �3 ao�uN+ L-282 v+mo L-55 J L x-818 n.-m 1912 nrvry x-183 -1762 J 1 L C-84 J 1 L �-945 X266 193- 237-J -1 t iu� t 75-J 53� 99_1 ♦°fie Nw 1132 �t r 105 , t r 682 1 t r 287 MNm 267- NON 155 O1^m� Of J1P P i n 3 n n won i em' ' LL ko D a. > 1 POURROY R SPRRRIfTq HO.S 03 O �.�� �--_--* --- ----1 182-1 ow NGS RO > s 1 __ I am } " ` ' Na zi ITE ' 1 CALLE 0! V. I DELLAG = �� ��e�l V A 1 1 c 11 mrrvi� x-161 SRp. Py��tT --� •�CA(`� ' J 1 L x2666 N1Cp13` or in 2045832-J 058 1}r O 801 mNV CALLE CHAPOS < j 1 I,p,SERE N_A _ % o � � nm N.GENERAL ,� ! `` , J L -1909 K RNY RD. 1249 -j BUTTERFIELD STAGE D. t O PSG R1tP �F �' MEA WS PKWY. �F ')31 OVE LAND D N HCN opmn 1_-27rin 1-3 L X27 X63 JTZ ' b9 n 64� N t r 117trv� 1 mmm 3240 >>j v3t0 m n �-2540 NN^ X455 J 1 L f- 3 °� �' J 1 L x355 J L x53 ' 162-J �� 50J 129J r 6`S oar, 9vy 736 t� ��0 336 �t r 288 nt ,�,;a !•9 33--v mmm 311 o p mmu, 1-2591a�5 mono 192 om 1--552 NNS X2327 vf'3 rrNn ♦1292S'^L .--83 J1Lr305 JTLf-146 837- m 1 (' . �9m 74s81,�r 438 'I 1 I' ti, os 1441 mmm �ti � 731 WMONN, 406 �noo "i1� 01 RORIPAUGH RANCH,Temecula,California-00044:50 URBAN 5-26 ' ' EXHIBIT 5-J 1-1055 GENERAL PLAN BUILDOUT WITHOUT PROJECT - 2135 PM PEAK HOUR INTERSECTION VOLUMES 2571; , r 1163 mry mo rva NQ /395!7 ODN Nroin �1 nm L-421 N_e_pN x-50 J L +624 J 1; Lx7051f-349 J Ir 2157 552 91340J1117 15-2243 1 r 6� 1 t r 1763w276 Pma> < POURROY RMURRIED 3 i 6_1SPRINGD 0 O ; .i�===�,r�� 41� }Zi ---------CALLE WIDEL LAG o�epO1 X281 J i X5473 N1COlPSRO o�� I------ - '.r• 561J1fr k I 189 5mnN 0 I ♦2rP 7389 mNv CALLE CHAP05 Q �`N' � ♦O I LA SERE NA ♦ yn+o N.GENERAL �� / ♦♦ J -2201 K RNY RD. 3176~ 562-) BUTTERFIELD STAGE D. R1S P �Q. PRG ♦P MEA WS PKWY. v ->sS 1 ti0a VE LAND D N NCaO CA o_nn r y 1-4 J 1, L f-27 -TTI I� X155 453 } r 20J + 363, dOr 153gti� 251--j N.-n 63; a 1 0 ♦/ry 1S$ �`vV+ ♦/�'p1� nmry X36 » ♦big �N 1-11 00_�QO� L_116 L X363 ''s `6 J X696 J { I� `466 1297' }r \ `��i 687' } r 318 , } ' 3A1g6 1811 167 . n� opmm b 430--tmmw 91� ' ra°Dom -46 rL 1N1 m -245 =2 L-435 -435 1729 No ~1214 n �J `423JTL TI34 P�q fC' 358Jrig}a 1g1 � 871 1 vu}20 14irN 534_! 93 - 896-36 621-) e�mn RORIPAUGH RANCH,Temecula,California-00044:51 URBAN 5-27 1 TABLE 5-6 INTERSECTION ANALYSIS FOR GENERAL PLAN BUILDOUT WITH PROJECT CONDITIdNS INTERSECTION APPROACH LANES FNORTH- SOUTH- EAST- WEST- DELAY' LEVEL OF OUND BOUND BOUND BOUND (SECS.) SERVICE TRAFFIC INTERSECTION CONTROL' T R L T R L T R L .T R AM PM AM PM 1-215 Fwy.SB Ramps(NS)at: • Murrieta Hot Springs Rd.(EW) TS 0 0 0 2 0 2 0 3 1 0 3 1» 23.5 16.9 C B 1-215 Fwy.NB Ramps(NS)at: • Murrieta Hot Springs Rd.(EW) TS 2 0 2 0 0 0 0 3 1» 0 3 1 5.8 15.0 A B 1-15 Fwy.SB Ramps(NS)at: • Winchester Rd.(EW) TS 0 0 0 2 0 2 0 4 1» 0 4 1» 32.7 'e C F • Rancho California Rd.(EW) TS 0 0 0 2 0 1 0 3 1>> 0 3 1» 18.1 42.0 B D 1-15 Fwy.NB Ramps(NS)at: • Winchester Rd.(EW) TS 1.5 0 1.5 0 0 0 0 3 1>> 0 3 1>> 21.8 C F • Rancho California Rd.(EW) TS 1.5 0 1.5 0 0 0 0 3 1» 10 3.5 1.5» 11.6 17.9 B B Ynez Rd.(NS)at: , • Winchester Rd.(EW) TS 2 2 1> 2 2 1> 2 2.5 1.5> 2 3 0 F F • Rancho California Rd.(EW TS 2 2 1 2 3 1 > 2 3 1» 2 3 1 50.9 52.7 D D Margarita Rd. (NS)at: • Murrieta Hol Springs Rd.(EW) TS 1.5 0.5 1 0 1 1 1 3 1> 1 3 0 32.1 50.8 C D • Winchester Rd.(EW) TS 2 2 1> 2 2 1> 2 3 1> 2 3 1 47.3 - D F , La Serena Wy.(EW) TS 0 2 1 1 2 0 0 0 0 2 0 1 20.5 27.8 B C • Rancho California Rd.(EW) TS 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 2 1> 2 2 1> 49.3 52.1 D D Winchester Rd.(NS)at: • Murrieta Hot Springs Rd. (EW) TS 2 4 1 2 4 1 2 3 1 2 3 0 47.5 55.0 D D ' Nicolas Rd. (EW) TS 2 4 1>> 2 4 1 1 1 1> 3 1 1> 154.1 38.3 D D N.General Kearny Rd.(NS)at: • Nicolas Rd.(EW) TS 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 2 1 1 2 1 36.7 36.0 D 1 D Meadows Pkwy.(NS)at • La Serena Wy. (EW) TS 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 2 1 1 2 0 7.1 7.4 A A • Rancho California Rd. (EW) TS 2 2 0 2 2 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 44.9 36.9 D D Pourroy Rd, (NS)at: • Murrieta Hot Springs Rd. (EW) TS 1 1 1 2 1 1> 2 2 1 1 2 1 42.6 54.4 D 0 , Project Entrance(NS)at: • Murrieta Hof Springs Rd. EW TS 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 2 1 1 2 0 12.1 24.1 B C Butterfield Stage Rd.(NS)at: • Murrieta Hot Springs Rd. (EW) TS 2 3 0 0 2 1» 2 0 1>> 0 0 0 44.6 46.7 D D , • Nicolas Rd.(EW) TS 2 3 0 2 2 1 2 1 1 1 1 1> 39.5 46.7 C 0 Calle Chapos(EW) TS 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 1 0 1 1 0 50.1 37.2 D C La Serena Wy.(EW) TS 1 2 1 1 3 0 2 1 0 1 1 0 29.3 51.4 C D • Rancho California Rd.(EW) TS 1 2 0 1 2 0 12 2 0 1 2 0 34.6 51.8 C D ' Rancho California Rd. EW) CSS 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 2 0 11 2 0 15.8 17.3 C C Calle Contento(NS)at: 1 It should be noted that improvement^have been coma acted by the City of Temecula and Caltrans at the study area intersections. These additional lanes have been accounted for within the lana configurations with improvements. 1 When a right tum is designated,the lane can either be striped a unstriped. To function as a right tum lane there must be sufficient width for right turning vehicles to travel outside the through lanes. L=Left:T=Through:R=Right:»=Free Right Tum:>=Right Turn Overlap;1=Lane Improvement 'Delay and level of service calculated using the following analysis software'.Tran%,version 7.5.1015(2000). ' Per the 1997 Highway Capacity Manual,overall average intersection delay and level of service are shown for Intersections with traffic signal or all way slop control. For intersections with cross street stop control,the ' delay and level of service for the worst individual movement(or movements sharing a single lane)are shown. 'TS -Traffic Signal CSS+Cross Street Stop _ e• =Addilional Geneml Plan analysis of long-tens future service levels along SR-79 in the vicinity of the Temecula Valley Mall is currently being conducted by the City of Temecula. C:tData\Workt00044�ExceNC004"030-05.xls15-6 , 5-28 1 1 5-6 shows HCM calculations based on the geometrics at the study area intersections with improvements. General Plan Buildout with project HCM calculation worksheets are provided in Appendix "H". General Plan Buildout 1 with project AM and PM peak hour intersection turning movement volumes are shown on Exhibits 5-K and 5-L, respectively. 1 Based on the anticipated General Plan buildout traffic volumes with the proposed Roripaugh Ranch project, the following three intersections along Butterfield Stage Road require an additional northbound through lane beyond its General Plan classification of a four-lane facility (see Table 5-6): Butterfield Stage Road (NS) at: • Murrieta Hot Springs Road (EW) —to be provided by project ' Nicolas Road (EW) — to be provided by project ' • La Serena Way (EW) ' To accommodate the additional capacity needed along Butterfield Stage Road between Murrieta Hot Springs Road and Nicolas Road, an ' augmented Arterial cross-section (See Exhibit 6-B) shall be constructed in conjunction with project development for this segment of Butterfield Stage Road. To accommodate the additional northbound through lane needed at the intersection of Butterfield Stage Road and La Serena Way, the cross- section along Butterfield Stage Road should be widened when approaching the intersection and then be narrowed back to the General Plan roadway cross-section width away from the intersection. 1 For General Plan Buildout with project traffic conditions, the study area intersections are projected to operate at Level of Service "D" or better during 5-29 EXHIBIT 5-K , 1-363 GENERAL PLAN BUILDOUT WITH PROJECT _2076 AM PEAK HOUR INTERSECTION VOLUMES ' 224;~ NN M� ion �-3 m �- ^ 1--60 C945 X366 J } r^ir'u X397 ^r'm --2130 ^rvry 199 00oa 20 6 1153 m�ry 172 J � L � ,00 J1L x,137 J1� r 32 fa9 so1� 1t J � L �zz6 75� 53� 99-3 581-) a°f 115' } r } r 1tr1 } r _1 112- , } r 1265 oM� 115+ Mbb 850 marcv o'. m.-n 1531 �o.-n 287 mNa 267 Nmv 155 mW' vim.- J + L f-56 59� N-: -v P 1J , in 3 v\P in n w 1053 r m N D H z a o ;POURROY R !«573 MURRIFT 1 3 3 I I J L r90 SPRINGS A NO cc O ` OII=__���- z ---- I 158-3 1 } r RD. tg yl� I I 37; �oaoa IL �� Z� ------- SITE B2� �I CALLE wl DEL LAG ♦ I *T-N, 1-177 Rp. 9 <�, _-____-' I -C?(Z 2113 �$ sI___-__--_-_/-300 �O 2123' w}r O 1 ♦yTf 801 omi^nv CALLE CHAPOS Q I ♦�Tp , ♦ 0 1 � NW1_ N. GENERAL �� i ♦♦ ' 231 J L -2613 K RNY RD. 1717+ 249--1 - BUTTERFIELD STAGE D. R\SP p0• P�yG ♦p. EA WS PKWY. � OVE .I, No N NCNO� W 9 O O n 1-27 vnom 373 L ~27 46 I` I f r - ' a n 148' } r ';2y �omn u� �1 1 23 � 1 64� N'Ncry , uti9 v1'IOy1 rODimm 1-64 p1 goo L2 mno 1-82 L ~14059 � o v 0ti maN +636 mma 55 f-6 J 1 L f-387 J 1 L �3 162J '� } r > 50J '� } r 211-3 } r 66 881+ NNm 3g9 00 288+ neo 11,;p,5 9po�R, 33-1 MMa 311- It 38-1 �my o O !_ �S AmX120 1-552 b� "NN 275 V� 2 JIL (-333 1 J4Lf-1462 J1L — o7 149- t r r �;, 806- 'I } r 3J 'I } r 1444~ NNN 1,0'�/� 631--1 MON 406 s�m ,511 MMM (19 h 0 , RORIPAUGH RANCH,Temecula,California-00044:53 URBAN 5-30 ' EXHIBIT 5-L „22 GENERAL PLAN BUILDOUT WITH PROJECT 2797 2228 PM PEAK HOUR INTERSECTION VOLUMES -, r 1163 mN mo na min �, ry^m -428 NtDN X57 mevoi 1-392 J rv�m X247 --1940 24 1613 �-947 112 1 J + L r s3 J L �—sos J i L X244 J 1 L f-134 1os2-J } J l L X139 23J -� t r 2' 1 t r 340--F t r 552 1 t r L2 892 coa0o 410' 2511 mom 25-� �lpN 2106 mV 1544 �o�on r�a� 1297 1O� 172+ nwm 389-1 o m 3� ev 276-1 N 183 orvm J + L f-148 253 NNN P N� r 4' VAP 201G02 vt r n D ¢ > j POURROY R mmnmo 1-722 z a o 1 ~35 MURRIE q 3 -56 SPRINGS RO O O Lu 276-J } r 55— mon W Z� ---------� SITE ' 41� CALLS ti 0I DEL LAG ' ovm L-294 Pp. Pv �m ------� ' • << —1807 J ► L x574 1982— �tr O i oyrF .t 389—t woe CALLE CHAPOS Q 1 �`tlo � Lp,SERE N_A_ WY. '`♦ � ♦ N.GENERAL �� i ♦♦ J L —2.294 K RNY RD. 1 3306- 562--1 BUTTERFIELD STAGE D. p1,P Pp PRG \P, MEA WS PKWY. Ibbab OVE ND D . N NCNO o� �^ A %,� O emv�n 1-27 in.a -264 23 JIL `15 X27 20� 1'1 A 5681 r 363-1 }r 3 251-1 eNOv'ry ro JtLf-7°3 J � Lr46a 425 '1 t r y �`>� 280801:! '1 t r 427J -1 } I- 1590 comm a+O°� 318- 1 n ' nmo L59 1�'0� mnm 1-245 �o�i� 1-435 P� J 1 (-4507 �1\ J `3281 J � iia? -1 i�t or 8337— a 94 237 � 1958q 1 36 8 62 R MIPAUGH RANCH,Temecula,California-00044:54 URBAti 5-31 1 the peak hours with the improvements listed in Table 5-6. However, for General Plan Buildout traffic conditions, the following study area , intersections are projected to operate at an unacceptable Level of Service during the peak hours with or without the project: t 1-15 Freeway SB Ramps (NS) at: • Winchester Road (EW) , 1-15 Freeway NB Ramps (NS) at: Winchester Road (EW) ' Ynez Road (NS) at: 1 • Winchester Road (EW) Margarita Road (NS) at: Winchester Road (EW) Additional General Plan analysis of long-term future service levels along SR- 79 in the vicinity of the Temecula Valley Mall is currently being conducted by ' the City of Temecula. r t t t 5-32 1 6.0 FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS A. Site Access 1 The proposed project will have access to Murrieta Hot Springs Road and Butterfield ' Stage Road. Site-specific circulation and access improvement considerations are depicted on Exhibit 6-A. ' The Assessment District 161/Southwest Area RBBD program boundaries are included in Appendix "I". The reconstruction and widening of Winchester Road ' (SR-79) has been partially completed. ' The Roripaugh Ranch development is participating in the current extension of Murrieta Hot Springs Road east of its existing terminus at Calistoga Drive. The project site is included within the boundaries of the Southwest Area RBBD. The ' project shall participate on a pro-rata basis in the District to build areawide roadway improvements. However, it should be noted that Roripaugh Ranch is programmed ' to construct Murrieta Hot Springs Road and Butterfield Stage Road within the project site at their ultimate half-section widths, in addition to providing off-site improvements to provide site access. 1 tFor Phase 1 (development of up to 511 dwelling units) traffic conditions, Murrieta Hot Springs Road and Nicolas Road should be extended to the project site with a minimum 34 foot pavement section to provide site access. ' For Phase 2 (development beyond 511 dwelling units) traffic conditions, Butterfield Stage Road should be extended from Rancho California Road to the project site ' with a'minimum 34 foot pavement section to provide site access. 6-1 EXHIBIT 6-A CIRCULATION IMPROVEMENT CONSIDERATIONS PARTICIPATE IN THE THE PROJECT SITE IS INCLUDED WITHIN THE FOR GENERAL CONSTRUCT BUTTERFIELD EXTENSION OF BOUNDARIES OF THE SOUTHWEST AREA RBBD. PLAN BUILDOUT STAGE RD.FROM ' MURRIETA HOT THE PROJECT SHALL PARTICIPATE ON A PRO-RATA TRAFFIC MURRIETA HOT SPRINGS SPRINGS RD.EAST BASIS IN THE DISTRICT TO BUILD AREAWIDE CONDITIONS,THE RD.TO NICOLAS RD.AT OF ITS EXISTING ROADWAY IMPROVEMENTS. HOWEVER, IT CONSTRUCTION ITS ULTIMATE TERMINUS AT SHOULD BE NOTED THAT RORIPAUGH RANCH IS OF BUTTERFIELD CROSS-SECTION WIDTH 1 CALISTOGA DR. PROGRAMMED TO CONSTRUCT MURRIETA HOT STAGE RD.NORTH AS AN AUGMENTED SPRINGS RD.AND BUTTERFIELD STAGE RD.WITHIN OF THE PROJECT ARTERIAL HIGHWAY(118 THE PROJECT SITE AT THEIR ULTIMATE SITE HAS BEEN .FOOT RIGHT-OF-WAY)IN CROSS-SECTION WIDTHS,IN ADDITION TO ASSUMED. CONJUNCTION WITH ' y PROVIDING OFF-SITE IMPROVEMENTS TO PROVIDE DEVELOPMENT.(SEE OSITE ACCESS. EXHIBIT 6-B) s � O 7 ¢ O 'MURRIETA HOT SPRINGS RD — — — — — — CONSTRUCT BUTTERFIELD STAGE L RD. FROM NICOLAS RD.TO THE , — — — — — — — — — — — — l - SOUTHERLY BOUNDARY OF TRAFFIC ANALYSIS ZONE 4 AT ITS ULTIMATE WIDTH AS AN NICOLAS RD. / ARTERIAL HIGHWAY(110 FOOT , I RIGHT-OF-WAY)IN / CONJUNCTION WITH TEf DEVELOPMENT. p FOR PHASE 1 SINCE NICOLAS RD.IS PROJECTED w I (DEVELOPMENT OF TO SERVE LESS THAN 14,200 ADT Q I 1 UP TO 511 DWELLING WEST OF BUTTERFIELD STAGE RD. N I CALLE CHAPOS UNITS)TRAFFIC FOR GENERAL PLAN BUILDOUT p CONDITIONS, WITH PROJECT TRAFFIC MURRIETA HOT CONDITIONS,THE CITY OF a "C" ST. ' SPRINGS RD.AND TEMECULA CIRCULATION I NICOLAS RD.SHOULD ELEMENT COULD BE AMENDED BE EXTENDED TO THE TO DOWNGRADE NICOLAS RD. m L — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — PROJECT SITE WITH A FROM AN ARTERIAL TO A ' MINIMUM 34 FOOT SECONDARY(88 FOOT CONSTRUCT BUTTERFIELD STAGE RD. FROM THE PAVEMENT SECTION RIGHT-OF-WAY)BETWEEN CALLE SOUTHERLY BOUNDARY OF TRAFFIC ANALYSIS TO PROVIDE SITE GIRASOL AND BUTTERFIELD ZONE 4 TO THE SOUTHERLY PROJECT BOUNDARY AT ACCESS. STAGE RD. ITS ULTIMATE HALF SECTION WIDTH AS AN ' ARTERIAL HIGHWAY(110 FOOT RIGHT-OF-WAY)IN CONJUNCTION WITH DEVELOPMENT. SIGHT DISTANCE AT EACH PROJECT ENTRANCE SHOULD ' BE REVIEWED WITH RESPECT TO STANDARD CITY OF TEMECULA SIGHT DISTANCE STANDARDS AT THE TIME FOR PHASE 2(DEVELOPMENT BEYOND 511 OF PREPARATION OF FINAL GRADING,LANDSCAPE AND DWELLING UNITS)TRAFFIC CONDITIONS, STREET IMPROVEMENT PLANS. ' BUTTERFIELD STAGE RD.SHOULD BE EXTENDED FROM RANCHO CALIFORNIA RD. TO THE PROJECT SITE WITH A MINIMUM 34 TRANSPORTATIONS STEM MANAGEMENT ACTIONS FOOT PAVEMENT SECTION TO PROVIDE SITE AND A TRAFFIC MITIGATION/ MONITORING PROGRAM , ACCESS.CONSTRUCTION OF BUTTERFIELD ARE DESCRIBED IN SECTION 7.0 OF THIS REPORT. STAGE RD, NORTH OF THE PROJECT SITE HAS NOT BEEN ASSUMED FOR YEAR 2007 TRAFFIC CONDITIONS. LEGEND: ol =TRAFFIC SIGNAL URBAN RORIPAUGH RANCH Temecula Calif mia 00044'20 , 6-2 EXHIBIT 6-B AUGMENTED ARTERIAL ROADWAY CROSS-SECTIONS ' R/W R/W ne• u a' r 4 _ 14' UR�' YU=UREI ICU R CURBED MEDIAN ' AUGMEMED ARTERIAL HIGHWAY 1 t t f RORIPAUGH RANCH,Temecula,California•00044:55 URBAN 6-3 Construction of Butterfield Stage Road north of the project site has not been assumed for Year 2007 traffic conditions. ' For General Plan Buildout traffic conditions, the construction of Butterfield Stage t Road north of the project site has been assumed. B. Traffic Impacts ' For existing traffic conditions, the following study area intersections are operating ' at Level of Service "E" or "F" during the peak hours: 1-215 Freeway NB Ramps (NS) at: • Murrieta Hot Springs Road (EW) ' — Traffic counts taken while improvements were under construction 1-15 Freeway SB Ramps (NS) at: ' • Rancho California Road (EW) Ynez Road (NS) at: ' Winchester Road (EW) ' Overland Drive overcrossing of the 1-15 Freeway has been completed since the traffic counts were 1 taken Butterfield Stage Road (NS) at: • Rancho California Road (EW) , The proposed development is projected to generate a total of approximately 30,748 ' trip-ends per day with 2,573 vehicles per hour during the AM peak hour and 3,261 vehicles per hour during the PM peak hour. ' 6-4 , Year 2003 Levels of Service: For Year 2003 with project traffic conditions, the ' following study area intersections are projected to operate at Level of Service "E" or "F" during the peak hours, without improvements: 1-15 Freeway SB Ramps (NS) at: ' . Rancho California Road (EW) ' Ynez Road (NS) at: • Winchester Road (EW) ' • Rancho California Road (EW) N. General Kearny Road (NS) at: ' • Nicolas Road (EW) Butterfield Stage Road (NS) at: Rancho California Road (EW) For Year 2003 without project traffic conditions, a traffic signal is projected to be ' warranted at the following additional study area intersection (see Appendix "B"): N. General Kearny Road (NS) at: • Nicolas Road (EW) For Year 2007 with project traffic conditions, traffic signals are projected to be ' warranted at the following study area intersections (see Appendix "B"): ' Project Entrance (NS) at: • Murrieta Hot Springs Road (EW) 6-5 1 Butterfield Stage Road (NS) at: 1 • Nicolas Road (EW) ' • Calle Chapos (EW) • La Serena Way (EW) 1 For General Plan Buildout without project traffic conditions, traffic signals are 1 projected to be warranted at the following additional study area intersections (see Appendix "B"): 1 Pourroy Road (NS) at: ' • Murrieta Hot Springs Road (EW) i Meadows Parkway (NS) at: • La Serena Way (EW) ' Butterfield Stage Road (NS) at: 1 • Murrieta Hot Springs Road (EW) Table 6-1 presents a comparison of General Plan Buildout peak hour volumes to project peak hour volumes as a percent of project contribution. The project percent , of new traffic ranges from 2.4% to 39.7% at the study area intersections. 1 C. Need for Improvements Off-Site to Achieve Required Level of Service 1 For Year 2003 traffic conditions, the following additional off-site improvements are 1 recommended with or without the project (see Table 5-2): 1-15 Freeway SB Ramps (NS) at: 1 • Rancho California Road (EW) — Southbound Left Turn Lane 1 — . Eastbound Free Right 1 6-6 ' 1 ' TABLE 6.1 ' PROJECT TRAFFIC CONTRIBUTION ' "BUILDOU L PLAN PROJECT% EXISTINT WITH PROJECT TOTAL NEW OF NEW TRAFFICECT TRAFFIC TRAFFIC TRAFFIC INTERSECTION AM PMPM AM I PM AM I PM I AM PM ' 1-215 Fwy. SS Ramps (NS) at: • Murrieta Hot Springs Rd. EW 1,332 1,901 6,259 7,373 217 319 4,927 5,472 4.4% 5.8% 1-215 Fwy. NB Ramps(NS) at: ' Murrieta Hot Springs Rd. EW 1,486 2,308 5,528 7,945 297 386 4,042 5,637 7.3% 6.8% 1-15 Fwy. SB Ramps(NS)at: Winchester Rd. (EW) 1,104 4,081 6,367 7,556 169 197 5,263 3,475 3.2% 5.7% ' Rancho California Rd. EW 3,417 5,101 5,122 6,535 97 98 1,705 1,434 5.7% 6.8% 1-15 Fwy. NB Ramps (NS)at: • Winchester Rd. (EW) 968 5,107 8,200 9,350 172 208 7,232 4,243 2.4% 4.9% • Rancho California Rd. EW 4,117 5,733 5,803 7,333 1321 160 1,686 1,600 7.8% 10.0% ' Ynez Rd. (NS) at: Winchester Rd. (EW) 2,833 5,186 8,403 10,627 250 304 5,570 5,441 4.5% 5.6% Rancho California Rd. EW 4,026 5,586 6,175 8,277 133 160 2,149 2,691 6.2% 5.9% Margarita Rd. (NS)at: Murrieta Hot Springs Rd. (EW) 1,031 1,588 4,352 5,546 377 489 3,321 3,958 11.4% 12.4% Winchester Rd. (EW) 2,515 4,087 5,917 8,185 377 460 3,402 4,098 11.1% 11.2% La Serena Wy. (EW) 1,246 1,561 3,012 3,383 116 135 1,766 1,822 6.6% 7.4% ' Rancho California Rd. EW 3,121 4,068 5,9801 7,096 1591 194 2,8591 3,028 5.6%1 6.4% Winchester Rd. (NS) at: Murrieta Hot Springs Rd. (EW) 2,008 1,588 6,703 9,115 523 701 4,695 7,527 11.1% 9.3% ' Nicolas Rd. EW 2,009 2,864 6,174 7,030 420 511 4,165 4,166 10.1% 12.3% N. General Kearny Rd. (NS)at: Nicolas Rd. EW 864 843 3,286 3,640 450 511 2,422 2,797 18.6% 18.3% Meadows Pkwy. (NS)at: 1 La Serena Wy. (EW) 558 469 1,092 1,353 163 195 534 884 30.5% 22.1% Rancho California Rd. EW 1,78811,7231 2,521 2,817 210 258 733 1,094 28.6% 23.6% Pourroy Rd. (NS)at: ' Murrieta Hot Springs Rd. EW 0 0 3,653 4,884 1,156 1,555 3,653 4,884 31.6% 31.8% Butterfield Stage Rd. (NS)at: Murrieta Hot Springs Rd. (EW) 0 0 4,970 5,799 1,157 1,401 4,970 5,799 23.3% 24.2% ' • Nicolas Rd.(EW) 0 0 4,580 5,525 1,819 1,972 4,580 5,525 39.7% 35.7% • Calle Chapos(EW) 0 0 3,710 4,833 1,093 1,246 3,710 4,833 29.5% 25.8% • La Serena Wy.(EW) 0 0 3,277 4,443 682 844 3,277 4,443 20.8% 19.0% • Rancho Cal'Ifomia Rd. EW) 11,00011,1531 31439 4,555 519 649 2,439 3,402 21.3% 19.1% ' Calle Contento (NS)at: Rancho California Rd. (EW) 1 488 587 741 869 26 32 253 282 1 ' E:\UcJobs\00001 -00299\00044\exce0[00044-b039-o5.xis)6-1 6-7 Ynez Road (NS) at: , • Winchester Road (EW) ' — Southbound Right Turn Overlap • Rancho California Road (EW) ' — Eastbound Through Lane N. General Kearny Road (NS) at: ' • Nicolas Road (EW) , — Traffic Signal Butterfield Stage Road (NS) at: • Rancho California Road (EW) ' — Traffic Signal However, for Year 2003 traffic conditions, the following study area intersection is projected to operate at an unacceptable Level of Service during the peak hours with , or without the project: Ynez Road (NS) at: , • Winchester Road (EW) Additional General Plan analysis of long-term future service levels along SR-79 in the vicinity of the Temecula Valley Mall is currently being conducted by the City of ' Temecula. For Year 2007 traffic conditions, the following additional off-site improvements ' are recommended with or without the project (see Table 5-4): 1-15 Freeway SB Ramps (NS) at: ' Winchester Road (EW) 6-8 ' - Southbound Left and Right Turn Lane ' - Eastbound Right Turn Lane • Rancho California Road (EW) ' - Southbound Free Right - Westbound Free Right ' 1-15 Freeway NB Ramps (NS) at: • Winchester Road (EW) - Southbound Left Turn Lane ' - Southbound Free Right • Rancho California Road (EW) - Southbound Left and Right Lane ' Ynez Road (NS) at: • Winchester Road (EW) - Southbound Left Turn Lane ' • Rancho California Road (EW) Westbound Left Turn Lane ' Margarita Road (NS) at: ' • Winchester Road (EW) - Southbound Right Turn Lane ' - Eastbound Left Turn Lane - Westbound Right Turn Lane (with the Project only) Rancho California Road (EW) - Northbound Through Lane (with the Project only) ' - Southbound Through Lane - Southbound Right Turn Lane (with the Project only) ' - Eastbound Left Turn Lane 1 ' 6-9 — Eastbound Right Turn Overlap , — Westbound Left Turn Lane ' Winchester Road (NS) at: , • Nicolas Road (EW) — Northbound Left Turn Lane ' — Northbound Right Turn Overlap — Westbound Left Turn Lane ' However, for Year 2007 traffic conditions, the following study area intersections are ' projected to operate at an unacceptable Level of Service during the peak hours with or without feasible improvements: , 1-15 Freeway SB Ramps (NS) at: , • Winchester Road (EW) • Rancho California Road (EW) , Ynez Road (NS) at: ' • Winchester Road (EW) ' • Rancho California Road (EW) Margarita Road (NS) at: ' • Winchester Road (EW) , Additional General Plan analysis of long-term future service levels along SR-79 in the vicinity of the Temecula Valley Mall is currently being conducted by the City of Temecula. ' Based on the anticipated General Plan buildout traffic volumes with the proposed ' Rod paugh Ranch project, the following three intersections along Butterfield Stage 1 6-10 , 1 Road require an additional northbound through lane beyond its General Plan ' classification of a four-lane facility (see Table 5-6): ' Butterfield Stage Road (NS) at: • Murrieta Hot Springs Road (EW) —to be provided by project • Nicolas Road (EW) —to be provided by project • La Serena Way (EW) To accommodate the additional capacity needed along Butterfield Stage Road ' between Murrieta Hot Springs Road and Nicolas Road, an augmented Arterial cross-section (See Exhibit 6-B) shall be constructed in conjunction with project ' development for this segment of Butterfield Stage Road. ' To accommodate the additional northbound through lane needed at the intersection of Butterfield Stage Road and La Serena Way, the cross-section ' along Butterfield Stage Road should be widened when approaching the intersection and then be narrowed back to the General Plan roadway cross- section width away from the intersection. ' For General Plan Buildout traffic conditions, the following additional off-site improvements are recommended with or without the project (see Table 5-6): 1-15 Freeway SB Ramps (NS) at: Winchester Road (EW) — Eastbound and Westbound Through Lane — Eastbound Free Right Turn Lane ' • Rancho California Road (EW) Southbound Loop Ramp 1 6-11 1-15 Freeway NB Ramps (NS) at: • Winchester Road (EW) ' — Westbound Free Right Turn Lane • Rancho California Road (EW) ' — Westbound Free Right Turn Lane Ynez Road (NS) at: Rancho California Road (EW) , — Southbound Through Lane — Southbound Free Right Turn Lane ' — Eastbound Free Right Turn Lane — Southbound Free Right Turn Lane ' — Eastbound Free Right Turn Lane — Westbound Left Turn Lane , — Westbound Right Turn Lane , Margarita Road (NS) at: Murrieta Hot Springs Road (EW) ' — Northbound Shared Left/Through Lane ' — Eastbound Through Lane — Westbound Through Lane , Winchester Road (EW) — Southbound Right Turn Overlap ' • Rancho California Road (EW) — Northbound Right Turn Lane ' — Westbound Right Turn Overlap Winchester Road (NS) at: • Murrieta Hot Springs Road (EW) ' — Northbound Through Lane 6-12 ' — Southbound Through Lane ' — Westbound Through Lane • Nicolas Road (EW) ' — Northbound Through Lane — Southbound Left Turn Lane 1 — Southbound Through Lane — Eastbound Right Turn Overlap ' — Westbound Left Turn Lane — Westbound Right Turn Lane ' — Westbound Right Turn Overlap ' Butterfield Stage Road (NS) at: Nicolas Road (EW) ' — Northbound Shared Through/Right Turn Lane ' La Serena Way (EW) Southbound Shared Through/Right Turn Lane ' • Rancho California Road (EW) — Northbound Left Turn Lane — Northbound Through Lane — Southbound Left Turn Lane ' — Southbound Through Lane — Eastbound Left Turn Lanes — Eastbound Through Lane — Westbound Left Turn Lane — Westbound Through Lane ' Calle Contento (NS) at: Rancho California Road (EW) ' — Eastbound Left Turn Lane ' — Eastbound Through Lane 6-13 — Westbound Left Turn Lane ' — Westbound Right Turn Lane ' However, for General Plan Buildout traffic conditions, the following study area ' intersections are projected to operate at an unacceptable Level of Service during the peak hours with or without the project: , 1-15 Freeway SB Ramps (NS) at: ' • Winchester Road (EW) 1-15 Freeway NB Ramps (NS) at: • Winchester Road (EW) 1 Ynez Road (NS) at: • Winchester Road (EW) ' Margarita Road (NS) at: , Winchester Road (EW) Additional General Plan analysis of long-term future service levels along SR-79 in the vicinity of the Temecula Valley Mall is currently being conducted by the City of ' Temecula. 1 1 1 6-14 ' 7.0 RECOMMENDATIONS A. Roadway Improvements 1. On-Site ' The proposed project will have access to Murrieta Hot Springs Road and Butterfield Stage Road. Site-specific circulation and access improvement considerations are depicted on Exhibit 6-A. The Assessment District 161/Southwest Area RBBD program boundaries are included in Appendix "I". The reconstruction and widening of Winchester Road (SR-79) has been partially completed. ' The Roripaugh Ranch development is participating in the current extension ' of Murrieta Hot Springs Road east of its existing terminus at Calistoga Drive. ' The project site is included within the boundaries of the Southwest Area RBBD. The project shall participate on a pro-rata basis in the District to ' build areawide roadway improvements. However, it should be noted that Roripaugh Ranch is programmed to construct Murrieta Hot Springs Road ' and Butterfield Stage Road within the project site at their ultimate cross- section widths, in addition to providing off-site improvements to provide site ' access. For Phase 1 (development of up to 511 dwelling units) traffic conditions, Murrieta Hot Springs Road and Nicolas Road should be extended to the ' project site with a minimum 34 foot pavement section to provide site access. ' For Phase 2 (development beyond 511 dwelling units) traffic conditions, Butterfield Stage Road should be extended from Rancho California Road to ' the project site with a minimum 34 foot pavement section to provide site ' 7-1 access. Construction of Butterfield Stage Road north of the project site has not been assumed for Year 2007 traffic conditions. ' Based on the anticipated General Plan buildout traffic volumes with the ' proposed Roripaugh Ranch project, the following three intersections along Butterfield Stage Road require an additional northbound through lane ' beyond its General Plan classification of a four-lane facility (see Table 5-6): Butterfield Stage Road (NS) at: , • Murrieta Hot Springs Road (EW) —to be provided by project ' • Nicolas Road (EW) —to be provided by project • La Serena Way (EW) , To accommodate the additional capacity needed along Butterfield Stage ' Road between Murrieta Hot Springs Road and Nicolas Road, an augmented Arterial cross-section (See Exhibit 6-B) shall be constructed in , conjunction with project development for this segment of Butterfield Stage Road. ' To accommodate the additional northbound through lane needed at the ' intersection of Butterfield Stage Road and La Serena Way, the cross- section along Butterfield Stage Road should be widened when ' approaching the intersection and then be narrowed back to the General Plan roadway cross-section width away from the intersection. ' For General Plan Buildout traffic conditions, the construction of Butterfield ' Stage Road north of the project site has been assumed. , Construct Butterfield Stage Road from Murrieta Hot Springs Road to Nicolas ' Road at its ultimate cross-section width as an Augmented Arterial highway (118 foot right-of-way) in conjunction with development. (See Exhibit 6-6) , 7-2 , ' Construct Butterfield Stage Road from Nicolas Road to the southerly ' boundary of traffic analysis zone 4 at its ultimate width as an Arterial highway (110 foot right-of-way) in conjunction with development. ' Construct Butterfield Stage Road from the Southerly Boundary of traffic analysis zone 4 to the southerly project boundary at its ultimate half-section width as an arterial highway (110 foot right of way) in conjunction with development. ' Sight distance at each project entrance should be reviewed with respect to standard City of Temecula sight distance standards at the time of preparation of final grading, landscape and street improvement plans. ' 2. Off-Site tSince Nicolas Road is projected to serve less than 14,200 ADT west of ' Butterfield Stage Road for General Plan Buildout with project traffic conditions, the City of Temecula should consider amending the Circulation ' Element to downgrade Nicolas Road from an Arterial to a Secondary (88 foot right-of-way) between Calle Girasol and Butterfield Stage Road. In ' addition, the City of Temecula should consider amending General Plan Circulation Element to eliminate Nicolas Road east of Butterfield Stage Road as a Major highway (100 foot right-of-way). B. Transportation System Management Actions ' The primary transportation system management/transportation demand management (TSM/TDM) opportunities for the project and other development in the ' study area appear to be: ' Encourage development to provide adequate pedestrian and bicycle facilities; ' 7-3 Encourage the eventual implementation of transit service in the Temecula ' "sphere of influence" including: ' - express transit into and out of the area during the morning and ' evening commuter peaks; and - 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. 1 Promotion of future public transit through potential employer and/or public subsidy of transit farebox; ,. Encourage mixed development to provide full service type commercial uses; , Provisions of park-and-ride facilities at commercial centers located near ' freeway interchanges and village centers for the purpose of facilitating ' express transit service between Temecula and other major commercial/employment centers and to serve a carpool staging site. ' In terms of the Roripaugh Ranch project, the following trip reduction measures should be considered as candidate mitigation measures for the overall project TSM/TDM program. ' Public Transportation ' explore the opportunities to provide local transit or shuttle bus service ' between village centers and other area activity centers; and 7-4 ' tcoordination with local transit agency to incorporate transit-related tfacilities and design features in the design of the project. ' Ridesharing ' in conjunction with residential community associations, encourage the development of a carpool bulletin board which would facilitate the formation of carpools among project residents. ' Land Use ' - encourage high density development to include on-site laundry facilities; and ' - provide adequate on-site pedestrian walkways and related amenities; and 1 - provide adequate bicycle oriented facilities. ' C. Traffic Mitigation/Monitoring Program ' The establishment of a project-related traffic impact/mitigation monitoring program is aimed at providing reasonable assurance that City and "sphere'of influence" street segment and intersection Levels of Service criteria are maintained as the 1 project and other area projects build out. The monitoring program would become part of the conditions of approval or development agreement and would require ' periodic traffic operations update studies to be performed based on project trip generation thresholds and prevailing background traffic conditions prior to the ' issuance of building permits. The traffic operation update studies are to be focused on key congestion "hot spot' intersection locations and critical project access tfacilities. ' 7-5 Circulation system phasing requirements would be defined and "tracked" ' periodically based on actual/prevailing traffic conditions in the future. It is ' recommended that this program involve periodic traffic operation update studies which would be responsive to both project development levels and prevailing traffic ' conditions. As proposed, the traffic monitoring program would be carried out as described below. ' The first traffic operations update study for the specific plan projects would be ' triggered by any individual or combination of project-related development proposal(s) (e.g. T.T., P.P., and/or building permit application) which result in peak- ' hour trip increases of 5% or more at study area intersections. Development proposals generating less than 5% at study area intersections would be exempt ' from the traffic operations update study, however trip generation estimates for these interim projects would be recorded and accumulated until the increases of ' 5% or more at study area intersections is reached. In effect, the traffic impact/mitigation monitoring program would require traffic operations update ' studies to be performed for each incremental increases of 5% or more at study area ' intersections. The City would reserve the right to waive the traffic operations update study requirements based on overriding circumstances such as a ' determination of favorable traffic conditions (e.g. excess capacity) at the study (hot spot) intersections which would be identified. ' The traffic operations update study would include: 1. Assessment of trip generation for the incremental development proposal; ' 2. AM and PM peak hour turning movement counts at the "hot spot' study ' intersections; 3. Analysis of existing peak hour service levels at the study intersections using ' HCM signalized intersection operations method of analysis; ' 7-6 ' ' 4. Assessment of project traffic distribution patterns and assignment of added ' project related peak hour trips at the study intersections; ' 5. Analysis of existing plus project peak hour service levels at the study intersections; and 6. If applicable, assessment of mitigation needs and/or options for maintaining ' Level of Service "D" or better during AM and PM peak hour periods. The traffic impact/mitigation monitoring program for the Roripaugh Ranch Specific Plan project should allow the developer to contribute to and/or implement off-site troadway improvements not previously conditioned on the project by means of a reimbursement agreement. This would allow the developer to continue the implementation of the project while at the same time assist the City in the timely implementation of needed circulation system improvements. 1 1 ' 7-7 1 1 1 THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 1 1 1 7-8 ' 1 APPENDIX Traffic ' Copies of the Traffic Study Support Material is available for review at the City of Temecula's Planning Department 1 1 e M . 1 APPENDIX F Air Quality 1 1 01/27/2001 10: 54 9498518612 G PAGE 02 Giroux & Associates Environmental Consultants A 2 R QUAL J TY X MpACT ANALY S=S RORSPAiJGH RANCH TEMECLJLA � CAL=PORN=A r Prepared for: The Keith Companies Attn: .Kent Norton 22690 Cactus Avenue, Suite 300 Moreno Valley, CA 92553 Date: July 27, 2001 1 ' 17744 Sky Pork Circle, Suite 210, Irvine, California 92614 - Phone(949) 851.8609 - Fax(949) 851-8612 - 1 ATMO S PH ER=C S ETT=NG The climate of the Temecula area, technically called an interior valley subclimate of Southern California's Mediterranean-type climate, is characterized by warm summers, mild winters , infrequent rainfall, moderate afternoon breezes, and generally fair weather. The clouds and fog that form along the area's coastline rarely extend as far inland as San Jacinto Valley, and if they do, they usually burn off quickly after sunrise. The most important weather pattern is associated with the warm season airflow across populated area of the Los Angeles Basin which brings polluted air into western Riverside County late in the afternoon. This transport pattern creates unhealthful air quality when the fringes of this "urban smog cloud" extend to the project site during the summer months. Temperatures in the Temecula area average a very comfortable 65°F year-round, with warm summer afternoons (95+ degrees) and often cool winter mornings (around 35 degrees) . Rainfall in the project area varies considerably in both time and space. Almost all the annual rainfall comes from the fringes of mid-latitude storms from late November to early April with summers often completely dry. ' Rainfall in Temecula averages 12 . 5 inches per year, but varies markedly from one year to the next. 1 Winds are an important parameter in characterizing the air quality environment of a project site because they both determine the regional pattern of air pollution transport and control the local rate of pollution dispersion near a source. Daytime winds are from ' the W-NW at 6-8 mph as air moves regionally onshore from the cool Pacific Ocean to the warm Mojave Desert interior of Southern California. These winds allow for good local mixing, but they may 1 bring air pollutants from urbanized coastal areas into interior valleys. Strong thermal convection in the summer in the San Jacinto Valley ultimately dilutes the smog cloud from urbanized development, but the project area is too close to Los Angeles Basin emissions sources to completely avoid the regional air quality degradation resulting from the photochemical airborne reactions that create the summer smog and haze throughout the air basin. At night, air drains off surrounding mountains and then pools on the valley floor. These breezes are cool and clean, but they may allow for local stagnation of air on the valley floor. Such near-calm winds, in conjunction with localized temperature inversions noted below, tend to maximize the impact of any local pollution emissions sources such as freeways, shopping centers, etc. In addition to winds that control the rate and direction of ' pollution dispersal , Southern California is notorious for strong 1 temperature inversions that limit the vertical depth through which pollution can be mixed. In summer, coastal areas are characterized by a sharp discontinuity between the cool marine air at the surface and the warm, sinking air aloft within the high pressure cell over the ocean to the west. This marine/subsidence inversion allows for , good local mixing, but acts like a giant lid over the basin. A second inversion type forms on clear winter nights when cold air off the mountains sinks to the valley floor while the air aloft over the valley remains warm. This forms radiation inversions. These inversions, in conjunction with calm winds, trap pollutants such as automobile exhaust near their source. While these inversions may lead to air pollution "hot spots" in heavily developed coastal areas of the basin, there is not enough traffic in inland valleys to cause any winter air pollution problems. ' Thus, while summers are periods of hazy visibility and occasionally unhealthful air, winter is often a period of spectacular visibility and excellent air quality in the project area, particularly as it relates to gaseous air quality from sources such as cars or heavy industrial development. Winter air quality impacts tend to be highly localized such as odors near agricultural operations or dust near mineral resource recovery operations. Such sources tend ' typically to be more of a nuisance rather than an adverse air quality impact. 1 2 ' i A=R QUAL=T Y S ETT=NG 1 Ambient Air Quality Standards (AAQS) : In order to gauge the significance of the air quality impacts of the proposed Roripaugh Ranch development, those impacts, together with existing background air quality levels, must be compared to the applicable ambient air quality standards. These standards are the levels of air quality considered safe, with an adequate margin of safety, to protect the ' public health and welfare. They are designed to protect those people most susceptible to further respiratory distress such as asthmatics, the elderly, very young children, people already weakened by other disease or illness, and persons engaged in strenuous work or exercise, called "sensitive receptors" . Healthy adults can tolerate occasional exposure to air pollutant concentrations considerably above these minimum standards before ' adverse effects are observed. Recent research has shown, however, that chronic exposure to ozone (the primary ingredient in photochemical smog) may lead to adverse respiratory health even at concentrations close to the ambient standard. National AAQS were established in 1971 for six pollution species with states retaining the option to add other pollutants, require ' more stringent compliance, or to include different exposure periods. The initial attainment deadline of 1977 was extended to 1987 for national AAQS, and has now been further extended in air ' quality problem areas like Southern California until the year 2010 . Because California had established AAQS several years before the federal action and because of unique air quality problems introduced by the restrictive dispersion meteorology, there is considerable difference between state and national clean air standards. Those standards currently in effect in California are shown in Table 1 . ' The entries in Table 1 do not include the recently ( 1997) adopted federal standards for chronic ( 8-hour) ozone exposure or for ultra- small diameter particulate matter of 2.5 microns or less in diameter (called 11PM-2 . 5" ) . Compliance with these new national standards will be addressed during the next update of the regional clean air plan (ozone) , or must await several years of data tcollection to determine baseline levels (PM-2.5) . Of the standards shown in Table 1, those for ozone (O,) , carbon ' monoxide (CO) , nitrogen dioxide (NO,) and particulate matter (PM- 10) are exceeded at times in the South Coast Air Basin. They are called "non-attainment pollutants. " The principal sources and ' associated health effects of these pollutants are shown in Table 2 . Baseline Air Quality: There are no baseline air quality data available directly from the proposed project site. Long-term air ' quality monitoring for ozone, nitrogen oxides, and 10-micron 3 1 TABLE 1, Ambient Air Quality Standards STATE STANDARD FEDERAL PRIMARY MOST RELEVANT EFFECTS , STANDARD AIR CONCENTRATION/" CONCENTRATION/ POLLUTANT AVERAGING TIME AVERAGING TIME , Ozone 0.09 ppm, 1-hr.avg.> 0.12 ppm, I-hr avg.> (a)Short-tern exposures: (1)Pulmonary function decrements and localized lung edema in humans and animals. (2)Risk to public ' health implied by alterations in pulmonary morphology and host defense in animals;(b) Long-term exposures: Risk to public health implied by altered connective tissue , metabolism and altered pulmonary morphology in animals after long-term exposures and pulmonary function decrements in chronically exposed humans;(c)Vegetation , damage;(d)Property damage Carbon 9.0 ppm,8-hr avg.> 9 ppm,8-hr avg.> (a)Aggravation of angina pectoris and other Monoxide 20 ppm, 1-hr avg.> 35 ppm, 1-hr avg.> aspects of coronary heart disease;(b) Decreased exercise tolerance in persons with ' peripheral vascular disease and lung disease; (c)Impairment of central nervous system functions;(d)Possible increased risk to fetuses Nitrogen 0.25 ppm, I-hr avg.> 0.053 ppm,ann.avg.> (a)Potential to aggravate chronic respiratory ' Dioxide disease and respiratory symptoms in sensitive groups;(b)Risk to public health implied by pulmonary and extra-pulmonary biochemical and cellular changes and pulmonary structural ' changes;(c)Contribution to atmospheric discoloration Sulfur Dioxide 0.04 ppm,24-hr avg.> 0.03 ppm,ann.avg.> (a)Bronchoconstriction accompanied by 0.25 ppm, 1-hr.avg.> 0.14 ppm,24-hr avg.> symptoms which may include wheezing, ' shortness of breath and chest tightness,during exercise or physical activity in persons with asthma Suspended 30µg/m3,ann.geometric mean> 50 pg/m3,annual (a)Excess deaths from short-term exposures , Particulate and exacerbation of symptoms in sensitive Matter(PMto) 50 Ag/m3,24-hr average> arithmetic mean>3 patients with respiratory disease;(b) Excess 150µg/m ,24-hr avg.> seasonal declines in pulmonary function, especially in children , Sulfates 25µg/m3 24-hr avg >_ (a)Decrease in ventilatory function;(b) Aggravation of asthmatic symptoms;(c) Aggravation of cardio-pulmonary disease;(d) Vegetation damage;(e)Degradation of ' visibility;(f)Property damage Lead 1,5µg/mm3,30-day avg.>= 1.5µg/m3,calendar quarter> (a)Increased body burden;(b)Impairment of blood formation and nerve conduction Visibility- In sufficient amount to reduce the _ Visibility impairment on days when relative Reducing visual range to less than 10 miles at humidity is less than 70 percent Particles relative humidity less than 70 percent,8-hour average(I Om- ' 6pm) 1 TAB L E 2 SOURCES AND EFFECTS OF AIR POLLUTION` 1 Pollutants Source Effects O,: Photochemical Not emitted as a Causes respiratory oxidant Primary pollutant but irritation and ozone, a pungent created in the possible changes in colorless toxic atmosphere by lung functions: ' gas. photochemical d a m a g e t o reactions of vegetation and r e a c t i v e cracking of ' hydrocarbons and untreated rubber. oxides of nitrogen in combination with ultraviolet light ' from the sun. CO : Carbon Produced by Passes into blood M o n o x i d e : i n c o m p l e t e stream, interferes colorless, odorless combustion of with transfer of toxic gas. carbon-containing fresh oxygen to substances in blood, depriving internal combustion heart and brain of engines, especially oxygen. automobiles and ' some industrial processes. ' NO,: Nitrogen Due primarily to A primary receptor Oxides, includes t h e h i g h of ultraviolet NO: nitric oxide a temperature in l i g h t w h i c h colorless, odorless c o m b u s t i o n , initiates t h e 1 gas and NO,: a nitrogen and oxygen reactions producing reddish - brown in the air combine photochemical smog. irritating gas. to form nitric ' oxide and further chemical reactions produce NO , . Automobile engines are the primary source, along with combustion in power ' plants and some i n d u s t r i a l operation. Table 2 Page 2 1 Pollutants Source Effects Particulates: Tiny Consists of I n j u r y t o particles made up a t m o s p h e r i c respiratory tract 1 of divided solids particles from dust alone or in of liquids such as and fume-producing combination with s o o t , d u s t , industrial and gasses, absorption , aerosols, fumes and agricultural and scattering of mists. operations, from sunlight, reducing c o m b u s t i o n the amount reaching , p r o d u c i n g earth; damage to automobile exhaust materials. and atmospheric photochemical reactions. 1 i i 1 Source: Winchester Property EIR #227 - Turrini & Brink - For those pollutants exceeding clean air standards in Riverside , County. Ozone and particulates are seen to be the two most significant air quality concerns. The six-year trend in these data in Table 3 shows the frequency of first stage smog alerts (hourly ozone levels over 0 . 20 ppm) has averaged less than one per year in the project vicinity in 1992-97 . One first-stage alert per year compares to 38 smog alerts in 1978 in Perris and around 20 per year throughout the late 170s and early 180s. ' ozone levels show a very noticeable spatial change in moving southward from Perris as the 1992-93 Temecula data showed ten or less violations of the California ozone standard versus the 100+ violations observed farther north in the valley. This difference may be due in part to a meteorological phenomenon called the Lake Elsinore Convergence Zone (LECZ) . The LECZ is a boundary between warm smoggy air moving north to south up the valley versus a slightly cooler airstream moving south to north deriving from onshore flow across far northern San Diego County. Smog levels are much higher on the north side of this "smog front" than on the south side. More localized pollutants such as carbon monoxide, nitrogen oxides, ' lead, etc. are very low near the project site because background levels even in Riverside rarely exceed allowable levels, and there are almost no sources of such emissions near the project site. ' Suspended . particulate levels are sometimes high throughout Riverside County because of agricultural activities, dry soil conditions and upwind industrial development, but only a portion of ' the total particulate burden is contained within the human respirable range. PM-10 measurements beginning in 1987 in Perris show a very high frequency of violations of the state PM-10 ' standard, but only a small number of violations of the less stringent federal standard. Particulate exposure, from both a health and a visibility perspective, is , however, a serious air quality concern in Riverside County. As with ozone, the LECZ protects air quality in the far southern San Jacinto Valley. PM-10 measurements during 1992 to early 1994 at Temecula showed dramatically lower levels than those observed farther north in ' Perris. Air Quality Management Planning: The Federal Clean Air Act (1977 ' Amendments) stated that designated agencies in any area of the nation not meeting national clean air standards must prepare a plan demonstrating the steps that would bring the area into compliance with all national standards by December 31, 1987. The South Coast Air Basin (SCAB) could not meet the deadline for ozone, nitrogen dioxide, carbon monoxide, or PM-10. In the South Coast Air Basin, the agencies designated by the governor to develop regional air quality plans are the South Coast Air Quality Management District 07/27/2001 10: 54 9498518512 G PAGE 03 TABU 3 RORIPAUGH RAMCR AREA AIR QUALITY MOMITORIrG S03MARY 1995-1999 (Days Standards Here Rxceeded and Mumu observed levels) Pollutant/Standard 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 , ozone: , 1-Hour > 0.09 ppr 6� 95 64 38 10 1-flour > 0.12 ppr Oi 31 6 8 0 8-Hour > 0.08 ppr 0� 63 0 28 6 Max. 1-Hour Cone. (ppm) 0.11 0.18 0.14 0.15 0.11 Carbon Monoxide: 1-Hour > 20. ppm 0 0 0 0 0 , 8-Hour > 9. ppr 0 0 0 0 0 Max. 1-Hour Cone. (ppm) 9. 9. 7. 6. 7. Max. 8-Hour Cone. (ppm) 6.5 5.0 5.8 4.6 4.1 ' Hitroaen Dioxide: 1-Hour > 0.25 ppr 0 0 0 0 0 , Max. 1-Hour Cone. (ppm) 0.15. 0.11 0.19 0.10 0.13 particulate Lead: 1-Month > 1.5 pg/r3 0/12 0/12 0/12 0/12 ---- , Max. 1-Month (pg/r 3) 0.04 0.05 0.07 0.10 ---- Particulate Sulfate: , 24-Hour>25. pg 0/61 0/61 0/59 0/62 ---- Max. 24-Hour (Pg/3 3) 22.8 14.9 13.1 12.8 ---- Inhalable Particulates (PM-10): , 24-Hour > 50 Y9/2 23/60 32/61 19/60 14/53 30/60 24-Hour > 150 99/23 0/60 3/61 0/60 0/53 0/60 Max. 24-Hour (pg/a3) 145. 250. 139. 98. 112. ' Source: South Coast AQMD - Parris Air Monitoring Station Data Suuaries, supplesented by Riverside data for selected species. Data fror Tesecula station. = No 1999 data fror California Air Resources Hoard (ARB) (final year 2000 data have not been published/released by ARB). r 1 and the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) . The two agencies first adopted an Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP) in 1979 and revised it in 1982 to project attainment of the standards in 2000 . ' In 1988 , because of uncertainty in Federal Clean Air Act reauthorization, the California Legislature enacted the California ' Clean Air Act (CCAA) . The CCAA requires that regional emissions be reduced by 5 percent per year, averaged over 3 year periods, until attainment can be demonstrated. Each area that did not meet a national or state ambient air quality standard was required to ' prepare a plan which demonstrated how the 5 percent reductions. was to be achieved. In July 1991 , the SCAQMD adopted a revised AQMP which was designed to meet the CCAA requirements. The 1991 AQMP projected an attainment date of 2010 , consistent with the 1990 Federal Clean Air Act. The 1990 Federal Clean Air Act Amendments required that all states with airsheds with "serious" or worse ozone problems submit a revision to the State Implementation Plan (SIP) . The 1991 AQMP was modified/adapted and submitted as the South Coast Air Basin portion ' of the SIP. The 1991 SIP submittal estimated that an 85% basinwide reduction in reactive organic compound (ROC) emissions and a 59% reduction in oxides of nitrogen (NO,) between 1990 to 2010 was ' needed to meet federal clean air standards. In 1996 , EPA approved the 1994 submittal of the SCAB portion of the SIP. The plan was approved after considerable debate on the ' contingency measures that should be implemented if progress is not as rapid as anticipated in the 1994 SIP. The currently approved plan will not be in effect for long because the Federal Clean Air ' Act required that an updated plan be submitted by February 8 , 1997 which includes attainment plans for all pollutants exceeding federal standards. The CCAA requires an update of the state- mandated clean air plan every three years. The next update was due December 31 , 1997. An updated 1997 AQMP has been locally adopted. The California Air Resources Board (ARB) has forwarded this plan on to EPA for its consideration and recommended approval . The 1997 AQMP is designed to meet both federal (EPA) and state (ARB) air quality planning ' guidelines. Components of the 1997 plan update include: Demonstration of attainment for ozone, CO, and PM-10 - Updated emissions inventories (1993 base year) of VOC, NO., CO, SO, and PM-10 1 - Emissions budgets for future years of the inventoried compounds. 9 An updated pollution control strategy Contingency measures if the plan as presently proposed ' fails to meet stated timetables. Additional research and photochemical computer modeling, as well as improved emissions estimates, now suggest that formerly predicted emissions reductions required to meet standards need not be quite , as severe as thought earlier. Emissions reductions of around 68 percent for ROC, 57 percent for NO, and 68 percent for CO are anticipated from the currently proposed AQMP update. Within the , plan, some measures considered "long-term reductions" require additional technological development whose development schedule is uncertain. There is therefore no clear scientific consensus that , the 1997 AQMP update will be able to achieve its mandatory clean air objectives by the end of 2010. In December, 1998 , EPA disapproved the 1997 SCAB AQMP as not ' meeting required interim pollution reduction goals. The 1997 AQMP has been revised and is undergoing further EPA review. For new projects that are developed within the next few years, the 1997 ' AQMP (when approved) and its underlying plans for mobility, infrastructure development, population, housing, employment and land use, etc. , will be the benchmark by which project consistency , with air quality planning objectives will be judged. A residential and commercial development project such as Roripaugh Ranch relates to the air quality planning process through the ' growth forecasts that were used as inputs into the regional transportation model . If a proposed development is consistent with those growth forecasts , and if all available emissions reduction ' strategies are implemented as effectively as possible on a project- specific basis, then the air quality impact on a regional basis should be considered as less than significant. The AQMP also contains a number of land use and transportation control measures (TCMs) . Many of these measures can not be implemented on any single development basis because they require an integration of all development and all transportation planning. The effectiveness of ' many TCMs is expected to increase over the next decade. AQMP consistency on a single development basis is thus more a matter of facilitating or providing the infrastructure for TCM implementation , than of actually specifically being solely responsible to carry out regionally comprehensive AQMP measures. 10 1 A=R QUAL=T Y =MP2 T Residential, civic/institutional , recreational and commercial land uses such as those proposed for Roripaugh Ranch potentially impact air quality almost exclusively through increased automotive emissions. Any single project typically does not cause enough traffic and associated air pollutants to be generated as to ' individually threaten clean air standards. It is typically the cumulative effect of hundreds of such developments that causes the small incremental impact from any one development to become cumulatively significant. Minor secondary emissions during construction, from increased fossil-fueled energy utilization and from small miscellaneous sources will also be generated, but these are usually much smaller in both. duration and volume than the mobile source emissions. standards of Significance Many air quality impacts which derive from dispersed mobile sources, i .e. , the dominant pollution generators in the basin, often occur hours later and miles away after photochemical processes have converted primary exhaust pollutants into secondary contaminants such as ozone. The incremental regional air quality ' impact of an individual project is generally immeasurably small . The SCAQMD has therefore developed suggested significance thresholds based on the volume of pollution emitted rather than on ' actual ambient air quality because the direct air quality impact of a project is not quantifiable on a regional scale. The 1993 SCAQMD Handbook states that any projects in the SCAB with daily emissions that exceed any of the following thresholds should be considered as ' having an individually and cumulatively significant air quality impact: 55 lbs per day of ROC (75 lbs/day during construction) 55 lbs per day of NO, (100 lbs/day during construction) 550 lbs per day of CO 150 lbs per day of PM-10 150 lbs per day of SO, These thresholds do not take into account several important considerations, namely: 11 1. Emission levels from one large project may exceed thresholds while those from numerous smaller projects with identical emissions might not, even though the regional impact is the same. 2 . Large developments have a greater opportunity to effectively , implement transportation control measures (TCMs) because of a greater potential participant pool in trip/VMT diversion ' programs . 3 . Project-related emissions and their regional impact may already have been incorporated into regional growth projections. ' 4 . Emissions generated in or near Temecula have essentially the same regional air quality impact if they were released in any , other nearby community. If the anticipated demand for residential and specialty commercial growth is not met at Roripaugh Ranch but in some other locality, the no-project alternative will have basically the same regional air quality impact. These considerations can be used by the Lead Agency as a basis for ' supporting a finding of a less than significant impact, even if the SCAQMD advisory thresholds are exceeded. Alternately, the Lead Agency may make a finding of a significant impact for projects exceeding the SCAQMD thresholds, but use as many of the above criteria in a statement of overriding considerations as are applicable. ' Additional indicators are listed in the SCAQMD Handbook that should be used as screening criteria to evaluate the need for further analysis with respect to air quality. Whenever possible, the project should be evaluated in a quantitative analysis ; otherwise a qualitative analysis is appropriate. The additional indicators ' are as follows: Project could interfere with the attainment of the federal or ' state ambient air quality standards by either violating or contributing to an existing or projected air quality violation; Project could result in population increases within the ' regional statistical area which would be in excess of that projected in the AQMP; Project could generate vehicle trips that cause a CO hot spot; Project might have the potential to create or be subjected to objectionable odors; 12 o Project could have hazardous materials on site and could result in an accidental release of air toxic emissions; Project could emit an air toxic contaminant regulated by District rules or that is on a federal or state air toxic list; Project could involve disposal of hazardous waste; o Project could be occupied by sensitive receptors near a facility that emits air toxics or near CO hot spots; o Project could emit carcinogenic air contaminants that could pose a cancer risk. Project-Related Sources of Potential Impact ' Intensification of land uses in Riverside County potentially impacts ambient air quality on two scales of motion. As cars drive throughout Southern California, the small incremental contribution to the basin air pollution burden from any single vehicle is added to that from several million other vehicles. The impact from the Roripaugh Ranch project, even if it generates a significant number of new vehicle trips, is very small on a regional scale. Basinwide air quality impacts are, therefore, addressed in terms of project compatibility with regional air quality plans. If any given project or plan has been properly incorporated into basinwide growth projections which are the basis for regional air quality/ ' transportation planning, then the basinwide impact of any proposed development is presumed, by definition, to be less than significant. tLocally, changes in the location of any collection of automotive sources , or changes in the number of vehicles or travel speeds may 1 impact the microscale air quality around any given development site. Traffic increases not only contribute air pollutants in direct proportion to their cumulative percentage of traffic volume growth, but they may slow all existing traffic to slower, more inefficient travel speeds. The development traffic/air quality impact is thus potentially compounded. ' Temporary construction activity emissions will occur during project buildout. Such emissions include on-site generation of dust and equipment exhaust, and off-site emissions from construction ' employee commuting and/or trucks delivering building materials. Because of their temporary nature, air quality impacts from construction have often been considered as individually less than significant. Also, construction activity emissions are difficult ' to quantify, since the exact type and amount of equipment that will be used or the acreage that may be disturbed on any given day in 13 the future is not known with any reasonable certainty. The emphasis in environmental documents relative to construction activity emission impacts has therefore been to minimize the emissions as fully as possible through comprehensive mitigation even if the precise amount of emissions can not be precisely quantified. Construction Activity Impacts Dust is normally the primary concern during construction of new buildings and infrastructure. Because such emissions are not amenable to collection and discharge through a controlled source, they are called "fugitive emissions" . Emission rates vary as a function of many parameters (soil silt, soil moisture, wind speed, , area disturbed, number of vehicles, depth of disturbance or excavation, etc. ) . Regulatory agencies use one universal factor based on the area disturbed assuming that all other input parameters into emission rate prediction fall into mid-range average values . This assumption may or may not necessarily be applicable to site-specific conditions on the Roripaugh Ranch project site. As noted previously, emissions estimation for , project-specific fugitive dust sources is therefore characterized by a high degree of imprecision. The PM-10 fraction of fugitive dust emissions are predicted to be around 55 pounds per day per acre disturbed in the absence of any dust control measures being applied (AQMD CEQA Handbook, Table 9- 2) . Mandatory measures required by South Coast AQMD Rule 403 (Fugitive Dust) are generally assumed to reduce this rate by approximately 50% . Average daily PM-10 emissions during site grading and other disturbance are stated in the SCAQMD Handbook to be 26 . 4 pounds/acre. Enhanced dust control procedures such as continual soil wetting, use of supplemental binders, early paving, etc. can achieve a higher PM-10 control efficiency. PM-10 emissions were calculated by assuming that, at worst case, 39 .4 acres, or five percent ( 5%) of the 788 acre project area, is under simultaneous heavy construction at some point during the buildout lifetime of the project. While the actual daily rate will depend on individual project phasing, the daily PM-10 generation could be as high as 1040 pounds per day for the assumed 39 .4 acre , disturbance area ( 39 . 4 X 26. 4 = 1040 lbs/day) . Dust control as required by SCAQMD Rule 403 was assumed to reduce PM-10 emissions by around 50 percent. A more successful dust control program using multiple techniques (chip sealing access roads, hydroseeding exposed surfaces, adding chemical binders or surfactants to the water) may achieve an 80 percent reduction. Even with a dust control program that exceeds minimum requirements, ( i .e. , a 80% 14 , control rate) daily PM-10 emissions of 420 pounds per day would still be over the CEQA Handbook PM-10 significance threshold of 150 pounds per day. ' However, because of the large degree of uncertainty in defining what constitutes "simultaneous disturbance" and in the value of the PM-10 generation factor itself , the use of rigid significance ' thresholds for construction PM-10 impacts is perhaps not well supported in practice. The proposed project site is sufficiently large, however, and construction activities are a major contributor to the PM-10 non-attainment status of the air basin, such that project development will likely create a temporarily significant PM-10 impact. Without enforceable limits on the size of the daily disturbance "footprint, " PM-10 emissions during portions of project I development can not be maintained at sub-significance threshold levels. Current research in particulate exposure health effects suggest that the most adverse effect derives from ultra-small diameter particulate matter comprised of chemically reactive pollutants such as sulfates , nitrates or organic material . A new national clean ' air standard for particulate matter of 2 . 5 microns or smaller in diameter (called "PM-2 . 511 ) was adopted in 1997. Very little construction activity particulate matter is in the PM-2.5 range. ' Soil dust is also more chemically benign than typical urban atmospheric PM-2 . 5. Magnitude of project-related construction activity PM-10 is therefore not of itself a good indicator of soil ' disturbance activity air quality impact potential . In addition to fine particles that remain suspended in the atmosphere semi-indefinitely, construction activities generate many ' larger particles with shorter atmospheric residence times. This dust is comprised mainly of large diameter inert silicates that are chemically non-reactive and are further readily filtered out by human breathing passages. These fugitive dust particles are therefore more of a potential soiling nuisance as they settle out on parked cars, outdoor furniture or landscape foliage rather than any adverse health hazard. With a low population density downwind of Roripaugh Ranch, dust nuisance potential for this project is not considered individually significant. Any nuisance potential will tend to be highly localized when a new tract is built in very close proximity to an already completed development. Because of prevailing NW to SE winds, localized nuisance potential can be minimized by building out the site in a NW to SE direction. ' Soiling nuisance can also be minimized by performing mass grading and subsequent reseeding of larger tracts before any residential occupancy to reduce later heavy equipment operations near already occupied dwellings . As noted above, however, very large-scale mass grading creates high regional PM-10 emissions that offset any localized nuisance reduction benefit. 15 Exhaust emissions will result from on- and off-site heavy equipment. The types and numbers of equipment will vary among , contractors such that such emissions can not be quantified with certainty. Typical emission rates for a single diesel powered scraper were obtained from the SCAQMD Air Quality Handbook and are , provided in Table 4 . Diesel scrapers are the most common equipment used for grading activities . A project such as Roripaugh Ranch may utilize 10-20 pieces of heavy equipment at any one time during mass , grading operations. Assuming that 10 pieces of heavy equipment were operated an average of eight hours per day, the emissions that would be anticipated are also shown in Table 4 . TABL E 4 TYPICAL CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT EMISSIONS DURING MASS-GRADING ACTIVITIES Emission Signif. ' Pollutant Rate Emissions' Threshold (lbs/hr. ) (lbs/day) Carbon Monoxide 1 . 25 100 550 Nitrogen Oxides 3 .84 307 100 Combustion PM-10 0.41 33 150 Sulfur Dioxide 0.46 37 150 Reactive organic Compounds 0. 27 22 75 Source: SCAQMD Air Quality Handbook, Table A9-8-A. ' ` = 10 pieces of equipment, 8 hours/day , 16 1 ' Although the NO, emissions exceed the SCAQMD significance threshold, the mobile nature of the on-site construction equipment and off-site trucks will prevent any localized violation of the NO, or other standards. There may be localized instances when the ' characteristic diesel exhaust odor is noticeable from passing trucks or nearby heavy equipment, but such transitory exposure is a brief nuisance and will not threaten air quality standards . ' Truck exhaust impacts can be minimized by controlling construction routes to reduce interference with non-project traffic patterns and to preclude truck queuing or idling near sensitive receptor sites. ' Some mitigation in the form of anticipated future emission standards for heavy, off-road equipment have been passed by the California ARB to be phased in later in this decade. Until such I mandatory standards are promulgated, the South Coast AQMD urges the inclusion of control measures for construction activities as part of any local discretionary actions that are comparably effective as ' the future mandatory measures . Recommended measures abstracted from the AQMD "menu" of possible control options are detailed in the mitigation section of this report. With mitigation to keep equipment in good tune ( low-IVO, tuneups) , average daily construction equipment emissions can be reduced, but not to less than significant levels during maximum grading activity days. ' Construction activity air quality impacts occur mainly in close proximity to individual disturbance areas. There may, however, be some "spill-over" into the surrounding community. That spill-over may be physical as vehicles drop or carry out dirt or silt is ' washed into public streets. Passing non-project vehicles then pulverize the dirt to create off-site dust impacts. Spill-over may also occur via congestion effects. Construction may entail roadway encroachment, detours, land closures and competition between construction vehicles (trucks and contractor employee commuting) and ambient traffic for available roadway capacity. Emissions ' controls require good housekeeping procedures and a construction traffic management plan the maintains such "spill-over" effects at a less than significant level . Construction activities also generate evaporative emissions of volatile organic compounds (VOC) from paints, solvents, asphalt, roofing tar and other coatings. The volatility of the materials used in asphalt is regulated by AQMD rules, as are paints and solvents. Even water-based paint, however, still contains a high percentage of VOCs such that paint and other architectural coatings ' are the primary source of construction-related VOC emissions. Typical water-based paints contain around 2 pounds of VOC per gallon of paint (AQMD CEQA Handbook, Table A9-13-C) . If painting one home requires 20 gallons of paint, about 40 pounds of VOCs will ' be released per house painted (inside and out) . Painting more than ' 17 two homes per day would cause the SCAQMD threshold of 75 pounds per day of VOCs to be exceeded. A phasing schedule to limit the average number of residences painted to two per day, or, ' conversely, limit average daily paint consumption to 37 . 5 gallons per day is recommended to maintain VOC emissions impact potential at less than significant levels. Operational Impacts , By far, the greatest project-related air quality concern centers on the 25, 242 "net" new vehicle trips that will be generated at project completion. For typical Riverside County residential trip ' lengths, additional vehicle travel from project implementation will be about 250 ,000 vehicle miles traveled (VMT) . Secondary impact potential will derive from energy consumption in ' power plants or on-site heaters, stoves, water heaters, etc. General development also creates miscellaneous emissions from a variety of sources such as cleaning products, landscaping , equipment, or fireplaces, and also contributes to off-site emissions at restaurants, gas stations, dry cleaners, or sand and gravel plants. Except for more readily quantifiable energy ' consumption (stationary sources) , many of the small miscellaneous sources are typically not quantified on a single project basis. These small sources , however, are non-negligible when minute , individual contributions are summed over millions of Southern California residences. They further attest to the conclusion that overall anticipated growth is a substantial impediment to the attainment of regional clean air standards. , The California ARB has developed a land use and air pollution emissions computer model that allows one to reliably calculate the ' daily emissions increase associated with the proposed project. This model, called URB7G, was run for build-out year 2010 . Output from the model runs is attached as an appendix to this report. , Quantifiable stationary source (energy consumption) emissions were calculated using the SCAQMD MAAQI air quality model . The project- related emissions burden, along with a comparison of SCAQMD recommended significance thresholds , is shown in Table 5 . ' The project clearly contributes to the regional inability to attain the ozone standard based on SCAQMD's recommended significance ' levels. Project-related emission levels for the three primary exhaust pollutants (CO, NO, and ROG) exceed the threshold from 367 to 909 percent. Emissions of PM-10 from exhaust and tire wear will ' also exceed the 150 pound per day significance threshold. The PM- 10 calculations do not include the resuspension of roadway dust generated by vehicular turbulence. The inclusion of this source would further increase projected PM-10 emissions to well above ' significance threshold levels. 18 ' n � i LGGl G7:323 747GJ1tlb1Y G PAGE 01 �pl; A1oiG-0�1 90116 1-3-S368 ' TABLE 5 PRWM-RRWTED EMISSIONS BURDEN ' Emissions (pounds/day) Vehicular Sources COOAC MOx sox PK-10 ' Mobile Source Ealssions: ' Single Family Res. 1012 123 279 - 121 Multi-Family Res, 148 20 41 18 Schools 142 43 43 - 18 ' Park Uses 2 <1 1 -- <1 Commercial 325 34 100 42 ' Total Mobile 1629 221 464 200 -104 Internal Trips 163 22 46 20 ' Net Mobile 1466 199 418 180 Stationary Sources: ' Single Family Res. 13 2 60 3 1 Hulti-Family Res. 2 <1 10 1 <1 Schools 1 <1 7 1 Q Park Uses 0 0 0 0 0 ' Commercial 1 <1 5 <1 <1 Total Stationary 17 3 82 5 2 ' Total - All Sources 1483 202 500 5 182 SCAQMD Threshold 550 55 55 150 150 4 of Threshold 2704 3674 9094 34 121% Exceeds Threshold (?) Yes Yes Yes No Yes 1 Source: URBENIS7G Computer Model (SCAQMD CEQA Handbook for stationary sources) - = small amount, not calculated in URBRNIS7G Model 1 However, the question of impact significance from growth-associated emissions should not be solely related to the size of a project or ' the magnitude of its emissions, but rather whether such growth has been properly anticipated in the air quality planning process. The growth assumptions for the 1994 Regional Comprehensive Plan (RCP) ' calls for an increase of over 1 million residents in western Riverside County between 1990-2010 housed in 367 ,000 new homes, along with an increase of 300 , 000+ jobs. The conversion of agricultural/ranch land to more transportation-intensive land use is therefore anticipated. The Roripaugh Ranch proposal provides housing with mixed public and commercial uses within the planning area well within forecast levels. , A more compelling reason for determining significance would be a project's inconsistency with jobs/housing (J/H) goals , or, ' alternately, an inability to meet vehicle mile traveled/vehicle trip (VMT/VT) reduction goals. The proposed project, as presently constituted, does not, of itself , compare favorably to J/H or VMT/ VT goals . Roripaugh Ranch will be almost completely a bedroom community with out-of-project commuting required for all but the most basic needs. of itself, the project would not contribute to environmental goals of the region. That finding, however, should , take into account other nearby development plans in that job- intensive development is planned for the I-15/215 Corridor while more housing-intensive uses are planned for off-corridor locations. , The basic conclusion from this discussion is that regional air quality impact significance from general development can not be properly evaluated on any single project basis. Roripaugh Ranch emissions do substantially exceed the SCAQMD's significance thresholds and the project of itself contributes little to J/H or VMT/VT goals. Conversely, the project represents a small fraction of planned growth, and land use mixes on a somewhat larger scale do provide more employment and service opportunities within reasonable proximity. Both a finding that the project's air quality impact is ' individually significant (with overriding considerations) or a finding that the impact is cumulatively significant (in that all regional growth retards attainment of air quality standards) are equally defensible. The SCAQMD strongly states that any project ' that causes its published significance thresholds to be exceeded, should be designated as being individually and cumulatively significant. Because the SCAQMD is a commenting agency on general ' development projects and air quality is their field of technical expertise, regional air quality impacts should therefore logically be designated as significant with the overriding considerations ' noted above. In addition to regional air quality concerns which focus on the photochemical conversion of air pollution emissions to more harmful ' 20 , forms, vehicular exhaust may impact air quality immediately adjacent to the roadway travel lanes . Such impacts occur during periods of maximum traffic congestion and minimum atmospheric dispersion. Microscale air quality impacts are a potential problem ' because a large number of intersections are forecast to operate at congested levels of service at area buildout. ' In order to determine whether any possible traffic congestion may contribute to localized air pollution standard violations , a screening procedure based upon the California roadway dispersion model CALINE4 was run on several roadways surrounding the Roripaugh Ranch area. Carbon monoxide (CO) was used as an indicator pollutant to determine "hot spot" potential . Rush hour traffic was combined with minimum dispersion conditions in order to create a theoretical worst-case impact estimate for a buildout year of 2015. The results of these calculations are shown in Table 6. ' Maximum hourly CO levels of 9.0 ppm over background will occur near the Rancho California Road/Ynez Road intersection at the opening year. The maximum existing background CO levels measured at Temecula are 4-5 ppm. If existing background levels persist, ' combined future theoretical maxima plus the background of 13-14 ppm will not exceed the hourly CO standard of 20 ppm. ' Table 6 shows that the maximum project-related CO increment is 1 .1 ppm at the Butterfield Stage Rd./Murrieta Hot Springs Road intersection. This small increment will not cause the hourly standard to be exceeded. All with-project CO increments are ' dominated by the no-project area growth of traffic and congestion. Although intersections operating near LOS = F are considered air quality negative, no microscale "hot spots" will occur with or ' without Roripaugh Ranch development despite possibly congested intersection operation. Microscale air quality impacts are not considered significant. 1 1 1 1 ' 21 TABLE 6 MICROSCALE AIR QUALITY IMPACT ANALYSIS , (Hourly CO levels (ppm) above non-local background) -- OPENING YEAR (2001) -- ------- POST 2015 ------- ' No With No With Intersection Project Project Prosect Project , I-215 Fwy. SB Ramps (NS) at: Murrieta Hot Springs Rd. (EW) 1.6 1.6 1.9 1.9 , I-215 Fwy. NB Ramps (NS) at: Murrieta Hot Springs Rd. (EW) 1.8 2.3 1.8 1.9 I-15 Fwy. SB Ramps (NS) at: Winchester Road (EW) 3.5 3.6 1.5 1.6 Rancho California Rd. (EW) 4.7 4.9 1.9 2.0 , I-15 Fwy. NB Ramps (NS) at: Winchester Rd. (EW) 3.1 3.1 2.0 2.0 Rancho California Road (EW) 6.7 6.7 1.2 1.2 , Ynez Road (NS) at: Winchester Road (EW) 5.1 4.7 5.0 4.7 ' Rancho California Road (EW) 8.9 9.0 2.3 2.3 Margarita Road (NS) at: , Murrieta Hot Springs Rd. (EW) 1.1 1.1 1.8 1.9 Winchester Road (EW) 2.5 2.6 3.3 3.5 La Serena Way (EW) 1.4 1.5 1.1 1.1 Rancho California Road (EW) 2.4 2.5 2.6 2.7 ' Winchester Road (MS) at: Murrieta Hot Springs Road (EW) 1.5 1.6 2.8 3.1 , Nicolas Road (EW) 2.0 2.1 2.4 3.2 Jefferson Avenue (NS) at: , Winchester Road (EW) 6.0 6.0 2.0 2.1 General Kearny Road (NS) at: Nicolas Road (EW) 0.6 0.9 1.2 1.3 ' Meadows Pkwy. (NS) at: La Serena Way (EW) 0.5 0.6 0.4 0.5 ' Rancho California Road (EW) 1.5 1.6 1.2 1.2 ' Table 6 ' Page Two -- OPENING YEAR (2001) -- ------- POST 2015 ------- No With No With ' Intersection Proiect Prot ftoect a0me-at Butterfield Stage Rd. (NS) at: Murrieta Hot Springs Rd. (EW) --- --- 1.0 2.1 ' Nicolas Road (EW) _ 1.4 1.8 Calle Chapos (EW) 1.0 1.5 La Serena Way (EW) --- --- 1.2 1.4 ' Rancho California Road (EW) 0.5 0.5 1.0 1.6 Purroy Road (NS) at: Nurrieta Hot Springs Road (EW) --- --- 0.9 1.7 Calle Contento (NS) at: Rancho California Road (EW) 0.4 0.6 0.2 0.3 ' Project Central Entrance (NS) at: Murrieta Hot Springs Road (EW) --- --- --- 1.0 ' Project West Entrance (NS) at: Murrieta Hot Springs Road (EW) - -- '"' 1.4 Project East Entrance (NS) at: Murrieta Hot Springs Road (EW) --- --- --- 1.0 ' Source: Screening procedure based upon CALINE4 model. 1 M=T=GAT=ON The fact that the proposed development may cumulatively contribute to continued regional air quality degradation places a special responsibility on project proponents and local regulatory agencies , to develop effective impact mitigation. However, since almost all the project impacts derive from mobile source emissions beyond the control of project sponsors, there is only a limited potential for , reducing any large percentage of project impacts. Some "standard" mitigation measures such as using dust control measures during construction mandated by the SCAQMD and using energy efficient design practices required by Title 24 of the California Code of ' Regulations will be adopted, but they fail to address the basic transportation air quality impact issues. Effective emissions reduction of mobile source emissions will ' require a unified transportation system management (TSM) approach where a wide variety of transportation control measures (TCMS) are integrated into a comprehensive system of procedures and goals. An effective TSM program as a means for reducing vehicular traffic and its associated environmental effects (air pollution, noise, energy consumption, etc. ) is difficult to achieve in practice because of ' the dependence on the low (mainly single) occupant vehicle as the primary means of transportation. The difficulties inherent in TCM implementation notwithstanding, Riverside County is committed in ' its air quality element in the General Plan to identify effective and feasible tactics to improve air quality for local government implementation. The components of any mobile source emissions reduction program should include: ' 1 . Cooperation with the SCAQMD to implement regional strategies and tactics. ' 2 . Development of park-and-ride facilities. 3 . Encouragement of bicycle and pedestrian circulation , alternatives. 4 . Express transit access from the Temecula area to other regional ' employment centroids. 5. Encouragement of local job-intensive uses to reduce the ' existing and growing jobs-housing imbalance that promotes long commutes in and out of the local area. Given, however, the existing pattern of land use in the region, the ' effectiveness of mitigation efforts cannot alter the conclusion that project development will have at least a cumulatively , significant air quality impact. 24 ' Construction activity impact mitigation should also be incorporated ' into the development approval process. Specific measures should include: ' 1. Use of dust control during clearing, grading and construction. If fresh-water resources are too precious to waste on dust control , availability of brackish or reclaimed water sources ' should be investigated. Soil disturbance should be terminated when high winds (>25 mph) make dust control extremely difficult. ' 2. Minimization of construction interference with regional non- project traffic movement. Measures recommended for inclusion are: ' a. scheduling receipt of construction materials to non- peak travel periods. ' b. Routing construction traffic through areas of least impact sensitivity. ' C. Limiting lane closures and detours to off-peak travel periods. ' d. Providing ride-share incentives for contractor and subcontractor personnel . 3 . Reducing "spill-over" effects by preventing soil erosion, ' washing vehicles entering public roadways from dirt off-road project areas, and washing/sweeping project access to public roadways on an adequate schedule. ' 4 . Requiring emissions control from on-site equipment through a routine mandatory program of low-emissions tune-ups . 5. Limiting grading/soil disturbance to no more than 25 acres at any one time. 6. Limiting the application of architectural surface treatments ( i .e. , paint, etc. ) to less than 40 gallons per average day. The technology does not exist to build out 788 acres in an arid climate without creating some dust and equipment exhaust. These ' temporary impacts can, however, be substantially reduced if a commitment is made to pursue available impact mitigation as aggressively as possible. 25 1 1 APPEND=X ' RORIPAUGH RANCH DEVELOPMENT URB7G COMPUTER MODEL OUTPUT 1 1 1 tERATIONAL (Vehicle) EMISSION ESTIMATES alysis Year: 2010 Temperature ( F) : 85 Season: Summer FAC Version: EMFAC7G ( 10/96) tmmary of Land Uses: Unit Type Trip Rate Size Total Trips ktngle family housing 9 . 57 trips / dwelling unit 1698. 00 16 , 249. 86 ndo/townhouse genera 6 . 59 trips / dwelling unit 360 .00 2 ,372.40 ementary school 1 . 02 trips / students 800. 00 816 .00 nior high school 1 . 45 trips / students 1200.00 1 ,740.00 ilmmunity Parks 2 . 28 trips / 23 . 00 52 .44 Commercial Retail 68 . 17 trips / 1000 sq. ft. 100.00 6,817.00 'it any button to continue MITIGATED EMISSIONS ROG NOx CO PM10 Single family housing 123 . 46 278.61 1011 . 50 120 . 99 Condo/townhouse general 19 . 68 40.68 147. 67 17 . 66 lementary school 16 . 24 13 .71 45 . 37 5.87 unior high school 27 . 18 29 . 23 96 . 75 12 .51 Community Parks 0 . 59 0.77 2 . 50 0 . 33 ifommercial Retail 34 . 38 100. 38 325 . 13 42 . 45 ROG NOx CO PM10 TOTAL EMISSIONS ( lbs/day) 221 . 53 463 . 36 1628. 93 199. 80 Includes correction for passby trips. Does not include double counting adjustment for internal trips . 'it any button to continue 1 1 ' APPENDIX G ' Biological Resources 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 ' BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES ASSESSMENT OF THE APPROXIMATELY 790-ACRE ' RORIPAUGH RANCH SITE LOCATED IN THE COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE, CALIFORNIA ' Prepared For: Hewitt R McGuire LLP 19900 MacArthur Boulevard - Suite 1050 Irvine, California 92715 ' Prepared By: Natural Resource Consultants ' 30 Crystal Cove Laguna Beach, California 92651 ' Contact: Mr. David Levine Date: May 25, 1999 1 ' TABLE OF CONTENTS ' SECTION raloe 1.0 INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 ' 2.0 PROJECT LOCATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 ' 3.0 TOPOGRAPHY AND SOILS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 4.0 SURVEY METHODS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 4.1 General Biological Resources Surveys . 2 ' 4.2 Sensitive Biological Resources Surveys . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 4.2.1 Sensitive Plant Surveys . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 4.2.2 Quino Checkerspot Butterfly Surveys . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 ' 4.2.3 Coastal California Gnatcatcher Surveys . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 4.2.4 Raptor Nest Surveys . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 4.2.5 Stephens' Kangaroo Rat Surveys . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 ' 5.0 VEGETATION COMMUNITIES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 5.1 Riversidean Sage Scrub 6 ' 5.1.1 Riversidean Sage Scrub-California Sagebrush dominated . . . . 6 5.1.2 Riversidean Sage Scrub-flat-top buckwheat dominated . . . . . . 7 5.13 Riversidean Sage Scrub- sagebrush-buckwheat dominated . . . . 7 ' 5.1.4 Riversidean Saae Scrub-sagebrush penstomon dominated . . . . 8 5.1.5 Riversidean Sage Scrub-sagebrush white sage dominated . . . . 8 5.1.6 Riversidean Sage Scrub-rock outcrop community . . . . . . . . . 9 ' 5.1.7 Riversidean Sage Scrub-Mixed Dominance . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 5.1.8 Riversidean Sage Scrub-Disturbed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 5.2 Southern Cactus Scrub . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 ' 5.3 Transitional Communities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 I 5.3.1 Riversidean Sage Scrub- Annual Grassland . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 5.3.2 Riversidean Sage Scrub- Native Grassland . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 ' 5.3.3 Riversidean Sage Scrub -Ruderal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 5.3.4 Ruderal - Riversidean Sage Scrub . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I2 5.4 Grasslands . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 5.4.1 Annual Grasslands 13 5.4.2 Native Grasslands . . . . . ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 5.5 Riparian Communities 14 5.5.1 Seasonal Creek Beds . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 . 5.5.2 Sandy Stream Wash 15 5.5.3 Alluvial Fan Scrub 15 ' 5.5.4 Mulefat Scrub 15 5.5.5 Riparian Scrub . . . . . . 15 5.5.6 Riparian Woodland . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 ' 5.5.7 Ephemeral Pond . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 5.6 Woodlands . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 5.6.1 Live Oak Woodlands . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 ' 5.6.2 Eucalyptus Woodlands . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 5.7 Other Vegetation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 ' 5.7.1 Ruderal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 5.7.2 Agricultural . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 , 5.7.3 Graded . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 5.7.4 Developed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 5.8 Regional Context and Habitat Linkages . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 ' 6.0 SENSITIVE BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 6.1 Sensitive Vegetation Communities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 6. 1.1 Riversidean Sage Scrub . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 6.1.2 Wetland Habitats 25 6.2 Sensitive Plant Species 25 ' 7.2. 1 Sensitive Plants Detected On Site . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 6.3 Sensitive Wildlife Species . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 6.3.1 Sensitive Wildlife Species Detected Onsite . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 , 7.0 IMPACTS OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 7.1 Impacts to Vegetation Communities . . 29 , 7.1.1 Impacts to Riversidean Sage Scrub, Transitional Areas and Native Grasslands . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 7.1.2 Impacts to Riparian Habitats 31 ' 7.2 Impacts to Sensitive Species . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 7.2.1 Impacts to Sensitive Plants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 7.2.2 Impacts to Sensitive Wildlife . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34 7.2.3 Impacts to Wildlife Movement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34 8.0 MITIGATION MEASURES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35 , 8.1 Mitigation for Impacts to Vegetation Communities . . . . . . . . 35 8.1.1 Mitigation for Impacts to Riversidean Sage Scrub, Transitional Areas and Native Grasslands . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36 , 8.1.2 Mitigation for Impacts to Riparian Habitats . . . . . . . 36 8.2 Mitigation for Impacts to Sensitive Wildlife . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36 8.2.1 Mitigation for Impacts to the Quino Checkerspot Butterfly and Coastal California Gnatcatcher . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37 1 8.2.2 Mitigation for Impacts to The Stephens' Kangaroo Rat . . . . 37 8.23 Mitigation for Impacts to Raptor Foraging Areas . . . . 38 , 8.2.4 Mitigation for Impacts to Various Wildlife Species Associated with the Scrub. Grassland. and Riparian Areas on The Roripaugh Ranch Site . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38 , 9.0 OFF SITE IMPROVEMENTS 39 9. 1 Butterfield Stage Road . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39 9.2 14-Acre Park Site . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40 10.0 REFERENCES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40 t 1 LIST O_ F TABLES ' TABLE P= I VEGETATION COMMUNITIES PRESENT ON THE RORIPAUGH RANCH 6 ' 11 SENSITIVE PLANT AND WILDLIFE SPECIES DETECTED OR NOT DETECTED ON THE RORIPAUGH RANCH SITE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 III IMPACTS TO VEGETATION COMMUNITIES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 ' LIST OF F.XHIBIT4 EXW BI Following Paye ' 1 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES MAP 7 2 IMPACTS OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 ' APPENDICES APPENDIX A Floral and Faunal Compendia 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 LQ INTRODUCTION 1 Natural Resource Consultants (NRC) was retained by Hewitt & McGuire LLP to prepare a biological resources assessment for three separate projects located within the boundaries of the 1 approximately 790-acre Roripaugh Ranch (the site). The purpose of NRC's assessment is to provide information pertaining to the general and sensitive biological resources that occur within 1 the site boundaries and within off site improvement areas associated with this development. This report provides the methods, results, and conclusions of surveys for general biological resources 1 and focused surveys for sensitive plant and wildlife species potentially occurring on the Roripaugh Ranch site. This report incorporates the results of various surveys conducted by Tierra Madre Consultants (1989 and 1994) and Harmsworth Associates (1998) with the results of NRC's studies 1 conducted in January through May of 1999. 1 This biological assessment evaluates the proposed development of three projects located within the boundaries of the Roripaugh Ranch. These three projects are labeled as Phase 1, 2, and 3. The reports describes the existing conditions within each phase and evaluates the impacts and 1 associated mitigation requirements for each of the three individual projects. Development within the boundaries of the Roripaugh Ranch site is also associated with off site improvement areas. ' These associated projects are a) grading and construction of Butterfield Stage Road between La Serena and Nicholas Road, including the connections of Butterfield Stage Road to La Serena and 1 Calle Chapos, and b) development of an approximately 14-acre park site located along Nicholas Road at the western boundary of the site. The biological resources within the off site improvement areas is described in Section 9 of this report. 1 This biological resources assessment provides an evaluation of the anticipated impacts on site- specific and regional biological resources of each project phase, the entire project (Phases 1, 2, and 3 combined), and the Off Site Improvements. The report also includes mitigation measures 1 designed to offset adverse project effects. Mitigation measures are consistent with the Habitat Conservation Plan for the Stephen's Kangaroo Rat in Western Riverside County (SKR-HCP) (RCHCA 1995) and the requirements of the California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG), 1 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), and County of Riverside. 1 �.4 PRO.iECT LOCATION 1 The approximately 790-acre Roripaugh Ranch site lies in southwestern Riverside County, north of Rancho California Road, and southwest of Highway 79. Specifically, the site is located at the 1 Roripaugh Ranch—Biological Resources Assessment Natural Resource Consultants County of Riverside May 25, 1999 1 ' 1 1 end of Nicholas Road along Santa Gertrudis Creek, immediately south and east of Skunk Hollow and the Rancho Bella Vista Specific Plan area. The Johnson Ranch Specific Plan area occurs north and east of the site. The property is shown on Sections 20 and 21 of the USGS Bachelor Mountain quadrangle T.7S,R.2W. ' ID TOPOGRAPHY AND SOILS Topography on the site is characterized by a ridge and valley systems forming the upper watershed of Santa Gertrudis Creek and a large plateau along the northern boundary of the site. This plateau area forms the western "pan handle" of the site. The soils on the site are fine to coarse loams of the Hanford, Ramona, and Metz soil series. Riverwash soil occurs in the drainage of Santa Gertudis Creek (Knetch 1971). Elevations on the site range from 1,200 feet to 1,350 feet above sea level. 4.0 1999 SURVEY METHODS ' NRC surveyed all portions of the Roripaugh Ranch site during January through May of 1999 for ' general biological resources (vegetation communities, plants, wildlife, and habitat linkages) and ' for sensitive plant and wildlife species including protocol-level surveys for the coastal California gnatcatcher (Poliopiila californica californica) and Quino checkerspot butterfly (Euphvdrvas editha guino). ' 4.1 GENERAI. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES SURVEYS ' NRC's biologists conducted general plant and wildlife surveys in January and February of 1999. ' The on-foot surveys covered all slope aspects, soil types, and drainages. The vegetation communities on the site were mapped and observed floral and faunal were recorded. Floral taxonomy used in this report follows The Jepson Manual (Hickman 1993). Common plant names, where not available from Hickman, are taken from Abrams (1923 and 1944), Abrams and ' Ferris (1951 and 1960), Beauchamp (1986), Munz (1974), and Skinner and Pavlik (1994). Vertebrate taxonomy follows Collins (1990) for amphibians and reptiles, American Ornithological Union (1983) and Atwood (1980) for birds, and Jones et al. (1992) and Hall (1981) for mammals. i Scientific names are mentioned once and common names are used thereafter. Roripaugh Ranch--Biological Resources Assessment Natural Resource Consultants , County of Riverside Nlay 25, 1999 , ' 4.2 SENSITIVE BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES SURVEYS tNRC conducted a variety of sensitive species surveys in 1999 on the Roripaugh Ranch site. These ' surveys included focused searches for sensitive plant species, including vernal pool endemics, the Quino checkerspot butterfly, sensitive bird species, including the federally threatened coastal California gnatcatcher, various riparian bird, nesting raptors, and sensitive reptiles including the tSan Diego coast horned lizard and orangethroat whiptail. The methods for each survey are described below. 4 2 1 Sensitive Plant Surveys ' NRC conducted a sensitive plant evaluation in May of 1999. These surveys emphasized areas where vernal endemic plants may occur. No clay soils with the appropriate drainage ' characteristics to support vernal pools were located on site In general, the site has very low potential to support any sensitive plants and none were detected. ' 4.2.2 Ouino CheckeupQj Butterfly Survey ' In February of 1999 permitted biologists under contract with NRC conducted a habitat-based evaluation of the Roripaugh Ranch site to determine the potential for this site to support the Quino ' checkerspot butterfly (Eupindgas editho quino) and determine the study area for focused adult surveys for this species. The habitat-based survey included a comprehensive evaluation of the t site's flora, topography, and soils. The entire site was searched for the presence of dwarf plantain (Plantago erecta) and various adult nectaring plants used by the Quino checkerspot butterfly. NRC's field searches focused on areas where dwarf plantain was expected to occur, such as in dry ' open places on sandy, clay or serpentine soils, occupying gaps in coastal sage scrub and chaparral, in valley grasslands, and in open woodlands. The surveys also emphasized plant associations ' including popcom flower (Plagiobothns sp. and Cnptantha sp.), common fiddleneck (Amsinckio nlenziesii). bryophtes and other native forbs on drained, medium to coarse grained, granitic outwash soils. Focused Quino checkerspot butterfly surveys were conducted between March 17 and May 8, ' 1999. The surveys were conducted according to the USFWS recommended survey protocols as published on January ?5, 1999 by the USFWS (USFWS 1999). All Quino checkerspot butterfly ' surveys on the Roripaugh Ranch site were conducted by biologists permitted by the USFWS to survey for this species. Mr. Michael Gates (Permit r 838028) was the lead biologist for surveys ' Roripaugh Ranch —Biological Resources Assessment Natural Resource Consultants County of Riverside NaY 25 1999 ' 3 1 1 on the Roripaugh Ranch site. Other permitted biologists surveying on this site included Mr. Michael Couffer (Permit t/ 782703), and Mr. Bryan Carey (Permit k 785138). Results from these ' surveys will be submitted to the USFWS in June of 1999. Focused adult Quino checkerspot butterfly surveys were also conducted for the proposed grading ' and construction area for Butterfield Stage Road including the proposed extensions to La Serena ' and Calle Chapos. Surveys in this area were conducted between March 17 and May 7, 1999. Results from these surveys will be submitted to the USFWS in June of 1999. The 14-acre park site does not support any suitable habitat for the Quino checkerspot butterfly and no butterfly surveys were necessary to confirm the absence of this species in this area. 4.2.3 Coastal California Gnat at h r Survey Gnatcatcher survey methods followed the guidelines recommended by the USFWS (1997). t Surveys for the coastal California gnatcatcher within the study area were conducted by Michael Couffer who is permitted by the USFWS to conduct these surveys. Surveys occurred in February ' and March of 1999 under clear to hazy skies, with air temperatures between 55 and 75 degrees Fahrenheit, and with wind velocities between 0 and 5 miles per hour. All appropriate habitats ' were surveyed on at least six separate occasions. Slow, methodical transects were walked through all appropriate scrub habitats located within and adjacent to the Roripaugh Ranch project. Replay of taped gnatcatcher vocalizations were used to illicit responses. ' Focused coastal California gnatcatcher surveys were also conducted for the proposed grading and ' construction area for Butterfield Stage Road including the proposed extensions to La Serena and Calle Chapos. The 14-acre park site does not support any suitable habitat for the coastal , California gnatcatcher and no gnatcatcher surveys were conducted in this area. 44.2.4 Raptor Nest and Burrowing Owl Survey ' In late-April and early-May of 1999 a biologist trained and experienced in recognizing raptor nests ' searched all portions of the eucalyptus woodlands and riparian woodlands for active and/or abandoned raptor nests. In addition, the entire site was specifically searched for sign of burrowing ' owl (Athena conic/aria). Specifically, any area with ground squirrel burrows or other sign of this species was searched during early morning hours for burrowing owl activity. If a raptor nest or active owl burrow was encountered it was mapped on a 400-scale topographic map of the site. , Roripaugh Ranch —Biological Resources Assessment Natural Resource Consultants , County of Riverside Mav 25 1Y9 ' 4 4.2.5 Stephens' Kangaroo Rat No rodent trapping surveys were conducted in 1999. The Roripaugh Ranch site was surveyed for ' Stephens' kangaroo rat (Dipodomys srephensi) in 1994 (Tierra Madre 1994) and occupied habitat was recorded on the site. 1 S 4 V TATiON CONNLITI[ES The main part of the site is crossed by two roughly east-west valleys, the northern one occupied by Santa Gertrudis Creek, and the southern one, Long Valley, by a much smaller intermittent ' creek. Irregular ridges made up of rolling hills occur north and south of these valleys; the ridge system north of Santa Gertrudis Creek extends west into the "panhandle" part of the site. Much of the site, both valleys and rolling hills, is in use for agriculture (grain farming). Steeper parts ' and hilly areas are occupied by Riversidean sage scrub. Most of the site has been cleared one or more times in past for agricultural uses. The past disturbance has led to an intricate mosaic of ' grassland, ruderal, and regenerating sage scrub vegetation, with the sage scrub often exhibiting low plant diversity. More diverse native vegetation occurs only on the steepest hillsides, and in the extreme northeast of the site. The site retains an overall high floral diversity. During the February and March surveys, a total of 175 different plant taxa were identified, and more would be added by surveys conducted later in the season. However, 56 of these taxa are introduced species, again emphasizing the ' disturbance that the site has undergone. A total of six different vegetation communities and land uses have been identified on the site. These communities have been subdivided into 29 categories based on the dominant plant species in each area. The acreage within each subcommunities is ' listed in Table I and the floristic components are described below. Exhibit 2 shows the extent and location of each vegetation community on site. 5.1 RIVERSIDEAN SAGE SCRUB Riversidean sage scrub is one of the two dominant native vegetation types in this general part of California. Sage scrub and chaparral occur in the same general areas, but sage scrub tends to ' occupy drier, more xeric situations, such as south-facing slopes, or areas that have been subjected to more disturbance. Sage scrub communities are dominated by relatively low-growing shrubs and ' subshrubs that lose their leaves to minimize water losses during summer drought. They may replace them with lesser amounts of smaller leaves. ' Roripaugh Ranch --Biological Resources Assessment Natural Resource Consultants County of Ri.erside Mai 25 1919 ' 5 1 Many of the shrubs and subshrubs in Riversidean sage scrub are less than about 3 feet tall, and are often relatively widely spaced. There is therefore often a significant herbaceous understory, ' including grasses and sometimes where it is undisturbed, colorful native annual wildflowers. Eight different types of Riversidean sage scrub have been identified, based on the dominant ' shrubby species in each case. In addition, transitional associations have been recognized. All of these are shown on the enclosed map, except for a rocky outcrop community, which occurs in ' areas too small to map. Riversidean sage scrub (not including the transitional habitats) totals 161.26 acres on the site. 5.1.1 Riversidean sage scrub—California sagebrush (Ariemisia californica) dominated This form of Riversidean sage scrub is overwhelmingly dominated by California sagebrush ' (Artemisia californica), along with minor amounts of flat-top buckwheat (Eriogonum fasciculatunt var.foliolosum), white sage (Salvia apiana), and deerweed (Lotus scoparius). Purple needlegrass (Nasella pulchra) occurs in the openings between the shrubs. This low-diversity assemblage occurs at Roripaugh Ranch on part of the flat-topped mesa south of Santa Gertrudis Creek in the ' northeast of the site. This area has been disturbed for agricultural use and has since regenerated. It also occurs locally along the northern boundary of the site, making up a total area of 2.31 acres. ' 5.1.2 Riversidean sage scrub—flat-top buckwheat (Eriogonum fasciculatum) dominated This is another form of Riversidean sage scrub that is overwhelmingly dominated by a single species, in this case by flat-top buckwheat. The only other shrub that is locally present in ' significant amounts is Box Springs goldenbush (Ericamerio palmed var. pachvlepis). There are occasional narrow-leaved bedstraw (Galium angustifolitan), coast prickly-pear. (Opuntia littoralis), , and deerweed. The openings between the shrubs support purple needlegrass, cudweed aster (Lessingia filaginifolia), buckwheat (Eriogonum elongatum),johnny-jump-up (Viola pedunculate), mariposa lily (Colochot;us sp.), sharp-tooth sanicle (Saniculo arguta), larkspur (Delphinium sp.), ' and common golden stars (Bloomerio croceo). Flat-top buckwheat-dominated sage scrub is the ' principal type of Riversidean sage scrub present on the ridge of hills running across the south of the site, but it also occurs sporadically within areas of sage scrub throughout the site. It occupies ' a total of 20.15 acres onsite. 1 Roripaugh Ranch —Biological Resources Assessment Natural Resource Consultants County of Riverside May 25. 1999 6 ' ez c .7) RUD - RSS-N RSSD _ t t RSS-♦w Rgg_RUD RSS-D HO 3 -�yAQL R3.9-♦ AGR UD AGR AGR R49-� AGL R B RS -Aw �g_� AGL-ALG RSS-ALG RSS-ALG Pon-AGL R4S-B d Rss- Aw RSS- AG RSS-ALG -RUD RES- D RUD L AGL R RUD SV &R9-� D AGR Rss- RSS-D BUD a -B R IM-D UD A R AGR R93D �L ALSO BUD AGR scs �_ _ aSS-AB B99_B AGR -AY R9S-a Ac cL Natural Resource Consultants RSS-ALG R E7tlNBrf _ MAY 1999 BUD A Legend: Total scree san 0.A-. RF«Y««nV.vuafdRvnb cppruli NIRrWb MlMnke) 2.31 bw R55� RMµyan py wrW-Ib[-top WckMicl( bMaYalum) 10.15 bw - RSS-.B RFawAen .19 RSti'-Nt RAaYtlo. vu}CalRamb I-1.10.MM wAs AttM a R«x.e« .aapo«ulnnoiew q/ Rss-AwD .mAlAHaaia..o.11.tR-MYI.Wo(SdNa wlm^) ea)bw ar" —ALG na be Ga BSS-ALG AGR BOWN ses swu..mew.ale 0."bw _H _D 1 RMwtwew AGL �,/ ;. RSS/u RINI«y«.eS..we-mew ae.wmd 00 bw RES UD R93-ALG im//10L RlrWmn cp.map-neew gmwene Ks, bw AGR MPSSMIA RAw.pem 1.-rveww 10.10 bw RSS—B Mss : em,Rr.a.m.pw.o•m w. i. 1.50 b« A C`L RSS-B R o..waa L R lA � w"Qa Rb"iav� ois•ab«.. R33- R A NGL AGL "°"°" - WS Nuww M vW IB.OB bw ti3 W1.wl. o.b Rb>Ym.mA br R$ ..le baUD Rw Rbobn.eeJaM 3Aw Mi.. L Bl• A SmOY sbean.mn .s1b« am b_ UD .00y 11111016 w u..w�.o.aala o.w rrw ®� AGR R AGR � n r.«amtt....w«I 7.Mwaw AGR AMIt AW� 01:w Kw : DIN �.e I.Z7 baa L R TOT&- M."b« Rss L RUD._. .•.RSS-D ' AGR UD AGR RSS-D N.T.S. �� y -B A dAr�.rdan pugs aescRa;o BY Ipc w iae � R� NGL (n R.Ia) AGL jRUD PM-D ® amo OEdQR50(IT BUT1 y OBSFIn4D H 1999 BY RSS-D k R�B RSS-1 RSS-B RSS-D -ALGLAGRRSS-H z & AyeRRSS_B BL BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES MAP _ RORIPAUGH RANCH "S_D Table I Vegetation Communities Within Phases 1, 2, and 3 on the Roripaugh Ranch Property Map Phase Phase Phase Total ' Vegetation Communities Symbol* 1 2 3 Site RIVERSIDEAN SAGE SCRUB 30.50 62.22 68.54 161.26 RSS- California saeebrush RSS-A 0.52 0.00 1.79 2.31 RSS- Flat-to buckwheat RSS-B 11.90 4.52 3.73 20. 15 RSS- California saeebrush/buckwheat RSS- A/B 0.00 37.01 2.18 39.19 I RSS -California sagebrush/keckiella RSS -A/K 0.39 0.51 9.13 10.03 RSS- California saeebrush/white sale RSS -A/W 0.07 1.69 7. 11 8.87 RSS- mixed RSS-M 5.01 3.76 36.27 45.04 RSS- disturbed RSS-D 12.37 14.71 8.33 35.41 Southern cactus scrub SCS 0.24 0.02 0.00 0.26 TRANSITIONAL 21.61 19.27 16.68 57.56 RSS - Annual Grasslands RSS/AGL 12.93 18.54 11.98 43.45 RSS -Native Grasslands RSS/NGL 0.81 0.57 0.13 1.51 RSS - Ruderal RSS/RUD 5.37 0.16 4.57 10. 10 Ruderal -RSS RUD/RSS 2.50 0 0.00 5.00 GRASSLAND 14.64 9.36 0.91 24.91 Annual grassland AGL 14.46 9.36 0.91 24.73 Native erassland NGL 0.18 0.00 0.00 0.18 RIPARIAN 5.79 0.70 18.14 24.63 Alluvial Fan Scrub ALSC 2.38 0.06 14.45 16.89 Mulefat scrub MFS 0. 15 0.01 0.00 0.16 Riparian woodland RW 0.05 0.00 0.00 0.05 ' Riparian scrub RS 0.00 0.47 3.69 4. 16 Sandy wash St's' 3.21 0.11 0.00 3.32 Pond Pond 0.00 0.05 0.00 0.05 WOODLAND 6.25 1.06 0.52 7.83 Live oak woodland OW 0.00 0.01 0.48 0.49 Eucalyptus woodland EW 6.25 1.05 0.04 7.34 OTHER 281.14 119.86 1 113.52 514.53 ' Ruderal RUD 18.26 12.64 15. 15 46.05 Agricultural AGR 255.98 104.12 91.78 451.88 Graded GR 2.02 0.00 0.00 2.02 ' Developed DEV 1 4.88 3.10 6.59 14.57 TOTAL 359.93 212.47 218.26 790.66 ' = Map symbols correspond to Exhibit I Roripaugh Ranch -Biological Resources Assessment Natural Resource Consult.anLs Count. of Riverside Mai 25. 1999 1 7 . 5.1.3 Riversidean sage scrub—California sagebrush-flat-top buckwheat dominated This type of Riversidean sage scrub is almost equally dominated by flat-top buckwheat and California sagebrush. Other shrubby species present in much lesser amounts include deerweed, white sage, California matchweed (Gutierreva californica), and coast prickly-pear. In the 1 understory there are purple needlegrass, chic (Salvia columbariae), wishbone bush (Mirabilis cal fornico), foxtail chess (1lromus madritensis ssp. rubens), and tocalote (Centaurea melitensis). ' At the western end of the "panhandle" part of the site, patches of California plantain (Plantago erecta) occur in openings within this vegetation community. The plantain is associated with narrow-leaved filago (Filago gallica), slender pectocarya (Pectocaryo lineoris ssp. feroculo), popcorn flower (Plagiobothrys sp.), and redrstemmed filaree (Erodium cicutarium). California sagebrush-flat-top buckwheat-dominated sage scrub predominates within and adjacent to the l "panhandle' part of the Roripaugh Ranch. It is also present on a north-facing slope south of the airstrip in the center of the site. It is the second most abundant type of Riversidean sage scrub on the site, occupying a total of 39.19 acres. 5.1.4 Riversidean sage scrub—California sagebrush-yellow bush penstemon dominated ' This type of Riversidean sage scrub is dominated more or less equally by California sagebrush and , yellow bush penstemon, with a little white sage and narrow-leaved bedstraw. In the understory there are golden yarrow (Eriophyllum confertiflorum), foothill needlegrass (Nasella lepido). coastal indian paintbrush (Cosrdlejo a finis), lance-leaved dudleva (Dudhn-a lonceolota), California fuchsia (Epilobium canum), and coffeefern (Pellaea andromedifolia). California sagebrush-yellow bush penstemon-dominated sage scrub is only found in undisturbed locations, and generally on , north-facing slopes. There are also one or two small patches in the extreme northwest corner of the "panhandle" part of the site. Altogether, these add up to a total of 10.03 acres on the site. 5.1.5 Ricersidean sage scrub—California sagebrush-Nchite sage dominated California sagebrush and white sage are clearly the codominant species in this type of Riversidean sage scrub, but other shrub species, especially flat-top buckwheat and yellow bush penstemon are 1 usually present. Golden yarrow and foothill needleerass occur in the understory. This is another type of sage scrub that is generally found in undisturbed locations. Although one patch has been mapped in the "panhandle" part of the site. most occurrences are on steep slopes above Santa Gertrudis Creek in the northeast of Roripaugh Ranch. They total 8.87 acres on the site. ' Roripaugh Ranch —Biological Resources Assessment Natural Resource Consultants County of Rnerside MiN 25, 199 s 5.1.6 Rocky outcrop community ' Several rocky outcrops in the northeast part of the site are surrounded by Riversidean sage scrub of on: or more types. But around and between the rocks themselves, a distinctive different floral 1 assemblage is found. This is dominated by branching phacelia (Phacelia ramosissbna) and California bee-plant, with common mamoot or wild cucumber, virgin's bower (Clematis sp.), sacapellote (Acourtia microcephala) and Parish's nightshade. Parry's cloak-fem (Cheilanthes parni) also occurs here. The rocky outcrop areas occupied by this community are too small to map individually. 5.1.7 Riversidean sage scrub—,Mixed dominance As its name implies, this type of Riversidean sage scrub contains a high diversity of species. ' Imporant widespread shrubs are California sagebrush, flat-top buckwheat, deer-weed. white sage, yellcnr bush penstemon, and cudweed-aster. More locally there are also Box Springs goldenbush. valley cholla (Opuntia pam,l), coast pricky-pear, narrow-leaved bedstraw, Califomia matchweed, ' Mexican elderberry (Sambucus mexicana), squaw bush (Rhus trilobata), black sage, giant wild rve (Le}nna condensatus), and cotton-thorn (Tetradymia comosa). In the understory there are purple needlegrass, golden varrow, California everlasting (Gnaphalium californicum), lance- leaved dudleva, checker bloom, tall buckwheat, and locally, mariposa lily (Calochortus sp.). and ' babe blue-eves (A'emophila men-Jesii). On north-facing slopes there are also goldenback fern (Per,;aeranma triangularis), Califomia polypody (Pol podiwn californicum), coffee fern, sout�:ern maidenhair (Adiantum jordanii), common golden stars, imbricate phacelia (Phacelia ' imbi cata), miner's lettuce, American bowlesia (Bowlesia incana), while south-facing slopes have Chia, wishbone bush, and rattlesnake weed (Chamaesvice albomarginata). Summer annuals which could only be tentatively identified at the time of the survey include sapphire woolly-star (Eriastmni sapphirttnum), holly-leaved skunk-weed (Navarretia airacnloides), and farewell to ' sprin_ (Clarkia sp.) On soma, of the north-facing slopes on the south bank of Santa Gertrudis Creek, mixed Rive-sidean sage scrub contains a major component of large, well-grown California scrub oak trees (Quercits berbendifolia). This vegetation community has been mapped as transitional to oak ' woodiand. It resembles the north-slope aspect of mixed sage scrub, but also has California bee- plant (Scrophulana californica), and common manroot or wild cucumber (March macrocarpus); Ame=,car: bowlesia is especially common under shrubs here. Mixed Riversidean sage scrub occurs ' main:% in undisturbed areas. It is the principal tvpe of sage scrub in the northeast of the site, on Ronpaugh Ranch —Biological Resources Assessment Natural Resource Consultants Count. of Ri%erside Mai 25, 1" 0 1 either side of Santa Gertrudis Creek. Elsewhere, small patches occur locally on very steep slopes I which have escaped damage in the past. The total area of mixed Riversidean sage scrub, including the variety with the oaks, is 45.04 acres, making it the most abundant type at Roripaugh Ranch. 5.1.8 Riversidean sage scrub—disturbed e This designation is applied to areas that have 50-75% cover by sage scrub shrubs, the rest being ' mainly a mixture of annual ;[asses and weeds. It represents areas that have recovered only partly from former disturbances. This is a relatively low-diversity community. The dominant shrubs are flat-top buckwheat and California sagebrush, locally with much lesser amounts of Box Springs goldenbush, valley cholla, coast prickly-pear, white sage, and yellow bush penstemon. The relatively large areas between the shrubs are generally occupied by wild oats (Arena spp.). 1 perennial mustard (Hirschfeldio ineano), tocalote, soft chess (Bromus hordoceus), prickly lettuce (Locruco serriola), dove weed (Eremocorpus sengerus), fascicled or golden tarweed (Hemironia , fasciculara), red-stemmed filaree, long-beaked filaree (Erodium borrvs), and smooth cat's-ear (Hrpochoeris glabra). In some places, native species have survived better, including Pomona , locoweed (Asrrogalus pomonensis), mariposa lily, common golden stars, California fuchsia, johnny jump-up, and purple needlegrass. A few patches of California plantain occur in this community. Disturbed Riversidean sage scrub occurs sporadically throughout the site. It usually forms ' relatively small patches. that grade in one direction into less disturbed sage scrub. and in the other direction into transitional communities. These patches add up to a total of 35.41 acres. making , disturbed sage scrub one of the four most abundant scrub types at Roripaugh Ranch. 5.2 SOUTHERN CACTUS SCRUB , So_thern cactus scrub at Roripaugh Ranch is overwhelmingly dominated by cactus, mainly valley ' cholla, with lesser amounts of coast prickly-pear. Between the cacti, flat-top buckwheat and California sagebrush are present. Southern cactus scrub forms six small patches scattered along the upper parts of the south-facing slopes that make up the southern boundary of the "panhandle' , par-. of the site and continue northeast towards the Roripaugh residence. There are more patches just offsite, to the south of the "panhandle"; the onsite patches total 0.26 acre. ' Roripaugh Ranch —Biological Resources .Assessment Natural Resource Consultants , Count' of Riverside N1ac 25, 199 0 ' 5.3 TRANSITIONAL CO1INIUNITIES Areas of vegetation with between 15% and 50% cover by sage scrub shrubs are transitional vegetation communities. The areas between the widely spaced shrubs are occupied by grassland or ruderal vegetation. The hill slopes often exhibit a mosaic of these transitional communities, passing into sage scrub or grassland or ruderal communities. These transitional vegetation ' communities have a total area on the site of 57.56 acres. ' 5.3.1 Riversidean sage scrub-annual grassland Both the shrubby and grassland components of this vegetation community are variable. In some ' places, the dominant shrub is deerweed, in others flat-top buckwheat, California sagebrush. California matchweed, white sage, or at one location near the northern boundary of the site. ' brittlebush (Encelio farinosa). Cacti are often present, both valley cholla and coast prickly-pear. sometimes accompanied by wishbone bush. Often, the grassy component of this community is dominated by introduced annual grasses and weeds, especially wild oats, soft chess. tocalote. ' perennial mustard, long-beaked filaree, red-stemmed filaree, and nettle-leaved goosefoot (Chenopodium murale). Native species are also present. Some are typical of weedy habitats, such ' as common fiddleneck (Anisincklo men:iesir), Pomona locoweed, fascicled or golden tarweed, and common sunflower (Helimuhus annuus). However, in places native species predominate. There ' are patches of California plantain in this vegetation community, where it is associated with rattlesnake weed (Doucus pusillus), slender pectocarva, and popcorn flower. Other natives include common golden stars, blue dicks or wild hyacinth (Dichelostenuno capiranun), miniature ' lupine (Lupinus bicolor), common chickweed (Srellana media), probable Chinese houses (Collinsia sp.), calabazilla (Cucurbito foendissima), and at one location, thistle sage (Salvia carduacea). Riversidean sage scrub-annual grassland is common throughout the site, except in the relativelv undisturbed northeast. It totals 34.73 acres. Roripaugh Ranch —Biological Resources ,assessment Natural Resource ConsullanLs Counts of Riverside Dtac 25, 1999 it 5.3.2 Riversidean sage scrub-native grassland ' The shrubby component of this vegetation community is dominated by flat-top buckwheat. Often it is accompanied by Box Springs goldenbush, and occasionally by California matchweed. The grassy component has abundant purple needlegrass, but introduced annual grasses are also present, including wild oats and soft chess. Other species present include cudweed-aster, tall buckwheat, horehound (Marrubium vulgare), California plantain, slender pectocarya, fascicled or golden ' tarweed, common golden stars, and johnny jump-up. Riversidean sage scrub-native grassland occurs at several widely scattered locations on Roripaugh Ranch, often as part of native vegetation patches adjacent to agricultural land. It totals 10.23 acres. 5.3.3 Riversidean sage scrub-ruderal 1 This designation has been applied to vegetation with 30-50% sage scrub shrubs. On the flat mesa , top south of Santa Gertrudis Creek in the east of the site, the shrubs are deer-weed. California matchweed. and cotton-thom, whereas on the low ground between the airstrip and Santa Gertrudis ' Creek in the center of the site, they are flat-top buckwheat. . In each case the ruderal component is dominated by perennial mustard, with tocalote. On the mesa top there are also native annuals among the mustard, including common fiddleneck, slender pectocarya, valley popcorn flower , (Plogioborhns conescens), pygmv-weed (Crossula connmo), fascicled or golden tarweed, and holly-leaved skunkweed. ' Another occurrence of this vegetation community is on an extremely steep southeast-facing slope ' above Santa Gertrudis Creek in the northeast of the site. Here the principal shrub is rosemary buckwheat (Eriogonamt fasciculatum ear. polifolium), with California sagebrush, white sage, and yellow bush penstemon. The ruderal component is again mainly tocalote and perennial mustard. , Altogether. Riversidean sage scrub-ruderal vegetation makes up 10.10 acres at Roripaugh Ranch 5.3.4 Ruderal-Riversidean sage scrub ' This designation has been applied to vegetation with 15-30% sage scrub shrubs. The few shrubs , in this area are mainly flat-top buckwheat and deerweed. These areas are overwhelmingly dominated by perennial mustard, with tocalote and lesser fascicled or golden tarweed. , Ruderal-Riversidean sage scrub has been mapped in areas adjacent to the San Diego Aqueduct, \k here it crosses the site at the east end of the "panhandle". It totals 2.50 acres on the site. , Roripaugh Ranch —Biological Resources .assessment Natural Resource Consultant_i Counth or Riverside Ma} 25. 1999 12 t 5.4 GRASSLANDS Grasslands at Roripaugh Ranch range all the way from relatively pristine native grassland, through grasslands with introduced annual grasses and native annual wildflowers, to low-diversity ' grasslands that generally occupy disused, or fallow, agricultural land. All except the areas of native grasses have been mapped as annual grassland. All types of grassland together make up ' a total of 24,91 acres at Roripaugh Ranch. ' 5.4.1 Annual grassland The principal grasses in most areas mapped as annual grassland are wild oats, often accompanied by abundant foxtail chess and soft chess. Other grasses are also present, but they were too young to determine at the time of the surveys. California everlasting and felt-leaf (Gnaphalium canescens ssp. nucrocephalunl) are widely distributed. In many annual grassland areas, especially adjacent to existing agricultural land, the principal non-grasses are weedy species including prickly lettuce. perennial mustard, telegraph weed (Heteraheca grandii lora), vinegar weed (Trichosremo ' lanceolorwn), dove weed, flax-leaved horseweed (Comao bonariensis), cocklebur (Xonrhiurn strumanwn), and curly dock (Rumex crispus). In other areas, native species become more ' abundant, including fascicled or golden tarweed,.common fiddleneck, slender pectocarya, valley popcorn flower, common golden stars, cudweed-aster, slender eriogonum (Eriogonum gracile). ' rattlesnake weed (Daucus pusillus), shining peppergrass (Lepidium niridum), johnny jump-up, and California plantain. Even in these areas, non-native species are also present, including smooth cat's-ear. narrow-leaved fllago, long-beaked filaree. and red-stemmed filaree. Annual grassland is widely distributed on Roripaugh Ranch, especially in small patches adjacent to agricultural land. on steeper hillsides and next to gullies. Altogether it makes up 24.73 acres. 5.4.2 Native grassland ' Although significant areas containing native grasses have been mapped as the transitional community Riversidean sage scrub—native grassland, only one small patch has been separated out ' as native grassland, without a sage scrub component. This patch is in the southeast of the site: it is 0. 18 acre in size. and is surrounded by agricultural land. The vegetation is dominated by ' purple needlegrass, with tall buckwheat and cud weed-aster. Roripaugh Ranch —Biological Resources Assessment Natural Resource Consultants Counqof Riserside Nlav 25. 1999 13 5.5 RIPARIAN CONMIUNITIES Although creeks and drainages make only a relatively small proportion of the site, they exhibit a variety of different riparian vegetation communities ranging from open, sparsely vegetated, through scrubs, to woodland. Altogether, riparian communities make up 24.63 acres of the site. 5.5.1 Seasonal creek beds ' Several of the small creeks and drainages that cross the site lie within sage scrub, ruderal, or , sometimes grassland. However, along the bottoms of the drainages themselves, there is vegetation with characteristic moisture-loving species. These include western ragweed (Ambrosia psilosrach}a), tarragon (Artemisia drocunculus), curly dock, willow dock (Rumex solicrfolius), ' Chinese pusley (Heliotropium curassailcum), cocklebur, California fuchsia, swamp grass (Cnpsis schoenoides). saltgrass (Distichlis spicato), and deergrass (Muhlenbergia rigens). Occasional , scattered shrubs include mule fat (Boccharis salicifolia), tree tobacco (Nicotiano glouca), arroyo willow (Salic lasiolepis), Mexican elderberry, and flat-top buckwheat. In a drainage in the extreme northwest of the site there is giant reed (Antndo donax). These long strips are too narrow ' to map, but lie along the lines shown as intermittent streams on the map, along Long Valley which crosses the southern part of the site, and at several locations along the northern site boundary. ' 5.5.2 Sand} stream wash , The lower (%kestem) parts of two drainages. Santa Gertrudis Creek and a small drainage in the extreme southwest comer of the site, consist basically of open sand and gravel, but sporadic t vegetation is present. The principal species are cocklebur, jimsonweed (Datura wrightii), and perennial mustard, but there are also scattered red-stemmed filaree, common sow-thistle (Sonchus , oleracelrs), dove weed, evening primroses (Camissonia spp.), common fiddleneck, popcorn flower (Cnptaniho sp.), red maids (Calondrinia ciliata). miniature lupine, and scarlet pimpernel ' (,9naeollis arvensis). The areas mapped as sandy stream wash comprise 3.32 acres. 5.5.3 .Alluvial fan scrub , Alluvial fan scrub is a vera open vegetation community, with sand and gravel, and not more than , 505 plant ground cover. The principal shrubby species are mule fat, tarragon, and flat-top buckwheat. %�ith some California sagebrush. deerv'eed, and white sage. There are occasional , tape* arrow willow, red willow (Salixlaeri ::;a). Mexican elderberry. and tree tobacco. Other Roripauch Ranch —Biological Resources Assessment Natural Resource ConsultanLs Counn of Ri.erside MaN 25, 1999 lY t characteristic species are croton (Croton californicus), Chinese pusley, curly dock, possible ' Davidson's buckwheat (Eriogonum daridsonii), and possible California lotus (Lotus urangelianus). The sandv substrate also supports a variety of native and non-native species. including Pomona locoweed, felt-leaf, narrow-leaved filago, telegraph weed, cocklebur, fascicled ' or golden tarweed, popcorn flower, valley popcorn flower, slender pectocarya, holly-leaved skunk-weed, and red-stemmed filaree. The major area of alluvial fan scrub at Roripaugh Ranch ' is in the wide part of Santa Gertrudis Creek, where it emerges from its steep-sided valley in the center of the site. There is another, less well developed, area of alluvial fan scrub in the downstream (western) part of the drainage in Long Valley, in the southern part of the site. Altogether, alluvial fan scrub makes up 16.89 acres. ' 5.5.4 Mule fat scrub ' Mule fat scrub is a riparian scrub that consists almost entirely of mule fat. There may be some herbaceous species from surrounding ruderal or grassland communities, between the shrubs. At Roripaugh Ranch, only two small areas have been mapped as mule fat scrub. One is in a veru ' small drainage at the western end of the "panhandle" part of the sitei and the other is in the low ground behind a small check dam, within the large agricultural area near the western edge of the ' main par of the site. Together, these two areas make up 0.16 acre. ' 5.5.5 Riparian scrub This designation has been applied to more mixed riparian scrub than mule fat scrub. Typical trees and shrubs are mule fat, arrovo willow•, western cottonwood (Populus frenlontii). and coyote bush (Bacchors pi/ularis). Lower growing species are deergrass, salt-rass, rabbitfoot grass (Pohpogon monspeliensis), rush (Juncus sp.). Chinese pusley, westem ragweed, sweet pea (Lath}rus sp.). and white sweet-clover (Melilotus alba). The principal occurrence of riparian scrub at Roripaugh Rancl, is along the upper (eastem) portion of Santa Gertrudis Creek. Smaller patches have also been mapped in several of the drainages in the western part of the site, in and adjacent to the ..panhandie." Altogether these areas make up 4. 16 acres. Riparian woodland There is no well developed riparian woodland at Roripaugh Ranch. However, the trees along the drainage in Long Valley include western sycamore (Platanus rucemosa) and western cottonwood. and this is the area that has been mapped as riparian woodland. It makes up onls 0.05 acre. Roripaugh Ranch --Biological Resources .Assessment Natural Resource Consultants County of RiNerside i11av 'S 1999 15 5.5.7 Ephemeral Pond ' There is a dammed pool in a small north-south drainage that enters the site from the north, just , to the east of the Roripaugh residence. At the time of the survey, this pool was completely dry, but there was no vegetation in the dried mud in its bottom. It is surrounded by riparian scrub. ' This pool occupies about 0.05 acre. 5.6 WOODLA\DS , Almost all the woodland at Roripaugh Ranch has been planted by man, although some of the trees have become naturalized and are spreading. The total area of woodland is 7.83 acres. 5.6.1 Live oak woodland Several patches of oak woodland have been mapped on the steep southern side of Santa Gertrudis Creek in the eastern part of the site. Unusually, the oaks present are California scrub oak, but they are tall, tree-like individuals, and their canopies have resulted in the development of a typical oak wood understory beneath them, with abundant leaf litter, and scattered specimens of common eucrypta (Eucr,pra chrNsawhemifoha), California bee-plant, American bowlesia, horehound, and ' giant wild rye. An additional very small area of oak woodland has been mapped near the northern site boundary within the "panhandle". Here there is a coast live oak (Quercus agrifolia). It is ' associated with exotic trees. and it remains uncertain whether this tree is °rowing here naturally or not. The mapped areas of live oak woodland total 0.49 acre. 5.6.2 Eucalyptus µoodland This woodland consists almost entirely of eucalyptus (Eucalyptus sp.) trees, introduced from , Australia. These fast-growing trees produce a large amount of leaf and bark litter, which inhibits other species from growing in the understory. Some plants are able to grow here, however. including wild oats, lambs quarters (Chenopodium album), common sow-thistle, miner's lettuce (Claironia perf Bata), common chickweed, ripgut grass (Bromus diandrus), white-stemmed filaree (Erodium moschatum), and horehound. The main patch of eucalyptus woodland at Ronpaugh Ranch is on the north bank of Santa Gertrudis Creek near the western edge of the main part of the site. Much smaller lines of eucalyptus are also present, in Long Valley and in the northern part of the "panhandle". Together, these areas make up 7.34 acres. ' Roripaugh Ranch —Biological Resources ..asses<ment Natural Resource Consultants CournY of Riverside Mar 25. 1999 16 ' 5.7 OTHER VEGETATION ' 5.7.1 Ruderal Ruderal habitat is indicative of disturbed areas. It is dominated by coarse weedy introduced species, especially perennial mustard, with prickly lettuce, fascicled or golden tar-weed. tocalote, ' wild oats, telegraph weed, dove weed, and common fiddleneck. Other species found more sporadically include cocklebur, jimsonweed, red maids, red-stemmed filaree, common sunflower. valley popcorn flower, and tumbling pigweed (Amaranthus albus). Also present are calabazilla, ' blessed thistle (Cnicus benedicrus), arroyo lupine (Lupinus succulentus), white sweet-clover. London rocket (Sisymbrium Trio), and California everlasting. Sometimes a few remnant shrubs; such as flat-top buckwheat, California sagebrush, or Box Springs goldenbush occur. Ruderal vegetation is widespread on the site. Some of it is found around the periphery of agricultural ' areas, but much of it forms a mosaic with variously disturbed Riversidean sage. There are 46.05 acres of ruderal vegetation at Roripaugh Ranch. 5.7.2 Agricultural 1 Most of the flat or gently sloping land at Roripaugh Ranch is in use for agricultural purposes, growing cereal wheat (Trincum aesrivtun). Weeds among the wheat include principally perennial ' mustard. vinegar weed, and common fiddleneck, along with red-stemmed filaree, long-beaked filaree, red maids, vard kmotweed (Polygonum arenasrrum), baby blue-eves, and bur-clover (Medicago polvmorpha). The total area of agricultural land at Roripaugh Ranch is 451.89 acres. ' over half of the total area of the site. ' 2.7.3 Graded There are three areas where dirt has recently been piled by heavy earth-moving equipment, around ' the developed area on the western edge of the main part of the site. This graded area, which occupies 2.021 acres. presently has no vegetation. 5.7.4 Developed ' Areas of the site that have been mapped as developed include residences and their yards, major dirt access roads, an airstrip in the center of the site, and working areas where a variety of ' heavv vehicles are maintained. Ornamental trees and shrubs surround the residences on the Roripaugh Ranch —Biological Resources .Assessment Natural Resource Consultants County of Riverside May 25, 1999 1 site, including Peruvian pepper tree (Schinus molle), Mexican fan palm (Washingtonia , robusia), ornamental pines (Pinus spp.), coast live oak, cultivated grape (Vitis vinifera), American agave (Agape americana), Indian fig (Opuntia ficus-indica) and a variety of other ' cacti and succulents. In the work areas there are weedy species such as London rocket, common fiddleneck, perennial mustard, telegraph weed, slender pectocarya, Australian brass- buttons (Corina australis), and various grasses. The various developed areas on the site make up a total of 14.57 acres. 5.8 REGIONAL CONTEXT AND HABITAT LINKAGES ' The Roripaugh Ranch site occurs in the vicinity of three large and regionally important habitat areas. 1 The site lies south and west of the Lake Skinner Reserve and immediately south of Skunk Hollow a regionally important vernal pool and preserve. The northeast portion of the site also includes the drainage and ruased natural habitats associated with Santa Gertrudis Creek. This area is contiguous with L.C. Riverside property that is current1v undisturbed open space. The fingers canyons associated with the Santa Gertrudis watershed that occur in the northeastern portion of the site terminate on the Roripaugh Ranch site. These canyons end in steep and densely vegetated ridges that constrain wildlife movement between Santa Gertrudis Creek and Skunk Hollow. Crossing out of the Santa Gertrudis watershed and into the Skunk Hollow open space area would ' require wildlife to ascend the slopes of the finger canyons and cross onto the plateau that adjoin with Skunk Hollow. These plateaus are largely developed for agricultural and rural residential uses. ' The t000sraohv of the finger cam_ ons direct rN ildlife movement toward the central drainage of Santa Gertrudis Creek. This drainage feeds into the central valley of the Roripaugh Ranch site and flows ' immediateb toward Nicholas Road and rural residential development in the City of Temecula. This topographic feature is not an important habitat linkage. ' Wildlife movement between large patches of Rk ersidean sage scrub are of particular importance in ' this region Regional conservation plans that preserve and link areas of Riversidean sage scrub in the vicinity of the Roripaugh Ranch site include the Multi-Species Habitat Conservation Plan for Southwestem Riverside County. California (AfWD 1992) and the SKR-HCP. Two large preserve , in this region which are managed under these plans include the Domengoni Valley Reserve and the Lake Skinner Reserve. , These two areas are well north of the Roripaugh Ranch and are linked to the site by the drainage of Santa Gertrudis Creek. Based on the topography described above, only the rugged canyons in the ' northeastern portion of the site are substantially linked to these regional open space areas. Roripaugh Ranch —Biological Resources .Assessment Natural Resource Consultants ' Counp of Risersicle Mac 25. 1999 IS 1 ' 6.0 SENSITIVE BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES Sensitive biological resources potentially occurring in the vicinity of the Roripaugh Ranch were determined through evaluation of the California Natural Diversity Data Base (CDFG 1998) and the ' California Native Plant Society's Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants of California (Skinner and Pavlik 1994), supplemented by published documents pertaining to the biological resources in this ' area. Sources used for the determination of listing status include: Holland (1990) for vegetation communities, and USFWS (1996) for plants, and CDFG (1991,1996) for wildlife. The sensitive vegetation communities, sensitive plant species, and sensitive wildlife species that have been detected on the Roripaugh Ranch site are discussed in this section. A complete list of sensitive plant and wildlife species detected on site, and species potentially occurring and not detected on site is presented in Table III. This table shows the project phase where each of these species was detected ' in 1998 and 1999. The sensitive species within the proposed grading limits for the off site improvement areas is provided in Section 9.0 of this report. 6.1 SENSITIVE VEGETATION COMMUNITIES ' Sensitive vegetation communities are those communities that are of highly limited distribution. These communities may also support concentrations of sensitive plant or wildlife species. 6.1.1 Riversidean Saae Scrub ' The extent of Riversidean sage scrub is substantialiv declining in western Riverside Countv due to degradation from cattle or sheep grazing; conversion to agricultural lands, and urban development. ' This vegetation type is concentrated in the northeast portion of the site (Phase 3 - 68.54 acres) and in the 'pan handle" located in the western portion of the site (Phase 2- 62.22 aces). These areas support many acres of scrub-grassland transitional habitats as well. Because of the scarcity of this habitat and the number of sensitive species associated with it. Riversidean sage scrub is considered a sensitive habitat by the CDFG (Holland 1986). Riversidean sage scrub is a form of coastal sage scrub. Conservation of Riversidean sage scrub habitats is an important planning issue throughout southern California. To balance development with ' conservation of this resource, the State of California and USFWS have implemented the Natural Communities Conservation Plan (NCCP) for coastal sate scrub communities. The NCCP allows land owners and resource protection agencies to identifi specific areas for conservation while allowing compatible development. In Riverside County. there are several regional conservation plans and a Ronpaugh Ranch —Biological Resources Assessment Natural Resource Consultam s Count. or Riverside flay 25, 1999 19 Table 11 Seusilive Planl and Wildlife. Species Delected or Not Delected on the Roripatigh Ranch Site Spr'r•ir's Slal as' III No.' ti weirs Name USF11'S CI11'C CNVS' Ilabital Type' I1l'CII rI'ellrl•Sothis {116 S11P A 1'lant.c I. Allium num;.ii I=J, limbi irrnun vnr. rn, I7PI3 Cf Ili Chap, Clow], CoSc, Not dcleeleel on site. Mum's union GI 1, 1'M /clay 2. Ambrosin pnrrtila FSC 13 Chap, CoSc, G1, VP Not detected ua site. San bieeu ambrosia / often di.slorbrnl areas .1. An iplex rnrunnrn var. nnrnrirn' PPG 1 R Plya, VP / alkaline Not deleclerl oo site. _ San Jacinto VHIIey erown.scale 4. Arriplr.r pnrislrii IdSC 113 CIISC, Plyn, VP Not delectal oo site. Parish's brilllscale 5. Hr•r Ler i.c nrrinii IA1n11nniu n.I I'PL CL' 113 AFSc, Chap, CmWI, Not delecicvl on site. Nevins banccny CoSc, RpSc/ sandy or gravelly G. Hrreliurn/ili/Llio I:PT CG I L3 CmWI, CoSc, GI, Not delecicvl on site. Thread-leaved 6nalinen V11/clay 7. Roo,horn nrr vrrii PSC 113 CCP, Chap, CmWI, Not delectevl nn site. Ureull'.s bnxlinen GI, MdwSp, VP/ clay, sometimes .sur wolinite 9. Calachurms n•redii var. iaremiedius FSC 113 Chnp, CoSe, Not delecicd on site. _ Intermcvliate marl xrsn lily I GI / ruck 9. CnrJundrus sinuttur V FSC 4 Chap, CuSc / sandy, Not detectal on site. Pa suns 'ewellluwer lranilic 10. Crunnrlors ophinc/rilus FPI CH 113 Chap(gabbroic or Not detected on site. Vail Lake cennuthus pyroxenile-rich outcrops) Ruripanuh Ranch -Aliologival Resources Assessment Naltmal Resource CoustdlaNs May 25, 1999 20 m m m m M M 1 I. .Cherizanrhe parrpi var.payi FSC 3 Chap, Case /sandy Not deteclal on silo. _ Fnry's .cpincllower o renin s 12. Cheri;anthe pa(vgnneirles vier. larlgipma FSC 113 Chap, CoSe, GI, Nul detecicel on .site. Long-,pied s rinellewer MdwS r; open clay 13. 1Jrxlecvdrvma leplureras I H Cli 1 B AFSc, Chap Not deledal on .silo. Slender-hornal .s rincllewer 14, lholleva rnuhirardis FSC 113 Chap, Cosc, Not deleded on rile. Man -sleunncd dadlc a GI / olleu clay 15. Envigianr ari.sadauue var.perishii PL• CIi I B C,,Sc, GI, V 11/ me.sic Not delecled on site. San Diego halloo-celei IG. !/aqurAnmel/n palmeri hSC 2 Chap, CoSc, Not delecled oa site. hdnter's gra r din hook GI / clay 17. llernizollill pungeav ssp. 11104s FSC I B CIISC, GI, MdwSp, Not deledal an silo. Smooth larplant PI a, R )WI /alkaline 18. Gsrhenia glahram ssp. raulreri FSC Ili CSM.sh, 111ya, VP Not deteclal oil site. _ Collier's CI11dheldS 19. Afirnuhr.c diJJir.cus 4 Chap, LCF Not deleclal oo site. Palomar namke llower 20. Alpasruas minimus ssp. upas FSC 3 VP (alkaline) Nnl deledal nu site. Little moosclail 21, Nu ca rreria fiusalis - PPT I B CIISC, hWMsh Not dcleclexl oa site. S rreadinG nava-retia slmllnw , VP 22. Oreaaiu cvdifinnica Ili CE, IB VP Not tleleclevl nn site. Cnlifornirl Orcult's grass 23. 7e•uacoc'eu.s rlioic'u.s FSC I B Chap, CoSc / Gabhro Not deledal on site. Parry's letracoccus soil li Inveriehrmes 24. Erpht.vdi-i-av edilha quina FG Chap (open), CmWI, Delectal in southern lion-tion of the "pan-handle" Quina checkers xrl biffledly Cose, GI, durin• 1999 sur e s Phase2 . 25. Uranchirrecta h,rrrhi FT CSA VP Not deleclal on site. Venal looml liury shrimp 26. Sri rplac'ephnhtr reuuaoni PG CSA VP Not deteclal on site. Riverside fairy shrimp Roripaugh Ranch --fliological Resanrces Assessment Natural Resource Consultants May 25, 1999 21 C Am Ihibiau.s 27. Ruf,micom,(iplum' rrdifimiivus 1'1! CSC Rp Not delectod an site. Anayu soulhwcslem load 28. Sraphiopus hamm udi FSC CSC AF-Sc, Chap(olxu), Not delecicd nn site. Westent spadelaN Co1w], Cosc, Cil, I ya, Kp. V P 29. Rana aurum (ha omi Ilt1i CSC Rp Not delec4vl on site. Calilmnia red-Icgeetl hoc 1) Re tiles 30. Amella pub bra pulr/un FSC CSC Chap, CoSc, RpW1 / Not detected nn site. Silvery legless lizard mesh 31. ClemmYs ummolelfa pallida FSC CSC FWMsh, P, lip/ Not detected on site. Southwestern jxmd turtle 1terinaneilt water 32. Crnemidophorns hl'peryrhru.v I SC CSC Cosc, Chap, Rp, WI / Detected. Phase 2 and 3. Orange-Throated whi Nail a len 33. Cnemidopllorus Tigris nuwlri.scumoo FSC CSA Clwp, CuSc, GI, Rp, Delecicd. Phase 1,2, and 3. Cunslal western whi ttail WI /u ren 34. Croadas ruler rube' FSC CSC Cosc, Chap, Desc, Not delecicd un .site. Northern red-dn1111Ontl ndlle.snuke GI, WI / rocky outcrops, n wn 35. 6umee'es skdtoniaruts iruerpariemlis FSC CSC CuSe, CmW1, GI / Not delecled on site. Coronado skink a mn 36. Diadophi.s Inrncuma simili.s FSC CSA CoSc,GI, WI / mcsie Not delectcd on site. San Diego ringneck snake 37. Lichenium rrivirgam ru.rafiaca FSC CSA Chap, CuSe, WI / Not delecled on site. Coastal rosy boa roe 38. pllryno.coam caronamm bLtinvillei FSC CSC Chop, CIIIWI, CuSe, Detected. Phase 2 and 3. San Diego homed lizard GI / own 39. Sah'adom he.ralepic eirgulreu FSC CSC Chnp, CuSc, DeSc, Not delecled un site. Coast ralch-ll( scd snake GI, WI 40. Sceh porus orcum CoSc, Wl I rocky Not delected onsite. Granite spiny lizard areas 41. 7hanuLrphis hammoudi FSC CSA Cosc, FWMsh, GI, Not detected on site. Two-striped garter snake RpScr, VP, WI / near a:fll al llClll W111Cf Roripaugh Ranch --Biological Resources Assessment Natural Resource Con.sulLmts May 25, 1999 22 IZ Ilirds 42. A,',ipotr, r,wpem CSC PI), WI ("Imi) Delectoll. Plmse 1,2, and 3. - Coo1wr•s hawk _ 43. A,(ipoel .runts CS(• C'hnp, CoSc, Will Not doceled on .cite. in 1997. Shur a-sbinoed hawk 44. Ain ophila m irep.c (onesten, FSC CSC Chala, Cosc Delecicvl. Phase 1,2, and 3. S. Calif. ndous-crowned s inow 45. Amplimpi;a Lelb brith I'S(' (SC Cluga, CoSc Detected. Fha.ce 3. Bell's .exec.c armw 46. Aguila rlarpsnrtree CSC Cil / alten cnnully Detectcvl. Phase 1,2, nod 3. Golden eagle 47. Axon nnt.v wilvuniram.c ("Sc RpW1 Not deteclevl on site. Ismg-enroll owl 49. l•)dro nwtorotura' CSC GI / often country Delectevl. Phase 1,2, and 3. Franc Flacon 49. Bill.... r'rgolis I'SC CSC GI Delecicvl. Phase 1,2, and 3. Fernmeinous hawk 50. Cha us rcanrus i (:Sc Ag, CSM.ch, FWMsh, Delecicvl. Phase 1,2, and 3. Norlhenr Mo-licr Cil 51. Drndt'uiru prtrchul CSC RpWi (mawle) Not delecicvl oo .cite. Yellow warbler 52. l:hum.c lrorruns CSA Ag, Clap, Cose, GI, Detected, Plaeve 1,2, mod 3. White-hailcvl kite Msh, R r - 51. Empidnnm'mull%o e'timus 1'G CG Rp Not delectcvl on site. Soulhw'estem willow flycatcher 54. F.rrmrrpllila alpemis mato CSC Ag, CuSe, Chug/ bare Delecicvl. Phase 1,2, and 3. California horncvl lark ground and o nn areas 55. Irtrriu vixens CSC RpSc, RIM /dense Not delectevl un site. Yellow-hrenslcvl chat undertivoy 56. Nonage lum'iriatnrc CSC Ag, CnSc, GI /olam Delecteel. Plm.ce 1,2, and 3. Loggerhead shrike xreu.c with scattered te rC11 AIM'S Roripaugh R;mch --Biological Resources Assessment Nalural Resoavice Consullanls slay 25, 1999 23 57. Polioprilo "lli/ornirrr 'ah inariro PT CSC Clap (silken), Cusc Doecle 1. I'llxse 1,2, and 3. Coastal Califorilin ymdcalchcr .58. Arhrnr runur'nlnrirr CSC Ag, CuDn, Cil, PJWI Dclecte 1. Phase 1. Burrowing owl 59. Vireo bcllii pusillu.c 1'G CB RpSc, RpWI, KpF Not deleelcvl on site. Lea.cl Bell's vireo F IN:unrn;J.ti 60. Uiprplrrnry,c.rrephrnsi PG CT CoSc / barren, olaen Delectcvl an site; during the 1994 Stephens' kangaroo rot areas 61. U/no rnlrfnrnicus hrruu•oii PSC CSC CoSe, Cil / open Detected. Phase 2 and J. San Diego black-lailcvl jackrabbit 62. Neotoma lepidn inpo'werlia FSC CSC Chap, CoSc / often in Not detected on site. Sail Diego Desert Worslral rocky oulcro as 67. Onw honow rnrmius rummne INSC CSC Chap, CuSe, Rp Not detectal on site. Southern Crasshoplxr moose (A. Los Angeles pocket mouse I:SC CSC Chap, CoSc, Rp, Detected on site in 1997. Perognothus lungimembih open hrerimur s I labnat I vpc-AI'Sc- Alluvial tall Scrub.Ag Agriculltuc,CCI' -Closed-cone Couirerous forest,Chap Chalmrral,ChSc-'Chenopud Serial),Cost:-Coastal Scrub,Cm WI l'isinonomc l4uodland,CSMslI C,'61SIal Sall Mash;CWI -Conifer Woodland,DcSc-Desert Scrub,DWI= Deciduous Woodland,FWMuh-freshwaler Marsh,Cil ^Grassland,LCF Lova Moolane Coniferous Foresl,MdaSp- Meadow and Seeps,Msh" Marsh,p'= fond,PJ WI -Pinyon and Juniper Woodland,Plya-Playa,110=Palm Oasis, Rp_ Riparian. kpF - Rip;n all purest.Itptic Riparian Scrub.RpWI ;kiparinn WOOdlalld,Sh - Shru6hmds,WI =Woodland,and VI'- Vernal Poop, fIS l:cderxlly F.ndnngered. I*axa racilrg exlinclion throughout all ora signiacand portion orals geographic range. 11 Federally I hrenteucd: Taxa likdv to become endangered wilhin the liresecidk(inure thmughom all or a sigaificam portion of its range. HT I;cdcrdly Proposed 1'.11dnngc«d: 'rasa officially proposed by the USIMS Iia addition to the fulCrat endangered Spccics list. fill Federally Proposed I lucafened: haxa officially proposed by life IISFWS fill addition to the federal Ihrenlencd species lisl, hC federal Candidate: '1';Is:r Iia which the I ISIVS has oil pipe.cullicienl infoi nation lu supporta proposal fill fedel ill endangered or Ihrcndencd species. IS( I:ednal SlICCICc or Concem: IISI:WS remains coucclned aboul these species,but tinthcr fescnndn is accessary to resolve the eooscrvalion status of Ihesc laxa. Cir. California rnia Endangered'. lava whose prospects of survival and reproduction arc in iuuncdialejeopardy. Ck California Rare: Taxa present in such small numbers Ihroughoul its mage that may hccome an endangered in the near[mune in file ldl ewnec of spculfl I miection. C t C ilianla*I hrealened: 'taxa prescnl in such smell numbers Throughout its range that it may become endangered if its present euvirunmeol worsens. CSC Calikornia Spccics of Special Cunccm: An informal designation fir some declining wildlife species. CSA California Special Animal: 'I his is;l broad Icon to Nook declining w Idlile.speeies that do not Fall wilhin the above categories. List IA Plants presumed extinct in Califimnia List I II Plants nuc,threatened,or endangered in Califiallia:and clscrvhCfC. I'm 2 Plaws rare,threatened,or endangered in California,Iain more cununon clseas'hcre. List 7 Plants for which more iufirmalion is needed. Lisp.1 1'lanls of hmilcd dislriL 16"ll - a wulrli list. Roripaugh Ranch --Biological Resources Assessment Natural Resource Consultants May 25, 1999 24 Riversidean sage scrub multispecies conservation is currently being contemplated, however, no NCCP ' s currently available for Riversidean sage scrub resources. 6.1.2 Wetland Habitats The site includes vegetation communities that may be under the jurisdiction of the U.S. Army ' Corps of Engineers (ACOS) according Section 404 of the Clean Water Act and the CDFG according to section 1600 of the Fish and Game Code. These areas include alluvial scrub, sandy wash, mule fat scrub, ephemeral pond, riparian woodlands, and riparian scrub vegetation. 6.2 SENSITIVE PLANT SPECIES ' Sensitive plant species detected on site and plant species potentially occurring and not detected on the Roripaugh Ranch site are summarized in Table III. This table provides the listine status. habitat type, and presence or absence of each species on the Roripaueh Ranch site. ' 6.2.1 Sensitive Plants Detected Onsite No sensitive plant species have been observed on the Roripaugh Ranch site. Some sensitive plant species do ha%e the potential to exist on the site, based on the availability of appropriate habitat, and their presence at other locations in this general part of Riverside County. However, none of these ' plant species have been detected on site. A list of sensitive plant species potentially occurring but not detected on the Roripaugh Ranch site is provided in Table III. 6.3 SENSITIVE WILDLIFE SPECIES ' Sensitive widlife species detected or potentially occurring and not detected on the Roripaugh Ranch site are summarized in Table 111, ' 6.3.1 Sensitive Wildlife Species Detected Onsitc ' Nineteen sensitive xsildlife species have been detected on the Roripaueh Ranch site. The majority of these species are associated %kith the Riversidean sage scrub habitats, however, several are associated ' with the disturbed%agricultural lands (raptor foraging habitat). Two federally listed species were recorded on site in 1999: the coastal California enatcatcher and the Quino checkerspot butterfly. The ' recorded location of these species is shown in Exhibit 1. ' Roripaugh Ranch --Biological Resources Assessment Natural Resource Consultants Count) of Riserside May 25 1999 15 Quino Checkerspot Butterfly (Euphl'dgas editha quina) , The Quino checkerspot butterfly was recorded in the northwest portion the Roripaugh Ranch site ' during NRC's surveys of the site in 1999. A total of eight Quino checkerspot butterflies were recorded between March 22 and April 13, 1999. This species was recorded as an uncommon ' butterfly on one ridge top supporting disturbed Riversidean sage scrub vegetation (see Exhibit 1). This ridge coves approximately two acres within Phase 2 of the project. Phases 1 and 3 of the ' project do not support any occupied Quino checkerspot butterfly habitat. All phases of the project support scattered patches of dwarf plantain (the larval food plant for the Quino checkerspot butterfly), adult nectaring sources, and areas of exposed soils; however, only the one small area of potential habitat in Phase 2 was found to support the Quino checkerspot butterfly. The Roripaugh Ranch site occurs within a region of Riverside County known to support scattered populations of the Quino checkerspot butterfly. In 1998 and 1999, several population of the Quino ' checkerspot butterfly were recorded within the vicinity of the Roripaugh Ranch site near Lake Skinner Preserve, Bachelor Mountain, and Johnson Ranch. Other populations of Quino ' checkerspot butterfly are known to occur in scattered locations south and west of the site in Murietta Hot Springs, Temecula, and Oak Mountain (UC Riverside Museum 1998;USFWS 1999). Coastal California Gnatcatcher (Polioptila californica californica) ' The coastal California gnatcatcher occurs as a resident species within the Riversidean sage scrub vegetation communities on the Roripaugh ranch site. Based on the observed locations and densitv of anatcatchers on this site. all sage scrub and transitional areas are occupied by this species. In 1999, t 25 breeding pairs and three unpaired males were recorded on the site. Exhibit 1 shows the observed locations of coastal California gnatcatchers pairs on the site. The symbols indicating the location of , a breeding pair represents the approximated center of that pairs observed use-area. It is expected that these use-areas overlap especially in non-breeding months. Based on 1999 gnatcatcher locations Phase 1 supports 2 gnatcatcher pairs. Phase 2 supports 11 pairs, and Phase 3 supports 13 pairs. Orangethroat W hiptail (Crtentidophorus hlper['thrus) The oraneethroat %�hiptail is a federal and California Species of Concern. This species occurs in scrub ' habitats. erasslands. and ruderal areas. Where it occurs, this species prefers sandy areas where there are intermittent rocks and shrubs The orangethroat %chiptail was observed in 1999 within the sage scrub located in the northern half of the site (Phases 2 and 3). It is likely that this species occurs ' throughout the Riversidean sage scrub habitats on the site. Roripaugh Ranch —Biological Resources Assessment Natural Resource Consultants t Counts of Ri.erside Mar 25, 1999 26 ' San Diego Coast Horned Lizard (Phrynosonia coronatunr blainvillet) ' The San Diego coast horned lizard is a federal and Sate Species of Concem. This species occurs in scrub habitats, grasslands, and ruderal areas. Where it occurs, this species prefers sandy areas. NRC ' observed one individual horned lizard in.the northern half of the site in 1999 (Phase 3) and this species was recorded in 1998 on the central ridges of the site (Phase 2). The horned lizard is expected ' to occur in scattered locations throughout the Riversidean saee scrub and disturbed grassland habitats on the site. ' Coastal R estern Whiptail (Cnenridophorus tigris multiscutatus) The coastal western whiptail is a State Species of Special Concern. This species occurs in scrub habitats, chaparral, and (low density) grasslands. Several coastal western whiptails were observed during the 1998 and 1999 surveys of the Roripaugh Ranch. The coastal western whiptail occurs in scartered locations throughout the sage scrub and grassland habitats on the site (Phases 1.2, and 3). ' Burrowing owl (Athene cunicularia) ' The burrowing owl is federal and State Species of Concern. This small owl species nests in small colonies in burrows abandoned by rodents or squirrels. The species prefers open grasslands. desert, and shrub lands near water and agricultural areas. One burrowing owl was observed by 'xRC in the south eastern portion of the site in 1999 (Phase 1) using a ground squirrel burrow for refuge. ' NN'hite-tailed kite (Elanus caeruleus) The x+hite-tailed kite has no federal or State status however is considered sensitive by local and ' regional resource protection agencies. This species nests and perches within woodlands and mature sero'- habitats adjacent to foraging areas, such as grasslands and sage scrub habitats. Several white- ' tad'-Z kites were detected on the Roripaugh Ranch site in 1998 and 1999. Agricultural lands and open. Riversidean sage scrub vegetation on this site provide foraging habitat for this species. No nests were detected during any of these surveys. -These kites were observed foraging over the disturbed/agricultural lands (Phases 1, 2, and 3). Northern Harrier (Circus ct'aneus) ' The -:orthern harrier is a State Species of Special Concern. This species forages over agricultural lands. disturbed habitats. grasslands and open scrub habitats. One northern harrier .was observed ' Roripaugh Ranch --Biological Resources Assessment Natural Resource Consultant,~ Countn of RiNerside Map 25, 1999 27 foraging over various portions of the Roripaugh Ranch site in 1998 and 1999. Agricultural lands and open Riversidean sage scrub vegetation on this site provide foraging habitat for this species. No ' nesting habitat for this species occurs on site (Phases 1, 2, and 3). Cooper's HaK k (Accipter cooperii) Cooper's hawks is a State Species of Special Concern. This species occurs primarily in riparian areas and may forage over scrub and grassland habitats. This species was observed in 1998 and 1999. Agricultural lands and open Riversidean sage scrub vegetation on this site provide foraging habitat , for this species (Phases 1, 2, and 3). California Horned Lark (Eremophila alpestris actin) ' The California horned lark is a Sate Species of Special Concern. This species occurs in grasslands. ' and open scrub habitats. Several groups of this bird were observed foraging within the fields of the Roripaugh Ranch during the 1998 and 99 survevs (Phases 1,2, and 3). , Golden Eagle (.Aquila chresaetos) A Bolden eagle is a State Species of Concern and is protected b} the Eagle Protection Act as ' amended in 1978. One golden eagle was observed foraging over the site in 1997 and 1999. ' Agricultural lands and open Riversidean sage scrub vegetation on this site provide foraging habitat for this species (Phases 1, 2, and 3). Loggerhead Shrike (Lanius lurloricianus) ' Loggerhead shrikes are a State Species of Concern and have been detected within the Roripaugh 1 Ranch in 1998 and 1999. This species occurs in open scrub habitats and grasslands areas. ' Populations of loggerhead shrikes appear to be scattered throughout southern California, however, where they occur, they appear to be rather abundant (Phases 1, 2, and 3). Coastal Rufous-croA ned Sparrow (Aimophila ruftceps canescens) , The coastal rufous-crowned sparrow is a federal and State Species of Concern This species occurs ' in scrub habitats. rocky canyons. and ma- forage in grassland areas. This species was observed on site during the 1998 and 1999 sun e%s (Phases 1. 2. and 3). Roripaugh Ranch --Biological Resources Assessment Natural Resource Consulumts 1 County of Riverside N1aN 25, 1999 ' Bell's Sage Sparrow (Amphispi„a belli belly) ' The Bell's sage sparrow is a State Species of Concern. This species was observed on site during the 1998 and 1999 surveys. This species occurs in chaparral and dense scrub habitats. Although the ' Bell's sage sparrow can be found in chaparral habitats, they appear to be scattered in patches throughout their ranee, although when present, they are generally common (Phase 3). tSan Diego Black-tailed Jackrabbit (Lepus californicus bennettit) ' The San Diego black-tailed jackrabbit is a federal and State Species of Concern. This species occurs primarily in open scrub habitats adjacent to grasslands and agricultural areas. The black-tailed jack ' rabbit is common within the Riversidean sage scrub portions of the site (Phases 1, 2, and 3). ' Stephens' Kangaroo Rat (Diporlontl's stephensr) Stephen's kangaroo rats were detected within the Roripaugh Ranch property during surveys conducted in 1994 by Tierra Madre. The site maintains the potential to support this species within grassland and transitional habitats (Phases 1, 2; and 3). ' Los Angeles Pocket Mouse (Perognathus longinrembris brevinasus) ' The Los Angeles pocket mouse is a State Species of Concern. This species was recorded in 1994 during small mammal trapping studies. This mouse is considered uncommon on the site. ' 7_0 IMPACTS OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT ' The following section summarizes the expected impacts of the proposed project on biological resources and interprets these impacts within the regional context. ..1 LNIPACTS TO VEGETATION COMMUNITIES ' Construction of the proposed project would result in the development of approximately 650 acres, or apprommately 82 percent. of the site The breakdown of impacts by project phases is provided in ' Table III and shown in Exhibit 3. This breakdown provides the impacts associated with each project phase. The impacts of the entire project (b- acreage of\eeetation community) are described below. ' The determination of significance for project impacts is consistent for all phase of the project. Likewise, the mitigation debt (in acres) for each phase of the project is relative to the quantity (acres) ' Roripaugh Ranch —Biological Resources Assessment Natural Resource Consultants Counh of Riverside Nlav 25 1999 �o Ills ��//i ' 1 1 III • • � \�\""� � MG .. . � ,AMP0*0 j/ MET AI`s ` SII .o4- RM ALG AGIR K 1 111 � AGL AGR RSS- NGL I F I1 1 mmmmAGR 1 1 a mm 1 11 ;w\ 1 well • . • . Vegetation Communities Phase 1 Phase 2 Phase 3 Total Site Impact Preserve Impact Preserve Impact Preserve Impact Preserve RIVERSIDEAN SCRUB -- 161.26Ac 30.21 0.29 43.23 18.99 9.65 58.89 83.09 78.17 RSS- California sagebrush 0.52 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.79 0.52 1.79 RSS- Flat-top buckwheat 11.90 0.00 4.52 0.00 2.13 1.60 18.55 1.60 RSS- California sagebrush/buck-wheat 0.00 0.00 21.89 15.12 1.18 1.00 23.07 6.12 RSS -California sa ebrush/keekiella 0.39 0.00 0.21 6.30 1.34 7.79 1 1.94 8.09 RSS- California sagebrush/white sae 0.07 0.00 0.98 1 0.71 0.14 6.97 1.19 7.68 RSS- mixed 5.01 0.00 2.94 0.82 2.25 34.02 10.20 34.84 RSS-disturbed 12.32 0.05 12.67 2.04 2.61 5.72 27.60 7.81 Southern cactus scrub 0.00 0.24 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.02 _ 0.24 TRANSITIONAL-- 57.56 Acres 19.11 0.00 20.08 1.69 3.23 13.45 42.42 15.14 RSS -Annual Grasslands 12.93 0.00 18.10 0.44 0.70 11.28 31.73 11.72 RSS -Native Grasslands 0.81 0.00 0.10 0.47 0.05 0.08 0.96 0.55 RSS - Ruderal 5.37 0.00 0.16 0.00 2.48 2.09 8.01 2.09 Ruderal -RSS 0.00 0.00 1.72 0.78 0.00 0.00 1.72 0.78 GRASSLAND -- 24.91 Acres 13.90 0.74 9.27 0.09 0.08 0.83 23.25 1.66 Annual grassland 13.72 0.74 9.27 0.09 0.08 0.83 23.07 . 1.66 Native grassland 0.18 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.18 0 RIPARIAN -- 24.63 Acres 5.29 0.45 0.56 0.14 6.24 11.90 9.88 14.70 Alluvial Fan Scrub 1.93 0.45 0.06 0.00 6.19 8.26 8.18 8.71 Mulefat scrub 0.15 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.16 0.00 Riparian scrub 0.00 0.00 0.33 0.14 0.05 3.64 0.38 3.78 Riparian woodland 0.00 0.05 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.05 Sandy wash 3.21 0.00 0.11 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.16 2.16 Pond 0.00 0.00 0.05 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.05 0.00 WOODLAND -- 7.83 Acres 6.25 0.00 1.06 0.00 0.04 0.48 7.35 0.48 Live oak woodland 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.48 0.01 0.48 Eucalyptus woodland 6.25 0.00 1.05 0.00 0.04 0.00 7.34 0 OTHER -- 514.53 Acres 276.47 4.67 109.40 10.47 96.63 16.89 482.45 34.02 Ruderal 13.59 4.67 11.29 1.35 6.19 8.96 31.07 16.98 Agricultural 253.82 0.00 95.06 9.06 85.59 6.19 436.63 15.25 Graded 2.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2,02 0 Developed 4.88 0.00 3.05 0.05 4.85 1.74 12.28 1.79 TOTAL 349.07 6.20 183.60 31.37 115.87 102.44 648.5 . 142.12 affected by development within that phase. The break down of impacts includes a 50-foot wide ' "construction easement" this area is proposed for preservation and, if necessary, fuel modification for fire protection. Note that Table III also provides the acres of preserved habitats by project phase. This information represents mitigation credits associated with each phase). The majority of the habitats removed by grading for this project (all phases) would be agricultural ' areas (436.63 acres) and previously disturbed habitats including annual grasslands (23.25 acres), ruderal areas (31.07 acres), graded areas (2.02 acres), and developed areas (12.78 acres). Removal of these areas, totaling 505.75 acres, would not be a significant impact to vegetation communities. ' Likewise loss of approximately 7.34 acres of eucalyptus woodlands is not a significant impact. 7.1.1 Impacts to Riversidean Sage Scrub, Transitional Areas, and Native Grasslands ' As fisted in Table III, implementation of the proposed project would result in the direct removal of 83.09 acres of Riversidean sage scrub vegetation from the site. The direct removal of Riversidean sage scrub communities would be a significant impact. In addition, the proposed project would result ' in the removal of transitional scrub/grassland habitats totaling 42.42 acres. The direct removal of these transitional habitats would also be a significant impact. In total 125.51 acres or approximately 57 percent of the combined acreage of these two habitats would be removed. Impacts native grasslands (0.18 acres) is also a significant impact. 7.1.2 Impacts to Riparian Communities ' As listed in Table IV, the Roripaugh Ranch project would result in the direct removal of a riparian habitats including, alluvial fan scrub (8.18), mulefat scrub (0.16 acres), riparian scrub (0.38 acres), ' and sandy Hash habitat (1.16 acres). Removal of these areas is a significant impact to biological resources. These areas maybe under the jurisdiction of the ACOE and CDFG. ' 7.2 ENIPACTS TO SENSITIVE SPECIES ' The entire project would result in the removal of Riversidean sage scrub habitat and a variety of natural and disturbed habitats covering a total of 648.54 acres. These vegetation communities support a diverse array of wildlife species including at least 19 wildlife species recognized as ' sensitive by local, regional, and federal resource protection agencies and special-interest groups. The impacts to these sensitive species are described below. ' Roripaugh Ranch—Biological Resources Assessment Natural Resource Consultants County of Riverside 111av 25 1999 31 1 7.2.1 Impacts I4 Sensitive Wildlife ' Quinn Checkerspot Butterfly , The project would result in the direct removal of occupied habitat for the Quino checkerspot ' butterfly. In 1999 one small population of Quino checkerspot butterflywas detected on a ridge covering less than two acres in the northwest corner of the site within Phase 2. Vegetation on , this ridge top is disturbed Riversidean sage scrub habitat. Removal of occupied habitat for the Quino checkerspot butterfly is a significant impact of the Roripaugh Ranch project. No other Quino checkerspot were recorded on any portion or phase of the site. Implementation of the Roripaugh Ranch project would also remove several areas on the site, not ' occupied by Quino checkerspot butterfly in 1999, that support larval food plants and/or adult nectaring sources for this species. All of these areas occur within Riversidean sage scrub ' habitats, transitional areas, and grassland habitats. Removal of these potential habitat areas is not a significant impact. 1 The project would preserve approximately 95 acres of potential habitat for the Quino checkerspot butterfly including Riversidean sage scrub areas, transitional habitats, and grasslands. Some of ' these areas are known to support larval food plants and adult nectaring sources for the Quino checkerspot butterfly. Preservation of potential, yet unoccupied, habitat is a beneficial effect ' of the project. Coastal California Gnatcatcher ' The project would remove 83.09 acres of Riversidean sage scrub and 42.42 acres of transitional ' habitats (totaling 125.51 acres) that are occupied by the coastal Califomia gnatcatchers. Based on the observed distribution of gnatcatchers on the site in 1999, the impacts would displace at ' least thirteen gnatcatcher pairs. In total, the entire use-area (as observed in 1999) of nine pairs would be removed and portions of another four pair's use-area would removed. The removal of occupied habitat and displacement of gnatcatchers is a significant impact. ' Based on the mapped location of these birds in 1999, development within Phase 1 would result ' in the displacement of two pairs, development of Phase 2 would result in the displacement of eleven pairs, and Phase 3 would not displace any pairs (see table below). The project would also result in preservation of Riversidean sage scrub habitat occupied by twelve gnatcatcher pairs. ' All twelve of these pairs are located in Phase 3. Roripaugh Ranch —Biological Resources Assessment Natural Resource Consultants ' County of Riverside play 25, 1999 32 ' Gnatcatchers Use-Areas Impacted and Preserved In Each Project Phase Phase Number Existing Pairs Total Use-Area Partial Use- Preserved Impact Area Impact Use-Area ' Phase 1 2 2 0 0 ' Phase 2 11 7 4 0 Phase 3 12 0 0 12 1 All Phases 25 9 4 12 The removal of suitable and occupied habitat would occur outside (he gnatcatcher nesting season and would minimize the direct loss of nests and birds. Following habitat loss, the gnatcatchers are expected to "pack" into undisturbed Riversidean sage scrub and the number of gnatcatchers ' on the site is not expected to be'substantially reduced. As competition for available resources is increased by the displaced birds, a reduction in gnatcatcher numbers is expected. The Roripaugh Ranch project will preserve approximately 93 acres of occupied habitat for the coastal California gnatcatcher. The proposed preservation area corresponds with the areas supporting the highest density of gnatcatchers. Based on the observed distribution of gnatcatchers on the site in 1999, preservation of existing scrub habitats would support approximately twelve ' gnatcatcher pairs. The majority of these pairs are located in the northeast corner of the site within areas designated as natural open space (Phase 3). This is a beneficial effect of the proposed project. Stephens' Kangaroo Rat Implementation of the project would result in the direct removal of habitat occupied by the Stephens' kangaroo rat; a federally endangered rodent. This impact would be off set according to the terms of the Stephens' Kangaroo Rat Habitat Conservation Plan covering impacts to this endangered species in this region of Riverside County. Sensitive Reptile and Bird Species Within the Riversidean Sage Scrub Grading and construction of the Roripaugh Ranch would remove approximately 125.5 acres of Riversidean sage scrub habitat and transitional areas. In addition, the project would removal 9.93 acres of riparian habitats adjacent to these scrub areas that important to the ecosystems on ' Roripaugh Ranch —Biological Resources Assessment Natural Resource Consultants Count) of Riverside May 25 1999 33 the site. As described in Section 6.2 these lands support a variety of sensitive, however not , federally or State listed, reptile, bird, and mammal species. These species include the , orangethroat whiptail, coastal western whiptail, San Diego homed lizard, southern California rufous-crowned sparrow, Bell's sage sparrow, California honed lark, loggerhead shrike, western burrowing owl, and San Diego black-tailed jack rabbit. The removal of occupied habitat for , sensitive reptiles, birds, and mammals would be a significant adverse impact to biological resources. ' The preservation of approximately 93 acres of this habitat, especially the large patch of habitat in Phase 3, is a beneficial effect of the project. Sensitive Raptors A variety of raptor species have been identified foraging, perching on the site. These species include the golden eagle (foraging, perching), ferruginous hawk (foraging, perching), Cooper's hawk (foraging, perching), burrowing owl (foraging, nesting), prairie falcon (foraging, nesting), ' northern harrier (foraging), and white-tailed kite (foraging, perching). Other more common raptors, such as the red-tailed hawk and nor-them kestrel were also observed on the site. An apparently inactive red-tailed hawk nests was observed in the eucalyptus grove in February of 1999. This nest was not occupied. Nesting raptors are protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act. ' Implementation of the proposed project will remove approximately 650 acres of foraging habitat for these raptor species. The reduction in foraging habitat will require that nesting birds travel t further from the woodlands to procure food and reduces the value of the woodlands for nesting. Over time, it is expected that fewer raptors will use the site. The reduction in foraging habitat and overall use of the site by raptor species is a significant adverse impact. 7.2.2 Imparts LQ Sensitiv Plants ' The project would not result in the removal of any rare or sensitive plant species. , 7.2.3 Impacts to Wildlife Movement , The Roripaugh Ranch lies between the Skunk Hollw to the north, and open space within Santa , Gertrudis Creek to the east. Assuming full implementation of the project, wildlife movement Roripaugh Ranch —Biological Resources Assessment Natural Resource Consultants County of Riverside May 25, 1999 34 Ibetween these open space areas could be maintained using habitats along the northern edges of Phases 2 and 3. The habitats in Phase 3 are adjacent to the U.C. Riverside property and within Phase 2 are adjacent to open space associated with the Rancho Bella Vista Specific Plan Area. The Roripaugh Ranch project would maintain a viable habitat patch (approximately 93 acres of scrub, riparian, and transitional habitats) in the northeast corner of the site connecting the drainage of Santa Gertrudis Creek (located east of the site) with the U.C.Riverside Property and, eventually, Skunk Hollow further to the west. As previously described the latter linkage (in its current condition) is naturally constrained by topography. Cumulative projects in the vicinity of the site, including Butterfield Stage Road, the Johnson Ranch, and Rancho Bella Vista would result in a cumulative adverse impact to wildlife movement in this region. Multiple species/multiple habitat conservation planning in western Riverside County may benefit from the preservation of natural open space in the northeast comer ' of the Roripaugh Ranch. $A MITIGATION MEASURES The land use plan for the Roripaugh Ranch site incorporates natural open space preservation and ' various open space management guidelines reduces the direct impacts of the proposed project. Specifically, the plan includes permanent preservation of approximately 141.5 acres of natural open space on site including over 93 acres of Riversidean sage and transitional habitats (supporting approximately twelve coastal California gnatcatcher pairs), and approximately 14.70 acres of riparian habitats. The breakdown of preservation by project phase is provided in Table III. The preserved acres represent mitigation credits that can directly offset project impacts. Preservation of natural open space would be supplemented by 1) provisions of habitat management funds through payment of a Stephens' kangaroo rat mitigation fee to the appropriate jurisdiction, 2) implementation of resources management measures designed to maintain the native character within preserved portions of the site, 3) acquisition of a appropriate federal permits for impacts to the coastal California gnatcatcher and the Quino checkerspot butterfly, ' and 4) acquisition of the appropriate permits from the ACOE and CDFG for adverse effects to riparian areas under the jurisdiction of these agencies. 1 Roripaugh Ranch —Biological Resources Assessment Natural Resource Consultants County of Riverside May 25 1999 35 BA Mitigation for Impacts tQ Vegetation Communities 8.1.1 Mitigation for Riversidean Sage Scrub, Transitional Areas, and Native Grasslands The removal of Riversidean sage scrub, transitional areas, and native grasslands would be offset at a ratio of two acres of preserved habitat for each acre of impact (2:1). The impact acreage and , associated mitigation debt/credit for each phase is listed in the table below. This table assumes that mitigation would be provided separately for each phase. The mitigation debt for Phases 1 and 2 ' could be offset by 1) preservation of Riversidean sage scrub and transitional preserved within the Roripaugh Ranch, plus some combination of 2) revegetation of Riversidean sage scrub and/or 3) permanent conservation of Riversidean sage scrub habitats in the vicinity of the site. Mitigation Requirements For Phases 1,2, and 3 Phase Impact (x 2) Preservation Mitigation Debt (-) Credit (+) t 1 49.32 0.29 -98.35 2 63.31 20.68 105.94 ' 3 12.88 72.34 +46.58 , Total 125.51 93.31 -32.20 Alternatively, the Roripaugh Ranch landowners may participate in a multiple habitat/multiple ' species conservation planning effort that would provide a mechanism for full mitigation of impacts to Riversidean sage scrub habitats on site. A regional conservation plan is currently being contemplated by Riverside County, resource protection agencies, and landowners in this area. 8.1.2 Mitigation for Impacts to Riparian Habitats , The removal of 8.18 acres of alluvial fan scrub, 0.16 acres of mulefat scrub, 0.38 acres of riparian scrub, and 1.16 acres of sandy wash habitat would be offset through mitigations associated with the permit acquisition process. The proposed project would result in the need for ' the following permits related to impacts to riparian resources; 1) a 1603 Agreement with the CDFG, 2) a 404 Permit from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, and 3) a 401 Certification or , Waiver of Certification from the Regional Water Quality Board. Mitigation for removal of riparian habitats is likely to include restoration and management of existing disturbed wetland areas on the site. Permits acquisition and mitigation strategies for impacts to these species could be acquired for each project phase or the entire project. Roripaugh Ranch—Biological Resources Assessment Natural Resource Consultants County of Riverside May 25, 1999 36 82 Mitigation for hnpacts to Sensitiv Wildlife Species ' 8.2.1 Mitigation for Impacts to the Quino Checkerspot Butterfly and the Coastal California Gnateatcher ' The Roripaugh Ranch project will result in direct impacts to the coastal California gnatcatcher and the Quino checkerspot butterfly. These impacts to federally listed species will be mitigated ' through acquisition of "take" permits from the-USFWS. Alternatively, the Roripaugh Ranch ' may participate in regional planning efforts that would provide a mechanism for full mitigation of impacts to threatened endangered and species on this site. Permits and mitigation strategies for impacts to these species could be acquired for each project phase or the entire project. Note that implementation of Phase 3 would not result in impacts to any Quino checkerspot butterfly or coastal California gnatcatcher. ' A multihabitat/muldspecies conservation plan, that would include regional conservation measures for these two species, is currently being contemplated by the County of Riverside. State and ' federal resource protection agencies, and landowners in this area. It is assumed that this plan, if completed, would maintain the viability of these species in the region through conservation ' of Riversidean sage scrub habitats within a regional preserve system. ' Prior to any grading or vegetation clearing for any phase, a directed survey shall be conducted to locate on site coastal California gnatcatchers nests. If gnatcatcher nests are present, no grading or removal of habitat will take place within 100 feet of known nesting sites during the ' nesting/breeding season (mid-February through mid-July). ' 8.2.2 Mitigation for Impacts to the Stephens' Kangaroo Rat 1 Implementation of the Roripaugh Ranch site would result in the removal of occupied and potentially occupied habitat for the Stephens' kangaroo rat. The Riverside County Habitat Conservation Agency (RCHCA) obtained approval of the Stephens' Kangaroo Rat Habitat Conservation Plan (SKR-HCP) which covers approximately 517,900 acres in western Riverside County. The SKR-HCP provides a mechanism allowing incidental take of the Stephens' ' kangaroo rat (SKR) on certain land within the SKR-HCP's boundaries. In addition, the SKR- HCP establishes a regional system of seven Core Reserves for conservation of the Stephens' kangaroo rat and the ecosystems on which this species depends. The Core Reserves encompass 42,939 acres, including over 12,593 acres of occupied SKR habitat. Roripaugh Ranch—Biological Resources Assessment Natural Resource Consultants County of Riverside stay 25, 1999 ' 37 RCHCA member agencies also maintain a Stephens' kangaroo rat mitigation fee. This fee will be maintained by the RCHCA member agencies until the Core Reserves System has been , completed and management programs are adequately funded. The SKR-HCP, if successfully implemented, will provide a 95 percent probability that the Stephens' kangaroo rat will survive in the wild (RCHCA 1995). 'Roripaugh Ranch (Ashby Development, Inc.) will participate in t this program and provide the appropriate mitigation fee to the appropriate jurisdiction. 8.2.3 Mitigation for Impacts to Raptors and Raptor Foraging Habitat , Prior to project grading a burrowing owl survey will be completed and burrowing owls occurring , on the site will be excluded from active burrows. Owl surveys and burrow exclusion will follow the CDFG protocols for this species (CDFG 1993). Likewise, prior to any grading or vegetation ' clearing, a directed survey shall be conducted to determine the presence or absence of nesting raptor species. Surveys will be conducted between April and June . If raptor nests are present, ' no grading or removal of habitat will take place within 500 feet of known nesting sites during the nesting/breeding season (mid-March through mid-July). , The project would not result in direct impact to active raptors nest (none have been observed to date) on the site. The project would result in the removal of approximately 650 acres of lands 1 that could be used as raptor foraging including agricultural areas, Riversidean sage scrub, and annual grasslands. In addition, the removal of the existing eucalyptus trees would remove ' potential perch sites and roosting areas for raptors. The impact to raptor foraging habitat remains significant. 8.2.4 Mitigation for Impacts to Various Wildlife Species Associated with the Scrub, Grassland, and Riparian Habitats on the Roripaugh Ranch Site , Impacts to the variety of sensitive wildlife species identified on the Roripaugh Ranch site would ' be offset by preservation of approximately 140 acres of natural open space on the site. The open space area will be managed for the long term conservation value according to the following guidelines. ' Guidelines fu Q= 3 )`gement Areas 1. Roadways, including security and maintenance roads, shall have highly visible signs , notifying drivers of the potential for wildlife (e.g. "WARNING - WILDLIFE XING"). Roripaugh Ranch—Biological Resources Assessment . Natural Resource Consultants , Count' of Riverside May 25, 1999 38 ' 1 2. No fences should impede movement within the open space preservation areas. If a fence ' is necessary in these areas, it should be a two-strand smooth-wire or split-rail type. The bottom strand or rail should occur no lower than 20 inches above the ground, with the second strand or rail occurring no higher than 40 inches above the ground. ' 3. Where possible open space areas shall be screened from the direct view of adjacent ' homes, roads, etc. by trees and shrubs. Dense vegetative screening is recommended for the edge of any developed areas adjacent to open space areas. ' 4. If night-time lighting is necessary adjacent to the open space areas only restrictive lighting pointed away from natural habitats should be allowed. In addition, streets should not terminate at the edge of the open space. 5. Access to open space areas should be limited to specified nature trail entrances, preferably some distance from major developed areas. A system of footpaths could be incorporated in the preserve design. 6. During the vegetation clearing or grading, all areas of Riversidean sage scrub proposed ' to be preserved in the vicinity of construction activities shall be protected through the construction of temporary fencing. No construction access, parking or storage will be ' -permitted within the fenced areas. Vehicle transportation routes between cut-and-fill locations will be restricted . ' 9.0 OFF SITE IMPROVEMENTS ' 9.1 Extension of Butterfield Stage Road The extension of Buttemeld Stage Road between La Serena and the southern boundary of the site ' at Calle Chapos, including the intersections of Butterfield Stage Road with La Serena and Calle Chapos, is an offsite improvement associated with the Roripaugh Ranch project. The area studied for this project included approximately 4000 linear feet of the proposed roadway and all habitats within 300 feet of the proposed centerline for this roadway. The survey included an evaluation of vegetation communities, focused surveys for the coastal California gnatcatcher, and focused surveys for the Quino checkerspot butterfly. The results of this assessment, including a detailed evaluation of project impacts and mitigations will be provided under separate cover as part of the ' environmental review for an assessment district associated with this roadway. ' Roripaugh Ranch —Biological Resources Assessment Natural Resource Consultants County of Riierside May 25, 1999 39 The majority of this area is covered by mixed and disturbed Riversidean sage scrub. The remainder of the habitats include annual grasslands and disturbed ruderal areas. The site includes the use area , of two pairs of coastal California gnatcatchers. These two pairs occur in the vicinity of the proposed intersection of Butterfield Stage Road with La Serena Road. The site also provide suitable habitat for the Quino checkerspot butterfly including several scattered patches of dwarf , plantain and owl's clover. No Quino checkerspot butterflies were detected during focused adult searches conducted by Michael Gates, Brian Carey, and Michael Couffer between March 18 and , May 7, 1999. The site includes several ridges and associated drainages between these ridges. In total three , drainages would be crossed by this project. Dredge or fill within these drainage areas would affect areas under the jurisdiction of the ACOS and CDFG. 9.2 14-Acre Park Site , A 14-acre park site located adjacent to the western boundary of the site is also an off site improvement associated with the Roripaugh Ranch project. The 14-acre park site supports ' disturbed habitats that generally support ruderal plant species, agriculture, and barren ground. The site also includes the drainage of Santa Gertrudis Creek including a small-scale sand mining , operation. Several eucalyptus trees occur on site and a small patch of will woodlands occurs adjacent to the creek. Dredge or fill within the drainage may affect areas under the jurisdiction of the ACOE and CDFG. , LU REFERENCES CITED Ashton, R.E., Jr. 1976. Endangered and Threatened Amphibians and Reptiles in the United States. Soc. for the Study of Amphibians and Reptiles. , Atwood, I.L. 1990. Status Review of the California Gnatcatcher (Potioptila californica). ' Unpublished Technical Report, Manomet Bird Observatory, Manomet, Massachusetts.. Bramlet, David, and John Gray. 1991. Species of Special Interest Natural Resources ' Geographic Information System (GIS) Project. Prepared for the County of Orange Environmental Management Agency, Santa Ana, California. August 1991. Califomia Department of Fish and Game. 1996. 1996 Annual Report oil the Status of California's State Listed Threatened and Endangered Plants and Animals. Roripaugh Ranch —Biological Resources Assessment Natural Resource Consultants ' County of Ri%erside May 25, 1999 40 ' California Department of Fish and Game. 1998b. Special Animals. California Natural Diversity Data Base. ' California Department of Fish and Game. 1991. State and Federal Endangered and ' Threatened Animals of California. Revised April 1991. California Department of Fish and Gme. 1993 Burrowing Owl Survey Protocol and Mitigation Guideline. Unpublished Report prepared bt the California Burrowing Owl Consortium. Harmsworth Associates 1998. Various unpublished biological resources data as provided to Hewitt & McGuire in 1998. Hickman, James C., ed. 1993. The Jepson Manual: Higher Plants of California. University of Califomia Press, Berkely, California. Holland, V.L. and Keil, David J. 1990. California Vegetation. 4th Edition. El Corral Publications, San Luis Obispo, California. Knecht, A.A. 1971. Soil Survey of Western Riverside Area, California. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service. Washington D.C. Riverside County Habitat Conservation Agency, February, 1995. Habitat Conservation Plan for the Stephen's Kangaroo Rat in Western Riverside County. ' Skinner, YMArk W. And Bruce M. Pavlik, eds. 1994. Inventory of Rare and Endangered Vascular Plants of California. California Native Plant Society, Sacramento, Califonia. Stebbins, Robert C. 1985 A field Guide to Western Reptiles and Amphibians. Houghton 1 Mifflin, Boston Masachusetts. Tierra Madre Consultants. 1994. Roripaugh 800 Draft Specific Plan Biological Assessment. ' Unpublished. Tierra Madre Consultants. 1997. Roripaugh 800 Draft Specific Plan Biological Assessment. Unpublished. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Serivice. 1999. Survey Protocols for the Quino Checkespot Butterfly. ' Published on January 25, 1999. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Serivice. 1997. Survey Protocols for the Coastal California Gnatcatcher. 1 ' Roripaugh Ranch —Biological Resources Assessment Natural Resource Consultants County of Riverside May 25, 1999 41 1 1 1 1 1 1 APPENDIX A 1 FLORAL AND FAUNAL COMPENDIA 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Roripaugh Ranch —Biological Resources Assessment Natural Resource Consultants County of Riverside May 25, 1999 1 Table 1 Preliminary Vascular Plant List for Roripaugh Ranch, Temecula ' (data collected by N. J. Hancock 2/18/99 — 3/18/99) Scientific Name Common Name Community Status (Names from Hickman, 1993) PTERIDOPHYTA: FERNS AND FERN ALLIES POLYPODIACEAE—POLYPODY FAMILY ' Pol podium califomicum California pol pody RSS-M N PTERI DACEAE—BRAKE FAMILY Adiantum jordanii southern maidenhair RSS-M N Cheilanthes palm Pam's cloak-fem RSS/RKS N Pellaea andromedifolia coffee fern RSS-M, RSS-AK N Pentagramma triangularis goldenback fern RSS-M.RSS-M/OW N GYMNOSPER1fAE PINACEAE— PINE FAMILY Pinus spp. ornamental pines DEV I ANGIOSPERMAE: DICOTYLEDONES AMARANTHACEAE—AMARANTH FAMILY Amaranthus albus tumbling pigweed RUD. SW.ALSC I *Amaranthus sp. pigweed CRK I ' ANACARDIACEAE—SUMAC FAMILY Rhus trilobata squaw bush RSS-M N Schinus molle Peruvian pepper tree DEV I ' APIACEAE— CARROT FAMILY BoNNlesla incana American bowlesia OW. RSS-M N Daucus pusillus rattlesnake weed RSS/AGL. AGL N ' * Lomalium utriculatum common lomatium RSS/NGL N Sanicula arguta sharp-tooth sanicle RSS-13 N ASCLEPIADACEAE—MILKWEED FAMILY *? Asclepias fascicularis narrow-leaved milkweed RSS-D. RSS/NGL. CRK N ASTERACEAE—SUNFLOWER FAMILY Acourtia microcephala sacapellote RSS-AK. RSS/RKS, RSS-M N Ambrosia psilostachva western ragweed CRK. RS.ALSC,RUD N ' Artemisia californica California saeebrush RSS, SCS,ALSC, RUD N Artemisia dracunculus tarragon ALSC; CRK,RS, RSS-D N Baccharis pilularis coyote bush RS. RSS-B N ' Baccharis salicifolia mule fat ALSC, RS. MFS. CRK N Centaurea melitensis tocalote RUD. RSS/RUD. RSS/AGL, RSS- I AB. AGL ' Cirsium occidentals var. cobwebby thistle RSS-AK N occidentale Crocus benedictus blessed thistle RUD I Comza bonariensis flax-leaved horseweed AGL 1 Comza canadensis common horse"eed RSS-M. EW N Cotula australis Australian brass-buttons DEV I ' Encelia farmosa brittlebush RSS/AGL N Ericamena Palmeri car. Box Springs goldenbush RSS-B. RSS/NGL, RSS-M N pachylepis Erieeron foliosus leafy daisy RSS-1`t N Roripaugh Ranch Plant List ' Eriophvllum confertiflorum golden}'arro%s RSS-AK, RSS-M. RSS-AW N ' Eurvops v iridis green gold daisy DEV I ' Filago gallica narrow-leaped flago AGL,ALSC,RSS-AB, RSS-D I Gnaphalium californicum California everlasting RSS-M. AGL. RUD, ALSC N Gnaphalium canescens ssp. felt-leaf ALSC, AGL, CRK. RUD N microcephalum ' Gutierrezia californica California matchweed RSS/AGL,RSS/NGL, RSS-M. N ALSC Helianthus annuus common sunflower RUD,ALSC, RS N , Hemizonia fasciculata fascicled or golden AGL.RUD, ALSC, RSS/AGL. N tanceed RSS-D Heterotheca grandiflora telegraph weed AGL, ALSC,RUD, DEV N ' Hypochaeris glabra smooth cat's-ear AGL, RSS-D I Isocoma menziesn coast goldenbush RSS/AGL,RSS-M N Lactuca serriola prickle lettuce RUD,AGL. RSS-D I ' Lessingia filaginifolia cudweed-aster RSS/NGL, RSS/AGL,AGL. RSS- N M Senecio vulgaris common groundsel AGL I ' *? Senecio sp. buttenceed RSS-M N Sonchus oleraceus common soN%-thistle CRK. EW, RUD I Stephanomeria N irgata miggc wreathplant RSS/AGL.RUD N , Tetradymia comosa cotton-thorn RSS-M.RSS/RUD N Xanthium strtmtanum cocklebur RUD, SW.ALSC, CRK N BORAGINACEAE—BORAGE FAMILY Amsinckia menziesii common fiddleneck AGR,RUD,AGL. RSS/AGL N ' *Cr ptantha sp. popcorn flower ALSC, SW.AGL, RSS-M N Hchotropium curassaN'icum Chinese puslev CRK, ALSC. RS N Pectocar a linearis ssp. ferocula slender pectocarva AGL. RSS/AGL, RSS/NGL. N ALSC.RSS-AB Plagiobothr-,s canescens Salle% popcorn flower .AGL, ALSC. RSS/AGL N BRASSICACEAE— MUSTARD FAMILY , Hirschfeldia incana perennial mustard RUD/RSS,RUD.AGR.AGL 1 Lepidium nitidum shining peppergrass AGL N Sis}mbrium irio London rocket RUD, DEV I ' CACTACEAE— CACTUS FAMILY Opuntia ficus-indica Indian fig DEV 1 Opuntia littoralis coast prickly-pear RSS-M, RSS-D, SCS. ALSC. RSS- N ' B Opuntia parni x'allel cholla SCS, RSS/AGL, RSS-D. RSS-M N Opuntia spp. cholla DEV I ' ? pipe cactus DEV 1 CAPRIFOLIACEAE—HONEYSUCKLE FAMILY Sambucus mexicana Mexican elderbem .ALSC. CRK, RSS-M, RSS-B. N ' RSS-D CARYOPHYLLACEAE— PINI: FAMILY *? Silene gallica windmill pink AGL. RSS/NGL 1 Stellaria media common chickweed EW, RSS/AGL I ' CHENOPODIACEAE—GOOSEFOOT FAMILY 2 ' ' Roripaugh Ranch Plant List ' Chenopodium album lambs quarters EW 1 Chenopodium murale nettle-leaved eoosefeot RSS!AGL, RUD I ' Salsola tragus Russian thistle RSS-M 1 CONVOLVULACEAE—MORNING GLORY FAMILY Calystegia macrostegia chaparral morning glom RSS-M. RSS-AB. RSS-D. N 1 CRASSULACEAE—STONECROP FAMILY RSS/AGL Crassula connata pygmy-weed RSS/RUD N ' Crassula spp. jade plant DEV I Dudle}a lanceolata lance-leaved dudleva RSS-M. RSS-AK,RSS-D N Dudleca spp. live-forever DEV I CUCURBITACEAE—GOURD FAMILY Cucurbita foetidissima calabazilla AGL. RSS/AGL. RSS/NGL. RUD. N ALSC Marah macrocarpus manroot.xNild cucumber RSS/RKS, RSS-M/OW. RSS-M N CUSCUTACEAE—DODDER FAMILY Cuscuta califomica California witch's hair RSS-M N EUPHORBIACEAE—SPURGE FAMILY Chamaesycc albomareinata rattlesnake weed RSS/AGL.RSS-M N Croton californicus Croton ALSC N Eremocarpus setieerus dove weedRUD,AGL. SW, RSS/NGL. RSS- N D, RSS-B FABACEAE—PEA FAMILY Astragalus pomonensis Pomona locoweed RSS-D, RUD/RSS, AGL.ALSC N ' Lath}rus sp. sweet pea RS N Lotus scoparius deenveed RSS/AGL,RSS/RUD, RSS-M, N RSS-AB ' 'Lotus ? strieosus sthgose lotus AGL,RUD N 'Lotus ° N%Taneelianus California lotus ALSC N Lupinus bicolor miniature lupine RSS/AGL.AGL. SW N ' Lupinus succulentus arroyo lupine RUD.RSS/AGL N Medicago pohmorpha bur-clover AGR,AGL I Melilotus alba white sweet-clover RUD. RS I ' FAGACEAE—OAK FAMILY Quercus agrifolia coast live oak OW. DEV N Quercus berberidifolia California scrub oak OW.RSS-M/OW N ' GERANIACEAE—GERANIUM FAMILY Erodi urn born s ]on.--beak-ed filaree AGL.AGR. RSS-D I Erodium cicutariurn red-stemmed filaree AGL,AGR. ALSC. SW. CRK. 1 RSS/AGL, RUD Erodium moschatum white-stemmed filaree EW 1 HYDROPHYLLACEAE—WATERLEAF FAMILY Eucnpta chn'santhemifolia common eucnpta OW N Nemophila menziesii babe blue-eves RSS-M,AGR N Phacelia distans common phacelia RSS/AGL. RSS-M N Phacelia imbricata imbricate phacelia RSS-M N 1 Phacelia ramosissima branching phacelia RSS/RKS. RS N LAMIACEAB—MINT FAMILY Roripaugh Ranch Plant List Marrubium yuleare horehound RUD, OW, EW, CRK I Salvia apiana white saee RSS-AW. RSS-M. RSS/AGL, N ' ALSC Salvia carduacea thistle sage RSS/AGL N Salvia columbariae chia RSS-AB. RSS-N4 N Salvia mellifera black sage RSS-S. RSS-M. RSS-B N Trichostema lanceolatum vinegar weed AGL.AGR, RUD,ALSC N LYTHRACEAE—LOOSESTRIFE FAMILY *?LN-thrum h}ssopifolia grass poh RUD 1 ' MALVACEAE— MALLOW FAMILY *? Sidalcea malvaeflora checker bloom RSS-B. RSS-M. RSS/NGL N MYRTACEAE—MYRTLE FAMILY ' Eucal}ptus sp. eucalyptus EW.ALSC 1 NYCTAGINACEAE—FOUR O'CLOCK FAMILY Mirabilis californica wishbone bush RSS/AGL. RSS-D, RSS-AB. RSS- N ' M OLEACEAE—OLIVE FAMILY Olea europaea olive RUD I ' ONAGRACEAE—EVENING PRIMROSE FAMILY *Camissonia sp. suncup RSS-D, SW N *Camissonia sp. primrose SW N ' * evening primrose AGL, RSS-D. RSS-B. RSS-AB N *? Clarkia sp. farewell to spring RSS-B. RSS-M N Epilobium canum California fuchsia CRK,RSS-M.RSS-AK.RSS-D N ' PLANTAGINACEAE—PLANTAIN FAMILY Plantago erecta California plantain AGL. RSS/AGL, RSS-D. RSS-AB N PLATANACE AE—SYCAMORE FAMILY Platanus racemosa western sycamore RW N , POLEMONIACEAE—PHLOX FAMILY Eriastr un sapphirinum sapphire woollv-star RSS/AGL. RSS-M N *?Nayarretia atractyloides hell%-leased skunk-weed ALSC. RSS-M, RSS/RUD N POLYGONACEAE—BUCKWHEAT FAMILY *Eriogonum ? da%idsonii Da%idson's buckacheat ALSC N Enogonum elongatum tall buck cheat RSS-B. RSS/NGL,NGL. RSS-M N ' Enogonum fasciculatum car. flat-top buckwheat RSS,ALSC. SCS.AGL. RUD N foliolosum Enoeonum fasciculatum car. rosemary buckwheat RSS/RUD N , polifolium *Eriogonum ?gracile slender eriogonum ALSC N Polygonum arenastnun Ward knomeed AGR 1 ' Rumex cnspus curly dock CPK.ALSC. RS. AGL 1 *? Rumex hymenosepalus desert rhubarb RUD N *o Rumex salicifolius Nsillo%y dock CRK N ' PORTULACACEAE— PURSLANE FAMILY Calandrinia ciliata red maids AGR RUD, SW N Cla}tonia perfoliata miners lettuce RSS-M. RSS-B. RSS-D. EW N PRIMULACEAE—PRIMROSE FAMILY Anaeallis arvensis scarlet pimpernel AGL CRK. RUD I 4 Roripaugh Ranch Plant List RANUNCULACEAE—BUTTERCUP FAMILY *Clematis sp. virgin's bower RSS/RKS, RS N *Delphinium sp. larkspur RSS-B, RSS-M/OW N ROSACEAE—ROSE FAMILY *Cotoneaster sp. cotoneaster DEV I ' Rosa sp. ornamental rose DEV I RUBIACEAE— MADDER FAMILY Galium angustifolium narrow-leaved bedstraw RSS-AK. RSS-M, RSS-B. N ' RSS/NGL SALICACEAE—WILLOW FAMILY Populus fremontii western cottomvood RS. RW N *? Salix gooddingii black willow RSS-M N Salix laevigata red%tillow ALSC N Salix lasiolepis arroyo%Nillow ALSC, RS, CRK N SCROPHULARIACEAE—FIGWORT FAMILY ' Castilleja affinis coastal indian paintbrush RSS-AK, RSS/AGL N *? Collinsia sp. chinese houses RSS-B.RSS/AGL, AGL N Keckiella antirrhinoides yellow bush penstemon RSS-AK.RSS-M, RSS-M/OW, N ' RSS/RKS *Penstemon sp. penstemon RSS-M N Scrophularia californica California bee-plant RSS/RKS, OW, RSS-AK N SOLANACEAE—NIGHTSHADE FAMILY Datura wrighlii jimsomveed RUD, SW, EW N Nicotiana glauca tree tobacco ALSC, CRK_. RUD_,DEV I ' Solanum parishii Parish's nightshade RSS/RKS N URTICACEAE—NETTLE FAMILY *? Hesperocnide tenella western nettle OW N VIOLACEAE—VIOLET FAMILY Viola pedunculata johnnyjump-up RSS-B.RSS-M/OW. RSS/NGL, N AGL ' VITACEAE— GRAPE FAMILY Vitis vinifera cultivated grape DEV 1 ANGIOSPERMAE, MONOCOTYLEDONE ' ARECACEAE—PALM FAMILY Washingtonia robusta Mexican fan palm DEV I CYPERACEAE—SEDGE FAMILY 1 Cyperus involucratus African umbrella-sedge DEV I IRIDACEAE—IRIS FAMILY Gladiolus sp. cultivated gladiolus DEV ] Iris sp. cultivated iris DEV ' SisNTinchium bellum blue-eyed grass RSS-M N JUNCACEAE— RUSH FAMILY Juncus sp. rush RS N LILIACEAE— LILY FAMILY Agave americana American agave DEV I Bloomeria crocea common golden stars RSS/NGL. AGL, RSS-M. RSS-B N I Calochortus sp, mariposa lily RSS-D, RSS-B. RSS-M N Dichelostemma capitatum blue dicks. wild hyacinth RSS/AGL. RSS/NGL N 1 j 1 Roripaugh Ranch Plont List POACEAE—GRASS FAMILY 1 Achnathe:um coronah m giant needlegrass RSS-M N 1 Arundo donax giant reed CRK I Avena spp. %%ild oats AGL. RUD, RSS-D. EW I Bromus diandrus ripgut grass EW I Bromus hordaceus soft chess AGL, RSS/AGL. RSS-M. RSS-D I 1 Bromus madritensis ssp. rubens foxtail chess AGL. RSS-AB. RS: ALSC I Crvpsis schoenoides swamp grass CRK I Distichlis spicata saltgrass RS, CRK N 1 Levmus condensatus giant NNild n RSS-M, OW. CR-K N Muhlenbergia rigens deergrass RS, CRK N Nasella lepida foothill needleerass RSS-AW. RSS-AK N 1 Nasella pulchra purple needlegrass RSS/NGL,NGL. RSS-B. RSS-AB, N RSS-M Pohpogon monspeliensis rabbitfoot grass RS I ' Triticum aestivum cereal wheat AGR I * grasses AGL. RSS:AB. RSS-M I LEGEND 1 * = Too earl\ in the season to determine species 1 1 1 1 i 1 1 1 1 6 1 ' Roripaugh Ranch Plant List Community RSS = Riversidean sage scrub—all apes RSS-B Riversidean sage scrub—flat-top buckwheat(Eriogonum fasciculaium) ' RSS-S = Riversidean sage scrub—black sage(Salvia mellifera) RSS-AB Riversidean sage scrub—California sagebrush-flat-top buckwheat RSS-AK = Riversidean saee scrub—California sagebrush-vellocv bush penstemon (Keckiella ' annrrhinoides) RSS-AW = Riversidean sage scrub—California saeebrush-white sage (Salvia apiana) ' RSS-M = Riversidean sage scrub—mixed dominance RSS-D = Riversidean sage scrub—disturbed RSS/RKS .= Rocker outcrop community SCS = Southern cactus scrub ' MFS Mule fat scrub ALSC Alluvial fan scrub RS = Riparian scrub CRK = Seasonal creek bed SW = Sande wash ' RW = Riparian woodland ' OW = Coast live oak woodland EW = Exotic (mainh Eucal\ptus)woodland ' AGL = Annual -arassland ' NGL = Native erassland ' RLD = Ruderal AGR = Agricultural DEV = Developed Status N = Native species I = Species introduced at this locality 1 i FINAL MULTIPLE SPECIES SUBAREA HABITAT CONSERVATION PLAN VOLUMEI �Xcr=PF-r5 January 2001 1 ' Prepared by: ' HELIX ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING, INC. 8100 La Mesa Boulevard, Suite 150 La Mesa, California 91941-6476 Assessment District 161 Multiple Species Subarea Habitat Conservation Plan TABLE OF CONTENTS Section Title Page FINAL REVISIONS TO THE JULY 21,2000 AD 161 SHCP 1.0 INTRODUCTION..............................................................................................................................1 1.1 Purpose and Need....................................................................................................................4 1.2 Planning Context.......................................................................................................................4 1.2.1 Mitigation......................................................................................................................6 12.2 Covered Projects...........................................................................................................7 1.3 Legal Framework....................................................................................................................12 1.3.1 Federal ESA and Migratory Bird Treaty Act..........................................................12 1.3.2 California Fish and Game Code...............................................................................14 2.0 METHODS AND LIMITATIONS..................................................................................................17 ' 3.0 DESCRIPTION OF THE AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT............................................................19 3.1 Vegetation/Plant and Animal Species.................................................................................19 3.1.1 Upland Habitats .........................................................................................................19 3.1.2 Wetland Habitats........................................................................................................21 3.1.3 Plants............................................................................................................................23 3.1.4 Animals........................................................................................................................23 3.2 Threatened or Endangered Species......................................................................................23 3.2.1 California Orcutt Grass..............................................................................................23 3.2.2 Riverside Fairy Shrimp..............................................................................................24 ' 3.2.3 Quino Checkerspot Butterfly....................................................................................24 3.2.4 Coastal California Gnatcatcher.................................................................................25 3.2.5 Other Listed Species...................................................................................................25 - 3.3 Other Species of Concern.......................................................................................................26 3.3.1 Palmer's Grapplinghook...........................................................................................26 3.3.2 Long-spinedSpineflower..........................................................................................26 3.3.3 Western Spadefoot.....................................................................................................26 ' 3.3.4 Orange-throated Whiptail.........................................................................................27 3.3.5 San Diego Homed Lizard..........................................................................................27 3.3.6 Burrowing Owl...........................................................................................................27 3.3.7 Southern California Rufous-crowned Sparrow......................................................28 3.3.8 Bell's Sage Sparrow....................................................................................................28 3.3.9 Grasshopper Sparrow................................................................................................28 ' 3.3.10 Raptors.........................................................................................................................29 3.4 Wetlands..................................................................................................................................29 4.0 POTENTIAL EFFECTS ON SPECIES OF CONCERN AND ' ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED.........................................................................................30- 4.1 Vegetation...................................................................................................................:......::....30 TABLE OF CONTENTS (cont.) Section Title Page ,y 4.0 POTENTIAL EFFECTS ON SPECIES OF CONCERN AND t ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED(cont.) 4.2 Threatened or Endangered Species......................................................................................30 4.2.1 California Orcutt Grass..............................................................................................31 4.2.2 Riverside Fairy Shrimp..............................................................................................31 4.2.3 Quino Checkerspot Butterfly....................................................................................32 1 4.2.4 Coastal California Gnatcatcher.................................................................................34 4.3 Other Species of Concern.......................................................................................................35 4.3.1 Palmer s Grapplinghook.:.........................................................................................35 4.3.2 Long-spined Spineflower..........................................................................................35 4.3.3 Western Spadefoot.....................................................................................................36 4.3.4 Orange-throated Whiptail,San Diego Horned Lizard,Southern California Rufous-crowned Sparrow, and Bell's Sage Sparrow.......................................36 ' 4.3.5 Burrowing Owl................:..........................................................................................37 4.3.6 Grasshopper Sparrow....................................:...........................................................37 4.3.7 Raptors.........................................................................................................................38 4.4 Wetlands ..................................................................................................................................38 4.5 Alternatives Considered........................................................................................................39 4.5.1 Alternative 1 -No Subregional HCP.......................................................................39 'I 4.5.2 Alternative 2-AD 161 Projects Only......................................................................39 4.5.3 Alternative 3-AD 161 Supplemental Assessment Area-wide BiologicalMitigation.............................................................................................40 1 4.5.4 Alternative 4-Increased Conservation on Participating Properties..................40 5.0 CONSERVATION AND MITIGATION MEASURES................................................................41 ' 1 5.1 Habitat Conservation............................................................................................................41 5.2 Quino Checkerspot Butterfly Habitat Management/Restoration Research andPropagation Program....................................................................................................42 , 5.3 Wildlife Corridors.................................................................................................................43 5.4 Impact Avoidance and Minimization Measures...............................................................43 5.4.1 Construction Phase.......................................:.............................................................43 5.4.2 Operational Phase Avoidance and Minimization Measures................................48 ' I 5.5 Habitat Enhancement and Restoration..............................................................................51 5.5.1 Riparian/Wetland Restoration..................................................................................51 5.5.2 Habitat Enhancement.................................................................................................51 ' 5.5.3 Coastal Sage Scrub Restoration................................:...............................................51 5.6 Adaptive Management and Monitoring of Conserved Lands........................................51 5.6.1 Interim Habitat Management...........................................................................:.......52 5.6.2 Ongoing Habitat Management............................................................I....................54 5.6.3 Long-term Habitat Management..............................................................................56 5.7 Implementation and Funding..............................................................................................56 5.7.1 Roles and Responsibilities.........................................................................................56 5.7.2 Funding ..........................57 5.8 Amendment Procedure........................................................................................................58 5.8.1 Amendments to Development Plans....:..................................................................58 ' 5.8.2 Minor Amendments to the SHCP............................................................................59 5.8.3 All Other Amendments.....................................................:.......................................59 1 TABLE OF CONTENTS (cont.) ' Section Title Page 5.0 CONSERVATION AND MITIGATION MEASURES(cont.) 5.9 . Changed and Unforeseen Circumstances........................:.................................................59 5.9.1 Changed Circumstances............................................................................................59 5.9.2 Unforeseen Circumstances........................................................................................60 6.0 CONSIDERATION OF EFFECTS ON SPECIES' LONGTERM SURVIVAL..........................61 6.1 Coastal California Gnatcatcher,Southern California Rufous-crowned Sparrow, Bell's Sage Sparrow,Grasshopper Sparrow,Orange-throated Whiptail, ' San Diego Homed Lizard...............................................................................................61 6.2 Quino Checkers of Butterfly 61 6.3 Western Spadefoot.................................................................................................................62 ' 6.4 Burrowing Owls,Raptors....................................................................................................62 6.5 Palmer's Grapplinghook,Long-spined Spineflower........................................................63 6.6 California Orcutt Grass,Riverside Fairy Shrimp..............................................................63 ' 7.0 REFERENCES...................................................................................................................................64 ' APPENDIX A Individual Project Graphics APPENDIX B Species of Concern Covered by the SHCP APPENDIX C Project Phasing Plan APPENDIX D CDFG Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation APPENDIX E Quino Checkerspot Butterfly Research and Propagation Program APPENDIX F Property Analysis Record APPENDIX G Management Plan for the AD 161 Reserve APPENDIX H University of California-Riverside Management Agreement APPENDIX I Multi-site Management Agreement ' APPENDIX J Roripaugh Ranch Interim Management Plan APPENDIX K Johnson Ranch Deed Restriction APPENDIX L University of California-Riverside Deed Restriction APPENDIX M SilverHawk Deed Restriction APPENDIX N Lincoln Ranch Conservation Easement APPENDIX O Upland Revegetation Plan for Water Facilities VOLUME II-Implementation Agreement lll FINAL REVISIONS TO THE JULY 21,2000 AD 161 SUBAREA HABITAT CONSERVATION PLAN (SHCP) The following is intended to provide additional information and clarification in response to issues that arose during the SHCP review process, and does not involve any significant changes requiring additional public review. Covered Species The applicant has elected not to request coverage for the burrowing owl (Athene cunicularia), grasshopper sparrow(Ammodramus savannarum), ferruginous hawk(Buten regalis), long-eared owl (Asia otis), and white-tailed kite (Elanus leucurus), none of which is currently federally listed. Ongoing Management Plan The Center for Natural Lands Management(CNLM)has prepared a Property Analysis Record (PAR)describing the terms under which it will manage the AD 161 Reserve. The final PAR is attached as Appendix F of this Final SHCP. Management agreements between the applicable landowners and CNLM for UCR and the remaining conservation areas are attached as Appendices H and I,respectively. A summary of management approach and actions for the AD 161 Reserve has been submitted to and reviewed by the Service(see Appendix G of this Final SHCP). Within six months of assuming management responsibilities for the Reserve, CNLM Will complete a detailed management plan and submit it to the Service for review and approval. If the Service does not respond to the ongoing management plan within 90 days of receipt,the plan will be deemed to have been approved. The conserved habitat associated with Roripaugh Ranch will not immediately be managed by CNLM. The project proponent has prepared an Interim Management Plan for this property,which is attached as Appendix J of this SHCP. Quino Checkerspot Butterfly Research and Propagation Program The description of the Research and Propagation Program associated with the Vista Murrieta High School project has been modified to clarify the responsibilities of UC Riverside and Murrieta Valley Unified School District in implementing the program. The revised program description is attached to this Final SHCP as Appendix E. Project Phasing Plan The implementation phasing for the proposed projects has been revised such that the impacts and conservation associated with the Rancho Miramosa project are no longer included in Phase I, but are still included in the overall plan. This potential delay would not have a substantial effect on the balance of impacts and conservation in Phase I. Importantly, it would have no effect on the conservation of the Johnson Ranch/UC Riverside core preserve area. Conservation associated with Phase I includes the designated areas on Johnson Ranch (550 acres), UC Riverside, SilverHawk and Lincoln Ranch (see Appendices K through N). The ability of any other covered project to proceed with activities that could result in incidental take will not be linked to the fulfillment of Rancho Miramosa's conservation requirements. The revised phasing plan is attached to this Final SHCP as Appendix C. Key points demonstrating that delaying the Rancho Miramosa project would not have a substantial effect on the balance of impacts and conservation in Phase I are as follows: • The conservationtimpact ratio of coastal sage scrub for Phase I was previously higher than the overall program, at 0.97 rather than 0.95. The revised conservation ratio is 0.92, slightly lower than the overall ratio. The conservation ratio for chaparral and oak woodland also decrease somewhat, while the ratio for southern willow scrub is improved. There are no changes to the conservation ratios for any of the remaining habitat types (grassland, eucalyptus woodland, agriculture, riparian, cottonwood/willow, mulefat scrub, open water or streambed). • One fewer gnatcatcher pair would be harmed in Phase 1, and two fewer would be conserved, resulting in an overall balance of 31 pairs harmed, and an equal number conserved. • The ratio of landscape Quino habitat conservedlimpacted in Phase I improves from 0.66 " to 0.72 with the delay of the Rancho Mimmosa project; the ratio for occupied habitat decreases slightly, from 1.29 to 1.23, still substantially greater than 1:1. • Finally, the habitat-based conservation/impact ratio would improve for western ' spadefoot, but be somewhat worse for gnatcatcher, southern California rufous-crowned sparrow and Bell's sage sparrow with the delay of Rancho Miramosa. The ratio for 'I Palmer's grapplinghook, long-spined spineflower, San Diego homed lizard, orange- throated whiptail,and raptors is the same under either scenario. Water Facility Maintenance and Operational Activities I Routine inspection,maintenance, and scheduled repairs as needed are required for all water , I facilities. Specific requirements shall apply to the types of maintenance that must be conducted and the conditions under which such work can be performed in sensitive habitat areas. The following description is intended to clarify the covered activities and quantify the amount of take ' I anticipated in association with pipeline maintenance and operations under the SHCP. All such activities are anticipated to take place within the permanent pipeline right-of-way for each agency (i.e., 100 feet wide for Metropolitan,40 feet wide for RCWD). Routine Patrols and Inspections ' Access patrol roads are usually driven approximately every two weeks to inspect for damage to ' facilities. These patrols also include occasional light maintenance and repair,which would not result in any surface impacts to sensitive habitats. Examples include the repair of gates, vent structures, lubrication of equipment(e.g.,valves),and regrading pipeline access roads. There are ' no restrictions on this type of maintenance work. Personnel performing these duties shall be instructed in the importance of remaining within previously disturbed areas, and in recognizing and reporting conditions that could adversely affect adjacent native habitat areas, such as rutting 1 or erosion of disturbed areas and consequent siltation or extension of erosion into adjacent habitat ' 1 areas. 1 � Maintenance and Scheduled Re air This category consists of more intensive work than the routine minor repairs described above and includes, but is not limited to the following: access to manholes for inspection purposes, excavation for pipe inspection, corrosion protection, installation/repair of buried electrical and communications conduits and facilities,pipeline segment replacement, replacement of surface structures, above ground structures repainting,miscellaneous structure repairs, and similar, relatively infrequent maintenance and repairs. Surface structures include such items as blow off discharge lines, manholes, pump stations, electrical junction and flow meter boxes,and similar operational facilities. These kinds of maintenance and scheduled repairs are anticipated to be infrequent but necessary to maintain the reliability and safety of the facilities. To the extent practicable, an effort will be made to schedule such activities outside of the breeding/flight season for coastal California gnatcatcher and Quino checkerspot butterfly. The related activities associated with these kinds of repairs may include one or more of the following depending on the type of repair performed: vegetation removal, excavation, stockpiling,drilling, pipeline dewatering, and staging of materials and equipment. Such work would not be expected to disturb more than one acre for inspection purposes in any one year,more than approximately two acres for repair work at any one site, and would impact less than three cumulative acres of sensitive habitat(e.g., coastal sage scrub) in any one year. This disturbance would be located within areas previously identified as impacted in the SHCP. These areas(with the exception of a 15-foot wide permanent access road for EM-20 and a 20-foot wide access road for the San Diego Pipeline No. 3 Bypass and San Diego Pipeline No. 6)would be revegetated following initial construction activities, and again following completion of each required maintenance activity. Based on potential for the required restoration efforts(including revegetation of a substantial area currently supporting non-native vegetation with a native seed mix)to expand the distribution of covered species(Palmer's grapplinghook, long-spined spineflower, Quino checkerspot butterfly, western spadefoot, San Diego horned lizard,orange- throated whiptail,coastal California gnatcatcher, Southern California rufous-crowned sparrow, Bell's sage sparrow, American peregrine falcon, Cooper's hawk, golden eagle, merlin,and sharp- shinned hawk), it is anticipated that up to three acres of occupied habitat could be taken due to maintenance activities during each year throughout the life of the covered pipelines. Plans for all scheduled maintenance and repair work shall be reviewed prior to implementation by the appropriate water agencies (e.g.,Environmental Planning Unit for Metropolitan activities) in compliance with applicable conditions/measures listed in the SHCP,IA, and Upland Revegetation Plan for Water Facilities(attached as Appendix O of this Final SHCP). Short-term impacts shall be mitigated by revegetation of disturbed habitat as provided for in the SHCP. Revegetation Following Water Facility Emergency Repairs '. A qualified restoration biologist will prepare a restoration plan for all areas supporting native vegetation that are disturbed during emergency repairs or otherwise resulting from the emergency situation (e.g., erosion due to a waterline break). The plan will be in accordance with the Assessment District 161 Upland Revegetation Plan for Water Facilities and will reflect similar composition of habitat types that were lost. In addition,this revegetation plan for emergency responses will be provided to the Service for coordination and information purposes, prior to the initiation of restoration activities. Upon completion of the emergency repair work, damaged areas will be promptly revegetated in accordance with the plan. A letter summarizing the work shall be submitted to the Service by a USFWS/CDFG-approved biologist within 30 days of completion of the activity. Figure Corrections Figure 5 of the SHCP incorrectly refers to the Eastside Reservoir. Metropolitan's facility is 1� called Diamond Valley Lake. The figures for the Murrieta Springs project contained in Appendix A,Individual Project Graphics,did not indicate the portion of the project which is covered by this SHCP. The attached graphic shows the development proposed within the covered area. � I 1 I I ' I 1 I � i i � tl 1 � ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT July 21, 2000 Assessment District 161 Environmental Assessment TABLE OF CONTENTS Section Title P'aee 1.0 PURPOSE AND NEED FOR ACTION...................................................................................................1 1.1 Introduction...................................................................................................................................I- 12 Proposed Action............................................................................................................................3 1.3 Purpose and Need..........................................................................................................................3 1.4 Decisions to be Made.....................................................:..............................................................4 1.5 Issues and Concerns.......................................................................................................................4 1.6 Related Actions..............................................................................................................................4 1.6.1 Other Federal Actions.......................................................................................................4 1.6.2 State Actions.....................................................................................................................5 1.6.3 Local Actions...:......................................... ...... .............. ............. ...... .................... ......5 2.0 DESCRIPTION OF AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT...............................................................................6 2.1 Location and Setting.. .6 2.2 Vegetation......................................................................................................................................8 2.3 Threatened or Endangered Species..............................................................................................10 2.4 Other Covered Species................................................................................................................11 3.0 ALTERNATIVES INCLUDING THE PROPOSED ACTION.............................................................15 3.1 Alternatives Considered But Not Selected for Detailed Analysis ...............................................15 3.1.1 Reduced Number of Covered Species.............................................................................15 3.1.2 AD 161 Projects Only.....................................................................................................15 3.1.3 AD 161 Supplemental Area-wide Biological Mitigation................................................16 3.2 Alternative 1 —Implementation of SHCP as Proposed...........................................................:....16 3.2.1 Activities..............................: ..........16 ................................................................................ 3.2.2 Impacts..................................:.........................................................................................17 3.2.3 Permit Period..................................................................................................................17 3.2.4 Conservation and Mitigation Measures...........................................................................17 3.3 Alternative 2—No Action...........................................................................................................21 3.4 Alternative 3 —Increased Conservation on Participating Properties...........................................22 4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES..........................................................................:..................23 4.1 Effects on Covered Species and Sensitive Habitats.....................................................................23 4.1.1 Proposed SHCP Alternative........................................................................:...................23 4.1.2 No Action.........:..............................................................................................................25 4.1.3 Increased Conservation on Participating Properties................................:.......................26 4.2 Effects on Other Sensitive Species...................................................................................I..........26 4.3 Other NEPA Considerations Regarding the Proposed Action.....................................................26 4.3.1 Effects on Other Aspects of the Human Environment....................................................26 4.3.2 Cumulative Effects..........................................................................................................33 4.3.3 Relationship Between Short-term Uses and the Maintenance and Enhancement ofLong-term Productivity..............................................................................................34 ' 4.3.4 Significant Irreversible Environmental Changes............................................................35 5.0 LITERA'T'URE CITED...........................................................................................................................36 r TABLE OF CONTENTS(cont.) LIST OF FIGURES Follows Number Title Page IRegional Location Map .............................................................. .................................. .............................I 2 Project Vicinity Map...................... ..........w........................................................................................ .........I 3 Boundaries of AD 161 and Participating Properties............................ ................................. . .. ................1 4 Proposed Land Uses (Developed vs.Open Space)................................. ..........................................:.........7 5 Conceptual Open Space Linkages ...................................... ........................................................................7 6a-b Vegetation Communities.................................................... .......................... .............................................7. 6c Vegetation Communities for Roripaugh Ranch.................................. ........................................................7 6dVegetation Communities.... ............ ................... ............ ............... ........................................................8 7a-c Sensitive Species.. ................................................... .................................................................................10 8 AD 161 Supplemental Assessment Area-wide Biological Mitigation.......................................................16 9a-c Vegetation Communities Impacts...................... .......................................................................................17 1 Oa-c Sensitive Species Impacts.......................... ...................................................... ................. ......................17 11 Increased Conservation on Participating Properties.....................................................__......................_22 LIST OF TABLES On or Follows Number Title Page 1 Covered Species of Concern for the Assessment District 161 Multiple Species Subarea Habitat I ConservationPlan ................................ .................... ....................................... ........... ...... ........ 2 Covered Projects....................................... ........................... ..................... ........ ........... ..... ........ .......2 3 Proposed Conservation..;.................. ..................................................................._q...........................3 4 Summary of Alternatives and Potential Biological Effects....... ............................................................15 5 Habitat Types Impacted Within the Plan Area.......................................................................................17 6 Habitat Impacts/Preservation for Species of Concern............................................................................17 7 Mitigation Measures for Species of Concern.........................................................................................20 8 Sensitive Habitat Impact Summary........................................................................................................23 ' 1.0 PURPOSE AND NEED FOR ACTION 1.1 INTRODUCTION The Permit Applicants (three public agencies [Rancho California Water District (RCWD), the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California [Metropolitan], Murrieta Valley Unified School District (MVLJSD)] and nine individual property owners [Crowne Meadows, Butterfield Development Company, SDI Communities, Pulte Homes, Winchester 700, Obed Properties, Parcel Five, Hill Country and Buie Murrieta]) are seeking authorization for the incidental take of 4 listed species and 17 unlisted species (Table 1) by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS; Service) as part of the overall approvals for the proposed projects in the southwestern portion of Riverside County. The Service is anticipating the County of Riverside application for five projects and has also included the analysis for these projects in this document. We do not anticipate public review under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) for these projects in the future when an application is received. The. proposed projects are located within and in the vicinity of Assessment District (AD) 161, and generally lie east of Interstate 15, west of Lake Skinner and north of Highway 79 South. The covered projects would involve the construction of 5,204 single- family homes, 6 school sites, 8 park sites, multi-family,.commercial and light industrial uses, along with associated infrastructure(Figures 1,2 and 3;Table 2). Table 1 COVERED SPECIES OF CONCERN.FOR THE ASSESSMENT DISTRICT 161 MULTIPLE SPECIES SUBAREA HABITAT CONSERVATION PLAN COMMON NAME SCIENTIFIC NAME STATUS' HABITAT' PRESENCE/ ACRES OF ABSENCE HABITAT IMPACTED California Orcutt grass Orcuttia californica FE, SE VP Not 43 Observed'. Palmer's grapplinghook Harpagonella palmeri CHP,CSS,G Present 1,302 Long-spined spin (flower Chorizanthe polygonoides -US S,CHP,G Present 1,302 var. longispina Riverside fairy shrimp Streptocephalus woottoru FE, SE VP Not d ' 4 Observed Quino cheekerspot Euphydryas editha quina FE G,CSS Present 1,695 butterfly Western spadefoot Spea hammondii R;G,CSS,VP Present 1,230 San Diego homed lizard Phrynosoma coronatum CSS,CHP,G Present 1,302 m tllei Cne Orange-throated whiptail Cnemidophorus CSS,CHP,G Present 1,302 hyperythrus beldingi Coastal California Polioptilo californica FT CSS,CHP Present 748 gnatcatcher californica Burrowing owl Athene cunicularia G Present- 554 Southern California Aimophila ruficeps CSS Present 660 rufous-crowned sparrow canescens Bell's sage sparrow Amphispiza belli belii CSS,CHP Present 748 Grasshopper sparrow Ammodramus savannarum G Present 554 American peregrine falcon Falco peregrinus anatusG, CHP,CSS Present 1,302 +� Cooper's hawk Accipiter coopers G,CHP, CSS Present 1,302 Ferruginous hawk Buteo regalis CHP,CSS Present 1,302 Golden eagle Aquila chrysaetcs G,CHP,CSS Present 1,302 Long-eared owl Asia Otis G,CHP,CSS Present 1,302 Merlin Falco lineatus G,CHP,CSS Present 1,302 Sharp-shinned hawkAccipiterstriatus G,CHP,CSS Present 1,302 White-tailed kite - Elanus leucurus G,CHP,CSS Present 1,302 'FE-Federal endangered;FT-Federal threatened;SE-State endangered;ST-State threatened. 'CSS-Coastal sage scrub,G -Grassland,R-Riparian habitat,CHP-Chaparral,VP-Vernal pool. 'Watershed for Skunk Hollow is included within the plan area. Environmental AssessmentforAD161SHCP/July 21,2000 1 Table 2 COVERED PROJECTS t I PROJECT NAME TOTAL ACREAGE PROJECT DESCRIPTION ACREAGE TO BE DEVELOPED SDI Communities 80 80 220 s ngle-fam ly units, I park site Crowne Hill 335 335 805 single-family units, 1 school site, and 2 park sites , Roripaugh Ranch 839 563 1,310 single-family units, 315 apartments, 2 school sites, and 3 park sites SilverHawk 481 335 364 single-family units, 192 acres light ' industry,and 1 park site Costa-Pulte 65 65 185 single-family units Murrieta Springs 220 220 876 single-family units, 11 acres of ' commercial development, and 1 school site Parcel 5 43 39 162 single-family units Rancho Miramosa 157 140 523 single-family units, 1 school site, and 1 ' I park site Lincoln Ranch 235 175 459 single-family units, and 27 acres of commemial/multi-family residential ' 1 development 1 Buie 127 101 300 single-family units SUBTOTAL 2,582 2,053 5,204 single-family units,5 school sites; ' I 8 park sites,'multi-family,'commercial and light industrial development EM-20 Turnout and 53 53 Up to 9-foot diameter pipeline from Lake ' Transmission Main/ Skinner along Butterfield Stage Road Pipeline No. 3 Bypass alignment and Nicolas Road Nicholas Reservoir 32 12 7-mg storage tank,pipeline&access road ' I Pipeline No. 6 53 53 Up to 10-foot diameter pipeline within Buck and Anza Road alignments in Johnson Ranch and UC Riverside ' Vista Murrieta 179 87 High school classrooms,athletic fields and I High School parking, access roads Butterfield Stage Road 83 83 110-foot wide arterial roadway from ' Nighthawk Road to Anza Road and Rancho I California Road to Washington Street;widen existing road from Washington Street to Winchester Road ' Hench Valley Airport 86 86 Extend existing runway by 1,600 feet; 1 Runway Extension relocate Borel Road 1 Newport Road 20 20 Widen 2-lane to 4-lane roadway.between Menifee Road and Briggs Road f Southwest Justice Center 12 12 24 courtrooms, 200 bed juvenile detention I EXpansn - center and parking structure Winchesioter Road 36 36 Widening 2-lane to 4-lane roadway from ' Hunter Road to Benton Road TOTAL 4,070 2,495 I Environmental Assessmentfor AD 161 SHCP/July 21,2000 2 tI b8 00 58�•J-�i . 40� Loi Angeles County 1 +4 Lancaster Palmdale 76 r ` 5 tSanta C arita a� Thousand y Oaks Pasadena SAN BERNARDINO 70 San Bernardino County �JI RIVERSID Iva LOS ANGELES o ge,o + ' ,a 1 --14 Corona Project Site 0 5 Mulrrieta, Indio__ Temecula i ft�� Riverside . , San Clemente / San Diego County \ \ Borrego Springs Oceanside 5 '78 16 Escondido N 5 � . SAN DIEGO �-- u.s. Borde�••�—+• M.,100, NOT TO SCALE Regional Location Map I ASSESSMENT DISTRICT 161 EA Figure 1 n�a c._ ISO m�L �s. r. ..�-� � -d'aMr$$ ��"��,�sp v���I • �r� �iI • . r�i.� err rt���p 4: [[ls3 �R� s� �L-�"I �u ��-117 I I • ILI Man"I MER 6 MI < .� „ MENNA� LL MUM',. SOMMIMy li l.. � ; ",FEr' �_ �b. � fir«'' J."GYIkY•- .. r� _ •, ;E1� r Kiri !f� . A �� +F WE 7�I=-, Vwp, ��1 r �� pp ��� �� Y ♦�n�� T 3 `ice■ ,/�9 . j���� r �� ��� � ' � � , r . !'�'..!Ar. �' ►�`�i� � ` `a$���° tis'.- �'�'_. '�,.. ^ra� ��.,r�%:: - �,. GV i RANCHO MIRAMOSA MITIGATION SITES Clinton Keirli Rnad __1... ---- _ — _ --�- BUIE MURRIETA ' LEGEND f ® - SPRINGS/ — AD 161 Boundary LINCOLN VISTA I ® ButterfieldSrageRoad SOUTHWESTERN _ Winchesler Road I RANCH, MURRIETA �� Improvement 1 RIVERSIDE COUNTY � Participating Owners tmprovement HIGH SCHOOL I MULTI SPECIES RESERVE .,._..._ ® uthwesl Jn51/en JOHNSON/ 5 sa i - / cerate Expa ,qCV, Other Conserved Properties LIGATION O; SITE / RCWD/Metropolitan Projects RANCHO MIRAMOSA —0 ^ / French Valley Airport / - Extension �- � e� �^ � l', County Road Improvement Projects r ,•ziedm _. ..... _�. __ ! ,• Pipeline No.6 V v r JOHNSON � ® Other County Projects RANCH !t' /• NAP MITIGATION ` PARCEL5 O -� SILVERHAWK Nicolea 1 SITE L �� i ReservalC . i COSTA/ '-_ PULTE a v COSTA/ r t�RORIPAUGH \\`��.� . PULTE =4-`;/ RANCH UC -- RIVERSIDEr RORIPAUGH� - '_ J RANCH \\\\\\ SDI --a COMMUNITIES { - � f \` ' u \ _ . 2urho G• Y CROWNE HILL y Y — – y .® 0 300®0' —_ KIShauv 79 gauJi F Boundaries of Ali 161 and Participating Properties ASSESSMENT DISTRICT 161 EA it E I A Figure 3 Table 3 PROPOSED CONSERVATION PROJECT NAME TOTAL ACREAGE PROJECT DESCRIPTION Johnson Ranch 674 Conservation Parcel UC Riverside 180 Conservation easement for coastal sage scrub and gnatcatcher values SilverHawk 146 On-site conservation Rancho Miramosa 80 Mitigation associated with Rancho Miramosa project Lincoln Ranch 60 On-site conservation Roripaugh Ranch 201 On-site conservation Rancho Miramosa 5 1 On-site conservation Vista Murrieta High School 92 On-site conservation Total 1,438 The Permit Applicants seek incidental take permits (ITP) from the Service pursuant to section 10(a)(1)(B) of the Federal Endangered Species Act (Act) for the species of concern. In accordance with the Act section 10(a)(2)(A), Federal Regulations [50 CFR 17.22(b)(1), 17.32(b)(1), and 222.22], the Permit Applicants have prepared a Subregional Habitat Conservation Plan (SHCP) and Implementation Agreement (IA) as part of the permit application package for the covered projects. The SHCP proposes measures to avoid, minimize, mitigate and monitor adverse effects on the covered species and their habitats. This environmental assessment has been prepared in compliance with NEPA to describe the potential environmental effects of the Service's proposed action to approve implementation of the SHCP,issue the ITP,and sign the IA. 1.2 PROPOSED ACTION The proposed action by the Service is to issue ITP for 21 species that will be affected by the loss and modification of 659 acres of coastal sage scrub, 554 acres of grassland, 89 acres of chaparral, 7 acres of coast live oak woodland, 2 acres of undifferentiated riparian, 4 acres of southern willow scrub, 1 acre of mulefat scrub, and 3 acres of streambed habitats. The mitigation for the impacts would preserve large, key areas of habitat,and has been designed to form an essential preserve for these species. The reserve design is also intended to conserve,part of a key habitat linkage between the Southwestern Riverside County Multi-Species Reserve and the Lake Matthews Core Reserve. Section 9 of the Act of 1973, as amended, prohibits the "take" of Federally listed species of wildlife unless authorized under the provisions of section 7, section 10(a), or section 4(d) of the Act. Section 3 of the Act defines take as "to harass, harm, pursue, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect, or to attempt to engage in any such conduct." Section 10(a)(1)(B) defines "incidental take" as take that is "incidental to, and not the purpose of, the carrying out of an otherwise lawful activity." Federal regulations define the terms "harass" and"harm" as follows. Harassment means "an intentional or negligent act or omission which creates the likelihood of injury to wildlife by annoying it to such an extent as to significantly disrupt normal behavioral patterns which include,but are not limited to, breeding, feeding or sheltering." Harm means "an act which actually kills or injures wildlife" and"may include significant habitat modification or degradation where it actually kills or injures wildlife by significantly impairing essential behavioral patterns, including breeding, feeding, or sheltering." A section 10(a)(1)(B) Permit authorizes . the incidental taking of wildlife otherwise prohibited by section 9. 1.3 PURPOSE AND NEED The purpose of the proposed action is to (1) authorize incidental take of the listed species in connection with the proposed projects, conditioned on implemehtation of the measures of the SHCP, (2) provide the Permit Applicants with assurances that implementation of the SHCP will satisfy the Permit Applicants' requirements under the Act in the event that other covered species on the property become Federally listed, and (3) ensure long-term survival of species while allowing the applicant to conduct otherwise lawful activities. The need to which the Service is responding is an application for incidental take permits. �� Environmental Assessment for AD 161 SHCP/July 21, 2000 3 RIN "VISTA MURRIETA - ... - .' HIGH SCHOOL Croon Keirk Rnad a' r .. : - - _ _ . -- �,L�L :se:r.:'aT`�'�:_ :��1✓r y..w __ � ,> i s , -, - BUIEr RANCHO MIRAMOSA .'MUR RIETA , -- _ _. - ejT ,i" -'t 1.,•.�� �az:��i. MITIGATION SITES SPRINGS .. .. �.3::.,�, "— • LINCOLN w r 7 �'.... . MIT 5 RAN f ;..,.` .r I Auld RoadIft v3 r�ti.r 3 i `: ir RANCHO :BELLAVISTA. JOHNSONRANCH MITIGATON RANCHO MIRAMOSA i..x. SITE l <� ✓� t \ .. SILVERy { ` - { ,�; `r 3 _ NAP - JOHNSON Fb 2(r RANCH MITIGATION . SITE PARCELS t OTHER ucR v - ` ' MAN GED PRO ERTY to a a KIIII RIVERSIDE r > > ULT; O COSTA/PUL m�RaaNO J R RANCH Y c"`" . r: .. . .. ' „a JAM LEGEND ff R s> eL"�L .. w.`9T m COMMUNITIES .", -1 _ . �� s.-� CROWNE g \ SHCP Conservation Area _ HILL i Adjacent Conservation Area2. + J Southwestern Riverside County Multi-Species Reserve �/ a �ry - M ` Project Open Space KEY MAPDE AWNE HILL Development Areas S /' Adjacent Ownership 5 CROWNE -,� • - � HILLCROWNE HILL INSET DETAIL Proposed Land Uses (Developed vs. Open Space) ASSESSMENT DISTRICT 161 EA E l ( X Figure 4 Lake Perris I i Area = ,. Lake Mathews - rea _} 1 Iv I _ �aL77CQ{7L7 74—'---- < \ 6 Reservoir L ;I Lake ltpR Preserve , Santa R05a Plateau AD 161 PLAN AREA ow v i W � 6 $ . H E L I " ® I 1.25�5 5 miles Conceptual Open Space Linkages nr � ® ASSESSMENT DISTRICT 161 EA Figure 5 `� .,) \.7 ..y., � <..^ , r i !\�\�, r /"/''0 5"/�p•1{--"�S"a C:..�< �r'14J!,n7 � fp , fv /,._ r;:�7 �. �, <���ry� \ • '- ,raj � tf^ �`3' vs � ( `\,���.�vf � J /4 < < � _. `cl JiY > \ a. 'C\ ,f+ ,J\'/i tib^+ �i:�.' ! o '\} '�4,.-,il\\^✓ � ow `, {. J / /\` J\\ / )� '� 1 ,fi\n l • / W, �,!'��IlP ll` :J'/T`✓,.�." H l F /`�, /) ^\ <(i -i f <.'• / ✓.] ` i ��' r� Y. (.y °. .! ' 1 ` � _V, US A( InA ; . ./l , r( \ , \\?✓/'Si �, ,/<,I d} ( v v�Jr tm Vf / (7 $" `' ^ ( 111,,tf tr j 1 t ,,Yh .f l ,\\,N�4rJ11: \J ::�- �, �;t,- ,J , )� ,, r / \ , 0. ,"r.T �, f :, SSI L.../ ir '\ / J1 '" ��l Z .� - 1 �� �: ) 1 _.: �/ r � /J y_{ � �1j5 �) , � 11 i � i )� Cf ( r�i✓ ,-•l Q N' � j�y � r. � l 1/� �f \ ,`�. tC i � / ivy, �IJt\1 , 1; / 1,i'� r L._,.� _C J I S l(/ t •., , n, J/ i g'E� � r^'2 ' )/•/n'f' L(t� J/ 1 \: 0 <L r Q ✓. J a { 4 { Ir ,� (( f ZU , C/ / �i � i t $r r/ �< (R (, o,�.b)t ,(„S.✓/l/Il lO1,}i)!•,i�/l'1 \_,J l` r.., r J .. a't<F :;1'1�• r( 3 n ,.�;°::a1! t ri(n }. � \ N/✓ _Fj\ <ay�) (',V '.'7 to'G/ ')y`;J ;i I�/ 1Z \ \ l \} � ' �✓ �i' C �F<(rlf�i: 1 , fill \ 11\ d, Ci^,''� C :Wlut§ '•/ � Hs�i � / r( n , \ J�p �\�\ t. . �`-l.�l�f(��I1S)! )'. ,.,\. / /,� 4Oi /`f / : f�)i<�! I` ) °=i. . `� C ))°,\r • a ( \ 111/ ' ( ' �� /'�( 4r/j � ��J \\rirl �n /,if ,1\/. �j/ a. t ', �.//�, -1� �(Yai�( 2 . \ll 4)/ - / � .� �;�`'�W ;/I I•� ,`�1 }`•`/ %����/^' � . c /�j f/.. �.,jam.. �'\,� � f �� ''1i\ \ z ,-t�\+ �`,` ! � ' 1/S_��iwri(Y J�/ \ �\. ( 'tel Jj/,.. °- �(clf:✓ r "/ .-.. - F '<< �5r1\ 'a1 ` \' / �; � : Sn7)`CS. `ljflb ; : r�.r-/ rl<�/i'a � t .ai ,. , / _'• .14t. .a - `• ti"::_. 1 .f'� /to ti':�° I //s A/ ;, < er. -.: ., � ..^� t+(li Y,Ji.- /��(, -• oQ {; �\� 2�'I )..s \J� \JCi " ?I r , (� - \ , �v,�< \�,`.) � ,. rIV �t cc _ r ` ,a��t..j -, ! rr~�• \/a......=': .....__ i m E ,+.x; i` S5r1 !1, rls,� 1 \l\�%/ ~ }i fr \\ � n O�a :••0 bS�Y�i > cc xtrz � IL � O.. V •t!'�,\ ✓/ ,.af / �1 ' \�)S rn o c 2,� / �i=\ 'ti f ,J r-/i• J ,) 71\ ��. +: 1 r�P)^f-�� \ t r `�`-�- nr1. \\_ 1` )Pa\ \I N O ,•= / / rt:.� \\ \ f(/tet\ I fi h� I �. l.i 1 1 \' e\ , ) � i `1 �) �J G.ir'Jj �'%� \ \\>4✓ � l ���f.\\l'i� \\�� � Y'Jt \� r m -, �� / t L7, �� � '\ \"; /u � J'tj' 0� , `�-�"v , f�ri•'1( ��\, r 1. 4 ` c ! rlt .,\ r♦ rI \ ! \' �1 �a ' (l`..ti ��.f`i� /Y tr\((\` r ,\.0 - s= 'a+c- a•S�'^ ........ if C,1 \'foY,1 ..>\-•- % \! ��) . i E > flc 1. C fi r -' Sy \ w rI/,iC.,�..N 1 ` w :"y� •n,.\- / / . / S t: � (� S5_14F^ r�� T;�.. lJ /,a�'�'^2, � r m,��„ I. I}'_ u _ lC�<!` „a '_ '•��`rv' i�-,�, ���.I tr i \ ��77 P�"�..%t. .�.. �, ', 41\ n,�.,..i/`• arm s �.. ms's � ..�. r iii �) ) �rr�` a t+"�a � '�{ E r�"f!i r(�`'y.6 �•� �.r• 1 1 77 V�^;i���"`�i. 1 �>> /.,\ •�(. r. \L. u. I / � S C\,•,Si,l� ..'�f 1.., r) c_� � B�IJ � ^Y•__�11�1 /''S/�- J < �n ) ljl"/ + ,rr , � ,1���1'f ), t1��1��1'ir. � { ', \ t. /, UA o:,i \,1.11 „ � i.S`'..". .z::.::•"{r r6, V> y\� © q? ._,f,4'' Wtiii" a Y?ti ^ ' ,:. ���.11 y S .� 6Gr(bti'f8i �\,//_,(lN ;c.(�� e N §v'',��'',: U��i':J /:}�l �., tt�:1 •,i ;;ry�r % IIS.,N/ u�/ :d t max' r • y� 1�q , lJ• t/JL ) , ) t C\ /t` 7 c� V r\ g:, a �) i,./ ` ) \1��� stili` ':/Ii{; �f c; n^. - � /1L<�i.�,l.. f1.. •^1 In �`.%' is a ,,'� \ `�� �3`:;\ c,E��✓.� I ) t SEe + mo' O 0 o - u c \,J1.J�y�Y_�ry t r..f((1�I ?_` • O z' N °o 3' E m d O $ rs n v y m No o n wo ¢rn ❑ v0o U) o .a' C7 vi s i m m o 3 '^ u a 3 �J.,,,,t../ptn Yn , Y m 0H aR,\ti /�+ ✓'S\�,� �.-°ptyy •-raj _. _. '1 1'rr r � ^•.�}\�rc)�t�v'\�(. 1t�JJ�: p 71 iit., +'L. �"�'''?((�1��)/�t�ll��� _��)luv�1JJ� rv��;,._yr� �;; D.':. to,� ,,,:_I 1�\\�!2•, i3'�q rJG n^..,,���1 i\�. , mdwmwmwwmwmwwmwmdwmwmw aw- ow =WNW ow MW Ew ow OF or 1 1 .'✓' '" 7� i j . 1 .•v 1_:,r�'I "--�-/I/ � -' - ..e.+:."s:.�(i9 M"-_ �` �x��✓S�w�' 'Y•}�y �v. t• �� _ _; �' 1` ._• ._•... k \. ,,•,1"- • - • '���; y'� .Pry-w &" �l �„i;'� dy1.g i F a i 1 ,t ,• . - 9+'tId�r t t V L- itY�z•-�� 9( .J` } 7 fr �Jr'1 1 .?.I/i{ ! ...:!Sr�`� 1 i�I,�.�v �a��1 i 4..'Ir 1 1 r � •N „ 3��P���I.alt' "� �i`}b� �- �,.. S , u+�"��.",���'� .sii,�''•`5:_` i "��� �'- ��I.... '. _ 1 1 •a�`I::=; •: #YIti, � v -✓i t..I �'�l :i�' '.'.l, -;� 6•y� yE-r:2- � �'•�;*,�«�.�y /. c+s ✓",i M.. /A�//� t,: C - .�.,I�I� -Al.��` i:.. -..ql ?�.:.x'S^� ..y �t+:.�a aI� .Yt...! f•'"�I�/'I '.'".i`,v li_.%s�'t�`�,i����•Pa i �::t� t4 '��-- ""''�' r:.�. �', a r� t( yiF.�,� _ ✓ .9r ,�'t�� • _ rl�,tiC�;;x:<.�, r y, a!4..,f�'f-. .i.:. i'u� l�n�°B. <�tT a`� :i- ri{?_l�?/r {j '.3�� '� x. II `''`eS>�• Y k' -f��. -w �f�;rya PRv°-'�/ •iL&P4..c+ . �-• 3'" '�`<_ � F�•'�.; .-,3��'Y..�te�'E�.L ri <,c s 7�.: :._:s:.�-v��ei�s�f s . :� �`d.�. ,y E.. - d �`:acn:�. -j- �•�� .'#�a � /H.t._ :/ J+ vy*t -��?.S.^� �e '`'o'ia °3t Tip �%� 1- 1 • I ... I d 'i=J'.•�,2 t N"lA,. :.�jt'/; �I .�-.�.�, ,.: e • ♦ ":k ylaJ/%"a+`.�.�'.�1 ..�. iPr'�-,_.,��$ .w rw •e__ ut,..r..'_,1.i;i�.rf/ �:�t :.I ;_,�r,�",�`i .-..-�� ,. � s <,.:,::.i r < :,.M� (�3•. f•, .t-_ . ��. .,+n4t� '� -, r„i .- -.. u .€ i` ...x.t.-,.,r..aa.. r� ._ :-:^,,...,ir -�. . a• t _ . %;:r/ , s./ a-. �,:. :3�- . t,i,..�.,,-' r ,rt ..,,r-a yy )(;?=•,,;� sx ..s,,..:a.z..,�6w. <� �'`x:Y '�.c'4:r-tdt ' ia.`✓ • a�.�. -�•RI �.w^7�`:1 't7 '.-fr...� d=:�3 T; k _rH7�. s � -�.,! � ..I/.. ..;� .-��.. +�s� ,L. 1. - .:i.. ,e°n xx.. s. �+>` '_!V.: .�e?.�9, - -..1 'Sad./ -ti,. ..- � ::t- w,-. I.�':a YPr�t. yw.•may,,:._. '�x:: ;, z ys "'"�'a -t^�sr d�tti�-t5'ass ..e .Y� s 9 _ .�{ z.,�,„r u.. �`"u���r_'t"a� �Y _ ,{�int .. x.ar 1Lp _y.;.i.4"E :. y v'4 - .,� .`.`�1.-r}•- V1;�tp/ :,� ". .:- ..>, .. � ,_. �... .r. ;r. -ie::+ +. -m`k�3r..+ ..�. . .J..�."�t, ,.., .f...,.. .eeF .. .�•. .�:. .�.�,,._ ,,- * � F�� �•tii ,.��rr�.�:Y" �'�' �Rl; _ .��.�"'•�'.". s=,fir.x 55. : .k.,'N >�.1 :�a`s�t , F r . ..ltf., % 4'E''�.�'* ^�4' ��' ,r 1 /•/s E �-s.. 8**r.,:. v�1•.'4. F;i. F! },aX• �i 3 -' r7a r ����.i..�a”'�� ����..,”�`�',•���$a��]d.c .✓/��.`J,�i�y..yr1 Mp� �r,} •er/»•�''a��+� `L.` �- ��� s ,j' 4".L. y t'm{• r ! +b ♦ ��';� a �t��t ?t 1 • }r �ynS:.D�. ` �5 3 u 4� �,^3��S iy Fr�_ }J�< "a ��"3� M�...�t'y` �a^AZ • / �Itjf�l. 's' S hi ' • • 1 • A+'� � Ktt, ,:1 ^11)K�., Y � s a�+.�� a t't4,. � ,:x/a"'N" ✓ 1�: • � 1 jf'1_"..yy4 'i.� J(a +FT` ,°- Y dH � OA 2.31 30.63 A,w �I��`i{* 1� S Yl,yy ��iln-v ` LL4S.�i.��i �y �z •y. f;'.F 'd� 'fi.�,�v,' s Malr}Y49.2 r : '✓ I t - ® s �'r�P.-Lq CC 4 1 , l1 :T _ - Cl 4 -i • , _v• P1 JD AGR Y ••u R4QLUD VSS ® RA AGF aUD A VIF .Z. �:. y �� i4 it ia� 1 r '1�F�`e?Er 1 �"' 1 � 1 •� ` r ., ' r.;'p(� %`'4tia• � - • • i • • • r t5��3�_ fi ..l �s y 'L/) �• C\G� \J�/ti\JC}'/`'1f�\� J U�+' u"y .�, _ n: . . �h. �f Jo fl vy I(!no ( l(lu�f'�i�Ylh.�l�ri+J.��L�;'�'V���S�'t��f .1t'Q•'ll�. Pa Z3 0 too .,j y\`\ ,,�1 � t`-'l ��-`�8 � ` •��'�i�:�- N N p) N �L N aa�d'•' 3 r '., �. O ---- ski n C=03 �`` i< ' il��t/,C'-,j `rV/_•?\\�,r ) CD fZ CD p O N (D ��. '.X. •Q co =3 O (D 9i 1 CD ^ 7• �' P)' V Y i L ¢r \;'..`-S� i U�tr' o w w CC: `�\ s 1 -,/�~\.,'' fl \ t ----------- — SS , �r\air'14/ J `�y /fz,S ' ta 5/1!I('t\, ✓ O \ �J�(<< V/ \_ ./� 1 1 ?� z)� ^ilr � Is �, f•' ,7�( , P. BVI \./' ,.../ jW` - 'It^�7W�\,�•(t � ..-A- � 'U \\•�`�. �i)C.'(7 !`t_. � =t;-i((,.'7{111CR`,a /• ^> ,�`^\\ r ,�._\ cl �� � r (lU c� Wil/ .1�/lN S' 1 r� � _3'.—'_ >` y.• -S) �- �.J � \., � L��r/(F",�r.,�Y � I _ ._!''v J_;;;'•"-F�6.xY � f� J� 1 l\ '\ - (C-� l-� I ."-:.o T 'V''-__.._.._> \� `T\-'": \°ot \ 1!•C l.. `� `L ' � �� _ > @`�\-a"?�\' r, �r r�`��+; / '': Rq�isr�.(^ � ;�la^-•3�q� � «'�y ( J \ "/J`\-'`f 1`�` p � '. ;-`��"_,><\\a,?�.\ x.1"5. i�l , ���j�:_- �\ �•. �� J ,\1 3�i U �- � r-r, ( � \, j . j_ I / 4r r. .,i,:• \ as °'v. .N T ? 4 F^:_.- .\��l �.LW r:�. ,a a :kf- F '7' f t� a-`S''1._ �X� qk i r ` )`I S \ ` � \r'� 1 � fv -x.,�\ \ilJ o 'n• i � l r\, r)l c' �I /U\?> \` ^\ �\ \:--.)J i c� /,r: ,/.=�5 ( (t tj ^'� �% �•.,:- \I r i \ '\r / \J l'� f t•h� ( N. UI� �(( ^' ✓ c-� `� �it{�:V \I� 2�n �o'�/ �, i �S.I C\'_,t)� N\A`�1�J1 � \\) �\.1 i(�` J:�j G.�/�."r`_y�.^=a'C�' � �1 � -� �.�- •� _ 4 1� �1 r �5Q� A� r7 \5 F c �. Nf�� ; <� s �? l ��. � c ,, .. F'- -�--?�, .41 jf�.d \ l n� :• 4 1N ( 1..' ,1 � 4� <1:��� .��� „i�, • ) /CA' r / J L� ISM �G, ,\ \}\`� i\li rJ 1 \ N, 2� � �a 3 j o / `i /. r✓ ��� \ � a tS [C f)r,ItlY( J if �r'w Zf is /��/�4\Clll`''� r CJ1, <a,i�'u,,,@@@ '\F� ... ...�� Q u�i•c/-_i �'i` - Ate'// ��J ;;q D o �,-) )'w'?)Sw'?J <<, 9 Lr fC ✓' t` f rJ � J t:.!�y .�:\�/ ;�•y y1�(\, i-1 nz (/ � �~ :\ 1 r� .�'�� ..:: Trl C/? 'Sf �( oo�r�\/ S li �> jrl I, 1j trJ CD � �] (p. /!(- - rr` / I.�JIC i�>(S r;'(�77 /)� � ^(\�/\< \ '_r �(�n ) �7�1 \}�� t.`�-,�\L_t�(}`\�• ��"•(_"1 ` /•.. SIS t\��p�� i 40 /,1/ f6� ✓ C7 :\�\\,�,�� /i J f�r f C y1, J L 17 t` " \ .' F � - > /r, �� r�r� •,'(l r G;.4".e\'`lJ j '\1 ' (L] �• r / ti's }� V CD E �r r•r� \; ). ` %yf, isX U;:�% o( tJ`.;/' G-'t7 �'�`t��\-—�T )-f {��t�s -> --w.-�»• i Cr.,,T/l. - vl 'Ilii: 'W ; ?`,f'..\,l` -5 WW's L�1 `� 1jr"1- CL\.`.'• (��` \ ;,..1.:-...__.."1ai' ,.�._"e.`t `+ :.3'w/`�\J, _— \�\ tJ�._ K��' Jr.•J/ l-_-� m _ gyp i C2 o ^l;i �. �_ : .. ..,\/L_• (2 o m o O o o a m Z ._.._ y o Ch Jln t ` `\♦.�."f/,f7 —.-.>�o \(, m' 3 m c o y 2 '. c � w w g �'' m m m F < a Ll ' rs 1♦a. r• J/.:Ji �'• w f oc m o m 1{ l'' S' ,v.;_:�yf` `\ v J i, 2 37 0. 4 a •Y' 'o N ' na -\ w Nb NN 1./N'I`-��.�u I:�� �' '•v ,4 u,. r \ \\+.`�/_�. C � js` � I � � i V. �♦>\t it / ti 1 �a r�� h \�\� � esr R .0'�t,i"r l„af`♦e�\,\L'�`I �5 }�}/`-'rdr'}\i�i�\��/.�., (J::i:\J'�-n�\,i e.°' 4N::\. t,r,"l`//'X�\w���'G•-..\, oadHrNi ti4�i7 /pv, N 79 n) r .i1 ,W��VA a • ,; '�-r�.o���1[_:�l\. �'�a .. \ , �)�f.....l,J', g =�0 c, �� _ --_""""'---'.,,""'rJJJf" ;�Ul'�U�'�I1 ' � � ;,1` " i Sm V,7X1� \ ' j ♦. / ��� 'i L,-,l ? h�`"^� �� i Y •fit �t c << �t� t . \ r" \`` as �\ y\ 0 my ,�Nt1)7` '4,�)1�}'.�( 1. ><(i..��a�'�„',�. .�. (��J�.i.'j�".�♦.,\� �r� j1, . Sys / �� Ji\�� '/ \'�i'--'n� /> rF:�1���/7�;��r e `t.♦_-,_�J�i�` •_ r\ ...._.....,� c - roc), Y Alf 10 JS .i .YP�"hr�d.+ �.� �' a, ,.jr ( _ "/r ,�. \t \� m Jr+ C.,l�I r ♦,..�,, � 1 1 ' / kv: a .♦ '\i)i ♦z t � PH c�".l�'. 3" J �ti �zk \ t</ C \ ( . .1yk'ir, nv c,� 'a sa :.:�� �;;:;�=�-a`: -:.1_ •� � -.-:f'Q: r='1}"+� a • � �/'\ �.i�117 � t i � �-tC�•,' �`� a.\1��'°_a,....F_=__'r�_3�<--�-;_, rt.1 .�1 t J'r%♦�'t 1, I r D ` ? /� t \��• ( 1471 4 �• ! ( 1, J)1 \ -♦ �'i ` au ) I . a�� j+. s �� .:,, '„ (f.� r C t j' �.bb )L r & • ?)f1 �\\��\� \_.^.��:t�j�( t� .. \.. < C r F\\lf ` ', t\ ' r>\ '\`' /r+�,\` ,i �'`}r •L,C r ( 'v , ; �% �)r •"541 <C7 _ Y) n ,\ m _ m yY , y \•-rl�' ;l F'l rl\L C ♦ i Ci ,\ r 1 ., cp t S l._.� -�� ��;C`../�j 7 ':.� ! .�•� J J.. r, . o T., c'1`a. ,�i•._ 1 /";-� :::...rtJ'1 t�.x J.1 \ �\ �'`J I % n •• J J III ? 2Ftt: ;5 rJ tL i 2;i �r: )\ �{ k: / 7� b:�£,. � � O /.._ �/` ��/� C` %_.•"-i..` ^...,:"42> �. J or 7 + I -r m/ C^�f(C I ' !1����/t4 t(��l/�G /� r J I y •4i.� 4D] A'- r1V Z r� _ �"'1 '?aN r � �+.\ —, i /n �>!.�/ /"rayr g_ 1'v)/ t \� .. S � ,� %♦6i O - r` aJ -JJ �/ )�CS t t C� J ` ))I,/'1r1 C{ � \ ♦ '' � `a ° P7 �uR Sia l/ JL. 1 � ' tt 7 rf 5 g ��t�y •a. �. / c• .)`�/,.,lt �I�Y�,.`i;K)d1����i`r!(� � ( � ' '��/ 'v��>a1°� Ii 9 � � �s yI\\, \� /. a °? : " �! ))J�(z,f4�/ V`,�; ( ♦'Y-\i tlt'fV'/,1( yf}/i,�`�/ �,, 1. .l♦ x/10` ^��./ - � �� ' \�}E2 r \ r ''� .. S,g�n } CC._1.t''/j I '� 1= 'r:\` �J r�41 tiy� `•�ti�� �,/ c(F. S / \r� 1" � 31 ♦.`i *+n t7Y /�',m� ~l �r\'�-��i, <r 7Q /I \ l � �: 2 �p ( .7 '✓ L z1 -_> Vii.. J /lf Ja(S7t/���s 1 1 \` �.) )Pl�l hir✓��Zr l t � -ll' r- �"\ 1 '�1 14 � = - /• I. 1, rl j1J�I),/r..' - - I < ( �1\I/.r��/ '-� t , , t ) '-j�� ( J / 1(trlil �. t c r� r 4,. �s:., , F�r•.1. ._ I ✓. / '` l %- f;,1}4('yr/rjn{'r!),/�J�/t"/,hY)).S�r //`. /1L",��:\ \ ?�S',\�(\'✓+�ria- .zG r irf� .,, sc• Ct\T :>='%tZrj1j).J/,WLrl\y" OU��a'b-,( , r ,_a\-. l ){��/!�^.tR(.02: ,I Z0 O^1 11g /✓^f T. \ � i,..l�"// it J i � /` , , �. / .i.. .✓ t /� / !C �\J 1L.. S,l�c f r%c_ ;f�I ( �y�5J7 r���r, K (%` I( (:!� ( 1 �ti . ' �,'l ' \.art 11\ 'P c`:.-/SS<i)� !7 l 'n! �� I c \r Y � � \ I r " �'\/ '), v � /•t>::'1-�?; ,`; �;t';•,fir. << �1,,, � .. �; b r � F(1 t � ' m n 1 �:'� .;� liter✓/nS/%\�J rrV ' t�iC'/tJC �% r �r,! '-.:. \.`\r\,jL(, •, rG' /( 1. 1'\ / ,/ f o U N.�f.1 w tet: t j � s 1 - /,i!-♦ \ l 1u /, tC.- , as 1 S t" !/'�. (O r ` 1 9'/- •..� •n .>}Ill (R», '_°• ( -> nr jJ \ / r" - ) ♦.. /�" i �ckv m ��/lr d ��� t ��•'o /°y.}tl�r/���r GT '\ � / , ,� `' f r. O 1 't\x)1`t - .�.� \ • \ �.-..l-r a ( J (/] \�c ) tJ / T '-j C '\\\'r '�♦1 { f-..-.r. �ahh <\S *`'f KL (Dki � Co Ul a a 1\ �r/}„(ra ,, iS'r-"-..J•_,/.i,.;i t'!` �f`r-`=�7�/..._�1��4�.,} i ` ��.L --- r��_....� �`� ��S��L�cr�f Y�.4� _r6Y _ ,\ ... -�1, a i Vii" ■ l_��� ! i.�I �f''�' r. - ■ ate' �f� 3 '��i+. L-.e'd.-� !e �: i�' - i'�'�� ': 1 t • ': r .. J.:-.! _ � �.ii. t . s'';�r=+i ■ �� /�•3��r �•k'�"'�a� �c-9 "f �5 <�1 '�'''-If�i �.• _"t \ r -'•r�:.- -:- c`g...��1..ei�� ' / ' ''y" ,r "'�a res� ~,�.v' ..v r� �• �i - � t�I// �� . r - _ ��.�. �I�I ,r , - � r - lo- ■ .,�,v�5 3 ACT-� f ! ', I< > ` ��/ ■ ■/`: t -,- ��>��-�a �� ''4� / � -°,riy ; 3�' _ fry, fir, s. ,.:; ��o`���y ... ��-'.. ``1 :.. . -/ :^: ..,� . . ', ='��"_. �a�e'.�r= �.�. ;Y E�• i`��/1� it �-,?���/ .z• :s'l'a r'�,,.y-/• r`> "•� �,�' - "s,�.�"xr .o. - .kl" if(�i?: ■ < I i^�•�...� -r.-].. �_ '.i�sc ; -^.`���;;� aif� "r 6/�I � �%p >".��� . ,.��a, /'{tl.^. ■ - e '.�-. .. it._.... t. ,r.� .1;�:. � �--3 1`F �.s-•-�,t, �jn ✓ .,, /�Yi�-:11 �.< � '., .:tet 1. < ra J� ...-�--"` ! �' "- � ;�.;t'9 Y 1-m- , � /� - ..+/ :;>� _ � � -'n' a.. '-k / Yi--.�3 ,..<r�"' ._'��i� as• :., :�'--.-•ti-.��R;T+„ I i= .. �_:. _�-'... .a -xz*w '�`T.:.:t' a � - 6�.iv= � s ����. ��'�. r _ -a n :.� '�y --%�� ■ �2\ ',,i�6` � r � { ■t ..:� n _-�..3$--w..:':�// ,r]59��.:.."2 y'3vY:: 1 .'l. .iq - l N s.n5� �---.!% • ' � V .. 1 t ■ i-�-a2Y 4 ut �/I `eta+. ti ♦• ! sc.:_ 1�`-' :1:�I 1 >� a � t �sr�`f a-] e;1 s ,.x'�jr3 � :t i"I ,ie-:r` ?�r1.L / �;�/ � � ;:v t..% - is 'sem+ d S t �!� ''/I `�..-r� --a ..,. '�-a f:J� ",;�' [ s,. .. I' 4 -i .t� r-. .�a•a ?. 7 - ,. -t .. .I ems.. s �� .:, -_: _• _.-:_ _•� s .-•�'ir _ '• � � ig 4 u u - �: I a �' C �.. xt..�. �- ,.._-y P♦ fFt: � Y "'.}f. � a -r �... �� S -c d :.Y• %.r,.� E I stn r;l � / _ � i G.=4:�'>.•est.. �. 7 -y � 4ha r-r ro.. i..x: � =}r'�a'1 " R' .s..,,.:- K .IFjj.. �7� :/r.:..;• ?� /.:_ � :., � S. �� � i-�. . - =^'e.��'::�'W_. s+ ��"' V ��..�,_, t ±:j', ti� v�s� ,'h' ..s .s ev a. � ��£r � !� -- ■ /../t� -::■ Y+-: .�� Y° Y s ��� � .Y. ■ i ��i.�£>�'� �s�"y�_�`d.Y.Y���i.`..»�.� MYs 3/�� I_ �./y�,+'.' a`M1{n Y.,m. tt� r,�. .J"¢,.� � "h����si" t �- ■ 1//•1�� 1`���� �-.y r�k ._- ..� " 5'3 r -:sr,� �t "r -i f l �"� it £ i ■ rsToMn Ur ! ;r�i _ ��jf� Y'E- i s:ry"zY i }c a "'.k�✓% l ,P�1�s _ ///� J.�•�•... °a � �E '-.rte x�t 1 a •�J� r� , _ ■ � '� Yui ,�. # �' S� , t ! !t f { ° a t f T s _ ids ■".,, =a G � s..f.,:yY d`9 -_ 'r ]. s la -." ♦ r t < s : � ° 3�.nti ji��J'/ ��ii�art^ k i �.,._,\ 'y-r �t--a ] .! _. ■ . - ]a � 1 ■ F 1 1 • ! • Y_ - ! ti ti :1 S l t 1 • l .. .-`. \iro �.n) \.)r/l1i J/(c�`f\\� J / V �(•..�- y t+ry�{ f iS:v/A � ^'1 v���\:��` � �� 'i� _N If � \ lil ,�` a ',•�...!'.'r" .,l/\ .N-. 10 ° p' lw/1 :03 _3 ® q't;,li �Q} , l D_z'-�8:-•;�\.._�'`��f"��/- y'p •moi cn (0 j 0) N CD `\a„�'k, c_•^J l! ''._"1�- `•\.. /_ w W cn 63 CD ^l t, _ ` ° gg CD ------------ { I Rri_(' tt�ill '�'o ,p� j ('fl /�J/_-,Y•r \ .°. �., ,, � ' t' i r I+ tr".., \ cQ ��' \,�. � � }��� �1��..`�`,�•:.:' � l�c�'�'\r='S• �nchesrel'o aH�'1��: � � �> SCEs lCl� l `, x/ r \ V 1 V/fZZ I Wl/ cn 1 \N�10 t ? __SI \ _�`f1 `�`•..__luuu 1 I / —�F .\__. .. � 1 \ � /r�� l N t �j`• .. l.. �Y_ ..f. ,/r ...�.\"T^-rj—r 1 f ,tC cl;-.11,n. �. ,. !c / i •c:�-�-_ F-'_:� �\". •1� -' 'S"J`c;�-'' 1; r `a2 � ;, �_ : :,, ,� J �• `.. u err .., ���;:; +...: e .\'•{" ,!<�.) I m ��\ � ``C� '1 \1' �y N m• Ate a J' `1j �-.•'.._:..`��yxF+:ru`2:-' ` xi j C,.../�I/ S , \ \l •1 c !. �.- .` � ;\_ � " a.-.'�.�:�=�`_y��'�_a•._ �?i1 � � , • ;!/ �/ '�, _ y:°:!�_-.:�.(. \�._..._�_ __-��".�,�.Y:���•-. -`_ice. __`!.; i�� ;1%r� ��• ��'} / � ( 1�� C� << ` ti� 11 It _..` /91_ \_ �.. p"�t1�4� 'S:.m;°-��\ a•v0\` rr r �o r< ` Vo �il ` .�,7� t � '� �I °;` �` ( `� 1'-\ ` \� ha,.G~iii:: �/•-J /"'\�.. l! % .... �f`t\ 1 t 41 .. VMR., tt ,, 1n J ,,�� C �,C_3?�� ,� t?i�•.\7 `{ rt"y.r.3 S �''� � 1`\\ (,� „\`�\ _ C Lj/ 5 (. IL\ .1.'1. , °a• 7 f \ {' .,,' I Ls� �,Sl.. �`N l°� �✓� /11 � 4,� ~;� V_/ ���:,�r•_ ate•_ l"`, 1'�1 '.� til jf r `t (c / 5/]/l •` ,i c7 � `I ' \ \\"��Ll. �- � ....9Y��: -• �,, l'`'n� 0 1� , t" r el. TAtl �!'�/l (•� r �ti\ \�S y �1: . ( g o �if� , G, \. ld 90 yrr 1 O,' -.���I �l�L ��rtt V f`+l _y,�N' �� �.�;,a'�` � �( � C/` J1 fl•✓, [.:�� y „\::, � J'(J�'��ir,� S �...i�,• l«i \\ \1'.f`!�t?c i�h'�Y�a.> 66:: 1< `r�. °�.,��';: �,�` �rynl �_•' C.,�+/ )11�� S Ir \�\ol\' �1.r..�� �, ( '�• , 11_ .r 1 i /S V-' �N��i N ry� r 1 \ �^_l � 1 ��• Q Z lt, � J� ��y1ttJ/ r/r/'`l(' 'ft�; �',�./'��� cd S <.��f N2 C.:�! , �Cc ' ,5 G /,7/� -°u+•� c e ` ()J SGZ, 1e3.7� /{((r{,(, r t /'` \I'`.na'`'\y�`c,���,t 1 , �i T)} ._,a\ A' `'---% l /�O 4, r-•-J�! j )/,' f�Z (C,f)a(/L,1\(ryU `lv. p `�/�l�_J .a �'1_\�,•�(:� ;�- N 'z ; I� S A ,:.`, C l.._ ` /1 •.t. C., Jf — llj; ;\. { c '/J�'• :x L t /' i5'� v/� �i �"°� mSul acl) % , `'ti I �!/i����S�t �� `� (�1 ( �l ( tmTl CD, �,) ; N y _ tis 1 ! 171 `\\ '=. "'1 J VnPi / /`•. (,� i. Lr�t'\,, `" 7� �•t'...._ih:::p71•: c f (/ f(�,%'}\ n ry. I"l . J �? ...._.�rl�r.�/ i• - n` fv_..� �'' n OQI 9110 } (Y':� 1tJ .+• :� 11 i i;l/., Ra\ \\y � �') , � ., L..,>�G-'t...._ f (C`l��` ,1 I / IMPLEMENTATION AGREEMENT BY AND AMONG UNITED STATES FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE OBED PROPERTIES WINCHESTER 700, LLC PULTE HOMES BUTTERFIELD DEVELOPMENT COMPANY HILL COUNTRY, S.A. LTD. RANCHO CALIFORNIA WATER DISTRICT BUIE MURRIETA, LLC CROWNE MEADOWS, L.P. PARCEL FIVE INC., SDI COMMUNITIES, LLC MURRIETA VALLEY UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT METROPOLITAN WATER DISTRICT OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA CENTER FOR NATURAL LANDS MANAGEMENT FOR THE AD 161 SUBREGIONAL HABITAT CONSERVATION PLAN November 17, 2000 111171 f xcamon Copy 9.DOC I I/17/00 —SAGE COMMUNITY GROUP 270282-0002_ AD 161 (cc 11) DOC. 136 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. DEFINITIONS...................................................................................................................1 2. RECITALS.........................................................................................................................4 3. CONSERVATION STRATEGY......................................................................................6 3.1. General...........................................................................................................................6 3.2. Preserve Acquisition......................................................................................................6 3.2.1. Johnson Ranch...................................................................................................6 3.2.2. UCR Property.....................................................................................................7 3.2.3. Murrieta Springs and Allison Ranch Parcels.....................................................7 3.2.4. Preserve Lands Associated with Individual Development Projects ..................7 3.3. Development Project Impact Avoidance and Minimization Measures .........................7 3.4. Preserve Management...........................:........................................................................8 3.4.1. Preserve Manager...............................................................................................8 3.4.2. Interim Habitat Management.............................................................................8 3.4.3. Ongoing Habitat Management...........................................................................8 3.4.4. Long Term Habitat Management.................... ................ ...............................8 3.4.5. Adaptive Management.......................................................................................9 3.4.6. Monitoring and Reporting 3.5. Changed Circumstances.. ........................................................................................10 3.5.1. General.................................... ............. ..... ............................................10 3.5.2. Fire. . . ................................... ......................................................................1l 3.5.3. Exotic Species..... ................ .....................................................................11 3.5.4. Listing of Species Other Than Covered Species..............................................1 1 3.5.5. Breakage of the EM-20 Waterline Within the Skunk Hollow Watershed.......13 3.6. Notification of Changed and Unforeseen Circumstances........... ................................13 3.7. Completion of Obligations...........................................................................................13 4. FUNDING.........................................................................................................................13 4.1. Preserve Acquisition....................................................................................................13 4.2. Interim Management................................................ ..............................................13 4.3. Ongoing Management Funding .................................... ............................................14 4.4. Funding Assurance for Development Project Avoidance and Minimization Measures Essential to Preserve Management ..............................................................................15 5. TAKE AUTHORITY.......................................................................................................16 5.1. General.........................................................................................................................16 5.2. Development Projects Subject to Existing Section 7 Biological Opinions .................16 5.3. Phased Implementation.............................. ...................... .. .. .. ..........................16 5.3.1. Generally................................. . ......................................................................16 5.3.2. Mitigation Required Prior to Take by Each Permittee ....................................17 -i- 11/17/00 Execution Copy . ITABLE OF CONTENTS 6. SERVICE'S ASSURANCES ..........................................................................................20 6.1. Assurances Regarding HCP.........................................................................................20 6.2. Assurances Regarding Agreement...............................................................................21 6.3. Changes in the Environmental Laws ...........................................................................21 7. SERVICE OBLIGATIONS............................................................................................21 7.1. Issuance of Section 10(a)Permits................................................................................21 7.2. Permit Findings............................................................................................................22 7.3. Take Authorization For Newly Regulated Covered Species; Savings Provision........22 7.4. Critical Habitat Designation For Covered Species.;....................................................23 I 7.5. Migratory Bird Treaty Act...........................................................................................23 7.6. Further Permits.............................................................................................................23 7.7. Future Recovery Plans.................................................................................................23 7.8. No Surprises Assurances and Unforeseen Circumstances...........................................24 ' 7.9. Implementation Assistance..........................................................................................25 8. EFFECTIVE DATE AND TERM..................................................................................25 8.1. Effective Date ..............................................................................................................25 8.2. Addition of the County and the Department................................................................25 8.3. Term of the Agreement................................................................................................26 8.4. Term of the HCP Permits.................................................................. ..........................26 j9. TERMINATION..............................................................................................................26 9.1. Permittee......................................................................................................................26 9.2. Severability ..................................................................................................................27 9.2.1. Generally..................................................................... . ......... ..................27 9.2.2. Severability of Permits.....................................................................................27 ' 9.3. Management in Perpetuity..........................................................:................................27 10. AMENDMENTS TO HCP..............................................................................................27 1,0.1. Amendments to Development Plans............................................................................27 10.2. Minor Amendments..... ............................... ........................................................28 I10.3. Standard Amendments.................................................................................................28 11. DEFAULT AND REMEDIES ........................................................................................29 i 11.1. Notice of Default; Time to Cure.........................------ .... ...................................................29 1 1.2. Suspension and Revocation and Termination..............................................................29 1 11.3. Remedies................................................................................................. . ........... ....29 11.4. No Monetary Damages ..... ......................._............................... ...._.... ..............30 11.5. Injunctive and Temporary Relief.................................................................................30 _ii_ ' I 1/17/00 Execution Copy TABLE OF CONTENTS 12. MISCELLANEOUS ........................................................................................................30 12.1. No Partnership .........................30 12.2. Assignment or Transfer................................................................................................30 12.3. Notices .........................................................................................................................30 12.4. Entire Agreement.......................................... ..............................................................33 12.5. Elected Officials Not To Benefit.................................................................................33 12.6. Availability of Funds ...................................................................................................33 12.7. Duplicate Originals......................................................................................................34 12.8. Third Party Beneficiaries Limitation...........................................................................34 12.9. References to Regulations............................................................................................34 12.10. Applicable Law............................................................................................................34 12.11. Due Authorization........................................................................................................34 12.12. Faxed Signatures.................................................................................................'.........34 12.13. Governing Law............................................................................................................35 12.14. Amendments to the Agreement ...................................................................................35 12.15. Non-Severability; Provisions of this Agreement.........................................................35 12.16. Further Instruments......................................................................................................35 12.17. Conflict With HCP.......................................................................................................35 12.18. Pre-Existing Rights......................................................................................................35 12.19. Attorneys' Fees............................................................................................................36 12.20. Indemnit ........................................................................................36 11/17/00 lixccuuon Copy IMPLEMENTATION AGREEMENT BY AND AMONG UNITED STATES FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE; OBED PROPERTIES; WINCHESTER.700, LLC; PULTE HOMES; BUTTERFIELD DEVELOPMENT COMPANY; HILL COUNTRY, S.A. LTD.; RANCHO CALIFORNIA WATER DISTRICT; BUIE MURRIETA, LLC; CROWNE MEADOWS,L.P., PARCEL FIVE INC.; SDI COMMUNITIES, LLC; MURRIETA VALLEY UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT; METROPOLITAN WATER DISTRICT OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA; CENTER FOR NATURAL LANDS MANAGEMENT REGARDING THE AD 161 SUBREGIONAL HABITAT CONSERVATION PLAN THIS IMPLEMENTATION AGREEMENT ("Agreement') dated as of the Effective Date for identification, is made by and among the UNITED STATES FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE; OBED PROPERTIES; WINCHESTER 700, LLC; PULTE HOMES; BUTTERFIELD DEVELOPMENT COMPANY; HILL COUNTRY, S.A. LTD.; RANCHO CALIFORNIA WATER DISTRICT; BUIE MURRIETA, LLC; CROWNE MEADOWS, L.P., PARCEL FIVE INC., SDI COMMUNITIES, LLC, MURRIETA VALLEY UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT, METROPOLITAN WATER DISTRICT OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA and CENTER FOR NATURAL LANDS MANAGEMENT. All signatories may be referred to collectively as "Parties" arid each individually as a "Party." The Parties, other than the Service and CNLM, may be referred to collectively as the "Permittees." 1. DEFINITIONS The capitalized terms used in this Agreement shall have the meaning ascribed to them in the introductory paragraph of this Agreement or in this Section. All references to figures and tables are to those figures and tables set forth in the HCP. To the extent that the definitions incorporate covenants and agreements, such covenants and agreements shall bind the Parties to this Agreement. Terms used in this Agreement and specifically defined in FESA or in regulations adopted by the Service under FESA have the same meaning as in FESA and those implementing regulations, unless this Agreement expressly provides otherwise. 1.1. "Adaptive Management" means a flexible approach to the long-term management of the fish, wildlife and habitat resources of the Plan Area that is directed over time by the results of ongoing monitoring activities and other information. 1.2. ."CEQA" means the California Environmental Quality Act (Pub. Resources Code §§ 21000 et seq.), and all rules, regulations and guidelines promulgated thereunder, as they may be amended from time to time. 196960 9 C - 11117/00 GXCxccuuon Copy � I1.3. "CESA"means the California Endangered Species Act, as amended (Fish and Game Code § 2050 et seq.). 1.4. "Changed Circumstances"means changes in circumstances affecting the Covered Species or Plan Area that can reasonably be anticipated by the Parties and that can be planned for I (e.g., the listing of new species, or a fire or other natural catastrophic event in areas prone to such events). Changed Circumstances identified with respect to the HCP are addressed in Section 3.5. 1.5. "CNLM" means the Center for Natural Lands Management. ' 1.6. "Covered Activities" means the Development Projects, and all activities of any type or nature conducted by the Participating Landowners or the County to develop, construct, market, sell or cause the use, occupancy or operation of such projects, including site preparation, construction and use of the projects, as well as management of the Preserve. 1.7. "Covered Species" means the species identified on Table 1. ' 1.8. "County" means Riverside County, California. 1.9. "Department" means the California Department of Fish and Game. 1.10. "Development Projects" means the private development and public improvement projects within the Plan Area described in Table 2. 1.11. "Effective Date" means the date on which this Agreement takes effect, as established in Section 8.1. 1.12. "Environmental Laws" means federal laws governing or regulating the impact of development activities on land, water or biological resources as they relate to Covered Species, ' including but not limited to FESA, NEPA, the MBTA, and includes any regulations promulgated pursuant to such laws. 1.13. "FESA" means the Federal Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. §§ 1531 et seq.). ' 1.14. "HCP" means the AD 161 Subregional Habitat Conservation Plan. 1.15. "HCP Permits" means Section I0(a) Permits issued to the Permittees pursuant to ' the HCP and this Agreement. 1.16. "Incidental Take" means Take of an individual or individuals of a Covered Species incidental to an otherwise lawful activity, and includes, but is not limited to Take ' resulting from the modification of habitat of Covered Species. ' 1.17. "MBTA" means the Migratory Bird Treaty Act. I -2- I 196960 9.DOC ' 11/17/00 Execuiion Copy I 1.18. "MBTA Special Purpose Permit' means a permit issued by the Service under 50 CFR § 21.27 authorizing Take under the MBTA of the Covered Species listed as endangered or threatened under FESA in connection with the Covered Activities. 1.19. "MSHCP" means the Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan, currently under development by the County. 1.20. "NEPA" means the National Environmental Policy Act, and all rules, regulations and guidelines promulgated thereunder, as they may be amended from time to time. 1.21. "PAR" means the Property Analysis Record prepared to define the funding necessary for management of the Preserve. 1.22. "Participating Landowners" means the following Parties: • OBED PROPERTIES (Rancho Miramosa) • WINCHESTER 700, LLC • PULTE HOMES • BUTTERFIELD DEVELOPMENT COMPANY • HILL COUNTRY, S.A. LTD. • RANCHO CALIFORNIA WATER DISTRICT • BUIE MURRIETA, LLC • CROWNE MEADOWS, L.P. • PARCEL FIVE INC., • SDI COMMUNITIES, LLC • MURRIETA VALLEY UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT • METROPOLITAN WATER DISTRICT OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA 1.23. "Permittees" means Participating Landowners and, subject to Section 8.2, the County. 1.24. "Plan Area" means the region of the County to be covered by the HCP. The Plan Area is shown on Figure 3. 1.25. "Planning Agreement" means that certain agreement entered into by several of the Parties, dated March 7, 2000 and entitled,PLANNING AGREEMENT BY AND AMONG COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE; OBED PROPERTIES; WINCHESTER 700, LLC; PULTE -3- 196960 9.DOC 11/17/60 Execution Copy ' HOMES; BUTTERFIELD DEVELOPMENT COMPANY; HILL COUNTRY, S.A. LTD.; RANCHO CALIFORNIA WATER DISTRICT; BUIE MURRIETA LLC; CROWNE MEADOWS, L.P., PARCEL FIVE INC., SDI COMMUNITIES,LLC REGARDING THE PREPARATION OF THE AD 161 SUBREGIONAL HABITAT CONSERVATION PLAN, as amended by the First Amendment dated August 1, 2000. 1.26. "Preserve" means a habitat preserve established for the benefit of one or more of the Covered Species, as generally shown on Figure 4. Preserve means"conserved habitat" as that term is used in the Service's Assurances Rule. 1.27. "Preserve Lands" means the parcels of real property or interests therein which make up the Preserve. 1.28. "Preserve Manager"means the entity selected by the Parties to manage the Preserve for the benefit of Covered Species. The Service approves the selection of the Center for Natural Lands Management as the Preserve Manager; the Permittees may select another private entity or public agency to serve as Preserve Manager with the written approval of the Service. 1.29. "RSS"means Riversidian Sage Scrub habitat.. ' 1.30. "Section I0(a) Permit"means a permit issued by the Service pursuant to 16 U.S.C. § 1539(a) authorizing Incidental Take related to the Covered Activities. ' 1.31. "Service" means the United States Fish and Wildlife Service, an agency of the United States Department of Interior. ' 1.32. "Take" means the definition of such term in FESA with regard to any activities subject to FESA, and the definition of such term in MBTA with regard to any activities subject to MBTA. i ' 1.33. "Unforeseen Circumstances" means changes in circumstances affecting Covered 1 Species or the Plan Area that could not reasonably have been anticipated by the Parties at the ' time the HCP was prepared,which result in a substantial and adverse change in the status of a ' Covered Species. ' 2. RECITALS ' 2.1. The Plan Area has been determined to provide, or potentially provide, habitat for ' the following species listed as endangered or threatened under FESA: California Orcutt grass Riverside fairy shrimp Quino checkerspot butterfly coastal California gnatcatcher 196960 9-DOC 11/17/W0 Execution Copy ' 2.2. The Plan Area has also been determined to provide, or potentially provide, habitat for the following species not listed as endangered or threatened under FESA as of the Effective Date: Palmer's grapplinghook long-spined spineflower western spadefoot toad San Diego homed lizard orange-throated whiptail southern California rufous-crowned sparrow Bell's sage sparrow American peregrine falcon Cooper's hawk golden eagle merlin sharp-shinned hawk 2.3. Certain lands within the County have been determined by the Service or the Participating Landowners to be occupied by the Covered Species and/or to be included within the species range for the Covered Species. In order to comprehensively.plan for preservation of habitat values and maintenance of open space in the County, the Participating Landowners and the County, in consultation with the Service and the Department, have agreed to develop the [� HCP to provide for a subregional program to address the impacts of the Covered Activities on 1� Covered Species and to allow for Incidental Take in connection with the Development Projects. The agreement to develop the HCP is set forth in the Planning Agreement. 2.4. As provided in this Agreement, the Participating Landowners are committing to contribute to the acquisition, protection and management of Preserve Lands, and are agreeing to {� contribute to the conservation and management of the Preserve in order to promote the . 1� conservation and management of the Covered Species, The Participating Landowners would not have made such commitments and agreements except in expectation of the issuance of the HCP 1� Permits. 6� 2.5. The purposes of this Agreement are: (a) To ensure implementation of each of the terms of the HCP, which is anticipated to become a subregional element of the County's MSHCP, if an MSHCP is ultimately approved by the Board of Supervisors; (b) To describe remedies and recourse should any Party fail to perform its obligations as set forth in this Agreement; and, (c) To provide assurances to Permittees that as long as the terms of the HCP, Section 10(a) Permits, and this Agreement are properly implemented, no additional mitigation will be required of Permittees, with respect to Covered Species, except as provided for in this agreement or required by law. -5- 196960 9.DOC 11/17/00 Cxeculion Copy 2.6. The County's participation in the Planning Agreement and this Agreement (as contemplated under Section 8.2), and implementation of obligations set forth in these Agreements, substantially advances the open space and natural resource goals set forth in the County's Comprehensive General Plan, and provides a significant step toward development and implementation of the MSHCP. 3. CONSERVATION STRATEGY 3.1. General The HCP and each of its provisions are intended to be, and by this reference are, incorporated herein. The conservation strategy of the HCP generally includes the following ' components: • Preservation of 674 acres of Johnson Ranch. ' • Preservation of 180 acres of UCR property adjacent to Johnson Ranch as part of the Preserve, and management of an additional 175 acres for access control ' and trash removal. • Preservation of the 40 acre Murrieta Springs Parcel and the adjacent 40 acre ' Allison Ranch Parcel as part of the mitigation for development of Rancho Miramosa. • Preservation of 504 acres within the Development Projects. " ' • Impact minimization measures implemented as part of each of the 1 ' Development Projects. e Coordinated adaptive management of the Preserve, including ongoing monitoring. • Funding for the long-term management of the Preserve. ' • Establishment of a research and propagation program at the Murrieta Valley Unified School District site. ' 3.2. Preserve Acquisition I 3.2.1. Johnson Ranch (a) The County has acquired the Johnson Ranch site, funded in part by the contributions of the Participating Landowners as set forth in the Planning Agreement. (b) The County shall record a deed restriction over 550 acres of the Johnson Ranch site, limiting use of the property to conservation purposes, as shown in Exhibit I. ' -6- 196960 9.DOC . 11/17/00 Execution Copy 1 ' APPENDIX H ' Noise 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 i- Giroux 8e Associates Environmental Consultants I 1 ' NO S S E =MPACT ANALY S=S ROR=PAUGH RANCH ' T EMECULA � CAL I F ORN=A Prepared for: ' Keith International, Inc. Attn: Kent Norton 22690 Cactus Avenue, Suite 300 ' Moreno Valley, CA 92553 ' Date: April 19, 1999 ' 17744 Sky Park Circle, Suite 210, Irvine, California 92614 - Phone(949) 851-8609 - Fax (949)851-8612 1 NO=S E S ETT=NG ' Sound is mechanical energy transmitted by pressure waves in a compressible medium such as air. Noise is generally defined as unwanted sound. Sound is characterized by various parameters which ' describe the rate of oscillation of sound waves, the distance between successive troughs or crests, the speed of propagation, and the pressure level or energy content of a given sound wave. In particular, the sound pressure level has become the most common descriptor used to characterize the loudness of an ambient sound level . ' The unit of sound pressure ratioed to the faintest sound detectable by a keen human ear is called a decibel (dB) . Because sound or noise can vary in intensity by over one million times within the ' range of human hearing, a logarithmic loudness scale is used to keep sound intensity numbers at a convenient and manageable level. Since the human ear is not equally sensitive to all sound ' frequencies within the entire spectrum, noise levels at maximum human sensitivity (middle A and its higher harmonics) are factored more heavily into sound descriptions in a process called "A- weighting" written as dB(A) . Time variations in noise exposure are typically expressed in terms of a steady-state energy level equal to the energy content of the ' time varying period (called Leg) , or, alternately, as a statistical description of the sound pressure level that is exceeded over some fraction of a given observation period. Finally, because community ' receptors are more sensitive to unwanted noise intrusion during the evening and at night, State law requires that, for planning purposes, an artificial dB increment be added to quiet time noise levels in a 24-hour noise descriptor called the Community Noise ' Equivalent Level (CNEL) . An interior CNEL of 45 dB(A) is mandated by the State of California ' Noise Insulation Standards (CCR, Title 24, Part 6, Section T25-28) for multiple family dwellings and hotel and motel rooms. A weighted noise exposure of 45 dB CNEL is also the guideline level for single family interiors used in most California jurisdictions. ' Since normal noise attenuation within residential structures with closed windows is about 20-25 dB, an exterior noise exposure of 65 dB CNEL is generally the noise land use compatibility guideline for new residential dwellings in California. Because commercial or industrial uses are not occupied on a 24-hour basis, the exterior noise exposure standard for less sensitive land uses generally is ' somewhat less stringent. In many communities where a quiet environment is considered an important asset that enhances the natural scenic values, a somewhat ' more stringent land use compatibility guideline has often been 1 1 adopted. In the Noise Element of the County of Riverside General Plan, a noise exposure of 60 dB CNEL is shown as most desirable for residential uses, and noise exposures in the range of 60-70 dB CNEL are considered conditionally acceptable for noise-sensitive residential uses after a careful analysis has been completed to insure that all noise impact mitigation has been implemented as ' fully as possible. Figure A shows the recommended State of California noise/land use compatibility guidelines as incorporated into the County Noise Element. The City of Temecula uses the same standards as the County . Figure , A shows that exterior noise levels in excess of 65 dB CNEL are considered unacceptable for residences, schools, churches, health , care facilities and other noise-sensitive uses. Commercial uses are considered to have an acceptable noise exposure of 70 dB CNEL or less. The 65 dB CNEL (sensitive) and 70 dB CNEL ( less , sensitive) standards are the significance criteria applied to the proposed project. Existing noise levels throughout the Roripaugh Ranch area derive , almost exclusively from vehicular sources on the highways and secondary roads in the area. Light aircraft noises constitute an occasional short-term noise intrusion, but their integrated , contribution over a 24-hour CNEL exposure period is small . The area surrounding the project is largely undeveloped and noise levels are thus very low. Short-term noise level measurements were , conducted on January 24 , 1995 at two locations in the project vicinity. A measurement was made near currently completed Silverhawk residences representative of the project panhandle. A second reading was made at the Nicolas Road ranch entrance (future , Butterfield Stage Road intersection) . Noise levels in dB(A) were as follows: Parameter Silverhawk(a' Nicolas Rd �" ' LEQ (avg) 52 .4 41 . 6 ' Lmax 64 . 5 45.5 Lmin 40 .0 39.0 t L10 ( 10% level) 57 .5 43 .5 , L50 ( 500 level) 49.0 41.0 L90 ( 90% level) 41 .0 39.5 , (a) birds, school bus, few cars entering/leaving on Calistoga , (b) birds, one ranch pickup truck in distance 2 ' FIGURE A NOISE/LAND USE COMPATIBILITY STANDARDS COMMUNITY NOISE EXPOSURE LAND USE CATEGORY Le,or CNEL,dBA 55 60 65 70 75 00 RESIDENTIAL LOW DENSITY SINGLE FAMILY, DUPLEX, MOBILE HOMES RESIDENTIAL- MULTI FAMILY TRANSIENT LODGING- MOTELS,HOTELS yy SCHOOLS, LIBRARIES, CHURCHES, HOSPITALS, NURSING HOMES AUDITORIUMS,CONCERT HALLS AMPHITHEATERS SPORTS ARENA, OUTDOOR SPECTATOR SPORTS PLAYGROUNDS, NEIGHBORHOOD PARKS GOLF COURSES, RIDING STABLES,WATER RECREATION, CEMETERIES k OFFICE BUILDINGS BUSINESS COMMERCIAL AND _Z71 M PROFESSIONAL INDUSTRIAL,MANUFACTURING UTILITIES, AGRICULTURE V ........... INTERPRETATION NORMALLY ACCEPTABLE Specified land use In satisfactory,based upon the NORMALLY UNACCEPTABLE assumption that any buildings Involved are of normal conventional construction,without any Now construction or development should generally special noise Insulation requirements. be discouraged.11 now construction or development does proceed,a detailed analysis of[tin"else reduction requirement must be made and needed CONDITIONALLY ACCEPTABLE noise Insulation features Included in the design. Now construction or development should be undertaken only alter a detailed analysis of the noise CLEARLY UNACCEPTABLE reduction requirement le made and needed noise Insulation features are Included In the design. Now construction or development should generally Conventional construction,but with closed windows not be undertaken. and fresh air supply systems or air conditioning will normal"outlice, Source: Office of Noise Control, California Dept. of Hcalth, Feb. 1976. Compared to noise compatibility standards in the 60+ dB range, existing low area noise levels clearly are compatible with planned predominantly residential uses. While low baseline noise levels represent no constraint to proposed project development, scattered semi-rural residential uses along Nicolas Road will experience a ' substantial noise level increase once thousands of cars pass by their homes each day. Low baseline noise levels thus readily accommodate new development without requiring extensive mitigation for new noise-sensitive uses, but with a potentially adverse noise , impact to scattered existing residential development. Although these measurements are over four years old, no major development has occurred near either measurement site to substantially modify the ambient noise environment. Current baseline noise levels were thus presumed to be adequately described ' by the above monitoring data. 1 1 1 4 , 1 NO=S E =MPACT S Two characteristic noise sources are typically identified with land use intensification such as that proposed for the Roripaugh Ranch. ' Construction activities , especially heavy equipment, will create short-term noise increases near the, project site. Such impacts may be important for nearby noise-sensitive receptors such as already ' completed residential uses. Upon completion, project-related traffic will cause an incremental increase in areawide noise levels throughout the northeast Temecula ' area. Traffic noise impacts are generally analyzed both to insure that the project not adversely impact the acoustic environment of the surrounding community, as well as to insure that the project ' site is not exposed to an unacceptable level of noise resulting from the ambient noise environment acting on the project. ' Construction Noise Impacts Temporary construction noise impacts vary markedly because the ' noise strength of construction equipment ranges widely as a function of the equipment used and its activity level. Short-term construction noise impacts tend to occur in discrete phases dominated initially by earth-moving sources, then by foundation and parking area construction, and finally for finish construction. Figure B shows the typical range of construction activity noise generation as a function of equipment used in various building ' phases. The earth-moving sources are seen to be the noisiest with equipment noise ranging up to about 90 dB(A) at 50 feet from the source. Measurements have shown, however, that the noise emission levels in Figure B tend to be more associated with periodic events under full load rather than chronic (hourly or longer) noise exposure. Short term noise generation thus tends to be on the higher end of the ranges shown in Figure B, while longer term exposure is at the quieter end of the noise spectrum. ' Spherically radiating point sources of noise emissions are atmospherically attenuated by a factor of 6 dB per doubling of ' distance, or about 20 dB in 500' of propagation. The loudest earth-moving noise sources will therefore sometimes be temporarily detectable above the local background beyond 1 , 000' from any ' individual construction area. An extensive noise -impact envelope requires a clear line of sight from source to receiver. Within the complex topography of the project site, sight lines are often limited. Construction noise impacts are therefore, somewhat less ' than that predicted under theoretical maximum input conditions. ' 5 1 1 F=GTJ12E ]a TYP=CAL CONSTRUCT=ON EQL7YPMENT I NO= SE GENERATION LEVELS 1 NOISE LEVEL (dBA) AT 50 FT 70 80 90 100 Compactcrs (Rollers) Front Loaders MEMMEMOMMIN Woman 1 o IIackltocs .. Tractors o Scrapers, Graders 0 w Pavers Man e Trucks I Concrete Mixers a Concrete Pumps ' 'g Cranes(Movable) W m Cranes(Derrick) 3 0 a 0 Pumps am u �y Generators ' 0 pj N Compressors h Pneumatic Wrenches o a y, g Jack Hammers and Rock Drills a. Pile Drivers(Peaks) I w Vibrator n Saws Source: LPA PB 206717, Environmental Protection Agency,Dec.71, 1971,"Noise from Construction Equipment &Operations" i 1 Construction noise sources are not strictly relatable to a noise ' standard because they occur only during selected times and the source strength varies sharply with time. The penalty associated with noise disturbance during quiet hours and the nuisance factor ' accompanying such disturbance usually leads to time limits on grading activities imposed as conditions on grading permits. The hours from 7 a.m. to 7 p.m. on weekdays are the times normally ' allowed for construction activities except ,in an emergency. These time limits are set as conditions on the project grading permits. Project-Related Vehicular Noise Impacts Long term noise concerns from the increased urbanization of the ' project site center primarily on mobile source emissions on Temecula/Murrieta area roadways. These concerns were addressed using the California specific vehicle noise curves (CALVENO) in the ' federal roadway noise model (the FHWA Highway Traffic Noise Prediction Model , FHWA-RD-77-108) . The model calculates the Leg noise level for a particular reference set of input conditions, and then makes a series of adjustments for site-specific traffic volumes, distances , speeds, or noise barriers. Table 1 summarizes the 24-hour CNEL level at 100' from the roadway edge along 59 area roads for existing, opening year without and with the project and ' for post-2015 buildout conditions without and with the project. For an acoustically "soft" site assumption ( landscaping, vegetated - surfaces, slight terrain irregularity, etc. ) , noise levels drop off ' at a rate of 4 .5 dB per doubling of distance. Table 2 shows the calculated distance of the 65 dB CNEL contour from the roadway centerline using this drop-off assumption. The distances in Table 2 are the setbacks that would be needed to achieve an acceptable (65 dB CNEL) exposure for noise-sensitive land uses if walls or other barriers were not used to accelerate the noise drop-off rate. ' In areas where intervening structures or other barriers are or will be situated, the theoretical maximum distances of the 65 dB CNEL contour shown ,in Table 2 are likely overestimates. Calculated distances of up to 300 feet for the 65 dB CNEL contour distance will probably not be observed along area roadways because intervening development will shorten the distance of potential ' excessive noise exposure. Such predicted levels, however, should not be surprising in that predicted future traffic volumes of over 75,000 vehicles per day on area arterial roadways clearly will have significant noise implications relative to being able to site ' noise-sensitive land uses in proximity to such roadways. The high future traffic noise environment in the project vicinity ' is almost exclusively due to cumulative growth. Table 3 compares the noise level changes attributable to area buildout without 7 TABLE 1 , TRAFFIC NOISE IMPACT ANALYSIS (CNEL (Mtk)) at 100 feet from roadway centerline) opening Opening Year Year Post-2015 Post-2015 ' Existing w/o Pro'. w Pro'. W/o Pro'. w Pro'. Murrieta Hot Springs Road: , W of I-215 65.5 66.1 66.2 71.6 71.7 1-215 - Via Princesa (W) 67.5 68.1 68.2 71.6 71.8 Via Princesa (W) - Margarita 65.2 65.8 65.9 69.7 70.1 ' Margarita - Via Princesa (E) 65.2 65.8 65.9 69.3 69.7 ' Via Princesa (E) - Winchester Road 62.5 63.1 63.5 68.6 69:2 E of Winchester 57.4 58.1 58.2 69.4 70.0 ' W of Leon (N) ---- ---- ---- 67.4 68.4 Leon (N) - Leon (S)' ---- ---- ---- 68.2 68.6 , Leon (S) - Pourroy ---- ---- ---- 67.1 68.6 Pourroy - Butterfield Stage ---- ---- ---- 66.8 68.5 ' Nicolas Road: r E of Winchester 63.2 63.8 64.5 67.6 68.1 W of Leon 60.8 61.4 ---- 65.8 66.7 ' Leon - C. Girasol ---- ---- ---- 65.1 66.1 , C. Girasol - Butterfield Stage ---- ---- ---- 63.4 64.7 La Serena Way: , E of Margarita 61.9 62.5 62.5 64.1 64.5 Walcott - Butterfield Stage 61.2 61.8 61.8 62.2 63.0 ' E of Butterfield Stage --- ---- ---- 59.0 59.0 ' Table 1 Page Two ' Opening Opening Year Year Post-2015 Post-2015 Existi w/o Pro'. w Pro'. w/o Pro . w Pro'. ' Rancho California Road: SW of I-215 68.8 69.4 69.4 69.5 69.6 ' I-215 - Ynez 70.4 71.0 71.0 71.5 71.6 HE of Ynez 68.8 69.3 69.4 69.3 69.5 ' W of Margarita 67.0 67.6 67.7 68.7 68.9 Margarita - Meadows 66.2 66.8 66.8 67.6 67.9 Meadows - Butterfield Stage 63.7 64.3 64.5 63.9 64.7 Butterfield Stage - La Serena 61.9 62.5 62.5 63.9 64.0 La Serena - C. Contento 61.7 62.3 62.3 62.2 62.3 ' NE of C. Contento 61.3 61.9 61.9 62.1 62.3 Winchester Road: SW of Jefferson 67.4 68.0 68.0 67.4 67.7 Jefferson - I-215 68.9 67.8 69.4 70.6 70.7 ' I-215 - Ynez 69.1 69.7 69.8 71.7 71.8 Ynez - Margarita 67.1 ---- 67.8 71.2 71.4 Margarita - Nicolas 66.0 66.5 66.7 71.9 72.2 Nicolas - Murrieta Hot Springs 65.3 65.9 66.2 71.7 71.7 N of Murrieta Hot Springs 65.3 65.9 65.9 70.1 70.2 ' Ynez Road: N of Winchester 63.6 64.1 64.2 69.4 69.4 ' S of Winchester 67.9 68.4 68.4 70.6 70.7 N of Rancho California 67.8 68.4 68.4 70.6 70.0 ' S of Rancho California 66.2 66.7 66.7 69.9 69.9 1 Table 1 Page Three opening Opening Year Year Post-2015 Post-2015 Hxistina w/o Pro'. w Pro . w/o Prof. w Pro'. Margarita Road: ' S of Murrieta Hot Springs 63.0 63.6 63.6 65.1 65.2 N of Winchester 63.4 63.9 64.0 66.5 66.6 , S of Winchester 64.2 ---- 64.8 69.2 69.2 W of La Serena 64.3 64.9 64.9 67.9 68.1 La Serena - Rancho California 65.6 66.2 66.2 66.8 66.8 S of Rancho California 66.2 66.7 66.7 66.8 66.8 Leon Road: , N of Murrieta Hot Springs ---- ---- ---- 59.0 60.6 S of Murrieta Hot Springs ---- - - ---- 60.8 60.9 ' Calle Girasol: S of Nicolas ---- ---- ---- 60.8 61.3 , Pourroy Road: N of Murrieta Hot Springs ---- ---- ---- 63.1 64.1 Calle Chapos: ' W of Butterfield Stage ---- ---- ---- 59.2 59.8 Walcott Lane: 1 N of La Serena ---- ---- ---- 60.4 60.4 Meadows Parkway: , N of Rancho California 53.7 54.1 54.1 59.3 59.3 S of Rancho California 58.7 59.3 59.3 65.3 65.4 ' Butterfield Stage Road: N of Murrieta Hot Springs ---- ---- ---- 68.4 68.9 ' Murrieta Hot Springs - Nicolas ---- ---- ---- 68.9 70.1 Nicolas - C. Chapos ---- ---- 55.6 68.1 69.1 , C. Chapos - La Serena ---- ---- ---- 68.3 69.1 La Serena - Rancho California 46.3 46.3 53.3 67.5 68.3 1 S of Rancho California 57.4 58.1 58.2 67.2 67.7 ' 1 Table 1 Page Four ' opening opening Year Year Post-2015 Post-2015 Rxistin w/o Pro . w Pro'. w/o Pro'. w Pro'. ' Calle Contento: N of Rancho California 46.3 46.3 46.3 55.1 55.1 S of Rancho California 51.8 52.3 52.3 57.4 57.4 1 Source: FHWA-RD-77-108 (Calveno Mod.) TABLE 2 TRAFFIC NOISE IMPACT ANALYSIS , (Distance to the 65 dB(A) CNEL Contour from Centerline) 1 Opening opening , Year Year Post-2015 Post-2015 Existi w/o Pro'. w Pro'. w/o Pro'. w Pro'. , Murrieta Hot Springs Road: W of I-215 110' 120' 120' 275' 280' I-215 - Via Princesa (W) 145' 160' 165' 275' 285' 1 Via Princesa (W) - Margarita 105' 115' 115' 205' 220' ' Margarita - Via Princesa (E) 105' 115' 115' 195' 205' Via Princesa (E) - Winchester Road 70' 75' 80' 175' 190' ' E of Winchester <50' <50' <50' 195' 215' W of Leon (N) ---- ---- 145' 170' Leon (N) - Leon (S) ---- ---- ---- 160' 175' ' Leon (S) - Pourroy ---- ---- ---- 140' 170' Pourroy - Butterfield Stage ---- ---- ---- 130' 170' , Nicolas Road: , E of Winchester 75' 85' 90' 150' 160' W of Leon 50' 55' ---- 115' 130' , Leon - C. Girasol ---- ---- ---- 100' 120' C. Girasol - Butterfield Stage ---- ---- ---- 80' 95' ' La Serena Way: E of Margarita 60' 70' 70' 85' 95' , Walcott - Butterfield Stage 55' 60' 60' 65' 75' E of Butterfield Stage ---- ---- <50' <50' ' Table 2 Page Two ' opening Opening Year Year Post-2015 Post-2015 Existing w/o Pro'. w/Prof. w/o Pro'. w Pro'. ' Rancho California Road: SW of I-215 180' 195' 195' 200' 200' ' I-215 - Ynez 230' 250' 250' 270' 275' ME of Ynez 180' 195' 195' 195' 200' ' W of Margarita 135' 150' 150' 175' 180' ' Margarita - Meadows 120' 130' 130' 150' 155' Meadows - Butterfield Stage 80' 90' 95' 85' 95' ' Butterfield Stage - La Serena• 60' 70' 70' 85' 85' La Serena - C. Contento 60' 65' 65' 65' 65' ' NE of C. Contento 55' 60' 60' 65' 65' Winchester Road: tSW of Jefferson 145' 160' 160' 145' 150' Jefferson - I-215 180' 155' 200' 235' 240' ' I-215 - Ynez 190' 205' 210' 280' 280' ' Ynez - Margarita 135' ---- 155' 255' 265' Margarita - Nicolas 115' 125' 130' 290' 300' ' Nicolas - Murrieta Bot Springs 105' 115' 120' 280' 280' N of Murrieta Bot Springs 105' 115' 115' 220' 220' ' Ynez Road: N of Winchester 80' 85' 90' 195' 200' ' S of Winchester 155' 170' 170' 235' 240' N of Rancho California 155' 170' 170' 235' 215' tS of Rancho California 120' 130' 130' 210' 210' Table 2 ' Page Three Opening Opening , Year Year Post-2015 Post-2015 Existing w/o Pro'. w Pro'. W/o Prof, w Pros. Margarita Road: ' S of Murrieta Hot Springs 75' 80' 80' 100' 105' N of Winchester 80' 85' 85' 125' 125' , S of Winchester 90' ---- 95' 190' 190' W of La Serena 90' 100' 100' 155' 160' ' La Serena - Rancho California 110' 120' 120' 130' 130' , S of Rancho California 120' 130' 130' 130' 130' Leon Road: ' N of Murrieta Hot Springs ---- ---- ---- <50' 50' S of Murrieta Hot Springs ---- ---- ---- 50' 55' Calle Girasol: S of Nicolas ---- ---- ---- 50' 55' Pourroy Road: N of Murrieta Hot Springs ---- ---- ---- 75' 85' Calle Chapos: ' W of Butterfield Stage ---- ---- ---- <50' <50' Walcott Lane: ' N of La Serena ---- ---- ---- 50' 50' Meadows Parkway: ' N of Rancho California <50' <50' <50' <50' <50' S of Rancho California <50' <50' <50' 105' 105' , Butterfield Stage Road: N of Murrieta Hot Springs ---- ---- ---- 1701. 180' , Murrieta Hot Springs - Nicolas ---- ---- ---- 180' 220' Nicolas - C. Chapos ---- ---- <50' 160' 185' , C. Cbapos - La Serena ---- ---- ---- 165' 190' La Serena - Rancho California <50' <50' <50' 145' 165' S of Rancho California <50' <50' <50' 140' 150' t ' Table 2 Page Four 1 Opening Opening ' Year Year Post-2015 Post-2015 Existing w/o Proi. w Prof. w/o Prof. w Pro'. ' Calle Contento: N of Rancho California <50' <50, <50, <50' <50' S of Rancho California <50, <50, <50' <50' <50' 1 1 1 1 1 1 ' Source: FHWA-RD-77-108 (Calveno Nod.) 1 1 TABLE 3 , TRAFFIC MISE IMPACT ANALYSIS (Change in Noise Levels [dB CNEL] and Contour Distance [feet]) ' 1 A B C D E Murrieta Not Springs Road: W of I-215 +0.6/+10' +0.7/+10' +0.1/± 0' + 6.1/+165' +0.1/+ 5' ' I-215 - Via Princesa (W) +0.6/+15' +0.7/+20' +0.1/+ 5' + 4.1/+130' +0.2/+10' Via Princesa (W) - Margarita +0.6/+10' +0.7/+10' +0.1/f 0' + 4.5/+100' +0.4/+15' t Margarita - Via Princesa (E) +0.6/+10' +0.7/+10' +0.1/1 0' + 4.1/+ 90' +0.4/+10' Via Princesa (E) - Winchester Road +0.6/+ 5' +1.0/+10' +0.4/+ 5' + 6.1/+100' +0.6/+15' ' E of Winchester +0.7/ XX +0.8/ XX +0.1/ XX +12.0/ XX +0.6/+20' ' W of Leon (N) n/a n/a n/a n/a +1.0/+25' Leon (N) - Leon (S) n/a n/a n/a n/a +0.4/+15' , Leon (S) - Pourroy n/a n/a n/a n/a +1.5/+30' Pourroy - Butterfield Stage n/a n/a n/a n/a +1.7/+40' ' Nicolas Road: 1 E of Winchester +0.6/+10' +1.3/+15' +0.7/± 5' + 4.4/+ 75' +0.5/+10' W of Leon +0.6/+ 5' n/a n/a + 5.0/+ 65' +0.9/+15' ' Leon - C. G1ra501 n/a n/a n/a n/a +1.0/+20' C. Girasol - Butterfield Stage n/a n/a n/a n/a +1.3/+15' ' La Serena Way: E of Margarita +0.6/+10' +0.6/+10' 0.0/± 0' + 2.2/+ 25' +0.4/±10' ' Walcott - Butterfield Stage +0.6/+ 5' +0.6/+ 5' 0.0/± 0' + 1.0/+ 10' +0.8/+10' E of Butterfield Stage n/a n/a n/a n/a 0.0/ XX t 1 1 1 Table 3 Page Two 1 A B C D E 1 Rancho California Road: SW of I-215 +0.6/+15' +0.6/+15' 0.0/±0' + 0.7/+ 20' +0.1/± 0' 1 I-215 - Ynez +0.6/+20' +0.6/+20' 0.0/±0' + 1.1/+ 40' +0.1/± 5' NE of Ynez +0.5/+15' +0.6/+15' +0.1/ 0' + 0.5/+ 15' +0.2/+ 5' ' W of Margarita +0.6/+15' +0.7/+15' +0.1/±0' + 1.7/+ 40' +0.2/+ 5' Margarita - Meadows +0.6/+10' +0.6/+10' 0.0/±0' + 1.4/+ 30' +0.3/+ 5' 1 Meadows - Butterfield Stage +0.6/+10' +0.8/+15' 0.2/±5' + 0.2/+ 5' +0.8/+10' 1 Butterfield Stage - La Serena +0.6/+10' +0.6/+10' 0.0/±0' + 2.0/+ 25' +0.1/± 0' La Serena - C. Contento +0.6/+ 5' +0.6/+ 5' 0.0/±0' + 0.5/+ 5' +0.1/± 0' 1 NE of C. Contento +0.6/+ 5' +0.6/+ 5' 0.0/±0' + 0.9/+ 10' +0.2/± 0' Winchester Road: 1 SW of Jefferson +0.5/+15' +0.6/+15' 0.0/±0' 0.0/1 0' +0.3/+ 5' Jefferson - I-215 1.1/-25' +0.5/+20' +1.6/+45' + 1.7/+ 55' +0.1/+ 5' 1 I-215 - Ynez +0.6/+15' +0.7/+20' +0.1/+5' + 2.6/+ 90' +0.1/+ 0' 1 Ynez - Margarita n/a +0.7/+20' n/a + 4.1/+120' +0.2/+10' Margarita - Nicolas +0.5/+10' +0.7/+15' +0.2/+5'• + 5.9/+175' +0.3/+10' 1 Nicolas - Murrieta Hot Springs +0.6/+10' +0.9/+15' +0.3/+5' + 6.4/+175' 0.0/± 0' N of Murrieta Hot Springs +0.6/+10' +0.6/+10' 0.0/±0' + 4.8/+115' +0.1/± 0' 1 Ynez Road: N of Winchester +0.5/+ 5' +0.6/+10' +0.1/+5' + 5.8/+115' 0.0/± 5' S of Winchester +0.5/+15' +0.5/+15' 0.0/±0' + 2.7/+ 80' +0.1/+ 5' N of Rancho California +0.6/+15' +0.6/+15' 0.0/±0' + 2.8/+ 801 -0.6/-20' 1 S of Rancho California +0.5/+10' +0.5/+10' 0.0/±0' + 3.7/+ 90' 0.0/± 0' 1 1 1 Table 3 1 Page Three A B C D & Margarita Road: ' S of Murrieta Hot Springs +0.6/+ 5' +0.6/+ 5' 0.0/±0' + 2.1/+ 25' +0.1/+ 5' N of Winchester +0.5/+ 5' +0.6/+ 5' +0.1/±0' + 3.1/+ 45' +0.1/± 0' ' S of Winchester n/a +0.6/+ 5' n/a + 5.0/+100' 0.0/± 0' W of La Serena +0.6/+10' +0.6/+10' 0/0 + 3.6/+ 65' +0.2/+ 5' ' N of.Rancho California +0.6/+10' +0.6/+10' 0/0 + 1.2/+ 20' 0.0/± 0' , S of Rancho California +0.5/+10' +0.5/+10' 0/0 + 0.6/+ 10' 0.0/± 0' Leon Road: ' N of Murrieta Hot Springs n/a n/a n/a n/a +1.6/ XX S of Murrieta Hot Springs n/a n/a n/a n/a +0.1/+ 5' ' Calle Girasol: S of Nicolas n/a n/a n/a n/a +0.5/+ 5' Pourroy Road: 1 N of Murrieta Hot Springs n/a n/a n/a n/a +1.0/+10' Calle Chapos: W of Butterfield Stage n/a n/a n/a n/a +0.6/ XX Walcott Lane: N of La Serena n/a n/a n/a n/a 0.0/± 0' Meadows Parkway: ' N of Rancho California +0.4/ XX +0.4/ XX 0.0/XX + 5.6/ XX 0.0/ XX S of Rancho California +0.6/ XX +0.6/ XX 0.0/XX + 6.6/ XX +0.1/i 0' Butterfield Stage Road: N of Murrieta Hot Springs n/a n/a n/a n/a +0.5/+10' Murrieta Hot Springs - Nicolas n/a n/a n/a n/a +1.2/+40' Nicolas - C. Chapos n/a n/a n/a n/a +1.0/+25' ' C. Chapos - La Serena n/a n/a n/a n/a +0.8/+25' La Serena - Rancho California 0.0/ XX +7.0/XX 0.0/XX +21.2/ XX +0.8/+20' , S of Rancho California +0.7/ XX +0.8/ XX +0.1/XX + 9.8/ XX +0.5/+10' Table 3 Page Four A B C D E ' Calle Contento: N of Rancho California 0.0/ XX 0.0/ XX 0.0/XX + 8.8/ XX 0.0/ XX S of Rancho California +0.5/ XX +0.5/ XX 0.0/XX + 5.6/ XX 0.0/ XX 1 COLDNN KEY: A = opening year (no project) vs. existing B = Opening year (with project) vs. existing C = opening year with project vs. no project ' D = Buildout (no project) vs. existing E = Buildout with project vs. no project n/a = not applicable - existing roadway does not exist XX = indeterminate, existing contour is somewhere within roadway right of way ' Code: + a.a/+bb' = noise level (CNEL) increase (a.a)/increase in 65 dB CNEL contour distance (bb) Source: Tables 1 and 2 1 Roripaugh Ranch versus the increment attributable to the proposed project. Maximum noise level increases from no-project buildout ' are 21 . 2 dB. The maximum Roripauqh Ranch traffic noise impact is 1 .7 dB CNEL along Murrieta Hot Springs Road (MHSR) between Pourroy and Butterfield Stage Road. The expansion of the CNEL contour at the point of maximum project impact, however, is only 40 feet. This increase is within Roripaugh Ranch itself , and will be mitigated by adequate perimeter walls protecting noise-sensitive interior uses. Outside the immediate Roripaugh Ranch area, project-related (buildout with project versus no project) incremental noise impacts ' are less than +1 dB, and expansions of the 65 dB contour are 10-20 feet. As a rule of thumb, noise level differences of less than 1 dB are not perceptible in even a laboratory environment, and 3 dB ' is' the commonly accepted threshold for people to perceive that noise levels have measurably changed. Cumulative impacts are clearly significant. Project-specific impacts at areas of elevated no-project conditions are much less than significant. ' Along the Roripaugh Ranch perimeter, Table 2 shows that the 65 dB contour as a desired residential setback (without noise walls) is 220 feet from the Butterfield Stage Road centerline. The forecast buildout traffic noise will be 70 . 1 dB at 100 feet from the Butterfield Stage Road centerline. At 50 feet from the centerline, the noise level will be 74.6 dB CNEL. Noise attenuation by a ' typical subdivision perimeter block wall is around 1 dB per foot of wall height once the wall interrupts the line of sight from the source to the receiver. An 9.6-foot perimeter wall thus would ' allow future noise sensitive uses to be situated as close as 50 feet from the centerline and still meet the 65 dB CNEL standard. If the setback is increased, the corresponding wall height is shortened. For a 75-foot distance from the centerline to a perimeter noise barrier, the noise exposure would be 71 .9 dB. A 7- foot wall would suffice at such a setback distance. With a 100- foot setback, the noise exposure of 70 . 1 dB CNEL would require no 1 more than a 5-foot wall . As traffic disperses within the project site, noise levels will , drop. As volumes decrease and speeds drop within residential communities, the need for perimeter noise protection will decrease. For a travel speed of 40 mph, the 65 dB CNEL contour distances ' decreases to less than 50 feet from the centerline when daily traffic volumes drop to less than 7 ,000 ADT. Streets with less than this threshold volume likely will not require noise protection, or alternately, will offer the opportunity to have the homes front the street instead of having a rear yard exposure to the roadway. 20 1 The threshold level for evaluation of noise protection requirements 1 is 60 dB CNEL. This level occurs at 50 feet from the roadway centerline when daily traffic volumes exceed 2 ,000 ADT. Any future roadway that has abutting noise-sensitive (homes, schools , parks, ' churches) uses and is forecast to carry over 2 ,000 vehicles thus will require a noise abatement study at the tract map level for future project construction. As noted above, however, the 1 triggering level for actual noise mitigation likely will not be reached until a 7,000 ADT daily traffic level . 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 21 i NO=S E Y MPACT M=T=GAT=ON The project noise impact study indicated that off-site noise ' impacts will be individually less than significant, but , cumulatively significant. off-site impact mitigation is generally not feasible because the cumulative impact is incrementally due to hundreds of planned developments. Any noise-sensitive land uses thus typically incorporate their own noise protection, or less , sensitive land uses are located as buffer uses between the roadway sources and the nearest sensitive receivers. Mitigation is indicated for possible temporary nuisance during t construction and for on-site uses that abut perimeter or interior roadways. Recommended mitigation is as follows: ' 1 . All construction and general maintenance activities, except in an emergency, should be limited to the hours of 7 a.m, to 7 , p.m. and prohibited on Sundays and all legally proclaimed holidays. 2 . All construction equipment should use properly operating 1 mufflers, and no combustion equipment such as pumps or generators shall be allowed to operate within 500 feet of any occupied residence from 7 p.m. to 7 a.m. unless the equipment is surrounded by a noise protection barrier. 3 . All construction staging should be performed as far as possible from occupied dwellings. 4 . A noise mitigation analysis should be performed for all future project noise-sensitive uses potentially exposed to noise levels in excess of 60 dB CNEL and all commercial sites exposed to exterior noise exceeding 70 dB CNEL to verify that planned noise protection will meet City standards. a. Exterior recreational areas shall be protected to achieve noise levels of less than 65 dB CNEL. ' b. Interior living areas shall be protected to achieve noise levels of less than 45 dB CNEL. C. Commercial uses with outdoor uses such as dining patios, etc. shall incorporate appropriate noise protection through shielding or other means to provide adequate , attenuation for customer comfort. 22 1 1 1 1 APPENDIX I 1 Scientific Resources (Paleontological-Archaeological-Historical) 1 1 i 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 i 1 A CULTURAL RESOURCE ASSESSMENT ' OF THE RORIPAUGH RANCH ' for: Mr. Chris Terzich RanPac Engineering Corporation 27447 Enterprise Circle West Temecula, California 92390 by: Christopher E. Drover Ph.D Consulting Archaeologist 13522 Malena Drive Tustin, California 92680 ' (714) 838-2051 27 March 1989 1 1 z , TABLE OF CONTENTS ManagementSummary. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 , Summary of Current Knowledge. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 Effective Environment. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 ' Research Methods and Strategy. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .7 Resultsand Impacts. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .7 ' Mitigation Measures. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 References Cited. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 ' 3 MANAGEMENT SUMMARY: ' In November 1988 Mr. Dave Dillon of RanPac Engineering ' requested an archaeological assessment of a study area northwest of Temecula, California. The subject property is planned for ' future mixed residential, commercial and recreational use. A cultural resources assessment was necessary to satisfy the ' requirements of the County of Riverside with regard to identification and protection of cultural resources. An archaeological records check and survey were undertaken in November 1988 , for the 800 acre project site consisting of Section 21 and a northern and central portion of Section 20 located on the Bachelor Mnt. 7 . 5' USGS quadrangle, to ascertain whether any cultural resources might be impacted by the proposed development. A surface survey conducted on the subject property ' and a check of the archaeological site records on file at the Archaeological Research Unit (ARU) , University of California, ' Riverside, were accomplished. ' A 400-scale map of the subject property provided the boundary reference for the actual land area surveyed. The subject ' project lies northwest of Temecula, just south of Skunk Hollow along Santa Gertrudis Creek. Archaeological records search activities indicate that the larger project has not been previously surveyed and no archaeological sites are located on the property. The present ' investigation yielded only one archaeological site. Cultural resource constraints (mitigation measures for the proposed 4 ' project are included herein. SUMMARY OF CURRENT KNOWLEDGE: , A review of the archaeological site records on file at the , ARU showed no archaeological sites within the subject property , boundaries, however, other surrounding sites surround the project ' (especially to the northeast along the upper Santa Gertrudis drainage) , but too distant to be impacted by the subject project. , A large survey was undertaken in October of 1987 by the author on the Johnson Project adjoining the subject parcel immediately to ' the north and east including the majority of Sections 15, 16 and 22 (Drover 1987) . Fourteen archaeological sites were recorded on the Johnson property. While the vast majority of these sites consisted of bedrock grinding features, the settlement patterns also reflect short-term campsites and larger, longer-term 1 habitation or village sites. As most of the sites were not , investigated beyond their initial recording, it was difficult to determine any chronological patterns in settlement. However, it is assumed that most of these sites were late given the research at Perris reservoir. At least one of the sites, Johnson-1, may represent an earlier period (ca. 3 , 000-4 , 000 years ago) given the , presence of a relatively thick, side-notched projectile fragment. Perhaps the most pertinent regional study of the general area regarding prehistoric land use is that accomplished at Perris Reservoir (O'Connell et al. 1974) . This research took place about 15 miles north of the property; in the San Jacinto ' Plains. Given the similarities between the environments between 1 ' 5 the two areas the general settlement/subsistence of the Perris ' Reservoir project provides an excellent example of prehistoric land-use patterns in the area. Most of the archaeological sites described in that study ' were late prehistoric age (pottery present) and may have resulted from population intrusions from the Coachella Valley caused by ' the desiccation of Lake Cahuilla (ancestral Salton Sea) (Wilke ' 1978) . settlement patterns seem to consist of campsites (located near perennial water sources) and temporary processing locations (O'Connell et al. 1974) . Considering the topography and proximity of portions of the ' subject parcel to water, site density may be expected to be ' moderate to high as in similar areas of the Perris Reservoir. Based on settlement/subsistence models generated by O'Connell et al. (1974) , temporary food gathering/processing sites, campsites and even longer term habitation sites might be expected on the ' subject project. Through time, land use patterns at nearby Perris Reservoir changed from being rather sporadic between 2200 years ago (the ' earliest occupations) to about A.D. 1500 when an influx of population with different subsistence exploitation strategies (O'Connell et al. 1974) . ' At European contact times, the study area was within areas occupied by groups known as the Luiseno, named after the Mission San Luis Rey de Francia in present-day Oceanside, California, which some of their linguistic group frequented. The Luiseno 1 6 , culture area incorporated southwestern Riverside County, northern San Diego County, eastern Orange County and was linguistically ' comprised of a language of the Shoshonean language family (Kroeber 1925: Plate 57) . The Contact period ethnicity of the ' study area is clear as Luiseno villages such as Pechanga are , relatively close to the project area. Murrieta Hot Springs itself was apparently utilized prehistorically. Ethnographic literature ' pertinent to the Luiseno and surrounding ethnographic groups is fairly extensive and has been collected since the 1800's (see Barrows 1900 ; Sparkman 1908 ; Kroeber 1925; White 1963 and Bean , 1972) . EFFECTIVE ENVIRONMENT: t The physiography of the subject property consists of a .large northeast-south trending water courses of Santa Gertrudis Creek which ultimately collect into the larger, Murrieta Creek south of the property. The subject property is immediately east of the confluence of Santa Gertrudis Creek and Long Valley. Soils on the property consist of decomposed granitics with limited bedrock outcroppings visible. Precipitation is mainly a result of winter dominant, frontal ' storms from the northwest, although occasional summer thundershowers result from damp air intruding from the southern r (Gulf of Mexico---Sea of Cortez) monsoon season. The property ranges from 1200 to 1300 feet above sea level . It primarily consists of native vegetation, a sage-scrub community, dominated by buckwheat (Eriogonum fasiculatum) , and ' 7 california sagebrush (Artemisia californica) . Narrow riparian areas exist along the Santa Gertrudis water course, but are not ' well established and lack Oak Woodland plant associations. The above mentioned plant communities are noted as having many ' ethnographic uses among the neighboring Cahuilla (Bean and Saubel 1972) . It appears that portions of the subject parcel have been dry farmed, possibly in barley (Hordeum vulttare) . ' RESEARCH METHODS AND STRATEGY: Field methods consisted of an archival study of the ' archaeological records compiled at the Archaeological Research Unit, University of California, Riverside conducted by Mr. David ' Smith in March 1989. Fieldwork required approximately six man- days and was, generally, intuitive in nature. The vast majority of the subject property consists of the Santa Gertrudis drainage ' itself or stream terraces overlooking the drainage. As a result, attention was especially paid to landforms conducive to ' prehistoric habitation and use such as the stream terraces and ' areas adjacent to but not scoured by Santa Gertrudis Creek bed. The remaining portion of the project area consisted of relatively ' low, rolling hills and plain which appear to have been plowed to the south and above the Creek drainage. RESULTS AND IMPACTS: ' Only one archaeological site was observed on the subject parcel located in the northwest 1/4 of the northwest 1/4 of Section 20 (see attached maps) . The site in question, located on a plateau at the southernmost end of Skunk Hollow, 1/2 mile north a of Santa Gertrudis Creek is described below. Rorioauah 1• ' This site is a lithic scatter of ground stone consisting of one bifacial, symmetrical mano, and four metate fragments of ' differing materials distributed over an area of 75m X 150m. While the site area has been heavily plowed and disturbed, a potential subsurface deposit is expected. ' The settlement reflected on the subject property seems to compare nicely with those patterns reflected on the larger , Johnson survey immediately northeast. These larger habitation sites would be more likely situated closer to the Creek drainage, whereas the seed grinding and processing activity sites are like this one are often more isolated and in areas where the sage- scrub plant community would have flourished. Site Roripaugh 1 may actually be part of a larger, possibly contemporaneous, . complex of interrelated sites on the upper Santa Gertrudis Creek drainage including both residential and seed processing locales. It is difficult to address the chronology of this site from its rather scant surface remains, however, no ceramics were observed. ' As the site area is relatively flat, it is quite likely that eventual development will result in a direct impact. ' MITIGATION: ' Assuming a ("worst case") or direct impact scenario, the following mitigation measures can be recommended for the site. Rorioauah 1: , Site relocation and specific impact assessment; 100% surface collection and mapping of surface artifacts; the excavation of 5-10, 1 X lm subsurface test units; salvage excavation (if any) dependant upon the findings ' of subsurface testing. 1 1 ' 9 The recommended activities of surface collection, mapping, sub-surface testing would require approximately 10-15 man-days. A ' possible, salvage excavation (which is unlikely in this case) may significantly vary in the time needed for the completion of such ' final mitigation. However, it could safely be estimated that even the minimum effort could exceed 20-30 man-days of fieldwork only. ' Aside from the archaeological sites described here, it is ' possible that archaeological materials could be found during grading activities. Should any such finds come to light, it is recommended that a qualified archaeologist be contacted to evaluate their significance prior to further grading. 1 1 1 10 , REFERENCES CITED 1 Barrows, David P. 1900 The Ethno-botany of the Coahulla Indians of Southern 1 California. Chicago Press. (Reprinted 1976 by Malki Museum, Banning) . Bean, Lowell J. 1 1972 Mukat's People: The Cahuilla Indians of Southern California. Berkeley,: University of California Press. 1 Bean, Lowell J. , and Katherine S. Saubel 1972 Temalpakh: Cahuilla Indian Knowledge and Usage of Plants. Banning, Ca. : Malki Museum Press. 1 Drover, Christopher E. 1986 The Santa Gertrudis Site Riv-1730: A Cultural Resource 1 Mitigation Plan and Implementation. Rancho California. UCARU Miscellaneous Manuscripts. 1987 A Cultural Resource Assessment- of the Johnson Property. 1 Douglas Wood and Associates--Turini and Brink. Manuscript on file at the Eastern California Information Center, University of California, 1 Riverside. Kroeber, Alfred L. 1 1925 Handbook of the Indians of California. Washington, D.C. : Bureau of American Ethnology Bulletin 78. O'Connell, J. F. , P. J. Wilke, T. F. King, and C. L. Mix (Eds. ) 1 1974 Perris Reservoir Archaeology: Late Prehistoric Demographic Change in Southeastern California. , Sacramento: Department of Parks and Recreation Archaeological Reports 14 . Sparkman, Philip S. 1908 The Culture of the Luiseno Indians. Berkeley: University of California Publications in American Archaeoloctv and Ethnology 8: 147-234. 1 White, R. C. 1963 Luiseno Social Organization. Berkeley: University of 1 California Publications in American Archaeology and Ethnography 48: 91-194 . 1 ' 11 ' Wilke, Philip J. 1971 Late Prehistoric Change in Land Use Patterns at Perris Reservoir. Los Angeles: University of California Los ' Angeles Archaeological Survey Annual Report 13 . 1978 Late Prehistoric Human Ecology at Lake Cahuilla, Coachella Valley, California. Berkeley: University of ' California Archaeological Research Facility Contributions No. 38 . 1 1 1 1 1 1 p ..,. It.` V NIV0 0 \a wi 1 1 ��o� \ a :s 7 l q� ,. � ��: ^�1- it /tom • v.� � C �Q/ � 'C• � t/ '� � O t+.J.f, I\� i/�i•���" cam— ° i�� e- , � trt� ' , , C ,/l �• �. C� r su6:TEcr FPD-TE ,T s VA �EFERFNC.G- EI�R Milt. N ,o • ,,, \ :,, \ »' J rtrt S ll, 1- .. .. J...1...�... G . IA n - , i. .,_`�5;-„ •fir ' s_ \ > y,,�t ," C«, ��� ,� : ��lA' � �� ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITE RECORD Permanent Trinomial:_ Temporary Number• Page 1 of 3 1. County: Riverside 2. USGS Quad: Bachelor Mtn. 3. UTM Coordinates: Zone 11: mE 489 , 570 mN 3 , 712 , 140 4 . Twp.7S Rng;�W Section 5. Map Coordinates: 343mmS 49mmE 6. Elevation: 1 , 300' - 1 , 320 ' 7. Location: 800m N. of Nicholas Rd. and 1 .3km W. of vent towers 8. Prehistoric: x Historic: Protohistoric: ' 9. Site Description: seasonal or temporary campsite located on bluff overlooking Santa Gertrudis Creek basin 10. Area: 75m x 150m Method of Determ. : pacing 11. Depth: suspected 12. Features: 1 lithic scatter 13 . Artifacts: 1-mano, symmetrical and ground both sides; 4 metate ' fragments of differing materials t 14. Non-artifactual Constituents: none noted 15. Date Recorded: March 2 , 1989 16. Recorder: C. E. Drover; D.M. Smith 17. Affiliation and Address: 13522 Malena Dr. , Tustin, CA 92680 ' 18. Human Remains: none noted 19 . Site Integrity: poor: heavily graded, tilled, and furrowed ' 20. Nearest Water: Skunk Hollow; Gertrudis Creek 21. Vegetation Community (site vicinity) : Inland sage/chaparral ; introduced trees and grasses 22. Vegetation (on site) : scant sage and grasses 23. Soil: loamy decomposed granite 24. Surrounding Soil: same ' 25. Geology: S. California batholith 26. Landform: bluff 27. Slope: 28. Exposure: flat ' 29. Landowner and Address: 30. Remarks: Owner stated any artifacts must have been left by 31. References: non-aboriginal inhabitants of area, probably someone living nearby 32. Name of Project: ' 33. Type of Investigation: 34. Site Accession Number:-------- Curated at:-------- 35. Photos: ---------- Taken b ' 36. Photo Accession #:------------- On File at:--------- 1 y 1 A PALEONTOLOGICAL SURVEY AND ASSESSMENT OF THE RORIPAUGH RANCH, RANCHO CALIFORNIA AREA RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA Paul E: Langenwalter II 1 ' Prepared by HERITAGE RESOURCE CONSULTANTS P.O. Box 1674 ' La Mirada, California 90637 ' Prepared -for ' RANCHO PACIFIC ENGINEERING CORPORATION 27447 Enterprise Circle West Temecula, CA 92390 1 and ' C. E. DROVER, CONSULTING ARCHAEOLOGIST 13522 Malena Drive Tustin, California ' HRC Project 157 February 14 , 1989 ' Table of Contents ' Introduction . 1 ' Project Location and Setting. 1 Methods. 2 ' Geology. 3 ' Results. 6 ' Sensitivity 7 Recommendations 8 References. . 11 ' Appendix A Figure 1 1 i INTRODUCTION ' A paleontological study of the 812 acre Roripaugh Ranch property t was conducted to evaluate the paleontological resources of the property. The goals of the study were to determine if ' paleontological resources occur on the property and the potential for the discovery of fossils during its development. Although no paleontological resources were discovered as a result of the field survey, there is a moderate to high possibility that fossils will be found during grading or other earthmoving on the ' property. This study includes an evaluation of the potential significance of fossil resources which might be discovered, and ' includes recommendations for the conservation of such resources in the future. The study was performed in conformance with Part t 6 Subsection P of the Riverside County Comprehensive General Plan and Appendix K of the California Environmental Quality Act. ' This report presents the findings of . the study of the project site. It is based on a field survey, survey of the professional ' literature on the paleontology of the region, and a check of paleontological site records held by four regional scientific ' institutions. ' PROJECT L40CATION AND SETTING ' The Roripaugh Ranch property includes Section 21 and parts of t Section 20 in Township 7 South, Range 2 West, on the U.S.G.S. 7 .5 ' Bachelor Mountain, California Quadrangle (Figure 1) . The project area is located northeast of Temecula and southwest of ' the Skinner Reservoir in Riverside County, California. It is surrounded by open lands and some agricultural land on the ' northern and eastern sides. Housing is located on the southern and western sides. Santa Gertrudis .Creek crosses the northern tportion of Section 21 from east to west, while a Metropolitan 2 Water District pipeline crosses the easternmost part of Section , 20. The majority of the property consists of Santa Gertrudis Creek, ' one of its north trending tributaries and the moderate to steep 1 slopes of the ridges which descend into them. Gently rolling fields dissected by small drainages occur in lower elevations of the property along the stream channels. At the time of the ' survey (February 1989) , most of the fields were fallow, with some new plowing in the western portion of the property. The central ' hilly portion of the ranch are covered by Inland Sage Scrub dominated by California buckwheat, black sage, and white sage. , The slopes which have been tilled are covered with low growing grasses, and the remains of a grain crop. Riparian associated ' plant and tree species occur along Santa Gertrudis Creek. METHODS The methods used in this study included: 1) review of the records of known paleontological sites in the region, 2) a survey of ' paleontological and geological publications for the project region, and 3) a survey of the property. , Records checks were obtained from the Section of Vertebrate ' Paleontology at the Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County, the San Bernardino County Museum, and the Department of Earth ' Sciences, University of California, Riverside. Each of these departments maintain regional paleontological collections, and supporting maps, records and documents. These checks were used , to determine if paleontological sites had been previously identified on the property, or if the property had been previously surveyed or reported on for paleontological resources. 3 ' The literature survey consisted of a review of the professional literature pertaining to the project region, including selected ' unpublished documents produced during surveys of other properties in the region. Geologic maps of the region were consulted and ' analyzed to make initial estimations of the potential for paleontologic resources on the property and for the purpose of tplanning field studies. The field survey included the examination of parts of the property that were not obscured by dense vegetation.. Exposed geologic outcrops were examined, while areas covered with topsoil ' or recent alluvium which would obscure fossils in the substrate were bypassed. The examination excluded the outcrops of ' intrusive granitics. ' GEOLOGY ' The area within the project boundaries includes eight geologic units. These form the substrate for the entire study area, outcropping on slopes, in road cuts and around the edges of the stream channels. Most of the area, particularly areas with low ' slopes (eg. - pastures) is covered with a veneer of topsoil eight to fourteen inches thick. The following discussion provides ' basic information about the nature of each major lithologic unit, its age, location on the property and fossil bearing potential. For exact distribution of the geologic units on the property the reader should refer to the geotechnical report (in preparation by ' Highland Soils and Testing, Inc. , or see Kennedy 1977) . ' Intrusive Igneous Rocks of the Southern California Batholith ' In this region of the Elsinore Trough, the Bedford Canyon Formation and Santiago Peak Volcanics are intruded by igneous 1 4 plutons composed of granodiorite, quartz-bearing diorite, quartz ' monzonite, diorite, and gabbro (Kennedy 1977) . Based upon cross- cutting relationships and radiometric dates, the plutons in this ' region were emplaced during middle Cretaceous time (Evernden and Kistler 1970. On the study property, the granitic rocks of the ' Southern California batholith are exposed in the northeastern part of the property as a granodiorite dike along Santa Gertrudis ' Creek in Section 21. Unnamed Sandstone and Conglomerate Formation The Unnamed Sandstone and Conglomerate Formation is primarily ' composed of medium-grained, friable sandstone, containing large ' amounts of caliche. Outcrops of the Unnamed Sandstone are common in the Elsinore Fault Zone between Wildomar, near Lake Elsinore, ' and Santa Gertrudis Creek in the Rancho California area (Kennedy 1977: 4) . Based on recent paleontological research the Unnamed , Sandstone is estimated to 'be mid-Pleistocene (ie. - 500, 000 years B.P. ) , spanning the boundary between the Irvingtonian and Rancholabrean Ages (Reynolds 1988) . ' The Unnamed Sandstone outcrops over much of the property. The ' main outcrops of this formation on the property occur on the lower slopes along Santa Gertrudis Creek. Local outcrops are , composed of medium to coarse grained silty sandstone and cobble- boulder conglomerate, containing rounded to angular clasts of t local granitic, metamorphic, and volcanic rocks (cf. G. A. Nicoll and Associates 1988 : 6, for the adjacent Johnson Ranch) . ' Pauba Formation ' The Pauba Formation consists of a sequence of late Pleistocene ' siltstones, sandstones and conglomerates that crop out and are _ 1 5 ' exposed primarily in the main and eastern portions of the Elsinore Trough. The Pauba was recognized and named by Mann (1955) and has an exposed thickness of approximately 70 meters. It is composed of two large-scale facies which appear to 1 interfinger. The fine-grained facies consists of a light-brown, moderately well indurated crossbedded and channeled sandstone and ' siltstone which contains occasional cobble and boulder conglomerate beds (Kennedy 1977) . The other facies is coarser, a grayish-brown, well indurated poorly sorted fanglomerate and mudstone. The outcrop pattern of the Pauba (Kennedy 1977) indicates that the fanglomerate facies occurs to the west of the fine-grained facies in this region of the Elsinore Trough. ' On the Roripaugh Ranch property, the Pauba Formation is the dominant sedimentary rock unit, occurring throughout most of the property. The Pauba Formation sediments on the property are primarily fine to coarse grained sandstones, which are massive to cross-bedded with some gravel beds and lenses. The upper and ' middle parts of the ridge, south of Santa Gertrudis Creek in Section 21, contains these sediments. Some lower portions of the ridge area contain the siltstone facies. ' The Pauba Formation is considered to be late Pleistocene in age (approximately 0.7 Ma) based upon an assemblage of fossil ' vertebrates recovered from the banks of Santa Gertrudis .Creek (Mann 1955 ; Kennedy 1977) . The fossil mammalian vertebrates ' recovered from the Pauba are characteristic of the Rancholabrean North American Land Mammal Age. Colluvium and Alluvium ' Colluvium on the study property consists of recent accumulations of mixed sand, silt and clay near the base of slopes and in 6 gullies. Deposits of colluvium occur throughout the property. 1 These deposits contain angular fragments of the rocks that they were derived from. Recent alluvium is concentrated in drainage channels throughout the property and in Santa Gertrudis Creek. It consists of poorly sorted sands, silts, and clays recently , deposited by water transport. Like the colluvium, the sediments in the alluvium have been derived from local rock units. RESULTS The search of the paleontological files and records held by the Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County (Morey 1989 ; Appendix 1) , and the San Bernardino County Museum (Reynolds 1989 ; ' Appendix 1) , and the Department of Earth Sciences, University of California, Riverside (Kooser 1989 ; Appendix 1) , indicated that no paleontological studies have been conducted on the property prior to the present study, and that no paleontological sites have been found there. However, at least 75 paleontological , localities have been discovered in the Unnamed Sandstone and Pauba Formations (Reynolds 1988) . These have yielded 28 fossil vertebrate species including mammoth, mastodon, horse, camel, llama, deer, pronghorn antelope, and coyote. Small animal , species recovered from these formations include bats, shrews, rabbit, squirrels, gophers, mice, and wood rats. one fossil locality from older alluvium, approximately two miles northeast of the study property, yielded mammoth and camel (Langenwalter ' 1972) . These fossil finds on nearby property from the named formations indicate a considerable potential for the discovery of fossils on the study property, although there were no fossils found during the field survey. 1 7 PALEONTOLOGIC SENSITIVITY The following discussion provides an evaluation of the potential for encountering paleontological resources on the study property in the future, particularly during development. Intrusive Igneous Rocks of the Southern California Batholith Paleontologic Sensitivity: None Due to the mode of origin of these rocks there is no possibility that paleontological remains will be present in them. Unnamed Sandstone Paleontologic Sensitivity: Moderate to High Although no fossils were discovered in the Unnamed Sandstone ' during the field survey of the study property, localities are known from the area to the west of the study property (Reynolds 1988) . The silts and sands of this unit have yielded Pleistocene mega-vertebrates and important species of rodent and rabbit. Small animals, or microfaunas, are particularly important to the interpretation of the paleoenvironment and faunal succession in the region during the deposition of the -formation. Pauba Formation Paleontologic Sensitivity: Moderate to High A literature and record search revealed several fossil localities from the formation, but none within the study property. One locality in a large washout on the northwest bank of Santa Gertrudis Creek (within 2 miles of the study area) produced fossil horse and a tapir tooth (Mann 1955; Kennedy 1977) . Other a localities near Rancho California (within 3 miles of the study area) have produced fossil camel, proboscidean, bison and horse remains (Mark Roeder 1988 ; see Reynolds 1989, Appendix A) . The above mentioned finds were recovered exclusively from the fine- grained sandstone facies in this formation. The coarse-grained , facies has a lower probability of producing vertebrate fossils due to absence of sorting and the short duration of surfaces to develop lag deposits prior to renewed deposition. Colluvium and Alluvium Paleontological Sensitivity: Very Low , No fossils or sub-fossils have been recorded from these sediments in the region. Although paleobiological remains may occur in these sediments, as they may in any other sediment, the ' likelihood of any being recovered from the study property is minimal. RECOMMENDATIONS The following plan of mitigation is recommended for the Roripaugh Ranch property based on the potential for the occurrence of paleontological resources on the study property: Given the assessed potential for paleontologic resources on the property, paleontological monitoring of grading should be required for certain areas. Full-time monitoring should occur during earthmoving in the Unnamed Sandstone and Pauba Formation sediments. The monitoring schedule could be modified to less than full-time if warranted by the monitoring paleontologist's findings during grading. Those areas of the property containing Granitic Rocks of the Southern California Batholith and Colluvium 9 and Alluvium do not require monitoring because they do not, or are unlikely to contain fossils. Fossils found by the owners of the property, their agents, contractors, or subcontractors during the development of the property, should be reported immediately to the paleontological monitor. If fossils are encountered on the property during development, the following mitigation procedures should be followed: a1 . The paleontologist retained for the project should immediately evaluate the fossils which have been discovered to adetermine if they are significant and, if so, to develop a plan to collect and study them for the purpose of mitigation. 2. The paleontologic monitor must be empowered to temporarily halt or redirect excavation equipment if fossils are found to allow evaluation and removal of them if necessary. The monitor should be equipped to speedily collect specimens if they are encountered. 3 . The monitor, with assistance if necessary, should collect individual fossils and/or samples of fossil bearing sediments. If specimens of small animal species are encountered, the most time and cost efficient method of recovery is to remove a selected volume of fossil bearing earth from the grading area and stockpile it off-site for processing by screen washing. 4 . Fossils recovered during earthmoving or as a result of screen-washing of sediment samples should be cleaned and prepared sufficiently to allow identification. This allows the fossils to be described in a report of findings and reduces the volume of 1, matrix around specimens prior to storage, thus reducing storage u costs. 10 5. A report of findings should be prepared and submitted to the public agency responsible for overseeing developments and mitigation of environmental impacts upon completion of ' mitigation. This report would minimally include a statement of the types of paleontologic resources found, the methods and procedures used to recover them, an inventory of the specimens recovered, and a statement of their scientific significance. 6. The paleontological specimens recovered as a result of mitigation should be donated to a qualified scientific , institution where they would be afforded long term preservation to allow future scientific study. i 1 _ - t a 11 LITERATURE CITED Evernden, J. F. and R. W. Kistler. 1970. Chronology of Emplacement of Mesozoic Batholithic Complexes in California and Western Nevada. U.S. Geological Survey _Professional Paper 623 : 1-42. G. A. Nicoll and Associates. 1988 . Geotechnical Feasibility Investigation, Johnson Ranch, Rancho California Area, Riverside County, California. G. A. Nicoll and Associates, Tustin, California. Prepared for Turrini and Brink, Santa Ana, California. Kennedy, Michael P. 1977 . Recency and Character of Faulting Along the Elsinore Fault Zone in Southern Riverside County, California. California Division Mines and Geology, Special Report 131: 1-12 . Kooser, Marilyn. 1989 . Personal communication of January 11, 1989 to P. E. Langenwalter. Department of Earth Sciences, University of California, Riverside, California. Langenwalter, Paul E. II. 1972 . Field notes for July 14 , 1972 . Section of Vertebrate Paleontology, Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County, Los Angeles, California. Mann, J. F. 1955. Geology of a Portion of the Elsinore Fault Zone, California. California Division Mines, Special Report 43 : 1-22 . Morey, Ann E. 1989 . Personal communication of January 13, 1989 to P. E. Langenwalter. Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County, Los Angeles, California. Reynolds, Robert E. 1988. Personal communication of August 15, 1988 to P. E. Langenwalter. San Bernardino County Museum, Redlands, California. Reynolds, Robert E. 1989. Personal communication of January 9, 1989 to P. E. Langenwalter. San Bernardino County Museum, Redlands, California. Roeder, Mark A. 1988 . Personal communication of July 29, 1988 to P. E. Langenwalter. Costa Mesa, California. 1 APPENDIX A I� r r NATURAL HISTORY MUSEUM of Los Angeles Count ..VERTEBRATE PAL ON OLO goo Exposition Boalevar Los Angeles, California 9000 13 January- 19 Paul E. Langenwalter II ' Heritage Resource Consultants P.O. Box 1674 La Mirada, CA 90637 RE: Vertebrate Paleontology Records Search Roaraugh Ranch, HRC #157 Dear Paul: iI have made a search of our records for the area on your map near Rancho California in Riverside County. We have no vertebrate paleontology localities within this area. The parcel of interest contains Quaternary non-marine sediments. LACM 7261 is located approximately three and one-half miles northeast of the parcel and is a Rancholabrean non-marine deposit, which has produced Proboscidea and Ungulata fossils at an elevation between 1430 and 1455 ft. (see P.E. Langenwalter field notes from 14 July 1972) . Quaternary deposits have produced a number of important vertebrate fossil localities in southern California and thus any excavations should be monitored so that any fossils may be quickly and safely recovered. You may also wish to contact the University of California at Riverside, Department of Geology, for additional geological and paleontological data in the areas of your concern. Sincerely, Ann E. Morey, Curatorial Assistant enclosure UNIVERSITT OF CALIFORNIA, RIVERSIDE 0 BERKELEY • DA\'IS • MINE • LOS ANGELES • RIVERSIDE • SAN DIEGO • SAN FRANCISCO 11 9 SANTA BARBARA SANTA CRUZ p �'I O \i\r\,•6�e DEPARTMENT OF EARTH SCIENCES RIVERSIDE.CALIFORNIA 92521 1 Geography—Geology—C phym (714)787 U34 11 January 1989 Mr. Paul E. Langenwalter II Heritage Resource Consultants P. O. Box 1674 La Mirada, California 90637 Dear Mr. Langenwalter, RE: Your letter of 5 January 1989 , locality search of parcel HRC #157 , Roaraugh Ranch Project, Bachelor Mtn. , CA 7. 5 min. quadrangle. A search of our invertebrate and vertebrate fossil locality files has turned up no sites within the boundaries of the parcel . ' However, the Pauba Formation occurs over a large portion of the parcel and as this unit has yielded fossil material elsewhere it should be monitored during grading or excavation. I believe UCLA ' ( now at the L. A. CO. Museum) and the San Bernardino County Museum have collections from the Pauba. The underlying unnamed sandstone, beneath the Pauba Formation also has the potential to yield vertebrate fossil naterial and should also be monitored . A site search report on an adjacent parcel was submitted to you previously ( HRC# 146 in sections 15, 16 , and 22) . Other parcels ' in the vicinity for which we have also submitted record searches include your projects HRC numbers 130 , 139 , 145, and 156 and a report to Grayner-Rogers Engineering, job file #872. 13 for tentative parcel map #23012 at Anza Road/Calle Campo in Rancho California. A bill for the fossil locality search will toyV rt -!Or Separate cover. V Sincerely, Dr. Marilyn Kooser 1 Museum Scientist i 1 1 � OUNTY OF SAN NARDIN \\\���It9�//moi CR AN BERNARDINO COUNTY MUSEUM GENERAL SERVICESAGENCY y� 2Orange Tree Lane • Redlands. CA 92374 ��/ \�� DR. ALLAN D. GRIESEMER 1792-1334 • 792.0052 • 825.4825 • 825-4823 Director ' January 9, 1989 ' Paul Langenwalter II Heritage Resource Consultants P.O. Box 1674 La Mirada, CA 90637 re: Roaraugh Ranch, HRC #157 ' Dear Mr. Langenwalter, At your request, the San Bernardino County Museum has conducted a review of pertinent geologic literature and a review of paleontologic resource site records in the Regional Paleontologic Locality Inventory of the SBC4. The ' review is for the Roaraugh Ranch parcel, approximately 820 acres along Santa Gertrudis Creek, south of Skunk Hollow and east of Murrieta Hot Springs in Riverside County. The project is within the north half of section 20 and all of section 21, Township 7 South, Range 2 West, SBB&M, as shown on the Bachelor ' Mountain 7.5' U.S.G.S. quadrangle map. Backzround A review of geologic literature indicates that the parcel is located an sediments mapped as the fossiliferous Unnamed Sandstone and the fossiliferous t Pauba Formation (Kennedy, 1977; Mann, 1955). These authors, as well as Golz and others (1977) , report significant finds of large and small Pleistocene mammal fossils from the 1I*numied Sandstone and the Pauba Formation in this area. Minor areas of non-fossiliferous granitic baserock rocks are located within the parcel. Wash bottoms, in particular Santa Gertrudis Creek, consist of recent alluvium. Review of the Regional Paleontologic Locality Inventory files at the San Bernardino County Museum urticates that more than 75 paleontologic resource localities are known from the Unnamed Sandstone and the overlying Pauba Formation in the Murrieta/Rancho California area. There is no record of previous paleontologic resource field assessment for the Roaraugh Ranch parcel, and consequently no record of paleontologic resource localities. The two sedimentary units on site have produced more than 29 taxa of fossil vertebrates which include mammoth, mastodon, horse, tapir, camel, llama, and pronghorn. The deposits have also yielded important small vertebrate fossils 1 . 1 1 such as rodents, rabbits, bats, shrews, and bird, lizard, turtle, and ' tortoise. Recommendations ' Due to the high potential for significant nonrenewable paleontologic resourcesto be encountered, i would recomend that a field assessment of the site be conducted prior to excavation to locate any paleontologic resources or concentrations of paleontologic resources that appear on the surface. Construction excavation has high potential to encounter subsurface paleontologic resources. , To mitigate impacts from excavation to significant nonrenewable paleontologic resources, I would recommend that the applicant retain a vertebrate paleontologist to develop a Plan to Mitigate Impacts to Paleontologic Resources which should include, but not necessarily be limited to, the following: 1. Pre-excavation field survey to determine specific areas of sensitivity and to salvage fossils exposed on the surface. 2. Full-time monitoring of excavation by a qualified paleontologic monitor. The monitor should be equipped to salvage fossils as they are unearthed 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. 3. Preparation of recovered specimens, including washing of sediments to recover small vertebrates. 4. Curation of specimens into a museum repository with retrievable storage. 5. Preparation of a report of findings with an appended itemized inventory of specimens. Sincerely, Robert . Reynolds Curator, Earth Sciences ' RER/jr enols. , J ^.qis , 118 �f,l I g (<'t�. ' lnl' \ q7 '� 16 > I 1 r b Ibt tI� H d L�-O W .. \ 1.1rS- P o '\,l l � a t 1rfi M, lii/ < ti�,., �I ),/' L( '))I /� J / 1 rG- 0021 o\. l \ t , i, 11 o.\ �\. �1V1. � ' 1. ,,, -r,, T i-.• �l/ �.- �� 7� _/i� ,- ! Mp I .II y� l , �ia r �(. o'� � �� 1t-�- dL�/'�^�< �_l 1111�� a vi i '• 1 0 PUU\ I(((( O. \ h°\ ✓nor - 25\� �'J 'l' 11 `ti/ �in,e .� A O.Od' 258 NILSIi.; N � 1 Figure 1. Map of Roripaugh Ranch property. Taken from the Bachelor Mountain, California Quadrangle. Scale 111=20001 . M w IM M W M r M 1 APPENDIX J 1 Phase 1 Hazmat Report I 1 1 1 i 1 I � GRADIENT ENGINEERS INC. Construction,Engineering a1'6 ' Environmental Services PHASE I ENVIRONMENTAL SITE ASSESSMENT REPORT APPROXIMATE 800-ACRE RORIPAUGH RANCH RIVERSIDE COUNTY,CALIFORNIA Project No. 993070-001 June 30, 1999 1 r ' Prepared For: ASHBY DEVELOPMENT 14785 Village Drive Fontana,California 92337- 3934 Murphy Canyon Road,Suite 8204,San Diego,CA 92123 (619)268-1320 Lic.#A734297 FAX(619)268-5199 1 GRADIENT 1 ` ENGINEERS INC. Construction,Engineering 201 Environmental Services ' June 30, 1999 tProject No. 993070-001 To: Ashby Development 14785 Village Drive Fontana, California 92337 Attention: Mr. Wesley Hylen Subject: Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Report, Approximate 800-Acre Roripaugh Ranch, Riverside County,California ' Gradient Engineers, Inc. (Gradient) is pleased to present this Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (ESA)Report for the subject property. This ESA was conducted in accordance with Gradient's proposal dated January 28, 1999 and authorization of April 30, 1999. If you have any questions regarding this report, please do not hesitate to contact me. We appreciate the opportunity to be of service. Respectfully submitted, ' GRADIENT ENGINEERS,INC. ' Thomas E. Mills, RG 4439 (Exp. 6/30/2000) Principal MMH/TEM ' Distribution: (3)Addressee P:Trojects\993070.00IVtoripaugh Ranch-Phase 1 . 3934 Murphy Canyon Road,Suite 8204,San Diego,CA 92123 (619)268-1320 Lic.#A734297 FAX(6 19)268-5199 993070-001 ' TABLE OF CONTENTS Section page ' Executive Summary E_i ' 1.0 INTRODUCTION.........................................:..................:.................................................................................. 1 1.1 AUTHORIZATION......................................:....................................................................................................... 1 1.2 PURPOSE..........................:................................................................................................................................ I ' 1.3 SCOPE OF WORK..............:..................................................................:............................................................. I 1.4 LIMITATIONS AND EXCEPTIONS........................................................................................................................ I 1.5 LIMITING CONDITIONS AND METHODOLOGY....................................................................................................2 2:0 SITE DESCRIPTION..........................................................................................................................................4 2.1 SITE LOCATION................................................................................................................................................4 2.2 LEGAL DESCRIPTION.........................................................................................................................................4 2.3 SITE AND VICINITY CHARACTERISTICS..............................................................................................................4 2.4 ONSITE STRUCTURES AND IMPROVEMENTS....................................................:.................................................4 2.5 CURRENT USES OF ADJOINING PROPERTIES..................................................................................................... 5 ' 3.0 RECORDS REVIEW..........................................................................................................................................6 3.1 STANDARD ENVIRONMENTAL RECORD SOURCES........................................................................... 6 3.2 PHYSICAL SETTMGSOURCES............................................................................................................................6 1 3.3 GEOLOGY................................................................................................................................................... ....6 3.4 GROUNDWATER CHARACTERIZATION..............................................................................................:...............7 3.5 REVIEW OF PREVIOUS REPORTS......................................:................................................................................7 3.6 SOIL SAMPLING RESULTS.................................................................................................................................7 3.7 HISTORICAL USE INFORMATION......................................................:.......................................:........................8 3.7.1 Aerial Photographs.....................................................................................................................:........... 8 3.7.2 Fire Insurance Mops....................:........................................................................................................... 8 3.7.3 Title Documents....................................................................................................................................... 8 3.7.4 Radon...................................................................................................................................................... 9 ' 3.7.5 Additional Record Sources.......................................................:.................:............................................ 9 3.7.6 Summary ojHistorical Landuse.............................................................................................................. 9 4.0 SITE RECONNAISSANCE.........:............................:........................................................................................ 10 4.1 OBSERVED USES AND CONDITIONS................................................................................................................ 10 4.2 ADDITIONAL OBSERVATIONS......................................................................................................................... 12 5.0 INTERVIEWS................................................................................................................................................... 13 6.0 QUALIFICATIONS.......................................................................................................................................... 14 1 6.1 CORPORATE.................................................................................................................................................... 14 6.2 INDIVIDUAL.................................................................................................................................................... 14 ti GRADIENT ENGINEERS wn 993010-001 TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued) , List of Accompanying Appendices and Illustrations Figure 1 — Site Location Map—Page 3 , Figure 2—Site Reconnaissance Map—Rear of Text Figure 3 —Site Reconnaissance Map—AOC 1 —Rear of Text Figure 4—Site Reconnaissance Map—AOC2—Rear of Text ' Appendix A—References and Aerial Photographs Reviewed ' Appendix B—VISTA Report dated Appendix C—Laboratory Data Report Appendix D—Site Reconnaissance Photographs ' Appendix E—Records of Communication 1 VJ' li GRADIENT ENGINEERS iNc, 1 993070-001 ' EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ' Gradient Engincers, Inc. (Gradient) performed a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) at the Roripaugh Ranch in Riverside County, California (Figure 1). The purpose of this ESA was to identify ' recognized environmental conditions on the site. The term recognized environmental conditions is defined by ASTM Standard E 1527-97 as "the presence or likely presence of any hazardous substances or petroleum products on the property under conditions that indicate an existing release, a past release; or a material threat of a release of any hazardous substances or petroleum products into structures on the property, or into ground, ground water, or surface water of the property". The scope of work for this assessment included: records review, site reconnaissance, interviews, and report. The 800- acre subject site (Site) is located north and east of the unimproved Nicolas Road in Riverside County,Cal ifornia(Figure I - Site Location Map). ' Based on historical records, land usage is summarized as follows: ITimeYeriod Land Usage Reference Priorto 1949 Unknown Not available ' 1949 to 1967 Partially utilized for agriculture Aerial photographs 1967 to present Agricultural,residential and airstrip Interview Aerial photographs Adjoining propertieshave been used for similar purposes as the Site, primarily residential and agricultural. A search of selected government databases was conducted by Gradient using Vista Information Solutions, Inc. (VISTA) "StarView"environmental database report system. Review of the VISTA report indicates that no database listings(finds)were reported for the Site. Nine(9)database sites are located within a 1 and t 1/8 mile radius of the Site. These database sites consist of USGS/State water wells and according to the report, the wells are utilized for domestic or irrigation purposes or not used at all. Based on the data presented in the VISTA report, none of the database sites appear to pose a threat of environmental contamination at the Site. Review of aerial photographs from 1949, 1967, 1986, 1990, 1993, 1995 and 1997 and interviews with ' persons knowledgeable about .the Site indicated that recognized environmental conditions of concern were not reported for the Site. On June 1, 1999, Gradient staff visited the Site to assess current Site utilization and to identify possible environmental conditions of concern. Groundwater wells were not observed on the Site. Evidence of sumps, underground storage tanks, pumps or clarifiers.or were not observed on the Site. Evidence of ' aboveground storage tanks (ASTs) and drums/chemical containers were noted on Site. Evidence of recognized environmental conditions were noted in primarily two (2) areas of the Site. The two (2) areas consisted of a heavy machinery storage and maintenance area(AOC 1) and an airstrip(AOC 2). These two areas are located in the central western portion of the Site. Waste oil containers,solvent containers,stained . ' E-i - - GRADIENT ENGINEERS irvc. 993070-001 soils,ASTs,and stockpiles of trash including,but not limited to,wood,metals,tires,rusted 55-gallon drums , were noted in these areas. On June 1, 1999,Gradient staff also collected a total of 15 near surface soil samples. Seven (7) samples , were collected to assess for the absence/presence of pesticides in-the agricultural areas of the Site. The ' remaining eight (8) samples were collected below observed stained areas in the two (2) areas of concern AOC 1 and AOC 2 and analyzed for total petroleum hydrocarbons(TPH). None of the seven(7) samples analyzed for pesticides had any detectable concentrations of pesticides. The following table summarizes , the results of the samples collected and analyzed for TPH: Sample ID TPH (mg/kg) TPH Identification ' SSI-2" 483 Weathered diesel and waste oil SS2-2" 3,570 Weathered diesel and waste oil SS3-1' 1,230 Weathered diesel and waste oil SS4-1' 249 Weathered diesel and waste oil SS5-3" 153 Waste oil SS6-2" 69 Weathered diesel and waste oil SS74" 141 Waste oil SS8-3" 583 Weathered diesel and waste oil On June 29, 1999, Gradient spoke with Ms. Dori Malloy of the Riverside County Department of , Environmental Health (DEH) regarding the TPH impacted soil. According to Ms. Malloy, there is no specific criteria regarding the impacted soil. However, the DEH should be notified prior to removal of , the soils so there can be a DEH representative present to oversee the cleanup and verification sampling at the time the impacted soil is removed. In addition, the San Diego - Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) is the lead oversight agency regarding the ASTs and should be notified prior to ' removal of the diesel ASTs from the Site. Based upon the information obtained during the course of this assessment, Gradient presents the following opinion: • Gradient performed a Phase I ESA-for the Site in conformance with the scope and limitations of ' ASTM Practice E 1527-97. This assessment did indicate evidence of recognized environmental conditions of concern in connection with the property(TPH impacted soils). , Based upon the findings of this Phase I ESA,Gradient recommends: • The property owner is to notify the Riverside County DEH prior to the cleanup of any TPH impacted soils and properly mitigate the petroleum impacted soils in accordance with the DEH requirements. • The property owner is to notify the San Diego RWQCB prior to the removal of the fuel ASTs from ' the Site. • Remove and dispose of the abandoned materials from the Site in accordance with appropriate local, ' state and federal requirements. E ii GRADIENT ENGINEERS INC. ' 993070-001 ' That observations be made'during any future Site development for areas of possible contamination such as, but not limited to, the presence of underground facilities,buried debris,staining 'soils,waste drums, ' tanks, or odorous soils. Should such materials be encountered,further investigation and analysis may be necessary at that time. 1 1 1 ' E-iii GRADIENT ENGINEERSINC. 993070-001 ' 1.0 INTRODUCTION ' 1.1 Authorization ' In accordance with Ashby Development Co. authorization, Gradient completed a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment(ESA) of the Site. This work was conducted in accordance with Gradient's proposal dated January 28, 1999, and with Ashby Development Co. authorization ' signed by Mr. Justin Ashby, dated April 30, 1999. 1.2 Purpose The purpose of this ESA was to identify recognized environmental conditions of concern on the ' Site. The term recognized environmental conditions is defined by ASTM Standard E 1527-97 as "the presence or likely presence of any hazardous substances or petroleum products on the property under conditions that indicate an existing release,a past release, or a material threat of a ' release of any hazardous substances or petroleum products into structures on the property, or into ground, ground water, or surface water of the property". Recognized environmental conditions include hazardous substances or petroleum products even under conditions in compliance with ' applicable laws. The term does not include de minimis conditions that generally do not present a material risk of harm to public health or the environment. ' 1.3 Scope of Work The scope of work was performed in accordance with Gradient's proposal and included the following tasks: • " Site Reconnaissance and Soil Sampling • Records Review; • Interviews; ' Report. This ESA did not include air or water sampling, or investigations for radon, asbestos or lead- based paint. ' 1.4 Limitations and Exceptions The findings and professional opinions presented in this report are based on the information ' made available to Gradient (in most cases from previous reports and from public records) and could change if additional information becomes available. In performing our professional services, Gradient applied present engineering and scientific judgment and used a level of effort consistent with the standard of practice measured on the date of this report and in the vicinity of the project site for projects of similar scope. Gradient makes no warranties, either express or implied, concerning the completeness of the data made available to us for this study. Gradient specifically withholds certification of any type concerning the absence of contamination at the 1 Site. VW_1_ GRADIENT ENGINEERS irt. 993070-001 1.5 Limiting Conditions and Methodology , The methodology used during this assessment conforms with current standard of care in the performance of Phase I ESAs in southern California. The list of references used for this study is ' included as Appendix A. The research of selected government databases was performed by Gradient using Vista Information Solutions, Inc. (VISTA) "StarView" environmental database , program. A copy of the VISTA report is included as Appendix B. The laboratory data report is presented in Appendix C. Representative color photographs of the Site and area that were taken during the Site reconnaissance are presented in Appendix D. Government records documenting the history of hazardous materials in this area are generally reliable for only the past ten years or ' less; therefore, undocumented sites or events may exist, and early records of the Site may not have been made available by the agencies for review. Records of communication with persons familiarwith the Site are presented in Appendix E. , 1 1 2 ' GRADIENT ENGINEERSINc , 1 OCF115E 1 > AULD O w U 1 T Y o MAZ E FI VALLEY � PRISCIDA z 2 JOL ALLEN BUE IA VENTURA a O BO LEGG z NOR z U O } HUNTER ut uu 5PA OW 1 PR TO P'j cw5 Poe PROJECT 0 SITE C GA IOT P M I s= O 1 ~ y PME5 V TO y T AND DEFER v 2 C�r Op CIO, W < IO Y F m r M ?<, GEN( P Tq �f 1 O ES O 3�y3 v 9 h \NGJd 1 ➢ v t 0 h Grn rFy� m A _i P r TL Q H 'b O o ° 00 I � F A E a Q 15 9 \ IO ME NGIA N • � LLE AVE NORTH BASE MAP: Thomas Bros.GeoFinderfor 1 Windows,Riverside County, 1995, Page 929 0 2000 4000 pm ?mmm=mmm=m APPROXIMATE SCALE IN FEET SITE PROJECT NO . 993070-001 1Roripaugh Ranch LOCATION de County, California DATE Riverside M A P June 1999 1 GRADIENT ENGINEERS!- FIGURE No. 1. 1 993070-001 2.0 SITE DESCRIPTION 1 2.1 Site Location ' The 800-acre Site is located north and east of the unimproved Nicolas Road in Riverside County, California(Figure 1 - Site Location Map). 2.2 Legal Description ' A title reportwas not provided for Gradientto review for this assessment. ' 2.3 Site and Vicinity Characteristics The 800-acre Site is currently being utilized for residential and agricultural purposes. The Site ' consists of relatively hilly terrain,and several drainage canyons transverse the Site from northeast to southwest. The owner of the Site,Mr. Leo Roripaugh,has owned the Site for approximately40 years and has dry-farmed(wheat)and lived at the Site since. ' The municipal water district (MWD) has an easement transversing the Site from approximately north to south in the central northern area. The easement is shown on Figure 2. 2.4 Onsite Structures and Improvements Y ' The majority of the Site is comprised of open land. The following three(3) areas on the Site have structures: ' 1). The residential area located in the central north area of the Site. This area has two (2) single- family residences. 2). The equipment area (AOC 1) located in the central east boundary of the Site. Three (3) buildings(a single-family residence, storage building and maintenance workshop)are present in this area,includingan inoperable windmill. 3). The airstrip area(AOC 2) located to the east of the maintenance area. Five(5) buildings are located in this area including two(2)airplane hangers and three(3)storage buildings/sheds. ' The Site receives its water from a private well and sewer is released into an on site septic tank. 1 -4- GRADIENT ENGINEERS INc 993070-001 2.5 Current Uses of Adjoining Properties Surrounding properties are summarized in the followingtable. 1 Properties Land Use ' Adjacent properties to the north: • Agriculture ' • Residential Adjacent propertiestothe east: • Residential , Adjacent properties to the south: • Residential Adjacentpropertiestothe west: • Residential , 1 'V'f 1 . _5 GRADIENT ENGINEERS iNc 993070-001 I3.0 RECORDS REVIEW ' 3.1 Standard Environmental Record Sources ' A search of selected government databases was conducted by Gradient using Vista Information Solutions, Inc. (VISTA) "StarView" environmental database report system. Details of the database search along with descriptions of each database researched are provided in Vista's ' report (Appendix B). Figures 2 and 3 of VISTA report(Appendix B)show the nearby properties listed on the databases that are within a ''A and 1-mile radius of the Site. ' A search of selected government databases was conducted by Gradient using Vista Information Solutions,Inc. (VISTA)"StarView"environmental database report system. Review of the VISTA report indicates that no database listings(finds)were reported for the Site. Nine(9) database sites are located within a I and 1/8-mile radius of the Site. These database sites consist of USGS/State water wells and according to the report,the wells are utilized for domestic or irrigation purposes or not used at all. 1 3.2 Physical Setting Sources United States Geological Survey (USGS) 7.5-minute topographic map, Bachelor Mountain, California, 1953 (photorevised 1973),was reviewed. The map indicates that the Site is located in primarily undeveloped area. The Site is primarily hilly terrain with two (2) unimproved roads transversing the Site from the east to west in the central portion and from north to south in northern half along the east boundary. A windmill is present on Site in the central area along the eastern boundary. In addition, two (2) creeks transect the Site. The Santa Gertrudis Creek transects the northern half of the Site from the northeast to the southwest. Another creek (unnamed) transects the southern half of the Site from east to west. A walkthrough Site reconnaissance did not reveal existing wetlands or conditions,such as reeds on standing water,which would indicate the presence of a wetland on the Site. In addition,Gradient's review of the USGS topographic map revealed no evidence of wetlands on the Site. According to the topographic map, the site ranges in elevation.from 1400 feet above mean sea ' level along the highest ridge (central portion of Site)to 1200 in the lowest areas of Site. 3.3 Geoloev The Site is locates in the Peninsular Range Geomorphic Province if California. The Site consists of topsoil, alluvium, colluvium and the Quaternary Pauba Formation(Leighton, 1990). -6- GRADIENT ENGINEERSINC. 1 993070-001 3.4 Groundwater Characterization Hydrogeological data was not available for our review. However, based on the topographical gradient at the Site, the anticipated direction of groundwater flow is toward the west. According to Mr. Leo Roripaugh, the depth to water in his water well is 40 feet below grade. ' 3.5 Review of Previous Reports ' No previous environmental reports were available for our review for the Site. 1 3.6 Soil Sampling Results On June 1, 1999, during the site reconnaissance, 15 soil samples were collected on Site. Seven , (7) soil samples (Sl through S7) were collected in agriculture use area at one foot below grade and analyzed for pesticides by EPA Method 8080. The locations of the seven (7) sample , locations are shown on Figure 2. The remaining eight (8) samples (SSI through SS8) were collected in the airstrip and maintenance areas where there is petroleum hydrocarbon soil staining. The samples were analyzed for total petroleum hydrocarbon (TPH)extended by ASTM , D2887. The samples were collected below staining at varying depths below grade. The samples were placed in laboratory provided jars and placed on ice. The samples were subsequently transported by proper chain of custody to Pacific Treatment Analytical for laboratory analysis. , The laboratory report and chain of custody are presented in Appendix C. In summary, the seven (7) samples that were analyzed for pesticides did not have any detectable , concentrations of pesticides at or below the laboratory detection limits. The following table summarizes the laboratory data for the remaining samples that were analyzed for TPH. Sample ED TPH (mg/kg) TPH Identification SSI-2" 483 Weathered diesel and waste oil SS2-2" 3,570 Weathered diesel and waste oil , SS3-1' 1,230 Weathered diesel and waste oil SS4-1' 249 Weathered diesel and waste oil SS5-3" 153 Waste oil ' SS6-2" 69 Weathered diesel and waste oil SS7-4" 141 Waste oil SS8-3" 583 Weathered diesel and waste oil ' The laboratory data is also summarized on Figures 2, 3 and 4. On June 29, 1999, Gradient spoke with Ms. Dori Malloy of the Riverside County Department of ' Environmental Health (DEH) regarding the TPH impacted soil. According to Ms. Malloy,'there is no specific criteria regarding the impacted soil. However,the DEH should be notified prior to ' removal of the soils so there can be a DEH representative in order to oversee the cleanup and verification sampling,. _In addition, the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) is the oversight agency for ASTs and should be notified regarding the diesel ASTs. GRADIENT ENGINEERS INC. ' 1 993070-001 3.7 Historical Use Information 3.7.1 Aerial Photographs Historical aerial photographs were reviewed for information regarding past Site' uses. ' Aerial photographs were reviewed for the following years: 1949, 1967, 1986, 1990, 1993, 1995 and 1997. References are provided in Appendix A. ' In the 1949 aerial photograph, the Site and the surrounding areas appear to be partially utilized for agricultural purposes. There is no evidence of the airstrip, single-family residences or equipment storage area. There does not appear to be any residential ' development in the surrounding areas. In the 1967 aerial photograph, a structure, possibly the windmill is evident on Site. The ' MWD property easement appears on Site. The surrounding areas appear to be minimally changed from the 1949 aerial photograph. ' In the 1986 aerial photograph, the airstrip appears to be present. There does not appear to be any buildings or airplanes in the area of the airstrip. There appears to be scattered residential development in the surrounding areas. ' In the 1990 aerial photograph,the Site appears to be similar to the present. The airstrip, single-family residences and equipment storage area are present. ' In the 1993 aerial photograph,there appears to be minimal change from the 1990 aerial photograph. T ' In the 1995 aerial photograph, there appears to be minimal change from the 1993 aerial photograph. In the 1997 aerial photograph,there appears to be minimal change from the-1995 aerial photograph. ' 3.7.2 Fire Insurance Maps Fire insurance maps were not reviewed for this assessment. 3.7.3 Title Documents ' "Title documents were not provided to Gradient for review in this assessment. ' 8_ GRADIENT ENGINEERS INC - 993070-001 3.7.4 Radon f In 1990,the State of California(1990)conducted a radon survey in the state. The results of ' the survey indicate that for the 182 samples obtained in Region 9 which included Riverside County,the arithmeticmean radon levels were 0.6 pCi/l. This average total is below the U. ' S.EPA radon action level of 4 pCi/1. 3.7.5 AdditionalRec ord Sources Additional City and County Agency record sources could not be assessed since the Site ' does not have a specific address. 3.7.6 Summary of Historical Landuse ' Based on historical records, land usage is summarized as follows: Time Period Land Usage Reference ' E1949to 1949 Unknown Not available 1967. Partiallyutilizedforagriculture Aerial photographs present Agricultural,residential and_ Interview , airstrip Aerial photographs 1 -9- • GRADIENT ENGINEERS Inc. ' 1 993070-001 ' 4.0 SITE RECONNAISSANCE 4.1 Observed Uses and Conditions On June 1, 1999, Gradient staff visited the Site to assess current Site utilization, to locate possible areas of environmental conditions of concern. Photographs of the Site are presented in Appendix D and their view directions are noted on Figure 2, 3 and 4. Items noted during the Site ' reconnaissance are also noted on Figure 2, 3 and 4. The Figures consist of the following: Figure 2: Overall Site Map ' Figure 3: Site Reconnaissance Map of the Maintenance Area/Residential/Heavy Equipment Storage Area Figure 4: Site Reconnaissance Map of the Airstrip Area ' In addition, the Site primarily consists of two (2) areas of concern (AOC), which consists of the following: ' AOC 1: Maintenance area/heavy equipment storage area located along the central west boundary of Site(Figure 3) ' AOC 2: Airstrip area located in the central area of Site to the east of AOC 1 (Figure 4). Hazardous Substance in Connection with Identified Uses: Evidence of storage of hazardous ' materials was noted in the following areas: AOC 1: 55-gallon drums were noted to contain oil and several 5-gallon plastic containers contained hydraulic fluid (Appendix D, Photo 4). Hazardous Substance Containers and Unidentified Substance Containers: Evidence of ' hazardous or unidentified substance containers was noted. AOC 1: Several unlabeled containers were noted throughout this area. Some of the containers appeared to contain waste oil [Appendix D, Photo 3 (sampled, and soil staining—2 ft.x2 ft.), Photo 4 (sampled and soil staining-4 ft. x 4 ft.)and Photo 5]. ' AOC 2: Several unlabeled containers were noted throughout this area. Some of the containers appeared to contain waste oil [Appendix D, Photo 11 (sampled and staining—2 ft.x 8 ft.) and Photo 14 (sampled and soil staining 3 ft.x 4 ft.)]. On Site Regulated Substance IdentiHcation/Inventory: Chemical containers/drums were observed on the Site during the Site reconnaissance. See above discussion. 1 ' _ -10- GRADIENT ENGINEERS inc 993070-001 Storage Tanks and Pipelines: Evidence of underground storage tanks (USTs) was not noted on Site. Aboveground storage tanks (ASTs), pipelines associated with or evidence of current or former ASTs were observed on the Site. Several ASTs were noted on Site. , AOC 1: Two (2) water ASTs were noted. A portable fuel tank was noted in the area of the Roripaugh residences (Appendix D, Photo t) petroleum hydrocarbon odors and soil ' staining were noted (-2 ft. x 3ft.), a sample was collected (SSI-2"). A fuel AST was noted in the central area of AOC 1 and a portable AST (diesel) was observed adjacent to the maintenance shed/workshop. Two (2) diesel AM (Appendix D, ' Photo No. 6)were noted along the road that leads to the airstrip. Soil staining (-4 ft. x 4ft.) and petroleum hydrocarbon odors were noted and a sample was collected (SS4-l'). , AOC 2: Four (4) ASTs were noted in this area (Appendix D, Photos 10 and 15). One of the ASTs was labeled to containing unleaded fuel (Appendix D, Photo 10). No staining ' or odors were noted. The other three (3) ASTs were not labeled as to their contents nor was their any evidence of staining or odors, however, one (1) of the tanks (Appendix D, Photo 15)was in dense vegetation and was not reachable. ' An AST was also noted in the central south boundary of the Site (Appendix D, Photo 16). The location of the AST is also shown on Figure 2. There was no odors or soil staining associated ' with petroleum hydrocarbons in the vicinity of this AST. Monitoring Wells or Remedial Activities: Evidence of monitoring wells or remedial activities ' were not observed at the Site. Indications of Solid Waste Disposal: Indications of solid waste disposal was observed on Site. AOC 2 had several areas of discarded debris. At the east end of the airstrip, a large pile of debris was noted (Appendix D, Photo 7). The debris consisted.of discarded metal pieces, wood, tires and empiy and crushed rusted 55-gallon drums. Across the airstrip to the southwest, more debris ' was noted (including tires, 55-gallon empty drum, and corrugated steel pipes) (Appendix D, Photos 3 and 9). Adjacent to the airstrip and to the south, dense vegetation, rusted debris and equipme::t were noted (Appendix D,Photos 12, 13 and 14). ' Discolorc;l,Distressed or Discolored Vegetation:Evidence of discolored,distressed or discolored vegetation was not noted on Site. ' Stained or Discolored_Soil: Evidence of stained or discolored soil was noted on the Site. See the above discussions. ' Obvious Odors: Evidence of odors was noted on the Site. See the above discussions. Inclinations of Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs): Evidence of leaking, PCB-containing pad , or pole mounted transformers, fluorescent light ballasts or other PCB-containing equipment were not noted. , Asbestos Containing Construction Material (ACCM): An ACCM survey was not included in our scope of work. ' T'F_11 GRADIENT ENGINEERS INC. , 1 993070-001 Lead-Based Paint:A lead-based paint survey was not included in our scope of work.. 4.2 Add itiona I Observations • Heavy equipment storage was noted in AOC 1. • A residence was noted in AOC 1. 1 1 1 1 ' -12- GRADIENT ENGINEERS;H . 993070-001 5.0 INTERVIEWS Gradient conducted interviews with persons having knowledge of current or past Site usage. Interviews were conducted either orally or in the form of a written questionnaire. Written responses are included as Appendix E. The following person was interviewed: , • Mr. Leo Roripaugh, the owner of.the Site completed a standard Phase I ESA background questionnaire for the Site. According to Mr. Roripaugh, he has owned the Site for 40 years. The Site has been utilized for dry farming practices throughout Mr. Roripaugh's ownership. The previous owner of the Site was Mr. Roripaugh's grandfather. Mr. Roripaugh stated that there has never been USTs on Site, only ASTs. Mr. Roripaugh did not indicate any conditions of environmental concern ' for the Site. t -13- GRADIENT ENGINEERS iNc. ' 993070-001 ' 6.0 QUALIFICATIONS ' 6.1 Corporate ' GTG, Inc. is the parent firm for four firms, of which Gradient Engineers, Inc. is one. The other three firms are: Leighton and Associates, Inc., Teratest Labs, Inc., and Earth Consultants International, Inc. Gradient was formed in 1997 and between 1983 and 1997, was the ' Environmental Services Division of Leighton and Associates, Inc. Gradient provides professional services in environmental engineering which involves the application of science and engineering to environmental compliance, contamination assessment and cleanup, and the management of hazardous, solid and industrial waste. Phase I Environmental Site Assessments are a part of this practice area and have been conducted by Gradient. 6.2 Individual ' The qualifications of the Project Manager and the other Gradient environmental professionals involved in this Phase I ESA meet the Gradient corporate requirements for performing Phase I ESAs. In addition, Mr. Mills is a Registered Environmental Assessor and Geologist in the State ' of California. 1 1 ' -14 GRADIENT ENGINEERSINC. MWO easement I-------- 1 --------------------------, 91-1' (NO) S2-1'• �/ I -------------- SEE SEE ' I I ------------- -- -- J1L I' FIGURE FIGURE I NO.4 NO.3 I I I I •Sr r LEGEND (NO) I I I •5.7.1• FOR SAMPLE METHOD ROAD I I FON PESTI<IOES BY EPA METHOD COIO I • IN0) I HD) I (NO) NOT LAB DETECTED (NO) EDETE DETECTION I 16, • I (NO)• 56.1' I .16 PHOTO LOCATION WITH DIRECTION I AST (NO) I I I. I I I I I I I NORTH Paw ECY NO. 993070-001 SITE MAP SCALE Not to scale Vp!*w ENDR.AADL. TEWMMH � f RD DATED BY KAM Rlverstoe rl Coupa nugh tyRa, Calnch l To rola DATE Juna 1999 GRADIENT ENGINEERS FIGURE NO. Z Portable LEGEND I ` /tank �—RESIDENCE SS1 T aeJ mWk9) RESIDENCE Soil sample location with depth below �., --------------. • 891 Z grade analyzed for Total Petroleum i ; I �-�—I Flydrocarbons RPH)Extended Range Area of staining I I �\ by ASTM D28 (approx.2'x3') (249 m9ft) TPH concentration 6 4\ Photo location vdth direction Site reconnaissance performed on June 1,1999. TO LANDING Wood STRIP (See Figure No.4) piles X X Portable AST Area of mete oil Tires Area of staining and 5-gal.containers� �` (approx.2'x2') ' Heavy Area of staining \ +$ aqu1;ment (approx.8'x20') storage r' , G� 0�______ - 1 ► r -� EXISTING _ ' i 2 �-''---" �� (e9m9a�9) BUILDING Unlabeled half / �_-_-;-_ ------ % drum o(was(e oil 3 Water tankArea of staining DRY RIVER Fuel 6/ /(approx.4'x4') IV /,,/ I �1 tank 5 ' CHANNEL 1 j El ROAD ❑ Several unlabeled , GaKSHOP SS4-1' containers � 769 m9h9) 55-gal.drum Portable �� DRY RIVER _-ro 0.� 5y .containersacontainersT AST CHANNEL Two diesel Pallet of of OO Two Fuel lines containers ---- Area of staining __-SS8Z' (approx.4'x4') c- �1,pe3m9at91 x%74' Area of staining NORTH (141 mglkg) (approx.8'x3') PROJECT No. 993070-001 AVAw SITE RECONNAISSANCE - AOC 1 SCALE Not toscale ENGR. /GEOL. TEMIMMH Roripaugh Ranch DRAFTED By KAM Riverside County , California DATE June 1999 GRADIENT ENGINEERSIN". FIGURE No. 3 Stec 65 of misc.debris LEGEND Including: wood,mesal, concrete,crushed rusted drums SSI-Z' Soil sample location with depth -� i O o below grade analyzed for Total , '� , Q Petroleum Hydrocarbons D2�(TPH Extended Range by AS iTA 87 64h, Photo location with direction tp ' ` Empty rusted drums observed (1,230 (holes (1,230 mgrkg) TPH concentration throughout sides) , Site reconnaissance performed on June 1,1999. - ll-ANpIN� STRIP AST (unleaded fuel) Hangers with airplanes - Tires,equipment, rusted drums -iiSee Figure No.3 \ �� r i r - ,Ig .. AST .- r- ,------____J -__ (S(taining 9 9 Tires 1 12, 3aNr x. SS2-T' Staining �u- —Paint Equipment --- �k.3— mgMg) -- (approx.3'x4')\-OOO� containers i ', OL r Airplane • Overgro . _ Rusted i D ` �r•3,,,1� , vegeta tion tee.,' equipment ; /Oti\Thick (1,230 m91kg) 14 R i 0" vegetation Ezist. �c 7 Overgrown vegetation ` shed �, containers ntainers and rusted equipment \ II (////���\�\� ASTs Concrete barriers I` NORTH PROJECT No. 993070-001 ArA'W SITE RECONNAISSANCE — AOC 2 SCALE TNot to EM/M `a'� .A ENGR./GEOL. TEMIMMH �-'���! ." Roripaugh Ranch DRAFTED By KAM Riverside County , California DATE June 1999 GRADIENT ENGINEERSIkc FIGURE No. 4 1 993070-001 APPENDIX A REFERENCES 1 ASTM, 1997, ASTM Standards on Environmental Site Assessments for Commercial Real Estate, Designation E 1527-97, dated March 10, 1997. Leighton and Associates, Inc., 1990, Geotechnical Investigation and Evaluation of Possible Fault, Proposed Roripaugfi High School, Murrieta, California, dated October 24. State of California, Department of Health Services, 1990, California Radon Survey of Interim Results, 9 pages. 1 AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHS REVIEWED Date Flight Frame Scale Source 1 5-23-49 AXM-IOF 66/67 Not Available Continental Aerial Photograph 5-23-49 AXM-1 OF 82/83 Not Available Continental Aerial Photograph 5-9-67 AXM-IHH 73/74 Not Available Continental Aerial Photograph 7-30-86 86184 164/165 Not Available Continental Aerial Photograph 10-12-90 90205 164/_165, Not Available Continental Aerial 1 Photograph 5-14-93 C90-6 187/188/189 Not Available Continental Aerial Photograph 1 10-04-95 EMWD 164/165 Not Available Continental Aerial Photograph 10-15-90 C117-43 92/91 Not Available Continental Aerial 1 Photograph 1 1 1 1 1 A ' SITE ASSESSMENT PLUS REPORT (EXTENDED' BY 1 MILE) ' PROPERTY CLIENT S INFORMATION INFORMATION ' Project Name/Ref#: Not Provided Wesley Hylen Roripaugh Ranch Ashby Development Company Nicolas Road 31566 Railroad Canyon Road Murrieta, CA 92592 Canyon Lake, CA 92587 Latitude/Longitude: 33.549080, 117.095065 Site DistribUtiorlSUmmary vhth1n77/8 r7/B to t7/470 7712ro ......: mde.._...,! 7.7/4 mile,. 1T/T mile :. 2mdes.... Agency/Database .Type of Records A) Databases searched to 2 miles: ... ' US EPA NPL National Prlori[y List 0 0 0 U .US EPA i',CORRACTS RCRA-Corrective Actions 0 0 0 0 STATE SPL State egwvalenCpnon[y lis[ 0 0 0 0 B).Databases searched to 1 1/2mile ` _: STAful. SCCSiate egwvalen['CERCLIS list 0 0 0 US;EPA CERCLIS 1 Sites currently or formerly under NFRAP reviewby US EPA' 0 0 0 US EPA 'TSD RCRA permrt[ed treatment;storage,j disposal faalrties 0 0 0 STATE REG ..LUST Leaking Underground Storage Tanks. CO 0 0 0 STATE/ SWLF REG/CO Permitted as solid waste landfills inclneratom or transfer stations 0 0 0 TATE-: DEED RSTR Sites.with.deed restrictions: o 0 0 STATE :CORTESE State index of properties with hazardous waste: 0 0 0 STATE TOXIC PITS Toxic Pits cleanup facilities ` 0 0 0 USGS/STATE WATER Federal and State D ' king Water WELLS Sources 9 2 2 C) Databases searched tq 1 1/4 mile: ' US EPA RCRA viol: RCRA viotations/enforcement actions 0 0 USiEPA TRIS Tox[cReleaseln6entorydatabase °' 0 0 ' STATE: UST/AST Registeretl untlergrountl or_ abovegroundstorage tanks 0 0 For more information call VISTA Information Solutions, Inc. at 1 - 600 - 767 - 0403. Report ID: 993070001 Date of Report: June 9,.1999 Version 2.6.7 .page#1 1 Site DMil-bution Sumrnary144111k):IT 1/8 1:118 to,:: T.1/4 to- mile: 7 114-mile.. -1:712mile 2 miles:: Ag f Records .D) Databases search6d to I 1/111: rn�jle, US EPA ERNS Emergency Response Notification: Systeffi:of spills 0 .US.,E,P,A:.:: :GNRTR generators of haiardous waste 0 standardSTM standard state government database 1 5.27..1.or,.. ... ....:...,.: federal,and .parameters.: . ......- ....... ruk m choosing to ;on VISTAservices,in wholL or partprktlo proceeding ...v..A- ui.any quvnam;a.n.....- .. . _ g..n.convMio..n. :o..f.d.. a...t. a,:or foie.cunomer'sidse or data rpl§YveOndjade� dentcontactoncannoI be held fiz be for accuracy,: .i:Mnse s ere yCUS orerresqhifigdirectly orIndiii;mly from any infortnatiorl provided byVISTA.:.. NOTES For more information call VISTA Information Solutions, Inc; at 1 -800 - 767 - 0403. Report' 1D:X993070001 Date of Report:June 9, 1999 Version 2.6.7 Page Ar2 SITE ASSESSMENT PLUS REPORT (EXTENDED BY 1 MILE) Map of Sites within: 2 Miles Lake kr Por cr aFlon Skinner Re 1Y Jolynn A 'n Allen turn Rd 1 •, ! .^.,fir, ••�•'•.. 1 .�, 4'Po i..• •�� •fir •1 — :2L o o n.. •• o e QN r o= 3.•oma o C/ Co tiP�(O' • nida o t f ry m :........�_..ti _ =� � p\11 10 Rd �� e i ° ..Cpm •__:s R �° UaW •� a,°G o L� � o 0 0.5 1 C •e W � r A• N Miles Category: A B C D Subject Site Databases Searched to: 2 mi. 1 1/2 ml. 1 1/4 mi. 1 1/8 mi. ' Single Sites Q Multiple Sites A O Highways and Major Roads NPL, SPL, CERCLIS\ UST ERNS, Roads CORRACTS NFRAP, GENERATORS Railroads (TSD) T�GGFSF/A�/D/ ,FLUST, Rivers or Water Bodies It additional databases are I sTedin fHe cover page of the report they are also displayed UIIIIIIBS on this map. The map symbol used corresponds to the database category letter A,a,C,D. For More Information Call VISTA Information Solutions, Inc. at 1 -800-767-0403 Report ID: 993070001 Date of Report: June 9, 1999 Page N3 e SITE ASSESSMENT PLUS REPORT- (EXTENDED BY 1 MILE) Map o . Sites within 1 1/4 Miles eD , I d rn S /rRd \os Q,a 's1 Dp IA •o n iee` 0 �O ................. ore. o rod Vsto Del Monte ' • �.._^_ y Klan _..• 1 r 'N,,oryo• L FQ•` D no C CD'lP o L0 Se ren y ••- n ' 0 0.35 0.7 ' Avenida Del Re ,�'� _ �•, o Miles Category: A B C D Subject Site Databases Searched to: 2 mi. 1 1/2 mi. 1 1/4 mi. 1 1/8 mi, Single Sites Q Multiple Sites G Highways and Major Roads NPL, SPL, CERCLIS% UST ERNS, Roads CORRACTS NFRAP, GENERATORS Railroads .(TSD) TGGSWWD,FFLUGGST, . ' �``• Rivers or Water Bodies If additional databases are IIsTVA 1ReAo�'ver page of the report they are also displayed �. Utilities on this map. The map symbol used corcespontls to the database category letter A.B,C,D. For More Information Call VISTA Information Solutions, Inc. at 1 -800 -767-0403 Report ID: 993070001 Date of Report:June 9, 1999 Page#4 SITE ASSESSMENT PLUS REPORT (EXTENDED BY.1 MILE) 1 Street Map` r Loke kr Por N ;v .• 'Skinn er Recr °tion Jolynn RIA Allen S r" • t, r-• Rp�,r. Pd ..,� i• s s •' = r; A .•h, .per e •"� i 7 •�,.. v > m IS(o,� 0 � o ' a — w6i of 3 = e .0• Ct QN r i o nid° Del Pose ? o Coe � ,� , ... oo Ro ,o\d .•��to-h.- Pkv o •.•�,ha -o c�` — ap �°n � ._O ..,—"_0.5 1 e e e q Miles Highways and Major Roads Subject Site �/� Roads Railroads ` Rivers or Water Bodies Utilities For More Information Call VISTA Information Solutions, Inc. at 1 -800-767-0403 Report (D: 993070001 Date of Report: June 9, 1999 Page M5 r SITE ASSESSMENT PLUS REPORT: (EXTENDED BY 1 MILE) SITE INVENTORY r A . e c PROPERTY AND THE ADJACENT AREA c rMAP (wRhm 1 1/8 r'ni qa m U s cu y � ,Was1O ` F r :DISTANCE a 0 a U w W O Q U `n, N Z :DIRECTION Z U u+ U' 1A USGS WATER WELL ID #333251117055404846400 CA 0.16 MI X ' SW 18 USGS WATER WELL ID#333250117055806846386 CA 0.22 MI X SW USGS WATER WELL ID #333251117060006846401 1 B CA 0.24 Mr X w 2 USGS WATER WELL ID #333224117062706846229 CA _ 0.99 MI X #333334117050004646727SW USGS WATER WELL ID #333334117050004s7z1 3 CA 0.92 MI X NE 4 USGS WATER WELL ID#333232117064504646272 r CA 1.05 MI x W 4 USGS WATER WELL ID #33 32 3 511 7064 704646263 CA 7.06 MI X W ' S USGS WATER WELL ID #33334311705000464677B , CA 1.06 MI X NE USGS WATER WELL ID#333346117050304646803 5 ' CA 7.09 NE X NE A 8 Ci D SITES IN TH"SURROUNDING AREA a MAP (within T 1/8 1 1/4 mde) v, ID` Z n 0 r U ✓I 1n rn a > VISTA ID U w O z tY. DISTANCE a O y U- w 3 w 0 d ::.D1RECi10N. ? U ti uo: r J; N Q U. jx W 6.7i 5 USGS WATER WELL ID#.333347117045904646814 , CA 7.13 MI x NE 6 USGS WATER WELL ID#333245117065604646360 CA 1.14 MI Ix W r X=search criteria; • =tag-along (beyond search criteria). For more information call VISTA Information Solutions, Inc. at 1 - 800 - 767 - 0403. r Report ID: 993070001 - Date of Report June 9, 1999 Version 2.6.1 Page N6 C SITES:IN:THE SURROUNDING iAR ... ..... ...... :MAP w7thit.11 1/4 1:11f ... z w w .0 . ........... .. ....VISTA ID ...... DISTA NCF C) 0 L) < CL U 3: 0 0: E ... ........ Z 0 :0 ') LJSGS WATER WELL 11)#333148117050404846117 77.39 M1 x . CA SE USGS WATER WELL ID#333405117063304846963 CA 1.48 MI x NW . ........... .�.:SITES INITHE ISURROUNDING:AREA-.1.��.�...... ..... ..... ..... ...... ..... AP,. (within 1 1/2 2'mlles) ............... ......- ........ ..... ............ ............ ... .... 0 -:M VISTA ID IX ¢ us:.w. DISTANCE 0 w 0 .0 1 12. Z' .......... ................. DIRECDON z U 'vl ................... No Records Found X =search criteria; tag-along (beyond search criteria). For more information call VISTA Information Solutions, Inc. at 1 - 800 - 767 - 0403. Report ID: 993070001 Date of Report: June 9, 1999 Vernon 2.6.1 Page.47 . .......... ... .........- UNMAPPED SITES ............. .. ........... .... . ............ .. ....... ..... > ... ................ of U Ce .... ..... 0 ZTZ: vlsraro0 U Cx: z0 0:0 TEMECULA 5873477 RAINBOW CANYON RD TEMECULA, CA TEMECULA 7447420 EAST OF HWY 15 TEMECULA, CA TEMECULA LANDFILL 8697655 NW1/4, SEC 30, TBS, R2W x TEMECULA, CA GTE REDHAWK CENTRAL OFFICE 7852745 32505 STATE HIGHWAY x TEMECULA, CA 92589 TRI WEST/PACIFIC SOD 1765697 45620 E PALA RD x PALA, ca X =search criteria; tag-along (beyond search criteria). For more information call VISTA Information Solutions, Inc. at 1 - 800 - 767 - 0403. Report ID: 993070001 Date of Report:June 9, 1999 Version 2.6.1 Page.48 SITE ASSESSMENT PLUS REPORT' (EXTENDED BY 1 , MILE) DETAILS ' PROPERTY AND THE ADJACENT AREA Wthin 1 1/8anile) VISTAUSGS WATER WELLIb #333251117055401 VISTA ID#' 8846400 Map Ib `: Adtlress' UA Distance/p7rection;0 16 MI 1 SW Plotted as Point 1 A USGS Wells: Federal Drinkin Water Sources/,SRC#.5384 EPA/Agency ID: N/A Agency Address: SAMEASAeoVE Well ID: 333251117055401 Use: STOCK Depth: 109.0 Latitude: 33.5475 Longitude: -17 7.0983333333 Surface Elevation: 7275. Static Water Level: 57.00 County FIPS: 6065 VISTA USGS WATER WELL ID #333250117055801 VISTA ID# 8846386 : Map iu Address : CA pistancelp,rection; 0.22 MI 1 SW Plotted as, Point 1 B USGS:Wells:'-federal Drinkin :WaterSources/SRC#:5384 EPA/Agency ID; N/A Agency Address: SAMEASAeoVE Well ID: 333250177055801 Use: DOMESTIC Depth: 740.0 Latitude: 33.547222222222 Longitude: -777.0994444444 Quadran le Name: 6ACHELORMrN Surface Elevation: 1205. Count FIPS: 6065 VIsrA USGSWATER WELL ID #33325111706Q001 vlsrA ID# gsasa0l Map ID Andress*: CA bistancelb7recuan::o 24 full 1 vs ' ': plottetl as po7n[ '�B : USGS Wells-Federal DrinkinWater Sources`/SRU.530C EPA/Agency ID: . N/A, Agency Address: SAME AS AeoVE Well ID: 333251117060007 ' Use: - UNUSED Depth: 293.0 Latitude: 33.5475 Longitude: -117.1 Surface Elevation: 1200. 1 ' VISTA address includes enhanced city and ZIP. For more information call VISTA Information Solutions, Inc. at 1 - 800 -767 - 0403. Report ID: 993070001 Date of Report:June 9, 1999 Version 2.6.7 Page P9 . ........... PRQPERT.Y AND THE ADJACENT ARFA Static.�Water level: 54.00 Count FIPS: 5065 UISTA LISGS:WATER:WELL I Dr#333224-117,0627901 8846229:.] Af ;r... L..::: ,'9.. ::::::1:�:1::�: ::::::::9::::::: . ........... ............. ........ LL 0_89:MI:ZSW. [potted:as, Point:': 'Lr Sources USGSWells.-Federal Water ./SRC#5384 L EPA/AjericyilW :;:I N/A Agency Address: SAMEASABOVE Well ID: 333224117062707 Use: DOMESTIC Depth: epth: 240.0 Latitude: JtL atitude: 33.54 t Lo q Longitude: -117.1075 Quadrangle Name: BACHELORMTN Surface Elevation: 1790. County HIPS: 6065 UISTA t k�WELL ...... LISGS� ID #333. ... VISTA Address*. ....... ...... TDiftahbe/Direct iom �92MFYN�E- ' ..........- ...... Plotted 8 S,......... point . S 6 Wells Federal DrinkinclWater Sources 5384 EPA/Agency Agency Address: SAMEASABOVE Well ID: 333334117050007 Use: UNUSED Depth: 83,00 Latitude: 33.559444444444 Longitude: -717.0833333333 Surface Elevation: 7400. Date Well Drilled: 0110111950 Count y FIPS: 6065 ........ VISTA VIS 8 aplD VISTA JVWL SGS WATERELUID #333232117064501 ��� 8462:7 Address':. ......... Distance/Direction::1'05:Ml:r./r USGS Wells--federal Drn in Water ources. # ....... nenry Agency Address: SAME AS ABOVE Well ID: 333232777064501 Use: UNUSED Depth: 82.00 Latitude: 33.542222222222 Longitude: -717.1125 Surface Elevation: 7775. Static Water Level: 77.00 County FIPS: 6065 VISTA address includes enhanced city and ZIP. For more information call VISTA Information Solutions, Inc. at 1 - 800 - 767 - 0403. Report ID: 993070001 Date of Report: June 9, 1999 Version 2.6.7 Page J170 ........... ...... MAND THE ADJACENTARFA:(within 1 1/wirniie) ........ 8846283 70� [7 V I S T ERWELLID4333M.1 MSP io Add tt777��L ress .......L L 9 9 .......L hq'r W C -06.M I L/L Dista e/DirqC Lid ri 1 Plotted as 9 as: rr.r,:::: P r 9 SGS Wells - Federal Minkin gjWater Sources SRC#.53 849.::.: EPA/AqencVrID'r N/A Agency Address: SAMEASABOVE Well ID: 333235777064701 Use: IRRIGATION Depth: 615.0 Latitude: 33.543055555555 Longitude: -117.1130555555 Surface Elevation: 1760. Static Water Level: 77.00 Date Well Drilled: 0110117962 Count y FIPS: 6065 VISTA USGS WATER WELLID:#333343llL7.0500.0.1VISTA Address .......... ...... Distancd/LDirbcLjQhj 1-06MI:/M P 16�e'd as ........ .....Point .............. .... L SGS Well Federal DrinkinqWater Sources/SRC# EPA/AgencvilD: N/X�rr Agency Address: SAME ASA13OVE Well ID: 333343177050007 Latitude: 33.567944444444 Longitude: -177.0833333333 Surface Elevation: 1375. Count y FIRS: 6065 �VISTA ' USrr'99 0 8. VISTAID#r' 8846.8 ... 9 9 9 G S WATER:�WE LL I D #33334611705Q301 ........ Map ID .........& ............ ..... .. ........ Address: .:I ^h ..................... D i9s .ta...n.9'cr..e..L/ Dre cto h I -08V I NEI i� ........... Plotted j6ttea a Point oinL USGS,Wells'...Federal DirifikifiqMaters6urces.4 SRC#95384'L EPA/Agency lD.: N/A'r:,:.:.: Agency Address: SAMEASABOVE Well ID: 333346117050307 Use: UNUSED Depth: 28.00 Latitude: 33.562777777777 Longitude; -177.0841666666 Surface Elevation: 7375, Date Well Drilled: 01/07/1920 County FIPS: 6065 • VISTA address includes enhanced city and ZIP. For more information call VISTA Information Solutions, Inc. at 1 -800 -767 - 0403. Report ID: 993070001 Date of Report:June 9, 1999 Vervon 2.6.1 Page,/11 SITES IN THE.SURROUNDING,AREA:(within 1 VISTA USGS ER WELL ID;#3333471 8846814 Map o Address : CA Distance/Direction 113 MI / NE VISTA — Plotted as:,. Point IJS6S W611S Federal Dtirikir4Water:Sources.Z'SRC# 5384--i i::�: EPA/AgencyV N/A. Agency Address: SAMEASABOVE Well ID: 333347117045901 Latitude: 33,563055555555 Longitude: -177.0830555555 Surface Elevation: 7375. Date Well Drilled: 01/07/7950 County FIPS: 6065 V I.S-TeU§.P§WATERWELL.ID..#3332451,17065601 VISTA)D*�. 8846360 Mapio . Address Distance/D ance/D :1 1.4.Ml:'l W.:�:-- Plotted as: ............- ....... Point U[SGS Wells - Federal DrihkihqWafer Sources l M*:53841:1. EPA/AgencyID: F.IN/A Agency Address: SAMEASABOVE Well ID: 333245717065601 Latitude: 33.545633333333 Longitude: -117.1155555556 Surface Elevation: 7200. County FIPS: 6065 77777=7 ........ TIES IN THE SURROUNDING.AREA ( !tfiin1A/4 -;! 112 1 . ......... VISTA USGS WATER ........... ...... ...... 8846111.:::.9 :MaPID WELL !D.4333.14811705040V:�::]:�� VISTA ID,#:;�; : ....... ............. .......... MI SE Add Dlstance?Dlrection- ]�M ...... Plotted.as int JUSGSWells.-.Federal DrihkihWater So6rE6s'/.'SRC#.:6384 =IEPA/�Ageri(�y [D: N/X! ........ Agency Address: SAMEASABOVE Well ID: 333146717050401 Use: UNUSED Depth: 906.0 Latitude: 33.53 Longitude: -717.0844444444 Surface Elevation: 1370. Static Water Level: 246.00 Date Well Drilled: 0110111965 County FIPS: 6065 .Vl5lAtj$GSWATER WELL ID#333405117063301 9 : ... ..... .. VISTA 8846963—... , �a D 105 I�irk Address':less Dis tance/D ire did n :1.48 Mil NW .......... ........ tt d Plotted as: ::: Point: g C JUSGS:W611s Federal Drinkihg:W'�fe�r�to6r6es./.SRC#:5384...::.:.. EPA/Agency,ll):� N/A EPA/Agency Agency Address: SAMEASABOVE Well ID: 333405117063301 Use: STOCK • VISTA address includes enhanced city and ZIP. For more information call VISTA Information Solutions, Inc. at 1 - 800 - 767 - 0403. Report ID: 993070001 Date of Report:June 9, 1999 Verfjon 2.6.1 Paye M72 SITES:IN THE SURROUNDING AREA(within 11/4 14/2 mile) CONT . . .............. Depth: 63.00 Latitude: 33.566055555555 Longitude: 117.7091666666 Surface Elevation: 1315. Date Well Drilled: 07/01/1950 County FIPS: 6065 ... ....... ....... ...... SITES:i N THE.SURROUNDING AREA 6MthinA i No Records Found VISTA address includes enhanced city and ZIP. For more information call VISTA Information Solutions, Inc, at 1 - 800 - 767 - 0403. Report ID: 993070001 Date of Report: June 9, 1999 Version 2.6.7 Page C13 . ................ UNMAPPED SITES VISTA ........... VISIAID#� 813411 Address ....... ... RAINBOW.:CANYON RD ....... TEMECU Count SWILF +County I Solid:Waste.LaridriiI./SRC#.3802; Agency ID: DA-10 Agency Address: SAME AS ABOVE Facility FacilityType:_ NOTAVAtLABLE Facility Status: NOTAVAILABLE Facility Permit Status: NOTAVAILABLE ST _50 TATE SWILE; SoliclMaste Lafidfiw/.sRci5689 jAgencyll)� 33,CR-0016-- Agency Address: TEMECULA RAINBOW CANYON RD. TITS R2W TEMECULA,CA Facility Type: SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL FACILITY Facility Status: CLOSED Permit Status: OTHER VVISTA ID#-i 7447420 '! TEMECULA :::: : ........... AEAST:OF:H ....... ........... ........ .... ................... TEMECULA CA'%.- .......... ...... I VMUDS SRC# 5368:::::: AgenqyID: 9 330002NIJRI7:: ... Agency Address: SAMEASABOVE Solid Waste inventory System ID: NOT REPORTED Facility Type: Not reported Facility In State Board Waste Discharger NO System: Chapter 15 Facility: NO Solid Waste Assessment Test Facility: NO Toxic Pits Cleanup Act Facility:. NO RCRA Facility: NO Department of Defense Facility: NO Open To Public: NO Number Of Waste Management Units: I Rank: 74 Enforcements At Facility: NO Violations At Facility: NO ;VISTAr-address includes enhanced city and ZIP. or more information call VISTA,Information Solutions, Inc. at 1 -800 767 0403. Report ID: 993070001 Date of Report:June 9, 1999 Version 2.6.1 Page 4'74 UNMAPPED SITES CONI: VISTA iEMECULA LANDFILL .::::.::,:.:::::VISTA ID# 869765511, Address'. NW7/4i SEC 30, T8S R2W 1EMECULA CA 1 WMUDSJSRCth5368* Agency ID. 9000000486 Agency Address: SAME AS ABOVE Solid Waste Inventory System ID: NOT REPORTED ' Facility Type: SOLID WASTE SITES-CLASS III-Landfills for nonhazardous solid wastes. Facility In State Board Waste Discharger NO , System: Chapter 15 Facility: NO Solid Waste Assessment Test Facility: NO Toxic Pits Cleanup Act Facility: NO , RCRA Facility: i NO Department of Defense Facility: NO Open To Public: NO 1 Number Of Waste Management Units: I Rank: NOT REPORTED Enforcements At Facility: No ' Violations At Facility: YES VISTA TRI WEST/PACIFi�$OD VISTA ID#c 17 85897 : , AadTess".• 45620 E P.ALA RD ......_. PALA, ca: STATE LUST-State Leaking Underground Storage Tank/SRC# EPA/Agency ID. :N/A ' 5448 Agency Address: SAMEASA6oYE Facility ID: 86124 ' Remediation Status: CLOSED/ACTION COMPLETED Media Affected: SOIL ONLY IS IMPACTED Description / Comment: EMPLOYEE ID:3 , STATE LUST- State Leaking Underground Storage Tank:/SRC# EPq/Agency ID: N/A 5497 Agency Address: TRI WESTIPACIFIC SOD ' 45620 PALA RD E RANCHO CALIFORNIA,CA 92390 Facility ID: 9UT1418 Leak Report Date: 07105186 , Site Assessment Plan Submitted: 07106188 Site Assessment Began- 12101166 Case Closed Date: 05118189 , Substance: UNLEADED GASOLINE - Remediation Event: E%CAVATEAND TREAT Remediation Status: CASECLOSED , Media Affected: Sat ONLY Region /District: SAN DIEGO REGION Description/Comment: COUNTY.RIVERSIDE ' Description/Comment: REVIEW DATE:07129193 ' VISTA address includes enhanced city and ZIP. 1 For more information call VISTA Information Solutions, Inc. at 1 - 800 - 767 - 0403. Report ID: 993070001 Date of Report: June 9, 1999 , Version 2.6.1 Page 115 ..... ..... ... UNMAPPED SITES CONUfz�:... 9 STATE LUST.,State Leaking.pr!o!�rg!qynd:Sioraq6.Ta6k!/SRC#, EPA/Agency ID:' N/A 671 Agency Address: IRI WEST/PACIFIC 500 45620 PALA RD E RANCHO CALIFORNIA,CA 92390 Facility ID: 9UT1418 Leak Date: 07105188 Leak Report Date: 07105186 Site Assessment Began: 12107166 Case Closed Date: 05/78189 Leak Detection Method: TANK CLOSURE Leak Cause: UNKNOWN Leak Source: UNKNOWN Substance: UNLEAD GASOL Remediation Event- EXCAVATE AND TREAT Remediation Event: LEAK STOPPED BY:CLOSE TANKLEAK STOP DATE.07105188 Remediation Status: CASE CLOSED Media Affected: SOIL ONLY Description Comment- LOCASENUM:8rL4TZBASINNUM:,GWDEPTH: VISTA address includes enhanced city and ZIP. For more information call VISTA Information Solutions, Inc. at 1 - 800 - 767 - 0403. Report ID: 993070001 Date of Report:June 9,1999 Version 2.6.1 Page, 476 1 ' SITE ASSESSMENT PLUS REPORT (EXTENDED BY 1 MILE) DESCRIPTION,;OF DATABASES SEARCHED ' A),MTABASES SEARCHED TO Z MjLE NPL VISTA conducts a database search to identify all sites within 2. mile of your property. ' SRC#: 5593 The agency release date for NPL was February, 1999. The National Priorities List(NPL) is the EPA's database of uncontrolled or abandoned hazardous waste sites identified for priority remedial actions under the Superfund ' program. A site must meet or surpass a predetermined hazard ranking system score, be chosen as a state's top.priority site, or meet three specific criteria setjoindy by the US Dept of Health and Human Services and the US EPA in order to become an NPL site. ' SPL VISTA conducts a database search to identify all sites within 2. mile of your property. SRC#: 5455 The agency release date for Calsites Database: Annual Workplan Sites was October, 1998. '1 The CalSites database contains information on properties (or"sites") in California where hazardous substances have been released, or where the potential for such a ' release exists. This database is used primarily by the Department of Toxic Substances Control to evaluate and track activities at sites that may have been affected by the release of hazardous substances.Also see SPL/SCL: Annual Work Plan (AWP) sites are cleassified as SPL and all the other sites are classified as SCL. CORRACTS VISTA conducts a database search to identify all sites within 2. mile of your property. SRC#: 5596 The agency release date for HWDMS/RCRIS was February, 1999. ' The EPA maintains this database of RCRA facilities which are undergoing 'corrective action". A "corrective action order" is issued pursuant to RCRA Section 3008 (h) when there has been a release of hazardous waste or constituents into the environment ' from a RCRA facility. Corrective actions may be required beyond the facility's boundary and can be required regardless of when the release occurred, even if it predates RCRA. ' B}DATABASE$SEARCHED TO 1 1/2 MILE ' CERCLIS VISTA conducts a database search to identify all sites within 1.5 mile of your property. SRC#: 5594 The agency release date for CERCLIS was January, 1999. The CERCLIS List contains sites which are either proposed to or on the National Priorities LISt(NPL) and sites which are in the screening and assessment phase for possible inclusion on the NPL.The information on each site includes a history of all pre-remedial, remedial, removal and community relations activiies or events at the site, financial funding information for the events, and unrestricted enforcement activities. ; For more information call VISTA Information Solutions, Inc. at 1 -800 -767- 0403. Report ID: 993070001 Date of Report: June 9, 1999 ' Version 2.6.1 Page 117 Cal Cerclis VISTA conducts a database search to identify all sites within 1.5 mile of your property. , SRC#: 2462 The agency release date for Ca Cerclis w/Regional Utility Description was June, 1995. This database.is provided by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 9. The agency may be contacted at: . These are regional utility descriptions for , California CERCLIS sites. NFRAP VISTA conducts a data base search to identify all sites within 1.5 mile of your property. SRC#: 5595 The agency release date for CERCLIS-NFRAP was January, 1999. ' NFRAP sites may be sites where, following an initial investigation, no contamination was found, contamination was removed quickly, or the contamination was not , serious enough to require Federal Superfund action or NPL consideration. SCL VISTA conducts a database search to identify all sites within 1.5 mile of your property. SRC#: 5454 The agency release date for Calsites Database: All Sites except Annual Workplan , Sites (incl. ASPIS) was October, 1998. The CalSites database contains information on properties (or"sites") in California , where hazardous substances have been released, or where the potential for such a release exists.This database is used primarily by the Department of Toxic Substances Control to evaluate and track activities at sites that may have been affected by the release of hazardous substances. Also see SPL/SCL: Annual Work Plan (AWP) sites are ' cleassified as SPL and all the other sites are classified as SCL. The CalSites database includes both known and potential sites. Two-thirds of these sites have been classified, based on available information, as needing "No Further ' Action" (NFA) by the Department of Toxic Substances Control. The remaining sites are in various stages of review and remediation to determine if a problem exists at the site. Several hundred sites have been remediated and are considered certified. , Some of these sites may be in long term operation and maintenance. RCRA-TSD VISTA conducts a database search to.identify all sites within 1.5 mile of your property. SRC#: 5596 The agency release date for HWDMS/RCRIS was February, 1999. ' The EPA's Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) Program identifies and tracks hazardous waste from the point of generation to the point of disposal. The . RCRA Facilities database is a compilation by the EPA of facilities which report ' generation, storage, transportation, treatment or disposal of hazardous waste. RCRA TSDs are facilities which treat, store and/or dispose of hazardous waste. SWLF VISTA conducts a data base search to identify all sites within 1.5 mile of your property. ' SRC#: 5689 The agency release date for Ca Solid Waste Information System (SWIS) was December, 1998. This database is provided by the Integrated Waste Management Board. The agency , may be contacted at: 916-255-4021. The California Solid Waste Information System (SWIS) database consists of both open ' as well as closed and inactive solid waste disposal facilities and transfer stations pursuant to the Solid Waste Management and Resource Recovery Act of 1972, Government Code Section 2.66790(b). Generally, the California Integrated Waste Management Board learns of locations of disposal facilities through permit applications and from local enforcement agencies. 1 For more information call VISTA Information Solutions, Inc. at 1 - 600 - 767 - 0403. Report ID: 993070001 Date of Report:June 9, 1999 Version 2.6.1 Page/78 ' 1 • ' Riverside VISTA conducts a database search to identify all sites within 1.5 mile of your property. County Landfill The agency release date for Exempt Site Inventory List within Riverside County was SRC#: 3802 March, 1997. ' This database is provided by the Riverside Department of Health, Local Solid Waste Enforcement Agency. The agency may be contacted at: 909-955-8982. WMUDS VISTA conducts a database search to identify all sites within 1.5 mile of your property. SRC#: 5368 The agency release date for Waste Management Unit Database System (WMUDS) was October, 1998. ' This database is provided by the State Water Resources Control Board. The agency may be contacted at: 916-892-0323. This is used for program tracking and inventory of waste management units.This system contains information from: Facility, Waste Management Unit, SWAT Program and Report Summary Information, Chapter 15 ' (formerly Subchapter 15), TPCA and RCRA Program Information, Closure Information; also some information from the WDS (Waste Discharge System). ' The WMUDS system also accesses information from the following databases from the Waste Discharger System (WDS): Inspections, Violations, and Enforcements. The sites contained in these databases are subject to the California Code of Regulations- Title 23. Waters. ' LUST VISTA conducts a database search to identify all sites within 1.5 mile of your property. SRC#: 5116 The agency release date for Region#8-SLIC List was June, 1998. ' This database is provided by the Regional Water Quality Control Board, Region#8. The agency may be contacted at: 909-782-4499. ' LUST VISTA conducts a database search to identify all sites within 1.5 mile of your property. SRC#: 5366 The agency release date for Region#7-Colorado River Basin Leaking Underground Storage Tank Listing was August, 1998. ' This database is provided by the Regional Water Quality Control Board, Region#7. The agency may be contacted at: 760-346-7491. LUST VISTA conducts a database search to identify all sites within 1.5 mile of your property. ' SRC#: 5448 The agency release date for Riverside County-Listing of Underground Tank Cleanup Sites was October, 1998. ' This database is provided by the Riverside County Environmental Health Department, Haz Mat Division. The agency may be contacted at: 909-358-5055. LUST VISTA conducts a database search to identify all sites within 1.5 mile of your property. SRC#: 5452 The agency release date for Region#8-Santa Ana Regional Underground Tank Database List was October, 1998. This database is provided by the Regional Water Quality Control Board, Region #8. '. The agency may be contacted at: 909-782-4499. LUST VISTA conducts a database search to identify all sites within 1.5 mile of your property. SRC#: 5497 The agency release date for Lust Information System (LUSTIS)was October, 1998. This database is provided by the California Environmental Protection Agency. The agency may be contacted at: 916-445-6532. For more information call VISTA Information Solutions, Inc. at 1 - 800 - 767 - 0403. Report ID: 993070001 Date of Report:June 9, 1999 ' Version 2.6.1 Page 179 LUST VISTA conducts a database search to identify all sites within 1.5 mile of your property. ' SRC#: 5670 The agency release date for Lahontan Region LUST List was January, 1999. This database is provided by the Lahontan Region Six South Lake Tahoe. The agency may be contacted at: 916-542-5400. ' LUST VISTA conducts a database search to identify all sites within 1.5 mile of your property. SRC#: 5671 The agency release date for Region#9 Leaking Underground Storage Tank List was ' December, 1998. This database_is provided by the Regional Water Quality Control Board, Region#9. The agency may be contacted at: 619-467-2975. ' CORTESE VISTA conducts a database search to identify all sites within 1.5 mile of your property. SRC#: 4840 The agency release date for Cortese List-Hazardous Waste Substance Site List was April, 1998. This database is provided by the Office of Environmental Protection, Office of Hazardous Materials.The agency may be contacted at: 916-445-6532. The California Governor's Office of Planning and Research annually publishes a listing of potential and confirmed hazardous waste sites throughout the State of California under Government Code Section 65962.5. This database (CORTESE) is based on , input from the following: (1)CALSITES-Department of Toxic Substances Control, Abandoned Sites Program Information Systems; (2)SARA Title III Section III Toxic Chemicals Release Inventory for 1987, 1988, 1989, and 1990; (3)FINDS; . , (4)HWIS-Department of Toxic Substances Control, Hazardous Waste Information System. Vista has not included one time generator facilities from Cortese in our database.; (5)SWRCB-State Water Resources Control Board; (6)SWIS-Integrated Waste Management Control Board (solid waste facilities); (7)AGT25-Air Resources ' Board, dischargers of greater than 25 tons of criteria pollutants to the air; (8)A1025-Air Resources Board, dischargers of greater than 10 and less than 25 tons of criteria pollutants to the air; (9)LTANK-SWRCB Leaking Underground Storage Tanks; (10)UTANK-SWRCB Underground tanks reported to the SWEEPS systems; , (11)IUR-Inventory Update Rule (Chemical Manufacturers); (12)WB-LF-Waste Board - Leaking Facility, site has known migration; (13)WDSE-Waste Discharge System- Enforcement Action; (14)DTSCD-Department of Toxic Substance Control Docket. 1 1 1 For more information call VISTA Information Solutions, Inc. at 1 - 800 - 767 - 0403. Report ID: 993070001 Date of Report: June 9, 1999 Verdon 2.6.1 Page 120 1 ' Deed VISTA conducts a database search to identify all sites within 1.5 mile of your property. Restrictions The agency release date for Deed Restriction Properties Report was April, 1994. SRC#: 1703 This database is provided by the Department of Health Services-Land Use and Air ' Assessment. The agency may be contacted at: 916-323-3376. These are voluntary deed restriction agreements with owners of property who propose building residences, schools, hospitals, or day care centers on property that is"on or within 2,000 feet of a significant disposal of hazardous waste". California has a statutory and administrafive procedure under which the California Department of Health.Services (DHS) may designate real property as either a ' "Hazardous Waste Property"or a "Border Zone Property" pursuant to California Health Safety Code Sections 25220-25241. Hazardous Waste Property is land at which hazardous waste has been deposited, creating a significant existing or potential hazard to public health and safety. A Border Zone Property is one within 2,000 feet of ' a hazardous waste deposit. Property within either category is restricted in use, unless a written variance is obtained from DHS. A Hazardous Waste Property designation results in a prohibition of new uses, other than a modification or expansion of an ' industrial or manufacturing facility on land previously owned by the facility prior to January 1, 1981. A Border Zone Property designation results in prohibition of a variety of uses involving human habitation, hospitals, schools and day care center. ' Toxic Pits VISTA conducts a database search to identify all sites within 1.5 mile of your,property. SRC#: 2229 The agency release date for Summary of Toxic Pits Cleanup Facilities was February, 1995. ' This database is provided by the Water Quality Control Board, Division of Loans Grants. The agency may be contacted at: 916-227-4396. ' Water Wells VISTA conducts a database search to identify all sites within 1.5 mile of your property. SRC#: 5384 The agency release date for USGS WATER WELLS was March, 1998. The Ground Water Site Inventory (GWSI) database was provided by the United States ' Geological Survey (USGS). The database contains information for over 1,000,000 wells and other sources of groundwater which the USGS has studied, used, or otherwise had reason to document through the course of research. The agency may be contacted at 703-648-6819. C) DATABASES SEARCHED TO 1 1/4 MILE .... ' RCRA-Viols/Enf VISTA conducts a database search to identify all sites within 1.25 mile of your property. The agency release date for HWDMS/RCRIS was February, 1999. The EPA's Resource Conservation and Recovery Act(RCRA) Program identifies and tracks hazardous waste from the point of generation to the point of disposal.The ' RCRA Facilities database is a compilation by the EPA of facilities which report generation, storage, transportation, treatment or disposal of hazardous waste. RCRA Violators are facilities which have been cited for RCRA Violations at least once since 1980. RCRA Enforcements are enforcement actions taken against RCRA violators. 1 1 For more information call VISTA Information Solutions, Inc. at 1 - 800 -767 - 0403. Report ID: 993070001 Date of Report: June 9, 1999 ' Version 2.6.7 Page All USPS VISTA conducts a database search to identify all sites within 1.25 mile of your ' SRC#: 1612 property. The agency release date for Underground Storage Tank Registrations Database was January, 1994. This database is provided by the State Water Resources Control Board, Office of , Underground Storage Tanks.The agency may be contacted at: 916-227-4337; Caution-Many states do not require registration of heating oil tanks, especially those ' used for residential purposes. UST's VISTA conducts a database search to identify all sites within 1.25 mile of your SRC#: 5451 property. , The agency release date for Riverside County UST List was October, 1998. This database is provided by the Riverside County Environmental Health. The agency may be contacted at: 909-358-5055; Caution-Many states do not require registration , of heating oil tanks, especially those used for residential purposes. AST's VISTA conducts a database search to identify all sites within 1.25 mile of your SRC#: 5513 property. ' The agency release date for Aboveground Storage Tank Database was December, 1998. This database is provided by the State Water Resources Control Board.The agency , may be contacted at: 916-227-4364. TRIS VISTA conducts a database search to identify all sites within 1.25 mile of your , SRC#:4946 property. The agency release date for TRIS was January, 1998, Section 313 of the Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act (also , known as SARA Title III) of 1986 requires the EPA to establish an inventory of Toxic Chemicals emissions from certain facilities(Toxic Release Inventory System). Facilities subject to this reporting are required to complete a Toxic Chemical Release ' Form(Form R) for specified chemicals. D) DATABASES SEARCHED TO 1 1/9 MILE , ERNS VISTA conducts a database search to identify all sites within 1.125 mile of your SRC#:4939 property. The agency release date for was July, 1998. ' The Emergency Response Notification System (ERNS) is a national database containing records from October 1986 to the release date above and is used to ' collect information for reported releases of oil and hazardous substances.The database contains information from spill-reports made to federal authorities including the EPA, the US.Coast Guard, the National Response Center and the Department of Transportation. The ERNS hotline number is (202) 260-2342. ' For more information call VISTA Information Solutions, Inc. at 1 - 800 -767 - 0403. Report ID: 993070001 Date of Report: June 9, 1999 Verson 2.6.1 Page 122 , ' RCRA-LgGen VISTA conducts a database search to identify all sites within 1.125 mile of your SRC#: 5596 property. The agency release date for HWDMS/RCRIS was February, 1999. The EPA's Resource Conservation and Recovery Act(RCRA) Program identifies and tracks hazardous waste from the point of generation to the point of disposal. The RCRA Facilities database is a compilation by the EPA of facilities which report ' generation, storage, transportation, treatment or disposal of hazardous waste. RCRA Large Generators are facilities which generate at least 1000 kg./month of non-acutely hazardous waste (or 1 kg./month of acutely hazardous waste). RCRA-SmGen VISTA conducts a database search to identify all sites within 1.125 mile of your SRC#: 5596 property. The agency release,date for HWDMS/RCRIS was February, 1999. ' The EPA's Resource Conservation and Recovery Act(RCRA) Program identifies and tracks hazardous waste from the point of generation to the point of disposal.The RCRA Facilities database is a compilation by the EPA of facilities which report ' generation,storage, transportation, treatment or disposal of hazardous waste. RCRA Small and Very Small generators are facilities which generate less than 1000 kg./month of non-acutely hazardous waste. 1 1 k ; k 4flW Q{ R$p01'# i S.S For more information call VISTA Information Solutions, Inc. at 1 - 800 -767 -0403. Report ID: 993070001 Date of Report:June 9, 1999 ' Version 2.6.7 Page 123 Pacific Treatment 4340 Viewridge Avenue,Suite A • San Diego,CA 92123 � Analytical Services, Inc. t619>560-77" • fa>, (619)566-7763 Analytical Chemistry L.iboratory June 8, 1999 Gradient Engineers,Inc. Project Name/No.: Roripaugh Ranch ' Attn: Molly Hennessey Laboratory Log No.: 1073-99 3934 Murphy Carryon Road, Suite B204 Date Received: 06/02/99 San Diego, California 92123 Sample Matrix: Fifteen soil samples PO No.: 993070-001 Please find the following enclosures for the above referenced project identified: '. 1) Analytical Report ' 2) QA/QC Report 3) Chain of Custody Form ' .......................................................Certificate of Analysis...................................................... ' Samples were analyzed pursuant to client request utilizing EPA or other ELAP approved methodologies. Date of extraction, date of analysis, detection limits and dilution factor are reported for each compound analyzed. All samples were analyzed within the method required holding time ' from sample collection. Data for each analytical method was evaluated by assessing the following QA/QC functions, as applicable to the methodology: • Quality Control Standard ' Surrogate Percent Recovery • Laboratory Control Sample (LCS) percent recoveries for all analyses Matrix Spike Recovery/Matrix Spike Duplicate Recovery (MSR&MSDR) and/or Relative Percent Difference (RPD from MSR&MSDR) ' I certify that this data report is in compliance both technically and for completeness. Release of the data contained in this hardcopy data report has been authorized by die following signature. ' anis Columbo 6 ice President/Laboratory Director Water • Soil • Waste • Wastewater • Marine Sediment&Tissues • Elutriate ' Analyses That Produce Results! ' ANALYSIS RESULTS -EPA 8080 ORGANOCHLORINE PESTICIDES ' CLIENT: GRADIENT ENGINEERS, INC. DATE SAMPLED: N'A DATE RECEIVED: 'N/A PROJECT NAME/No.: RORIPAUGH RANCH DATE EXTRACTED: 06/02/99 PTAS LOG #: METHOD BLANK DATE ANALYZED: 06/04/99 SAMPLE ID: N/A MATRIX: SOLID DILUTION FACTOR: 1 SAMPLE VOLIWT.: 30 G ' ANALYTE REPORTING LIMITS RESULTS PPB (UG/KG) PPB(UG/KG) ' ALDRIN 2 ND ALPHA-BHC 2 ND ' BETA-BHC 2 ND GAMMA-BHC(LINDANE) 2 ND DELTA-BHC 2 ND 1 CHLORDANE 20 ND DDD 2 ND DDE 2 ND DDT 2 ND ' DIELDRIN 2 ND ENDOSULFANI 2 ND ENDOSULFAN II 2 ND ' ENDOSULFAN/SULFATE 2 ND ENDRIN 2 ND ENDRIN ALDEHYDE 2 ND ' HEPTACHLOR 2 ND HEPTACHLOR EPDXIDE 2 ND METHOXYCHLOR 20 ND ' TOXAPHENE 25 ND NO=ANALYTE NOT DEFECTED AT OR ABOVE THE INDICATED REPORTING LIMIT ' REPORTING LIMITS AND RESULTS HAVE BEEN ADJUSTED ACCORDINGLY TO ACCOUNT FOR DILUTION FACTOR. SURROGATEPARAMETER ACCEPTABLE RECOVERIES %RECOVERY ' TCMX 26-146 98 e Pacific Treatment Analytical Services, Inc..4340 Yewridge Ave.,Suite A•San Diego,CA 92123 (619)560-7717 FAX(619)560-7763 ANALYSIS RESULTS -EPA 8080 ' ORGANOCHLORINE PESTICIDES CLIENT: GRADIENT ENGINEERS,INC. DATE SAMPLED: 06/01/99 ' DATE RECEIVED: 06/02/99 PROJECT NAME/No.: RORIPAUGH RANCH DATE EXTRACTED: 06/02/99 PTAS LOG#: 1073-99-1 DATE ANALYZED: 06/04/99 , SAMPLE ID: S1-1' MATRIX: SOIL DILUTION FACTOR: 1 SAMPLE VOL./WT.: 300 ANALYTE REPORTING LIMITS RESULTS ' PPB (UG/KG) PPB (UG/KG) ALDRIN 2 ND ' ALPHA-BHC 2 ND BETA-BHC 2 ND GAMMA-BHC 2 ND DELTA-BHC 2 ND CHLORDANE 20 ND ' 4,4-DDD 2 ND 4,4-DDE 2 ND 4,4-DDT 2 ND DIELDRIN 2 ND ENDOSULFAN1 2 ND ENDOSULFANII 2 ND ENDOSULFAN SULFATE 2 ND ' ENDRIN 2 ND ENDRIN ALDEHYDE 2-- ND HEPTACHLOR 2 ND , HEPTACHLOR EPDXIDE 2 ND METHOXYCHLOR 20 ND TOXAPHENE 25 ND ' ND a ANALYTE NOT DETECTED AT OR ABOVE THE INDICATED REPORTING LIMIT REPORTING LIMITS AND RESULTS HAVE BI7EN ADJUSTED ACCORDINGLY TO ACCOUNT FOR DILUTION FACTOR ' SURROGATE PARAMETER ACCEPTABLE RECOVERIES % RECOVERY TCMX 26-146 95 ' ��+ Pacific Treatment Analytical Services, Inc. 4340vievaidge Ave.,Suite A•San Diego,CA 92123 (619)560-7717 FAX(619)560-776 1 ANALYSIS RESULTS - EPA 8080 ORGANOCHLORINE PESTICIDES ' CLIENT: GRADIENT ENGINEERS, INC. DATE SAMPLED: 06/01/99 DATE RECEIVED: 06/02/99 PROJECT NAME/No.: RORIPAUGH RANCH DATE EXTRACTED: 06/02/99 ' PTAS LOG#: 1073-99-2 DATE ANALYZED: 06/04/99 SAMPLE ID: S2-P MATRIX: SOIL DILUTION FACTOR: I SAMPLE VOL./WT.: 30 G ' ANALYTE REPORTING LIMITS RESULTS PPB (UG/ICG) PPB(UG/KG) ' ALDRIN 2 ND ALPHA-BHC 2 ND ' BETA-BHC 2 ND GAMMA-BHC 2 ND DELTA-BHC 2 ND ' CHLORDANE 20 ND 4,4-DDD 2 ND 4,4-DDE 2 ND ' 4,4-DDT 2 ND DIELDRIN 2 ND ENDOSULFANI 2 ND ENDOSULFANII 2 ND ENDOSULFAN SULFATE 2 NO ENDRIN 2 ND ENDRIN ALDEHYDE 2 ND ' HEPTACHLOR 2 ND HEPTACHLOR EPDXIDE 2 ND METHOXYCHLOR 20 ND ' TOXAPHENE 25 ND ND-ANALYTE NOT DEFECTED AT OR ABOVE THE INDICATED REPORTING LIMIT ' REPORTING LIMITS AND RESULTS HAVE BEEN ADJUSTED ACCORDINGLY TO ACCOUNT FOR DILUTION FACTOR. SURROGATE PARAMETER ACCEPTABLE RECOVERIES % RECOVERY TCMX 26-146 88 ' Pacific Treatment Analytical Services, Inc. 4340 Vievaid0e Ave.,Suite A•San Diego,CA 92123 (619)560-7717 FAX(619)560-7763 ANALYSIS RESULTS - EPA 8080 ' ORGANOCHLORINE PESTICIDES CLIENT: GRADIENT ENGINEERS, INC. DATE SAMPLED: 06/01/99 ' DATE RECEIVED: 06/02/99 PROJECT NAME/No.: RORIPAUGH RANCH DATE EXTRACTED: 06/02/99 PTAS LOG 4: 1673-99-2(DUPLICATE) DATE ANALYZED: 06/04/99 ' SAMPLE ID: S2-1'(DUPLICATE) MATRIX: SOIL DILUTION FACTOR: I SAMPLE VOL./WT.: 30 G ANALYTE REPORTING LIMITS RESULTS ' PPB(UG/KG) PPB (UG/KG) ALDRIN 2 ND ' ALPHA-BHC 2 ND BETA-BHC 2 ND ' GAMMA-BHC 2 ND DELTA-BHC 2 ND CHLORDANE . 20 ND 4,4-DDD 2 ND , 4,4-DDE 2 ND 4,4-DDT 2 ND DIELDRIN 2 ND ' ENDOSULFANI 2 ND ENDOSULFAN II 2 ND ENDOSULFAN SULFATE 2 ND ' ENDRIN 2 ND ENDRIN ALDEHYDE 2• ND HEPTACHLOR 2 ND ' HEPTACHLOR EPDXIDE 2 ND METHOXYCHLOR 20 ND TOXAPHENE 25 ND ' ND—ANALYTE NOT DETECTED AT OR ABOVE THE INDICATED REPORTING LIMIT REPORTING LIMITS AND RESULTS HAVE BEEN ADJUSTED ACCORDINGLY TO ACCOUNT FOR DILUTION FACTOR. ' SURROGATE PARAMETER ACCEPTABLE RECOVERIES % RECOVERY TCMX 26-146 96 ' t 1 1 =0 Pacific Treatment Analytical Services, Inc. 4340 View idge Ave.,Suite A•San Diego,CA 92123 (619)560-7717 FAX(619)560-7763, ANALYSIS RESULTS - EPA 8080 ORGANOCHLORINE PESTICIDES ' DATE SAMPLED: 06/01/99 CLIENT: GRADIENT ENGINEERS,INC: DATE RECEIVED: 06/02/99 PROJECT NAME/No.: ROMPAUGH RANCH DATE EXTRACTED: 06/02/99 ' DATE ANALYZED: 06/04/99 PTAS LOG#: 1073-99-3 MATRIX: SOIL SAMPLE ID: S3-6" SAMPLE VOL./WT.: 30 G DILUTION FACTOR: 1 ' REPORTING LIMITS RESULTS ANALYTE P PPB(UG/KG) PB(UG/KG) ALDRIN 2 ND ALPHA-BHC ? ND BETA-BHC 2 ND GAMMA-BHC 2 ND DELTA-BHC 2 ND ' CHLORDANE 20 ND 4,4-DDD 2 ND 2 ND 4,4-DDE ND 4,4-DDT 2 2 ND DIELDRIN ENDOSULFANI 2 ND ENDOSULFAN II 2 ND ENDOSULFAN SULFATE 2 ND ENDRIN 2 ND ENDRIN ALDEHYDE 2 ND HEPTACHLOR 2 ND HEPTACHLOR EPDXIDE 2 ND METHOXYCHLOR 20 ND. TOXAPHENE 25 ND ' NO=ANALYTE NOT DETECTED AT OR ABOVE THE INDICATED REPORTING LIMIT REPORTING LIMITS AND RESULTS HAVE BEEN ADJUSTED ACCORDINGLY TO ACCOUNT FOR DILUTION FACTOR. SURROGATE PARAMETER ACCEPTABLE RECOVERIES % RECOVERY ' TCMX 26-146 103 1 . ' ;� Pacific Treatment Analytical Services, Inc. 4340 Yewndge Ave.,Suite A•San Diego,CA 92123 (619)560.7717 FAX(619)560.7 ANALYSIS RESULTS - EPA 8080 ORGANOCHLORINE PESTICIDES CLIENT: GRADIENT ENGINEERS, INC. DATE SAMPLED: 06/01/99 ' DATE RECEIVED: 06/02/99 PROJECT NAME/No.: RORIPAUGH RANCH DATE EXTRACTED: 06/02/99 PTAS LOG#: 1073-99-4 DATE ANALYZED: 06/04/99 , SAMPLE ID: S4-I' MATRIX: SOIL DILUTION FACTOR: 1 SAMPLE VOL.AVT.: 30 G ANALYTE REPORTING LIMITS RESULTS ' PPB(UG/KG) PPB (UG/KG) ALDRIN 2 ND ALPHA-BHC 2 ND BETA-BHC 2 ND GAMMA-BHC 2 ND DELTA-BHC 2 ND CHLORDANE 20 ND 4,4-DDD 2 ND ' 4,4-DDE 2 ND 4,4-DDT 2 ND DIELDRIN 2 ND , ENDOSULFANI 2 ND ENDOSULFANII 2 ND ENDOSULFAN SULFATE 2 ND ENDRIN 2 ND ENDRIN ALDEHYDE 2-, ND HEPTACHLOR 2 ND HEPTACHLOR EPDXIDE 2 ND METHOXYCHLOR 20 ND TOXAPHENE 25 ND ND=ANALYTE NOT DETECTED AT OR ABOVE THE INDICATED REPORTING LIMIT REPORTING LIMITS AND RESULTS HAVE BEEN ADJUSTED ACCORDINGLY TO ACCOUNT FOR DILUTION FACTOR. ' SURROGATE PARAMETER ACCEPTABLE RECOVERIES % RECOVERY TCMX 26-146 101 , Pacific Treatment Analytical Services, Inc. 4340 Viewridge Ave.,Suite A•San Diego,CA 92123 (619)560.7717 FAX(619)560.7763' ANALYSIS RESULTS - EPA 8080 ORGANOCHLORINE PESTICIDES CLIENT: GRADIENT ENGINEERS, INC. DATE SAMPLED: 06/01/99 DATE RECEIVED: 06/02/99 PROJECT NAME/No.: RORIPAUGH RANCH DATE EXTRACTED: 06/02/99 PTAS LOG#: 1073-99-5 DATE ANALYZED: 06/04/99 SAMPLE ID: S5-1' MATRIX: SOIL DILUTION FACTOR: I SAMPLE VOL./WT.: 30 G ANALYTE REPORTING LIMITS RESULTS PPB(UG/KG) PPB(UG/KG) ALDRIN 2 ND ALPHA-BHC 2 ND BETA-BHC 2 ND GAMMA-BHC 2 ND DELTA-BHC 2 ND CHLORDANE 20 ND. 4,4-DDD 2 ND 4,4-DDE 2 ND 4,4-DDT 2 ND DIELDRIN 2 ND ENDOSULFANI 2 ND ENDOSULFANII 2 ND ENDOSULFAN SULFATE 2 ND ENDRIN 2 ND ENDRIN ALDEHYDE 2 ND ' HEPTACHLOR 2 ND' HEPTACHLOR EPDXIDE 2 ND METHOXYCHLOR 20 ND TOXAPHENE 25 ND ND=ANALYTE NOT DETECTED AT OR ABOVE THE INDICATED REPORTING LIMIT REPORTING LIMITS AND RESULTS HAVE BEEN ADJUSTED ACCORDINGLY TO ACCOUNT FOR DILUTION FACTOR. SURROGATE PARAMETER ACCEPTABLE RECOVERIES % RECOVERY TCMX 26-146 98 f� Pacific Treatment Analytical Services, Inc. 4340 YewiAge Ave.,Suite A•San Diego,CA 92123 (619)560-7717 FAX(619)560-7763'. t ANALYSIS RESULTS - EPA 8080 ' ORGANOCHLORINE PESTICIDES CLIENT: GRADIENT ENGINEERS, INC. DATE SAMPLED: 06/01/99 DATE RECEIVED: 06/02/99 PROJECT NAME/No.: RORIPAUGH RANCH DATE EXTRACTED: 06/02/99 PTAS LOG #: 1073-99-6 DATE ANALYZED: 06/04/99 SAMPLE ID: S6-1' MATRIX: SOIL DILUTION FACTOR: 1 SAMPLE VOL./WT.: 30 G ANALYTE REPORTING LIMITS RESULTS PPB(UG/KG) PPB (UG/KG) ALDRIN 2 NO ' ALPHA-BHC 2 ND BETA-BHC 2 ND GAMMA-BHC 2 ND DELTA-BHC _ 2 ND CHLORDANE 20 ND 4,4-DDD 2 ND 4,4-DDE 2 ND 4,4-DDT 2 ND DIELDRIN 2 ND ENDOSULFANI 2 ND ENDOSULFANII 2 ND ENDOSULFAN SULFATE 2 ND ' ENDRIN 2 ND ENDRIN ALDEHYDE 21- `" ND HEPTACHLOR 2 ND HEPTACHLOR EPDXIDE 2 ND METHOXYCHLOR 20 ND TOXAPHENE 25 ND ND=ANALYTE NOT DETECTED AT OR ABOVE THE INDICATED REPORTING LIMIT REPORTING LIMITS AND RESULTS HAVE BEEN ADJUSTED ACCORDINGLY TO ACCOUNT FOR DILUTION FACTOR. - SURROGATE PARAMETER ACCEPTABLE RECOVERIES % RECOVERY TCMX 26-146 95 1 �� Pacific Treatment Analytical Services, Inc. 4340 Viewridge Ave.,Suite A•San Diego,CA 92123 (619)560-7717 FAX(619)560-7161 ANALYSIS RESULTS - PPA 8080 ORGANOCHLORINE PESTICIDES CLIENT: GRADIENT ENGINEERS,INC. DATE SAMPLED: 06/01/99 DATE RECEIVED: 06/02/99 PROJECTNAME/No.: RORIPAUGH RANCH DATE EXTRACTED: 06/02/99 ' PTAS LOG #: 1073-99-7 DATE ANALYZED: .06/04/99 SAMPLE ID: S7-1' MATRIX: SOIL DILUTION FACTOR: 1 SAMPLE VOL./WT.: 30G— ANALYTE 0GANALYTE REPORTING LIMITS RESULTS PPB (UG/KG) PPB(UG/KG) ALDRIN 2 ND ALPHA-BHC 2 ND BETA-BHC 2 ND ' GAMMA-BHC 2 ND DELTA-BHC 2 ND CHLORDANE 20 ND, 4,4-DDD 2 ND 4,4-DDE 2 ND 4,4-DDT 2 ND DIELDRIN 2 ND ENDOSULFAN1 2 ND ENDOSULFAN II 2 ND ' ENDOSULFAN SULFATE 2 ND ENDRIN 2 ND ENDRIN ALDEHYDE 2ND HEPTACHLOR 2 ND HEPTACHLOR EPDXIDE 2 ND METHOXYCHLOR 20 ND, TOXAPHENE 25 ND ND=ANALYTE NOT DETECTED AT OR ABOVE THE INDICATED REPORTING LIMIT REPORTING LIMITS AND RESULTS HAVE BEEN ADJUSTED ACCORDINGLY TO ACCOUNT FOR DILUTION FACTOR. SURROGATE PARAMETER ACCEPTABLE RECOVERIES %RECOVERY TCMX 26-146 101 r r ;� Pacific Treatment Analytical Services, Inca 4340 Viewridge Ave.,Suite A•San Diego,CA 92123 (619)560-7717 FAX(619)560-7763 QA/QC REPORT ' METHOD: EPA 8080-SOIL ACCEPTABLE ACCEPTABLE DATE ANALYZED: 06/04/99 LCS,MS/MSD RPD QA/QC SAMPLE: 1073-99-2 CRITERIA CRITERIA ' SPIKED ANALYTE LCS % R MS % R MSD % R RPD % % GAMMA-BHC 99 95 93 2 32-127 <30 HEPTACHLOR 99 98 96 2 34-111 <30 ' ALDRIN 87 85 85 0 42-122 <30 DIELDRIN 108 108., 108 0 36-146 <30 ENDRIN 127 100 98 2 30-147 <30 , 4,4-DDT 110 119 115 3 25-160 <30 LCS%R=LABORATORY CONTROL SAMPLE PERCENT RECOVERY MS%R=MATRIX SPIKE PERCENT RECOVERY - MSD%R=MATRIX SPIKE DUPLICATE PERCENT RECOVERY RPD=RELATIVE PERCENT DIFFERENCE 0��r Pacific Treatment Analytical Services, Inc. 4340 Vlewridge Ave.,Suite A•San Diego,CA 92123 (619)560-7717 FAX(619)560-776 f ANALYSIS RESULTS - TPH EXTENDED RANGE BY ASTM D2887 CLIENT: GRADIENT ENGINEERS,INC. DATE SAMPLED: N/A DATE RECEIVED: N/A PROJECT NAME/No.: RORIPAUGH RANCH DATE EXTRACTED: 06/02/99 PTAS LOG M METHOD BLANK DATE ANALYZED: 06/02/99 CLIENT SAMPLE ID: N/A MATRIX: SOLID DILUTION FACTOR: I SAMPLE VOL./WT.: 10G ANALYTE REPORTING LIMITS RESULTS PPM(MG/KG) PPM(MG/KG) C8 5 HC I ND C8 <_ HC < C9 I ND C9 S HC < C10 1 ND C10 5 HC < CI1 1 ND .Cll 5 HC < C12 1 ND C12 5 HC < CI4 1 ND C14 _< HC < C16 1 ND C16 <_ HC < C18 1 ND C18 .5 HC < C20 1 ND C20 5 HC < C24 1 ND ' C24 5 HC < C28 1 ND C28 <_ HC < C32 I ND C32 _< HC < C36 1 ND C36 5 HC < C40 1 ND C40 < HC 1 ND TOTAL HC I ND TPH IDENTIFICATION: NONE HC=HYDROCARBON ND=ANALYTE NOT DETECTED AT OR ABOVE THE INDICATED REPORTING LIMIT. REPORTING LIMITS AND RESULTS HAVE BEEN ADJUSTED ACCORDINGLY TO ACCOUNT FOR DILUTION FACTOR. ®� Pacific Treatment Analytical Services, Inc. 4340 Yiewridge Ave.,Suite A•San Diego,CA 92123 (619)560.7717 FAX(619)566.7763 ANALYSIS RESULTS - TPH EXTENDED RANGE ' BY ASTM D2887 CLIENT: GRADIENT ENGINEERS, INC. DATE SAMPLED: 06/01/99 DATE RECEIVED: 06/02/99 PROJECT NAME/No.: RORIPAUGH RANCH DATE EXTRACTED: 06/02/99. PTAS LOG #: 1073-99-8 DATE ANALYZED: .06/02/99 CLIENT SAMPLE ID: SSI-2" MATRIX: SOIL DILUTION FACTOR: I SAMPLE VOL./WT.: 10 G ANALYTE REPORTING LIMITS RESULTS PPM(MG/KG) PPM (MG/KG) C8 < HC 1 ND C8 < HC < C9 1 ND C9 < HC < CIO I ND C10 <_ HC < CII 1 ND Cll <_ HC < C12 1 ND C12 < HC < C14 1 ND C14 5 HC < C16 w1 1 C16 5 HC < C18 1 4 C18 S HC < C20 1 6 C20 5 HC < C24 1 13 C24 5 HC < C28 1 60 C28 5 HC < C32 1 180 C32 < HC < C36 1 101 C36 5 HC < C40 I 81 , C40 < HC 1 37 TOTAL HC 1 483 1 TPH IDENTIFICATION: WEATHERED DIESEL&WASTE OIL HC=HYDROCARBON ND=ANALYTE NOT DETECTED AT OR ABOVE THE INDICATED REPORTING LIMIT. REPORTING LIMITS AND RESULTS HAVE BEEN ADJUSTED ACCORDINGLY TO ACCOUNT FOR DILUTION FACTOR. + Pacific Treatment Analytical Services, Inc. 4340 Yewddge Ave.,Suite A•San Diego,CA 92123 (619)560.7717 FAX(619)560.776 ANALYSIS RESULTS - TPH EXTENDED RANGE BY ASTM D2887 ' CLIENT: GRADIENT ENGINEERS,INC. DATE SAMPLED: 06/01/99 DATE RECEIVED: 06/02/99 PROJECT NAME/No.: RORIPAUGH RANCH DATE EXTRACTED: 06/02/99 PTAS LOG#: 1073-99-9 DATE ANALYZED: 06/03/99 CLIENT SAMPLE ID: SS2-2" MATRIX: SOIL DILUTION FACTOR: 10 SAMPLE VOL./WT.: I O G ANALYTE REPORTING LIMITS RESULTS PPM(MG/KG) PPM (MG/KG) C8 5 HC 10 ND C8 <_ HC < .C9 10 NO _ C9 <_ HC < CIO 10 ND CIO < HC < Cll 10 ND CII 5 HC < C12 10 ND C12 5 HC < C14 10 ND C14 S HC < C16 10 11 C16 5 HC < C18 10 40 C18 < HC < C20 10 126 C20 5 HC < C24 10 276 ' C24 5 HC < C28 10 1,560 C28 <_ HC < C32 10 770 C32 _< HC < C36 10 220 C36 < HC < C40 10 200 C40 < HC 10 70 TOTAL HC 10 3,570 1 TPH IDENTIFICATION: WEATHERED DIESEL&WASTE OIL HC=HYDROCARBON NO=ANALYTE NOT DETECTED AT OR ABOVE THE INDICATED REPORTING LIMIT. REPORTING LIMITS AND RESULTS HAVE BEEN ADJUSTED ACCORDINGLY TO ACCOUNT FOR DILUTION FACTOR. 1 1 1 0Pacific Treatment Analytical Services, Inc. 4340 Yewridge Ave.,Suite A•San Diego,CA 92123 (619)560-7717 FAX(619)560-7763 ANALYSIS RESULTS - TPH EXTENDED RANGE , BY ASTM D2887 CLIENT: GRADIENT ENGINEERS,INC. DATE SAMPLED: 06/01/99 ' DATE RECEIVED: 06/02/99 PROJECT NAME/No.: RORIPAUGH RANCH DATE EXTRACTED: 06/02/99 PTAS LOG#: 1073-99-10 DATE ANALYZED: 06/03/99 CLIENT SAMPLE ID: SS3-1" MATRIX: SOIL DILUTION FACTOR: 5 SAMPLE VOL./WT.: I O G ANALYTE REPORTING LIMITS RESULTS PPM(MG/KG) PPM (MG/KG) C8 5 HC 5 ND C8 5 HC < C9 5 13 C9 5 HC < CIO 5 ND C10 _< HC < C11 5 ND C11 5 HC < C12 5 7 C12 5 HC < CI4 5 6 CI4 5 HC < C16 5 10 C16 < HC < CIS 5 13 ' CIS 5 HC < C20 5 7 C20 5 HC < C24 5 12 C24 5 HC < C28 5 85 ' C28 <_ HC < C32 5 265 C32 5 HC < C36 5 287 C36 S HC < C40 5 298 C40 S HC 5 230 TOTAL HC 5 1,230 TPH IDENTIFICATION: WEATHERED DIESEL& WASTE OIL HC=HYDROCARBON ' ND—ANALYTE NOT DETECTED AT OR ABOVE THE INDICATED REPORTING LIMIT. REPORTING LIMITS AND RESULTS HAVE BEEN ADJUSTED ACCORDINGLY TO ACCOUNT FOR DILUTION FACTOR. Pacific Treatment Analytical Services, Inc. 4340 Yewddge Ave.,Suite A•San Diego,CA 92123 (619)560-7717 FAX(619)560-7761 ANALYSIS RESULTS -TPH EXTENDED RANGE BY ASTM D2887 CLIENT: GRADIENT ENGINEERS, INC. DATE SAMPLED: 06/01/99 DATE RECEIVED: 06/02/99 PROJECT NAME/No.: RORIPAUGH RANCH DATE EXTRACTED: 06/02/99 PTAS LOG#: 1073-99-11 DATE ANALYZED: 06/02/99 CLIENT SAMPLE ID: SS4-1' MATRIX: SOIL DILUTION FACTOR: 1 SAMPLE VOL./WT.: 10G ANALYTE REPORTING LIMITS RESULTS PPM(MG/KG) PPM(MG/KG) C8 < HC 1 ND C8 5 HC < C9 .1 ND C9 5 HC < CIO 1 ND C10 5 HC < CII ] ND ' CII <_ HC < C12 1 ND C12 < HC < C14 1 ND C14 < HC < C16 ] 2 ' C16 5 HC < C18 ] 12 C18 5 HC < C20 I 39 C20 _< HC < C24 I 39 C24 < HC < C28 1 34 C28 5 HC < C32 ] 48 C32 < HC < C36 1 25 C36 <_ HC < C40 ] 26 C40 < HC ]. 24 TOTAL HC 1 249 TPH IDENTIFICATION: WEATHERED DIESEL&WASTE OIL HC=HYDROCARBON ND=ANALYTE NOT DETECTED AT OR ABOVE THE INDICATED REPORTING LIMIT. REPORTING LIMITS AND RESULTS HAVE BEEN ADJUSTED ACCORDINGLY TO ACCOUNT FOR DILUTION FACTOR. �� Pacific Treatment Analytical Services, Inc. 4340 Yiewhage Ave.,Suite A•San Diego,CA 92123 (619)560-7717 FAX(619)5607763 . , 1 ANALYSIS RESULTS - TPH EXTENDED RANGE t BY ASTM D2887 CLIENT: GRADIENT ENGINEERS, INC. DATE SAMPLED: 06/01/99 DATE RECEIVED: 06/02/99 PROJECT NAME/No.: RORIPAUGH RANCH DATE EXTRACTED: 06(02/99 PTAS LOG #: 1073-99-12 DATE ANALYZED: 06/02/99 CLIENT SAMPLE ID: SS5-3" MATRIX: SOIL DILUTION FACTOR: 1 SAMPLE VOL./WT.: 10 G ANALYTE REPORTING LIMITS RESULTS PPM(MG/KG) PPM(MG/KG) , C8 < HC 1 ND C8 5 HC < C9 1 ND C9 < HC < CIO 1 NO CIO <_ HC < CII 1 ND Cll 5 HC < C12 I ND C12 5 HC < C14 I ND C14 5 HC < C16 1 ND C16 <_ HC < CI8 1 ND ' C18 < HC < C20 1 ND C20 <_ HC < C24 1 2 C24 5 HC < C28 1 15 C28 5 HC < C32 1 68 C32 < HC < C36 1 23 C36 5 HC < C40 1 27 C40 <_ HC 1 18 TOTAL HC 1 153 TPH IDENTIFICATION: WASTE OIL ' HC=HYDROCARBON , ND=ANALYTE NOT DETECTED AT OR ABOVE THE INDICATED REPORTING LIMIT. REPORTING LIMITS AND RESULTS HAVE BEEN ADJUSTED ACCORDINGLY TO ACCOUNT FOR DILUTION FACTOR. �� Pacific Treatment Analytical Services, Inc. 4340 Yewridge Ave.,Suite A•San Diego,CA 92123 (619)560-7717 FAX(619)560-7761 ANALYSIS RESULTS - TPH EXTENDED RANGE BY ASTM D2887 ' CLIENT: GRADIENT ENGINEERS, INC: DATE SAMPLED: 06/01/99 DATE RECEIVED: 06/02/99 PROJECT NAME/No.: RORIPAUGH RANCH DATE EXTRACTED: 06/02/99 PTAS LOG#: 1073-99-13 DATE.ANALYZED: 06/03/99 CLIENT SAMPLE ID: SS6-2" MATRIX: SOIL DILUTION FACTOR: 1 SAMPLE VOL./WT.: 10 G ANALYTE REPORTING LIMITS RESULTS 1 PPM(MG/KG) PPM(MG/KG) C8 <_ HC 1 ND C8 <_ HC < C9 1 ND C9 5 HC < C10 1 ND C10 <_ HC < CII 1 ND Cll <_ HC < C12 1 11 C12 <_ HC < C14 1 ND C14 5 HC < C16 I ND C16 5 HC < CIS 1 5 C18 S HC < C20 1 2 C20 5 HC < C24 1 3 ' C24 5 HC < C28 1 2 C28 <_ HC < C32 l 27 C32 5 HC < C36 I 9 ' C36 S HC < C40 1 4 C40 <_ HC 1 6 TOTAL HC 1 69 ' TPH IDENTIFICATION: WEATHERED DIESEL&WASTE OIL HC=HYDROCARBON ND=ANALYTE NOT DETECTED AT OR ABOVE THE INDICATED REPORTING LIMIT. REPORTING LIMITS AND RESULTS HAVE BEEN ADJUSTED ACCORDINGLY TO ACCOUNT FOR DILUTION FACTOR- Pacific ACTORPacific Treatment Analytical Services, Inc. 4340 Yewddge Ave.,Suite A•San Diego,CA 92123 '(619)560-7717 FAX(619)560.776 ANALYSIS RESULTS - TPH EXTENDED RANGE 1 BY ASTM D2887 . CLIENT: GRADIENT ENGINEERS, INC. DATE SAMPLED: 06/01/99 , DATE RECEIVED: 06/02/99 PROJECT NAME/No.: RORIPAUGH RANCH DATE EXTRACTED: 06/02/99 PTAS LOG #: 1073-99-13 (DUPLICATE) DATE ANALYZED: 06/03/99 CLIENT SAMPLE ID: SS6-2"(DUPLICATE) MATRIX: SOIL DILUTION FACTOR: I SAMPLE VOL./WT.: 10G ANALYTE REPORTING LIMITS RESULTS , PPM(MG/KG) PPM (MG/KG) C8 < HC 1 ND C8 5 HC < C9 I ND C9 S HC < CIO 1 ND CIO 5 HC < CII 1 ND C11 5 HC < C12 1 5 C12 < HC < C14 1 ND C14 5 HC < C16 I ND CIG 5 HC < CIS 1 4 C18 < HC < C20 1 I C20 5 HC < C24 1 2 C24 5 HC < C28 1 ND , C28 5 HC < C32 1 36 C32 < HC < C36 1 5 C36 5 HC < C40 1 4 , C40 < HC 1 4 TOTAL HC 1 61 , TPH IDENTIFICATION: WEATHERED DIESEL&.WASTE OIL ' HC=HYDROCARBON ND—ANALYTE NOT DETECTED AT OR ABOVE THE INDICATED REPORTING LIMIT. , REPORTING LIMITS AND RESULTS HAVE BEEN ADJUSTED ACCORDINGLY TO ACCOUNT FOR DILUTION FACTOR. 0AF+ Pacific Treatment Analytical Services, Inc. 4340 Yiewddge Ave.,Suite A•San Diego,CA 92123 (619)560-7717 FAX(619)560-776 ANALYSIS RESULTS -TPH EXTENDED RANGE BY ASTM D2887 ' CLIENT: GRADIENT ENGINEERS,INC. DATE SAMPLED: 06/01/99 DATE RECEIVED: 06/02/99 PROJECT NAME/No.: RORIPAUGH RANCH DATE EXTRACTED: 06/02/99 1 PTAS LOG#: 1073-99-14 DATE ANALYZED: 06/03/99 CLIENT SAMPLE ID: SS7-4" MATRIX: SOIL DILUTION FACTOR: 1 SAMPLE VOL./WT.: I O G ANALYTE REPORTING LIMITS RESULTS PPM(MG/KG) PPM(MG/KG) C8 <_ HC 1 ND C8 <_ HC < .C9 1 ND C9 _< HC < CIO 1 ND CIO 5 HC < C11 1 ND CII <_ HC < C1.2 1 ND C12 5 HC < C14 1 ND C14 <_ HC < C16 1 ND C16 5 HC < C18 1 2 C18 _< HC < C20 1 ND C20 _< HC < C24 1 2 C24 _< HC < C28 l 11 C28 <_ HC < C32 1 61 C32 _< HC < C36 1 30 ' C36 5 HC < C40 1 22 C40 <_ HC 1 13 TOTAL HC 1 141 TPH IDENTIFICATION: WASTE OIL HC=HYDROCARBON ND=ANALYTE NOT DETECTED AT OR ABOVE THE INDICATED REPORTING LIMIT. REPORTING LIMITS AND RESULTS HAVE BEEN ADJUSTED ACCORDINGLY TO ACCOUNT FOR DILUTION FACTOR. 1 1 I Pacific Treatment Analytical SeIVICBS,-IIIC. 4340 Yewridge Ave.,Suite A•San Diego,CA 92123 (619)560-771 7 FAX(619)560-7763 ANALYSIS RESULTS -TPH EXTENDED RANGE , BY ASTM D2887 CLIENT: GRADIENT ENGINEERS, INC. DATE SAMPLED: 06/01/99 ' DATE RECEIVED: 06/02/99 PROJECT NAME/No.: RORIPAUGH RANCH DATE EXTRACTED: 06/02/99 PTAS LOG#: 1073-99-15 DATE ANALYZED: 06/03/99 , CLIENT SAMPLE ID: SS8-3" MATRIX: SOIL DILUTION FACTOR: 1 SAMPLE VOL./WT.: IO G ANALYTE REPORTING LIMITS RESULTS , PPM(MG/KG) PPM (MG/KG) C8 < HC 1 ND C8 < HC < C9 I ND C9 <_ HC < C10 1 ND C10 < HC < CII I ND Cll < HC < C12 1 2 C12 < HC < C14 I ND C14 5 HC < C16 1 ND C16 < HC < C18 1 6 ' CI8 5 HC < C20 1 14 C26 5 HC < C24 1 16 C24 < HC < C28 1 60 C28 5 HC < C32 1 183 C32. < HC < C36 1 116 C36 <_ HC < C40 1 101 ' C40 < HC I 84 TOTAL HC 1 583 TPH IDENTIFICATION: WEATHERED DIESEL&WASTE OIL , HC=HYDROCARBON - ND=ANALYTE NOT DETECTED AT OR ABOVE THE INDICATED REPORTING LIMIT. REPORTING LIMITS AND RESULTS HAVE BEEN ADJUSTED ACCORDINGLY TO ACCOUNT FOR DILUTION FACTOR. 1 + Pacific Treatment Analytical Services, Inc. 4340 Yewridge Ave.,Suite A•San Diego,CA 92123 (619)560-7717 FAX(619)560.776 ' QA/QC REPORT METHOD: TPH-ASTM D2887 ACCEPTABLE ACCEPTABLE LCS,MSIMSD RPD DATE ANALYZED: 06/02-03/99 CRITERIA CRITERIA SPIICED ANALYTE LCS % R MS % R MSD % R RPD % % DIESEL 96 62* 80 25 75-125 <30 1 LCS%R=LABORATORY CONTROL SAMPLE PERCENT RECOVERY MS%R=MATRIX SPIKE PERCENT RECOVERY MSD%R=MATRIX SPIKE DUPLICATE PERCENT RECOVERY RPD=RELATIVE PERCENT DIFFERENCE "NOTE: POOR RECOVERY ATTRIBUTABLE TO NON-HOMOGENEITY OF SAMPLE SPIKED. ALL OTHER QC DATA INDICATES METHOD IS IN CONTROL. 1 Pacific Treatment Analytical Services, Inc. .4340 Yewridgegve.,Suite A"San Diego,CA 92123 (619)560-7717 FAX(619)560-7763 i. w: r., -r :�r w r w r w i■�r w r w r � rr � / Pacific Treatment Analytical Services, Inc. V n CHAIN-OF-CUSTODY RECORD (} Max \ 4340 Viewridge Avenue,Suite A 'San Diego,CA 92123 Phone(619)560-7717 Fax(619)56o-7763. .It w p o, J J t1 I t). H 9 . 07 4 l PTAS LOG# PTAS DATE/TIME STAMP Client: j S t REQUESTED ANALYSIS Address: (7,5 ) ( u }c3 Atte' )' S S(- 'Phone' r /� Sampled b : ; Fax: �(�G I S ; c F 'F z` Al a U V p Billie Address: n PrProject: /y Q V T ..-PO#: ,v , •�4 O awe m or'o U w Sample Sample Sample Containers) PTAS S v ;,� .V.1 °•3 Client Sample ID Date Time Matrix # Type• ID# > v v v o N F U ".4 105 k,r;lI I1 a ~ I Icy-) 1 2 3 1 IX 4 A 1K S - ly-2o 6 Ix I S / Ssp s �a; o 10 -Container Types: B=Brass Tube; V=Vo. c=class; P Plastic; 0=0ther(list) :RELINQUISHED BY ` DATE/TIME RECEIVES BY Tam -Proof Seals Intact: Yes N N/A Correct Contain Yes No Signature "r` 'G!: %t,'i! 'L7, r � �^ � �;[.�f ,/K,�. ;.i - ( /p/ci� Signature .r..— Sam I s . Cold birnt Warm VOAs w/ZHS: Yes N6 N/ Print ._ I"i•�.:l;Y J.-';! I 7 Print >!J�% t.v<-� 7,,/( [ �A All Samples Properly Preserved: Y N/A CanPanY� ! / f/` %-'( 1 "i %tt� - Company ,� Dis 1: NIC(aqueous) •PTAS 53.00/ le ft<tum Signature Signature Turnaround Time; 24 hr 48 h, 3 day 4 day -Norma Print - Print - Comments: - Company Company Signature Signature Print Print . Company Company 0 PTAS reamea the right to return samples that dont match our waste profile. While-PTAS Canary-Accounting Pink-Client(w/Report) Goldenrod-Client(Relinquish Samples) (Rev.5/97) Pacific Treatment Analytical Services, Inc. CHAIN-O&CUSTODY RECORD 4340 Viewridge Avenue,Suite A San Diego,CA 92123 Phone(619)560.7717 Fax(619)560.7763 r ._ I o 7" - PTAS LOG # PTAS DATEITIME STAMP J d ry 9 Client: REQUESTED ANALYSIS :J/. 1 • C'`(1 /i'�a(l _ S .. I I B B t= = 2 4 m v Amo Atm: Phone: 6 / / Fax: GGx A ° U U Z > a Billing Address: Projxt: - ' -, ,; � '•.. •r; ;;,,�;� �'ll,;f,`tisPO q:' t.fGJ;�IJ .` .. / �-, .� N � 00o Q � � � � U O r Sample Sample Sample Container(s) PT AS Client Sample ID Date Time . Matrix p Type• ID p < e v v e e F- w F U c z 3 �3v a 6 7 8 9 10 'Container Types: B=BrassTube; V=VO c=class, P=Plastic; Other(list) _...RELINQUISHED BY DATE/TIME - RECEIVED BY Tamper-Proof Seals Intact: Yes N N/A Cortes Contain : Y No Signature 1)"i" L-1 . !•::A_ ,i.^ Signature y Sam 1 Col Ambient Wamt VOAs w/ZHS: Yes o N/A Print -'.�jl?� .'. : �f ,/�.,, . Print rµ.r n/ov ^v< e' , ✓.✓ All Samples ly Preserved: N/A Company �C`J• ,!if -� G Company J'(y+/ Disposal: N/C a eous •PTAS 55.001 le Retu Signature Signature Turnaround Time: 24 hr 48 hr 3 day 46y .Normal Print Print Comments:. - Company - Company Signature Signature Print Print Y ' 993070-001 RORIPAUGN RANCH • RIVERSIDE COUNTY PHOTO N0 . 1 : SITE PHOTOS View facing east of a portable tank noted in the northern area of the Site. The Roripaugh residences are located in the background. Sample SSI-2" was collected adjacent to the tank,beneath the stained soil. 7. , m. w rrf am. toi 'ilk,,. ' 1,T.,Y` sa' ' PHOTO No . 2 : View of petroleum stained soil located in AOC I. Sample SS5-3"was collected beneath this soil stained arca. .... v Wq by E x 4T,.nrS.� Ar s J - 993070-01� RORIPAU4N RANI, . RIVERSIDE CuUN SITE PHOTO PHOTo No . 3 : View of unlabeled containers located in AOC 1,primarily containing what appeared to be waste oil. Soil staining noted and sample SS6-2"was collected adjacent to the one-half 55-gallon drum in the center of the photo. fl' rl 1 +'l LL•.. ' "C. !AAl 1 i. y� b � 1YJ :r WA 4 Jr PAP ( Ik � t SYx vS ,r„ �- '�a< 4 r t .5¢et �'f ty�aly r .S� -Y•."3 µ>x �', y�+'MFfr:`�'` •rY �b ^ k_.�e+ fW �t � lfr klLs y � ei�r e„r ,[� 3n�,� ;..'IAfiy� , j � µ �� y �� �' �'� �!.::. i ..1;f�t.*R i v�s .. � 4a�r� �°• -Rht.\��5. � --•3n> k.� .,cV.. r r s „ ,r v�rATjr, ,�f� .t .�i t'�;c ,t T , PHOTo No. 4 : View of containers located in AOC 1. The containers were unlabeled or labeled to contain oil or hydraulic fluid. Soil staining was noted in the area of the wooden pallet located in the left area of the photo. Soil sample SS7-4"was collected adjacent to the pallet beneath the stained soil. ' Am tS,:;'' .,'� �,> xT ':'id-•"T.ty j7,:..��yri�f�.� .eta � '^'si• y� �.' . t', f 1, ••� 1 1 / s.... - _:a� ..f•per_ a . J J}7• t+ 17'i' I Alm Ir l' Y' :_ ,, •.tip a,- 4 �<,, a'` ram 1 t��� ,�► �J 1, 1 / 1 �te ';��1 a. • .r;u l ey + I 1 - }+ ;� � ,y'1 t1.2 r h+'s��h y-::r,x-w "rx'i SS•-"�..„�„y�.�°� '+� ^--�'+I�".'re�i / 1 1 r n^ � � `�� 1.,. "�U 7t •. - ' \ t .: 1� it�,y•a �'rba+fr.. .Y'•r'i/ L. lh4n i1f (l'' y ! 4f2 ltd 1 � 3 { � r it �ri }rT^ e-'.�nrT'" ,.•.s t y�+�J/ � ^t •w�!' f MY b.� `,.,"'kdt ..*'� ~ ',ss iti. �r{ r � � J .1N9 � ,Sk '„r Y.�i+ , ° n F' I t ♦ .yy r♦-. � ' �, . La 1. f+♦�y�f•/ LLa t r a tt iV ♦ r ,� . SFg7{y .elY ryP .Y 'f"� r,,Cf•Y h }tS4 t �' t' .:. Zttty,wr Wr 't 3,* '� � ?. r .H4• `}y ,—a .� q; a,.• t a �Q y 4a' ., Y� fiu 6.. M , A `Fr^� i..t bisYAaJ 3—:.� cM2 Ar . �. _...,,, .. ♦s L . . � ' '.. x r:.3ren s:::1;Ycr1�5't�a r�, _�. ? !;: .:•..: i�' ti f�r`:,,;; ' t • ,;: rp 'z l:�"i��ra .+.. • .• 4 A r �'ten ',1h"y a sr�' /+eRa, - `•a Ai y+or w.. ' � y4/ ` 11y i� " x J.: x fy v � B� y� � s•. ' yf �ay♦ f��.�r�.l' t R 'f.a f, t r r { y I'~+ .! h Mill Y r ' T f' 1 a 1 rj aT` 5 ff•. �x r • t 1 1 71 n�afr a ��.���t t}, i � .R �'FC2�i• �' ." 'F's'`.f \ss. �` rrn,M1'°'; '•H\sbV-.v ;?. A 1'3 r yia C •3' +..�.. �C'_i r •� 2 IFS 7R icC+t.7•r.3w } :��w i r v J fi ..l 1;` n S T.lc w i-+r wi^"• t I �4 ''d'��"ii�i�% cr: t'r C. 1� t'• a�Sv—�• TaSinN {5,�y, liifJ 0. 1` is ..�, .� 4-h,.�,r, F"`a RAJ i r!S+. " ' ' "•`+'ti:.'+X}3 '"7f'+tt'ru.t� r J J.. W sJ .',1, °�°♦1kSc �' n:s^J �„4�1��,� :,� ++, ,�.�. tet..^ /�'�yk.•wJfi��� �•.'+!yejJ�`°�Ji�F+Ajs%M C` i 4 �h+kY& FYJ J+t,v_ _:.JI,�JII^ � nfl' .:`t�..• <io-L^dn,.,..k+: n14%^\.' �?Fh`y''^^,,.?�ey R`�..•' > .,.:., y4.i=.'.' • � 1 1 / 1 1 1' 1 {1 1 I �1 • 1 11' 1 1 1 �1 I 1 / / 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 • r 4 A 's ifs ir Eb!' yyylvL9 Y? ,'� S3 ),II f [ S' •f �It flFYI " G rw A .d" if ,. .yt �''•'�.. ti. l !` .. �C� 41.7 ,� • �1wL a •' ' '' It ., r �iyT + IN All rV.? . 'V•S 1 ai (f � {'�av FT mel,,,�`u5 � r j v1 {r �{ �'+ i � {at '�'• �� �Y��� •�� ('1'�, �rt r 'P' f w �ri ��'.: r '� � r a.e r • t �Y � �iF'i L n, r� r v i 4y L'�/py�'__i��ii// 1� j91{ta.,l,� y 1`�P r ! � p � .�4 �: • i• a �l')'u8e,�;;r< ��`��,�\*.t� �, � { �I, �f '-� �'a r.�' 'r`li`4}Li+r ri i� rw � ..x ' Y$ '� `y y11.1, 1 ! � 4�.j1�•�k 3�i=4 to ,, , ..:-'SSA a'.�S 1f'•-n`'u,i //.: l;rt.;'�""'�__�a`j�� rtr � ."�� • �!•: , _ Ky ..ate, r �•1 :. 'Q7 '� •7' { ref �' -: . � �;w yr • 3f6� ee .r e. i�y;.1. t \ r . rh .Gd�- \ li. r - n\. L r4 7•r Vit: rl ` ' d^., �a�.� � .�v-:`. 'R '�V•. , / 1 1 r VOW. I v i y.:,N C+ £ r i ` 4 � �� r • X11 '/f . } r �'rry 3 I w t • yt•^�r i n _!'j t ti 3 f etc., i'. a _ r• � �� I�Y�,7. i �d 5�' C�1 p�"' a CC.,'- tar ti .,y E'f.,d b+ Y •�, IIFn'r Fa' iYw {I i»l' �?� nab\�• �•t..5'.a� l I ,yY�- n vn rpt H tri ( �� �f,'19 Y'17;)�e!'jw. i� I } (�A'•vY� f fi; �� A� '�i k. 1, a w + i, � r� • r V r a u+jti i ') C(ir��• ^I�f �i�7 J r �/ i i1�(T ^M;Rr�. , 4 �� 1��'I{ +� Y ,w e�d`?�+�a,Y I^�vi -zi4 Y. rt "�� �(e i{':is.!•".•,_.� S?�... GRADIENT 1VfENGINEERS INC. Construction Engineering aid ' Environmental Services ' June 1, 1999 ' Project No. 993070-001 To: ' Subject: Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Questionnaire, 800-Acre Roripaugh Ranch, Murrieta, Riverside County, California Gradient Engineers, Inc., (Gradient) has been contacted by Ashby Development Company to ' perform a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) at the subject site. Please take a few moments to fill out the attached questionnaire regarding the subject site. This 1 form is part of the ASTM Standard for Phase I ESAs and will be included in our report. Some of the questions may not apply to your site but are included to contorm with the ASTM Standard. If you do not know the answer, simply check the "Unknown (UNK.)" box. However, please be as thorough as possible. Please return the completed questionnaire by June 7, 1999,. to our San Diego office by fax (619) 268-5199, and mail the original to this office. ' If you have any questions please do not hesitate to contact the undersigned at (6 19) 268-1320. Thank you for your timely cooperation. ' Respectfully submitted, GRADIENT ENGINEERS, INC. Molly He ss� /� StaffEnvilOrin i nali r Attachment: Phase I ESA Transaction Screen Questionnaire 1 Murphy Canyon Road,Suite 8204,San Diego,CA 92123 (619)268.1320 ff A734297 FAX(619)268.5199 PHASE I ENVIRONMENTAL SITE ASSESSMENT TRANSACTION SCREEN QUESTIONNAIRE ' 4Address: er: Phone No. : Project Number: State: =QUESTION :` -YES NO UNI- COMMENT8_or any adjoining property used Coran Industrial use?If which(subject property and/or adjacent property) 2. To the best o!your knowledge, has the property, or any adjoining ' L operty been used for an indusuial use in the past?If so,please state ich(subject property and/or adjacent property) thepropertyor any adjoining property, used as agasoline station, tor repair facility, commercial printing facility,dry cleaners,photo veloping laboratory,junkyard or landfill, or as a waste treatment,rage,disposal, processing,or recycling facility? If so, please state ich(subject property and/or adjacentproperty) the best of your knowledge has the property, or my adjoining property been used as a gasoline station, motor repair facility. ' commercial printing facility, dry _'cleaners, photo developing laboratory, junkyard or landfill, or as a waste treatment, storage. / disposal, processing, or recycling facility? If so, please state which (subject property and/or adjacent property) 5. Are there currently,or to the but of your knowledge have there been previously, any damaged or discarded automotive or industrial baacrics, or pesticides, paints, or other chemicals in individual containers of greater than 5 gal(19 L)in volume or 50 gal(190 L)in ' the aggregate,stated on or used at the property or at the facility? 6. Arc there currently,or to the best of your knowledge have there been previously,an industrial drums kali 55 al. 08 L or sacks of P X Y� (typically B 2 )) � chemicals located on the property be at the facility? ' 7. Has fill dirt been brought onto the property that originated from a . contaminated site or that is of an unknown origin? 8. Arc there currently,or to the but of your knowledge have there been previously, any pits, ponds, or lagoons located on the property in t ' connection with waste acatment or waste disposal? 9. Is tlicre currently, or to the best of your knowledge has there been previously,any stained soil on the property 10. Arc there currently,or to the best of your knowledge have there been previously, any registered or unregistered storage tanks (above or underground)located on the property? 11. Arc there currently,or to the best of your knowledge have there been previously,any vent pipes,fill pipes, or access ways indicating a fill pipe protruding from the ground on the property or adjacent to any structure located on the property. 12. Arc there currently,tar to the best of your knowledge have there been previously, any flooring, drains, or walls located within the facility that arc stained by substances other than water or arc emitting foul odors? 13. It the property is served by a private,weii or non-public water system, have contaminants barn identified In the well or system that exceed guiddirics applicable to the water system or has the well been designated as contaminated by eny government tovhonmental/health agency? 14. Docs ttrc owner or ocnrpant of the property have eny knowledge of environmenial liens or govemmenlal notification relating to past or \i recurrent violations of environmental laws with respect to the /r�\ property or any facility located on the property I5. Has due owner or occupant of the property been informed of the past or current existence of hazardous substances or petroleum products or ' environmental violations with respect to the property or my facility located on the property 16. Docs the owner or occupant of the property have any knowledge of My environmental slre assenment of the property or facility that �r ' indicated the presence of hazardous substances or petroleum products (\ an, or conmmitraticn of, the property or recommended further assessment of the pro/xrry 1 1 foo j escaoaa0•ooc (page I of 2) (continued from page.1) QUESTION YES NO UNK COMMENTS 17. Does the owner or occupant of the property know of any past. threatened, or pending lawsuits or administrative proceedings coneoming a release or threatened release of any hazardous substance or petroleum products involving the property by any owner or occupant of the property? 18. Docs the property discharge waste water on or adjacent to the property other tltan storm water into a sanitary sewer system? 19. To the best of your knowledge, have any hazardous substances or petroleum products, unidentified waste materials,tires,automotive or ' industrial batteries or any other waste materials been dumped above grade,buried and/or burned on the property? 20. Is there a transformer, capacitor, or any hydraulic equipment for which there are any records indicating the presence of PCBs? 'UNKarUnknowh �.. . .--_ . . _ .. . Table is based on:AS'7;1(Standard E/528.97 , �• Current Property Owner's Time Period of Ownership : ....:.y..�......../�!�?:.......................................................... ...........................................................................................................✓.................................................................■ ..I Property Utilization During Ownership:....... . . .. -. ✓' ' ..............................................................� ....................................................................................v...................................................................................... ................................................................................. .......................................................:...................................' Name and Address of Past Owners:.....�y r1�t a,A/...i 2 ........................................................................ Y L' .....................................................................:.......................:.................................:.............................................1 I ............................................................................................................................................................................. Additional Comments(Including site source of water, sewage disposal methods and source of heating and fuel' _i ..........................................r.................................................................................................................................... This questionnaire was completed by: Name: Title: Firm: , Address: Phone Number: Z 7L- 3:2 Preparer presents that to th'e'best of the preparer's knowledge the above statements and facts are true and correct to the best of the preparer's actual knowledge no material facts have been suppressed or misstated. ' -I 7 S2�. Y Signature to ' aacaaruw.Doc (page.2 of 2) {