HomeMy WebLinkAbout051904 PC Agenda
II In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you need special assistance to
participate in this meeting, please contact the office of the City Clerk (909) 694-6444.
Notification 48 hours prior to a meeting will enable the City to make reasonable arrangements
to ensure accessibility to that meeting [28 CFR 35.102.35.104 ADA Title II]
AGENDA
TEMECULA PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS
43200 BUSINESS PARK DRIVE
MAY 19, 2004 - 6:00 P.M.
-.....
Next in Order:
Resolution No. 2004-022
CALL TO ORDER
Flag Salute:
RollCall:
Commissioner Mathewson
Chiniaeff, Guerriero, Mathewson, Olhasso, and Telesio
PUBLIC COMMENTS
A total of 15 minutes is provided so members of the public may address the Commission
on items that are not listed on the Agenda. Speakers are limited to three (3) minutes
each. If you desire to speak to the Commission about an item not on the Agenda, a
salmon colored "Request to Speak" form should be filled out and filed with the
Commission Secretary.
When you are called to speak, please come forward and state your name for the record.
For all other agenda items a "Request to Speak" form must be filed with the
Commission Secretary m:iQr to the Commission addressing that item. There is a three
(3) minute time limit for individual speakers.
CONSENT CALENDAR
NOtiCE TO THE PUBLIC
All matters listed under Consent Calendar are considered to be routine and all will
be enacted by one roll call vote. There will be no discussion of these items unless
Members of the Planning Commission request specific items be removed from the
Consent Calendar for separate action.
Aaenda
RECOMMENDATION:
1.1 Approve the Agenda of May 19, 2004
R:\PLANCOMMlAgendas\2004\O5-19-04.doc
2 Minutes
RECOMMENDATION:
2.1 Approve' the Minutes of April 7, 2004
COMMISSION BUSINESS
PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS
Any person may submit written comments to the Planning Commission before a
public hearing or may appear and be heard In support of or in opposition to the
approval of the project(s) at the time of hearing. If you challenge any of the
projects in court, you may be limited to raising only those Issues you or someone
else raised at the public hearing or In written correspondences delivered to the
Commission Secretary at, or prior to, the public hearing.
Continued from Apri/21, 2004
3. PlanninG Application No. PAO3-0725. submitted by Davidson Communities. is a product
review for 99 detached sinale-familv residences within PlanninG Area 2 in the Roripauah
Ranch Specific Plan. located south of Murrieta Hot SprinGs Road and west of the future
extension of Butterfield StaDe Road (Tract 29661-2). Dan Lona Associate Planner
4. PlanninG Application No. PA03-0634. submitted by Meeker Companies. is a product review
for 113 detached sinale-familv residences within PlanninG Area 4B in the Roripavah Ranch
Specific Plan. located south of Murrieta Hot SprinGs Road and west of the future extension
of Butterfield Staae Road. (Tract 29661-5), Dan Lona Associate Planner
New items
5. PlanninG Application PA03-0027. submitted bv Cornwall Associates Architects. is a
Conditional Use Permit to construct. establish and operate a 24. 287 SQuare foot church
facilitv located on the north side of Pauba Road and .140 feet west of Corte Villosa (APN:
955-050-017). Matthew Harris Associate Planner
6. PlanninG Application PAO3-0534 submitted bv McArdle and Associates Architects. is a
Development Plan to construct an 18.981 sQuare-foot. three-story office buildinG on 1.01
acres. Located in the north side of Ridae Park Drive. south of Rancho California Road.
(APN: 940-310-027). Associate Planner Dan Lona
COMMISSIONER'S REPORTS
PLANNING DIRECTOR'S REPORT
ADJOURNMENT
Next regular meeting: June 2, 2004
Council Chambers
43200 Business Park Drive
Temecula, CA 92590
R: \PLANCOMMlAgendas \2004\O5-19-04.doc
ITEM #2
.
.
.
MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING
OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA
PLANNING COMMISSION
APRIL 7, 2004
CALL TO ORDER
The City of Temecula Planning Commission convened in a regular meeting at 6:00 P.M., on
Wednesday, April 7, 2004, in the City Council Chambers of Temecula City Hall, 43200 Business
Park Drive, Temecula, California. .
Chairman Telesio thanked Eve Craig for the prelude music and welcomed Elton and Jean
Ward.
ALLEGIANCE
Commissioner Olhasso led the audience in the Flag salute.
ROLL CALL
Present:
Commissioners Guerriero, Mathewson, Olhasso, and Chairman Telesio.
Absent:
Chiniaeff.
PUBLIC COMMENTS
No comments.
CONSENT CALENDAR
1 Aaenda
RECOMMENDATION:
1.1 Approve the Agenda of April 7, 2004.
2 Minutes
RECOMMENDATION:
2.1 Approve the Minutes of February 18, 2004.
MOTION: Commissioner Guerriero moved to approve the Consent Calendar. Commissioner
Mathewson seconded the motion and voice vote reflected approval with the exception of
Commissioner Chiniaeff who was~.
Principal Planner Hazen requested that Item No.3 be continued to May 5, 2004 and Item No.7
be continued off calendar.
R:\MinutesPC\O40704
MOTION: Commissioner Olhasso moved to approve staff's request to continue Item No.3 to
May 3, 2004 and Item No.7 off calendar. Commissioner Guerriero seconded the motion and
voice vote reflected approval with the exception of Commissioner Chiniaeff who was absent.
.
COMMISSION BUSINESS
New Items
3 Planninq Application No. PA03-0227 and PA03-0625 a Tentative Tract Map to subdivide
4.28 acres into 60 sinqle-familv residential lots averaqinq 3.000 square feet, and a
Development Plan to consider the architectural desiqn and placement of proposed homes.
located north of Harveston Lake. west of Loop Drive. and .east of the Lakefront Cottaqes
tract
This was continued to May 3, 2004, see above.
4 Planninq Application No. PA03-0671 a Development Plan to construct. establish and
operate a sinqle-storv Red Lobster Restaurant buildinq totalinq 7.567 square feet on 1.6
acres. located on the northeast corner of Overland Drive and Promenade Wav 5 Plannina
Application No. PA03-0321 a Tentative Tract Map to subdivide 3.2 acres into 10 sinqle-
familv residential lots. located at the southeast corner of Rancho Vista Road and Ynez -
Road.
Associate Planner Harris presented a staff report (as per agenda material), noting the following:
. That the proposed project is within the existing Overland Corporate Center which the
Commission approved in 2001 ;
.
. That Condition of Approval No.7 of the Development Plan required that the Planning
Commission review and approve any changes to the approved building types;
. That a lot line adjustment application is currently being processed to reconfigure existing
lot line on site to better accommodate the restaurant facility;
. That there will be varying roof plans; that there will be a large porch effect around the
building which will create shadow and depth to the building; and that large decorative
windows will be applied along the rooflines;
.
That to further accentuate the building, an outdoor patio will be proposed along the
western property line;
. That southeast coastal architecture will be utilized to commensurate with a seafood
restaurant;
. That staff is of the opinion that the unique architecture being proposed will be
appropriate for a restaurant building;
. That 102 parking spaces will be provided;
.
R:\MinutesPClO40704
2
.
.
.
. That reciprocal parking and access easements will be provided between adjacent
parcels within the center;
. That staff is requesting that the applicant incorporate a decorative concrete colored
sidewalk to accentuate the cobblestone at the front entrance to further enhance the
aesthetics along the front of the restaurant; and that this has been made a
recommended condition;
. That staff determined that the proposed project will be consistent with the General Plan
and will conform to the Citywide Design Guidelines and Development Standards
specified in the Temecula Regional Center Specific Plan (SP).
For Commissioner Guerriero, Deputy Director of Public Works Parks relayed that Promenade
Way is a private street and that currently there are no intentions of having the street dedicated;
and that with the cooperation of the mall development, staff could explore the intent of installing
"No Parking" signs on Promenade Way to aid with traffic.
At this time, the Public Hearing was opened.
Mr. Michael Riley, 3190-K Airport Loop, architect for the applicant, noted that the applicant
would be willing to work with staff in regard to incorporating a decorative, concrete colored
sidewalk and a color that will be compatible with the cobblestone.
Mr. Craig Turner, 41777 Carleton Way, expressed concern with winds carrying the aroma of
cooked fish.
For the Commission, Mr. Riley relayed that the Red Lobster, as an operation, would have
exhaust hoods that would be installed in restaurants.
At this time, the Public Hearing was closed.
Commissioner Guerriero expressed excitement with regard to a Red Lobster in Temecula and
expressed delight with the architecture but noted that he would not know how to address the
concern of the cooked fish aroma.
Although he would he recognize the concern of the fish aroma, Commissioner Mathewson
would not view it as a significant concern.
For Commissioner Olhasso, Assistant City Attorney Curley noted that it would not be out of line
to request that staff add a condition that would have the applicant install top of the line vents.
Commissioner Mathewson suggested that staff and the applicant work together to ensure a high
quality filtration system.
At this time, the Public Hearing was closed.
MOTION: Commissioner Mathewson moved to approve staff's recommendation; to adopt
Resolution No. 2004-015; and to direct staff to work with the applicant on the ventilation system
and the colored concrete sidewalk. Commissioner Olhasso seconded the motion and voice
vote reflected approval ~ exception of Commissioner Chiniaeff who was ~.
R:\MinutesPC\O40704
3
PC RESOLUTION NO. 2004-015
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF
THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING
APPLICATION NO. PA03-0671 , A DEVELOPMENT
PLAN TO CONSTRUCT, ESTABLISH AND OPERATE A
SINGLE-STORY RED LOBSTER RESTAURANT
BUILDING TOTALING 7,567 SQUARE FEET ON 1.6
ACRES. THE SITE IS GENERALLY LOCATED ON THE
NORTHEAST CORNER OF OVERLAND DRIVE AND
PROMENADE WAY ALSO KNOWN AS ASSESSORS
PARCEL NOS. 921-830-027 & 028
.
5 Planninq Application No. PA03-0321 a Tentative Tract Map to subdivide 3;2 acres into 10
sinqle-familv residential lots. located at the southeast corner of Rancho Vista Road and
Ynez Road
Associate Planner Long presented a staff report (as per agenda material), highlighting the
following:
. That one access point will be proposed to the public street system off Ynez Road; that
there will be two internal cul-de-sacs; and that there will be no direct vehicular access to
Rancho Vista Road; however, there will be a pedestrian path onto Rancho Vista Road;
. That as a condition of approval, the applicant will be required to provide a landscape
median along Ynez Road for the length of the project site which will limit access to the
site as a right in and right out; and that there will be no turn lane;
.
. That'the applicant proposed to landscape the area between the proposed street and
Ynez Road as well as the length of the project adjacent to lot 10 and lot 1; and that once
that area is designed and landscaped, it will be transferred to the City by a grant deed;
. That there is an existing equestrian easement on the eastern portion of the project site;
that new structures are being proposed in this easernent; and that there is a condition of
approval, that will prohibit any perrnanent structures within the equestrian easement;
. That there' was a Mitigated Negative Declaration prepared for the site; and that the
potential irnpacts are noise, air quality, cultural resources, geotechnical, and removal of
trees;
. That the applicant has provided a noise study and identified sound and barrier walls
proposed on the west side of lot ten (10) and on the north side of lot one (1);
. That as a mitigation measure and a condition of approval, the applicant will be required
to submit a final noise study to determine interior noise levels and if any additional
mitigation measures were required;
. That the applicant will be removing 19 trees on the eastern portion of the project site;
.
R:\MinutesPC\O40704
4
.
.
.
. That per the request of staff, the applicant agreed to replant all live trees at a 1:1 ratio
pursuant to an arborist report;
. That staff received letters (which were provided to the Commission) from residents,
noting the following concerns:
0 That there be no vehicular access onto Rancho Vista Road;
0 That staff protect the equestrian easement;
0 That residents are concerned with the proposed median;
. That staff would recommend that the Commission adopt the resolution approving the
Mitigation Negative Declaration Monitoring Program and adopt a resolution to approve
Tenant Tract Map No. 31344 and the attached conditions.
Deputy Director Parks requested to correct Condition of Approval 33a to read: Improve Road
(major Highway Standards -100' R/W).
For Commissioner Guerriero, Mr. Long noted that the applicant is proposing to move the trees
to provide suitable building pads for the proposed project and that staff required the applicant to
plant 24 "box living trees.
Clarifying for Chairman Telesio, Mr. Long noted that southbound traffic in order to access will
need to make a U-turn at Pauba Road.
Mr. Parks also relayed that when Tierra Vista Road will be completed the tract could possibly
have access to a signalized intersection at Ynez Road and Tierra Vista Road; that in addition,
Preece Road loops around and connects to Ynez Road further south and that at the location,
Ynez Road is designated as a secondary highway which is 88 R/W and would not have a raised
landscaped median at that location; that the purpose of the condition is to meet the circulation
element of the General Plan; that this would be the only time to get the raised landscape
medians paid for; however, there is a possibility to take cash in lieu of until the entire median is
completed.
For the Commission, Mr. Parks relayed that Tierra Vista is a recorded subdivision map and staff
has bonds for making the improvements but have not had the need until now; that there is
activity within that area for additional development so that the developer would be required to
build the roads; that currently there is a signal at Tierra Vista; and that at this time, staff does not
have the schedule for the extension.
At this time, the Public Hearing was opened.
Mr. Larry Markham, 41635 Enterprise Circle North, representing the applicant, relayed the
following:
. That the pre-application was for an 18-unit condominium project which was modified to a
14-unit condorninium project both of which have required a Planned Development
Overlay (PDO); that after much consultation with staff, the applicant has reduced the
project to a 1 O-unit project;
R:\MinutesPC\040704
5
. That the initial design had a street lining up opposite the street across an intersection;
that as per the Public Works Department, the applicant would be responsible for half of
the median; that the intent would be to build the entire median across the applicant's
frontage, enabling the applicant to generate fee credits for the other side of the half
street; that if there were a desire to propose cash in lieu of the interim case scenario,
staff informed the applicant would be open to it;
.
. That the applicant that access off Rancho Vista Road would not be feasible due to the
close spacing of the Rancho Vista and Ynez Road intersection;
. That Condition of Approval No.7 be modified. to read: that the purple plum trees be
replaced by trees that would be acceptable to the Community Services Department
(CSD);
. That the applicant is working with three property owners to resolve the issue of rear-yard
encroachments; that the association continues to express concern relative to
easements; that the applicant has chosen to pull everything back from the easement
edge so that the applicant will not be impacting or restricting any use of the easement;
that the easement exists further to the east into a landscaped area within one of
association boundaries and is not used for equestrian purposes at this time, but was
reserved in place so that there will be no impact to that easement;
The following individuals spoke against the proposed project for the following reasons:
Earlene Bodman
Jeff Steinorth
Robert Milligan
Rachel Rayluron
Karen Farrar
Ron Hull
John Music
Kate Chandler
Hal Hoy
Mike Medaris
David Moodie
Eve Craig
Jody Sypher
Lori Huot
Paul Botello
Joe Buchmiller
Bill Selyzer
30216 Mira Loma Drive
43079 Calle Reva
43064 Calle Reva
28368 Tierra Vista
28289 Calle Ocasa
42943 Calle Reva
28179 Tierra Vista
P.O. Box 891138
28345 Corte Ocaso
42936 Calle Reva
28208 Tierra Vista Road
42960 Calle Reva
43359 Calle Reva
28312 Tierra Vista Road
29740 Camino del Sol
43048 Calle Reva
28242 Corte Malbrino
.
. That Lake Village Community Association members have the right to use the dedicated
equestrian, pedestrian easement located along the eastern border of lot No. 252; that
the members would like to continue to use the easement and are not planning to give up
that right;
. That it would be necessary for surrounding residents to access Ynez Road to get to and
frorn the highway;
.
R:\MinutesPC\O40704
6
.
.
.
That the 50 to 75 year old and 60 to 80 feet tall trees being replaced by small trees is a
concern;
. That Tierra Vista Road would not be a viable access point;
. That exiting at Preece Road to Ynez Road is a concern;
. That adding a median along that area will worsen the morning traffic;
. That if there would have been proper notification, there would have been more than 17
speakers;
. That there are over 406 homes in Rancho Vista and over 300 vehicles that exit a day
onto Preece;
. That until Tierra Vista Road will be completed, over 300 homeowners will have difficulty
exiting their own community;
. That residents would recommend aligning Preece and Rancho Vista for a four-way stop
light;
. That if a median were installed prior to completion of Tierra Vista Road, there will be
increased driver frustration and accidents;
. That Eucalyptus trees are a concern in regard to fire;
. That asking homeowners to make a U-turn to exit their neighborhood for these 10 nearly
proposed homes would be absurd;
. That adding a median along that stretch of road would lower the value of the homes in
the area;
That there is concern with the retaining wall that is being proposed.
Chairman Telesio thanked the speakers for their cooperation.
For the speakers, Director of Planning Ubnoske clarified that state law requires one form of
notification; that the City of Temecula does three forms of notification: an add is put in the paper,
notices are mailed to every homeowner within 600 feet of the boundary, and the proposed site
is posted and noting that the title company provides the City with labels and certifies that those
are the correct homeowners within 600 feet.
Mr. Larry Markharn clarified the following:
. That the applicant would concur to the suggestion of realigning Preece Road with
Rancho Vista Road to create a new four-way intersection, as designed in the CIP;
That the applicant would be willing to accept a condition to provide cash in lieu of;
R:\MinutesPCl040704
7
. That the only trees that would be removed are those at the base of the hill on the
applicant's property; and that some are diseased and some are healthy;
.
That the houses on Camino del Sol Road are ranging frorn 14' to 25' pad to pad that the
maximum cut is about 5 to 6 feet at the top; that the new homes will see completely over
the new development; and there they will not be an impact from the difference in pad
elevations;
That standard noticing was applied;
. That the Rancho Highland Community Association was noticed;
. That the applicant has worked very hard to accommodate the concerns of staff;
. That the applicant met with the Lake Village Association; that the request from them was
to change the definition of the easement to an equestrian size pedestrian easement;
That if there were no solution between the applicant and the association, the applicant
will not be building the fence across the easement, pursuant to the condition that Mr.
Long has provided.
Deputy Director of Public Works Parks clarified that this would be the only time that staff can
condition the developer to pay for the cost of widening the road to meet General Plan
designations; that it would not be the intent to block the left-turn motion until such time an
alternate route to in and egress that site; that staff would explore the option of lining up Rancho
Vista with Preece; that there are several options and staff does not want to block the residents'
of ingress and egress; however, with the General Plan build out, and as more cars access Ynez
Road, this will become an unsafe turning motion and there will be more accidents due to the
facts that there is no median; and that medians are installed to avoid accidents not cause them.
.
Commissioner Guerriero relayed that he would be of the opinion that the rnost viable option
heard would be the realigning of Rancho Vista Road and Preece Road; and that an arborist
should make the decision whether or not the Eucalyptus trees should be removed.
Commissioner Mathewson noted that the raised median on Ynez is vital and ultimately will need
to be installed in; that it is a safety issue with traffic on Ynez; that the solutions that were offered
with respect to the realignment of the intersection would be positive approach.
Chairman Telesio noted that the General Plan Citizens Advisory Cornmittee will be exploring the
circulation element on Ynez Road.
For Commissioner Olhasso, Deputy Director of Public Works Parks relayed that the Public
Works Department will explore other alternatives for the circulation elernent on Ynez Road.
Commissioner Olhasso thanked the developer for lowering the density of the homes.
.
R:\MinulesPC\O40704
8
.
.
.
MOTION: Commissioner Guerriero moved to approve Resolution No. 2004-016 per staff's
recommendation with changes to Condition of Approval Nos. 7 and 30 per staff's
recommendation; that the City hold the applicant to the equestrian/pedestrian easement
blockage; that the applicant work with the Rancho Highland Homeowners Association (HOA) to
explore the possibility of realignment; and that the City propose cash in lieu of for the installation
of the median. Commissioner Mathewson seconded the motion and voice vote reflected
approval with the exception of Commissioner Chiniaeff who was absent.
PC RESOLUTION NO. 2004-016
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF
THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING
APPLICATION NO. PA03-0321 , TENTATIVE TRACT
MAP NO. 31344 SUBDIVIDING 3.2 ACRES INTO TEN
SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL LOTS GENERALLY
LOCATED AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF RANCHO
VISTA ROAD AND YNEZ ROAD, KNOWN AS
ASSESSORS PARCEL NO. 944-092-024
6 Planninq Application No. PA02-0717 a Conditional Use Permit and Development Plan to
construct and operate a wireless telecommunications facility to include a 56-foot hiqh
artificial palm tree and four (4) outdoor equipment cabinets within a 310 square foot block
screen wall. located at 31575 Enfield Lane
Associate Planner Fisk presented a staff report (as per agenda material), noting the following:
. That Cingular Wireless has been experiencing dropped calls in the area of the proposed
facility;
. That the proposed location would be the only candidate site that would meet technical,
zoning, and landowner requirements;
. That the project site will consists of a lease area of 532 square feet within a 3.16 acre
residential parcel that contains an existing single-family home;
. That the telecommunications facilities and antennas ordinance requires that such
facilities be located no closer then 75 feet from any residential dwelling unit;
. That the proposed facility will be situated approximately 85 feet from the nearest
residential unit which is the home located on the project site;
. That access to the site will be obtained from an existing 19 foot 3 inch wide dirt
driveway;
. That the proposed monopalm will be designed to resemble existing and proposed living
Mexican Fan Palms located on the project site;
R:\MinutesPC\040704
9
. That the exterior surface of the monopalm will be a brown rubber cladding material that
simulates a palm tree trunk;
. That the monopalm will feature three antenna panels placed inside the bulb portion of
the monopalm so that the antennas will not be visible;
.
That a 310 square foot screened equipment area consisting of a six foot split-face block
wall and a wooden access gate will screen the four proposed outdoor equipment
cabinets;
. That a five-gallon silver-berry shrubs will sound the equipment screen wall to soften its
appearance and the addition of two 35 foot Mexican Fan Palms at the Souths ide of the
equipment screen wall;
. That the antennas will be within the bulb portion of the menopalm;
. That the proposed height of the monopalm is 56 feet as measured from the natural
undisturbed ground surface below the center of the base of the tower to the top of the
simulated palm fronds;
. That it was determined by the applicant's engineer that 56 feet is the minimum height
needed to achieve the applicant's technical coverage objectives;
. That the height as proposed will permit the monopalrn to achieve the objective of
sending and receiving cellular telephone transmissions to provide coverage along and
between Butterfield Stage Road and Calle Medusa;
. That staff if the opinion that the proposed height will create any undesirable aesthetic
impacts;
.
. That staff determined that the proposed monopalm will meet the intent of the general
requirements for visual compatibility as defined in the Telecomrnunication Facility and
Antenna Ordinance;
. That staff will make the required findings necessary to approve a 56 foot high unmanned
wireless telecomrnunication facility at the proposed location; .
. That an initial study prepared indicated that the project could impact palenontological or
archeological resources unless mitigation measures are included as conditions of
approval; therefore, staff would recommend adoption of a Mitigated Negative Declaration
for the project.
At this tirne, by way of a PowerPoint presentation, photo simulations were presented.
Mr. Fisk noted that he received two letters from neighbors who expressed concern with radio
frequency and visual impacts.
For the record, Mr. Fisk relayed that the 1996 Telecommunications Act dictated that the Federal
Communications Commission (FCC), who oversees radio frequency emissions stated that the
City does' not have the ability to approve or deny these types of projects based on radio
.
R:\MinutesPC\O40704
10
.
.
.
frequency emissions; and noted that the proposed project will have to comply with FCC
regulations and will be reviewed by the FCC.
Staff noted that based on the photo simulations and material samples that were presented to
staff there would not be severe visual impacts; that the proposed project will be consistent with
all applicable City ordinances, standards, guidelines, and policies; and that the project would be
compatible with the surrounding developments in terms of design and quality and staff would
recòrnmend approval.
Co'mmissioner Mathewson relayed that he would be of the opinion, therefore, that the intent of
the ordinance would be to keep these types of projects out of residential areas.
For Commissioner Mathewson, Mr. Fisk relayed that the attachments in staff's report included
zoning consistency and justification and that he did not have a list of landowners that were
contacted.
At this time, the Public Hearing was opened.
Mr. Gil Gonzales, 150 Palareno Avenue, representative from Cingular Wireless relayed the
following:
. That Cingular Wireless cannot make any decisions based on health effects, per the
Telecommunications Act;
. That the results from a radio frequency study performed by an outside consultant
objective firm revealed that the proposed facility would be at one and a: half percent
below the safety standard, at a worse case scenario;
. That Cingular Wireless is not aware of any illegal grading;
. That the proposed facility will be designed to mimic a palm tree and that currently there
is a line of existing palm trees on the property;
. That Cingular Wireless facility operates at a line of technology in which you must be able
to see what you are trying to cover; that installing trees at the sarne height would cause
interference;
. That in addition to the existing palm trees Cingular Wireless will be also planting two live
palm trees at 35 feet;
. That the proposed unit will be 300 to 400 feet to the south property line and 400 to 500
feet to the nearest residence to the south; that there is an existing unit on this property;
however, it meets the 75 foot setback requirement and that it is on the other side of the
property;
. That the proposed height is the minimum required for the facility to properly propagate
the signal;
. That the site was tested at 45 feet and failed the requirements needed by the Radio
Frequency Engineer;
R:\MinutesPC\O40704 :
11
. That the operating characteristics of the proposed telecommunications facility will create
no impact on circulation system will generate no noise, odor, or smoke; and will not
create any adverse impact that are detrimental or incompatible with other permitted uses
in the vicinity;
.
That Cingular Wireless would concur with the Conditions of Approval.
For the Commission, Mr. Gil noted the following:
. That there will be four (4) BTS cabinets at four (4) feet in height that will be enclosed
within a block to mitigate visibility;
. That the power source will be 200 watts from an onsite source;
. That there will be an enclosure with a gate for maintenance;
That there will be no alarm installed; that they are designed to be outdoor units; and that
each equipment cabinet will have a lock;
. That if the proposed 50 foot high artificial palm tree were lowered, Cingular's coverage in
the area would shrink and would, in effect, raise the need for another facility.
Assistant City Attorney Curley reiterated to the Cornmission that the item before the
Commission is for the consideration a CUP in residential area; that the Federal Communications
Commissions (FCC) oversees radio frequency emissions; and that the City does no have the
ability to approve or deny these types of projects based on radio frequency emissions.
.
For Commissioner Mathewson, Mr. Gonzales noted that he will provide a list of the property
owners that were contacted.
At this time, the Public Hearing was opened.
The following individuals spoke aGainst the proposed project for the following reasons:
Ms. Roma Strornberg
Ms. Cecilia Ticsay
40384 Windsor Road
40372 Windsor Road
. That the proposed project will result in significant visual impacts to nearby residents;
. That there was no view shield analysis or line site analysis completed;
That the public was not given on opportunity to review the material on which the City
Planning staff made their finding; .
That it is the opinion of several neighbors that the proposed facility is not consistent with
existing residential land uses and would not be in character with the existing community,
resulting in significant land use impact;
. That there are no other above ground facilities in the neighborhood;
.
R:\MinutesPC\040704
12
.
.
.
. That the residents are of the opinion that there is inadequate information to support that
there will be no detrimental effects to the health and welfare of the community.
For the Commission, Mr. Gonzales noted that it would not be the intent of Cingular Wireless to
install a generator on any of the facilities; that the intent would be to achieve permanent power;
that Cingular Wireless would only install a generator if a site were to completely shut down due
to some natural disaster in the area; that the facilities will be maintained once every two months;
and that if it were the will of the Commission, more live palm trees could be planted.
Commissioner Mathewson expressed concern with the height of the monopalm and suggested
that that the applicant submit verification that 56 feet is the absolute minimum requirement.
Commissioner Guerriero concurred with Commissioner Mathewson and also expressed concern
with security of the facility.
For the Commission, Mr. Gonzales relayed that the 56 feet is to accommodate for the palm
fronds; that the antenna tip height is 50 feet; and that he would be willing to come back with a
study demonstrating the facility at 45 feet to show the difference.
For Mr. Gil, Commissioner Matheson also requested that he also provide a list of the property
owners that were contacted.
~: Commissioner Mathewson moved to continue Item No.6 to April 21, 2004.
Commissioner Guerriero seconded the motion and voice vote reflected approval ~
exception of Commissioner Chinlaeff who was ~.
PC RESOLUTION NO. 2004-
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF
THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING
APPLICATION NO. PA02-0717, A CONDITIONAL USE
PERMITIDEVELOPMENT PLAN TO CONSTRUCT AND
OPERATE A WIRELESS TELECOMMUNICATIONS
FACILITY WITH THREE (3) ANTENNAS HOUSED
WITHIN THE BULB PORTION OF A PROPOSED FIFTY-
SIX FOOT HIGH ARTIFICIAL PALM THREE AND FOUR
OUTDOOR EQUIPMENT CABINETS WITHIN A 310
SQUARE FOOT BLOCK WALL ENCLOSURE AT 31575
ENFIELD LAND, GENERALLY LOCATED ON THE
SOUTH SIDE OF ENFIELD LAND, APPROXIMATELY
3200 FEET EAST OF RIVERTON LAND (APN 957-170-
012)
7 Planninq Application No. PA03-0679 a Minor Conditional Use Permit to operate a 1.670
square foot facility rentinq computer time for the use of word processinq software and for
internet use. includinq internet camino, located at 40820 Winchester Road, Suite 1040
Per the request of the Planning Director, Item No.7 was continued off calendar.
R:\MinutesPC\O40704
13
PC RESOLUTION NO. 2004-
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF
THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING
APPLICATION PA03-0679 A MINOR CONDITIONAL
USE PERMIT TO OPERATE A 1,670 SQUARE FOOT
FACILITY RENTING COMPUTER TIME FOR THE USE
OF WORK PROCESSING SOFTWARE AND FOR
INTERNET USE, INCLUDING INTERNET GAMING,
WITHIN THE PROMENADE MALL LOCATED AT 40820
WINCHESTER ROAD, SUITE 1040, KNOWN AS
ASSESSORS PARCEL NO. 910-420-005.
.
8 Planninq Application No. PA03-0677 a Development Plan to construct two, two-stOry
professional office buildinqs totalinq 37.520 square feet on an undeveloped 3.2 acre site
within the Paloma Del Sol Specific Plan Area. located at the southeast corner of Pauba
Road and Marqarita Road
Principal Planner Hazen presented a staff report (as per agenda material), noting the following:
. That staff primarily focused on the consistency with the Paloma del Sol Specific Plan
(SP) and the overall site design and building architecture;
. That the site is located at the southeast corner of Margarita Road and Pauba Road;
. That the site plan shows two, two-story office buildings being constructed at the corner,
with a courtyard between the twó buildings and that there will be interior parking and a
single access driveway off Pauba Road and Margarita Road;
.
. That the proposed use will be consistent with the uses listed in Planning Area 34 of the
Paloma del Sol (SP); that offices are a permitted use in the Planning Area; that it will
meet all Development requirements; and that the project will be within the maximum
height limit of the 50 feet in this Planning Area;
. That the proposed "Spanish Eclectic" architecture is referenced in the Paloma del Sol
(SP) and that staff is of the opinion that it will be compatible with the residences to the
east as well as the character of the nearby neighborhoods;
. That the Paloma del Sol (SP) depicts a landscape transition buffer immediately east to
the site on a 50 foot wide strip of land that is controlled by the Homeowners Association
(HOA); that in order to be consistent, a dense row of a deciduous and ever green trees
as well as low-and-median height shrubbery will be planted to buffer the impact that the
project would be creating to the residents to the east;
. That currently, the land is not vegetated but will need to be in order to be consistent; that
it is an off-site buffer intended to mitigate the impacts the project will be creating on the
adjacent residences;
.
R:\MinulesPc\o40704
14
.
.
.
. That in the 50 foot wide strip of land, in order to be consistent, there would need to be a
dense row of deciduous and median-height shrubbery to help buffer the impact that the
project would be creating to the residents to the east;
. That the distance of the buildings would be 200 feet from the tract;
. That the proposed site design does not show the required landscaped transition buffer,
as per the SP to the east on Homeowners Association (HOA) property and that the
purpose of the buffer would be to provide a visual buffer between the office site and the
residences to the east;
. That the area requiring a buffer is 50-foot wide and should include a pedestrian path as
well; that if the HOA would not consent to providing a buffer, the applicant will have to
modify his site plan to show the buffer on his site in order for the Commission to find that
the application will be consistent with the Specific Plan (SP);
That the SP does not specify a minimum width of the buffer if not constructed in the HOA
area (which is 50 feet wide), but a width of 25 feet should be adequate if the buffer were
to be required on the subject site;
. That staff received two e-mail correspondences that expressed the need for the
landscape buffer;
. That staff will be adding a condition under General Requirements that states the project
be subject to the mitigation measures required in the Paloma del Sol Specific Plan, EIR,
as a formality to find that the project will be consistent with the EIR provided the
mitigation measures are met.
Commissioner Olhasso queried why the City did not condition the developer to reserve funds to
install a buffer. For Commissioner Olhasso, Mr. Hazen relayed that at the time the tract map
was approved, it was not a condition of approval; that the current proposed project will be
creating the impact; that up to this point, it has been a vacant site and there has not been need
for a buffer; that it is time for the HOA to step forward and add the buffer; and that per the
Specific Plan (SP), it is a requirement.
For the Commission, Deputy Director of Public Works Parks requested that the following
Conditions of Approval be added:
21b
Improve Margarita Road (Arterial Highway Standards - 110' R/W) to include
dedication of half-width street right-of-way, installation of half-width street
improvements, paving, curb and gutter sidewalk, streetlights, drainage facilities,
signing and striping, utilities (including not limited to water and sewer), raised
landscaped median.
R:\MinutesPC\040704
15
. The developer shall reimburse the City for the construction of half width of
the raised landscaped median at a rate not to exceed $50.00 per lineal
foot;
.
. Access along Margarita Road shall be restricted to right-in/right-out only;
. The bike lane striping shall be modified to allow a right-turn access into
the site;
21c
The Developer shall reimburse the City for its fair share of the cost of the
existing median built by Zonos along Margarita Road; that the Developer
will only be responsible for the frontage along their property; that the
frontage belonging to Paloma del Sol Homeowner's Association will not
be included.
For Commissioner Mathewson, Mr. Hogan noted that the plot is undeveloped and that there is
service drive for Metropolitan Water District.
Assistant City attorney Curley noted that there was never an obligation imposed either on the
original developer when they were the declarant or when it was transitioned into the HOAs .
ownership; that from a development standpoint, staff has been unable to identify an obligation
that the intent of the Specific Plan was clearly to ensure mitigation; that it could be the
Commissions purview to state that because it is HOA land - if the HOA decides to buffer their
residents, okay and if not, then okay and not impose the buffer obligation; and leave that
decision up to the HOA.
.
Cornmissioner Olhasso expressed concern leaving the HOA to its own devices and suggested
that the developer purchase the property.
For Commissioner Olhasso, Assistant City Attorney Curley relayed that the developer could
purchase the HOA property.
For the Commission, Mr. Hazen relayed that he would be of the opinion that the applicant and
the HOA should be working together to custom design a landscaped buffer that would best suit
the project.
Commissioner Olhasso relayed that she would be skeptical of the HOA providing a visual buffer
between the office site and the residences to the east and would be of the opinion that the HOA
would not have an incentive to comply.
At this time, the Public Hearing was opened.
Mr. Matthew Fagan; 42011 Avenida Vista Ladera, representing the applicant, noted the
following:
. That staff has worked very hard to get to this point and the applicant is appreciative;
.
R:\MinutesPC\040704
16
.
.
.
. That the applicant would be amenable to working with the City and the HOA to resolve
the buffer concern; that the intent has shown under the ownership of the property that it
is an HOA ownership;
. That the MWD easement on that property could create some complication; and that uses
are limited;
. That the applicant does understand the importance of buffering and screening from the
residents and would be willing to contribute resources in terms of time, trees, and
shrubbery.
For the Commission, Deputy Director of Public Works Parks relayed that the portion of the
raised median that is not built would be payment in lieu fees at $50 a linear foot and for the
portion that was built would be reimbursed for its fair share.
For Commissioner Mathewson, Mr. Fagan noted that the closest distanée from the parking lot to
the nearest property line would be 80 feet to a side property line.
Mr. Vince Dedonado, 41635 Enterprise Circle North, landscape architect, relayed the following:
. That the Pepper trees proposed will give a consistent buffer between the residents and
the proposed project;
. That the proposed shrubs will grow 5 to 6 feet tall which will give a solid hedge
appearance;
. That the homeowners currently have some landscaping to their walls and fences;
. That MWD will not allow any trees within 25 feet of its pipes;
. That decomposed granite could be placed on the MWD easement to soften the
appearance;
. That five (5) gallon Escalonia will be planted as well.
Mr. Rick Raciot, 31320 Corte Rimolda, Paloma del Sol resident, relayed the following:
That the proposed area has been aesthetically unpleasing for a long time;
. That the speed limit is currently marked at 50 mph and should be reduced to 30 mph;
. That the driveway entrance on Pauba Road will be a serious problem, due to accidents;
. That the current traffic between the school hours and business hours will be a problem;
. That there are concerns with parking lot standards;
. That the Pepper trees being proposed should be pine or fir to ensure consistency with
the median and the box size should be a rninimum 36" box;
R:\MinutesPC\O40704
17
. That the quality of the architect, the landscape layout, the breaking up of the massing of
the architecture, and breaking up of the parking lot is very pleasing;
.
. That the level of detail that is being proposed must be consistent to the end of
construction;
Parking lot lights should go to bollards along the edge, increase the size of the box trees
along the buffer zone, and force the homeowners association to comply.
. That HOA meeting minutes indicate the association would landscape and maintain that
area once the proposed project was approved;
. That staff not allow decomposed granite to be installed;
. That the two ends of access should be closed off and that a concrete meandering path
and a mowable lawn be installed.
Mr. AI Ogle, 43053 Margarita Road, presenting Plaza del Sol Center, relayed the following:
. That the Plaza del Sol Center would be in favor of the proposed project;
. That there is a need for office space in the area and that it will be a good asset to the
community.
The following individuals spoke in opposition to the proposed project for the following reasons:
Mr. Paul Schantz
Ms. Michelle Baldwin
31355 Cala Carasco
31280 Cala Carraso
.
. That it would be ludicrous to make a decision tonight without the involvement of the
HOA;
. That traffic is a major concern for residents in the area;
. That ingress and egress into the proposed site would be a concern.
Mr. Fagan requested that the Commission reconsider Condition of Approval No. 11 to make it
more equitable for the applicant and that adding Condition No. 21 would be acceptable.
Commissioner Olhasso relayed that she would be of the opinion that staff should be involved in
all negotiations between developer and the HOA and that Mr. Raciot find the minutes that he
previously discussed; that the proposed project is great; that staff has done a great job working
with the developer; that the architecture is desirable; and that Code Enforcement contact EMD
requesting that the area be mowed.
Commissioner Guerriero relayed the following:
. That the architecture is esthetically pleasing;
. That the buffer situation should be handled between the developer and the HOA;
.
R:\MinutesPC\O40704
18
.
.
.
. That the landscape requirements meet City standards.
Commissioner Mathewson expressed his support of the proposed architecture; that bollards
would solve the lighting standard problem; and that 36" boxes will be sufficient.
For Mr. Hazen, the Comrnission suggested monumentation for signage.
MOTION: Cornmissioner Guerriero moved to extend this meeting to 10:30 pm. Commissioner
Mathewson seconded the motion and voice vote reflected approval with the exception of
Commissioner Chiniaeff who was ~.
Director of Planning Ubnoske relayed that if she were to have any concerns with any of the
,proposed signage, she would refer it to the Planning Commission.
Chairman Telesio commended the developer on the project and encouraged the residents of ,
Paloma del Sol to find the minutes that state that they would be responsible for the buffer.
Assistant City Attorney Curley recommended that the Commission approve the site plan as
presented in regards to the development of the site and reconfigure Condition of Approval No.
11 to require that the applicant and the HOA meet and confer in good faith to find a solution;
that the City not be involved in the initial discussion; and that the City could bring in Code
Enforcement to compel them to make it palatable.
Deputy Director of Public Works Parks noted that the School District is currently working on a
project to widen Pauba Road within its frontage; that a parking lot will be installed that at that
point, the access issue will be improved; and that Linfield School was conditioned to completely
widen their frontage as well.
At this time, the Public Hearing was closed.
MOTION: Commissioner Guerriero moved to adopt Resolution No. 2004-017 as presented with
the 10 foot buffer along the easement, modifying Condition of Approval No. 11, adding
Condition of Approval No. 21 for their involvement with the median on Margarita Road.
Commissioner Olhasso seconded the motion and voice vote reflected 'approval ~
exception of Commissioner Chiniaeff who was ~.
PC RESOLUTION NO. 2004-017
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF
THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING
APPLICATION NO. PA03-0677, A DEVELOPMENT
PLAN TO CONSTRUCT, ESTABLISH AND OPERATE
TWO, TWO-STORY PROFESSIONAL OFFICE
BUILDINGS TOTALING 37,520 SQUARE FEET ON 3.2
ACRES. THE SITE IS GENERALLY LOCATED ON THE
SOUTHEAST CORNER OF PAUBA ROAD AND
MARGARITA ROAD, ALSO KNOWN AS ASSESSORS
PARCEL NO. 955-150-027
R:\MinutesPClO40704
19
COMMISSIONER'S REPORTS
Chairman Telesio relayed that the Commissioners will be receiving name badges and requested
wallet sized cards with telephone numbers of the Commissioners and Council Members.
PLANNING DIRECTOR'S REPORT
Director of Planning Ubnoske confirmed that there will be two new confirmed employees starting
soon and that policies for the Chaparral has been reviewed by the General Plan Advisory
Committee and will be coming to the Planning Commission in the near future.
ADJOURNMENT
At 10:11 p.m., Chairman Telesio formally adjourned this meeting to the next reGular rneetina
to be held on Wednesday. April 21. 2004 at 6:00 P.M., in the City Council Chambers, 43200
Business Park Drive, Temecula.
Debbie Ubnoske
Director of Planning
John Telesio
Chairman
R:\MinutesPC\O40704
20
.
.
.
. ITEM #3
.
.
.
CITY OF TEMECULA
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
Planning Commissioners
Dan Long, Associate Planner
. DATE:
May 19, 2004
SUBJECT:
Davidson Communities (PA03-0725) Roripaugh Ranch Specific Plan, Planning
Area 2 '
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve subject to the attached conditions of approval.
BACKGROUND:
The Planning Commission reviewed the proposed project on April 21, 2004 and approved a
motion to continue the project to the May 19, 2004 Planning Commission hearing.
Staff has reviewed the revised plans and has determined that while the revised plans have
addressed some of the concerns of the Planning Commission, there remain a number of
outstanding issues that have not been addressed.
At their meeting on April 21, 2004 the Commission recommended that Conditions Nos. 12, 15,
17,19 and 20 be implemented into the plans. These conditions required arched focal points on
the Spanish and Monterey elevations, varied roof planes for each floor plan, decorative garage
doors, and additional materials on the Spanish or Monterey elevations to better distinguish
between the styles and wrap siding around to the sides. In addition, the Commission
recommended the following revisions:
. Reducing the massing on Plan Two by eliminating the second story over the front portion of
the residence
. Providing additional shingle siding on the sides of the East Coast Traditional elevation
. Addressing window spacing and windows with single shutters as well as the width of the entry
doors
. Changing the roof material and color on the Spanish and Monterey elevations
. Providing a variation in the garage door design
. Reducing the number of Plan Threes on Brush Creek Drive
. Making the plot plan more legible
R:\Product ReviewlRoripaugh Ranch SP\Davidson Communities Tr 29661-2, PAO3-0725\pc sr memo 5-19-04.doc
1
. Minimizing the number of Plan Twos and Threes adjacent to one another.
.
In reviewing the revised elevations, staff has noted that Davidson Communities has made
provisions for an East Coast Traditional garage door that includes glass along the top row and
has provided enhanced side elevations for all styles, which include windows with shutters,
decorative window sills and surrounds, wrought iron railings and shingle siding. A variation of
. roof tile shapes and color for the Monterey (low profile, lighter tone) and Spanish (US" tile, darker
tone) has been proposed. While the applicant has shown various options for garage doors and
entry doors, these elements are optional and will not be included in the regular pattern of the
street scene unless requested by the home buyer.
The following issues identified by staff and Commission as items of concern have not been
addressed:
. Conditions Nos. 12, 15, 19 and 20 have not been implemented. These conditions deal with
arched focal points, variation in the roof plans, and the use of additional materials such as brick
for the Spanish or Monterey styles;
. Massing on Plan Two has not been addressed;
. Window spacing and windows with single shutters have not been addressed;
. Entry doors have not been expanded in width (optional doors are proposed, however they do
not vary in shape or width and no glass is proposed)
. The applicant has re-plotted the plans along Brush Creek Drive, however there is no net loss
or gain of any single plan.
.
Staff has preparéd conditions of approval to include the remaining Planning Commission's
recommendations. A Resolution of Approval has been attached for your consideration. The
staff report packet from the previous meeting (April 21, 2004) is also attached for your
reference. Staff recommends the Planning Commission approve the project with the attached
conditions of approval.
ATTACHMENTS
1.
Plan Reductions - Blue Page 3
2.
PC Resolution No. 2004-- - Blue Page 4
Exhibit A - Conditions of Approval
April 21, 2004 Planning Commission Staff Report - Blue Page 5
3.
4.
Davidson Cornmunities Letter Dated May 11, 2004- Blue Page 6
.
R:\Product ReviewlRoripaugh Ranch SP\Davidson Communities Tr 29661-2, PAO3-Q725\pc sr memo 5-19-04,dOC
2
ATTACHMENT NO.1
PLAN REDUCTIONS
(Separate Attachment)
R:\Product ReviewIRoripaugh Ranch SPIDavidson Communities Tr 29661-2. PAO3-0725\pc sr memo 5-19-04,doc
3
ATTACHMENT NO.2
PC RESOLUTION 2004--
R:\Product ReviewlRoripaugh Ranch SPlDavidson Communities Tr 29661-2, PAO3-0725\pc sr memo 5-19-04.doc
4
.
PC RESOLUTION NO. 2004--
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION
NO. PA03-0725 A PRODUCT REVIEW FOR 99 DETACHED
SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCES WITHIN PLANNING AREA 2 OF
THE RORIPAUGH RANCH SPECIFIC PLAN LOCATED SOUTH
OF MURRIETA HOT SPRINGS ROAD, KNOWN AS TRACT
MAP 29661-2.
WHEREAS, Davidson Communities, filed Planning Application No.PA03-0725, in
accordance with the City of Temecula General Plan and Development Code;
WHEREAS, Planning Application No. PA03-0725 was processed including, but not
limited to public notice, in the time and manner prescribed by State and local law;
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission considered Planning Application No. PA03-0725
on April 21, 2004 and May 19, 2004 at duly noticed public hearings as prescribed by law, at
which time the City staff and interested persons had an opportunity to and did testify either in
support or in opposition to this matter;
WHEREAS, at the conclusion of the Commission hearing and after due consideration of
the testimony, the Commission approved Planning Application No. PA03-0725;
.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA
DOES RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. That the above recitations are true and correct and are, hereby
incorporated by reference.
Section 2. Findinos. The Planning Commission, in approving Planning Application
No. PA03-0725 hereby makes the following findings as required by Section 17.05.010.F of the
Temecula Municipal Code:
A. The proposed use is in conformance with the General Plan for Temecula and
with all applicable requirements of state law and other ordinances of the city.
The proposed single-family homes are permitted in the Low Medium Density land use
designation standards contained in the Roripaugh Ranch Specific Plan and the City's
Development Code. The project is also consistent with the Low Medium land use
designation contained in the General Plan. The site is properly planned and zoned, and
as conditioned, is physically suitable for the type and density of the residential
development proposed. The project, as conditioned, is also consistent with other
applicable requirements of State law and local ordinances, including the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the City Wide Design Guidelines, and fire and
building codes.
.
B. The overall development of the land is designed for the protection of the public
health, safety, and general welfare.
The overall design of the single-family homes, including the site, building, parking,
circulation and other associated site improvements, is consistent with, and intended to
R:\Product ReviewlRoripaugh Ranch SP\Davidson Communities Tr 29661-2, PA03-0725\Drafl Resolution w CofA-5-19-04,doc
1
protect the health and safety of those working in and around the site. The project has
been reviewed for, and as conditioned, has been found to be consistent with all
applicable policies, guidelines, standards and regulations intended to ensure that the
development will be constructed and function in a manner consistent with the public
health, safety and welfare.
.
Section 3. Environmental Compliance. A Notice of Exemption for Planning
Application No. PA03-0725 was made per the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines
Section 15162. This section applies when an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) has been
certified and there are not substantial changes not discussed or examined in the EIR.
Section 4. Conditions. That the City of Temecula Planning Commission hereby
conditionally approves Planning Application No. PA03-0725 for a Product Review for detached
single family residences within Planning Area 2 of the Roripaugh Ranch Specific Plan located
south of Murrieta Hot Springs Road and west of the future extension of Butterfield Stage Road,
Tract Map 29661-2. The Conditions of Approval are contained in Exhibit A.
Section 5. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the City of Temecula
Planning Commission this 19th day of May 2004.
John Telesio, Chairperson
ATTEST:
Debbie Ubnoske, Secretary
.
(SEAL}
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE
CITY OF TEMECULA
)
) ss
)
I, Debbie Ubnoske, Secretary of the Temecula Planning Commission, do hereby certify
that PC Resolution No. 2004-- was duly and regularly adopted by the Planning Commission
of the City of Temecula at a regular meeting thereof held on the 19th day of May 2004, by the
following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
Debbie Ubnoske, Secretary
.
R:\Product ReviewlRoripaugh Ranch SPlDavidson Communities Tr 29661-2, PA03-0725\Draft Resolution w CofA-5-19-04.doc
2
EXHIBIT A
DRAFT CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
R:IProduct ReviewlRoripaugh Ranch SP\Davidson Communities Tr 29661-2, PA03-0725\Draft Resolution w CofA-5-19-04,doc
3
.
.
.
EXHIBIT A
CITY OF TEMECULA
DRAFT CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
Planning Application No. PA03-0725
Project Description:
A Product Review for 99 detached single family
residences within Planning Area 2 of the Roripaugh
Ranch Specific Plan located south of Murrieta Hot
Springs Road and west of the future extension of
Butterfield Stage Road, Tract Map 29661-2.
Tentative Tract No.:
29661-2
DIF Category:
Per Development Agreernent
Approval Date:
May 19, 2004
May 19, 2006
Expiration Date:
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
Within Forty-Eight (48) Hours of the Approval of this Project
1.
The applicant shall deliver to the Planning Department a cashier's check or money order
made payable to the County Clerk in the amount of Sixty-Four Dollars ($64.00) for the
County administrative fee, to enable the City to file the Notice of Exemption as provided
under Public Resources Code Section 21108(b) and California Code of Regulations
Section 15062. If within said forty-eight (48) hour period the applicant has not delivered
to the Planning Department the check as required above, the approval for the project
granted shall be void by reason of failure of condition (Fish and Game Code Section
711.4(c).
General Requirements
2.
The permittee/applicant shall indemnify, protect and hold harmless, the City and any
agency or instrumentality thereof, and/or any of its officers, employees. and agents from
any and all claims, actions. or proceedings against the City, or any agency or
instrumentality thereof, or any of its officers, employees, and agents, to attack, set aside,
void, annul, or seek monetary damages resulting from an approval of the City, or any
agency or instrumentality thereof, advisory agency, appeal board or legislative body
including actions approved by the voters of the City, concerning the Planning Application
which action is brought within the ¡,ppropriate statute of limitations period and Public
Resources Code, Division 13, Chapter 4 (Section 21000 et seq" including but not by the
way of limitations Section 21152 and 21167). The City shall promptly notify the
permittee/applicant of any claim, action, or proceeding brought forth within this time
period, The City shall estimate the cost of the defense of ttie action and applicant shall
deposit said amount with the City. City may require additional deposits to cover
R:IProduct Review\Roripaugh Ranch SPIDavidson Communities Tr 29661-2, PAO3-07251Draft Resolution w CofA-5-19-04,doc
4
anticipated costs. City shall refund, without interest, any unused portions of the deposit once
the litigation is finally concluded. Should the City fail to either promptly notify or cooperate fully,
permittee/applicant shall not, thereafter be responsible to indemnify, defend, protect, or hold
harmless the City, any agency or instrumentality thereof, or any of its officers, employees, or
agents. Should the applicant fail to timely post the required deposit, the Director may terminate
the land use approval without further notice to the applicant.
3.
4.
5.
This approval shall be used within two (2) years of the approval date; otherwise, it shall
become null and void. By use is meant the beginning of substantial construction
contemplated by this approval within the two (2) year period which is thereafter diligently
pursued to completion or the beginning of substantial utilization contemplated by this
approval.
Building elevations shall substantially conform to the approved Exhibits, including
elevations, floor plans, landscaping plans, hardscape plans, and plotting plan, contained
on file with the Planning Department or as amended by these Conditions of Approval.
The colors and materials (including lighting) for this project shall substantially conform to
the approved colors and materials contained on file with the Planning Department. Any
deviation from the approved colors and materials shall require approval of the Director of
Planning.
6.
This approval is for product review only and shall in no way limit the city or other
regulatory or service agencies from applying additional requirements and/or conditions
consistent with applicable policies and standards upon the review of grading, building
and other necessary permits and approvals for the project.
7.
The Development Code requires double garages to maintain a minimum clear interior
dimension of 20' x 20'. This shall be clearly indicated on the plans prior to the issuance
of building permits for the project. Interior dimensions are measured from the inside of
garage wall to the opposite wall, steps, landing, equipment pedestals, bollards or any
similar type feature. When the top of the stem wall is more than 8" above the garage
floor, the required dimension is measured frorn the inside edge of the stem wall.
8.
Applicant shall obtain the proper permits before construction, including Encroachment
Permit from the Public Works Department for any work done in the City right-of-way, and
Building Permit from the Building and Safety Department.
9.
Fire Hydrants shall be installed prior to the start of any construction at the site.
10.
Driveway widths shall comply with the driveway width requirements per City Standards.
In order to allow for adequate street parking, the driveway widths at curbs will be limited
to 24' maximum.
11.
All Spanish Revival and Monterey styles shall utilize a smooth to light texture stucco
finish (20/30 aggregate or smoother) as determined acceptable by the Planning Director.
East Coast Traditional styles shall utilize a light-medium (16/20 aggregate) finish.
Monterey and Spanish Revival shall include arched focal points. Each focal point shall
be unique for the appropriate style. Focal points may include arched doors, windows, or
other forms as determined acceptable by the Planning Director.
12.
R:\Product ReviewlRoripaugh Ranch SPlDavidson Communities Tr 29661-2, PA03-0725\Draft Resolution w CofA-5-19-04,doc
5
.
.
.
13.
. 14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
.
21.
.
All Monterey styles shall utilize a Spanish style tile roof.
All Spanish Revival styles shall include a Barrel tile clay roof.
One style of each plan shall provide a roof plan that is clearly different than the other
styles in order to provide variation along the front and rear street scene.
The Spanish Revival and/or Monterey shall include an additional material(s) such as
brick or stone to differentiate between the styles.
All materials such as stone, brick and siding shall wrap around the side yard to the fence
return or as determined acceptable by the Planning Director.
Fencing on corner lots shall be pulled back towards the rear on exterior corner lots to
open up the exposed elevation to the street as determined acceptable by the Planning
Director.
Fencing between units (on interior side yards and rear yards, but excluding view fencing)
where not visible from the street shall be wood fence as shown in figure 2-15 (privacy
fencing) or as approved by the Planning Director.
Fencing along lot 1, adjacent to the paseo trail shall include a low slumpstone wall for
the first 20 feet and transition into a 6-foot project wall as shown in figure 4-38 (Paseo
entry).
Prior to the Issuance of Grading Permits
The applicant shall submit a Grading Plan, subject to the review and approval of the
Planning Department.
22.
The applicant shall sign both copies of the final conditions of approval that will be
provided by the Planning Department staff, and return one signed set to the Planning
Department for their files.
23.
The applicant shall submit to the Planning Department for permanent filing two (2) 8" X
10" glossy photographic color prints of the Color and Materials Boards and of the colored
version of the approved colored architectural elevations to the Planning Department for
their files. All labels on the Color and Materials Board and Elevations shall be readable
on the photographic prints.
A street tree master plan indicating what tree species will be planted on each street shall
be submitted. The plan should graphically show the locations of all trees. One tree
species per street shall be provided.
24.
Prior to the Issuance of Building Perrnits
25.
The applicant shall comply with standards conditions arid requirements set forth in the
Roripaugh Ranch Specific Plan, Mitigation Monitoring Program, conditions of approval
for Tract Map 29353 (PA01-0230, A-Map), Tract Map 29661 (PA01-0253, B-Map), and
Ordinance No. 02-14, the Development Agreement between the City of Temecula and
Ashby USA, LLC for the Roripaugh Ranch Specific Plan, including, but not limited to
attachment "5", which requires various on and off-site improvements.
R:\Product ReviewlRoripaugh Ranch SPlDavidson Communities Tr 29661-2, PA03-0725\Draft Resolution w CofA-5-19-04.doc
6
26.
27.
28.
29.
30.
31.
32.
33.
The applicant shall submit street lighting and signage plans to the Planning Director for
final approval. Street lighting shall comply with the Specific Plan, Riverside County Mt.
Palomar Lighting Ordinance, and the mitigation-monitoring program. Said lighting shall
comply with the standards as set forth in the Mitigated Monitoring Program and install
hoods or shields to prevent either spillage of lumens or reflections into the sky (lights
must be downward facing). '
.
The applicant shall submit mailbox elevations and a plot plan clearly indicating the
location of each mailbox area. Mailbox type and location shall be subject to the approval
of the Postmaster and Planning Director.
Prior to issuance of any residential building permit within Planning Area 4A, the
construction landscape and architectural plans for Paseos (including hardscaping,'
landscaping, fencing, lights and gates), Paseo gates Staff Gated Primary Entry, Card
Key Entry, fuel modification zones shall be submitted and approved
Prior to construction of the Model Home complex, the applicant shall apply for a Model
Home complex permit.
Performance securities, in amounts to be determined by the Director of Planning, to
guarantee the maintenance of the plantings within private common areas for a period of
one year, in accordance with the approved construction landscape and irrigation plan
shall be filed with the Planning Department for one year from the completion of the
landscaping. After that year, if the landscaping and irrigation system have been
maintained in a condition satisfactory to the Director of Planning, the bond shall be
released.
.
Precise Grading Plans consistent with the approved rough grading plans, plotting plan,
structural setback measurements shall be submitted and approved.
The developer shall demonstrate to the Planning Director that all homes will have double
paned windows with at least a 25 STC rating installed to reduce noise from occasional
aircraft over flights.
34.
The developer shall provide proof that construction debris, including but not limited to
lumber, asphalt, concrete, sand, paper and metal is recycled through the City's solid
waste hauler, subject to the approval of the Community Services Department.
All design components shall comply with applicable provisions of the 1998 edition of the
California Building, Plumbing, Mechanical and Fire Codes; 1998 National Electrical
Code; California Administrative Code, Title 24 Energy and Disabled Access Regulations
and the Temecula Municipal Code.
35.
Obtain all building plans and permit approvals prior to commencement of any
construction work.
36.
A pre-construction meeting is required with the building inspector prior to
commencement of any construction or inspections.
Provide appropriate stamp of a registered professional with original signature on plans
and structural calculations submitted for plan review.
.
37.
R:\Producl ReviewlRoripaugh Ranch SPlDavidson Communities Tr 29661.2, PA03.072S\Draft Resolution w CofA-S-19-04.doc
7
.
.
.
38.
39.
40.
41.
Provide electrical plan including load calculations and panel schedule for plan review.
Schematic plumbing plans, electrical plan and load calculations, along with mechanical
equipment and ducting plans shall be submitted for plan review stamped and original
signed by an appropriate registered professional.
Obtain street addresses from the Building Official prior to submittal of plans for plan
review.
Signage shall be posted conspicuously at the entrance to the project that indicates the
hours of construction, shown below, as allowed by City of Temecula Ordinance No. 94-
21, specifically Section G (1) of Riverside county Ordinance No. 457.73, for any site
within one-quarter mile of an occupied residence.
Monday-Friday: 6:30 a.m. - 6:30 p.m.
Saturday: 7:00 a.m.- 6:30 p.m.
No work is permitted on Sunday or Government Holidays
Prior to the Issuance of Occupancy Permits
42.
43.
All required landscape planting and irrigation shall have been installed consistent with
the approved construction plans and shall be in a condition acceptable to the Director of
Planning. The plants shall be healthy and free of weeds, disease, or pests. The
irrigation system shall be properly constructed and in good working order.
44.
Performance securities, in amounts to be determined by the Director of Planning, to
guarantee the maintenance of the plantings, in accordance with the approved
construction landscape and irrigation plan shall be filed with the' Planning Department for
one year from final certificate of occupancy. After that year, if the landscaping and
irrigation system have been maintained in a condition satisfactory to the Director of
Planning, the applicant shall release the bond upon request.
If deemed necessary by the Director of Planning, the applicant shall provide additional
landscaping to effectively screen various components of the project.
45.
Front yard and slope landscaping, hardscapingand fencing within individual lots shall be
completed for inspection prior to issuance of each occupancy permit (excluding model
home complex structures).
The developer shall submit proof that all local refuse generators have been provided
with written information about opportunities for recycling and waste reduction (i.e.
buyback centers, curbside availability), subject to the approval of the Public Works and
Community Services Departments.
46.
47.
All of the foregoing conditions shall be complied with prior to occupancy or any use
allowed by this permit.
R:\Product ReviewlRoripaugh Ranch SPlDavidson Communities Tr 29661-2, PA03-Q72S\Dralt Resolution w CofA-S-19-04,doc
8
By placing my signature below, I confirm that I have read, understand and accept all the above
Conditions of Approval. I further understand that the property shall be maintained in
conformance with these conditions of approval and that any changes I may wish to make to the
project shall be subject to Planning Commission approval.
Applicant's Signature
Date
Applicant's Name Printed
R:\Product ReviewlRoripaugh Ranch SPlDavidson Communities Tr 29661-2, P A03-0725\Draft Resolution w CofA-5-19-04,doc
9
.
.
.
ATTACHMENT NO.3
APRIL 21,2004 PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
R:IProduct ReviewlRoripaugh Ranch SPlPavidson Communities Tr 29661-2, PA03-Q725\pc sr memo 5-19-04,doc
5
.
.
.
STAFF R~PORT - PLANNING
CITY OF TEMECULA
PLANNING COMMISSION
Date of Meeting:
April 21, 2004
Prepared by:
Dan Long
Title:
Associate Planner
File Nurnber
PA03-0725
Application Type:
Product Review
Project Description:
Planning Application No. PA03-0725, submitted by Davidson
Communities, is a product review for 99 detached single-family
residences within Planning Area 2 in the Roripaugh Ranch Specific
Plan, located south of Murrieta Hot Springs Road and west of the future
extension of Butterfield Stage Road (Tract 29661-2).
Plan 1, two story 2,840 square feet (30 units)
Spanish Revival (7 units)
East Coast Traditional (13 units)
Monterey (10 units)
Plan 2, two story 3,178 square feet (33 units)
Spanish Revival (9 units)
East Coast Traditional (13 units)
Monterey (11 units)
Plan 3, two story 3,362 square feet (36 units)
Spanish Revival (12 units)
East Coast Traditional (11 units)
Monterey (13 units)
Recommendation:
~ Approve with Conditions
0 Deny
0 Continue for Redesign
0 Continue to:
0 Recommend Approval with Conditions
0 Recommend Denial
CEOA:
~ Categorically Exempt
(Class)
15161
0 Negative Declaration
0 Mitigated Negative Declaration with Monitoring Plan
DEIR
R:lProduct ReviewIRoripaugh Ranch SPlDavidson Communities Tr 29661,2, PA03-0725\STAFF REPORT-I ,doc
1
PROJECT DATA SUMMARY
Applicant:
Paula Lombardi, Davidson Communities
.
Completion Date:
February 20, 2004
Mandatory Action Deadline Date:
May 20, 2004
General Plan Designation:
Low Medium Residential (LM)
Zoning Designation:
Low Medium Residential (LM)
Site/Surrounding Land Use:
Site:
Vacant
North:
South:
East:
West:
Single-family Residential (Riverside County)
Very Low Density Residential (VL)
Vacant
Vacant
Lot Area:
5,000 square foot minimum (range: 5,025 sq. ft - 13,080 sq ft.)
Total Floor Area/Ratio
N/A
Landscape Area/Coverage
N/A
.
Parking Required/Provided
2 covered enclosed spaces (20' x 20')
BACKGROUND SUMMARY
1Z11.
Staff has worked with the applicant to ensure that all concerns have been addressed,
however, various issues have not been resolved to the satisfaction of staff. See
Attachment "4" (letter to applicant dated January 21, 2004), requesting revisions.
On January 22, 2003, staff met with the applicant to discuss staff's comment letter. Staff
discussed the requirements within the Roripaugh Ranch Design Guidelines, including
the single story, stucco finishes, additional materials such as stone or brick, the
possibility of adding an additional floor plan and choosing a different style in order to
distinguish between the styles and focal points to show importance. It was also
discussed that the Design Guidelines require four sided architecture, two front
elevations on corner lots and variation in the roof plan and silhouette. The applicant
feels the proposed design is consistent with the Specific Plan and has requested a
public hearing before the Planning Commission.
.
R,IPmduct ReviewIRoripaugh Rauch SPlDavid,ou Communiti" T, 29661-2, PA03-0725ISTAFFREPORT-I,doc
2
.
.
.
ANALYSIS
The applicant has proposed three (3) floor plans and three (3) architectural styles. The applicant
has chosen the option of Design Group E (pg. 4-97) from the Specific Plan, which allows the use
of one style from the Design Groups A-D (Attachment 2).
The applicant has provided many features encouraged in the Design Guidelines such as a
variation in garage locations and Porte Cocheres. Each plan includes a varied garage setback
ranging from 14 feet to 21 feet (Plan 1), and 33 feet (Plan 2). Plan 3 is not considered an
architectural forward product, even though the garage is slightly recessed (4 feet proposed, 8
feet minimum is required to be considered architectural forward) behind the living space. Plan 2
also includes a Porte Cochere in conjunction with the deep recessed garage, which provides
additional articulation as well as a single story element along the street scene. A trellis is
proposed over the garage on Plan 1, which functions as an accent element for the East Coast
Traditional style.
Staff feels that the project does not entirely meet the Design Guidelines, however, if
enhancements are provided, the project could be found to be consistent with the Design
Guidelines within Specific Plan. Staff has broken down the comments into the following
categories: The architecture (single story, corner lots, variation between styles, materials,
roofing, entries, doors, four sided architecture, windows, and stucco finish), fencing, and
landscaping,
Architecture
Sinqle StOry: A single story product has not been proposed. The Specific Plan is not clear
whether single story products are required in all planning areas. The language in the Specific
Plan allows the issue to be resolved by staff. Staff feels that the project provides various single
story elements, which break up the street scene, as well as, the overall silhouette of the planning
area. Plans 1 and 2 include mid to deep recessed garages which break up the massing along
the front elevation. Said plans also step the second story back away from the recessed garage
as well as from the first floor wall plane on the side elevations. By stepping the second story
back from the wall plane of the first floor, it will open up the side yards to additional light and
provide single story massing along the street.
Corner Lots: The corner lots do not appear to create a second front elevation. The Design
Guidelines require corner lots to create "two front elevations". Staff feels that the side elevations
do not appear as a second front elevation. Staff has recommended that the applicant pull the
fence and pilasters back towards the rear of the site to open up the side elevations, which would
display the architecture, however the applicant does not agree with staff. By pulling the fence
and pilaster back, it would open up the courtyard on Plan 3. Staff has used this technique on
other projects along with the use of decorative walls with wrought iron fencing, trellises, and
other decorative features to produce a second front elevation. As proposed, the applicant has all
three floor plans on corner lots. Staff has recommended that the applicant provide a side
elevation specifically for corner lots or provide an additional floor plan plotted on corner lots.
Each side elevation of each floor plan, exposed to the street needs additional enhancement to
satisfy the second front elevation standard.
Variations of Style: The applicant has not provided sufficient variation between the proposed
architectural styles. Staff recommended that the applicant propose a different architectural style,
which will allow the styles to offer greater variation, however the applicant has decided to
R:lProduct ReviewIRoripaugh Ranch SPlDavidson Communities T, 29661,2. PAO3,O725ISTAFF REPORT. I ,doc
3
maintain the proposed styles. Staff feels that the Monterey and Spanish Revival offer too many
similarities in shape, form and materials that create a difficulty for providing variety between the
styles. Staff suggested that alternative materials such as stone or brick be used to offer variation
between the styles, however, the applicant has not proposed any additional materials. As
proposed, staff feels there is too much stucco on the Monterey and Spanish Revival. While
stucco is a typical element of these styles, staff feels that these styles are too complimentary and
an alternative style should be used or alternative materials and forms should be incorporated to
clearly distinguish between the styles.
Roof & Silhouette: In order to provide a varied street scene, variety in each roof plan needs to be
provided. Staff feels that the applicant has proposed roof plans and silhouettes that are too
similar for each plan. While there are variations between the plans, the primary silhouette has
not changed. Staff recommended significantly changing one roof plan of each plan in order to
provide variation. The applicant has provided a good example of a variation in the roof plan that
satisfies this concern on Plan 3; however Plans 1 and 2 do not include a significant amount of
variation. The Plan 3 Monterey style includes a lateral roof as opposed to vertical (Spanish
Revival and East Coast Traditional), which is the type of variation staff feels is necessary for
each plan. In addition, the Monterrey and Spanish Revival proposed the same S roof tile style.
The Design Guidelines require Spanish tile roof for Monterey and Barrel tile clay roofing for
Spanish Revival. Staff recommends the roofing to be changed as mentioned in the Design
Guidelines along with changing one roof plan of each floor plan to significantly vary from the
other plans in order to provide variety for the street scene.
Focal Points: The Design Guidelines encourage focal points to show interest for entries and
doors. Staff has requested the use of double doors, glass sidelights, surrounding frames and
molding around the door as mentioned in the Design Guidelines. The applicant has not provided
any double doors, doors with glass, or glass sidelights. The applicant has proposed a foam trim
frame around the entry door for each East Coast Traditional Plan, however staff feels that
additional enhancement is required for all plans and styles. The Design Guidelines state the
following "Emphasis shall be placed on the design and type of entry door used. It functions as
the major introduction to the introduction to the interior of the house and concern should be given
on the image it creates."
Four-Sided Architecture: Staff has interpreted the four sided architecture requirement to mean
that the architectural style is evident from any side of the residence. Staff feels that the applicant
has not completely satisfied this standard. Staff recommends additional arched windows to be
carried over where necessary, variation in the window trim and sills should be provided as well
as, a variation in the materials. Staff feels the similarities of Spanish Revival and Monterey
compound this issue. However, staff also feels that the East Coast Traditional style could
enhance the side and rear elevations by adding and wrapping additional siding to the sides and
rears. In addition, staff recommends that the applicant provide decorative windows sills on each
elevation for each style to reflect the architectural theme and further satisfy the four sided
architecture requirement.
Stucco Finish: The Design Guidelines state that smooth plaster walls are a typical feature for
Spanish Revival. While the Design Guidelines do not mention a specific stucco finish for
Monterrey, staff's research has shown that typical Monterrey stucco finish is a light to smooth
finish. The applicant is proposing a light to medium sand finish. Staff feels that a light sand finish
provides the smooth appearance typical for Spanish Revival and Monterey. The stucco finish for
East Coast Traditional style is not as specific; staff feels a light finish is adequate, however,
typical East Coast styles primarily utilize siding material.
R,IPmduct ReviewIRoripaugh Ranch SP\Davidson Communities Tr 29661-2, PAO3,O725\STAFFREPORT-l.doc
4
.
.
.
.
.
.
Fencing
The applicant has complied with the standards set forth in the Specific Plan; however there are
some minor inconsistencies that need to be addressed. In addition, there is one element that
the applicant and staff do not agree upon. The legend on the fence plan appears to show low
slump stone walls between units. After speaking with the applicant, staff feels this is an error and
that solid wood fencing was intended between units. The project has been conditioned
accordingly. The paseo trail along lot one should include a low slumpstone wall for the first 20
feet and transition into a solid 6-foot slumpstone wall. The project has been conditioned
accordingly. The primary issue that has not been agreed upon is the location of fencing on
corner lots. Staff feels that fencing on corner lots should be pulled back towards the rear of the
lot in order to open up the side yard and expose the architecture and provide the second front
elevation as required in the Specific Plan. Staff has found this to be a success on previous
projects, primarily where a courtyard is proposed because it adds a feature similar to a porch,
albeit on the side elevation. The applicant has proposed a solid wall along the side elevation up
to the front portion of the residence, thus blocking the majority of the architecture/residence.
Staff feels the intent of the Design Guidelines is to open up the side yards to portray the
architecture and appear as a second front elevation. A solid wall will close off the architecture
and will not portray a front elevation.
Landscaping
The applicant has provided front yard landscaping consistent with the Specific Plan. In addition,
the applicant has proposed decorative pavers along with colored concrete for the driveway. Staff
feels this is a positive feature which will add variety to the street scene and add to the overall
ambiance of the project.
ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION
[;8J 1.
The proposed project has been determined to be consistent with the previously
approved (Negative Declaration) (EIR) and is exempt from further Environmental
Review (CEQA Section 15162 subsequent EIR's and Negative Declarations).
CO NCLU SION/R ECOMM ENDA TION
Staff feels that the project needs to be enhanced in order to be found consistent with the Design
Guidelines and the Specific Plan. While the applicant has complied with many of the standards
and recommended guidelines, staff feels that additional enhancement is required in order to
recommend approval. Staff feels that appropriate Conditions of Approval could be applied in
order to make the findings for approval. Based on the analysis summarized in this report, staff
has determined that the findings required for approval can be made with the appropriate
Conditions of Approval.
FINDINGS
Development Plan (Code Section 17.05.010F
1.
The proposed use is in conformance with the General Plan for Temecula and with all
applicable requirements of state law and other ordinances of the city.
RlProduct ReviewIRoripaugh Ranch SP\Davidsou Communities Tr 29661-2, PAO3,O725\STAFF REPORT-l ,doc
5
The proposed single-family homes are permitted in the Low Medium Density land use
designation standards contained in the Roripaugh Ranch Specific Plan and the City's
Development Code. The project is also consistent with the Low Medium land use
designation contained in the General Plan. The site is properly planned and zoned, and
as conditioned, is physically suitable for the type and density of residential development
proposed. The project, as conditioned, is also consistent with other applicable
requirements of State law and local ordinances, including the California Environmental
Quality Act (CEQA), the City Wide Design Guidelines, and fire and building codes.
.
2.
The overall development of the land is designed for the protection of the public health,
safety, and general welfare.
The overall design of the single-family homes, including the site, building, parking,
circulation and other associated site improvements, is consistent with, and intended to
protect the health and safety of those working in and around the site. The project has
been reviewed for, and as conditioned, has been found to be consistent with all
applicable policies, guidelines, standards and regulations intended to ensure that the
development will be constructed and function in a manner consistent with the public
health, safety and welfare.
ATTACHMENTS
1.
Plan Reductions - Blue Page 7
2.
Roripaugh Ranch Design Guidelines Excerpt - Blue Page 8
.
3.
PC Resolution No. 2004-- - Blue Page 9
Exhibit A - Conditions of Approval
4.
Letter to applicant dated January 21,2004 - Blue Page 10
Response letter from applicant dated January 29, 2004 - Blue Page 11
5.
.
R,\Pmduct Review\Roripaugh Rauch SP\Davidsou Communities Tr 29661-2. PA03-0725\STAFF REPORT-1.dac
6
.
.
.
ATTACHMENT NO.1
PLAN REDUCTIONS
R:IPcoduct ReviewIRoripaugh Rauch SP'lDavidsou Communities Tr 29661-2, P AO3,O725\ST AFF REPORT-l ,doc
7
.
.
.
PLAN ¡ EAST COAST TRADITIONAL
l',LAN 2 MONTEREY
¡'LAN I SPANISH REVIVAL
RORIPAUGH RANCH
DAVIDSON COMMUNITIES
CAS E
FRONT & REAR STREET SCENES ~
G' 0 U P
Aub""I<
(]
Wm"""~~
: ~)1 ~~
u ;:'.
oZ
>-«(
f-<.....¡
«ç.
>
¡.r¡
.....¡
¡.r¡
G;
¡:¿
¡.r¡
f-<
Z
0
;:s
.
°1
::r:
u
ZCJ1
<e:f!:1
"t
Z
:r;:J
v~
::JO
<e:U
r:l<ð
>-< V)
"g
0>
O::;CS
.
.
~~~~
u~,,~
(]
ZN
OZ
"""';
I-<....¡
:;;P<
u:.¡
....¡
u:.¡
:>-<
u:.¡
ç:¿
u:.¡
I-<
Z
0
:::E
.
.
:r;
U
Z[J)
<r:;g¡
~t:
Z
:r;::::>
[,J:::E
:J~
<r:;U
Ç¡.,Z
'""'~
~O
0>
~C§
:JOOl~~ .
~'"
U
Zr-r\
OZ
~-<
f-<.....¡
-<p.,
>
u:.¡
.....¡
u:.¡
~
~
0
:E
.
.
.
~-OOl ~1
u~~~
.
2 ,...,
02
>-<1:;
f-o ,
~ã:
u.¡
-I
u.¡
-I
<1:;
>
>
u.¡
çr:
I
V)
Z
-<
p.
V)
~.',u_------
i~¡iii '
--" - u- ------ - - - u - u uu_uJ- - - u - _uu _u - u
:r;
U
ZV)
<r::f:J
cit
2
:r;:J
CJ~
::10
<r::u
0...2
-~
cia
0>
~ð
.
:m~~)j ~~ .
~.:..,,"
u
ZN
Q~
t2...¡
>P<
~
u.¡
...¡
~
>=
~
~
g;
U)
.
.
.
:1~)j1 ~-.¡
U :AI ~~
.
2"'"
02
'""""':
t;;-,
>Ç!.,
IJ,¡
-'
IJ,¡
-'
S;
>
IJ,¡
~
:r:
f:Q
2
...:
Ç!.,
CI)
.
:¡
U
ZCl)
..o::í:9
ç¿t
2
:¡::J
l:J~
::JO
..o::U
p..2
'"""~
ç¿o
0>
Ç¿CS
W~~~
~ ?6)] ~~ .
~.:.o. ~~
u
z,..,
oz
>-<-<
f-.;....¡
-<¡:>.,
>
~
'-ù
....¡
~
0
E
0
g
¡¡;
-<
0
u
¡¡;
-<
'-ù
.
::r:
u
zi2
<>-<
¡it:
z
::r::J
CJ~
:;JO
<u
ç,..~
>-< VJ
~~
O-<
¡io
.
.
:~~1
u~~~
.
ZN
OZ
~:J
>=""
LLI
-'
LLI
-'
-<
Z
0
~
Ô
g
f-o
U)
-<
0
U
~
LLI
.
::c
u
ZU)
-<~
~t::
Z
::c:>
l?~
:JO
-<U
~Z
'"""~
~O
0>
~d
:m~~~ H .
~-- ""
U
2rY'\
02
>-<-<
f-<.....I
-<p.
>
~
u.¡
.....I
-<
2
0
E
Q
g
f-<
:Q
0
u
f-<
(f)
~
.
:r:
u
Z(f)
-<f:!:1
c:it:;
:r:~
C)~
:JO
-<u
A<ð
>-< (f)
c:i9
O~
c:iQ
.
.
.
.
ATTACHMENT NO.2
RORIPAUGH RANCH DESIGN GUIDELINES EXCERPT
RlProduct ReviewIRoripaugh Ranch SPlDavidson Communities Tr 29661-2, P A03,O725\ST AFF REPORT-I ,doc
8
ASHBY USA, LLC
FIGURE 4-53
..
8
.
EAST COAST TRADITIONAL
co!
C~
.O~
+-' ~
~i
co~
s.... ~
r-~
ö
+-'~
C/)ffi
co~
O~
()~
+-'~
C/)¡¡
co~
Wi
~
Inspiration Photo:
Design features:
- Covered front porch entry
- Multi-pane windows
- Stucco trim detailing
- Flat arch openings
- Hip/gable combination roof shapes
- Exterior plaster walls
- Boxed overhangs
The Keith compaoie1TK.C
~ TO 'CA'~
]).(.)_l'il)"I/oll
\"/, d, .,,1
H;¡ild J
ASHBY USA. LLC
FIGURE 4-58
MONTEREY
Inspiration Photo:
The K,it" comp,n",,-n<:.c
~ .0 'C A' "
u,¡I Ut',.~1
Design features:
- Arched focal point
- Deep recessed openings
- Multi-pane windows
- Exposed rafter tails
- Wood picket railings
- Wrought irorl detailirlg
- Spanish tile roof
>->:
Q)~
~
O~
~!
~
~
~
~
~,
~
~
ä
~
~
~
i
.
.
1?()!'Îí);111L;11'
R;u 1c11
ASHBY USA, LLC
FIGURE 4-60
.
.
.
SPANISH REVIVAL
Inspiration Photo:
Design features:
- Arched focal point
- Exposed beam headers
- Recessed window
- Wrought iron accent details
- Alcoved entry
- Barrel tile clay roofing
- Exterior smooth plaster walls
- Ceramic tile accents
.. <' -"~~',=,""
Tho Koi<h comp,oieïTK.C
¡;.,;;- TO SCA'~
Hn/'i¡ );¡Ui;h
H;UlC.J¡
CtH
.>i
>~
Q)~
ey:i
..cl
(/)~
._~
c:~
ro~
Si
~
ä
~
¡¡
~
~
I
DESIGN GUIDELINES
Provide two color sets of the above at the scales indicated including a duplicate set of the color
and materials board. In addition, provide six (6) sets of the above in reduced, 11" x 17" black and
white format.
.
4.10.3.3 Architecture Forward and Garage Standards
The following standards shall apply to all residential Planning Areas, except as specified:
"Architectural Forward" concept shall be incorporated into 100% of the homes in Planning
Areas10, 19,20, 21, and 33A. "Arch~ectural Forward" concept shall be incorporated into at
least 50% of the homes in each of Planning Areas 1A, 2, 3, 4A, 4B, 12, 14, 15, 16, 17, 1B, 22,
23,24, and 31. This concept includes advancing the architecture of the living space forward
on the lot while concurrently, the garage is held in place or further recessed. Residential
dwelling units shall be designed to allow the living portion of the dwelling unit to be
"positioned" forward on the lot so that the architecture of the garage will not dominate the
street scene.
A variety of garage placement solutions shall be incorporated into the overall design of the
homes. Minimum driveway length from the property line to the garage door shall be eighteen
feet (1B') for front-entry garages in all Planning Areas and ten feet (10') from the property line
to the garage edge for side entry garages in the Land LM Districts. Garage solutions that
should be incorporated into the overall design are as follows:
Shallow Recessed Garaqes (See Figure 4-62)
Setting the garage back a minimum of eight feet (B') in relationship to the front of
the house.
Mid to DeeD Recessed Garaoes (See Figure 4-63)
Setting the garage back to the middle or rear of the lot.
Third Car Side Loaded (See Figure 4-64)
Setting for garage with side-loaded entry. This plan can only occur on larger lots.
.
Side Entry Garaoes (See Figure 4-65)
The use of side entry garages on lots at least 52 feet wide in order to break the
continuous view of garage doors along the street scene.
Third Car Tandem (See Figure 4-66)
Setting for third car tandem garage.
Sinole Width Drivewavs (See Figure 4-67)
This setting provides a maximum driveway width of twelve (12) feet for adjacent
two-car garage.
Porte Cochere (See Figure 4-68)
Setting provides for the incorporation of a porte cochere.
<_.J
.
Roripaugh Ranch Specific Plan
N:\31367 ,OQOldodlSP Sect44CCAdopted, doc
4.98
March, 2003
.
.
.
DESIGN GUIDELINES
Articulation of Side and Rear Elevations
There is a tendency to have "build out" planes maximized on side and rear yards without
articulated treatment of those planes. This results in a two-story stucco effect with no vertical or
horizontal relief. Utilize the following techniques or other acceptable techniques to avoid this
effect:
Create a single-story plane at the rear by recessing the second story.
Utilize other similar architectural treatments and designs such as balconies or pop out
staircases to encourage relief on potential large arcMectural planes.
Side and rear elevations shall have articulation with modulated facades, window treatment,
second story projections and balconies.
Articulation shall be provided on all sides of the homes ("Four-sided Architecture").
Front Elevations
Architectural projections shall be utilized to emphasize entrances, balconies, and porches.
Fronts of houses shall utilize several architectural features. Ground floor windows shall have
significant trim or relief, second floor overhangs or built in planters. Second story windows
shall have similar treatment to emphasize them.
All residences shall incorporate entry courtyards, covered entries or covered porches at the
entry into the design. (See Figure 4-71 and 4-72).
Details shall be concentrated around entrances. Materials used for the front entry shall be
distinctive.
Building elements that reflect the architectural style should be incorporated into building
entries, windows, front porches, and living areas directly adjacent to the street.
Ornamental features including wrought iron and exterior light features shall be combined with
other features to create interest in the front of the house with architecturally compatible
elements.
RoriDauah Ranch Specific Plan
N;\31367, OOOldodlSPSect44CCAdopted, doc
4-125
March, 2003
DESIGN GUIDELINES
4.10.3.6 Architectural Elements
A successful project design achieves a proper visual balance and sense of cohesiveness. The
differences between the plans and elevation must be readily discernable and create variety, yet at
the sarne time elements, styles and materials should not contrast to such an extent as to result in
visual chaos. Architectural elements will playa significant role in the establishment of the
architectural style. These elements include architectural detailing, colors and materials, and other
site structures. The required Architectural and design elements techniques are as follows:
.
Unit Entries (See Figures 4-71 and 4-72)
The entry serves several important architectural and psychological functions: it identifies and
frames the front doorway; it acts as an interface between the public and private spaces; and it
acts as an introduction to the structure while creating an initial impression.
The entry shall be designed and located so as to readily emphasize its prime functions.
Accent materials are encouraged to be used to further emphasize the entries.
If the front door location is not obvious or visible because of building configuration, the entry
shall direct and draw the observer in the desired path. The design of the entry area in
merchant-built housing shall be strong enough to mitigate the impact of the garage on the
facade.
Entry doors and doorways shall be proportional to the architectural style of the structure.
Covered entries, courtyards and porches shall be provided as entry elements.
Emphasis shall be placed on the design and type of entry door used. It functions as the major
introduction to the interior of the house and concern should be given on the image it creates.
.
Doors
Either single or double doors are appropriate.
The door shall be covered by an overhead element or recessed a minimum of 3 It into the wall
plane.
The entire door assembly shall be treated as a single design element including surrounding
frame, molding and glass sidelights.
Recessed doors may be used to convey the appearance of thick exterior doors.
Wood may be used for the entry door. Wood grain texture and raised or recessed panels
contribute to the appeal of the door. Greater use is being made of metal entry doors but in
order to be acceptable, they shall possess the same residential "feel" provided by the wood
grain and panels.
Doorways shall be typically rectangular or round-headed and fully recessed. Spiral columns,
arches, pilaster, stonework, decorative tiles, or other sculptural details shall be integrated into
the doorway design to enhance the visual importance of the entry door.
Roripauah Ranch Specific Plan
N: \31367, 000ldodlSPSect44CCAdopted, doc
4-127
March,2003
.
.
.
.
DESIGN GUIDELINES
The use of glass in the door and overall assembly is encouraged, It expresses a sense of
welcome and human scale. It can be incorporated into the door panels or expressed as
single sidelights, double sidelights, transom glass or fan windows.
Flexibility is allowed concerning the color of the door. It may match or contrast the accent
trim, but should be differentiated from the wall color.
Windows
Typically. the location of windows is determined by the practical consideration of rOOm layout,
possible furniture placement, view opportunities and concern for privacy. Greater design
emphasis should be directed to ensure that window placement and organization will positively
contribute to the exterior architectural character. Windows greatly enhance the elevation
through their vertical or horizontal grouping and coordination with other design elements. This
relationship to one another and the walVroof plane creates a composition and sense of order.
All windows in a specific plan elevation shall be integrated into the architecture of the building.
This should not be interpreted that they are all the same shape, size or type but rather that a
hierarchy of windows exists that visually relates and complements one window to another.
Windows shall be recessed to convey the appearance of thick exterior walls. Non-recessed
windows shall be surrounded with articulated architectural elements such as wood trim,
stucco surrounds, shutters or recessed openings, shutters, pot shelves, ledges, sills plantons,
and rails that compliment the architecture.
Merchant-built housing occasionally fails to adequately address proper window design and
placement on rear and side elevations. This is usually due to prioritization, maintenance and
cost factors. Since side elevations and second story rear windows are frequently visible,
greater design effort and budget prioritization need to be given.
Garaae Doors (See Figure 4-73)
Utilizing garage types that compliment the architecture, door designs, and plotting techniques
will do much to lessen the repetitious garage doors marching down both sides of a residential
street. Variations include:
0
Employment of second-story feature windows above the garage.
0
Strong architectural entry elements.
0
Designs with a mix of 2 and 3 car garages, incorporating three single doors in some
three car garage plans not facing the street.
0
Allowance for a 10-foot setback between adjacent garages.
0
The use of tandem garages may also be incorporated into the building design.
0
Garage plans with a double door and a single door plan shall not be placed next to
each other.
If applicable, where lot width permits plans should include swing-in or side entry garages with
reduced front yard setbacks of ten (10) feet.
Ronoauah Ranch Specific Plan
N: \31367 ,OOOldod\SPSect44CCAdopted.doc
4-128
March, 2003
DESIGN GUIDELINES
The design of the garage door shall relate to the overall architectural design of the residence.
Colors shall be from the same paint palette.
Ornamentation of garage doors shall be provided to add visual interest from the street scene.
The use of the sectional, wood or metal, rolling garage door is required since ~ maximizes the
availability of useable driveway length.
Several different panel designs shall be utilized for any project proposed by each merchant
builder. Metal doors shall only be used when they include either texture or raised panels of a
"residentiaf nature. The use of window elements is encouraged.
The design of the door face shall result in a treatment which breaks up the expanse of the
door plane while being complimentary to thè architectural elevation of the residence.
Architectural detail consisting of comices, applied molding or trim or applied headers shall be
used. There shall be an 8" recess. (See Exhibit 4-73).
RoriDauoh Ranch Soecific Plan
N:\31367. OOOldodlSPSect44CCAdopted. doc
4-129
March, 2003
.
.
.
.
.
-
DESIGN GUIDELINES
4.10.3.7 Residential Roof Form
Allowable Roof Pitch (See Figure 4-74)
Allowable roof pitches of 3:12 to 4:12 shall be used. Allowable roof pitches over balconies
and/or porches may be 2:12.
A single roof pitch should be used on opposite sides of a ridge. Shallow pitches tend to
lessen the apparent building mass.
Roof Types
The use of different roof types will add variety and interest to the street scene. Changing the roof
form on a given plan is the best method of creating alternative elevations. However, the roof
characteristics should be consistent with the historical style that is chosen.
Hip, gable and shake-like material shall be used separately or together on the same roof.
Avoid a canyon effect in side yards when both buildings have front-to-rear gables, by
providing dormer or hip elements.
Repetitious gable ends along rear elevations shall be avoided. Roof forms with pitch changes
at a porch or projection are preferable.
Roof forms having dual pitches such as Gambrel or Mansard shall not be used,
Maximize variations in rooflines by offsetting roof planes and combining single-story elements
with two-story elements. Long uninterrupted rooflines should be avoided. Mechanical
equipment is not permitted on roofs.
Desion of Rakes and Eaves
The designer may choose from a variety of rake and eave types based on climatic and
stylistic considerations.
Moderate or extended overhangs are acceptable if properly designed. Tight fascia with
appropriate style are acceptable.
Single or double fascia boards, exposed rafters, or fascias with planscias when adequately
scaled, are acceptable.
Care shall be taken to ensure that material sizes avoid a weak or flimsy appearance.
OverhanG Proiections and Covered Porches
Substantial overhangs are required as a response to solar and climatic conditions.
The inclusion of covered porches and entries are required as part of the product mix. They
expand shellered living space, create entry statements and provide elevation/relief.
Rear covered porches may differ from the roof in both pitch and material, but front porches
should retain at least one of these two characteristics.
RoriDauah Ranch Specific Plan
N:131367,OOOldod\SPSect44CCAdopted,doc
4.133
March,2003
ASHBY USA. LlC
z..
'7tz:tZ/
.z..
71q2-Y
- - . -. .
- "'. '. '.
~
FIGURE 4-70
e;rriOtJ~Pÿ~Nb q=:
I ~ Z- -".71"""7 \foM~.
,¡- MiX7V~~ ~I~~
!vJP M47fI,u:,'ff?e1\IIÞe
V~t;iP
.
1,,1 NtfJ
'2-
71W't
. -' . .- .'
VA~ep ~~Hf1~.
M LX Cf tNÐ ~ 1WO ~11i}2+~.
-¡
C/).
i
o~
3:1
~"
i
"'0 ~,
c;'
co~
~
Q)i
c~
01
"f-
0
x
E
-...-
C/)
Q)
c..
fit
"f-
0
0
~
"'0
Q)
-¡::
co
>
.
¡;5~
Roripaugh~Ranch
The Ke;<h comp,n;eiT1<.C
~- '0 sc.c~
.
.
.
ATTACHMENT NO.3
PC RESOLUTION NO 2004 -
R,lProductReviewIRoripaugh Ranch SP\Davidson Communities Tr 29661-2, PA03-0725\STAFF REPORT-l ,doc
9
.
.
.
PC RESOLUTION NO. 2004--
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION
NO. PA03-0725 A PRODUCT REVIEW FOR 99 DETACHED
SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCES WITHIN PLANNING AREA 2 OF
THE RORIPAUGH RANCH SPECIFIC PLAN LOCATED SOUTH
OF MURRIETA HOT SPRINGS ROAD, KNOWN AS TRACT
MAP 29661-2.
WHEREAS, Davidson Communities, filed Planning Application No.PA03-0725, in
accordance with the City of Temecula General Plan and Development Code;
WHEREAS, Planning Application No. PA03-0725 was processed including, but not
limited to public notice, in the time and manner prescribed by State and local law;
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission considered Planning Application No. PA03-0725
on April 21, 2004 at duly noticed public hearings as prescribed by law, at which time the City
staff and interested persons had an opportunity to and did testify either in support or in
opposition to this matter;
WHEREAS, at the conclusion of the Commission hearing and after due consideration of
the testimony, the Commission approved Planning Application No. PA03-0725;
NOW, THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA
DOES RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. That the above recitations are true and correct and are hereby
incorporated by reference.
Section 2. Findinas. The Planning Commission, in approving Planning Application
No. PA03-0725 hereby makes the following findings as required by Section 17.05.010.F of the
Temecula Municipal Code:
A. The proposed use is in conformance with the General Plan for Temecula and
with all applicable requirements of state law and other ordinances of the city.
The proposed single-family homes are permitted in the Low Medium Density land use
designation standards contained in the Roripaugh Ranch Specific Plan and the City's
Development Code. The project is also consistent with the Low Medium land use
designation contained in the General Plan. The site is properly planned and zoned, and
as conditioned, is physically suitable for the type and density of the residential
development proposed. The project, as conditioned, is also consistent with other
applicable requirements of State law and local ordinances, including the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the City Wide Design Guidelines, and fire and
building codes.
B. The overall development of the land is designed for the protection of the public
health, safety, and general welfare.
The overall design of the single-family homes, including the site, building, parking,
circulation and other associated site improvements, is consistent with, and intended to
R:IProduct ReviewlRoripaugh Ranch SPIDavidson Communities Tr 29661-2, PA03,07251Draft Resolution w CofA-4-21-04,doc
1
protect the health and safety of those working in and around the site. The project has
been reviewed for, and as conditioned, has been found to be consistent with al/
applicable policies, guidelines, standards and regulations intended to ensure that the
development will be constructed and function in a manner consistent with the public
health, safety and welfare.
.
Section 3. Environmental Compliance. A Notice of Exemption for Planning
Application No. PA03-0725 was made per the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines
Section 15162. This section applies when an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) has been
certified and there are not substantial changes not discussed or examined in the EIR.
Section 4. Conditions. That the City of Temecula Planning Commission hereby
conditionally approves Planning Application No. PA03-0725 for a Product Review for detached
single family residences within Planning Area 2 of the Roripaugh Ranch Specific Plan located
south of Murrieta Hot Springs Road and west of the future extension of Butterfield Stage Road,
Tract Map 29661-2. The Conditions of Approval are contained in Exhibit A.
Section 5. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the City of Temecula
Planning Commission this 21st day of April 2004.
John Telesio, Chairperson
ATTEST:
Debbie Ubnoske, Secretary
.
{SEAL}
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE
CITY OF TEMECULA
)
} ss
)
I, Debbie Ubnoske, Secretary of the Temecula Planning Commission, do hereby certify
that PC Resolution No. 2004-- was duly and regularly adopted by the Planning Commission
of the City of Temecula at a regular meeting thereof held on the 21st day of April 2004, by the
following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
Debbie Ubnoske, Secretary
.
R:\Product ReviewlRoripaugh Ranch SPlDavidson Communities Tr 29661-2, PA03-0725\Draft Resolution w CofA-4,21-04,doc
2
.
.
.
EXHIBIT A
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
R:IProduct ReviewlRoripaugh Ranch SPIDavidson Communities Tr 29661-2, PA03-0725IDraft Resolution w CofA-4-21-04,doc
3
.
.
.
EXHIBIT A
CITY OF TEMECULA
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
Planning Application No. PA03-0725
Project Description:
A Product Review for 99 detached single family
residences within Planning Area 2 of the Roripaugh
Ranch Specific Plan located south of Murrieta Hot
Springs Road and west of the future extension of
Butterfield Stage Road, Tract Map 29661-2.
Tentative Tract No.:
29661-2
DIF Category:
Per Development Agreement
Approval Date:
April 21,2004
April 21,2006
Expiration Date:
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
Within Forty-Eight (48) Hours of the Approval of this Project
1.
The applicant shall deliver to the Planning Department a cashier's check or money order
made payable to the County Clerk in the amount of Sixty-Four Dollars ($64.00) for the
County administrative fee, to enable the City to file the Notice of Exemption as provided
under Public Resources Code Section 21108(b) and California Code of Regulations
Section 15062. If within said forty-eight (48) hour period the applicant has not delivered
to the Planning Department the check as required above, the approval for the project
granted shall be void by reason of failure of condition (Fish and Game Code Section
711.4(c).
General Requirernents
2.
The permittee/applicant shall indemnify, protect and hold harmless, the City and any
agency or instrumentality thereof, and/or any of its officers, employees, and agents from
any and all claims, actions, or proceedings against the City, or any agency or
instrumentality thereof, or any of its officers, employees, and agents, to attack, set aside,
void, annul, or seek monetary damages resulting from an approval of the City, or any
agency or instrumentality thereof, advisory agency, appeal board or legislative body
including actions approved by the voters of the City, concerning the Planning Application
which action is brought within the appropriate statute of limitations period and Public
Resources Code, Division 13, Chapter 4 (Section 21000 et seq., including but not by the
way of limitations Section 21152 and 21167). The City shall promptly notify the
permittee/applicant of any claim, action, or proceeding brought forth within this time
period. The City shall estimate the cost of the defense of the action and applicant shall
deposit said amount with the City. City may require additional deposits to cover
anticipated costs. City shall refund, without interest, any unused portions of the deposit
once the litigation is finally concluded. Should the City fail to either promptly notify or
cooperate fully, permittee/applicant shall not, thereafter be responsible to indemnify,
R:\Product ReviewlRoripaugh Ranch SP\Davidson Communities Tr 29661-2, PAO3'0725\Draft Resolution w CofA-4-21-04,doc
4
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
defend, protect, or hold harmless the City, any agency or instrumentality thereof, or any
of its officers, employees, or agents. Should the applicant fail to timely post the required
deposit, the Director may terminate the land use approval without further notice to the
applicant.
.
This approval shall be used within two (2) years of the approval date; otherwise, it shali
become null and void. By use is meant the beginning of substantial construction
contemplated by this approval within the two (2) year period which is thereafter diligently
pursued to completion or the beginning of substantial utilization contemplated by this
approval.
Building elevations shall substantially conform to the approved Exhibits, including
elevations, floor plans, landscaping plans, hardscape plans, and plotting plan, contained
on file with the Planning Department or as amended by these Conditions of Approval.
The colors and materials (including lighting) for this project shall substantially conform to
the approved colors and materials contained on file with the Planning Department. Any
deviation from the approved colors and materials shall require approval of the Director of
Planning.
This approval is for product review only and shall in no way limit the city or other
regulatory or service agencies from applying additional requirements and/or conditions
consistent with applicable policies and standards upon the review of grading, building
and other necessary permits and approvals for the project.
The Development Code requires double garages to maintain a minimum clear interior
dimension of 20' x 20'. This shall be clearly indicated on the plans prior to the issuance
of building permits for the project. Interior dimensions are measured from the inside of
garage wali to the opposite wall, steps, landing, equipment pedestals, bollards or any
similar type feature. When the top of the stem wall is more than 8" above the garage
floor, the required dimension is measured from the inside edge of the stem wall.
.
Applicant shall obtain the proper permits before construction, including Encroachment
Permit from the Public Works Department for any work done in the City right-of-way, and
Building Permit from the Building and Safety Department.
9.
Fire Hydrants shall be installed prior to the start of any construction at the site.
Driveway widths shall comply with the driveway width requirements per City Standards.
In order to allow for adequate street parking, the driveway widths at curbs will be limited
to 24' maximum.
10.
11.
All Spanish Revival and Monterey styles shall utilize a smooth to light texture stucco
finish (20/30 aggregate or smoother) as determined acceptable by the Planning Director.
East Coast Traditional styles shall utilize a light-medium (16/20 aggregate) finish.
12.
Monterey and Spanish Revival shall include arched focal points. Each focal point shall
be unique for the appropriate style. Focal points may include arched doors, windows, or
other forms as determined acceptable by the Planning Director.
13.
All Monterey styles shall utilize a Spanish style tile roof.
.
R:IProduc\ ReviewlRoripaugh Ranch SPlDavidson Communities Tr 29661-2, PA03-07251Draft Resolution w CofA-4-21,04,doc
5
14.
. 15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
. 22.
23.
.
All Spanish Revival styles shall include a Barrel tile clay roof.
One style of each plan shall provide a roof plan that is clearly different than the other
styles in order to provide variation along the front and rear street scene.
Corner lots shall be appear as a second front elevation and include elements from the
front elevation, such as materials, arched focal points, courtyards, patios as approved by
the Planning Director.
Each style shall include decorative garage doors that provide a variation in style and
shall include windows as appropriate, as approved by the Planning Director.
Each style and style shall enhance the side a rear elevations to include elements from
the front elevation to satisfy the four-sided architecture requirement. This can be
accomplished with additional arched windows, siding and/or materials, window sill
treatment, or as determined acceptable by the Planning Director.
The Spanish Revival and/or Monterey shall include an additional material(s) such as
brick or stone to differentiate between the styles.
All materials such as stone, brick and siding shall wrap around the side yard to the fence
return or as determined acceptable by the Planning Director.
Fencing on corner lots shall be pulled back towards the rear on exterior corner lots to
open up the exposed elevation to the street as determined acceptable by the Planning
Director.
Fencing between units (on interior side yards and rear yards, but excluding view fencing)
where not visible from the street shall be wood fence as shown in figure 2-15 (privacy
fencing) or as approved by the Planning Director.
Fencing along lot 1, adjacent to the paseo trail shall include a low slumpstone wall for
the first 20 feet and transition into a 6-foot project wall as shown in figure 4-38 (paseo
entry).
Prior to the Issuance of Grading Permits
24.
The applicant shall submit a Grading Plan, subject to the review and approval of the
Planning Department.
The applicant shall sign both copies of the final conditions of approval that will be
provided by the Planning Department staff, and return one signed set to the Planning
Department for their files.
25.
26.
The applicant shall submit to the Planning Department for permanent filing two (2) 8" X
10" glossy photographic color prints of the Color and Materials Boards and of the colored
version of the approved colored architectural elevations to the Planning Department for
their files. All labels on the Color and Materials Board and Elevations shall be readable
on the photographic prints.
27.
A street tree master plan indicating what tree species will be planted on each street shall
be submitted. The plan should graphically show the locations of all trees. One tree
species per street shall be provided.
R:\Product ReviewlRoripaugh Ranch SPlDavidson Communities Tr 29661-2, PA03-0725\Draft Resolution w CofA-4-21-04,doc
6
Prior to the Issuance of Building Permits
28.
29.
30.
31.
32.
33.
The applicant shall comply with standards conditions and requirements set forth in the
Roripaugh Ranch Specific Plan, Mitigation Monitoring Program, conditions of approval
for Tract Map 29353 (PA01-0230, A-Map), Tract Map 29661 (PA01-0253, B-Map), and
Ordinance No. 02-14, the Development Agreement between the City of Temecula and
Ashby USA, LLC for the Roripaugh Ranch Specific Plan, including, but not limited to
attachment "5", which requires various on and off-site improvements.
.
The applicant shall submit street lighting and signage plans to the Planning Director for
final approval. Street lighting shall comply with the Specific Plan, Riverside County Mt.
Palomar Lighting Ordinance, and the mitigation-monitoring program. Said lighting shall
comply with the standards as set forth in the Mitigated Monitoring Program and install
hoods or shields to prevent either spillage of lumens or reflections into the sky (lights
must be downward facing).
The applicant shall submit mailbox elevations and a plot plan clearly indicating the
location of each mailbox area. Mailbox type and location shall be subject to the approval
of the Postmaster and Planning Director.
Prior to issuance of any residential building permit within Planning Area 4A, the
construction landscape and architectural plans for Paseos (including hardscaping,
landscaping, fencing, lights and gates), Paseo gates Staff Gated Primary Entry, Card
Key Entry, fuel modification zones shall be submitted and approved
Prior to construction of the Model Home complex, the applicant shall apply for a Model
Home complex permit.
.
Performance securities, in amounts to be determined by the Director of Planning, to
guarantee the maintenance of the plantings within private common areas for a period of
one year, in accordance with the approved construction landscape and irrigation plan
shall be filed with the Planning Department for one year from the completion of the
landscaping. After that year, if the landscaping and irrigation system have been
maintained in a condition satisfactory to the Director of Planning, the bond shall be
released.
34.
Precise Grading Plans consistent with the approved rough grading plans, plotting plan,
structural setback measurements shall be submitted and approved.
35.
The developer shall demonstrate to the Planning Director that all homes will have double
paned windows with at least a 25 STC rating installed to reduce noise from occasional
aircraft over flights.
36.
The developer shall provide proof that construction debris, including but not limited to
lumber, asphalt, concrete, sand, paper and metal is recycled through the City's solid
waste hauler, subject to the approval of the Community Services Department.
All design components shall comply with applicable provisions of the 1998 edition of the
California Building, Plumbing, Mechanical and Fire Codes; 1998 National Electrical
Code; California Administrative Code, Title 24 Energy and Disabled Access Regulations
and the Temecula Municipal Code.
.
37.
R:IProduct ReviewlRoripaugh Ranch SPIDavidson Communities Tr 29661-2, PA03-07251Draft Resolution w CofA-4-21-04,doc
7
38.
.
39.
40.
41.
42.
43.
Obtain all building plans and permit approvals prior to commencement of any
construction work.
A pre-construction meeting is required with the building inspector prior to
commencement of any construction or inspections.
Provide appropriate stamp of a registered professional with original signature on plans
and structural calculations submitted for plan review.
Provide electrical plan including load calculations and panel schedule for plan review.
Schematic plumbing plans, electrical plan and load calculations, along with mechanical
equipment and ducting plans shall be submitted for plan review stamped and original
signed by an appropriate registered professional.
Obtain street addresses from the Building Official prior to submittal of plans for plan
review.
Signage shall be posted conspicuously at the entrance to the project that indicates the
hours of construction, shown below, as allowed by City of Temecula Ordinance No. 94-
21, specifically Section G (1) of Riverside county Ordinance No. 457.73, for any site
within one-quarter mile of an occupied residence.
Monday-Friday: 6:30 a.m, - 6:30 p.m.
Saturday: 7:00 a.m.- 6:30 p.m.
No work is permitted on Sunday or Government Holidays
Prior to the Issuance of Occupancy Permits
44.
.
45.
46.
.
All required landscape planting and irrigation shall have been installed consistent with
the approved construction plans and shall be in a condition acceptable to the Director of
Planning. The plants shall be healthy and free of weeds, disease, or pests. The
irrigation system shall be properly constructed and in good working order.
Performance securities, in amounts to be determined by the Director of Planning, to
guarantee the maintenance of the plantings, in accordance with the approved
construction landscape and irrigation plan shall be filed with the Planning Department for
one year from final certificate of occupancy. After that year, if the landscaping and
irrigation system have been maintained in a condition satisfactory to the Director of
Planning, the applicant shall release the bond upon request.
47.
If deemed necessary by the Director of Planning, the applicant shall provide additional
landscaping to effectively screen various components of the project.
48.
Front yard and slope landscaping, hardscaping and fencing within individual lots shall be
completed for inspection prior to issuance of each occupancy permit (excluding model
home complex structures).
49.
The developer shall submit proof that all local refuse generators have been provided
with written information about opportunities for recycling and waste reduction (Le.
buyback centers, curbside availability), subject to the approval of the Public Works and
Community Services Departments.
R:\Product ReviewlRoripaugh Ranch SPIDavidson Communities Tr 29661-2, PA03-0725IDraft Resolution w CofA-4-21-04,doc
8
50.
All of the foregoing conditions shall be complied with prior to occupancy or any use
allowed by this permit.
By placing my signature below, I confirm that I have read, understand and accept all the above
Conditions of Approval. I further understand that the property shall be maintained in
conformance with these conditions of approval and that any changes I may wish to make to the
project shall be subject to Planning Commission approval.
Applicant's Signature
Date
Applicant's Name Printed
R:IProduct ReviewlRoripaugh Ranch SPIDavidson Communities Tr 29661,2. PA03-07261Draft Resoiution w CofA-4-21-04,doc
9
.
.
.
.
.
.
ATTACHMENT NO.4
LETTER TO APPLICANT DATED JANUARY 21, 2004
RolProduct ReviewIRoripaugh Ranch SP\Davidson Communities Tr 29661-2, PAO3-O725\STAFF REPORT-J.doc
10
.
City of Temecula
43200 Business Park Drive - PO Box 9033 - Temecula - California 92589-9033 -
(909) 694-6400 - FAX (909) 694-6477
January 21,2004
.
.
Ms. Paula Lombardi
Davidson Communities
1302 Camino Del Mar
Del Mar, CA 92014
SUBJECT:
Planning Application PAO3-0725 for the product review of the new single-family
homes proposed for the Roripaugh Ranch Specific Plan.
Dear Paula:
Staff has reviewed Planning Application P A03-0725 and has determined that the project cannot be
approved as proposed. Below is a list of. recommended and/or required changes to the above
referenced project.
General Comments
1.
Section 4.10.3.4 of the specific plan requires single story products as determined by the
market or by staff. Staff has determined that a reasonable number of lots (no less than 20%)
are required to be developed with a single story product. Please provide a single story
product for staff's review. The comments below shall be incorporated into the single story
product.
2.
Per our conversation, each style is proposed to utilize a 20/30 sand float stucco finish with
squared corners. Please provide a sample of this stucco finish. The sample provided
appears to be a heavier aggregate.
3.
Provide clear notes on the elevations indicating depth of recessed doors and windows, width
and depth of borders, overhang length, type of materials, finish etc. Staff has found that a +/-
system is a good method of showing how much a window, door, or plane is recessed or
projected from the wall plane.
4.
Staff has reviewed the plot plan and has determined that many of the setbacks have not
been met. Lots 31 , 50, 59, 81, and 100 do not meet the 10-foot exterior side yard setback.
Lot 78 does not meet the 18-foot garage face setback. Lot 81 does not meet the 20-foot rear
yard setback. Also, while the remainder of the lots appear to meet the setbacks, staff
strongly recommends the front setbacks vary in order to provide interest from the street
R:\Product ReviewIRoripaugh Raoch SP\Davidsun Communities Tr 29661-2. PA03,O725\comment letter-1.doc
1
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
scene. As proposed many lots utilize a 10-foot setback with little variation from lot to lot.
Please revise where possible to provide, interest.
Elements from the front elevation of each plan should be carried over to the sides and rear
so the architectural style is clearly evident from all sides. This can be accomplished with
varied roof pitches, additional exposed beams, variations in the window type such as arched
windows, vertical or horizontal windows, chimney design, etc. The specific plan requires four
sided architecture, which has been interpreted that the architectural style shall be clearly
evident from each side of the residence. As proposed, the sides and rears offer little
variation from each other.
.
Monterey and Spanish architecture utilize many of the same features, which creates difficulty
when trying to distinguish the two styles from each other. Staff recommends either a fourth
architectural style or choosing an alternative style, as approved by staff in order to clearly
distinguish between the styles. If this recommendation is not taken, please note that in order
to recommend approval, there must be clear differences in each style including materials,
colors and overall design.
Staff has reviewed the color variations proposed and while Spanish and Monterey may have
utilized similar color palettes historically, the specific plan requires that the colors vary for
each style. The specific plan requires a minimum of four color variations for each style in
each planning area (Section 4.10.3.1). Said color variations must not be the same as
another style within the same planning area.
Staff recommends including additional materials into the products as necessary. Staff feels
the use of brick on the Monterey style could help distinguish itself from Spanish.
All supplemental materials such as shingle siding, stone, brick etc. should wrap around the
side elevations. Said materials should wrap to the side yard fence or to point it is no longer
visible from the street.
.
The specific plan requires all corner lots to provide a second front elevation. As proposed,
none of the corner lots provide a second front elevation as required. One option that could
be considered is providing one or two plans designed specifically for corner lots. Another
option is to provide a special side corner lot elevation for each plan. Staff has also accepted
wrap around porches and low walls wrapping around the side to create a courtyard effect. It
is important to note that fencing on the corner lots shall be pulled back to display the
elevation as opposed to shielding it from the street.
Please provide staff with alternative types of front doors and garage doors related to the
particular architectural style proposed. The specific plan encourages single or double doors,
glass sidelights, surrounding frames, and molding around the door. The specific plan stateS
"Emphasis should be placed on the design and type of entry door used. It functions as the
major introduction to the interior of the house and concern should be given on the image it
creates."
The City recommends that all accent relief elements installed below eight feet of ground
level be constructed of dense, durable material (not soft foam) to assure long term durability.
Please indicate materials to be used on the elevations.
.
R,IP",duct Review\Roripaugh Ranch SPlDavidsun Commuuities Tr 29661-2, PAO3-0725\comment lelter-I.doc
2
.
.
.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
20.
Please revise summary table sheet for the project. The lot coverage shall be recalculated to
show the footprint divided by the lot area. The architectural style should also be shown on
the summary sheet. Also, please show the correct setbacks as required for the lots
mentioned in comment No.4 above as well as the adjusted front setbacks.
Please note that garages are required to be 20' by 20' measured from the interior wall or
drywall and from the interior of the garage door to any barrier (stem wall or pole) greater than
8-inches in height. The floor plans should provide interior dimensions for the garage. While
the floor plans indicate the garages measure 20' x 20', they do not measure 20' x 20'.
Please revise the plans so all garages scale to the 20' x 20' interior dimensions.
Please keep in mind that the specific plan requires 50% of the residences to include
architecture forward. Make sure that when the single story product is introduced into the
plotting, no less than 50% of the lots shall maintain the architectural forward concept.
Please show the roof pitch on the plans. One way to differentiate between the styles is by
varying the roof pitch and design. While there are slight differences in the roof design, staff
feels the variations do not go far enough to clearly distinguish between the styles. Staff
recommends a steeper roof pitch for East Coast Traditional. Spanish and Monterey typically
have similar roof styles. Please see comment NO.6 above. If a different architectural style is
not provided, it is your responsibility to provide creative differences between each plan.
As proposed, the plot plan shows lots 16, 31, and 60 with the side of the garage facing the
street. Since all corner lots are required to maintain two front elevations, staff feels that
these floor plans should be flipped in order to expose the more decorative side elevation.
Staff has reviewed the proposed decks and will not recommend approval as shown. Decks
must appear as a structural component of the residence and be decorative. Please revise all
decks for each plan.
19.
Staff acknowledges that there are strict setbacks and small lots. In order to avoid setback
problems, staff requires that you pre-plot all decks in order to determine what lots can
accommodate a rear yard deck.
The specific plan requires ornamental features including decorative light features combined
with other features to create visual interest in the front of the house with architectural
compatible elements. Please provide spec sheets for the proposed lighting for each
architectural style. Lighting should reflect the architecture of each unit. Please note that
changes in lighting may be approved administratively by staff, if requested.
21.
Please provide specification sheets for the proposed street light fixtures, street name signs
and traffic signs. These will be used throughout the project; therefore, it needs to be
requested by Ashby USA.
22.
Please show an approximate location of the address for each unit and the method of posting
and lighting the address. For example, will the addresses be backlit or be solid metal painted
black. Please specify the type of addressing proposed for each typical residence.
Please plot the location and show a detail of the type of mailboxes proposed. This will also
be used project wide and must be requested by Ashby USA and the U.S. Postmaster.
23.
R:\Product ReviewIRoripaugh Ranch SP\Davidson Communities Tr 29661-2. P AO3-0725\comment letter-l ,doc
3
24.
25.
26.
27.
28.
29.
30.
31.
32.
33.
Plan 1
34.
35.
36.
37.
Please plot the location of all AC units on the plot plan. AC units shall be provided in the rear
yard to allow clear access on the side yards.
.
Fencing should be revised to meet the specific plan standards. See section 2-15 of the
specific plan for fencing standards. I order to maintain a consistent theme within the entire
specific plan, walls and pilasters between residences are to be slump-stone (stucco walls
and pilasters will not be accepted). Also, wrought iron view fencing shall be either dark
green, aged copper or bronze. Staff will accept any color, however you must coordinate with
the merchant builders and Ashby USA to determine what color will be utilized project wide.
Ashby USA will be required to amend the specific plan so it applies project wide.
Chimney designs should be decorative and reflect each style. The same chimney design
should not be used for two different architecture styles.
Elevations should provide a note indicting the room option for all dotted windows and/or
doors.
Typical lighting for each architectural style should be provided. Lighting should be provided
in the front entryway and/or at the garage entry.
Provide examples of door types to be offered. Doors should include glass and stress the
importance as the focal point of the front elevation. Staff also recommends double doors,
arched doors or other alternatives that will stress the entry as a focal point.
Provide a detail of each window border proposed for each architecture style. Where
windows are not recessed, a border shall be provided
.
All front, rear and visible side windows (from the front and rear) should include decorative
borders sills for windows nearest the front and rear elevation and on select side elevations to
show importance.
Please provide a written analysis of each floor plan/architectural style indicating how the plan
meets or establishes the necessary architectural theme.
Please revise the plot plan so all text is facing the same direction. As shown some of the
language is upside down, which makes it difficult to review.
Provide a separate side elevation for all corner lots (Apply to all necessary plans as plotted).
The sides and rear elevations are too similar. Please provide unique details for each style in
order to satisfy the four sided architecture requirement.
The left elevation includes a long uninterrupted wall with no breaks. Please provide
projections or breaks in the wall.
Windows should be either recessed, projected, include borders, shutters or alternative
decorations to enhance each window. Also, in order to carry around the architecture to each
side, arched or round windows, wrought iron details, etc. shall be provided as necessary
(This applies to all plans).
.
RolProduct ReviewIRoripaugh Ranch SP\Davidson Conununities Tr 29661-2, PAO3.()72S\conunent letter-l.doc
4
.
38.
39.
40.
Plan 2
41.
42.
43.
44.
. 45.
Plan 3
46.
47.
48.
The location of the fence should be relocated on the exterior side yard elevation (all plans
plotted on corner lots).
Balconies should be functional where possible. Please consider expanding balconies where
necessary to compliment the style. For example, Monterey styles typically include long
covered balconies that run a significant length of the elevation.
Please provide unique details for each style. Windows, trim, doors, materials are all the
same or too similar. Each style must provide unique details. Please provide a detail sheet
showing typical details for each style, including doors, borders, sills, windows, lighting,
garage doors, etc. (One sheet shall include details for each plan).
The front elevations need to be enhanced with a covered entry or a porch. The entries do
not show importance and shall be enhanced to show importance.
The left elevation includes a long uninterrupted wall with no breaks. Please provide
projections or breaks in the wall.
Windows should be either recessed, projected, include borders, shutters or alternative
decorations to enhance each window.
The sides and rear elevations are too similar. Please revise each provide unique details in
order to satisfy the four sided architecture requirement.
While care must be taken not to make each plan too similar, the balconies should be
addressed as noted in comment No. 38 above.
The right elevation needs to be enhanced to avoid a long uninterrupted wall. As proposed,
there is little interest along this wall.
The chimney design for each style must be different for each style. Please revise as
necessary.
Side and rear elevations are all too similar, please ensure each plan elevation includes
unique features of the style.
Fence Comments:
49.
50.
.
Please remove all references to stucco walls and/or pilasters. While the specific plan
indicates stucco may be used, there has been a consensus among builders to provide
slump stone walls and pilasters. In order to maintain a consistent theme throughout the
specific plan, the plans must be revised to show slump stone.
Please revise the fence plans to show a 6-foot slump stone project wall between units and to
the point of the rear connection to the unit. The plans show a low stucco wall between units.
R:\Product ReviewIRoripaugh Ranch SPlDavidsoo Commuoities Tr 29661-2. PAO3-0725\comment lettet-I ,doc
5
51.
52.
53.
54.
55.
56.
57.
Please revise the plans to show a 6-foot slump stone project wall for lots adjacent to paseos
(lot 1). The plans show a low stucco wall for the length of the paseo.
.
Please revise the fence plans to include a pilaster at the front of the jog in the wall between
units. Also, a break in the wall plane no less than 2 feet is required.
Please revise the view fencing to include the correct color of tubular steel. While the specific
plan allows for dark green, aged copper or bronze, staff wants to ensure there is a
consistent color used throughout the specific plan. Please contact Ashby USA and the
merchant builders to determine the color to be used.
Please provide a note on the plans that all retaining walls will be constructed of slump stone
to match the project walls.
Staff has made a determination that pilasters will not be required on interior lots. Since many
of the lot lines do not align, pilaster will not be required for private fencing on the interior lots
only. Pilasters are still required fort exterior side yards, exposed rear yards and view fencing.
Please pull the fencing back towards the rear of the lot of corner lots. As noted above,
corner lots must include 2 front elevations and the fencing shall be pulled back to expose the
architecture.
Staff feels that connection fence connection for plan 2 should be pulled back behind the
entry (example Lot 20). This will open up the architecture and show the entry, which is
required to be a focal point of the front elevation.
Landscape Comments:
.
Plans are too conceptual to provide an appropriate review. Multiple tree choices are provided for
several plan symbols. There is no indication as to which symbol references each tree and the tree
character may be one of several. Several symbols are used for all shrubs. The list of shrubs varies
greatly in character. Please provide one symbol for each tree and one symbol for each type of
shrub (I.e. large evergreen screen shrubs, small accent, color shrub, etc.). The comments below
are provided for applicant direction. Final comments are reserved until a more complete plan is
provided.
58.
59.
60.
61.
62.
Per the specific plan, the minimum size tree is to be 24" box. Please revise accordingly.
Per the specific plan, one street tree along with one front yard tree shall be planted per lot.
Please add trees as required and revise note accordingly.
Per the specific plan, ground cover shall be planted continuous under all shrubs and trees.
Please provide ground covers as required.
Per the specific plan all shrub beds shall be covered with a 2" layer of 1 "-3" walk on bark.
Please provide for this requirement.
Please clarify that all hardscape within the front yard is to be colored concrete, paving
stones, flag stone or a combination of various textures, shapes and materials.
.
RIProduct ReviewIRoripaugh Ranch SPlDavidsun Communities Tr 29661-2, PAO3,O725\comment letter-l,doc
6
.
.
.
63.
Side yards outside of the fence have the potential to be forgotten and neglected. Please
provide drought tolerant, maintenance free plantings that will survive if irrigation is turned off
and plantings are neglected.
64.
Crape Myrtle is subject to powdery mildew in the T emecula area. Please specify mildew
resistant varieties (i.e. Indian Tribe, Faurei).
65.
Melaleuca quinquenervia, Tristania conferta, Metrosideros excelsus, and Bougainvillea are
subject to freeze in the Temecula area. Please provide substitutes.
66.
Please use Liriope in shaded areas only. It is subject to burn in seasonal high temperatures
in the Temecula area.
67.
The applicant is to insure that mature plantings will not interfere with utilities and traffic sight
lines.
It is critical that you review the design guidelines in the specific plan before you revise the plans. The
design guidelines includes language that requires window treatment, focal entries, unique details,
windows, materials and features for each style, four-sided architecture, single story products, etc. If
you have any questions regarding the specific plan and/or design guidelines, please feel free to
contact me.
Staff understands there are many comments to be addressed, however staff feels that the
groundwork has been established for a viable project. If you have any questions regarding the
above comments, please feel free to contact me at any time via email at
dan.long@cityoftemecula.org or by phone at (909) 964-6400 extension 198. I look forward to
working with you as this project progresses forward.
Sincerely,
Dan Long
Associate Planner
R:\Product Review\Roripaugh Ranch SP\Davidson Conunnnities Tr 29661-2, PAO3-0725\conunent letter,1.doc
7
.
.
.
ATTACHMENT NO.5
RESPONSE LETTER FROM APPLICANT DATED JANUARY 29, 2004
R,lProduct ReviewIRoripaugh Ranch SPlDavidson Communities Tr 29661-2, PAO3,O725\STAFF REPORT-I ,doc
11
DAVIDSON
!¡l]OOl
01/~0/2004 11: 58 FAX 8582594644
.
\ DAVIDSON
COMMUNITIES
\ '302CAl-llNODu.M^"
DeL MAl<, CAufo""'" 9101'
,"'¡"..". fM{""2!W64<
_w.........~"",,=.,,=m
------------------
~---- ,
January 29, 2004
Post-it" Fax Note 7611
To VfIr-J LoNe.,
. CoJDept. PL AJ/IIINC:::>
Mr. Dan Long
Associate Planner
City of Temecula
43200 Business Park Drive
Temecula, California 92589-9033
,',
,
F"".
- ,/i/-//171
Subject: Planning Application P A03-0725 for the product review of the new single
family homes proposed for the Roripaugh Ranch Specific Plan. Planning
Area 2
Dear Mr. Long:
Davidson Project Services, Inc. has reviewed your letter as received on January 21", 2004
and subsequently met with you to further our understanding of each item. Our response
is as follows:
1.
.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
.
As per OUT discussion at our meeting on January 22nd, Davidson believes that
the market is saturated with one-story homes. Ofthe 509 homes projected
for the panhandle over 20% will be one story. We respectfully are proceeding
with three two story homes.
We will submit a "light to medium" sand fmish stucco sample as discussed.
Okay.
Resolved.
Okay.
Davidson will show clear differences in each style including materials, colors,
and overall design.
Okay.
Davidson is adding additional articulation of our existing material pallet.
Okay.
Davidson feels that all the articulation that has gone into the plans will avail
any elevation to show well plotted on the corners, Further, the market wants
privacy in their yards, particularly their courtyards where they can enjoy
serenity at the end of a long day or play with the children on the weekend.
DAVIDSON
141002
01/'0/2004 11: 58 FAX 8582594644
11.
12.
D.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
We feel that we meet the requirements of the specific plan and meet the
demands of the market.
.
Okay.
Okay.
Okay.
All garages measure at least 20 x 20 (interior dimensions).
100% of OUI Architecture is "Architecture Forward". One of our plans
displays a deep-set garage with a porte cachere.
Okay.
Okay
Okay
19.
We will pre-plot all optional decks.
20.
Okay
.
21.
We have requested specification sheets for streetlights, street naroeS and
traffic signs from Ashby USA.
22.
Okay
23.
Davidson will plot the mailbox locations and have them approved by the U.S.
POstmastCT. Further we will request the detail of the proposed mailbox design
from AshbyUSA.
24.
Okay
Okay
25.
26.
Okay
27.
Okay
28.
Okay
29.
Okay
30,
We will provide on the 2nd floor as we discussed at the meeting on the 22nd.
.
n~v~H~U-
"'uu,u- .-. .-. ...,
01/30/2004 11: 59 FAX 8582594644
DAVIDSON
~---
------
.
31.
An windows, all four elevations have trim to match appropriate style. Accent
trim was introduced where appropriate.
32.
Okay
33.
Our EngiDeer wjlJ do the best they can.
Plan 1
1. Please see response nwnber 10.
2. Okay
3. Okay
4. Okay
s. Please see response Ilwnber 10.
.
6. We have a functional 8 x 6 balcony over the garage.
7. Okay
Plan 2
1. Per our meeting we pointed out that this plan has a covered porch.
2. Okay
3. Okay
4. Okay
s. The optional deck;s at the rear of this plan; the Romeo & Juliet balcony;s
purely an aesthetic feature.
Plan 3
1. Okay
2. Okay
.
3. The Toofwas completely redesigned.
I4J 003
-----,--,--------- ---,------- -~-
Ol/?9/2004 11: 59 FAX 8582594644
DAVIDSON
~004
.
Fence Comments:
1. Okay
2, Okay
3. Okay
4. Okay
5. Okay
6. Okay
7. Okay
8. Please refer to item 10.
9. Please refer to item 10
Landscape Comroents:
.
First Paragraph: Okay
1. As per OUT discussion at our meeting, Davidson meets and exceeds the
requirements.
2. As per O\lr discllSsion at om meeting, Davidsoll meets and exceeds the
requirements.
All remaining items: Okay
Our consultants are in the process of complying with staffs comments as noted in
this correspondence. The addressed comments will be in your office on February 6111
for your review.
As you know, om concern is to get the project ~PToved. We would verym\lch
appreciate being calendared for the February 18 Planning Commission Hearing.
Certainly anything Staff can do would be most appreciated.
Sincerely,
.
DAVIDSON COMMUNITIES LETTER
DATED MAY 11, 2004
R:\Product ReviewlRoripaugh Ranch SPIDavidson Communities Tr 29661-2, PA03.()725\pc sr memo 5-19-04,doc
6
RECEIVED'
"n HU4
¿'4U~M; --U"" ur 'C..,_u_-~, --'-. .00-
05/11/2004 15: 28
8582594644
DAVIDSON COMMUNITIES
.
,',
,
.
.
¡DAVIDSON
COMMUNITIES
I '¡¡O:¡CAMIr«.,"".MAR
D.LMAR,CALlfORNIA",'"
(1!S81"""500 PNe,,",""""
_w"'vi"'~,o~"""""o..
May 11, 2004
Mr. Dan Long
City ofTemecula
43200 ,Business Park Drive
Temecula, California 92589-9033
Re: Planning Application P A03-0725, Plauning Area 2
Dear Mr. Long:
Davidson Project Services has taken into consideration the recommendations the
Planning Commission suggested at the April21"t hearing. The following
suggestions were made:
I, The site plan plotting was changed on the homes backing onto
MuriettaHot Springs Road, Lot 68 became a lA, Lot 60 a 3B,
Lot 73 a I CR, and Lot 74 a 3B. This rear street scene massing study is
shown in the submittal package.
2. The Monterey style homes now have "low profile" roof tile in a lighter
color tone, while the Spanish style has the "S" roof tile in a
darker color tone.
3. We have enhanced alJ the comer elevations where the Plan 3 occurs on
lots 16, 100,60,41, and 82 with trim.
4. We have enhanced all the comer elevations where the Plan I occurs on
lots 32, 81, 50, and 59. Added window towards front at office as well as
trim.
5. We have enhanced the comer elevation on lot 31 where the 2 plan
occurs. Added window at 2nd floor/master bedroom as well as trim.
6. The site plan, tl1e matrix, the color schemes, as well as the landscape
plan have been changed to couelate with all the plotting and roof color
changes.
7. The garage door styles were changed; the East Coast Traditional now
has a standard garage door with windows. Two optional upgrades are
also shown in the submittal package. One, a barn style with windows;
another without.
8. The entry door styles were changed, the Spanish Revival now has two
glass panes at the top, and the others are solid. Three optional upgrades
are also shown in the submittal package.
9. The plotting exhibit now illustrates the lower roofby the color cross-
hatching.
PAGE 02/03
RECEIVED'
5/11/04
2'4Ut-'M; -~v"" ur ,~.,~~~~~, "~'~, ,~-- -
05/11/2004 15: 28
8582594644
DAVIDSON COMMUNITIES
PAGE 03/03
10. The fun-page roofplans also i(l the submittal package now illustrates the
lower roofby shading,
This summarizes our endeavor to fulfill the recommendations of the Pla(lnil1g
Commission. We are hopeful for an approval at the next hearing on May 19,
2004,
Sincerely,
Davidson Roripaugh Ranch 122 LLC
a California limited liability company
By: Davidson Project Services, Inc.
a California corporation
Manager
~~~
Paula Lombardi
Vice President
.
.
.
ITEM #4
.
.
.
CITY OF TEMECULA
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
Planning Commissioners
Dan Long, Associate Planner
DATE:
May 19, 2004
SUBJECT:
Meeker Companies (PA03-0634), Roripaugh Ranch Specific Plan, Planning
Area 4B
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve subject to the attached conditions of approval.
BACKGROUND:
The Planning Commission reviewed the proposed project on April 21, 2004 and approved a
motion to continue the project to the May 19, 2004 Planning Commission hearing.
Staff has reviewed the revised plans and has determined that while the revised plans have
addressed some of the concerns of the Planning Commission, there remain a number of
outstanding issues that have not been addressed,
Staff has reviewed the revised plans and has determined that the revised plans have addressed
some of the concerns of the Planning Commission. However, staff does have some additional
recommendations as summarized below, which have been included in the conditions of
approval. The recommended enhancements are a result of comments from the Planning
Commission hearing of April 21, 2004. A Resolution of Approval has been attached for your
consideration, The staff report packet from the previous meeting (April 21, 2004) are also
attached for your reference.
At their meeting on April 21, 2004 the Commission recommended the following revisions:
. Revise Plan 2 to avoid an outdated appearance
. Enhance the sides and rears of all plans
. Provide additional variation of the garage placement and garage door style for each plan
. Provide additional windows
. Variation in the roof material and design
Staff had also provided a list of outstanding development standards, which required revisions,
such as setbacks and fencing. The applicant has revised the plot plan to address the setbacks
R\Product ReviewIRoripaugh Ranch SPIMeeker Co, Tr 29661-5, PAO3-0634\PC SR memo 5-19-04,doc
1
as requested by staff and the Planning Commission. Staff has found various inconsistencies in
the fence plan, however conditions of approval have been included in order to bring the project
into conformance with the Specific Plan.
.
In reviewing the revised elevations, staff has noted the following enhancements proposed by the
applicant:
. The front elevation of each architectural style of plan two has been revised to break up the
wall plane above the garage;
. The left elevation of plan two has been revised to include one additional window on the
second floor and the right elevation has been revised to include 2 windows on the second floor;
. The left elevation of plan three has been revised to include one additional window on the first
floor and one additional window on the second floor. Three additional windows have been
proposed on the second floor of the right elevation;
. The left elevation of plan four has been revised to include one additional window on the
second floor and one additional window on the second floor of the rear elevation;
The applicant has proposed minor revisions to plan two, three and four as well as revisions to
the plot plan. Staff has determined that the revisions to the plot meet the development
standards as set forth in the Specific Plan. However, staff feels the proposed architectural
revisions are not adequate nor are they inclusive of all the recommendations by the Planning
Commission. The Specific Plan states "Articulation shall be provided on all sides of the homes
("Four-sided Architecture")." While windows have been proposed to break up large expanses of
wall, staff feels the plans do not provide sufficient articulation in order to meet the intent of the
Design Guidelines. In addition, the Design Guidelines state "Two story homes shall be modified
to be compatible with placement on corner lots. The modification shall create two front
elevations." Staff does not fee,1 the side elevations appear as second front elevations.
The following issues identified by staff and Commission as items of concern have not been
addressed:
.
. Additional variation of the garage placement and garage door style for each plan has not been
proposed
. The appearance of two front elevations has not been proposed and
. The roof design/silhouettes do not offer a significant level of variation within each plan
Summary:
As mentioned previously, staff has added conditions of approval to ensure these changes are
made, which would bring each product into conformance with the intent of the Design
Guidelines of the Roripaugh Ranch Specific Plan. Staff recommends the Planning Commission
approve the project with the attached conditions of approval.
.
R:\Product ReviewIRoripaugh Ranch SPIMeeker Co, Tr 29661-5, PAO3-0634\PC SR memo 5-19-04,doc
2
.
.
.
ATTACHMENTS
1,
Plan Reductions - Blue Page 4
2.
PC Resolution No. 2004-- - Blue Page 5
Exhibit A - Conditions of Approval
3.
April 21, 2004 Planning Commission Staff Report - Blue Page 6
Letter from Applicant, dated April 30, 2004 - Blue Page 7
4,
R\Product ReviewlRoripaugh Ranch SPlMeeker Co, Tr 29661-5. PAO3-0634IPC SR memo 5-19-04,doc
3
ATTACHMENT NO.1
PLAN REDUCTIONS
(Separate Attachment)
R:\Product ReviewIRoripaugh Ranch SPIMeeker Co, Tr 29661.5, PAO3-0634\PC SR memo 5-19-04.doc
4
ATTACHMENT NO.2
PC RESOLUTION 2004--
R:\Product ReviewlRoripaugh Ranch SPlMeeker Co. Tr 29661-5, PAO3-0634\PC SR memo 5-19-04.doc
5
.
PC RESOLUTION NO. 2004--
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION
NO. PAO3-0634 A PRODUCT REVIEW FOR 113 DETACHED
SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCES WITHIN PLANNING AREA 48
OF THE RORIPAUGH RANCH SPECIFIC PLAN LOCATED
SOUTH OF MURRIETA HOT SPRINGS ROAD, KNOWN AS
TRACT MAP 29661-5.
WHEREAS, Meeker Companies, filed Planning Application No.PA03-0634, in
accordance with the City of Temecula General Plan and Development Code;
WHEREAS, Planning Application No. PA03-0634 was processed including, but not
limited to public notice, in the time and manner prescribed by State and local law;
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission considered Planning Application No. PA03-0634
on April 21, 2004 and May 19, 2004 at duly noticed public hearings as prescribed by law, at
which time the City staff and interested persons had an opportunity to and did testify either in
support or in opposition to this matter;
WHEREAS, at the conclusion of the Commission hearing and after due consideration of
the testimony, the Commission approved Planning Application No. PA03-0634;
.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA
DOES RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. That the above recitations are true and correct and are hereby
incorporated by reference.
Section,.2. Findinas. The Planning Commission, in approving Planning Application
No. PA03-0634 hereby makes the following findings as required by Section 17.05.010.F of the
Temecula Municipal Code:
A. The proposed use is in conformance with the General Plan for Temecula and
with all applicable requirements of state law and other ordinances of the city.
The proposed single-family homes are permitted in the Low Medium Density land use
designation standards contained in the Roripaugh Ranch Specific Plan and the City's
Development Code. The project is also consistent with the Low Medium land use
designation contained in the General Plan. The site is properly pianned and zoned, and
as conditioned, is physically suitable for the type and density of the residential
development proposed. The project, as conditioned, is also consistent with other
applicable requirements of State law and local ordinances, inciuding the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the City Wide Design Guidelines, and fire and
building codes.
.
B. The overall development of the land is designed for the protection of the public
health, safety, and general welfare.
The overall design of the single-family homes, including the site, building, parking,
circulation and other associated site improvements, is consistent with, and intended to
R:\Product ReviewlRoripaugh Ranch SPIMeeker Co, Tr 29661-5, PA03-0634\Draft Resolution w CofA-5-19-04,doc
1
protect the health and safety of those working in and around the site. The project has
been reviewed for, and as conditioned, has been found to be consistent with all
applicable policies, guidelines, standards and regulations intended to ensure that the
development wili be constructed and function in a manner consistent with the public
health, safety and welfare.
Section 3. Environmental Compliance. A Notice of Exemption for Planning
Application No. PA03-0634 was rnade per the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines
Section 15162. This section applies when an Environrnental Irnpact Report (EIR) has been
certified and there are not substantial changes not discussed or examined in the EIR.
.
Section 4. Conditions. That the City of Temecula Planning Commission hereby
conditionally approves Planning Application No. PA03-0634 for a Product Review for detached
single family residences within Planning Area 4B of the Roripaugh Ranch Specific Plan located
south of Murrieta Hot Springs Road and west of the future extension of Butterfield Stage Road,
Tract Map 29661-5. The Conditions of Approval are contained in Exhibit A.
Section 5. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the City of Temecula
Planning Commission this 19th day of May 2004.
John Telesio, Chairperson
ATTEST:
Debbie Ubnoske, Secretary
.
{SEAL}
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE
CITY OF TEMECULA
)
) ss
)
I, Debbie Ubnoske, Secretary of the Temecula Planning Commission, do hereby certify
that PC Resolution No. 2004-- was duly and regularly adopted by the Planning Commission
of the City of Temecula at a regular meeting thereof held on the 19th day of May 2004, by the
following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
Debbie Ubnoske, Secretary
.
R:\Product ReviewIRoripaugh Ranch SPIMeeker Co. Tr 29661-5, PA03-O634\Draft Resolution w CofA-5-19-04.doc
2
EXHIBIT A
DRAFT CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
R:\Produci ReviewlRoripaugh Ranch SPlMeeker Co. Tr 29661-5, PA03-Q634\Draft Resolution w CofA-5-19-04.doc
3
.
.
.
EXHIBIT A
CITY OF TEMECULA
DRAFT CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
Planning Application No. PA03-0634
Project Description:
A Product Review for 113 detached single family
residences within Planning Area 4B of the Roripaugh
Ranch Specific Plan located south of Murrieta Hot
Springs Road and west of the future extension of
Butterfield Stage Road, Tract Map 29661-5.
29661-5
Tentative Tract No.:
DIF Category:
Per Developrnent Agreement
Approval Date:
May 19, 2004
May 19, 2006
Expiration Date:
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
Within Forty-Eight (48) Hours of the Approval of this Project
1.
The applicant shall deliver to the Planning Department a cashier's check or money order
made payable to the County Clerk in the amount of Sixty-Four Dollars ($64.00) for the
County administrative fee, to enable the City to file the Notice of Exemption as provided
under Public Resources Code Section 21108(b) and California Code of Regulations
Section 15062. If within said forty-eight (48) hour period the applicant has not delivered
to the Planning Department the check as required above, the approval for the project
granted shall be void by reason of failure of condition (Fish and Game Code Section
711.4(c).
General Requirements
2.
The permittee/applicant shall indemnify, protect and hold harmless, the City and any
agency or instrumentality thereof, and/or any of its officers, employees, and agents from
any and all claims, actions, or proceedings against the City, or any agency or
instrumentality thereof, or any of its officers, employees, and agents, to attack, set aside,
void, annul, or seek monetary damages resulting from an approval of the City, or any
agency or instrumentality thereof, advisory agency, appeal board or legislative body
including actions approved by the voters of the City, concerning the Planning Application
which action is brought within the appropriate statute of limitations period and Public
Resources Code, Division 13, Chapter 4 (Section 21000 et seq., including but not by the
way of limitations Section 21152 and 21167). The City shall promptly notify the
permittee/applicant of any claim, action, or proceeding brought forth within this time
period.
R:\Product ReviewlRoripaugh Ranch SPIMeeker Co. Tr 29661-5, PAOJ.{)634\Dratl Resolution w CofA-5-19-G4.doc
4
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
The City shall estimate the cost of the defense of the action and applicant shall deposit
said amount with the City. City may require additional deposits to cover anticipated
costs. City shall refund, without interest, any unused portions of the deposit once the
litigation is finally concluded. Should the City fail to either promptly notify or cooperate
fully, permittee/applicant shall not, thereafter be responsible to indemnify, defend,
protect, or hold harmless the City, any agency or instrumentality thereof, or any of its
officers, employees, or agents. Should the applicant fail to timely post the required
deposit, the Director may terminate the land use approval without further notice to the
applicant.
This approval shall be used within two (2) years of the approval date; otherwise, it shall
become null and void. By use is meant the beginning of substantial construction
contemplated by this approval within the two (2) year period which is thereafter diligently
pursued to completion or the beginning of substantial utilization contemplated by this
approval.
.
Building elevations shall substantially conform to the approved Exhibits, including
elevations, floor plans, landscaping plans, hardscape plans, and plotting plan, contained
on file with the Planning Department or as amended by these Conditions of Approval.
The colors and materials for this project shall substantially conform to the approved
colors and materials contained on file with the Planning Department. Any deviation from
the approved colors and materials shall require approval of the Director of Planning.
This approval is for product review only and shall in no way limit the city or other
regulatory or service agencies from applying additional requirements and/or conditions
consistent with applicable policies and standards upon the review of grading, building
and other necessary permits and approvals for the project.
.
The Development Code requires double garages to maintain a minimum clear interior
dimension of 20' x 20'. This shall be clearly indicated on the plans prior to the issuance
of building perrnits for the project. Interior dimensions are measured from the inside of
garage wall to the opposite wall, steps, landing, equipment pedestals, bollards or any
similar type feature. When the top of the stem wall is rnore than 8" above the garage
floor, the required dimension is measured from the inside edge of the stem wall.
Applicant shall obtain the proper permits before construction, including Encroachment
Permit from the Public Works Department for any work done in the City right-of-way, and
Building Permit frorn the Building and Safety Department.
Fire Hydrants shall be installed prior to the start of any construction at the site.
10.
Driveway widths shall comply with the driveway width requirements per City Standards.
In order to allow for adequate street parking, the driveway widths at curbs will be limited
to 24' maximum.
11.
12.
All lots shall be built in accordance with the plans labeled as enhanced elevations.
The applicant shall submit typical lighting fixtures for each architectural style. Lighting
fixtures shall resemble the architectural style.
.
R:\Product Review\Roripaugh Ranch SPIMeeker Co, Tr 29661-5, PA03-0634\Draft Resolution w CofA-5-19-04.doc
5
13.
.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
. 21.
22.
.
All Spanish Revival products shall utilize a smooth to light texture stucco finish (20/30
aggregate or smoother) as determined acceptable by the Planning Director. East Coast
Traditional and Praire styles shall utilize a light-medium (16/20 aggregate) finish.
All Spanish Revival styles shall include a Barrel tile clay roof.
One style of each plan shall provide a roof plan/silhouette that is clearly different than
the other styles in order to provide variation along the front and rear street scene as
approved by the Planning Director.
All materials such as stone, brick and siding shall wrap around the side yard to the fence
return or as determined acceptable by the Planning Director.
Fencing on corner lots shall be pulled back towards the rear on exterior corner lots to
open up the exposed elevation to the street as determined acceptable by the Planning
Director.
Fencing between units (on interior side yards and rear yards, but excluding view fencing)
where not visible from the street shall be wood fence as shown in figure 2-15 (privacy
fencing) or as approved by the Planning Director.
Returns for fencing shall be constructed of slumpstone block.
Stucco walls are not permitted. Siumpstone walls shall be provided where solid block
walls are proposed.
For front yard landscaping, shrub sizes shall be 50% 1 gallon and 50% 5 gallon per the
specific plan. Minimum sizes for front yard trees and street trees shall be 24" box
(second front yards tree may be smaller as approved by the Planning Director).
Side yards outside of the fence shall be planted with drought tolerant, maintenance free
plantings, subject to the approval of the Planning Director. Azalea is not considered a
drought tolerant and shall not be used.
Prior to the Issuance of Grading Permits
23.
The applicant shall submit a Grading Plan, subject to the review and approval of the
Planning Department.
The applicant shall sign both copies of the final conditions of approval that will be
provided by the Planning Department staff, and return one signed set to the Planning
Department for their files.
24.
25.
The applicant shall submit, to the Planning Department for permanent filing, two (2) 8" X
10" glossy photographic color prints of the Color and Materials Boards and of the colored
version of the approved colored architectural elevations to the Planning Department for
their files. All labels on the Color and Materials Board and Elevations shall be readable
on the photographic prints.
A street tree master plan indicating what tree species will be planted on each street shall
be submitted. The plan should graphically show the locations of all trees. One tree
species per street shall be provided.
26.
R:\Product ReviewIRoripaugh Ranch SPIMeeker Co. Tr 29661-5, PA03-0634\Draft Resolution w CofA-5-19-04.doc
6
Prior to the Issuance of Building Permits
27.
28.
29.
30.
31.
32.
33.
34.
35.
36.
The applicant shall comply with standards conditions and requirements set forth in the
Roripaugh Ranch Specific Plan, Mitigation Monitoring Program, conditions of approval
for Tract Map 29353 (PA01-0230, A-Map), Tract Map 29661(PA01-0253, B-Map), and
Ordinance No. 02-14, the Development Agreement between the City of Temecula and
Ashby USA, LLC for the Roripaugh Ranch Specific Plan, including, but not limited to
attachment "5", which requires various on and off-site improvements.
.
The applicant shall submit street lighting and signage plans to the Planning Director for
final approval. Street lighting shall comply with the Specific Plan, Riverside County Mt.
Palomar Lighting Ordinance, and the mitigation-monitoring prograrn. Said lighting shall
comply with the standards as set forth in the Mitigated Monitoring Program and install
hoods or shields to prevent either spillage of lumens or reflections into the sky (lights
must be downward facing).
The applicant shall submit mailbox elevations and a plot plan clearly indicating the
location of each rnailbox area. Mailbox type and location shall be subject to the approval
of the Postmaster and Planning Director.
Prior to issuance of any residential building permit within Planning Area 4A, the
construction landscape and architectural plans for Paseos (including hardscaping,
landscaping, fencing, lights and gates), Paseo gates Staff Gated Primary Entry, Card
Key Entry, fuel modification zones shall be submitted and approved
Prior to construction of the Model Home complex, the applicant shall apply for a Model
Home complex permit.
.
Performance securities, in amounts to be determined by the Director of Planning, to
guarantee the maintenance of the plantings within private common areas for a period of
one year, in accordance with the approved construction landscape and irrigation plan
shall be filed with the Planning Department for one year from the completion of the
landscaping. After that year, if the landscaping and irrigation system have been
maintained in a condition satisfactory to the Director of Planning, the bond shall be
released.
Precise Grading Plans consistent with the approved rough grading plans, plotting plan,
structural setback rneasurements shall be submitted and approved.
The developer shall demonstrate to the Planning Director that all homes will have double
paned windows with at least a 25 STC rating installed to reduce noise from occasional
aircraft over flights.
The developer shall provide proof that construction debris, including but not lirnited to
lumber, asphalt, concrete, sand, paper and metal is recycled through the City's solid
waste hauler, subject to the approval of the Community Services Department.
All design components shall comply with applicable provisions of the 1998 edition of the
California Building, Plurnbing, Mechanical and Fire Codes; 1998 National Electrical
Code; California Administrative Code, Title 24 Energy and Disabled Access Regulations
and the Temecula Municipal Code.
.
R:\Product ReviewlRoripaugh Ranch SPIMeeker Co. Tr 29661-5, PA03-0634\Draft Resolution w CofA-5-19-04,doc
7
37.
.
38.
39.
40.
41.
42.
43.
.
.
Obtain all building plans and permit approvals prior to commencement of any
construction work.
A pre-construction meeting is required with the building inspector prior to
commencement of any construction or inspections.
Provide appropriate stamp of a registered professional with original signature on plans
and structural calculations submitted for plan review.
Provide electrical plan including load calculations and panel schedule for plan review.
Schematic plumbing plans, electrical plan and load calculations, along with mechanical
equipment and ducting plans shall be submitted for plan review stamped and original
signed by an appropriate registered professional.
Obtain street addresses from the Building Official prior to submittal of plans for plan
review.
Signage shall be posted conspicuously at the entrance to the project that indicates the
hours of construction, shown below, as allowed by City of Temecula Ordinance No. 94-
21, specifically Section G (1) of Riverside county Ordinance No. 457.73, for any site
within one-quarter mile of an occupied residence.
Monday-Friday: 6:30 a.m. - 6:30 p.m.
Saturday: 7:00 a.m. - 6:30 p.m.
No work is permitted on Sunday or Government Holidays
Prior to the Issuance of Occupancy Permits
44.
All required landscape planting and irrigation shall have been installed consistent with
the approved construction plans and shall be in a condition acceptable to the Director of
Planning. The plants shall be healthy and free of weeds, disease, or pests. The
irrigation system shall be properly constructed and in good working order.
Performance securities, in amounts to be determined by the Director of Planning, to
guarantee the maintenance of the plantings, in accordance with the approved
construction landscape and irrigation plan shall be filed with the Planning Department for
one year from final certificate of occupancy. After that year, if the landscaping and
irrigation system have been maintained in a condition satisfactory to the Director of
Planning, the applicant shall release the bond upon request.
45.
46.
If deemed necessary by the Director of Planning, the applicant shall provide additional
landscaping to effectively screen various components of the project.
Front yard and slope landscaping, hardscaping and fencing within individual lots shall be
completed for inspection prior to issuance of each occupancy permit (excluding model
home cornplex structures).
47.
48.
The developer shall submit proof that all local refuse generators have been provided
with written information about opportunities for recycling and waste reduction (Le.
buyback centers, curbside availability), subject to the approval of the Public Works and
Community Services Departments.
R:\Product ReviewlRoripaugh Ranch SPIMeeker Co. Tr 29661-5. PAO3-0634\Draft Resolution w CofA-5-19-04.doc
8
49.
All of the foregoing conditions shall be complied with prior to occupancy or any use
allowed by this permit.
By placing my signature below, I confirm that I have read, understand and accept all the above
Conditions of Approval. I further understand that the property shall be maintained in
conformance with these conditions of approval and that any changes I may wish to make to the
project shall be subject to Planning Commission approval.
Applicant's Signature
Date
Applicant's Name Printed
R:\Product RevieWIRoripaugh Ranch SPIMeeker Co, Tr 29661-5, PA03-Q634\Draft Resolution w CofA-5-19-04,doc
9
.
.
.
ATTACHMENT NO.3
APRIL 21,2004 PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
R:\Producl ReviewIRortpaugh Ranch SPIMeeker Co. Tr 29661-5, PAO3-0634\PC SR memo 5-19-04.doc
6
.
.
.
Date of Meeting:
Prepared by:
Dan Long
File Number
PA03-0634
Project Description:
Recommendation:
STAFF REPORT - PLANNING
CITY OF TEMECULA
PLANNING COMMISSION
Apri121,2004
Title: Associate Planner
Application Type:
Product Review
Planning Application No. PA03-0634, submitted by Meeker Companies.
is a product review for 113 detached single-family residences within
Planning Area 4B in the Roripaugh Ranch Specific Plan, located south
of Murrieta Hot Springs Road and west of the future extension of
Butterfield Stage Road (Tract 29661-5).
Plan 1, one-story 2,346 square feet (19 units)
Spanish Revival (8 units)
Prairie (5 units)
East Coast Traditional (6 units)
Plan 2, two-story 2,589 square feet (22 units)
Spanish Revival (7 units)
Prairie (6 units)
East Coast Traditional (9 units)
Plan 3, two-story 2,715 square feet (31 units)
Spanish Revival (10 units)
Prairie (9 units)
East Coast Traditional (12 units)
Plan 4, two-story 2,915 square feet (41 units)
Spanish Revival (13 units)
Prairie (15 units)
East Coast Traditional (13 units)
0 Approve with Conditions
0 Deny
~ Continue for Redesign
0 Continue to:
0 Recommend Approval with Conditions
0 Recommend Denial
R:\Product ReviewIRoripaugh Ranch SPIMeeker Co, Tr 29661-5, P AO3-0634\ST AFF REPORT -I,do<:
1
CECA:
[8J Categorically Exempt
0 Negative Declaration
(Class)
15161
.
0 Mitigated Negative Declaration with Monitoring
DEIR
PROJECT DATA SUMMARY
Applicant:
George Zeber, Meeker Companies
Completion Date:
March 15, 2004
Mandatory Action Deadline Date:
June 15, 2004
General Designation:
Low Medium Residential (LM)
Low Medium Residential (LM)
'Zoning Designation:
Site/Surrounding Land Use:
Site:
Vacant
North:
South:
East:
West:
Single-Family Residential (Riverside County)
Very Low Density Residential (VL)
Vacant
Vacant
.
Lot Area:
5,000 square foot minimum (range: 5,250 sq. ft. -15,678 sq. ft.)
Total Floor Area/Ratio
N/A
Landscape Area/Coverage
N/A
Parking Required/Provided
2 covered enclosed spaces (20' x 20')
BACKGROUND SUMMARY
[8J 1.
Staff has worked with the applicant to ensure that all concerns have been addressed;
however, the following issues have not been resolved to the satisfaction to staff.
The project does not meet the intent of the Design Guidelines, however the applicant's
representative insisted that the project be brought before the Planning Commission for a
public hearing. The following is a list of features that have not been provided as required
in the Design Guidelines and/or development standards of the Specific Plan:
. Four sided architecture;
. Detail and/or variation between each style;
. Two front elevations on corner lots;
.
R:\ProductReviewlRoripaugh Ranch SPlMeeker Co, Tr 29661-5, PAO3-0634\STAFF REPORT-l.dDc
2
.
.
.
. Minimum setback standards (inconsistent dimensions);
. Variation in the placement of garages has not been provided;
. Stucco finish is not consistent with the Design Guidelines;
. Fencing at exposed corners is not consistent with the development standards, and
. Silhouettes/roof do not provide significant variation.
Staff feels that the plans are overall too monotonous and some walls appear as blank
surfaces with little articulation.
ANALYSIS
The applicant has proposed four (4) floor plans and three (3) architectural styles. The applicant
has chosen the option of Design Group E (pg. 4-97) from the Specific Plan, which allows the use
of one style from the design groups A-D (Attachment 4). Staff has reviewed the proposed project
and has design related issues that shall be addressed as well as development standards that do
not meet the minimum standards in the Specific Plan.
The applicant has not provided consistent plans showing that the products meet all of the
development standards, primarily setbacks. As indicated in staff's letter dated January 19, 2004,
staff requested the applicant revised the plot plan to show all setbacks from the same property
line. The applicant uses two different lines to show setbacks. Staff cannot adequately review
plans that do not show the correct setback. However, staff took the initiative to identify the
following lots that do not meet the minimum setbacks:
The required interior side yard setbacks are 5 feet. Lots 108, 47, 73, 22, 26, 91 and 87 do not
meet this minimum standard. Lot 23 does not meet the minimum front living space setback of 10
feet or the garage setback of 18 feet (9'-8" and 17'-7" proposed), In addition, lots 27, 28, 29, 30,
31 and 32 do not meet the minimum 25-foot setback along Planning Area 7. Staff would like to
receive direction from the Planning Commission regarding the rear yard setbacks along Planning
Area 7, The Specific Plan requires a 25-foot setback for lots abutting Planning Area 7 along the
southern property line. The above lots abut Planning Area 7; however they do not abut the
existing residences to the south. Staff feels the intent of this setback standard was to provide
additional buffering to the existing residences to the south. Also, the Specific Plan allows for a
reduction of 3 feet in the front setback for lots abutting Murrieta Hot Springs Road. Lot 23
qualifies for this exception, however staff feels the garage setback shall be no less than 18 feet
in order to allow a vehicle to park in the driveway without encroaching into the right-of-way.
Staff feels the plans do not meet the four sided architecture standard in the Design Guidelines.
Staff has determined that in order to satisfy this requirement, the architectural style shall be
identifiable by looking at any side of the residence, Staff feels there are many blank walls with
little articulation to define the architectural style. With little articulation on the rears and sides,
staff cannot determine that there are two front elevations on corner lots. For example, the sides
and rears of Plan 1 are nearly identical with the exception of Spanish Revival, which includes a
decorative detail at the top of the gable of the rear elevation. Staff understands that it is difficult
to meet this requirement for a single story unit; however, the other plans have the same
deficiencies. The applicant has proposed a standard elevation and an enhanced elevation,
however it is not clear which lots are enhanced and which are not. While the enhanced
elevations are a step in the right direction in meeting the four sided requirement, staff still feels
the plans are not to the level that meet the intent of the Design Guidelines. As an example, the
enhanced elevations for Plan 2 include large blank walls with few windows and/or treatment.
R:\Product ReviewIRoripaug/> Ranch SPlMeekerCo, Tr29661-5, PA03-0634\STAFF REPORT-l.doc
3
Staff feels the applicant has relied on window trim to distinguish the styles as opposed to
materials and forms. The applicant has proposed a variation in the window styles, however they
are not consistent. Spanish Revival is proposing multi-paned windows; however on the
enhanced elevations for Plan 4, many of the second story windows are not multi-paned. While
staff has identified some of the architectural inconsistencies, all of the plans maintain short
comings that do not meet the Design Guidelines.
.
Staff recommended that the applicant provide rear decks that appear as structural components
of the residence as opposed to plant-on wood decks. While staff agrees that the East Coast
Traditional warrants a wood type deck, staff feels that if wood decks are proposed, they shall be
thick over-sized beams with articulation to portray a quality design. As proposed, the rear decks
for Prairie and East Coast Traditional appear as flimsy attachments as opposed to structural
components of the house.
The Design Guidelines require a variation in garage placement to be incorporated into the
overall design of the homes. As proposed, the applicant has not provided a significant variation
in the placement of the garage. Staff encouraged the applicant to provide a variation of garage
placements, including a separate plan with a side entry garage. A total of 13 of the 113 lots are
corner lots and staff felt there were enough corner lots that warrant a side entry garage. While
each plan proposes some living space in front of the garage, there is little variation between
each plan. The deepest recessed garage is Plan 3, which includes an 8-foot setback from the
living space. By providing a deep recessed garage, there is a greater opportunity to propose
Porte Cocheres and/or trellis type features. The Design Guidelines also encourage Porte
Cocheres, trellises, and single width driveways, none of which has been proposed.
The Specific Plan requires fencing to be slumpstone for all areas visible from the street. The
applicant has proposed wood returns from the pilasters to the residence. Retaining walls shall be
slumpstone block to match the perimeter walls; the applicant has neglected to identify retaining
wall materials.
.
The Design Guidelines state that Spanish Revival and Prairie shall maintain smooth plaster
walls. The Design Guidelines are not as specific for East Coast Traditional; however staff feels a
light finish is adequate. Typical East Coast styles primarily utilize a siding material. The applicant
has not proposed smooth stucco finish or siding for the proposed s. Staff recommends each plan
be revised as necessary.
The applicant has proposed a similar roof plan and silhouette for each. The primary roof design
as well as the roof pitches are the same for each plan. The applicant has indicated in their
response letter dated February 5, 2004 that variation in the featured elements meets the intent of
the Design Guidelines and that changing the main roof structure is not an option. Plan 2 does
include one style which utilizes a varied roof plan; however staff feels each plan shall be revised
to provide the necessary articulation and variation in order avoid a monotonous street scene and
silhouette.
While staff has identified various inconsistencies between the proposed project and the Design
Guidelines, there are many other aspects of the project that need to be revised in order to be
found consistent with the Design Guidelines. The applicant has submitted a response letter to
staff's initial letter, both of which has been attached.
.
R:\Product ReviewIRoripaugh Ranch SPlMeeker Co, Tr 29661-5, PA03-0634\STAFF REPORT-l.doc
4
.
.
.
ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION
[8J 1.
The proposed project has been determined to be consistent with the previously
approved (Negative Declaration) (EIR) and is exempt from further Environmental
Review (CEQA Section 15162 subsequent EIR's and Negative Declarations),
CONC LUSIONiRECOM M ENDA TION
Staff has concluded that the proposed project cannot be found consistent with the Design
Guidelines or development standards within the Roripaugh Ranch Specific Plan. Staff
recommends that the Planning Commission provide direction to the applicant and continue the
proposed project for a redesign.
ATTACHMENTS
1.
Plan Reductions - Blue Page 6
Excerpts from the Roripaugh Ranch Specific Plan Design Guidelines - Blue Page 7
2.
3
Staff letter to applicant dated December 11, 2003 - Blue Page 8
4
Applicant response letter dated February 5, 2004 - Blue Page 9
R:\Product Review\Ruripaugh Ranch SPlMeekerCo, Tr29661-5, PAO3-0634\STAFF REPORT-I.duc
5
.
.
.
ATTACHMENT NO.1
PLAN REDUCTIONS
R:\ProductReviewlRonpaugh Ranch SPlMeeker Co. Tr29661-5, PAO3-0634\STAFF REPORT-l.doc
6
.
.
.
¡,
r
<,
ff
.. I
. ¡
'"
~
~ ~
z ~
< ~
~ ~
~ z
~
~
~ ~
j ~
~ ~
'"
<
z
0
~
n
~ Ii;
~ <
0
u
~
~
<
'"
.¡
~
~ ~
z ~
< =
~ ~
~ i!3
z
~
~
...
:=
u
z U
~$~
:=~~
øg~
Þð~
~<u
~B~
O~òI
~~~
=
M!1;;
~:;:
W\~
«J>~
M!1:X >-
= CO
)..
¡..,
'"
~
I
M
~
~
c, .J
-,-< -'~
---~-
------,
---'----"--------,--- ",-,----
.
.
c
""~.:.ji,:-;
.
--,,- ~- --
'--l
PLAN.Z'
, '
.RQRIPAUGHR4NCH,I
, , ~:CAI,.IFOBNI,O:" " ,
, MJmK:i;:R: C()~
:c
.........,..... ..
... -....... -
-T~"~
'-J -
- - --
.._~-~,.""..~~-~.,---~---- ,--_.."....'-,--""'-- ,...".., --
De.'gn Feetu~",
...':;::~:::: ~;~~~f;~~i~:f::~§::m".
/., .'" ~"Re~ed w'ndow
@ ." "~~~:'::~'=,;::;,~e.t.,we".
..;:>- i;"'=ved entoy
,- "cl ":, ,
I_" '
",
.
.
} ~::::
'---'
ì.§;-:
~EE-
"......--
,l Ët:i'L
",,'-'I
:PLAN, j
""""""" '
~'"-- '. "
¡ =-&S:-.,.;.;. ,
,i==--~~
"'.1';-"""".:-
1:;::---
, ¡i~:,?..
.¡..-- '
,---.......
,¡~=-
" '
RORIP AUGH RANCH I
TBMBCULA. CALIFORNIA
MJ¡:EKER COMMuNrrms
U
-~2!::"'-
'-+~-,'
.
~ -~
,..,'~--~C-
¡=~:þ'. i
: =..._;""
~ ~~,::
"~' E?'=~:
~~"::::_"
~~=~
'PLAN 4
.-
':Si:-?Z-'"
, ;:E.-...=r":;::-
tr~~=--
,'-_Y"",'
.
.' '
RORIPA"PGHRANCHI
~ CALIFOJtNIA
MEEKER COMMUNlTlES
:0
-~;.....;
......
.
.
.
ATTACHMENT NO.2
EXCERPTS FROM THE RORIPAUGH RANCH SPECIFIC PLAN
DESIGN GUIDELINES
R:\Product ReviewIRuripaugh Ranch SPIMeeker Co, Tr 29661-5, PAO3-0634\STAFF REPORT-1.doc
7
ASHBY USA, LLC
FIGURE 4-53
'-
:8
'-
EAST COAST TRADITIONAL
-f
CO~
cl
0&
._~
...... 0
~!
CO
I....~
I-~
......~
Cl)ffi
CO~
O~
t)~
...... ~
Cl)ã
co~
Wi
Inspiration Photo:
Pesign features:
- Covered front porch entry
- Multi-pane windows
- Stucco trim detailing
- Flat arch openings
- Hip/gable combination roof shapes
- Exterior plaster walls
- Boxed overh¡¡ngs
The Kel<h compenie1-r1<.C
~ TO .c.,~
Horip;!ugh'
r Hauch
ASHBY USA, LLe
FIGURE 4-59
PRAIRIE STYLE
()
Inspiration Photo:
The Ke;th e.m..n;'ï~C
~ ,. SCA'~
Design features:
- Hip roof shapes
- Lower roofline accents
- Praiñe mullion window breakups
- Flat tile or shingle roofs
- Horizontal proportions
- Smooth exterior plaster walls
- Trim band accent
~
(])~
:L..I
CO~
L.. 5
c...¡
~
~
~,
.-
i
~
N
~
II
~
§
I
.
.
J{orÍ na nul 1'":"<' Ranch
A ,""' '"" -
*
('1
.
.
ASHBY USA, llC
FIGURE 4-60
SPANISH REVIVAL
Inspiration Photo:
Design features:
- Arched focal point
. Exposed beam headers
- Recessed window
- Wrought iron accent details
- Alcoved entry
- Barrel tile day roofing
- Exterior smooth plaster walls
- Ceramic tile accenls
cot
.>1
>.
<Di
et::~
.cf
C/)~
._~
c:~
co~
~
cn~
l
i
~
~
~
I
--~----~-,--,-_.. -..-....
- __'n_'_- ..
ThO Ko;th com.on;os,"T1<:C
~ TO SCA'~
HOrÍP;UIgh ..
Ranch
~'"
, )
,-
(~,
<",,/
"'~
DESIGN GUIDELINES
Provide two color sets of the above at the scales indicated including a duplicate set of the color
and materials board. In addition, provide six (6) sets of the above in reduced, 11" x 17" black and
white format.
4.10.3.3 Architecture Forward and Garage Standards
The following standards shall apply to all residential Planning Areas, except as specified:
"Architectural Forward" concept shall be incorporated into 100% of the homes in Planning
Areas1O, 19,20,21, and 33A. "ArcMectural Forward" concept shall be incorporated into at
least 50% of the homes in each of Planning Areas 1A, 2, 3, 4A, 48, 12,14, 15, 16, 17, 18,22,
23,24, and 31. This concept includes advancing the architecture of the living space forward
on the lot while concurrently, the garage is held in place or further recessed. Residential
dwelling units shall be designed to allow the living portion of the dwelling unit to be
"positioned" forward on the lot so that the architecture of the garage will not dominate the
street scene.
A variety of garage placement solutions shall be incorporated into the overall design of the
homes. Minimum driveway length from the property line to the garage door shall be eighteen
feet (18') for front-entry garages in all Planning Areas and ten feet (1O') from the property line
to the garage edge for side entry garages in the Land LM Districts. Garage solutions that
should be incorporated into the overall design are as follows:
Shallow Recessed Garaaes (See Figure 4-62)
Setting the garage back a minimum of eight feet (8') in relationship to the front of
the house.
Mid to Deeo Recessed GaraQes (See Figure 4-63)
Setting the garage back to the middle or rear of the lot.
Third Car Side Loaded (See Figure 4-64)
Setting for garage with side-loaded entry. This plan can only occur on larger lots.
Side Entry GaraQes (See Rgure 4-65)
The use of side entry garages on lots at least 52 feet wide in order to break the
continuous view of garage doors along the street scene.
Third Car Tandem (See Figure 4-66)
Setting for third car tandem garage.
SinQle Width Drivewavs (SeeFigure 4-67)
This setting provides a maximum driveway width of twelve (12) feet for adjacent
two-car garage.
Porte Cochere (See Figure 4-68)
Setting provides for the incorporation of a porte cochere.
Roripaugh Ranch Specific Plan ,
N: \' 1367 . OOO\dod\S P Sect44 CCAdopt ed, doc
4-98
Ma,ch. 2003
.
.
.
.
e
( :
eJ
DESIGN GUIDELINES
Articulation of Side and Rear Elevations
There is a tendency to have "build out" planes maximized on side and rear yards without
articulated treatment of those planes. This results in a two-story stucco effect with no vertical or
horizontal reliet. Utilize the following techniques or other acceptable techniques to avoid this
effect:
Create a single-story plane at the rear by recessing the second story.
Utilize other similar architectural treatments and designs such as balconies or pop out
staircases to encourage relief on potential large architectural planes.
Side and rear elevations shall have articulation with modulated facades, window treatment,
second story projections and balconies.
Articulation shall be provided on all sides of the homes ("Four-sided Architecture").
Front Elevations
Architectural projections shall be utilized to emphasize entrances, balconies, and porches.
Fronts of houses shall utilize several architectural features. Ground floor windows shall have
significant trim or relief, second floor overhangs or built in planters. Second story windows
shall have similar treatment to emphasize them.
All residences shall incorporate entry courtyards. covered entries or covered porches at the
entry into the design. (See Figure 4-71 and 4-72).
Details shall be concentrated around entrances. Materials used for the front entry shall be
distinctive.
Building elements that reflect the architectural style should be incorporated into building
entries, windows, front porches, and living areas directly adjacent to the street.
Ornamental features including wrought iron and exterior light features shall be combined with
other features to create interest in the front of the house with architecturally compatible
elements.
RorioolJ(]h Ranch Soecific Plan
N:\31367.000\dod\SPSect44CCAdopted.doc
4-125
March. 2003
DESIGN GUIDELINES
4.10.3.6 Architectural Elements
A successful project design achieves a proper visual balance and sense of cohesiveness. The
differences between the plans and elevation must be readily discernable and create variety, yet at
the same time elements, styles and materials should not contrast to such an extent as to result in
visual chaos. Architectural elements will playa significant role in the establishment of the
architectural style. These elements include archifectural detailing, colors and materials, and other
sife structures. The required Architectural and design elements techniques are as follows:
.
Unif Entries (See Figures 4-71 and 4-72)
The entry serves several important architectural and psychological functions: it identifies and
frames the front doorway; it acts as an interface between the public and private spaces; and it
acts as an intrÒduction to the structure while creating an initial impression.
The entry shall be designed and located so as to readily emphasize ifs prime functions.
Accent materials are encouraged to be used to further emphasize the entries.
If the front door location is not obvious or visible because of building configuration, the entry
shall direct and draw the observer in the desired path. The design of the entry area in
merchant-built housing shall be strong enough to mitigate the impact of the garage on the
facade.
Entry doors and doorways shall be proportional to the architectural style of the structure.
Covered entries, courtyards and porches shall be provided as entry elements.
Doors
Emphasis shall be placed on the design and type of entry door used. It functions as the major
introduction to the interior of the house and concem should be given on the image it creates.
.
Either single or double doors are appropriate.
The door shall be covered by an overhead element or recessed a minimum of 3 It into the wall
plane.
The entire door assembly shall be treated as a single design element including surrounding
frame, molding and glass sidelights.
Recessed doors may be used to convey the appearance of thick exterior doors.
'Wood may be used for the entry door. Wood grain texture and raised or recessed panels
contribute to the appeal of the door. Greater use is being made of metal entry doors but in
order to be acceptable, they shall possess the same residential "leer provided by the wood
grain and panels.
Doorways shall be typically rectangular or round-headed and fully recessed. Spiral columns,
arches, pilaster, stonework, decorative tiles, or other sculptural details shall be integrated tnto
the doorway design to enhance the visual importance of the entry door.
i
/
Rorioauah Ranch Specific Plan
N: \31367 . OOO\dod\S PSect44CCAdopt ed, doc
4.127
March. 2003
.
.
.
.
DESIGN GUIDELINES
The use of glass in the door and overall assembly is encouraged. It expresses a sense of
welcome and human scale. It can be incorporated into the door panels or expressed as
single sidelights, double sidelights, transom glass or fan windows.
Flexibility is allowed conceming the color of the door. It may match or contrast the accent
trim, but should be differentiated from the wall color.
Windows
Typically, the location of windows is determined by the practical consideration of room layout,
possible fumiture placement, view opportunities and concem for privacy. Greater design
emphasis should be directed to ensure that window placement and organization will positively
contribute to the exterior architectural character. Windows greatly enhance the elevation
through their vertical or horizontal grouping and coordination with other design elements. This
relationship to one another and the walVroof plane creates a composition and sense of order.
All windows in a specüic plan elevation shall be integrated into the architecture of the building.
This should not be interpreted that they are all the same shape, size or type but rather that a
hierarchy of windows exists that visually relates and complements one window to another.
Windows shall be recessed to convey the appearance of thick exterior walls. Non-recessed
windows shall be surrounded with articulated architectural elements such as wood trim,
stucco surrounds, shutters or recessed openings, shutters, pot shelves, ledges, sills plantons,
and rails that compliment the architecture.
Merchant-built housing occasionally fails to adequately address proper window design and
placement on rear and side elevations. This is usually due to prioritization, maintenance and
cost factors. Since side elevations and second story rear windows are frequently visible,
greater design effort and budget prioritization need to be given.
Garaae Doors (See Figure 4-73)
Utilizing garage types that compliment the architecture, door designs, and plotting techniques
will do much to lessen the repetitious garage doors marching down both sides of a residential
street. Variations include:
0
Employment of second-story feature windows above the garage.
0
Strong architectural entry elements.
0
Designs with a mix of 2 and 3 car garages, incorporating three single doors in some
three car garage plans not facing the street.
0
Allowance for a 10-foot setback between adjacent garages.
0
The use of tandem garages may also be incorporated into the building design.
0
Garage plans with a double door and a single door plan shall not be placed next to
each other.
If applicable, where lot width permits plans should include swing-in or side entry garages with
reduced front yard setbacks of ten (10) feet.
RorIoouOh Ranch Soecifoc Plan
N:\'J1367.000\dod\SPSect44CCAdopted,doc
4.128
March. 2003
DESIGN GUIDELINES
The design of the garage door shall relate to the overall architectural design of the residence.
Colors shall be from the same paint palette.
Ornamentation of garage doors shall be provided to add visual interest from the street scene.
The use of the sectional, wood or metal, rolling garage door is required since it maximizes the
availability of useable dñveway length.
Several different panel designs shall be utilized for any project proposed by each merchant
builder. Metal doors shall only be used when they include either texture or raised panels of a
"residentiar nature. The use of window elements is encouraged.
The design of the door face shall resull in a treatment which breaks up the expanse of the
door plane while being complimentary to thé architectural elevation of the residence.
Architectural detail consisting of cornices, applied molding or trim or applied headers shall be
used. There shall be an 8" recess. (See Exhibit 4-73).
Roripauoh Ranch SDeCific Plan
N:131367. OOOIdod\SPSect44CCAdopted,doc
4-129
March. 2003
.
.
.
.
8
8J
DESIGN GUIDELINES
4.10.3.7 Residential Roof Form
Allowable Roof P~ch (See Figure 4-74)
Allowable roof pitches of 3:12 to 4:12 shall be used. Allowable roof pitches over balconies
and/or porches may be 2:12.
A single roof pitch should be used on opposite sides of a ridge. Shallow pitches tend to
lessen the apparent building mass.
Roof Tvoos
The use of different roof types will add variety and interest to the street scene. Changing the roof
form on a given plan is the best method of creating alternative elevations. However, the roof
characteristics should be consistent with the historical style that is chosen.
Hip, gable and shake-like material shall be used separately or together on the same rooL
Avoid a canyon effect in side yards when both buildings have front-to-rear gables, by
providing dormer or hip elements.
Repetüious gable ends along rear elevations shall be avoided. Roof forms with p~ch changes
at a porch or projection are preferable.
Roof forms having dual p~ches such as Gambrel or Mansard shall not be used.
Maximize variations in rooflines by offsetting roof planes and combining single-story elements
w~h two-story elements. long uninterrupted rooflines should be avoided. Mechanical
equipment is not permitted on roofs.
DesiQn of Rakes and Eaves
The designer may choose from a variety of rake and eave types based on climatic and
stylistic considerations.
Moderate or extended overhangs are acceptable if properly designed. Tight fascia with
appropriate style are acceptable.
Single or double fascia boards, exposed rafters, or fascias with planscias when adequately
scaled, are acceptable.
Care shall be taken to ensure that material sizes avoid a weak,orJlimsy_appearance.
OverhanQ Proiections and Covered Porches
Substantial overhangs are required as a response to sofar and climatic conditions.
The inclusion of covered porches and entries are required as part of the product mix. They
expand shellered living space, create entry statements and provide elevation/relief.
Rear covered porches may differ from the roof in both p~ch and material, but front porches
should retain at least one of these two characteristics.
Roripauah Ranch Soecific Plan
N;\31367.000\dod\SPSect44CCAdopted.doc
4-133
March. 2003
ASHBY UsA.llC
z.. 2 '2-
<":7tzf7' '71qZ.Y '71W'ì'
,
- '"'. ." ".
~
FIGURE 4-70
e11ÍOtJ~~Nb cr
I fiì z. -"7['1-0/ \trJ.Af7.ý.
.c Mi~ 4: ~I~G
f>t.Jp ~%IIlh'f¥t1VIJ:;6:
V Iif2-l W
.
lANtb
. 0" " .- .'
v¡\~ep ~ ø~~.
M i)< úf t;NÐ ~ 1WO 9rlír+~.
The Ke;th CDmpen;e'lTK:.C
NO'T TO SCAt'
I.ì. ~ ' I
--{
en.
i
01
~i
...... .
~
"'0"
Ci
CUi
Q)B
c~
oJ
"t-
O
"~
E
---
en
Q)
a.
~
(f)
"t-
O
0
a:
"'0
Q)
"C
CU
>
.
¡;5-::=r-
Roripaugh~Ranch
.
.
.
ATTACHMENT NO.3
STAFF LETTER TO APPLICANT DATED DECEMBER 11, 2003
R:lProduct ReviewlRoripaugh Ranch SPlMeeker Co, Tr 29661-5. PAO3-0634\STAFF REPORT-l.doc
8
.
.
.
City of Temecula
43200 Business Park Drive - PO Box 9033 - Temecula - California 92589-
9033 - (909) 694-6400 - FAX (909) 694-6477
December 11, 2003
Mr. George Zeeber
Meeker Companies, Inc.
14 Hughes, Suite B-1 04
Irvine, CA 92618
SUBJECT:
Planning Application PA03-Q634 for the product review of the new single-family
homes proposed for the Roripaugh Ranch Specific Plan in Planning Area 4B.
Dear George:
Staff has reviewed Planning Application PAO3-0634 and has determined thatthe project cannot be
approved as proposed. Below is a list of recommended and/or required changes to the above
referenced project.
1.
Staff strongly recommends that you schedule an appointment with the architect for Ashby
USA, LLC in order to streamline the product review process. It has been staff's experience
that the architect who prepared the design guidelines is able to provide additional direction
and interpret the guidelines as they were intended and understood by the Planning
Commission. Please verify with staff that you have met with the architect for Ashby USA,
LLC and that his comments were incorporated into the project.
2.
At this time staff cannot approved the product review as proposed. Staff has determined that
the elevations are not consistent with the design guidelines of the Specific Plan. Please
incorporate any modifications as recommended by the architect for Ashby USA, LLC and the
revisions required in this letter.
3.
The Specific Plan allows stucco as an allowable material, however section 4.10.3.9 requires
smooth or light finish texture and up to a medium finish. Heavy texture is not permitted. The
Spanish revival style should utilize a smooth stucco finish (20/30 aggregate minimum).
Prairie should utilize a light sand finish or light lace finish stucco. Please resubmit a stucco
board with these types of finish. In addition, define and label the type of stucco finish
proposed for each architectural style.
4.
Please show the slope of all roof pitches. Each architectural style warrants a different roof
pitch to illustrate the difference between the architectural styles. For example, low roofline
accents with a shallow roof pitch are typical characteristics of the prairie style.
R:\Product ReviewlRoripaugb Rauch SP\Meeker Co. Tr 29661-5. PA03-0634\commenlletter-I,duc
1
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
5.
It is critical that the roofJine and silhouette for each plan and style offer significant variety in
order to avoid the monotony appearance. The architect for Ashby USA, LLC can be very
helpful in offering suggestions to accomplish this task.
Each style must utilize typical features for that particular style. This will strongly distinguish
the styles from each other. The Specific Plan requires all four sides of the residence to
include architectural enhancements (section 4.10.3.5). Staff has defined this language to
mean that the style can be determined by looking at any side of the residence. Therefore,
the typical features for each style must be carried over to each side of the structure. Staff
has found it helpful if the applicant provides a separate sheet indicating the type of door,
garage door, trim, window sills, window type, chimney, lighting, etc. to be used for each style.
Make sure each style maintains ifs unique characteristics, as this will maintain the
architectural integrity. This is not a comprehensive list, however, each plan and style need to
maintain unique features typical of the style proposed.
.
Please specify the materials proposed on the elevations. For example: shutters do not
indicate the material type. Staff encourages organic materials where possible to portray an
authentic appearance. Also, plant-on materials such as shutters, borders and windowsill
should be of substance and reflect a realistic feature as opposed to a flimsy appearance.
Please show dimensions, including thickness, depth and width for such features.
Please provide color samples of each decorative driveway proposed. Also, the plans must
provide a description of the material proposed for the driveways. Please include a sample of
any stone, brick or other material proposed for the hardscape.
Please consider the use of additional materials for hardscape. As proposed, the same
materials for hardscape will be used in different color variations. Staff recommends adding a
variety of stone or alternative colors to add interèst.
.
The Specific Plan requires a minimum of four, color variations for each style in each
planning area. Please provide a fourth color variation sample for each plan.
The Specific Plan requires a variety of garage placements (pg. 4-98, section 4.10.3.3)
Please provide a variety of garage placement such as shallow, mid-deep recess, side entry
(corner lots), porte cochere etc. Staff believes that this planning area has enough corner lots
to justify a plan with a side entry garage. Please consider this issue.
The front elevations indicate the depth of windows and breaks in the wall plane. Since four
sides of architecture is a requirement, the side and rear elevations should also include
recessed and projected elements. Please provide recessed and projected elements on the
side and rear and indicate the amount of projection/recess on the plans.
Please ensure all garages include a clear interior dimension of 20' x 20'. It appears that
some of the garage depths are less than 20 feet (Plan 1,2, and 4). Please revise the plans
to show a clear interior dimension of 20 in depth by 20 feet in width.
Please review the plot plan to ensure each residence meets the minimum setbacks. There
are various lots that do not meet the front, side and rear setbacks. Also, the plot plan shows
the front setback taken from two different lines. It appears one line is a utility easement,
while the other line is the actual property line. Please ensure all setbacks are taken form the
property line. Section 5.3.3 indicates the setbacks for various areas of the planning areas.
Please note that lots abutting the nature trail require a 25-foot setback.
.
R:\Product Review\Roripaugh Rauch SPlMeeker Co, Tr 29661-5, P A03-0634\romment Ietter-1.doc
2
.
13.
14.
15.
16.
.
17.
18.
19.
20.
.
Lots abutting Murrieta Hot Springs may be adjusted by 3 feet in the front and/or rear. Staff
strongly recommends pulling two story units back to provide a varied street scene along
Sweetwater Drive. Where possible, varied setbacks should be provided in order to avoid the
canyon effect as stated in section 4.10.3.5.
The plot plan should show any/all decks on the plot plan to ensure the rear setbacks will be
met. Please review the rear yard setback standards to ensure decks will meet the minimum
rear yard setback. It appears that some lots will not allow for decks in the rear yard, please
clarify this issue.
Decks should not be constructed of standard wood. Decks should appear as either a
structural portion of the building made of stucco or as a decorative enhancement as shown
on the rear elevation of plan 2A. Standard wood decks as shown on the rear elevation of
plan 2B are not acceptable.
As proposed, it is difficult to distinguish between the architectural style from the side and rear
elevations. The Planning Commission has made it clear that the architectural style must be
clearly evident from all four sides. Elements from the front elevation of each plan must be
carried over to the sides and rear so the architectural style is clearly evident from all sides.
This can be accomplished with varied roof pitches, additional exposed beams, variations in
the window type such as arched windows, vertical or horizontal windows, chimney caps, etc.
The side and rear elevations need additional enhancement in order to identify the
architectural style from the respective view.
Any supplemental materials, such as stone or siding should wrap around the side elevations
to the side yard fence or to a point it is no longer visible from the street. This is critical on
bottom story projections and second stories where the second story is stepped back. Some
of the stone and brick on the prairie and east coast traditional do not wrap around the sides.
The Specific Plan requires corner lots to maintain two (2) front elevations. Please
incorporate additional features to create a second front yard for corner lots (pg. 4-124,
section 4.10.3.5). Also, as stated above, strong consideration should be given to provide a
variety of garage placement, such as side entry garages for corner lots.
Another method of creating a second front elevation is to include exposed porches and
decorative walls (courtyards) on side elevations of corner lots. When this method utilized,
the sidewall should include doors and openings to create an active exterior living area.
Corner lots should be either single story or maintain a significant one-story mass located
toward the exterior side yard (pg. 4-124, section 4.10.3.5).
The Specific Plan requires careful design and plotting of plans to avoid a "canyon-like effecf
between buildings (pg. 4-124, section 4.10.3.5). This can be accomplished by introducing
single story elements into two story plans such as stepping second story mass away from
the property line or by including dormer or hip elements when front to rear gables are
proposed.
Please provide a summary matrix of each plan on each lot showing lot coverage, hardscape
coverage and type, landscaping, floor plan and architecture, and height.
Some of the plans have side elevations that appear blank or include large areas of blank
walls. Please make sure there are no blank walls, long interrupted walls or roof areas (pg. 4-
124, section 4.10.3.5). Articulation on the side and rear elevations provides a good
R:\Product ReviewIRoripaugh Ranch SP\Meeker Co, Tr 29661-5. PA03-0634\comment leuer-l.doc
3
21.
24.
25.
26.
27.
28.
opportunity to introduce the architectural style on the sides and rears, which will satisfy the
four-sided architecture requirement. Additional windows, projections, bands, tiles, and other
decorative features should be introduced to enhance these blank walls.
.
22.
Varied roof height, rooflines and silhouettes shall be incorporated into the each plan. Some
of the plans utilize the same roofline, which produces a monotonous effect. Please provide a
varied silhouette, roofline and roof height for each style to distinguish between each plan
(pg. 4-133, section 4.10.3.7).
23.
It appears only two garage doors will be used for the entire tract. Garage doors should
reflect and compliment the style of the architecture (pg. 4-128, section 4.1 0.3.6). This could
be accomplished with arches in the garage, type of door, addition of glass in the door etc.
A variety of garage doors shall be provided. Staff recommends providing arches over the
Spanish Revival style and using alternative materials and shapes where appropriate. Section
and wood garage doors are also encouraged. If metal doors are proposed, they should
include a texture or raised panels of a residential nature.
The design of garage doors should result in a treatment, which breaks up the expanse of the
door plane. Architectural detail consisting of cornices, border of stone or brick, applied
molding/trim or applied headers should be utilized (pg. 4-129, section 4.10.3.6).
Entrances are required to provide a strong statement as a focal point to show importance.
The Specific Plan encourages single or double doors, glass sidelights, surrounding frames,
, and molding around the door. The Specific Plan states. Emphasis should be placed on the
design and type of entry door used. It functions as the major introduction to the interior of the
house and concem should be given on the image it creates". Some of the entrances could
be enhanced with traditional methods and/or features to show improvement. This can be
achieved with a variation in materials, shapes, massing, varying roof height, etc.
.
Entry doors are required to be decorative. Staff encourages the use of glass within the
doors, double doors and/or other materials to further enhance the entrance. (pg. 4-127,
section 4.10.3.6).
Windows should be recessed where possible to convey a thick wall appearance (pg. 4-128,
section 4.10.3.6). This feature is typical on Spanish style architecture.
The Specific Plan encourages rear-covered porches to be incorporated into the project as
well as front porches and covered entries. These features should be considered and should
resemble each other by similar roof pitch or material. Also, it should be noted that rear
setbacks may present a problem for many of the lots. Please be sure to consider this when
designing rear covered porches and/or decks. It may be beneficial to determine which lots
can accommodate decks and pre-plot the decks as necessary.
The plotting plan does not reference the location of air conditioning units. The Specific Plan
requires these units to be screened from public view, while minimizing the impact on side
yard use and layout. Figure 4-77 shows air conditioning units should be located in the rear
yard.
The elevations do not show roof venting. Venting should blend in with the structure to the
greatest extent. Please indicate how venting will be accomplished. If roof venting is
proposed, vents shall be of the same color as the roof surface and be located on the rear
elevation of the roof.
.
R:\Product Review\Roripaugh Ranch SPIM",ker Co, Tr 29661-5. PA03-0634\cumment Ietter-1.doc
4
.
29.
30.
31.
32.
33.
.
34.
35.
36.
37.
38.
39.
.
40.
Please provide specification sheets for the proposed street light fixtures, street name signs
and traffic signs. These will be used throughout the project; therefore, it needs to be
requested by Ashby USA.
Please plot the location and show a detail of the type of mailboxes proposed. This will also
be used project wide and must be requested by Ashby USA and the U.S. Postmaster.
The City recommends that all accent relief elements installed below eight feet of ground
level be constructed of dense, durable material (not soft foam) to assure long term durability.
Please indicate materials to be used on the elevations.
There appear to be options for decorative driveways, however the Specific Plan requires all
lots to include hardscape (driveways and walks) within the front yard and shall be colored
concrete with varying score lines, textures, paving stones of various colors with colored
concrete borders, flag stone of various sizes and colors with concrete borders or a
combination of various textures, shapes, material and colors (page 4-122). See figures 4-85
through 89 in the Specific Plan for visual concepts. Staff wants to ensure that the decorative
hardscape is provided on all lots. The hardscape material and layout should be plotted on
the site plan for staff's review.
Staff encourages decorative hardscape paths to extend from the main entry to the sidewalk.
Please consider this feature.
The Specific Plan requires ornamental features including decorative light features combined
with other features to create visual interest in the front of the house with architectural
compatible elements. Typical lighting for each architectural style should be provided.
Lighting should be provided in the front entryway and/or at the garage entry. Lighting should
reflect the architecture of each unit. Please note that changes in lighting may be approved
administratively by staff, if requested.
Pop-outs on side and rear elevations should extend to the ground as opposed to the floating
pop-out appearance. A separate sheet addressing setback reductions for architectural
projections has been attached.
The elevations must show the location of addressing and how it will be constructed. For
example, will the addresses be backlit or be solid metal painted black. Please specify the
type of addressing proposed for each typical residence.
Please ensure the side elevations with enhancements are exposed for all comer lots. Please
indicate on the site plan that the enhanced side elevation fronts the street.
Chimney caps should be decorative and vary from each style. The same chimney caps
should not be used for two different architecture styles.
Elevations should provide a note indicting the room option and dotted lines indicating
optional windows and/or doors.
Front, rear and visible side windows in key locations should include enhanced borders/sills
for windows (as opposed to typical borders) to show importance. Please include this feature
into the elevations.
Please label all roof pitches for each pitch on each plan.
R:\Product Review\Roripaugb Ranch SPlMeeker Co. Tr 29661-5. PA03-0634\comment letrer-I.doc
5
41.
42.
43.
44.
45.
46.
47.
48.
49.
50.
51.
52.
53.
54.
Please provide a scale on the floor and roof plans.
.
Corner lots should maintain significant single story elements on the exterior side elevation.
Staff has found it beneficial to plot select plans on corner lots and provide a "special" side
elevation that creates a second front elevation, while maintaining the one-story element.
Staff does not encourage closed shutters or windows with only one shutter on the side.
Please revise these features and provide authentic and/or traditional features.
Make sure that all venting matches on each side of each elevation. Staff recommends
decorative venting that blends with the architecture rather than standard venting from the
roof.
Staff believes that the plotting could be improved. It appears many of the single story plans
are grouped together. Staff recommends dispersing the single story plan throughout the tract
to provide variety throughout the tract. Some single story plans could be located along the
nature trail to break-up the roofline.
Please submit a written letter describing how each architectural style meets the design
guidelines and utilizes authentic and/or traditional materials and features for each respective
style.
Please provide a summary matrix showing the lot number, lot size, plan type, footprint, lot
coverage, hardscape coverage and hardscape option.
Please revise the fence plan to reflect figure 2-15 and 2-16 where appropriate. Only one
pilaster is requires between residences as shown on figure 2-15. The pilaster should be
located at the front connection.
.
Please show the location of gates on the fence plan.
Please remove all references to stucco on fencing. All block walls should be slumpstone with
pre-cast concrete cap. Ashby USA, LLC has constructed sample walls located at the office
site. Staff recommends visiting the site to review the walls required to be constructed.
Please ensure that a 2-foot break is provided between pilaster and the rear wall plane
between residences as shown on figure 2.15 of the Specific Plan.
Staff is unclear how the fence connecting residences will be constructed when a retaining
wall is shown perpendicular to the wall. Please provide a typical cross section to show how
this will be accomplished.
Please show the location of pilasters where the view fence is located as shown on figure 2-
16 of the Specific Plan.
Staff is concerned with how some of the block walls encroach into the side and front yards at
the corners. Block walls should terminate where the wall returns to the residence (figure 2-
16). This issue will be affected by the requirement of 2 front elevations as required in the
design guidelines. Fencing at corner lots should be pulled back as far as possible to show
the elevation and/or to provide for an outdoor courtyard open to the street. Please contact
staff to discuss this item further.
.
R:\Product Review\Roripaugb Ranch SP\M<:em Co, Tr 29661-5. PAO3.Q634\commeot letter-1.doc
6
.
55.
56.
57.
Block walls should be provided in all locations where visible from the public streets. This
includes exterior side yards and retums (figure 2-16).
Pilasters should be shown at exterior corners where two rear yards merge as shown on
figure 2-16.
Please provide a detail of view fencing on sheet 6 and show the type of tubing, color, height,
spacing between each pole, spacing to the ground, etc.
Prairie comments
58.
59.
60.
61.
62.
. 63.
The Prairie style chimneys should include a broad flat cap. Chimneys for prairie style homes
are typically wider than typical and include a band at the top.
Prairie style should consider the use of dormers, including gable and hipped dormers,
through-cornice and palladian. This will add interest to the roofline while further
distinguishing this style from the others.
A typical Prairie style front door shall be used for each plan (This same comment applies to
all styles).
The eaves should be wider than standard, boxed and without brackets.
Prairie style often maintains lower porches and/or porte-cocheres. Staff feels there is an
opportunity to provide porte-cochere, with a deep recessed garage that would fulfill the
prairie style.
Please review typical prairie style doors windows and ensure they are typical prairie style.
There are various door and window styles that may project a stronger prairie appearance.
Spanish Revival
64.
65.
66.
67.
68.
69.
70.
.
Spanish styles do not typically utilize a standard gable roof. Please consider utilizing side
gables, cross gables, combined hipped and gabled roofs, and hipped roofs.
Roof tiles shall represent the style presented. Spanish tile roofing shall utilize barrel tile roof
as opposed to standard .S. tile roof.
Arched garage doors should be utilized for the Spanish styles.
Additional wrought iron detail could be provided on the Spanish styles. Consider wrought
iron details around windows
Deep recessed windows should be used liberally in prominent locations where possible to
portray a thick wall appearance.
Please consider using decorative Spanish tiles around windows and in other prominent
locations.
Consider arcaded wing walls, exterior staircases and balconies open or roofed with wood or
iron railings.
R:\Product Review\Roripaugh Ranch SPlMeeker Co. Tr 2%61-5. P A03.jj634\comment letter-l.doc
7
East Coast Traditional
71.
72.
73.
All East Coast Traditional plans utilize too much stucco. While stucco may be used for trim,
the exterior walls should be predominately wood siding (other composite siding may be
acceptable, subject to staff approval).
Please consider providing dormers on various elevations as appropriate.
Consider using steeper pitch roofing such as 6:12 to 12:12. A steep roof with horizontal
siding will establish a strong sense of east coast housing.
Landscape Comments
74.
75.
76.
77.
78.
79.
80.
Tristania, Agonis and Bougainvillea are subject to freeze in the Temecula area. Please
provide substitutes.
Please indicate sizes for trees and shrubs at time of planting. Insure that sizes meet
Specific Plan and code requirements.
Please specify ground covers and indicate size and spacing.
Side yards outside of the fence have the potential to be forgotten and neglected. Please
provide drought tolerant, maintenance free plantings that will survive if irrigation is turned off
and plantings are neglected.
Code requires slope banks 5' or greater in vertical height with slopes greater than or equal to
3:1 to be landscaped at a minimum with an appropriate ground cover, one 15 gallon or
larger size tree per 600 square feetof slope area, and one 1 gallon or larger shrub for each
100 square feet of slope area. Slope banks in excess of 8' in vertical height with slopes
greater or equal to 2:1 shall also be provided with one 5 gallon or larger tree per 1,000
square feet of slope area in addition to the above requirements. Please insure that slope
plantings meet these requirements. Insure that all slopes of this size are landscaped by the
developer following grading operation completion.
Please provide a copy of the grading plans for planning area 4B with the next review for
cross checking.
Front yard landscaping shall be provided in all residential zoning districts and shall include,
at a minimum, one fifteen-gallon size tree per lot, one five-gallon size tree per lot, and
seeded ground cover. These requirements are in addition to the required street trees.
Please add trees as required.
Upon resubmitting revised plans, it is critical that you submit a written response to each comment.
This will expedite staff's review of the revised plans. Also include any additional changes that were
made as a result of meeting with the architect for Ashby USA, LLC or any other changes made.
Please submit 2 copies of each plan when resubmitting plans to staff, including two copies of 11" x
17" elevations. Elevations do not have to be color with the next submittal, however colored
elevations will be required prior to scheduling this item for a public hearing.
R:\ProductReviewIRoripaugb Ranch SP\Meeker Co, Tr 2%61-5. PAOJ-0634Icomment letter-I. doc
8
.
.
.
.
.
.
Please ensure that the Specific Plan you are using is the most current version, approved in March
2003. If you have questions concerning this issue, please contact me at your convenience.
Staff understands there are many comments to be addressed; however, staff feels that the
groundwork has been established for a viable project. If you have any questions regarding the
above comments, please feel free to contact me at any time via email at
dan.lonq@citvoftemecula.orq or by phone at (909) 964-6400 extension 198. I look forward to
working with you as this project progresses forward.
SinCerelY~
¿:::> -
Dan Lon
Associate Planner
R:\Product ReviewIRoripaugh Ranch SPlMeeker Co. Tr 29661-5. PA03-0634\commentIetter-1.doc
9
.
.
.
ATTACHMENT NO.4
APPLICANT RESPONSE LETTER DATED FEBRUARY 5, 2004
R:lProduct Review\Roripaugh Ranch SPlMeeker Co, Tr 29661-5. PAO3-O634\ST AFF REPORT-I ,doc
9
.
.
.
o-loJ: -\e b-dM' 1¿: 16
KNITTER & ASSOCIATES
P. 02/ØS
949 752 0151
February 5, 2004
CITY OF TEMECULA
PLAN CHECK CORRECTION REPLY
Roripaugh Ranch- planning area 4B
MEEKER COMMUNITIES,INC.
14 Hughes, suite 8-104
Irvine Ca. 92618
c
Br'C/i!::eCnI'e & pCsrri-g
From a list by Dan Long -dated January 19th.2004
Planning application PAO3-0634- Planning area 4-b
Respondent: '
Chip Melton Knitter and associates
Dear Dan, '
Please find my item by item reply to your request lisVinformation letter. I hope it will
assist you as we work together to proceed with -this project.
, If any qùestions arise while you are considering my reply, plaase fell free to contact me
at my offICe. (949) 752-1177.
1. We have had a tearn meeting to discuss the Planning dept's intent on an item by
item basis.
2. After our team meeting with The author of the guidelines and following the intent
of the recommendations the original reports and this latest list frorn you.
3. We have provided a new exhibit with the requirements specified.
4. At our compliance meeting it was decided that the Intent of the designs had been
met by changing roof pitches on the featured elements of each plan. However
buyer affordability is a consideration and it is not an option to change the main
roof structure for each elevation type.
5. We have provided elevation elements with the theme of the front elevation on
each exposed. enhanced, elevation type.
6. We have provided a more inclusive rnaterials list on the elevations themselves.
7. 16 separate color sample have already been provided.
8. a fourth color variation will be provided.
9. With a relatively shallow set back and narrow lots. a side entry garage would
create a cramped uncomfortable driveway approach and virtually eliminate front
yard landscaping. We would prefer to not provide this type of driveway.
10. we have provided matching elements at the front ant back of each enhanced
plan.- See enhancement plan for locations of enhanced elevations
11. all plans have a min. 20' x 20' dear space
12. We have reviewed the site plan and it appears to be in compliance with all set
back requirements.
13. We have reviewed the site plan and it appears to be in compliance with all set
back requirements
14. The architecture lends itself to using wood decks. Further adding stucco and
Tube steel on the rear of the house would add a Stucco "add-on" look that is to
be avoided. The wood decks give an opportunity for color and material contrast
that we are trying to achieve.
15. We have provided matching elements at the front and back of each Enhanced
plan.- See enhancement plan for locations of enhanced elevations.
16. we have updated our plans to show return materials to the fence line.
C:/my documentslchiplçhip
r=--=-,,"""" .1,,' H
KNIIIt:!< :s. l-bo;uclHI~
'; 4~ 'l:>¿ Iðl~l
1-' . \:ß/05
17. We have all one story plans on corner lots. Element such as stone and brick are
all shown to return to the fence line. There would. be no further enhancements
beyond the 6' property fence.
18. All comer lots are either one story homes or have single story elernents.
19. Plan 1 is a single story. We do have single story elements along the sides of
,plans 2 and 3.Plan 4 is a little more traditional. "
20. Matrix should be provided by the landscape architect.
21. We have provided matching elements at the front ant back of e~ch Enhanced
,; plan.- See enhancement plan for locations of enhanced elevations.
2Q. At our compliance meeting it was decided that the intent of the designs had been
met by changing roof pitches on the featured elements of each plan. However
buyèr affordability is a consideration and it is not an option to change the main
roof structure for each elevation type.
23, Varied garage doors will be provided.
24. At our compliance meeting it was decided that the intent of the designs had been
. met by changing roof pitches on the featured elements of each .plan. However
buyer affordability is a consideration and it is not an option to change the main
Building structure for each elevation type. We have shown a variety of front door
, types. Some with glass side lights some without Some of the styling of the home
would'f1ot be amenable to glass details and some buyers rnay also be of a like
mind so as not to be amenable to glass in their front doors.
25. Discussed and implemented where possible.
26. Decks and patio covers have been shown where required and optioned to buyers
where they are not required.
27. ale units shall be in the rear yard.
28. We never show doaked venting on a presentation drawing, however we are
intending to use O'Hagin Cloaked venting on all plans where visible to the street
or right of way.
29. By the landscape architect ¡developer.
30. By the landscape architect I developer.
31. We specify high density foam trim.
32. By the landscape architect I developer.
33. This is a specIfication item. Specifications are provided by the developer.
34. Bringing design elements to the ground would cause setback issues and would
, not be visible due to property fences. However, where possible we have shown
thistreatmenthoweve~
35. the slt'eet addressing will be a simple lIIurninated address sign In a conspicuous
spot on each elevation.
36. All comer have one story plans or plans with single story elements plotted on
them. Elements such as stone and brick are all shown to rerum to the fence line.
There would be no further enhancements beyond the 6' property fence.
37. Chimney caps are all different per each style of elevation.
38. We have shown any room options that may exist on the floor plans. There are no
options to dash in on the elevations
39. We have provided matching elements at the front and back of each Enhanced
plan.- See enhancement plan for locations of enhanced elevations.
40. The roof pitch will be shown on the construction docurnents.
41. Scale is y,.n 1ft. and will be shown on the construction documents.
42. All comer have one story plans or plans with single story elements plotted on
them. Elements such as stone and brick are all shown to return to the fence line.
There would be no further enhancements beyond the 6' property fence
43. This is an acceptable alternative 10 a blank wall.
Co/my docum""tslchlplchlp
.
.
.
. ""EB-Ø6:-2ØØ4 ,,12: 18
KNITTER & ASSOCIATES
949 752 0151
P. Ø4/Ø5
.
.
.
44. venting shall match.
45. They are not grouped. See enhancement plan.
46. Respectfully subrnitted.
47. Landscape Architect to provide
48. Civil and Landscape.
49. Civil and landscape to provide.
50. others.
51. others.
52. others
53. others
54. others
55. others
56. others
57. others
58.lt would be cost prohibitive to provide special construction for a single
elevation feature at the side or rear off a plan. just to be "truer" to an
architectural style. We do show all of the other elements that you have
described.
59. We have used the guidelines 'that were provided by the City of Temecula.
They Were proposed as guidelines with brief descriptions of architectural
thernes to follow. Many of the elements that you have described are
speculative and therefore open to interpretation. It is our intent to capture
the spirit of each architectural style. I think we have done just that. Why
even in the example that you show of a 'prairie style home" in your
guidelines is actually a church designed by Frank Lloyd Wright and is built
in the Chicago area.
60. We have used similar doors on similar1y styled homes.
61.The eaves ARE wider. 2' vs. l' on the otherhornes.
62. The detail that you have described, A porte-cochere. Although admittedly
a very nice feature, would price buyers away from the horne that the
builder is trying to market. The builder is trying to provide an appealing
horne in a nice neighborhood that is in line with the market in the area.
63. The door that is intended for this model would be a flat plank type that is
readily available and marketed as a prairie style door.
64. We have considered changing the roof, but it is not a worthwhile
consideration when net appeal to value is considered.
65. True clay! Spanish tile cannot be warranted due to their brittle nature and
huge shipping loss factor. In a custom building situation, special handling
can be given to the situation. But this is far too great a liability in market
housing.
66.Again a very nice detail. But the market cannot bear this type of
embellishment.
67.Although nice, rnost tube steel details around windows that are authentic
cause irnpossible egress conditions.
68. we have recessed windows where practicable.
69. The detail that you describe causes stucco cracking and defect warranty
issues that cannot be overcome by anything but a painstaking custorn
application.
C'lmy documon!Slchlplchõp
>FEB'-Ø6 :2ØØ412: 19
KNITTER 8. ASSOCIATES /"
949 7520151'P.Ø5/Ø5
70. We considered these applications early in the design process. But the
'idea was eliminated due to market studies.
71.Although manufactured sidings are a vast improvement over dirnensional
lurnber. the weather extrernes that exist in Temecula cause most paints to
peel. causing the' homeowner higher maintenance costs and therefore a
liability to the builder.
72. The elevations should stand as they are.
73. the spirit òf the guidelines has been fulfilled.
74.Bythe landscape architecV civil.
75. By the landscape architept/ civil.
76.By the landscape architecV civil.
77. By the landscape architecV civil.
78. By the landscape architecU civil.
79. By the landscape architecU civil.
80. By the landscape architecU civil.
.
Respectfull ,submitted.
~ MeltoÍ1- Partner
/ /,iiter and associates
.
.
C:lmy document81d1iplc.hlp
TOTAL P.0S
ATTACHMENT NO.4
LETTER FROM APPLICANT
APRIL 30,2004
R:\Product Review\Roripaug~ Ranc~ SPlMeeker Co, Tr 29661-5, PA03-0634\PC SR memo 5-19-04,doc
7
.
.
.
April 30, 2004
CITY OF TEMECULA
Points of action
Roripaugh Ranch- planning area 4B
MEEKER COMMUNITIES,INC.
14 Hughes, suite B-1 04
Irvine Ca. 92618
C
ar-ctit:ectLre & plaTing
From notes cornpiled at the planning commission meeting on 4-24-04
Planning application PAO3-0634- Planning area 4-b
Respondent:
Chip Melton Knitter and associates
Dear Staff,
Please find my list of changes applied to the plans in response to the commissioners
requests. I hope it will assist you as we work together to proceed with this project.
If any questions arise while you are considering rny reply, please fell free to contact rne
at my office. (949)752-1177.
1. We have modified the front of the Prairie elevation on our street scene rendering
to show more articulation at the front windows above the garage doors in
response to commissioner Olhasso.
2. No changes were made to plan 1 except to show the location of the fence line on
the elevations.
3. Plan 2. Per the request. of Commissioners 'Mathewson and Guirerro, windows
were added to the side of the plans on the second floor to give an opportunity for
added enhancement details at the upper floor. This change affected all of the
side elevations, for both the enhanced an non- enhanced elevations.
4. All three front elevations have been further enhanced per the concerns of
comrnissioner Olhasso.
5. Plan 3- Per the request of Comrnissioners Mathewson and Guirerro, windows
were added to the side of the plans on the second floor to give an opportunity for
added enhancement details at the upper floor. This change affected all of the
side elevations, for both the enhanced an non-enhanced elevations.
6. . Plan 4. Per the request of Commissioners Mathewson and Guirerro,
windows were added to the side of the plans on the second floor to give
an opportunity for added enhancernent details at the upper floor. This
change affected all of the side elevations, for both the enhanced an non-
enhanced elevations.
Respectfully submitted,
C:/my documents/chip/chip
ITEM #5
.
.
.
STAFF REPORT - PLANNING
CITY OF TEMECULA
PLANNING COMMISSION
Date of Meeting:
May 19, 2004
Prepared by:
Matthew Harris
Title:
Associate Planner
File Number
PA03-0027
Application Type:
CUP/DP
Project Description:
A Conditional Use Permit and Development Plan to construct, establish
and operate a 24,287 square foot church facility including a sanctuary,
multi-purpose room, classrooms and meeting rooms. The subject
property is located on the north side of Pauba Road and 140 feet west
of Corte Villosa.
Recomrnendation:
(Check One)
[8] Approve with Conditions
0 Deny
0 Continue for Redesign
0 Continue to:
0 Recommend Approval with Conditions
0 Recommend Denial
CEQA:
(Check One)
0 Categorically Exempt
(Class)
D Negative Declaration
[8] Mitigated Negative Declaration with Monitoring Plan
DEIR
RoIC U 1'\2003103-027 Church of Jesus Chrisr ofl..tler Day SaintslSTAFF REPORT,doc
1
PROJECT DATA SUMMARY:
.
Applicant:
Cornwall Associates Architects
General Plan Designation:
Very Low Residential (VL)
Zoning Designation:
Very Low Density Residential (VL)
Site/Surrounding Land Use:
Site:
Vacant
North:
South:
East:
West:
Vacant
Single-Family Residential
Single-Family Residential
Vacant
Lot Area:
4.72 Acres
Total Floor Area/Ratio
24,287/.12
Landscape Area/Coverage
62,165 Sq, Ft./ 30%
Parking Required/Provided
96 Spaces/286 Spaces
.
BACKGROUND SUMMARY:
~ 1.
Staff has worked with the applicant to ensure that all concerns have been addressed,
and the applicant concurs with the recommended Conditions of Approval.
(or)
01,
Staff has worked with the applicant to ensure that all concerns have been addressed,
however, the following issues have not been resolved to the satisfaction to staff.
~2.
The attached "Project Review Worksheet" (Attachment A) has been completed and
staff has determined that the proposed project is consistent with the General Plan, City-
wide Design Guidelines, and the Development Code.
(or)
02.
The attached "Project Review Worksheet" (Attachment A) has been completed and
indicates that staff cannot make all the findings of consistency required for approval,
.
R:IC U P\2003\O3-027 Church of Jesus Chr;st of Latter Day Saints\STAFF REPORTdoc
2
.
.
.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Based on the attached operational statement provided by the applicant, staff provides the
following summary:
A church stake boundary consists of three to five wards. The proposed church facility has been
constructed as a Stake Center. The Center is designed to accommodate three church wards. A
ward consists of approximately 100 families or 500 to 600 people. The following activities, events
operating times and estimated attendance are proposed:
Sundays - Three wards will have individual services and instruction classes. Each ward
will be on site for three hour periods. The first ward will arrive onsite at 9:00 AM. The
second Ward at 11 :00 AM and the third at 1 :00 PM. (150-250 persons per ward)
Sunday Evenings - Special guest speakers or small worship activities will occur between
6:00 PM and 9:00 PM. (25-200 persons)
Friday Evenings - Social, cultural and recreational activities will occur between 7:30 PM
and 9:30 PM. (150-250 persons)
Saturdays - Social, cultural and recreational activities will occur between 9:00 AM and
6:00 PM. (100 persons)
Saturday Evenings - Plays and dinner socials will occur between 7:00 PM and 9:30 PM.
(150-250 persons)
One Saturday Evening Per Month - Youth dance, ages 14-18 years will occur between
8:00 PM and 11 :00 PM. (150-200 persons)
Monday-Friday Mornings - Up to four youth classes will occur between 6:30 AM and 8:00
AM. (12-16 persons per class)
Monday-Thursday Evenings - Youth groups, scouting meetings, woman's groups and
recreational activities will occur between 6:30 PM and 9:30 PM. (250-300 persons)
Bi-annual Stake Conference - One day conference for all members of the stake. Two
sessions lasting two hours induration. First session starts at 10:00 AM. If necessary, a
second starts at 1 :OOPM. (850-950 persons per session)
R:\C U 1'\2003\03.027 Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day SaintslST AFF REPORT.doc
3
ANALYSIS
Conditional Use Permit
.
The 4,72 acre subject property is zoned Very Low Density Residential (VL), Section 17.06,040 of
the Development Code requires a minimum net lot area of 2.5 acres thereby allowing for the
development of one single-family residence on the property. Section 17,06.030 allows for
religious institutions in the VL zone as a conditionally permitted use. Churches are allowed as
either a permitted or conditionally permitted use in all zoning districts within the City.
Based on the operational statement provided by the applicant, staff is recommending several
specific operational conditions of approval in association with the Conditional Use Permit
pertaining to hours of operation and the prohibition of certain activities onsite, Special events not
addressed in the conditions of approval will require the approval of a Temporary Use Permit.
Developrnent Plan
Staff has determined that overall, the project is consistent with the General Plan and conforms
with the City-Wide Design Guidelines and development standards specified in Sections
17.06.040 and 17.06.050.N, of the Development Code.
The project meets or exceeds all applicable development standards associated with the VL
zoning district including parking, landscaping, lot coverage and setback requirements.
Development Code Section 17.24,040 requires one parking space per each three fixed seats.
The church sanctuary will accommodate 287 fixed seats. Therefore, 96 onsite parking spaces
are required. A total of 286 parking spaces are proposed onsite. The excess spaces can be
utilized for special events that have been pre-approved by the City. Moreover, the project
conforms with all special standards for religious institutions including the provision that the
building and parking be located so as to minimize impacts on adjacent residences, The facility
has been sited in the center of the property with significant setbacks from property lines that far
exceed minimum requirements including approximately 170 feet along the east and rear property
lines and 108 feet on the west property line. In addition, significant landscaped setbacks are
provided between the onsite parking area and adjacent property lines including a 20-foot wide
landscape strip along the east property line and a 10' to 20 ' wide strip along the other property
lines.
.
A colonial architectural style is proposed for the church facility. The peak of the cross gable roof
is 31-feet tall, Development Code Section 17.06.040 specifies a maximum building height of 35-
feet. A 19-foot tall steeple is proposed toward the front of the building, Section 17.06.050.G
allows for this architectural element to exceed the maximum building height within the VL zone
by 15 feet, resulting in a 50-foot tall overall structure. Staff believes the height and scale of the
proposed church facility is different than surrounding residences. However, with the large
building setbacks and landscaped buffers proposed, staff feels the facility is compatible with
surrounding single-family residences,
COMMUNITY MEETINGS
Staff conducted two community meetings with area residents on March 17, 2003 and September
11, 2003 respectively. In addition, staff has received numerous written correspondence from
area residents which has been attached to this report. Based on both the comments received at
the community meetings and written comments, the following are concerns:
.
R:IC U P\2003103-027 Church of Jesus Chr;st of Latter Day SaintslSTAFF REPORT,doc
4
.
.
.
TRAFFIC
According to the Traffic Impact Analysis prepared by Urban Crossroads Inc., August 2003, the
proposed church facility will generate approximately 213 more trips per day than the permitted
residential density during the weekdays. Seventeen additional trips will be generated during the
AM peak and 15 additional trips will.result in the PM peak hours of a weekday. During
weekends, the traffic analysis indicates that the project will generate approximately 887 more
trips per day than the permitted residential density with 232 more trips during the mid-day peak
hour.
The highest traffic generated by the proposed project occurs on mid-day weekends. During the
AM and PM weekday peak hours on adjacent streets, the trips will be only slightly higher than
those generated by the permitted residential density. When these trips are added to existing and
cumulative traffic volumes, the traffic analysis concludes that all surrounding roadways and
intersections will operate at acceptable Levels of Service (LOS "D" or better). The cumulative
projects include Golf College, Linfield School Expansion, Meadows Village, Crown Hill
Residential Development and other miscellaneous residential developments. In addition to
these Cumulative projects, the study included a five percent growth factor for two years to
account for other unknown developments in the area. The intersections that were analyzed in
the study include Pauba Road at Meadows Parkway, Pauba Road at Green Tree Road, Pauba
Road at Calle Cedral, Pauba Road at Corte Villosa, Rancho Vista Road at Camino Romo,
Rancho Vista Road at Meadows Parkway, Camino Romo at Corte Villosa and the two site
access driveways on Pauba Road.
Currently, the traffic volume on Pauba Road is approximately 8,200 vehicles per day. Pauba
Road is designated as a Secondary Four-Lane Arterial on the Circulation Element of the General
Plan. At its ultimate width, Pauba Road has the capacity of carrying 31,000 vehicles per day.
The forecasted built-out volume on Pauba Road is far less than its ultimate capacity. Therefore,
the proposed project is not anticipated to cause significant impacts to the existing roadway
system within the City of Temecula. Moreover, the City's Traffic Engineer reviewed the project
traffic analysis and has determined that the project's traffic impacts warrant no further study with
the following mitigation measures:
1. Improve entire frontage of Pauba Road (Secondary Highway Standards - 88' RNJ) to
include dedication of half-width street right-of-way, installation of half width street
improvements, paving, curb and gutter, sidewalk, street lights, drainage facilities,
signage and striping, utilities (including but not limited to water and sewer).
2. A gate shall be constructed at the easterly driveway on Pauba Road so as to restrict
vehicular access between the hours of 10:00 PM and 7:00 AM Sunday thru
Thursday.
3. Payment of Western Riverside' County Transportation Uniforrn Mitigation Fee
(TUMF).
4. Payment of signal mitigation fee.
R:\C U 1'\2003\03-027 Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints\STAFF REPORT,doc
5
LIGHTING
Adjacent residents to the east of the subject property are concerned about the glare and/or direct
illumination from parking lot lights reaching into the rear of their properties. Section 17.24.050.F.
of the Development Code requires a minimum of one footcandle of illumination be achieved
throughout the parking lot. This Section also requires that the lighting be both designed and
maintained in a manner that prevents glare or direct illumination from intruding into any adjacent
residential zone. In order to achieve a minimum of one footcandle within the eastern portion of
the parking lot, the applicant is proposing to erect four eighteen foot taillight poles. The poles will
be setback approximately 36-feet from the eastern property line. Low sodium cutoff light fixtures
will be utilized to ensure that illumination is forced downward rather than flaring out to the sides.
Moreover, the parking lot lights will be turned off via a timer at 10:00PM seven nights a week.
The grade of the subject property is six to eight feet lower than the adjacent residences. Four
different species of tree will be planted along the eastern property line. The following estimated
heights and widths of the trees over time is provided:
Sizes are estimated height x width at the size/year indicated:
Camphor (multi-trunk)
36" box at time of planting 9'-10' x 6'-7'
1 year
10'-11'x7'-8'
5 years
13'-15' x 8'-10'
Maturity
50' x 60'
Arizona Cypress
15 gallon at time of planting 4'-5' x 2'
1 year
5 years
6'-8' x 3'-4'
14'-16' x 7'-8'
Maturity
40' x 20'
Cork Oak
15 gallon at time of planting 7'-8' x 2'-3'
1 year
5 years
8'-9' x 3'-4'
11'-13'x6'-7'
Maturity
30'-60' x 30'-60'
Ro\C U 1'\2003\03-027 Chureh of Jesus Christ of Latter Day SaintslSTAFF REPORT,doc
6
.
.
.
.
.
.
Pink Trumpet Tree
24" box at time of planting
9'-11' x 4'-5'
1 year
10'-12' x 5'-6'
5 years
13'-15' x 7'-9'
Maturity
25',-50' x 25'-50'
Given the cut-off light fixtures, elevation difference, proposed landscaping and the fact that the
lights will be turned off during the overnight hours, staff believes that onsite parking lot lighting
will not create a significant impact on adjacent residences.
NOISE
Area residents are concerned about potential noise generation associated with the operation of
the church facility. The Noise Element of the General Plan indicates that a background noise
level of 60 dBA CNEL is compatible (Normally Acceptable) for residential land uses. An
acoustical report was prepared for the church facility by Lewitz and Associates Inc dated July
2002. The report concludes that the noise generated from the church facility will not exceed the
60 dBA CNEL threshold. Therefore, noise impacts on surrounding residences will not reach
significant levels.
CHURCH OPERATIONS
Based on the operational statement provided by the applicant listed above, staff recommends
the following hours of operation be required as a condition of approval:
Sundays:
9:00 AM thru 9:00 PM - Sunday services and Sunday school sessions.
Monday-Friday Mornings:
6:30 AM thru 8:00 AM - Youth group.
Monday-Thursday Evenings:
6:30 PM thru 9:30 PM - Youth group, recreation, scouting, organizational meetings.
Saturdays:
9:00 AM thru 6:00 PM - Cultural, recreational and sports activities.
Friday Evenings
7:30 PM thru 9:30 PM - Social, cultural and recreational activities.
Saturday Evenings:
K\C U 1'\2003\03-027 Chmch of Jesus Clujst of Latter Day Saints\STAFFREPORTdoc
7
7:00 PM thru 9:30 PM - Plays and dinner socials.
One Saturday Evening Per Month:
.
8:00 PM thru 10:00 PM - Youth dance.
Staff recommends that all other special events not listed above including the bi-annual Stake
Conference meetings shall require acquisition of a Temporary Use Permit this has been made a
recommended condition of approval.
Staff recommends that the youth dance proposed one Saturday evening per month be required
to end at 10:00 PM rather than 11 :00 PM given that the City curfew hour for youths is 10:00 PM.
This has been made a recommended condition of approval.
BUFFERS/LANDSCAPING
The church building has been sited in the center of the property so as to reduce impacts on
adjacent properties. An approximately 170-foot wide setback has been achieved between the
building and the eastern property line. Moreover, setbacks of 108 feet and 170 feet have been
achieved from the north and west property lines. These setbacks far exceed the minimum 10-
foot wide setback that is required by the Development Code and staff believes the setbacks
serve as ample buffers between adjacent residences and the facility. In addition, fully
landscaped planter strips ranging from 10' to 20' in width will be established between the onsite
parking lot and adjacent property lines which exceed the minimum 5 foot wide planters required
in the Development Code. At maturity, numerous trees and shrubs will serve to further buffer the
building and parking lot from the adjacent residences.
.
ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION
01.
In accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act, the proposed Project has
been deemed to be categorically exempt from further environmental review. (Class,
name, type)
(or)
01.
The proposed project has been determined to be consistent with the previously
approved (Negative Declaration) (EIR) and is exempt from further Environmental
Review (CEQA Section 15162 subsequent EIR's and Negative Declarations).
(or)
~1.
An initial study has been prepared and indicates that the project will have the following
potential significant environmental impacts unless mitigation measures are included as
conditions of approval. Based on the following mitigations, staff recommends adoption
of the mitigated Negative Declaration for the project.
.
R,\C U 1'12003\03-021 Church of Jesus au;stofLatter Day Saints\STAFFREPORT,doc
8
.
.
.
11!1 "
Air Quality Dust Control Measures /Engine Pollutant Control
Measures
Cultural Resources Certified Paleontologist onsite when grading in
bedrock. Salvage operations initiated if significant
concentrations of fossils found.
TransportationfTraffic Widen and improve Pauba Road frontage.
Installation of gate at eastern driveway to restrict
overnight access to parking lot. Payment of TUMF
and Sianal Mitiaations Fees.
CONCLUSI 0 N/R ECOMM EN DA TIO N:
Staff has determined that the project is consistent with the General Plan and conforms with the
City-Wide Design Guidelines and Development Code. Therefore, staff recommends that the
Planning Commission approve the proposed Latter Day Saints church facility subject to the
attached conditions of approval.
FINDINGS
Conditional Use Permit (Code Section 17.040.010E)
1.
The proposed conditional use is consistent with the general plan and the development
code.
The proposed Latter Day Saints Church facility is consistent with the Land Use Element
of the General Plan. The proposed multi-purpose room, Sunday schooi classrooms and
meeting rooms meet the purpose and intent of a conditional use permit as defined in
Section 17.04.01OA of the development code. The church and associated facilities are
conditionally permitted uses in the Very Low Density Residential (VL) zoning district.
2.
The proposed conditional use is compatible with the nature, condition and development
of adjacent uses, buildings and structures and the proposed conditional use will not
adversely ,affect the adjacent uses, buildings or structures.
The proposed conditional use is compatible with adjacent land uses as defined in the
general plan. Staff has reviewed the proposed church facility against the adjacent land
uses and has determined that the proposed uses will be compatible with adjacent
residential uses with conditions of approval.
3.
The site for a proposed conditional use is adequate in size and shape to accommodate
the yards, walls, fences, parking and loading facilities, buffer areas, landscaping, and
other development features prescribed in the development code and required by the
planning commission or council in order to integrate the use with other uses in the
neighborhood.
Staff has reviewed the proposed project against the Very Low Density Residential (VL)
development standards identified in the Development Code and has found that the
project meets or exceeds all of the requirements-
R:IC U 1'\2003103-027 Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints\STAFF REPORT,doc
9
4.
The nature of the proposed conditional use is not detrimental to the health, safety and
general welfare of the community.
.
5.
Staff has reviewed the proposed church facility and found that it in no way will be
detrimental to the health, safety, or general welfare of the community. Fire Prevention
has reviewed circulation and drive aisle widths and has determined that the site will be
adequately served by the Fire Department in an emergency situation.
That the decision to approve, conditionally approve, or deny the application for a
conditional use permit be based on substantial evidence in view of the record as a whole
before the Planning Commission or City Council.
This application has been brought before the Planning Commission at a Public Hearing
where members of the public have had an opportunity to be heard on this matter before
the Planning Commission renders their decision.
Development Plan
(Code Section 17.050.010F)
1.
The proposed use is in conformance with the General Plan for Temecula and with all
applicable requirements of state law and other ordinances of the city.
The proposai is consistent with the land use designation and policies reflected for Vel}'
Low Density Residential (VL) development in the City of Temecuia General Plan, as well
as the development standards for the Vel}' Low Density Residential Zoning District
located in the Development Code. The site is therefore properly planned and zoned and
found to be physically suitable for the type and density of the proposed church complex.
.
2.
The overall development of the land is designed for the protection of the public health,
safety, and general welfare.
The architecture proposed for the building is consistent with the Architectural
requirements as stated in the Design Guidelines and the Development Code. The project
has been reviewed for, and as conditioned, has been found to be consistent with, all
applicable policies, guidelines, standarqs and regulations intended to ensure that the
development will be constructed and function in a manner consistent with the public
health, safety and welfare.
.
R:\C U 1'\2003\03-027 Chu,ch of Jesus Christ of LaUe< Day Saints\ST AFF REPORT,doc
10
. 1.
2,
3,
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
.
.
ATTACHMENTS
Plan Reductions/Full Set - Blue Page 12
Project Review Worksheet- Blue Page 13
Conditional Use Permit PC Resolution No.2004_- Blue Page 14
Exhibit A -Conditions of Approval
Development Plan PC Resolution No, 2004_- Blue Page 15
Exhibit A- Conditions of Approval
Initial Study/Mitigation Monitoring Program - Blue Page 16
Operational Statement - Blue Page 17
Public Correspondence - Blue Page 18
Traffic Study - Blue Page 19
R:\C U P\2003\03-027 Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day SaintslSTAFF REPORT,doc
II
ATTACHMENT NO. 1
PLAN REDUCTIONS
R:\C U P\2003\O3-Q27 Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day SaintslSTAFF REPORT.doc
12
ATTACHMENT NO.2
PROJECT REVIEW WORKSHEET
R:\C U P\2003\O3-027 Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints\ST AFF REPORT,doc
13
.
.
.
PROJECT REVIEW WORKSHEET
Development Plan
Comrnercial
Planning Application Number:
PA03-0027
Very Low (VL)
Consistent?
Yes
1. General Plan Designation:
Very Low Den. Res. (VL)
Consistent?
2. Zoning Designation:
3. Environmental Documents Referred to in Making Determination:
0
0
0
i:8I
i:8I
i:8I
i:8I
i:8I
i:8I
i:8I
i:8I
0
General Plan EIR
Sensitive Biological Habitat Map
Sensitive Archeological Area Map
Sensitive Paleontological Area Map
Fault Hazard Zone Map
Subsidence/Liquefaction Hazard Map
100 Year Flood Map
Future Roadway Noise Contour Map
Other (Specify)
Yes
Previous EIR/N.D. (Specify Project Name & Approval Date):
Submitted Technical Studies (Specify Name, Author & Date):
Paleontological Survey of 4.72 Acre Parcel, John Minch & Assoc., Nov. 2003
LDS Church Traffic Impact Analysis, Urban Crossroads Inc., Aug. 2003
Temecula Stake Center Acoustical Report, Lewitz & Assoc., July 2002
Cultural Resources Assessment, Archeological Associates, October 2003
Other:
0 Exempt
~ Mitigated Negative Declaration
0 Negative Declaration
0 EIR
4. Environmental Determination:
0 10 Day Review
i:8I 20 Day Review
0 30 Day Review
5. General Plan Goals Consistency:
Consistent
i:8I
~
i:8I
Inconsistent
0
0
0
Land Use
Circulation
Housing
R,IC U 1'\2003\03.027 Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day SaiutsIPROJEcr REVIEW WORKSHEET,doc
1
Consistent
Inconsistent
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
PROJECT REVIEW WORKSHEET
Developrnent Plan
Cornmercial
OS/Conservation
Growth Management/Public Facilities
Public Safety
Noise
Air Quality
Community Design
Economic Development
.
6. City-wide Design Guideline Consistency:
0
Site Planninq:
A. How does the placement of building(s) consider the surrounding area
character?
The project site consists of an undeveloped parcel surrounded by abutting
existing single-family residences to the east, undeveloped land to the north
and west and existing residential to the south across Pauba Road. The
church facility building has been sited generally in the center of the property
with onsite parking facilities ocurring on the north, east and west sides of
the buiiding. A sixty foot wide turf area will be established between the front
of the structure and the Pauba Road right-of-way. The building placement
serves to achieve a buffer between the church and both the existing and
future residents.
.
B. How do the structures interface with adjoining properties to avoid creating
nuisances and hazards?
The rear yards of the existing single-family residences to the east abut the
eastern property line of the project site. An approximately 170 foot wide
seperation has been achieved between the proposed church building and
the eastern property line. Moreover, a seperation of 165 feet and 108 feet
have also been achieved on the north and west sides of the church building.
These significant distances serve to reduce the potential for conflicts and
nusiances such as obstruction of views and noise generation. In an effort to
reduce the potential conflicts between the onsite parkling area and
residences to the east, a twenty-foot wide landscape buffer will be
established between the parking lot and the eastern property line. A similar
10' to 20' wide landscape buffer is also being established along the north
and west property lines so as to reduce impacts on future residences.
C. How does the building placement allow buildings rather than parking lots
to define the street edge?
The building has been sited in the center of the property. An approximately
sixty-foot wide turf area is proposed between the church building and the
front property line. The portions of the parking lot that are adjacent to
streets will be seperated from the roadway with landscaped planters and
berming to achieve screening.
.
R,IC U P\2003103-O27 Church of J"o, Chri" ofl..tter Day SainŒIPROJECf REVIEW WORKSHEETdoc
2
PROJECT REVIEW WORKSHEET
Development Plan
Comrnercial
.
0
Parkinq and Circulation:
A. How does the parking lot design allow customers and deliveries to reach
the site, circulate through the parking lot, and exit the site easily?
The parking lot is designed to achieve a circular traffic pattern with two-way
drive ailes and two driveways off Pauba Road. This provides motorists the
option of entering or entering a parking space from two different directions
which assures easy accesibilty and manuvering. in addition, the two
ingress/egress points allow for easy access.
B. How does the parking lot design provide safe and convenient access to
pedestrians and bicyclists?
The parking lot is not overly large and pedestians will only have to cross a
maximum of four parking lot drive ailes when entering or exiting the church
facility. Bicycle racks will be provided adjacent to the rear entrance of the
church providing convenient access.
C. How are the service facilities within the parking lot screened or buffered
from public view?
The proposed trash enclosure shall be located within the interior of the
project site at the rear of the church facility. The enclosure shall be
screened from the adjacent street and properties.
.
0
Buildinq Architecture:
A. How does the building design provide articulation of the building mass?
The design of the building acheives articulation of the building mass through
the use of a cross gable roof. A decorative church steeple serves to provide
additional roof line variation. Multiple decorative gable end projections occur
on the side elelvations with decorative columns supporting the structures.
Larger decorative gable end projections are achieved at the front and rear
building elevations which provide significant depth and shadow.
B. How is each building "stylistically" consistent with all buildings in a
complex, and on all elevations to achieve design harmony and continuity
within itself?
A colonial architectural style is proposed consisting of full brick facades and
siding at all gable ends. Decorative window trim, vents and columns are
utilized. Each building elevation acheives design harmony and continurity
with like materials and style. Staff believes the architectural style will serve
to compliment the property and neighborhood.
.
C. How does the placement of buildings create a more functional or useful
open space between the buildings and/or the street?
The church facility is sited in the middle of the property with an
approximately 60-foot wide turf area between the front elevation and the
front property line. This substantial front yard setback and landscaping
R,IC U 1'\2003103-027 Church of Jesus Christ of LoUer Day SaintsIPROJECf REVIEW WORKSHEETdoc
3
PROJECT REVIEW WORKSHEET
Development Plan
Cornmercial
serve to create a streetscape compatible with the residential uses that
surround the project site. Moreover, the onsite parking area is screened
from the street frontage with landscape planters and berming on each side
of both driveways.
.
D. How do each of the architectural elements (building base, windows,
doors and openings, cornice and parapet, roofline, and finish materials
meet the intent of the design guidelines?
in accordance with the City-Wide Design Guidelines, a significant brick
façade is being applied to the elevations. Large decorative columns have
been incorporated into the front and rear elevations to provide interest and
formality. A decorative steeple and cupola breaks up the building roofline
and enhances the building architecture. Window sizes and shapes are
repeated for rhythm. The main building entry is puncuated with wall surface
breaks and projects from the main body of the building.
The entrys to the building are identfied by decorative doors and glass side
panels. Decorative paving provides a connection between the entrys and
adjacent parking area. Building materials and colors are harmonius and
varied to provide interest. Significant overhangs create a porch effect and
provide significant shadow patterns.
0
Landscapinq:
A. Does the plan provide the following ratio of plantings?
IðJ Yes 0 No, why?
.
Trees
10% 36" Box
30% 24" Box
60% 15 Gallon
Groundcover
100% Coverage
In One Year
Shrubs
100% 5 Gallon
B. Does the landscaped area, ratio, spacing, and size conform with the
design guidelines? IðJ Yes 0 No
C. How does the internal site landscaping frame the building(s) and
separate them from the surrounding pavements?
Ornamental trees such as camphor tree, sycamore and maindenhair have
been located around the perimeter of the church building at corners and
projections to both soften and break-up bLlilding facades. Moreover, a
varitey of shrubs have been provided around the perimeter of the building
so as to enhance it's base. Landscaping has also been incorporated into the
service areas to provide softening and screening.
D. How does the patio and street' furniture, fixtures, walls and fences integrate
with of the architecture and landscaping?
Onsite service facilities such as the storage building, satelite enclosure and
.
R,\C U 1'12003\03-027 Church of Jesus Christ of LaUer Day Saints\PROJECf REVIEW WORKSHEET,doc
4
.
.
.
PROJECT REVIEW WORKSHEET
Development Plan
Cornmercial
trash enclosure will all be constructed with materials compatible with the
building architecture..
7. Development Code Consistency:
A. How does the plan achieve the performance standards specified in Code
Section 17.08.070?
Circulation:
The project site is served by two access points on each side of the church
frontage creating a circular traffic pattern throughout. Onsite drive aisles are
adequate in width to accomodate two-way traffic throughout. Service
facilities are easly accessible.
Architectural DesiGn:
Excessive mass and bulk have been avoided through the use of varying roof
heights, planes and decorative windows. Building entrances have been
offset and pronounced. The body of the building has been broken-up with
large porch like overhangs and associated decorative support columns
eliminating long unarticulated walls. The associated service facilities have
been incorporated into the bulding utfizing matching architectural design
features and materials.
Site PlanninG and DesiGn:
The building has been sited in the middle of the property with significant
setbacks from property lines. These large seperations serve to reduce
impacts on adjacent residential properties. A 10'-20' wide landscaped area
has been established along the side and rear property lines further reducing
off site impacts. Trees and shrubbery have been provided around all four
sides of the building to further soften and break-up the building elevations.
Service facilities have been located within the interior of the property and
have been screened.
Compatibilitv:
The church facility has been sited in the center of the subject property
resulting in significant setbacks between the building and adjacent residents.
These setbacks far exceed minimum requirements. Significant landscape
buffers are also provided to further buffer and screen the facility.
B. Does the application and submitted plans on file conform with all of the
applicable minimum development standards?
[8] Yes, with conditions
0 No
Net Lot Area:
4.72 Acres
RoIC U 1'\2003103-027 Church of Jesus Chris! of Lalte! Day SaintslPROJEcr REVIEW WORKSHEETdoc
5
PROJECT REVIEW WORKSHEET
Development Plan
Cornrnercial
Total Floor Area:
Floor Area Ratio:
Lot Coverage:
24,287 Square Feet
.12
11.8%
.
x
Habitat
Subs.lLiqfctn
Stream/Creek
Air Quality
Arch.lPaleo
Fault Zone
Flood
Noise
x
x
North Vacant Verv Low (VU Verv Low (VU
East Residential SP-3 Mara. Villaae Low Medium Res. (LM
West Vacant VervLow (VL) VervLow IVL)
South Residential SP-4 Paloma del Sol Low Medium Res. (LM)
.
.
R,\C U P\2003\03.o27 Church of Jesus Cluist of Latter Day SuintsIPROJECT REVIEW WORKSHEET,doc
6
ATTACHMENT NO.3
PC RESOLUTION NO. 2004-
(CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT)
R:IC U P\2003\O3-Q27 Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day SaintslST AFF REPORTdoc
14
.
.
.
PC RESOLUTION NO. 2004--
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY
OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION NO.
PA03-0027, A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ESTABLISH AND
OPERATE A LATTER DAY SAINTS CHURCH FACILITY
CONSISTING OF SANCTUARY, MULTI-PURPOSE ROOM,
SUNDAY SCHOOL CLASROOMS AND MEETING ROOMS
TOTALING 24,287 SQUARE FEET ON 4.72 ACRES. THE SITE IS
GENERALLY LOCATED ON THE NORTH SIDE OF PAUBA ROAD
AND 140 FEET WEST OF CORTE VILLOSA ALSO KNOWN AS
ASSESSORS PARCEL NO. 955-310-050 & 017.
WHEREAS, Cornwall Associates Architects, filed Planning Application No. PA03-0027,
Conditional Use Permit ("Application"), in a manner in accord with the City of Temecula General
Plan and Development Code;
WHEREAS, the Application was processed including, but not limited to a public notice, in the
time and manner prescribed by State and local law;
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission, at a regular meeting, considered the Application on
May 19, 2004, at a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law, at which time the City staff and
interested persons had an opportunity to and did testify either in support or in opposition to this
matter;
WHEREAS, at the conclusion of the Commission hearing and after due consideration of the
testimony, the Commission recommended approval of the Application subject to and based upon
the findings set forth hereunder;
WHEREAS, all legal preconditions to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION OFTHE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES
HEREBY RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1.
reference.
The above recitations are true and correct and are hereby incorporated by
Section 2. Findinas. The Planning Commission, in approving the Application hereby
makes the following findings as required by Section of the Temecula Municipal Code:
Conditional Use Permit (Section 17.04.010.E.)
1 . The proposed conditional use is consistent with the general plan and the
development code.
The proposed Later Day Saints Church facility is consistent with the Land Use Element of
the general plan. The proposed multi-purpose room, Sunday school classrooms and
meeting rooms meet the purpose and intent of a conditional use permit as defined in Section
17.04.01OA of the development code. The church and associated facilities are conditionally
permitted uses in the Very Low Density Residential (VL) zoning district.
R,IC U 1'\2003103,027 Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day SaiutslCUP Reso,doc
2
2. The proposed conditional use is compatible with the nature, condition and
development of adjacent uses, buildings and structures and the proposed conditional use will not
adversely affect the adjacent uses, buildings or structures.
.
The proposed conditional use is compatible with adjacent land uses as defined in the
general plan. Staff has reviewed the proposed church facility against the adjacent land uses
and has determined that the proposed uses will be a complimentary addition to the area.
3. The site for a proposed conditional use is adequate in size and shape to
accommodate the yards, walls, fences, parking and loading facilities, buffer areas, landscaping, and
other development features prescribed in the development code and required by the planning
commission or council in order to integrate the use with other uses in the neighborhood.
Staff has reviewed the proposed project against the Very Low Density Residential (VL)
development standards identified in the Development Code and has found that the project
meets or exceeds all of the requirements.
4. The nature of the proposed conditional use is not detrimental to the health, safety
and general welfare of the community.
Staff has reviewed the proposed church facility and found that it in no way will be detrimental
to the health, safety, or general welfare of the community. Fire Prevention has reviewed
circulation and drive aisle widths and has determined that the site will be adequately served
by the Fire Department in an emergency situation.
5. That the decision to approve, conditionally approve, or deny the application for a
conditional use permit be based on substantial evidence in view of the record as a whole before the
Planning Commission or City Council.
.
This application has been brought before the Planning Commission at a Public Hearing
where members of the public have had an opportunity to be heard on this matter before the
Planning Commission renders their decision.
Section 3. Environmental Compliance. An Initial Study was prepared in accordance with
the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines, and indicated that the project would have no
significant effects on the environment. Therefore, a Negative Declaration has been adopted.
Section 4. Conditions. That the City of Temecula Planning Commission hereby
conditionally approves the Application, a request to develop a Latter Day Saints church complex
totaling 24,287 square feet set forth on Exhibit A, attached hereto, and incorporated herein by this
reference together with any and all necessary conditions that may be deemed necessary.
.
RolC U P\2003103.()27 Chu'ch of Jesus Christ of Lane< Day SaintslCUP Reso,doc
3
.
.
.
Section 5. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the City of Temecula Planning
Commission this 19th day of May 2004.
John Telesio, Chairperson
ATTEST:
Debbie Ubnoske, Secretary
SEAL]
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE
CITY OF TEMECULA
)
) ss
)
I, Debbie Ubnoske, Secretary of the Temecula Planning Commission, do hereby certify that
PC Resolution No. 2004-- was duly and regularly adopted by the Planning Commission of the
City ofTemecula at a regular meeting thereof held on the 19th day of May 2004, by the following vote
of the Commission:
AYES:
NOES:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
ABSENT:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
ABSTAIN:
Debbie Ubnoske, Secretary
R:\C U 1'\2003103-027 Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day SaintslCUP Reso,doc
4
EXHIBIT A
DRAFT CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
R:IC U 1'\2003103-027 Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day SsintslCUP Reso,doc
5
.
.
.
EXHIBIT A
CITY OF TEMECULA
DRAFT CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
Planning Application No.: PA03-0027
(Conditional Use Permit)
Project Description:
A Conditional Use Perrnit to establish and
operate a Latter Day Saints church complex
consisting of sanctuary, multi-purpose room,
Sunday school classrooms and meeting rooms
totaling 24,287 square feet on a 4.72-acre site.
Development Impact Fee Category: Exempt
Assessor's Parcel No.:
955-050-017
Approval Date:
May 19, 2004
May 19, 2006
Expiration Date:
PLANNING DIVISION
General Requirements
1.
The applicant and owner of the real property subject to this condition shall hereby agree to
indemnify, protect, hold harmless, and defend the City with Legal Counsel of the City's own
selection from any and all claims, actions, awards, judgments, or proceedings against the
City to attack, set aside, annul, or seek monetary damages resulting, directly or indirectly,
from any action in furtherance of and the approval of the City, or any agency or
instrumentality thereof, advisory agency, appeal board or legislative body including actions
approved by the voters of the City, concerning the Planning Application. The City shall be
deemed for purposes of this condition, to include any agency or instrumentality thereof, or
any of its elected or appointed officials, officers, employees, consultants, contractors, legal
counsel, and agents. City shall promptly notify both the applicant and landowner of any
claim, action, or proceeding to which this condition is applicable and shall further cooperate
fully in the defense of the action. The City reserves the right to take any and all action the
City deems to be in the best interest of the City and its citizens in regards to such defense.
2.
The permittee shall obtain City approval for any modifications or revisions to the approval of
this Conditional Use Permit.
3.
This approval shall be used within two (2) years of the approval date; otherwise, it shall
become null and void. By use is meant the beginning of substantial construction
contemplated by this approval within the two (2) year period, which is thereafter diligently
pursued to completion, or the beginning of substantial utilization contemplated by this
approval.
4.
No day care operations shall be conducted onsite in association with church facility.
RIC U 1'12003103-027 Church of Jesus Christ of latter Day SaiutslCUP Reso,doc
6
6.
7.
8.
9.
10,
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
5.
No parochial school operations shall be conducted onsite in association with the church
facility. Onsite classrooms shall be used for Sunday school purposes only.
.
No overnight activities/events shall be conducted onsite in association with the church
facility.
No outdoor activities shall be conducted onsite.
No overnight parking of recreational vehicles or campers shall occur onsite.
No facilities shall be commercially rented to the public.
No food cooking or preparation shall be conducted onsite and no "soup kitchen" activities
shall occur.
Parking lot lights shall be turned-off at 10:00 PM seven days a week.
The facility shall operate from 9:00 AM thru 9:00 PM on Sundays for services, Sunday
school and evening activities.
The facility shall operate from 6:30 AM thru 8:00 AM Monday thru Friday for youth group and
6:30 PM thru 9:30 PM for youth group, recreational activities, scouting and other
organizational meetings.
The facility shall operate on Saturdays from 8:00 AM to 7:00 PM for cultural, recreational and
sports activities.
.
The facility shall operate from 7:00 PM thru 9:30 PM on Friday and Saturday evenings for
dinner socials.
The facility shall operate from 8:00 PM thru 10:00 PM one Saturday evening per month for
youth dances.
Other special events not listed above including the bi-annual Stake Conference shall require
the acquisition of a Temporary Use Permit prior to the event.
By placing my signature below, I confirm that I have read, understand and accept all the above
Conditions of Approval. I further understand that the property shall be maintained in conformance
with these conditions of approval and that any changes I may wish to make to the project shall be
subject to Community Development Department approval,
Applicant's Signature
Date
Applicant Printed Name
.
R,IC U PI2OQ3I03.Q27 Chun;h of Jesus Christ of Latter Day SaintslCUP Reso,doc
7
ATTACHMENT NO.4
PC RESOLUTION NO. 2004-
(DEVELOPMENT PLAN)
R:\C U P\200JIOJ-O27 Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day SaintslST AFF REPORT,doc
15
.
.
.
PC RESOLUTION NO. 2004--
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY
OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION NO.
PA03-0027, A DEVELOPMENT PLAN TO CONSTRUCT, A
CHURCH FACILITY CONSISTING OF SANCTUARY, MUL TI-
PURPOSE ROOM, CLASSROOMS AND MEETING ROOMS
TOTALING 24,287 SQUARE FEET ON 4.72 ACRES. THE SITE IS
GENERALLY LOCATED ON THE NORTH SIDE OF PAUBA ROAD
AND 140 FEET WEST OF CORTE VILLOSA, ALSO KNOWN AS
ASSESSORS PARCEL NOS. 955-050-017.
WHEREAS, Cornwall Associates Architects, filed Planning Application No. PA03-0027 ,
Development Plan "Application"), in a manner in accord with the CityofTemecula General Plan and
Development Code;
WHEREAS, the Application was processed including, but not limited to a public notice, in the
time and manner prescribed by State and local law;
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission, at a regular meeting, considered the Application on
May 19, 2004, at a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law, at which time the City staff and
interested persons had an opportunity to and did testify either in support or in opposition to this
matter;
WHEREAS, at the conclusion of the Commission hearing and after due consideration of the
testimony, the Commission recommended approval.of the Application subject to and based upon
the findings set forth hereunder;
WHEREAS, all legal preconditions to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION OFTHE CITY OFTEMECULADOES
HEREBY RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1.
reference.
The above recitations are true and correct and are hereby incorporated by
Section 2. Findinqs. The Planning Commission, in approving the Application hereby
makes the following findings as required by Section 17.05.010F of the Temecula Municipal Code:
Development Plan (Section 17.05.010F)
A. The proposed use is in conformance with the General Plan, Specific Plan, and with
all applicable requirements of state law and other City ordinances.
The proposal is consistent with the land use designation and policies reflected for Very Low
Density Residential (VL) development in the City of Temecula General Plan, as well as the
development standards for the Very Low Density Residential (VL) Zoning District located in
the Development Code. The site is therefore properly planned and zoned and found to be
physically suitable for the type and density of the proposed church complex.
B. The overall development of the land is designed for the protection of the public
health, safety, and general welfare.
The architecture proposed for the building is consistent with the Architectural requirements
as stated in the Design Guidelines and the Development Code. The project has been
reviewed for, and as conditioned, has been found to be consistent with, all applicable
policies, guidelines, standards and regulations intended to ensure that the development will
be constructed and function in a manner consistent with the public health, safety and
welfare.
.
Section 3. Environmental Compliance. An Initial Study was prepared in accordance with
the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines, and indicated that the project would have no
significant effects on the environment. Therefore, a Negative Declaration has been adopted.
Section 4. Conditions. That the City of Temecula Planning Commission hereby
conditionally approves the Application, a request to develop a 24,287 square foot church facility
consisting of sanctuary, multi-purpose room, class rooms and meeting rooms set forth on Exhibit A,
attached hereto, and incorporated herein by this reference together with any and all necessary
conditions that may be deemed necessary.
Section 5. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the City of Temecula Planning
Commission this 19th day of May 2004.
John Telesio, Chairperson
ATTEST:
.
Debbie Ubnoske, Secretary
SEAL]
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE
CITY OF TEMECULA
)
) ss
)
I, Debbie Ubnoske, Secretary of the Temecula Planning Commission, do hereby certify that
PC Resolution No. 2004-- was duly and regularly adopted by the Planning Commission of the
City of Temecula at a regular meeting thereof held on the 19th day of May 2004, by the following vote
of the Commission:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
Debbie Ubnoske, Secretary
.
EXHIBIT A
DRAFT CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
.
.
.
EXHIBIT A
CITY OF TEMECULA
DRAFT CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
Planning Application No.:
(Development Plan)
Project Description:
A Development Plan to construct a Latter Day
Saints church facility consisting of sanctuary,
multi-purpose room, classrooms and meeting
rooms totaling 24,287 square feet on 4.72-acre
site.
Development Impact Fee Category: Exempt
Assessor's Parcel No.:
955-050-017
Approval Date:
May 19, 2004
May 19, 2006
Expiration Date:
PLANNING DIVISION
Within Forty-Eight (48) Hours of the Approval of this Project
1.
The applicant/developer shall deliver to the Planning Department a cashier's check or
money order made payable to the County Clerk in the amount of One-Thousand Three-
Hundred and Fourteen Dollars ($1 ,314.00) for the County administrative fee, to enable the
City to file the Notice of Determination with a DeMinimus Finding for the Negative
Declaration required under Public Resources Code Section 211 08(b) and California Code of
Regulations Section 15075. If within said forty-eight (48) hour period the applicant/developer
has not delivered to the Planning Department the check as required above, the approval for
the project granted shall be void by reason of failure of condition (Fish and Game Code
Section 711.4(c».
General Requirements
2.
The applicant and owner of the real property subject to this condition shall hereby agree to
indemnify, protect, hold harmless, and defend the City with Legal Counsel of the City's own
selection from any and all claims, actions, awards, judgments, or proceedings against the
City to attack, set aside, annul, or seek monetary damages resulting, directly or indirectly,
from any action in furtherance of and the approval of the City, or any agency or
instrumentality thereof, advisory agency, appeal board or legislative body including actions
approved by the voters of the City, concerning the Planning Application. The City shall be
deemed for purposes of this condition, to include any agency or instrumentality thereof, or
any of its elected or appointed officials, officers, employees, consultants, contractors, legal
counsel, and agents. City shall promptly notify both the applicant and landowner of any
claim, action, or proceeding to which this condition is applicable and shall further cooperate
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
fully in the defense of the action. The City reserves the right to take any and all action the
City deems to be in the best interest of the City and its citizens in regards to such defense.
.
All conditions shall be complied with prior to any occupancy or use allowed by this
Development Plan.
The permittee shall obtain City approval for any modifications or revisions to the approval of
this development plan.
This approval shall be used within two (2) years of the approval date; otherwise, it shall
become null and void. By use is meant the beginning of substantial construction
contemplated by this approval within the two (2) year period, which is thereafter diligently
pursued to completion, or the beginning of substantial utilization contemplated by this
approval.
The development of the premises shall substantially conform to the approved Site Plan,
Grading Plan, Building Elevations, Floor Plans, Landscape Plan, and the Color and Material
Board contained on file with the Planning Department.
The applicant/developer shall fully comply with the attached Mitigation Monitoring Program.
Landscaping installed for the project shall be continuously maintained to the reasonable
satisfaction of the Planning Director. If it is determined that the landscaping is not being
maintained, the Planning Director shall have the authority to require the property owner to
bring the landscaping into conformance with the approved landscape plan. The continued
maintenance of all landscaped areas shall be the responsibility of the developer or any
successors in interest.
.
10.
All mechanical and roof equipment shall be fully screened from public view by being placed
below the lowest level of the surrounding parapet wall.
The colors and materials for the project shall substantially conform to those noted directly
below and with the Color and Material Board, contained on file with the Planning
Department.
a. Roofing: Fiberglass Composition Shingle - "Ebony Wood"
b. Siding, rim, Sash and Soffits: Aluminum - "Bone White"
c. Columns and Features - "Bone White"
d.
Steeple and Cupola - Aluminum - "Bone White"
Exterior Walls: Brick - "Monterey Blend"
e.
11.
The construction landscape drawings shall indicate coordination and grouping of all utilities,
which are to be screened from view per applicable City Codes and guidelines.
Prior to Issuance of Grading Permits
12.
The applicant shall sign both copies of the final conditions of approval that will be provided
by the Planning Department staff, and return one signed set to the Planning Department for
their files.
.
.
.
.
13.
14.
The applicant shall submit to the Planning Department for permanent filing two (2) 8" X 10"
glossy photographic color prints of the approved Color and Materials Board and of the
colored version of approved colored architectural elevations to the Community Development
Department - Planning Division for their files. All labels on the Color and Materials Board
and Elevations shall be readable on the photographic prints.
A copy of the Grading Plan shall be submitted and approved by the Planning Department.
Prior to Issuance of Building Permit
15.
16.
17.
A Consistency Check fee shall be paid per the City of Temecula Fee Schedule.
Three (3) copies of Construction Landscaping and Irrigation Plans shall be reviewed and
approved by the Planning Department. These plans shall conform substantially with the
approved Conceptual Landscaping Plan, or as amended by these conditions. The location,
number, genus, species, and container size of the plants shall be shown. The plans shall be
consistent with the Water Efficient Ordinance. The following items shall accompany the
plans:
a.
Appropriate filing fee (per the City of Temecula Fee Schedule at time of submittal).
One (1) copy of the approved grading plan.
Water usage calculations per Chapter 17.32 of the Development Code (Water
Efficient Ordinance).
Total cost estimate of plantings and irrigation (in accordance with the approved
plan).
b.
c.
d.
The applicant shall submit a parking lot lighting plan to the Planning Department, which
meets the requirements of the Development Code and the Palomar Lighting Ordinance.
The parking lot light standards shall be placed in such a way as to not adversely impact the
growth potential of the parking lot trees.
Prior to Occupancy
18.
The property owner shall fully install all required landscaping and irrigation, and submit a
landscape maintenance bond in a form and amount approved by the Planning Department
for a period of one-year from the date of the first occupancy permit.
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS
General Requirements
19. A Grading Permit for a precise grading, including all on-site flat work and improvements,
shall be obtained from the Department of Public Works prior to commencement of any
construction outside of the City-maintained street right-of-way.
20.
An Encroachment Permit shall be obtained from the Department of Public Works prior to
commencement of any construction within an existing or proposed City right-of-way.
21.
All improvement plans and grading plans shall be coordinated for consistency with adjacent
projects and existing improvements contiguous to the site and shall be submitted on
standard 24" x 36" City of Temecula mylars.
22.
23.
24.
25.
26.
27.
28.
The Developer shall construct public improvements in conformance with applicable City
Standards and subject to approval by the Director of the Department of Public Works.
.
a.
Street improvements, which may include, but not limited to: curb and gutter,
sidewalk, drive approach, street lights, signing and striping,
Storm drain facilities and
Sewer and domestic water systems
b.
c.
Prior to Issuance of a Grading Permit
A Grading Plan shall be prepared by a registered Civil Engineer and shall be reviewed and
approved by the Department of Public Works. The grading plan shall include all necessary
erosion control measures needed to adequately protect adjacent public and private property.
The Developer shall post security and enter into an agreement guaranteeing the grading and
erosion control improvements in conformance with applicable City Standards and subject to
approval by the Department of Public Works.
A Soil Report shall be prepared by a registered Soil or Civil Engineer and submitted to the
Director of the Department of Public Works with the initial grading plan check. The report
shall address all soils conditions of the site, and provide recommendations for the
construction of engineered structures and pavement sections.
The Developer shall have a Drainage Study prepared by a registered Civil Engineer in
accordance with City Standards identifying storm water runoff expected from this site and
upstream of this site. The study shall identify all existing or proposed public or private
drainage facilities intended to discharge this runoff. The study shall also analyze and identify
impacts to downstream properties and provide specific recommendations to protect the
properties and mitigate any impacts. Any upgrading or upsizing of downstream facilities,
including acquisition of drainage or access easements necessary to make required
improvements, shall be provided by the Developer.
.
The Developer must comply with the requirements of the National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) permit from the State Water Resources Control Board. No
grading shall be permitted until an NPDES Notice of Intent (NO I) has been filed or the
project is shown to be exempt.
29.
The Developer shall obtain letters of approval or easements for any off-site work performed
on adjoining properties. The letters or easements shall be in a format as directed by the
Department of Public Works.
30.
As deemed necessary by the Director of the Department of Public Works, the Developer
shall receive written clearance from the following agencies:
a. San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board
b. Planning Department
c. Department of Public Works
d. Temecula Fire Prevention Bureau
.
.
31.
32.
The Developer shall comply with all constraints which may be shown upon an Environmental
Constraint Sheet (ECS) recorded with any underlying maps related to the subject property.
A flood mitigation charge shall be paid. The Area Drainage Plan fee is payable to the
Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District by either cashier's check or
money order, prior to issuance of permits, based on the prevailing area drainage plan fee. If
the full Area Drainage Plan fee or mitigation charge has already been credited to this
property, no new charge needs to be paid.
Prior to Issuance of a Building Permit
33.
.
34.
.
Improvement plans and/or precise grading plans shall conform to applicable City of
T emecula Standards subject to approval by the Director ofthe Department of Public Works.
The following design criteria shall be observed:
a. Flowline grades shall be 0.5% minimum over P.C.C. and 1.00% minimum over A.C.
paving.
Driveways shall conform to the applicable City of Temecula Standard No. 207A.
Street lights shall be installed along the public streets adjoining the site in
accordance with City Standard No. 800.
Concrete sidewalks and ramps shall be constructed along public street frontages in
accordance with City of Temecula Standard No. 400.
Improvement plans shall extend 300 feet beyond the project boundaries.
All street and driveway centerline intersections shall be at 90 degrees.
Public Street improvement plans shall include plan and profile showing existing
topography, utilities, proposed centerline, top of curb and flowline grades.
The Developer shall construct the following public improvements to City of Temecula
General Plan standards unless otherwise noted. Plans shall be reviewed and approved by
the Director of the Department of Public Works:
a. Improve Pauba Road (Secondary Highway Standards - 88' R/W) to include
dedication of half-width street right-of-way, installation of half-width street
improvements, paving, curb and gutter, sidewalk, street lights, drainage facilities,
signing and striping, utilities (including but not limited to water and sewer).
All utilities systems including gas, electric, telephone, water, sewer, and cable TV
shall be provided underground. Easements shall be provided as required where
adequate right-of-way does not exist for installation of the facilities. All utilities shall
be designed and constructed in accordance with City Codes and the utility provider.
All existing and proposed power poles and electric lines except lines rated 33kv or
greater, shall be installed underground.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
g.
b.
c.
35.
All street improvement design shall provide adequate right-of-way and pavement transitions
per Caltrans' standards for transition to existing street sections.
36.
The Developer shall vacate and dedicate the abutters rights of access along Pauba Road
pursuant to the new location of the driveway.
37.
A construction area Traffic Control Plan shall be designed by a registered Civil or Traffic
38.
39.
40.
41.
Engineer and reviewed by the Director of the Department of Public Works for any street
closure and detour or other disruption to traffic circulation as required by the Department of
Public Works.
.
A Signing and Striping Plan shall be designed by a registered Civil Engineer and approved
by the Department of Public Works for Pauba Road; and ensure a left turn pocket for
accessing the site.
The building pad shall be certified to have been substantially constructed in accordance with
the approved Precise Grading Plan by a registered Civil Engineer, and the Soil Engineer
shall issue a Final Soil Report addressing compaction and site conditions.
The Developer shall pay to the City the Public Facilities Development Impact Fee as
required by, and in accordance with, Chapter 15.06 of the Temecula Municipal Code and all
Resolutions implementing Chapter 15.06,
The Developer shall pay to the City the Western Riverside County Transportation Uniform
Mitigation Fee (TUMF) Program as required by, and in accordance with, Chapter 15.08 of
the Temecula Municipal Code and all Resolutions implementing Chapter 15.08.
Prior to Issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy
42.
43.
44.
45.
As deemed necessary by the Department of Public Works, the Developer shall receive
written clearance from the following agencies:
a. Rancho California Water District
.
b.
Eastern Municipal Water District
Department of Public Works
c.
All public improvements shall be constructed and completed per the approved plans and
City standards to the satisfaction of the Director of the Department of Public Works.
The existing improvements shall be reviewed. Any appurtenance damaged or broken shall
be repaired or removed and replaced to the satisfaction of the Director of the Department of
Public Works.
FIRE DEPARTMENT
Final fire and life safety conditions will be addressed when building plans are reviewed by
the Fire Prevention Bureau. These conditions will be based on occupancy, use, the
California Building Code (CBC), California Fire Code (CFC), and related codes which are in
force at the time of building plan submittal.
46.
The Fire Prevention Bureau is required to set a minimum fire flow for the remodel or
construction of all commercial buildings per CFC Appendix liLA, Table A-III-A-1. The
developer shall provide for this project, a water system capable of delivering 2125 GPM at
20 PSI residual operating pressure, plus an assumed sprinkler demand of 400 GPM for a
total fire flow of 2525 GPM with a 4 hour duration. The required fire flow may be adjusted
during the approval process to reflect changes in design, construction type, or automatic fire
protection measures as approved by the Fire Prevention Bureau. The Fire Flow as given
above has taken into account all information as provided. (CFC 903.2, Appendix III-A)
.
.
47.
48.
49.
50.
51.
.
52.
53.
54.
55.
.
The Fire Prevention Bureau is required to set minimum fire hydrant distances per CFC
Appendix III-B, Table A-III-B-1. ^ minimum of2 hydrants, in a combination of on-site and off-
site (6" x 4" x 2-2 1/2" outlets) shall be located on Fire Department access roads and
adjacent public streets. Hydrants shall be spaced at 450 feet apart, at each intersection and
shall be located no more than 225 feet from any point on the street or Fire Department
access road(s) frontage to a hydrant. The required fire flow shall be available from any
adjacent hydrant(s) in the system. The upgrade of existing fire hydrants may be required.
(CFC 903.2, 903.4.2, and Appendix III-B)
As required by the California Fire Code, when any portion of the facility is in excess of 150
feet from a water supply on a public street, as measured by an approved route around the
exterior of the facility, on-site fire hydrants and mains capable of supplying the required fire
flow shall be provided. For this project on site fire hydrants are required. (CFC 903.2)
If construction is phased, each phase shall provide approved access and fire protection prior
to any building construction. (CFC 8704.2 and 902.2.2)
Prior to building construction, all locations where structures are to be built shall have
approved temporary Fire Department vehicle access roads for use until permanent roads
are installed. Temporary Fire Department access roads shall be an all weather surface for
80,000 Ibs. GVW. (CFC 8704,2 and 902.2,2.2)
Prior to building final, all locations where structures are to be built shall have approved Fire
Department vehicle access roads to within 150 feet to any portion of the facility or any
portion of an exterior wall of the building(s), Fire Department access roads shall be an all
weather surface designed for 80,000 Ibs. GVW with a minimum AC thickness of .25 feet. (
CFC sec 902)
Fire Department vehicle access roads shall have an unobstructed width of not less than
twenty-four (24) feet and an unobstructed vertical clearance of not less than thirteen (13)
feet six (6) inches. (CFC 902.2,2.1)
Prior to building construction, dead end road ways and streets in excess of one hundred and
fifty (150) feet which have not been completed shall have a turnaround capable of
accommodating fire apparatus, (CFC 902.2.2.4)
Prior to building construction, this development shall have two (2) points of access, via all-
weather surface roads, as approved by the Fire Prevention Bureau. (CFC 902.2.1)
Prior to issuance of building permits, the developer shall furnish one copy of the water
system plans to the Fire Prevention Bureau for approval prior to installation. Plans shall be
signed by a registered civil engineer; contain a Fire Prevention Bureau approval signature
block; and conform to hydrant type, location, spacing and minimum fire flow standards. After
the plans are signed by the local water company, the originals shall be presented to the Fire
Prevention Bureau for signatures, The required water system including fire hydrants shall be
installed and accepted by the appropriate water agency prior to any combustible building
materials being placed on an individual lot. (CFC 8704.3, 901.2.2.2 and National Fire
Protection Association 24 1-4.1 )
56.
Prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy or building final, "Blue Reflective Markers"
shall be installed to identify fire hydrant locations. (CFC 901.4.3)
57.
58.
59.
60.
61.
62.
63.
Prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy or building final, approved numbers or
addresses shall be provided on all new and existing buildings in such a position as to be
plainly visible and legible from the street or road fronting the property. Numbers shall be of a
contrasting color to their background. Commercial, multi-family residential and industrial
buildings shall have a minimum twelve (12) inches numbers with suite numbers a minimum
of six (6) inches in size. All suites shall gave a minimum of six (6) inch high letters and/or
numbers on both the front and rear doors. Single family residences and multi-family
residential units shall have four (4) inch letters and lor numbers, as approved by the Fire
Prevention Bureau. (CFC 901.4.4)
.
Prior to issuance of Certificate of Occupancy or building final, based on square footage and
type of construction, occupancy or use, the developer shall install a fire sprinkler system.
Fire sprinkler plans shall be submitted to the Fire Prevention Bureau for approval prior to
installation. (CFC Article 10, CBC Chapter 9)
Prior to issuance of Certificate of Occupancy or building final, based on a requirement for
monitoring the sprinkler system, occupancy or use, the developer shall install an fire alarm
system monitored by an approved Underwriters Laboratory listed central station. Plans shall
be submitted tothe Fire Prevention Bureau for approval prior to installation. (CFCArticie 10)
Prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy or building final, a "Knox-Box" shall be
provided. The Knox-Box shall be installed a minimum of six (6) feet in height and be located
to the right side of the main entrance door. (CFC 902.4)
All manual and electronic gates on required Fire Department access roads or gates
obstructing Fire Department building access shall be provided with the Knox Rapid entry
system for emergency access by fire fighting personnel. (CFC 902.4)
Prior to final inspection of any building, the applicant shall prepare and submit to the Fire
Department for approval, a site plan designating Fire Lanes with appropriate lane painting
and or signs.
.
Prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy or building final, the developer/applicant
shall be responsible for obtaining underground and/or aboveground tank permits for the
storage of combustible liquids, flammabfe liquids or any other hazardous materials from both
the County Health department and Fire Prevention Bureau.(CFC 7901.3 and 8001.3)
Special Conditions
64.
Prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy or building final a simple plot plan and a
simple floor plan, each as an electronic file of the .DWG format must be submitted to the
Fire Prevention Bureau. Alternative file formats may be acceptable, contact fire prevention
for approval.
65.
The applicant shall comply with the requirements of the Fire Code permit process and
update any changes in the items and quantities approved as part of their Fire Code
permit. These changes shall be submitted to the Fire Prevention Bureau for review and
approval per the Fire Code and is subject to inspection. (CFC 105)
The applicant shall submit for review and approval by the Riverside County Department
of Environmental Health and City Fire Department an update to the Hazardous Material
Inventory Statement and Fire Department Technical Report on file at the city; should any
.
66.
.
.
.
quantities used or stored onsite increase or should changes to operation introduce any
additional hazardous material not listed in existing reports. (CFC Appendix II-E)
POLICE DEPARTMENT
67.
68.
69.
70.
All exterior doors shall have vandal resistant fixtures and shall be commercial or
institutional grade.
Any graffiti painted or marked upon the building shall be removed or painted over within
24-hours of being discovered. Notify the Temecula Police Department immediately so a
report can be taken.
Upon completion of construction, the building shall be equipped with a monitored alarm
system installed and monitored 24 hours a day by a designated private alarm company.
All roof hatches shall be painted "International Orange".
COMMUNITY SERVICES
General Conditions
71.
72.
All perimeter landscaping, on site lighting and fencing within this development, shall be
maintained by the property owner or a private maintenance association.
The developer shall provide adequate space for a recycling bin within the trash enclosure
areas.
73.
The developer shall contact the City's franchised solid waste hauler for disposal of
construction debris. Only the City's franchisee may haul construction debris.
74.
A Class II Bikeway along the Pauba Road will be identified on the street improvement plans
and completed in concurrence with the street improvements and General Plan standards.
PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF BUILDING PERMITS
75.
The developer shall provide TCSD verification of arrangements made with the City's
franchise solid waste hauler for disposal of construction debris.
76.
Prior to the first building permit or installation of additional street lighting, the developer shall
complete the TCSD application process, submit an approved Edison Streetlight Plan and
pay the appropriate energy fees related to the transfer of street lighting into the TCSD
maintenance prograrn.
BUILDING AND SAFETY
77.
All design components shall comply with applicable provisions of the 2001 edition of the
California Building, Plumbing and Mechanical Codes; 2001 California Electrical Code;
California Administrative Code, Title 24 Energy Code, California Title 24 Disabled Access
Regulations, and the Temecula Municipal Code.
78.
The City of Temecula has adopted an ordinance to collect fees for a Riverside County area
wide Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee (TUMF). Upon the adoption of this ordinance on
79.
80.
81.
82.
83.
84.
85.
86.
87.
88.
89.
90.
91.
March 31,2003, this project will be subject to payment of these fees at the time of building
permit issuance. The fees shall be subject to the provisions of Ordinance 03-01 and the fee
schedule in effect at the time of building permit issuance.
.
Submit at time of plan review, a complete exterior site lighting plans showing compliance
with Ordinance No. 655 for the regulation of light pollution. All street-lights and other outdoor
lighting shall be shown on electrical plans submitted to the Department of Building and
Safety. Any outside lighting shall be hooded and directed so as not to shine directly upon
adjoining property or public rights-of-way.
A receipt or clearance letter from the Temecula Valley School District shall be submitted to
the Building & Safety Department to ensure the payment or exemption from School
Mitigation Fees.
Obtain all building plans and permit approvals prior to commencement of any construction
work.
Obtain street addressing for all proposed buildings prior to submittal for plan review.
All building and facilities must comply with applicable disabled access regulations. Provide
all details on plans. (California Disabled Access Regulations effective April 1,1998)
Provide disabled access from the public way to the main entrance of the building.
Provide van accessible parking located as close as possible to the main entry.
Provide house electrical meter provisions for power for the operation of exterior lighting, fire
alarm systems.
.
Restroom fixtures, number and type, to be in accordance with the provisions of the 2001
edition of the California Building Code Appendix 29.
Provide appropriate stamp of a registered professional with original signature on plans prior
to permit issuance.
Provide electrical plan including load calculations and panel schedule, plumbing schematic
and mechanical plan for plan review.
Truss calculations that are stamped by the engineer of record and the truss manufacturer
engineer are required for plan review submittal.
Provide precise grading plan at plan check submittal to check accessibility for persons with
disabilities.
92.
A pre-construction meeting is required with the building inspector prior to the start of the
building construction.
Trash enclosures, patio covers, light standards, and any block walls if not on the approved
building plans, will require separate approvals and permits.
93.
94.
Show all building setbacks.
.
.
.
.
95.
Signage shall be posted conspicuously at the entrance to the project that indicates the hours
of construction, shown below, as allowed by the City of Temecula Ordinance No. 94-21,
specifically Section G (1) of Riverside County Ordinance No. 457.73, for any site within one-
quarter mile of an occupied residence.
Monday-Friday 6:30 a.m. - 6:30 p.m.
Saturday 7:00 a.m. - 6:30 p.m.
No work is permitted on Sunday or Government Holidays
OUTSIDE AGENCIES
96.
The applicant shall comply with the recommendations set forth in the attached Rancho
California Water District letter dated January 27,2003.
97.
The applicant shall comply with the recommendations set forth in the attached Riverside
County Flood Control dated May 3, 2004.
By placing my signature below, I confirm that I have read, understand and accept all the above
Conditions of Approval. I further understand that the property shall be maintained in conformance
with these conditions of approval and that any changes I may wish to make to the project shall be
subject to Community Development Department approval.
Applicant's Signature
Date
Applicant's Printed Name
WARREN D. WILLIAMS
¡enera! Manager-ChiefEnginecr
]995 MARKET STREET
RIVERSIDE, CA 92501
909,955,1200
909.788,9965 FAX
51180,1
.
RIVERSIDE COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL
AND WATER CONSERV A nON DISTRICT
City of Temecula
Planning Department
Post Office Box 9033
Temecula, Califomia 92589-9033
Attention: /"1c...~ l1o.rrì s
Ladies and Gentlemen:
Re:
fAO~ -rod.1
The District does not normally recommend conditions for land divisions or other land use cases in incorporated
cities, The District also does not plan check city land use cases. or provide State Division of Real Estate letters or
other flood hazard reports for such cases, Distnct comments/recommendations for such cases are normally limited
to items of specific Interest to the District including District Master Drainage Plan facilities. other regional flood
control and drainage facilities which could be considered a logical component or extension of a master plan system
and District Area Drainage Plan fees (development mitigation fees). In addition. information of a general nature is
provided.
The District has not reviewed the proposed project in detail and the following checked 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:
V Thi~ project would not be impacted by District Master Drainage Plan facilities nor are other facilities of
regional Interest proposed. 5 e E ßEI.OIIJ
This project involves District Master Plan facilities. The District will accept ownership of such facilities on
- written request of the City. Facilities must be constructed to District standards, and District plan check and
inspection will be required for District acceptance. Plan check. inspection and administrative fees will be
required,
This project proposes channels, storm drains 36 inches or larger in diameter, or other facilities that could be
- consIdered regional in nature and/or a logical extension of the adopted,
Master Drainage Plan. The District would consider accepting ownership of such facilities on wntten request
of the City. Facilities must be constructed to District standards. and District plan check and inspection will
be required for District acceptance. Plan check. inspection and administrative fees will be required,
This project is located within the limits of the District's Area
Drainage Plan for which drainage fees have been adopfed: applicable fees should be paid by cashier's
check or money order only to fI1e Flood Control District prior fo issuance of building or grading permits,
whichever comes first. Fees to be paid should be at the rate in effect at the time of issuance of the actual
permit.
GENERAL INFORMATION
.
This project may require a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit from the State Water
Resources Control Board, Clearance for grading, recordation, or other final approval should not be given until the
City has determined that the project has been granted a permit or is shown to be exempt.
If this project involves a Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) mapped flood plain. then the City should
require the applicant to provide all studies. calculations, plans and other Information required to meet FEMA
requirements. and should further require that the applicant obtain a Conditional Letter of Map Revision (CLOMR)
prior to grading, recordation or other final approval of the project. and a Letter of Map Revision (LOMR) prior to
occupancy.
If a natural watercourse or mapped flood plain is impacted by this project? the City should require the applicant to
obtain a Section 160111603 Agreement from the Califomia Department 0 Fish and Game and a Clean Water Act
Section 404 Permit from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. or written correspondence from these ag,encies
indicating the project is exempt from these reqUIrements. A Clean Water Act Section 401 Water Qualitv Certification
may be required from the local California Regional Water Quality Control Board prior to issuance of tfle Corps 404
permit.
~(\ ~~hmer\t pe/"m i+ ...\--WI be='
Dbtc.lined .fòr Ol\~o-o~..¡y.uc..t;O() ccWc~
adiuì \ies. CCClX"i lI)',fhiC'\ DI'~'\ric...t
ri~ 0+ v.JCA~ or il¡He'So.
, E.' ,ìsti~ .Q.Li\i~: Terneco~ "01'~ . \
c. pðl,)'co- Rood s","rn OcAin}
~"S
Very truly yours.
~4
ARTURO DIAZ
Senior Civil Engineer
Date: /124....-. '5/ ~
.
~
BanchD
Water
B",d,rDi"",,~
Jeffrey L, Mink!"
P",ident
John E. Hoagland
S" Vi"P,e,"eot
Stephen J. Corona
Ralph H, Daily
Ben R, Dcake
Liaa D. He=an
C..h. F, Ko
om""
John F, lIennig"
Gene"lM.oag"
Phillip L. Fo'h..
Di""",rFinan",
""'a"",
E,P, "'oh" Lornon,
i"""'ofEn~no"ing
Kenndh C, Dealy
Di","" ,r O",aÜ,n,
& Mainten""
Perry R. Louok
C"t"n"
January 27, 2003
r.~-c~ @ŒD ill Œ~
Ili'l
Ii iU' JAN 3 0 2003
r
¡By
Rolfe Preisendanz, Case Planner
City of Temecula
Planning Department
43200 Business Park Drive
Post Office Box 9033
Temect:la, CA 92589-9033
SUBJECT:
WATER AVAILABILITY
PARCEL NO.3 OF PARCEL MAP NO. 9019
APN 955-050-017
CASE NO. PA03-027
Dear Mr. Preisendanz:
Please be advised that the above-referenced property is located within the
boundaries of Rancho California Water District (RCWD). Water service,
therefore, would be available upon completion of financial arrangements between
RCWD and the property owner.
If fire protection is required, the customer will need to contact RCWD for fees and
requirements.
Liud. M. Fregn,.
Di,tri" Smo"'ryIAdrnini.t"Ü,.
Smi",M"ag" Water availability would be contingent upon the property owner signing an
~~:i~:::~C;;:~:,LLP Agency Agreement that assigns water management rights, if any, to RCWD.
Gono,,1 C,un,,¡
If you have any quesê¡om;, please ce::êact an E!1gi::~~!i~g Ser'!ic~s R~presp~tati'"e
at this office.
Sincerely,
RANCHO CALIFORNIA WATER DISTRICT
~ß~
Steve Brannon, P,E,
Development Engineering Manager
03\SBomcOO7\OI2,T6\FCF
Raneh. Califoroia Wat" Di,"i.t
42!S5Win,h"".R,,d' p"tOm"B",O!?' Tomeeula,Caliromi."589,'Ol7' 1909l296,6900'FAXl909l296,6860
MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM FOR LDS CHURCH TEMECULA STAKE CENTER
Impact Mitigation Measure Time Frame/ Responsible
Monitoring Milestones Monitoring
Party
AIR QUALITY
Potential sensitive The City hereby requires contractors to apply water to the During grading and City Public
receptor exposure to disturbed portions of the project site at least four times per construction activities. Works
substantial pollutant day. On days where wind speeds are sufficient to transport Departrnent
concentrations and fugitive dust beyond the working area boundary, the City
creation of objectionable Public Works Department will monitor the project site and
odors. will require contractors to increase watering to the point that
fugitive dust no longer leaves the property (typically a
moisture content of 12%), and/or the contractor will terminate
grading and loading operations.
All rnaterial stockpiles subject to wind erosion during During grading and City Public
construction activities that will not be utilized within three days construction activities Works
from placement, will be either covered with: (a) plastic, (b) an Department
alternative cover deemed equivalent to plastic, or (c) sprayed
with a nontoxic chemical stabilizer.
Before vehicles leave the construction site and enter adjacent During grading and City Public
public streets, the contractor shall require all vehicles leaving construction activities. Works
the project site to use a wheel washer to remove dirt that can Department
be tracked onto adjacent roadways.
R:\C U P\2003\03-O27 Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day SaintsIMITIGA TJON MONITORING PROGRAM,doc
. .
.
.
.
The streets shall be swept daily or washed down at the end of
the workday to remove soil tracked onto the paved roadway
surface.
Project will comply with regional rules such as SCAQMD
Rules 403 and 402 which would assist in reducing short-term
air pollutant emissions. Rule 403 requires that fugitive dust be
controlled with best available control measures so that the
presence of such dust does not remain visible in the
atmosphere beyond the property line of the emission source.
Rule 402 requires dust suppression techniques to be
implemented to prevent fugitive dust from creating a nuisance
offsite. These dust suppression techniques are summarized
below.
a. Portions of the construction site to remain inactive
longer than a period of three months will be seeded and
watered until grass cover is grown or otherwise stabilized in a
manner acceptable to the City.
b. All on-site roads will be paved as soon as feasible or
watered periodically or chemically stabilized.
c. All material transported off-site will be either sufficiently
watered or securely covered to prevent excessive amounts of
dust.
d. The area disturbed by clearing, grading, earth moving,
or excavation operations will be minimized at all times.
R:\C U P\2003\O3-Q27 Church of Jesus Christ ofLatter Day SaintsIMITIGA nON MONITORING PROGRAM,doc
2
During grading and
construction activities,
During grading and
construction activities
.
City Public
Works
Departrnent
City Public
Works
Department
Salvage operations should be initiated and coordinated w
developer if other significant concentrations of foss
encountered.
During grading and City Planning
construction activities and Public
Works
Departments.
During grading and City Public
construction activities Works
Departrnent
During grading and City Planning &
construction activities Public Works
Departrnents
ading in During grading activities City Planning
Departrnent
ith the During grading activities City Planning
s are Department
.
All engines shall be properly operated and maintained. These
rneasures will be enforced through the monthly submission of
certified mechanic's records to the City- Attention Matt Harris,
Associate Planner.
All diesel-powered vehicles shall be turned off when not in use
for rnore than 30 consecutive minutes and gasoline - powered
equipment shall be turned off when not in use for more than
five consecutive minutes.
The construction contractor will utilize electric or natural gas
powered equipment in lieu of gasoline or diesel powered
engines, where feasible and where economically competitive.
Developer shall, prior to commencement of construction;
provide City Attention Matt Harris, Associate Planner with a
copy of contract containing this provision.
Cultural Resources
Potential to destroy a
paleontological resource.
A Certified Paleontologist shall be onsite at all times when gra
bedrock.
R:\C U P\2003\O3-O27 Church of Jesus Christ of Ùltter Day SaintsIMITIGA TION MONITORING PROGRAM,doc
. .
.
.
.
Trans PO rtati 0 niT raffi c
Potential to create Improve entire frontage of Pauba Road (Secondary Highway Prior to building occupancy City Public
substantial increase in Standards - 88' RlW) to include dedication of half-width street right- Works
traffic and exceed level of-way, installation of half width street improvements, paving, curb Department
of service standards. and gutter, sidewalk, street lights, drainage facilities, signage and
striping, utilities (including but not limited to water and sewer).
A gate shall be constructed at the easterly driveway on Pauba Road Prior to building City Planning
so as to restrict vehicular access between the hours of 10:00 PM and occupancy. and Public
7:00 AM Sunday thru Thursday. Works
Department.
Payment of Western Riverside County Transportation Uniform Prior to building City Public
Mitigation Fee (TUMF). occupancy. Works
Department
Payment of signal mitigation fee. Prior to building occupancy City Public
Works
Department
R:\C U P\2003\O3-027 Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day SaintsIMITIGA nON MONITORING PROGRAM,doc
4
ATTACHMENT NO.5
INTIAL STUDYiMITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM
R:\C U P\2003\03-Q27 Church of Jesus Christ ofLatter Day Saints\ST AFF REPORT,doe
16
City of Temecula,
. Planning Department
Notice of Proposed Negative Declaration
PROJECT: Planning Application No. 03-0027 (Conditional Use Permit & Development Plan)
APPLICANT: Kent Cornwall, Cornwall Associates Architects
234 N. El Molino Avenue, Monrovia, CA 91101
LOCATION: Generally located north sideofPaubaRoad and 140 feet west of Corte Villosa(APN 955-
050-017)
DESCRIPTION: To construct, establish and operate a 24,287 square foot church facility including a
sanctuary, multi-purpose room and classrooms.
The City ofTemecula intends to adopt a Negative Declaration for the project described above. Based upon
the information contained in the attached Initial Environmental Study and pursuant to the requirements of
the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA); it has been determined that this project as proposed,
revised or mitigated will not have a significant impact upon the environment. As a result, the Planning
Commission intends to adopt a Negative Declaration for this project.
. The mitigation measures required to reduce or mitigate the impacts ofthis project on the environment are
included in the project design and/or the Mitigation Monitoring Program which is attached to this Notice
and will be included as part ofthe Negative Declaration for this project.
The Comment Period for this proposed Negative Declaration is April 26, 2004 to May 16, 2004. Written
comments and responses to this notice should be addressed to the contact person listed below at the
following address: City ofTemecula, P.O. Box 9033, Temecula, CA 92589-9033. City Hall is located at
43200 Business Park Drive.
The public notice ofthe intent to adopt this Negative Declaration is provided through:
X The Local Newspaper. X Posting the Site. X Notice to Adjacent Property Owners.
If you need additional information or have any questions concerning this project, please contact Matt
Hams, Associate Planner at (909) 694-6400.
Prepared by: 11~~ C< ~ A~
Matthew C. Hams, Associate Planner
.
(Signature)
(Name and Title)
Ro\C U P\200J\OJ-O27 Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day SaintslNOTICE OF PROPOSED NEGATIVE DECLARATION,doc
1
City of Temecula
Planning Department
Agency Distribution List
.
PROJECT: Planning Application No. P AO3-0027 (Conditional Use Pennit & Development Plan)
DISTRIBUTION DATE: April 21, 2004
CASE PLANNER: Matthew Harris
CITY OF TEMECULA:
Building & Safety........................................ (X)
Fire Department ........................................,.. (X)
Police Department ....................................... (X)
Parks & Recreation (TCSD) ......................... (X)
Planning, Advance .......................................... ( )
Public Works ................................................ (X)
................ ( )
STATE:
Caltrans ........................................................... ( )
Fish & Game................................................... ( )
Mines & Geology............................................ ( )
Regional Water Quality Control Board .......... ( )
State Clearinghouse ........................................ ( )
State Clearinghouse (15 Copies)..................... ( )
Water Resources ............................................. ( )
.............. ( )
FEDERAL:
Anny Corps of Engineers ...........".................. ( )
Fish and Wildlife Service ............................... ( )
................ ( )
................ ( )
REGIONAL:
Air Quality Management District ................. (X )
Western Riverside COG ................................. ( )
.............. ( )
CITY OF MURRIETA:
Planning ...........................,....,....,.................... ( )
............., ( )
RIVERSIDE COUNTY:
Clerk of the Board of Supervisors ............... (X)
Airport Land Use Commission ....................... ( )
Engineer .................................................,..... (X)
Flood ControL............................................. (X)
Health Department....................................... (X)
Parks and Recreation .......................,....,..,...... ( )
Planning Department ................................... (X)
Habitat Conservation Agency (RCHCA)..... (X)
Riverside Transit Agency............................ (X)
.............. ( )
.
UTILITY:
Eastern Municipal Water District ................ (X)
Inland Valley Cablevision,........................... (X )
Rancho CA Water District, Will Serve.....,.. (X)
Southern California Gas .............................. (X)
Southern California Edison.......................... (X)
Temecula Valley School District................. (X)
Metropolitan Water District......................... ( X )
OTHER:
Pechanga Indian Reservation....................... (X)
Eastern Infonnation Center..........,..,............ (X)
Local Agency Fonnation Comm................,.... ( )
RCTC .....,....................................,..,.............(X)
Homeowners' Associations ,................"....... (X)
.
R,IC U P12003103.()27 Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day SaintslNOTICE OF PROPOSED NEGATIVE DECLARATION,doc
2
City of Temecula
P.O. Box 9033, Ternecula, CA 92589-9033
Project Title
Lead Agency Name and Address
Contact Person and Phone Number
Project Location
Project Sponsor's Name and Address
Surrounding Land Uses and Setting
Other public agencies whose approval
is re uired
.
Environmental Checklist
R:\C U P\2003\O3-027 Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints\initial Study,doc
1
Environrnental Factors Potentially Affected
The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one
impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages.
ulation and Housin
x
None
Deterrnination
(To be completed by the lead agency)
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
x
I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant impact on the environment, and a
NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be re ared
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not
be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made by or agreed to by
the ro'ect ro onent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be re ared.
I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is re uired
I find that the proposed project MAY have a "potentially significant impact" or "potentially significant
unless mitigated" impact on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in
an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation
measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets, if the effect is a "potentially
significant impact" or "potentially significant unless mitigated." An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
is re uired, but it must anal ze onl the effects that remain to be addressed.
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, because all
potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE
DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to
that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are
im osed u on the ro osed ro'ect, nothin further is re uired.
~(L~
Signature '
April 14.2004
Date
Matthew C. Harris. Associate Planner
Printed name
Citv of T emecula
For
.
R:IC U P\2003103-027 Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saintsllnitial Study,doc
3
.
r
:
~,-
-..----..
" ,-_u..._-'
I
~
-r
!
,
~,-
;i
I-,
i :
I
"-<
"
"'0
UI
-
f11
'U "'.
r
»
l
.." l'!",,"-
I >
" ¡,
~l :
.. ~
0
,
,
~
---
""
.
./
/1
ì I
! I
I f
¡ I
¡
I
I
i
I
,
I
orchiledure
;nlerior desig.
CO15lrur:lioI1
management
[""1""",,,11 atlilecl 010,
[:1-'-
~nvvall
s~ociates
Inc.
-
}
8
JE.~u~'ëiì~ísr
t PJtOPOSE~~;;~~H BUILDING
t ,^uoA '0'". '£Me<u,"" <"",.
..."'"
1. AESTHETICS. Would the project:
a,
b.
c.
d.
Less Than
SignifiaantWith
Mitigation
Incor orated
Less Than
Signifiaant
1m aat
No
1m aat
X
X
Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista?
Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not
limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings
within a state scenic hi hwa ?
Substantially degrade the existing visual character or
ualit of the site and its surroundin s?
Create a new source of substantial light or glare, which
would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the
area?
X
X
Comments:
1.a.
Lb.
1.c.
1.d.
No impact. The existing property has not been identified as a scenic vista in the City of Temecula's
General Plan.
No impact. No major outcroppings, substantial trees, or historic buildings exist on the project site.
Pauba Road is not designated as a scenic resource nor is the site within the view of a state scenic
highway. As a consequence, no significant impact to scenic resources will result from the proposed
project or future development of the site,
Less Than Significant impact. The proposed project will be located adjacent to existing and future
single-family units on all four sides. The project site is subject to City Design Guidelines and.
Development Code standards. These guidelines and standards serve to regulate building architecture
and height, setbacks from property lines and the type and amount of landscape improvements onsite.
Based on the City's requirement to conform to these guidelines and standards, the proposed project, as
conditioned, has no potential to substantially degrade the existing visual character of the site and
surroundings.
Less Than Significant Impact. The project will produce a new source of light and glare. All light and
glare has the potential to impact the Mount Palomar Observatory. However, all onsite exterior lighting
will be conditioned to comply with the Riverside County Light Pollution Ordinance No, 655 which will
result in a less than significant impact. Due to the proximity to residential uses, the project also has a
potential to create light and glare impacts on the surrounding area and uses. Parking lot lighting will
consist of low sodium cut-off fixtures which direct the light downward rather than out to the sides on
adjacent properties. Therefore, the exterior lighting associated with the project, as conditioned, will
result in a less than significant impact.
2. Agricultural Resources. In determining whether irnpacts to agricultural resources are significant
environmental effects, lead agencies rnay refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site
Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California Department of Conservation as an optional
rnodel to use in assessing irnpacts on agriculture and farrnland. Would the project:
Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland
of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the
ma s re ared ursuant to the Farmland Ma in and
R:IC U P\2003103-027 Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saintsllnitial Study,doc
, 4
a.
Potentially
SigniOcant
1m act
Less Than
Significant With
Mitigation
Inco orated
No
1m act
Less Than
Significant
1m act
X
b.
Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency,
to non-a ricultural use?
Conflict with the existing zoning for agricultural use, or a
Williamson Act contract?
Involve other changes in the existing environment, which
due to their location or nature, could result in conversion
of Farmland, to non-a ricultural use?
x
x
Comments:
2a.-c. No impact. The project site is not currently in agricultural production and in the historic past the site
has not been used for agricultural purposes. The site is not under a Williamson Act contract nor is it
zoned for agricultural uses. This property is not considered prime or unique farmland of statewide or
local importance as identified by the State Department of Conservation and the City of Temecula
General Plan. In addition, the project will not involve changes in the existing environment, which would
result in the conversion of farmland to non-agricultural uses. Therefore, there is no impact related to
this issue.
3. AIR QUALITY. Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable quality
managernent or air pollution control district may be relied upon to rnake the following
determinations. Would the project:
c.
d,
e.
x
x
x
x
Comments:
3,a - c. Less Than Significant Impact. The project will not conflict with applicable air quality plans nor violate
air quality or pollution standards. The proposed church facility will not achieve the threshold for
potentially significant air quality impacts established by the South Coast Air Quality Management
District as depicted in SCAQMD'S CEQA Air Quality Handbook (Source 3) page 6-10, Table 6,2. As a
consequence, no significant air quality impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
3.d.
.
Less Than Significant Impact With Mitigations Incorporated. As proposed, the project will not
expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrators. The future development of the church
facility will create minor pollutants during the grading and construction phase of the project emanating
from fugitive dust and small quantities of construction equipment pollutants. These impacts will be of
short duration and are not considered significant because the project will comply with regional rules
such as SCAQMD Rules 403 and 402. These rules are conditions on the grading permit. The future
church facility will not generate significant volumes of pollutants or create substantial pollutant
R:IC U P\2003103-027 Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saintsllnitial Study,doc
5
3.e.
4.
concentrations that could harm sensitive receptors, Therefore, with the mandatory application of
mitigation measures identified below, the impact will be less than significant.
Mitigation Measures:
.
1.
The City hereby requires contractors to apply water to the disturbed portions of the project site at least four
times per day. On days where wind speeds are sufficient to transport fugitive dust beyond the working area
boundary. the City Public Works Department will monitor the project site and will require contractors to
increase watering to the point that fugitive dust no longer leaves the property (typically a moisture content of
12%), and/or the contractor will terminate grading and loading operations.
2.
All material stockpiles subject to wind erosion during construction activities that will not be utilized within
three days from placement. will be either covered with: (a) plastic, (b) an alternative cover deemed
equivalent to piastic, or (c) sprayed with a nontoxic chemical stabilizer.
3.
All vehicles on the construction site will travel at speeds less than 15 miles per hour. This will be enforced
by including this requirement In the construction contract between the developer and the contracted
construction company with penalty clauses for violation of this speed limit. Developer shall. prior to
commencement of construction; provide City with a copy of the contract containing this provision.
4.
Before vehicles leave the construction site and enter adjacent public streets, the contractor shall require all
vehicles leaving the project site to use a wheel washer to remove dirt that can be tracked onto adjacent
roadways.
5.
The streets shall be swept daily or washed down at the end of the workday to remove soil tracked onto the
paved roadway surface,
6.
Project will comply with regional rules such as SCAOMD Rules 403 and 402 which would assist in reducing
short-term air pollutant emissions, Rule 403 requires that fugitive dust be controlled with best available
control measures so that the presence of such dust does not remain visible in the atmosphere beyond the
property line of the emission source. Rule 402 requires dust suppression techniques to be implemented to
prevent fugitive dust from creating a nuisance offsite. These dust suppression techniques are summarized
below.
.
a.
Portions of the construction site to remain inactive longer than a period of three months will be
seeded and watered until grass cover is grown or othelWise stabilized in a manner acceptable to
the City.
All on-site roads will be paved as soon as feasible or watered periodically or chemically stabilized.
All material transported off-site will be either sufficiently watered or securely covered to prevent
excessive amounts of dust.
The area disturbed by clearing, grading, earth moving. or excavation operations will be minimized
at all times,
b,
c.
d.
7,
All engines shall be properly operated and maintained. These measures will be enforced through the
monthly submission of certified mechanic's records to the City- Attention Matt Harris, Associate Planner,
8,
All diesel-powered vehicles shall be turned off when not in use for more than 30 consecutive minutes and
gasoline - powered equipment shall be turned off when not in use for more than five consecutive minutes.
9.
The construction contractor will utilize electric or natural gas powered equipment in lieu of gasoline or diesel
powered engines, where feasible and where economically competitive. Developer shall, prior to
commencement of construction; provide City with a copy of contract containing this provision.
Less Than Significant Impact With Mitigation Incorporated. The project may create objectionable
odors such as fugitive dust or small quantities of construction equipment pollutants during the
construction phase of the project. These impacts will be short in duration, are mitigated under 5.d, and
are not considered significant over the long term.
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES: Would the project:
.
a.
Have a substantial adverse effect, either directl or
R\G U P\2003\03.027 Church of Jesus Christ of Laller Day Saints\lnitial Study,doc
6
4. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES: Would the project:
c.
through habitat modifications, on any species identified
as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in
local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the
California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service?
Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat
or other sensitive natural community identified in local or
regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California
Department of Fish and Game or US Fish and Wildlife
Service?
Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected
wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water
Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool,
coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filing, hydrological
interruption, or other means?
Interfere substantially with the movement of any native
resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with
established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors,
or im ede the use of native wildlife nurse sites?
Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting
biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or
ordinance?
Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat
Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation
Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat
conservation Ian?
x
b,
x
d.
x
e.
x
x
Comments:
4.a-e. No Impact. The General Plan does not designate the project site as a potentially sensitive habitat site,
The site is outside the habitat area identified for the Quino Checkerspot Butterfly and does not contain
wetlands as defined by the Clean Water Act. There is no anticipated biological impact associated with
this project.
4.f,
No Impact. The project site is located within the Stephen's Kangaroo Rat Habitat Fee Area. The
project will be conditioned to comply with provisions of Chapter 8.24 of the Temecula Municipal Code
(Habitat Conservation), which requires payment of the Stephens Kangaroo Rat fee. No impacts are
anticipated as a result of this project.
x
x
resource or site or uni ue eolo ic feature?
Disturb any human remains, including those interred
outside of formal cemeteries?
Comments:
.
5.a.
Less Than Significant. After analysis, City staff has determined that the subject site does not meet
the criteria of a historical resource as defined in Section 15064.5 of the California Environmental Quality
Act. In addition, the City of Temecula General Plan and associated EIR does not identify the site as a
historical resource area.
5, b.d.Less Than Significant. The City's General Plan does not identify the project site as an area of
sensitivity for archeological resources. However, a Cultural Resources Assessment was prepared by
Archaeological Associates. The assessment determined that no prehistoric or historic cultural
resources of any kind were discovered during the course of the investigation. This determination was
made based on both a record search and field assessment. Therefore, a less than significant impact is
anticipated.
5.c
Less Than Significant With Mitigation. The City's General Plan has identified the project site as a
highly sensitive paleontological area. A Paleontological Survey was prepared by John Minch and
Associates Inc. The survey determined that the project site may contain paleontological resources from
Pleistocene sedimentary units. The rock units exposed on the site are considered to be of high
Paleontological sensitivity and are known to contain significant fossils adjacent to the proposed project
site. The Survey concludes that the project site can be developed and still have a less than significant
impact on paleontological resources with the following mitigation measures:
Mitigation Measures:
1. A Certified Paleontologist shall be onsite at all times when grading in bedrock,
.
2. Salvage operations should be initiated and coordinated with the developer if other significant concentrations of fossils are
encountered,
6.
GEOLOGY AND SOILS. Would the project?
less Than
Signmcant
Impact
No
Impact
a.
i)
x
x
X
X
c.
X
X
.
d,
X
R:\C U P\2003\03-027 Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Oay Saints\lnitial Study,doc
8
6. GEOLOGY AND SOILS. Would the project?
e.
of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial
risks to life or ro ert ?
Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of
septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems
where sewers are not available for the disposal of
wastewater?
x
Comments:
6.a.i, ii, iii.
Less Than Significant With Mitigation. The project may have a significant impact on people
involving seismic ground shaking, seismic ground failure (including liquefaction and subsidence of the
land) and expansive soils, and will have a less than significant impact to erosion, changes in
topography or unstable soil conditions from excavation, grading or fill. The project is located in
Southern California, an area that is seismically active. Any potentially significant impacts will be
reduced to a less than significant impact and conditioned to conform to Uniform Building Code
standards, Further, standard practices will be followed for grading and compaction to reduce these
impacts to insignificant levels, After the incorporation of these elements, no significant impacts are
anticipated,
6.a,iv, No Impact. The project will not expose people to landslides or mudflows. The Final Environmental
Impact Report for the City of Temecula General Plan has not identified any known landslides or
. mudslides located on the site or proximate to the site. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result
of this project.
6,b,c, Less Than Significant Impact With Mitigation. Potential impacts will be mitigated by conditions of
approval to comply with State of California Alquist-Priolo Special Studies Zone development criteria and
construction in accordance with the Uniform Building Code standards. Standard practices for
compaction of the soil will serve to mitigate any potentially significant impacts from seismic ground
shaking, seismic ground failure (including liquefaction), erosion, changes in topography or unstable soil
conditions from excavation, grading or fill and expansive soils. Erosion control techniques will be
included as a condition of approval for development projects at the site. Potential unstable soil
conditions from excavation, grading or fill will be mitigated through the use of proper compaction of the
soils and landscaping.
6,d.
Less Than Significant Impact With Mitigation. Any potential significant impacts will be mitigated
through building construction, consistent with the Uniform Building Code standards. Further, the project
will be conditioned to provide a soil report prior to grading and recommendations contained in this
report are complied with during construction. Standard practices for the compaction of the soil will
serve to mitigate any potentially significant impacts from seismic ground shaking, seismic ground
failure, liquefaction, subsidence and expansive soils.
6.e.
No Impact. Septic sewage disposal systems are not proposed for this project. The project is
connected to the existing public sewer system; therefore, no impacts are anticipated as a result of this
project.
HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS. Would the project:
R:\C U P\2003\03-027 Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saintsllnitial Study.doc
9
Create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment through the routine transport, use, or
dis osal of hazardous materials?
Create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and
accident conditions involving the release of hazardous
materials into the environment?
Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or
acutely hazardous materials, substances, or acutely
hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-
uarter mile of an existin or ro osed school?
Be located on a site which is included on a list of
hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to
Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result,
would it create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment?
For a project located within an airport land use plan or,
where such a plan has not been adopted, within two
miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the
project result in a safety hazard for people residing or
workin in the ro'ect area?
For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would
the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or
workin in the ro'ect area?
Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an
adopted emergency response plan or emergency
evacuation Ian?
Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss,
injury or death involving wildland fires, including where
wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where
residences are intermixed with wildlands?
Comments:
a.
b.
c,
d.
e.
f.
g.
h.
7.a,
l.b.
7.c,
Less Than
Significant No
1m act 1m act
X
.
X
X
X
X
X
X
.
X
No Impact. The project will result in a less than significant impact in the creation of any health hazard
or potential health hazard. The project will be reviewed for compliance with all applicable health laws
during the plan check stage. No permits will be issued unless the project is found to be consistent with
these applicable laws. No impacts are anticipated as a result of this project because of the consistency
with law requirements.
No Impact. The project will result in a less than significant impact due to risk of explosion, or the
release of any hazardous substances in the event of accident or upset conditions. The Fire
Department reviewed this project according to the information provided by the applicant and found that
there should be minimal hazards if designed, built, and used according to the submitted plans, No
significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
No Impact. The project consists of a church facility. The project site is located within one-quarter mile
of the Temecula Middle School and the Vintage Hills Elementary School campuses. The operation of
construction equipment and machinery during the development of the site may emit hazardous air
pollutant emissions and/or handle some hazardous materials such as oils and fuels. However, these
emissions and materials should be of limited quantities over a short duration of time. No impacts are.
anticipated.
R:IC U P\2003\03-027 Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saintsllnitial Study,doc
10
7.d.
8.
?t.
7.g.
7.h.
No Impact. This project site is not, nor is it located near, a site that is included on a list of hazardous
materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 that would create a significant
hazard to the public or the environment. Therefore, no impacts are anticipated as a result of this
project.
No impact. The project site is not located within an airport land use plan or within two miles of a public
or private airstrip. No impact upon airport uses will result from this project.
No impact. The project site is not located within two miles of a private airstrip. No impact upon airport
uses will result from this proposal.
No Impact. The project will take access from maintained public streets and will therefore not impede
emergency response or evacuation plans. No impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
No impact. The project will not result in an increase to fire hazard in an area with flammable brush,
grass, or trees. The project is a church facility surrounded by single-family residences, The applicant
will be eliminating existing potentially flammable brush in association with the development of the site.
The project is not located within or proximate to a fire hazard area. No impacts are anticipated.
8. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY. Would the project:
c,
d.
e.
f.
g.
Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge
re uirements?
Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere
substantially with groundwater recharge such that there
would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of
the local groundwater table level (e.g" the production rate
of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level which
would not support existing land uses or planned uses for
which ermits have been ranted?
Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site
or area, including through the alteration of the course of a
stream or river, in a manner, which would result in
substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site?
Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site
or area, including through the alteration of the course of a
stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or
amount of surface runoff in a manner that would result in
floodin on- or off-site?
Create or contribute runoff water, which would exceed the
capacity of existing or planned storm water drainage
systems or provide substantial additional sources of
olluted runoff?
Otherwise substantiall de rade water ualit?
Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as
mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood
Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation
ma ?
Place within a 1 OO-year flood hazard area structures,
which would im ede or redirect flood flows?
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
R:IC U P\2003\03-027 Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saintsllnitial Study,doc
11
j.
Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss,
injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a
result of the failure of a levee or dam?
x
Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow?
x
Comments:
8,a.
Less Than Significant Impact. The project will not violate any water quality standards or waste
discharge requirements. The project is required to comply with the requirements of the National
Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit from the State Water Resources Control
Board. No grading shall be permitted until an NPDES Notice of Intent has been filed or the project is
shown to be exempt. By complying with the NPDES requirements, any potential impacts can be
mitigated to a level that is less than significant. A less than significant impact is anticipated as a result
of this project.
8.b.f. Less Than Significant Impact. The project will not substantially deplete groundwater supplies or
interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer
volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level. The project will not have an affect on the
quantity and quality of ground waters, either through direct additions or withdrawals or through
interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations or through substantial loss of groundwater recharge
capability, Further, construction on the site will not be at depths sufficient to have a significant impact
on ground waters or aquifer volume. A less than significant impact is anticipated as a result of this
project.
8.c.d. Less Than Significant impact. The proposed project will not substantially alter the existing drainage
pattern of the site or area in a manner, which would result in substantial erosion or siltation and/or
flooding on- or off-site. Some changes to absorption rates, drainage patterns and the rate and amount.
of surface runoff is expected whenever development occurs on previously permeable ground.
Previously permeable ground will be rendered impervious by construction of buildings, accompanying
hardscape and driveways. While absorption rates and surface runoff will change, potential impacts
shall be mitigated through site design. Drainage conveyances are required for the project to safely and
adequately handle runoff that is created. As designed, the proposed project would have a Jess than
significant impact on the existing facilities.
8.e.
8.g.
8.h.
8.Lj.
Less Than Significant Impact With Mitigation. The project is not anticipated to create or contribute
runoff water, which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned storm water drainage systems or
provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff. The project is conditioned to accommodate
the drainage created as a result of the development of the subject site. In addition, the project is
conditioned so that the drainage will not impact surrounding properties. A less than significant impact is
a~sociated with this project.
No impact. This project represents a Development Plan and Conditional Use Permit for a church
facility within an area zoned for church uses. No residential housing is being proposed; no impact is
associated with this project.
No Impact. The project will have no impact on people or property to water related hazards such as
flooding because the project site is located outside of the 1O0-year floodway as identified in the City of
Temecula General Plan Final Environmental Impact Report (Figure 7-3) and the Flood Insurance Rate
Map Community-Panel Number 0607420005B. No potential for exposure to significant flood hazards
will occur from developing the project site as proposed, Therefore, no impacts are anticipated as a
result of this project.
No impact. The project site is not subject to inundation by sieche, tsunami, or mudflow, as these.
events are not known to happen in this region. No impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
R:IC U P\2003103-027 Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saintsllnitial Study,doc
12
9. Land Use and Planning. Would the project:
c.
x
Comments:
9.a.
No Impact. The project site is an infill residential parcel surrounded by both developed and vacant
single-family parcels. Adjacent land use compatibility issues have been addressed in the site design.
Therefore, no significant environmental impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
9.b.
No Impact. The project, as proposed, is consistent with the General Plan land use designation of Very
Low Density Residential (VL) and conforms to all applicable provisions of the Development Code.
9.c.
Less Than Significant Impact. The project is located within the fee area for the Stephen's Kangaroo
Rat (SKR) Long-Term Habitat Conservation Plan. All development within this fee area is required to
pay a one-time mitigation fee. As a consequence, a less than significant impact is anticipated.
b,
x
Comments:
1 O.a,b. No Impact. The project will not result in the loss of available. known mineral resources or in the loss of
an available, locally important mineral resource recovery site. The State Geologist has given the City of
Temecula a classification of MRZ-3a, containing areas of sedimentary deposits, which have the
potential for supplying sand and gravel for concrete and crushed stone for aggregate. However, it has
been determined that this area contains no deposits of significant economic value based upon available
data in a report entitled Mineral land Classification of the Temescal Vallev Area, Riverside Countv.
California. Special Report 165, prepared in accordance with the Surface Mining and Reclamation Act
(SMARA) of 1975. No impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
~ NOOSE, Woo," !"Pro;.." ,.,"" ",
R:\C U P\2003\03-027 Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Oay Saints\lnitial Study,doc
13
a.
b.
c.
d,
e.
f.
Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in
excess of standards established in the local general plan
or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other
a encies?
Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive
round borne vibration or round borne noise levels?
A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels
in the project vicinity above levels existing without the
ro'ect?
A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient
noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing
without the ro'ect?
For a project located within an airport land use plan or,
where such a plan has not been adopted, within two
miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the
project expose people residing or working in the project
area to excessive noise levels?
For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would
the project expose people residing or working in the
ro'ect area to excessive noise levels?
Comments:
.
x
x
x
x
x
11.a.c. Less Than Significant Impact. The Noise Element of the Temecula General Plan indicates
that a background noise level of 60 dBA CNEL is compatible (Normally Acceptable) for residential land
uses. According to the Acoustical Report for the Temecula Stake Center, by Lewitz and Associates.
Inc., dated July 30, 2002, certain activities at the church facility may be audible to surrounding
residences, i.e. automobile noise, activities within the building, etc. However, it is not anticipated that
the activities will exceed the 60-dBA CNEL threshold. Therefore, the noise impact on surrounding
residences from the proposed church facility is not anticipated to be significant
11.b. Less Than Significant Impact. The uses conducted by the project are not activities that would expose
persons to or generate excessive ground borne vibration or ground borne noise levels. Although there
will be an increase in ground borne vibration and noise during grading and construction, these will be of
a temporary and short duration. Due to the limited nature of this exposure and by maintaining
compliance with the City Municipal Code relating to grading and construction noise, there will be a less
than significant impact.
11.d. Less Than Significant Impact. The project may result in temporary or periodic increases in ambient
noise levels during construction. Construction machinery is capable of producing noise in the range of
100+ DBA at 100 feet, which is considered annoying. However. this source of noise from construction
of the project will be of short duration and therefore would not be considered significant. Furthermore,
construction activity will comply with City ordinances regulating the hours of activity. A less than
significant impact would be anticipated.
11.e.f. No Impact. This project is not within two miles of a private airstrip, therefore, the users of the site will
not be exposed to excessive noise levels generated by an airport. Consequently no impact is
anticipated as a result of this project.
12. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the project:
RIC U P\2003103-027 Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Oay Saintsllnitial Study,doc
14
.
b.
c,
Induce substantial population growth in an area, either
directly (for example, by proposing new homes and
businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension
of roads or other infrastructure?
Displace substantial numbers of existing housing,
necessitating the construction of replacement housing
elsewhere?
Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the
construction of re lacement housin elsewhere?
x
x
Comments:
12.a.b.c.
No impact. The project will not induce substantial growth in the area either directly or indirectly. The
project site is a residential in-fill site surrounded by existing or future single-family development. The
project will not displace substantial numbers of people or existing housing, as the project is a proposed
church facility. The project will neither displace housing nor people, necessitating the construction of
replacement housing. No impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
13.
PUBLIC SERVICES: Would the proposal have an effect upon, or result in a need for new or
altered Governrnent services in any of the following areas:
b.
c,
d.
e.
f.
Would the project result in substantial adverse physical
impacts associates with the provision of new or physically
altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically
altered governmental facilities, the construction of which
could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to
maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or
other performance objectives for any of the public
services:
Fire rotection?
Police rotection?
Schools?
Parks?
Other ublic facilities?
x
X
X
X
X
Comments:
13,a.b,c,e.
Less Than Significant Impact. The project will have a less than significant impact upon, nor result in
a need for new or altered fire, police, recreation or other public facilities. City Ordinance exempts
churches from having to pay Development Impact Fees (DIF). Churches draw from surrounding
existing residential areas which have already paid DIF fees for the area. Therefore, less than significant
impacts are anticipated,
. d Less Than Significant Impact. The project will have a less than significant impact upon, nor result in
.. a need for new or altered school facilities. Church facilities do not contribute to the demand for schools
given that additional students are not generated in association with the facility. Less than significant
impacts are anticipated.
R:IC U P\2003\03-027 Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Pay Saintsllnitial Sludy,doc
15
13.f.
Less Than Significant Impact With Mitigation. The project will not have a significant impact upon,
nor result in a need for new or altered public facilities. The Rancho California Water District, Eastern
Municipal Water District and the Riverside Department of Environmental Health have been made aware
of this project. A condition of approval has been placed on this project that will require the proponent to .
obtain "Will Serve" letters from all of the public utilities agencies. Service is currently provided for the
surrounding residential homes, so extending service to this site is probable, which would result in less
than significant impacts as a result of the project.
14. RECREATION. Would the project:
a.
b.
Would the project increase the use of existing
neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational
facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the
facilit would occur or be accelerated?
Does the project include recreational facilities or require
the construction or expansion of recreational facilities
which might have an adverse physical effect on the
environment?
x
Comments:
14.a,b. No impact. The project consists of a church facility. A fully enclosed multi-purpose room with some
recreation facilities such as a basketball court is proposed that will be used exclusively by church
members The anticipated need to increase the neighborhood or regional parks or other recreational .
facilities as a result of this project is unlikely. No impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
15. TRANSPORTATIONfTRAFFIC. Would the project:
a,
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
g.
No
1m acl
x
x
X
X
X .
X
R:IC U P\2003103-027 Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints\lnitial Sludy,doc
16
Comments:
15.a.b.
.
.
Less Than Significant Impact With Mitigations Incorporated. The project site is currently zoned
(VL) Very Low Density Residential, which is also the land use assumed in the City's Circulation
Element of the General Plan. The City's Development Code allows for the development of church
facilities in the VL zone subject to the approval of a Conditional Use Permit. According to the Traffic
Impact Analysis prepared by Urban Crossroads Inc., the proposed church facility will generate
approximately 213 more trips per day then the permitted residential density, Seventeen additional trips
will be generated during the AM peak and 15 additional trips will result in the PM peak hours of a
weekday. During weekends, the traffic analysis indicates that the project will generate approximately
887 more trips per day then the permitted residential density with 232 more trips during the mid-day
peak hour.
The highest traffic generation count generated by the proposed project occurs on mid-day weekends.
During the AM and PM weekday peak hours on adjacent streets, the trips will be only slightly higher
than those generated by the permitted residential density. When these trips are added to existing
cumulative impact counts, the traffic analysis concludes that all surrounding roadways and intersections
will operate at acceptable Levels of Service (LOS "D" or better). Therefore, the proposed project is not
anticipated to cause significant impacts to the existing road system within the City of Temecula,
Moreover, the City's Traffic Engineer reviewed the project traffic analysis during the review process and
has determined that the project's traffic impacts warrant no further study or mitigations beyond those
recommended. The following mitigation measures will be implemented:
Mitigation Measures:
1. Improve entire frontage of Pauba Road (Secondary Highway Standards - 88' RIW) to include
dedication of half-width street right-of-way, installation of half width street improvements, paving,
curb and gutter, sidewalk, street lights, drainage facilities, signage and striping, utilities (including
but not limited to water and sewer).
2. A gate shall be constructed at the easterly driveway on Pauba Road so as to restrict vehicular
access between the hours of 10:00 PM and 7:00 AM Sunday thru Thursday.
3. Payment of Western Riverside County Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee (TUMF).
4. Payment of signal mitigation fee,
15.c.d.No impact. The proposed development of this property will not result in a change in air traffic patterns.
Moreover, the design of the project will not pose a threat to the health, safety, and welfare of the people
utilizing the roads in the vicinity of the project. The project site's Pauba Road frontage will be widened
and curb, gutter sidewalk and streetlights will be installed to City standards thereby improving both the
design safety and traffic flow of the roadway. No impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
15,e, No Impact. The project will not result in inadequate emergency access or access to nearby uses. The
project, as designed, complies with current City standards and has adequate emergency access. No
impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
15.f.
No Impact. The proposed development complies with the City's Development Code parking
requirements for church facilities. Therefore, no significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this
project.
15,g, No Impact. The project site is located on a road that has access to public transportation. The project
. as proposed does not conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative
transportation. No impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
R:IC U P\2003\03-027 Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saintsllnitial Sfudy,doc
17
16. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS: Would the project:
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
g.
.
Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the
a licable Re ional Water Quali Control Board?
Require or result in the construction of new water or
wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing
facilities, the construction of which could cause significant
environmental effects?
Require or result in the construction of new storm water
drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the
construction of which could cause significant
environmental effects?
Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the
project from existing entitlements and resources, or are
new or ex anded entitlements needed?
Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment
provider, which serves or may serve the project that it has
adequate capacity to serve the project's projected
demand in addition to the provider's existing
commitments?
Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to
accommodate the ro'ect's solid waste dis osal needs?
Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and
re ulations related to solid waste?
x
x
x
x
x
x
Comments:
.
16.a.b.e.
Less Than Significant impact. The project will not exceed wastewater treatment requirements,
require the construction of new treatment facilities, nor affect the capacity of treatment providers. The
project will have an incremental effect upon existing systems. However, the Final Environmental
Impact Report (FEIR) for the City's General Plan states: "implementation of the proposed General Plan
would not significantly impact wastewater services." Since the project is consistent with the City's
General Plan, less than significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
16.c.
16,d,
No Impact. The amount of runoff from the project is not anticipated to be any greater than what was
anticipated by construction of the site. Consequently, construction of new storm water drainage facilities
or expansion of existing facilities is not anticipated.
Less Than Significant Impact. The project will not significantly impact existing water supplies nor
require expanded water entitlements. The project will have an incremental effect upon existing systems.
While the project will have an incremental impact upon existing systems, the Final Environmental
Impact Report (FEIR) for the City's General Plan states: "both EMWD and RCWD have indicated an
ability to supply as much water as is required in their services areas (p, 39)," The FEIR further states:
"implementation of the proposed General Plan would not significantly impact wastewater services (p.
40)." Since the project is consistent with the City's General Plan, no significant impacts are anticipated
as a result of this project.
16.1.g. Less Than Significant impact. The project will not result in a need for new landfill capacity. Any.
potential impacts from solid waste created by this development can be mitigated through participation in
Source Reduction and Recycling Programs, which are implemented by the City. Less than significant
impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
R:IC U P\2003103-027 Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saintsllnitial Study,doc
18
17. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE.
a.
b,
c.
Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality
of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a
fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population
to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate
a plant or animal community, reduce the number or
restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal
or eliminate important examples of the major periods of
California histo or rehisto ?
Does the project have impacts that are individually
limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively
considerable" means that the incremental effects of a
project are considerable when viewed in connection with
the effects of past projects, the effects of other current
ro'ects, and the effects of robable future ro'ects?
Does the project have environmental effects, which will
cause substantial adverse effects on human beings,
either directl or indirectl ?
x
x
Comments:
17,a, No Impact. The project does not have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment on site or
. in the vicinity of the project. The site lies within an existing residential area and serves as an in-fill
project. The project will not substantially reduce the habitat of fish or wildlife. No historic resources are
anticipated to be impacted.
17.b. Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated. The cumulative effects from the project related
to traffic/circulation, air quality and land use are significant but they are being mitigated to less than
significant levels with the incorporated mitigation, All cumulative effects for the various land uses of
the subject site as well as the surrounding developments were analyzed in the General Plan
Environmental Impact Report. With the mitigation measures in place, the project will be consistent with
the General Plan and Development Code, the cumulative impacts related to the future development will
not have a significant impact.
17.c. Less Than Significant Impact. The project will not have environmental effects that would cause
substantial adverse effects on human beings, directly or indirectly. The church facility will be designed
and developed consistent with the Development Code, and the General Plan. No significant impacts
are anticipated as a result of this project.
18. EARLIER ANALYSES. Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR,
or other CEQA process, one or more effects have been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or
negative declaration. Section 15063(c)(3)(D). In this case a discussion should identify the following
on attached sheets.
Earlier anal ses used. Identif earlier anal ses and state where the are available for review.
Impacts adequately addressed. Identify which affects from the above checklist were within the scope
of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state
whether such effects were addressed b miti ation measures based on the earlier anal sis.
R:IC U P\2003\03-027 Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saintsllnitial Study,doc
19
Mitigation measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated,"
describe the mitigation measures, which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and
the extent to which the address site-s ecific conditions for the ro'ect.
Comments:
.
18.a. There were no earlier analyses specifically related to this project site. The City's General Plan and
Final Environment Impact Report and a number of special studies (listed under Sources) were used as
a referenced source in preparing this Initial Study
18.b. There were no earlier impacts, which affected this project.
18.c.
The mitigation measures are addressed in the Initial Study.
.
.
R:\C U P\2003\03-027 Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saintsllnitial Study,doc
20
1.
2.
.
4.
5.
6.
7.
.
.
SOURCES
City of Temecula General Plan, adopted November 9, 1993.
City of Temecula General Plan Final Environmental Impact Report, adopted July 2, 1993.
A Cultural Resources Assessment of a 4.72 Acre Parcel, Archaeological Associates, dated October 31,
2003.
Paleontological Survey of a 4.72 Acre Parcel, John Minch & Assoc. Inc., dated November 2003.
LDS Church Traffic Impact Analysis, Urban Crossroads Inc., dated August 1, 2003.
Temecula Stake Center Acoustical Report, Lewitz & Assoc., dated July 30, 2002.
Southern California Air Quality Management District CEQA Air Quality Handbook
R:IC U P\2003\03-027 Church of Jesus Christ of latter Oay Saintsllnitial Study,doc
21
MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM
TEMECULA STAKE CENTER
Time Frame/
Monitoring Milestones
Iring grading and City Public
nstruction activities. Works
Department
Iring grading and City Public
nstruction activities Works
Department
Iring grading and City Public
nstruction activities, Works
Department
.
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM FOR LDS CHURCH
Impact
AIR QUALITY
Potential sensitive
receptor exposure to
substantial pollutant
concentrations and
creation of objectionable
odors.
Mitigation Measure
The City hereby requires contractors to apply water to the
disturbed portions of the project site at least four times per
day. On days where wind speeds are sufficient to transport
fugitive dust beyond the working area boundary, the City
Public Works Departrnent will monitor the project site and
will require contractors to increase watering to the point that
fugitive dust no longer leaves the property (typically a
moisture content of 12%), and/or the contractor will terminate
grading and loading operations.
All rnaterial stockpiles subject to wind erosion during
construction activities that will not be utilized within three days
from placement, will be either covered with: (a) plastic, (b) an
alternative cover deemed equivalent to plastic, or (c) sprayed
with a nontoxic chemical stabilizer.
Before vehicles leave the construction site and enter adjacent
public streets, the contractor shall require all vehicles leaving
the project site to use a wheel washer to remove dirt that can
be tracked onto adjacent roadways.
R:IC U P\2003103.()27 Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day SaintslMITIGA nON MONITORING PROGRAM,doc
1
. .
D
co
D
co
D
co
.
.
The streets shall be swept daily or washed down at the end of
the workday to remove soil tracked onto the paved roadway
surface.
Project will comply with regional rules such as SCAQMD
Rules 403 and 402 which would assist in reducing short-term
air pollutant ernissions. Rule 403 requires that fugitive dust be
controlled with best available control measures so that the
presence of such dust does not rernain visible in the
atmosphere beyond the property line of the emission source.
Rule 402 requires dust suppression techniques to be
implemented to prevent fugitive dust from creating a nuisance
offsite. These dust suppression techniques are summarized
below.
a. Portions of the construction site to remain inactive
longer than a period of three months will be seeded and
watered until grass cover is grown or otherwise stabilized in a
manner acceptable to the City.
b. All on-site roads will be paved as soon as feasible or
watered periodically or chemically stabilized.
c. All material transported off-site will be either sufficiently
watered or securely covered to prevent excessive amounts of
dust.
d. The area disturbed by clearing, grading, earth moving,
or excavation operations will be minimized at all times,
R:\C U P12003\OJ-O27 Church of Jesus Christ ofLatt" Day SaintslMITIGA nON MONITORING PROGRAM,doc
2
During grading and
construction activities,
During grading and
construction activities
.
City Public
Works
Department
City Public
Works
Department
Cultural Resources
Potential to destroy a
paleontological resource.
All engines shall be properly operated and maintained. These
rneasures will be enforced through the monthly submission of
certified mechanic's records to the City- Attention Matt Harris,
Associate Planner.
All diesel-powered vehicles shall be turned off when not in use
for more than 30 consecutive minutes and gasoline - powered
equiprnent shall be turned off when not in use for more than
five consecutive minutes.
The construction contractor will utilize electric or natural gas
powered equipment in lieu of gasoline or diesel powered
engines, where feasible and where economically competitive.
Developer shall, prior to commencement of construction;
provide City Attention Matt Harris, Associate Planner with a
copy of contract containing this provision.
Dring grading and City Planning
mstruction activities and Public
Works
Departments.
Juring grading and City Public
)nstruction activities Works
Department
Juring grading and City Planning &
)nstruction activities Public Works
Departments
During grading activities City Planning
Department
uring grading activities City Planning
Department
.
D
0
D
0
D
0
A Certified Paleontologist shall be onsite at all times when grading in D
bedrock.
Salvage operations should be initiated and coordinated with the I D
developer if other significant concentrations of fossils are
encountered.
R:\C U P\200JIOJ-O27 Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day SaintsIMITIGA nON MONITORING PROGRAM,doc
. .
.
.
.
Trans portati onlTraffi c
Potential to create Improve entire frontage of Pauba Road (Secondary Highway Prior to building occupancy City Public
substantial increase in Standards - 88' RIW) to include dedication of half-width street right- Works
traffic and exceed level of-way, installation of half width street improvements, paving, curb Department
of service standards. and gutter, sidewalk, street lights, drainage facilities, signage and
striping, utilities (including but not limited to water and sewer).
A gate shall be constructed at the easterly driveway on Pauba Road Prior to building City Planning
so as to restrict vehicular access between the hours of 10:00 PM and occupancy. and Public
7:00 AM Sunday thru Thursday. Works
Department.
Payment of Western Riverside County Transportation Uniform Prior to building City Public
Mitigation Fee (TUMF). occupancy. Works
Department
Payment of signal mitigation fee. Prior to building occupancy City Public
Works
Department
R:IC U P\200JIOJ-O27 Church of Jesus Christ of Lall" Day SaintsIMITIGA nON MONITORING PROGRAM,doc
4
ATTAcHMENT NO.6
OPERATIONAL STATEMENT
R:\C U P\2003\O3-027 Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints\ST AFF REPORT,doc
17
.
.
.
Later Dav Saints Stake Center Operational Statement
LDS Church Unit Orqanization: A local congregation of church members is called a
Ward. Wards are limited in size. Generally a Ward congregation is 100 families or less
of which about half are active in Church participation. As a Ward increases in size it is
divided and a new independent unit is formed. A collection of several Wards is called a
Stake - similar to a diocese. As a Stake population grows it is also divided and a new
independent unit is formed.
Within a Stake boundary there are usually three to five Ward Meetinghouses" located in
the significant population center. One particular meetinghouse in each Stake is the
"Stake Center" facility. The subject building is intended to be a Stake Center Facility,
Buildinq Utilization: The subject Stake Center building is designed for week to week
usage as the typical day to day meetinghouse for two or three Wards serving
congregants in the local vicinity. Each Sunday each Ward will hold a general meeting
and classes, the times of which are staggered and spaced throughout the day. Each
Ward holds its own general meeting and classes. One Ward will start at 9:00 am, a
second will start at 11 :00 am and if a third is needed it will start a 1 :OOpm. The general
meeting is in the first hour of each block and that meeting is over by the time the next
unit is arriving,
The subject building will also serve occasional Stake/multi Ward functions. Twice a year
a special "Stake Conference" is convened to which members of all the Wards in the
Stake are invited. Twenty to thirty percent of the Stake membership historically attend
the conference, As needed to accommodate parking and building occupancies the
conference is divided into morning and afternoon sessions with different Wards invited to
each so that one group has left the site prior to the other arriving. If, for example there
are 6 Wards in the Stake, three will attend the morning session and three in the
afternoon with relatively balances sizes for each. The Stake conference typically begins
at 10:00 am and lasts 2 hours. If there is a second session it will typically begin at 12:30
or 1 :OOpm
Sundav Use and Hours of Operation: The subject facility will be primarily used on
Sundays for religious services and classes. Sunday Services usually begin around 9:00
a.m. They will include a general congregational meeting in the sanctuary which is
attended by all family members. Following the Sacrament Service the congregants
divide to the smaller classrooms for two hours of religious instruction. This creates a
need of up to 20 various sized teaching rooms for different subdivided groups: 1 or 2
pre-school age classes, 9 or 10 adolescent classes, 6 teenage classes, and 3 or 4 adult
classes. The block of Sunday meetings for a Ward is three hours. Services attendance
varies, as with any organization, with attendance for smaller Wards at about 150 and the
larger Wards at Chapel capacity of about 250. The general congregational meetings last
70 minutes and are spaced 2 hours apart for different Wards.
Stake Conference Meetings are held every 6 months and usually begin at 10:00 am and
last about 2 hours. When there is a need for a split session the second session usually
begins at 1 :00 pm well after the first session participants have dispersed. The second
session (when needed) also will be two hours and those participants will disperse the
site, save a few to clean up, by 3:30 pm.
The population of Stake Conference attendees is as can be accommodated in the
sanctuary and the overflow and is in the range of 600 - 650.
.
Occasionally there will be Sunday evening meetings for special guest speakers or other
small group worship activities. The number of select participant to these "firesides" will
vary from a couple of dozen to a couple of hundred - typically smaller than the typical
Ward congregational services each Sunday morning. Hours of usage for the special
meetings are usually between 6:00 pm and 9:00 pm.
Weekday Use and Hours of Operation: Weekday usage is in the evenings from the
hours of about 6:30 p.m. to 9:30 p.m. for youth groups, scouting, women's organizations
and recreational activities. Local High school age members will use the building on
school days in an early morning hour before school for 45 minute religious instruction
classes. Depending on the number of youth who attend the local high school(s) there
will be 3 - 4 classes of 12 - 16 students each. The classes start about one and a half
hours before the local high school first period starts. A high school starting time of 8:00
am will correspond with a 6:30 am start time for Seminary. High schools with a "0"
period will generally cause the need for one of the classes to start an hour earlier than
the rest. Occasional Friday evening and Saturday activities and recreation events will
make use of the facilities. 3 - 4 Saturdays per month a few youth and adults will gather
in the building to play basketball or have some other social or cultural activity during the
day. 4 - 5 times per year the Wards using the building will hold a cultural event such as
a play or dinner/social. Attendance of these events will be the typical active population
of the Ward at about 150 to 250. A Friday or Saturday evening event will run from about
7:00 pm to 9:00 - 9:30 pm. Once a month the building will be used for a youth dance on
a Saturday evening from 8:00 pm to 11 :00 pm. All the dance activities are at the interior
of the building in the Cultural Center. The dances are only attended by youth with a
"dance card" issued by their Bishop who has interviewed them and obtained their
commitment to uphold very high standards of conduct. Failure to uphold these
standards will cause the dance card to be revoked. The building and parking lot are
heavily chaperoned at all times, especially as the youth are leaving. Half of the youth
will be picked up by parents. For the most part the building will be quiet and not utilized
weekdays during the day nor on Monday.
.
The facilities will not be used for Day Care.
The facilities will not be used as an educational institution
The facilities will not be used for overnight activities.
Commercial, rental or political purposes at not authorized in the facilities.
Food cooking or "soup kitchen" uses are not authorized.
.
ATTACHMENT NO.7
PUBLIC CORRESPONDENCE
R:\C U 1'\2003\03-027 Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints\ST AFF REPORT,doc
18
.
.
.
32087 Via Bonilla
Temecula CA 92592
City of Temecula
Matthew C. Harris
POBox 9033
Temecula CA 92589-9033
Dear Mr. Harris,
We have received notice that it is the City has approved or will approve the
construction of a 24,287 sq ft complex west of Corte Villosa.
My wife and I wish to express our Negative Declaration for this proposed
construction for the following reasons:
1. The original zoning for the current area was residential.
2. Traffic has steadily increased with the occupants of Pas eo del Sol taking
occupancy of their homes.
3. Traffic has and will increase when Linfield's golf university is
completed.
4. The speed of vehicular traffic on Pauba is not monitored and has
personally witnessed speeds in excess of 60 mph regularly. Pauba's
traffic resembles a fÌeeway.
Please reconsider the construction of yet another facility that will
bring high volumes of traffic to this already choked street. We request the City
planners should adhere to the original zoning of the area.
Respectfully,
¡;:41~
Barbara A. Provencio
~-,-~
liììr~@Ic,;C\;;I':."\"
~~ Ii-, ,In" U " , :¡i¡¡
i ~! MAY 1 1 2004. i:]id
Uu u
By -
~ ~
~V~
.
.
.
Stephen & Rebecca Longo
42365 Corte Víllosa
Temecula, CA 92592
(909) 506-6557
1~[!@œDWŒ~
till MAY 1 0 2004 ~¡
By
May 7, 2004
Matthew C. Harris
Associate Planner
City of Temecula
43200 Business Park Drive
Temecula, CA 92589-9033
SUBJECT: PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 03-0027 (CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT &
DEVELOPMENT PLAN TO CONSTRUCT, ESTABLISH AND OPERATE A 24,287 SQ. FT.
CHURCH FACILITY)
Dear Matt and Planning Commissioners:
We are residents of the adjacent property at 42365 Corte Víllosa, parcel # 955-091-002-3, also
misidentified in the submitted preliminary site plan as property #22, 7th house from the comer of
Pauba and Corte Víllosa (there are two properties identified as #22). We have reviewed the site
plan dated 26 June 03, Statement of Operations dated 12 April 2000 and viewed the proposed
roofing and brick material. The following are our comments and concerns in relation to the
approval of this project:
1. We recently purchased this home and the size of the proposed project was greatly
minimized by the sellers who are affiliated with the church and held the rust meeting. In
addition to this, we only recently found out that according to the proposed site plan, the
proposed retaining wall that borders our property does not extend completely to the
affected homes, only to 6 out of the 7 backyards. We found out after the fact about the
last city meeting.
2. We want the retaining wall to extend the full-length of our property line between the
church parking lot and our property. That will completely enclose our yard and not leave
1/3 of it exposed to the field with a half iron fence. We want the consideration to enclose
the extra distance, which is minimal compared to the overall cost of the project and the
detrimental effect it would have on our property value and appearance if left as is. If the
retaining wall does not run the full length of the property this will have a tremendous
negative impact and adversely affect the appeal of our house when we try to sell it.
Please see attached Daees with site maD and Dictures of our DroDertv.
LDS Project
Longo Property
3. The proposed roofing material that is black composite severely contrasts with the
neighborhood character. This is unacceptable.
Also see attached copy of letter dated May 7, 2004 addressing the Negative Declaration for this
project which states our concerns related to the mitigation measures.
~ðtitted'
Stephen & Rebecca Longo
:rc
Attachments
(1) letter dated May 7, 2004
(2) site plan identifying our address
(3) pictures of property (4)
2
.
.
.
.
.
.
Stephen & Rebecca Longo
42365 Corte Villosa
Temecula, CA 92592
(909) 506-6557
May 7, 2004
Matthew C. Harris
Associate Planner
City ofTemecu1a
43200 Business Park Drive
Temecula, CA 92589-9033
SUBJECT: PROPOSED NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR THE PROJECT SUBMITIED
AS PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 03-0027 (CONDmONAL USE PERMIT &
DEVELOPMENT PLAN TO CONSTRUCT, ESTABLISH AND OPERATE A 24,287 SQ. FT.
CHURCH FACILITY)
Dear Matt,
We are residents of the adjacent property at 42365 Corte Villosa, parcel # 955-091-002-3, also
misidentified in the submitted preliminary site plan as property #22, 7th house from the corner of
Pauba and Corte Villosa (there are two properties identified as #22). We have reviewed the
proposed negative declaration and submit the following comments and concerns should this
Negative Declaration is adopted:
1. On page 6 of the report, Air Quality mitigation measure #8 allows for diesel-powered
vehicles to continue running for up to 30 minutes while not in use. We want the time
decreased to 15 minutes.
2. On page 17 of the report, Transportationffraffic mitigation measure #2, only requires that
a gate shall be constructed at the ~ driveway on Pauba Road so as to restrict access
between the hours of 10:00 pm and 7:00 am Sunday thru Thursdav. That requirement is
insufficient and does not address the westerlv driveway that would enable unrestricted
access into the facility. We want a gate required for the westerly driveway as well. The
requirement is also incomplete since tbere are seven days in tbe week and only Sunday
thru Thursday are addressed. The time requirements and access restriction should apply
to both driveways. Friday and Saturday shall be the same as the other days of the week
as specified in the proposed mitigation measure.
3. On page 17, the Transportationffraffic Impact Analysis report states that the proposed
facility will generate 213 more trips per day than the permitted residential density.
During weekends, the report states that the facility will generate 887 more trips per day
than the pennitted residential density. Our concern is, how can this be allowed if it is
exceeding the permitted amount based on the residential density.
Respectfully submitted,
?p~ngO
1
~ it ~ MU")i
~UI
, -
. -j
0
-- f11
.."
r
, ",~ '
~
> Z
I
I .
4" ø'
~ ~
~L~
R~ "
~< ~
t" ~
, i: ..
h "'.
'"
\)
~'
J'--.. ,H- 'I
: ~~!/\~Jv : ¡
1Þ~.~~~-. i~
.. - - ;', t~' H
" . ". II!
II
l
I
I
I
~_t
'~ z:-
1_~
- - --""" ~
-'- ~
'-.." ~
, ì:J>
"""'-, "'-
¡
:'
,-.40
.
.
';, .---
'.
--- .---
,
,
-ON - - -- _--Nt
I
,- j
~-:-'--- / .
I"': ;;------ -~ - I
'~~ FI --
.~~ ¡~
ri ~~
d~ '
--
PAUB" ROAD
"-'.
""
.
.
.
k-\t~~ QO-.
.
.
.
~~~ ~6
.
.
.
Stephen & Rebecca Longo
42365 Corte Villosa
Temecula, CA 92592
(909) 506-6557
~LH~ Œ G W Œ~'
m u~y l' "04 \III
6 y --====
May 7, 2004
Matthew C. Harris
Associate Planner
City of Temecula
43200 Business Park Drive
Temecula, CA 92589-9033
SUBJECT: PROPOSED NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR THE PROJECT SUBMITTED
AS PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 03-0027 (CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT &
DEVELOPMENT PLAN TO CONSTRUCT, ESTABLISH AND OPERATE A 24,287 SQ. FT.
CHURCH FACILITY)
Dear Matt,
We are residents of the adjacent property at 42365 Corte Villosa, parcel # 955-091-002-3, also
misidentified in the submitted preliminary site plan as property #22, 7th house ITom the comer of
Pauba and Corte Villosa (there are two properties identified as #22). We have reviewed the
proposed negative declaration and submit the following comments and concerns should this
Negative Declaration is adopted:
1. On page 6 of the report, Air Quality mitigation measure #8 allows for diesel-powered
vehicles to continue running for up to 30 minutes while not in use. We want the time
decreased to 15 minutes.
2. On page 17 of the report, Transportation/Traffic mitigation measure #2, only requires that
a gate shall be constructed at the easterlv driveway on Pauba Road so as to restrict access
between the hours of 10:00 pm and 7:00 am Sunday thru Thursday. That requirement is
insufficient and does not address the westerly driveway that would enable unrestricted
access into the facility. We want a gate required for the westerly driveway as well. The
requirement is also incomplete since there are seven days in the week and only Sunday
thru Thursday are addressed. The time requirements and access restriction should apply
to both driveways. Friday and Saturday shall be the same as the other days of the week
as specified in the proposed mitigation measure.
3. On page 17, the Transportation/Traffic Impact Analysis report states that the proposed
facility will generate 213 more trips per day than the pennitted residential density.
During weekends, the report states that the facility will generate 887 more trips per day
than the permitted residential density. Our concern is, how can this be allowed if it is
exceeding the permitted amount based on the residential density.
Respectfully submitted,
~~ngo
.
.
.
\
!J)ear:M.r. :Harris,
4/26/04
rrTianÆ..youforyour service to our community. It is a privilege to five in
rtemecuCa tlian~ to tlie wOTUieifu{ support ant! attention to detai{ our
feadêrs prlWidê.
I com£ to you at tliis tim£ ant! asÆ..you to pfease consiáer my comm£nts on a
topic, wliic/i affects me as an int!i:vidua{ in t/iis community.
getting arount! town tliese lays can 6e a far greater tim£ consum£r tlian in
tlie recent past as <Jém£cuCa continu£s to grow. Just getting out of my
nei¡J/i6or1iood ant! to a major artery in tlie city is a cliaffenge as weŒ }ls I
tra'VeC tlie 1.5 mifes,from my dri'Veway to :Margarita CJ{çad on my way to do
sliopping ant! erranás, I encounter traffic from <Jém£cuCa :M.iÆffe Sc/iooC
'T/intage :Hilfs C£fem£ntary Sc/iooC Œ'aComa C£fem£ntary Sc/iooC LinfieCd
C£fem£ntary Sc/iooC LinfieCd:M.iÆffe Sc/iooC LinfieCd:K1{J/i Sc/iooC ant!
rtem£cuCa :Hig/i Sc/iool On e1Jenings ant! weeƧnás tlie fieCds at <Jém£cuCa
:M.iÆffe Sc/ioo{ are considered a community par{ant! are 'Very frequ£ntCy used
6y yout/i sports groups ant! create a trem£nt!ous amount of traffic coming
ant! going as teams compete on tlie fieCds.
}lnotlier organization is interested in adifing tfiemseC'Ves to our a{reacfy
O'Ver6urdened nei¡J/i60rliootf. }ls I understand, tfie :M.ormon C/iurc/i is
wanting to 6uiCd a center on Œ'au6a CJ{çad rouglily 6etween :M.eadows
Œ'arltway ant!<Jlie LinfieCdSc/iool I am not :M.ormon, Gut ourfamiCy lias
dear frienás tliat are. }ls l' 'Ve come to fearn, tfie :M.ormon "C/iurc/i" facilìf:Í£s
are nwre of a "community center"for tliat congregation witli acti'VÍf:Í£s
occurring t/iroug/iout tlie lay, se'Ven days a wee/(" }l{{ of w/iic/i wi{{ increase
tlie traJJìc flow to ant! from tliis area.
In addition tfiere is a Carne portion of Cant! tliat is in áe'Vefopment on tfie
soutfieast corner of Œ'au6a CJ{çad ant! :M.eadows Œ'ar{way on w/iic/i scores of
new /iom£s wi{{ 6e. rrTiat aCone wi{{ increase tfie traffic on Œ'au6a CJ{çad a
great deal
jls you can see, ourneifJ/i60rfi0oá afreaáy enáures many inconveniences for
tlie gooá of our community. }l{{ of w/iicfi are important to a great many
peopCe incCudì1l{J many of m wlio five in tliis area. œCease stop tliis one from
6ei1l{J aááeá to our Guráen.
.
I encourage you to IieCp tlie :.Momon C/iurc/i finá aCternative suita6Ce raná
on wliicfi to Guiúf tlieir facifity aná arrow our neifJfi60rliooá as mw:fi retìef as
you can acquire.
'Very sincereCy yours,
:Natatìe Steffens
.
.
.
December 16,2003
Debbie Ubnoske
Matt Harris
Re: LDS Church on Pauba Rd.
We are writing you in regards to the proposed LDS Church, on Pauba Rd. We are still
strongly opposed to this project as we feel that it will be a detriment to our neighborhood.
Having said that, we'd like to talk about some concessions for us, just in case the
proposed church is approved.
We, homeowners along Corte Villosa, adjacent to the prospective building site of the
LDS church on Pauba Rd., would like:
I. A retaining wall to, be built at the edge of our property lines so that we can level off
our lots. In addition, we'd like the LDS church to pay for the new drainage pipe and the
fill dirt required to level off our lots.
2. The whole building site recessed 10-20 feet in the ground, to retain part of our scenic
view..
.
3. The greenbelt between our properties and the LDS parking lot to be at least 30 feet,
allowing for more privacy and noise reduction.
4. Low-lying parking lot light fixtures, like the ones at the New Community Lutheran
Church, in lieu of the 8-10 ft ones proposed.
5. All lights erected to be on timers so that they go offby at least 10 pm, earlier if the
facility will not be in use that night.
6. Landscaping along the "greenbelt" dividing the parking lot and our homes should
consist of hedges at the edge of the parking lot and twenty four inch boxed trees, or
larger, planted close enough to offer blockage of our view of the parking lot. We request
that the trees planted be fast-!!rowin!! evel'l!:reen trees, i.e.: aleppo pines, stone pines,
fern pines, evergreen ash, camphor, chinese evergreen elm, or cypress.
7. The driveway entrances be gated or chained during hours that the facility is not in use,
so that there's not free access into the parking lot.
~JìRV¡ ~ f¡f"/<.\l. .p¥)\\L
42 '7;, '1L( Co"'-íé \JìLlv~1'\
(q",\) tvc.¡4-'é',\8i
bp'~
i['l."ft:>/ CO R-r~ VI~L"'3R
,;]o~ '<l ~ -rh U/Ìgù
.l..-\-...Y--\. \ '3 Co\.. tQ..-. ~ LJ \ o-<;Q...
308 .. OOlï
~V'- ~1ðu~h~ {\ð'UÞU
C¡ oG1 ') loge¡ , 1.A-35/ +Z387 C&J:L \J ¡' t!O'S~
.
.
.
THE CHURCH OF
JESUS CHRIST
OF LATTER-DAY SAINTS
~~~~ ~~3 Ul~3 ŒW
By
MURRIETA CALIFORNIA STAKE
January 12,2003
Debbie Ubnoske
City ofTemecula
43200 Business Park Drive
Temecula CA 92592
Attn: Ms. Ubnoske:
As the presidency of the Murrieta California Stake, representing 3,600 members of
the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints who live in the city ofTemecula,
we want to thank you for giving consideration to our request to build a much
needed church in our community.
As you may be aware, we currently have only one operating church in the city of
Temecula. It is located on the comer ofHwy 79 and La Paz. We are very excited
about the much needed building that is now under construction on North General
Kearney. As of today the vast majority of members of our Church who live in
Temecula travel outside our city to attend their worship services. It is for this
reason we are submitting to you an application for a conditional use permit to
build a third church on Pauba road.
As with many projects submitted to the planning commission, there are a few who
would desire that the city reject the proposal. We are aware that our application is
no exception. In our conversation with Rolfe Preisendanz, he brought to our
attention that there have been some individuals who have expressed opposition to
the church and he suggested that we do all in our power to understand their
concerns and see what the church could do to help alleviate any issues prior to the
public hearing.
We have taken Rolfe's counsel seriously and last summer we invited all the
residents whose properties were adjacent to the proposed church and held an open
house in one of the residents homes on Corte Villosa Street. We had almost 100%
attendance. We talked about the purposes and uses of the church. We shared a
short video that talked about Latter-Day Saint churches and their interaction with
the community. We provided a rendering and elevations of the building and
posted a site plan indicating the location of the building on the lot.
.
After the presentation we invited each neighbor to share his or her concerns. We
responded and had an open and positive dialogue. For many the concern was the
proximity of the building to their homes for others it was the screening of their
property from the parking lot, for others it was lighting, and for a few it was just
the loss that comes from the peace and quiet when living next to a vacant lot.
With each concern we tried to accommodate their needs to whatever extent
possible. We offered and provided a much larger green belt than was originally
planned giving trees that will screen their homes from the church. We've
completed lighting and acoustical studies and even offered to shift the location of
the building on the lot to help accommodate their desires. But for a few, anything
short of a vacant lot or a single family home would not be acceptable.
We respect their issues and it's our desire to be a good neighbor and a great
strength to our community. This church will not only provide worship services on
Sunday for our members but it will provide a home for the Boy Scouts of America
to hold their troop meetings and will serve as a resource to the Riverside County
Red Cross to hold their blood drives.
We are sensitive to the traffic issues in Temecula and the concerns that some may
have that a church would create added congestion on Pauba or other city streets. I
think the traffic study that we have provided will clearly show that our church will
have no significant impact on traffic or congestion. In fact, the times of our
operation will be when the traffic volume is at its lowest levels. The church's
primary hours of operations will be Sundays between 9:00 - 4:00 p.m. staggering
the times for the congregations to eliminate any possibility of overcrowding or
congestion on the roads.
.
On weekdays prior to school, we hold a religious class that is offered to high
school students only. This is done under adult supervision and parental guidance.
Our evenings primarily consist of Tuesday, Wednesday, and Thursday evenings
where the scouts would use the building for troop meetings and religious classes
could be offered to youth groups. All activities typically end not later than 9:00
p.m.
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints have buildings throughout almost
every city in California. They are recognized because they are well maintained,
esthetically attractive, and professionally landscaped. The church recognizes the
important role it plays in the community. The proposed building on Pauba would
truly be an asset to our city. If you have driven by the church that is currently
.
.
.
.
under construction on North General Kearney, you'll appreciate the quality and
workmanship that goes in to our buildings. The church on Pauba road would be
no different.
Attached you will find just a few of the 3,600 members that live in Temecula
who've written their name in support of the proposed Pauba street church. We
now look to you and ask for your support in granting us authorization to proceed
with this project. We sincerely appreciate your commitment and service to our
city.
Sincerely,
The Murrieta California Stake Presidency
Roger nnors, President
~1P
0 ert Ford, FIrst Counselor
MãtllÍiw.J!~rrjs :PÃO;3:027Ï-DS Chúrdí- -
.
.
.
From:
To:
Date:
Subject:
"Joseph Elliott" <m.makeaprilkj@verizon,nel>
<harrism@cityoftemecula.org>
Man, May 12,2003 4:31 PM
PA03-027 LDS Church
To Matt Harris,
This is a breakdown of the information we have received from the Mormon Leaders. Please take these
figures and times into consideration when you have meetings with the LD.S. Church.
"CHURCH MEETINGHOUSE"
The Church of Jesus Christ of Later-Day Saints
1 stake church building ( three wards) is 24,000 sq.... ft., 31 ft. single story high church with a gymnasium.
It will also have classrooms, bishop offices, minister offices, cultural centers, etc. with 276 parking spaces
on 4.72 acres.
1. A Stake consist of 3 wards with as many as 100 families per ward. A ward could be as many as 400
members including children. That totals over 1,200 people per Sunday.
a. On Sunday the three wards meet one right after another in secession from 8:30 a.m, until 5:30 p.m. or
later we have been told.
b. There will be activities every night excluding Mondays.
c. Possibly could be basketball practice on Friday and Saturdays.
d. Youth activities through out the week including boy scouts of 18 or more and youth groups of 40 or
more students meet once a week at night.
e. A women's organization (made up of 30 or 40 women) will use the building once a week,
f. The Bishop and Elder office's will be used through out the week also.
2. Every morning 60 to 80 ( we have heard from other Mormons over 100 students) Mormon high school
students are dropped off by parents at 6:00 a.m. or earlier for religious study. They are again picked up
at 6:45 to go on to high school for regular classes.
This is not your regular church schedule of 2 or 3 hr. services on Sunday and possibly 2 services though
the week. This church will be used much more.
With the name "Meeting House", I understand they have "gatherings" here for the different stake and
ward churches also.
Thank you for your time.
Mary (Jenny) Elliott
cc: Chris Sorensen
MatttiëwHarris: PÃÕ3:Ô27 LOS Ch:úr~~-'
Kristen Boano
H.O.T. Committee
Homeowners of Temecula
cc:
<mcintyk@cityoftemecula.org>
.
.
.
.
.
.
01/10/26B3 14: 49
909385ßB44
BLOOD BANK OF 5B
PAGE I1Z
n Blood Bank
of San Bemardlno
aDd Riverside ColIDtles
January 10, 2003
Ternecula Planning Commission
CIO Temec:ula City Hall
43200 BusinesS Park Drive
PO 80)1; 9033
Temecula, CA 92589-9033
To Whom It May Concern:
This letter is in regards to the new building proposed for the Temecula Chur¡;h of
Latter Day Saints in Teriieculd. CA. The Blood Bank of San Bernardino and
RIverside Counties (B"BRC) has been holding blood drives at the Murrieta
Church of Latter Day SaInts (M,Urrieta LOS) since 1991. The use of their
facilities has bean a Iœ)'factor In the success of each blood drive year after year.
Murrieta, LOS schedule a mli'limum of two blood drives per year with the
BBSBRC. Each blood,dl'ive averages over 100 productive units of blood.
Due to the increasing rnember1lhlp and expansion of Murrieta, LOS, an additional
bvllding in Temec:ula, CA would be greatly beneflcial to the BBSBRC. It would
afford us an additional faCIlity to accommodate blood donors who reside in the
Temecula area.
If you have any questions. pleas do not hesitate to contact me at 909-386-6920.
Sincerely.
1?oU111 wrdwru
Rachel Lundeen
Area Representative
Marketing and Community Development
Blood Bank San Bemardino ai'ld Riverside Counties
384 Orange Show Road, p.O. Bo~ 57:19. San Ðema¡dino, CA 92412-5729 - Tel: 909.885-6503 - Fa~; \/119-3K .2036
'!'
t
':'an ,ü-uii-ÙZ:O6p
.. --~ - ..-..,
O~" U<:O"T
CIEC BSA
909 793 0306
dÍ\-
':'I 8ì ~)
'\I '11m' 'V
~
BOY SCOUTS OF AMERICA
CALIFORNIA INLAND EMPIRE COUNCIL
1230 Indiana Court. Redlands. California 92374-2896
(909) 793-2463 or 825-8844
WR - 4 645
January 10,2003
Chairperson
Temecula City Planning COmmission
Temecula, California
Dear Committee:
Please consider this brief note a letter ofsuppon for the Proposed P~iect onPauba Street
in Temeeula. As you may know, the Boy Scouts of America offers its character
developing program through chartering organizations. The basic requirements are that
the chartering organization is responsible for providing the adult leadership and a safe
meeting place for the youth. Without the chartering organization, the California Inland
Empire Counei], Boy Scouts of America would not be able to offer a quality Scouting
program to over 26,000 youth that we currently serve nor could our conununities afford
the expense of providing the meeting place and costs associated with the facility.
The Church of the Latter Day Saints has been a chartering organization and panner with
the Boy Scouts of America since the program was organized. The relationship exists at
the national BSA level as well as OlD' local council. It is my firm. belicfthat the Temecula
can only benefit &om the proposed project. The new facility will be a new home to the
full family,ofScouting units, which wi!! serve youth ¡¡-om the ages of8 tluough 18,
It has been proven that the Boy Scouts of America develops character. Ifthe reports
don't say it all, Riverside County Superior COW1 Judge, Gordon Burkhart, summed it up
best when he said, "In my entire 18 years serving as a Juvenile Judge and Superior Court
Judge, not one Boy Scout has come before my bench accused of any serious crime." The
Boy Scouts of America have provided an alternative to gangs and provided a safe haven
for our youth, America is stronger because of Scouting and T cmeeu!a is a better place to
live because oflhe positive alternatives it provides for its youth.
Temecula and Scouting Can only benefit by approving this new project.
A P'og'.m 10' Cub 5cou". Boy SCO"'s. and ¡'plom;
SuPpo".d by SuStaining Members. Endowment Fu"ds. Oi,ect Cive". .nd Unil." Way,
Rem.mbo, Scouting in )'OU' ~ill,
p.l
P-2
.
.
.
6'
Matt Harris
From:
_t:
'T'ubJect:
gc666@adelphia,net
Monday, September 08, 2003 5:04 PM
Matt Harris
PROPOSED LAND USE CHANGE (CHURCH)
MATT:
THANK YOU FOR RETURNING MY CALL TODAY. MY WIFE AND I HOPE TO BE ABLE TO ATTEND THE
MEETING NEXT WEEK, BUT A THURSDAY IS AN UNPREDICTABLE DAY FOR OUR SCHEDULE.
LET ME FIRST SAY THAT WE HAVE LIVED IN PALOMA DEL SOL SINCE FEBRUARY OF THIS YEAR. WE HAD
NO IDEA THAT A CHURCH WAS PLANNING ON ENTERING OUR COMMUNITY UNTIL WE ATTENDED OUR FIRST
HOMEOWNER'S ASSOCIATION MEETING IN MARCH.
THERE WAS AN ITEM ON THE AGENDA TO DISCUSS THE CHURCH SITE AND ITS IMPACT UPON THE
COMMUNITY. OF THE APPROXIMATELY 30 HOMEOWNERS WHO WERE IN ATTENDANCE AT THIS MEETING, THE
NEARLY UNANIMOUS POSITION WAS THAT THE CHURCH WOULD HAVE A FAVORABLE IMPACT UPON OUR
COMMUNITY.
NEITHER I, NOR MY WIFE, ARE MORMONS. WE DO, HOWEVER, CHERISH THE VALUES THAT FAITH BASED
TEACHING PROVIDE TO A COMMUNITY AND SOCIETY. SOMETIMES A COMMUNITY MUST TOLERATE A DEGREE
OF INCONVENIENCE, WHETHER IT IS INCREASED TRAFFIC OR NOISE, IN ORDER TO OBTAIN THOSE
VALUES THAT KEEP OUR YOUNG AND OLD MARCHING WITH A PROPERLY ORIENTED COMPASS.
WE MUST BE REALISTS. AT SOME POINT, PROBABLY SOONER THAN LATER, THIS LAND WILL BE
DEVELOPED. WE MUST EXAMINE THE POSSIBILITIES OF DEVELOPMENT AND CHOOSE THAT WHICH IS BEST
FOR THIS COMMUNITY. WOULD WE RATHER SEE A FUTURE LAND USE CHANGE THAT BRINGS IN SKATE
PARKS, STRIP MALLS, OR APARTMENTS, OR ONE THAT IS CURRENTLY BEING PROPOSED FOR A CHURCH.
eAVE BEEN PART OF A COMMUNITY IN ORANGE COUNTY THAT OPTED FOR THE MORMON CHURCH. THE
ISHED PRODUCT WAS AESTHETICALLY BEAUTIFUL AND THE CHURCH WAS A GOOD NEIGHBOR.
I WOULD AGAIN FEEL PRIVELIGED TO HAVE ANOTHER CHURCH AT THIS LOCATION AS A NEIGHBOR. I
HOPE THAT OTHERS WOULD ALSO.
PLEASE ADD OUR NAMES TO THOSE IN FAVOR OF THIS PROPOSED LAND-USE CHANGE FOR THE CHURCH.
RESPECTFULLY,
GORDON AND ROSE CLARIDGE
32030 CALLE MARQUIS
TEMECULA
.
"
Page I ot I
Matt Harris
From: Todd Gooch [tsgooch@earthlink.net]
Sent: Wednesday, September 10, 2003 9:29 AM
To: Matt Harris
Subject: Proposed Mormon Church on Pauba Road
Mr. Harris,
I will be unable to attend Thursday's meeting because I will be working. Please understand that my wife and I are adamantly
opposed to this proposed project. Any project other than single family residential development would severely diminish the
desireability of Vintage Hills,
The Monnons cannot provide any accommodations that would make this project acceptable to the majority of the people who
live in Vintage Hills. Please listen to the people who actually live in Vintage Hills and do not let this project proceed any
further.
Please forward this to the other members of the planning commission and/or city council.
Todd and Shelly Gooch
31972 Corte Ruiz
Temecula, CA 92592
909-699-1867
I
09/10/2003
.
.
.
Matt Harris
From:
8t:
Subject:
Chuck Reynolds [chuckman@mail.sdccu.net]
Wednesday, September 10, 2003 8:01 PM
Matt Harris
Land Use
I'm writing in regards to the property near Pauba & Corte Villosa.
My family and I have been residents on Camino Romo, a street that
connects with Corte Villosa, for over 9 years now. We've enjoyed
the open land behind us and the quietness. We bought our house
based on what was around us and have enjoyed it a lot. We were
informed that the land behind us was zoned for residential estates
and the land in front of us was going to be a school. The school
was built as planned and we are very happy with our community.
We are opposed to the Church of Jesus Christ of the Latter Day
Saints building around the corner from us. Most of the people I've
talked to in our neighborhood are against it. A Church should
exist as a positive influence in the community. When a Church
comes in and wants to use the land and the residents are opposed
to it then the church is failing. We are a church going family and
enjoy the freedom of practicing our faith but we are also to
respect those people that live around us.
There was another church that was proposing to use some land in
another residential area. They had a tremendous opportunity with
17 acres of land. The residents opposed the church and eventually
the church pulled out and purchased a building over in the
industrial area. The Church was able to get into a permanent
81ding for much less money and the residents were pleased as
...,1. I applaud this move.
Right now we have 3 churches meeting at the schools less than a
mile from us, (Vintage Hills, Temecula Middle, and TVHS) and a
church on the corner of Margarita and Rancho Vista. One of the
churches holds 3 services on Sunday morning and there is a
significant amount of traffic on our street.
We do NOT want more traffic in our residential zone. There is
plenty of land elsewhere that can be used for a church building
without having a negative impact on residents.
I urge you to strongly consider supporting the residents of this
neighborhood in opposing using the land at Pauba and Corte Villosa
for an LDS Church building. More traffic in our residential zones
means a loss of the peacefulness of our community.
Sincerely,
Chuck Reynolds
42269 Camino Romo
Temecula, CA 92592
I can be reached in the daytime at chuck@tw.1-3com.com
.
¡
Matt Harris
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Rebecca Ciulla [r_ciulla@hotmail.com]
Wednesday, September 10, 20039:59 PM
Matt Harris
proposed land use change (Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints)
Mr. Harris,
I recently purchased a home at 42365 Corte Villosa. I am very concerned
about the proposed construction for the following reasons:
1. Has the developer and the church submitted ALL conceptual drawings
showing the proposed complete construction of this and future projects for
the site?
2. Has a Property Value Impact Assessment Report been submitted indicating
how this project would affect local property values?
3. Do the drawings reflect all mechanical components and refuse containers
for this and future projects? The concern being harmful fumes blowing into
the local residences and hazardous noise levels effecting the local
residents?
4. Has a traffic impact report been submitted?
My family and I selected this community because it is a quiet,
family-oriented neighborhood. I would hate to see my beautiful view turn
into an asphalt parking lot and the quiet peacefulness disrupted by people
and traffic congestion; and from the noise of mechanical units operating and
trash dumpsters. There is enough congestion on this street due to Vintage
Hills School and its activities. Due to the daily easterly winds the vehicle
exhaust fumes will be directed into our household. We do not need additional
congestion and health hazards imposed on the residents.
Sincerely,
Rebecca Ciulla
(760) 725-8519
(760) 725-4351
and Stephen Longo
Use custom emotions -- try MSN Messenger 6.0!
http://www.msnmessenger-download.com/tracking/reach_emoticon
.
.
.
I
Page 1 of1
Matt Harris
.
From:
Sent:
William C, Bibb [bibb@verizon,net]
Wednesday, September 10, 20032:29 PM
Matt Harris
To:
Subject: Proposed Land Use Change (Pauba & Corte Villosa)
Dear Matt Harris:
I am writing you to express concerns about the proposed land use change for the property located at
Pauba and Corte Villosa.
As you are aware, there are already five schools within a one-mile radius ofthe proposed site. A sixth,
the Temecula Valley High School, is nearby. School traffic is heavy on Pauba and Meadows Parkway
in the morning and afternoon. This is in addition to the everyday volume of cars using these streets.
Also, several of the schools have sporting & other events some evenings and most Saturdays. On
Sunday, the middle school is home to a popular church. All of these activities bring many people and
cars.
We were aware of the schools when we moved here in 1998. At that time, however, we were under the
impression that the vacant land along Pauba was zoned for homes on acreage, not more schools or
churches.
. While we are reluctant to push back on a place of worship, we also are concerned about the existing
traffic in our area and associated safety issues, and what the future holds - especially due to the already-
approved Linfield School expansion project.
This letter may sound to you as yet another "not in my backyard." In reality, it is meant to convey, "my
backyard is already overcrowded."
Thank you for your consideration of my comments.
William C. Bibb
32037 Calle Marquis
Temecula, CA 92592
302-2222
.
ì
09111/2003
Page 1 of1
Matt Harris
From: Jeanine Sommers [jeanine@hostda,com}
Sent: Wednesday, September 10, 2003 10:59 AM
To: Matt Harris
Subject: keep are community residential
I am unable to attend the meeting, but would like to voice my opinion, I strongly feel are neighborhood would be
damaged if the building of this church was allowed to go forth, I say NO, I want my neighborhood to remain
residential! !!! !
It is are neighborhood let us decide!
Thank You
Jeanine Sommers
/
/
;/
09110/2003
.
.
.
Page 1 of 1
Matt Harris
.
From: LAWAIBEACHMARCH@aol.com
Sent: Thursday, September 11, 200312:52 PM
To: Matt Harris
Subject: Proposed Land Use Change
We are fairly new to this area (1yr) and we are really enjoying it here. Both my husband are not in favor of the
above mentioned change, We definetly don't want any extra traffic invading our neighborhood, We feel that if a
church is built on Pauba & Corte Villosa, it would cause quite a bit of extra traffic and it would disrupt the
neighborhood, I would love to see the area kept up as it is, with the beauty of the greenery and openess about it.
Thank-you,
Gil and Gloria
.
.
/
09/12/2003
Matt Harris
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Annette M, Cox [amcrlc@earthlink.net]
Tuesday, September 09, 2003 1 :41 PM
Matt Harris
Meeting-Sept 11, 2003 Land Use (Pauba & Corte Villosa)
MATT:
TO AFFIRM OUR PHONE MESSAGE, MY HUSBAND & I ARE "STRONGLY OPPOSED" TO THE
PROPOSED LAND USE @ PAUBA & CORTE VILLOSA FOR A CHURCH OF LATTER DAY SAINTS.
THIS IS A DEFINED RESIDENTIAL AREA FOR HOMES, FIRST AND FOREMOST. SECONDLY,
WE BELIEVE THAT IT WOULD CAUSE A MAJOR INFLUX OF TRAFFIC TO OUR AREA THAT WE
DO NOT DESIRE NOR NEED. AS HOMEOWNERS IN THE IMMEDIATE AREA WE DO NOT SEE
THE NEED FOR SUCH AN INSTITUITION, NOR DOES OUR AREA NEED IT.
I HAVE PERSONALLY SEEN ONE OF THEIR SIMPLE CHURCHES MOVE IN THEN BECOME A
"STAKE CENTER" WHICH I DO NOT WANT THE COMOTION OR TRAFFIC IN MY IMMEDIATE
COMMUNITY. THE CLOSER TO RESIDENTIAL COMMUNITY THEIR "CHURCHES" ARE THE
MORE INTRUSIVE THEY TEND TO BE ABOUT THEIR BELIEFS TO THE SURROUNDING
NEIGHBORHOOD AND CHILDREN GROUPS.
AGAIN, WE AS RESIDENTS AJOINING THE IMMEDIATE AREA ARE "STRONGLY OPPOSED TO
THIS PRESENTED USE" .
RESPECTFULLY,
ANNET & RON COX
/
.
.
.
Page 1 011
Matt Harris
.
From: Daniel Colvin [dscolvin@interlinkdsl.com]
Sent: Thursday, September 18, 20032:51 PM
To: Matt Harris
Subject: Proposed Land Use Change: Pauba & Corte Villosa
To Whom it May Concern
This note is to express our opposition (Dan and Jill Colvin) to the proposed planning of the development of the
Morman Church off Pauba and Corte Villosa, for we desire to protect our local residential landscape, as well as
minimize traffic conditions that are already conjested with several schools (Pauba Elementary, Temecula Valley
Middle, Linfield Christian, and TVHS),
Sincerely;
Dan and Jill Colvin
.
.
4
I
09/22/2003
Debbie Ubnoske - Proposed Church on Pauba Road and Calle Cedral
j
r1()/
Page 1 of!
From:
To:
"gary raugust" <garyraugust@mindspring.com>
<rroberts@citycouncil.org>, <j stone@citycouncil.org>, <j comerchero@citycouncil.org>,
<spratt@citycouncil.org>, <mnaggar@citycouncil.org>
04\18\2003 12:12 PM
Proposed Church on Pauba Road and Calle Cedral
<ubnoskds@cityoftemecula.org>
.
Date:
Subject:
cc:
To the Members of the Temecula City Council and the Temecula Planning Commission Director,
I have been in the area since 1984 and have lived on Green Tree Road since 1995.(Our street is one
block South of Calle Cedral and runs parallel with Calle Cedral). One of the most important reasons for
buying in this area was the zoning which would deter any major changes to our neighborhood. We now
find that an application for a
"Conditional Use Permit" has been filed which will profoundly change our neighborhood with an adverse
impact and something that is totally incompatible with the surrounding area.
You are being asked to disregard zoning regulations that have been in effect for over 30 years
regarding lot sizes. You are being asked to approve at least 2 more access entries to the property to
Pauba Road. The proposed building will have a 60 foot tall spire which will require another variance. To
put this into perspective, the Embassy Suites on Ynez and Rancho California Road is 64 feet tall at its
highest point II How would you like to have that in your backyard which is what they are asking of us?
In addition, other factors include a heavy increase in traffic. This facility will often operate from early
morning to evening to evening six or seven days a week. According to people familiar with their
operation, many of their evening events are as well attended as their large Sunday services which brings
both traffic and noise pollution to our semi-rural neighborhood. And then there is the loss of our view of
the eastern mountains with the snow capped peaks in the winter, replaced by a 60 foot spire.
.
In conclusion, may I respectfully remind you that Section E of the Temecula Conditional Use Permit
Code says that It should be consist ant with the general plan and development codes, compatible with
adjacent uses and will not adversely effect adjacent uses, buildings or structures. This appears to be like
trying to force a square peg into a round hole which will forever change a great neighborhood to
something much less desirable.
Thank you for your usual careful consideration of this matter.
Sincerely,
gary raugust
Gary Raugust
aarvraua ust@mindsprina,com
j.
file:/ /C: \Documents%20and%20Settings\ubnoskds\Local%20Settings\ Temp \GW} 00001....
04\23\2003
MâJl.b~~B~r¡~:, ~~1r!9ÀP'P.l ,t'l9.,. .~ ~~:iJ:
.
.
.
From:
To:
Date:
Subject:
"Joseph Elliott" <m.makeaprilkj@verizon.net>
<harrism@cityoltemecula.org>
5/11/0310:20PM
Planning Appl. No. PA03-027 LOS Church
Dear Matt Harris,
My name is Mary Elliott, I live at 42401 Corte Villosa. I'm writing concerning the proposed building of the
Church of Latter-day Saints on Pauba Road, just west of Meadows Parkway. Ref # PR03-027.
Our property backs up to the parking lot of the proposed building. We selected this lot because it has a
small yard for us to maintain since my husband has emphysema, It does have a slope which maintains
itself with greenery. We were told when we bought 9 years ago it was zoned for houses on 1 to 2 acres.
My information says it is still zoned that way, From our bedroom door to the beginning of the proposed
building will only be 70 It deep counting the slope. That is way to close to expect anyone to have to live.
We moved to Temecula for the peace, quiet and our space that was offered us.
We homeowners who went to a meeting with 5 of the Mormon officials present were told by them that
every school morning between 60 to 80 high school student would be dropped off for religion study at 6:00
a,m. then picked back up at 7:00 a.m. to be taken on to their high school for their regular classes. This is
way too early for us and our neighbors to be disturbed 5 days a week. A lot of these days it will still be
dark outside and headlights will shine right into our bedrooms not to mention the noise of car doors,
teenagers and cars in and out.
We are church going people but at the same time we would not even want our own church built there.
There is a place for everything and this is not the place for a church.
We have canvassed the area of about 150 homes and have found only about 10 to 15 in favor of a church
being build on this sight.
Thank you Matt for all your help.
Sincerely,
Mary Elliott
909695-0712
,
Matí~~wì-!?rris~: PAQ;3-0?? ~pš ëhuiêh. '"
'..., . - ,.'
~.__-1'-~ge 1 :\
,,".. - 'm
From:
To:
Date:
Subject:
"Joseph Elliott" <m.makeaprilkj@verizon.net>
<harrism@cityoftemecula.org>
5/12/034:31PM
PA03-027 LOS Church
.
To Matt Harris,
This is a breakdown of the information we have received from the Mormon Leaders. Please take these
figures and times into consideration when you have meetings with the L.D.S. Church.
"CHURCH MEETINGHOUSE"
The Church of Jesus Christ of Later-Day Saints
1 stake church building ( three wards) is 24,000 sq.... ft., 31 ft. single story high church with a gymnasium.
It will also have classrooms, bishop offices, minister offices, cultural centers, etc. with 276 parking spaces
on 4.72 acres.
1. A Stake consist of 3 wards with as many as 100 families per ward. A ward could be as many as 400
members including children. That totals over 1,200 people per Sunday.
a. On Sunday the three wards meet one right after another in secession from 8:30 a.m. until 5:30 p.m. or
later we have been told.
b. There will be activities every night excluding Mondays.
.
c. Possibly could be basketball practice on Friday and Saturdays.
d. Youth activities through out the week including boy scouts of 18 or more and youth groups of 40 or
more students meet once a week at night.
e. A women's organization (made up of 30 or 40 women) will use the building once a week.
f. The Bishop and Elder office's will be used through out the week also.
2. Every morning 60 to 80 (we have heard from other Mormons over 100 students) Mormon high school
students are dropped off by parents at 6:00 a.m. or earlier for religious study. They are again picked up
at 6:45 to go on to high school for regular classes.
This is not your regular church schedule of 2 or 3 hr. services on Sunday and possibly 2 services though
the week. This church will be used much more.
With the name "Meeting House", I understand they have "gatherings" here for the different stake and
ward churches also.
Thank you for your time.
Mary (Jenny) Elliott
cc: Chris Sorensen
.
MâtihewHarris - PÄÔ§:O27 U5ìrChurôfì
,--~---_..--_.. .- 00""__" - - -.. '..--- ,'" .,- -'
.
.
.
Kristen Boano
H.OT. Committee
Homeowners of Temecula
cc:
<mcintyk@cityoftemecula.org>
.. ::.:- --~--,.._~....._---~~
Paggì
.
April 16TH, 2003
Ref#: PRO2-0005
Dear Mary Jane Olhasso,
I wanted to express my concerns about the quality of life that is being threatened by the
proposed church near to my home. After 19 years of living on Calle Cedral just west of the
building site and adjusting to many changes throughout the years in the name of growth
and progress. This is one consideration I feel is a direct betrayal of our diminishing rural
lifestyle. I feel there must be a more appropriate area for this church to build that would
not be harmful to the neighboring residence. This area when I purchased our land in 1983
had one acre minimums. I understand that now the minimums are 2.5 acres. Why was this
changed ifthe intention was not to maintain this rural area? How can we compare the
possibility of one or two single family residence on this land with a 24,000 square foot
active church? I ask that you please thoroughly consider the impact that this facility would
directly have on all the residence of this area.
In your review of a conditional use permit I can not see how you could honestly think
that this church is in any way compatible with the nature, condition or development of the
adjacent uses. All surrounding areas are single family residence that appreciate the rural
lifestyle they now have. This project would adversely effect the quality oflife for all nearby
residence. I plead with you before making this decision to visit the parcel of land. Look at
the proximity the church would be to the homes in the area. Visit the homes most directly
effected. Hyou resided in this area I think you also would be greatly opposed.
The majority of churches in Temecula have found their homes in less rural areas. More
commercial areas ofthe city. Especially a church ofthis size and magnitude should also
seek a less intrusive location. Please encourage them to do so by denying them a
conditional use permit.
.
Sincere)y Yours, ~
~\
Shirley Berry
41837 Calle Cedral
Temecula, Ca 92592
E-mail ShirleyB743@aol.com
909-676-5349
.
,
.
.
.
April!7,2003
City of Temecula
Rolfe Preisendanz
P.O. Box 9033
Temecula, CA 92589
Ref#: PR02-0005
Dear Sir:
This letter is written in opposition to a church that is planned to be built on Pauba Road.
The reasons we are opposed to it are:
The proposed conditional use is not consistent with the general plan and the
development code.
The proposed conditional use is not compatible with the nature, condition and
development of adjacent uses, buildings and structures and the proposed
conditional use will adversely affect the adjacent uses, buildings or structures.
While we realize that there is a federal law giving churches the right to build in all zoning
categories, we if there might be a conflict in this case. Before making your final decision,
we would appreciate if each of you would give the matter your careful consideration.
Thank you in advance for the time you will spend on making your decision.
Very truly yours,
/7w(~,e. ,¿.~
Mr. and Mrs. C. E Johnson
41760 Calle Cedral
Temecula, CA 92592
cc:
Ron Guerriero
David Mathewson /
Mary Jane Olhasso
Dennis Chiniaeff
J
fD)Œ @Œ G \TI ŒW\\
\00 MAR 1 7 2002 ~
.
Sheila Christensen
37041 Mesa Road
Temecula, CA 92592
909-302-1183
By
March 13, 2003
ATTN: Temecula City Planning Commission and City Council
RE: Planned site for an LDS (Mormon) Church house near Linfield
School on Pauba Road.
When I first came to Temecula in 1989 as a newspaper reporter, I smiled as I drove past
the little white church located just off the 1-15, "Ah, a valley of churches," I thought. "It
will be safe to raise my three children here,"
However, a few weeks after moving to the Temecula Valley, I discovered the awful truth,
This is not a vallev of churches, Instead, I learned when I was assigned to write a story
about the lack of church buildings in the valley, this is a place where struggling
congregations have been relegated to holding church services in store fronts, industrial
buildings or mini-malls, I had hoped that this city would see fit to allow church buildings
to be integrated within the intricate fabric of homes as you see in other areas of the
country, However, 14 years later there are relatively few beautiful church buildings
located as anchor points within this community.
.
What has gone wrong here? America was founded on the principle of freedom of
religion, and yet this community appears to be founded on the principle of "developer,
make fast, quick, big bucks here." There has not been enough forethought used in
planning this city around churches, parks or wise use of this valley's water resources,
I do hope that you will allow the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (Mormons)
to build their beautiful chapel on the proposed site on Pauba Road, Mormon churches
are always well maintained, and they are a safe haven for everyone around them,
Property values tend to go up when Mormons build their chapels or temples in a
location.
Additionally, the Mormon Church is known for its worldwide humanitarian efforts.
Around the globe, the Mormons have opened up their chapels during devastating natural
calamities or acts of war so that people from the community can sleep and eat in the
facilities, and first aid is rendered there. With war looming, terrorist acts against our
country increasing, and the number of devastating natural calamities on the rise, there is
even more reason now to allow the Mormons to build another chapel in the valley.
Sincerely,
,4Iu,,-:ea.- ~
.
Sheila Christensen
c
--
-</:,~--~,
>:'~ ""\
8c' r' i I,"~
, \P.',\ ~n t ~\)&P \J.Y,\\
\ \)1}' -----.-\
~\1,.> ,~
,, -~,,-
George & Giorgina Gabriele
41725 Calle Cedral Temecula, CA 92589
909-506-2323
April 15, 2003
Mr. Rolfe Preisendanz
City of Temecula
PO Box 9033
Temecula, CA 92589
Dear Mr. Preisendanz:
.
I am writing to you today in regards to a church that is being proposed
to be built on the corner of Calle Cedral and Puaba Rd.
I am a resident on Calle Cedral. My wife and I are opposed to a church
being built there due to the increased traffic it will bring. All of the
homes in this area are approximately one acre parcels. We would like to
continue to see additional homes of the sort.
Please consider trying to keep the parcel compatible with the surrounding
structures.
Thank you for your time.
,SincfeIY, . !jø.~
GetJfG~iele
.
,
, ,
,û I1PR 1 5 2003 L
Mr. Rolfe'!'reisendanz
43200 Business ParKD~- ,
P.O.Box 9033
TemecuJa, California. 92589-9033
Dear Mr. Preisendanz,
Thank yon for taking the time to speak with me the other day in regards to the proposed
building ofthe Morman church building on Pauba Road. You asked me to write you
a letter listing my concerns.
My husband and myself are very concerened about the amount of traffic on Pauba Road.
We have Linfield School, Paloma Elementary, the elementary school in Vintage Hills and
the middle school in Paloma del Sol, all within three blocks of my house. All use Pauba
Road getting to these schools. We also have church services on Sundays using the middle
school for services. As you can see we have an unusual amount of traffic going up and down
Pauba Road every day of the week. During some times of the day we are almost unable to turn
left off of Via Deanda (our entrance to our tract) onto Pauba Road. We have to take a
completely opposite way to even get out of our tract during certain hours of the day.
When the development of Paseo del Sol furlshes building their project of homes on the corner
of Meadows Parkway and Pauba and Crown Hill finishes building their project at Butterfield
Stage Road and Pauba (With Pauba being the shortest and fastest way to reach the freeway
via Ynez Road) you can see that will increase the amount of traffic on Pauba by an exhorbitant
amount. Now interject the increased amount of traffic by an additional 1200 families brought
by the addition of a church facility in to this mix. They will be using this facility 6 days a week
starting at 6:00 am in the morning until late in the evening. Oh, the traffic and noise problems
we will then be faced with I!!
When we purchased our property (which backs up to Pauba) we were told by the builder that
the property across the street was roned at 2 1/2 acres rural and that it would never be
subdivided any less than that. It was designed to be rural estate pieces of land. We wanted
that type of an environment. Our neighbor even went so far as to go to the city planning
department of Temecula and asked specific questions regarding the property across the street,
before he purchased his house. He was told the same thing. 2 1/2 acres ofland to remain
rural estates and never to be subdivided any less. What happed to the original zoning? Is the
planning comission able to change roning laws whenever it suits their purpose?
We love the city of Temecula but we do not want to live backed up to a road that is totally
congested with traffic on a 24/7 day basis. Will you please have a new volumne count done
on the traffic on Pauba DURING Sept thru June which will encompass all of the schools
traffic? -
~
Again thank you for listening to our concerns.
909-302-6841.
9¿?~'( ~
Don and JoAnn Cotton
:J,,20</<f V/Òo.- ¡3M,'f/a..,
Ie..-neeu!<?, <E.<>/,i='.
9~S9;)...
If you have any questions please call me at
.
.
.
.I
.
.
.
April 17,2003
City of Temecula
Rolfe Preisendanz
P.O. Box 9033
Temecula, CA 92589
Dear Sir:
This letter is written in opposition to a church that is planned to be built on Pauba Road.
The reasons we are opposed to it are:
The proposed conditional use is not consistent with the general plan and the
development code.
The proposed conditional use is not compatible with the nature, condition and
development of adjacent uses, buildings and structures and the proposed
conditional use will adversely affect the adjacent uses, buildings or structures.
While we realize that there is a federal law giving churches the right to build in all zoning
categories, we if there might be a conflict in this case. Before making your final decision,
we would appreciate if each of you would give the matter your careful consideration.
Thank you in advance for the time you will spend on making your decision.
Very truly yours,
JJ2u f À, c! .lð~
Mr. and Mrs. C. E Johnson
41760 Calle Cedral
Temecula, CA 92592
cc:
Ron Guerriero ~'
David Mathewson
Mary Jane Olhasso
Dennis Chiniaeff
I
" ,----
\(',,1
'I'
,';i:
¡-:
£OOZ 1,1 ~d\1 '
.
April 16TH, 2003
Dear Rolfe Preisendanz,
I wanted to express my concerns about the quality of life that is being threatened by the
proposed church near to my home. After 19 years of living on CaUe Cedral just west of the
building site and adjusting to many changes throughout the years in the name of growth
and progress. This is one consideration I feel is a direct betrayal of our diminishing rural
lifestyle. I feel there must be a more appropriate area for this church to build that would
not be harmful to the neighboring residence. This area when I purchased our land in 1983
had one acre minimums. I understand that now the minimums are 2.5 acres. Why was this
changed ifthe intention was not to maintain this rural area? How can we compare the
possibility of one or two single family residence on this land with a 24,000 square foot
active church? I ask that you please thoroughly consider the impact that this facility would
directly have on aU the residence of this area.
In your review of a conditional use permit I can not see how you could honestly think
that this church is in any way compatible with the nature, condition or development of the
adjacent uses. AU surrounding areas are single family residence that appreciate the rural
lifestyle they now have. This project would adversely effect the quality of life for aU nearby
residence. I plead with you before making this decision to visit the parcel of land. Look at
the proximity the church would be to the homes in the area. Visit the homes most directly
effected. If you resided in this area I think you also would be greatly opposed.
The majority of churches in Temecula have found their homes in less rural areas. More
commercial areas ofthe city. Especially a church ofthis size and magnitude should also
seek a less intrusive location. Please encourage them to do so by denying them a
conditional use permit.
.
Sincerely Yours,
~~
41837 CaUe Cedral
Temecula, Ca 92592
E-mail ShirleyB743@aol.com
909-676-5349
.
¡
~§I!~p.i"~iêÙSiaÙ~F~d~, chûjCii"oll.E'.aJJ!,' "!O¡lc{' Réï #PÃÕ2.0005
r-'" ." '._,~~, ,
.
.
.
From:
To:
Date:
Subject:
Debbie Ubnoske
Hazen, Donald
4/14/035:03PM
Fwd: Church on Pauba Road. Ref #PR02.0005
Let's print this out and put it in the file.
»> <Lazykj2@aol.com>04/14/0304:27PM »>
Gentlemen:
This letter is written concerning a church which is planned to be
built on Pauba Road. We are opposed to it mainly because we feel that it is
not consistent with the general plan and the development code.
The proposed conditional use is not compatible with the nature,
condition and development of adjacent uses, buildings and structures and the
proposed conditional use will adversely affect the adjacent uses, buildings
or structures.
We ask that you would review this matter carefully, and we thank you
for your consideration.
Very truly yours,
Mr. and Mrs. C. E. Johnson
\,.-
/
Pag.ill
I
)
Page 1 of 1
Rolfe Preisendanz - Church on Pauba Road
Date:
<PFCUNL TO@aol.corn>
<rroberts@citycouncil.org>, <jstone@citycouncil.org>,
<jcornerchero@citycouncil.org>, <spratt@citycouncil.org>,
<mnaggar@citycouncil.org>
04/08/2003 1: 17 PM
Church on Pauba Road
.
From:
To:
Dear Council Members:
I wanted to express my concerns about the quality of life that is being threatened by the proposed church near
to my home. After 19 years of living on Calle Cedral just west of the building site and adjusting to many changes
throughout the years in the name of growth and progress. This is one consideration 1 feel is a direct betrayal of
our diminishing rural lifestyle. I feel there must be a more appropriate area for this church to build that would not
be harmful to the neighboring residence. This area when I purchased our land in 1983 had one acre minimums. I
understand now that the minimums are now 2.5 acres. Why was that changed if the intention was not to maintain
this rural area? How can we compare the possibility of one or two single family residences on this land with a
24,000 square foot active church? I ask that you please thoroughly consider the impact that this facility would
directly have on all the residence of this area.
Sincerely,
Shirley Berry
41837 Calle Cedral
Temecula, Ca 92592
909-676-5349
.
.
f;lÞ.llr.\nA~,,~pnto~')()"n,jO!^')()"þtt;n"o\PRPT"PR\T A~ol~')n"ÞttinO'<\Tpmn\r.W\00001 ,
04/08/2003
.
.
.
Planning Commission
City of Temccula
Temecula, CA
January 10,2003
Commissioners:
My wife and I wholeheartedly support the building ofa chapel by tho Church of Jesus
Christ of Latter-<lay Saints on their Pauba Road property, Over our lifetime, it has been
our experience that whenever and wherever churches are built, the neishborhood and the
community at large greatly benefits. Churches arc a great means of spiritual and
emotional support, especially now in this world of chaos and terror.
Not only does the proposed use of this property meet the conditional use requirements,
but it also fronts a major arterial oflbc city. Any increase in IrIIffic would be incidental to
the worship times ofthe congregation. From renderinas of possible architectural desi¡ns
and our familiarity with the closest LDS stake center in Murrieta, we know this chapel
would greatly enhance the visual appeal of the neighborhood, adding a beautiful inviting
non-commercial building that will prove to be a realll$SCt and a source of pride for the
residents.
Statistics show the benefits of churches in tenDS of lessenina crime in a nei hborhood, of
offering positive alternatives for youth, of fostering strong families, and of providing
additional recreational facilities for community members. In fact, in our own area in days
not too distant, Rancho Community Church served as an aUJI:iliary site for our school
district by hosting baccalaureate eJtCTcises and baskeØill games. A church provides II
visual reminder that we live in a free country, in a local community of faith, where
spiritual things are important.
It is our hope that you will recommend the building of this new chapel. We know it will
prove 8 needed source of worship, vitality, comfort and peace for the residents of
Temecula,
Sincerely, ~
57 ?f{;~
Stewart M. Manis, Jr.
43938 Carentan Drive
Temecula, CA 92592
(909) 302.3444
~Cß~
Patricia C, Morris
cc: Murrieta Stake Presidency
/
ATTACHMENT NO.8
TRAFFIC STUDY
R:\C U P\2003\O3-O27 Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints\STAFF REPORT,doc
19
.
LDS CHURCH
TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS
CITY OF TEMECULA, CALIFORNIA
Prepared for:
Mr. Kent Cornwall
CORNWALL ASSOCIATES
234 North EI Molino, Suite 100
,Pasadena, CA 91101
.
Prepared by:
URBAN CROSSROADS, INC.
41 Corporate Park, Suite 300
Irvine, CA 92606
John Kain, AICP
Scott Sato, P.E.
Philip Nitollarna, EIT
.
August 1,2003
IN:00775-04
JK:SS:PN:rd
.
.
.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
SECTION
2.0
3.0
1.0
A.
B.
C.
D.
PAGE
INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY,...,.....................................,.,....,..............
1-1
A.
B.
Purpose of Report and Study Objectives
Executive Sumrnary
1. Site Location and Study Area
2. Developrnent Description
3. Principal Findings
a. Required Level of Service
b. Existing Levels of Service
c. Curnulative (2005) Growth Levels of Service With or Without the
Proposed Development
Conclusions
Recornrnendations
a. On-Site
b. Off-Site
c. Traffic Managernent Actions
4.
5.
PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT .................,..,...................,...............................
2-1
Location
Land Use and Intensity
Site Plan
Phasing and Tirning
AREA CONDITIONS """""""""""""""""""""""""""'"........"....................
3-1
A.
Study Area
1. Area of Significant Traffic Impact
Study Area Land Use
1. Existing land Uses
2. Approved Future Developrnent
Site Accessibility ,
1. Area Roadway Systern
2. Traffic Volurnes and Conditions
3. Transit Service
4. Existing Relevant Transportation Systern Management
Programs
Existing Sunday Services - Vintage Hills Elementary
B.
C.
5.
.
.
.
4.0
5.0
6.0
PROJECTED TRAFFIC """"""""""""""""""""."""""""""""""""""""....
4-1
A.
Site Traffic
1. Trip Generation
2. Trip Distribution
3. Modal Split
4. Trip Assignment
Other Developrnent Traffic
1. Method of Projection
2. Non-Site Traffic for Study Area
Total Traffic, Curnulative (2005) Growth
B.
C.
TRAFFIC ANALYSIS ...........................................................""""""""""""""
5-1
A.
Capacity and Level of Service and Irnprovernent
Analysis, Curnulative (2005) Growth
1. Level of Service at Curnulative (2005) Growth
Without Project
Level of Service at Cumulative (2005) Growth
With Project and Roadway Irnprovernents
Surnrnary of Irnpacts
2.
3.
FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS ..................................................,................
6-1
A.
B.
C.
Site Access
Traffic Irnpacts
Need for Irnprovernents Off-Site to Achieve
Required Level of Service
Roadway Irnprovernent Recornrnendations
1 . On-Site
2. Off-Site
Traffic Managernent Actions
D.
E.
.
.
.
APPENDICES
TRAFFIC COUNT WORKSHEETS .........,..............,.....................................................
CALCULATION OF INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE. EXISTING """"""""'"
TRAFFIC SIGNAL WARRANTS ...................,.,.................."........................................
CALCULATION OF INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE -
CUMULATIVE (2005) GROWTH WITHOUT PROJECT ...................................,........
CALCULATION OF INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE-
CUMULATIVE (2005) GROWTH WITH PROJECT ....................................................,
A
B
C
D
E
.
i.
.
LIST OF EXHIBITS
EXHIBIT
1-A
2-A
3-A
3-B
3-C
3-D
3-E
3-F
3-G
3-H
3-1
3-J
4-A
4-B
4-C
4-D
4-E
4-F
4-G
4-H
LOCATION MAP """""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
SITE PLAN """"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""'"............
EXISTING NUMBER OF THROUGH LANES AND
INTERSECTION CONTROLS ......,.......,.............,.,.................."..,'.......
CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN CIRCULATION
ELEMENT................................................,.......,......,..............................
CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN ROADWAY
CROSS-SECTIONS .............................................................................
RIVERSIDE COUNTY GENERAL PLAN CIRCULATION
ELEMENT........................"......................."""""""""""",,"".',............
RIVERSIDE COUNTY GENERAL PLAN ROADWAY
CROSS-SECTIONS """""""""""""""""""""""""""""....................
PAGE
1-2
2-2
3-3
3-4
3-5
3-6
3-7
EXISTING WEEKDAY AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC (ADT) .................. 3-8
EXISTING WEEKEND AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC (ADT) ................... 3-9
EXISTING AM PEAK HOUR INTERSECTION VOLUMES ..,..,........... 3-15
EXISTING PM PEAK HOUR INTERSECTION VOLUMES ................. 3-16
EXISTING SUNDAY MIDDAY PEAK HOUR INTERSECTION
VOLUMES ...............................................................,............................ 3-17
PROJECT TRIP DISTRIBUTION .......................,....................,............
PROJECT WEEKDAY AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC (ADT) .................
PROJECT WEEKEND AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC (ADT) ...............
PROJECT AM PEAK HOUR INTERSECTION VOLUMES................
PROJECT PM PEAK HOUR INTERSECTION VOLUMES ...............
PROJECT MIDDAY PEAK HOUR INTERSECTION VOLUMES ......
4-8
4-9
4-10
4-11
4-12
4-13
CUMULATIVE DEVELOPMENT LOCATION MAP ............................. 4-16
GOLF COLLEGE TRIP DISTRIBUTION.............................................. 4-17
.
¡.
.
4-1
4-J
4-K
4-L
4-M
4-N
4-0
4-P
4-0
4-R
4-S
4-T
4-U
5-A
5-B
5-C
5-D
5-E
LINFIELD SCHOOL EXPANSION
TRIP DISTRIBUTION................,........................................................., 4-18
LARGE LOT RESIDENTIAL TRIP DISTRIBUTION """""""""".""'" 4-19
COMMERCIAL CENTER MEADOWS VILLAGE
TRIP DISTRIBUTION ...........,..............................'.........................,..... 4-20
CROWN HILL RESIDENTIAL TRIP DISTRIBUTION.......................... 4-21
OTHER DEVELOPMENT WEEKDAY AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC... 4-22
OTHER DEVELOPMENT WEEKEND AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC.. 4-23
OTHER DEVELOPMENT AM PEAK HOUR INTERSECTION
VOLUMES ...................................................................................,........ 4-24
OTHER DEVELOPMENT PM PEAK HOUR INTERSECTION
VOLUMES .....................'..."............................""'.""""""""""""""'" 4-25
OTHER DEVELOPMENT MIDDAY (SUNDAY) PEAK
HOUR INTERSECTION VOLUMES .................................................... 4-26
CUMULATIVE (2005) GROWTH WITHOUT PROJECT WEEKDAY
AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC ................................................................ 4-27
CUMULATIVE (2005) GROWTH WITHOUT PROJECT WEEKEND
AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC (ADT) ..................................................... 4-28
CUMULATIVE (2005) GROWTH WITH PROJECT WEEKDAY
AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC (ADT)...................................................... 4-29
CUMULATIVE (2005) GROWTH WITH PROJECT WEEKEND
AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC (ADT).............................................,........ 4-30
CUMULATIVE (2005) GROWTH WITHOUT PROJECT
AM PEAK HOUR INTERSECTION VOLUMES ..,..,.....................,......
5-3
CUMULATIVE (2005) GROWTH WITHOUT PROJECT
PM PEAK HOUR INTERSECTION VOLUMES ..................................
5-4
CUMULATIVE (2005) GROWTH WITHOUT PROJECT
MIDDAY (SUNDAY) PEAK HOUR INTERSECTION VOLUMES .......
5-5
CUMULATIVE (2005) GROWTH WITH PROJECT
AM PEAK HOUR INTERSECTION VOLUMES ..............................".... 5-8
CUMULATIVE (2005) GROWTH WITH PROJECT
.
.
.
PM PEAK HOUR INTERSECTION VOLUMES ."""""".""""."""""", 5-9
5-F
CUMULATIVE (2005) GROWTH WITH PROJECT
MIDDAY (SUNDAY) PEAK HOUR INTERSECTION VOLUMES ""'" 5-10
6-A
CIRCULATION RECOMMENDATIONS ..........."...........,..,........,.........
6-3
LIST OF TABLES
. TABLE
3-1
3-2
4-1
4-2
4-3
5-1
5-2
.
.
INTERSECTION ANALYSIS FOR EXISTING CONDITIONS ..,..'.....
PAGE
3-13
VINTAGE HILLS ELEMENTARY SCHOOL PARKING COUNT
SUMMARY """""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""........" 3-19
TRIP GENERATION RATES ....................,..........................................
PROJECT TRIP GENERATION ..........................................................
4-2
4-3
OTHER DEVELOPMENT TRIP GENERATION FOR WEEKDAYS.. 4-15
INTERSECTION ANALYSIS FOR CUMULATIVE (2005) GROWTH
WITHOUT PROJECT CONDITIONS..................................................... 5-2
INTERSECTION ANALYSIS FOR CUMULATIVE (2005) GROWTH
WITH PROJECT CONDITIONS..............,.............................................. 5-6
.
.
.
LOS CHURCH
TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS
CITY OF TEMECULA, CALIFORNIA
1.0 INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY
A.
Purpose of Report and Study Obiectives
The purpose of this traffic irnpact analysis is to evaluate the development of the
LOS Church project frorn a traffic circulation standpoint. The proposed
developrnent is located within the City of T ernecula.
Study objectives include (1) docurnentation of existing traffic conditions in the
vicinity of the site for both weekday and weekend scenarios; (2) evaluation of
traffic conditions for the curnulative (2005) growth year with and without the
proposed project; and (3) determination of on-site and off-site irnprovements and
systern rnanagernent actions needed to achieve City of Ternecula level of,service'-
requirernents.
The proposed project will involve the granting of a Conditional Use Permit which is'
the standard process for a church project on any site in the City of T ernecula. The
subject site is currently zoned Very Low Density Residential which would allow 1
single family detached residential unit.
B.
Executive Summary
1.
Site Location and Study Area
The project site is located north of Pauba Road and west of Corte Villosa in
the City of Temecula. Exhibit 1-A illustrates the traffic analysis study area.
1-1
, "'" EXHIBILJ-A
LOCATION MAP
~¡
,"
~.
i'.~
í]
-
u
u
n
¡]
g'",
,
¡,
~
u
8
D......
t
"
!T,'..'...~.
,
~:
n
fj
i,¡
, ¡
,J
rJ
)
]
~,
URBAN, .
<.~..~~ '!
IlDS CHURCH TRAfFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS. Temecula, California. 0077~;:~
.
.
.
Pursuant to discussions with City of Ternecula st(jff, Jhe study area includes
the following intersections:
Green Tree Rd. (NS) at:
. Pauba Rd. (EW)
Calle Cedral (NS) at:
. Pauba Rd. (EW)
Carnino Rorno (NS) at:
. Rancho Vista Rd. (EW)
Corte Villosa (EW)
Corte Villosa (NS) at:
. Pauba Rd. (EW)
Meadows Parkway (NS) at:
Rancho Vista Rd. (EW)
Pauba Rd. (EW)
.
2.
Oeveloprnent Description
The proposed project will involve the granting of a Conditional Use Permit
which is the standard process for a church project on any site in the City of
Ternecula. The subject site is currently zoned Very Low Density Residential
which would allow 1 single farnily detached residential unit. It is anticipated
that the project buildout year will be 2005.
3.
Principal Findinas
a.
Required Level of Service: "0"
1-3
b.
Existing Levels of Service: All oftl1e study àre~ intersections are
operating at an acceptable Level of Service "D"òr better during the
peak hours.
c.
Curnulative (2005) GroWth' Levels of Service With or Without the
Proposed Developrnent: For, Curnu,lative (2005) Growth with or
without project traffic conditions, study area intersections are
projected to operate at Level of Service "D" or better during the peak
hours with the installation of traffic signals as listed in Tables 5-1 and
,",' ','
5-2.
4.
Conclusions
For existing traffic conditions, a traffic signal appears to currently be
warranted at the study area intersections listed below (see Appendix "C").
Meadows Parkway (NS) at:
. Rancho Vista Road (EW)
Pauba Road' (EW)
The difference frorn the current zoned Use and the proposed conditional
use is approxirnately 213 rnore trip-ends per day with 17 rnore vehicles per
". ..,'
hour during the AM peak hour and 15 rnore'vehicles i>èr hour during the PM
peak hour on weekdays. During the weekends, the church will generate
approxirnately 887 rnore trip-ends per day and 232 rnore vehicles per hour
during the rnid-day peak hour (10:00-12:boPM) on Sunday in cornparison
to one single farnily residential unit.
The proposed project will have access to Pàuba ROéld at two locations.
Based on the anticipated traffic generated by the church and on Pauba
Road, stop controls should be provided at both driveways.
1-4
0
!"~
"I
h
,
u
n
rJ
n
D
LI
j
[]
f]'
,.
~.
f
t,
fi
¡J
, '
j ¡
L'
,..
¡j
: 1
, ,
.
1..J
.
'.
.
The other developrnents provided by City staff, that are approved in the
study area include the following:
. Golf College
. Linfield School Expansion
. Lar~e Lot Resiqential ',~,' .;" '
. Comrnercial Center Meadows Village
. Crown Hill Residential
For Curnulativ~j20?5), Gro~h without and with project traffic conditions,
traffic signals are not projected to be warranted at any additional study area
intersections beyond those that are 9urrent1~ warranted under existing
conditions.
5.
Recornrnendations
The proposed project will have"twoa~ces~ driveways to Pauba Road.
Stop-controls of'! the project driveways will provide adequate interseciion
, ", . , "',:", \;',":':
controls at these two locations. Site-specific circulation and access
, ," ,":
recornrnendations are depicted on Exhibit 6-A.
a.
On-Site
Construct Pauba Road at its ultimate half-section width as a
Secondary Highway along the pr()ject boundary.
,.' "",
Sight distances at the pròjed driveways should be reviewed with
respect to standard Caltrans ,and City of Ternecula sight distance
standards at the tirne of preparation of final grading, landscape and
street improvernent plans.
1-5
Traffic sigriing and stripirigshould be irnplernented in conjunction
with detailed construction plans for the project site.
b.
Off-Site
Traffic signals are currently waÎTánled at the intersections of:
Meadows Parkwåý (NS) at:
. ~ancho Vista R~ad (EW)
. Paúbá Roàd'(EW)
, ¡,C, , C ,,' '" "
The prójeét should contribute towards the funding of these traffic
signals by paying the City of Ternecula trafficirnpact fees.
c.
Traffic Manaqernent Actions
To ensurethâì church traffic and p~rkirÌg activities have minirnal
, ',' "', :,c ' " , "
impact to surrounding residents, the following traffic rnanagernenl
actions ärec;ecorn~e~áed:
. Access to the church parking area on the easterly side of the
project should be restricted between 1'OPM and 7AM, Sunday
through Thursday, with the use of gates (see Exhibit 6-A) to
prevent access to the site during the restricted tirne periods.
, '
Ernergency vehicle access at this location will be provided with
the installation of a knox box.
. No organized church function should be scheduled between1AM
and 6AM, Monday through Friday.
1-6
a
rJ
,
l]
A
L~
?i'1
!~
~,i$
D
[]
',:]"
, '
¡
i
n
D
~
u
q
d
J
: I
d
, >
.. !
~j
!
J
.
.
.
2.0 PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT
A.
Location
The project site is located north of Pauba Road and west of Corte Villosa in the
City ofTernecula.
B.
Land Use and Intehsitv
The proposed proj~~t.,jill ihÝc:>lve the' grarïting'ofa Gonditiõríål Use P~mnit which is
the standard pr~~~~~for a;~~,LJrCh p~c:>ject on, aQysite ,in the City of Tem.ecula. The
'..',1':Ut.' ',,;"'.,' '-'", ,,': ,..,0',>, . , ,', " " ,..,
subject site is cûrfEi:~~lý ,zonM Very .Lòw Dênsity Residential which wôuld allow 1
single farnily detacëèd residemtial un!L The builc,jqut yew for ,this project is
anticipated to be 200~: .,}..
" ,'"
C.
Site Plan
" e.:
Exhibit 2-A iIIustrat~~:the pròjebt
, "F:'
"
D.
Phasinq and Tirninq "
The proposed pròJè¥tiS ~riticipáted tò buildout,in 2905: This traffic analysis is
based upon two yéafs'öfbackgroundtrafficgrowth.
2-1
r
I
\
, , ,
T'-....
I 0
H
-'0. ,
"0'0.
~~'
UNDEI7f=LOPED
,""',' <c , ,,¡,
::
~
0
~
l<J
()
S
. ..' --'--'--- ~
'af(J¡ í
"- r ~
'-<: J
-:-..-~--_.
~
,. ).. .
. : ,,;"';C ~-(-- -¡
l<J
-.J
---. I!J"'-- -
r::
. L (J¡
-----"'-
PAUBA ROAD
-------l
....
---
-
/
LDS CHURCH TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS. Temecula. Cal~ornia - 00775:36
2-2
EXHIBIT 2-A
SITE~PLAN
'..,.
--""
c:a:
;11)
¡O
'..I
..I
:;
.W
!I-
.a:
:0
.U
rm
u
~
f~
.
,~
U
11
: ,
d
~,
I, J
!ì
LJ
.
[1
n
p
d
8
ü
q
L.
f~
t3
1'1
U
~ ¡
u
n
:j
,,'
'l
U
~.
~"u
!:!!!!!ð!i ,
¡
.
I.
.
3.0 AREA CONDITIONS
A.
Study Area
1.
Area of Siqnificant Traffic Impact
Pursuant to discussions with City of Ternecula sté\ff:th'~i~tudy,:area includes
the following intersections: '
Green Tree Rd. (NS) at:
Pauba Rd, (EW)
Calle Cedral (NS) at:
Pauba Rd. (EW)
Camino Rornb (NS) at:
Rancho Vista Rd: (EW)
Corte Villosa (EW)
"CortèVillosa (NS) at:
Pauba Rd. (EW)
- Meadows Parkway (NS) at:
. Rancho Vista Rd. (EW)
Pauba Rd. (EW)
B.
Studv~ Area Land Use
1.
Existinq Land Uses
The site is currently undeveloped and relatively low traffic generation is
currently being generated from the project
3-1
C.
2.
Approved Future Developrnent
Other developrnent and areawide growth calculations were added to
existing volurnes in the vicinity of the site for Curnulative (2005) Growth
traffic conditions. '
Site 'Acces~ibiritV'C'
," ,.
1.
Area Roadwav Svstern
Exhibit 3-A identifies the existing roadway conditions for study area
roadways. The nurnber of through traffic lanes for existing roadways and
the existing intersectioncontr~ls aw identified.
The City of Temecula Generall¡'.l?('1;ÇJrçu ¡lIio,n Elernent is depicted on
Exhibit 3-8. Exhibit 3cC illust[ates"tþe: City of Ternecula arterial street cross-
sections.
The Rìverside County General plan Circulation, Elernent is depicted on
Exhibit 3-D and Exhibit 3-E illustrates the Riverside County arterial street
cross-sections.
2.
Traffic Volurnesiånd Conditions "
Existing average daily traffic (ADT) volumes on arterial highways throughout
the study area are shown on Exhibit 3-F and'3-G.Existing ADT volurnes
are based upon the latest traffic data collected (2003) by the City of
Ternecula, or are factored up frorn peak hour counts conducted for Urban
Crossroads, I~c. usi~ç¡ t~e follo,:,:ing formula for each intersection leg:
PM Peak Hour (Åppr~ach Volume +E~it V~lume) x,12 = Leg Volume.
3-2
~
tß
11
j?~
,":
,.:
~]
l
n
liiI,t,'
~
I
0
D
.
n
f1
u
9
fl,"",'
U
U
n
j,
[J
,
¡
; !
EXHIBIT 3-A
EXISTING NUMBER OF THROUGHLANE:S
ANÐ~ìB!J'ERSEaION CON~RÐ[S
.
LEGEND:
~, = TRAFFIC SIGNAL
@ ~ ALL WAY STOP
---, ~ STOP SIGN
i 4 ~ NUMBER OF LANES
, D = DIVIDED
8,< U = UNDIVIDED ,
WS;'GÃURCH TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS. Temecola. California. 00775:03
",:":
~'
" , !!!!t~!f.
3-3
~'-:'~,',"'",' ,\6,'tWf".,.,.,....^t~
", i' "l'
~ '- -"'~~'-"""":,,,~~,:(
, . i :1 .;:~
, . ~ ,j:
..- .:i' ! ",.:!tV
."'" "':...~ ' ,,' '~ð
¡¡ '.~..." ..,- ~ ' :'~I
~¡ .~ ----",~---~I
3¡ ," ---" ~', ",r;~
' I;¡ :¡j'~, ' ¡,/~-;-i
.' f., .\.
: :.\ I
:¡ , if. ¿. ,~~
'.- -"," ..', " Þ', ò'" ~" ..
~,',~-~: Æ' .:".-- ~'I
":' 'I:... .~~ \'1
: . : ,1 \;
.: -.11 : : .,-- Š
,,'j;:'~=~. "i., "'-'--~
, .." II.." , ".-.-~ ~
";, , ". I' o' ----'10' ... ~
' ..'VI;" ,'" .r " ..: ~ -----Ì
. '".(7/""':,',..,""'-4"-<':~ ,,^.t..1""""'1'::"":~"/"~
" ,-<,' I :,-.:.~~~~ ,
\1" II." .~. "~..
~'..".' ,
..\ ,~ ~
" 'i " ., \ "",.' .
, "I....'" ,.."" ,..., .\
'" .c¡,; """,..' .~ I ../',\, ':0...
.:.;. .. I ',..\...., I-'. ~"
, ,,;;('.., , ., '.' ¡.. ,,-- .- ~ : ...."" .
:,.....?~ ';, "\\~ ;:::'--,,: '~-' --~" ",'
..1 ,,~ >'~~. )--.... ...-,...""'" ',' "'å..".....~
"'iI "\:. '.:~ o. ~,'----...J.-='::-"" ,..., .~r :~..
'i~., .:', ~" v/- " ,,--<.... ;:":1 .....
I,:¡." " :---.. '- ..,_=.0'0 ,,:-', ~ .1 , ~\
<t;...:' "'. , \, -<. _sìTË~""~ .\...
"""" " ~ ' ,.,.- '-- ..Y. '.\ '"
'~,..:.-- '\Îe;.¡""" ~"""'--=-~"'"I ~'" .", '.,',"" .
~\', ~"::'{' ':';'-, ~'- ,,: '".. . .
". "~:" .~', ......r...-: ,/
~~ '\ ... ". ~. ,-' ' i'5., .p
~', ~ ""-"'_"£""-;:""" -.,' . v
"", "...- -"-:~"';"\ ,~ ;,.,
,"",';"".... ':'¡
., [' ", . :" ----- ...' '0 f
¡ '" ..'~", :
". "",. ~
,i.... ~ ,\-..¡
",,!ff ". / ~~ \/ ,....
Y y.' "...."....l
i:' ç.~
.:: U--.:¡
¡ 1 I~
! I, Ii
:' I ð
f I I
LEGEND:
t=:: t~.".
~ ~~N..
t=::~
t= :':'r:..
I=:: ¡~'="
1:= ::=:::--..-
t::= ::::~'::...;....
~_..,...~.
L' To"" C--
'., II ,-,,"',~ .......-.
~
SOURCE: CITY OF TEMECULA
EXHIBIT 3-B
CITY OF TEMEé.íJ1.A
CIRCULATION E~EMIÑT
GENERAL PLAN
~DS,¡\¡¡'uRCH TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS. Temacula, California - 0077S:38
3-4
I
Ð
~"
1T
~
D
I
I
0
þ
U
i
D
U
'0.
I
ra
u
n
u
fl,':".
U
'."
c..".
T')
¡
. ~ ¡,
, , "UR~AN'
..,)<,"o...O^os
.. f"GENERAL PLAN
,. .. ",,", ,;""". "
,
EXHIBIT 3-C
CITY OF TEMllum
ROADWAY CROSS-SECT.INS
R/W
"
> CURBED MEDIAN
I ARTERIAL HIG'HWAY'¡
R/W,..'."',,. '00; RfW
~'m~..'~."'~...',.,."...~'2~~.,....' ~~'--rT-",..,".'t~12"~L rTrl
~~U~B" ..'~ " ,'-..--~:t:'AN' CUR~
',}?", ¡MAJOR HIGHWAYI
,R/w J' , "... R/W
ÞT~~12~12+12~12~~~.+-;rl'
~C,...' ~
J ;,; I SECONDARY HIGHWAY I
~-;r,,~t~"Iw-d
I PRINCIPAL COLLECTOR HIGHWAY I
RfW 70'",'
r-- ""27'~ '0' -r- '~~"\~
I OPTIONAL RURAL ARTERIAL ,'"
25',30'
,Rr
SOURCE: CITY OF TEMECULA
, SIDEWALK
" TD BE USED FDR CURB PARKING. BIKE LANE. OR OISTRESSLANE
'" FOR INTERIM USE'iN SEM.-URAl AND LARGE lOT AREAS
WITHIN THE CITY IN MAJOR, SECONDARY. AND COllECTOR
RIGHT-oF-WAYS
ß
!L!I.!!~!t
LDS CHliRC¡'¡ TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS. Temacula. Calffomia" 00775:39
",'..
3-5
n
EXHIBIT 3-D
GENERAL, ,Pa.áN.' crdr:'L1~~~~~....., ,-.I.'......~. '. N.ff,...,..l. .:,Jp,],.
'.'.'-'., ..' ..,:.: '¡fc,'"", ~
\':.,';..... 0
~
3
NExpressway (184' ROW)
,+I;/Urban Arterial (152' ROW)
N Arterial (128' ROW)
NMajor(l18'ROW)
N Secondary (100' ROW)
N Collector (74' ROW)
NMountain Arterial (110' ROW)
~ ,N, '" "",F"reeWay
, " N?lpilroad
~
ß
~
i
[]
J
~
11
I
IZZ1 Existing Interchanges'
z¿: Proposed Interchanges
~ Beaumon1lBanning to Temecula Copidor .Alternatives
,== General CoITidor Limits for Discussionwitb County
<> Possible Corridor Inlerchan&è;Locatîons
~ Bridges
- Water
I"'! City
0 Area Plan Boundary
Hi
n
J
n
d
q
iJ
,;() ,
URBAN' ¡
C'="~' 'I
I .OS CHURCH TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS. Temecula. California- oo77S:4O
3-6
,- , ""',O'",,,,; EXHIBIT 3-E
RIVERSIDE CGUNIl
GENERAL PLAN ROADWAY CROSS-SEttTIINS
~ ::
2~'r "+-'~"'-¡-"'¡-"'-r;~ T¡-1~12'-r-1"-r-144 ",+--2'
2% CURS- _CURB 2%
~ CURBED OR PAINTED MEDIAN -
I EXPRESSWAY CORRIDOR - B lANES I
RW
RW
184'
'" . -
25' ...: "" "+-10'-,-12'--r-12.--,-14'-¡- T~ T¡-14'--r-12'--r-12.-,10'-f "," I. , 2 .
~ - ,2% CURB~ _CURB ~ - 1--.
CURBEO OR PAINTED MEOIAN
I EXPR.ESSWAYCORRIDOR . 6 lANES I
RW
. ,
r .' 15.-,':f10'¡-12"--r-1r~14'~'~~', T.¡-'4'---¡-12'-r-,r-,'0' I "'-. 15' R
¡-- . ,2% CURB- '" _CURB 2% ¡-
, - ' CURSEO OR PAINTEO'MEDIAH -
I URBAN ARTERIAL HIGHWAY I
.
R/Ç-15'-' ..t- ~-r;12~;~ ~~ ,.~~~~;~ ~-¡- "'-15.-r
----: CURBEP DR PAllmDMEDIAH " -
I ARTERIAL, HIGHWAY I
R!W- . 'jiB- 'R/W
1-'4~ .'-t-'4~'2'--¡ë-'2~~~~~2'--r-12~14'-j- "~'4~
, -' ' . r-
," AUGMENTED MAJOR - 6 lANES..!
R/W ,.",:, ,11~ ""c".. RIW
!-"'-'- ,+ r~"'-¡-'~~"'-¡-17 ~+ ~-r-=;.'~
- -
I MAJOR HIGHWAY., 4 lANES I
r "'-,- ".k--12'-r-12~'~';'-----r~.,.l- "'-"'~. ..'
¡- I .. I 2% 2%' k, -j."
- --:
i'T ~--h:4;~1
r 2% PAINTED MEDIAN 2% "1
--- ---
I INDUSTRIAL COWCTOR I
. "m..",. """."cHO. >D' AN '.""04
COMMEOCOA' °' '.DU""""""
R/j 1°"1" ~,~~, I "r-'~
r- 'T 2% o¡-
. , I COLLECTOR I '
_.,0. O.R,:. CEo RIVERSIDE COUNTY . ""'W'DT. smn "cr'ON F04 AU COWcrD""'" ,
., ,. ,."M"OV'M'HTSOH<4'OVW
LDS¿HÛRCH TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS. T.macula. CalWornia -00775:41' ,', , ,.:
p'
"
".' 9.!t.!!l'.!:!
3-7
EXHIBIT 3-F ~
:~lt'11"'Cl~WEEKDAY AVERJt9~ ~~ILYTRAFFIC (ADT) í,
,,';:',:f'(S}'~';\"\ ,t'\>f~;,';\j!;",,~ ~J
t
FI,'
U
n
~,'
ïJ
ft",::,
~
A,:t
U
0
i
9
~
u
.'
ft
U
,','
~:~
t!
¡;'d',
.~I.EGEND:
10:0 =VEHICLES PER DAY l1000'S)
~1
t:
LOS CHURCH TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS. Temecula. California - 0077S:13
3-8
"h'
"¡"""
"1
ii
e tl
URB'AN t
c.o...~o. '
)
.."
q
J
EXHIBIT 3-G
EXISTING WEEKEND AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC (ADT)
.
"".'
,. ,
LEGEND:
10.0 = VEHICLES PER DAY (1000'5)
~
.
LDS CHURCH TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS. Iemeeula. Ca/ijornia -00775:35
3-9
0
~,!U!~tI.
"
The current technical guide to the evaluation of traffic operations is the
Transportation Research Board's 2000 Hiqhwav Capacitv Manual (HCM),
The HCM defines level of service as a qualitative rneasure which describes
operational conditions within a traffic stream, generally in terms of such
factors as speed and travel time, freedorn to rnaneuver, 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 lèvel of servicè for uninterrupted flow (flow unrestrained
by the existence of traffic control devices) are:
LOS "A" represents free flow: Individual users are virtually
unaffected,þy the presence of others in'ttJe traffic strearn.
.
LOS' "8" is in the rangT of stable flow, but the presence' of 'other '
users in thê traffic streÈirp"'Jbegins to be noticeable. Freedorn to
'select de~¡rê~ speeds is rèlati~~I~ unaffected, but there is a slig~,t
decline ¡'n the freedorn to maneuver. '
LOS "C" is in the range I?l stable flow, but marks the b~glnning of the
range of flow in which ','tíìè#"opera1ion of individuaF<~s'ers becornes
significantly affected by interactions with others inÌlie traffic strearn.
LOS "0" represents high-density but stable ¡low. Speed and
freedom to maneuver are severely restricted, and the driver
experiences a generally poor level of comfort and convenience.
LOS "E" represents operating condiiions at or near the capaCity
level. All speeds are reduced to a low,but relatively uniform value.
Srnall increases in flow will cause breakdowns in traffic rnovement.
3-10
D
I
,
9
I
D,,¡
~
8
3
r
u
i
fl..'
u
g
8
n
1.1
n
;!
, 1
d
,
.
I
!.
.
.
LOS "F" is used to define forced or breakdown flow. This condition
exists wherever the arnount of traffic approaching a point exceeds
the amount, which can traverse the point. Queues forrn behind such
locations.
.. Th'e definitionsdf leVel ofseiVice' for interrupted traffic flow (flow restrained
L':~~..~h~,)3Xi~tence..:óf traffic signals and other traffic control devices) differ
.. ~~Ii~htly dependin~ on the type of traffic control.
,i'hë:ievel of serVice is typically dependent on the qualitY of traffic flow at the
"i'nìërsections alorig..a ròadway. The HCM methodology expresses the level
:,,- .
oVservice"at- an intersection in terrnsof'delay-tirne for ¡he various
i~ten?ection approaches. The HCM uses different proc~dures depending
o..~the type O.f intEJrsectioncontrol. The levels.o. f sEJrvi~e determined in'this
,'.c,', "cn, .. " , . . '"
study are deterrnined using the HCM methodology.
',,'r,' , . ,,',,' ',. ,
For, ~ig,nalizE:!d inters¡:)ctions, average total dE!lay per vE!h!cle for the overall
I;", 'l'.,' """ '",,' .'" .. , ",', .. .
intersection is used to deterrnine level of service. Levels of service at
" nEil':;" 'x..¡,' .',' ' ,,' , , ). " ...',," ,;, "
signalized study area intersections have been evaluated using an HCM
. . ,I. :'T' ". .', .
in~er?ection ~nalysis prograrn.
,. ,
Th~ study area intersections which are. stop sign controlled with stop control
1 ,." "',i"i."';" c' , . c, .,"
on the minor street only have been analyzed using the unsignalized
intersection methodology of the HCM. For these intersections, the
, c;~!c~la!ion ~f level of service is dependent on the occurrence of gaps
occurring in the traffic flow of the main street. Using data collected
..',:'!" , ,.., ," j. ' .
de~cribirg,J~e intersection configuration and traffic volumes at the study
~rea locations,; the level of service has been calculated. The level of
service. criteria for this type of intersection analysis is based on total delay
',. [>, '.", .' . '.. "
per vehicle, forthe worst minor street movernent(s).
3-11
The leveLof services are"defined for the various analysis rnethodologies as
follows:
AVERAGE TOTAL
DELAY PER VEHICLE
(SECONDS)
LEVEL OF ', ,', ,i'C" ", ,'.
, ,~ERVICE " SIGI\ii\LlZED I, ", UNSI9jNALIZED
A o to 10.00 o 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,;: :"',' '35,011055,00, ,25,01 to 35.00
",5, " , 55.01 10 80.00 35,01 to 50.00
, ".., ,
F 80.01 and up 50.01 and up
'.
The LOS 'ánalysis' tor signalized' intersections has been perforrned using
"'Öptimiiêd'signåì'tirìÍing. Thisanålysis has included an assurned lost time of
four se~órìds ßer"i:íhåšë and a yêilbW andiedèlearance interval of five
seconds, in accordance with the City's policy. Signal tirning optirnization
,'" ," .' ,. "", ",', , . '
ìì'as' cô~s¡dè'rêdpê'cJà§tÌ'iarÍ' safeíYånd signal coordination requirements.
Âpþropr¡atètirri~ for tpeâ~§¡~iån6råssings 'has 'also beë~' considered in the
, " " " ' " "
sign~li'zêd intèisëciion 'ånålysis. Saturation flow rales of 1,700 vehicles per
hour of green (vphg) for through lanes and 1,600 vehicles per lane for left
and right turn lanes have been assurned for all capacity analyses. A default
" ',' ',' ,," ':<, ,,'
þeaktióur factôr (PHF) of 0.95 for all intersectións has been used in the
'HCM caiculations. '
Existing pëak hour traffic 6peration~ have been evaluated for study area
int~rsections. The result~ of this analysis are sumrnarized in Table 3-1,
along with the' e~išting intersecÚon lane configuration and traffic control
devices at each analysis loc~tion. Existing intersection level of service
cålculations are based upon manual AM, PM, and mid-day (Sunday) peak
hour turningrnovernent counts rnåde for Urban Crossroads, Inc. in June,
3-12
I
9
,
ß
I
B
I
B
I
,
0
n
I
n
u
f~
H
J
LI
.
Ú
'¡
.J
¡.
i
TABLE 3.1
INTERSECTION ANALYSIS FOR EXISTING CONDITIONS
INTERSECTION
reen Tree Rd, INS) al:
Pauba Rd, IEW)
aile Cedral INS) al:
PaubaRd'IEW),
amino Romo INS) at:
Rancho Vista Rd, IEW)
Corte Villose IEW)
orte Villose INS) at:
Pauba Rd. IEW)
sPkwy,INS)at:,
cho Vista Rd. (EW)
ba Rd, IEW
TRAFFIC
CONTROL'
CSS
CSS
CSS
CSS
CSS,
AWS'
AWS:
I.
INTERSECTION APPROACH LANES'
NORTH. SOUTH. 'EAST.':
BOUND BOUND BOUND,
L'T R."L',"t 'R't","'r':R
'0
0: '1"
0.5 0.5 0
"6 :Ò,SPO,5 '0
0 1
0.5 0.5
0,5 0,5
2 1 0.5 1.5 0
2' ",'1. f .f \"U
DÈLAy2
(SECS.)
'PM MIDDAY AM
g,g
'B
0.5 0.5
0 0
0,5 0.5
0.5 0.5
g,O
. .
, When a right turn is designated, the lane can ellher be striped OT unstriped. To function as a right turn lane there must be suffICient
wkJth fOT right turning vehides to travel outside the through lanes. '
2 1 1
'2 ,:,,1 . 1,
L = Left; T = Through; R = Right;» = Free Right Turn; > = Right Turn Overtap;
2 Delay and level of seovice calculated using the following analysis software: Traffix, Version 7,5 R1 (2002). Per the 2000
Highway Capacity Manual, overall average intersection,dolay and level. of SßfVice are sþown fOr,;!it~isectiÒl1s,w,II~, tra!ff"iJ:c,,' :~,
traffic signal or all way stop control. For intersections with cross street stop control, thë'delay and ieŸeì of Šer;;id. tOr 'wôiSt . ,.
individual movement (or movements sharing a single lane) are shown,
, TS, = Traffic Signal
CSS = Cross Street Stop
. AWS eAIiWayStop
U:\UcJobs\007751exce~[0077s.o 1.xlsJT3-1
3-13
2003 (see Exhibits 3-H, 3-1 and 3-J). Traffic count worksheets are included
in Appendix "A".
F?r existing traffic conditions, the study area intersections operate at an
~çcep~é\bleLêvel~f Service ("[)" or better) during the peak hours.
'tiPoJl,c~I.culation I¡\/orksheets for existi~g traffic c?nditions are
.{I.p~E?ndix."B",
traffic conditions, traffic signàls iappeàr to
w§\rranteq ,"!~ t~~.~tudy area intersections.Jiste.dþelow.
Meadows Parkway (NS) at:
Rancho Vista Road (EW)
Pauba Road (EW)
Traffic signal warrant analysis worksheets are provided in Appendix "C".
3.
Transit Service
The study area is currently not being served by Riverside Transit Agency
(RTA).
4.
Existinq Relevant Transportation Svstern Manaqernent Proqrarns
A trip reduction ordinance has been adopted by the County of Riverside.
5.
Existinq Sundav.Services ~ Vintaqe Hills Elernentarv
Based on cornrnunity input, concerns have been raised r~garqing?he
arnount of parking utilized by a church use at the Vintage Hills Elementary
3-14
0
I
,
n
R
I
I
0
0
i
0
n
B
ft,':','
U
p
¡.J
[]
r1
U
,
!
¡
'.. """"v""""""', EXHIBIT.3-H
;E~IS1iING¡,AM' PEAI{HØIR~íINfERSEnIÐN VOLUMES
~
t~IiURCH TRAFFIC IMPACT ANAL Y515. Temocula. California. 00775:06
0
'. ...!lßft~,
3-15
'. <EXIs.TING,PM~REAKt;HÐ.ultnN>'ER$Êl1ìIN VOìUMEŠ m
I
,
0'<".',
~.'
¡"
a
"
~¡J
ü
n
U
r~
H
u
~
¡~
'd~..
, ,.,'>c.o...o.~
, LDS'CHÙRCH TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS. Temecula. California - 00775:05. ,
3-16
'1
u
EXHIBIT 3-J
EXISTING SUNDAY MIDDAY
PEAK HOUR INTERSEalON VOUJMÊ$
.
~
.
LDS CHURCH TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS, Temecula, California. 00775:04
3-17
ß
~.!!P.~t'.
, , ,,',
SchoÓf. Currently, the Vintage Hills Elernentary school is used to
accornrnodate services for the Oasis Christian Fellowship between 9:30 .
AM and 11 :00 AM on Sundays. This school is located east of Carnino
Rorno and north of Corte Villosa,
, .
Urban Crossr9a~s, Inc. has ~o:nducted a parking survey during a Sunday
(Juoe 1, 2003) between the hours of 9:'30 and 11 :30 AM to determine the
peak demand for parking at,ttiïsloèation., The school's parking lot, Corte
Villosa, andCarnino'Romo has been surveyeddo!ing this tirnefrarne on a
half-hour basis.
Th~ parking lot' currently has 46 (plus 3 handicap spaces) in the front lot
and 28 sp~ces available in the lot used ,for basketball. Approxirnately 63
",,'
.. on~,str€fet ispaces along Corte Villosa are cUrrently available between
'P¡\'ûba ,Road and ,the 'no~herly terrninus. A distance of 22 feet has been
'c,{."'C'i" '
used to appfb~irnate one:'pn-street parking space. Camino Rom6
curfentlYÞBs appipximatelY 66 on-,street parking sPaces based on the 22- .
i " ..' ,".\ "
feet-pèr-~paceiç,~i¡èria. '
, i
Table 3.2 presents a surnrnary of the parking counts at the school and
along Corte Villosa and Carnioo Rorno, As indicated in Table 3c2" a peak
: dernand of 22 vehicles was observes foJ the study area at 10:00 AM, A
peak dernånd of 14 vehicles was observed in the"school's parking lot
, '
betw~en ,10:0Ò AM and 11 :00 AM. Based on the, available nurnber of
parking spaces provided at the school, adequate parking is currently
provid~d with an excess ,of 60 unused non-handicap spaces.
.
3-18
.
TABLE 3-2
VINTAGE HILLS ELEMENTARYSCHOOL PARKING COUNT SUMMARY
NUMBER OF OCCUPIED SPACES
June 1, 2003
MAXiMUM
PARKING
LOCATION CAPACITY' 9:00 9:30 10:00 10:30 11:00 11:30
Front School
Parking Lot 46 + 3HC 2 2 2 2 2
Back School
Parking Lol
(Basketball) 28 5 12 12 12 4
Corte Villasa north
of Pauba Road 63 3 2 3 3 3
Camino Romo 66 5 6 4 4 4
MAXIMUM
',', PARKING
DEMAND 15 22 21 21 13
.
1 = On-street parking estimate based on 1 parking space equals 22 feet.
U: I UcJ 0 bs 10077 5Iexcelll 00 77 5-02 ,xis S h e et 1
.
3-19
~
~
tJ
'~
1T
D...".
j
~,
I
I
I
n
u
D
,
Ð
D
ft
f.~.
d
b
n
"""
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
u
, .
, ,
, !
.
¡J
3-20
¡
, ¡
.
e
.
4.0 PROJECTED TRAFFIC
A.
Site Traffic
1.
Trip Generation
Trip gÊmeration represents the arnount ,of traffic that,,: ,§'a~<17P,c\,
þròäiJèèèl by a developrnent. The tra:ffic generation for the project i~;
," ','", ,',,",
upon the specific land uses that have been planned for the de. '
, " ,"\¡',"T:fÍ>~.í:i'\;kc, '
The project site is currently zoned to be developed with 1 'sihgl~!äro}!~,i::.¡¡
dwèlling unit. However, a conditional yse for é! 24,460 square fOôtcffitirð~H$'¡K~¡¡'
, "'1',""'1'
proposed.,:);;::'
Trip generation rates for this project and other cumulative deveIÒPrrié~t~;~r~:;;
shown in Table 4-1. The tripgèneration rates are based upon;:i~t1¡.c,:
collected by the Institute of Transportation Engineers (lTE).
Both daily and peak hour trip generation based on ITE rates are shown in
Table 4-2. However, the proposed church will consist of three services on
Sunday cornprising of a rnaxirnurn of 100 farnilies per service. The services
will begin at 9:00 arn and are staggered throughout the day. In order to
estirnate the nurnber of trips that would occur based on the typical
operations of the church, an attendance factor of 80 percent of the
maxirnurn nurnber of families has been assurned. Furthermore, a vehicle
occupancy of 2 persons per vehicle can also be included in the trp
generation calculations. Therefore, a total of 40 inbound and 40 outbound
trips are expected to occur during a peak hour on the weekend with a total
of 240 daily trips (120 inbound and 120 outbound). The peak hour and
daily estirnates are approxirnately 34 and 27 percent less than the 'ITE"' .
based values indicated in Table 4-2 for weekend conditions, respectively;
Therefore, the trip generation values presented in Table 4-2 can be
4-1
TABLE 4-1
TRIP GENERATION RATES'
PEAK HOUR
ITE AM "J, PM
LAND USE CODE UNITS2 IN I OUT IN I OUT DAilY
Church ,"' 5,60" JSF 0.39." 0' ,0.33' '" '9'3,6:)' 0.30 9.11
Sin le~FainirvoDeiàchèd Residential 210 DU 0.19 0.56 0.65 0.36 9.57
High School "'"..",,,' ,"" ,53O., ¡',S)1'U., ,0;32, _,,0:14,,- ,,0.06,: 0.09 1.79
ShoDDina Center I Commercial 820 TSF 0.98 0.63 3.03 3.29 68.66
University ¡,College ,"" .",. !<, 550,' ,'STU 'f. ,"'", ,¿ " .' ., 2.38
Golf Drivina Ranae 432 STALLS ' 10.253
Golf Còùrse, " "43O" 'Hóles ,,' 35.74
Weekend (Sunday): .',~~. " " ,',' .:Mid,Day,- .
Church 560 TSF 4.84 4.65 36.63
Single-Family Detached Residential 210 DU 0.46 0.40 " 8.78
High School 530 STU 0.01 0.03 0.25
ShoDDing Center I Commercial 820 TSF 1.53 1.59 58.64
University I College 55O, STU 0,65 0.65 3.12
Golf Driving Range '" 432 STALLS . 0.43 0.37 1.25
Golf Course " 430"0 ,,"Hp es., 2,21 2.22 ,"., 39.53
1 Source: Institute ofTransport~tion Engineers (ITE): Tri~ Generation. Sixth 'Edition, 1997,
Land Use Category 210, 560.
2 TSF = Thousand sqùarefeet
DU = Dwelling Units
3 Daily rate estimated from the PM peak hour rate by a factor of 10.
U.\UcJobs\OOn5\exceI\(OOn5-01.xJs¡T 4-2
4-2
~
il
I
41
~
t~
D
D
0
D,I',','
,
'"
r~,'
¡¡,I
~
9
¡',I,'
U
I
fI
LA
1',1
J
[]
U
-
, !
,J
.
TABLE 4-2
PROJECT TRIP, GENERATION'
'"
LAND USE
eekend '(Sunday):
hurch
ihgle-Family6~tàct\ed Residential
RIP,DIFFERENCE
DAILY
560
210
896
9
887
.
, TSF = Thousand square feet
DU = Dwelling Units
2 NOM:' Nominal
8:\UcJObS\O0775\exCeI\(OO775-0i ,xls]1 4-2
4-3
considered conservative and would present a "worst case" scenario for
analysis purposes. The difference from the current zoning and the
proposed zoning of the developmentis' projected to generate approximately
213 more trip-ends per day with 17 rnore veh.icles per hol}[during tl;1e,A~,- ' 11
peaK hour and 15 rnore vehicles per hour during the PM peak hour. During ill.
:~~~:::sk.::~S~~;:;~o:::e~o:: u::~ i;~~ ~:;e~:~: ,.:: ~~:x~;:J~~~~;~;l~~~;J('j' 8
hour :(10:00-12:00PM) on Sunday in cornpari~OIl.;t<?L;th_e'~~9~¥~1,~[WJx:àr,): "WF',
, ,:':,::,,':;:,\,,"'\""',~..J,: D
B
g
0
,
a
D
,ltshOu!~'?e ,n()ted that the tr~p generation presented ~boVe,r:pre.s~nt~ the
.. typical operations of the church on weekdays andolJpui}çJQ(:l' In
conjunction with norrnal church services, the follpwiQg activitié~N'i",ê.Qeen
, , .. " .' " '", .;,. ,,' ::;..:-:.,"",:~
jçJentifi~Ø that will operate outside of the normal pe.<iKp€¡r[c[d':('l::0(i)i)AM-
9:00 PM, 4:00 PM - 6:00 PM) tirnefrarne:
Morning Class/Serninary:
6:00 AM-6:45AM (Monday to Friday) - drop off
up to 30 youths
7:30 PM - 9:00 PM (Tuesday thru Thursday) -
drop off up to 90 youths
Ends at 11 :00 PM (One Saturday per rnonth) -
drop off up to 250 youths
10 AM-Noon Sunday (Two Conferences per
year) -up to 700 individuals
Youth Activities:
Saturday Evening Dance:
Stake Conference:
Morninq Class/Serninarv
The rnorning class/serninary is anticipated to accornrnodate.. up ,to 30
youths per session during the week. This level of activity could generate
up to 30 inbound trips and 30 outbound trips just prior to 6:00 AM andjust"
after 6:45 AM due to parent drop-off/pick up. However, the actual
4-4
~,',
tJ
9,',-
t1
,
I
g
U
n
n
,
fJ'
!
.
I.
.
., 1',.' ,
operation of the drop off/pick up activities are not expected to include
every single parent involved during both tirnefrarnes. It is anticipated that
the youths will be rideshare or catch a bus to school after the session is
over.
Assurning a more ,conservative approach involving 60 peak hour trips (30
inbound and 30 outbound trips), this level of ' trip' making ' reflects less than
four percent-of the per lane capacity on Pauba Road (3.5%=60 peak hour
trips/1700 vehicles per hour per lane). Therefore,tfîis activity is not
anticipated to generate a traffic condition that is worse than the Sunday
, AM period analysis in this report.
,Youth Activities
The Youth Activities are anticipated to occur after theyeXiening peak hour.
and could involve up,to 90 inbound and 90 outbound triPs prior to 7:30 PM
- andcafter 9:00 PM. Ride sharing is. anticipated to occur for the youths
attending these activities. However; ,assurning', ,that 180 trips (90
inbound/90 outbound) trips occurred during a single hour, this represents
less than 11 percent of the per lane capacìtyompaubá Road (10.6% = -
180 peak hour trips/1700 vehicles per hour per lane). Therefore, this
activity is .not anticipated to generate a traffic condition that is worse than
the Sunday AM period analysis in this report:
SaturdavEveninq Dance
The Saturday Evening Dance is anticipated to conclude at 11 :00 PM with
up to 250 youths in attendance. At this time,up to ,250 inbound and
outbound trips could occur at the church. Ride sharing is anticipated to
occur ,for the youths attending the dance.. - However, a~surning that 500
trips (250inbound/250 outbound) trips occurred during a single hour, this
4-5
represents less than 30 percent of the per lane capacity on Pauba Road
(29.4% = 500 peak hour trips/HOO vehicles per hour per lane), During the
tirnefrarne when the dance concludes (11 :00 PM), the traffic on Pauba
Road is anticipated to be considerably less than during the peak hour.
Therefore, based on the level of traffic that ,could occur from parent's
picking up their children; it is 'not:,anticipated to ha\IË:Fa significant impact to
PauÐa Road:
Stake Conference,
The biannual Stake Conference is anticipated to attract up to 700
individuals rnid-day on a Sunday. This conference represents the highest
potential traffic generator of the activities øutsiçjéof the norrnal church
services. Up to 280 inbound and 280 outbound peak hour trips could
"occur, based on, a vehicle occupancy, factor of 2:5 .pefsons-per-vehicle.
The analysis for this condition' is' presentedin"Section 5 of this report.
Based on this analysis, ,the: study åreà.' interseCtions:' are expected to
operate at acceptable.service levels:
2.
Trip Distribution
Trip distribution represents the directional orientation of traffic to and from
the project site. Trip distribution isheavilý<influenced byHhe geographical
location of the site, the location of residential, comrnercial, employrnent and
recreational opportunities and the proximity to th~i'regional freeway system.
The directional orientation of traffic was deterrnined by evaluating existing
and proposed land uses and highways'within the community and existing
traffic volurnes.
The trip distributiorl for this study n'as, been based upon near-term
conditions and highway facilities' that are,either in place or will be
4-6
11
Î;I
u
t
ü
9
1'1
il
~,',i
ffti
g
~,
tl
ê
n,':'
~
',,"'),
~ '
;c
")
t
1£'
n
n
i3
J
q
, ¡
u
'1
;¡
..
a
¡
i
, i
.
f.
!
.
B.
conternplated over the next three years, which represents the buildout
occupancy time-frarne for the project The trip distribution pattern for the
project is graphically depicted on Exhibit 4-A.
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 volurnes.
4.
Trip Assiqnrnent
T~è ai>signrnent of traffic frorn the site to the adjoining roadway system has
Men based upon the site's trip generatiÓh" t¡'¡R.di~tribution, proposed
arteriål highway and lOcal. street systerns. Based on ¡he identifiedprojßct
traffic generation. and distributi,?n, project related AOT volurnes are shown
on ExIJibit 4-B a,~q 4-C for weekd,ay and weekend timeframes, respectively.'
Project AM: PM and rnid-day (Sunday):. peak hour intersection turning
movernent volurnes are shown on Exhibits 4-0, 4-E and 4'F, respectively.
Other Developrnent Traffic
1.
Method of Proiection
To assess Cumulative (2005) Growth traffic conditions, project traffic
difference is combi':led with existing traffic, other development and areawide
growth. The study year Curnulative Growth for analysis purposes in this
report is 2005. Year 2005 traffic volurnes have been calculated based on a
5.0 percent annual growth rate of existing traffic volurnes over a two year
period.
4-7
EXHIBIT 4-A ¡¡
PROJEa TRIP DISTRIBUTION'
~
¡,t
t
'""
D
I
'g
I
I
g
"
, i
~);
'I
U
,,;,K." '
LEGEND:
10 .i 'PERiiNT TO/FROM PROJEa
r¡
~~
~
1;
Li
LD5 CHURCH TRAFFIC IMPAa ANAL Y515, Temecula, California. 00775:14
~8
.!U!!!~M bi
4-8
'¡
" ,'.' EXHIBIT 4-B
'l~RØJEØ :,WEEKDAYAVERAGE.,:'DAlbY; TRAFFIC (ADT)
.
LEGEND:
10.0 = VEHICLES PER DAY (1000'5)
NOM = NOMINAl. LESS THAN SO VEHICLES PER DAY
~
0
~CHURCH TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS, Temecula, California - 00775:15,
gfi9~tI.
4-9
,I?RO~ Ecr;WEEKEN D~;AIERJlGEfD AlliYJtÏÃFFlë( "Dt) ~I
I
,:;
w
n
I
0
a
.~
~
9,
i
1'J
t~
'!,1,
;~
..3
8
~
"
u
n
1oJ
LEGEND:
10.0 =VEHICLESPERDAY(1000'S)
NOM = NOMINAL. LESS THAN SO VEHICLES PER DAY
,..'"
¡
,.d'
)
f't
d
b"
LDS CHURCH TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS, Temacula, California - oo71S:16 "
"".
ß.e
, ,gft!!~!t ;:;¡
4-10
1/
.
.Î
EXHIBIT 4-0
; I\RE);lEG'f;'AM'tP,AKtHÐIR:INTERSEtfIÐN VOLUMES
.
~
.'7;
lDS.:CHURCH TRAFFIC IMPACT ANAL Y515. Temecula, Calnornia - 00775:17
ß
, URØAN
. " 'CRO"OOOO'
4-11
",' , ,,"," ~ EXHIBIT 4-E fa
; :¡PIIØJEET~ PM:;iPEAHHÐUR':INiJERSE€TION VOLUMES 1
~
fJ
,
n
"
1'],
i
",':
B
g
1',1,'
[1
, ¡
¡j
LDS'CHURCH TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS. Temecula. California - 0077S:18 '
n
.J
J
~-
;!!.!!!!~~ ",j
~
4-12
EXHIBIT 4-F
PROJEa MID-DAY
PEAK HOU~ INTERSEalON VOLUMES
I.
~
~
Yfi!!ð~
'CHURCH TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS, Teme<ula, California - 00775:19
4-13
,
2.
Table 4-3 lists the proposed land uses for the nearby developrnent (see
Exhibit 4-G) for Curnulative (2005) Growth traffic conditions known by
Urban Crossroads, Inc. at the time this study was prepared.
Table 4-3 shows the daily and peak hour vehicle trips generated by the
surrounding developrnent being. processedconcurreritly in the study area.
Exhibits 4-H to 4-L contain the Clirnulative (2005) Growth directional
distribution and assignrnent of the other development traffic. Based on the
identifi~d Cumulative (2005) Growth trip distribútions for the other
developrnent on arterial highways throughout the study area, Cumulative
(2005) Growth other developrnent ADT volurnes are shown on Exhibit 4-M
.c.
and' ':*N forbotl:1 weekday and weekend tirnefrarnes, respectively.'
'Cymulâtiv€!(2005) Growth other development "AM, PM and mid-day:
(8ùhday) pèakhour intersection turning rnovernent volurnes"âre"shownÓri .
Ex~i~its 4-0, 4-P and 4-0, respectively.
C.
Total Traffic. Cumulative (2005) Growth
Exhibits 4-Rand 4-8 show the ADT volurnes which can be eexp~~ted for
',Curnùlative (2005) Growth without project traffic conditions and Exhibit 4-T and 4-
U show the ADT volurnes which can be expected for Curnulative (2005) Growth
. .
with project traffic conditions.
For Cumulative (2005) Growth without and with project traffic conditions, no
additional traffic signals are projected to be warranted at the study area
intersections.
4-14
I
D
,
I
I
0
I
9
0
i
0
n
~..'.'.'.I
~'
¡¡
n
u
n
.\.J
n
, I
i",
,
j
.
;.
.
TABLE 4-3
OTHER DEVELOPMENT TRIP GENERATION FOR WEEKDAYS
PEAK HOUR
AM PM
PROJECT QUANTITY UNITS' IN OUT IN OUT DAILY
Golf College:2
. Golf College 125 STU 100 0 0 0 298
. Driving Range 47 STALLS 0 0 25 34 482
'. '9-Hole Golf Course 9 HOLES 0 0 11 14 322
Subtotal 100 0 36 48 1,102
infield'School Ex[)ansion 1128 STU 361 158 68 102 2,019
arae Lot Residential 58 DU 11 32 38 21 555
Commercial Center
~eadows Village 98 TSF 96 62 297 322 6,729
. "Pass-Bv" Trios 125%\ -24 -16 -74 -81 -1,682
Subtotal 72 46 223 241 5,047,
rown Hill Residential, 527 I DU 100 295 343 190 5,043',-
OTAL . , R44 531 708 602 13766',
OTHER DEVELÒPMENT TRIP GENERÀTION FOR WEEKENDS (SUNDAY)
MID-DAY
PROJECT ,QUANTITY UNITS' IN OUT DAILY
Golf College:
. Golf College 125 STU 81 81 390
. Driving Range 47 STALLS 20 17 59
. 9-Hole Golf Course 9 HOLES 20 20 356
Subtotal 121 118 805
Linfield School EXDansion 1128 STU 11 34 282
Lame Lot Residential 58 DU 89 92 3,401
Comm.ercial Center '
Meadows Village 98 TSF 150 156 5,747
. "Pass-By" Trios 125%\ -38 -39 -1,437
Subtotal 112 117 4,310
Crown Hill Residential I 527 I DU 242 211 4,627 "
TOTAL 575 572 13425
, TSF = Thousand square feet
STU = Students
DU = Dwelling Units
2 Source: TlA FOR THE PROPOSED PROFESS/ONAL GOLFERS CAREER COLLEGE published by
Linscott, Law & Greenspan on 4/16/02 for peak hour trip generations only.
U:'UcJobs\00775\exce~[00775-01,xls]T 4-3
4-15
CUMULATIVE DEVELOPMENT LOCATIÓN'MÂ, I
p
~'~
~.
1T
~
t~
8
0
0
~.'
u
!
LEGEND:
CD = GOLF COLLEGE
ill = LINFIELD SCHOOi: eXPANŠíDN
Q) = LARGE LOT RESIDENTI~L .' , "
@= COMMERCIAL CE~ER MEADOWS VILLAGE
"@='C:ROWN'Hlá'RESlðENTIALi.' '
... ,". "¡""
.
0
n
d
ft
@---I.'.
¡J
:1
¡",
n
".t
LDS CHURCH TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS. T"macula, California - 00775:07
'4-16
n
~."
~'-
!!.!!!!~!:! u
"
.
. EXHIBIT 4-H
GOLF COLLEGE
TRIP DISTRIBUTION
~
.
LEGEND:
10= PERCENT TO/FROM PROJECT
G) = GOLF COLLEGE
J3
.!lifP.ðt'.
[ì)S'¿~':'RCH TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS. Temecula. California - 00775:08
4-17
LINFIELD SCHOOL EXPANSIØN I
TRIP DISTRIBUTION I
~
T
n
n
a
D
n..,'...'.
,
w
l~
~J
CCi
U
LEGEND:
10 = PERCENT TO/FROM PROJECT
ø = LINFIELD SCHOOL EXPANSION
n
*
u
n
,.~
LDS CHURCH TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS. Temecula. california - 00775:09
4-18
q
u
~{8
.!l.B!!!'.M d
~
, ,
EXHIBIT 4-J
EARGE LOT RESIDENTIAL
TRIP DISTRIBUTION
LEGEND:
10 = PERCENT TO/FROM PROJEa
Q) = LARGE LOT RESIDENTIAL
~
.
LDSCHURCH TRAFFIC IMPAa ANALYSIS. Temecula. california. 00775:10,'
~
.!:!H!!~H
4-19
:€ØMMERCIAL CENTER MEADOWS ~ìïrn(;-É I
TRIP DISTRIBUTION Ð
,
n
fI,:ol, ,
'Lj
n
8
r,'J'
t'
fl,
1
81;
{--,". "
"
"1
b
[)
n
'1"1,
U
LEGE~D:
10 ~ PERCENT TO/FROM PROJECT
@ ~ COMMERCIAL CENTER MEADOWS VILLAGE
u
, ')
n
;
;,,'
J
'1
'3
LOS CHURCH TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS, Temec~la, California - 00775:11,; ( .
.4-20
. - '
~8
g.!!!!~H d
EXHIBIT 4-L
CROWN Hill RESIDENTIAL
TRIP DISTRIBUtiON
.
<D---
LEGEND:
10 = PERCENT TO/FROM PROJECT
@ = CROWN HILL RESIDENTIAL
~
.
~.
LDS CHURCH TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS. Temetufa. California - 00775:12
URBAN
C"O""~D'
"
" :,',
4-21
EXHIBIT 4-M il
OTHER DEVELOPMENT WEEKDAY ø
AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC (ADT) [J
't
n
R
0
I
I.'.,..'..
<;
~,
¡I.:....'
ti
j
I
n
~
II
D
U
0....
!J
LEGEND:
10.0 D VEHICLES PER DAY (1000'S)
NOM - NOMINAl. LESS THAN 50 VEHICLES PER DAY
"~
h
d
!
LOS CHURCH TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS, Temecul., Calif~rni. - 00775:20
4-22
,,-
ll'RBAN
CRo."OAD> n
EXHIBIT 4-N
OTHER DEVELOPMENT WEEKEND
.)JlVERAGE~!DAIL Y TRAFFIC (ADT)
.
LEGEND:
10.0 =VEHICLESPERDAY(1000'S)
NOM = NOMINAL. LESS THAN SO VEHICLES PER DAY
~.
':Ó~~HURCH TRAFFIC IMPACT ANAL Y5IS. T"mecula. California - 00775:21
4-23
ß
'\;!.!!!!~t!
EXHIBIT 4-0 n
OTHER DEVELOPMENT"
1M PEAK'HOUR INTERSECTION VOLUMES I
,
ß
n
~ !
U
LDS'CHURCH TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS. Temecula. California - 00775:24
4-24
D,..-.'.
,I
~
H
~,'.'8..,
.L:7 L.
!:!ß!A!t
, "
U
~
, ' '" 0.. EXHIBIT 4-P
'" 'O'MER DEVELOPMENT
'ÞMiI>EAKMOÙR"INTERSECTION VOLUMES
.
I
4Þ',
'0, .
í.ds'7êllbRCH TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS. Temecula. California - 00775:25
4-25
..,
'!l!!!!~tf.
EXHIBIT 4-0 ~;
øJ, 'HER" DEV, "E, LOP" M""""EN" " T MID-DAY (SUNDt y) ~,"
" " '" :PEI\KHÐQR~INTERSEaION VOLUMES ~
, ' ~
'f1
L~
~'
n
"
u
",l,'.
í.:¡
3
i
n
n
".~
d
r.1
,j
t
n
u
'lDs,,~HURCH TRAFFIC IMPACT ANAL Y515. Temecula. California. 00775:26
4-26
ß~
,!lfi!!~£'. n
EXHIBIT 4-R
CUMULATIVE (2005) GRQWTH
WITHOUT PROJEct WEEkDAY
AVERAGE DAilY TRAFFIC (IØt)
.
LEGEND:
10.0 = VEHICLES PER DAY (1000'5)
~
LOS CHURCH TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS. Temecul.. C.liforni. . 00775:22
ß
.!l.8g~M
4-27
, EXHIBIT 4-S [J
CUMULATIVE (2005) GROWTH ~
". WITHOUT PROJEct WEEKÊND I
",.' AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC (AD1) ,
n
n
ß
ß
D
0
i
0
U
D
n
a
",",
, ¡
U
LEGEND:
10.0 ~ VEHICLES PER DAY (1000"5)
n
U
J
Ii
LDS CHURCH TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS, Temecula, California - 00775:23
4-28
~t
!i!!!ßM
, ,
, .
EXHIBIT 4-T
"C"""~,r""rn""¡."",,,,ii."""""""LI,"',~,.J",,IV,.,.E,',"", >(",2""" °', O"',',5"),',t,G"",,R,',,",:,O,i, ,,4WT,H,J WITH PRO("'JE(T,",,),
': . ; t' vvEI:KQAYAVEiU\G'E:DAlty TRAFFIC ADT
"',1" >t\'hi:'~;é"~","',::'>"J~.'
.
LEGEND:
10.0 = VEHICLES PER DAY (1000'5)
~
.
LDS CtiURCH TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS, Temecula, California. 00775:33
4-29
"
.!l.!H!~
f,
,.(,..\<:,.,\;j,(\;<\,":.i\,¿~.J:æ~J¡':':,;.L;'~' EXHIBIT 4-U I.
CUr.1UIiA.]¡II.~;(¡q\Q,$J~,fi8.øWTH WITH PRO.JE. CT ~.'..
. WEEKEND AVERAGE'DAIL Y TRAFFIC (AnT) +
e
u
n
n
j1
~j
U
n
n
~J
11
~$
,.~
, !
«'
LEGEND:
10'.0 = VEHICLES PER DAY (1000'S)
, ,
, ¡
;J
J
p
';
U
ß!
LDS CHURCH TRAFFIC IMPÁcr ANALYSIS, Temecula, California - 00775:34
4-30
.!:!ßft~M -)
,
'"
.
..
.
5.0 TRAFFIC ANALYSIS
A.
Capacity and Level of Service and Irnprovernent Analysis, Curnulative (2005)
Growth
1.
Level of Service at Curnulative (2005) Growth Without Project
Curnulative (2005) Growth intersection levels of service for the. existi~g,
roadway network without the proposed project are shown in T?,bleQ-l.,:
Table 5-1 shows HCM calculations based on the 'lane configuratioh'at the
study area intersections without and with improvernents. CurnulatiVej2005)
Growth without project AM, PM and rnid-day (Sunday) peak ÍlòÎjr
intersection turning rnovernent volurnes are shown on Exhibits 5-A, 5-8 and
5-C, respectively.
For Curnulative (2005) Growth without project traffic conditions, all of the
following study area intersections are projected to operate at level of
Service "D" or better during the peak hours, without irnprovernents.
For Curnulative (2005) Growth without project traffic conditions, study area
intersections are projected to operate at Level of Service "0" or better
during the peak hours with the irnprovernents listed in Table 5-1.
Cumulative (2005) Growth without project HCM calculation worksheets are
provided in Appendix "0".
2.
Level of Sérvice at Curnulative (2005) Growth With Proiect and Roadway
Irnprovernents
Curnulative (2005) Growth intersection levels of ,service for the existing
roadway network with the proposed project are shown in Table 5-2. Table
5-2 shows HCM calculations based on the lane configuration atthe study
5-1
D
TABLE 5-1
g
,
INTERSECTION ANALYSIS FOR CUMULATIVE (2005) GROWTH WITHOUT PROJECT CONDITIONS
INTERSECTION APPROACH LANES'
NORTH- SOUTH. EAST- WEST. DELAY' LEVEL OF
TRAFFIC BOUND BOUND BOUND BOUND (SECS.) SERVICE
INTERSECTION CONTROL' l T R l T R l T R l T R AM PM MID DAY AM PM MID DAY
G'een Tree Rd. INS) at:
Pauba Rd. IEW) . CSS 0 0 0 0 ,1 0 0,5 05 0 ,0 1 0 16,5 10.7 9.3 C B A
aile Cedral (NS) at:
Pauba Rd. IEW) CSS 0 0 0 1 0 0 0.5 0.5 0 0 1 1 19.1 10.6 9.3 C 8 A
amino Romo INS) at:
Rancho Visla Rd. (EW) CSS 0.5 0.5 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0.5 0.5 0 23.4 10.3 10,0 C B' B
Corte Villasa IEW) CSS', '0 0 0 1 O. 1 0.5' 0.5 0 0 1 1 8.8 8.7 8.7 A A A
Corte Villosa (NS) at:
Pauba Rd, (EW) CSS 0.5 '0,5 1 0.5 0:5' 1 0.5 0.5 1 0.5 0,5 1 31.7 13:2 11.7 D B B
Meadows Pkwy. INS) at:
Rancho Visla Rd. (EW)
. without improvements AWS 1 2 1 1 2 1 0.5 1.5 0 0.5 1.5 0 13.8 9.8 9.3 B A A
. with improvements !§ 1 2 1 " 2 i 1 0.5 1.5 0 0,5 1.5 0 10,5 8.9 8.9 B A A
Pauba Rd. (EW)
. without improvements AWS 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 22,7 11.2 9.9 C B A
- with improVemõnts TS 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 13.2 11.1 10.5 B 8 8
~
U
9
0
0
n
0
,
I
n
il
n
n
d
, When a oght turn is designated. the lane can either be striped 0.- unstriped. To function as a 09ht turn lane there must be suff~ient
width fo.- right turning vehicles to'travel outside the through lanes.
u
l = left; T = Through: R = Right» = Free Right Turn; > = RighlTum Overtap; 1 = improvements
11
,ì
, Delay and level of se",ice calcuiated using the following analysis software: Traffix. Ve..ion 7.5. R1(2002). Pe<the 2000
Highway Capacity Manual, overall average inte....ction delay and level of se",ice are shown for inte..ections with tralf~
tralf", signal 0' all way stop control. . Fo, inte..ections with cross street stop conlrol, the delay and level of se",ice fo.- won;!
individual movement (or movements shaMg a single lane) a'" shown.
, ;
, ¡
'...'
'TS = Traffic Signal
CSS = Cross ~treet Stop
AWS =AJIWayStop
..
'.J
U: IUcJobs\OO775\exceI\(00775-01.xls T5-1
5-2
.
~ '~ " """,",', EXHIBIT5-A
GU"iMULATIJlE"/,, :-2°, °""",',5: }"',.G~9,,., W!F,' "¡lIi,,WITHOUT 'PROJ'CT
,.'IM'RAK~ ÐUR;INTERSECTION VOLUMES
'.
LD5CHURCH TRAFFIC IMPACT ANAL Y515, Temecul.. Californi. - 0077,5:27, '
5-3
c
, '. l!fi!!ð!!
. EXHIBIT 5-B I
j (UM UU::~E P~::flÐt'~W1~~=MT Io~Bß~ ;
D
D
D
I
n
n
H
a
'"
. ,
¡
q
~
'1
:,j
LD5 CHURCH TRAFFIC IMPACT ANAL Y515, Temecula, Calffomia - 00775:28
5-4
~(~..,
~d
URBAN
coq,,"~o' , ,
, EXHIBIT 5-C
CUMULATIVE (2005) GROWTH WITHOUT PROJECT
MID-DAY (SUNDAY) PÈAK HOUR INTERSECTIÐN'¡VOI.ÐM~S
.
~
LD5 CHURCH TRAFFIC IMPACT ANAL Y515. Teme<ula. California. 00775:29
ß
URBAN
c.o...~.
5-5
TABLE 5-2
INTERSECTION ANALYSIS FOR CUMULATIVE (2005) GROWTH WITH PROJECT CONDITIONS
lJ1
I
'"
INTERSECTION APPROACH LANES'
NORTH- SOUTH- EAST. WEST- DELAY' LEVEL OF
TRAFFIC BOUND BOUND BOUND BOUND (SECS.) SERVICE
STAKE STAKE
CONFERENCE CONFERENCE
INTERSECTION CONTROL' L T R L T R L T R L T R AM PM MID DAY MID DAY AM PM MID DAY MID DAY
Green Tree Rd, (NS) at: .
Pauba Rd. (EW) CSS 0 0 0 0 1 0 0.5 0.5 0 0 1 0 15.5 10.7 9.5 9.7 C B A A
Calle Cadral (NS) at: "
. Pauba Rd, (EW). CSS 0 0 0 1 0 0 0.5 0,5 0 0 1 1 19.2 10.5 9.5 9,8 C B A A
Camino Romo (NS) at:
. Rancho Vista Rd. (EW) CSS 0,5 0,5 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0.5 0,5 0 23.5 10.4 10.2 10,4 C B B B
. Corte Villosa (EW) CSS 0 0 0 1 0 1 0.5 0,5 O. 0 1 1 8,9 8,7 8.8 8.4 A A A A
Corte Villosa (NS) at:
. Pauba Rd. (EW) CSS 0.5 0,5 1 0.5 0.5 1 0.5 0.5 1 0.5 0.5 1 32,7 13.3 14,0 19,0 D B B C
Meadows Pkwy. (NS) al:
. Rancho Vista Rd, (EW)
. without improvements AWS 1 2 1 1 2 1 0,5 1,5 0 0.5, 1.5 0 13.8 9.9 9.7 10.4, B A A B
. with improvements .:Π1 2 1 1 2 1 0.5 1.5 0 0.5 1.5 0 10.5 8,9 "8,6 8.3 B ,A A A
. Pauba Rd, (EW)
- without Improvements AWS 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 23,0 11.3: 10.6 11.9 C B B B . ,:..
- with improvements TS 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 1:.'1 1 1 1 13,2 11.1 10.8 10,8 B B B B
Westeny Access Dwy, (NS) at: ::
. Pauba Rd. (EW) CSS 0 0 0 0 1 0 0,5 0.5 0 0 1 0 17,0 '11.0 11,3 13.6 C B B B
Easteny Access Dwy.(NS) at: ,"
Pauba Rd, (EW) CSS 0 0 0 0 1 0 0.5 0.5 0 0 1 0 17.6 11,3 12.3 17,3 C 6 B C
.' '"
L = Left; T = ThroU9h; R = Ri9ht:» = Free Ri9ht Tum: > = Ri9ht Tum Ovenap: 1 = tmprovements
, When a n9httum is designated, the lane can either be stnped or unstnped. To function as a nght tum lane there must be sufficient
width for nght tuming vehicles to travel outside the through lanes. '
, Delay and level of service calcuiated using the following analysis software: Traff~, Version 7.5,R1 (2002), Per the 2000
Highway Capacity Manual, overall average intersection delay ánd level of service are shown for intersections with traffic
traffic signal or all way stop control, For intersections with cross street slop control, the delay and level of service for worst
individual movement (or movements sharing a single lane) are shown.
'TS = Tralnc Signal
CSS = Cross Street Stop
AWS = All Way Stop
U:\UcJobsIO0775\exceI\¡00775-o1,xISJT5-2
=8 ""--'
,w,
,
"..-.~
::::;:¡
~
~~
~.
~
~
¡;'~tf)
.~
~
~
.~
~
.
.
.
area" interseCtiOns (vithout and withirn¡;~bvernents. Curnulative (2005)
Growth with project AM, PM and rnid-day (Sunday) peak hour intersection
turning rnovement volurnes are shown on Exhibits 5-0, 5-E and 5-F,
respectively.
For Cumulative (2005) Growth with project traffic conditions, all of the
following study area intersections are projected to operate at Level of
Service "0" or better during the peak hours, without irnprovernents,
For Curnulative (2005) Growth with project traffic conditions, study area
intersections are projected to operate at Level of Service "0" or better
during the peak hours with the irnprovernents listed in Table 5-2.
<.
Curnulative (2005) Growth' with project HCM calculation worksheets are
provided in Appendix "E"..
Table 5-2 also contains the service level of calculations for traffic conditions
cornrnensurate with the biannual stake conference" The study area
intersections are anticipated to Öperate at acceptable levels (LOS "cn or
better) during a peak midday on a Sunday.
3.
Surnrnarv of Impacts
A list of study intersection improvement measures required for existing
conditions and at the two project buildout year time frarnes (without and
with project conditions) include the construction of traffic signals at
Meadows Parkway/Rancho Vista Road and Meadows Parkway/Pauba
Road. It should be noted that these irnprovernents are not required to
satisfy the City's Level of Service criteria. They are required based on
satisfying traffic signal warrants under existing conditions.
5-7
EXHIBIT 5-0 D
COMO. LATIVE (.2005) GROWT. . H W. ITH PROJEa. ~.'
AM PEAK HOUR INTERSEalON VOLUMES,
0
fi
~j
~
u
f1.:.
~
P.'
¡;~
r¡
u
'I
óJ
q
;.;1
~
n
¡
ij
LOS CHURCH TRAFFIC IMPACT ANAL Y515. Teme<ula, California. 00775:30
5-8
~,
!lBft&t . í
j
.
EXHIBIT 5-E
,£0, M" '",,O,'", UI""'IV,, E;~,;'2ÐÐ".Si),"'".~,'GRO,', WI' j'."" ;,."', , W" " ITH, P"II,O, ,J~CT
"'IPM:PÈIK HO'UR'IN'TER'S:EOI10N iVOIJÛMÊS
I
,
LDS CHURCH TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS, Temecula, California - 00775:31
5-9
~
!!.ß!!~!:!
. EXHIBIT 5-F n
MI D- D AY,('S ~~:: W:~II(~~ttU.;'~~Ym~Tyg~H lo~ggg.-,n
,
iJ
~
Ü
n
U
:'1
i.!
¡1
,j
u
n
7'j
; !
d
¡
d
, ì
¡
,
J
¡
ì
LOS CHURCH TRAFFIC IMPACT ANAL Y515, Temecula, California - 00775:32
5-10
ßt
.Y!l.P..tHi, ;
í
¡
.
.
.
6.0 FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS
A.
Site Access
The proposed project will have two access driveways to pauba Road. Stop-
controls on the project driveways will provide adequate intersection. controls at
these two locations.
B.
Traffic Irnpacts
For existing traffic conditions, traffic signals appear to currently be warranted at the
study area intersections listed below (see Appendix "C").
Meadows Parkway (NS) at:
. Rancho Vista Road (EW)
. Pauba Road (EW)
The difference frorn the current zoned use and the proposed conditional use is
approxirnately 213 rnore trip-ends per day with 17 rnore vehicles per hour during
the AM peak hour and 15 more vehicles per hour during the PM peak hour on
weekdays. During the weekends, the church will generate approxirnately 887
rnore trip-ends per day and 232 rnore vehicles per hour during the rnid-day peak
hour (10:00-12:00PM) on Sunday in comparison to one single family residential
unit.
For Curnulative (2005) Growth without or with project traffic conditions, no
additional traffic signals are projected to be warranted at the study area
. intersections.
6-1
C.
Need for Improvernents Off-Site to Achieve Required LevelOfSèrvice
For Curnulative (2005) Growth with project traffic conditions, study area
intersections are projected to operate at Level of Service "0" or better during the
peak hours with or without the irnprovernenis listed in Table 5-2. However, traffic
signals are currently warranted at the following intersections:
Meadows Parkway (NS) at:
. Rancho Vista Road (EW)
Pauba Road (EW)
o.
Roadwav Irnprovernent Recornmendations
1.
On-Site
Site-specific circulation and access recornrnendations are depicted on
Exhibit 6-A.
Construct Pauba Road at its ultirnate half-section width as a Secondary
Highway along the project boundary.
Sight distances at the project driveways should be reviewed with respect to
standard Caltrans and City of Ternecula sight distance standards at the
tirne of preparation of final grading, landscape and street irnprovernent
plans.
Traffic signing and striping should be irnplernented in conjunction with
detailed construction plans for the project site.
6-2
~..
1~
I
~
"'Tf
n
a
~
11
ìcA
n
fl
lJ
>]
"
t
8
ü
r
u
B
n
. ,
d
u
n
'. ,
d
..."
.
LI
, I
d
.
I.
, EXHIBIT 6-A
CIRCULATION RECOMMENDATIONS
UNDEVELOPED
!
1 ~
-". .
'..,.
-"--
,'. "--
=
'---,.,
,
,
----- :
I --.--l
j-' ;'-
, I
~
--'---.'
Q
l!J
Q
0
¡¡j
;,;
l!J
Q
§
oj CI) Î
r~
.~_.~..- ,.1
Q ¡
CI)
~
>- '
---- ...,--.!
C~ ¡
, : it :
l¡
...
---' (!)..,-.- -
r~
"L CI)
II(
:11)
¡O
'.J
.J
:>
.W
!t-
.~
:0
'U
. I
~ --!---
--,--.-- i
i
:I
I
I
j
/"
'-
~
".', -
PAUBA ROAD
-- .--..l
---
-
CONSTRUCT PAUBA ROAD AT ITS ULTIMATE
HALF-SECTION WIDTH AS A SECONDARY
HIGHWAY ALONG THE PROJECT BOUNDARY.
ACCESS TO THE CHURCH PARKING AREA ON
niE EASTERLY SIDE OF THE PROJECT SHOULD
BE RESTRICTED BETWEEN 10PM AND 7AM.
SUNDAY THROUGH THURSDAY, WITH THE USE
OF GATES (SEE EXHIBIT 7-A) TO PREVENT SITE
ACCESS DURING THE RESTRICTED TIME
PERIODS. EMERGENCY VEHICLE ACCESS AT THIS
LOCATION WILL BE PROVtDED WITH THE
INSTALLATION OF THE KNOX BOX.
SIGHT DISTANCES AT THE ACCESS POINTS SHOULD BE REVIEWED
WITH RESPECT TO STANDARD CALTRANS AND CITY OF TEMECULA
SIGHT DISTANCE STANDARDS AT THE TIME OF PREPARATION OF
FINAL GRADING. LANDSCAPE AND STREET IMPROVEMENT PLANS.
TRAFFIC SIGNING AND STRIPING SHOULD BE
IMPLEMENTED IN CONJUNCTION WITH DETAILED
CONSTRUCTION PLANS FOR THE PROJECT SITE.
NO ORGANIZED CHURCH FUNCTION
SHOULD BE SCHEDULED BETWEEN 1AM
AND 6AM, MONDAY THROUGH FRIDAY.
~
!!!!!!~~
LDS CHURCH TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS, Tomecula, California -00775:37
6-3
2.
Off-Site
Traffic signals are currently warranted at the intersections of:
Meadows Parkway (NS) at:
. Rancho Vista Road (EW)
. Pauba Road (EW)
Eò
Traffic Manaqemerit Actions
The project should contribute towards the funding
paying the City ofT~rnecula trafìic irnpact fees;\
To ensure that church traffic and parkingac~ivities H~vè, rnin¡~al impact to
surrounding residents, the following tráffiè mar;¡agetnent-,::actions are
, ,,"..'
recornrnended:
, '
. Access to the church parking area q(1 t~e easferlysiae.orthe project
, ,
should be restricted between 1OPM and 7AM;, Súnday through
Thursday, with the use of gates (see ~xhibit 6-A) to pr~v~nt access to
the site during the restricted tirne periods. Ernergency vehicle access at
this location 'will be provided with the installation of a knox box.
. No organized church function should be scheduled between 1 AM, and
6AM, Monday through Friday.
6-4
e
~
[j
t'"
;¿
~
U
P...
u
~
~
-0
11
11
~I.,...
U
i
0
n
n
D
n
d
'.'J
¡
,
i
[J
't
, I
,
u
.
APPENDIX A
.
TRAFFIC COUNT WORKSHEETS
.
PMPertod NB SB EB WB
1200PM-12;15PM 26 47
12;15PM,1230PM 50 33
12;30 PM ,12045 PM 16 31
12;45PM-01;OOPM 70 44
162 '" 317
Volumes for Tuesday. June 10, 2003
City ofTerriecula
Location: Camino Romo @ 510 Rancho Vista Rd.
AM Parted
12;OOAM,12;15AM
1215AM,12;3OAM
83OAM "2.45 AM
.45AM,OI00AM
NB
0
0
0
0
,
SB
,WB
EB
01;OOAM,OI15AM 0
0115 AM-OI;3O AM 0
0130AM,O1A5AM 0
0145:"'_',~"'O(),AM -,--_._._---,..,-,-_?_-_._-,-~-,---_._,-,
o °
Project No. 03-0927-003
01;OOPM-01;15PM 37 to
OU5PM-01;3OPM S 14
ODOPM-0IA5PM S 10
01A5 PM ,02;00 PM 9 14 . . .
-- ~----~-62-----"-----~,1i ;
,
0200AM,02;15AM 2 3 02;00 PM ,02;15 PM
0215AM,02;3OAM 0 0 02;15PM-O2;3OPM
02;30 AM ,02;45 AM 0 0 02;30 PM-O2;45 PM
02;45AM-O3;OOAM. 0 -"---- 02045 PM ,03;00 PM
-'----"'-----'--- 3 --.
03;00 AM ,03;15 AM
0315AM,O3;3OAM
. 03;30 AM ,03045 AM
. 03A5AM-O4;OOAM
03;00 PM ,03;15 PM
03;15 PM - 03;30 PM
03;30 PM ,03045 PM
03;45 PM - 04;00 PM
O4;OOAM-O4;15AM
04;15 AM ,O4;30AM
! ~~::::~:
O4;OOPM-O4;15PM
O4;15PM-O4;3OPM
O4;3OPM-O4A5PM
04;45 PM, 05;00 PM
..
¡
: 0500AM-05;15AM
¡ OS;15AM-OS;30AM
¡ 053OAM-05A5AM
ì 05A5AM-OO;OOAM
1
¡ œOOAM-œ;15AM 9 2
¡ OOI5AM-OO;30AM 0 3
.-~ :_;.;;_.- -..-- ~----~-_-C_.._~--~--,
, ~ to 31
i
! 07;OOAM,07;15AM
i 07;15 AM-07;30 AM
¡ 073OAM-ON5AM
i 0745AM-OO;OOAM
OS;OOPM-OS;15PM
05;15PM-OS;3OPM
05;30 PM - 05;45 PM
OS;45 PM, 00;00 PM
12 13
o 7.
S 14
16 37
44 71
31 01
27 73
105 102
265 96
4211 3S2
20 14
27 12
~ 10
12 6
so 42.
14 12
9 11
6 o
S S
37 39
I
1151
"',
i
i
1221
!
I
"I
00;00 PM-œ;15 PM 6 14
œ;15 PM ,œ;3O PM 4 3
œ;3O PM-œ;45 PM 9 12 .
()6'::'~~"'.:."~"'!'..M...._-"-2~---'---k-----~----6i I
10
13
26
22
71
1
4
17
22
44
07;00 PM-07;15 PM
07;15 PM-07;3O PM
07;30 PM-ON5 PM
07045 PM-OO;OO PM
115
0800 PM, 08;15 PM
08;15 PM ,08;30 PM
08;30 PM, 08;45 PM
08045 PM, 09;00 PM
204
O9;OOPM-O9;15PM
OS;15 PM -OS;3O PM
09;30 PM - 09045 PM
09;45 PM-10;00 PM
733
10;00 PM - 1015 PM
10;15PM-103OPM
10 30PM-10A5 PM
1045 PM,I1;OO PM
81.
I1;OOPM,1U5PM
11;15 PM-l1;3O PM
11;30 PM-l1A5 PM
11045 PM ,12;OOAM
81
1274 Totol Volume
ì Daily To/als;
!
08 00 AM-08;15 AM 13 28
. 08;15 AM ,OS;30 AM 22 35
OS;30AM-08;45AM 26 1S
! OSA5AM-09;OOAM 30 31
91 113
09 00 AM-O9;15 AM 156 ISS
09;15 AM ,OS;3O AM 202 112
. 0930AM,0945AM 33 17
0945AM-1000AM 14 11
..5 328
1O00AM-10;15AM 10 8
10 15AM,10;3OAM 13 S
1O30AM,10;45AM 11 9
1045AM,l1;OOAM 14 8
40 33
1100AM,IU5AM 9 3
1U5AM,11;30AM 15 11
113OAM . 11045 AM 9 8
11.45AM-12;OOPM 19 7
S2 29
To/al Volume 707 567
.
888
1595
3.
3
0
6
12
13
3
12
6
34
46 i
9
2
5
5
~
9
8
12
11
40
61'
7
5
6
2
20
27:
8!
15:
859
1747:
1426
I 30211\
A'?7
Volumes for Tuesday. June 10, 2003
City of Teri1ecuia
Location: Corte Villosa @.n/o Pauba Rd.
EB WB PM Period
AM Period
12,OOAM,12,'5AM
12,'5AM,1230AM
1230AM,1245AM
1245AM,01,OOAM
SB
NB
'2,OOPM,12,'5PM
12,'5 PM-1230 PM
12,30PM,12A5PM
12A5PM-0100PM
Project No. 03-0927-002
D
NB SB EB WB
13 .
7 .
20 9
14 "
54 44
Ð
98 ~'"
1T
0100AM,0115AM o 0 orOOPM,oU5PM 4 .
01.15AM.O130AM o 0 OU5PM-OUOPM 5 3
~;:~~:~~~;_n___~__--~~-~---~ ~~~~~::::;- ~ ~ fJ.<
'° , '--'--19"----"'--"----~------'" ~
02,00 PM, 02,15 PM 5 .
02,'5 PM ,02,30PM 4 3
02,30 PM - 02A5 PM 2 S
02"5 PM - 03,00 PM 18 33
29' '0
03,00 PM ,0315 PM 44 18
O3,15PM-03,30PM 45 9
O3,30PM-O3A5PM 54 "4
" .. 03"5 PM, 04,00 PM 12 20
1SS '6'
O4,OOPM-O4,15 PM 10 14
04:15 PM-O4,30 PM 4 10
04,30 PM, 04,45 PM 4 .
04,45 PM, 05,00 PM . 9
24 39
OS,OO PM ,OS,15 PM 4 7
05,15 PM-05,30 PM 5 1
OS,30 PM, 05,45 PM 5 3
OS,45 PM, 06,00 PM . 5
20 16
02 00 AM ,02,15 AM
02,15AM,O,,"OAM
0230AM,0245AM
02A5 AM, 03,00 AM
O3,OOAM'O3.15AM
O3,15AM'O330AM
O3,30AM-O3'45 AM
O3"5AM-O4,OOAM
O4,OOAM-O4,15 AM
O4,15AM-O4,30AM
O4,30AM,O4A5AM
O4A5AM.05,OOAM
: 05,OOAM-OS,15AM
¡ 05,15 AM-OS 30 AM
0530 AM - 05A5 AM
, 05,45AM-06,ooAM
:1
"'¡
3
4
3
5
1S
I ~.r.'.
!Ÿ
I
>161 !1
J ~.¡
I ~J
361 I
Ii:;:
i
-..c.'--..I
, "¡1
!~
321 n
, 06,OOAM-06,15AM 1 3 06'00 PM-06,15 PM 9 2
06,15AM,06'30AM 3. 06"5PM-06,30PM 3 2
06,30AM,06,45AM 9 " 06,30PM-06,45PM" 5
06A5AM,07,OOAM 7. '()6,~~~~:""..':"-,___-'.'_.~__._-"-
"------'--------20---'-""'--:-'-------41' 34 'S
: ",OOAM-07,15AM 'o 2
'07,15AM.07,30AM 7 7
0,,"OAM-O"'5AM 15 "
07A5 AM, 0800 AM 18 .
'0 29
"'00 AM ".,15 AM 1S ,.
",15AM,0830AM 25 "
OS,30 AM ,OS,45AM 9 2
OS,45 AM-og 00 AM 54 24
'08 6'
",00 AM ,O<>15AM '56 103
0<>15 AM-og,30 AM 19 28
og,30 AM, og"5 AM S .
og,45 AM -1o,00 AM 7 .
,-~--- ,.. 143
1000AM,1015AM
10,15AM,1030AM
'1O30AM-1045AM 2 2
10"5AM-",OOAM 3 .
12 19
"OOAM-",15AM 2 3
IU5AM,",30AM 4 3
",30AM-",45AM 10 1
",45 AM-12,OO PM 10 .
26 13
TOlal Volume 406 297
",00 PM-07,15 PM
07,15 PM-07,30 PM
07'30 PM-07,45 PM
07,45 PM-08,OO PM
79'
OS,OOPM-08,15PM
,.,15PM-OS,30PM
05,30 PM-OS 45 PM
05,45 PM-og,OO PM
167
og:oo PM -og,15 PM
og,15 PM -0~30 PM
09:30 PM-0<>45 PM
09'45 PM-10,00 PM
333
10,OOP"-1O1SPM
10'15PM-1O'30PM
10:30 PM-104S P"
10:45-""-=-" 00 PM
31
",OOPM,IU5PM
IU5PM, " 3O PM
",30PM'1"'5PM
",45PM,12,OOAM
39
703 ,TOlal Volume
,
i Daily Torals:
5
5
2
,
17
i
]
17i
B
1 3
4 2
1 o
3 0
9 S
!
141
,;'"
;1'
i.~
J;J
8!
".
- ¡
d
375
752 ¡
~-'1
,
,j
377
781
674
1145511.
, ".
eo'"
AL\
..,
Volumes for Tuesday, June 10, 2003
City ofTemecula
AM Period
NB
SB
Location: Pauba Rd. @ wlo Corte Víllosa
EB WB PM Period
--,
1200AM-1215AM
12'15AM,12:"'AM
83OAM"2A5AM
45AM. 01 00 AM
-
2
2
1
1
6
5
2
2
1
10
12,ooPM,1215PM
12,15 PM ,12,30 PM
12,30 PM ,I2A5 PM
1245PM,01,ooPM
16
Project No, 03-0927-001
NB
SB
EB
37
42
44
43
16'
01,ooAM,OU5AM 1 1 01OOPM-0115PM
OU5AM,OI,3OAM 0 0 01.15PM,01,"'PM
OUOAM,01A5AM 1 1 013OPM-01A5PM
0':45At.1c~3:()().AI.1~_-----+-,--+-_.,. ~~.~.:02'()()~___-
02,OOAM-02"5AM
02,15AM ,02"" AM
02"" AM, 02A5 AM
OZ45AM-03,ooAM
O3,OOAM-O3,15AM
0315 AM, 03,30 AM
03,30 AM - 03,45 AM
O3A5 AM - 04,00 AM
O4ooAM-O4,15AM
04,15 AM ,O4,"'AM
O4,30AM-O4,45AM
O4A5AM,05OOAM
05,ooAM-OS15AM
05,15 AM-OS"" AM
053OAM-05A5AM
05A5AM,O6,ooAM
2
1
1
1
,
0
2
0'
0
2
OZoo PM, 02,15 PM
OZ,15 PM - 02,30 PM
OZ,3OPM,0245 PM
OZA5 PM-03,00 PM
7
03,00 PM - 03,15 PM
03,'5 PM-03,3O PM
03,30 PM - 03A5 PM
O3,45PM-O4,ooPM
12
O4,ooPM-O4,15 PM
O4,15PM-O4,"'PM
O4,3OPM-O4,45 PM
O4A5PM-OS,ooPM
17
OS,OOPM-OS,15 PM
OS,15PM-OS,"'PM
05,30 PM - 05A5 PM
05A5PM-O6,ooPM
61
3771
i
i
I
1
6631.
I
47 65 I
42 36 I
65 43 I
47 54 I
191 os '" I
54 52 I
63 51 i
74 42 !
2: ': 4431
41 29 i
58 40 I
46 42 i
'----'--',;¡¡¡-~,,¡¡ -'34õ I
45
31
35
27
138
32
36
25
79
172
so
106
S7
36
325
06 00 AM ' 06,15 AM 7 30 06,00 PM-O6'15 PM
O6,15AM-O6,"'AM 11 23 O6,15PM-O6,3OPM
8~-;~~;-;--,----,--_._---:~ "1~---'S' :~:~:::;---_.
I
I 07,00 AM ,07,15 AM
! 07,15 AM ,07,30 AM
, 07,30 AM ,07,45 AM
107A5AM,06,ooAM
26
20
66
73
165
, 06 00 AM ,OS,15 AM
, 0815AM,06,30AM
08,30 AM. 06A5 AM
, OSA5AM,OS,OOAM
I
, OSOOAM-OS,'5AM
OS,'5AM-OS:30AM
0930 AM - OSA5 AM
0~45AM,10:OOAM
9S
56
23
50
m
80
29
20
20
140
i 10.00AM,m15AM
, 1015AM,103OAM
10,30AM,10A5AM
1045AM-11,OOAM
1100AM,1U5AM
""5AM,",3OAM
1130AM,11A5AM
11 ,45 AM ,12'00 PM
19
"
29
43
110
Tolal Yalume
855
.
0
2
1
0
3
0
4
3
2
0
0
1
0
0
1
1
2
6,
7
'6
2
1
1
4
6
9
11
9
24
53
58
104
100
IOZ
364
101
72
65
as
32.4
113
60
36
28
239
07:00PM-07:15PM
07"5 PM ,07,30 PM
07,30 PM - 07:45 PM
ON5PM-Oe,OOPM
540
0600 PM - 08,15 PM
08,'5 PM ,08:30 PM
08,30 PM, 08A5 PM
06,45 PM - 09:00 PM
S51
00,OOPM,OS:15PM
0915PM-œ3OPM
09,30PM-09,45 PM
0~45 PM -10:00 PM
m.
26
24
26
19
97
23 10:00PM-IO:15 PM
21 10:15PM-IO3OPM
2S IO3OPM-I045PM
44 IOA5PM-11,OOPM
123 2..
37
4'
50
34
167
1417
f\~
11,OOPM-11"5PM
11"5 PM-11,3O PM
11,3OPM-11A5PM
11,45PM-12,OOAM
'"
2272
Total Yo/ume
I Daily Tolalsc
i
19
46
41
35
141
34
35
36
29
134
23
29
17
17
66
13
15
10
16
54
10
3
7
4
24
1875
2730
75
70
129
54
336
33
32
31
22
118
1756
3173\ 59031\
WB
57
49
56
53
215
381
33
38
31
47
14S
287!
!
36
27
47
03
205
I
I
2S9!
21
22
17
21
"
21S¡
I
,
I
23
15
0
19
56
i
1521
i
13
12
2
12
J9
i
i
I
53!
3
1
2
2
,
321
3631 !
0
'.
Intersection Turning Movement Count
Prepared by: Southland Car Counters ~)
ì
Prepared For: Urban Crossroads Client's Project Name ,
Thursday. June 12, 2003 Client's Ref: 00775 Project No 03-0926-001
N-S Street Corte Vil/osa E-W Street Pauba Rd Area: TemeclÌla
D
t
NorthBound SouthBound EastBound WestBound
NL NT NR SL Sf SR EL ET ER WL WT WR Total ~
~j
Lanes: 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 0
6:00 AM 2 0 0 0 0 2 0 8 1 0 16 1 30 0
,¡¿.
6:15AM 3 0 0 0 2 0 6 0 14 0 21
6:30 AM 5 0 2 2 3 16 0 0 27 58 9
;
6:45 AM 2 2 0 19 0 43 0 " 73
7:00 AM 8 2 5 2 26 0 0 91 0 141 11
b
7:15AM 9 2 3 4 9 8 40 2 4 101 5 189
7:30 AM 5 2 10 4 16. 3. 57 3 110 5 217 11
u
7:45 AM 20 . 6 3 7 19 14 70 5 5 110 8 275 i
-"--'-'---
Totals: 54 18 22 17 15 59 28 242 12 11 512 20 1010
Peak HR 0.574 0.638 0.646 0.894 0;747 n
Factor: ;tJ
AM Peak Hour Begins at: 7:00 AM 15 Min. Peak: 7:45 AM '1
Peak 42 17 19 12 13 49 27 193 10 10 412 18 822
Volumes: %'.)
Intersection Control: 2-Way Stop (N & S) f.
~..~
d
.,
¡
~.-'
.
. J
Alo
Intersection Turning Movement Count
Prepared by: Southiand Car Counters
. Prepared For: Urban Crossroads Client's Project Name
Thursday, June 12, 2003 Client.s Ref: 00775 Project No 03-0926-001
N-S Street Corte Vil/osa E-W Street Pauba Rd. Area: Temecu/a
NorthBound SouthBound EastBound WestBound
NL NT NR 5L 5T 5R EL ET ER WL WT WR Total
Lanes: a 1 a a a 1 a a 1 0'
6:00 PM 3 a 1 2 6 35 8 3 27 3 90
6:15PM 3 2 a 2 4 48 14 2 30 4 111
6:30 PM 2 a 3 a 2 7 39 8 7 40 2 111
6:45 PM a 3 6 3 25 4 a 34 a 78
7:00 PM 2 a 4 4 30 2 5 30 a 80
7:15 PM 5 a a 3 5 37 3 2 16 74
7:30 PM 2 2 a 2 2 41 3 2 25 3 84
7:45 PM a a a 2 a 3 22 6 13 a 49
. Totals: 17 5 6 13 8 19 34 277 48 22 215 13 677
Peak HR 0.625 0.550 0;761 0.776 0.878
Factor:
PM Peak Hour Begins at 6:00 PM 15 Min. Peak: 6:15 PM
Peak 9 3 3 8 4 10 20 147 34 12 131 9 390
Volumes:
Intersection Control: 2-Way Stop (N & S)
.
(\7
Intersection. Turning Movement Count
Prepared by: Southland Car Counters
Prepared For. Urban Crossroads Client's Project Name
Thursday, June 12, 2003 Client's Ref: 00775 Project No 03-0926-002
N.S Street Camino Ramo E-W Street Corte Villosa Area: Temecula
NorthBound SouthBound EastBound WestBound
NL NT NR SL ST SR EL ET ER WL WT WR Total
Lanes: 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0
6:00 AM 1 1 0 0 4
6:15AM 0 0 0 2 4
6:30 AM l' 2 0 1 0 5
6:45 AM 0 0 0
7:00 AM 4 2 0 0 8
7:15AM 2 7 3 2 2 2 18
7:30 AM 2 11 4 0 19
7:45 AM 2 21 12 3 40
Totals: 9 48 23 7 9 5 101
~eak HR 0.000 0.000 .0.000 0,000 0.531
Factor:
AM Peak Hour Begins at: 7:00AM 15 Min. Peak: 7:45AM
Peak 7 43 21 6 4 4 85
Volumes:
Intersection Control: 1-Way Stop (SB)
A~
ß
I,'
:,
it'
,
[]
D
~.:
~
B
f'
¡J
í1,f
U
i
0
[1
U
R
f1
~J
n
u
q
j
[}
e
¡J
, .
¡
Intersection' Turning Movemellt Count
Prepared by: Southland Car Counters
. Prepared For Urban Crossroads Client's Project Name
Thursday, June 12, 2003 Client's Ref: > 00775 projeét No 03-0926-002
N-S Street Camino Ramo E-W Street Corte Villosa 'Area: Temeèùla
NorthBound SouthBound EastBound WestBound
NL NT NR SL ST SR EL ET ER WL' WF WR Total
Lanes: 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0
6:00 PM 1 2 1 2 l' 8
6:15PM 2 2 '0 9
6:30 PM 2 2 3 1 2 11
6:45 PM 4 0 2 , 10
7:00 PM 6
7:15PM 2 0 6
7:30 PM 0 2 1 2 0
7:45 PM 3 3 1 0
. Totals: 10 16 14 9 10 6 65
Peak HR 0.810 0.615 0.727 0.790 " 0,864
Factor:
PM Peak Hour Begins at 6:00 PM 15 Min. Peak: 6:30,PM
Peak 7 9 7 4 7 4 38
Volumes:
Intersection Control: 1-Way Stop (SB)
.
f\q
lnter-section Turning Movement Count
Prepared by: Southiand Car Counters
Prepared For: Urban Crossroads Client's Project Name
Thursday, June 12, 2003 Client's Ref: 00775 Project No 03-0926-003
N-SStreet Camino Romo E-W Street Rancho Vista Rd. Area: Temecúla
NorthBound, .SouthBound EastBound WestBound
NL' NT, NR SL ST SR EL ET ER WL WT WR Total
Lanes: 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1. 0',
6:00 AM 3 0 8 1 0 29 41
6:15AM 0 2 13 18
6:30 AM 3 5 0 14 24
6:45 AM 4 3 10 4 0 43 64
7:00 AM 9 40 6 113 170
7:15AM 17 4 135 15 5 212 388
7:30 AM 10 3 81 16 13 72 195
7:45AM 9 16 41 23 48 65 202
Totals: 56 28 321 66 70 561 1102
Peak HR 0.690 0,000 0.000 0.000 0,615
Factor:
AM Peak HOUf Begins at: 7:00 AM 15 Min. Peak: 7:15 AM
Peak 45 24 297 60 67 462 955
Volumes:
Intersection Control: 1-Way Stop (NB)
(\-10
~
&~
,
11",",:,
Ù
n
D
n
!J
n
9
i
[)
~
n
!)11,--,'
¡j
n
n
U
n
, ì
d,
.
u
Intersection Turning Movement(Jount
Prepared by: Southland Car Counters
. Prepared For: Urban Crossroads Client's Project Name
Thursday, June 12, 2003 Client's Ref: 00775 Project No 03-0926-003
N-S Street Camino Ramo E-W Street Rancho Vista Rd. Area: Teineèìila
NorthBound SouthBound EastBound WèstBound
NL NT NR SL ST SR EL ET ER WL WT WR Total
Lanes: 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0
6:00 PM 1 0 28 6 5 25 65
6:15 PM 2 2 28 2 2 24 60
6:30 PM 5 3 26 4 2 14 54
6:45 PM 0 0 28 3 2 26 59
7:00 PM 3 41 3 18 67
7:15 PM 6 5 19 6 0 6 42
7:30 PM 0 16 4 2 14 38
7:45PM 3 2 20 2 1 17 45
. -....-,--..--.- _u ------,
Totals: 22 13 206 30 15 144 430
Peak HR 0.500 0.615 0.727 0.790 0.896
Factor:
PM Peak Hour Begins at 6:15PM 15 Min. Peak: 7:00 PM
Peak 10 6 123 12 7 82 240
Volumes:
Intersection Control: 1-Way Stop (NB)
.
ttll
\1
Intersection Turning Movement- Count l'
Prepared by: Southiand Car Counters ~
Prepared For: Urban Crossroads Client's Project Name ,
Thursday. June 12, 2003 Client'sRe': 00775 Project No 03-0926-004
N-S Street Meadows Pkwy. E-W Street Pauba Rd Area: Temecula ~
Nor.thBound SouthBound EastBound ' WèstBound
NL NT NR SL ST SR EL ET ER WL WT WR Total I
Limes: 1 2 0 1 2 2 1 1 0 1 1 0
6:00 AM 7 11 0 2 5 3 0 6 2 2 8 0 46 g
6:15AM 7 12 0 13 3 4 0 2 7 2'C) 52
6:30 AM 9 22 2 2 14 5 2 17 4 3 12 2 94 I
,i'
6:45 AM 17 21 4 2 16 6 3 19 6 6 28 6 134
7:00 AM 30 55 3 4 41 13 4 11 8 9 42 10 230 n
¡¡,
7:15AM 44 81 2 3 77 21 13 17 14 9 47 10 338
WI
7:30 AM 21 38 6 2 69 34 9 24 28 9 65 4 309 ~
7:45AM 24 67 12 6 72 43 16 36 33 21 58 10 398 '1
- _m _'H_,_------,______m_____- .
Totals: 159 307 29 22 307 126 50 134 95 61 267 44 ' 1601
Peak HR 0.754 0:795 0.626 0;826 0.801 n
,¡.
Factor:
AM Peak Hour Begins at : 7:00 AM 15 Min. Peak: 7:45AM W~
;j
Peak 119 241 23 15 259 111 42 88 83 48 212 34 1275
Volumes: I
Intersection Control: 4-way stop
"
U
n
;J
,~
; ,
U
e
"';<
vt 12-
..!
Intersecti()n Turning'MovementCount
Prepared by:Southlaitd Cár CoUlitêrs
. Prepared For: Urban Crossroads Client's Project Name
Thursday, June 12, 2003 Client's Ref: 00775 Project No 03-0926-004
N-S Street Meadows Pkwy. E-W Street Pauba Rd Area: Temecula
NorthBound SouthBound EastBound WestBound
NL NT NR SL ST SR EL ET ER WL WT WR Total
Lanes: 1 2 0 1 2 2 1 1 0 1 1 0
6:00 PM 8 56 10 9 43 7 7 16 14 6 22 8 206
6:15 PM 17 40 7 11 41 3 7 22 28 6 17 5 204
6:30 PM 17 40 5 4 53 6 8 28' 18 7 21 6 213
6:45 PM 10 51 13 52 5 5' 14 10 6 15 7 193
7:00 PM 12 41 6 5 39 6 5 14 8 4 23 11 174
7:15PM 10 35 4 8 50 5 9 22 21 16 13 5 198
7:30 PM 10 35 7 13 43 4 9 18 24 4 16 8 191
7:45 PM 31 8 4 29 4 4 11 12 2 11 7 125
. --,-~_._-,-----,-
Totals: 86 329 52 67 350 40 54 145 135 51 138 57 1504
Peak HR 0,899 0.882 0.776 0.875 0,958
Faclor:
PM Peak Hour Begins at 6:00 PM 15 Min. Peak: 6:30 PM
Peak 52 187 27 37 189 21 27 80 70 25 75 26 816
Volumes:
Intersection Control: 4-way stop
.
iH~
11?/{!rse(:tion Turning Movement Count
Prepared by: SoutlJ/and Car Counters
Prepared For. Urban Crossroads Client's Project Name
Thursday, June 12, 2003 Client's Ref: 00775 Project No 03c0926-005
N-S Street Meadows Pkwy. E-W Street Rancho Vista Rd. Area: Temecula
.IYprth~ound South,Bound', EastBound. WestBound
NL NT NR SL ST SR EL ET ER WL WT WR Total
Lanes: 1 2 0 1 2 2 0 1 0 0 1 0
6:00PM 7 47 2 6 54 10 7 9 11 8 9 9 179
6:15PM 11 51 6 2 62 12 10 9 11 3 9 6 192
6:30 PM 5 40 8, 8 45 5 6 13 9 4 6 8 157
6:45 PM 4 31 3 0 59 13 4 8 15 7 6 3 153
7:00 PM 4 30 4 12 49 9 10 18 17 2 6 5 166
7:15 PM 31 3 3 32 3 3 10 11 0 0 3 102
7:30 PM 6 30 8 41 5 5 4 7 6 5 5 123
7:45PM 7 28 4 3 37 3 5 3 14 3 7 3 117
Totals: 47 288 31 42 379 60 50 74 95 33 48 42 1189
Peak HR 0.790 0.908 0.933 0.750 0.887
Factor:
PM Peak Hour Begins at 6:00 PM 15 Min. Peak: 6:15PM
Peak 27 169 19 16 220 40 27 39 46 22 30 26 681
Volumes:
Intersection Control: 4-Way Stop
AI4
ß
fJ
.
B
~
U
n
0
'~,r,:
~~
~1
tl
f1,'.'"
U
~'1
.
~
u
i'l
íæ
8
~1!
a
~1
u
n
1
U
',1
; ¡
u
.
.J
, 1
. .
Intersection Turning Movement Count
Prepared by: Southland Car Counters
. Prepared For: Urban Crossroads Client's Project Name
Thursday. June 12,2003 Client's Ref: 00775 Project No 03-0926-005
N-S Street Meadows Pkwy. E-W Street Rancho Vista Rd. Area: Temetula
NorthBound SouthBound EastBound . WestBound
NL NT NR SL ST SR EL ET ER WL WT WR Total
Lanes: 1 2 0 1 2 2 0 1 0 0 1 0
6:00 AM 15 12 2 0 5 3 2 2 2 1 11 9 64
6:15AM 5 17 0 13 4 0 2 9 4 57
6:30 AM 7 28 2 18 0 2 3 2 8 8 80
6:45 AM 13 28 4 20 13 3 4 18 12 123
7:00AM 51 33 3 25 19 14 23 25 5 21 13 234
7:15AM 81 37 2 46 35 22 38 47 3 39 11 366
7:30AM 33 46 4 2 50 25 13 29 44 11 34 10 301
7:45AM 29 66 5 91 45 24 23 19 34 15 368
. Totals: 234 267 18 25 268 144 65 124 146 46 174 82 1593
PeakHR 0.810 0.615 0.727 0.790 0.862
Factor:
AM Peak Hour Begins at: 7:00 AM. 15 Min. Peak: 7:45 AM
Peak 194 182 13 18 212 124 58 114 139 38 128 49 1269
Volumes:
Intersection Control: 4-Way Stop
.
1\-16
I ntersectian Turning Movement Count
Prepared by: Southiand Car Counters
Prepared For: Urban Crossroads Client's Project Name
Thursday. June 12. 2003 Client'sRet: 00775 Project No 03-0926-006
N-S Street Calle Cedra/ E-W Street Pauba Rd. Area: Temecu/a
NorthBound SouthBound . EastBound WestBound
NL NT NR SL ST SR EL ' ET ER WL WT WR Total
Lanes: 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0
6:00 PM 1 0 49 30 0 81
6:15 PM 2 64 34 0 102
6:30 PM 0 0 1 54 41 97
6:45 PM 0 0 0 33 45 79
7:00 PM 0 0 47 32 0 80
7:15 PM 0 0 43 23 68
7:30 PM 0 2 46 28 0 77
7:45 PM 0 34 14 0 50
Totals: 4 3 7 370 247 3 634
Peak HR 0.810 0,615 0.727 0.790 0.880
Factor:
PM Peak Hour Begins at 6:00 PM 15 Min. Peak: 6:15PM
Peak 2 2 3 200 150 2 359
Volumes:
Intersection Control: 1-Way Stop (S8)
AllP
D
~
b
,
D
.~
~
!
n
D
ë
;
n
ß
n
"
,.<
¡
"l
q
d
.
d
..
Intersection Turning Movement Count
Prepared by: Southland Car Counters
. Prepared For. Urban Crossroads Client's Project Name
Thursday, June 12.2003 Client's Ref: 00775 Project No 03-0926-006
N-S Street Calle Cedral E-W Street Pauha Rd. Area: Temecula
NorthBound SouthBound EastBound WestBound
NL NT NR SL ST SR EL ET ER WL WT WR Total
Lanes: 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 -
--
6:00 AM 0 0 12 16 0 29
6:15AM 0 0 0 19 15 0- 34
6:30 AM 0 0 0 5 26 0 31
6:45 AM 0 0 27 51 0 '- 79
7:00 AM 0 0 26 101 0 128
7:15AM 0 49 139 0 190
7:30 AM 0 0 65 133 200
7:45 AM 0 0 0 89 145 1 235
t . Totals:
3 2 292 525 2 925
Peak HR 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0~801
Factor.
AM Peak Hour Begins at: 7:00 AM 15 Min. Peak: 7:45AM
Peak 3 229 518 2 753
Volumes:
Intersection Control: 1-Way Stop (S8)
.
AI7
Intersection Turning Movement Count
Prepared by: Southland Car Counters
Prepared For: Urban Crossroads Client's Project Name
Thursday, June 12, 2003 Client's Ref: 00775 Project No 03-0926-007
N-S Street Green Tree Rd. E-W Street Pauba Rd. Area: Temeèú[Q
..NorthBound SouthBound EastBound WestBound
NL NT NR SL ST SR, EL ET ER WL WT WR Total
Lanes: 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0
6:00AM 0 0 14 17 0 32
6:15AM 0 19 15 0 36
6:30 AM 0 0 5 27 0 33
6:45 AM 0 0 25 50 77
7:00 AM 2 26 99 0 129
7:15AM 0 48 137 0 187
7:30 AM 2 0 0 65 133 201
7:45AM 90 146 240
Totals: 292 624 ' 935
5 7 4 3
Peak HR 0.574 0.638 0,646 0.894 0.789
Factor:
AM Peak Hour Begins at: 7:00AM 15 Min. Peak: 7:45 AM
Peak 4 4 3 229 515 2 757
Volumes:
Intersection Control: 1-Way Stop (S8)
Al~
a
0
,
I
D
I
a
I
0
8
I
~
I
fi
fî;
J
n
n
d
.
u
Intersection Turning Movement Count
Prepared by: Soutiliand Car Counters
. Prepared For: Urban Crossroads Client's Project Name
Thursday, June 12, 2003 Client's Ref 00775 Project No 03-0926-007
N-S Street Green Tree Rd. E-W Street Pauba Rd. Area: TemeclIla
NorthBound SouthBound EastBound WestBound
NL NT NR SL ST SR EL ET ER WL: WT WR Total
Lanes: 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0
6:00 PM 2 45 30 1 80
6:15 PM 2 2 65 34 0 104
6:30 PM 0 2 55 41 0 99
6:45 PM 0 32,. 43 2 79
7:00 PM 0 0 46 31 79
7:15PM 2 2 42 21 69
7:30 PM 3 2 47 29 0 82
7:45PM 33 13 50
. ,-,--------' ----...---'
Totals: 8 11 10 365, 242 6 642
Peak HR 0.625 0,550 0.761 0.776 0.870
Factor:
PM Peak Hour Begins at 6:00 PM 15 Min. Peak: 6:15PM
Peak 4 4 6 197 148 3 362
Volumes:
Intersection Control: 1-Way Stop (SB)
.
Mq
I
'Ii'
Intersection Turning Movement Count
I
"
Prepared by: Southland Car Counters ~
.¡.
Prepared For: Urban Crossroads Client's Project Name ,
Sunday, June 08, 2003 Client's Ref: 00775 Project No 03-0926-001
N-S Street Corte Villosa E-W Street Pauba Rd. Area: Temeculb n
NorthBound SouthBound EastBound' -WestBound
NL NT NR SL ST SR EL ET ER WL WT WR Total I
Lanes: 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 o.
10:00 A 3 0 1 0 0 2 17 2 1 32 1 60 I
10:15A 2 2 3 0 20 2 2 35 '1 ' 74
10:30A 2 0 0 0 0 2 32 0 31 1 70 I
10:45A 2 0 0 0 4 29 2 2 32 3 76
I
11:00A 3 0 2 0 0 2 3 28 3 2 27 3 73 ~',
11:15A 3 0 0 3 0 32 0 2 28 0 70
11:30 A 0 0 4 2 17 0 2 27 0 58 a
11:45A 0 0 0 0 0 4 29 2 0 33 3 73 i
mm'_'___-'---'--
Totals: 22 9 4 15 17 204 11 12 245 12 554
D
Peak HR 0,562 0.417 0,893 0,921 0.964 ;
Factor:
MD Peak Hour Begins at 10:15AM 15 Min. Peak: 10:45ÄM B
Peak 12 2 4 2 7 9 109 7 7 125 8 '293
Volumes: I
Intersection Control: 2-Way Stop (N & S) n
~~
n
¡j
¡~.~
U
.
U
Az,o
J
I ntì!rsection Turning' Movement' Cò unt
Prepared by: Southland Car Coùnters
. Prepared For: Urban Crossroads Client's Project Name
Sunday, June 08, 2003 Client's Ref: . 00775 Project No 03-0926-002
N-S Street Camino Ramo E-W Street Corte Villosa Area: Temecula
NorthBound SòuthBound EàstBòund WestBound
NL NT NR SL ST SR EL ET ER WL WT WR Total
Lanes: Q 0 0 0 1 0 .1 0 0, J 0 -
1000 A 0 3 1 0 0 2 6
10:15A 3 3 0 2 10
10:30A 0 0 3 0 0 0
10:45 A 0 4 0 0 {j 5
11:00A 0 3 4 0 9
11:15A 0 2 0 0 4
11:30 A 0 0 0 l' 3
11:45A 0 0 2 0 2 5
. ---------- ,----------
Totals: 2 11 17 5 4 6 45
Peak HR 0.562 0:417 0:893 0.921 ' 0.675
Factor:
MD Peak Hour Begins at 10:15AM 15 Min, Peak: 10:15AM
Peak 5 13 5 2 27
Volumes:
Intersection Control: 1-Way Stop (S8)
.
11-1-1
Intersection TurnilJg Movement Count
Prepared hy:Soulh/and,Car Counters
Prepared For: Urban Crossroads Client's Project Name
Sunday. June 08, 2003 Client's Ref: 00775 Project No 03-0926-003
N-S Street Camino Romo E-W Street Rancho Vista Rd. Area: Temecu/a
N,orthBound SouthBpund EastBound WèstBound
NL NT NR SL ST SR EL ET ER WL WT WR Total
Lanes: 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0
"
10:00A 6 1 17 ~ 3 1 28 56
10:15A 2 17 3 24 54
10:30A 3 0 14 2 0 22 41
10:45A 5 15 0 3 18 42
11:00A 2 2 15 3 20 43
11:15A 6 2 26 0 18 53
11:30A 4 9 4 15 34
11:45 A 5 0 18 3 26 53
Totals: 38 9 131 16 11 171 376
Peak HR 0.694 0:417 0.893 0.921 0.862
Factor:
MD Peak Hour Begins at 10:00 AM 15 Min. Peak: 10:00 AM
Peak 21 4 63 8 5 92 193
Volumes:
Intersection Control: 1-Way Stop (N8)
It 7.. 1-
D
g
,
~1
U
~
u
n
"n,.:",
;"
~-,
!¡1,
~J
ß
."',
..
f,",'l
*'
8
n
11
o,:ô
è,
!
~,.
q
J
",
, i
,
.
d
Intersection. Turning Movement Count
Prepared by: Southland Car Counters
. Prepared For: Urban Crossroads Client's Project Name
Sunday, June 08, 2003 Client's Ref: 00775 Project No 03-0926-004
N-S Street Meadows Pkwy. E-W Street Pauba Rd. Area: Temeculâ
NorthBound . SouthBound EastBound WestBound
NL NT NR SL ST SR EL ET ER WL WT WR Total
Lanes: 1 2 0 1 2 2 1 1 0 1 1 0
10:00A 10 28 2 3 24 4 4 9 4 5 17 1 111
10:15A 13 32 3 5 28 7 11 5 6 19 1 135
10:30A 7. 37 5 4 25 10 8 20 5 4 15 2 142
10:45A 13 42 4 3 40 5 6 1'5 8 6 24 3 169
11:00A 6 40 6 34 8 5 16 11 8 17 2 154
11:15 A 9 28 6 4 46 4 8 11 15 4 18 2 155
11:30A 10 38 7 0 39 6 3 16 2 9 14 4 148
11:45 A 15 41 6 2 45 12 11 10 9 5 8 7 171
. -,-,-,_u- ._-------,------'--' .-,-.-,-
Totals: 83 286 39 22 281 54 52 108 59 47 132 22 1185
Peak HR 0,855 0.852 0.860 ' 0.907 0.918
Factor:
MD Peak Hour Begins at 11:00AM 15 Min. Peak: 11:45AM
Peak 40 147 25 7 164 30 27 53 37 26 57 15 628
Volumes:
Intersection Control: 4-Way Slop
.
ItL3
Intersection Turning Movement Count
Prepared by: Southland Car Counters
Prepared For. Urban Crossroads Client's Project Name
Sunday, June 08. 2003 Client's Ref: 00775 Project No 03-0926-005
N-S Street Meadows Pkwy. E-W Street Rancho Vista Rd. Area: Temecllla
NorthBound SouthBound EastBound WestBound
NL. NT NR SL ST SR EL ET ER WL WT WR Total
Lanes: 1 2 0 1 2 2 0 1 0 0 1 0
10:00 A 8 34 2 6 20 10 2 9 7 4. 10 3 115
10:15A 36 3 34 4 7 8 5 4 16 8 132
10:30 A 49 7 4 27 2 2 6 5 5 13 12 138
10:45 A 56 7 8 37 10 5 7 4 6 9 7 163
11:00A 5 36 3 7 42 5 7 7 4 5 9 3 133
11:15A 4 37 2 8 37 3 9 11 11 4 12 10 148
11:30 A 5 40 4 3 56 4 3 5 2 0 8 6 136
11:45A 8 52 3 3 46 6 5 6 8 8 12 9 166
Totals: 49 340 29 42 299 44 40 59 46 36 89 58 1131
P~ak HR 0.790 0,873 0.629 0.741 0.878
Factor.
MD Peak Hour Begins at 11:00AM 15 Min. Peak: 11:45AM
Peak 22 165 12 21 181 18 24 29 25 17 41 28 583
Volumes:
Intersection Control: 4-Way Stop
kL4
~
~
í:)
,
II
M
.~
r~
U
~
Û
U
!!'1
a
.'1
.
u
n
n
u
: t
,.1
"I
,
.1
-1
¡
.
LJ
Inti!rsection Turning Movemi!nf Count
Prepared by: Southland Car Counters
.
Prepared For.
Urban Crossroads
Client's Project Name
Sunday, June 08, 2003
Client's Ref: 00775
Calle Cedral
E-W Street
Pauba Rd.
Project No
Area:
03-0926-006
N-S Street
Temecula
NorthBound SouthBound EastBound WestBound
NL NT NR SL ST SR EL ET ER WL WT WR Totat
Lanes: 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0
10:00A 0 0 22 30 0 53
10:15A 0 0 23 48 0 72
10:30 A 0 2 34 40 0 77
10:45A 0 36 37 0 75
11:00A 0 0 0 32 31 0 63
11:15A 0 27 37 0 66
11:30A 0 0 0 22 28 0 50
11:45 A 0 0 30 37 69
. --- -_.,.,--,,-- - - ---,-- -~_..,--- ---~--,-,,_._,---_._-_._--' ....
Totals: 4 5 226 288 525
Peak HR 0.790 0:873 0.629 0.741 0.932
Factor:
MD Peak Hour Begins at 10:15AM 15 Min. Peak: 10:30 AM
Peak 2 4 125 156 287
Volumes:
Intersection Control: 1-Way Stop (SB)
.
~25
Intersection TurllingMovement Count
Prepared by: South/and Car Counters
Prepared For:
Urban Crossroads
Client's Project Name
Sunday, June 08. 2003
Client's Ref: 00775
N-S Street
Green Tree Rd
Pauba Rd
E-W Street
NorthBound
NL NT NR
SouthBound
SL ST SR
EastBound
EL ET ER
Project No
Area:
Temecula
03-0926-007
WestBound
WL WT WR
Total
. Lanes: 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0
10:00A 0 1 22 30 0 54
10:15A 0 25 47 0 74
10:30A 0 0 3 37 36 0 76
10:45 A 0 0 0 38 38 0 76
11:00A 0 0 30 28 0 59
11:15A 31 36 1 71
11:30A 0 0 0 20 28 0 48
11:45A 0 0 30 38 0 69
Totals: 4 7 233 281 527
Peak HR 0.790 0.873 0.629 0]41 0.938
Fàctor:
MD Peak Hour Begins at 10:15AM 15 Min. Peak: 10:30 AM
Peak 2 4 130 149 285
Volumes:
Intersection Control: 1-Way Stop (S8)
!t2(¡;
n
ß
..
it
H
n
if)
~.
.¡c
~
tJ
n
"I
}'!
i~
'"'
8
n
:lJ
tf
d
~~
1)
t".
'"
-
~."
.
~j
.
APPENDIX B
.
CALCULATION OF INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE-
EXISTING
.
.
.
.
EXAM
Wed Jul 23. 2003 14,32,07
Page 3-1
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ---- - -- - - - ---- - - - - -- - - -- -- - - - - - ---- ----- --- -- - - - - --- -- - -- - - - ----
LDS Church Traffic Impact Analysis
Existing Conditions
AM Peak Hour
- - - - - - - - - -- - - - - -- - - - -- - - - - - - -- - - - - -- -- -- -- h ------ - - - - ----- - - - ----- ----- ---- ----
Level Of Service Computation Report
2000 HCM Unsignalized Method (Base Volume Alternative)
.......................................................""........ ** H.'..... H..
Intersection #1 Green Tree Rd (NS) ( pauba Rd. (EW)
................. H....................................*." ".."...". ù...,;.......
Average Delay (sec(veh) ,
13.1
Worst Case Level Of Service,
B
.. H. H H... H. H.... H H****.. H H**H H.** H.. HH****"...**Ù**H**H H'HH.
Approach, North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound
Movement, L T R L T R L T R L T R
-- - - -- -- ----1-- --- --- --- - ---11---------------11-- -------------11---------------1
Control, Stop Sign Stop Sign Uncontrolled Uncontrolled
Rights, Include Include Include Include
Lanes, 0 0 0 0 0 0 ,0 11 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0
h----------I---------------I 1---------------1 1--------------- 11---------------1
Volume Module, '
Base Vol, 0 0 0 4 0 4 3 229 0 0 515 2
Growth Adj, 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00
Initial Bse, 0 0 0 4 0 4 3 229 0 0 515 2
User Adj, 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00
PHF Adj, 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
PHF Volume, 0 0 0 4 0 4 3 229 0 0 515 2
Reduct Vol, 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Final Vol., 0 0 0 4 0 4 3 229 0 0 515 2
-- - - --- -----1------ -------- -11---- ---- -------11---- -----------11---------------1
Critical Gap Module,
Critical Gp,xxxxx xxxx xxxxx 6.4 xxxx 6.2 4.1 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx
FollowUpTim,xxxxx xxxx xxxxx 3.5 xxxx 3.3 2.2 xXxx XXXXxXXXXX xxxx xxxxx'
------------1---------------11---------------11---------------11-----"---------1
Capacity Module,
Cnflict Vol, xxxx xxxx xxxxx 751 xxxx 516 517 xxxx XXXXX xXxx x¡6<X xxxxx
Potent Cap., xxxx xxXx xxxxx 381 xxxx 563 1059 xxxx xxxxx xxXx xxXx xxxxx
Move Cap" xxxx xxxx xxxxx 381 xxxx 563 1059 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx
------------1---------------11---------------11---------------11-------------c-I
Level Of Service Module,
Stopped DeLxxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx 8.4 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx
LOS by Move, ..... A
Movement, LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT
Shared Cap., xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx 454 xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx
Shrd StpDel,xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx 13.1 xxxxx 8.4 xxxx xxxxX xxxxx xxxx xxxxx
Shared LOS,. . B A
ApproachDel, xxxxxx 13.1 xxxxxx
ApproachLOS, B
xxxXxx
Traffix 7.5.1115 (c) 2001 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to URBAN CROSSROADS, IRVINE
B3
EXAM
Wed Jul 23, 2003 14,32,07
Page 4-1
r1
Ü
,
- - - -- - - - - - - - -- - - - - -- - --u-- - -- u - - - --n h- -- - - -- -- h - - - _h- - - h - Uh - - U _h - -- U
LDS Church Traffic Impact Analysis
Existing Conditions
AM Peak Hour
- - - - - - ----- - - - - - --- _u_---- ___h - - - - --h - -- - - -- - - - -_h- - -- h - - - Uh - ---- - U u- --
Level Of Service Computation Report
2000 HCM Unsignalized Method (Base Volume Alternative)
* *.. H* H*H*HH *H HH* HHHHHHH H **. H * * H.. * H H H *. *H HH* HH* H HH
Intersection #2 Calle Cedral (NS) / pauba Rd. (EW)
. * * *. * *..... H * * H * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * H * *." * *. ¡; *
0
Average Delay (sec/veh) , 14.5 Worst Case Level Of Service, B
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * H H * * H * * * * * * * * * * * * * *. * * *.. * * * * * * * * * H * H * * * * * ** H *
Approach, North Bound South Bound East Bound " West Bound
Movement, L T R L T R L T R L T' R
-------_uu 1 0000-----------11------------00-11------0000-----11 --U_h_--_---- 1
Control, Stop Sign Stop Sign Uncontrolled Uncontrolled
Rights, Include Include Include Include
Lanes, 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 ,0 '1 0 1
------------1 u_u--u------II ------------u-II---------u----II----uu-------I
Volume Module,
Base Vol, 0 0 0 3 0 0 1 229 0 0 518 2
Growth Adj, 1.001.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00
Initial Bse, 0 0 0 3 0 0 1 229 0 0 518 2
User Adj, 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
PHF Adj' 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
PHF Volume, 0 0 0 3 0 0 1 229 0 0 518 2
Reduct Vol, 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Final Vol., 0 0 0 3 0 0 1 229 0 0 518 2
------------I-h---------_u 11---------------11 ----00_____---- 11---00""-00-----1
Critical Gap Module,
Critical Gp'xxxxx xxxx xxxxx 6.4 xxxx xxxxx 4.1 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx
FollowUpTim,x¡ooot xxxx xxxxx 3.5 xxxx xxxxx 2.2 xxxx xxxxx """"'<xxxx xxxxx
u----------I-_u--------_h 11---------------11 -----u_h-----II---------------I
Capacity Module,
Cnflict Vol, xxxx xxxx xxxxx 749 xxxx xxxxx 520 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx """"'<
Potent Cap,' xxxx XXXX """"'< 382 xxxx xxxxx 1056 xxxx xxxxx, xxxx xxxx xxxxx
Move Cap., xxxx xxxx xxxxx 382 xxxx xxxxx 1056 xxxx xxxxx xxxx "".xx xxxxx
_u--------, 1-,-------------1 I----------h---I 1--------------- II uun" -------1
Level Of Service Module,
Stopped Del,xxxxx xxxx xxxxx 14,5 xxxx xxxxx
LOS by Move, * * * 8
Movement, LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT
Shared Cap., xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx
Shrd StpDel,xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx
Shared LOS, * . * * * *
ApproachDel, xxxxxx 14.5
ApproachLOS, B
0
8
I
II
8 . 4 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx = xxxxx
A
LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT
xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx
8 . 4 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx
A *
,
n',',
a
~."~}
b
6
xxxxxx
xxxxxx
"'J!
1 g
~.t
n
~l
, "
, ¡
u
Traffix 7.5.1115 (c) 2001 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to URBAN CROSSROADS, IRVINE
t~
" ,
1d
t4
e
u
" ,
i
- J
.
.
.
EXAM
Wed Jul 23, 2003 14: 32: 07
Page 5-1
- -- - - - ---- ------------ - --- -- --- -- - - - - - - - ------ -- -- - - - -- - - - - h - - -- - - - - --- - - --- ---
LOS Church Traffic Impact Analysis
Existing Conditions
AM Peak Hour
- - - - - _n - - - ------ ------- ----- -- --- - -- - - -- - -- - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - -- - - -- -- - - - - - -- ---
Level Of Service Computation Report
2000 HCM Unsignalized Method (Base Volume Alternative)
............................................................................... .
Intersection #3 Camino Romo (NS) I Rancho Vista Rd. (EW)
................................................................................ .
Average Delay (seclveh): 16.4 Worst Case Level Of Service: C
..............................................................................". ¡,
Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound
Movement: L T R L T R L T R L :T R
------------1---------------11---------------11---------"-----11---------------1
Control: Stop Sign Stop Sign uncontrolled Uncontrolled'
Rights: Include Include Include Include
Lanes: 0 1 0 0 I 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 I 0 0 0
---- --------1----- -- --------11- ------- -------11- ------ ----"- - -11---------------1
Volume Module: '
Base Vol: 45 0 24 0 0 0 0 297 60 67 462 0
Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00'
Initial Bse: 45 0 24 0 0 0 0 297 60 67 462 0
User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00
PHF Volume: 45 0 24 0 0 0 0 297 60 67 462 0'
Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Final Vol.: 45 0 24 0 0 0 0 297 60 67 462 0'
------------1---------------11---------------11---------------11---------------1
Cri tical Gap Module:
Critical Gp: 6.4' xxxx 6.2 xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx 4.1 xxXx xxxxx
FollowUpTim: 3.5 xxxx 3.3 xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx, 2.2 xxxx xxxxx
------------ ---------------I 1---------------1 I----------c----I 1---------- -----1
Capacity Module: '
Cnflict Vol: 923 xxxx 327 xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx 357 xxxX Xxxxx"
Potent Cap.: 302 xxxx 719 xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxXx xxxx xxxxx' 1213 xxxx xxxxX
Move Cap.: 289 xxxx 719 xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx 1213 xxxx xxxxx'
------------1---------------1 1---------------1 1---------------1 I----c-------- --I
Level Of Service Module:
Stopped Del:xxxxx xxxx 10.2 xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx 8.0 xxxx xxxxx
LOSbyMove:' . B . A
Movement: LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT
Shared Cap.: 289 ,xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx
Shrd StpDel: 19.8 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx 8.1 xxXx' xxxxX
Shared LOS: C . * A
ApproachDel: 16.4 xxxxxx xxxxxx
ApproachLOS: C
Traffix 7.5.1115 (c) 2001 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to URBAN CROSSROADS, IRVINE
1Y7
~
%J
EXAM
Wed Jul 23, 2003 14,32,07
Page 6-1
I
"~,
C!;,'
-----_u----------u ------------- - -- -------------_u_------------u-------------
LDS Church Traff ic Impact Analysis
Existing Conditions
AM Peak Hour
- - -- - --------------u_-------------_u_----- h__--U__------------------_-_--h-
Level Of Service Computation Report
2000 HCM Unsignalized Method IBase Volume Alternative)
I
* * * * * * ** * ** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ****** * * *** * * ** * *** * * ** ***** ***** * ** * ******* *** **** * '*
Intersection #4 Camino Romo INS) / Corte Villosa (EW)
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *" * * * ***" * * * *'
~
H
Average Delay (sec/veh) , ,8.5 Worst Case Level Of Service, A
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** * * * * * * * * ** * * * * * * * * * * * * * *;. * * * *
Approach, North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound
Movement, L T R L , T R ,L T R L T R
------------I---------------II-----_u----_h I.I-----_u-------II---------------I
Control, Stop Sign Stop Sign Uncontrolled Uncontrolled
Rights, Include Include Include Include
Lane., 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1
------------1---------------11---------------11------"--------11---------------I
Volume Module,
Base Vol, 0 0 0 7 0 43 21 6 0 0 4 4
Growth Adj, 1.001.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.00'1.00 1.00 1.00'i.00 1.00
Initial Bse, 0 0 0 7 0 43 21 6 0, 0 4 4
User Adj, 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00
PHF Adj, 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
PHF Volume, 0 0 0 7 0 43 21 6 0 0 4 4
Reduct Vol, 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Final Vol., 0 0 0 7 0 '43 21 6, 0 0 4 4
------------I----C------c---I 1----------"----1 I-------------h 11---------'------1
Critical Gap Module:
Critical Gp,xxxxx xxxx xxxxx 6.4 xxxx 6.2 4.1 xxxx xxxxx xxxxxxxxx xxxxx
FollowUpTim, xxxxx xxxx xxxxx 3 .5 xxxx , 3.3 2 .2 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxXX
------------1------------:--1 1---------------1 I--------"--h_" 11---------------1
Capacity Module:
Cnflict Vol, xxxx xxxx xxxxx 52 xxxx 4 8 xxxx xxxxx xxxx XXxx xXxxx
Potent Cap., xxxx xxxx xxxxx 962 xxxx' 1085 1625 xxxx xXxxxxxxx xxxx xxxxx
Move Cap., xxxx xxxx xxxxx 952 xxxx 1085 1625 xxxx Xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx
--------- h -1- --- -----------11-- -------------11--------- ------11---- ----u-----I
Level Of Service Module:
Stppped Del, xxxxx xxxx xxxxx
LOS by Move, * * *
Movement: LT - LTR - RT
Shared Cap.: xxxx xxxx xxxxx
Shrd StpDe1:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx
Shared LOS, *
ApproachDe1 , xxxxxx
ApproachLOS:
œ
G
n
b
R
M
i
[)
8.8 xxxx 8.5
A A
LT - LTR - RT
7 . 2 xxxx' xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx
A '
LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT
n
¡,J
xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx
xxxxx xxxx xxxxx 7 . 2 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx
* * A
n
",;II
8.5
A
xxxxxx
xxxxxx
"'"
, í
d
-.>
'"
, ,
d
Traffix 7.5.1115 (c) 2001 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to URBAN CROSSROADS, IRVINE
"
, ,
Blo
-
.
.
.
EXAM
Wed Jul 23. 2003 14,32,07
Page 7-1
-- ---_h_-______h__h- ----------- n- - --Uh_--____-------------------_--_n___-
LDS Church Traffic Impact 'Analysis
Existing Conditions
AM Peak Hour
- -- - - - - - n - - -- - - - - -- --- -- - --- - - ---u - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - h--_-- - h ---u n- - --- -- - --
Level Of Service Computation Report
2000 HCM Unsignalized Method (Base Volume Alternative)
........................................................ *.... *.......,; ù *.......
Intersection #5 Corte villosa (NS) / pauba Rd (EW)
...................... *. *...................... *.. *h...........................
Average Delay (sec/veh) , 16. i; , Worst Case Level Of Service, C
......................................................................... *.......
Approach, North Bound South Bound, East Bound West Bound
Movement, L T R L T R L T R L T R
------------I_hn -.- ---- ---11---------------11- ""--" ------"--11'- - --'"u'-------I
Control, Stop Sign Stop Sign Uncontrolled Uncontrolled'
Rights, Include Include Include Include
Lanes, 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 0' 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 1
------------I-------'-h-----II'-.---.-------~-II-"---"---------II h_------------I
Volume Module:
Base Vol, 42 17 19 12 13 49 27 193 10 10 412 18
Growth Adj, 1.001.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00
Initial Bse: 42 17 19 12 13 49 27 193 10 10 412 18
User Adj, 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00
PHF Adj, 1.001.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.001'.00 1.00
PHF Volume: 42 17 19 12 13 49 27 193 10 10 412 18
Reduct Vol, 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Final Vol.: 42 17 19 12 13 49 27 193 10 10 412 18
-------.h--I---------------I Iu"h--------"-I 1---------------11-----"- -----h-I
Critical Gap Module,
Critical Gp, 7.1 6.5 6.2 7'.1 6.5 6.2 4.1 xxxx xxxxx 4.1 xxxx xxxxx
FollowUpTim, 3.5 4.0 3.3 ,3.5 4.0 3.3 2.2 xxxx xxxxx 2.2 xxxx xxxxx
------------I-h-----h-----I 1-"-------------1 I "_n_n_--hu_ll_n__n_-------1
Capacity Module,
Criflict,Vol: 719 697 193 702' 689 412 430 xxxx xxxxx 203 xxxx xxxxx
Potent Cap., 346 367 854 355 371 644 1140 xxxx xxxxx 1381'Xxxx xxxxx
Move Cap., 304 356 854 327 360 644 1140 xxxx xxxxx 1381 Xxxx xxxxx
nnnn_h-I h-------------II nnhhhn_--II_u_n_--------11 nnn'é__------1
Level Of Service Module:
Stopped DeLxxxxx xxxx
LOS by Move,
Movement,
Shared Cap.,
Shrd StpDel,
Shared LOS,
ApproachDel ,
ApproachLOS,
9.3 xxxxx xxxx 11.0 8.2 xxxx xxxxx 7.6 xxxx xxxxx
A B A A
LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT
3 1 7 xxxx xxxxx 3 4 3 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx
18 . 9 xxxx xxxxx 16 . 3 xxxx xxxxx 8 . 2 xxxx xxxxx 7 . 6 xxxx xxxxx
C C A A
16.6
C
12.8
B
xxxxxx
.
xxxxxx
Traffix 7.5.1115 (c) 2001 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to URBAN CROSSROADS, IRVINE
131
EXAM
Wed Jul 23, 2003 14,32,07
Page 8-1
- - - - - - -- -- - - - -- - - - -- - -- --- - - - -- - h - - -- -- - - - - - - - -- - - u - -- - - - -- - - -- h - -- - -- - - - - u-
LDS Church Traffic Impact Analysis
Existing Conditions
AM Peak Hour
.
- - - _____h______--------------- h___________h___- -----_u_- -h--___--____h_---
Level Of Service Computation Report
2000 HCM 4-Way Stop.,Method (Base Volume Alternative)
* * * * * * * * * * H * * * *.* * * * * * * * *. * * *. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Intersection #6 Meadows Pkwy (NS) / Rancho Vista Rd. (EW)
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** * * ** * * * * * * * * * * ** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *" * * * * * * * * *
"
,,<
Cycle (sec), 0.. .Critical VoL/Cap. (X), 0.427
Loss Time (sec) , 0 (Y+R = ,4 sec) Average Delay (sec/veh) , 12.3
Optimal Cycle, 0 Level Of Service, B
* * * * * * * H * * * * * *... * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * H * * * * * * * * * * * *
Approach, North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound
Movement, . L T R L T R .L T R L T R
- _u_- ------ i:-~ _uuu-----1 I-uh----------I 1---- _hUh - ---llu-h--_uu ---I
Control, Stop Sign Stop Sign Stop Sign Stop Sign
Rights, Include. Include Include Include
Min. Green, 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Lanes, 1 0 2 0 1 1 0 2 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0
_--__~-n_--I-uuu_uu---II--uuuuuh-il c_uu---_nu_II-----_n--uu_
Volume Module, ,
Base Vol, 194 182 13 18 212 124 58 114 139 38 128 49
Growth Adj, 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Initial Bse, 194 182 13 18 212 124 58 114 139 38 128 49
User Adj, ì. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 .1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00
PHF Adj, i.oo 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
PHF Volume, 194 182 13 18 212 124 58 114 139 38 128 49
Reduct Vol, 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Reduced Vol, 194. 182 13 18 212 124 58 114 139 38 128 49
PCE Adj, 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00
MLF Adj, 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Final Vol., 194 182 13 18 212 124 58 114 139 38 128 49
------------1 ~u_-----u_u-II------------_ull-cu_hh------II-_u_uuuuul
Saturation Flow . f:lodule , ,
Adjustment, 1. 00. 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00
Lanes, 1.002.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 1.00 0.37 0.73 0.90 0.35 1.19 0.46
Final Sat., 454 962 527 440 943 519 179 358 481 165 572 227
--u--hh--I--u.----_u_u-II-------------"-II--_uh_u-----II_uu---_uu--I
Capacity Analysis Module,
vol/Sat, 0.43 0.19 0.02 0.04 0.22 0.24 0.32 0.32 0.29 0.23 0.22 0.22
Crit Moves, ****
Delay/Veh, 15.6 11.4 9.3 10.8 11.9 11.2 13.0 12.8 11.4 12.0 11.7
Delay Adj, 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00
AdjDel/Veh, 15.6 11.4 9.3 10.8 11.9 11.2 13.0 12.8 11.4 12.0 11.7
LOS by Move, C B A B B B B B B B B
ApproachDel, 13.4 11.6 12.2 11.6
Delay Adj' 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00
ApprAdjDel, 13.4 11.6 12.2 11.6
LOS by Appr, B B B B
* H * * * ** *. *. ***. *. **.. *.......... *. **. * * * * * * *....... * *.... * * * *. H * *. * *. * **. * * * *.
.
11.2
1.00
11.2
B
Traffix 7.5.1115 (c) 2001 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to URBAN CROSSROADS; IRVINE
.
ß?;
.
.
.
EXAM
Wed Jul 23. 2003 14,32,07
Page 9-1
- - - -- -- - - - - - -- - -- - ------ - - n -- - - - - -- - - n- - - - - - --- - - - - - - - - --- - - - - ---- _n- - --- -- --
LDS Church Traffic 'Impact Analysis
Existing Conditions
AM Peak Hour
- - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - -- - - _nn - _n- - ------ - - - - - - - - - --- - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - n - n - -- - n-
Level Of Service Computation Report
2000 HCM. 4-Way Stop Method (Base Volume Alternative)
* * * * * *** u.*."" * ..*......... *........ *......... u. **...... *....*.................
Intersection #7 Meadows Pkwy (NS) / Pauba Rd. (EW)
........................ **.... **................ *... * *.... *....... **.... **... * *..
Cycle (sec) , 0 Critical VoL/Cap. (X), 0.465
Loss Time (sec) , 0 (Y+R = 4 see) Average Delay (sec/veh) , 12.7
Optimal Cycle, 0 Level Of Service, B
.. *..... * *.. * * * * * * *. *... * * * * * *.. *.. *............ *................... *...........
Approach, North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound
Movement,. L T R L T R L T R L T R
- - - --.-------1---------- -----.11- --------------II----------n- --11--- - -----------1
Control, Stop Sign Stop Sign Stop Sign Stop Sign
Rights, Include Include Include Include
Min. Green, 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Lanes, 1 0 2 0 1 1 0 2 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1
n----------I--.--c---------I 1---------------1 I-----------n--II---------------I
Volume Module:
Base Vol, 119 .241 23 15 259 III 42 88 83 48 212 34
Growth Adj, 1.001.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Initial Bse: 119 241 23 15 259 III 42 88 83 48 212 34
User Adj.: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
PHF Adj; 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00
PHF Volume, 119 241 23 15 259 111 42 88 83 48 212 34
Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Reduced Vol: 119 241 23 15 259 111 42 88 83 48 212 34
PCE Adj:. 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 LOa 1.00 1.00
MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Final Vol.: 119 241 23 15 259 III 42 88 83 48 212 34
-------.-.-.~.--I--_n_---------II---------------II----_n'-------II-----"--'------1
Saturation Flow Module: '
Adjustment: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 LOa 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Lanes, 1.00 2.00 1.00 1.002.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 .1.00
Final Sat.: 440 937 509 434 934 513 406 433 472 423 456 491
_n_---_n_-I--_n_---------II----_n_-------II-----_Cn__n--II---------------1
Capacity Analysis Module:
Vol/Sat: . 0.27 0.26 0.05 0.03 0.28 0.22 0.100.20 0.18 0.11 0.46 0.07
Crit Moves:
Delay/Veh:
Delay Adj:
AdjDel/Veh:
LOS by Move,
ApproachDel,
Delay Adj:
ApprAdjDe1:
LOS by Appr,
13.2 12.3
1. 00 1. 00
13.2 12.3
B B
12.4
1.00
12.4
B
9.6
1. 00
9.6
A
10.8 12.6
1. 00 1. 00
10.8 12.6
B B
12.1
1.00
12.1
B
11.0
1.00
11.0
B
11.8 12.2
LOa 1.00
11.8 12.2
B B
11.7
1.00
11,7
B
11.1
1.00
11.1
B
11.7 16.0'
1. 00 1. 00
11. 7 16.0
B C
14.6
1.00
14 .6
B
10.0
1.00
10.0
A
. *. *.................. *.... *....... **.... * **...... *............ *................
Traffix 7.5.1115 (c) 2001 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to URBAN CROSSROADS. IRVINE
13O¡
n
,j
EXPM
Wed Jul 23, 2003 14,40,14
Page 4-1
I
b
"
- - -- ------ - - - - - - - ---- -- - -- - -- -- --- - - - --- - - ------ -- - - - - - -- - -- - - - - -- - -- -- - - - - - -- --
LDS Church Traffic Impact Analysis
Existing Conditions
PM Peak Hour
--- - - - ------- - -- -- ---- -- - ----- - - - - - - - -- - - - ------- ---- -- -- - ---- - - -- - - --- - -- - - ----
Level Of Service Computation Report
2000 HCM Unsignalized Method (Base Volume Alternative!
HHH H H'H H" H H H' HH' .HH H'H" 'HHH'H 'HH' 'H'HH 'H'" H""'H
f1
h
Intersection nr Green Tree Rd (NS) / Pauba Rd. ,(EW)
.......................................... .,.......... H................ ........."
Average Delay (sec/veh) , 9.9 Worst Case Level Of Service, A
........................... H"""""'" H.... H"""""""""""""""
D
Approach, North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound
Movement, L T R L T, R L T R L T R
------------1---------------11 c--c-----------II------~--------II---------------I
Control, Stop Sign Stop Sign' Uncontrolled Uncontrolled
Rights, Include Include Include Include
Lanes, 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 I! 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0
-- - ----- - ---I--c------- - ----11----- ----------11------------- --11----- ----- -----1
Volume Module,
Base Vol, 0 0 0 4 0 4 6' 197 0 0 148 3
Growth Adj, 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Initial Bse, 0 0 0 4 0 4 6 197 0 0 148 3
User Adj, 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
PHF Adj, 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00
PHF Volume, 0 0 0 4 0 4 6 197 0 0 148 3
Reduct Vol, 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Final Vol., 0 0 0 4 0 4 6 197 0 0 148 3
------------1-----------.---11 +--------------II----c----------II------------_c-I
Critical Gap Module, '
Cri tical Gp "",xxx xxxx xxxxx 6.4 xxxx 6.2 4.1 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx
FollowUpTim,xxxxx xxxx xxxxx 3.5 xxxx 3.3 2.2 xXxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx
------------1---------------11---------------11-----.---------11---------------1
Capacity Module,
Cnflict Vol, xxxx xxxx xxxxx 359 xxxx 150 151 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxxxxxx
Potent Cap., xxxx xxxx xxxxx 644 xxxx 902 1442 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx """""
Move Cap., =xx xxxx xxxxx 642 xxxx 902 1442 xxxx xxxxx xxxx =xx xxxxx
---- -- - -----1-------------- -11------------- --11---------- -----11----- --- --- ----I
Level Of Service Module,
Stopped Del, xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx 7. 5 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx
LOS by Move, . . A
Movement, LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT
Shared Cap., xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx 750 xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx
'Shrd StpDel,xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx 9.9 xxxxx 7.5 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx
Shared LOS, .. A A
ApproachDel, xxxxxx 9.9 xxxxxx
ApproachLOS, A
D
~
~~
~.'.,"
~
D
.
1'1
"j
n
lA
,
g;~
xxxxxx
'1
{¡
;,j
n
:j
Traffix 7.5.1115 (c) 2001 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to URBAN CROSSROADS, IRVINE
",
J
BID
-
d
J
.
.
.
EXPM
Wed Jul 23, 2003 14,40,14
Page 5-1
- - -- - - -- - ----- - - - -- - --- --- - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - --- ---- -- - - -- ---- -- - - - - - - --- - -- - - - - ---
LDS Church Traffic Impact Analysis
Existing Conditions
PM Peak Hour
- - - - --- - - - - - ---- - - - - -- - - - - ------- - -- - - - - - - - - - --- - - - -- - ---- -- - - - - -- - - - - -- -- - - ----
Level Of Senrice Computation Report
2000 HCM Unsignalized Method (Base Volume Alternative)
............................................................................... .
Intersection #2 Calle Cedral INS) / pauba Rd. (EW)
............................................................................... .
Average Delay (sec/veh) , 9.8 Worst Case Level Of Senrice, A
.... ...... ....................... 'HH.HH"'" HH H""'H' HHHH' 'HH'H'
Approach, North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound
Movement, L T R L T R L T R L T R
- --------- --1--- ----- - ---- --11----- -- --------11---------- -- ---11--------------" I
Control, Stop Sign Stop Sign Uncontrolled Uncontrolled
Rights, Include Include Include Include
Lanes, 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 11 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1
--- ---------1---- ---- - - - ----11----- - - ---- ----11----- ----------11-------- -----"-1
Volume Module,
Base Vol, 0 0 0 2 0 2 3 200 0 0 150 2
Growth Adj: 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00
Initial Bse, 0 0 0 2 0 2 3 200 0 0 150 2
User Adj, 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
PHF Adj, 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
PHF Volume, 0 0 0 2 0 2 3 200 0 0 150 '2
Reduct Vol, 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Final Vol., 0 0 0 2 0 2 3 200 0 0 150 2
--------,---1---------------11---------------11---------------11---------------I
Critical Gap Module,
Critical Gp'xxxxx xxxx xxxxx 6.4 xxxx 6.2 4.1 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx
FollowUpTim,xxxxx xxxx xxxxx 3.5 xxxx 3.3 2.2 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx
-------~;-'--I---------------II---------------II---------------II-------------0-1
Capacity Module,
Cnflict..,Vol, xxxx xxxx xxxxx 356 xxxx 150 152 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx:
Potent cåp., xxxx xxxx xxxxx 646 xxxx 902 1441 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxX.,c
Move Cap., xxxx xxxx xxxxx 645 xxxx 902 1441 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx'
------------1---------------11------------"--11---------------11---------------I
Level Of Senrice Module,
Stopped Del,xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx 7.5 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx
LOS by Move, A
Movement, LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT
Shared Cap., xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx 752 xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx
Shrd StpDeLxxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx 9.8 xxxxx 7.5 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx
Shared LOS, . A A
ApproachDel, xxxxxx 9.8 xxxxxx
ApproachLOS, A
xxxxxx
Traffix 7.5.1115 (c) 2001 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to URBAN CROSSROADS. IRVINE
1311
n
EXPM
Wed Ju123, 2003'14,40,14
Page 6-1
0,
"
[
8
~J
- - -- - --- --------- -- --- - -- --u -- - - - --_u- u- - - - - - - - - - - - u--- - - u---- u- --- - - -- ---
LDS Church Traffic Impact Analysis
Existing Conditions
PM Peak Hour
- - - - - - - - -- - - - - - -- -- - - - - -- - - - - --- ----- - -- - - ---- - -- - - - - - - - --- - - ---- - - - --- - - ---- ---
Level Of Service Computation Report
2000 HCM Unsignalized Method (Base Volume Alternative)
J
............................................................................... .
Intersection #3 Camino Romo (NS) I Rancho Vista Rd. (EW)
................................................................................... .;
Average Delay (sec/veh) , 9.4 Worst Case Level Of Service, 'A
................................................................................ .
n',".'
R
.,
Approach, North Bound, South Bound East Bound West Bound
Movement, L T R L T R L T R L T R
------.------I-----uu------II------U-----"-II------u-------II---------------I
Control: Stop Sign Stop Sign uncontrolled Uncontrolled
Rights: Include Include Include Include
Lanes, 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0
-----,-------1-----------.---1 I---U---"------II---------------I 1-------- -------1
Volume Module: ' .
Base Vol: 10 0 6 0 0 0 0 123 12 7 82 0
Growth Adj: 1..001..00 1..00 1..00'1..00 1..00 1..001..00 1..00 1..00 1..00 LOO
Initial Bse: 10 0 6 0 0 0 0 123 12 7 82 0
User Adj, 1..001..00 1..00 1..001..00 1..00 1..001..00 1..00 1..001..00 1..00
PHF Adj, 1..00 1..00 1..00 1..00 1..00 1..00 1..00 1..00 1..00 1..001..00 1..00
PHF Volume: 10 0 6 0 0 0 0 123 12 7 82 0
Reduct ,Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Final Vol.: 10 0 6 0 0 0 0 123 12 7 82 0
------------1---------------/ 1-----------"---1 I-------u------I 1---------------1
Critical Gap Module,
Critical, Gp: 6.4 xxxx 6.2 xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xXxxx xxxx xxxxx 4.1 xxxx xXxxx
FollowUpTim, 3.5 xxxx 3.3 xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx 2.2 Xxxx xxxxx
-----_u----I---------------I 1---------------1 1---------------1 1------------- --I
Capacity Module,
CnflictVol: 225 xxxx 129 xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx 135 xxxx,xxxxx
Potent Cap.: 768 xxxx ,926' xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx 1462 xxxx xxxxx
Move Cap.: 765 xxxx 926 xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx 1462 xxxx xxxxx
------u----I--C------------II--------_u----II-----_u-------II-------_u-----I
Level Of Service Module:
Stopped Del",xxxx xxxx 8.9 xxxxx xxxx =xxx =xxx xxxx =xxx 7.5 xxxx =xxx
LOS by Move, . . A . . . A
Movement: LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR. - RT
Shared Cap., 765 =xx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx =Xx =xxx
Shrd StpDel: 9.8 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx =xxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx 7.5 xxxx =xxx
Shared LOS, A . A
ApproachDel: 9.4 xxxxxx xxxxxx xxxxxx
ApproachLOS: A
D
Ð",','
,.
Ii.
;r1
tJ
0
,
"'D',.'
!i
,,'
a
~,~1
fJ
n
J
~ '\
J
Traffix 7.5.1115 (c) 2001 Dowling Assoc ,Licensed to URBAN CROSSROADS, IRVINE
; ¡
d
1312..
-
(.J
,
. ¡
.
.
.
EXPM
Wed Jul 23. 2003 14,40,14
Page 7-1
- - - - - - - - - -- -- - - - - -------- - - h - --- h -- - - -- - -- - - - - h - - - -- - h --- - ---- _h_- - - - - - - n-
LDS Church Traffic Impact Analysis
Existing Conditions
PM Peak Hour
- - h -- h - -- -- - -- - - - - - -- - - - - - h - ---__hh- - - -- - _h -- - - h --- __h- -- - - - - - - - -- h- ---
Level Of Service Computation Report
2000 HCM Unsignalized Method (Base Volume Alternative)
.... "~""""""""""""""""""""""""'" *. * * * * * * * * *... * * *. * * *..
Intersection #4 Camino Romo (NS) / Corte Villosa (EW)
* * * * * * *.. *. * * * * *. * * * * * * * *.. H*... *..... *. *......... *. *. * *" *'**...*" * ** * *. H *.,;....
Average Delay (sec/veh) , 8.5 Worst Case Level Of Service, 'À
. *....... *. * * H...... * * * H' * *.. * * *. *.. * * *. * * H H. H * * *.... u* * *. * * *..... *..... *.
Approach, North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound
Movement" L ,T R L T R L T R L T R
- - -- - -------I--------h--h-II-- -------------II------h-------Ilh- ----h_- ----I
Control, Stop Sign Stop Sign Uncontrolled" Uncontrolled
Rights, Include Include Include Include
Lanes, 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1
------------I------_h------II---------------I I-----------h--I 1---- -----------1
Volume Module, '
Base Vol, 0 0 a 7 0 9 7 4 0 0 7 4
Growth Adj, 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Initial Bse, 0 0 0 7 0 9 7' 4 0 0 7 4'
User Adj, 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
PHF Adj, 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00'
PHF Volume, 0 0 0 7 0 9 7 4 0 0 7 4
Reduct Vol, a 0 a 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 a 0
Final Vol., 0 0 0 7 0 . 9 7 4 0 0 7 4
h_hh_,cc-- ---------------I 1---------""----1 I------"u------II------- --------1
Critical Gap Module,
C r i tic a 1 G P "exxxx xxxx xxxxx 6 . 4 xxxx 6 , 2 4 . 1 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx
FollowUpTim,xxxxx KXXX xxxxx 3.5 xxxx 3.3 2.2 xxxx XXXXX xxxxx xxxx xxxxx
-----h,-e---I --_h----------II--------------- I 1---------------1 I----------_h-- I
Capacity Module,
Cnflict,.Vol, xxxx xxxx XXXXX 25 xxxx 7 11 xxxx xxxxx xxxxxxxx xxxxx"
Potent èap., xxxx xxxx XXXXX 996 xxxx 1081 1621 xxxx xxxxx xXxx xXxx xxxxx' "
Move Cap., xxxx xxxx xxxxx 993 xxxx 1081 1621 xxxx xxxxx xXxx xxxx xxxxx'
------------1---------------1 I------------u-I I---------------II-------------u 1
Level Of Service Module,
Stopped DeLxxxxx xxxx xxxxx 8.7 xxxx 8.4
LOS by Move, . A A
Movement, LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT
Shared Cap., xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx
Shrd 'StpDel ,xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx
Shared LOS, .. * *
ApproachDel , 8.5
ApproachLOS, A
7 . 2 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx
A
LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT
xxxx xXxx XXXXX xxxx xxxx xxxxx
7 . 2 xxxx xxxxx' xxxxx xxxx xxxxx
A
xxxxxx
xxxxxx
Traffix 7.5.1115 (c) 2001 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to URBAN CROSSROADS, IRVINE'
13(3
n
EXPM
Wed Jul 23, 2003 14,40,14
Page 8-1
I
ft.'
~
-______n_- -______nn__n_n______-______n - - --__h___--_h__n_n______-------
LDS Church Traffic Impact Analysis
Existing Conditions
PM Peak Hour
- n- n - -- - - - - - - -- - -- - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - n - - n - - - - -- h -- - - - - nnh_- - - - h n n - - - - ---
Level Of Service Computation Report
2000 HCM Unsignalized Method (Base Volume Alternative)
Ð
... .................................................... ........ ......... ........
Intersection #5 Corte Villosa (NS) / pauba Rd (EW)
...............................................................,¡............... .
Average Delay (sec/veh),; 10.9 Worst Case Level Of "Service, B
............................................................................... .
I
Approach, North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound
Movement, L T R L T R L T R L T R
_n_--_n_nlnnnn_----nil-Cnnnn-----II--n_h_n_nnll-_hnn_'-nn_1
Control, Stop Sign Stop Sign Uncontrolled' Uncontrolled
Rights, Include Include Include Include
Lanes, 0 1 a 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 a 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 1
--nnh_h-In__hh_------II--_h_n_------II hh--_h_hn-II h_hh--_h_nl
Volume Module,
Base Vol, 9 3 3 8 4 10 20 14 7 34 12 131 9
Growth Adj, 1.001.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Initial Bse, 9 3 3 8 4 10 20 147 34 12 131 9'
User Ad'j, 1.001.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00
PHF Adj, 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
PHF Volume, 9 3 3 8 4 10 20 147 34 12 131 9
Reduct Vol, 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 , 0 0 0
Final Vol., 9 3 3 8 4 10 20 147 34 12 131 9
h'--hh_h-I-h-------_hh II-_n_-------h-II-hhn__hhh II---_hhh~nh I
Critical Gap Module, "
critical Gp' 7.1 6.5 6.2, 7.1 6.5 6.2 4.1 xxxx xxxxx 4.1 >c<:xx Xxxxx
FollowUpTim, 3.5 4.0 3.3 3.5 4.0 3.3 2.2 xxxx xxxxx" 2.2 xXxxxxxxx
_n__n__n-I-n_hhhhn-Iln__h_-_h----II-n_--_hh_n-il hhhhhhnC I
Capacity Module, ' '
Cnflict Vol, 354 351 147 362 376 131 140 xxxx xxxxx 181 xXXx x>ócxx
Potent Cap., 605 577 905 598 558 924 1456 xxxx xxxxx' 1407 xXXx xxXXX
Move Cap., 585 564 905 583 546 924 1456 xxxx xxxxx' 1407 xxxx xxxxx
__--_h_hh l-hnnnh_---lln_-_n_n--n-ll-hnC_--hhh II-"---h_hnh-I
Level Of Service Module,
Stopped DeLxxxxx xxxx 9.0 xxxxx xxxx 8.9 7.5 xxxx xxxxx '7.6 ><xxx xxxxx
LOS by Move, . A A A A
Movement, LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT
Shared Cap., 580 xxxx xxxxx 570 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx """'" xxxxx
Shrd StpDel, 11.3 xxxx xxxxx 11.5 xxxx xxxxx 7.5 xxxx'xxxxx 7.6 XXXX'XXXXX
Shared LOS, B . B A A
ApproachDel, 10.9 10.3 xxxxxx xxxxxx
ApproachLOS, B B
'II
n
'"
U
D
i
II
~~.,.'..."
û
D
n
:;.j
q
, ~
gJ
g/LJ
11
~
U
Traffix 7.5.1115 Ic) 2001 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to URBAN CROSSROADS, IRVINE
; ¡
1
.
.
.
EXPM
Wed Jul 23, 2003 14,40,14
Page 9-1
- - - - - - -- _h- ----- - - - - --- --- - - -- - h- - - - - - - - - - -- --- - - ----- - - - - - - --- - - - - - - - - _h - ---
LDS Church Traffic Impact Analysis
Existing Conditions
PM Peak Hour
- - - - - - - - - - - - ---- -- -- - - - - -- - - - - - h - - --- - - - -- - - ----- - - - - - -- --- - - - -- - - --- - - -- -- - - --
Level Of Service Computation Report
2000 HCM 4-Way Stop Method IBase Volume Alternative)
* * * * * * *.... * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *".;..... * * *.. * * * * *. *.
Intersection #6 Meadows Pkwy INS) / Rancho Vista Rd. (EWI
* * *... *... * * *. * * * * * * * *. * * * *. * * * * * *. * *.. * * * * * * *. * * *... * *... *. *... *. * *. * *. * * * *... *
Cycle (see), a Critical VoL/Cap. IX), 0.176
Loss Time Isec) , 0 IY+R = 4 sec) Average Delay (sec/veh) , 9.0
Optimal Cycle, a Level Of Service, A
* * * * *..... * * * *.. *.. *. *. *.. *.... *... *.. *. * * * *... * * *.... * *.. *. * *.. *. * *. *.. * * * * * * * *
Approach, North Bound South Bound East Bound 'West Bound
Movement, L T R L T R L T R L T R
-"----------1---------------11---------------11--------------- 11----,-----------1
Control, Stop Sign Stop Sign Stop Sign stop Sign
Rights, Include Include Include Include
Min. Green, 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 '0
Lanes, 1 0 2 '0 1 1 0 2 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0
------------1---------------11---------------11---------------11---------------I
Volume Module,
Base Vol, 27 169 19 16 220 40 27 39 46 22 3,0 26
Growth Adj', 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Initial Bse, 27 169 19 16 220 40 '27 39 46 22 30 26
User Adj, 1.001.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
PHF Adj, 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
PHF Volume, 27 169 19 16 220 40 27 39 46 22 30 26
Reduct Vol, 0 0 0 0 a 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Reduced Vol, 27 169 19 16 220 40 27 39 46 22 30 26
PeE Adj, 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1.00
MLF Adj" 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Final Vol., 27 169 19 16 220 40 27 39 46 22 30 26
-------,-~,---I---------------II---------------II---------------II----~------uhl
Saturation Flow Module, "
Adjustment, 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00
Lanes, 1.002.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 1.00 0.48 0.70 0.82 0.56 '0.77 0.67
Final Sat., 561 1220 690 574 1250 710 272 407 531 312 450 417
----uu~---I----------_u--Ilh-------------II----------h---II-------"-------I
Capaci ty Analysis Module,
Vol/Sat, 0.050.14 0.03 0.03 0.18 0.06 0.10 0.10 0.09 0.07 0.07 0.06
Crit Moves,
Delay/Veh, 9.1 9.2 7.8 8.9 9.4 7.8 9.4 9.1 8.4 9.3 8.9
Delay Adj, 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00
AdjDel/Veh, 9.1 9,2 7.8 8.9 9.4 7.8 9:4 9.1 8.4 9.3 8.9
LOS by Move, A A A A A A A A A A A
ApproachDel, 9.1 9,1 8.9 8.8
Delay Adj, 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00
ApprAdjDeL 9.1 9.1 8.9 8.8
LOS by Appr, A A A A
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *.. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *. * * * * * * * * * *.. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *.. * * * *
8.4
1.00
8.4
A
Traffix 7.5,1115 Ic) 2001 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to URBAN CROSSROADS, IRVINE
I316
~
¡j
LDS Church Traffic Impact Analysis
Existing Conditions
PM Peak Hour
~.'~
t~
,
EXPM Wed Jul 23, 2003 14,40,14 Page 10-1
- - - n - -- - - - - - - - _uuu - - -- _u- - n - - - - - - - - u - n - - - -- - u - - - _u - n - -- - - -- u - _n - - --
- -- - - - - - - - - - - - - u- -- n - - _un uuu - -_u - - - _n -- - - - - __n - -- -- - - - n - - - n n n - h --
Level Of Service Computation Report
2000 HCM 4-Way Stop Method (Base Volume Alternative)
ü
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Intersection #7 Meadows Pkwy (NS) / pauba Rd. (EW)
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Cycle (see),
Loss Time (see),
Optimal Cycle,
0
0 (Y+R =
0
, critical VoL/Cap. (X),
4 sec) Average Delay (sec/veh) ,
Level Of Service,
0.167
9.7
A
ft
~j
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** * * * * * * ** * * * * * * * ** * ** * * * * ** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *'
Approach, North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound
Movement, L T R L T R L T R L T R
nn__nu_-I u_uuu--_n_11 un-_u-------II u__n_u_u---II-uuu_-_n_--1
Control, Stop Sign Stop Sign Stop Sign Stop Sign
Rights, Include Include Include Include
Min. Green, 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Lanes, 1 0 2 0 1 1 0 2 0 1 1 0 1 0 l' 1 0 1 0 1
_u'u----n I---------_u---II u_------------II--u-------u--II---------u----I
Volume Module,
Base Vol, 52 187 27 37 189 21 27 80 70 25 75 26
Growth Adj, 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1.00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1.00 1. 00 1. 00
Initial Bse, 52 187 27 37 189 21 27 80 70 .25 75 26
User Adj, 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 LOg 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
PHF Adj, 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 LOO 1.00 1.00 ,1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
PHF Volume, 52 187 27 37 189 21 27 80 70 25 75 26
Reduct Vol, 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Reduced Vol, 52 187 27 37 189 21 27 80 70 25 75 26
PCE Adj, 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
MLF Adj, 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1.00 1. 00 1.00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00
Final Vol., 52 187 27 37 189 21 27 80 70 25 75 26
uu__uuu 1-_n_nu--_n_1 I--_u----------I I --_uu_u--.--II---------------I
Saturation Flow Module,
Adjustment, 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00
Lanes, 1. 00 2.00 1. 00 1. 00 2. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00
Final Sat., 527 1138 637 522 1130 631 498 537 599 488 526 584
uu_----n-l-n--u_uun_II----_nn_-----II--uu---------II--uu----u---I
Capacity Analysis Module,
Vol/Sat, 0.10 0.16 0.04 0.070.17 0.03 0.05 0.15 0.12 0.05 0.14 0.04
crit Moves, ****.
De1ay/Veh, 9.9 9.8 8.2 9.7 9.9 8.2 9.9 10..0 9.0 9.9 10.1
Delay Adj, 1.001.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.001.00
AdjDel/Veh, 9.9 9.8 8.2 9.7 9.9 8.2 9.9 10.0 9.0 9.9 10.1
LOS by Move, A A A A A A A B A A B
ApproachDe1, 9.7 9.7 9.6 9.8
Delay Adj, 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00
ApprAdjDel, 9.7 9.7 9.6 9.8
LOS by Appr, A A A A
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** ** * * * * * * * * * * ** * * ** * * ** *
"'~
q
U
"
U
11
,,"
8
i
n..,"
Ù
f'....'.
,¡.~
8.6
1. 00
8.6
A
n
n
-[
~,
--
Traffix 7.5,1115 (c) 2001 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to URBAN CROSSROADS, IRVINE
, ,
8("
.
"Z
, ,
.
.
.
EX MID DAY
Wed Jul 23, 2003 15,15,28
Page 3-1
- n n - - -- -- _n - - h--n - -- _h hn - - - - n- - - n n h - - ------ -- n - - --_h - -- -h - - n- - --
LDS Church Traffic Impact Analysis
Existing Conditions
Mid-Day Peak Hour (Sunday)
--------------------______n_--____-------____n_-----h__---n_---_nnh--___-
Level Of Service Computabon Report
2000 HCM Unsignalized Method '(Base Volume Alternative)
Intersection #1 Green Tree Rd (NS) / Pauba Rd. (EW)
................ ',H"""""""""""'"""""""""""""""""" *.
Average Delay (sec/veh) ,
9.0
............ .............. ',"""" ""'H"""""'" ..... ....... .............
A
Worst Case Level Of Service,
.................. ',"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""",
Approach, North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound
Movement, L T R L T R L T R L T R
hhhh----I-------_n___h II-------hh----Ilh,n--h_--_h-II n_hhn__h_-I
Control, Stop Sign Stop Sign Uncontrolled Uncontrolled
Rights, ,Include Include' Include" Include
Lanes, 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0' 0 0 1 0 0
---"_-Uuh Ihhh_huhu II-uh_h-_h-h II--_uh--_h_h II----h---"-h"-I
Volume Module,
Base Vol, 0 0 0 0 0 2 4 130 0 0 149 0
Growth Adj, 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00"
Initial Bse, 0 0 0 0 0 2 4 130 0 0 149 0
User Adj, 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00
PHF Adj, 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
PHF Volume, 0 0 0 0 0 2 4 130 0 0 149 0
Reduct Vol, 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Final Vol., '0 0 0 0 0 2 4, 130 0 0 149 ~'O'
h________n In_---_hnnn Iln_----hhh--ll-hh----hhh Ilhuh----u_hl
Critical Gap Module,
Critical Gp,xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx ,xxxx 6.2 4.1 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx;xxxxx
FollowUpTim, xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx 3 . 3 2 .2, xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx
n_n-----h I-hh_h_hhh II-hhh-------- II----u_u------Iluh__nn___u I
Capacity Module,
Cnflict,Vol, xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx 149 149 xxxx xxxxx xxxxxxxx XxxXX
Potent Cap., xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx 903 1445xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx
Move Cap., xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx 903 1445 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx
nnnnnn I_n__nnn_---Il nnnn__--_-- II-uhh----u--II-----_n__u_--I
Level Of Service Module,
Stopped Del,xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx 9.0
LOS by Move, .... A
Movement, LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT
Shared Cap., xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx
Shrd StpDe1,xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx
Shared LOS, ...
ApproachDel ,xxxxxx 9 . 0
ApproachLOS, A
7 . 5 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx
A
LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT
xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxXx
7 . 5 ,xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx
A
xxxxxx
xxxxxx
Traffix 7.5.1115 (c) 2001 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to URBAN CROSSROADS, IRVINE
'8/7
8'~
"
ti'
EX MID DAY
Wed Jul 23, 2003 15,15,28
Page 4-1
~,"'I'
",
(j¡:
,
u - - -- - _u- _u - u-- uu- - -.. - - - - - - - - - - - - - _u- _u - - _u ---- -- -- _h ---- U --- - -- - - - h
LDS Church Traffic Impact Analysis
Existing Conditions
Mid-Day Peak Hour (Sunday)
-.. - - --- --- -- -- - - ------------ -- - - - - - - - - -- -- -- -- --- -- - - --- - - --- - --- - - -- ----- - -- ---
Level Of Service Computation Report
2000 HCM Unsignalized Method (Base Volume Alternative)
"
H
""
.............................. u.................................................
Intersection #2 Calle Cedral (NS) / P.auba Rd. (EW)
................ '."'.".....'.'.....""".'...'."".....'....""".."'."".
I
Average Delay (sec/veh) , 9.0 Worst Case Level Of Service, A
.................................................... ""'.."'..".".'.'..;' ..'...
Approach, North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound
Movement, L .. T R: L T R L T R L T R
u_---------I---------------I 1---------------1 1---------------1 I---h_h---- ---I
Control" Stop Sign Stop Sign Uncontrolled Uncontrolled
Rights, Include Include.. Include Include
Lanes, 0 0 0 0 0 .0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1
uuu------I------"--------II-uh_h-------II-------h------II------h-------1
Volume Module,
Base Vol, 0 0 0 0 0 2 4 125 0 0 156 0
Growth Adj, 1.00'1.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00
Initial Bse, 0 0 0 0 0 2 4125 0 0156 0
User Adj, 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
PHF Adj' 1.001.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
PHF Volume, 0 0 0 0 0 2 4 125 0 0 156 0
Reduct Vol, 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Final Vol., 0 0 0 0 0 2 4 125 0 0 156 0
u_---------I---------------I 1---------------11------"--------1 1---------------1
Critical Gap Module,
Critical Gp'xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx 6.2 4.1 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx
FollowUpTim,xxxxxxxxx xxxxx xxxxx.xxxx 3.3 2.2 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx
--_u--h---I_u----_u-----II---------------I 1---------------1 I--h----- ------I
Capacity Module,
Cnflict Vol: .xxxx ,xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx 156 '156 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx
Potent Cap., xxxx'xxxx xxxxx xxxx. xxxx 895 1436 xxxx xxxxx XXXX xxxx xxxxx
Move Cap.' xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxxxxx 895 1436 xxxx XXXXX xxxx xxxx xxxxx
---- - - - - u--I---_u---~--u-II----_uh_h---II- -- h_u.. -----~ II--u - u- u uu-I
Level Of Service Module,
Stopped Del,xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx 9.0
LOS by Move, .... A
Movement, LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT
Shared Cap. 'xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx
Shrd StpDel,xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx
Shared LOS, .....
ApproachDel ,xxxxxx 9.0
ApproachLOS, A
0
0
n
[J
lJ
7 . 5 =xx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx
A
LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT
=xx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx
7 . 5 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx
A
i
0
~..~,'t...'
~j
n
y
xxxxxx
xxxxxx
n
\
U
u
Traffix 7.5.1115 (c) 2001 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to URBAN CROSSROADS, IRVINE
,,1
e
""
13{~
"
.
.
.
EX MID DAY
Wed Jul 23, 2003 15,15,28
Page 5-1
-- --------_u U-_h_____U_------------ h______------------------------------ ---
LDS Church Traffic Impact Analysis
Existing Conditions
Mid-Day Peak Hour (Sunday)
--------------------_UU--------_u_-_u- -u_--------------_u_----- --- -- --u_-
Level Of Service Computation Report
2000 HCM Unsignalized Method (Base Volume Alternative)
....'*'*...................................... ,*..........:.........................
Intersection #3 Camino Romo (NS) / Rancho Vista Rd. (EW)
.... **... **............................. '*. '.... **.......:......;................:..
Average Delay (sec/veh) , 9.3' Worst Case Level Of Service, A,
.HHH. **. ** **** **.. ** ****.. ** ****"H.....**. ü'.;. **ü.. **... **... .****. ****** **,
Approach, North Bound South Sound East Bound West Bound'
Movement, L T R L T R L T R L T R
UU__u__h I-h--UU"U_U II_uuuu-_u--11 uuuhu_u--Il hu___-UU_h I
Control, Stop Sign Stop Sign Uncontrolled Uncontrolled
Rights, Include Include Include Include
Lanes, 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0
_h--"-c-h-I-u_uu-"-----II Uh_hUUUU II--hu---_u---II u_-u_u------I
Volume Module,
Base Vol, 21 0 4 0 0 0 0 63 8 5 92 0
Growth Adj' 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Initial Bse, 21 0 4 0 0 0 0 63 8 5 92 0
User Adj, 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
PHF Volume, 21 0 4 0 0 0 0 63 8 5 92 0
Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Final Vol. : 21 0 4 0 0 0 0 63 8 5 92 0
--------_u-Iu,-------------II "U--_U,U-_u-II-uh--------u II_uu_uu-h--1
Critical Gap Module:
Critical Gp: 6'.,4,:= 6,2 xxxxx = xxxxx xxxxx = xxxxx 4.1 = xxxxx
FollowUpTim: 3'=5, ><XXX 3.3 xxxxx 'xxxx xxXxx xXxxx = xxxxx 2.2 xxxx xxxxx
uu--------I_u----_uuu-II---------------II_uu_u-_u---II-----_u--uh-,I
Capacity Module:
Cnflict,Vol': 169'xxxx 67 = 'xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx 71 = xxxxx
Potent Cap.: 826.xxxx ,1002 xxxx xxxx xxxxx xXxx xxxx xxxxx 1542 = x,ooô<;.
Move Cap.: 824 = 1002 xxxx xxxx xxxxx Xxx>: = xxxxX 1542 xxxx xxxxx
--_uuu---I-_u---_uuu-Il --h______----- II ---uuuhu--Il u_hu_--___U 1
Level Of Service Module:
Stopped Del: xxxxx xxxx
LOS by Move:
Movement:
Shared Cap.:
Shrd, StpDel:
Shared LOS:
ApproachDel:
ApproachLOS:
8 . 6 xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx = xxxxx 7 . 3 = xxxxx
A A
LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT
8 2 4 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx = xxxx xxxxx xxxx = xxxxx
9 . 5 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx 7 . 3 xxxx xxXxx
A A
9.3
A
xxxxxx
xxxxxx
Traffix 7.5.1115 (c) 2001' Dowling Assoc. Licensed to URBAN CROSSROADS, IRVINE
Bf~
¡J
EX MID DAY
Wed Jul 23, 2003 15,15,28
Page 6-1
~
,~j
e
~.J
- - - u-- - - - - - -- -- --- - u- u- u - - - _u - - - - - - _u- -- - - - - - ---- - -- -- - - - -- - --- -- - - -- -- - --
LDS Church Traffic Impact Analysis
E'xisting Conditions
Mid-Day Peak Hour (Sunday)
- - - -- - - -- - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - --- - ---- - - - - - - - -- - - --- - -- -- --
Level Of Service Computation Report
2000 HCM Unsignalized Method (Base Volume Alternative)
~1
U
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ~ * * * * * * * *.. * * * * * *' * * * * * * * * * * * * * * u * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Intersection #4 Camino Romo (NSl / Corte Villosa, (EW)
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** * * * * * * * * * * * ~ * * ~ * * * * * *, * * * * *",* * *'.** * * * * *** * * * * * * * * * * *. * * * * * * * * * * *
Average Delay (sec/veh) , - 8,4 ,Worst Case,Level Of Service, A
* * ** *** ** ** ****** ** * * ******* ***** *** *.. ***********.**** * ********************* *** ** -
Approach, North Bound South Bound East Bound - ' West Bound
Movement, L T R i, T R L T R L T R
------------I---------------II--------_u----I 1---------------1 1------ ---------1
Control, Stop Sign Stop Sign Uncontrolled Uncontrolled
Rights, Include Include Include Include
Lanes, 0 0 0 0 0 l' 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1
----u ------1--- ------- -----11---- -- --- ------11---------------11-- ------- ------1
Volume Module,
Base Vol, 0 0 0 1 0 5 13 5 0 0 1 2
Growth Adj, 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 LOa
Initial Bse, 0 0 0 1 0 5 13 5 0 0 1 2
User Adj, 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 LOa 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
PHF Adj, 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
PHF Volume, 0 0 0 1 0 5 13 5 0 0 1 2
Reduct vol, 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Final vol., 0 0 0 1 0 5 13 5 0 0 1 2
--:-u---_nl---------------I 1---------------1 I---------_ù---II--- ------------1
Critical Gap Module,
critical Gp,""""" xxxx """"" 6.4 xxxx 6.2 ,,4,,1 xxxx XXXXX XXXXX xxxx XXXXX
FollowUpTim,xxxxx xxxx xxxxx 3.5 ',XXXX 3.3 2.2 XXXX """"" XXXXx XXXX xxxxx
u----------I u_-_u--------I 1---------------1 Iu-------,------II---------------I
Capacity Module,
Cnflict Vol, xxxx xxxx xxxxx 32 xxxx 1. 3xxxx """"" xxxx ,xxxx xxxxx'
Potent Cap., xxxx Xxx><: xxxxx 987 xxxx 109,0 1632 xxxx xxxxx xxxxxxxx xxxxx
Move Cap., Xxxx xxxx xxxxx 981 xxxx 1090 1632 xxxx """"" xxxx xxxx xxxxx
----- - - -----1--- uu ---_U --II ~--~_u_--~----II---------------llu------ -------1
Level Of Service Module,
Stopped Del""""", xxxx xxxxx 8.7 xxxx 8.3
LOS by Move, * A A
Movement, LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT
Shared Cap., xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx """?' xxxxx
Shrd StpDeLxxxxx xxxx xxxxx """"" xxxx xxxxx
Shared LOS, * * ' * * *
ApproachDel, xxxxxx 8.4
ApproachLOS, A
n
b
n
n
Ú
n
11
n
u
j
D
7 . 2 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx
A
LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT
xxxx .xxxx xxxxx xxxx XXXX' xxxxx
7 . 2 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx
A
n
" ~
,,~
B
xxxxxx
xxxxxx
1'1
i'
~-;
. .
Traffix 7.5.1115 (c) 2001 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to URBAN CROSSROADS. IRVINE
Bz..o
8,
",-
.
.
.
EX MID DAY
Wed Jul 23, 2003 15,15,28
Page 7-1
--- h- Uh - -- - - --- - - h -- - - - h - h - - - -- - - h - h - - - - - - _Uh - -- - h - - - h - - --- -- -- - - - --
LDS Church Traffic Impact Analysis
Existing Conditions
Mid-Day Peak Hour (Sunday)
- - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - Uh- - - - --- - - - h - h - - - - - - h - - - - - Uh h - -- u - - -- u - -- u - - h-
Level Of S"rvice Computation Report
2000 HCM Unsignalized Method (Bàse Volume Alternative)
* * *..* * ** * **** * * ,** ***** ..** * * * * * * * ************** ******* ***** *** * * **** *******;; * *
Intersection #5 Corte, Villosa INS) I pauba Rd (EW)
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *.. * * *;. *
Average Delay Isec/veh) , 10.1 Worst Case Level Of Service, ,B
* ** * * * * * * * * *, * * * *.. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *.. * * * * ** * * * * * * * * * * ** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *;.. ¡;
Approach, North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound
Movement, L T R L T R L T R L T R
u_h_h-cul-u_h_huuull u__u_uuuhll--h-~_u_uu-Ilhh-"-------hl"
Control, Stop Sign Stop Sign Uncontrolled Uncontrolled'
Rights, Include Include Include Include
Lanes, 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 1
h_-hh_h-lhh_h--huhllh_hh_hu_ull----_uuuh~-11 ~--_uuuh_hl
Volume Module,
Base Vol, 12, 2 4 2 1 7 9 109 7 7 125 8
Growth Adj, 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00
Initial Bse, 12 2 4 2 1 7 9 109 7 7 125 .8
User Adj , 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. ÒO 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00
PHF Adj, 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00
PHF Volume, 12 2 4 2 1 7 9 109 7 7 125 8' ,
Reduct Vol, 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Final Vol., 12 2 4 2 1 7 9 109 7 7 125 8
_uu_h7.chl--_uh--------llh-------_u_ulluu-~u_h_h-11 h_______U_C"'" I,
Critical Gap Module,
Critical Gp, 7.1 6.5 6.2 7.1 6.5 6.2 4.1 xxxx xxxxx 4.1 xxxx xxxxx'
FollowUpTim, 3.5 4.0 3.3 3.5 4.0 '3.3 2.2 xxxx xxxxx 2.2 xxxx xxxxx
-_uh--~u-I----h_h--h--II-h----h----hllh--h--_u_h-Ilhhu-h-_uhl
Capacity Module,
Cnflict :Vol, 274 274 109 273 273 125 133 xxxx xxxxx 116 XXXX XXXXX ",
Potent Cap." 683 637 950 684 637 931 1464 xxxx xxxxx 1485xxxx XJ<xxx-""
Move Cap., 671 630 950 674 630 931 1464 xxxx xxxxx 1485 xxxx XJ<xxx"
u----hu--I-'---hh_hu-II-----h__u----II-hhh------ull-_uu_uh-_ul
Level Of Service Module,
Stopped Del,xxxxx xxxx 8.8 xxxxx xxxx 8.9 7.5 xxxx xxxxx 7.4 xxxx xxxxx
LOS by Move, * A A A A
Movement, LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT
Shared Cap., 665 xxxx xxxxx 659 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx
Shrd StpDeL 10.5 xxxx xxxxx 10.5 xxxx xxxxx 7.5 xxxx xxxxx 7.4 xxxx xxxxx
Shared LOS, B B A A
ApproachDel, 10.1 9.4 xxxxxx xxxxxx
ApproachLOS, B A
Traffix 7.5.1115 (c) 2001 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to URBAN CROSSROADS, IRVINE
13ll
I
EX MID DAY
Wed Jul 23, 2003 15,15,28
Page 8-1
I
,
-- --__h_- ----------____h______----------------- ----_h______--- -- ------ -------
LDS Church Traffic Impact Analysis
Existing Conditions
Mid-Day Peak Hour (Sunday)
- - - - -- ------- - - ---- ------- -- -- --_h - -- - - - - - - -- -- - -- ---- - - - - - - h - - -- - - - - -- ---- h-
** ** ****** ** *** ******** *H****** * * ** * * ** **** **H *** * ******H* * ** ****'**H *H****
Level Of Service Computation Report
2000 HCM 4-Way Stop Method (Base Volume Alternative)
ü
Intersection #6 Meadows Pkwy (NS) / Rancho Vista Rd. (EW)
* * * * * * H * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** * * * * *
Cycle, (sec) ,
Loss Time (sec) ,
Optimal Cycle,
0 Critical VoL/Cap. (X),
0 IY+R = ,4 sec) Average Delay (sec/veh) ,
0 Level Of Service,
0'.141
8.8
A
I
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** H * * * * * * * * * * * * * *. * * * *. * * * * *. * * * *. * * * *. * * *.. *.. * * * *,
Approach, North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound
Movement, L T R L T R L' T' R L T R
-----'------1---------------11---------------11------------'---11---------------1
Control, Stop Sign Stop Sign Stop Sign Stop Sign'
Rights, Include Include Include Include
Min. Green, 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Lane.. ,1 0 2 0 1 1 0 2 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0
------------I---------------II-----h--------II---------------II------------~--I
Volume Module,
Base Vol, 22 165 12 21 181 18 24 29 25 17 41 28
Growth Adj', 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Initial Bse, 22 165 12 21 181 18 24 29 25 17 41 28
User Adj, 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00
PHF Adj", 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00
PHF Volume, 22 165 12 21 181 18 24 29 25 17 41 28
Reduct Vol, 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Reduced Vol, 22 165 12 21 181 18 24 29 25 17 41 28
PCE Adj' 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00
MLF Adj, 1.001.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00
Final Vol., 22 165 12 21 181 18 24 29 25 17 41 28
------------1---------------11---------------11---------------11-------------_oj
Saturation Flow Module, '
Adjustment, 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00
Lanes, 1.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 1.00 0.62 0.74 0.64 0.40 0.95 0.65
Final Sat., 582 1272 723 587 1281 731 354 455 419 232 583 427
------------1---- ----- ------11--------- ------11----- -- - -------11--------- -- ----I
Capacity Analysis Module,
Vol/Sat, 0.04 0.13 0.02 0.04 0.14 0.02 0.07 0.06 0.06 0.07 0.07 0.07
Crit Moves,
Delay/Veh, 8.9 8.9 7.5 8.8 9.0 7.5 9.0 8.6 8.2 9.0 8.7
Delay Adj, 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00
AdjDel/Veh, 8.9 8.9 7.5 8.8 9.0 7.5 9.0 8.6 8.2 9.0 8.7
LOS by Move, A A A A A A A A A A A
ApproachDel, 8.8 8.8 8.6 8.6
Delay Adj, 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00
ApprAdjDel, 8.8 8.8 8,6 8.6
LOS by Appr, A A A A
... *. *. * * * * * * *.. *...... H *. *. * * * * * * *. * * *......... *... * * * * * *... * * * * *. *........ * *.
a
I
~
0
,
I
p
U
8.2
1.00
8.2
A
0
[]
n
d
B2l
[}
.
LJ
Traffix 7.5.1115 (c) 2001 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to URBAN CROSSROADS, IRVINE
j
.
.
.
EX MID DAY
Wed Jul 23, 2003 15,15,28
Page 9-1
-------- -------- -----_u_-------------- ----- --_h -- ---_h__hu___u_---------h
LOS Church Traffic Impact Analysis
Existing Conditions
Mid-Day Peak Hour (Sunday)
- - - - - -- -- - - - -- -- -- - - - - - - - - - - -- - ---- --- - - - - - - - - - -- --- --- --- ------ - - - ---- ---------
Level Of Service Computation Report
2000 HCM 4-Way Stop Method (Base Volume Alternative)
"""""""""',"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""" .
Intersection #7 Meadows Pkwy (NS) / Pauba Rd. (EW)
............................................................................... .
Cycle (sec) , 0 Critical VoL/Cap., (X), 0.134
Loss Time (sec) , 0 (Y+R = 4 sec) Average Delay (sec/veh) , 8.9
Optimal Cycle, 0 Level Of Service, A
............................................................................... .
Approach, North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound
Movement, L T R L T R L T R L T R
-_U--'------I---------------I 1---------------1 I--h--h-------II------_u------I
Control, Stop Sign Stop Sign Stop Sign Stop Sign
Rights, Include Include Include Include
Min. Green, 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Lanes, 1 0 2 0 1 1 0 2 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1
---------h-I----_u--------II---h----------II-----h--------II-"-------------I
Volume Module,
Base VoL 40 147 25 7 164 30 27 53 37 26 57 15
Growth Adj' 1.001.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00
Initial Bse, 40 147 25 7 164 30 27 53 37 26 57 15
User Adj, 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00
PHP Adj, 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00
PHF Volume, 40 147 25 7 164 30 27 53 37 26 57 15
Reduct Vol, 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Reduced Vol, 40 147 25 7 164 30 27 53 37 26 57 15
PCE Adj, 1.001.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00
MLF Adj, 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 '1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Final Vol., 40 147 25 7 164 30 27 53 37 26 57 15
_h___uuu 1 uuuuuu---II--_u--_u-----II-------------h II-----------_u,-I
Saturad'ón Flow Module,
Adjustment, 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Lanes, 1.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Final Sat., 566 1232 697 563 1225 694 533 576 648 529 572 641
----_h___u 1 u_uu_------- II--huuu-----Il u_---_h------II u_--_u-------I
Capacity Analysis Module,
Vol/Sat, 0.07 0.12 0.04 0.01 0.13 0.04 0.05 0.09 0.06 0.050.10 0.02
crit Moves,
De1ay/Veh,
Delay Adj,
AdjDel/Veh,
LOS by Move,
ApproachDe1,
Delay Adj,
ApprAdjDel,
LOS by Appr,
9.2 9.0
1. 00 1. 00
9.2 9.0
A A
8.9
1.00
8.9
A
7.8
1.00
7.8
A
8.9 9.1
1. 00 1. 00
8.9 9.1
A A
8.9
1. 00
8.9
A
7.8
1.00
7.8
A
9.4 9.1
1. 00 1. 00
9.4 9.1
A A
8.9
1.00
8.9
A
8.2
1.00
8.2
A
9.4 9.2
1. 00 1. 00
9.4 9.2
A A
9.1
1.00
9.1
A
8.0
1. 00
8.0
A
............................................................................... .
Traffix 7,5.1115 (c) 2001 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to URBAN CROSSROADS, IRVINE
32.3
.
APPENDIX C
.
TRAFFIC SIGNAL WARRANTS
.
.
.
.
PEAK HOUR VOLUME WARRANT
(Rural Areas)
Existing Conditions
Timeframe = AM Peak Hour
Major Street Name = Meadows Parkway
Total of Both Approaches (VPH) = 743
Number of Approach Lanes Major Street = 2
Minor Street Name = Pauba Road
:J:
"-
>
, 400
.c
u
IV
0
Ìi
"-
~ 300
E
::J
Õ
>
.c
EJ 200
:I:
õí
E
¡¡;
0100
"
~
High Volume Approach (VPH) = 311
Number of Approach Lanes Minor Street = 2
WARRANTED FOR A SIGNAL
500
0
300
700
600
BOO
900
1000
1100
400
500
Major Street - Total of Both Approaches - VPH
~1 Lane (Major) & 1 Lane (Minor)
-2+ Lanes (Major) & 1 Lane (Minor) OR 1 Lane (Major) & 2+ Lanes (Minor)
~2+ Lanes (Major) & 2+ Lanes (Minor)
- Major Street Approaches
- oj ( - Minor Street Approaches
.. NOTE:
100 VPH APPLIES AS THELOWER THRESHOLD VOLUME FOR A MINOR STREET
APPROACH WITH TWO OR MORE LANES AND 75 VPH APPLIES AS THE LOWER
THRESHOLD VOLUME FOR A MINOR STREET APPROACHING WITH ONE LANE.
Urban Crossroads RURAL (MEAD_&_PAUB).xls (RURAL AREA WARRANT)
L'j
1200
1300
7/24/2003
PEAK HOUR VOLUME WARRANT
(Rural Areas)
Existing Conditions
Timeframe = AM Peak Hour
Major Street Name = Meadows Parkway
Total of Both Approaches (VPH) '= 768
Number of Approach Lanes Major Street = 2
Minor Street Name = Paubâ Road
High Volume Approach (VPH) = 294
Number'of Approach Lanes Minor Street = 1
:I:
11.
>
, 400
.s:
u
..
e
a.
a.
~300_-
E
:>
Õ
>
.s:
.!!' 200
:I:
;;
e
ûí
0100
c
i
500
WARRANTED FOR A SIGNAL
0
300
600 700 800 900 1000
Major Street. Total of Both Approaches. VPH
1100
400
500
--0-1 Lane (Major) & 1 Lane (Minor)
--2+ Lanes (Major) & 1 Lane (Minor) OR 1 Lane (Major) & 2+ Lanes (Minor)
,---0--2+ Lanes (Major) & 2+ Lanes (Minor)
- Major Street Approaches
- .¡ ( - Minor Street Approaches
.. NOTE:
100 VPH APPLIES AS THE LOWER THRESHOLD VOLUME FOR A MINOR STREET
APPROACH WITH TWO OR MORE LANES AND 75 VPH APPLIES AS THE LOWER
THRESHOLD VOLUME FOR A MINOR STREET APPROACHING WITH ONE LANE.
Urban Crossroads RURAL (MEAD_&_PAUB).xls (RURAL AREA WARRANT)
0-*
1200
1300
7/24/2003
~
'Id
9
,
0
I
I
I
~
Ð
i
D
D
0
n
~~
n
J
:J
q
¿ \
L~
-
u
, ¡
, ,
. I
.
APPENDIX D
.
CALCULATION OF INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE-
CUMULATIVE (2005) GROTH WITHOUT PROJECT
.
.
.
.
CUM GROWTH AM. (a)
Wed Jul 23, 2003 17,46,45
- - - - - - - -- -- -- -- - - - - -- -- - - - --- - -- - - - - - - - - - - - ---- - -- - - ----- -- - -- -- --- - - -- - - -- -- ---
Page 4-1
LDS Church Traffic Impact Analysis
Cumulative (2005) Growth Without Project Conditions
AM Peak Hour
- h- -- -- - ----- - - --- -- - - -- - - - - - -- -- - - - - - - - - - - -- -- - - - - ----- - - -- - - -- --- - - - - -- - -- ---
Level Of Service Computation Report
2000 HCM Unsignalized Method (Future Volume Alternative)
Intersection #1 Green Tree Rd (NS) / pauba Rd. (EW)
"HHH 'H' H' H H" 'H"""'" H" 'H' H H H H" HHHH' H H' H' "HH'H",
Average Delay (sec/veh) ,
16.5
"""""'" ~ """"""""""""""""""""""""""" *' * * *' **' *'**
C
Worst Case Level Of Service,
* * * *' * *' * * * *' * * * *"" *"'" * *"" H *' * * * *' *' * * *" *" * * *" *" H*'" * * H H * * *' * ** *
Approach, North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound
Movement, L T R L T R L T R L T R
--- --- - -----1---- --- ------ --11----- ----------II-----u- -------11---------------1
Control, Stop Sign Stop Sign Uncontrolled Uncontrolled.
Rights, Include Include Include Include
Lanes, 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 I! 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0
- -- ---------1----- ---------,11----- ----u----II-------h.------II--- ----- -------1
Volume Module,
Base Vol, 0 0
Growth Adj' 1.10 1.10
Initial Bse, 0 0
Added Vol, 0 0
PasserByVol, 0 0
Initial Fut, 0 0
User Adj, 1. 00 1. 00
PHF Adj, 1.00 1.00
PHF Volume, 0 0
Reduct Vol, 0 0
Final Vol., 0 0
Critical Gap Module,
Critical Gp'xxxxx xxxx xxxxx 6.4 xxxx 6.2 4.1 xxxx xxxxxxxxxx xxxx xxxxx
FollowUpTim,xxxxi< xxxx xxxxx 3.5 xxxx 3.3 2.2 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx
--------_u-I---------------I 1---------------1 I-ùh--h------I 1-------------- -I
Capacity Module,
Cnflict Vol, xxxx xxxx xxxxx 1036 xxxx 721 722 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx
Potent Cap.' xxxx xxxx xxxxx 259 xxxx 431 890 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx
Move Cap., xxxx xxxx xxxxx 258 xxxx 431. 890 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx
-------- -- --1-- - h--_---- ---11------- _u_- -- -11---- ---------- -11----- ---- ------1
Level Of Service Module,
Stopped De 1 ,xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx 9 . 0 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx
LOS by Move, * * * A
Movement, LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT
Shared Cap., xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx 323 xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx
S h r d S t P Del, xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx 1 6 . 5 xxxxx 9 . 1 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx
Shared LOS, '* C A
ApproachDel, xxxxxx 16.5 xxxxxx
ApproachLoS, C
0
1.10
0
0
0
0
1.00
1.00
0
0
0
4 0
1.10 1.10
4 0
0 0
0 0
4 0
1. 00 1. 00
1.001.00
4 0
0 0
4 0
3 229
1.10 1.10
3 252
0 57
0 0
3 309
1. 00 1. 00
1. 00 1. 00
3 309
0 0
3 309
4
1.10
4
0
0
4
1.00
1. 00
4
0
4
0
1.10
0
0
0
0
1.00
1.00
0
0
0
0 515
1.10 1.10
0 567
0 153
0 0
0 720
1. 00 1. 00
1.00 1.00
0 720
0 0
0 720
xxxxxx
2
1.10
2.
0
o.
2
1.00
1.00
2'
0
2
Traffix 7.5.1115 (c) 2001 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to URBAN CROSSROADS, IRVINE
p~
CUM GROWTH AM (OJ
Wed Jul 23, 2003 17,46,45
Page 5-1
ß
,~
~
,~".
i:
------------------------------------------- ------ -------------------------- - ----
LDS Church Traffic Impact Analysis
Cumulative (2005) Growth Without Project Conditions
AM Peak Hour
- - --- - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - --- - - - - -- -- - - ---- - -- -- - -- - -- ---- -- - - -- -- --- - - -- - - - - - -- - -- --
Level Of Service Computation Report
2000 HCM Unsignalized Method (Future Volume Alternative)
Intersection #2 Calle Cedral INS) f Pauba Rd. (EW)
............................................... * * * * * *. *.... *. * ** * **. * * * * * *. * * * * *
B
Average Delay Isecfveh) ,
19.1
. * *. * * '," *.~""" * *.. * * * *.. **.. * *.. * * **. * * * * * *.. * * * * * ** * *. * *.. * *.,;.. * * * * * *. * *. * * *
C
I
Worst Case Level Of Service,
* * *. *.. * * * * * * * * * * * *. * * *. ****. *. * *...... * *. * * * * * * * *** *.. *. * * * * * * * * * *. *. * * * * * *. * * *
Approach, North Bound South Bound East Bound, West Bound
Movement, L .T R L .T R L T R L T R
- - - - ------- -1------ ---.------11---------------11---- -----------11- ---------- ----I
Control, Stop Sign Stop Sign Uncontrolled Uncontrolled
Rights, Include Include Include Include
Lanes, 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1
------------1---------------11---------------11---------------11---------------I
Volume Module,
Base Vol, 0 0
Growth Adj, 1.10 1.10
Initial Bse, 0 0
Added Vol, 0 0
PasserByVol, 0 0
Initial Put, 0 0
User Adj, 1. 00 1. 00
PHF Adj, 1.00 -1.00
PHF Volume, 0 0
Reduct vol, 0 0
Final Vol., 0 0
Critical Gap Module,
critical Gp,xxxxx xxxx xxxxx 6.4 xxxx xxxxx 4.1 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx
FollowUpTim, xxxxx xxxx xxxxx 3 . 5 xxxx xxxxx 2 . 2 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx' xxxxx
------------I---------------II---------------II----------~----II---------------1
Capacity Module,
Cnflict Vol, xxxx xxxx xxxxx 1034 xxxx xxxxx 725 xxxx xxxxx xxxx XXX>< xxxxx
Potent Cap., xxxx XXX>< xxxxx 259 xxxx xxxxx 887 xxxx xxxxx xxxx XXX>< xxxxx
Move Cap., XXX>< XXX>< xxxxx 259 xxxx xxxxx 887 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx
------------1---------------11---------------11---------------11---------------1
Level Of Service Module,
Stopped Del, xxxxx xxxx xxxxx 19.1 xxxx xxxxx
LOS by Move, * * . C
Movement, LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT
Shared Cap., xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx
Shrd StpDel,xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx
Shared LOS, * * . * *
ApproachDel, xxxxxx 19.1
ApproachLOS, C
0
1.10
0
0
0
0
1.00
1.00
0
0
0
3 0
1.10 1.10
3 0
0 0
0 0
3 0
1.00 1.00
1.00 1.00
3 0
0 0
3 0
0
1.10
0
0
0
0
1.00
1.00
0
0
0
1 229
1.10 1.10
1 252
0 57
0 0
1 309
1. 00 1. 00
1. 00 1. 00
1 309
0 0
1 309
0
1.10
0
0
0
0
1.00
1.00
0
0
0
0 518
1.10 1.10
0 570
0 153
0 0
0 723
1. 00 1. 00
1. 00 1. 00
0 723
0 0
0 723
I
I
2
1.10
2
0
0
2
1.00
1.00
2
0
2
n
Tt
~
i
D
~.<l.
:t
~
xxxxxx
~
tl
9 . 1 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx
A
LT - LTR - RT LT -LTR - RT
xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx
9 . 1 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx XXX>< xxxxx
A
f't
i;~
'1
:1
""'
1}
d
Traffix 7.5.1115 (c) 2001 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to URBAN CROSSROADS, IRVINE
'!
u
p.f
xxxxxx
-
c.,
. ,
j
.
.
.
CUM GROWTH AM (0)
Wed Jul 23, 2003 17,46,45
_u -----------_u_---_.o U____h_______.o_--.o___h_____---_h_Uh_U__.o _.0_--
LDS Church Traffic Impact Analysis
Cumulative (2005) Growth Without Project Conditions
AM Peak Hour
Page 6-1
Level Of Service Computation Report
2000 HCM Unsignalized Method (Future Volume Alternative)
- -- - - - -- - - - - - - - ---- - - -- --- ---- -- --- - - - - - - -- - - -- - - -- - -- - - - - - --- ------- - - - - - - - ----
......... * * * *.. *. *.. * * * * * *. *.. * * * *. * * * * * * * * * * * *.. * *. * * *... * * * * * * * * * * *. * * * * * * * * * *
Intersection #3 Camino Romo (NS) / Rancho Vista Rd. (EW)
* * ~ * * * *. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *........ *...............................................
Average Delay (sec/veh) , 18.9 Worst Case Level Of Service, C
................ *............................. *................. *..... *.. *. * * * * *
Approach, North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound
Movement, L T R L T R L T R L T R
.oh_uuu-I uuu_u_u,--Il .o.o.o.o.oouu II .o_-u-h.o_n-II-h.o_nhu__~ I
Control, Stop Sign Stop Sign Uncontrolled Uncontrolled
Rights, ' Include Include Include Include
Lanes, 0 I 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0
--,,----.o---I-hu.o.o--_n-II-.o---------u'-II--uuh_----nll U-unnUUh I
Volume Module,
Base Vol, 45 0
Growth Adj, 1.10 1.10
Initial Bse, 50 0
Added Vol, 0 0
PasserByVol, 0 0
Initial Fut, 50 0
User Adj" 1.00 1.00
PHF Adj' 1. 00 1. 00
PHF Volume, 50 0
Reduct Vol, 0 0
Final Vol. , 50 0
critical Gap Module,
C r it i c a 1 G P , 6 . 4 xxxx 6 . 2 """"" xxxx """"" """"" xxxx """"" 4 . 1 xxxx xxxxx
F 0 11 ow ¡j p Tim, 3 . 5 xxxx 3 . 3 """"" xxxx """"" """"" xxxx """"" 2 . 2 xxxx xxxxx
h__U_u--_ _Cn_uunnu II .o____h--h_U Iln_------"nn-II--_.o.o.oun_-1
Capacity Module,
Cnflict Vol, 1037 xxxx 375 xxxx xxxx """"" , xxxx xxxx """"" 408 xxxx xxxxx
Potent Cap., 258 xxxx 676 xxxx xxxx """"" xxxx xxxx """"" 1162 xxxx xxxxx
Move Cap., 245 xxxx 676 xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx """"" 1162 xxxx xxxxx
.o_.o_hhh I-----hhuu.o II .o.o_.o_U_.o.o II u----.o.o_nnll-hh.o.o.o.o.o 1
Level Of Service Module,
Stopped Del""""", xxxx 10.5 """"" xxxx """"" """"" xxxx """"" 8.1 xxxx xxxxx'
LOS by Move, * * B A
Movement, LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT
Shared Cap., 245 xxxx """"" xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx """"" xxxx xxxx xxxxx
shrd StpDe1, 23.4 xxxx """"" """"" xxxx """"" """"" xxxx """"" 8.3 xxxx xxxxx
Shared LOS, C * ..... A
ApproachDel, 18.9 xxxxxx xxxxxx xxxxxx
ApproachLOS, C
24
1.10
26
0
0
26
1.00
1. 00
26
0
26
0 0
1.10 1.10
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
1. 00 1. 00
1.00 1.00
0 a
0 0
0 0
0
1.10
0
0
0
0
1.00
1.00
0
0
a
0 297
1.10 1.10
0 327
0 15
0 a
0 342
1. 00 ,1. 00
1. 00 1. 00
0 342
0 0
0 342
50
1.10
66
0
0
66
1.00
1.00
66
0
66
67 462
1.101.10
74 508
0 7
a a
74 515
1.00 1.00
1.00 1.00
74 515
0 0
74 515
0
1.10
0
0
0
0'
1.00
1.00
0
0'
0
Traffix 7.5.1115 (c) 2001 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to URBAN CROSSROADS, IRVINE
1)6
",
CUM GROWTH AM (0)
Wed Jul 23. 2003 17,46'45
Page 7-1
rJ
¡O".,'
13
,
--- -- ---- - n___-__----------_U- ------ -- - ----_U__U_--U_-----_U_____h__--__-
LDS Church Traffic Impact Analysis
Cumulative (2005) Growth Without Project Conditions
AM Peak Hour
- - - u - - -- - - - - - - - - - - U - U - - hU - - u - - h - - - - - - - - - - - n - - - - - - - - _u - - - - --- - - - - - - - - - --
Level Of Service Computation Report
2000 HCM Unsignalized Method (Future Volume Alternative)
** * ** ***** ** ********* ********** **** * * * * * * ** * ** *~ ******* * ***** * ****** *" * * * ** *****
"]
.;
t
Average Delay (secfveh) ,
8.5
Intersection #4 Camino Romo (NS) f Corte Vil1osa (EW)
* * * * * * * * * * * ** * * * * * * * *.. * * * * * * *.;. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *. * * * * * *. * * *";, * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *.
A
ft.'..
n
Worst Case Level Of Service,
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** * * * * * * * * * * * *. * * * * * *. *,; *. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Approach, North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound
Movement, L T R L T R L T R L T R
_u__u-_u-l-h-_uuuu--llu_uuu_uu-II----_uu_h---II_uu----------1
Control, Stop Sign Stop Sign Uncontrolled Uncontrolled
Rights, Include Include Include Include
Lanes, 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 o. 0 1 0 1
uuuuu--1 uuu--_uu--II_uuu_uu_u II_u--_u_uu--11 u_uuuu_u-I
Volume Module,
Base Vol, 0 0
Growth Adj, 1.10 1.10
Initial Bse, 0 0
Added Vol, 0 0
PasserByVol, 0 0
Initial Fut, 0 0
User Adj, 1. 00 1. 00
PHF Adj, 1. 00 1. 00
PHF Volume, 0 0
Reduct Vol, 0,0
Final Vol., 0 0
Critical Gap Module,
Critical Gp'xxxxx xxxx xxxxx 6.4 xxxx 6.2 4.1 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xXxxX
FollowUpTim, xxxxx xxxx xxxxx 3 . 5 xxxx 3 .3 2.2 xXxx xxxxx xxxxx xXxx Xxxxx
-_U,_u_uu 1-----_uuuu-ll_u---_uu__u II-uuu_uuu-Il u_--_uu_-_u I
Capacity Module,
Cnflict Vol, XXX>< xxxx xxxxx 57 xxxx 4 9 xxxx xxxxx XXX>< XXX>< xxxxx
Potent Cap., xxx>< xxxx xxxxx 955 xxxx 1085 1624 xxXx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx
Move Cap., XXX>< xxxx xxxxx 945 xxxx 1085 1624 xxxx xxxxx xxxx XXX>< xxxxx
_hu_u-_uluu_uu-_u--II UU_uuuhu II_u_u_uuuu II-~u--_uu__u 1
Level Of Service Module,
Stopped Del, xxxxx xxXx xxxxx 8 . 8 xxxx 8.5
LOS by Move, * * . A A
Movement, LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT
Shared Cap., xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx
Shrd StpDel,xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx
Shared LOS, * *
ApproachDel, xxxxxx 8.5
ApproachLOS, A
0
1.10
0
0
0
0
1.00
1.00
0
0
0
7 0
1.10 1.10
8 0
0 0
0 0
8 0
1. 00 1. 00
1. 00 1. 00
8 0
0 0
8 0
43
1.10
47
0
0
47
1.00
1.00
47
0
47
21 6
1.10 1.10
23 7
0 0
0 0
23 7
1. 00 1. 00
1. 00 1. 00
23 7
0 0
23 7
0
1.10
0
0
0
0
1.00
1.00
0
0
0
0 4
1.10 1.10
0 4
0 0
0 0
0 4
1. 00 1. 00
1.00 1.00
0 4
0 0
0 4
0
~
tJ
4
1.10
4
0
0
4
1.00
1.00
4'
0
4
n
';.~','
lJ
,
0
xxxxxx
~
Ù
8
7.2 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx' xxxxx':
A
LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT
xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx ><XXX xxxxX
7 . 2 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx ><XXX xxxxx
A
n
u
fJ1
It
q
;¡
U
Traffix 7.5.1115 (c) 2001 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to URBAN CROSSROADS, IRVINE
u
'Pip
xxxxxx
t
.
.
.
CUM GROWTH AM (0)
Wed Jul 23, 2003 17,46,45
Page 8-1
-- - ----- n- - - n n - n - _n - -- - - - - - - - --- - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - h - --- - - - - - - - - - n - - - - - - - --
LDS Church Traffic Impact Analysis
Cumulative (2005) Growth Without Project Conditions
AM Peak Hour
- - - - - n- n_- _nn- n - - - - - - - - -- - - -- --- n - - - - - - h- - -- n ----- - _h n- hn- --- -- n- h
, Level Of Service Computation Report
2000 HCM Unsignalized Method (Future Volume Alternative)
* * * * * * * * * * * * * ** * * * * * * * ** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** * * * * * * * * *.... *....'
Intersection #5 Corte Villosa INS) / Pauba Rd (EW)
* *. *. * *... *... * * **'""""", *. *... *....... * * *.......... * * *.. *.. *... **...... .....
Average Delay I sec/veh) , 26.4 Worst Case Level Of Service, D
* *. *. * *... *. ** *... **. * *.. * **.... * * *... *..... *... *...... *......... *... ** *... *....
Approach, North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound
Movement, L T R L T R L T R L T R
-- ___on -- --I_n-- -------n_lln_-_nhh -_nil" --__hh__hOO II-h- - "-- -- oo-nl
Control, Stop Sign Stop Sign Uncontrolled Uncontrolled
Rig/¡ts, Include Include Include Include
Lanes, 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 0' 1 () 0 1
-_0.,---- ----I---h_h-h - _nll--_n ----0._-- -11-"0. ------ ----~ II "-"-hh 0.-----1
Volume Module,
Base Vol, 42 17
Growth Adj, 1.10 1.10
Initial Bse, 46 19
Added Vol, 0 0
PasserByVol, 0 0
Initial Fut, 46 19
User Adj, 1. 00 1. 00
PHF Adj, 1. 00 1. 00
PHF Volume, 46 19
Reduct Vol, 0 0
Final Vol., 46 19
Critical Gap Module,
Critical;Gp, 7.1 6.5 6.2 7.1 6.5 6.2 4.1 XXXX XXXXX 4.1 XXXX XXXXX
Fo11owUpTim, 3.5 4.0 3,3 3.5 4.0 3.3 2;2 xxxx xxxxx 2.2 XXXX XXXXX'
--_----n_--I c_hh---------II------hhh_nll-h_-------c---II-chhh~------1
Capacity Module,
Cnflict Vol, 1001 977 269 982 968 606 626 XXXX xxXxx 280 xxxx xxxxx
Potent Cap., 223 253 774 230 256 501 965 xxxx xxxxx 1294 xxxx xxxxx
Move Cap., 185 243 774 204 246 501 965 xxxx xxxxx 1294 XXXX xxxxx
n_n_-_n_-I--------------- II -----------hnll-_hhhn__h-II-----nn__n_-1
Level Of Service Module,
Stopped Del, xXxxx xxxx 9.8 xxxxx xxxx 13.1 8.7 xxxx XXXXX 7.8 xxxx xxxxx
LOS by Move, . A' B A A
Movement, LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT
Shared cap., 199 xxxx xxxxx 224 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxX xxxx xxxx xxxxx
Shrd StpDel, 31. 7 xxxx xxxxx 23.3 xxxx xxxxx 8.8 xxxx xxxxx 7.8 xxxx xxxxx
Shared LOS, DCA A
ApproachDel, 26.4 16.5 xxxxxx xxxxxx
ApproachLOS, D C
19
1.10
21
0
0
21
1. 00
1.00
21
0
21
12 13
1.10 1.10'
13 14
0 0
0 0
13 14
1. 00 1. 00
1. 00 1. 00
13 14
0 0
13 14
49
1.10
54
0
0
54
1.00
1.00
54
0
54
27 193
1.10 1.10
30 212
0 57
0 0
30 269
1. 00 1. 00
1. 00 1. 00
30 269
0 0
30 269
10
1.10
11
0
0
11
1.00
1.00
11
0
Ii
10 412
1.10 1.10
11 453
0 153
0 0
11 606
1. 00 1. 00
1. 00 1. 00
11 606
0 0
11 606
18
1.10
20
0
0
2(}
1.00
1.00
20
0
20
Traffix 7.5.1115 (c) 2001 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to uRBAN CROSSROADS, IRVINE'
VI
~
J
MITIG8 - CUM GROWTH AM (a) Thu Jul 24, 2003 11,19,28
Page 1-1
r;¡
't
,
. ,
, '~
d
- - - - - - -- -- - - - - - --- - - - -- -- - - - - - --- - - - - - - -- - - - - - - h-- - - - - - - hh -- - - - - - _h- h - - - - --
LDS Church Traffic Impact Analysis
Cumulative (2005) Growth Without Project Conditions
AM Peak Hour
- --------- --------- -------------------- --------------- -----------------u_------
Level Of Service Computation Report
2000 HCM 4-Way Stop Method (Future Volume ,a,l,ternative)
~'1
d
............................................................................... .
Intersection #6 Meadows Pkwy (NS) I Rancho Vista Rd. (EW)
................................... ..~ "," ',;""" ',,:'......,;....................
Cycle (see), 0 Critical VoL/Cap. (X), 0.500
Loss Time (sec) , 0 (Y+R = 4 sec) Average Delay (sec/veh)" 13.8'
Optimal Cycle, 0 Level Of Service, B
................................................................................ .
fl,'
¡1
Approach, North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound
Movement, L T R L T R L T R L T R
------------1-----------'----1 I---------h---,-I 1--"------------1 1-------- -------1
Control, Stop Sign Stop Sign Stop Sign Stop Sign
Rights, Include Include Include Include
Min. Green, 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Lanes, 1 0 2 0 1 1 0 2 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0
------------1---------------11---------------11--------------- II--------h--_h 1
Volume Module, ,
Base Vol, 194 182 13 18 212 124 58 114 139 38 128 49
Growth Adj, 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10
Initial Bse, 213 200 14 20 233 136 64 125 153 42 141 54
Added Vol, 1 7 0 5 5 6 12 0 3 0 0 7
PasserByVol, 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Initial Fut, 214 207 14 25 238 142 76 125 156 42 141 61
User Adj' 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. ÒO 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00
PHF Adj, 1.001.00 1.00 1.001.00 'r.00 1'.00 1.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00
PHF Volume, 214 207 14 25 238 142 76 125 156 42 141 61
Reduct Vol, 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Reduced Vol, 214 207 14 25,238 142 76 125 156 42 141 61
PCE Adj, 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00
MLF Adj, 1. DO 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. DO 1. 00 1. 00
Final vol., 214 207 14 25 23S 142 76 125 156 42 141 61
------------1---------------11--------"------11---------------11---------------1
Saturation Flow Module'
Adjustment, 1. 00 1. 00 1'.00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1'.00 1. 00 1. 00
Lanes, 1.002.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 1.00 0.42 0.70 0.88 0.34 1.16 0.50
Final Sat., 429 902 490 414 886 485 194 327 444 151 525 235
- ---- -------1--- ---- ---- ----I 1---------------1 I---h- --------- II ------- -- ------1
Capacity Analysis Module,
vo1/Sat, 0.500.23 0.03 0.06 0.27 0.29 0.39 0.38 0.35 0.28 0.27 0.26
Crit Moves,
De1ay/Veh, 18.2 12.5 9.8 11.4 13.1 12.5 14.8 14.4 12.8 13.212.8
Delay Adj, 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00
AdjDel/Veh, 18.2 12.5 9.8 11.4 13.1 12.5 14.8 14.4 12.8 13.2 12.8
LOS by Move, C B A B' B B B B B B B
ApproachDel, 15.2 12.8 13.8 12.7
Delay Adj' 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. DO
ApprAdjDe1, 15.2 12.8 13.8 12.7
LOS by Appr, C B B B
............................................................................... .
n
M
0
fi
ti
n
.
n
"I
.'~
~
[I
12.2
1.00
12.2
B
n
, ¡
U
,"
..$
Traffix 7.5.1115 (c) 2001 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to URBAN CROSSROADS, IRVINE
1)<b
.
d
.
.
.
MITIG8 - CUM GROWTH AM (0) Mon Jul 28, 2003 15,59,21
Page I-I
-- -- ---------- - -------- ------------------ -- -- ----- --- ----------------- -- -- ------
LDS Church Traffic Impact Analysis
Cumulative 12005) Growth Without Project Conditions With Improvements
AM Peak Hour
-- - ---------------- ------------------------------------- ---------------- --------
Level Of Service ComputatiOn Report
2000 HCM Operations Method (Future Volume Alternative)
........... ....... .... ......... ........ ....... ....... ....... ..... ....... ..... ...
Intersection #6 Meadows Pkwy INS) / Rancho Vista Rd. (EW)
H""" H. 'H"""" H""" .... ......... H H... ...... H.......;... H"" 'H'"
Cycle (sec) , 0 Critical VoL/Cap. (X): 0.295
Loss Time (sec) , 8 (Y+R = 5 see) Averáge Delai (sec/veh): 10.5
Optimal Cycle: 60 Level Of Service: B
................... H""""""""""""""""""""""""""""'"
Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound
Movement: L T R L T R L T R L T R
---- - - -. ----1--- -----"------11- --- --- --------11-------- - ------11-------- -------1
Control: Permitted Permitted Permitted Permitted
Rights: Include Include Include Include
Min. Green: 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 1Ó
Lanes: 1 0 2 0 1 1 0 2 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0
------------1------ ---- ---- -11- --------------11------- ~ ---- ---11-------- -------1
Volume Module:
Base Vol: 194 182 13 18 212 124 58 114 139 38 128 49
Growth Adj: 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.101.10 1.10
Initial Bse: 213 200 14 20 233 136 64 125 153 42 141 54 '
Added Vol: 1 7 0 5 5 6 12 0 3 0 0 7
PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Initial Fut: 214 207 14 25 238 142 76 125 156 42 141 61
User Adj: 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00
PHF Adj: 0.950.95 0.95 0.950.95 0.95 0.950.95 0.95 0.950.95 0.95
PHF Volume: 226 218 15 26 251 150 80 132 164 44 148 64"
Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ,0 0 0 0
Reduced Vol: 226 218 15 26 251 150 80 132 164 44 148 64'--
PCE Adj, 1.001.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00'
MLF Adj: 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00
Final Vol.: 226 218 15 26 251 150 80 132 164 44 148 64
--- -- ---- -- -1------------ ---11---------------11------- -- --- -- -11---------------1
Saturation Flow Module:
Sat/Lane: 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700
Adjustment: 0.94 1.00 0.94 0.94 1.00 0.94 0.94 1.00 0.94 0.94 1.00 0.94
Lanes: 1.002.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 1:.00 0.43 0.67 0.90 0.35 1.13 0.52
Final Sat.: 1600 3400 1600 1600 3400 1600 694 1147 1427 569 1916 829
-- --- -- -- - - -1----- -- --------11---------- -----11-------- ----- --11---------------1
Capacity Analysis Module:
Vol/Sat: 0.14 0.06 0.01 0.02 0.07 0.09 0.12 0.12 0.12 0.08 0.08 0.08
Crit Moves:
Green/Cycle: 0.48 0.48 0.48 0.48 0.48 0.48 0.39 0.39 0.39 0.39 0.39 0.39
Volume/Cap: 0.30 0.13 0.02 0.03 0.15 0.20 0.300.30 0.30 0.20 0.20 0.20
Delay/Veh: 9.8 8.8 8.3 8.3 8.9 9.2 12.8 12.8 12.8 12.2 12.2 12.2
User DelAdj: 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00
AdjDel/Veh: 9.8 8.8 8.3 8.3 8.9 9.2 12,8 12.8 12.8 12.2 12.2 12.2
DesignQueue: 4 4 0 0 4 3 2 3 3 1 3 1
............................................................................... .
Traffix 7.5.1115 (c) 2001 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to URBAN CROSSROADS, IRVINE
PC)
"1
~' :
,
MITIG8 - CUM GROWTH AM (0) Thu Jul 24, 2003 11,19,41
Page 1-1
fl
d
,~'...,
î
t
-- - --------------------------------- --------------- -- --___h______----- -______h
LDS Church Traffic Impact Analysis
Cumulative (2005) Growth Without Project Conditions
AM Peak Hour
- - - - - ----- -- -- - -- ---- ------ - - -- -- - - - - -- --- - - - - - - - -- -- -- -- - - - -- -- ---- - - - - - - - -- ---
Level Of Service Computation Report
2000 HCM 4-Way Stop Method (Future Volume Alternative)
.................................. .......... ................... .................
Intersection #7 Meadows Pkwy (NS) / pauba Rd. (EW)
n
M
................................ ~...............................................
I
Cycle (sec) , 0 Crit~cal VoL/Cap. (X), 0.886
Loss Time (sec) , 0 (Y+R = 4 see) Average Delay (sec/veh) , 22.7
Optimal Cycle, 0 Level Of Service, C
............................................................................... .
I
Approach: North Bound, South Bound East Bound West Bound
Movement: L T R L T R L T R L T R
------------1---------------11---------------11---------------11---------------I
Control: Stop Sign Stop Sign Stop Sign Stop Sign
Rights, Include Include Include Include
Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Lanes, 1 0 2 0 1 1 0 2 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1
------------1---------------11---------------11---------------11---------------I
Volume Module:
Base Vol, 119 241 23 15 259 III 42 88 83 48 212 34
Growth Adj, 1.101.10 1.10 1.101.10 1.10 1.101.10 1.10 1.101.10 1.10
Initial Bse: 131 265 25 17 285 122 46 97 91 53 233 37
Added Vol, 18 7 0 3 5' 0 0 50 8 0 135 1
passerByVol, 0 0 0 a 0 0 0 a 0 0 0 0
Initial Put, 149 272 25 20 290 122 46 147 99 53 368 38
User Adj, 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1.00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00
PHF Adj: 1.001.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
PHF Volume, 149 272 25 20 290 122 46 147 99 53 368 38
Reduct Vol, 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Reduced Vol: 149 272, 25 20, 290 122 46 147 99 53, 368 38
PCE Adj, 1.001.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00
MLF Adj, 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Final Vol.: 149 272 25 20 290 122 46 147 99 53 368 38
- -----------1-------------- -11------ ------- h 11-- -- -----------11--- ------------1
Saturation Flow Module,
Adjustment, 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Lanes, 1.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Final Sat., 373 785 419 364 779 ,419 ,,352 373 399 378 415 .431
- ---- - -- ----1-------- -- -----11-- -----,-- ------11---------------11---- ------- - ---I
Capacity Analysis Module, '
Vol/Sat, 0.40 0.35 0.06 0.05 0.37 0.29 0.13 0.39 0.25 0.14 0.89 0.09
Crit Moves,
Delay/Veh, 17.4 15.6 11.2 12.5 16.2 13.8 13.6 17.0 13.6 13.2 47.8
Delay Adj, 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00
AdjDel/Veh, 17.4 15.6 11.2 12.5 16.2 13.8 13.6 17.0 13.6 13.2 47.8
LOS by Move, C C B B C B B C B B E
ApproachDel: 16.0 15.3 15.3 40.8
Delay Adj, 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00
ApprAdjDel, 16.0 15.3 15.3 40.8
LOS by Appr, C C C E
............................................................................... .
I
fJI
~
0
,
0
n
B
11.3
1.00
11.3
B
..-1
~
~,
n
, i
d
Vlb
n
jJ
-.
[J
Traffb, 7.5.1115 (c) 2001 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to URBAN CROSSROADS, IRVINE
"
.
.
.
MITIG8 - CUM GROWTH AM (0) Mon Jul 28, 2003 15,59,55
Page 1-1
------------------------------------------ ------- ---- ---------------------------
LOS Church Traffic Impact Analysis
Cumulative (2005) Growth Without Project Conditions With Improvements
AM Peak Hour
- - - - - ------ -- -- - --- - - ----- ---- - - - - - --- - -- -- - - - - - - -- -- -- - - - - - - - - - -- -- - - - - - - - -- - --
Level Of Service Computation Report
2000 HCM Operations Method (Future Volume Alternative)
.................. *. * * * * * * * *. *.. * * * * * *... * * * *. *.. * * *. * *. * * *. * * * * * * ** **. * * **. * * * *
Intersection #7 Meadows' Pkwy' '(NS) / pauba Rd. (EW)
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *. * * * * * * *. * * * * * * * * *... * * * * * ** * * * * * * * * *. * *
Cycle (sec), 0 Critical VoL/Cap. (X): 0.376
Loss Time (sec): 8 (Y+R = 5 sec) Average Delay (sec/veh): 13.2
Optimal Cycle: 60 Level Of Service: B
. * *. * * * * ** * ** * * * * *. * * * * * * * * * * ** * * * * * * * * * * * * * *. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** * * * *. * * * * *. * * * *
Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound
Movement: L T R L T R L T R L T R
------_"__n 1-----------0---11---------------11--------------" 11---------------1
Control: Permitted Permitted Permitted Permitted
Rights: Include Include Include Include
Min. Green: 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10
Lanes: 1 0 2 0 1 1 0 2 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1
------------1---------------11---------------11---------------11---------------I
Volume Module:
Base Vol: 119 241 23 15 259 111 42 88 83 48 212 34
Growth Ac;lj: 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10
Initial Bse: 131 265 25 17 285 122 46 97 91 53 233 37
Added Vol, 18 7 0 3 5 0 0 50 8 0 135 1
PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Initial Fut: 149 272 25 20 290 122 46 147 99 53 368 38
User Adj: 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00
PHF Adj: 0.950.95 0.95 0.950.95 0.95 0.950.95 0.95 0.950.95 0.95
PHF Volume: 157 286 27 21 305 129 49 155 105 56 388 40
Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Reduced 'Vol: 157 286 27 21 305 129 49 155 105 56 388 40
PCE. Adj : 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00
MLF Adj, 1.001.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00
Final Vol.: 157 286 27 21 305 129 49 155 105 56 388 40
------ ------1--------- --- ---11------------- --11---- -- -------- -11---------------1
Saturation Flow Module:
Sat/Lane: 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 170(} 1700
Adjustment: 0.94 1.00 0.94 0.94 1.00 0.94 0.94 1.00 0.94 0.94 1.00 0.94
Lanes: 1.00 2~00 1.00 1.002.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Final Sat., 1600 3400 1600 1600 3400 1600 1600 1700 1600 1600 1700 1600
---------- --1----------- ----11-- ----- ----- ---11-- -- - ----------II-------n------I
Capacity Analysis Module:
Vol/Sat: 0.10 0.08 0.02 0.01 0.09 0.08 0.03 0.09 0.07 0.03 0.23 0.03
Crit Moves:
Green/Cycle: 0.26 0.26 0.26 0.26 0.26 0.26 0.61 0.61 0.61 0.61 0.61 0.61
Volume/Cap: 0.38 0.32 0.06 0.05 0.34 0.31 0,05 0.15 0.11 0.06 0.38 0.04
Delay/Veh: 20.8 18.9 17,0 16.8 19.1 19,8 4.9 5.4 5.2 4.9 7.1 4.9
User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
AdjDe1/Veh: 20.8 18.9 17.0 16.8 19.1 19.8 4.9 5.4 5.2 4.9 7.1 4.9
DesignQueue: 4 7 1 1 8 3 1 2 1 1 5 1
* * *.. * * * * * * * ** * ** * * * * * *. * * * * *. * *. ** * * *. *. * *. * * * * * * * * * * * *. *. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Traffix 7.5.1115 (c) 2001 Dowling Assoc, Licensed to URBAN CROSSROADS, IRVINE
p(\
CUM GROWTH PM (0)
Wed Jul 23, 2003 17,36,39
Page 4-1
~
d
f¡
"..
l]
n__U--- ------_u_----- -u____n______--------- -------_n_h- ------_n__h____-
LDS Church Traffic Impact Analysis
Cumulative (2005) Growth Without Project Conditions
PM Peak Hour
n_- -------- -- -- n_---u__nn_n______--------___n______n____---___hn--n_-
Level Of Service Computation Report
2000 HCM Unsignalized Method (Future Volume Alternative)
............................................................................... .
Intersection #1 Green Tree Rd (NS) I Pauba Rd., (EW)
1]
Average Delay (sec/veh) ,
10.7
................................................ ~...............................
B
~
1.J
Worst Case Level Of, Service,
........................................... t....................................
Approach, North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound
Movement, L T R L T R L T R L T R
n_nn--h-I n__nc-ucuull--c---------_h II ----hn_------II-----"-h~-----I
Control, Stop Sign Stop Sign' Uncontrolled Uncontrolled
Rights, Include Include Include Include
Lanes, 0 0 0 0 0 ,0 0 11 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0
- - h--_- _n -I-h- n_-_uuull.----u uu h---II- - -------------11----- --- _h_n-I
Volume Module, '
Base Vol, 0 0 0, 4 0 4
Growth Adj, 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10
Initial Bse, 0 0 0 4 0 4
Added Vol, 0 0 0 0 0 0
PasserByVol, 0 0 0 0 0 0
Initial Fut, 0 0 0 4 0 4
User Adj' 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00
PHF Adj' 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00
PHF Volume, 0 0 0 4 0 4
Reduct Vol, 0 0 0 0 0 0
Final Vol., '0 0 0 4 0 4
Critical Gap Module,
Critical Gp,xxxxx xxxx xxxxx 6.4 xxxx 6.2 4.1 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx
FollowUpTim,xxxxx xxxx xxxxx 3.5 xxxx 3.3 2.2 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx
h--U--hh 1-- ----- n - -- h-II---------------II "__n ----------11 h-- ---- h_- n_1
Capacity Module,
Cnflict Vol, XXX>< XXX>< xxxxx 511 XXX>< 209 211 XXX>< xxxxx XXX>< XXX>< xxxxx
Potent Cap., xxxx xxxx xxxxx 526 xxxx 836 1371 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx
Move Cap., xxxx xxxx xxxxx 524 xxxx 836 1371 xxxx xxxxx XXX>< XXX>< xxxxx
U--_h___-- I----hh-------II-u------------II--uh---h----II---------"-----I
Level Of Service Module,
Stopped Del,xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx 7.6 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx
LOSbyMove,' . . . . . A
Movement, LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT
Shared Cap., xxxx xxxx xxxxx XXX>< 644 xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx
Shrd StpDeLxxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx 10.7 xxxxx 7.6 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx
Shared LOS,' . B A
ApproachDel, xxxxxx 10.7 xxxxxx
ApproachLOS, B
6 197
1.10 1.10
7 217
0 72
0 0
7 289
1.00 1.00
1.00 1.00
7 289
0 0
7 289
0
1.10
0
0
0
0
1.00
1.00
0
0
0
0 148
1.10 1.10
0 163
0 45
0 0
0 208
1. 00 1. 00
1.00 1.00
0 208
0 0
0 208
xxxxxx
n
3
1.10
3
0
0
3
1.00
1.00
3
0
3
t1,'"
u
J
~l
It,~
.-
r,J
Iii
i]
;
;,..
fj
n
Li
, ¡
, ,¡
L.
'I
f
"
Traffix 7.5.1115 (c) 2001 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to URBAN CROSSROADS, IRVINE
Dll--
" ¡
-
d
.
.
.
CUM GROWTH PM (0)
Wed Jul 23, 2003 17,36,39
- --- - ---------------------------- -- ------- -----------------h____- --------------
Page 5-1
LDS Church Traffic Impact Analysis
Cumulative (2005) Growth Without Project Conditions
PM Peak Hour
- - - -- -- -- - --- - ----- - -- -- - - h- - --- - - - - - - - - --- - - -- - h --- - - - - - - - - -- -- - ----- - - --- ---
Level Of Service Computation Report
2000 HCM Unsignalized Method (Future Volume Alternative)
......... .......... ...................... ......................... .Ù..... B.....
Intersection #2 Calle Cedral INS)/ pauba Rd. (EW)
................................................................................ :.
Average Delay (sec/veh) , 10.6 Worst Case Level Of Service, ' B
... H.... H..... H H' H H' H H""""'" ............... H................. Ü. ..*'
Approach, North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound
Movement, L T R L T R L T R L T R
----h--h--I---------------I 1---------------1 1---------------1 1-------- ------- I
Control, Stop Sign Stop Sign Uncontrolled Uncontrolled
Rights, Include Include Include Include
Lanes, 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1! 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 i
------------1---------------11---------------11---------------11---------------1
Volume Module,
Base Vol, 0 0
Growth Adj, 1.101.10
Initial Bse, 0 0
Added Vol, 0 0
PasserByVol, 0 0
Initial Fut, 0 0
User Adj, 1. 00 1. 00
PHF Adj, 1. 00 1. 00
PHF Volume, 0 0
Reduct Vol, 0 0
Final vol., 0 0
Critical Gap Module,
Critical Gp,xxxxx ><XXX xxxxx 6.4><xxx 6.2 4.1 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx ><XXX xxxxx
FollowUpTim, xxxXx xxxx xxxxx 3 . 5 xxxx 3 . 3 2.2 xxXx xxxxx =xxx xxxx xxxxx
,------------1---------------11---------------11--------------- 11---------------1
Capacity Module,
Cnflict Vol, ><XXX ><XXX xxxxx 509 xxxx 210 212 ><XXX =xxx xxxx ><XXX xxxXx
Potent Cap., xxxx ><XXX xxxxx 528 xxxx 835 1370 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx
Move Cap., ><XXX xxxx xxxxx 527 ><XXX 835 1370 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx
------------I---------------II------------_h II----------h---II--------------~ 1
Level Of Service Module,
Stopped DeLxxxxx ><XXX xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx 7.6 xxxx =xxx =xxx xxxx xxxxx
LOS by Move,' ... A
Movement, LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT
Shared Cap., xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx 646 xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx
Shrd StpDel",xxxx ><XXX xxxxx xxxxx 10.6 7.6 xxxx xxxxx =xxx xxxx xxxxx
Shared LOS, ... B A
ApproachDel, xxxxxx 10.6 xxxxxx
ApproachLOS, B
0
1.10
0
0
0
0
1.00
1.00
0
0
0
2 0
1.10 1.10
2 0
0 0
0 0
2 0
1. 00 1. 00
1. 00 1. 00
2 0
0 0
2 0
2
1.10
2
0
0
2
1.00
1.00
2
0
2
3 200
1.10 1.10
3 220
0 72
0 0
3 292
1. 00 1. 00
1.00 1.00
3 292
0 0
3 292
0
1.10
0
0
0
0
LOg
1. 00
0
0
0
0 150 2
1.10 1.10 1'.10
0 165 2
0 45 0
0 0 0
0 210 2
1.00 1.00 1.00'
1. 00 1. 00 1. 00
0 210 2
0 0 0
0 210 2
xxxxxx
Traffix 7.5.1115 (c) 2001 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to URBAN CROSSROADS, IRVINE
DI~
CUM GROWTH PM (0)
Wed Jul 23, 200317,36,39
- - - - -- -- - -- - - - --- ---- - -- -- U- - ------ - - - - - -- -- - - - -- -- - - - - -- - - - - --- - - - _h- - - - - - - --
Page 6-1
1'1
",1
!1.~,
šl
,
g
LDS Church Traffic Impact Analysis
Cumulative (2005) Growth Without Project Conditions
PM Peak Hour
- - -- - - - - - - -- - - --- ---- - -- - - - - -- - ------ - -- - - --- - - - -- -- - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - ---- - -- - - - - --
Level Of Service Computation Report
2000 HCM Unsignalized Method (Future Volume Alternative)
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *" * * * * * * * * * * *;*
Intersection #3 Camino Romo (NS) f Rancho Vista Rd. (EW)
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *** * * * *** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *... * * * * * * * * ** *
Average Delay (secfveh): 9.9. Worst Case Level Of Service: A
* * * * * * ~ * * * * * * * * ~ * * * * * * "* * * * ** * * * * * * * ** * * ** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** *. * * * *
Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound
Movement: L T R L T R L T R L T R
------------1---------------1 I---------------I/----h---------I 1------ ---------/
Control: Stop Sign Stop Sign uncontrolled Uncontrolled
Rights: Include Include Include Include
Lanes: 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0
------------I---------------/I------------_h 1 1---------------1 I-----------u--I
Volume Module:
Base Vol: 10 0
Growth Adj: 1.10 1.10
Initial Bse: 11 0
Added Vol, 0 0
PasserByVol: 0 0
Ini tial Put: 11 0
User Adj: 1.00 1.00
PHF Adj: 1. 00 1. 00
PHF Volume: 11 0
Reduct Vol: 0 0
Final Vol.: 11 0
Critical Gap Module:
Critical. Gp: 6.4 xxxx 6.2 xxxxxxxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx 4.1 xxxx xxxxx
FollowUpTim: 3.5 xxxx 3.3 xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx 2.2 xxxx xxxxx
--- --- -- ----1---------------11-- --- - ---- --h-I/--------- - -----1/- ---------h---I
Capacity Module:
Cnflict Vol: 310 xxxx 170 xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx =xx 177 xxxx xxxxx
Potent Cap.: 687 xxxx 879 xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx 1412'xxxx xxxxx
Move Cap.: 684 xxxx 879 xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx î412 xxxx xxxxx
- --- --------1------ ---------11---- ---- ----h-II-- ---- ------- --II hUh -- -------1
Level Of Service Module:
Stopped Del:xxxxx XXXX 9.1 xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx 7.5 xxxx xxxxx
LOS by Move: * A A'
Movement: LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT
Shared Cap.: 684 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx XXX>< xxxx xxxxx
Shrd StpDel: 10.3 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx XXX>< xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx 7.6 xxxx xxxxx
Shared LOS: B A
ApproachDel : 9.9 xxxxxx xxxxxx xxxxxx
ApproachLOS: A
6
1.10
7
0
0
7
1.00
1.00
7
0
7
0 0
1.10 1.10
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
1. 00 1. 00
1. 00 1. 00
0 0
0 0
0 0
0
1.10
0
0
0
0
1.00
1. 00
0
0
0
0 123
1.10 1.10
0 135
0 28
0 0
0 163
1. 00 1. 00
1. 00 1. 00
0 163
0 0
0 163
12
1.10
13
0
0
13
1.00
1.00
13
0
13
I.;
~,
m
g
7 82
1.10 1.10
8 90
0 34
0 0
8 124
1. 00 1. 00
1. 00 1. 00
8 124
0 0
8 124
0
1.10
0
0
0
0
1.00
1.00
0
0
0
u
m
j
D
n
fJ
I
11
<.,
n
"
i2
~1
J
Traffix 7.5.1115 (cl 2001 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to URBAN CROSSROADS, IRVINE
11
d
DI4
,
.
.
.
CUM GROWTH PM (O)
Wed Jul 23, 2003 17,36,39
Page 7-1
- - - - -- -- - - - - - - - -- - - ----- -- -- -- - - - - - - -- - - --- - - - - - -- - - - - - ---- - - - --- - - -- - ------ - - --
LDS Church Traff ic Impact Analysis
CUmulative (2005) Growth Without Project Conditions
PM Peak Hour
- - - - - - -- - - - - - - - -- - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - h - - -- - - -- - _h -- - - - - - - - - - - -- --- - ---
Level Of Service Computation Report
2000 HCM Unsignalized Method (Future Volume Alternative)
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * H * * * * * * * ** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *. *. * *.. *. * *. *. *. *. **. * *.. *. * *
Intersection #4 Camino Romo (NS) / Corte Villosa (EW)
*. *. * *. *,* * * * *. *. *.. * *. * *. *.. *... * * *.. * * * ** * * * * * * * **. *... .'** * ** *. * * *. * *. * * *. *.. *. *
Average Delay (sec/veh): 8.5 Worst Case Level Of Service: A
* * * *. * * *. * * * * * * * * ** * * * * ** ** * * * * * * ** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** * * * * * * * ** * *... * * * * * * *..:. * * * * * *
Approach, North Bound South Bound East Bound West BoUI)d
Movement: L T R L T R L T R L T R
- - -------- --1----- ----------11-- - ----- - ------11---- - ----------11'---- -------- - --I
Control: Stop Sign Stop Sign Uncontrolled Uncontrolled
Rights, Include Include Include Include
Lanes: 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0' 1 0 1
------------1---------------11---------------11--------------" 11---------------1
Volume Module:' ,
Base Vol, 0 0 0 7 0 9 7 4 0 0, 7 4
Growth Adj: 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10'
Initial Bse: 0 0 0 8 0 10 8 4 0 0 8 4
Added Vol, 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
PasserByVo1: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Initial Fut: 0 0 0 8 0 10 8 4 0 0 8 4
User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.'00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
PHF Adj: 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 '1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00
PHF Volume: 0 0 0 8 0 10 8 4 0 0 8 '4
Reduct Vol: 0 a 0 0 0 0 a 0 0 0 0 0
Final Vol.: 0 0 a 8 0 10 8 4 0 0 8 4
Critical Gap Module:
Critical Gp""'xxx xxxx xxxxx 6.4 xxxx 6.2 4.1 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx
F 0 11 ow U P Tim: xxxxx xxxx xxxxx 3 . 5 xxxx 3 . 3 2 . 2 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx
- ---- -------1---------- -----11--- - -- -- -------11--- ------------11---------- -----I
Capacity Module:
Cnflict Vol, xxxx xxxx xxxxx 28 xxxx 8 12 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx
Potent Cap.: xxxx xxxx xxxxx 993 xxxx 1080 1620 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx
Move Cap., xxxx xxxx xxxxx 989 xxxx 1080 1620 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx
-- - -- -- -- ---1-- ------ -------11------- --------11---------------11-------- - ------I
Level Of service Module:
Stopped Del.xxxxx xxxx xxxxx 8.7 xxxx 8.4
LOS by Move: * * * A A
Movement: LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT
Shared Cap.: xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx XXXXX
Shrd StpDe1 :xxxxxxxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx
Shared LOS, * * *
ApproachDel, xxxxxx 8.5
ApproachLOS: A
7 . 2 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx
A
LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT
xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx
7 . 2 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxX xxxxx
A
xxxxxx
xxxxxx
Traffix 7.5.1115 (c) 2001 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to URBAN CROSSROADS, IRVINE
1)['5
i
CUM GROWTH PM 10)
Wed Jul 23, 2003 17,36,39
Page 8-1
; 1
~1
- - - - - - - - - - - - - ----- - u - - - - - ---- u - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - u - - - - - - - -- u- -- - --- -- - - -- - u - - --
LDS Church Traffic Impact Analysis
Cumulative 12005) Growth Without Project Conditions
PM Peak Hour
8
u
- - --- - u - -- -- - - -- - - - - uu - - u - - - - - -- - - --- -- - - - - -- - - - -- - - - - h - - -- u - - - - - - - ---- - --
Level Of Service Computation Report
2000 HCM Unsignalized Method (Future Volume Alternative)
7.1..
~j
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** * * * * * * * * *
Intersection #5 Corte Villosa (NS) / pauba Rd IEW)
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** *
Average Delay Isec/veh) ,
12.3
Worst Case Level Of 'Service,
B.
D
~...'
Ll
* * * * * * * * ** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** * * * * * * ~ * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** * * * * * * ** *" *""
Approach, North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound
Movement, L T R L T R L T R L T R
------------I---------------II--h--_u------II-----hu------'II--h---------h I
Control, Stop Sign Stop Sign Uncontrolled Uncontrolled'
Rights, Include Include Include Include
Lanes, 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 1
-------- ----1--------- ------1 I------------h-I 1----- - ------- - -11--- h-- --------1
Volume Module, "
Base Vol, 9 3 3 8 4 10 20 147 34 12 131 9
Growth Adj' 1.10'1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10
Initial Bse, 10 3 3 9 4 11 22 162 37 13 144 10
Added Vol, 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 72 0 0 45 0
PasserByVol, 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Initial Fut, 10 3 3 9 4 11 22 234 37 13 189 10
User Adj, 1.001.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 '1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
PHF Adj, 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
PHF Volume, 10 3 3 9 4 11 22 234 37 13 189 10
Reduct Vol, 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Final Vol., 10 3 3 9 4 11 22 234 37, 13 189 10
Critical Gap Module,
Critical Gp, 7.1 6.5 6.2 7.1 6.5 6.2 4.1 xxxx xxxxx 4.1 xxxx xxxxx
FollowUpTim, 3.5 4.0 3.3 3.5 4.0 3.3 2.2 XXXX xxxxx 2,2,xxxx xxxxx
_uuu-----I-----h--------I'I ----_h--h_h-II--------_n_---II-~--h_h_nu-I
Capacity Module,
Cnflict Vol, 506 503 234 515 531 189 199 xxxx xxxxx 271 XXxx xxxxx
Potent Cap., 480 474 810 473 457 858 1385 ><XXX xxxxx 1304 ><XXX xxxxx
Move Cap., 461 461 810 460 445 858 1385 xxxx xxxxx 1304xxxx xxxxx
_u u _n -- - -I h---- -------- -11- u ------ h -u-II------_n u -- --11--------- ----h 1
Level Of Service Module,
Stopped Del,xxxxx xxxx 9.5 xxxxx ><XXX 9.3
LOS by Move, ,* A A
Movement, LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT
Shared Cap., 461 xxxx xxxxx 455 xxxx xxxxx
Shrd StpDel, 13.0 xxxx xxxxx 13.2 xxxx xxxxx
Shared LOS, B * B
ApproachDel, 12.3
ApproachLOS, B
Ð
D
ß
i
U~.f'
¡.
"
l1
.}
7 . 6 ><XXX xxxxx
A
LT - LTR - RT
7.8 'xxxx xxxxx
A
LT - LTR - RT
!7i.'
il
xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx
7 . 6 xxxx xxxxx 7 . 8 xxxx xxxxx
A A
11.4
B
xxxxxx
xxxxxx
11
'f
d
."
\
J
Traffix 7.5.1115 Ic) 2001 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to URBAN CROSSROADS, IRVINE
J
Vllo
,
.
.
.
MITIG8 - CUM GROWTH PM (0) Wed Jul 23, 2003 17,48,07
Page 1-1
- - - - - - - - -- u - - - - n - - - -- - - - _u u - - - - u - - - u - h - -- u- - U n - -- -_h n - U _u n - - -- u-
LDS Church Traffic Impact Analysis'
Cumulative (2005) Growth Withoút Project Conditions
PM Peak Hour
- - - - - u - - - - - - - n- - - - n -- - - - - -- - - - - - - - - -- Uhh_- h- - --- U h U _h_h- n U- - U- ---
Level Of Service Computation Report
2000 HCM 4-Way Stop Method (Future Volume Alternative)'
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *.... *. * * * *. * * * * * * * *. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *,; * *ù* * *... *... * * * * * * * * * * * ** *
Intersection #6 Meadows Pkwy INS) / Rancho Vista Rd. (EW)
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *...... * * * * * * **. * *... .'** *. *. * *.....,;.. * *. * * ** .Ú.. *** ** * *,;.. Ù* * *
Cycle (sec), 0 Critical VoL/Cap. (X), 0.228
Loss Time (sec) , 0 (Y+R = 4 sec) Average Delay Isec/veh) , 9.8
Optimal Cycle, 0 Level Of Service, A
* *. *.. * *....* * *. **.... * * * *. *...... *.. * * * * * * * * *. ** * * *.. * * * * * * ...'. * *. * ** .'.. *.... * *
Approach, North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound
Movement, L T R L T R L T R L T R
_u_uu_u-I---u_uu_uull------uuu---II----u---hh--II-------huu--I
Control, Stop Sign Stop Sign Stop Sign 'Stop Sign
Rights, Include Include Include Include
Min. Green, 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Lanes, 1 0 2 0 1 1 0 2 0 1 0 1 0 ,1 0 0 1 0 1 0
U--U__"_n I u_uu-_uuull--h--hh_-_u II_n------------II--------hu---1
Volume Module,
Base Vol, 27 169 19 16 220 40 27 39 46 22 30 26
Growth Adj, 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10
Initial Bse, 30 186 21 18 242 44 30 43 51 24 33 29
Added Vol, 422 0 2424 30 25 0 2 0 0 22
PasserByVol, 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Initial Fut, 34 208 21 42 266 74 55 43 53 24 33 51
User Adj, 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00
PHF Adj, 1.001.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.00 I.OO 1.00 1.001.00, 1.00
PHF Volume, 34 20B 21 42 266 74 55 43 53 24 33 51
Reduct Vol, 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Reduced Vol, 34 208 21 42 266 74 55 43 53 '24 33 51
PCE Adj, 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00
MLF Adj, 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00
Final Vol., 34 208 21 42 266 74 55 43 53 24 33 51'
uu_u-_u-I uu_h_UU-U 11--------------" II hU___uuuu II----_uuunu I
Saturation Flow Module,
Adjustment, 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00
Lan~s, 1.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 1.00 0.73 0.57 0.70 0.45 0.61 0.94
Final Sat., 517 1120 625 53B 1168 656 375 315 410 231 320 555
uh--uh--I--u-_uu---ull uu__hUh_u II u__u'"--------II--"--UC-_u---I
Capacity Analysis Module,
Vol/Sat, 0.07 0.19 0.03 O.OB 0.23 0.11 0.15 0.14 0.13 0.10 0.10 0,09
Crit Moves,
Delay/Veh, 9.B 10.2 B.3 9.7 10.3 B.6 10.4 9.8 9.2 9.9 9.8
Delay Adj, 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00
AdjDel/Veh, 9.8 10.2 8.3 9.7 10.3 8.6 10.4 9.8 9.2 9.9 9.8
LOS by Move, A B A A B A B A A A A
ApproachDel, 10.0 9.9 9.8 9.4
Delay Adj' 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00
ApprAdjDel, 10.0 9.9 9.8 9.4
LOS by Appr, A A A A
.. *.. *. * ** * * * * * *. * *.. *..... * *.......... *.. * * * *. * * * *. *. *... **... ** * * * * *.. *.... **.
8.9
1. 00
8.9
A
Traffix 7.5.1115 (c) 2001 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to URBAN CROSSROADS, IRVINE
1)\1
MITIG8 - CUM GROWTH PM (OJ Mon Jul 28. 2003 16,11,58
Page 1-1
".:.;.1.
i
"
,
--- --------------- ----------- ------------ --- ------------------------- -----------
LDS Church Traffic Impact Analysis
Cumulative (2005) Growth Without Project Conditions With Improvements
PM Peak Hour
- - - - - - - - --- - -- - - - - - - - - - - --- - - - - - --- -- - - - -- - - -- - - - ---- - - - -- ------ - - - -- -- - - - - - ----
t1
ß
Level Of service computation Repor.t
2000 HCM operations Method (Future Volume Alternative)
........ ........................ """.""""""""" ........................
Intersection #6 Meadows Pkwy (NS) / Rancho Vista. Rd~ (EW)
....... ',"""""""""" ".',"","""""" .,. ... '.""""""""""""'"
Cycle (sec) , 0 . Critical VoL/Cap. (X), 0.151
Loss Time (sec) , 8 (Y+R =. 5 sec) Average Delay (sec/veh) , 8.9
optimal Cycle, 60 Level Of Service, A
........ * *. * * * *.. *..... * *...... *,* *.. *. * *. *. *.... * * ~ *. * * ..*.. * *.. **. *....... *. * * *.
I
~1...
!¡j
Approach, North Bound South Bound East Bound, west Bound
Movement, L T R L T R L T R L T R
---- --------1- - _c------ -----11-------- -- ---- -11- ------ --------11--------- - - ----I
Control, Permitted permitted Permitted Permitted
Rights, Include Include Include Include
Min. Green, 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10
Lanes, 1 0 2 0 1 1 0 2 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0
------------1---------------11---------------11---------------11---------------I
Volume Module,
Base Vol, 27 169 19 16 220 40 27 39 46 22 30 26
Growth Adj, 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10
Initial Bse, 30 186 21 18 242 44 30 43 51 24 33 29
Added Vol, 4 22 0 24 24 30 25 0 2 0 0 22
PasserByVol, 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Initial Fut, 34 208 21 42 266 74 55 43 53 24 33 51
User Adj' 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. OÓ 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00
PHF Adj' 0.950.95 0.95 0.950.95 .0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.950.95 0.95
PHF Volume, 35 219 22 44 280 .78 58 45 55 25 35 53
Reduct Vol, 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Reduced Vol, 35 219 22 44 280 78 58 45 55 25 35 53
PCE Adj' 1.001.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
MLF Adj, 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.0.0 1.00 1.00
Final Vol., 35 219 22 44 280 78 58 45 55 25 35 53
------------1---------------11---------------11-----------.----11---------------I
Saturation Flow Module,
Sat/Lane, 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700
Adjustment, 0.94 1.00 0.94 0.94 1.00 0.94 0.94 1.00 0.94 0.94 1.00 0.94
Lanes, 1.00 2.00 1.00 1.002.00 1.00 0.74 0.55 0.71 0.46 0.59 0.95
Final Sat., 1600 3400 1600 1600 3400 1600 1185 930 1140 732 998 1530
------------1---------------11---------------11---------------11---------------I
Capacity Analysis Module,
Vol/Sat, 0.02 0.06 0.01 0.03 0.08 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.03 0.03 0.03
Crit Moves,
Green/Cycle, 0.55 0.55 0.55 0.55 0.55 0.55 0.32 0.32 0.32 0.32 0.32 0.32
Volume/Cap, 0.04 0.12 0.03 0.05 0.15 0.09 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.11 0.11 0.11
Delay/veh, 6.4 6.7 6.3 6.4 6.8 6.6 14.6 14.6 14.6 14.4 14.4 14.4
User DelAdj, 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
AdjDel/Veh, 6.4 6.7 6.3 6.4 6.8 6.6 14.6 14.6 14.6 14.4 14,4 14.4
DesignQueue, 1 3 0 1 4 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
. *..... * *. *... *. *.. *.. *.. * * * *... *... *. * *... * *...... * * * *.. * *. *.. * * * *. * * * *. *. ** * * *
~
U
Ü,:,.,
.¡
:ì
1~
~
:]
~
g
~"
U
~.;
iii
f~
.:;)
c~
"7
,
"i
Traffix 7.5.1115 (c) 2001 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to URBAN CROSSROADS, IRVINE
']
17 \<&
~
.
.
.
MITIG8 - CUM GROWTH PM (0) Wed Jul 23, 2003 17,48,21
Page 1-1
-- - - - - - - - - - -- - -- -- - - -- --- - - - __h - - - - --- - - - - - - - - --- - - -- - h - -- - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - -- - --
LDS Church Traffic Impact Analysis
Cumulative (2005) Growth Without Project Conditions.
PM Peak Hour
- - - - -- -- - - ------ - - --- - - -- - ----- --------- --- - -- --- - - -- h --n - - - -- - - - - - - - ---- -- h-
Level Of Service Computation Report
2000 HCM 4-Way Stop Method (Future Volume Alternative)
......................................................,;........................ .
Intersection #7 Meadows Pkwy (NS) / pauba Rd. (EW)
.....................................................,;,;..."...........,;........ .
Cycle (sec) , 0 . Critical VoL/Cap. (X): 0.314
Loss Time (sec): 0 (Y+R = 4 sec) Average Delay (sec/veh) , 11.2
Optimal Cycle: 0 Level Of Service: B
...........................,;...................... *............... *.............
Approach: North' Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound
Movement, L T R L T R L T R L T R
------------I--~------------ [I---------------II-----------~---II----------h---I
Control: Stop Sign Stop Sign Stop Sign' Stop Sign
Rights: Include Include Include . Include
Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Lanes: 1 0 2 0 1 1 0 2 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1
------------ [---------------11---------------1 [---------------11--------------- [
Volume Module:
Base Vol: 52 187 27 37 189 21 27 80 70 25 75 26
Growth Adj: 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.101.10 1.10 1.101.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10
Initial Bse: 57 206 30 41 208 23 30 88 77 28 83 29
Added Vol: 3 22 0 2 24 0 0 67 5 0 41 4
PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Initial Fut: 60 228 30 43 232 23 30 155 82 28 124 33
User Adj: 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00
PHF Adj: 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00
PHF Volume, 60 228 30 43 232 23 30 155 82 28 124 33
Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Reduced Vol, 60 228 30 43 232 23 30 155 82 28 124 33
PCE Adj: 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00
MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Final Vol.: 60 228 30 43 232 23 30 155 82 28 124 33
-n__-_--_-- [---------------II---------------II-------------h [ [---------------1
Saturation Flow Module,
Adjustment: 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00
Lanes: 1.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Final Sat.: 471 1012 557 467 1005 552 458 494 543 444 477 520
- -- -- - ---,--1----- ---- - -----I [------- --------11----------- ----II-----h- ------- [
Capacity Analysis Module:
Vol/Sat, 0.13 0.23 0.05 0.09 0.23 0.04 0.06 0.31 0.15 0.06 0,26 0.06
Crit Moves:
Delay/Veh: 10.9 11.3 9.1 10.7 11.4 .9.0 10.6 12.5 9.9 10.7 12.0
Delay Adj: 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00
AdjDel/Veh: 10.9 11.3 9.1 10.7 11.4 9.0 10.6 12.5 9.9 10.7 12.0
LOS by Move: B B A B B A B B A B B
ApproachDe1: 11.0 11.1 11.5 11.4
Delay Adj: 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00
ApprAdjDe1: 11.0 11.1 11,5 11.4
LOS by Appr: B B B B
................................ ................................................
9,5
1.00
9.5
A
Traffix 7.5.i115 Ie) 2001 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to URBAN CROSSROADS, IRVINE
þ\q
MITIG8 - CUM GROWTH PM (0) Mon Jul 28, 2003 16,12,42
Page 1-1
d
n
,
-------------------- ---------------------- -- ------------------- ----------- ------
LDS Church Traffic Impact Analysis
Cumulative (2005) Growth Without Project Conditions With Improvements
PM Peak Hour
- -- -- - - - - --- -- - - - - ------ - - ---- - n- - - - - - - - - -- --- - - - - - -- - - - -- - - - -- - - - - - - - -- - - - - ---
Level Of Service Computation Report
2000 HCM Operations Method (Future Volume Alternative)
n
if
........ .... .... ........ ............... ......... .......... ......... .............
Intersection #7 Meadows Pkwy (NS) / pauba Rd. (EW)
I
......... ~......................................................................
Cycle (sec) , 0 Critical VoL/Cap, (X), 0.194
Loss Time (sec) , 8 (Y+R = 5 sec) Average Delay (sec/veh) , 11.1
Optimal Cycle:' 60 Level Of Service, B
............. ',"" ~................... *.. *... * *. * * * *.... *.. * *.. * *.. * *... *.. * * * *..
Approach: North Bound South Bound . East Bound West Bound
Movement: L T R L T R L T R L T R
------------1---------------11------------"--11--------"------11---------------I
Control: Permitted Permitted Permitted Permitted
Rights: Include Include Include Include
Min. Green: 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10
Lanes: 1 0 2 0 1 1 0 2 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1
------------1---------------11---------------11---------------11---------------I
Volume Module:
Base Vol, 52 187 27 37 189 21 27 80 70 25 75 26
Growth Adj, 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10
Initial Bse, 57 206 30 41 208 23 30 88 77 28 83 29
Added Vol, 3 22 0 2 24 0 0 67 5 0 41 4
PasserByVoL 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Initial Fut: 60 228 30 43 232 23 30 155 82 28 124 33
User Adj' 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00
PHF Adj, 0.950.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95
PHF Volume, 63 240 31 45 244 24 31 163 86 29 130 34
Reduct Vol: .0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Reduced Vol, 63 240 31 45 244 24 31 163 86 .29 130 34
PCE Adj, 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00
MLF Adj, 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Final vol., 63 240 31 45 244 24 31 163 86 29 130 34
------------I--------_u----I 1---------------1 1---------------1 1------------- --I
Saturation Flow Module,
Sat/Lane: 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 .1700 1700 1700 1700
Adjustment, 0.94 1.00 0.94 0.94 1.00 0.94 0.94 1.00 0.94 0.94 1.00 0.94
Lanes, 1.002.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Final Sat., 1600 3400 1600 1600 3400 1600 1600 1700 1600 1600 1700 1600
------------1---------------11---------------11---------------11---------------I
Capacity Analysis Module,
Vol/Sat, 0.04 0.07 0.02 0.03 0.07 0.02 0.02 0.10 0.05 0.02 0.08 0.02
Crit Moves,
Green/Cycle,
Volume/Cap,
Delay/veh,
User DelAdj:
AdjDel/Veh,
Des ignQueue ,
I
~
u
~
a
¡
I
W1
H
D
n
0.370.37
0.11 0.19
12.7 13.1
1. 00 1. 00
12.7 13.1
1 5
0.37
0.05
12.3
1.00
12.3
1
0.37 0.37
0.08 0.19
12.5 13,1
1. 00 1. 00
12.5 13.1
1 5
0.37
0.04
12.2
1. 00
12.2
1
0.50 0.50
0.04 0.19
7.9 8.9
1. 00 1. 00
7.9 8.9
1 3
0.50
0.11
8.3
1.00
8,3
1
0.500.50
0.04 0.15
7.9 8.6
1. 00 1. 00
7,9 8.6
0 2
0.50
0.04
7.9
1. 00
7.9
1
1.1
......... * * * * * * * *...... *..... *. * *. * * * * *. * * *.... *. *... * * * * *. * * *. * *.. *.... *. * * * * * *
n
¡
",$
Traffix 7.5.1115 (c) 2001 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to URBAN CROSSROADS, IRVINE
n
t.
1710
.
c'>
-' 1
,I
.
.
.
CUM GROWTH MID DAY (0)
Wed Jul 23, 2003 17,42,07
- - - - - - - --- - - - ---- -- -- - -- - -- - - - - - - - -- - -- - - --- - - -- - - - - - - - -- - - - - - --- h - - - - - -- -- - - --
Page 4-1
LDS Church Traffic Impact Analysis
Cumulative (2005) Growth Without Project Conditions
Mid-Day Peak Hour (Sunday)
- - - - -- - - -- - - - - - - - -- - --- - - - -- - - - -- -- -- ---- -- _h - - --- - - - - - - - - - - - -- - -- - - h - - - -- ----
Level Of Service Computation Report
2000 HCM Unsignalized Method (Future Volume Alternative)
Intersection #1 Green Tree Rd (NS) / PaubaRd. (EW)
* *. * * * * * * *.... *.. * ** *. * *.. * * *. * * * *.. *..... * **. * * * *.. *.. * * * * * *. * * * * *. * *... * *... * *
*..... *. * *.. ',***' *.. * **. * * * * * * * *. *... **. * * * *. u* * * * * * *. * * * * *. *. *. *.... *.... *. *. *
Average Delay (sec/veh) , 9.3 Worst Case Level Of Service, A
. *. *.. * *. *...... * * *' *. * *. * *.. * * *........ * **.. ** * *... * *...... *..... * * *. * *........
Approach, North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound
Movement, L T R L T R L T R L T R
hh_-------I--"------------II----h_h------II----"----------II------hh-----I
Control, Stop Sign Stop Sign Uncontrolled Uncontrolled
Rights, Include Include Include Include
Lanes, 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0
------------I-----~-h--~---II-----------h--II-----h--------II-------h_-----I
Volume Module,
Base Vol, 0 0
Growth Adj, 1.10 1.10
Initial Bse, 0 0
Added Vol, 0 0
PasserByVol, 0 0
Initial Fut, 0 0
User Adj, 1. 00 1. 00
PHF Adj, 1.00 1.00
PHF Volume, 0 0
ReductVol, 0 0
Final Vol., 0 0
Critical Gap Module,
Critical Gp'=xxx xxxx =xxx xxxxx xxxx 6.2 4.1 xxxx =xxx =xxx xxxx xxxxx"
FollowUpTim,=xxx xxxx =xxx xxxxx xxxx 3.3 2.2 xxxx =xxx =xxx =xx xxXxx
___h_h_h- ¡'~-_h----------II---------------II-h-----h-----II--------_hhh 1
Capacity Module, ' ,
Cnflict Vol, =xx xxxx =xxx =xx xxxx 207 207 XXX){ =xxx =xx XXX){ xxxxx
Potent Cap., =xx xxxx xxxxx XXX){ XXX){ 839 1376 =xx =xxx =xx =xx xxxxx
Move Cap., =xx =xx xxxxx XXX){ xxxx 839 1376 xxxx =xxx XXX){ xxxx xxxxx
------------1---------------11 h_------------I 1---------------1 1---------------1
Level Of .service Module,
Stopped Del,=xxx xxxx xxxxx =xxx xxxx 9.3
LOS by Move, .. . . . A
Movement, LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT
Shared Cap., =xx xxxx xxxxx xxxx =xx xxxxx
Shrd StpDel,=xxx xxxx xxxxx =xxx xxxx
Shared LOS, *...
ApproachDel, xxxxxx 9.3
ApproachLOS, A
0
1.10
0
0
0
0
1.00
1.00
0
0
0
0 0
1.10 1.10
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
1. 00 1. 00
1. 00 1. 00
0 0
0 0
0 0
2
1.10
2
0
0
2
1.00
1.00
2
0
2
4 130
1.10 1.10
4 143
0 52
0 0
4 195
1.00 1.00
1. 00 1. 00
4 195
0 0
4 195
0
1.10
0
0
0
0
1.00
1.00
0
0
0
0 149
1.10 1.10
0 164
0 43
0 0
0 207
1. 00 1. 00
1. 00 1. 00
0 207
0 0
0 207
0
1.10
0
0
0
0
1.00
1.00
0
0
0
7 . 6 =xx =xxx =xxx xxxx =xxx
A
LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT
=xx =xx xxxxx =xx xxxx xxxxx
7 . 6 XXX){ =xxx =xxx XXX){ =xxx
A . *
v~
xxxxxx
Traffix 7.5.1115 (c) 2001 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to URBAN CROSSROADS, IRVINE
xxxxxx
.
CUM GROWTH MID DAY (0)
Wed Jul 23. 2003 17,42,07
Page 5-1
]
"
,
----_u- --- ----_u_----_uu_--------- --------_u_----_u_------------------ - ---
LDS Church Traffic Impact Analysis
Cumulative (20051 Growth Without Project Conditions
Mid-Day Peak Hour (Sunday)
- - - - - -- u - - - - - -- _u- - - - - - u - u - - u- - -- - - - -- - u - h- - -- - u - - _h - u- - - - - -- -- - - - - u-
Level Of Service Computation Report
2000 HCM Unsignalized Method (Future Volume Alternative)
Intersection #2 Calle Cedral (NS) / pauba Rd. (EW)
.""""" u" u, uu" u,. u", u" u"" u,uu u 'u", ,u", u u,u** uu, u
~
""""""""""""".,. ,.....,........., **,.,.."......,....."".",.""
!I
?,j
Average Delay (sec/veh) , 9.3 Worst Case Level Of Service, A
.."",.."."......".,.,..,......,."."..... ,. **,.......,.. u,..,.,.....,.."
Approach, North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound
Movement, L T R L T R L T R L T R
- -- - - - - - - - - -1-- -- - - -- - -- - -- -11-- - - - - -- -- -- - - -11- --u -- -- - - -- -- II h - - -- -- - -- - h-I
Control, Stop Sign Btop Sign Uncontrolled Uncontrolled
Rights, Include Include Include Include
Lanes, 0 0 0 0 O. 0 0 0 0 i 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1
__--nn_---I nnn_nnnn 11---_n_n_nn_II----h_-----n_II---------_n_-- 1
Volume Module,
Base Vol, 0 0
Growth Adj, 1.10 1.10
Initial Bse, 0 0
Added Vol, 0 0
PasserByVol, 0 0
Ini tia1 Fut, 0 0
User Adj, 1.001.00
PHF Adj, 1. 00 1. 00
PHF Volume, 0 0
Reduct Vol, 0 0
Final Vol., '0 0
Critical Gap Module,
Critical Gp,xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx 6.2 4.1 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx
FollowUpTim,xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx 3.3 2.2 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx
h_h_n__n I-------n---_ull---------.---ull---------------II----h---------I
Capacity Module,
Cnflict Vol, ><XXX ><XXX xxxxx xxxx xxxx 215 215 xxxx xxxxx ><XXX ><XXX xxxxx.
Potent Cap., xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx 830 1367 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx
Move Cap., xxxx ><XXX xxxxx xxxx xxxx 830 1367 ><XXX xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx
uu u u uul- u- -- __n-- ---11--- - _--un un 11--- -uu_n__h II--_u _uu ---HI
Level Of Service Module,
Stopped Del,xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxxxxxx 9.3
LOS by Move, , , , , , A
Movement, LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT
Shared Cap., xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx
Shrd StpDel,xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx
Shared LOS,' .."
ApproachDel, xxxxxx 9.3
ApproachLOS, A
0
1.10
0
0
0
0
1.00
1.00
0
0
0
0 0
1.10 1.10
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
1. 00 1. 00
1. 00 1. 00
0 0
0 0
0 0
2
1.10
2
0
0
2.
1.00
1.00
2
0
2
4 125
1.10 1.10
4 138
0 52
0 0
4 190
1.00 1.00
1.00 1.00
4 190
0 0
4 190
0
1.10
0
0
0
0
1.00
1.00
0
0
0
0 156
1.10 1.10
0 172
0 43
0 0
0 215
1. 00 1. 00
1. 00 1. 00
0 215
0 0
0 215
I
I
0
1.10
0
0
0
0
1.00
1.00
0
0
0
'I!1!.2'q¡1
.j;
n
j
D
xxxxxx
i1
,J
7 . 6 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx
A
LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT
xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx
7 . 6 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx
A
Vll
~!.
lJ
r~
U
u
't
,.1
, .
Traffix 7.5.1115 (c) 2001 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to URBAN CROSSROADS. IRVINE
j
xxxxxx
8
,..¡
j
I
!
d
.
.
.
CUM GROWTH MID DAY (a)
Wed Jul 23, 2003 i7,42,08
Page 6-1
- - - - --- - - - --- ----- -- - - - - ---- -- - -- - - -- -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - -- --- - - -- -- - - - -- - - - --
LDS Church Traff ic Impact Analysis
Cumulative (2005) Growth Without Project Conditions
Mid-Day Peak Hour (Sunday)
- - - - - -- - - - - - - - ----- --- - ---- -- - - - -- - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - --- - ---- - - - - --- - ---- ---
Level Of Service Computation Report
2000 HCM ,Unsignalized Method (Future Volume Alternative)
..-.............................................................................
Intersection #3 Camino Romo (NS) / Rancho Vista Rd. (EW)
......................................................"............ *....... **", ~
Average Delay (sec/veh) , 9.8 Worst Case Level Of Service, A
................. -.............................."... -........ - **...... **........
Approach, North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound
Movement, L T R L T R L T R L T R
------------1---------------11---------------11---------------11----,---------hi
Control, Stop Sign Stop Sign Uncontrolled Uncontrolled
Rights, Include Include Include Include
Lanes, 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0
------------1---------------1 1---------------1/---------------1 I-------_u -C_u I
Volume Module,
Base Vol, 21 0
Growth Adj, 1.10 1.10
Initial Bse, 23 0
Added Vol, 0 0
PasserByVol, 0 0
Initial Fut, 23 0
User Adj, 1.00 1.00
PHF Adj, 1. 00 1. 00
PHF Volume, 23 0
Reduct Vol, 0 0
Final Vol., 23 0
Critical Gap Module,
Critical Gp' 6.4 xxxx 6.2 xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx ><XXX xxxxx 4.1 Xxxx xixxx'
FollowUpTim, 3.5 xxxx 3.3 xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxXx = XXXXX 2.2 = xxxXx,-
------------1---------------11---------------11---------------11 -------------u'l
Capacity Module,
Cnflict Vol, 254'= 108 = xxxx xxxxx xxxx = xxxxx 112 xxxx xxxXx
Pot e n t Cap., 7 3 9 xxxx 9 5 2 = xxxx xxxxx xxxx = xxxxx 14 9 0 XXXX xxxxx
Move Cap., 737 xxxx 952 = xxxx xxxxx = xxxx xxxxx 1490 = xxxxx'
------------1---------------11---------------11---------------11---------------1
Level Of Service Module,
Stopped Del, xxxxx =
LOS by Move,
Movement,
Shared Cap.,
Shrd StpDel,
Shared LOS,
ApproachDel,
ApproachLOS,
4
1.10
4
0
0
4
1.00
1.00
4
0
4
0 0
1.10 1.10
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
1.00 1.00
1. 00 1. 00
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 '63
1.10 1.10
0 69
0 34
0 0
0 103
1. 00 1. 00
1. 00 1. 00
0 103
0 0
0 103
8
1.10
9
0
0
9
1. 00
1.00
9
0
9
8 . 8 xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx = xxxxx
A
LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT
7 3 7 = xxxxx XXXX XXXX xxxxx XXXX = XXXXX
1 0 . 0 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx ><xxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx
B . .
9.8
A
0
1.10
0
0
0
0
1.00
1.00
0
0
0
xxxxxx
xxxxxx
5 92
1.10 1.10
6 101
0 34
0 0
6 135
1. 00 1. 00
1. 00 1. 00
6 135
0 0
6 135
0'
1.10
0
0
0
0
1.00
1.00~'
0"
'0
0
7 . 4 = xxxxx
A
LT - LTR - RT
= XXXX xxxxx
7 . 4 xxxx XXxxx
A
xxxxxx
Traffix 7,5,1115 (c) 2001 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to URBAN CROSSROADS, IRVINE
172~
CUM GROWTH MID DAY (0)
Wed Jul 23, 2003 17,42,08
Page 7-1
- - - - - - ------- - h n- - - h n- - -- - - - h _n h - h - -- -.- - - - - - - - n - - -- - - - - - - -- - h - - - - - - h-
LDS Church Traffic Impact Analysis
Cumulative (2005) Growth Without Project Conditions
Mid-Day Peak Hour (Sunday)
.
n_________n- ___n -____-_h__h- --------------_n_-hn_- ----- -______n --------
Level Of Service Computation Report
2000 HCM Unsignalized Method (Future Volume Alternative)
........... ........... ......... ........ ... ......... ............ .......... .... ...
Intersection #4 Camino Romo (NS) / Corte Villosa (EW)
...................................................................... *.........
Approach,
Movement, .
Average Delay (sec/vèh) , 8.4. Worst Case. Level Of Service, A
.................;;. *............................................................
North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound
L T R L T R L T R L T R
__hhn'n_ln_n_--_nun II nnnn_h__nll-u__n_u_h_-Il-hun__h_-n I
Control, Stop sign' Stop Sign Uncontrolled Uncontrolled
Rights, Include Include Include Include
Lane., 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1
n_nnnn_l_nnnn_--_C_llun_uu_u_--II-uh-n_uuu II---_nnh_nn I
Volume Module, .
Base Vol, 0 0
Growth Adj' 1.101.10
Initial Bse, 0 0
Added Vol, 0 0
PasserByVol, 0 0
Initial Fut, 0 0
User Adj, 1. 00 1. 00
PHF Adj' 1. 00 1. 00
PHF Volume, 0 0
Reduct Vol, 0 0
Final Vol., 0 0
Critical Gap Module,
Critical Gp'xxxxx xxxx xxxxx 6.4 xxxx 6.2 4.1 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx
FollowUpTim,xxxxx xxXx xxxxx' 3.5 xxxx 3.3 2.2 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx
_uuun.:u In:n_--__--_u II-n_nnnn_--II-hnu_:_h_nll-_n_n_n_n~-1
Capacity Module,
Cnflict Vol, xxxx xxxx xxxxx 35 xxxx 1 3 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx
Potent c<Ìp., xxxx xxxx xxxxx 983 xxxx 1089 1632 xxxx xxxxx xxxx ><XXX xxx=;
Move Cap.: xxXx xxxx xxxxx 976 xxxx 1089 1632 xxxx XXXXX xxxx xxxx xxxxx
_nnnn - --1- n n- n_U- n_ll_nnn__n_n_ll- h nn _n - - n- linn _n__un_-I
Level Of Service Module,
Stopped Del,xxxxx xxxx xxxxx 8.7 xxxx 8.3
LOS by Move, .'. A A
Movement, LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT
Shared Cap., xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx
Shrd StpDel;xxxxx xxxx xXxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx
Shared LOS, ..
ApproachDel , xxxxxx
ApproachLOS,
0
1.10
0
0
0
0
1.00
1.00
Ò
0
0
1 0
1.10 1.10
1 0
0 0
0 0
1 0
1. 00 1. 00
1.00 1.00
1 0
0 0
1 0
5
1.10
6
0
0
. 6
1.00
1.00
6
0
6
13 5
1.10 1.10
14 6
0 0
0 0
14 6
1. 00 1. 00
1. 00 1. 00
14 6
0 0
14 6
7.2 xxxx
A
LT - LTR - RT
0
1.10
0
0
0
0
1.00
1.00
0
0
0
0 1
1.10 1.10
0 1
0 0
0 0
0 1
1. 00 1. 00
1. 00 1. 00
0 1
0 0
0 1
2
1.10
2
0
0
2
1.00
1.00
2,
0
2
.
LT - LTR - RT
xxxxx xxxx xxxxx
xxxxxx
xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx
7 . 2 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx
A
VZ-L\
Traffix 7.5.1115 (c) 2001 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to URBAN CROSSROADS, IRVINE
8.4
A
xxxxxx
.
.
.
.
CUM GROWT" MID DAY (0)
Wed Jul 23, 2003 17,42,08
Page 8-1
---------- --- - ---- --- -- --------------------------------- ------------------------
LOS Church Traffic Impact Analysis
Cumulative (2005) Growth Without Project Conditions
Mid-Day Peak Hour (Sunday)
- -- --------- - - -- ---- - - -- --------------------------------------------------------
Level Of Service Computation Report
2000 HCM Unsignalized Method (Future Volume Alternative)
.,.............................. .... ............................ .................
Intersection #5 Corte Villosa, (NS) I. pauba Rd (EW)
...................... ....... ............... " ..................... ........ ......
Average Delay (secl.veh) , 11.1 Worst Case, Level Of'Service, B
....... .."".......... ... ... ...... ....................... ..... ........ ".... ......
Approach, North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound
Movement, L T R L T R L T R L T R
---- -- ---- --1-- - - -- ---- -----11------------- -- i 1--- - --------,- --11--- ------ - --..-1
Control, Stop Sign Stop Sign Uncontrolled, Uncontrolled
Rights, Include Include Include Include
Lanes, 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 1
------------1---------------11---------------11 '--------------11---------------1
Volume Module,
Base Vol, 12 2
Growth Adj, 1.10 1.10
Initial Bse, 13 2
Added Vol, 0 0
PasserByVol, 0 0
Initial Fut, 13 2
User Adj, 1.001.00
PHF Adj, 1. 00 1. 00
PHF Volume, 13 2
Reduct Vol, 0 0
Final Vol. , 13 2
Critical Gap Module,
Critical Gp, 7.1 6.5 6.2 7.1 6.5 6.2 4.1 xxxx xxxxx 4.1 xxxx xxxxx'
FollowUpTim, 3.5 4.0 3.3 3.5 4.0 3.3 2.2 xxxx xxxxx 2.2 xxxx xxxxx
------------1---------------11---------------11---------------11-------------,-I
Capacity Module, ,
Cnflict Vol, 396 396 172 3'95 395 181 189 xxxx xxxxx 180 xxxx xxxxx
Potent Cap., 567 544 877 569 545 867 1397 xxxx xxxxx 1408 xxxx xxxxx
Move Cap., 556 537 877 559 538 867 1397 xxxx XXXXX 1408 xxxx xxxxx
---------- --1-- -- --- -- -- - -- -11-------- -- - ----II ------ ---- -- - --11---- ----- ------I
Level Of Service Module,
Stopped Del,xxxxx xxxx
LOS by Move,
Movement,
Shared Cap.,
Shrd StpDel,
Shared LOS,
ApproachDel,
ApproachLOS,
4
1.10
4
0
0
4
1.00
1.00
4
0
4
2 1
1.10 1.10
2 1
0 0
0 0
2 1
1. 00 1. 00
1. 00 1. 00
2 1
0 0
2 1
7
1.10
8
0
0
8
1.00
'1.00
8
0
8
9 . 1 xxxxx xxxx 9 . 2
A A
LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT
5 5 3 xxxx xxxxx 5 51 xxxx XXXXX
11 . 7 xxxx xxxxx 11 . 6 xxxx xxxxx
B B
11.1
B
9.9
A
9 ,109
1.10 1.10
10 120
0 52
0 0
10 172
1. 00 1.00
1. 00 1. 00
10 172
0 0
10 172
7
1.10
8
0
0
8
1.00
1.00
8
0
8
7 . 6 xxxx xxxxx
A
LT - LTR - RT
xxxx xxxx XXXXX
7 . 6 xxxx xxxxx
A
XXXXXX
7 125
1.10 1.10
8 138
0 43
0 0
8 181
1.00 1.00
1.00 1.00
8 181
0 0
8 181
8,
1.10
9
0
0
9
1.00
1.00
~
0
9
7 . 6 xxxx xxxxx
A ,
LT - LTR - RT
XXXX xxxx XXXXX
7..6 XXX>< xxxxx
A
xxxxxx
Traffix 7.5.1115 (c) 2001 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to URBAN CROSSROADS, IRVINE
172-17
¡;)
MITIG8 - CUM GROWTH MID DAYWed Jul 23. 2003 17,49,31
Page 1-1
!1
,
-______n_________n______----- -- --______n--_____-- -__n__-__n____nn --------
LOS Church Traffic Impact Analysis
Cumulative (2005) Growth Without Project Conditions
Mid-Day Peak Hour (Sunday)
Level Of Service Computation Report
2000 HCM 4-Way Stop Method (Future Volume Alternative)
Q",'.
h
a
- - - - -- - - - - - - - - - n- - - - - - - - -- - - - - - --- -- - - - n - -- -- - -- -- - -- -- - - -- - -- -- - - - --- - u - - - --
.. .......... ............................ ................. ................ .......
Intersection #6 Meadows Pkwy (NS) / Ráncho Vista Rd. ,(Eli)
..............................................................."............. *,"
Cycle (sec) , 0 Critical VoL/Cap. (X), 0.175
Loss Time (sec) , 0 (Y+R = 4 sec) Average Delay (sec/veh) , 9.3
Optimal Cycle, 0 Level Of Service, A
...................................... *.......... * * *.......... * *......... * *.....
,~
!Ii
Approach, North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound
Movement, L T R L T R L T R L T R
----------_C I---_n_--_n_--II---------------II---------------II---------------I
Control, Stop Sign Stop Sign Stop Sign Stop Sign
Rights, Include Include Include Include
Min. Green, 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Lanes, 1 0 2 0 1 1 0 2 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0
------------I---------------II---------------II---------_hn_II--------u_----I
Volume Module,
Base Vol, 22 165 12 21 181 18 24 29 25 17 41 28
Growth Adj, 1.101.10 1.10 1.101.10 1.10 1.101.10 1.10 1.101.10 1.10
Initial Bse, 24 182 13 23 199 20 26 32 28 19' 45 31
Added Vol, 9 11 0 12 12 25 25 0 9 0 0 11
PasserByVol, 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Initial Fut, 33 193 13 35 211 45 51 32 37 19 45 42
User Adj, 1.001.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00,
PHF Adj, 1.001.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00'
PHF Volume, 33 193 13 35 211 45 51 32 37 19 45 42
Reduct Vol, 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Reduced Vol, 33 193 13 35 211 45 51 32 37 19 4,5 42
PCEAdj, 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00' '1. 00
MLF Adj, 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Final Vol.: 33 193 13 35 211 45 51 32 37 19 45 42
-- ----------1-- ----- n_n_--II--- c-- ---------11--- --__n_"- ---11-- --.... ---------1
Saturation Flow Module,
Adjustment, 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00
Lanes, ' 1.00 2.00 1.00 1.002.00 1.00 0.86 0.53 0.61 0.35 0.B6 0.79
Final Sat.: 545 1184 666 555 1207 681 458 314 371 195 4B4 490
nnnnhn I nnnn_------Il n___----------II nnn_--------II---------------1
Capacity Analysis Module,
Vol/Sat: 0.06 0.16 0.02 0.06 0.17 0.07 0.11 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.09 0.09
Crit Moves,
Delay/Veh: 9.4 9.6 7.9 9.3 9.6 B.1 9.8 9.1 8.8 9.5 9.3
Delay Adj: 1.001.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.001.00
AdjDe1/Veh, 9.4 9,6 7.9 9.3 9,6 8,1 9.8 9.1 8.8 9.5 9.3
LOS by Move, A A A A A A A A A A A
ApproachDel, 9,5 9.3 9,3 9.0
Delay Adj, 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00
ApprAdjDel: 9.5 9.3 9.3 9.0
LOS by Appr, A A A A
....... * *................ * * * * *. *.. *. * *... *..... *... *... *.. *. *... *..... *.... * *. *.
I
D
0"-',,",'
:¡
!1.'
i
n
~,
lj
B
8,6
1. 00
8.6
A
f,1
\\oj
H
n
(,J
1) 2-~
, 1
,,~
t
Traffix 7.5.1115 (c) 2001 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to URBAN CROSSROADS, IRVINE
, ,
.. ¡
;,,]
.
.
.
MITIG8 - CUM GROWTH MID DAYMon JuI 28, 2003 16,13,03
Page 1-1
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - -- - - --- - - -- - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - ---- -- -- - - --- - - - - --- - --- ---
LDS Church Traffic Impact Analysis
Cumulative 12005) Growth Without Project Conditions With Improvements
Mid-Day Peak Hour ISunday)
- -- -- - - - - -- -- - - - - - - - --- - ---- -- -- - - - - - - - ----- - ----- - -- - -- - - --- - -- - - - - - --- - -- -- ---
Level Of Service Computation Report
2000 HCM Operations Method (Future Volume Alternative)
........................ ** **....................................................
Intersection #6 Meadows Pkwy INS) / Rancho Vista, Rd. (EW)
........................ ** **............................ **...... **.....*........
Cycle (sec) , 0 Critical VoL/Cap. (X), 0.120
Loss Time (se",) , 8 IY+R = 5 sec) Average Delay (sec/veh) , 8.9
Optimal Cycle, 60 Level Of Service, A
...... ',""" **........ **.. **............... **....................... **.........
Approach, North Bound South Bound East Bound weSt Bound
Movement, L T R L T R L T RL' T R
---------~--I---------------II---------------II---------------II---------------I
Control, Permitted Permitted Permitted' Permitted
Rights, Include Include Include Include
Min. Green, 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10'
Lanes, 1 0 2 0 1 1 0 2 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0
------------1---------------11---------------11---------------11---------------1
Volume Module,
Base VoL 22 165 12 21 181 18 24 29 25 17 41 28
Growth Adj" 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.101.10 1.10
Initial Bse, 24 182 13 23 199 20 26 32 28 19 45 31
Added Vol, 911 0 1212 25 25 0 9 0 0 11
PasserByVol, 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Initial Fut, 33 193 13 35 211 45 51 32 37 19 45 42
User Adj, 1.001.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00
PHF Adj, 0.950.95 0.95 0.950.95 0.95 0.950.95 0'.95 0.950.95 0.95
PHF Volume' 35 203 14 37 222 47 54 34 38 20 47 44'
Reduct Vol, 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Reduced Vol, 35 203 14 37 222 47 54 34 38 20 47 44
PCE Adj" 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00
MLF Adj, 1.001.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00
Final Vol., 35 203 14 37 222 47 54 34 38 20 47 44
------------1---------------11---------------11--------------- 11---------------1
Saturation Flow Module,
Sat/Lane, 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700' 1700
Adjustment, 0.94 1.00 0.94 0.94 1.00 0.94 0.94 1.00 0.94 0.94 1.00 0.94
Lanes, 1.002.00 1.00 1.002.00 1.00 0.870.51 0.62 0.36 0.83 0.81
Final Sat., 1600 3400 1600 1600 3400 1600 1395 866 990 581 1402 1299
------------1-- -------------11----- - - - - -- - ---11---------------11--'-'------------1
Capaci ty Analysis Module,
Vol/Sat, 0.02 0.06 0.01 0.02 0.07 0.03 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.03 0.03 0.03
Crit Moves,
Green/Cycle, 0.54 0.54 0.54 0.54 0.54 0,54 0.32 0.32 0.32 0.32 0.32 0.32
Volume/Cap' 0.04 0.11 0.02 0.04 0.12 '0.05 0.12 0.12 0.12 0.10 0.10 0.10
Delay/Veh, 6.4 6.7 6.3 6,4 6.7 6,5 14.4 14.4 14.4 14.3 14.3 14.3
User DelAdj, 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00
AdjDel/Veh, 6.4 6.7 6.3 6.4 6.7 6.5 14.4 14.4 14.4 14.3 14.3 14.3
DesignQueue, 1 3 0 1 3 1 1 1 1 0 1 1
.......................................................................... **....
Traffix 7.5.1115 (c) 2001 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to URBAN CROSSROADS, IRVINE
V2J
']
MITIG8 - CUM GROWTH MID DAYWed Jul 23. 2003 17,49,42
Page 1-1
']
; J
.
J
--______h__-- ---______h____h_______h_hh______-----hhhhh______- ----- h
LDS Church Traffic Impact Analysis
Cumulative (2005) Growth Without Project Conditions
Mid-Day Peak Hour (Sunday)
_____h --------______h_____-- --_h___-___h_h_h___-__h_____h______-----h_-
Cycle (sec) ,
Loss Time (sec) ,
Optimal 'Cycle,
0
0 (Y+R =
0
Critical VoL/Cap. (X),
4 sec) Average Delay (sec/veh) ,
Level Of Service,
0.202
9.9
A
:,
J
n
~,j¡
Level Of Service Computation Report
2000 HCM 4-Way Stop Method (Future Volume Alternative)
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Intersection #7 Meadows Pkwy (NS) / Pauba Rd. (EW)
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** ** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** ** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** * * *'
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *,* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *** * * * * * * * * * ** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** * * * ** * * * * * * **
D"
'i
,
Approach, North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound
Movement, L T R ,L T R L T R L T R
------------Ih-------------II---------------II----------h---II------h-------I
Control, Stop sign Stop Sign ,Stop Sign Stop Sign
Rights, Include Include Include Include
Min. Green, 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Lanes, 1 0 2 0 1 1 0 2 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1
_h_- _h -- --I h__hh-------II----------- ----II----------h---II--h- h- --h_h 1
Volume Module,
Base Vol, 40 147 25 7 164 30 27 53 37 26 57 15
Growth Adj' 1.101.10 1.10 1.101.10 1.10 1.101.10 1.10 1.101.10 1.10
Initial Bse, 44 162 28 8 180 33 30 58 41 29 63 17
Added Vol, 1 11 0 9 12 0 0 50 2 0 42 9
passerByVol, 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Initial Put, 45 173 28 17 192 33 30 108 43 29 105 25
User Adj, 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
PHF Adj, 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00
PHF Volume, 45 173 28 17 192 33 30 108 43 29 105 25
Reduct Vol, 0 0 0 0, 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Reduced VoL 45 173 28, 17 192 33 30 108 43 29 105 25
PCE Adj, 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1'.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
MLF Adj, 1.001.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00
Final vol., 45 173 28 17 192 33 30 108 43 29 105 25
_h_h-- ----I-----h h ------11- --__n- __h - - -11- ------hh__h 11----- __'_h___h 1
Saturation Flow Module,
Adjustment, 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.'001.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Lanes, 1.002.00 1.00 1.002.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Final Sat., 515 1113 621 514 1110 620 497 536 596 493 532 589
h_---------I---h_h-------II-------h------II---h----------II---------------1
Capacity Analysis Module,
Vol/Sat, 0.09 0.16 0.04 0.03 0.17 0.05 0.06 0.20 0,07 0.06 0.20 0.04
Crit Moves,
Delay/Veh, 9.9 9.9 8.4 9.6 10.1 8,4 9.9 10.5 8.7 10.0 10.5
Delay Adj, 1.001.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.001.00
AdjDel/Veh, 9.9 9.9 8.4 9.6 10.1 8.4 ,9.9 10.5 8.7 10.0 10.5
LOS by Move, A A A A B A A B A A B
ApproachDel, 9.7 9.8 10.0 10.1
Delay Adj, 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00
ApprAdjDel, 9.7 9.8 10.0 10.1
LOS by Appr, A A A B
* * ** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
,,"
ti
!i1
b
,r'j
.
~1
,j
n
UI
n
d
.n
8.6
1.00
8.6
A
. ,
"j
c',
'.,'
Traffix 7.5.1115 (c) 2001 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to URBAN CROSSROADS, IRVINE
n
,J,i
\) 7ft
e
'u
, ¡
.
.
.
MITIG8 - CUM GROWTH MID DAYMon Jul 28, 2003 16,13,21
Page 1-1
------------------------------------_-----h_____------_h----------------------
LOS Church Traffic Impact Analysis
Cumulative (2005) Growth Without Project Conditions With Improvements
Mid-Day Peak Hour (Sunday)
- - -- ------------------_u--------------- ------ ---------------------_uu_u_----
Level Of Service Computation Report
2000 HCM Operations Method (Future Volume Alternative)
.................................................... ............................
Intersection #7 Meadows Pkwy (NS) / pauba Rd. (EW)
............................................................................... .
Cycle (see), 0 Critical VoL/Cap. (X), 0.146
Loss Time (see), 8 (Y+R = 5 see) Average Delay (sec/veh) , 10.5
Optimal Cycle, 60 Level Of Service, B
............................................................. H"""""""'"
Approach, North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound
Movement, L T R L T R L T R L T R
- -- ------- --1---- ---U - -----11- --- ---- ---- ---11- ----------- ---11---- -----------1
Control, Permitted Permitted Permitted Permitted
Rights, Include Include Include Include
Min. Green, 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10
Lanes, 1 0 2 0 1 1 0 2 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1
------------1---------------11---------------11---------------11---------------1
Volume Module,
Base Vol, 40 147 25 7 164 30 27 53 37 26 57 15.
Growth Adj, 1.101.10 1.10 1.101.10 1.10 1.101.10 1.10 1.101.10 1.10
Initial Bse, 44 162 28 8 180 33 30 58 41 29 63 17
Added Vol, 1 11 0 9 12 0 0 50 2 0 42 9
PasserByVol, 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Initial Fut, 45 173 28 17 192 33 30 108 43 29 105 25
User Adj, 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00
PHF Adj, 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95
PHF Volume, 47 182 29 18 203 35 3I 114 45 30 110 27
Reduct Vol, 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Reduced- Vol. 47 182 29 18 203 35 3I 114 45 30 110 27
PCE Adj, 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
MLF Adj, 1.001.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00
Final Vol., 47 182 29 18 203 35 31 114 45 30 110 27
- ----- ------1- ------- -- -----II -------- - ------11- --------------llu--- --- -------I
Saturation Flow Module,
Sat/Lane, 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700
Adjustment, 0,94 1.00 0.94 0.94 1.00 0.94 0.94 1.00 0.94 0.94 1.00 0.94
Lanes, 1.002.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Final Sat., 1600 3400 1600 1600 3400 1600 1600 1700 1600 1600 1700 1600
------------1---------------11---------------11---------------11---------------1
Capacity Analysis Module,
Vol/Sat, 0.03 0.05 0.02 0.010.06 0.02 0.02 0.07 0.03 0.02 0.06 0,02
Crit Moves,
Green/Cycle, 0.41 0.41 0.41 0.41 0.41 0.41 0.46 0.46 0.46 0.46 0.46 0.46
volume/Cap' 0.070,13 0.04 0.03 0.15 0.05 0.04 0.15 0.06 0.04 0.14 0.04
Delay/Veh, 11.111.3 10.8 10.711.4 10,9 9.1 9.8 9.2 9.1 9.8 9.0
User DelAdj' 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00
AdjDel/Veh, 11.1 11,3 10.8 10.7 11.4 10.9 9.1 9.8 9.2 9.1 9.8 9.0
DesignQueue, 1 4 1 0 4 1 1 2 1 1 2 0
.................. *.............................................................
Traffix 7.5.1115 (c) 2001 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to URBAN CROSSROADS, IRVINE
Vlc;
.
APPENDIX E
.
CALCULATION OF INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE-
CUMULATIVE (2005) GROWTH WITH PROJECT
.
.
.
.
CUM GROWTH AM (0 + P)
Thu Jul 24, 2003 08,27,36
Page 4-1
- -- - -- -- -- - --- - - -- - -- - -- - - -- - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - -- ---- - - - - - -- - -- - - - ---- --- - -- - - - --- --
LDS Church Traffic Impact Analysis
Cumulative (2005) Growth With Project Conditions
AM Peak Hour
- - - - - --- -- - - - -- ---- -- -- ---- - - -- - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - --- --- - - - - - - -------- --- --- ----
Level Of Service Computation Report
2000 HCM Unsignalized Method (Future Volume Alternative)
................................... ù ............................................
Intersection #1 Green Tree Rd (NS) / pauba Rd. (EW)
................................. * * * * *.. *.." *. * * .'. * *'. * *.. * *. * * * * **. *.. *" *... * * *.
Average Delay (sec/veh) , 16.5 Worst Case Level Of Service, C
* * *. * *. * * * * * * * * * *. * * *.. * *. * * * * * * * * *.... * *. * * *. * * * *" ** * * *... * * * *.... * * *.. *. * * * * * *
Approach, North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound
Movement: L T R L T, R L T R L T R
------------1---------------11---------------11---------------11---------------I
Control, Stop Sign Stop Sign Uncontrolled Uncontrolled
Rights, Include Include Include Include
Lanes, 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 I! 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0
------------1---------------11---------------11---------------11---------------I
Volume Module,
Base Vol, 0 0
Growth Adj, 1.10 1.10
Initial Bse, 0 0
Added Vol, 0 0
PasserByVol, 0 0
Initial Fut, 0 0
User Adj, 1. 00 1. 00
PHF Adj, 1. 00 1. 00
PHF Volume, 0 0
Reduct Vol, 0 0
Final Vol., 0 0
Critical Gap Module,
C r i tical G p ",xxxx xxxx xxxxx 6 . 4 xxxx 6 ; 2 4 . 1 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxi<: xxXxx
FollowUpTim",xxxx xxxx,xxxxx 3.5 xxxx 3.3 2.2 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx =xX
------------1---------------11---------------11---------------11---------------I
Capacity Module,
Cnflict Vol, xxxx xxxx xxxxx 1041 xxxx 723 724 xxxx xxxxx xxxx =Xx xxxxx
Potent Cap., xxxx xxxx xxxxx 257 xxxx 430 888 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx:x
Move Cap.' xxxx xxxx xxxxx 256 xxxx 430 888 xxxx xxxxx xxxx ><XXX xxxxx
- -- ---- - -- --1-- -- ----- -- ----11------------- --11---------------11--------- ------I
Level Of Service Module,
Stopped Del "",xxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx
LOS by Move, *. * .
Movement, LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT
Shared Cap., xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx 321
Shrd StpDel "",xxx xxxx XXXXX XXXXX 16.5 xxxxx
Shared LOS, * * C
ApproachDel, xxxxxx 16.5
ApproachLOS, C
0
1.10
0
0
0
0
1.00
1.00
0
0
0
4 0
1.10 1.10
4 0
0 0
0 0
4 0
1. 00 1. 00
1. 00 1. 00
4 0
0 0
4 0
4
1.10
4
0
0
4
1.00
1.00
4
0
4
3 229
1.10 1.10
3 252
0 60
0 0
3 312
1. 00 1. 00
1. 00 1. 00
3 312
0 0
3 312
0
1.10
0
0
0
0
1.00
1.00
0
0
0
0 515
1.10 1.10
0 567
0 155
0 0
0 722
LOa 1.00
1. 00 1. 00
0 722
0 0
0 722
2
1.10
2
0
0
2
1.00
1.00
2
0
2
9 . 1 xxxx =Xx xxxxx xxxx xxixx
A
LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT
xxxx xxxx
xxxx xxxx
9 . 1 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx
A
xxxxxx xxxxxx
Traffix 7.5.1115 (c) 2001 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to URBAN CROSSROADS, IRVINE
E3
CUM GROWTH AM (0 + P)
Thu Ju1 24, 2003 08,27,36
Page 5-1
--- -_u_--------- ------------- _u- u -- - -------- --------------------- ---------_u
.
LDS Church Traffic Impact Analysis
Cumulative (2005) Growth With Project Conditions
AM Peak Hour
--- --- ------------_u_--------_u_---- --------------- __h______----_u- U___h_-
Level Of Service Computation Report
2000 HCM Unsignalized Method (Future Volume Alternative)
.. ,.. ,.... ....,...., ..~,..".."""".."."'.."""'..""" ........ ,........
Intersection #2 Calle Cedra1 (NS) / Pauba Rd. (EW)
"""""""..,.. *""" *,.."" ~"""',..,'" *"'" u"""""""",..""
Average Delay (sec/yeh) , 19.2 Worst Case Level Of Service, C,
"" *"""",.." **" *""""""""""""""""'" *"""""""" *"..
Approach, North Bound South Sound East Bound West Bound
Movement, L T R L T R L T R L T R
-------- ----1----------- ----11---- - ---- ------llu- --_hun_- -II------h -------1
Control, Stop Sign Stop Sign Uncontrolled Uncontrolled
Rights, . Include Include Include Include
Lanes, 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 l' 0 1
----------- -1-- -- -----------II-----_n - u - - --11--- --c- --------11 -----------h--I
Volume Module,
Base Vol, 0 0
Growth Adj , 1.10 1.10
Initial Bse, 0 0
Added vol, 0 0
PasserByVol, 0 0
Initial Fut, 0 0
User Adj' 1. 00 1. 00
PHF Adj' 1. 00 1. 00
PHF Volume, 0 0
Reduct Vol, 0 0
Final Vol., 0 0
Critical Gap Module,
Critical Gp'xxxxx xxxx xxxxx. 6.4 xxxx xxxxx 4.1 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx
FollowUpTim""""", xxxx xxxxx 3.5 xxxx xxxxx 2.2 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx
------------1-----:.--------- 11---------------11--------------- 11---------------1
Capacity Module,
Cnflict Vol, xxxx xxxx xxxxx 1039 ><XXX xxxxx 727 xxxx xxxxx xxxx ><XXX xxxxx
Potent Cap., xXxx xxxx xxxxx 258 xxxx xxxxx 886 xxXx xxxxx xxxx. ><XXX xxxxx
Move Cap., xxxx xxxx xxxxx 257 xxxx xxxxx 886 xxxx xxxxx xxxx ><XXX xxxxx
u_---------I cn_-----_n---II_nuuuuhn Iluu_n_-------II_nn_---------1
Level Of Service Module,
Stopped Del,xxxxx xxxx xxxxx 19.2 ><XXX xxxxx
LOS by Move, ' , , C
Movement, LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT
Shared Cap., xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx
Shrd StpDel, xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx ><XXX xxxxx
Shared LOS, ' , * , , '.
ApproachDe1 ,xxxxxx 19.2
ApproachLOS, C
0
1.10
0
0
0
0
1. 00
1.00
0
0
0
3 0
1.10 1.10
3 0
0 0
0 0
3 0
1.00 1.00
1. 00 1. 00
3 0
0 0
3 0
0
1.10
0
0
0
0
1.00
1. 00
0
0
0
1 229
1.10 1.10
1 252
0 60
0 0
1 312
1. 00 1. 00
1. 00 1. 00
1 312
0 0
1 312
0
1.10
0
0
0
0
1.00
1.00
0
0
0
0 518
1.10 1.10
0 570
0 155
0 0
0 725
1. 00 1. 00
1. 00 1. 00
0 725
0 0
0 725
2
1.10
2
0
0
2
1.00
1.00
2
0
2
.
xxxxxx
9 . 1 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx
A '.
LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT
xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx
9 . 1 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx ><XXX xxxxx
A
Traffix 7.5.1115 (c) 2001 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to URBAN CROSSROADS, IRVINE
Et.\
xxxxxx
.
.
.
.
CUM GROWTH AM (0 + P)
Thu Jul 24. 2003 08,27,36
Page 6-i
-- - - - - - - - - - -- - - - -- - - - - -- - - -- -- - - - - -- -- - - - --- - - -- -- - -- -- --- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - -- ---
LDS Church Traffic Impact Analysis
CUmulative (2005) Growth With Project Conditions
AM Peak Hour
- - - - - - -- - - - - - __h_- -- --_h-- - - - -- --------- ----------- --- -- -- - -- - - - - -- --- -- -- - - --
Level Of Service Computation Report
2000 HCM UnsigI\alized Method (Future Volume Alternative)
.......................................................................... *.....
Intersection #3 Camino Romo (NS) / Rancho Vista Rd. (EW)
......................................... *...... *............................. *.
Average Delay (sec/veh) , 19.0 Worst Case Level Of Service, C
.............................................. *.................................
Approach, North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound
Movement, L T R L T R L T R L T R
------------I--h-----------II h--_----h__h II---_u---~-----II -----"---------1
Control, Stop Sign Stop Sign Uncontrolled Uncontrolled
Rights, Include Include Include Include
Lanes, 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0
-- _--_--_n -1---------- _--n 11--- --- -- -------11------ ---------11---------- -----I
Volume Module,
Base Vol, 45 0
Growth Adj' 1.10 1.10
Initial Bse, 50 0
Added Vol, 1 0
PasserByVol, 0 0
Initial Put, 51 0
User Adj, 1. 00 1. 00
PHF Adj, 1. 00 1. 00
PHF Volume, 51 0
Reduct Vol, 0 0
Final Vol., 51 a
Critical Gap Module,
Critical Gp, 6.4 ><XXX 6.2 xxxxx ><XXX xxxxx xxxxx ><XXX xxxxx 4.1 ><XXX xxxxx
FollowUpTim, 3.5><xxx 3.3 xxxxx ><XXX xxxxx xxxxx ><XXX xxxxx 2.2 ><XXX xxXxx'
------------1---------------11---------------11---------------11 ---------_u---I
Capacity Module,
C n fl i c t Vol, 1 a 3 8 ><XXX 3 7 5 ><XXX ><XXX xxxxx ><XXX ><XXX xxxxx 4 0 9 ><XXX xxxxx
Potent Cap., 258 ><XXX 676 ><XXX ><XXX xxxxx ><XXX ><XXX xxxxx 1161 ><XXX xxxxx
Move Cap., 245 ><XXX 676 ><XXX ><XXX xxxxx ><XXX ><XXX xxxxx 1-161 ><XXX xxxxx
------------1---------------11---------------11---------------11---------------I
Level Of Service Module,
Stopped DeLxxxxx xxx>< 10.5 xxxxx ><XXX xxxxx xxxxx ><XXX xxxxx
LOS by Move, . B
Movement: LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT
Shared Cap., 245 =xx xxxxx =xx =xx xxxxx =xx =xx
Shrd StpDel, 23.5 ><XXX xxxxx xxxxx ><XXX xxxxx xxxxx ><XXX xxxxx
Shared LOS, C
ApproachDel ,
ApproachLOS:
24
1.10
26
0
0
26
1.00
1.00
26
0
26
19.0
C
0 0
1.10 1.10
a 0
0 0
0 0
a a
1. 00 1. 00
1.00 1.00
a 0
a 0
a a
0
1.10
0
0
0
0
1.00
1.00
0
0
0
a 297
1.10 1.10
a 327
0 15
0 0
0 342
1. 00 1. 00
1.00 1.00
0 342
0 0
a 342
60
1.10
66
1
0
67
1.00
1.00
67
a
67
67 462
1.10 1.10
74 508
0 7
0 0
74 515
1. 00 1. 00
1. 00 1. 00
74 515
0 0
74 515
0
1.10
0
0
0
0
1.00
1.00
0
0
a
8 . 1 ><XXX xxxxx
A
LT - LTR - RT
=xx =xx xxxxx
8.3 ><XXX xxxxx.
A
xxxxxx
Traffix 7.5.1115 (c) 2001 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to URBAN CROSSROADS, IRVINE
xxxxxx
xxxxxx
Ei?
CUM GROWTH AM (0 + P)
Thu Jul 24, 2003 08,27,36
Page 7-1
[}
f1
d
t
- -- - - n - - - - - -- - - - - - - -- - --- - - --- _n -- - -- - -- - - - n - - - n - - -- - - - -- - - -- - - - - - - - n ___n-
LDS Church Traffic Impact Analysis
Cumulative (2005) Growth With Project Conditions
AM Peak Hour
-- - -- --- - - - - - - - - - - h h - - - _h-- - -- - - n - - - -- - - - -- -- - - - _n-- h - - - - - - --- n -- - - - - _n-
Level Of Service Computation Report
2000 HCM Unsignalized Method (Future Volume Alternative)
ð
'" '**" '**** ** '*""'" **' **" '**'**' **' ****' '**** '**** '**'**' '**' '**" ** **' **.
Average Delay (sec/veh) ,
8.5
Intersection #4 Camino Romo (NS) / Corte Villosa (EW)
"""""""""". * * * * *,.. *' * * * * * * * * *" * *,......,.......;.;,........."......;..
A,
n
¡¡~
Worst Case Level Of Service,
,., **,.".,."...,..........",.,............""...... **.,......,..,.".,......
Approach, North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound
Movement, L T R L T R L T R L T R
h_---------I--h-----------I 1---------------1 1-------------"-1 1---------- ----- i
Control, Stop Sign Stop Sign Uncontrolled Uncontrolled
Rights, Include Include Include Include
Lanes, 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1
__--n_-----I---------------I 1---------------1 I------h-------I 1--------------- 1
Volume Module,
Base Vol, 0 0
Growth Adj' 1.101.10
Initial Bse, 0 0
Added Vol, 0 0
PasserByVol, 0 0
Initial Fut, 0 0
User Adj, 1.00 1.00
PHF Adj' 1.001.00
PHF Volume, 0 0
Reduct Vol, 0 0
Final Vol., 0 0
Critical Gap Module,
Critical Gp'xxxxx xxxx xxxxx 6.4 xxxx 6.2 4.1 xxxx xxxxx xxxxxxxxx xxxxx'
FollowUpTim , xxxxx. xxxx xxxxx 3.5 xxxx 3.3 2.2 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx
------------1---------------11---------------11 "-----------h-II-----h-.-------l
Capacity Module,
Cnflict Vol, xxxx xxxx xxxxx 59 xxxx 4 9 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx
Potent Cap., xxxx xxxx xxxxx 953 xxxx 1085 1624 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx
Move Cap., xxxx xxxx xxxxx 942 xxxx 1085 .1624 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xXxx xxxxx
n----------I---------------II----c----------II----h---------II---------------1
Level Of Service Module,
Stopped Del, xxxxx xxXx xxxxx 8 . 9 XXX>< 8.5
LOS by Move, .. A A
Movement, LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT
Shared Cap., XXX>< xxxx xxxxx XXX>< XXX>< xxxxx
Shrd StpDel,xxxxx XXX>< xxxxx xxxxx XXX>< xxxxx
Shared LOS, ..,.
ApproachDel ,xxxxxx 8 . 5
ApproachLOS, A
0
1.10
0
0
0
0
1.00
1. 00
0
0
0
7 0
1.10 1.10
8 0
0 0
0 0
8 0
1. 00 1. 00
1. 00 1. 00
8 0
0 0
8 0
43
1.10
47
1
0
48
1.00
1.00
48
0
48
21 6
1.10 1.10
23 7
1 0
0 0
24 7
1. 00 1. 00
1. 00 1. 00
24 7
0 0
24 7
0
1.10
0
0
0
0
1.00
1.00
0
0
0
0 4
1.10 1.10
0 4
0 0
0 0
0 4
1.00 1.00
1. 00 1. 00
0 4
0 0
0 4
xxxxxx
n
8
4
1.10
4
0
0
4
1. 00
1.00
4
0
4
!]
11
H
i
n.'..
~
..
n
d
fJ
7 . 2 XXX>< xxxxx xxxxx XXX>< xxxxx
A
LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT
XXX>< XXX>< xxxxx XXX>< XXX>< xxxxx
7 . 2 XXX>< xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx
A
xxxxxx
d
'I
?
i,;
~J
Traffix 7.5.1115 Ie) 2001 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to URBAN CROSSROADS, IRVINE
êlu
,
-I
. ¡
.
!.
.
CUM GROWTH AM {O + P)
Thu Jul 24, 2003 08,27,36
Page 8'1
- -- - - - --- - - - - - - -- --- -- - - - - - - - - -- -- -- - - - ----- _h - - - - ----- - -- -- h - -- -- -- - h-- -----
LDS Church Traffic Impact Analysis
Cumulative (2005) Growth With Project Conditions
AM Peak Hour'
-- - -- ------ - -- --- --- - - ---- --- - - - - - - - -- - - - --- -- - - - - - -- ---- - - -- ~ - -- -"-- - ------ -- --
Level Of Service Computation Report
2000 HCM Unsignalized Method (Future Volume Alternative)
....... *............ * * * * * *. * * * *. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *" * * * * * * * * * * * *.. * *. * *... *... **
Intersection #5 Corte Villosa (NS) / Pauba Rd {EW)
* * * * * * * * * *. * * * * * * * * * * * *.. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *. * *.. * * * * * * * * **** *.... *.. "* *. *... * *.. * *"
Average Delay (sec/veh) , 27.1 Worst Case Level Of Service, D
* * *. * * * * * * * * * * *. * * *. * * * * * * *. * * *. * * * *. * *. * * * * * * * * * *. *. * *.... * *. *. * *...... *.......*
Approach, North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound
Movement, L T R L T R L T R LT' R
------------1---------------1 I---c-----------I 1-----,--------- II--c----------c-I
Control, Stop Sign Stop Sign Uncontrolled Uncontrolled
Rights, Include Include Include Include
Lanes, 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 1
-"----------1---------------11---------------11---------,-----11---.------------1
Volume Module, "
Base Vol, 42 17 19 12 13 49 27 193 10 10 412 18
Growth Adj, 1.101.10 1.10 1.101..10 1.10 1.101.10 1.10 1.101.10 1.10
Initial Bse, 46 19 21 13 14 54 30 212 11 11 453 20
Added Vol, 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 62 0 0 159 0
PasserByVol, 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Initial Put, 46 19 21 13 14 55 31 274 11 11 612 20
User Adj, 1.001.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00'
PHF Adj, 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00:
PHF Volume, 46 19 21 13 14 55 31 274 11 11 612 20
Reduct Vol, 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Final Vol. , 46 19 21 13 14 55 31 274 11 11 612 20
Critical Gap Module,
Critical Gp, 7.1 6.5 6.2 7.1 6.5 6.2 4.1 xxxx xxxxx 4.1 xxxx xxxxx
Fo11owUpTim, 3.5 4.0 3.3 3.5 4.0 3.3 2.2 =xx xxxxx 2.2 =xx XXXXX':.'
------------1---------------11---------'-'---11---'----------- II--------------~ /.
Capacity Module,
Cnflict Vol, 1014 990 274 995 981 612 632 =xx xxxxx 285 ><XXX xxxxx
Potent Cap., 219 248 769 225 251 497 960 =xx XXXXX 1288 xxxx xxxxx
Move Cap., 180 238 769 200 241 497 960 =xx xxxxx 1288 =xx xxxxx
------------1---------------11---------------11---------------11---------------1
Level Of Service Module,
Stopped Del,xxxxx =xx 9.8 xxxxx =xx 13.1 8.7 =xx xxxxx 7.8 =xx xxxxx
LOS by Move, * A B A A
Movement, LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT
Shared Cap., 194 =xx xxxxx 219 =xx xxxxx =xx =xx xxxxx =xx xxxx xxxxx
Shrd StpDel, 32.7 xxxx xxxxx 23.7 xxxx xxxxx 8.9 xxxx xxxxx 7.8 xxxx xxxxx
Shared LOS, DCA A
ApproachDel, 27.1 16.7 xxxxxx xxxxxx
ApproachLOS, D C
Traffix 7.5.1115 (c) 2001 Dowling Assoc. Licensed. to URBAN CROSSROADS, IRVINE
61
;]
'$
CUM GROWTH AM (0 + P)
Thu Jul 24, 2003 08,27,36
Page 9-1
!,',')',,:
¡
,
,
-- -- -- - --- - ---- -- -- -- -,--- -- -- - -- - - - - - --- - - -- - -- - - - -- --- - - -- - - - - -- ---- - - - - - - -- ---
LDS Church Traffic Impact Analysis
Cumulative (2005) Growth With Project Conditions
AM Peak Hour
-- - - - -- ---- ----- -- --- - - - -------- -- - - - - --- ---- ---- - -- ----- - - - - - - - -- - -- --- - - ------
+'\1
ì'i
ij
Level Of Service Computation Report
2000 HCM 4-Way Stop Method (Future Volume Alternative)
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *.. * * * * * *
Intersection #6 Meadows Pkwy (NS) / Rancho Vista Rd. 'IEW) "
* * * * * * * * * * * * ** * * ** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** * * * * * * ** * * ** * * * *. * * * ** * * * * * * * * * **ù'.
~
~A
Cycle (sec) , 0 critical VoL/Cap. IX), 0.501
Loss Time (sec) , 0 (Y+R =, 4 sec) Average Delay (seé/veh) , , 13.8
Optimal Cycle, 0 Leve1.0f Service, ' B
** * * * * * * ** * * * ** * ** * * * * * * ** * *** ** * ** * * * * * * *** * * * * ** ** * * * * * * ** * * * * *. * * * * * * * * * * * * * *'
r
ij
Approach, North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound
Movement, L T R L T R L'~ T R L T R
------------1---------------11--------------" II "--------------11---------------1
Control, Stop Sign Stop Sign Stop Sign' Stop Sign
Rights, Include Include Include Include
Min. Green, 0 0 0 0 0 0 a 0 0 0, 0 0
Lanes, 1 0 2 0 1 1 0 2 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 a
------------1---------------11---------------11---------------11 ---------------1
Volume Module,
Base Vol, 194 182 13 18 212 124 58 114 139 38 128 49
Growth Adj' 1.101.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.101.10 1.10
Initial Bse, 213 200 14 20 233 136 64 125 153 42 141 54
Added Vol, 1 9 1 5 8 6 12 0 3 1 0 7
PasserByVol, 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Initial Fut, 214 209 15 25 241 142 76 125 156 43 141 61
User Adj, 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00
PHF Adj' 1.001.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00
PHF Volume' 214 209 15 25 241 142 76 125 156 43 141 61
Reduct Vol, 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Reduced Vol, 214 209 15 25 241 142 76 125 156 43 141 61
PCE Adj' 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
MLF Adj, 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Final Vol., 214 209 15 25 241 142 76 125 156 43 141 61
------------1---------------1 1---------------1 I--------c------I 1--------------- 1
Saturation Flow Module,
Adjustment, 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Lanes, 1.002.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 1.00 0.42 0.70 0.88 0.35 1.15 0.50
Final Sat., 428 900 489 414 884 484 193, 326 442 154 521 234
-------- -- - -1-------- -------11-- - ---~--------II----------- ---- 11----- ----------1
Capacity Analysis Module,
Vol/Sat, 0.500.23 0.03 0.06 0.27 0.29 0.39 0.38 0.35 0.28 0.27 0.26
crit Moves,
Delay/Veh, 18.3 12.5 9.9 11.5 13.2 12.5 14.8 1'4.5 12.9 13.2 12.8
Delay Adj' 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00
AdjDel/Veh, 18.3 12.5 9.9 11.5 13.2 12.5 14.8 14.5 12.9 13,2 12.8
LOS by Move, C B A B B B B B B B B
ApproachDel, 15.2 12.8 13.9 12.8
Delay Adj, 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00
ApprAdjDel, 15.2 12.8 13.9 12.8
LOS by Appr, C B B B
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** * * ** * * * * * ** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
~
¡j
rJ
11
~"
HI
.
U
:".,~
t~
tj"
U
12.3
1.00
12.3
8
"'1
'j
L,i
',j
Traffix 7.5.1115 Ic) 2001' Dowling Assoc. Licensed to URBAN CROSSROADS. IRVINE
e
.,-'
E<l
.
.
.
MITIG8 - CUM GROWTH AM (0 +Mon Jul 28. 2003 16, 02,23
--- --- ---------- u _----__n______---- ------_u- --- -- -__n --- ----------------- ---
Page 1-1
LDS Church Traffic Impact Analysis
Cumulative (2005) Growth With Project Conditions With Improvements
AM Peak Hour
- - -- - - - - - - - -- - n- - - - n- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ---- - - - - - - - - - - - -- n - - - - - - - - u-- - - __n - --
Level Of Service Computation Report
2000 HCM Operations Method (Future Volume Alternative)
................................................................................
Intersection #6 Meadows Pkwy (NS) / Rancho Vista Rd. (EW)
............................................ **................. **....... ii," ii. ii...
Cycle (sec) , 0 critical VoL/Cap. (X), 0.295
Loss Time (sec) , 8 (Y+R =, 5 sec) Average Delay (secfveh) , 10.5
Optimal Cycle, 60 Level Of Service, B
.................................... ** **............................... ii.. **....
Approach, North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound
Movement, L T 'R L T R L T R L T R
n--uuuu I_u_u--.------ II --uuu_-_n_-II---------------II--------u-----1
Control, 'Permitted Permitted Permitted Permitted
Rights, Include Include Include Include
Min. Green, 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10
Lanes, 1 0 2 0 1 1 0 2 a 1 0 1 0 1 a 0 1 a 1 0
---___-_--n I------_n"-----II--u_uu------ II_u--------u-- II-_nn__nn_--I
Volume Module,
Base Vol, 194 182 13 18 212 124 58 114 '139 38 128 49
Growth Adj, 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10
Initial Bse, 213 200 14 20 233 136 64 125 153 42 141 54
Added Vol, 1 9 1 5 8 6 12 0 3 1 0 7
PasserByVol, 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Initial Fut, 214 209 15 25 241 142 76 125 156 43 141 61
User Adj, 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
PHF Adj, 0.950.95 0.95 0.95'0.95 0.95 0.950.95 0.95 0.950.95 0.95
PHF Volume, 226 220 16 26 254 150 80 132 164 45 148 64
Reduct Vol, 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Reduced Vol, 226 220 16 26 254 150 80 132 164 45 148 64
PCE Adj, 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00
MLF Adj, 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.0,0 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00
Final Vol., 226 220 16 26 254 150 80 132 164 45 148 64
-- - --_u----I---------- "-_u II u----_----_n_II-------- --u ---II --nnnn- ----I
Saturation Flow Module "
Sat/Lane, 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700
Adjustment, 0.94 1.00 0.94 0.94 1.00 0.94 0.94 1.00 0.94 0.94 1.00 0.94
Lanes, 1.002.00 1.00 1.002.00 1.00 0.43 0.67 0.90 0.36 1.12 0.52
Final Sat., 1600 3400 1600 1600 3400 1600 694 1147 1427 580 1907 825
___--_n----I----u_h_u---II uuuuuU-h I I---u----------I I_uu-_uu----I
Capacity Analysis Module,
Vol/Sat, 0.14 0.06 0.01 0.02 0.07 0.09 0.12 0.12 0.12 0.080.08 0.08
Crit Moves,
Green/Cycle,
Volume/Cap,
Delay/Veh,
User DelAdj,
AdjDel/Veh,
DesignQueue,
0.48 0.48
0.300.14
9.8 8.8
1.00 1.00
9.8 8.8
4 4
0.48 0.48
0.03 0.16
8.3 8.9
1. 00 1. 00
8.3 8.9
0 5
0.48
0.20
9,2
1.00
9.2
3
0.39 0.39
0.30 0.30
12.8 12.8
1. 00 1. 00
12.8 12.8
2 3
0.39
0.30
12.8
1.00
12.8
3
0.39 0.39
0.20 0.20
12.2 12.2
1. 00 1. 00
12.2 12.2
1 3
0,39
0,20
12.2
1.00
12.2
1
.............. **........................ **............................ **. **. **..
0.48
0.02
8.3
1.00
8.3
0
Traffix 7.5.1115 (c) 2001 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to URBAN CROSSROADS, IRVINE
fq
"'4
.)
;1
CUM GROWTH AM (O + P)
Thu Jul 24. 2003 08,27,36
Page 10-1
(1.'
i~
,
- - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - ------ - - - - - h h -- - - - - - - _h - - -- - - - - - h- - - - - -- - - - - - - - -- - - - h- ---
LDS Church Traffic Impact Analysis
Cumulative (2005) Growth With Project Conditions
AM Peak Hour
- -- - - - - --h - - - - - h ------ ---- - - - - - - - - - h - -- - - -- - - _h- - h h - - - - h- - - - ----- - hh ---
Cycle (sec) ,
Loss Time (sec) ,
Optimal Cycle,
0
0 (Y+R =
0
Critical VoL/Cap. (X),
4 sec) Average Delay (sec/veh) ,
Level Of Service,
0.893
23.0
C
P.'.'
tj
8
Level Of Service Computation Report
2000 HCM 4-Way Stop Metþod (Future Volume Alternative)
............................................................................... .
Intersection #7 Meadows Pkwy (NS) / Pauba Rd. (EW)
""""".""""""""""""""""""""""~"""""""""""" .
............................................................................... .
9
~
a
Approach, North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound
Movement, L T R L T R L T R L T R
------------1---------------1 1---------------1 1---------------1 Ihh---- -------1
Control, Stop Sign Stop Sign Stop Sign Stop Sign
Rights, Include Include Include Include
Min. Green, 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Lanes, 1 0 2 0 1 1 0 2 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1
--h--------I---------------II---------------II------h-------II-------h------1
Volume Module,
Base Vol, 119 241 23 15 259 III 42 88 83 48 212 34
Growth Adj, 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10
Initial Bse, 131 265 25 17 285 122 46 97 91 53 233 37
Added Vol, 19 7 0 3 5 4 3 51 9 0 136 1
PasserByVol, 0 0 0 0 0 0 a 0 0 0 0 0
Initial Fut, 150 272 25 20 290 126 49 148 100 53 369 38
User Adj, 1.001.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00
PHF Adj, 1.001:00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00
PHF Volume, 150 272 25 20 290 126 49 148 100 53 369 38
Reduct Vol, a 0 a 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Reduced Vol, 1.50 272 25 20 290 126 49 148 100 53 369 38
PCE Adj, 1.00 1.00 1.00 '1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
MLF Adj, 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Final Vol., 150 272 25 20 290 126 49 148 100 53 369 38
------------I--hh_h------II--------h-----II---------------II-----------h--I
Saturation Flow Module,
Adjustment, 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00
Lanes, 1.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Final Sat., 371 780 418 364 776 418 350 372 398 376 413 428
h _hh -----I-------h------II---------- - -- - -11---------------11-- ----_h h----I
Capacity Analysis Module,
Vol/Sat, 0.40 0.35 0.06 0.05 0.37 0.30 0.14 0.40 0.25 0.14 0.89 0.09
Crit Moves,
Delay/Veh, 17.6 15.7 11.2 12.5 16.3 14.0 13.8 17.2 13.7 13.2 49.2
Delay Adj' 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00
AdjDe1/Veh, 17.6 15.7 11.2 12.5 16.3 14.0 13.8 17.2 13,7 13,2 49.2
LOS by Move, C C B B C B B C B B E
ApproachDel, 16.1 15.5 15.5 41.9
Delay Adj, 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00
ApprAdjDel, 16.1 15.5 15.5 41.9
LOS by Appr, C C C E
.................................................... *. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *.. * * * * *
\11.'
Ù
~
:i~
i
r2.<..
y
D
11.3
1.00
11.3
B
:fJi
U
't
D
n
u
Traffix 7.5.1115 (c) 2001 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to URBAN CROSSROADS, IRVINE
"~
0
, 1
d
4t
etO
i
. J
.
.
.
MITIG8 - CUM GROWTH AM (0 +Mon Jul 28, 2003 16,02,35
Page 1-1
------------------------------- --------- ---_u_- u_-- -- U_--------_u_-- ----- ---
LDS Church Traffic Impact Analysis
Cumulative (2005) Growth With Project Conditions With Improvements
AM Peak Hour
- -- - - - - - --- - - u - - - - - -- u - -- -- --- - - - u - -- - - - u u - - - u - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - u - - --- u-
Level Of Service Computation Report
2000 HCM Operations Method (Future Volume Alternative)
*.. *.... * *... * *.. * * *.. *..... *. *. *.. *... * * *. *...... * *... * * * * *. * * * *. * * *. * * *. * * * * * *
Intersection #7 Meadows Pkwy (NS) / pauba Rd. (EW)
* * * * * *. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** * * * * * *.. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** * *,; * * * * * * *. * * * * ** *... *
Cycle (see), 0 Critical VoL/Cap. (X), 0.378
Loss Time (see,), 8 (Y+R = 5 see) Average Delay (see/veh) , 13.2
Optimal Cycle, 60 Level Of Service, B
* * * *. * * ** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** ** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** * * * * * * * * *
Approach, North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound
Movement, L T R L T R L T R L T R
-- ----------1- --- - ----------11-------- -------11----- - -- ---- ---II-----------u--I
Control, Permitted Permitted Permitted Permitted
Rights, Include Include Include Include
Min. Green, 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10
Lanes, 1 0 2 0 1 1 0 2 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1
u _--_on - ul---------------II---------------II----- 00 - -------11-- 00____- - -----I
Volume Module,
Base Vol, 119 241 23 15 259 III 42 88 83 48 212 34
Growth Adj, 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10
Initial Bse, 131' 265 25 17 285 122 46 97 91 53 233 37
Added Vol: 19 7 0 3 5 4 3 51 9 0 136 1
PasserByVol, 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Initial Fut, 150 272 25 20 290 126 49 148 100 53 369 38
User Adj: 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00
PHF Adj: 0.950.95 0.95 0.950.95 0.95 0.950.95 0.95 0.950.95 0.95
PHF Volume, 158 286 27 21 305 133 52 156 106 56 389 40
Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Reduced vol, 158 286 27 21 305 133 52 156 106 56 389 40
PCE Adj' 1.001.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
MLF Adj, 1.001.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Final Vol., 158 286 27 21 305 133 52 156 106 56 389 40
u u u u- ---I----------_u--I!- --------------11 ~---- u - u_- ---11--00-----------1
Saturation Flow Module,
Sat/Lane, 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700
Adjustment, 0.94 1.00 0.94 0.94 1.00 0.94 0.94 1.00 0.94 0.94 1.00 0.94
Lanes, 1.00 2:00 1.00 1.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Final Sat., 1600 3400 1600 1600 3400 1600 1600 1700 1600 1600 1700 1600
------------1---------------11---------------11---------------11---------------I
Capacity Analysis Module,
Vol/Sat: 0.100.08 0.02 0.010.09 0.08 0.03 0.09 0.07 0.03 0.23 0.03
Crit Moves:
Green/Cycle': 0.26 0.26 0.26 0.260.26 0.26 0.61 0.61 0.61 0.61 0.61 0.61
Volume/Cap: 0.38 0.32 0.06 0.050.34 0.32 0.05 0.15 0.11 0.06 0.38 0.04
DE!1ay/Veh: 20.8 18.8 16.9 16.819.0 19.8 4.9 5.5 5.2 5,0 7.1 4.9
User DelAdj: 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00
AdjDel/Veh: 20.8 18.8 16.9 16.819.0 19.8 4.9 5.5 5.2 5.0 7.1 4.9
DesignQueue: 4 7 1 1 8 3 1 2 1 1 5 1
* * * * * * * * * * * ** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** ** * * * * * * * * * * * * *. * ** * * * * * * * * * * * * * *. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Traffix 7.5.1115 (c) 2001 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to URBAN CROSSROADS, IRVINE
ell
MITIG8 - CUM GROWTH AM (0 +Thu Jul 24, 2003 09,21,59
Page 1-1
~...1
tJ
11
,
-- - n_____- ___n _n--_------___h__n_--h_h___---_--h___----__n --------___n
LDS Church Traffic Impact Analysis
Cumulative (2005) Growth ;lith Project Conditions
AM Peak Hour
- - - n h- - -- - - - - n- ---- -- - n- - - - --- -- - - n - - n -_h - - - - - - -- - - n -- - - -- h - - - n - - - - ---
Level Of Service Computation Report
2000 HCM Unsignalized Method (Future Volume Alternative)
D
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** * * * * * u * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Intersection #14 Westerly Access Dwy. (NS) I pauba Rd. (EW)
* * * * * * * * * * *. *. * * * * * * * * * * * * * *. * * * *. * *... ** *.. * *.. * *. * * * * * *. * * * * * *.* *. *.. * *.. * * * *.
6
Average Delay (sec/veh) , 17.0 Worst Case Level Of Service, C
* * * * *.. * *. *. *. ** * * * * * * * * *. *.. *. * * * * *... * * * *. * * * * * *. * * * * * * *. *. *. * * * * * * * * *. * * * * * *.-
Approach, North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound
Movement, L T R L T R L T R L T R
n--h------I----c--h_-----Iln_-----n_n_-II-----h--------II h__----_hn__
Control, Stop Sign Stop Sign uncontrolled Uncontrolled
Right., Include Include Include Include
Lanes, 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 I! 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0
------------I---h----"-----I I---------------II-.--------_n_-I 1--------------- I
Volume Module,
Base Vol, 0 0
Growth Adj, 1.10 1.10
Initial Bse, O' 0
Added Vol, 0 0
PasserByVol, 0 0
Initial Fut, 0 0
User Adj, 1. 00 1. 00
PHF Adj, 1. 00 1. 00
PHF Volume, 0 0
Reduct Vol, 0 0
Final Vol., 0 0
Critical Gap Module,
Critical Gp'xxxxx xxxx xxxxx 6.4 xxxx 6.2 4.1 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxXxx
FollowUpTim,xxxxx xxxx xxxxx 3.5 xxxx 3.3 2.2 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx,
n nnn h --1-- ----- --------1 I-n--"---------I 1 n - - -- - -- -- ----lln-------- --- --I
Capacity Module,
Cnflict Vol, xxxx xxxx xxxxx 1024 xxxx 709 710]{XXX xxxxx ]{XXX]{XXX xxxxx
Potent Cap., Xxx>< xxxx xxxxx 263 xxxx 438 898 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx
Move Cap., xxxx ]{XXX xxxxx 263 xxxx 438 898 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx
___nnn_nl-nnn--_n_--II-----------n_-II--_n-----_hnllnn_-_n__n--I
Level.Of Service Module, '
Stopped Del,xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx 9.0 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx
LOS by Move, .. * * . A
Movement, LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT
Shared Cap., ]{XXX ]{XXX xxxxx xxxx 303 xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx
Shrd StpDel,xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx 17.0 xxxxx 9.0 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx
Shared LOS, * .. C A
ApproachDel ,xxxxxx 17.0 xxxxxx xxxxxx
ApproachLOS, C
0
1.10
0
0
0
0
1.00
1.00
0
0
0
0 0
1.10 1.10
0 0
2 0
0 0
2 0
1. 00 1. 00
1. 00 1. 00
2 0
0 0
2 0
0
1.10
0
1
0
1
1. 00
1. 00
1
0
1
0 230
1.10 1.10
0 253
2 58
0 0
2 311
1. 00 1. 00
1. 00 1. 00
2 311
0 0
2 311
0
1.10
0
0
0
0
1.00
1.00
0
0
0
0 503
1.10 1.10
0 553
0 154
0 0
0 707
1.00 1.00
1. 00 1. 00
0 707
0 0
0 707
D'",C'.
~,
;;,
0
0
1.10
0
3
0
3
1.00
1.00
3
0
3
!i1
lJ
n
8
n
B
ü
,,-.
.',
, ¡
u
-J
.~
1
;1
Traffix 7.5.1115 (c) 2001 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to URBAN CROSSROADS, IRVINE
" ~
d
ell.
..
4,~
i
, J
.
.
MITIG8 - CUM GROWTH AM (0 +Thu Jul 24, 2003 09,22,05
Page 1-1
- - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - -- --- ------ -- - - - - - - - - -- -- - - - - -- - ---- - - --- - - - - - -- - - - ----
LDS Church Traffic Impact Analysis
Cumulative (2005) Growth With Project Conditions
AM Peak Hour
- - - - - - - - -- - - - -- - -- - - - -- - - - - ------ - - - - - -- - - - - -- --- - - - - h - - - - - - - - - - -- - -- - - - -- - ----
Level Of Service Computation Report
2000 HCM Unsignalized Method (Future Volume Alternative)
........................ u.................. u............. u............... ù...
Intersection #15 Easterly Access Dwy. (NS) / Pauba Rd. (EW)
.................... .".......................................'o"""""" .'.;. ...
Average Delay (sec/veh) , 17.6 Worst Case Level Of Service, C
.......... u...................................... u............. **......;';......
Approach, North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound
Movement, L T R L T R L T R L T R'
- - -- -- ---- --1----------- ----11--------------- II ~ ----'------ ---- 11---------------1
Control, Stop Sign Stop Sign Uncontrolled Uncontrolled'
Rights, Include Include Include Include
Lanes, 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 11 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0
------------I---------------II---------------II----~----------II--'------------I
Volume Module, ' ,
Base Vol, 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 230 0 0 503 0
Growth Adj, 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.101.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10
Initial Bse, 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 253 0 0 553 0
Added Vol, 0 0 0 3 0 1 1 60 0 0 156 5 ,
PasserByVol, 0 0 0 0 0 0 0' 0 0 0 0 0
Initial Fut, 0 0 0 3 0 1 1 313 0 0 709 5
User Adj, 1.001.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
PHF Adj, 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
PHF Volume, 0 0 0 3 0 1 1 313 0 0 709 5
Reduct Vol, 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Final Vol. , 0 0 0 3 0 1 1 313 0 0 709 5
Critical Gap Module,
C r i tical G p "",xxx xxxx xxxxx 6 . 4 xxxx 6 . 2 4.1 xxxx xxxxx xxxxX xxXx xxXxx
FollowUpTim,xxxxx xxxx xxxxx 3.5 xxxx 3.3 2.2 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx XXXX'XXXXX
------------ 1---------------11---------------11--------------- II,c---c----------I"'"
Capacity Module,
Cnflict Vol, xxxx xxxx xxxxx 1027 xxxx 712 714 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx
Potent Cap., xxxx xxxx xxxxx 262 xxxx 436 895 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxXx
M 0 v e Cap., xxxx xxxx xxxxx 2 6 2 xxxx 4 3 6 8 9 5 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx
-- --- -- - --- -1---- -----------11- ------ -- - -----11--------- ------ 11-- ------ -------1
Level Of Service Module,
Stopped Del,xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx 9.0 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxXx
LOS by Move, .... A
Movement, LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT
Shared Cap., xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx 291 xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx
S h r d S t P Del, xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx 1 7 . 6 xxxxx 9 . 0 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx
Shared LOS, ... C A
ApproachDel, xxxxxx 17.6 xxxxxx
ApproachLOS, C
Traffix 7.5.1115 Ic) 2001 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to URBAN' CROSSROADS, IRVINE'
£1:'
CUM GROWTH PM 10 + P)
Thu Jul 24, 2003 08,29,10
- - - - - - - -- - ---- - -- -- - - - -- -- - - -- -- - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - ------ - - - h --- - -- ------
Page 4-1
LDS Church Traffic Impact Analysis
Cumulative (2005) Growth With Project Conditions
PM Peak Hour
J
"',,)'.
'"
L
.-
t
- -- - h- ---- - - - - - --- --- - - - - - --- -- - - ------- - - - - --- - --- ----- - -- - - - - h- -- - - --- - --- --
Level Of Service Computation Report
2000 HCM Unsignalized Method (Future Volume Alternative)
0
Intersection #1 Green Tree Rd. INS) f Pauba Rd. (EW)
* *** ** * *** ******* ** * *** ** ** * ****.* * ** * ***** * * * * * *** ** * *.* ** *************** ********
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ~ * * * * * *.* * * *,* * * * *,*.* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** *** * * * ** * * * * * * * * *** ** *
I
Average Delay (secfveh) , 10.7, Worst Case Level Of Service, B
* * * * * * * * * * * * ~ * * * * * * * * * * * ~ * * * * **.* * * * * * * * * * *** * * * * ** * * * * * * * * *.* * * * * * * * ** * * * **'* * * * * *
Approach, North Bound SouthBound East Bound West Bound
Movement, L T R L T R L T R L T R
- - - -- ----- h 1------------ - --I I------------h-I 1-------------"-1 1--- ------------1
Control, Stop Sign Stop Sign Uncontrolled Uncontrolled
Rights, Include Include Include Include
Lanes, 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1! 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0
------- -----1---------------11---------------11---------------11---------------1
Volume Module, '
Base Vol, 0 0
Growth Adj, 1.10 1.10
Initial Bse: 0 0
Added Vol: 0 0
PasserByVol: 0 0
Initial Fut: 0 0
User Adj: 1.00 1.00
PHF Adj: 1.00 1. 00
PHF Volume: 0 0
Reduct Vol: 0 0
Final Vol.: 0 0
Critical Gap Module,
Critical Gp:xxxxx xxxx XXJÇXX 6.4 xxxx 6.2 4.1 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx
FollowUpTim:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx 3.5 =xx 3.3 2.2 =xx xxxxx xxxxx =xx xxxxx
------------I-~-~-----------II---"-----------II---------------II---h----------1
Capacity Module,
Cnflict Vol: =xx =xx xxxxx 515 =xx 211 213 =xx xxxxx =xx =xx ,x.=
Potent Cap.: xxxx =xx xxxxx 523 =xx 834 1369 =xx xxxxx xxxx xxxx ""'00"
Move Cap.: xxxx =xx xxxxx 521 xxxx 834 1369 xxxx xxxxx =xx xxxx xxxxx
------------1---------------1 1---------------1 I------h_h----I 1------------- --I
Level Of Service Mo'dule:
Stopped Del, xxxxx, XXXX xxxxx xxxxx =xx xxxxx 7 . 6 XXXX xxxxx xxxxx xxxx 'xxxxx
LOS by Move: * * * * A
Movement: LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT
Shared Cap.: xxxx xxxx xxxxx XXXX 641 xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx
S h r d S t P Del: xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx 1 0 . 7 xxxxx 7 . 6 =xx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx
Shared LOS: * * * * B A
ApproachDel: xxxxxx 10.7 xxxxxx
ApproachLOS, B
0
1.10
0
0
0
0
1.00
1. 00
0
0
0
4 0
1.10 1.10
4 0
0 b
0 0
4 0
1. 00 1. 00
1. 00 1. 00
4 0
0 0
4 0
4
1.10
4
0
0
4
1.00
1.00
4
0
4
6 197
1.10 1.10
7 217
0 74
0 0
7 291
1.00 1.00
1. 00 1. 00
7 291
0 0
7 291
0
1.10
0
0
0
0
1. 00
1.00
0
0
0
0 148
1.10 1.10
0 163
0 47
0 0
0 210
1. 00 1. 00
1. 00 1. 00
0 210
0 0
0 210
xxxxxx
0
a
3
1.10
3
0
0
3
1. 00
1.00
3
0
3
D
0
,
D
ß
B
n
11
<"
Ii
~S
Traffi" 7.5.1115' (c) 2001 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to URBAN CROSSROADS, IRVINE
, "
U
£.14
,
n
,
è J
.
.
.
CUM GROWTH PM (0 + P)
Thu Jul 24, 2003 08,29,10
Page 5-1
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- -- - -- -- - - - - - - - - ---- - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - -- - - -- --- -- - - - - -- --- ---
LDS Church Traffic Impact Analysis
Cumulative (20051 Growth With Project conditions
PM Peak Hour
- - - - - ------ -- -- - ------- - - - --- --- -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- -- - - - - - - - -------- -- ---- - - - -----
Level Of Service Computation Report
2000 HCM ,Unsignalized Method (Future Volume' Alternative)
Intersection #2 Calle Cedral (NSI / pauba Rd. (EW)
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *'* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * + * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * + *+ * * + * * * * * * *" * + * * * * * * * *" * * * * * * * *" * *
Average Delay (sec/vehl, 10.6 Worst Case Level Of Service, B
* * * * * * * *.. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * +* *.. * * *" * * * * *.. *
Approach, North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound
Movement, L T R L T R L T R L T R
----- -------1- ----- ---c-----II--- -- ----- -----11---- - --"-----"-11---- -- ---,-----1
Control, Stop Sign Stop Sign Uncontrolled Uncontrolled
Rights, Include Include Include Include
Lanes, 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 l! 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1
------------1---------------11---------------11---------------11-----------'---1
Volume Module,
Base VoL 0 0
Growth Adj, 1.10 1.10
Initial Bse, 0 0
Added Vol, 0 0
PasserByVol, 0 0
Initial Fut, 0 0
User Adj" 1. 00 1. 00
PHF Adj, 1. 00 1. 00
PHF Volume, 0 0
Reduct Vol, 0 0
Final Vol., 0 0
Critical Gap Module,
Critical Gp;xxxxx xxxx xxxxx 6,4 xxxx 6.2 4.1 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx
FollowUpTim,xxxxx xxxx xxxxx 3.5' xxxx 3.3 2;2 xxxx,XXXJix xxxxx xxxx xxxxx
------------1---------------11---------"-----11-------"-------11-------------"'"I'
,Capacity Module,
Cnflict Vol, xxxx xxxx xxxxx 513 xxxx 212 214 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx
Potent Cap., xxxx xxxx xxxxx 525 xxxx 833 1368 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx
Move Cap.' xxxx xxxx xxxxx 524 xxxx 833 1368 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx
------------1---------------11---------------11---------------11---------------1
Level Of Service Module,
Stopped Del,xxxxx xxxX xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx
LOS by Move, * * * * * *
Movement: LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT
Shared Cap., ><XXX ><XXX xxxxx ><XXX 643
Shrd StpDel:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx 10.6
Shared LOS: * * B
ApproachDe1 ,xxxxxx 10 . 6
ApproachLOS , B
0
1.10
0
0
0
0
1.00
1.00
0
0
0
2 0
1.10 1.10
2 0
0 0
0 0
2 0
1. 00 1. 00
1. 00 1. 00
2 0
0 0
2 0
2
1.10
2
0
0
2
1.00
1. 00
2
0
2
3 200
1.10 1.10
3 220
0 74
0 0
3 294
1. 00 1. 00
1. 00 1. 00
3 294
0 0
3 294
0
1.10
0
0
0
0
1.00
1.00
0
0
0
0 150
1.10 1.10
0 165
0 47
0 0
0 212
1.00 1.00
1. 00 1. 00
0 212
0 0
0 212
2
1.10
2
0
0
2
1.00
1.00
2
0
2
7 . 6 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx
A
LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT
><XXX ><XXX xxxxx xxxx ><XXX xxxxx
xxxxx 7 . 6 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx
A
xxxxxx xxxxxx
Traffix 7.5.1115 (cl 2001 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to URBAN CROSSROADS, IRVINE
£\5
CUM GROWTH PM (0 + P)
Thu Jul 24, 2003 08,29,10
Page 6"1
J
p
,j
t
----- ----______n___nn_-___n__u-__--------------- _h__-__h__-_h_____nh_-
LDS Church Traffic Impact Analysis
Cumulative (2005) Growth With Project Conditions
PM Peak Hour
- - - - - - - - - - -- - - - n- - u- - - -- - - - n -- _n- - - - n- - - - hn - n - - - h- n - - - - -- - - _n - - - -_h-
Q'
Level Of Service Computation Report
2000 HCM Unsignalized Method (Future Volume Alternative)
.................................""",."".,.".,.", H""""""'" **. ". ,.
Average Delay (sec/veh) ,
Intersection #3 Camino Romo (NS)/ Rancho Vista Rd. (EW)
..,..........,."....,."",.",.",.",."".,.." H'" H""""" H H""""",
A
n
9.9
Worst Case Level Of Service,
H' H" H'H'" H HHH'H'HHH'HH' H' H' H" 'H H'" H 'HH' 'H'HHHH'H
Approach, North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound
Movement, L T R L T R L T R L T R
_u_nn_u_luunnn_uull--uu_h_u_h II hnnUh_hU II h__UUh-"---1
Control, Stop Sign Stop Sign Uncontrolled Uncontrolled
Rights, Include, Include Include Include
Lanes, 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0
__n_--_h_-I-uh__n_uh-II --u_uu_n_--II nn_n_h___n II--nnnu-----1
Volume Module,
Base Vol, 10 0
Growth Adj, 1."10 1.10
Initial Bse, 11 0
Added Vol, 1 0
PasserByVol, 0 0
Initial Fut, 12 0
User Adj, 1. 00 1. 00
PHF Adj, 1. 00 1. 00
PHF Volume, 12 0
Reduct Vol, 0 0
Final Vol., 12 0
Critical Gap Module,
Critical Gp, 6.4 xxxx 6.2 xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx 4;1 XXXX'XXXXX
FollowUpTim, 3.5 xxxx 3.3 xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx 2.2 XXXX'XXXXX
_--__nn_n I--nnn_--n_-Il --_--___n___U II--_n_---------II n_--"-_n--u-I
Capacity Module,
Cnflict VoL 310 xxxx 170 xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx 178 xxxx xxxxx
Potent Cap., 687 xxxx 879 xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx 1411 xxxx xxxxx
Move Cap., 684 xxxx 879 xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx 1411 xxxx xxxxx
nnn_--_n I----------n_-- II-_nh_--u----Ilh------h-----II h_--_-----n--I
Level Of Service Module, '
Stopped Del, xxxxx xxxx 9.1 xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx 7.6, xxxxxxxxx "
LOS by Move, 'A A
Movement, LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT
Shared Cap., 684 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx XXXXX'
Shrd StpDel, 10.4 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx 7.6 xxxx xxxxx
Shared LOS, B A
ApproachDel , 9. 9 xxxxxx xxxxxx xxxxxx
ApproachLOS, A
6
1.10
7
0
0
7
1.00
1.00
7
0
7
0 0
1.10 1.10
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
1. 00 1. 00
1. 00 1. 00
0 0
0 0
0 0
0
1.10
0
0
0
0
1.00
1.00
0
0
0
0 123
1.10 1.10
0 135
0 28
0 0
0 163
1.00 1.00
1. 00 1. 00
0 163
0 0
0 163
12
1.10
13
1
0
14
1.00
1.00
14
0
14
7 82
1.10 1.10
8 90
0 34
0 0
B 124
1.00 1'.00
1. 00 1. 00
8 124
0 0
8 124
0
0
0
1.10
0
0
0
0
1.00,
1.00
0
0
0
D
J
i
roo'},
1
Po'
¡J
8
ro'ij 0
~
n
, í
."
,1i
U
!J
4t
Traffix 7.5.1115 (c) 2001 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to URBAN CROSSROADS, IRVINE
£11p
. )
j
.
.
.
CUM GROWTH PM (O + P)
Thu Jul 24, 2003 08,29,10
Page 7-1
--- ------------------------- ----------- --------------------------------- --------
LDS Church Traffic Impact Analysis
Cumulative (2005) Growth With Project Conditions
PM Peak Hour
- - - - - -- - -- -- -- - ---- - -- - - - - --------- - - - - --- -- - - - - - - - - - - - - ---- --- -- - - - - - -- - --- - ---
Level Of Service Computation Report
2000 HCM Unsignalized Method (Future Volume Alternative)'
.................................................... u...... u..................
Intersection #4 Camino Romo{NS) f.,Corte Villosa (EW)
........ u................................................................ u....
Average Delay (sec/veh) ,
8.5
Worst Case Level Of Service,
A
....................... ~.............................................. * *.. * u...
Approach, North Bound South Sound East Bound', West Bound
Movement, L T R L T R L T R L T R
------------1---------------11---------------11---------------11---------------I
Control" Stop Sign Stop Sign Uncontrolled Uncontrolled
Rights, Include Include Include Include
Lanes, 0 0 0 0 0 I 0 0 0 I 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 I
------------1---------------11---------------11---------------11---------------1
Volume Module, .
Base' Vol, 0 0 0 7 0 9 7 4 0 0 7 4'
Growth Adj, 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10
Ini tial Bse, 0 0 0 8 0 10 8 4 0 0 8 4
Added'Vol, 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0'
PasserByVol, 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Initial Fut, 0 0 0 8 0 11 9 4 0 0 8 4
User Adj" 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00'
PHF Adj, 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00
PHF Volume, 0 0 0 8 0 11 9 4 0 0 8 4
Reduct Vol, 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Final Vol., 0 0 0 8 0 11 9 4 0 0 8 4
Critical Gap Module,
Critical.GP"'xxxx xxxx """"" 6.4 xxxx 6.2 4.1 xxxx =xxx """"" xxxx,""""'" ,"
FollowUpTi.m,=xxx xxxx """"" 3.5 xxxx 3.3 2.2 xxxx """"" =xxx xxxx """"",-,,:
--------:---1---------------11---------------11---------------11---------------I"
Capacity Module,
Cnflict Vol, xxxx xxxx """"" 30 xxxx 8 12 xxxx """"" xxxx xxxx xxxxx
Potent Cap., xxxx xxxx """"" 990 xxxx 1080 1620 xxxx =xxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx
Move Cap., xxxx xxxx """"" 986 xxxx 1080 1620 xxxx =xxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx
-- - ---------1- --- ----- ----- -11-------------- -11- --------------11--- - - ------ ----I
Level Of Service Module,
Stopped Del""""", XXXX,XXXXX 8.7 xxxx 8.4
LOS by Move, * . A A
Movement, LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT
Shared Cap., xxxx xxxx """"" xxxx xxxx """""
Shrd StpDel""""",xxxx """"" xXxxx xxxx """""
Shared LOS, * *
ApproachDel, xxxxxx
ApproachLOS,
7 . 2 xxxx =xxx =xxx xxxx xxxxx
A
LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT
xxxx xxxx' =xxx xxxx xxxx XXXXX
7 . 2 xxxx =xxx """"" xxxx xxxxx
A
8.5
A
xxxxxx
.
xxxxxx
Traffix 7.5.1115 (c) 2001 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to ~AN CROSSROADS, IRVINE
£11
CUM GROWTH PM (O + P)
Thu Jul 24, 2003 08,29,10
Page 7-1
01
:Ì
]
.
Li
-_u ------_u_- -_u_u_-----_u_---_u_--u_--- _uu_------------ ------ -- -------
LDS Church Traffic Impact Analysis
Cumulative (200S) Growth With Project Conditions
PM Peak Hour
-_uu_----- _uuuu_u_---_uu__u_---_u_-_u_-- _u---- _uu- -_u_u_--_u_-
~'~
~!
Level Of Service Computation Report
2000 HCM Unsignalized Method (Future Volume Alternative)
................................................................ * *.... * * * * * * *. * *
Average Delay (sec/veh) ,
,8.5
Intersection #4 Camino Romo (NS) / Corte Villösa (EW)
.. * *. * * *. *.......... * * * * * *....... * * * * *... * * * * * *Ù *. **... *........ * *;. * *.. * * * * * * *. * *
A
D
Worst Case Level Of Service,
* * * * * * *. * * * * * * * * * * * * * *.. *.. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *.. *... * * * * * * *.. *.. *... *. * * * * *. *. * * * *.
Approach, North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound
Movement, L T R L T R L, T R L T R
--_uuu_u I uuuu-u----Il uuuuuuu-II-_u---_u_uu II U_hU___Cuu 1
Control, Stop Sign Stop Sign Uncontrolled Uncontrolled'
Rights, Include Include Include Include
Lanes, 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1
-_uuuuu I u_u_u_u----II "UUCUUhu-II-----_uu-----II-U-"-_u__uu I
Volume Module,
Base Vol, 0 0
Growth Adj, 1.10 1.10
Initial Bse, 0 0
Added Vol, 0 0
PasserByVol, 0 0
Ini tial Fut, 0 0
User Adj , 1. 00 1. 00
PHF Adj, 1. 00 1. 00
PHF Volume, 0 0
Reduct Vol, 0 0
Final Vol., 0 0
Critical Gap Module,
C r i tical G p "",xxx xxxx xxxxx 6 . 4 xxxx 6 . 2 4 . 1 xxxx xXxxX xxxxx xxxx xxxxx
FollowUpTim,xxxxx xxxx xxxxx 3.5 xxxx 3.3 2;2 xxxx xxxXx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx
_uu_uu--I uu__u_h-u-Iluuh--_u_u-II u_u_---uuu II u_uu__u----I
Capacity Module,
Cnflict Vol, xxxx xxxx xxxxx 30 xxxx 8 12 xxxx xxxxx XXXX xxxx xxxxx
Potent Cap., xxxx xxxx xxxxx 990 xxxx 1080 1620 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx
Move Cap., xxxx xxxx xxxxx 986 xxxX 1080 1620 xxxx xxxxx xXxx xxxx xxxxx
uu_u_uu I uu_----_uu-,II u__u_---_u--II u__uu-------II----------_uu I
Level Of Service Module,
Stopped Del,xxxxx xxxx xxxxx 8.7 xxxx 8.4
LOS by Move, * A A
Movement, LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT
Shared Cap., xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx
Shrd StpDeLxxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx
Shared LOS, * * * * *
ApproachDel, xxxxxx 8.5
ApproachLOS, A
0
1.10
0
0
0
0
1. 00
1. 00
0
0
0
7 0
1.10 1.10
8 0
0 0
0 0
8 0
1. 00 1. 00
1. 00 1. 00
8 0
0 0
8 0
9
1.10
10
1
0
11
1.00
1.00
11
0
11
7 4
1.10 1.10
8 4
1 0
0 0
9 4
1. 00 1. 00
1. 00 1. 00
9 4
0 0
9 4
0
1.10
0
0
0
0
1.00
1.00
0
0
0
0 7
1.10 1.10
0 8
0 0
0 0
0 8
1. 00 1. 00
1. 00 1. 00
0 8
0 0
0 8
D-
:;,'.
<,
9,",,',"
~'
,',
4
1.10
4
0
0
4
1.00
1.00
4
0
4
J
xxxxxx
,-~
a
"1
8
r,',~,'
u
q
~j
",]'"
f,
,.
7 . 2 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx
A
LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT
xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx
7 . 2 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx
A
£H~
n
L:
, ,
Traffix 7.5.1115 (c) 2001 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to URBAN CROSSROADS, IRVINE
xxxxxx
4t
.
.
.
CUM GROWTH PM (0 + P)
Thu Jul 24, 2003 08,29,10
Page B-1
- ------------ -------------------------- -- ---- ------- ----------------------------
LDS Church Traffic Impact Analysis
Cumulative (2005) Growth With Project Conditions
PM Peak Hour
- - - - - - - -- --h - - ----- --- - -- - - - - - - - - - - ------ - -- - h - - - - - -- - - -- - ------ - - ------- - - ---
Level Of Service Computation Report
2000 HCM Unsignalized Method (Future Volume Alternative)
.............................................................. * *... *. *. * * '*.... * *
Intersection #5 Corte Villosa INS)' / Pauba Rd,IEW)
*. * *.... *..... *................. * * * * *.. *... *... * *. ** * * *. * * **.'.. *"*.. * *... *... *..
Average Delay I sec/veh) , 12.5, Worst Case Level Of Service, B
. *. *. *. *.. *.. *. * * *............... *,' * *.. *.... * * *.... * *.. * * *.... * *....... *. * * *....
Approach, North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound
Movement, L T R L T R L T R LT' R
------------I------uuuu-ll_u------------11 u_----------ull--'-------------I
Control, Stop Sign Stop Sign. Uncontrolled Uncontrolled
Rights, Include Include Include Include
Lanes, 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 1
_u_u------I---------------I I-------u_u---I 1 --"------------II--_u-----u---I
Volume Module,
Base Vol, 9 3
Growth Adj, 1.10 1.10
Initial Bse, 10 3
Added Vol, 0 0
PasserByVol, 0 0
Initial Fut, 10 3
User Adj, 1. 00 1. 00
PHF Adj, 1. 00 1. 00
PHF Volume, 10 3
Reduct Vol, 0 0
Final Vol., 10 3
Critical Gap Module,
Critical Gp, 7.1 6.5 6.2 7.1 6.5 6.2 4.1 xxxx xxxxx 4.1 xxxx xxxXx
FollowUpTim, 3.5 4.0 3.3 3.5 4.0 3.3 2.2 xxxx xxxxx 2.2 xxxx xxxxx
--------_u-I_u--u--------I I--U----U--"--I 1 ------_u------II ---------------1
Capacity Module,
Cnflict Vol, 51B 515 239 527 543 194 204 XXxx xxxxx 276 xxxx xxxxx
Potent Cap., 471 466 805 465 450 852 1380 xxxxxxxxx 1298 xxxx xxxxx
Move Cap., 451 454 B05 451 43B 852 1380 xxxx xxxxx 129B xxxx xxxxx
-----_uu-- 1---------------11 u_--u--------I 1-----"---------1 1---------------1
Level Of Service Module,
Stopped De1,xxxxx xxxx 9.5 xxxxx xxxx 9.3 7.6 xxxx xxxxx 7.8 xxxx xxxxx
LOS by Move, * A A A A
Movement, LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT
Shared Cap., 452 xxxx xxxxx 446 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx
Shrd StpDel, 13.2 xxxx XXXXX 13.3 xxxx xxxxx' 7.7 XXXX XXXXX 7.8 xxxx xxxxx
Shared LOS, B B A A
ApproachDel, 12.5 11.4 xxxxxx xxxxxx
ApproachLOS, B B
3
1.10
3
0
0
3
1.00
1.00
3
0
3
8 4
1.10 1.10
9 4
0 0
0 0
9 4
1. 00 1. 00
1. 00 1. 00
9 4
0 0
9, 4
10
'1.10
11
1
0
,12
1.00
1.00
12
0
12
20 147
1.10 1.10
22 162
1 77
0 0
23 239
1. 00 1. 00
1. 00 1. 00
23 239
0 0
23 239
34
1.10
37
0
0
37
1.00
1. 00
37
0
37
12 131
1.10 1.10
13 144
0 50
0 0
13 194
1. 00 1. 00
1.00 1.00
13 194
0 0
13 194
9
1.10
10
0
0
10
1.00
1. 00
10
0
10
Traffix 7.5,1115 (c) 2001 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to URBAN CROSSROADS, IRVINE
f,1'1
"
d
CUM GROWTH PM (0 + P)
Thu Jul 24, 2003 08,29,10
Page 9-1
!1
,
---- --- --_u --_uu_-----_u_--- -----------------_u_----u_------ -----______n-
LDS Church Traffic Impact Analysis
Cumulative (2005) Growth With Project Conditions
PM Peak Hour
Level Of Service Computation Report
2000 HCM 4-Way Stop Method (Future Volume Alternátiye)
0
- - - - u - - - u- - -- - - uu - - -- --- - - - u - - - -- - - U - h - - - - - - - u - - - - -Un - u - - - - - - - - - -- ---
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** * *,** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** * * * * * * * * * * * * * *... * *... * * * * * * * * * * * *
Intersection #6 Meadows Pkwy (NS) / Rancho Vista Rd. (EW)
D
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *,* * * * * ** * * * ** * ** * * * * *... *. * *'* * * * * * * * * ù** * * ù * * ** * * * *". * * *
Cycle (sec) , 0 Critical Vo1./Cap. (X), '0.231
Loss Time (sec)" 0 (Y+R = 4 sec) Average Delay (sec/veh) , 9:9
Optimal Cycle, 0," Level Of Service, A
* * * * * * *. ~ * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** * ** * * * * * * * * * *. * * ** * *
Approach, North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound
Movement, L T R L T R L T R L T R
u___h_UU I--_n_-uu--ull--------u-----II nnu______u~ II--_nh__nnu 1
Control, Stop Sign Stop Sign Stop Sign Stop Sign
Rights, Include Include Include Include
Min. Green, 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ,0
Lanes, 1 0 2 0 1 1 0 2 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0
_un_-_n--I nn__--u---ull nnn_---_u--Il un--_uhh_-II_nunn_-----1
Volume Module,
Base Vol, 27 169 19 16 220 40 27 39 46 22 30 26
Growth Adj, 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10
Initial Bse, 30 166 21 18 242 ,44 30 43 51 24 33 29
Added Vol, 4 24 1 24 27 30 25 0' 2 1 0 22
PasserByVol, 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Initial Fut, 34 210 22 42 269 74 55 43 53 25 33 51
User Adj, 1.001.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
PHF Adj, 1.001.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
PHF Volume, 34 210 22 42 269 74 55 43 53 25 33 51
Reduct Vol, ".0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Reduced Vol, 34 210 22, 42 269 74 55 43 53 25 33 51
PCE Adj, 1.001.00 1.00' 1.001.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00
MLF Adj, 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Final Vol., 34 210 22 42 269 74 55 43 '53 25 33 51
n_uu-uul---_n_-uhn_II---_n----_un II nh_~u----h-II--_n--_nn-ul
Saturation Flow Module,
Adjustment, 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Lanes, 1.00 2..00 1.00 1.002.00 1.00 0.73 0.57 0.70 0.460.61 0.93
Final Sat.' 516 1117 624 537 1166 655 374 314 408 236 317 547
uu_uu_n I-_n_u_----n-II-~--u_u_u_ull--_n_uu_uullu_u_n--n_--I
Capacity Analysis Module,
Vol/Sat, 0.07 0.19 0.04 0.080.23 0.11 0.15 0.14 0.13 0.11 0.10 0.09
Crit Moves,
Delay/Veh, 9.8 10.2 8.3 9.7 10.3 8.6 10.4 9.8 9.3 10.0 9.9
Delay Adj, 1.001.00 1.00 1.,001.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.001.00
AdjDel/Veh, 9,6 10.2 6.3 9.7 10.3 6.6 10.4 9.6 9.3 10,0 9,9
LOS by Move, A B A A B A B A A A A
ApproachDel, 10.0 9.9 9.8 9..4
Delay Adj' 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00
ApprAdjDel, 10.0 9.9 9.8 9.4
LOS by Appr, A A A A
* * * * * * * * * *.. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *. * * * * * * *. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
I
I
!¡\'I,',j>
U
rw
it
i
0
g
II
[J
8.9
1.00
6.9
A
r,
U
n
iJ
c.
ì
13
Traffix' 7.5.1115 (c) 2001 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to URBAN CROSSROADS, IRVINE
'"
:1
,,;I
-
""
(:W
.. ,
, ¡
d
.
.
'8
MITIG8 - CUM GROWTH PM (0 +Mon Jul 28, 2003 16, 03, 06
Page 1-1
- ------------------------------ - ---------- ------------------------ --------- -----
LDS Church Traffic Impact Analysis
Cumùlative (2005) Growth With Project Conditions With Improvements
PM Peak Hour
- - - - - - - h- ---- - - -- ---- - - - _--h _h_- -- - - - - - - -- -- - -- - - - -- - - - - -- --- --- - - - - - - -- -- - --
Level Of Service Computation Report
2000 HCM Operations Method (Future Volume Alternative)
............... ~.. *..... * *. *.... *........... * *..... *........ * * *.................
Intersection #6 Meadows Pkwy (NS) / Rancho Vista Rd" (EW)
*............ * 0"""" ~...................... *............... * * 0 * * *.. * *......0',
Cycle (sec) , a Critical VoL/Cap. (X), 0.152
Loss Time (sec) , 8 (Y+R ~ 5 sec) Average Delay (sec/veh) , 8.9
Optimal Cycle, 60 Level Of Service, A
......... * * * * * * * *.... *. * *.. * *........ *........ * *........................ * .'... *..
Approach, North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound
Movement, L T R L T R L T R L T R
- c----- -----1-- -------------11----- --- --- ----11-------- -------11---------------1
Control, Permitted Permitted Permitted Permitted.
Rights; Include Include Include Include
Min. Green, 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10,
Lanes, 1 0 2 a 1 1 a 2 a 1 a 1 a 1 a 0 1 a 1 0
-- -- -- - -----1--- ----------- -11--------- ---h-II--------- ------11---------------1
Volume Module,
Base Vol, 27 169 19 16 220 40 27 39 46 22 30 26
Growth Adj, 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.101.10 1.10 1.101.10 1.10
Initial Bse, 30 186 21 18 242 44 30 43 51 24 33 29
Added Vol, 4 24 1 24 27 30 25 0 2 1 0 22
PasserByVol, 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Initial Fut, 34 210 22 42 269 74 55 43 53 25 33 51
User Adj' 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00
PHF Adj, 0.950.95 0.95 0.950.95 0.95 0.950.95 0.9.5 0.950.95 0.95
PHF Volume, 35 221 23 44 283 78 58 45 55 27 35 53
Reduct Vol, a 0 a 0 0 a 0 a 0 0 a 0
Reduced Vol, 35 221 23 44 283 78 58 45 55 27 35 53.
PCE Adj' 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00
MLF Adj, 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00
Final Vol., 35 221 23 44 283 78 58 45 55 27 35 53
------------1---------------11---------------11---------------11---------------1
Saturation Flow Module,
Sat/Lane, 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700
Adjustment, 0.94 1.00 0.94 0.94 1.00 0.94 0.94 1.00 0.94 0.94 1.00 0.94
Lanes, 1.002.00 1.00 1.002.00 1.00 0.74 0.55 0.71 0.47 0.58 0.95
Final Sat., 1600 3400 1600 1600 3400 1600 1185 930 1140 755 988 1515
---- -- - h -- -1---------------11-- -- ------ -----11---- ---- -------11--------- ------I
Capaci ty Analysis Module,
vol/sat, 0.02 0.06 0.01 0.03 0.08 0.05 0.05 0,05 0.05 0.04 0.04 0.04
Crit Moves,
Green/Cycle, 0.55 0.55 0.55 0.55 0.55 0.55 0.32 0.32 0,32 0.32 0.32 0.32
Volume/Cap, 0.04 0.12 0.03 0.05 0.15 0.09 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.11 0.11 0.11
Delay/Veh, 6.3 6.6 6.2 6.3 6.7 6.5 14.7 14,7 14.7 14.5 14.5 14.5
User DelAdj, 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
AdjDel/Veh, 6.3 6.6 6.2 6.3 6.7 6,5 14.7 14.7 14.7 14.5 14.5 14.5
DesignQueue, 1 3 0 1 4 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
.... *. * *....... *. * *. * *. * *. * * *. *. *. *. *...... *.. *... *. * * *. *........ *. *. * * * * * *... **
Traffix 7.5.1115 (c) 2001 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to URBAN CROSSROADS, IRVINE
£:-1..\
:]
CUM GROWTH PM (0 + P)
Thu Jul 24. 2003 08,29,10
Page 10-1
r'l
U
,
- - - - - -- -- - - - - -- -- - - - -- ---- - - - - - -- -- - - - -- - -- - - - -- -- - - - - --- h- --- -- - - - -- - - - - -- h_-
LDS Church Traffic Impact Analysis
Cumulative (2005) Growth ,lith Project Conditions
PM Peak Hour
- - - - -- - - -- ----- - -- - ------- - -- - - -- - - - - - - --- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - h- - - -- ---
['
d
Level Of Service Computation Report
2000 HCM 4-Way Stop Method (Future Volume Alternative)
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *. * * * *
Intersection #7 Meadows Pkwy (.NS) / pauba Rd. ClEW)
I
* * * * * * * * * * *,* * * * * * * * * ** * * * ** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *.. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * **..; * * * *
Cycle (sec) , 0 Critical VoL/Cap. IX), 0.317
Loss Time (sec) , 0 (Y+R = 4 sec) Average Delay Isec/veh) , 11.3
Optimal Cycle, 0 Level Of Service, B'
* * * * * * * * *,* * * * * * * * * * *** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** * * * ** * * * ** * *.. * * *,;.. * *. * * *.. * * * * ** ** *...
~
Approach: North Bound South, Bound East Bound West Bound
Movement: L T R L T R L T R L T R
--- - h------I------~--------II h_------------II---- - - ---------11- h____- - ------I
Control: Stop Sign Stop Sign Stop Sign Stop Sign
Rights: Include Include Include Include
Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 '0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Lanes: 1 0 2 0 1 1 0 2 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 a 1 0 1
------------I---------n----II---------------II---------h----II----------Chhi
Volume Module:
Base Vol: 52 187 27 37 189 21 27 80 70 25 75 26
Growth Adj: 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10
Initial Bse: 57 206 30 41 208 23 30 88 77 28 83 '29
Added Vol: 4 22 0 2 24 3 3 68 6 0 43 4
PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Initial Fut, 61 228 30 43 232 26 33 156 83 28 126 33
User Adj: 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00
PHF Adj: 1.001.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.0'01.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00
PHF Volume' 61 228 30 43 232 26 33 156 83 28 126 33
Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Reduced Vol: 61 228 30 43 232 26 33 156 83 28 126 33
PCE Adj: 1.001.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00
MLF Adj, 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Final Vol.: 61 228 30 43 232 26 33 156 83 28 126 33
--- -- -- -- - --I--n_---_--n-- ¡I---n_----n_- -II----n_------_~ II----~--- -------1
Saturation Flow Module:
Adjustment, 1.00 1.00 1,.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Lanes, 1.002.00 1.00 1.002.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Final Sat.: 469 1007 554 465 1000 549457 492 541 442 475 518
-- - --- h n- -1- - -------------11- _c - -----------11 ~----------h--II---- -----------1
Capacity Analysis Module: '
Vol/Sat, 0.13 0.23 0.05 0.090.23 0.05 0.07 0.32 0.15 0.06 0.26 0.06
Crit Moves:
Delay/Veh: 11.0 11.3 9.1 10.7 11.4 9.1 10'712.6 10.0 10.8 12.1
Delay Adj: 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00
AdjDel/Veh: 11.0 11.3 9.1 10.711.4 9.1 10.7 12.6 10.0 10.8 12.1
LOS by Move: B B A B B A B B A B B
ApproachDel: 11.1 11.1 11.5 11.5
Delay Adj, 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00
ApprAdjDel: 11.1 11.1 11.5 11.5
LOS by Appr, B B B B
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *.... * * * * * * ** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** * * *
fl
n
,~j
"'1
ij':
¡
j
%,'
U
1'1
d
<"
ß
9.5
1. 00
9.5
A
::'~
U
..
;,>
.,
J
:1.
Traffix 7.5.1115 (c) 2001 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to URBAN CROSSROADS, IRVINE
c' >
..
:,)
£;z.-z..
.
.
.
MITIG8 - CUM GROWTH PM {O +Mon Jul 28, 2003 16,03,30
page 1-1
------------------------------------------------- ---c --- ----------- -------------
LDS Church Traffic Impact Analysis
Cumulative (2005) Growth With Project Conditions With Improvements
PM Peak Hour
- -- - - - - -- --- - - - ------- - --- -- - -- -- - - - - --- - --- -- c - - - -- - - - - - - - - - --- ---- ---- - - ---- --
Level Of Service Computation Report
2000 HCM Operations Method (Future Volume Alternative)
.................,............................................................. .
Intersection #7 Meadows Pkwy (NS) / Pauba Rd. (EW).
H""""""""""""""""""""""""'" H"""""""""""'"
Cycle (sec) , 0 Critical VoL/Cap. (X), 0.194
Loss Time (sec) , 8 (Y+R = 5 sec) Average Delay (sec/veh) , 11.1
Optimal Cycle, 60 Level.Of Service, B
... HH' HHHH'HH.HHHH' H H'HHHHH H HH. H" H" H' 'HH 'H' 'HH" ,
Approach, North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound
Movement, L T R L T R L T R L T R
-----------.-I---------------II---------------II-------------~-II---------------I
Control, Permitted Permitted Permitted Permitted
Rights, Include Include Include Include
Min. Green, 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10
Lanes, 1 0 2 0 1 1 0 2 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1
------------1 ---------------11 ---------------11 ---------------11---------------1
Volume Module,
Base Vol, 52 187 27 37 189 21 27 80 70 25 75 26
Growth Adj, 1.101.10 1.10 1.101.10 1.10 1.101.10 1.10 1.101.10 1.10
Initial Bse, 57 206 30 41 208 23 30 88 77 28 83 29
Added Vol, 4 22 0 2 24 3 3 68 6 0 43 4
PasserByVol, 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Initial Put, 61 228 30 43 232 26 33 156 83 28 126 33'
User Adj, 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00'
PHF Adj, 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.950.95 0.95
PHF Volume, 64 240 31 45 244 27 34 164 87 29 132 34
Reduct Vol, 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Reduced Vol, 64 240 31 45 244 27 34 164 87 29 132, 34
PCE Adj' 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00',
MLF Adj, 1.001.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00
Final Vol., 64 240 31 45 244 27 34 164 87 29 132 34
------------1---------------11--------------- II ---------------11--------------- 1
Saturation Flow Module,
Sat/Lane, 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700
Adjustment, 0.94 1.00 0.94 0.94 1.00 0.94 0.94 1.00 0.94 0.94 1.00 0.94
Lanes, 1.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Final Sat., 1600 3400 1600 1600 3400 1600 1600 1700 1600 1600 1700 1600
------------1 ---------------11 --------------- 11---------------11"--------------1
Capacity Analysis Module,
Vol/Sat, 0.04 0.07 0.02 0.03 0.07 0.02 0.02 0.10 0.05 0.020.08 0.02
Crit Moves,
Green/Cycle,
Volume/Cap,
Delay/Veh,
User DelAdj,
AdjDe1/Veh,
DesignQueue,
0.370.37
0.11 0.19
12.613.2
1. 00 1. 00
12.8 13.2
1 5
0.37
0.05
12.3
1.00
12.3
1
0.370.37
0.08 0.19
12.5 13,2
1. 00 1. 00
12.5 13.2
1 5
0.50
0.04
7.9
1.00
7.9
1
0.37
0.05
12.3
1.00
12.3
1
0.50 0.50
0.04 0.19
7.9 8.9
1. 00 1. 00
7.9 8.9
1 3
0.50
0.11
8.3
1.00
8.3
1
0.500.50
0.04 0.16
7.8 8.6
1. 00 1. 00
7.8 8.6
0 2
............ H"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
Traffix 7.5.1115 (c) 2001 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to URBAN CROSSROADS, IRVINE
f.L3
MITIGS - CUM GROWTH PM (0 +Thu Jul 24, 2003 09,22,15
page. 1-1
J
ß
,
- ----- -------------- -------- - - -- -------- ----------------------------- ------- ----
LDS Church Traff ic Impact Analysis
Cumulative (2005) Growth With Project Conditions
PM Peak Hour
- - - - - - --- - - - - - - - -- ---- -- - - --- --- -- - -- - -- - - - - -- - - - - - -- - - -- - - - - - - -- - - - - ~ - - --- - - - --
Level Of Service Computation Report
2000 HCM Unsignalized Method (Future Volume Alternative)
D
.**** ** ** ****.**. **.. ****** ****.**... **.... ** ****.**...**.. **. **... **....... **." '
Intersection #14 Westerly Access Dwy. (NS) f Pauba Rd. (EW)
........... **.............................................................."..""
I
Average Delay (secfveh) , 11. 0 Worst Case Level Of Service, B
......................... **. **... **..........**.................................
Approach, North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound
Movement, L T R L T R L T .R L T R
------------1---------------11---------------11---------------11---------------1
Control, Stop Sign Stop Sign Uncontrolled Uncontrolled'
Rights, Include Include Include Include
Lanes, 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 I! 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0
----- ------e 1- --------------11------ - --- - - ---11---- -----------11---------------1
Volume Module,
Base Vol, 0 0
Growth Adj' 1.101.10
Initial Bse, 0 0
Added Vol, 0 0
PasserByVol, 0 0
Initial Fut, 0 0
User Adj, 1. 00 1. 00
PHF Adj, 1. 00 1. 00
PHF Volume, 0 0
Reduct Vol, 0 0
Final Vol. , 0 0
Critical Gap Module,
Critical Gp"'xxxx xxxx xxxxx 6.4 xxxx 6.2 4.1 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx.xxxx xxxxx
FollowUpTim,xxxxx xxxx xxxxx 3.5 xxxx 3.3 2.2 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx -
------------1-.--------------11---------------11---------------11---------------I
Capacity Module,
Cnflict Vol, xxxx xxxx xxxxx 508 xxxx 212
Potent Cap., xxxx xxxx xxxxx 528 xxxx 833
Move Cap.' xxxx xxxx xxxxx 528 xxxx 833
------------1---------------11---------------11---------------11-----------,-°-1
Level Of Service Module,
Stopped Del,xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx 7.6 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx
LOS by Move, ..... A
Movement, LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT
Shared Cap., xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx 601 xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx
S h r d S t P Del, xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx 11. 0 xxxxx 7 . 6 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx
Shared LOS, .. . B A
ApproachDel, xxxxxx 11.0 xxxxxx xxxxxx
ApproachLOS, B
0
1.10
0
0
0
0
1.00
1.00
0
0
0
0 0
1.10 1.10
0 0
2 0
0 0
2 0
1. 00 1. 00
1. 00 1. 00
2 0
0 0
2 0
0
1.10
0
1
0
1
1.00
1.00
1
0
1
0 201
1.10 1.10
0 221
1 73
0 0
. 1 294
1. 00 1. 00
1. 00 1. 00
1 294
0 0
1 294
0
1.10
0
0
0
0
1.00
1.00
0
0
0
0 150
1.10 1.10
0 165
0 46
0 0
0 211
1. 00 1. 00
1.00 1.00
0 211
0 0
0 211
I
I
0
1.10
0
2
0
2
1.00
1.00
2
0
2
0
I
i
ß
"
u
213 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx
1369 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx x"xxx
1369 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxx"",
£2-4
B
n
"i
~j
!
:J
u
~
Traffix. 7.5.1115 (c) 2001 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to URBAN CROSSROADS, IRVINE
.
.
.
MITIGB - CUM GROWTH PM (0 +Thu Jul 24. 2003 09,22,21
Page 1-1
- - - - - - - -- - - - -- -- ----- --- - -- - - - - - - - -- - - - - -- --- -- - -- -- - - - - - - - -- - - -- -- - - - - -- - - -- - --
LDS Church Traffic Impact Analysis
Cumulative (2005) Growth With Project Conditions
PM Peak Hour
- - - - - - -- -- -- - - - - - - -- -- -- - - - - - - --- - ----- -- - - - - ----- - - - -- -- -- _h-- - - -" -- -- - --- - ---
Level Of Service Computation Report
2000 HCM Unsignalized Method (Future Volume Alternative)
............................................ *... u......................... u...
Average Delay (sec/veh) ,
11.3
Intersection #15 Easterly Access Dwy. (NS) .I ,Pauba Rd. (EW)
. u"""""""""""'" ',U"""""'" ',"'" u... u.......................
Worst Case Level Of Service,
B
............................................................................ u..
Approach, North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound
Movement, L T R L T R L T R L T R
------------1---------------11---------------11---------------11---------------I
Control, Stop Sign Stop Sign uncontrolled Uncontrolled
Right., Include Include Include Include
Lanes, a 0 0 a 0 0 0 I! 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 a
- ,,-- --- ----1-- -------- - - ---11---------------11---------------11---------- -----I
Volume Module,
Base Vol, 0 a
Growth Adj, 1.10 1.10
Initial Bse, 0 0
Added Vol, 0 0
PasserByVol, 0 0
Initial Fut, 0 0
User Adj, 1.,001.00
PHF Adj, 1. 00 1. 00
PHF Volume, 0 0
Reduct Vol, 0 a
Final Vol., a a
Cri tical Gap Module,
Critica~Gp"'xxxx xxxx XXXXX 6.4 XXXX 6.2 4.-1 XXXXXXXXX XXXXX xxxx'XXXXX,"
FollowUpTim,xxxxx xxxx xxxxx 3.5 xxxx 3.3 ,2.2 xxxx XXXXX,XXXXX xxxx xxxxx-,-
-- --. -- ---- -1----------- --- -11---------------11-------------- -11-------- -------1'"
Capacity Module,
Cnflict Vol, xxxx xxxx xxxxx 511 xxxx 214 216 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx
Potent Cap., xxxx xxxx xxxxx 526 xxxx B31 1366 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx
Move Cap., xxxx xxxx xxxxx 526 xxxx B3l 1366 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx
------------1---------------11---------------11---------------11---------------I
Level Of Service Module,
Stopped Del,xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx
LOS by Move, . ...
Movement, LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT
Shared Cap., xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx 579
Shrd StpDel,xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx 11.3
Shared LOS, . .. B
ApproachDel, xxxxxx 11.3
ApproachLOS, B
0
1.10
0
a
0
0
1.00
1.00
0
0
0
0 a
1.10 1.10
0 a
3 0
0 0
3 0
1.00 1.00
1.00 1.00
3 0
0 a
3 0
0
1.10
0
1
0
1
1,.00
1.00
1
0
1
0 201
1.10 1.10
0 221
1 74
0 0
1 295
1. 00 1. 00
1. 00 1. 00
1 295
a 0
1 295
0
1.10
0
0
0
0
1.00
1.00
0
0
0
0 150
1.10 1.10
0 165
0 47
0 0
0 212
1.00 1.00
1.00 1.00
0 212
a 0
0 212
0
1.10
0
4
0
4
1.00 '
1.00
4
0
4
7 . 6 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx
A
LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT
xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx
7 . 6 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx
A
xxxxxx
xxxxxx
Traffix 7.5.1115 (c) 2001 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to URBAN CROSSROADS,' IRVINE
E1S
CUM GROWTH MID DAY (0 + P) Thu Jul 24, 2003 08,31: 34
- _u --------------_u_---- --- _U_------h -----------h____---_hU_U___---
Page 4-1
11,',.,',:,
U
1'1
~,.,'
"'t'I:
LOS Church Traffic Impact Analysis
Cumulative (20051 Growth With Project Conditions
Mid-Day Peak Hour (Sunday)
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - U - h- -- __U_h - -- -- - - - - - - - h - - - - uu - ---un - U- u- U U - -- _h_-
n
U
Level Of, Service Computation Report
2000 HCM Unsignalized Method (Future Volume Alternative)'
................. ...............................................................
Intersection #1 Green Tree Rd (NS) f pauba Rd. (EW)
..................................................... ù .'......................;...
~
~;o,
Average Delay (secfveh): 9.5 Worst Case Level Of Service: A"
........................................................................ *.......
Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound
Movement: L T R L T R L T R L T R
Uuuuuu I U_hhh__hU II h_--uu_uh-II-hhu--_u_h II-u_h_uu_--~ I
Control: Stop Sign Stop Sign Uncontrolled, Uncontrolled
Rights: Include Include Include Include
Lanes: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0
u_h--h---I u,h_-----h---II------hhh_u Il-uuu_uu_u II uhuuuhu-I
Volume Module:
Base Vol: 0 0
Growth Adj: 1.101.10
Initial Bse: 0 0
Added Vol: 0 0
PasserByVol: 0 0
Initial Fut: 0 0
User Adj: 1. 00 1. 00
PHF Adj: 1. 00 1. 00
PHF Volume: 0 0
Reduct Vol: 0 0
Final Vol,: 0 0
Critical Gap Module:
Critical Gp:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx 6.2 4.1 xxxx xxXxxxxxxx xXxx'xxXxx
Follow U P Tim: xxxxx xxxx, xxxxx xxxxx xxxx 3 . 3 2 . 2 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xXxx' xxxxX
_uu----h-I hu-u--h_u-II-uuuh-_hu II-"-h--_uuh-II Cuu_uu_uu I
Capacity Module,
Cnflict Vol: xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx 235
Potent Cap., xxxx ><XXX xxxxx xxxx xxxx 809
Move Cap.: xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx 809
hhhu----I--_u-_u__uh II-_uh_uhu--II-u-_uh--_u-Ilhuhh_huh I
Level Of Service Module:
Stopped Del:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx 9.5
LOS by Move: ... A
Movement: LT - LTR ~ RT LT - LTR - RT
Shared Cap.: xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx
Shrd StpDel:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx
Shared LOS: . . . . .
,ApproachDel: xxxxxx 9.5
ApproachLOS: A
0
1.10
0,
0
0
0
1.00
1.00
0
0
0
0 0
1.10 1.10
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
1. 00 1. 00
1. 00 1. 00
0 0
0 0
0 0
2
1.10
2
0
0
2
1.00
1. 00
2
0
2
4 130
1.10 1.10
4 143
0 82
0 0
4 225
1. 00 1. 00
1. 00 1. 00
4 225
0 0
4 225
'0
1.10
0
0
0
0
1.00
1.00
0
0
0
g
I
0 149
1.10 1.10
0 164
0 71
0 0
0 235
1. 00 1. 00
1. 00 1. 00
0 235
0 0
0 235
0
1.10
0
0
0
0
1.00
1.00
0
0
0
~','
~j
~
U
i
i1
2 3 5 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx
13 4 4 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxXxx
13 4 4 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx
f'
k
~,~
U
7 . 7 xxxx xxxxx xxxXx ><XXX xxXxx
A
LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT
xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx
7 . 7 :><xxX xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx
A
xxxxxx
11
;,
'..1
xxxxxx
, ¡
".
~\
d
Traffix 7.5.1115 (c) 2001 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to URBAN CROSSROADS, IRVINE
n
, ¡
¡"I
£7Þ
-
U
.
.
.
CUM GROWTH MID DAY (0 + P) Thu Jul 24, 2003 08,31,34
Page 5-1
-- -- - -------- - -------------------- ---- ---- ---------------------------- ----------
LDS Church Traffic Impact Analysis
Cumulative (2005) Growth With Project Conditions
Mid-Day Peak Hour (Sunday)
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - --- - - - -- -- --- -- - -- -- - - - --- -- - - - - - - -- - - - -- - - --- - - - - - - -- - - - - -- -u ---
Level Of Service Computation Report
2000 HCM Unsignalized Method (Future Volume Alternative)
Intersection #2 Calle Cedral (NS)f Pauba Rd. (EW).
"'" u u, u, - - - - - _uu u, - -H - - - H HHHHH- 'H' 'H 'H' UH"'" 'H H' *' *' H_'
,'" UH' H'H'" U U, u, U'H""" HHH' H"'" UH H'H H" U *'H' UH*" *..
Average Delay (secfveh) , 9.5 Worst Case Level Of Service, A
,-"""""".., t"'" -""""""""""""""""""""""""" H""
Approach, North Bound South Bound East Bound West. Bound
Movement: L T R L T R L T R L T R
------------1---------------11---------------11---"-----------11---------------1
Control: Stop Sign Stop Sign UncontrOlled Uncontrolled
Rights: Include Include Include Include
Lanes: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1
------------1---------------1 I---_c----------II.---------------I 1------- --------1
Volume Module:
Base Vol: 0 0
Growth Adj: 1.10 1.10
Initial Bse, 0 0
Added Vol, 0 0
PasserByVol: 0 0
Initial Fut: 0 0
User Adj: 1. 00 1. 00
PHF Adj : 1. 00 1. 00
PHF Volume, 0 0
Reduct Vol: 0 0
Final Vol.: 0 0
Critical Gap Module:
C r i tical G p : xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx 6 . 2 4 . 1 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx-
FollowUpTim:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx 3.3 2.2 xxxi xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx"-'
------------1---------------11---------------11---------------11-------------"~l
Capacity Module:
Cnflict Vol: xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx 243 243 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx
Pot e n t Cap., xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx 8 0 1 13 3 6 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx
Move Cap., xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx 801 1336 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx
------------1---------------11---------------11---------------11---------------I
Level Of Service Module:
Stopped Del: xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx 9.5 7.7 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx
LOS by Move: ' , , , , A A .
Movement: LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT
Shared Cap.: xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxXx
Shrd StpDel:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx 7.7 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx
Shared LOS:' A
ApproachDel: xxxxxx 9.5 xxxxxx
ApproachLOS: A
0
1.10
0
0
0
0
1.00
1.00
0
0
0
0 0
1.10 1.10
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
1. 00 1. 00
1.00 1.00
0 0
0 0
0 0
2
1.10
2
0
0
2
1.00
1.00
2
0
2
4 125
1.10 1.10
4 138
0 82
0 0
4 220
1. 00 1. 00
1. 00 1. 00
4 220
0 0
4 220
0
1.10
0
0
0
0
1.00
1.00
0
0
0
0 156
1.10 1.10
0 172
0 71
0 0
0 243
1. 00 1. 00
1. 00 1. 00
0 243
0 0
0 243
xxxxxx
0
1.10
0
0
0
0
1.0'0
1.00
O'
0
0
..
",
Traffix 7.5.1115 (c) 2001 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to URBAN CROSSROADS, IRVINE
(ZI
CUM GROWTH MID DAY (0 + P) Thu Jul 24, 2003 08,)1,34
]
- - ---------- ------------ ------ _____n-_-___-- ------ -----_h- ------- ______n--__-
Page 6-1
n
.
LDS Church Traffic Impact Analysis
Cumulative (2005) Growth With Project Conditions
Mid-Day Peak Hour (Sunday)
--- ---- ----- --______h--_____--------------__--h______-- ------______h_---h__-
n
d
Level Of Service Computation Report
2000 HCM Unsignalized Method (Future Volume Alternative)
..................... .............. ...... ............ ...................... .... *
Intersection #3 Camino Romo (NS) / Rancho Vista Rd. (EW)
............................................................................ *...
~.
'HI
Average Delay (sec/veh) , 10.0 Worst Case Level Of,Seniice, B
............................................................................... .
Approach, North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound
Movement, L T R L T R L T R. L T R
------------1---------------11---------------11--------------" II-------h------I
Control, Stop Sign Stop Sign Uncontrolled Uncontrolled'
Rights, Include Include Include Include
Lanes, 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0
------------1---------------11---------------11 h_------------II---------------I
Volume Module,
Base Vol, 21 0
Growth Adj, 1.10 1.10
Initial Bse, 23 0
Added Vol, 11 0
PasserByVol, 0 0
Initial Fut, 34 0
User Adj, 1. 00 1. 00
PHF Adj, 1. 00 1. 00
PHF Volume, 34 0
Reduct Vol, 0 0
Final Vol., 34 .0
Critical Gap Module,
Critical Gp' 6.4 xxxx 6.2 xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx 4.1 xxxx xxxxx
FollowUpTim, 3.5 xxxx 3.3 xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx..xxxx xxxxx 2.2 xxxx xxxxx
------------1---------------11---------------11---------------11---------------1
Capacity Module, .
Cnflict Vol, 260 xxxx 114 xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxxxxx xxxxx 124 xxxx xxxxx
Potent Cap., 733 xxxx' 944 xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx 1475 xxxx xxxxx
Move Cap., 731 xxxx 944 xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx 1475 xxxx xxxxx
-_h--------I---------------I 1---------------1 1---------------1 1------------ ---I
Level Of Service Module,
Stopped Del,xxxxx xxxx 8.8 xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx 7',4xxxx xxxxx
LOS by Move, . A A
Movement, LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT
Shared Cap., 7)1 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx' xxxx xxxx xxxxx
Shrd StpDeL 10.2 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx 7.4 xxxx xxxxx
Shared LOS, B .. A
ApproachDel, 10.0 xxxxxx xxxxxx xxxxxx
ApproachLOS, B
4
1.10
4
0
0
4
1.00
1.00
4
0
4
0 0
1.10 1.10
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
1. 00 1. 00
1.00 1.00
0 0
0 0
0 0
0
1.10
0
0
0
0
1.00
1.00
0
0
0
0 63
1.10 1.10
0 69
0 34
0 0
0 103
1. 00 1. 00
1.00 1.00
0 103
0 0
0 103
8
1.10
9
12
0
21
1.00
1.00
21
0
21
n
,¡J
f'~
U
5 92
1.10 1.10
6 101
0 34
0 0
6 135
1.00 1.00
1. 00 1. 00
6 135
0 0
6 135
0
1.10
0
0
0
0
1.00
1.00
0
0
0
n
oJ
"1
J
.~
.
f.'.,'
\j
'1
,
U
~1
L.!
1i
. >
u
Traffix 7.5.1115 (c) 2001 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to URBAWCROSSROADS, IRVINE
!
,.¡
£Z5h
tIP
.
.
.
CUM GROWTH MID DAY (0 + P) Thu Jul 24, 2003 08,31,34
Page 7-1
-- - - - ------ - ------------- --- - ---------- ---------- ----------------- -- ---- --------
LOS Church Traffic Impact Analysis
Cumulative (2005) Growth With Project Conditions
Mid-Day Peak Hour (Sunday)
- - - - - -- --- - -- - - - - - - - -- -- - - - - -- - - - - - -- -- - - --- - - - - - -- - -- - - - - - - - -- --- - --- - - - - - -- - --
Level Of Service Computation Repor't
2000 HCM Unsignalized Method (Future Volume Alternative)
'H""'" HH' HHH" 'H H' 'HH'H "H' HH'HH H' H'H"'" H' H 'H' 'H" H
Intersection #4 Camino Romo (NS) f Corte Virlosa (EW)
"""" H"""""" ù"""""""" ù"""" Ú H"""" H'" +""""""
Average Delay (secfveh) , 8.4 Worst Case Level Of Service, A
""""" H""""""'" H""""""""""'" H"""""'" H"" H"'"
Approach, North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound
Movement, L T R L T R L T R L T R
-- ----- ---- -1-- -------------1-1---------------11- - ------ ~- -----11- - --- n- ---- ---I
Control, Stop Sign Stop Sign Uncontrolled Uncontrolled
Rights, Include Include Include Include
Lanes, 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1
------------I---------n----II---------------II---------------II---------------I
Volume Module,
Base Vol, 0 0
Growth Adj, 1.101.10
Initial Bse, 0 0
Added Vol, 0 0
PasserByVol, 0 0
Ini rial Fut, 0 0
User Adj' 1. 00 1. 00
PHF Adj, 1. 00 1. 00
PHF Volume, 0 0
Reduct Vol, 0 0
Final Vol., 0 0
Critical Gap Module,
C r it i c a 1 G P 'xxxxx xxxx xxxxx 6 . 4 xxxx 6 . 2 4 . 1 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx
FollowUpTim,xxxxx xxxx xxxxx 3',5 Xxxx 3.3 2.2 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx
---- -- ---- nl- ------ - -------11---------------11---- --- --- --n_II--- n ----------1
Capacity Module,
Cnflict Vol, =Xx xxxx xxxxx 57 xxxx 1 3 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx
Potent Cap., xxxx xxxx xxxxx 955 xxxx 1089 1632 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx
Move Cap., xxxx xxxx xxxxx 944 xxxx 1089 1632 xxxx xxxxx - xxxx xxxx xxxxx
- - - ------ -- ~ 1--------- ------11- --_n-- - -- ----II--_n-- --- -- -- -IÎ - --------------1
Level Of Service Module,
Stopped Del,xxxxx xxxx xxxxx 8.8 xxxx 8.4
LOS by Move, .. A A
Movement, LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT
Shared Cap., xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx
Shrd StpDeLxxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx
Shared LOS,' .,
ApproachDel, 8.4
ApproachLOS, A
0
1.10
0
0
0
0
1.00
1.00
0
0
0
1 0
1.10 1.10
1 0
0 0
0 0
1 0
1. 00 1. 00
1.00 1.00
1 0
0 0
1 0
5
1.10
6
12
0
18
1.00
1.00
18
0
18
13 5
1.10 1.10
14 6
11 0
0 0
25 ,;
1. 00 1. 00
1. 00 1. 00
25 6
0 0
25 6
0
1.10
0
0
0
0
1.00
1.00
0
0
0
0 1
1.10 1.10
0 1
0 0
0 0
0 1
1. 00 1. 00
1. 00 1. 00
0 1
0 0
0 1
2
1.10
2
0
0
2
1.00
1.00
2
0
2
7 . 2 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx
A
LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT
xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx
7 . 2 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx
A
Traffix 7.5.1115 (c) 2001 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to URBAN CROSSROADS, IRVINE
£: l..q
CUM GROWTH MID DAY (0 + P Thu Jul 24. 2003 08,31,34
Page 8-1
J
!]
,-,1
t
----------------_u ------- -- ----_u_-------------- u_---------------------------
LDS Church Traffic Impact Analysis
Cumulative (2005) Growth With Project Conditions
Mid-Day Peak Hour (Sunday)
- - - -- - ------ -- - -- - - u - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - -- - - -- u - -- - - - - _h - - - -- - - --
Level Of Service Computation Report
2000 HCM Unsignalized Method (Future Volume Alternative)
0
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *.* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Intersection #5 Corte villosa (NS) / pauba Rd (EW)
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** * ** ** * * * * * * * *
~
1\1
Average Delay '(sec/veh) , 13.0 Worst Case Level Of Service, . B
* ** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *.* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** * * * ** * * * * *
Approach, North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound
Movement, L T R L T R L T R L T R
------ ------1------ u_---- ull---- - -- h - -- ---11- --- ---- -- _u--II-- ----u- -- - ---I
Control, Stop Sign Stop Sign Uncontrolled Uncontrolled
Rights, Include Include. Include Include
Lanes, 0 1 0 0 1 Ö 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 1
- -----------1- --------------11- u_--- --__h --II h_- --___----h 11---------------1
Volume Module,
Base Vol, 12 2
Growth Adj, 1.10 1.10
Initial Bse, 13 2
Added Vol, 0 0
PasserByVol, 0 0
Initial Put, 13 2
User Adj, 1.00 1.00
PHF Adj, 1.00 1.00
PHF Volume, 13 2
Reduct Vol, 0 0
Final Vol., 13 2
Critical Gap Module,
Critical Gp, 7,1 6.5 6.2 7.1 6.5 6.2 4.1 xxxx xxxxx 4.1 xxxx xxxxx
FollowUpTim, 3.5 4.0 3.3 3.5 4.0 3.3 2.2 xxxx xxxxx 2.2 xxxx xxxxx
------------1---------------11---------------11---------------11---------------1
Capacity Module,
Cnflict Vol, 574 56B 246 567 567 257 265 xxxx xxxxx 254 xxxx xxxxx
Potent Cap., 432 435 798 437 436 787 1310 xxxx xxxxx 1323 xxxx xxxxx
Move Cap., 414 425 798 426 426 787 1310 xxxx xxxxx 1323 xxxx xxxxx
------------1---------------11 --------------- 11---------------11---------------1
Level Of Service Module,
Stopped Del, xxxxx xxxx 9.5 xxxxx xxxx 9.7 7.7 xxxx xxxxx 7.7 xxxx xxxxx
LOS by Move, *' * A A A A
Movement, LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT
Shared Cap., 415 xxxx xxxxx 426 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx
Shrd StpDel, 14.0 xxxx xxxxx 13 . 5 xxxx xxxxx 7 . 8 xxxx xxxxx 7.7 xxxx xxxxx
Shared LOS, B B A A
ApproachDel, 13.0 10.2 xxxxxx xxxxxx
ApproachLOS, B B * *
4
1.10
4
0
0
4
1.00
1.00
4
0
4
2 1
1.10 1.10
2 1
0 0
0 0
2 1
1. 00 1. 00
1.00 1.00
2 1
0 0
2 1
7
1.10
8
12
0
20
1.00
1.00
20
0
20
9 109
1.10 1.10
10 120
11 126
0 0
21 246
1. 00 1. 00
1. 00 1. 00
21 246
0 0
21 246
7
1.10
8
0
0
8
1.00
1.00
8
0
8
7 125
1. 10 1.10
8 138
0 119
0 0
8 257
1. 00 1. 00
1.00 1.00
8 257
0 0
8 257
ft.
u
~
U
8
1.10
9
0
0
9
1. 00
1.00
9
0
9
n
r'
¡j
..
[]
fl,'
u
,'t...'
.J
q
)..1
d
¡
<.."
,.,
: :
d
Traffix 7.5.1115 (c) 2001 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to URBAN CROSSROADS, IRVINE
¡
¡
d
£,30
,
.
.
.
CUM GROWTH MID DAY (0 + P) Thu Jul 24. 2003 08,31,34
Page 9-1
---------_h_--____---_u_-- --- ---------- - ------------------------h_- --------'--
LDS Church Traffic Impact Analysis
CUmulative (2005) Growth With Project Conditions
Mid-Day Peak Hour (Sunday)
- - -- - - - - -- - - -- __h - - - - - -- -- _h -- -- - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - -- - -h -- - - - -- - -- -- --
Level Of Service Computation Report
2000 HCM 4-Way Stop Method (Future Volume Alternative)
.................................................................................
Int;ersection #6 Meadows Pkwy (NS) / Rancho Vista Rd. (EW)
............ .,...................................................................
Cycle (see), 0 Critical VoL/Cap. (X), 0.210
Loss Time (see): 0 (Y+R = 4.sec) Average Delay (sec/veh): 9.7
Optimal Cycle: 0 Level Of Service, A
....... .,"""""""""""""""""""""""""'" ..'..................
Approach, North Bound South Bound East Bound West; Bound
Movement, L T R L T R L T R L T R
"---h -__"h I----------"----II---h---h ---- -11- _--h- hh - ---II h - --h__C--"_-/
Control, Stop Sign Stop Sign Stop Sign Stop Sign
Rights: Include Include Include Include
Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Lanes: 1 0 2 0 1 1 0 2 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0
------------I---------------II-----------h--I/------h_h__h II---------h_h-I
Volume Module,
Base Vol, 22 165 12 21 181 18 24 29 25 17 41 28
Growth Adj, 1.101.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10
Initial Bse, 24 182 13 23 199 20 26 32 28 19 45 31
Added Vol: 9 45 11 12 47 25 25 0 9 12 0 li'
PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Initial Fut: 33 227 24 35 246 45 51 32 37 31 45 42
User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00'
PHF Adj: 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00
PHF Volume: 33 227 24 35 246 45 51 32 37 31 45 42'
Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 '
Reduced Vol: 33 227 24 35 246 45 51 32 37 31 45 42'-
PCB Adj: 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00"
MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Final Vol.: 33 227 24 35 246 45 51 32 37 31 45 42
------ h - ---1------ ---------11-------- -------11 h_- ---_h_h - -11-- -------------1
Saturation Flow Module:
Adjustment: 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00
Lanes: 1.002.00 1.00 1.002.00 1.00 0.86 0.53 0.61 0.52 0.77 0.71
Final Sat.: 533 1156 648 541 1172 659 440 301 356 274 421 419
---------"--I---------h----II---------------II---h-------h-II h_------------I
Capacity Analysis Module:
Vol/Sat: 0.06 0.20 0.04 0.Ú60.21 0.07 0.12 O.ll 0.10 O.ll O.ll 0.10
Crit Moves:
Delay/Veh: 9.6 10.0 8.2 9.5 10.1 8,3 10.1 9.3 9.1 9.9 9.6
Delay Adj: 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00
AdjDel/Veh: 9.6 10.0 8.2 9.5 10.1 8.3 10.1 9.3 9.1 9.9 9.6
LOS by Move: A B A A B A B A A A A
ApproachDel: 9.8 9.8 9.6 9.4
Delay Adj: 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00
ApprAdjDel: 9.8 9.8 9,6 9.4
LOS by Appr: A A A A
............................................................................... .
9.0
1.00
9.0,
A
Traffix 7.5.1115 (c) 2001 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to URBAN CROSSROADS, IRVINE
£3\
]
MITIG8 - CUM GROWTH MID DAYMon Jul 28, 2003 16,04,15
Page 1-1
.n
,
1)
-- -______n_---- __n______---------------- --------- - ------------------------- ---
LDS Church Traffic Impact Analysis
Cumulative (2005) Growth With Project Conditions With Improvements
Mid-Day Peak Hour (Sunday)
n__- ---------______n____n_____--- - n___- --------- - --______n___n _--____n__-
~
0
Level Of Se,rvice Computation Report
2000 HCM Operatioi'ls Method (Future Volume Alternative)
................................,.......................................... *....
Intersection #6 Meadows Pkwy (NS) / Rancho Vista Rd. (EW)
.................................,............................................. .
n
Cycle (see), 0 Critical Vol. /Cap, (X), 0.133
Loss Time (see), 8 (Y+R = 5sec) Average Delay (sec/veh) , 8.6
Optimal Cycle, 60 Level Of Service, A
.............................. ',"""""""""""""""""" **...........
D
Approach, North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound
Movement, L T R L T R L T R L T R
------------1---------------1 1-----------_n_1 1---------------1 1-----------.-- --I
Control, Permitted c Permitted Permitted Permitted
Rights, Include Include Include ,Include
Min. Green, 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10
Lanes, 1 0 2 0 1 1 0 2 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0
n_--__----- I---_n_--------II---------------II--_n---_n_---II --___-----n_--I
Volume Module,
Base Vol, 22 165 12 21 181 18 24 29 25 17 41 28
Growth Adj, 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10
Initial Bse, 24 182 13 23 199 20 26 32 28 19 45 31
Added Vol, 9 45 11 12 47 25 25 0 9 12 0 11
PasserByVol, 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Initial Fut, 33 227 24 35 246 45 51 32 37 31 45 42
User Adj, 1. 00' 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00
PHF Adj, 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95
PHF Volume, 35 238 25 37 259 47 54 34 38 32 47 44
Reduct Vol, 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Reduced Vol, 35 238 25 37 259 47 54 34 38 32 47 44
PCE Adj, 1.001.00 V.OO 1.001.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00
MLF Adj, 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Final Vol., 35 238 25 37 259 47 54 34 38 32 47 44
-- n_----_nl n_--__n "_--n 1 I--_n_---------I 1- nn- -- - ---n_ll- - -- - --___n_n I'
Saturation Flow Module,
Sat/Lane, 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700
Adjustment, 0.94 1.00 0.94' 0.94 1.00 0.94 0.94 1.00 0.94 0.94 1.00 0.94
Lanes, 1.002.00, 1.00 1.002,00 1.00 0.87 0.51 0.62 0.53 0.74' 0.73
Final Sat., 1600 3400 1600 1600 3400 1600 1395 866 990 855 1256 1164
__n_-------I---------------I I-----_n_------I 1---------------1 I n_-----_n----I
Capacity Analysis Module,
Vol/Sat, 0.020.07 0.02 0.02 0.08 0.03 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.04
Crit Moves,
Green/Cycle: 0.570.57 0.57 0.57 0.57 0.57 0.290.29 0.29 0.290.29 0.29
Volume/Cap' 0,04 0.12 0.03 '0.04 0.13 0.05 0.13 0.13 0.13 0,13 0.13 0.13
'Delay/Veh: 5.6 5.9 5.5 5.6 5.9 5.6 15.715.7 15.7 15.7 15.7 15.7
User DelAdj, 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
AdjDel/Veh, 5.6 5.9 5.5 5.6 5.9 5.6 15.715.7 15.7 15.7 15.7 15.7
DesignQueue, 0 3 0 1 4 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
............................................. **.................................
e
"
iJ
~1
u
8
t,)
~j
1,1
"J
I]
11
d
, ,
C,.'
, "
¡
Traffix 7.5.1115 (c) 2001 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to URBAN CROSSROADS, IRVINE
~
U
E~2-
.
.
.
CUM GROWTH MID DAY (0 + PI Thu Jul 24, 2003 08,310 34
Page 10-1
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
LDS Church Traffic Impact Analysis
Cumulative (2005) Growth With Project Conditions
Mid-Day Peak Hour (Sunday)
-------------- ------- --- --------- ----- ------------------------------- -----------
Level Of Service Computation Report
2000 HCM 4-Way Stop Method (Future Volume .Alternative)
...... ** **. .****... **. **..... ** **... **.. .**** ** ****...**. .,**.******. **. **. ** H..
Intersection #7 Meadows Pkwy INS) / Pauba Rd. (EW)
** ****.. **..H..... ...' **.... H.H .,H. **.. H........ H. ..**... H **... H. **.. H** H'
Cycle (see), 0 Critical VoL/Cap. (X), . 0.246
Loss Time (see), 0 (Y+R = 4 see) Average Delay (sec/veh) , 10.6
Optimal Cycle, 0 Level Of Service, B
................................ ..'...... ~.................... **.... **... ..'...'..
Approach, North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound
Movement, L T R L T R LT. R L T R
-------.-----1---------------11---------------11------------"--11---------------1
Control, Stop Sign Stop Sign Stop Sign Stop Sign
Rights, Include, Include Include Include
Min. Green, a a a a 0 0 a a 0 0 0 0
Lanes, 1 0 2 0 1 1 0 2 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1
------------1---------------11---------------11---------------11---------------I
Volume Module,
Base VoL 40 147 25 7 164 30 27 53 37 26 57 15
Growth Adj, 1.101.10 1.10 1.101.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.101.10 1.10'
Initial Bse, 44 162 28 8 180 33 30 58 41 29 63 17
Added Vol, 1211 a 912 47 4668 13 060 9'
PasserByVol, 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 a 0
Initial Fut, 56 173 28 17 192 80 76 126 54 29 123 25
User Adj, 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
PHF Adj, 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00
PHF Volume, 56 173 28 17 192 80 76 126 54 29 123 25
Reduct Vol, 0 0 a 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Reduced VoL 56 173 28 17 192 80 76 126 54 29 123 25
PCE Adj, 1.001.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
MLF Adj, 1.001.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00
Final Vol., 56 173 28 17 192 80 76 126 54 29 123 25
------------1---------------11---------------11---------------11---------------1
Saturation Flow Module,
Adjustment, 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Lanes, 1.00 2.00 1.00 1.002.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Final Sat., 480 1031 570 483 1042 579 479 515 569 463 498 547
----c-------I---------------II---------------II---------------II---------------I
Capacity Analysis Module,
Vol/Sat, 0.12 0.17 0.05. 0.03 0.18 0.14 0.16 0.25 0.09 0.06 0.25 0,05
Crit Moves, .**.
Delay/Veh, 10.7 10.5 8.9 10.0 10.6 9..4 11.1 11.3 9.2 10.4 11.5
Delay Adj, 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00
AdjDel/Veh, 10.7 10.5 8.9 10.0 10.6 9.4 11.1 11.3 9.2 10.4 11.5
LOS by Move, B B A A B A B B A B B
ApproachDel, 10.4 10.2 10.8 11.0
Delay Adj, 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00
ApprAdjDe1o 10.4 10.2 10.8 11.0
LOS by Appr, B B B B
................................................................................ .
9.1
1. 00
9.1
A
Traffix 7.5.1115 (c) 2001 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to URBAN CROSSROADS, IRVINE
G33
]
MITIG8 - CUM GROWTH MID DAYMon Jul 28, 2003 16,04,29
Page 1-1
¡ I
~
11
----------_u__u_u_--------------------------_u_--------------------------_u
LDS Church Traffic Impact Analysis
Cumulative (2005) Growth With Project Conditions With Improvements
Mid-Day Peak Hour (Sunday)
u ---_uu_u_nnh hU___h___n___n_----__h -------- -----------_u_-__n-u-
Level Of Service Computation Report
2000 HCM Operations Method (Future Volume Alternative)
~
* * *. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** * * * * * * * ** * *
Intersection #7 Meadows Pkwy (NS) / Pauba Rd. (EW)
I
* *. *... *. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** * *** ** * * * * * * *** * * * * * *.. Ù'* * * * * Ù *. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *:, * *
Cycle (sec) , 0 Critical VoL/Cap. (X), 0.159
Loss Time (sec): 8 (Y+R = 5 sec) Average Delay (sec/veh) , 10.8
Optimal Cycle: 60 Level Of Service: B
* * * *. * * * * * * * ** * * * * **** * * * * * * * * * ** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * '* * * * * * * * * * * * * * '* * * * * * *.. ù* * * * *
I
Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound
Movement, L T R L T R L T R L T R
_uuuu---I-----_u-"-U--lluuuuuu_u Ilu_hnu_uu_II---uuuuu--1
Control: Permitted Permitted Permitted Permitted
Rights: Include Include Include Include
Min. Green: 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10
Lanes: 1 0 2 0 1 1 0 2 0 1, 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1
_n__---_u-I u_u_u---_u-II-_uu_u_u_u II n____u_h----II---uuuu_h-I
Volume Module,
Base Vol: 40 147 25 7 164 30 27 53 37 26 57 15
Growth Adj, 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10' 1.10
Initial Bse, 44 162 28 8 180 33 30 58 41 29 63 17
Added Vol: 12 11 0 9 12 47 46 68 13 0 60 9
PasserByVo1, 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Initial Put, 56 173 28 17 192 80 76 126 54 29 123 25
User Adj: 1. 00 LOO 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00
PHF Adj, 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95
PHF Volume, 59 182 29 18 203 84 80 133 57 30 129 27
Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Reduced Vol: 59 182 29 18 203 84 80 133 57 30 129 27'
PCE Adj: 1.001;00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00
MLF Adj: 1.001.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00
Final Vol.: 59 182 29 18 203 84 80 133 57 30 129 27
Uh-__n_n I n____U__u_h II_uuu_u_uu Iluuh_hnnn II n_nnn_uu_1
Saturation Flow Module,
Sat/Lane: 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700
Adjustment: 0.94 1.00 0.94 0.94 1.00 0.94 0.94 1.00 0.94 0.94 1.00 0.94
Lanes: 1.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Final Sat., 1600 3400 1600 1600 3400 1600 1600 1700 1600 1600 1700 1600
n_____u_U I u____uuun_II--------u--u-11 nnhnn_nn II-_n_-_uu_---I
Capacity Analysis Module,
Vol/Sat: 0.04 0.05 0.02 0.01 0.06 0.05 0.05 0.08 0.04 0.020.08 0.02
Crit Moves,
Green/Cycle, 0.37 0.37 0.37 0.370.37 0.37 0.49 0.49 0.49 0.490.49 0.49
Volume/Cap: 0.10 0.14 0.05 0.03 0.16 0.14 0.10 0.16 0.07 0.04 0.15 0.03
De1ay/Veh: 12.5 12.6 12.1 12.0 12.7 12.9 8.4 8.8 8.2 8.0 8.8 8.0
User DelAdj, 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00
AdjDe1/Veh: 12.5 12.6 12.1 12.0 12.7 12.9 8.4 8.8 8.2 8.0 8.8 8.0
DesignQueue: 1 4 1 0 4 2 1 2 1 1 2 0
. * * * *. *. * * * * * * * * * * * * * *. * * * ** * * * * * * * * * * * * *. *. *. *. *. * * * *....... *... **..... * * **.. * *
I
n
n
íJ
.
D
0
0
"!
j ,
U
~~
id
q
U
Traffix 7.5.1115 (c) 2001 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to URBAN CROSSROADS, IRVINE
n
, ~
i.J
t
""
~34
'i
.
.
.
MITIG8 - CUM GROWTH MID DAYThu Jul 24, 2003 09,22,34
Page 1-1
--- - - h- --______h __hh_h_h___- __h____--___h______----------_h__h_h_- ---
LOS Church Traffic Impact Analysis
Cumulative (2005) Growth With Project Conditions
Mid-Day Peak Hour (Sunday)
- - - - - - - - - - - _h_- h_- h- - h- - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - h - h - - - - - - h - h - h - - - - --
Level Of Service Computation Report
2000 HCM Unsigna1ized Method (Future Volume Alternative)
.......... .......... ......... ..................... ......... .... .......... .......
Intersection #14 Westerly Access Dwy. (NS) /Pauba Rd. o(EW)
................ '0""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
Average Delay (sec/veh), 11.3 Worst Case Level Of Service, B
............................................................................... .
Approach, North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound
Movement, L T R L T R L T R L T R
h_-----c---I-----h--h----II-o--------------II-------------hll-------h---h-I
Control, Stop Sign Stop Sign Uncontrolled Uncontrolled
Rights, Include Include Include Include
Lanes, 0 0 0 0 0 °0 0 11 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0
- --- ------h I_h_--_n------II--- ----- - ------11----00--- ------11---- ---- h___h I
Volume Module,
Base Vol, 0 0
Growth Adj, 1.10 1.10
Initial Bse, 0 0
Added Vol, 0 0
PasserByVol, 0 0
Initial Fut, 0 0
User Adj, 1. 00 1. 00
PHF Adj, 1. 00 1. 00
PHF Volume, 0 0
Reduct Vol, 0 0
Final Vol., 0 0
Critical Gap Module,
Critical Gp,xxxxx xxxx xxxxx 6.4 xxxx 6.2 4.1 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx
F 0 11 ow U P Tim, xxxxx xxxx xxxxx 3 . 5 xxxx 3 . 3 2 . 2 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx
h - -- ----on Ih---h_h - --hll----------h---II- ------- --"----II--_o--h - - ---h-I
Capacity Module,
Cnflict Vol, xxxx xxxx xxxxx 467 xxxx 230 247 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx
Potent Cap., xxxx xxxx xxxxx 558 xxxx 814 1330 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx
Move Cap., xxxx xxxx xxxxx 552 xxxx 814 1330 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx
- - -- hhh--ol-n_----- ------11----- h- hn ---II---hh -----hollo_nun -------1
Level Of Service Module,
Stopped Del,xxxxx JOÒ<X xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx 7.7 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx
LOS by Move, ..... A
Movement, LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT
Shared Cap., xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx 618 xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx
Shrd StpDeLxxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx 11.3 xxxxx 7.7 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx
Shared LOS, .. B A
ApproachDel 'xxxxxx 11. 3 xxxxxx
ApproachLOS, B
0
1.10
0
0
0
0
1.00
1.00
0
0
0
0 0
1.10 1.10
0 0
34 0
0 0
34 0
1. 00 1. 00
1. 00 1. 00
34 0
0 0
34 0
()
1.10
0
17
0
17
1.00
1.00
17
0
17
0 125
1.10 1.10
0 138
18 64
0 0
18 202
1.00 1.00
1:00 1.00
18 202
0 0
18 202
0
1.10
0
0
0
0
1.00
1.00
0
0
0
0 144
1.10 1.10
0 158
0 54
0 0
0° 212
1. 00 1. 00
1. 00 1. 00
0 212
0 0
0 212
0
1.10
0
35
0
35
1. 00
1.00
35
0
35
xxxxxx
Traffix 7.5.1115 (c) 2001 Dowling Assoc, Licensed to URBAN CROSSROADS, IRVINE
EY5
MITIG8 - CUM GROWTH MID DAYThu Jul 24, 2003 09,22,41
Page 1-1
1
iJ
,
- - - - - - - - - - - -- -- --- ----- - -- - - - - - - -- - - - - -- - - - -- - --- --- - --- - - - - -- - - - - -- - - - -- - -- -- --
LDS Church Traffic Impact Analysis
Cumulative (2005) Growth With Project Conditions
Mid-Day Peak Hour (Sunday)
Level Of Service Computation Report
2000 HCM Unsignalized Method (Future Volume Alternative)
--- ---------- - ------------------ - ------- - ---------------------- -----------------
q
tJ
................. ................... ...... ..... ........-........... ..............
Intersection #15 Easterly Access Dwy. (NS) I pauba Rd. (EW)
.................................................................-.............. ...
n
Average Delay I sec/veh) , 12.3 Worst Case Level Of Service, B
................................................................................ .
Approach, North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound
Movement, L T R L T R L T R L T R
------------1---------------11---------------11---------------11---------------1
Control, Stop Sign Stop Sign Uncontrolled Uncontrolled
Rights, Include Include Include Include
Lanes, 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 11 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0
---------- --1- ------- -------11-- ----- ---- ----11- ------ - -- -----II ---------------1
Volume Module,
Base Vol, 0 0
Growth Adj, 1.10 1.10
Initial Bse, 0 0
Added Vol, 0 0
PasserByVol, 0 0
Initial Fut, 0 0
User Adj' 1. 00 1. 00
PHF Adj, 1. 00 1. 00
PHF Volume, 0 0
Reduct Vol, 0 0
Final Vol., 0 0
Critical Gap Module,
Critical Gp,xxxxx xxxx xxxxx 6.4 xxxx 6.2 4.1 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxxxxxxx
FollowUpTim,xxxxx xxxx XXXXX' 3.5 xxxx 3.3 2,2 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx
----------- -1---- ------- ----11----- -- ------~ -11---- --- --- -----11---- -- -----~---I
Capacity Module,
Cnflict Vol, xxxx xxxx xxxxx 510 xxxx 263 289 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx
Potent Cap., xxxx xxxx xxxxx 527 xxxx 781 1284 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx
Move Cap., xxxx xxxx xxxxx 523 xxxx 781 1284 xxxx xxxxx Xxxx xxxx xxxxx
----- - -- -- --1-- -------------11-- - ------ ------11- ------------- -11---- ------- ----I
Level Of Service Module,
Stopped DeLxxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx 7.8 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx"
LOS by Move, . . . .. A
Movement, LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT'
Shared Cap., xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx 555 xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx
Shrd StpDel,xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx 12.3 xxxxx 7.8 xxxx xxxxx xxxxxxxxx xxxxx
Shared LOS,' .. B A
ApproachDel, xxxxxx 12.3 xxxxxx xxxxxx
ApproachLOS, B
0
1.10
0
0
0
0
1.00
1.00
0
0
0
0 0
1.10 1.10
0 0
51 0
-0 0
51 0
1.00 1.00
1.00 1.00
51 0
0 0
51 0
0
1.10
0
11
0
11
1.00
1.00
11
0
11
0 125
1.101.10
0 138
12 86
0 0
12 224
1. 00 1. 00
1. 00 1. 00
12 224
0 0
12 224
0
1.10
0
0
0
0
1.00
1.00
0
0
0
0 144
1.10 1.10
0 158
0 78
0 0
0 236
1. 00 1. 00
1.00 1'.00
0 236
0 0
0 236
0
n
0
1.10
0
53
0
53
1.00
1. 00
53
0
53
ü
D
i
n
n
U
n
n
,d
u
u
q
U
,
Traffix 7.5.1115 Ic) 2001 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to URBAN CROSSROADS, IRVINE
E~lo
, !
" ,
U
CUM GROWTH MID DAY (0 + P) Wed Jul 30, 2003 17,04,36
Page 2-1
.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - --
LDS Church Traffic Impact Analysis
Cumulative (2005) Growth With Project Conditions (W/Stake Conf.)
Mid-Day Peak Hour (Sunday)
- - - - - - -- - - - - - -- - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - ----
Level Of Service Computation Report
2000 HCM Unsignalized Method (Future Volume Alternativé)
...... **... ~.....**........... **......... **.. **.. * * * * ** ** *** * ** ** * *. *** *** *,;,; * * *
Intersection #1 Green Tree Rd (NS) / pauba Rd: (EW)
.. *.... **. * * * *..... * * * * * * * * *.... * *. ** * * * * ***. * Ù,; * * * ** *** *'~* * ** * * * ** * **. * *; * * *" * ,
Average Delay (sec/veh) , 9.7 Worst Casê Level 6f Service, A
.... *. *. ** *. *.. * *.. * *. * *. * *..... ** * ***.. **. * * * *. * * ** *. * *..¡. * * ** * ** * * * *. * * * * **,; * *
Approach, North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound
Movement, L T R L T R L T R L T' R
--h---h---I h------h,-----II-h---------h-II----h---------II-----h--~-----I
Control, Stop Sign Stop Sign Uncontrolled Uncontrolled
Rights, Include Include Include Include
Lanes, 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0
h_---------I-----h-----h-II----h-----h--II----------'h---II------h-------I
Volume Module,
Base Vol, 0 0
Growth Adj, 1.10 1.10
Initial Bse, 0 0
Added Vol, 0 0
PasserByVol, 0 0
Initial Fut, 0 a
User Adj, 1.00 1.00
PHF Adj , 1. 00 1. 00
PHF Volume; 0 0
Reduct Vol, a a
. Final Vol., 0 0
Critical Gap Module,
Cr it i ca 1 Gp' =xxx XXX){ xxxxx =xxx XXX){ 6 . 2 4 . 1 XXX){ xxxxx xxxxx XXX){ xxxxx
F 0 11 ow U P Tim, =xxx XXX){ xxxxx xxxxX XXX){ 3 . 3 2 . 2 XXX){ xxxxx xxxxx xxX>< xxXX>c:'
h---------'-I-----------hh II ~-_h----------II----_ch---h--II--------h_::'~h I
Capacity Module,
Cnflict Vol, XXX){ XXX){ xxxxx XXX){ XXX){ 277 277 XXX){ xxxxx XXX){ x¡o<X xxXXx
Potent Cap., XXX){ XXX){ xxxxx XXX){ XXX){ 767 1298 xxxx xxxxx XXX){ XXX){ xxxxx
Move Cap., XXX){ XXX){ xxxxx XXX){ XXX){ 767 1298 xxxx xxxxx XXX){ XXX){ xxxxX
----__h--h I---------------II---------------II----h-----h--II----h---h_---/
Level Of Service Module,
Stopped Del '=xxx XXX){ xxxxx xxxxx XXX){
LOS 'by Move,
Movement, LT - LTR - RT
Shared Cap., XXX){ XXX){ xxxxx
Shrd StpDel,=xxx XXX){ xxxxx
Shared LOS, . . .
ApproachDel , xxxxxx
ApproachLOS ,
0
1.10
0
a
0
0
1. 00
1.00
0
a
0
0 0
1.10 1.10
0 0
a 0
0 0
a 0
1.00 1.00
1. 00 1. 00
0 0
a 0
0 0
2
1.10
2
0
0
2
1.00
1. 00
2
0
2
4 130
1.10 1.10
4 143
0 122
0 0
4 265
1. 00 1. 00
1.00 1.00
4 265
a a
4 265
0
1.10
0
0
0
0
1.00
1. 00
0
0
0
a 149
1.10 1.10
a 164
0 113
0 0
0 277
1. 00 1. 00
1.00 1.00
0 277
a a
0 277
0
1.10
0
0
0
0
1.00
1.00
0
0
0
9.7
A
LT - LTR - RT
7 . 8 xxxx =xxx =xxx XXX){ xxxxx
A
LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT
xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx XXXX xxxxx XXX){ XXX){ xxxxx
=xxx XXX){ xxxxx 7 . 8 xxxx =xxx =xxx XXX){ =xxx
. . A
9.7
A
xxxxxx
xxxxxx
Traffix 7.5.1115 (c) 2001 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to URBAN CROSSROADS, IRVINE
.
E 7:;7
CUM GROWTH MID DAY (0 + P) Wed Jul 30, 2003 17,04,36
Page 3-1
:1
u
fl
;4
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - u - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - _u - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - --
,
LDS Church Traffic Impact Analysis
Cumulative (2005) Growth With Project Conditions (W/Stake Conf.)
Mid-Day Peak Hour (Sunday)
- - - - - - u - - - - - - - - - - - u - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - n - -- n - - - --- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - --
11
L~
Level Of sèrvice Computation Report
2000 HCM Unsignalized Method (F'uture Volume Alternative)
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** * * * * * * * * ** * * * * *. * ** ** * * * * * * * * * * * * * *. *...... *. ** * **.. * **
Intersection #2 Calle Cedral (NS)/ paubaRd..,(EW"':'
** *..... ** * * *. *.. *;..... ** * ** ** *.. **** * **. * **... * ** *.. * * + * * *.. *... * *. * * *. * *......
Average Delay (sec/veh) , 9.8 ' Worst, Case Level Of Service, A
. * *.. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *.... * *. ** * * * **** *... * **. * *. * *. * * * * * * *** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
D
Approach, North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound
Movement, L T R L T R L T R L T R
nnn-c----lnuu_u_nn_ll_n_u_nn_---II----_nnnnu Ilnn_nnuuu I
Control, Stop Sign Stop Sign uncontrolled Uncontrolled
Rights, Include Include Include Include
Lanes, 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1
__u_nnn_ln-- --n nn_--II--n- cu- u_u-II u -______n_---II--- - -- - nu_- nl
Volume Module,
Base Vol, 0 0
Growth Adj, 1.101.10
Initial Bse, 0 0
Added Vol, 0 0
PasserByVol, 0 0
Initial Fut, 0 0
User Adj, 1.001.00
PHF Adj, 1. 00 1. 00
PHF Volume, 0 0
Reduct Vol, 0 0
Final Vol., 0 0
Critical Gap Module,
C r i tic a 1 G P ,,<xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx 6 . 2 4 . 1 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx
FollowUpTim",,<xxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx 3.3 2.2 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx
---- --------In- n n- -hu--ll_n__un unnll uuun__n_--llnn n - n- h---I
Capacity Module,
Cnflict Vol, xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx 285 285 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx =xxx
Potent Cap., xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx 759 1289 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx
Move Cap., xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx 759 1289 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx
_n nu --_u I uu u_--------II uunn- h -- h 11- _nn_--nnnil ---- nn -- - _n_1
Level Of Service Module,
Stopped Del,xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx 9.8
LOS by Move, * * * A
Movement, LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT
Shared Cap., xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx =xxx
Shrd StpDeLxxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx
Shared LOS, * *
ApproachDel, xxxxxx
ApproachLOS,
0
1.10
0
0
¡ 0
0
1.00
1.00
0
0
0
0 0
1.10 1.10
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
1. 00 1. 00
1.00 1.00
0 0
0 0
0 0
2
1.10
2
0
0
2
1.00
1.00
2
0
2
9.8
A
4 125
1.10 1.10
4 138
0 122
0 0
4 260
1.00 1.00
1.00 1.00
4 260
0 Ó
4 260
0
1.10
0
0
0
0
1. 00
1. 00
0
0
0
0 156
1.10 1.10
0 172
0 113
0 0
0 285
1.00 1.00
1. 00 1. 00
0 285
0 0
0 285
~
ß
0
1.10
0
0
0
0
1.00
1.00
0
0
0
0
n
:d
n
.
U
xxxxxx
H
".
rt
7 . 8 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx
A
LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT
xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx
7 . 8 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx
A
:1
.c~
,
, ,
n
: !
,
,.J
, '
Traffix 7.5.1115 (c) 2001 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to URBAN CROSSROADS, IRVINE
:"
C'Z> %
xxxxxx
--
, ,
.
.
.
CUM GROWTH MID DAY (0 + P) Wed Jul 30, 2003 17,04,36
Page 4-1
- - - --- --- - - -- --- ----- -- -- - ----- - - --------- - --- --- ---------- c_-- - ---- -------"----
LDS Church Traffic Impact Analysis
Cumulative (2005) Growth With Project Conditions (W/Stake Conf.)
Mid-Day Peak Hour (Sunday)
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - --- - - - - - - - - - -- -c - - - - - - - - -- -- - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - --
Level Of Service Computation Report
.2000 HCM Unsignalized Method (Future, Volume Alternative)
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** * * * * * * * * * * * * ** * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** * * ** * * * * * * ** * * * *** * * ** * * * * * * * * * ** *
Intersection #3 Camino Romo (NS) / Rancho .Vista Rd. . (Ell)
* * * * * * * * * * ** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * **** * ** * * * * * * * * * * * * *** * * *. ** * ** * * * * * ** * * * * * ** * * *.
Average Delay (sec/veh): 10;2 Worst .CaseLe!vel Of Service, B
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ****** * * * * * * * * ** *** * * * * ****** * * * * * ** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *** * * *.** * **
Approach, North Bound South .Bound. East Bound West Bound
Movement: L T R L T R L T R L T R
------------1---------------11 ---------------11---------------11---------------1
Control: Stop Sign Stop Sign Uncontrolled Uncontrolled
Rights: Include Include Include Include
Lanes: 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0
------------I------------_h 11---------------11---------------11---------------1
Volume Module,
Base Vol: 21 0
Growth Adj: 1.10 1.10
Initial Bse, 23 0
Added Vol, 28 0
PasserByVol: 0 0
Initial Fut: 51 0
User Adj: 1.00 1.00
PHF Adj: 1. 00 1. 00
PHF Volume, 51 a
Reduct Vol, 0 0
Final Vol., 51 0
Critical Gap Module,
Critical Gp, 6.4 =xx 6.2 xxxxx =xx xxxxx xxxxx =xx xxxxx 4.1 =xx xxxxx
FollowUpTim: 3 . 5 =xx 3 . 3 xxxxx =xx XXXXX xxxxx xxxx xxxxx 2 . 2 =xx xxxxx
---------""-1----------"---- II h"--_--___--h II--h----------" 11-----------h_CI
Capacity Module,
Cnflict Vol, 268 xxxx 122 XXX>< =xx xxxxx =xx XXX>< =xxx 140 XXX>< xxxxx
Potent Cap.: 726 =xx 935 XXX>< XXX>< =xxx XXX>< XXX>< =xxx 1456 =xx =xxx
Move Cap.: 724 =xx 935 =xx XXX>< =xxx XXX>< xxxx =xxx 1456 XXX>< =xxx
-- -- --_--_h 1- ---------" __h 11--- ---- ----- h -II -----------hh 11--- h----------I
Level Of Service Module,
Stopped Del:xxxxx XXX><
LOS by Move,
Movement:
Shared Cap.,
Shrd StpDel:
Shared LOS:
ApproachDel,
ApproachLOS,
4
1.10
4
0
0
4
1. 00
1.00
4
0
4
0 0
1. 10 1.10
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
1.00 1.00
1. 00 1. 00
0 0
0 0
0 a
0
1.10
0
0
0
0
1.00
1.00
0
0
0
0 63
1.10 1.10
0 69
0 34
0 0
a 103
1.00 1.00
1. 00 1. 00
0 103
a 0
0 103
8
1.10
9
28
0
37
1.00
1.00
37
0
37
5 92
1.10 1.10
6 101
0 34
0 0
6 135
1. 00 1. 00
1. 00 1. 00
6 135
0 0
6 135
0
1.10
0
0
0
0
1.00
1.00
0
0
0
8 . 9 xxxxx XXX>< =xxx =xxx XXX>< =xxx 7 . 5 XXX>< =xxx
A A
LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT
72 4 xxxx =xxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx
1 0 . 4 XXX>< xxxxx =xxx XXX>< xxxxx =xxx xxxx =xxx 7 . 5 =xx xxxxx
B * * * * A
10.2
B
xxxxxx
xxxxxx
Xxxxxx
Traffix 7.5.1115 (c) 2001 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to URBAN CROSSROADS, IRVINE
<é~l
CUM GROWTH MID DAY (0 + P) Wed Jul 30, 2003 17,04,36
Page 5-1
I
1
,
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - --
LOS Church Traffic Impact Analysis
Cumulative (2005) Growth With Project Conditions (W/Stake Conf.)
Mid-Day Peak Hour (Sunday)
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - n - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - n - - - - - --
n
, .
U
Level Of Service Computation, Report
2000 HGM Unsignalized Method (Future Volume Alternative)
......................................... ~. ~....................................
Intersection #4 Camino Romo (NS) / Corte villosa (EW)
............................................................................... .
~
1~
Average Delay (sec/,veh) , ,8.4 Worst Case Level Of Service, A
.................................. .,'......."......".."........"........"...
Approach, 'North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound
Movement, L T R L T R L T R 1. T R
n__n_n_--I_n_n_n__unll---c------u_--II_nc-nnu__n II-_n_nunn_-I
Control, Stop Sign Stop Sign Uncontrolled Uncontrolled
Rights, Include Include Include Include
Lanes, 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1
n____n_---I hunnn-----Il nnn_--_nn_11 nnn_hn----II_n_nnu_----1
Volume Module,
Base Vol, 0 0
Growth Adj' 1.10 1.10
Initial Bse, 0 0
Added Vol, 0 0
PasserByVol, 0 0
Initial Fut, 0 0
User Adj, 1. 00 1. 00
PHF Adj, 1. 00 1. 00
PHF Volume, 0 0
Reduct Vol, 0 0
Final Vol., 0 0
Critical Gap Module,
Critical Gp'xxxxx xxxx xxxxx 6.4 xxxx 6.2 4.1 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx
FollowUpTim,xxxxx xxxx xxxxx 3.5 xxxx 3.3 2.2 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx
nnnnun I_nu_---_n_--II nu-_nn___n II--_nn____nn II nnnnn_----1
Capaci ty Module,
Cnflict Vol, ><XXX xxxx xxxxx 91 ><XXX 1 3 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx
Potent Cap., ><XXX xxxx xxxxx 914 xxxx 1089 1632 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx
Move Cap., ><XXX xxxx xxxxx 895 xxxx 1089 1632 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx
n_n_nnn 1 nnun_nnU II--_nn_n_nn II--_nuhnn_-II nnn_h_uu-I
Level Of Service Module,
Stopped Del,xxxxx xxxx xxxxx 9.0 xxxx 8.4
LOS by Move, A A
Movement, LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT
Shared Cap., xxxx xxxx xxxxx ><XXX xxxx xxxxx
Shrd StpDeLxxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx
Shared LOS, .
ApproachDel , xxxxxx
ApproachLOS,
0
1.10
0
0
0
0
1. 00
1.00
0
0
0
1 0
1.10 1.10
1 0
0 0
0 0
1 0
1. 00 1. 00
1.00 1.00
1 0
0 0
1 0
5
1.10
6
28
0
34
1.00
1.00
34
0
34
8.4
A
13 5
1.10 1.10
14 6
28 0
0 0
42 6
1. 00 1. 00
1.00 1.00
42 6
0 0
42 6
0
1.10
0
0
0
0
1.00
1.00
0
0
0
0 1
1.10 1.10
0 1
0 0
0 0
0 1
1.00 1.00
1. 00 1. 00
0 1
0 0
0 1
,P
~~
R
2
1.10
2
0
0
2
1.00
1.00
2
0
2
ß""
C
"
n
j
n
u
xxxxxx
~1
"
þ
fl
¡,]
7 . 2 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx'
A
LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT
xxxx xxxx xxxxx ><XXX xxxx xxxxx
7 . 3 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx
A
J
:.I
fl
'3
Traffix 7.5.1115 (c) 2001 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to URBAN CROSSROADS, IRVINE
n
',¡
U
'£'10
xxxxxx
8,
""'
'1
. .
CUM GROWTH MID DAY (0 + P) Wed Jul 30, 2003 17,04,36
Page 6-1
.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
LDS Church Traffic Impact Analysis
Cumulative (2005) Growth With Project Conditions (W/Stake Conf.)
Mid-Day Peak Hour (Sunday)
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ---
Level Of Service Computation Report
2000 HCM Unsignalized Method (Future Volume Alternative)
.......................................... ..................... i.................
Intersection #5 Corte Villosa (NS) / Pauba Rd (EW)
......... .......................................................................
Average Delay (secfveh) , '17.1 Worst Cas'e Level Ot'Service, C
.............................................................................. ..
Approach, North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound
Movement, L T R L T R L T R L T R
- ------ ----- 1----------- -- --11----- -- --------11-------- - ------11-- -------------1
Control, Stop Sign Stop Sign Uncontrolled Uncontrolled
Rights, Include Include Include Include
Lanes, 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 1
------------1 ---------------11---------------11---------------11---------------1
Volume Module,
Base Vol, 12 2
GrowthAdj,1.101.10
Ini tial Bse, 13 2
Added Vol, 0 0
PasserByVol, 0 0
Ini tial Fut, 13 2
User Adj, 1. 00 1. 00
PHF Adj, 1. 00 1. 00
PHF Volume, 13 2
Reduct Vol, 0 0
. Final Vol., 13 2
Critical Gap Module,
Critical Gp' 7.1 6.5 6.2 7.1 6.5 6.2 4.1 xxxx =xxx 4.1 ><XXX =xxx
FollowUpTim, 3.5 4.0 3.3 3.5 4.0 3.3 2.2 XXXX =xxx 2.2 XXXX =xxx
------------ /---------------11--------------- 1/ ---------------11---------------1
Capacity Module,
Cnflict Vol, 830 816 354 815 815 363' 371 xxxx =xxx 362 xxxx =xxx
Potent Cap., 291 314 694 299 314 687 1198 xxxx =xxx 1208 ><XXX =xxx
Move Cap., 267 301 694 286 302 687 1198 xxxx =xxx 1208 ><XXX =xxx
------------/---------------/1 --------------- 11---------------11---------------/
Level Of Service Module,
Stopped DeL=xxx xxxx 10.2 =xxx ){XXX
LOS by Move, . B
Movement, LT - LTR - RT
Shared Cap., 272 XXX>< xxxxx
Shrd StpDel, 19.0 xxxx xxxxx
Shared LOS, C
ApproachDel ,
ApproachLOS,
17.1
C
4
1.10
4
0
0
4
1.00
1.00
4
0
4
2 1
1.10 1.10
2 1
0 0
0 0
2 1
1. 00 1. 00
1. 00 1. 00
2 1
0 0
2 1
7
1.10
8
28
0
36
1.00
1.00
36
0
36
9 109
1.10 1.10
10 120
28 234
0 0
38 354
1.00 1.00
1. 00 1. 00
38 354
0 0
38 354
7
1.10
8
0
0
8
1.00
1.00
8
0
8
7 125
1.10 1.10
8 138
0 225
0 0
8 363
1. 00 1. 00
1. 00 1. 00
8 363
0 0
8 363
8
1.10
9
0
0
9
1.00
1.00
9
0
9
1 0 . 5 8 . 0 xxxx =xxx 8 . 0 xxxx xxxxx
B A A
LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT
2 91 XXX>< xxxxx XXX>< XXX>< xxxxx xxx><){XXX xxxxx
1 7 . 5 ><XXX =xxx 8 . 1 xxxx xxxxx 8 . 0 ><XXX xxxxx
C A A
11 . 1 XXXXXX xxxxxx
B
Traffix 7.5 .1115 (c) 2001 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to URBAN CROSSROADS, IRVINE
.
6L{ I
"1
CUM GROWTH MID DAY (0 + P) Wed Jul 30, 2003 17,04,36
Page 7-1
q
~
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - u - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - --
LDS Church Traffic Impact Analysis
Cumulative (2005) Growth With Project Conditions (WjStake Coni.)
Mid-Day Peak Hour (Sunday)
- - - - - - - - c- - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - u - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - --
n
Level Of service Computation Report " '
2000 HCM 4~way Stop Method (FutÙre Volume Alternative),
...................................... ","""""""""""""."""""'"
Intersection #6 Meadows Pkwy (NS) j Rancho Vista ,Rd. (EW) ,
........................................ ',,~"""""""""'" .................
Cycle (sec) , '0 'Critical, vo1../câp. (X), 0.262
Loss Time (sec) , 0 (Y+R = 4 sec) Average Pelay (secjveh) , 10.4
Optimal Cycle, 0 Level Of Service, B
............................................................. ...................
ß
Approach, North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound
Movement, L T R L T R L T R L' T R
--_-uu-n-I uu_----_--_n II-------n_uu-II-n~-----_n_--II nu-----------I
Control, Stop Sign Stop Sign Stop Sign Stop Sign
Rights, Include Include Include Include
Min. Green, 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Lane., 1 0 2 0 1 1 0 2 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0
u ---- - - -- - -1-- --_--n------II n- u----------II----- u-n_----II------- _n -----I
Volume Module,
Base Vol, 22 165 12 21 181 18 24 29 25 17 41 28
Growth Adj, 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.101.10 1.10 1.101.10 1.10 1.101.10 1.10
Initial Bse, 24 182 13 23 199 20 26 32 28 19 45 31
Added Vol, 9 95 28 12 96 25 25 0 9 28' 0 11
PasserByVol, 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Initial Fut, 33 277 41 35 295 45 51 32 37 47 45 42
User Adj' 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
PHF Adj, 1.001.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
PHF Volume, 33 277 41 35 295 45 51 32 37 47 45 42
Reduct Vol, 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Reduced Vol, 33 277 41 35 295 45 51 32 37 47 45 42
PCE Adj, 1.001.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00
MLF Adj, 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00
Final Vol., 33 277 41 35 295 45 51 32 37 47 45 42
_nu_n__n 1-------_nu_--II-----------_n_II------------u-ll-uu-----u---I,
Saturation Flow Module,
Adjustment, 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Lanes, 1.002.00 1.00 1.002.00 1.00 0.86 0.53 0.61 0.700.67 0.63
Final Sat., 516 1118 623 521 1127 629 418 285 336 346 357 347
_u_u__-_n I---_n__-------II---------------II---------uun II-_u-_uu-----I
Capacity Analysis Module,
Vol/Sat, 0.06 0.25 0.07 0.070.26 0.07 0.12 0.11 0.11 0.13 0.13 0.12
Crit Moves,
Delay/Veh,
Delay Adj'
AdjDeljVeh,
LOS by Move,
ApproachDel,
Delay Adj,
ApprAdjDel,
LOS by Appr,
n
~
iJ
~
d
P
d
q
-
B
n
u
~3,
tJ
9.8 10.8
1.00 LOO
9.8 10.8
A B
10.5
1.00
10.5
B
8.6
1.00
8.6
A
9.8 10.9
1. 00 1. 00
9.8 10.9
A B
10.5
1.00
10.5
B
8.5
1.00
8.5
A
10.5 9.8
1. 00 1. 00
10.5 9.8
B A
10.0
1. 00
10.0
B
9.5
1.00
9.5
A
10.5 10.0
1. 00 1. 00
10.5 10.0
B A
10.0
1.00
10.0
B
9.5
1.00
9.5
A
r'¡
U
,.,
............................................................................... .
n
" -
U
~ "
, ,
Traffix 7.5.1115 (c) 2001 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to URBAN CROSSROADS, IRVINE
i..;
e
,",;
'£i.p.-
: ¡
¿j
CUM GROWTH MID DAY (0 + P) Wed Jul 30, 2003 17,05,11
Page 4-1
.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - --
LDS Church Traffic Impact Analysis
Cumulative (2005) Growth W/Project Conditions W/Improvements (Stake Con!.)
Mid-Day 'Peak Hour (Sunday)
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - -- - -- - - - -- -- --
Level Of Service Computation Report
2000 HCM Operations Method (Future Volume Alternative)
...................................................................... 00 0'; 0.0000..
Intersection #6' Meadows Pkwy 'iNS) / Rancho Vista 'Rd. (EW)
0000...... 0 0 0 0 0""'.0".0...00..00. 0.. 0'00' 0 o. "'0 0.0".....0.0..00;' 0'" 0;'0 Ù';' 00'
Cycle (sec) , 0 Critical VoL/Cap. (X), 0:155
Loss Time (sec) , 8 (Y+R' = 5sec) Average Delay (sec/veh) , 8.3
Optimal Cycle, 60 Level Of Service, A
0"""""000"'" 0'....0"'..0..0..00. 0... o. 0 0 0 0.0... 0 0" 0 0 0 0 0 0 0... 0 0 o. 0.. 0 0..0
Approach, North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound
Movement, L T R L T R L T R L T R
------------I-hnn_------- II-n_---h__---- II------------_n II-----h--------I
Control, Permitted Permitted Permitted Permitted
Rights, Include Include Include Include
Min. Green, 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10
Lanes, 1 0 2 0 1 1 0 2 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 ,
_hn_--hn I---h-n-------II--------h_---- 1 1---------------1 I---------_n---I
Volume Module,
Base VoL 22 165 12 21 181 18 24 29 25 17 41 28
Growth Adj, 1.101.10 1.10 1.101.10 1.10 1.101.10 1.10 1.101.10 1.10
Initial Bse, 24 182 13 23 199 20 26 32 28 19 45 31
Added Vol, 9 95 28 12 96 25 25 0 9 28 0 11'
PasserByVol, 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Initial Fut, 33 277 41 35 295 45 51 32 37 47 45 42
User Adj, 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00
. PHF Adj, 0.950.95 0.95 0.950.95 0.95 0.950.95 0.95 0.950.95 0.95
PHF Volume, 35 291 43 37 311 47 54 34 38 49 47 44
Reduct Vol, 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Reduced Vol, 35 291 43 37 311 47 54 34 38 49 47 44,
PCE Adj, 1.001.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00'
MLF Adj, 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00
Final Vol., 35 291 43 37 311 47 54 34 38 49 47 44
--h---h---I-h_------_n_-II-n"-----_n_--II-------h------II---------------1
Saturation Flow Module,
Sat/Lane, 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700
Adjustment, 0.94 1.00 0.94 0.94 1.00 0.94 0.94 1.00 0.94 0.94 1.00 0.94
Lanes, 1.00 2.00 1.00 1.002.00 1.00 0.87 0.51 0.62 0.71 0.65 0.64
Final Sat., 1600 3400 1600 1600 3400 1600 1395 866 990 1141 1102 1021
_U---_U_h I---hn----hu II--hu---------II h___n_h_--h II-h_-----_hn-I
capacity Analysis Module,
Vol/Sat, 0.02 0.09 0.03 0.02 0.09 0.03 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.04
Crit Moves,
Green/Cycle,
Volume/Cap,
Delay/Veh,
User DelAdj,
AdjDel/Veh,
DesignQueue,
0.59 0.59
0.04 0.15
5.2 5.6
1. 00 1. 00
5.2 5.6
0 4
0.59
0.05
5.2
1. 00
5.2
1
0.59 0.59
0.04 0.16
5.2 5.6
1.00 1.00
5.2 5.6
1 4
0.59
0.05
5.2
1. 00
5.2
1
0.28 0.28
0.14 0.14
16.4 16.4
1. 00 1. 00
16.4 16.4
1 1
0,28
0.14
16.4
1.00
16.4
1
0.28 0.28
0.16 0.16
16.4 16.4
1. 00 1. 00
16.4 16.4
1 1
0.28
0.16
16.4
1.00
16.4
1
.......... 0""""00""""""""'0""0" 0.0. 0"00"'0""'" 0.. 0'00""000
Traffix 7.5.1115 (c) 2001 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to URBAN CROSSROADS, IRVINE
.
~L\?:>
J
CUM GROWTH MID DAY (0 + P) Wed Jul 30, 2003 17,04,36
Page 8-1
11
~
-- -- - --- - - -- - -- ---- ---- - - - ---- -- -------- - --- --- ------- - --u- --- -- ---- ---- - ------
LDS Church Traffic Impact Analysis
Cumulative (2005) Growth With Project Conditions (W/Stake Conf.)
Mid-Day Peak Hour (Sunday)
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -,- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - --
Level Of Service Computation Report ,
2000 HCM 4-Way Stop Method (Future Volume Alternative),
* * * * * * * * * * ** * * * * *** * ** * ** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Intersection #7 ,Meadows Pkwy INi;} / pauba Rd. (EW)
f,'l,'
H
** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** * * * * * * ** * ** * *** *** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *** ** * * * * ** * * ** * * * * * * * * *,
I
Cycle (sec) , 0 CrÙical VoL/Cap. (X), 0.322
Loss Time (sec) , 0 (Y+R = 4 sec) Average Delay (sec/veh) , 11.9
Optimal Cycle, 0 Level Of Service, B
* * * * * * ** * * * * * * * * * ** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** * * * * * ** * * * * * ** ** * * * ** * * * * ** ** ** * * * * * *
I
Approach, North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound
Movement, L T R L T R' L T R L T R
------------1---------------11---------------11---------------11---------------1
Control, Stop Sign Stop Sign Stop Sign Stop Sign
Rights, Include Include Include Include
Min. Green, 0' 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Lanes, 1 a 2 0 1 1 0 2 0 1 1 a 1 a 1 1 a 1 0 1
------------1---------------11---------------11---------------11---------------I
Volume Module,
Base Vol, 40 147 25 7 164 30 27 53 37 26 57 15
Growth Adj, 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10
Initial Bse, 44 162 28 8 180 33 30 58 41 29 63 17
Added Vol, 29 11 0 9 12 112 112 92 30 0 84 9
PasserByVol, 0 0 a 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Initial Fut, 73 173 28 17 192 145 142 150 71 29 147 25
User Adj, 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
PHF Adj, 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
PHF Volume, 73 173 28 17 192 145 142 150 71 29 147 25
Reduct Vol, 0 0 0 a 0 0 a a 0 0 0 0
Reduced Vol, 73 173 28 17 192 145 142 150 71 29 147 25
PCE Adj, 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
MLF Adj, 1.001.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00
Final vol., 73 173 28 17 192 145 142 150 71 29 147 25
------------1---------------1 1---------------1 1---------------1 I--_u--------- -I
Saturation Flow Module,
Adjustment, 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Lanes, 1.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Final Sat., 437 930 509 445 956 529 454 485 531 424 456 493
------------1---------------11---------------11---------------11---------------I
Capacity Analysis Module,
Vol/Sat, 0.17 0.19 0.05 0.04 0.20 0.27 0.31 0.31 0.13 0.070.32 0.05
Crit Moves,
Delay/Veh,
Delay Adj,
AdjDel/Veh,
LOS by Move,
ApproachDel,
Delay Adj,
ApprAdjDel,
LOS by Appr,
a
[]
0
.
Ü
n
ß
11.9 11.5
1. 00 1. 00
11.9 11.5
a a
11.4
1.00
11.4
B
9.6
1.00
9.6
A
10.6 11.5
1.00 1.00
10.6 11.5
a a
11.4
1.00
11.4
B
11.4
1.00
11.4
a
13.4 12.7
1. 00 1. 00
13.4 12.7
a a
12.5
1.00
12.5
a
10.0
1.00
10.0
A
11.2 13.3
1.00 1.00
11.2 13.3
a a
12.6
1.00
12.6
a
9.8
1.00
9.8
A
f]
n
u
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *. * * * * * * * * * * * * * *... *.... *.. *...... * *. *. *. * * * * *. *. *.. * * *..
n
LA
Traffix 7.5.1115 (c) 2001 Dowling Assoc. Licensed toURBAN CROSSROADS, IRVINE
,c¡
U
~
, ¡
1
cu4
.
CUM GROWTH MID DAY (0 + p) Wed Jul 30, 2003 17:05:11
Page 5-1
- - - - - - - - - --- ------ - - --- ---- -- - - -- - ---- - ---- -- ----------- - ------ ------------ - ----
LDS Church Traffic Impact Analysis
Cumulative (2005) Growth W/Project Conditions W/Improvements (Stake Coni.)
Mid-Day Peak Hour (Sunday)
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - n - - - - - - - - - n - - - h - - - - - - - - - --n_-
Level Of Service Computation Report
2000HCM Operations Method (Future Volume À1ternative)
* * * * * * * * ** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** * * ~ * * ** * * ** * ** *** * *** **. * ** * * ** * * ** * ** *** *
Intersection ,"7 Meadows Pkwy (NS)/ Pauba Rd. (EW)
* * * * * * * ** * * * ** * * * * ** * ** * * * * * * * * * * ** * * * * * * * *** * * * * ** * * *** ** * ** * ** * * *** * * * * *** *** *
Cycle (sec): 0 Critical .:vol./Cap. (X): 0.217
Loss Time (sec): 8 (Y+R = 5 sec) Average D<;!lay (sec/veh): 10.8
Optimal Cycle: 60 Level Of Service: B
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** * * * * * * * * * *** * * * * * ** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** * * * * * * * * ** * * * * * *
Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound We~t, Bound
Movement: L T R L T R L T R L T R
n_-------hl---_nn-------Ilnn_---_nn_-II---~--_h_n_--II----n_n-_n_-I
Control: Permitted Permitted Permitted Permitted
Rights: Include Include Include Include
Min. Green: 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10
Lanes: 1 ,0 2 0 1 1 0 2 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1
--- _h ------1-- -------- --- --11---- -_n_------II--- - ---- - - --_nll-n--_n--_h--I
Volume Module:
Base Vol: 40 147 25 7 164 30 27 53 37 26 57 15
Growth Adj: 1.101.10 1.10 1.101.10 1.10 1.101.10 1.10 1.101.10 1.10
Initial Bse: 44 162 28 8 180 33 30 58 41 29 63 17
Added Vol: 29 11 0 9 12 112 112 92 30 0 84 9
PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Initial Fut: 73 173 28 17 192 145 142 150 71 29 147 25
. User Adj: 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00
PHF Ad): 0.950.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.950.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95
PHF Volume: 77 182 29 18 203 153 149 158 74 30 154, 27
Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Reduced Vol: 77 182 29 18 203 153 149 158 74 30 154 27
PCE Adj: 1.001.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00
MLF Adj: 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00
Final Vol.: 77 182 29 18 203 153 149 158 74 30 154 27
-_h_--_n--I-_n-c---_n_hll---n_------_nll---_n----c-n-II--n---_n-----I
Saturation Flow Module:
Sat/Lane: 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700
Adjustment: 0.94 1.00 0.94 0.94 1.00 0.94 0.94 1.00 0.94 0.94 1.00 0.94
Lanes: 1.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Final Sat.: 1600 3400 1600 1600 3400 1600 1600 1700 1600 1600 1700 1600
_n---------I--_nnn_n_nll----_n_n_----II---n_nhn---II---~_n_---_n_1
Capaci ty Analysis Module:
Vol/Sat: 0.05 0.05 0.02 0.01 0.06 0.10 0.090.09 0.05 0.02 0.09 0.02
Crit Moves:
Green/Cycle: 0.44 0.44 0.44 0.44 0.44 0.44 0.43 0.43 0.43 0.43 0.43 0.43
Volume/Cap: 0.11 0.12 0.04 0,03 0.14 0.22 0.22 0.22 0.11 0.04 0.21 0.04
Delay/Veh: 10.2 10.2 9.7 9.6 10.2 11.2 11.6 11.5 10.6 10.1 11.5 10.1
User DelAdj: 1.001.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00
AdjDe1/Veh: 10.2 10.2 9.7 9.6 10.2 11.2 11.6 11.5 10.6 10.1 11.5 10.1
DesignQueue: 1 3 1 0 4 3' 3 3 1 1 3 1
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
.
Traffix 7.5.1115 (c) 2001 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to URBAN CROSSROADS, IRVINE
eL\.Ç'"
CUM GROWTH MID DAY (0 + P) Wed Jul 30, 2003 17,04,36
Page 9-1
~
I
¡_OJ
e
u
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
LDS Church Traffic Impact Analysis
Cumulative (2005) Growth With Project Conditiòns (W/Stake Conf.)
Mid-Day Peak Hour (Sunday)
-- - - - --- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - --- --
f'1
, f
U
Level Of Service Computation Report
2000 HCM Unsignalized Method (Future Volume Alternative)
.............................. **.......... * * ** *** *. * * *. * * * ** * * * *.* * * * *** * ***** * *
Intersection #14 Westerly Acc'ess DWy. (NS) / Pauba Rd. (EW)
... * * *.. * * *. **.. **... * *. * * ** * * * *.... *.. * * * ** * * * * * * *. * *. * * * ** *... * *** * * *.**;, *** *. +"
Average Delay (sec/veh) , 13.6 Worst Case Level Of Service, B
..... *. *.. * *. * * * * ** *...... * * * *.. *..*. *... * **.. *.". * * *. * * * *. * *. *. * *. *.. * ** * * *.. * *
"1
iJ
Approach, North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound
Movement, L T R L T R L T R L T R
------------I---------------II---------~-----II---------------II---------------I
Control, Stop Sign Stop Sign Uncontrolled Uncontrolled
Rights, Include Include Include Include
Lanes, 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1! 0 0 0 1 0 0 a a 0 0 1 0
------------1---------------11---------------11---------------11---------------I
Volume Module,
Base Vol, 0 a
Growth Adj, 1.101.10
Initial Bse, a 0
Added Vol, 0 a
PasserByVol, 0 0
Initial Fut, 0 0
User Adj, 1.001.00
PHF Adj' 1. 00 1. 00
PHF Volume, 0 0
Reduct Vol, a a
Final Vol., 0 0
cri tical Gap Module,
Critical Gp'xxxxx xxxx xxxxx 6.4 xxxx 6.2 4.1 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx
F 0 11 0 w U P Tim, xxxxx xxxx xxxxx 3 . 5 xxxx 3 . 3 2 . 2 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx
------------1---------------11---------------11---------------11---------------I
Capacity Module,
Cnflict vol, xxxx xxxx xxxxx 573 =xx 271 313 =xx xxxxx =xx =xx xxxxx
Potent Cap.: xxxx xxxx xxxxx 484 xxxx 772 1258 xxxx xxxxx ><XXX ><XXX xxxxx
Move Cap., xxxx =xx xxxxx 472 =xx 772 1258 =xx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx
------------1---------------11---------------11---------------11---------------1
Level Of Service Module,
Stopped Del:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx 7.9 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx ><XXX xxxxx
LOS by Move, * A
Movement, LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT
Shared Cap., xxxx xxxx xxxxx ){XXX 542 xxxxx xxxx){XXX xxxxx ){XXX xxxx xxxxx
Shrd StpDel, xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx 13.6 xxxxx 8.0 ><XXX xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx
Shared LOS, B A
ApproachDel, xxxxxx 13.6 xxxxxx
ApproachLOS: B
0
1.10
0
0
0
0
1.00
1.00
0
a
0
0 a
1.10 1.10
0 0
84 a
0 0
84 0
1.00 1.00
1.00 1.00
84 0
0 a
84 0
0
1.10
0
42
0
42
1.00
1.00
42
a
42
a 125
1.10 1.10
a 138
42 80
0 0
42 217
1. 00 1. 00
1. 00 1. 00
42 217
a a
42 217
0
1.10
a
a
0
0
1.00
1.00
0
0
0
0 144
1.10 1.10
0 158
0 71
0 0
0 229
1.00 1.00
1.00 1.00
0 229
a 0-
0 229
xxxxxx
.
n,..-,
tj
",,-
~
a
1.10
0
,84
0
84
1. 00
1.00
84
0
84
R
U
n
U
fl
8
n
u
n
iJ
p
a
n
U
--.
'1
¡,
Traffix 7.5.1115 (c) 2001 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to URBAN CROSSROADS, IRVINE
, '
" Ò
u
e\..\: ~
~
CUM GROWTH MID DAY (0 + P) Wed Jul 30, 2003 17,04,36
Page 10-1
.
- ---- -- - -- - -- - - --- -- ----------- - - - - -- -- -- --_u_- -- ----- ------------- ------ ------
LOS Church Traffic Impact Analysis
Cumulative (2005) Growth With Project Conditions (W/Stake ConL)
Mid-Day Peak Hour (Sunday)
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - -- - - - - - ---- - - - ---
Level Of Service Computation Report
2000 HCM Unsignalized Method (Future Volume Alternative)
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** * * * * * * * * * * * ** * *** * *** * * * * * * * * *
Intersection #15 Easterly Access Dwy. (NS) / Pauba Rd. (EW)
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** * * * *** * * *** *
Average Delay (sec/veh) , 17.3 Worst Case Level Of Service, C
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** * ** ** *** ** * * * ** * * * ** * * *
Approach, North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound
Movement, L T R L T R L T R L T R
---- ------- -, - ---- - ---- --- --11------------ --- 11--- - -----------11-------- -------1
Control, Stop Sign Stop Sign Uncontrolled Uncontrolled
Rights, Include Include Include Include
Lanes, 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 I! 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0
------------1--------------- 11---------------11 ---------------11---------------1
Volume Module,
Base Vol, 0 0
Growth Adj, 1.10 1. 10
Initial Bse, 0 0
Added Vol, 0 0
PasserByVol, 0 0
Initial Put, 0 0
User Adj, 1. 00 1. 00
PHF Adj, 1. 00 1. 00
PHF Volume, 0 0
Reduct Vol, 0 0
. Final Vol., 0 0
. Critical Gap Module,
Critical Gp"'xxxx =xx =xxx 6.4 =xx 6.2 4.1 =xx =xxx =xxx xxxx xxxxx
FollowUpTim,=xxx xxxx xxxxx 3.5 xxxx 3.3 2.2 xxxx =Xxx =xxx xxxx =xxx
U--h_h_h 1----- ----------11---------------11---------------11---------------1
Capacity Module,
Cnflict Vol, xxxx xxxx xxxxx 678 xxxx 348 411 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx
Potent Cap., xxxx xxxx =xxx 421 xxxx 699 1158 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx
Move Cap., xxxx xxxx xxxxx 413 xxxx 699 1158 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx
----------hl-----------h--I 1---------------1 1---------------1 1----------- ----I
Level Of Service Module,
Stopped Del,xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx
LOS by Move, *
Movement, LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT
Shared Cap., xxxx xxxx xxxxx XXXX 446 XXXXX
Shrd StpDel,xxxxx xxxx =xxx xxxxx 17.3 =xxx
Shared LOS, C
ApproachDel, =xx 17.3
ApproachLOS, C
0
1.10
0
0
0
0
1.00
1.00
0
0
0
0 0
1.10 1.10
0 0
126 0
0 0
126 0
1.00 1.00
1.00 1.00
126 0
0 0
126 0
0
1.10
0
28
0
28
1.00
1. 00
28
0
28
0 125
1.10 1.10
0 138
28 136
0 0
28 274
1. 00 1. 00
1. 00 1. 00
28 274
0 0
28 274
0
1.10
0
0
0
0
1.00
1.00
0
0
0
0 144
1.10 1.10
0 158
0 127
0 0
0 285
1. 00 1. 00
1. 00 1. 00
0 285
0 0
0 285
0
1.10
0
126
0
126
1.00
1.00
126
0
126
8 . 1 xxxx xxxxx =xxx xxxx xxxxx
A
LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT
XXXX XXXX =xxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx
8 . 2 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx
A
=xx
xxxxxx
Traffix 7.5.1115 (c) 2001 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to URBAN CROSSROADS, IRVINE
.
e"n
ITEM #6
.
.
.
STAFF REPORT - PLANNING
CITY OF TEMECULA
PLANNING COMMISSION
Date of Meeting:
May 19, 2004
Prepared by:
Dan Long
Title:
Associate Planner
File Number
PA03-0534
Application Type:
Development Plan
Project Description:
A Development Plan to construct a 29,622 square-foot, three-story
office building on 1.01 acres, located on the north side of Ridge Park
Drive, south of Rancho California Road. (APN: 940-310-027)
Recommendation:
J2:Ç Approve with Conditions
0 Deny
0 Continue for Redesign
0 Continue to:
0 Recommend Approval with Conditions
0 Recommend Denial
CEQA:
J2:Ç Categorically Exempt
(Class)
15332
0 Negative Declaration
0 Mitigated Negative Declaration with Monitoring Plan
DEIR
R:\D P\2003103,0534 Ridge Park Poio! Office Buildinglpc staff report.doc
I
PROJECT DATA SUMMARY:
.
Applicant:
McArdell Associates Architects
Completion Date:
March 16, 2004
Mandatory Action Deadline Date:
June 16, 2004
General Plan Designation:
Business Park (BP)
Zoning Designation:
Business Park (BP)
Site/Surrounding land Use:
Site:
Vacant
North:
South:
East:
West:
Industrial Building
Vacant
Vacant
Office Buildings
lot Area:
1.01 acres (44,172 square feet)
Total Floor Area/Ratio
.45/.40
.
Landscape Area/Coverage
48.4% (21,420 square feet)
Parking Required/Provided
57 spaces required/57 spaces proposed
BACKGROUND SUMMARY:
~1.
Staff has worked with the applicant to ensure that all concerns have been addressed,
and the applicant concurs with the recommended Conditions of Approval.
ANALYSIS
The proposed project is a three story office building. The first floor includes 9,521 square feet
and an enclosed parking garage which provides direct access into the building via elevator and
stairs. There is vehicular access to the first floor parking structure on the east and west sides of
the building which creates two way circulation throughout the project site. Outdoor parking is
provided on the east, west and south sides of the building. The parking lot will be screened from
the street through elevation differences and landscaping. The second and third floors include
18,676 square feet of office space. The target floor area ratio (FAR) for the Business Park zone
is .40 and the proposed FAR is .45. Section 17.08.050 of the Development Code includes
language that allows an increase of the FAR. Staff feels that the proposed project includes
exceptional materials, design and landscaping that would qualify the project for an increase in
FAR. The proposed building is three stories and 45 feet in height and is located to the rear of
the site. The exterior façade includes two shades of limestone veneer (Isis gold and Giallo
.
Ro\D 1'12003\03,0534 Ridge P..k Point Office Building\pc staff ,epo,tdoc
2
.
.
.
Provenza); plaster finish, green reflective glass, aluminum canopy overhang, and a decorative
aluminum column. The variation and pattern of materials, rounded corners, overhangs and
breaks in the wall plane meet the intent of the Design Guidelines. The entry, which is angled
towards the driveway, is predominately glass with an aluminum canopy overhang and a
decorative aluminum column to identify the main entrance to the building. The applicant has
provided a solid band of limestone veneer at the base of the building, raised glass at the top of
the building and a varied pattern of limestone along with glass at the east and west elevations to
create interest from each elevation. The north elevation, which may be visible from areas across
the city includes a rounded projection of glass that provides a corporate office appearance. The
south elevation includes large expanses of glass at each edge with two forms of limestone
veneer and windows in the middle.
The project site is located on the interior loop portion of Ridge Park Drive that wraps around the
site. There are slopes on each side of the site, which create limitations with respect to the site
layout. The site is elevated above Ridge Park Drive and above the parcel to the north; it is lower
than the parcel to the west. There is a retaining wall facing Ridge Park Drive which ranges from
approximately 4 feet to 10 feet in height. Another retaining wall is proposed on the west portion
of the site, however it faces the project site. The applicant has agreed to install plantings over
the retaining walls, which will soften their appearance. The project has been conditioned (No. 14)
to ensure that the walls will be adequately planted to provide optimal coverage of the walls.
The applicant has proposed all trees to be planted as either 24" or 36" box. A total of ten 36" box
Fern Pines and/or African Sumac trees are proposed at the driveway entry and at the top of the
slope facing Ridge Park Drive. Aleppo Pine, London Plane and Sweet Gum trees (24" box) are
proposed as street trees along Ridge Park Drive.
There are two existing transformers located on each side of the driveway entrance. Staff has
researched the possibility of relocating the driveway, however due to slope constraints, it would
not be feasible to relocate the driveway. Also, the applicant has indicated that they have
consulted with Southern California Edison and relocating the transformers is not possible. The
applicant has proposed plantings around the transformers to soften their appearance. A loading
zone is proposed on the east portion of the site and is not visible from the driveway entry. The
difference in elevation of the site and street, along with shrubs planted on top of the retaining
wall, will screen the loading zone and parking lot from the street.
The applicant has proposed an employee area, located on the northeast portion of the site. The
employee area has scenic views of the City and includes shade trees for protection from the sun.
Staff has included a Condition of Approval (No. 19) that the employee area shall be decorative
and details shall be subject to the approval of the Planning Director.
The driveway entrance is lined with an enhanced colored concrete driveway (Davis Sierra
#61078) to match the colors of the building. The concrete includes a pattern that is directed
towards the main entrance of the building. The colored concrete is continued up to the front
door, which further defines the main entrance of the building. There are also two flag poles
proposed near the entrance, which shall be used only for the American and State of California
Flag. No signage is proposed, nor will signage be permitted as flags. A separate sign program
will be required for submittal and approval by the Planning Director.
R:ID 1'12003103-0534 Ridge Park Point Office Buildinglpc staff report.doc
3
ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION
12$]1.
In accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act, the proposed Project has
been deemed to be categorically exempt from further environmental review. (Section
15332, Class 32, infill, less than 5 acres)
.
CO NCLUSIO N/R ECOMM ENDA TION:
Staff has determined that the project is consistent with the General Plan and conforms with the
City-Wide Design Guidelines. Therefore, staff recommends that the Planning Commission
approve the proposed project subject to the attached conditions of approval.
FINDINGS
Development Plan (Code Section 17.05.01 OF)
1.
The proposed use is in conformance with the General Plan and with all applicable
requirements of State law and other City ordinances.
The Planning Commission has reviewed the proposed project and finds that the site is
properly planned and zoned and found to be physically suitable for the type of the
proposed use. The project as conditioned is also consistent with other applicable
requirements of State law and local ordinance, including the California Environmental
Quality Act (CEQA).
2.
The overall development of the land is designed for the protection of the public health,
safety, and general welfare.
.
The project has been conditioned to conform to the Uniform Building Code, and prior to
occupancy, City staff will inspect all construction. The site design will provide adequate
emergency access in the case of a need for emergency response to the site
ATTACHMENTS
1.
Plan Reductions - Blue Page 5
2.
PC Resolution No.2004_- Blue Page 6
Exhibit A - Conditions of Approval
.
R,\D NOO3103-0534 Ridge Pa,k Point Office Buildinglpc stafheport.doc
4
ATTACHMENT NO.1
PLAN REDUCTIONS
R:\D P\2003\O3-0534 Ridge Park Point Office Buildinglpc stafTreport.doc
5
II,j¡,].1
J ~¡¡
~m
.
8:
V1N~OIIlV) 'vm:mm
INIOd ) ~V d 3901~
z~~
~;
I:I~~¡~ IIIII [ ¡ ~~
.,..-
r
)«
!
i!! Ii,
'I' I"
i ,¡¡¡II ~ !
h !,m~¡ II Ii
¡ II I ¡ I !,B ¡
II !I II!! :I¡¡! !
I ¡ ! I ¡ I¡I~
. .. . ¡ 1 f 8,'
I í
'Pl'/ ì !~I
'I II ù ~ II ! ill ~ ~ i
~I,!lidll¡lI~ 'I'
~DBUUI'U .1 ~
'! ql!1. I I,
d 'I b,lI !!II i Ii IiI
illl>I',I :III!jh ¡ II IIi!
§ ¡ 'lì!II,I,¡¡,II!,ii,! ¡¡iI! 'I'
š I ¡¡ ,1\ 11\"1:11 1 ¡'¡¡¡II
i§ ¡il'¡¡¡¡¡ '11111'111,1 I,' ¡¡'pI
~ i,'¡ I¡iI¡ '111'1,!;,:,!I,!!h!:!!' '-"O~~'C-'--
""nll'II,I."'IIHU\(==' \
o¡'........ ,..., L.-.-.,-~...J
~ .....
=
s ~ !
¡ I II q I = t-
!Uil!! ¡III H!!! I ~ I
Iili!! !I¡í¡' il!!i¡18~
I",' I ¡ IId!11 I"I!I II ~
!II'¡I'I!llllllì!!!j¡lhl'I!'~ ,i
21!!:II! i:!¡i I!¡li¡,¡ill!!¡' 'p
~i IIIIPI¡'¡~¡: I L lí I
! ¡¡hUll ¡m II 111111 !i I ¡ II :
~0e e ee eæe""'M""""""
I!!Jj;.!.1
I.i:IJm
~I~"I
51
~ ,',~I
(
l
z
~
0
I
U
z
i:!
c-
VlN~Q nv:J 'ylfDJWll
INIOd ) Wd 3901~
~~
d
';
:='1
z~~
j~ r
jJ:~
.nif
~¡<:
)z
" ::s
= "-
~ ""
~ 0
g~
.....,
~~
......... ¡¡:.
.i:Ì'-
1:ljj ljllllll¡~~~I~
'; .
1'1 I'll. !
'I.' í' .
¡!UIUI! U d
.
I !
¡ I I
¡II¡ ¡'
iQ ¡II/il-'III
!£ !, 'I ..
~ IHt ¡ II
II !!h
- II! I hi ¡¡II
~ ¡t ¡ i ¡¡II ¡¡II
8 II¡!I Ii!! I¡II
~ h!1 I I!II !I!
! II ~ II II
" B B B B
~
~
g
~
I II!, !
,! 119 i. I
3' I' "I"" I .
.2 ¡'II 11'1'2 I I
~ ï' 1"h1P
: I !1:¡lill¡I¡I~¡1I i
<', !...¡¡I~~I1¡
" e00000000E1J@
.
, ¡ I
! II I! III!;
Ii ! II '10:11
~ . !" Ii ,I i!'
~. 1'!lhl' ¡,Ipl'
:;; ',~ ! ,I'i:; II II ! ,II ¡!Ii',
"¡'-!II',,' TII!
Š ,!!!!!!llillnÎ!! III!
"'.., ,'........
ill "ill I
,', liP i!lh '
II ¡ ,,¡II "'I! .
~ "'I! !l1¡'¡ili."' II'
8 'III 'I! , ",. .
~ Ii iÌ II ¡Hi! Ii'! . ! !,i.I'I! II
"H'I"IIII';II'ld'I'
2 1'11,1', il"'¡ ¡IiI! I
~ ,li¡I';III;!'I .! Ii'li.
8 ~: ~ ~I.=~..~.~~,~,J'!I
.
.
.
.
II.I!I
VlNIDlIlVJ 'VlfDJMl
INIOd ) }IV d 3~0I}I
~
e--
¡ 10
¡
I-
i.
0 !
0 !
".
z~~
r
.. .
~,iI ~
~~ ~
~ ~
z
«
~
""
°
°
--'
u..
0,
Z~
0,
~¡
1:1~ I~IIIIIII¡~g~11 ~ I
I I I
II I
¡'II ¡I
~ JIIJI! ¡J¡!
~ I:.II! ,III
!I, ¡ ih
- I'll I: ,I:I!
~ i! ¡ i ¡¡II ¡!II
8 II!I, ! ¡¡¡!Iiil
~ hi, I !III III
! II ~ II ~
:< B EJ EJ EJ
I! !
I¡ ¡¡¡In I
~ " "¡"I! ¡ .
" i!Oj ¡Iii. ¡ I
8.:11 .,I"¡!i, ! I
~ 'ilil ¡ 'I" ¡I, . ! !
. '11111 II 1I1'I:! II
! d!!, Inll!, !! i
~ e000æ00 0"'"
I' II II II!
~ ! I I' Ii 11:!i
~ . !" I ¡ ,Ii"
s; ¡"III ¡ Ii' ¡ I'!
~ "¡ji¡;!!!" . ¡¡ III
~ II nm¡¡ II inlll!llll!
"'d. .. .""'"
i 'I "i~1 I
i I I!q. ¡!Iii '
~ h Ii ¡¡" "~'II '
"I'! IIIII'%'I!I
! !! II II !!lii ¡LI! I!I!! !I
>1 I;' j! h 1!llu!! ¡I,i!d Ii
~ .1!'lud!!!,!!,! !i'li.
~ ~:!~ ~,~:~..!,~!,~,.I'~I
I!!J m I'
&1tlm
VlN1IOJnv:> 'V1n:JJMl
INIOd ) Wd 3~0I}
z~~
r
.. .
!e ~
2~ ä
H
z
:s
"-
""
0
0
-'
LL.;
0:
"",
:Ei
I-~
1:lj¡I~IIIIII¡~~~I~
'¡ .
II! I!!
d¡;wl! U II
.
!! I
II I
¡lit ¡I
If! 111/11"111
2 I, ,II ..
!Z II ¡ Ijl
:: ,111 ¡ 'I
II : :;1
~ ¡:¡ I Ii ¡Iiil
~ II ¡ i ¡¡!I ¡ill
8 !I!!, ! 1i!!I¡i'
~ ¡!¡ I II!I !!I
! II ~ II I
:< EJ EJ EJ EJ
'i
I 1'1' !
,I d p ¡ I i
~ ¡III ¡ ¡I¡IH I i
8 ,hi' ,I¡'¡Ü' ! I
'" ¡ illll,:'¡! ß:! d
~ I IIli ! In II
f rIll I ! II II b' I ! ¡
~ 00000000 0<!J@
.
¡ I II I: d
~ II! 'ilIU¡
~ . !" I Ii ,I iI'
~; 1!llld! ¡' !Pi!
~ " ,I,.II'!, ,i "II
.. '1"1"" I i"I!
'" I '11"'" 11 I
:,IHh!lliilmídlll!
.. .d.""
lit ,'!1! I
; I IIi:! ¡I ¡I! ,
I' ",II,h!,
~ ,I ! II !¡¡Ii Iii .¡ h
! !I !!¡!iUi!¡I¡¡¡jl!I¡!!
2 ¡;,j!b!!,I!! ! ¡¡llh!!!¡
~ II!¡III'! 11111,', Ii': I.
B ~~!~I:..I~..~.:!.~,.I.~,
.
I!!J ;~.;.I .'
I::Ijm
.
VlN1IOInv:> 'Yin::>JMJ.
INIOd ) } Vd 3~0I}
.
~:
<:
iii
u..,'
o'
2!
I '"
I II I .
'"! .. II.',
II !1 Ii! Ii ! I! i II ~ I tI
ml¡!'I!!II¡"'III!iI!UII;!",,! !!i!¡!I!I!!!~¡il
sit!!!!!!!!!! t3ql'II! lml'III~!' ",~!!!!hllllll¡¡\!2Ih
"¡.'!'¡ ~!"'!"!'II;:¡.¡'"C!",,",I,'jl ...
III!I ! ~e¡I'I!I I'ßI,t:>!lIilh 4.
~ U~~¡H~!: ;!!¡U!i,!a;I!~ÌI.... ~ IJIZI~ ~ l ~ ~
.
1:lj l~ IIIIII ¡ ~~
"<t-
N
1«
ill Ii! .
-I.' !í'! í
ì !!¡il!¡llI ¡
II. j~'.;1
I ¡¡¡
~m
1
" : : :,
"
~
;::
~
¡¡j1
¡....
~i
""N~Q 1lVJ 'y]ffi3Ml 1:11:1,lj IIIIII ¡ ~ß ~
INIOd )I~V d 3~0I~ !"")
15'< !«
=<:;
¡¡¡oj I
'I .
i 'III .
-I' "!
d,ii HI! U ¡ ¡
. 1 ,I -
., .1,
, I
, ,
. "
,
,
,
,
,
. ,.
-.J
2
~
¡¡j
I:!:;
~.'" . - ~. " ð ~
. . ' "<: ¡
I I, I ~
!¡jq! I. 0'1 'I' I'
;!PII!nlll!~¡I!1 ¡~I
ol,inll!'",," '¡ IIY!
i ¡!II II!II I ~ul~lHU~~
.
<:
0
;::
~
"'~
uu §\
!I ~. :'1: n: ~ ¡
IIIIII!I
I I .
.! ! I
II I
~ It b I II ~ I, I
~ II ,III! i u II II
ð II "'1 q I
8 6> 0 01. ~ ~ d [J[J[J I
.
~I~~~ ~ ~~
i ~~; 0
1> §
-t- J J! I
I ! I
i Ii j
~ i j j
~ ! ¡ 1
I ~ ~
il ~"el~1 IlltHlìo
.~
is
~
~ ¡¡ ì=m
oc ~!~ S ~i1 \¡ 3§!
'¡¡!å §
~. ~ '!It 9~
i ;s¡¡:!: ~ ~tl
if 1I1~~ a
!~ !~~:;¡
'I ~~ISi
f" ~ ~ ~
i~ ¡ ~::.ij r.J I!I
~I ~Ia ~¡U 'f.
~I iì'~ !~!;~~,~
¡; ¡" :.a¡1 fljl ~~
:¡¡ ~i ~a~I~1
.
§ I ! >,!
elm ~!';HiuHh i
"
CZ~ ~ =
¡¡ r-------
---
I ',-
~ ~- ""
ß ill ~ I - ~" "
L.. " "" "- "-
'\ \
\ \
\ \
\ \
L \ \
~I~ :
T. T ~'J w :
II ~ :
- I ~ I
I" I
I~ w :
I 8 I
I ~ I
I I
-1-~
I I
.. :; III
III.
.
: ,
}o ~
~...-
¡
}o
~ f
i
~(!
~
I~ .
:... ~~ .I!
....=-"' I
-=.... ¡;¡ If
...,~. uh
VIIOOIIl'/J'\'1I'œWll
~NIOllnll DI~~O ) Wd 3~0I}
l~, ~ ~ ~z
C) (S::5 ::;
'^ . z"".
1m ::5 I
CD~ II
II!
I~I! I
I ~~ :
11;111 ;
I ~
.
~ ~ I ~t
~ ~ ~
d~@§I!e
If) ~~llh . h
I ~ I~; ;I!II ~;
. z ~~I II!! i.
. ...I ~I~ ,.Iil Ii
L ffi dl Iii! d
( . ¡ ¡j'j ~d ~ml u~
\~_/ \D" " .
~~
'-
"-
"-
"
"" I I I
\ I ~ d d i înnn
\ I If ~ ~ 11111111
\ ~ I I I~ ~ .
\ ~ II II I I! ~ II II !
\ ;hli i hi I Mh 1 I 1111 I
I III; II II.all I; II~III LI'd I
: .II 111111 ~Iii I ¡111i ¡ i .L iii
. I ! II D DiD@u0 80 f<
I ~
'I ~ II I I I
'I ~ I~ ~ ~ ~
d I I ~ I I
I ;/, I I.
I ~ I f II, f fl f IiI
liE ~ II IU I§
I§ ; '1,1 .1
I ~ I II I 'hili I Ii II
: ~ 1111 I: II Ii II Ii II
- ~IIO' 0 .
I
I
. J ~II
, -><:
~~I
c ~
:>;!
"'"
I
~ I
~ ,~ i"
-. - - - - .------. --. ---
.
- -.--.-.. .
ATTACHMENTNO.2
PC RESOLUTION 2004
R:\D P\2003\O3-0S34 Ridge Park Point Office Building\pc staff report,doc
6
.
.
.
PC RESOLUTION NO. 2004_-
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION
NO. PA03-0534, A DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR A 29,622
SQUARE FOOT THREE STORY OFFICE BUILDING ON 1.01
ACRES, LOCATED ON RIDGE PARK DRIVE, SOUTH OF
RANCHO CALIFORNIA ROAD, KNOWN AS APN: 940-310-027.
WHEREAS, McArdle Associates Architects, initiated Planning Application No. PA03-
0534 (Development Plan), in accordance with the City of Temecula General Plan and
Development Code;
WHEREAS, Planning Application No. PA03-0534 (Development Plan) was processed
including, but not limited to public notice, in the timely manner prescribed by State and local law;
WHEREAS, notice of the proposed Development Plan was processed including, but not
limited to a public notice, in the time and manner prescribed by State and local law;
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission considered Planning Application No. PA03-0534
(Development Plan) on May 19, 2004, at a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law, at
which time the City staff and interested persons had an opportunity to, and did testify either in
support or opposition to this matter;
WHEREAS, at the conclusion of the public hearing and after due consideration of the
testimony, the Planning Commission approved PA03-0534 (Development Plan);
NOW, THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA
DOES RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. That the above recitations are true and correct and are hereby
incorporated by reference.
Section 2. FindinQs. The Planning Commission, in approving Planning Application
No. PA03-0534 hereby makes the following findings as required by Section 17.05.020.F of the
City of Temecula Municipal Code:
A. The proposed use is in conformance with the General Plan for the City of
Temecula and with all the applicable requirements of state law and other ordinances of the city;
The Planning Commission has reviewed the proposed project and finds that the site is
properly planned and zoned and found to be physically suitable for the type of the
proposed use. The project as conditioned is also consistent with other applicable
requirements of State law and iocal ordinance, including the California Environmental
Quality Act (CEQA).
B. The overall development of the land is designed for the protection of the public,
health, safety and general welfare.
The project has been conditioned to conform to the Uniform Building Code, and prior to
occupancy, City staff will inspect all construction. The site design will provide adequate
emergency access in the case of a need for emergency response to the site
Section 3. Environmental Compliance. A Notice of Exemption for Planning
Application No. PA03-0534 was made per the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines
Section 15332 (In-Fill Development Projects, Class 32). This project is an in-fill development
and it meets the following criteria:
a. The site is 1.01 acres, which is less than 5 acres.
b. The proposed development is consistent with the existing development in the
area.
.
d.
The site has no value as a habitat for endangered, rare, or threatened species.
The site will be adequately served by public utilities and services.
c.
Section 4. Conditions. That the City of Temecula Planning Commission, hereby
approves Planning Application No. PA03-0534 for a 29,622 square foot, three story office
building located on the north side of Ridge Park Drive, south of Rancho California Road. The
Conditions of Approval are contained in Exhibit A.
Section 5. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the City of Temecula
Planning Commission this 19th day of May 2004.
John Telesio, Chairperson
ATTEST:
Debbie Ubnoske, Secretary
.
{SEAL}
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE
CITY OF TEMECULA
)
) ss
)
I, Debbie Ubnoske, Secretary of the Temecula Planning Cornmission, do hereby certify
that PC Resolution No. 2004- was duly and regularly adopted by the Planning Commission of
the City of Temecula at a regular meeting thereof held on the 19th day of May 2004, by the
following vote:
NOES:
ABSENT:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
AYES:
ABSTAIN:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
Debbie Ubnoske, Secretary
.
EXHIBIT A
DRAFT CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
.
.
.
EXHIBIT A
CITY OF TEMECULA
DRAFT CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
Planning Application No. PA03-0534
Project Description:
A Development Plan for a 29,622 square foot three
story office building located on the north side of Ridge
Park Drive, south of Rancho California Road. (APN:
940-310-027)
Development Irnpact Fee: Industrial
Approval Date:
May 19, 2004
Expiration Date:
May 19, 2006
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
Within Forty-Eight (48) Hours of the Approval of this Project
1.
The applicant/developer shall deliver to the Planning Department a cashier's check or
money order made payable to the County Clerk in the amount of Sixty-Four Dollars
($64.00) for the County administrative fee, to enable the City to file the Notice of
Exemption as provided under Public Resources Code Section 211 08(b) and California
Code of Regulations Section 15062. If within said forty-eight (48) hour period the
applicant/developer has not delivered to the Planning Division the check as required
above, the approval for the project granted shall be void by reason of failure of condition
(Fish and Game Code Section 711.4(c)).
General Requirements
2.
The applicant and owner of the real property subject to this condition shall hereby agree
to indemnify, protect, hold harmless, and defend the City with Legal Counsel of the City's
own selection from any and all claims, actions, awards, judgments, or proceedings
against the City to attack, set aside, annul, or seek monetary damages resulting, directly
or indirectly, from any action in furtherance of and the approval of the City, or any
agency or instrumentality thereof, advisory agency, appeal board or legislative body
including actions approved by the voters of the City, concerning the Planning
Application. The City shall be deemed for purposes of this condition, to include any
agency or instrumentality thereof, or any of its elected or appointed officials, officers,
employees, consultants, contractors, legal counsel, and agents. City shall promptly notify
both the applicant and landowner of any claim, action, or proceeding to which this
condition is applicable and shall further cooperate fully in the defense of the action. The
City reserves the right to take any and all action the City deems to be in the best interest
of the City and its citizens in regards to such defense.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
This approval shall be used within two (2) years of the approval date; otherwise, it shall
become null and void. By use is meant the beginning of substantial construction
contemplated by this approval within the two (2) year period, which is thereafter diligently
pursued to completion, or the beginning of substantial utilization contemplated by this
approval.
.
The Director of Planning may, upon an application being filed within thirty days prior to
expiration and for good cause, grant a time extension of up to three, one-year
extensions of time, one year at a time.
The development of the premises shall substantially conform to the approved site plan,
contained on file with the Planning Department.
Landscaping shall substantially conform to the approved (Conceptual Landscape Plan)
contained on file with the Planning Department. Landscaping installed for the project
shall be continuously maintained to the reasonable satisfaction of the Director of
Planning. If it is determined that the landscaping is not being maintained, the Director of
Planning shall have the authority to require the property owner to bring the landscaping
into conformance with the approved landscape plan. The continued maintenance of all
landscaped areas shall be the responsibility of the developer or any successors in
interest.
The applicant shall sign both copies of the final conditions of approval that will be
provided by the Planning Department staff, and return one signed set to the Planning
Department for their files.
.
8.
This Development Plan may be revoked pursuant to Section 17.05.010 of the City's
Development Code.
9.
If at any time during excavation/construction of the site, archaeological/cultural
resources, or any artifacts or other objects which reasonably appears to be evidence of
cultural or archaeological resource are discovered, the property owner shall immediately
advise the City of such and the City shall cause all further excavation or other
disturbance of the affected area to immediately cease. The Director of Planning at
his/her sole discretion may require the property to deposit a sum of money it deems
reasonably necessary to allow the City to consult and/or authorize an independent, fully
qualified specialist to inspect the site at no cost to the City, in order to assess the
significance of the find. Upon determining that the determination is not an
archaeological/cultural resource, the Director of Planning shall notify the property owner
of such determination and shall authorize the resumption of work. Upon determining
that the discovery is an archaeological/cultural resource, the Director of Planning shall
notify the property owner that no further excavation or development may take place until
a mitigation plan or other corrective measures have been approved by the Director of
Planning.
The applicant shall paint a 3-foot x 3-foot section of the building for Planning Department
inspection, prior to commencing painting of the building.
10.
11.
Prior to the approval of any sign, the applicant shall submit a comprehensive sign
program subject to the approval of the Planning Director.
.
.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
All downspouts shall be internalized.
All mechanical and roof top equipment shall be screened from public view.
All retaining walls shall be planted with a combination of Rosmarinus and Pelargonium,
no less than 1 gallon in size at a maximum spacing of 30" on center. Alternative species
may be approved subject to the approval of the Planning Director.
All utilities shall be screened from public view. Landscape construction drawings shall
show and label all utilities and provide appropriate screening. Provide a 3' clear zone
around fire check detectors as required by the Fire Department before starting the
screen. Group utilities together in order to reduce intrusion. Screening of utilities is not
to look like an after-thought. Plan planting beds and design around utilities. Locate all
light poles on plans and insure that there are no conflicts with trees.
A landscape maintenance program shall be submitted for approval with the landscape
construction plans, which details the proper maintenance of all proposed plant materials
to assure proper growth and landscape development for the long-term aesthetics of the
property. The approved maintenance program. shall be provided to the landscape
maintenance contractor who shall be responsible to carryout the detailed program.
Ligustrum japonicum shall be the variety 'Texanum'
Prior to the Issuance of Building Perrnits
. 18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
.
A separate building permit shall be required for all signage.
The applicant shall submit a detailed plan for the employee area. The employee area
shall include decorative furniture and hardscape to match the style of the building
subject to the approval of the Planning Director.
An appropriate method for screening the gas meters and other externally mounted utility
equipment shall be reviewed and approved by the Planning Department.
A Consistency Check fee shall be paid per the City of Temecula Fee Schedule.
Three (3) copies of Construction Landscaping and Irrigation Plans shall be reviewed by
the Planning Department. These plans shall conform substantially with the approved
Exhibit uP', or as amended by these conditions. The location, number, genus, species,
and container size of the plants shall be shown. The plans shall be consistent with the
Water Efficient Ordinance. The plans shall be accompanied by the following items:
a. Appropriate filing fee (per the City of Temecula Fee Schedule at time of
submittal).
One (1) copy of the approved grading plan.
Water usage calculations per Chapter 17.32 of the Development Code (Water
Efficient Ordinance).
Total cost estimate of plantings and irrigation (in accordance with approved plan).
A landscape maintenance program shall be submitted for approval, which details
the proper maintenance of all proposed plant materials to assure proper growth
b.
c.
d.
e.
and landscape development for the long-term esthetics of the property. The
approved maintenance program shall be provided to the landscape maintenance
contractor who shall be responsible to carry out the detailed program.
Prior to Building Occupancy
23.
24.
.
The property owner shall fully install all required landscaping and irrigation, and submit a
landscape maintenance bond in a form and amount approved by the Planning
Department for a period of one -year from the date of the first occupancy permit.
All of the foregoing conditions shall be complied with prior to occupancy or any use
allowed by this permit.
POLICE DEPARTMENT
25.
26.
Any graffiti painted or marked upon the buildings or walls shall be removed or painted
over within twenty-four (24) hours of being discovered. Notify the Temecula Police
Department immediately so a report can be taken.
All roof hatches shall be painted "International Orange."
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
Unless otherwise noted, the Developer at no cost to any Government Agency shall complete all
conditions. It is understood that the Developer correctly shows on the site plan all existing and
proposed property lines, easements, traveled ways, improvement constraints and drainage
courses, and their omission may require the project to be resubmitted for further review and
revision.
.
General Requirements
27.
28.
29.
A Grading Permit for either rough and/or precise grading, including all on-site flat work
and improvements, shall be obtained frorn the Department of Public Works prior to
commencement of any construction outside of the City-maintained street right-of-way.
An Encroachment Permit shall be obtained from the Department of Public Works prior to
commencement of any construction within an existing or proposed City right-of-way.
30.
All grading plans shall be coordinated for consistency with adjacent projects and existing
improvements contiguous to the site and shall be submitted on standard 24" x 36" City of
Temecula mylars.
The Developer shall construct public improvements in conformance with applicable City
Standards and subject to approval by the Director of the Department of Public Works.
a. Street improvements, which may include, but not limited to: sidewalk, drive
approach,
Storm drain facilities
b.
c.
Sewer and domestic water systems
.
.
Prior to Issuance of a Grading Permit
31.
32.
33.
34.
.
35.
.
A Grading Plan shall be prepared by a registered Civil Engineer and shall be reviewed
and approved by the Department of Public Works. The grading plan shall include all
necessary erosion control measures needed to adequately protect adjacent public and
private property.
The Developer shall post security and enter into an agreement guaranteeing the grading
and erosion control improvements in conformance with applicable City Standards and
subject to approval by the Department of Public Works.
A Soil Report shall be prepared by a registered Soil or Civil Engineer and submitted to
the Director of the Department of Public Works with the initial grading plan check. The
report shall address all soils conditions of the site, and provide recommendations for the
construction of engineered structures and pavement sections.
The Developer shall have a Drainage Study prepared by a registered Civil Engineer in
accordance with City Standards identifying storm water runoff expected from this site
and upstream of this site. The study shall identify all existing or proposed public or
private drainage facilities intended to discharge this runoff. The study shall also analyze
and identify impacts to downstream properties and provide specific recommendations to
protect the properties and mitigate any impacts. Any upgrading or upsizing of
downstream facilities, including acquisition of drainage or access easements necessary
to make required improvements, shall be provided by the Developer.
The Developer must comply with the requirements of the National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) permit from the State Water Resources Control Board. No
grading shall be permitted until an NPDES Notice of Intent (NOI) has been filed or the
project is shown to be exempt.
36.
As deemed necessary by the Director of the Department of Public Works, the Developer
shall receive written clearance from the following agencies:
a. San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board
b. Planning Department
c. Department of Public Works
d. Temecula Fire Prevention Bureau
37.
The Developer shall comply with all constraints, which may be shown upon an
Environmental Constraint Sheet (ECS) recorded with any underlying maps related to the
subject property.
The Developer shall obtain any necessary letters of approval or slope easements for off-
site work performed on adjacent properties as directed by the Department of Public
Works.
38.
39.
A flood mitigation charge shall be paid. The Area Drainage Plan fee is payable to the
Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District by either cashier's
check or money order, prior to issuance of permits, based on the prevailing area
drainage plan fee. If the full Area Drainage Plan fee or mitigation charge has already
been credited to this property, no new charge needs to be paid.
Prior to Issuance of a Building Permit
40.
41.
42.
43,
44.
45.
.
A Certificate of Compliance shall be submitted and approved by the Public Works
Director, prior to issuance of a building permit
Precise grading plans shall conform to applicable City of Temecula Standards subject to
approval by the Director of the Department of Public Works. The following design criteria
shall be observed:
a. Flowline grades shall be 0.5% minimum over P.C.C. and 1.00% minimum over
A.C. paving.
Driveways shall conform to the applicable City of T emecula Standard No. 207 A.
Street lights shall be installed along the public streets adjoining the site in
accordance with City Standard 800.
Concrete ramps shall be constructed along public street frontages in accordance
with City of Temecula Standard No. 400.
All street and driveway centerline intersections shall be at 90 degrees.
b.
c.
d.
e.
The Developer shall vacate and dedicate the abutters rights of access along Ride Park
Drive pursuant to the new location of the driveway.
The building pad shall be certified to have been substantially constructed in accordance
with the approved Precise Grading Plan by a registered Civil Engineer, and the Soil
Engineer shall issue a Final Soil Report addressing compaction and site conditions.
.
The Developer shall pay to the City the Public Facilities Development Impact Fee as
required by, and in accordance with, Chapter 15.06 of the Temecula Municipal Code and
all Resolutions implementing Chapter 15.06.
46.
The Developer shall record a written offer to participate in, and waive all rights to object
to the formation of an Assessment District, a Community Facilities District, or a Bridge
and Major Thoroughfare Fee District for the construction of the proposed Western
Bypass Corridor in accordance with the General Plan. The form of the offer shall be
subject to the approval of the City Engineer and City Attorney.
The Developer shall pay to the City the Western Riverside County Transportation
Uniform Mitigation Fee (TUMF) Program as required by, and in accordance with,
Chapter 15.08 of the Temecula Municipal Code and all Resolutions implementing
Chapter 15.08.
Prior to Issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy
47.
As deemed necessary by the Department of Public Works, the Developer shall receive
written clearance from the following agencies:
a.
Rancho California Water District
Eastern Municipal Water District
Department of Public Works
.
b.
c.
.
48.
49.
All public improvements shall be constructed and completed per the approved plans and
City standards to the satisfaction of the Director of the Department of Public Works.
The existing improvements shall be reviewed. Any appurtenance damaged or broken
shall be repaired or removed and replaced to the satisfaction of the Director of the
Department of Public Works.
Building Department
50.
51.
52.
. 53.
54.
55.
56.
57.
58.
59.
60.
.
All design components shall comply with applicable provisions of the 2001 edition of the
California Building, Plumbing and Mechanical Codes; 2001 California Electrical Code;
California Administrative Code, Title 24 Energy Code, California Title 24 Disabled
Access Regulations, and the Temecula Municipal Code.
The City of Temecula has adopted an ordinance to collect fees for a Riverside County
area wide Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee (TUMF). Upon the adoption of this
ordinance on March 31, 2003, this project will be subject to payment of these fees at the
time of building permit issuance. The fees shall be subject to the provisions of Ordinance
03-01 and the fee schedule in effect at the time of building permit issuance.
Submit at time of plan review, a complete exterior site lighting plans showing compliance
with Ordinance No. 655 for the regulation of light pollution. All streetlights and other
outdoor lighting shall be shown on electrical plans submitted to the Department of
Building and Safety. Any outside lighting shall be hooded and directed so as not to shine
directly upon adjoining property or public rights-of-way.
A receipt or clearance letter from the Temecula Valley School District shall be submitted
to the Building & Safety Department to ensure the payment or exemption from School
Mitigation Fees.
Obtain all building plans and permit approvals prior to commencement of any
construction work.
Obtain street addressing for all proposed buildings prior to submittal for plan review.
All building and facilities must comply with applicable disabled access regulations.
Provide all details on plans. (California Disabled Access Regulations effective April
1, 1998)
Provide disabled access from the public way to the main entrance of the building where
public sidewalks exist.
Provide van accessible parking located as close as possible to the main entry.
Provide house electrical meter provisions for power for the operation of exterior lighting,
fire alarm systems.
Restroom fixtures, number and type, to be in accordance with the provisions of the 2001
edition of the California Building Code Appendix 29.
61.
Provide an automated automatic fire sprinkler system.
62.
63.
64.
65.
66.
67.
68.
69.
Provide appropriate stamp of a registered professional with original signature on plans
prior to permit issuance.
.
Provide electrical plan including load calculations and panel schedule, plumbing
schematic and mechanical plan for plan review.
Truss calculations that are stamped by the engineer of record and the truss
manufacturer engineer are required for plan review submittal.
Provide precise grading plan at plan check submittal to check accessibility for persons
with disabilities.
A pre-construction meeting is required with the building inspector prior to the start of the
building construction.
Trash enclosures, patio covers, light standards, and any block walls if not on the
approved building plans, will require separate approvals and permits.
Show all building setbacks.
Signage shall be posted conspicuously at the entrance to the project that indicates the
hours of construction, shown below, as allowed by the City of Temecula Ordinance No.
0-90-04, specifically Section G (1) of Riverside County Ordinance No. 457.73, for any
site within one-quarter mile of an occupied residence.
Monday-Friday 6:30 a.m. - 6:30 p.m.
Saturday 7:00 a.m. - 6:30 p.m.
No work is permitted on Sunday or Government Holidays
.
COMMUNITY SERVICES DEPARTMENT
70.
The trash enclosures shall be large enough to accommodate a recycling bin, as well as,
regular solid waste containers.
71.
The developer shall contact the City's franchised solid waste hauler for disposal of
construction debris. Only the City's franchisee may haul construction debris.
72.
All landscaping, fencing, parkways and on site lighting shall be maintained by the
property owner or maintenance association.
Prior to Issuance of Building Permits
73.
The developer shall provide TCSD verification of arrangements made with the City's
franchise solid waste hauler for disposal of construction debris.
Prior to the first building permit or installation of additional street lighting on Ridge Park
Drive, the developer shall complete the TCSD application, submit an approved Edison
Streetlight Plan and pay the appropriate energy fees related to the transfer of street
lighting into the TCSD maintenance program.
.
74.
.
.
.
FIRE DEPARTMENT
75.
76.
77.
78.
79.
Final fire and life safety conditions will be addressed when the Fire Prevention Bureau
reviews building plans. These conditions will be based on occupancy, use, the California
Building Code (CBC), California Fire Code (CFC), and related codes, which are in force
at the time of building, plan submittal.
The Fire Prevention Bureau is required to set a minimum fire flow for the remodel or
construction of all commercial buildings per CFC Appendix liLA, Table A-III-A-1. The
developer shall provide for this project, a water system capable of delivering 1750 GPM
at 20-PSI residual operating pressure, plus an assumed sprinkler demand of 400 GPM
for a total fire flow of 2150 GPM with a 3-hour duration. The required fire flow may be
adjusted during the approval process to reflect changes in design, construction type, or
automatic fire protection measures as approved by the Fire Prevention Bureau. The Fire
Flow as given above has taken into account all information as provided. (CFC 903.2,
Appendix III-A)
The Fire Prevention Bureau is required to set minimum fire hydrant distances per CFC
Appendix III-B, Table A-III-B-1. A minimum of 1 hydrant, in a combination of on-site and
off-site (6" x 4" x 2-2 1/2" outlets) shall be located on Fire Department access roads and
adjacent public streets. Hydrants shall be spaced at 500 feet apart, at each intersection
and shall be located no more than 250 feet from any point on the street or Fire
Department access road(s) frontage to a hydrant. The required fire flow shall be
available from any adjacent hydrant(s) in the system. The upgrade of existing fire
hydrants may be required. (CFC 903.2, 903.4.2, and Appendix III-B)
As required by the California Fire Code, when any portion of the facility is in excess of
150 feet from a water supply on a public street, as measured by an approved route
around the exterior of the facility, on-site fire hydrants and mains capable of supplying
the required fire flow shall be provided. For this project on site fire hydrants are
required. (CFC 903.2)
If construction is phased, each phase shall provide approved access and fire protection
prior to any building construction. (CFC 8704.2 and 902.2.2)
80.
Prior to building construction, all locations where structures are to be built shall have
approved temporary Fire Department vehicle access roads for use until permanent
roads are installed. Temporary Fire Department access roads shall be an all weather
surface for 80,000 Ibs. GVW. (CFC 8704.2 and 902.2.2.2)
81.
Prior to building final, all locations where structures are to be built shall have approved
Fire Department vehicle access roads to within 150 feet to any portion of the facility or
any portion of an exterior wall of the building(s). Fire Department access roads shall be
an all weather surface designed for 80,000 Ibs. GVW with a minimum AC thickness of
.25 feet. (CFC sec 902)
82.
Fire Department vehicle access roads shall have an unobstructed width of not less than
twenty-four (24) feet and an unobstructed vertical clearance of not less than thirteen (13)
feet six (6) inches. (CFC 902.2.2.1)
83.
84.
85.
86.
87.
88.
Prior to building construction, dead end road ways and streets in excess of one hundred
and fifty (150) feet which have not been completed shall have a turnaround capable of
accommodating fire apparatus. (CFC 902.2.2.4)
.
Prior to building construction, this development shall have two (2) points of access, via
all-weather surface roads, as approved by the Fire Prevention Bureau. (CFC 902.2.1)
Prior to issuance of building permits, the developer shall furnish one copy of the water
system plans to the Fire Prevention Bureau for approval prior to installation. Plans shall
be signed by a registered civil engineer; contain a Fire Prevention Bureau approval
signature block; and conform to hydrant type, location, and spacing and minimum fire
flow standards. After the local water company signs the plans, the originals shall be
presented to the Fire Prevention Bureau for signatures. The required water system
including fire hydrants shall be installed and accepted by the appropriate water agency
prior to any combustible building materials being placed on an individual lot. (CFC
8704.3, 901.2.2.2 and National Fire Protection Association 24 1-4.1)
Prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy or building final, "Blue Reflective
Markers" shall be installed to identify fire hydrant locations. (CFC 901.4.3)
Prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy or building final, approved numbers or
addresses shall be provided on all new and existing buildings in such a position as to be
plainly visible and legible from the street or road fronting the property. Numbers shall be
of a contrasting color to their background. Commercial and industrial buildings shall
have a minimum twelve (12) inches numbers with suite numbers a minimum of six (6)
inches in size. All suites shall have a minimum of six (6) inch high letters and/or
numbers on both the front and rear doors as approved by the Fire Prevention Bureau.
(CFC 901.4.4)
.
89.
Prior to issuance of Certificate of Occupancy or building final, based on square footage
and type of construction, occupancy or use, the developer shall install a fire sprinkler
system. Fire sprinkler plans shall be submitted to the Fire Prevention Bureau for
approval prior to installation. (CFC Article 10, CBC Chapter 9)
Prior to issuance of Certificate of Occupancy or building final, based on a requirement
for monitoring the sprinkler system, occupancy or use, the developer shall install an fire
alarm system monitored by an approved Underwriters Laboratory listed central station.
Plans shall be submitted to the Fire Prevention Bureau for approval prior to installation.
(CFC Article 10)
90.
Prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy or building final, a "Knox-Box" shall
be provided. The Knox-Box shall be installed a minimum of six (6) feet in height and be
located to the right side of the main entrance door. (CFC 902.4)
91.
All manual and electronic gates on required Fire Department access roads or gates
obstructing Fire Department building access shall be provided with the Knox Rapid entry
system for emergency access by fire fighting personnel. (CFC 902.4)
Prior to final inspection of any building, the applicant shall prepare and submit to the Fire
Department for approval, a site plan designating Fire Lanes with appropriate lane
painting and or signs.
.
92.
.
.
.
Special Conditions
93.
Prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy or building final a simple plot plan and a
simple floor plan, each as an electrQnic file of the .DWG format must be submitted to the
Fire Prevention Bureau. Alternative file formats may be acceptable, contact fire
prevention for approval.
94.
The applicant shall comply with the requirements of the Fire Code permit process and
update any changes in the items and quantities approved as part of their Fire Code
permit. These changes shall be submitted to the Fire Prevention Bureau for review and
approval per the Fire Code and is subject to inspection. (CFC 105)
95.
The applicant shall submit for review and approval by the Riverside County Department
of Environmental Health and City Fire Department an update to the Hazardous Material
Inventory Statement and Fire Department Technical Report on file at the city; should any
quantities used or stored on site increase or should changes to operation introduce any
additional hazardous material not listed in existing reports. (CFC Appendix II-E)
OUTSIDE AGENCIES
The applicant shall comply with the attached letter dated March 19, 2003 from the
Riverside County Department of Environmental Health.
By placing my signature below, I confirm that I have read, understand and accept all the above
Conditions of Approval. I further understand that the property shall be maintained in
conformance with these conditions of approval and that any changes I may wish to make to the
project shall be subject to Community Development Department approval.
96.
Applicant's Name
Date
Applicant's Printed Name