Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
2nd Revised Draft Environmental Impact Report Vol 1 of 2 EIR Document
V I. J 2ND REVISED Draft Environmental Impact Report • . ` ., .fir �. ►� � �, . r � Volume 1 of 2 / EIR Document ob Od .T . •!. ,.�• •� �4`.�1 r � , f � � I PREPARED FOR JTZ ` :r• �- , ' T 12ortpau;;ItHa1 lc'L • t .� ) - , �� • • ( j; PREPARED BY F � . . �• .{ - + ��� ,. • �[� .��f%„� . �'�r �y L�•.K 3� Tha Keich ComPnniesl�7l�+ J w rf+t y r • 44t, ;_ iAPRIL 01, 2002 r Notice of Completion ' State of California Office of Planning and Research 1400 Tenth Street ' Sacramento, CA 95814 Project Title Roripaugh Ranch Specific Plan-2nd Revised Draft EIR r Project Location-Specific Adjacent to northeast comer of the City of Temecula Project Location-City Project Location-County Temecula Riverside rDescription of Nature,Purpose,and Beneficiaries of Project r The original project occupied 788 acres and proposed 2,058 units-it had a gross density of 2.61 units/acre and a net density of 4.26 units/acre. The revised project site occupied 819.7 acres and proposed 1,721 residential units. A DEIR was circulated for the original project in 1999 and a DEIR was circulated for the revised project in 2001. ' The current project proposes 2,058 units on 804.7 acres,including 1,044 low and low medium density single family units and 1,014 medium density single family units. The project also includes 15.4 acres (110,000 square feet) of ' commercial uses,a 12-acre elementary school site,a 20-acre middle school site,a 5.1-acre neighborhood park, a 19.7 acre community park with lighted athletic fields,9.1 acres of private recreational facilities,202.7 acres of biological habitat,56.6 acres of flood control and landscaped slopes,and a 2-acre fire station site. The current project has a gross density of 2.56 units/acre and a net density of 4.97 units/acre. ' The proposed Specific Plan contains a comprehensive land use plan,master plans for circulation,phasing,grading,open space and recreation,landscaping,walls and fences,master utility plans for drainage,water,sewer,planning area and r development standards,site planning design guidelines,and architectural guidelines. The project will benefit the property owners, future project residents, and the residents of Temecula in general by providing a number of regional arterial roads and major utility lines. Approximately 201 acres of the site,most along the Santa Gertrudis Creek drainage,has been set aside under the Assessment District 161 Sub-Regional(multi-species) Habitat Conservation Plan recently approved by the U.S. Department of Fish and Game. ' The current DEIR identifies the following adverse impacts that cannot be mitigated below a level of significance,even with implementation of all feasible mitigation measures: 1) agriculture (loss of prime soils and locally important farmland),2)traffic(2 intersections exceed LOS D during peak hours),3) air quality(both short-term and long-term), r and 4)aesthetics(views and skyglow). Lead Agency Division City of Temecula Planning ' Address Where Copy of EIR is Available . Temecula City Hall,43200 Business Park Drive,Temecula,CA 92590 1 Review Period April 3 to May 17,2002(45-Day Review Period) r Contact Person Area Code/Phone/Extension Dave Hogan/Saied Naaseh (909)694-6400 1 r ' 2nd REVISED DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT 1 RORIPAUGH RANCH SPECIFIC PLAN VOLUME I OF 2 EIR DOCUMENT ' SCH # 97121030 Prepared for: ' CITY OF TEMECULA 43200 Business Park Drive ' Temecula, CA 92590 Contacts: ' Dave Hogan Saied Naaseh ' (909) 694-6400 ' Prepared by: ' The Keith Companies 1 ' 22690 Cactus Avenue, Suite 300 ' Moreno Valley, CA 92553 Contact: Kent Norton t (909) 653-0234 ' April 1, 2002 ' RORIPAUGH RANCH SPECIFIC PLAN 2°d REVISED DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT ' VOLUME 1 OF 2 EIR DOCUMENT TABLE OF CONTENTS ' EXECUTIVE SUMMARY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ES-1 1.0 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-1 ' 1.1 Purpose ental rows . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ]-1 1.2 Environmental Process 1-1 1.3 Lead Agency and Contact Persons . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-4 ' 1.4 Proposed Project . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-4 1.5 Project Alternatives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-9 1.6 General Plan Consistency . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-10 ' 1.7 Other Environmental Documentation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-10 1.8 Responses to Comments on Two Previous DEIRs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-14 t2.0 Project Description . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-1 2.1 Location . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-1 2.2 Project Characteristics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-1 ' 2.3 Phasing . . . . . . . . . . :. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-17 2.4 Grading . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . :. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-19 2.5 Project Objectives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-21 2.6 Related Projects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-22 2.7 Components of the Specific Plan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-22 2.8 Intended Use of the EIR . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-23 ' 3.0 Environmental Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-1 ' 3.1 Land Use and Planning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . • . . . . . • . . . . . . . 3-3 3.2 Agriculture . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-16 3.3 Earth Resources . . . . . . . . . 3-23 ' 3.4 Water Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-40 3.5 Transportation and Circulation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-55 3.6 Air Quality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-98 ' 3.7 Biological Resources . . . . . . . . . : : . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-116 3.8 Energy and Mineral Resources . 3-141 3.9 Hazards . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-144 ' 3.10 Noise . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-148 3.11 Public Services . . . . . . . . . . ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-166 3.12 Utilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-191 3.13 Aesthetics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-208 ' 3.14 Scientific Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-229 i 1 RORIPAUGH RANCH SPECIFIC PLAN 2"d REVISED DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT VOLUME I OF 2 EIR DOCUMENT ' TABLE OF CONTENTS ' 4.0 General Plan and WRCOG Consistency . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-1 4.1 City of Temecula General Plan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-1 4.2 City Growth Management Program Action Plan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-12 4.3 Western Riverside Council of Governments . 4-14 ' 5.0 Unavoidable and Irreversible Impacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-1 5.1 Unavoidable Adverse Impacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-1 5.2 Irreversible Impacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-2 ' 6.0 Growth-Inducing and Cumulative Impacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-1 6.1 Growth-Inducing Impacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-1 ' 6.2 Cumulative Impacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-1 ' 7.0 Alternatives to the Proposed Project . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7-1 7.1 Development of Alternatives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7-2 7.2 Evaluation of Alternatives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7-4 ' No Project -No Development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7-4 Alternative I - Agriculture-Clustered Development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7-6 Alternative 2 - Reduced Intensity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7-10 Alternative 3 - Rural Density . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7-13 7.3 Comparison of Alternative Impacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7-16 7.4 "Alternative Sites"Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7-17 ' 8.0 Organizations and Persons Consulted . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-1 9.0 References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9-1 na3136Tdoc%El R\2ndRevisionDEIR9.wpd 11 ' RORIPAUGH RANCH SPECIFIC PLAN 2nd REVISED DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT ' VOLUME 1OF2 ' LIST OF FIGURES Previous Land Use Plan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-1 Original Land Use Plan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-2 ' Related Area Projects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-3 Regional Location Map . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-1 Project Vicinity Map . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-2 Proposed Land Use Plan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-3 Off-Site Improvements - Street and Drainage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-4a Off-Site Improvement- Sewer and Water . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-4b ' Conceptual Phasing Plan . . 2-5 Conceptual Grading Plan . • . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-6 Existing Land Uses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.1-1 ' General Plan Land Use Element . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.1-2 Existing Zoning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.1-3 Agricultural Soils . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.2-1 ' General Plan Agriculture . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.2-2 Regional Fault Map . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.3-1 Onsite Geologic Conditions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.3-2 Onsite Soils . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.3-3 Onsite Topography . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.3-4 Regional Drainage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.4-1 Existing Hydrology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.4-2 Conceptual Drainage Master Plan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.4-3 Project Area Roadways . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.5-1 Study Area Intersections . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.5-2 Existing Daily Traffic Volumes - 2001 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.5-3 Future Traffic Impacts - 2003 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.5-4 ' Future Traffic Impacts - 2015 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.5-5 Typical Street Sections . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.5-6 Conceptual Circulation Master Plan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.5-7 ' Proposed Onsite Circulation Improvements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.5-8 Pedestrian/Bicycle Circulation Plan . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.5-9 Vegetation Communities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.7-1 Sensitive Biological Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .... . . . . . . . . 3.7-2 Boundaries of AD 161 and Participating Properties 3.7-3 Typical Noise Sources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.10-1 ' Land Use Compatibility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.10-2 Typical Construction Equipment Noise Levels . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.10-3 French Valley Airport Planning Area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.10-4 Fuel Modification Plan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.11-1 Fuel Modification Elevation Alternative 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.11-2a Fuel Modification Elevation Alternative 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.11-2b Fuel Modification Elevation Alternative 3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.11-2c Conceptual Open Space and Recreational Master Plan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.11-3 Area-Wide Open Space Concept Plan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.11-4 iii RORIPAUGH RANCH SPECIFIC PLAN ' 2"a REVISED DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT VOLUMEIOF2 ' LIST OF FIGURES (CONT'D) ' Conceptual Water Master Plan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.12-1 Conceptual Sewer Master Plan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.12-2 Conceptual Drainage Master Plan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.12-3 Site Photograph . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.13-1a Site Photograph . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.I3-Ib ' Site Photograph . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.13-]c Site Photograph . 3.13-1d Site Photograph . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.13-1e ' Conceptual Landscape Master Plan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.13-2 Conceptual Walls and Fences Master Plan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.13-3 Cross-Section A - Upper Ridge Area Interface . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.13-4a Cross-Section B - South Project Boundary Interface . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.13-4b Cross-Section C - Open Space- Panhandle . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.13-4c Photographic Rendering of Site (A) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.13-5a 1 Photographic Rendering of Site (B) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.13-5b Photographic Rendering of Site (C) . . . . . . . . . 3.13-5c Photographic Rendering of Site (D) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.13-5d ' Cumulative Projects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-1 Alternative 1 - Agriculture (Clustered Development) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7-1 Alternative 2 -Reduced Intensity Plan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7-2 Alternative 3 -Rural Density Plan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7-3 1 iv RORIPAUGH RANCH SPECIFIC PLAN ' 2 n REVISED DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT LIST OF TABLES ' Summary of Impacts and Mitigation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ES-1 Original and Previous Projects Compared to Current Project . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-1 Proposed Land Uses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-1 Land Use By Planning Areas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-2 1 Agricultural Soils . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.2-1 Regional Faults . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.3-1 Seismic Risk Zones . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.3-2 Soil Characteristics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.3-3 Level of Service Interpretation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.5-1 Existing (1999)Conditions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.5-2 ' Future Conditions Without Project . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.5-3 Project Trip Generation . . 3.5-4 Year 2003 Conditions With & Without Project . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.5-5 ' Year 2007 Conditions With & Without Project . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.5-6 Build-out Conditions With Project . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.5-7 Ambient Air Quality Standards . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.6-1 Local Air Quality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.6-2 Short-Term (Construction) Emissions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.6-3 Long-Term (Operation) Emissions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.6-4 ' CO "Hot Spots" Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ' . 3.6-5 Existing Vegetation Communities 3.7-1 Covered Projects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.7-2 ' Covered-Species of Concern . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.7-3 Impacts to Vegetation Community . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.7-4 Ambient Noise Levels . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.10-1 1 Future Community Noise Levels . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.10-2 Estimated Noise Levels for Earth-Moving Equipment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.10-3 Traffic Noise Impact Analysis (CNEL @ 100 Feet from Centerline) . . . . . . . . 3.10-4 Traffic Noise Impact Analysis (Distance of 65 CNEL from Centerline) . . . . . 3.10-5 Fire Protection Service . . 3.11-1 Major Health Care Facilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.11-2 Project-Related Student Generation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.11-3 ' Estimated Utility Impacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.12-1 County Population Trends . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-1 ' Cumulative Projects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-2 Characteristics of Alternatives • . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7-1 Impacts of Alternatives Compared to the Proposed Project . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7-2 ' Comparison of Significant Impacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7-3 v RORIPAUGH RANCH SPECIFIC PLAN ' 2"" REVISED DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT VOLUME 2 OF 2 EIR APPENDICES ' TABLE OF CONTENTS Appendix A Notice of Preparation (NOP) and Initial Study ' Appendix B NOP Responses/Previous DEIR Comment Letters Appendix C Geotechnical Appendix D Hydrology Appendix E Traffic Appendix F Air Quality Appendix G Biological Resources ' Appendix H Noise Appendix I Scientific Resources Appendix I Phase 1 Hazardous Materials NOTE: Technical data sheets for Appendix C (Geotechnical), Appendix D ' (Hydrology), Appendix E (Traffic), and Appendix J (Hazardous Materials) are available at the City of Temecula Planning Department. 1 ' vi EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ' 1.0 INTRODUCTION The original Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) for the Roripaugh Ranch Specific Plan was ' circulated for public comment from June I to July 16, 1999. Comment letters were received from 15 agencies and I I individuals. The original project proposed 2,058 units on 788 acres with a gross density of 2.61 units/acre and a net residential density of 4.26 units/acre. At that time,the project included 1,698 single-family 1 units,360multi-family units, 10 acres with an estimated 120,000 square feet of commercial uses,30 acres for 2 school sites(elementary and middle school),23 acres for 3 onsite parks,plus a 3-acre off-site park site,and 181 acres of open space. Changes were subsequently made to the project and a Revised DEIR was recirculated on June 12 to July 27, 2001 (45 days). Comment letters on that document were received from the same agencies and individuals ' as were received on the original EIR.The revised orprevious project consisted of 1,721 units on 819.7 acres with a gross density of 2.1 units/acre and a net residential density of 4.06 units/acre. Residential uses included 1,286 single-family units on 395.3 acres and 435 multi-family units on 28.1 acres. This version of the project ' also proposed a mixed use Village Core area on 66.8 acres at the southwest corner of Butterfield Stage Road and Murrieta Hot Springs Road. This area included 21.3 acres of commercial uses(150,000 square feet), 12.4 acres of office uses (40,000 square feet), 5.0 acres of institutional (religious institutions) uses, and medium and high density residential uses. The project included 32.6 acres for 2 school sites(elementary and middle school),23.6 acres for 2 onsite park sites, a 1.5-acre fire station,and 255.3 acres of open space, of which 201 acres are within the recently approved Assessment District 161 Sub-Regional Habitat ' Conservation Plan (AD 161 SHCP). Since that time, the applicant, Ashby USA, LLC has been working with the City of Temecula and local ' residents to modify the project to respond to a number of local and federal concerns. This 2nd Revised Draft EIR has been prepared to address the various project changes and existing conditions that have changed since the two previous DEIRs were circulated. Specific responses to comments made on the two previous Draft EIRs are included in each section of this document, where appropriate, but have not been specifically indicated unless appropriate for context. New comments are being solicited during circulation of this document. ' This new 2nd Revised Draft EIR is a project-specific document intended to evaluate the potential environmental impacts of the proposed project on the natural and built environment(SCH#97121030). The City of Temecula is the Lead Agency for this project under the California Environmental Quality Act(CEQA) of 1970, as amended. ' 2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION The Roripaugh Ranch project site is located at the northeast corner of the City of Temecula with 170.7 acres ' within the City and 634 acres currently within the County of Riverside. The project proposes to annex all of the unincorporated land into the City.The proposed Specific Plan includes a comprehensive land use plan, master plans for circulation,phasing,grading,open space and recreation,landscape,walls and fences,master utility plans for drainage,water,and sewer,planning area and development standards,site planning design guidelines,and architectural design guidelines. The project will make improvements in water,sewer,flood control, and roads, including Murrieta Hot Springs Road and Butterfield Stage Road. RORIPAUGH RANCH SPECIFIC PLAN 2""REVISED DRAFT EIR-APRIL I, 2002 ES-t EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ' The current project addressed in this 2"'Revised DEIR is similar to the original project as it proposes 2,058 units on 804.7 acres with a gross density of 2.56 units/acre and a net residential density of 4.97 units/acre (2,058 units on 414 acres). The main differences between this plan and the previous plans are: 1)one-acre lots and/or more open space has been placed around the perimeter to help buffer the project from surrounding land uses;2)multi-family attached units(e.g.,apartments,townhomes)have been eliminated in favorof small lot single family units;3)each residential neighborhood is now gated with its own private recreational facility; ' 4)the public park and elementary school sites have been moved out of the Plateau area(formerly called the Panhandle area);5)the mixed use area formerly called the Village Core has been replaced by a neighborhood commercial center;6) 15 acres have been removed from the plan in the former Village Core area;7)the total ' number of units has increased from 1,721 to 2,058 units;and 8)boundaries and designations of the various Planning Areas have changed from previous plans. ' The project will be built in 2 phases with supporting private and public infrastructure. Grading will require a total of about 7 million cubic yards of earthwork. The project is expected to generate 5,865 new residents and 220 new employees. ' Offsite improvements include construction and/or fair share contributions to roadway connections,associated intersection,and/or traffic signal improvements along Murrieta Hot Springs Road to the northwest,Butterfield ' Stage Road to the south,Nicolas Road to the southwest,and Calle Chapos to the southwest,an all-weather crossing of Santa Gertrudis Creek at Nicolas Road/Calle Girasol,and sewer lines/connections in Nicolas Road. 3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS ' Table ES-1 summarizes existing conditions, anticipated environmental impacts of the proposed project, measures recommended to mitigate potential significant impacts,and the level of significance after mitigation ' for each environmental issue addressed. The EIR for the original project identified only significant impacts to air quality. Even with implementation of standard conditions,uniform codes,project design features,and all feasible mitigation measures, the revised project was expected to cause significant impacts related to land use(compatibility with surrounding uses and the French Valley Airport Comprehensive Land Use Plan), The current project evaluated in this 2"a Revised EIR identifies significant impacts to agriculture,traffic,air ' quality,and aesthetics. Previously significant impacts to land use and hazards have now been mitigated to less than significant levels by having one-acre lots around the south and eastboundaries of the site,eliminating the Village Core area,moving the elementary school and park sites out of the Plateau area, and increasing ' the buffering along the south side of the Plateau area adjacent to Nicolas Valley. Even with implementation of all feasible mitigation,the project will still have significant impacts related to:agriculture(loss of prime soils and locally important farmland);traffic(2 intersection exceed LOS D during peak hours);air quality(both ' short-and long-term); and aesthetics (views and skyglow). 4.0 GENERAL PLAN AND WRCOG CONSISTENCY ' The project is generally consistent with the goals of the City of Temecula General Plan. The project is primarily residential and will not contribute significant new employment to this "housing rich' area. Otherwise,the project is consistent with the goals andpolicies of the Subregional Comprehensive Plan of the Western Riverside Council of Governments(WRCOG)and the Regional Comprehensive Plan(RCP)of the RORIPAUGH RANCH SPECIFIC PLAN 2N°REVISED DRAFT EIR-APRIL 1, 2002 ES-2 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Southern California Association of Governments. The project proposes suburban density uses in a largely rural area but with appropriate buffers so it is consistent with existing uses and rural policies. 5.0 UNAVOIDABLE AND IRREVERSIBLE IMPACTS Cumulatively significant impacts to air qual ity and noise impacts will be unavoidable due to regional growth. Irreversible environmental changes will be the commitment of agricultural land to suburban land uses and consumption of non-renewable fossil fuels and construction materials. ' 6.0 GROWTH-INDUCING AND CUMULATIVE IMPACTS The project will construct on-and off-site improvements such as roads,drainage facilities,water lines,and sewer lines. These improvements could be considered mildly growth-inducing to the degree they accelerate or stimulate new development in the area. However, the project is consistent with growth projections and long-range development plans for the City of Temecula and the region as a whole. The project is one of ' several large development projects planned in the Temecula area, and will incrementally contribute to cumulative impacts such as additional traffic,airpollution,and consumption of water. With properplanning and design,potentially significant impacts can be largely avoided or mitigated,although there will be regionally ' significant traffic,air quality,and noise impacts as growth occurs. The project also contributes traffic to 3 intersections that will exceed City LOS standards even without the project,but the project is providing a key link to the eastern bypass corridor (Butterfield Stage Road). ' 7.0 ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT ' In addition to a "No Project' scenario, the following 3 alternatives were evaluated for potential impacts compared to the proposed project: 1)Agriculture-Clustered Development;2)Reduced Intensity;and 3)Rural Density. After detailed environmental review,all of the alternatives were determined to be environmentally superior to the proposed project,although none meet the financial or housing project objectives as well as the proposed project. RORIPAUGH RANCH SPECIFIC PLAN 20D REVISED DRAFT EIR-APRIL 1, 2002 ES-3 rr r s rr r s� r� r r� r r r r r r r r re rr EXECUTIVE SUMMARY TABLE.ES-1 SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION (with significance of impacts after mitigation) ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS IMPACT AFTER IssUE/EXISTING CONDITIONS BEFORE MITIGATION STANDARD CONDITIONS AND MITIGATION MEASURES MITIGATION 3.1 Land Use&Planning Potentially Significant Not Significant Area is planned for eventual suburban Project is compatible with current Land * Approval of a General Plan Amendment development. Surrounding uses Use Element map. Plateau and Valley * Avigation easements for all uses in the Plateau area include residential to the south, area land uses have smaller lots but are southeast, and west in the City of generally consistent with neighboring Temecula. Site is within several lots. Plateau portion of the project is now regional plans including the French consistent with the French Valley Airport Valley Airport CLUP. Nicolas Valley CLUP. is a Special Study Zone for rural/urban transition. 3.2 Agriculture Significant Significant Site is presently farmed and contains Conversion of site from agricultural uses *None proposed Loss of prime 210 acres of prime agricultural soils. to suburban uses is a potentially agricultural soils and Much of site is classified as "locally significant impact due to the loss of prime locally important important farmland" in the City agricultural soils. agricultural land General Plan. Property was within a Williamson Act Agriculture Preserve but was removed in 1995 in preparation for development. 3.3 Earth Resources Significant but Mitigable Not Significant (Mitigable) Area is seismically active with many Project may expose new residents and * More detailed soils/foundation reports to address faults. Local soils are sandy and there employees to potentially significant liquefaction,soil expansion,shrinkage,subsidence and is some liquefaction potential along seismic hazards. Site has localized seismic fault zones major drainages. Local groundwater landslide, faulting, and liquefaction * Contour grading on slopes over 30 feet is relatively deep. conditions. * Notification of blasting RORIPAUGH RANCH SPECIFIC PLAN 2"10 REVISED DRAFT EIR-APRIL 1,2002 ES-4 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS IMPACT AFTER ISSUE/EXISTING CONDITIONS BEFORE MITIGATION STANDARD CONDITIONS AND MITIGATION MEASURES MITIGATION 3.4 Water Resources Potentially Significant Not Significant (Mitigable) Drainage Drainage Drainage Santa Gertrudis Creek and Long Valley Development will increase site runoff and * Drainage Management Plan for Santa Gertrudis Creek and Wash cross the site, plus several other reduce percolation. The majority of Santa Long Valley Wash blue-line or ephemeral channels. Gertrudis Creek and Long Valley Wash *Creek maintenance agreements with City,County, and HOA channels will remain natural. Several *Flood Insurance Rate Map update detention basins will be constructed to *Conditional Letter of Map Revision contain site runoff during peak periods. * Onsite detention basins and offsite channel improvements New permanent crossings for Butterfield * Future CWA 404 permitting for Nicolas Road crossing Stage Road over Santa Gertrudis Creek and Long Valley Wash, and Nicolas Road over Santa Gertrudis Creek will be constructed.. Water Ouality/Ouantity Water Quality/Quantity Water Ouality/Ouantity The San Diego Regional Water Quality Development will increase the amount of * Comply with CWA 404 requirements Control Board (SDRWQCB) sediment, suspended debris, landscape * Comply with NPDES requirements administers the National Pollution maintenance or associated chemicals, and *Comply with Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan Discharge Elimination System automotive-related chemicals found in requirements (NPDES) and monitors water quality in runoff. Construction will introduce new *Install filtering devices as needed to treat"first flush"water the project area. impervious surfaces. RORIPAUGH RANCH SPECIFIC PLAN 2No REVISED DRAFT EIR-APRIL 1,2002 - ES-5 � ri r r r r r r � r r r r r r r r■ r r■■ EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS IMPACT AFTER ISSUE/EXISTING CONDITIONS BEFORE MITIGATION STANDARD CONDITIONS AND MITIGATION MEASURES MITIGATION 3.5 Transportation & Circulation Significant Significant Site and area are relatively The project will generate 30,748 total *General Plan Amendment-Circulation Element undeveloped, and served by several daily vehicle trips with 2,573 AM peak *Construct and/or provide fair share contributions to various Traffic-2 intersections local roadways. Murrieta Hot Springs trips and 3,261 PM peak trips. These roadway, intersection, and other traffic-related improvements exceed LOS D during Road, Nicolas Road and Butterfield impacts are significant because they will as recommended in the traffic study,including Butterfield peak hours Stage Road are the primary local access cause City Level of Service standards Stage Road,Murrieta Hot Springs Road,and Nicolas Road roads, and contain relatively low traffic being exceeded at Margarita Road and * Provide 50"park and ride" spaces onsite or offsite Cumulative Impacts volumes (Level of Service A or B). Winchester Road, the I-15 southbound *Provide adequate pedestrian and bicycle facilities Significant Regional access is via Rancho ramps at Rancho California Road, plus *No construction traffic on Nicolas Road California Road to the south and the I- contribute traffic to 3 other intersections *Fund RTA shuttle for project residents for 3 years 15 and I-215 freeways to the west. that will exceed City LOS standards both * Selectively screen multi-use trail along east boundary without and with the project. GPA *Maintain future Traffic Mitigation Monitoring Program required for elimination of through-access * Pay Development Impact Fees as appropriate on Calle Contento and downgrading Nicolas Road to a Secondary Highway. 3.6 Air Quality Significant Significant City is in the South Coast Air Basin Grading and construction could generate * Dust Control Plan Construction emissions and monitored by the South Coast Air as much as a ton/day of air pollutants and * Limits on grading and equipment controls and emissions from daily Quality Management District exceed SCAQMD thresholds for NOx, * Const, equip. tune-ups vehicle traffic. (SCAQMD). Area in non-attainment PM,,, and VOCs. Occupancy of the * Const. worker carpooling for ozone and PM,, with local levels project is expected to generate 2,37 * Limits on painting Cumulative Impacts exceeding state and federal standards. tons/day of air pollutants and exceed * Limits on disturbances caused by construction-related travel Significant SCAQMD thresholds for CO, ROC, and * TSM/TDM measures (see Section 3.5) PM, RORIPAuGH RANCH SPECIFIC PLAN 2NO REVISED DRAFT EIR-APRIL 1,2002 ES-6 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS IMPACT AFTER ISSUE/EXISTtNG CONDITIONS BEFORE MITIGATION STANDARD CONDITIONS AND MITIGATION MEASURES MITIGATION 3.7 Biological Resources Potentially Significant Not Significant (mitigated) Site contains 161 acres of Riversidian The project will remove approximately * Participation in AD 161 Sub-Regional Habitat Conservation sage scrub, 25 acres of alluvial fan 90 acres of natural habitat. After Plan with the U.S.Fish and Wildlife Service scrub/riparian vegetation, and 452 circulation of the original DEIR, the *Onsite Habitat Management Plan to implement AD 161 SHCP acres of disturbed agricultural land. project was included in the Assessment * Obtain 1603 Streambed Alteration Agreement(SAA)from Various native and introduced plant District 161 Sub-Regional Habitat Calif. Dept. of Fish and Game and animal species are present. Santa Conservation Plan approved by the U.S. * Revegetation of sage scrub in appropriate areas of the site Gertrudis Creek represents a significant Fish and Wildlife Service and Riverside * Burrowing owl survey prior to grading resource. Three protected species County. This program is intended to * Gnatcatcher survey prior to grading inhabit the site, the Stephen's mitigate potentially significant * Raptor nest survey prior to grading Kangaroo Rat, Quino checkerspot cumulative impacts to listed species in * Replacement of mature trees per the Master Landscape Plan butterfly, and California gnatcatcher. the area, including incidental take of the and Landscape Material Palette of Specific Plan gnatcatcher and Quino butterfly. 3.8 Energy and Mineral Resources Potentially Significant Not Significant (mitigated) Southern California Edison Company The proposed project will consume *Compliance with Title 24 energy conservation regulations provides electricity and the Southern incremental amounts of electricity and California Gas Company provides natural gas. The two main stream natural gas. Site contains no identified channels onsite will maintain natural aggregate or other mineral resources. bottoms which will not impact any potential mineral resources. The State is currently experiencing an "energy crisis" as a result of deregulation and large increases in electric rates. However, potential impacts and mitigation are beyond the control of the project applicant. RORIPAUGH RANCH SPECIFIC PLAN 2"D REVISED DRAFT EIR-APRIL 1,2002 ES-7 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS IMPACT AFTER ISSUE/EXISTING CONDITIONS BEFORE MITIGATION STANDARD CONDITIONS AND MITIGATION MEASURES MITIGATION 3.9 Hazards Potentially Significant Not Significant City has required emergency response The project will not affect emergency * See Measures in Section 3.1 regarding avigation easements and hazardous material release plans. plans or evacuation routes, and will Plateau portion of site is under a flight provide onsite streets and improvements track of the French Valley Airport. to regional roadways. Site has some hazmat contamination which is being remediated. The project will also provide a new fire station site near the corner of Butterfield Stage Road and Calle Chapos. The project is consistent with the French Valley Airport CLUP regarding land uses under flight tracks.. 3.10 Noise Significant(cumulative) Not Significant (mitigated) Site is vacant with only rural noise. The project will produce short-term noise * Noise Control Plan Local noise includes farming and impacts from construction. Increase in * Limit hours of construction and maintenance Cumulative Impacts traffic on local roadways. Average long-term noise (+2.6 dB) from daily * Equip. noise controls Significant ambient noise levels (LEQ) are 41.6 - occupancy of the current project will not * Stage construction away from occupied dwellings 52.4 db(A). Future noise levels will be significant(i.e., less than 3dB). Noise * Noise mitigation analysis increase as development occurs. analysis indicates residential uses in * Noise level standards for exterior recreational areas Plateau portion of site is within the Plateau portion of site will not be * Noise level standards for interior living areas. French Valley Airport Comprehensive significantly impacted by noise from * Avigation easements and height restrictions to meet Land Use Plan (CLUP). French Valley Airport as long as ALUC and French Valley Airport restrictions appropriate construction methods and * Construction will comply with Ordinance 94-25 materials are used. regarding working hours RORIPAUGH RANCH SPECIFIC PLAN 2N°REVISED DRAFT ESR-APRIL 1,2002 ES-8 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS IMPACT AFTER ISSUE/EXISTING CONDITIONS BEFORE MITIGATION STANDARD CONDITIONS AND MITIGATION MEASURES MITIGATION 3.11 Public Services Potentially Significant General-pay appropriate DIF fee components Not Significant (Mitigable) Fire Protection - Temecula Fire Fire Protection - Project will increase Fire Protection Department/Riverside County Fire need for fire protection. * Provide a fire station site and participate in its construction Department * Fuel Modification Plan and Zones * Fuel Modification Zone maintenance * Project will pay fire component of DIF fee Police Protection - Temecula Police Police Protection - Project will increase Police Protection Department/Riverside County need for police protection * Proper design using"defensible space" Schools - Temecula Valley Unif. Schools - Project will generate 1,565 Schools School District students (803 K-5, 387 6-8, and 375 9-12 * Provide middle school and elementary school sites students). * Pay impact fees consistent with SB 50 and state law Recreation - Temecula Community Recreation - Project will provide 24.9 Recreation Services District/County acres of public parkland and 9.1 acres of * Provide athletic fields in community park site private recreation facilities to meet the * Maintenance of open space by conservation organization requirements of the City of Temecula's * Project will pay applicable parks component of DIF fee Parks and Recreation Master Plan. Library Services-City/County Library Services - Project will increase Library need for library services * Project will pay library component of DIF fee Road Services-City/County Road Services-Project will construct new Road Services roads and multi-use paths onsite, and will * Project will pay road/signal component of DIF fee improve various regional roadways. Medical Services - various public and Medical Services - Project will increase Medical Services private facilities/services. need for medical services * None proposed RORIPAUGH RANCH SPECIFIC PLAN 2ND REVISED DRAFT EIR-APRIL 1,2002 ES-9 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS IMPACT AFTER ISSUF/EXISTING CONDITIONS BEFORE MITIGATION STANDARD CONDITIONS AND MITIGATION MEASURES MITIGATION 3.12 Utilities Potentially Significant Developer will provide new infrastructure to serve project. Not Significant (Mitigable) Water Water Water Eastern Municipal Water District and 1.33 MGD consumed * Coordinate construction with MWD Rancho Calif.Water District PA 33) Sewer Sewer Sewer Eastern Municipal Water District. 0.61 MGD sewage generated * None proposed Flood Control Flood Control - Flood Control Riverside County and U.S.Army Increase runoff by addition of impervious * Letter of FIRM map revision Corps of Engineers surfaces. Project will construct drainage improvements along Santa Gertrudis Creek and Long Valley Wash. Electricity Electricity Electricity S.Calif. Edison. 36,940 KwII/day consumed * None proposed Natural Gas Natural Gas Natural Gas Southern Calif. Gas Company 464,667 CF/day consumed * None proposed Solid Waste Solid Waste Solid Waste County,EI Sobrante,and Lamb 13.0 tons/day generated * Recycling and waste reduction Canyon Landfills. Site currently has * Recycle construction debris little utility use or improvements due to its rural condition. RORIPAUGH RANCH SPECIFIC PLAN 2N°REVISED DRAFT EIR-APRIL 1,2002 ES-10 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS IMPACT AFTER ISSUE/EXISTING CONDITIONS BEFORE MITIGATION STANDARD CONDITIONS AND MITIGATION MEASURES MITIGATION 3.13 Aesthetics Potentially Significant Significant Site is largely vacant but area is slowly Project will fundamentally change * Architectural Design Guidelines,Landscape Master Plan, Views of smaller lots being developed for suburban uses. character of project site, but which is and plant material palette from rural areas and Existing light and glare are minimal consistent with plans for development in * Lighting will comply with Mt. Palomar"dark skies" skyglow impacts from due to rural conditions. Area is within the area. Commercial and related * Lighting shielding or directing sports park lighting nighttime lighting restrictions of Mt. facilities will increase local light and Palomar Observatory. glare. Community park sports fields will be lighted for night play. 3.14 Scientific Resources Potentially Significant Not Significant . (Mitigable) Some geologic formations may contain Low to moderate potential for finding * Grading will be monitored by an archaeologist and fossils or archaeological artifacts may fossils, archaeological, or historical a paleontologist be present on the site. No historical resources onsite during excavation. *Agreement with Native American representatives resources are located on the site or in the surrounding area. RORIPAUGH RANCH SPECIFIC PLAN 2"D REVISED DRAFT EIR-APRIL 1,2002 1-1 1.0 INTRODUCTION ' 1.1 PURPOSE The purpose of this Environmental Impact Report(EIR)is to evaluate the potential environmental effects of ' the proposed Roripaugh Ranch Specific Plan(the"proposed project")according to the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act(CEQA). This EIR will be used by the City of Temecula(the"Lead Agency") to assess the potential environmental impacts associated with the construction and long-term occupancy of the proposed project. According to CEQA . . . "The purpose of an Environmental Impact Report is to identify the significant effects of a project on the environment,to identify alternatives to the project,and to indicate the manner in which such significant effects can be mitigated or avoided." (CEQA 1970, as amended). ' Thus,the EIR is an informational document to be used by decision makers,public agencies,and the general public. During the development review process, the City may consider mitigation measures and/or ' alternatives developed in the EIR to reduce environmental impacts of the project. 1.2 ENVIRONMENTAL PROCESS ' Approval of a private development project requires discretionary action by the City. According to CEQA Guidelines,a discretionary action or project must be reviewed by the Lead Agency,in this case,the City of Temecula, to determine its potential effects on the environment. Pursuant to the City's guidelines to implement CEQA,an environmental checklistwas prepared in December of 1997 aspart of an Initial Study for this project. The Initial Study concluded that this project might have a significant effect on the ' environment without appropriate mitigation. A copy of the Initial Study and its determinations are included in Appendix A. The Lead Agency decided to prepare an EIR to more fully examine potential environmental impacts of the proposed project in the context of its environmental setting. ' A Notice of Preparation(NOP)was issued by the City on December 10, 1997 according to the requirements of the California Administrative Code,Title 14,Sections 15082(a), 15103,and 15375(State Clearinghouse ' #97121030). The NOP indicated that an EIR was being prepared and invited comments on the proposed project from public agencies and the public at large. Comments that were received on the NOP have been addressed during the preparation of the EIR and are included in Appendix B. A Draft EIR on the original project(2,058 units on 788 acres)was circulated forpublic comment from lune 1 to July 16, 1999. The project was changed to add 15 acres and decrease the number of units (1,721). ' However,the project was subsequently changed again and a new project with 2,058 units on 804.7 acres was developed - this is the current proposed project. The total number of units and acreage is similar to the original project,but the types of units and location of non-residential uses have been revised substantially from ' the previous two plans. The current project addressed in this 2"a Revised DEIR is similar to the original project as it proposes 2,058 ' units on 804.7 acres with a gross density of 2.56 units/acre and a net residential density of 4.97 units/acre (2,058 units on 414 acres). The main differences between this plan and the previous plans are: 1)one-acre lots and/or more open space has been placed around the perimeter to help buffer the project from surrounding land uses;2)multi-family attached units(e.g.,apartments,townhomes)have been eliminated in favor of small lot single family units;3)each residential neighborhood is now gated with its own private recreational facility; ' RORIPAUGH RANCH SPECIFIC PLAN 2ND REVISED DRAFT EIR-APRIL 1,2002 1-1 1.0 INTRODUCTION ' 4)the public park and elementary school sites have been moved out of the Plateau area(formerly called the ' Panhandle area);5)the mixed use area formerly called the Village Core has been replaced by a neighborhood commercial center;6) 15 acres have been removed from the plan in the former Village Core area;7)the total number of units has increased from 1,721 to 2,058 units;and 8)boundaries and designations of the various ' Planning Areas have changed from previous plans. Offsite improvements include construction and/or fair share contributions to roadway connections,associated ' intersection,and/or traffic signal improvements along Murrieta Hot Springs Road to the northwest,Butterfield Stage Road to the south,Nicolas Road to the southwest,and Calle Chapos to the southwest,an all-weather crossing of Santa Gertrudis Creek at Nicolas Road/Calle Girasol, and sewer lines/connections in Nicolas ' Road. Specific responses to comments on this 2"d Revised DEIR will be provided in the Final FIR for this project. ' Agencies and individuals are encouraged to make new or different comments,if they so desire,on this 2n1 Revised Draft EIR. ' Since the time the previous two DEIRs were circulated,the following project characteristics or environmental conditions have changed that need to be addressed: ' 1) From the first to the second plan, the City requested the neighborhood commercial area at the southwest comer of Murrieta Hot Springs Road and Butterfield Stage Road be expanded and changed into a mixed use "Village Core"area. The City and local residents have since ' expressed a desire to have this area go back to being j ust a neighborhood commercial center; 2) From late 1999 to mid-2000,the applicant had a series of discussions with the U.S.Fish and Wildlife Service regarding potential biological impacts of the project. As a result, in November of 2000 the USF&W S and the County finalized the Assessment District 161 Sub- Regional Habitat Conservation Plan(SHCP),which included the Roripaugh Ranch project. In the first plan,the SHCP was still pending-the 2"d plan and now the current plan include the approved SHCP as part of the open space plan; 3) On March 14,2000, the City also adopted a series of growth management policies-New projects are required to be consistent with these policies. The 2"d Revised EIR includes an analysis of the plan relative to these policies; ' 4) Several agencies,including the County's Airport Land Use Commission,provided additional information regarding potential impacts of the project. The original and revised land plans were not consistent with the French Valley plan,but the current plan is consistent since the public park and school sites were moved out of the Plateau area; and ' 5) A number of environmental documents have been completed forprojects in the surrounding area, some of which provide new or more information about the project site, or are for improvements that will benefit the proposed project in some way. 1 In January of 2002,the City determined to recirculate the Draft EIR to incorporate all of this new information and to analyze all of the changes to the project. ' RORIPAUGH RANCH SPECIFIC PLAN 2N0 REVISED DRAFT EIR-APRIL 1,2002 1-2 1.0 INTRODUCTION t ' The previous DEIRs, as well as this 2nd Revised Draft EIR, have been prepared in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970 (Public Resources Code, Section 21000 et seq_) and the Guidelines for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act published by the Resources Agency of the State of California (California Administrative Regulations Section 15000 et seq.) and in accordance with the City's local CEQA Guidelines. This document has also been prepared in accordance with Section 15088 of the State CEQA guidelines regarding recirculation of a Draft EIR. This 2nd Revised ' Draft EIR was prepared by The Keith Companies,Inc.,a private consulting firm,under the direction of City staff. The FIR represents the independent judgment of the City and its decision-makers. ' 1.2.1 Environmental Factors Potentially Affected The following environmental factors would be potentially affected by this project,involving at least one impact ' that is"Potentially Significant'(unless mitigation is incorporated)as indicated by the checklist included in Appendix A: ' Land Use and Planning Energy and Mineral Resources • Agriculture Hazards • Earth Resources Noise • Water Resources Public Services • Transportation and Circulation Utilities • Air Quality Aesthetics ' Biological Resources Scientific Resources 1.2.2 Public Review and Comments ' In order to define the scope of the investigation of the FIR, the City of Temecula circulated the NOP to responsible state agencies,local organizations,and interested individuals to identify City and public concerns ' regarding potential impacts of the proposed project on the project site. All comments on the NOP are included in Appendix B. Comments on this Draft EIR are invited from any agencies and individuals regarding the information contained in the EIR. Following a 45-day period for circulation and public review,responses to all comments will be prepared and circulated to commenting agencies at least 10 days prior to a decision on the project,as required by CEQA. Responses to comments on the previous DEIR as well as the new Revised Draft EIR will be incorporated in a Final Environmental Impact Report prior to certification of the document by the City Council. ' 1.2.3 Scoping Meetings ' City staff and the consultant participated in several public scoping meetings to solicit input from the community regarding issues to be addressed in the EIR. Neighborhood meetings were held on June 12, 1995,June 26, 1995,August 14, 1995,October 5, 1995,September 4, 1997,and October 20, 1997 for the original project,and ' a series of meetings were held from September to December of 2001 on the revised project. The new or current project is a result of those meetings . ' RORIPAUGH RANCH SPECIFIC PLAN 2""REVISED DRAFT EIR-APRIL 1,2002 1-3 1.0 INTRODUCTION ' In addition,the consultant met or contacted the following agencies prior to completion of the Draft document to identify potential issues to be addressed in the EIR: ' U.S. Army Corps of Engineers; • U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; • California Regional Water Quality Control Board; ' California Department of Fish and Game; • County of Riverside (Flood Control, Roads, Planning, Solid Waste, etc.); • Metropolitan Water District of Southern California (MWD); ' City of Temecula (various departments); • Eastern Municipal Water District (EMWD); and • Rancho California Water District (RCWD). ' Written correspondence submitted through the NOP scoping comment period is included in Appendix B. ' 1.3 LEAD AGENCY AND CONTACT PERSONS The City of Temecula is the lead agency directing the environmental review of the proposed project. The ' EIR has been compiled by The Keith Companies,Inc.a private consulting firm. Preparers and contributors to this EIR are listed in Section 9.0. Key contact persons are as follows: ' City of Temecula Dave Hogan (Lead Agency) Saied Naaseh 43200 Business Park Drive Planning Department ' Temecula, CA 92590 (909) 694-6400 Environmental Consultant Kent Norton, AICP, REA ' The Keith Companies, Inc. Dir. of Environmental Services 22690 Cactus Avenue (909) 653-0234 Moreno Valley, CA 92553 1.4 PROJECT HISTORY ' 1.4.1 Original Project The original project proposed 2,058 units on 788 acres with a gross density of 2.61 units/acre and a net ' residential density of 4.26 utrits/acre. At thattime,theproject included 1,698 single-family units,360 multi- family units, 10 acres with an estimated 100,000 square feet of commercial uses,30 acres for 2 school sites (elementary and middle school),23 acres for 3 onsite park sites plus a 3-acre off-site park site,and 181 acres ' of open space. Approximately 154 acres of the site(formerly called the"Panhandle")was within the City of Temecula, while the remaining 634 acres.was in the County. The project proposed annexing the unincorporated portion into the City. 1.4.2 Revised Project ' The revised project consisted of 1,721 units on 819.7 acres with a gross density of 2.1 units/acre and a net residential density of 4.06 units/acre. Residential uses included 1,286 single-family units,435 multi-family ' RoHIPALIGH RANCH SPECIFIC PLAN 2ND REVISED DRAFT EIR-APRIL 1,2002 1-4 1.0 INTRODUCTION units,33.7 acres with an estimated 190,000 square feet of commercial and office uses,5 acres of institutional ' (religious institutions)uses, 32.6 acres for 2 school sites(elementary and middle school), 23.6 acres for 2 onsite park sites,a 1.5-acre fire station, and 255.3 acres of open space, including 201 acres of open space within the recently approved Assessment District 161 Sub-Regional Habitat Conservation Plan (AD 161 ' SHCP). The commercial and office uses, as well as the medium and high density residential uses, were incorporated into a mixed use"Village Core"area on 66.8 acres at the southwest corner of Butterfield Stage Road and Murrieta Hot Springs Road. In the revised project,approximately 185.7 acres are already within ' the City of Temecula, with the remaining 634 acres were proposed to be annexed into the City. ' 1.4.3 Current Project The current project consists of 2,058 units on 804.7 acres with a gross density of 2.56 units/acre and a net ' residential density of 4.97 units/acre. Residential uses include 1,233 single-family detached units on 332.7 acres with lots ranging from 3,000 to 20,000 square feet,and 825 clustered courtyard homes on 81.2 acres. According to the Specific Plan,up to 20 percent of the clustered homes may be duplex(attached)units. The ' project will also have an estimated 110,000 square feet of neighborhood commercial uses, 32 acres for 2 school sites(elementary and middle school),24.9 acres for 2 onsite public park sites,including a 19.8-acre sports park and a 5.1-acre neighborhood park,9.1 acres of private recreation facilities,a 2-acre fire station, ' and 262.t acres of open space,including 59.4 acres in flood control and landscaped slopes,and 202.7 acres of habitat within the recently approved Assessment District 161 Sub-Regional Habitat Conservation Plan(AD 161 SHCP). The commercial uses occupy 15.4 acres at the southwest comer of Butterfield Stage Road and ' Murrieta Hot Springs Road. In the current project,approximately 170.7 acres are already within the City of Temecula, with the remaining 634 acres still proposed to be annexed into the City. The land use plans for the two previous projects are provided in Figures I-1 and 1-2 so the reader can compare them to the current plan(see Section 2.0). The land uses of the current project are also compared to the original and previous projects in Table I-1. ' 1.4.4 Project Changes from Previous EIRs ' The original project encompassed 788 acres and included a total of 2,058 residential units, 10 acres of commercial uses,and 185 acres of open space. Since that time,the property owner has conducted a series of negotiations with the City, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers,and the U.S.Fish and Wildlife Service regarding the amount of open space and condition of the natural drainages onsite. As a result of those negotiations,the Roripaugh Ranch project was modified and proposed 1,721 units and 255.3 acres of open space. It also proposed slightly more square footage of commercial and office uses compared to the commercial uses in the previous Specific Plan(i.e., 190,000 s.f.vs. 120,000 s.f.). The higher density residential uses,commercial,office,and institutional uses are combined into a Village Core area of ' approximately 66.8 acres at the southwest comer of Butterfield Road and Murrieta Hot Springs Road. The revised project also encompassed 819.7 acres which included 31.7 acres more than the original plan(i.e., 788 acres). This additional acreage was added to the project to expand the Village Core area(i.e., 15 acres ' of land southwest of the commercial area). ' RORIPAUGH RANCH SPECIFIC PLAN 2NO REVISED DRAFT EIR-APRIL 1,2002 1-5 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1 ' Table 1-1 Comparison of Original and Previous Projects to Current Project ' Original Revised 2n' Revised ' General Plan Project (Previous) Project (Current) Project Land Use and Density (units/acre) Acres Percent Acres Percent Acres Percent ' Residential Very Low (0.2-0.4) 0.0 0.0 72 0.9 0.0 0.0 Low (0.5-2.0) 125.0 15.9 140.9 17.2 112.9 14.0 ' Low-Medium (3.0-6.0) 177.0 22.5 247.2 29.8 189.0 23.5 Medium (7.0- 12.0) 161.0 20.4 11.9* 1.5 112.1 13.9 High (13.0-20.0) 20.0 2.5 16.2* 3.8 0.0 0.0 ' Sub-Total 483.0 61.4 423.4 51.7 414.0 51.4 Units 2,058 1 1,721 2,058 ' Non-Residential Commercial 10.0 1.3 21.3* 2.6 15.4 1.9 Office 0.0 0.0 12.4* 1.5 0.0 0.0 Institutional 0.0 0.0 5.0* 0.6 0.0 0.0 Schools 30.0 3.8 32.0 3.9 32.0 4.0 Public Parks** 23.0 2.5 23.6 2.9 24.9 3.1 Recreation(private) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 9.1 1.1 ' Flood Control 33.0 4.2 33.3 4.0 38.2 4.7 Open Space*** 152.0 19.3 222.0 27.1 223.9 . 27.8 Fire Station 0.0 0.0 1.5 0.2 2.0 0.2 ' Roadways**** 57.0 7.2 45.2 5.5 45.2 5.6 Sub-Total 305.0 38.6 396.3 48.3 390.7 48.6 Commercial Area 120,000 sf 190,000 sf 110,000 s.f. TOTAL 788.0 100.0 819.7 100.0 804.7 100.0 difference from original +31.7 ac +16.7 ac Source: Roripaugh Ranch Specific Plans 1999,2001,and 2002 sf=square feet ' * included in Village Core area(66.8 acres) ** original plan had 3 additional acres offsite(total 26 acres). *** includes landscaped slopes and 201 acres of biological habitat(AD 161 SHCP) 1 **** current plan includes 9.8 acres of private roads and 35.4 acres of public roads 1 ' RORIPAUGH RANCH SPECIFIC PLAN 2N°REVISED DRAFT EIR-APRIL 1,2002 1-6 ASHBY USA LLC FIGURE 1-1 g 1 ��b 1 O ' w LO $ s O a O O z 7 3 o OPEN SPACE MWD PROPERTY �—'I NI ' \ ON �I� 15 it Fi M M-5,000 I II oARK / \] `• fiAC p 14 11AC 19 1 24 AC 33 SII 2 3 6 c 6 M�11 57 DVS OPEN SPACE CU 125 OU'S PARK 'I M-S.D00 ) M-5.000 �O / % 9 ` y 20 AC t00 AC jI 23 AC 4 A / SCHOOL / 1 A 3fi0 DU5 120 DVB I 120 DUS M-5000 10 AC ' 21 AC \ j 20 AG r',/ 109 DV5 j ' 104 DVS I I \ \ Al J 17 VJ 10SPR N c R� 16 °P DOO n A-c�E 18 \ \ t OPEN SPAC_ E I 00 NEIGHBORHOOD (12 M7 AC /l SAC 5701 . 11 J' 10 Ac /� / /7Df8 OPEN SPACECU 13 /y0 // O PJDGFUNE M-5000 / LAND USE SUMMARY 9° "B - ' - ` ^21 ICU j — / — _ 52 ACCO II LAND USE Code Lot Size Acres Units ' �\�9 ' 2D15 .� -1"wr-O l— i 1 20 �I L_ HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL H Mul&Family 20 360 -- 0 LM9� MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL M 5,000 161 838 / 156 DVS o LOW MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL LM 7,200 125 500S�E L.+m.o°o LOW MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL LM 10,000 52 156 23 62 AC PROPOSED OFFSRE / PARK 26 62 DWSARK Ii LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL L-2 15,000 31 78 P °Ac / 25 M22AD \ II ' 08 LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL L-1 &L-2 20,000 94 126 SCHoa L 27 Ac00 ovs i �l COMMERCIAL NC 10 \ I 20 Ac I� 106 DVS l 1 EDUCATIONAL S 30 --- `1 PARK PR 23 \ 27 OPEN SPACE 16 AC iLM 27 OPEN SPACE OS 181 } 30 32 o"vS 29 <F ' I �" OPEN SPACE STREETS 61 i zAc 116 DVS 'Q- STRUT 32 tAC O TOTAL 788 2058 CALLE 31 L 21) DW ' CMAPOS L.2-15.000 6,DUS — — _ 31 AC ® 76 DVS F Signalized Intersection ■■ City of Temecula -County of Riverside Boundary 1 r� The Keith Compeniesl�C CIO = Roripaugh ` Ranch ASHBY USA LLC FIGURE 1-2pp }J u tR )- g N MWD PROPERTY--- ROPERTY 2 Existing Single 7- Family Units(PA 30) MO LM-5000 2 8 A h0 OPEN S0.8AC CE /9 19.7 AC LM-5000 (� 107 DU'S 24.3 AC 7 3D �f O ' (6666m,a000.a.n.) 3 / OS VL c (6oao1m 16."ca.rt) LM-5000 p SPR1 10.6A �/.5 ACS O� 1D CIO i 24.0 OF V C'S 10 I OPEN SPACE 172 UF SCHOOL 4 179.6 AC 5 13,600w k) 12.0 AC LM 5000 ROAD t - PARK 24.2 AC ^' 3.0 AC 7 4.DU'S (6600 m 21,M e4.rt) 11b 11a `a NC NEIGHBORHOOD OPEN SPACE / 5.8 AC GR COMMERCIAL D n 7 21.0 AC / 31 AC NET 15.5 AC GR Detention Basin Detention Basin 10.0 AC NET Panhandle Area-460 Single Family Units(PA 1.4) / I IN T / s.onc jl,l l;lh Detention Basin CC 1 / 12 y ii li III' J LEGEND28 - (APARTMENTS) it III I� I;I / PROFOFFICE 162 AC GR II VIII LAND USE Code Min Lot Size Acres Units / / 12.4 AC 15.0 NET ' / 3000us 14 VERY LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL VL 100,000 7.5 3 ------- LM-6000-7200 Q LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL L 10,000-15,000 38.8 94 / 37.0 AC LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL L 15,000-20,000 30.3 63 Nlco Ro e`` 13 MDU•S '; 16000 b t6.CW 50.M1) LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL L 20,000 71.8 84 •� 43.5 AC LM-6000-7200 LOW MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL LM 5,000 92.2 460 / / M(SA) e� 172DU•S1B i LOW MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL LM 6,000 74.5 282 / / 11.9 AC 16666 to 16. ban-61 135 DU'S L- LOW MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL LM 6,000-7,200 80.5 300 / 40.3.3 AC AC ' MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL M 11.9 135 15 36 DUS 3.7 HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL H 16.2 300 Village Core 21 L-10,0 00 -15.000 15.� to 3.7 INSTITUTIONAL INST 5.0 0AC PROFESSIONAL OFFICE .PROF OFFICE 12.4 0 435Multi-Family LM-6000 94DU'S NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL - NC 21.3 Units PA 12827 24 22 18.1 AC 116,666ao.rt""a`_ 1 ( ) PARK 23 LM 6000 68 DU•S EDUCATIONAL S 32.0 20.6 AC SCHOOL 1B'4 AC (666om,6.666.c.rt) 20.0 AC 78 DU•S PARK PR 23.6 I6666me.e0o w.rt1 FIRE STATION SITE FS 1.5 OPEN SPACE OS 222.0 FLOOD CONTROL OS 33.3 STREETS 44.9 � 26 FLOOD COOCTROL TOTAL 819.7 1721 19 24.2 LM 6000 CONTROL LEGEND AC 18.4 AC 18.66 AC 25 FLOOD 1060 5. ' © Detention Basin 6e Du's 6orom,6.600 q.n.) (moo m 15,666"rt) 17 9.1 AC O ■■ City of Temecula-County of Riverside Boundary CALLE1 g L-2o,000 31.5 AC L-20.000 CHAPOS 30.3 AC (50bD,UN3) Pedestrian Bridge(approximate location) 63 DUS (30.000 sp.rt m.5 ac.) 31 FS Long Valley Area-824 Single Family Units(PA 13-22) 1.5 AC i The K,th Companiesh /j ' 1.0 INTRODUCTION ' The current project proposes a similar number of units compared to the original project, but contains a different mix of residential units and moves several of the non-residential uses. Table 1-I provides a comparison of the original project,the revised project,and the current project which is analyzed in this 2nd ' Revised EIR. Figure 1-1 shows the land use plan for the original project,while Figure1-2shows the land plan for the revised project that was analyzed in the previous EIR. ' 1.5 PROJECT ALTERNATIVES During the environmental scoping process,the following were identified as potential environmental issues by local residents or affected agencies: • land use types and intensities compatible with surrounding development; • views of proposed land uses; • protection of onsite biological resources; and • traffic conflicts with land uses east of the project(access from Calle Contento). ' This information was used to develop the following alternatives which focus on reducing potential traffic and/or land use impacts: 1)no project-no development;2)agriculture-clustered development; 3)reduced ' intensity;and 4)rural density. These alternatives were analyzed in detail to determine if any of them would avoid or reduce potentially adverse effects of the proposed project while still meeting the project objectives. Chapter 7.0 provides a more detailed, comparative analysis of these alternatives to the proposed project. ' 1.5.1 No Project - No Development The No Project Alternative would leave the site in an undeveloped state and continue agricultural activities, either dry farming as is done at present or possibly wine vineyards similar to properties southeast of the project site. This alternative would eliminate short-term impacts related to construction as well as long-term impacts from occupation of the planned land uses such as traffic, dust,and noise. However, it may not be viable in the long-term for the property owner as it would not accomplish any of the project objectives(see Section 2.5),Itis also possible this alternative could produce significant impacts to biological resources if it resulted in the cancellation of the AD 161 SHCP agreement. 1.5.2 Alternative 1 -Agriculture - Clustered Development ' This alternative would cluster limited residential development along the major proposed roads,but would allow more intensive farming(e.g.,irrigated vineyards)in most of the areas historically used for agriculture on the site. This plan would also include 201 acres of biological habitat designated for the All 161 SHCP. This alternative would have approximately 472 units,mostly smaller lots(i.e.,equal to or less than 6,000 square feet)with a net residential density of 5.9 units per acre. This alternative would reduce all of the potentially significant impacts of the project related to loss of agriculture,traffic,airquality,views,and skyglow,to less than significant levels. However,it would not meet the project objectives to the same degree as the proposed project. 1.5.3 Alternative 2 - Reduced Intensity ' This altemativewould have atotal of1,131units and substitute low and low-medium densi ty residential uses for the currently proposed medium density residential uses. It would still have the commercial uses at the southwest corner of Murrieta Hot Springs Road and Butterfield Stage Road,but would eliminate the lighted RORIPAUGH RANCH SPECIFIC PLAN 2N"REVISED DRAFT EIR-APRIL 1,2002 1-9 ' 1.0 INTRODUCTION fields at the sports park. It could reduce significant impacts to traffic, air quality, views and skyglow,but would not eliminate significant impacts to agriculture or meet the project objectives to the same degree as the proposed project. ' 1.5.4 Alternative 3 - Rural Density ' This alternative would locate 2.5-acre lots in the Flatter portions of the site and 5-acre lots in the upland portions of the site. This alternative would provide 166 single family units and no non-residential uses. It would reduce significant impacts related to traffic,airquality,views,and skyglow,but would not eliminate impacts to agriculture or meet the project objectives to the same degree as the proposed project. 1.5.5 Alternative Sites ' The proposed development could theoretically be located on other sites within the City or on County unincorporated land in the general region. However,no alternative sites are owned by the project proponent, ' and the proposed land use plan was developed based on the City's General Plan and environmental constraints on this specific property. ' 1.6 GENERAL PLAN CONSISTENCY The various elements of the City of Temecula General Plan contain dozens of goals,policies,and objectives that apply to the proposed project. Section 4.0 of this document outlines all of the General Plan goals that apply to the Roripaugh Ranch project and evaluates the project's consistency with these goals. This analysis is provided in a separate section of this document(Section 4.0)to give the reader the most comprehensive ' analysis of the project's consistency with the General Plan. This format allows for discussion of consistency with several goals or with different elements of the Plan. As presently proposed, the project will require a General Plan Amendment to the Land Use and Circulation Elements. i1.7 ADDITIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTATION Since the time the original DEIR was circulated,a numberof environmental documents have been prepared and approved that relate in someway to the proposed project. For example,comprehensive FIRS have been prepared for the adjacent Rancho Bella Vista project(Specific Plan 184,Amendment No. 2, and EIR No. ' 401 - SCH9951 12065) and the Johnson Ranch project(Specific Plan No. 307 and EIR No. 402 - SCH# 97041057). These two documents analyzed the potential environmental impacts of these projects in great detail,including biological resources and needed infrastructure. Subsequent to approval of the Johnson Ranch ' EIR, the property owner has transferred the open space areas designated along the south and southeast portions of the site to the University of California at Riverside(UCR). In addition,the Rancho California Water District (RCWD) has certified an EIR for its EM-20 Turnout and Transmission Main project, to ' construct a new water pipeline in the vicinity of the proposed project. The EMWD has indicated that it can serve the project until the new RCWD line is constructed. Further north of the proposed project, the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California has prepared its own environmental documentation for conversion of the existing San Diego Pipeline No.3 from a raw water to a treated water transmission facility. This information provides additional context into which the Roripaugh project is being proposed and/or will be constructed. RORIPAUGH RANCH SPECIFIC PLAN 2NO REVISED DRAFT EIR-APRIL 1,2002 1-10 1 ' 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1 The following is a brief summary of the recent environmental documentation that has been approved in the project area since the previous Roripaugh Ranch EIR was circulated. The location of these projects is shown in Figure l-I. 1.7.1 AD 161 Subsequent EIR (SCH#92072087) ' This EIR determined that,even with implementation of feasible mitigation measures,development of the various development projects within AD 161,including Roripaugh Ranch,would generate significant impacts related to geotechnical constraints,biological resources,including Skunk Hollow,waterquality,and airquality. The County eventually approved a Statement of Overriding Consideration for these impacts. Thisdocument covered various improvements related to several development projects adjacent to Roripaugh Ranch,including all roads for the Rancho Bella Vista property. This approval therefore covered construction of Murrieta Hot Springs Road west of the Roripaugh Ranch. The County approved this"project'(i.e., the AD)and EIR in 1992,but the AD failed to provide a number ' of its planned improvements,including the extension of Murrieta Hot Springs Road and Butterfield Stage Road across the Roripaugh Ranch property. The Roripaugh Ranch project still needs many of the improvements originally planned under AD 161 such as water lines and roadways. Therefore, the City and the applicant are participating in the establishment of a new Community Facilities District(CFD)to help fund these and other needed improvements. ' 1.7.2 Rancho California Water District EM-20 Turnout Project EIR This FIR covered construction of a new water source hookup and transmission pipeline that crossed several developments in the project area,including the Roripaugh Ranch itself. Due to the timing of the EIR, the Roripaugh Ranch EIR was able to include a discussion about this pipeline,its potential impacts,and additional mitigation that the Roripaugh Ranch project would need. The applicant for the Roripaugh Ranch project also ' commented on this EIR, seeking and receiving clarification of several issues related to impacts on the Roripaugh Ranch project—these issues were addressed in the Final RCWD EIR. The central portion of the pipeline,including several alternative alignments,crosses the eastern Plateau portion of the Roripaugh Ranch project. This FIR determined that only air quality impacts could not be mitigated below significance,and mitigation measures were included for biological resources,noise,air quality,cultural resources,and traffic (temporary congestion from construction along roadways). The RCWD approved this FIR in 1999. ' The previous DEIR did not evaluate the potential impacts of proposed offsite roadway improvements(i.e., Nicolas Road from Butterfield Stage Road to Calle Girasol and Butterfield Stage Road from the project to ' Rancho California Road). A portion of the improvements to Butterfield Stage Road south of the proposed improvements for the Roripaugh Ranch are covered by the environmental assessment for the AD 161 SHCP with the County(approximately 59 acres). This EIR will also analyze impacts of the Butterfield Stage Road ' not analyzed by other documents. ' RORIPAUGH RANCH SPECIFIC PLAN 2NO REVISED DRAFT EIR-APRIL 1,2002 ' ASHBYUSA,LLC FIGURE 1-3 ' U 4 ' O29 g � 29 1 --- m 3 1 Q I ' pl 2 _ ® S m "mss I 1 I s � I CAIl£ ' I — _usenEruwr. _ II � 1 � xw � AREA-WIDE ' AD 161 Subsequent EIR o. I " AD 161 Sub-Regional Habitat Conservation Plan LOCAL 1. RCWD EM-20 Turnout EIR 2. Johnson Ranch EIR 3. Rancho Bella Vista EIR 4. Nicolas Reservoir MWD LEGEND — — — — UNIMPROVED ROADWAYS IMPROVED ROADWAYS ' The Keft❑ Companies ® O O T t 0 Illc E Roripaug] Ranch 1 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1.7.3 Johnson Ranch EIR (SCH#97041057) This project is immediately north of the"Valley"area of the Roripaugh Ranch project(i.e.,east of the Plateau area and Butterfield Stage Road). The Riverside County EIR identified significant impacts to traffic and air ' quality,even with implementation of all feasible mitigation measures. The EIR identified anumberof critical mitigation measures,including extensions of several major roads such as Butterfield Stage Road north of the Roripaugh Ranch. To help mitigate biological impacts,a large portion of this project was eventually sold to the University of California at Riverside as a biological habitat reserve. Much of this land was later incorporated into the AD 161 Sub-Regional Habitat Conservation Plan(see Section 3.7 of this document) which also includes the Roripaugh Ranch property. The County approved this EIR in 1997. ' 1.7.4 Rancho Bella Vista EIR (SCH#95112065) ' This EIR(Riverside County EIR#401)examined the impacts of a large development project immediately north of the Plateau portion of the Roripaugh Ranch. The EIR found only cumulative air quality impacts to ' be significant after mitigation. It also identified a number of mitigation measures that would keep potential impacts at less than significant levels,including impacts to Skunk Hollow. The County approved the EIR in 1996. This project is responsible for improving the north side of Murrieta Hot Springs Road along the western ' half of the Plateau area of the Roripaugh Ranch project. 1.7.5 Nicolas Reservoir MND ' This Mitigated Negative Declaration(MND)was prepared by RCWD for an above-ground reservoir being ' constructed on the Rancho Bella Vista site. The MND did not identify any significant impacts after mitigation,and this reservoir would eventually help provide water pressure for the Roripaugh Ranch project, as identified in the Roripaugh Ranch EIR. This MND was approved by the County in 2000 and this facility will eventually help provide efficient water service to the project site. The RCWD has indicated it can help serve the Roripaugh Ranch project with its existing facilities,if necessary,until the new reservoir isbuiltby the Rancho Bella Vista project. ' 1.7.6 AD 161 Sub-Regional Habitat Conservation Plan The original DEIR did not evaluate the potential impacts of a proposed offsite roadway improvement(i.e., ' Butterfield Stage Road from La Serena Way tojust north of Rancho California Road). Potential biological impacts of the improvement to Butterfield Road was included in the environmental analysis for the AD 161 SHCP approved by the County. However,appropriate sections of this revised DEIR will address impacts ' of offsite improvements (e.g., biological resources, aesthetics, etc.). 1 ' RORIPAUGH RANCH SPECIFIC PLAN 2NO REVISED DRAFT EIR-APRIL 1,2002 1-13 1 1 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1.8 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ON PREVIOUS DEIRS 1 During circulation of the previous DEIR, the following agencies or persons commented on one or both of the previous DEIRs - their comments have been addressed in the following sections: 1 Agency/Commentor Concerns Addressed in Section... 1 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service "take" of listed species 3.7 Biological Resources gnatcatcher/Quino butterfly alternatives - open space 1 Pechanga Band archaeological impacts 3.14 Cultural Resources 1 Calif. Dept. of Fish and Game listed and sensitive species 3.7 Biological Resources alternatives/mitigation future permitting 1 Calif. Dept. of Transportation minor data corrections 3.5 Transportation Calif. Div. of Dams requirements for dams 3.4 Water Resources 1 Calif. Dept. of Toxic hazmat, Phase 1 info 3.9 Hazards Substance Control 1 County Flood Control downstream impacts 3.4 Water Resources mitigation/flood control 1 County Airport Land Use noise impacts/aircraft hazards 3.9 Hazards Commission (ALUC) from French Valley Airport 3.10 Noise 1 County Dept. of Health water and sewer services 3.12 Utilities 1 Metropolitan Water District water service, growth 3.12 Utilities 4.3 WRCOG Const. 1 Rancho Calif. Water District water service and facilities 3.12 Utilities Temecula Valley Unified updated info on school 3.11 Public Services 1 School District facilities and enrollment Western Riverside Council growth projections, SCAG 3.1 Land Use 1 of Governments (WRCOG) data, consistency evaluation 4.3 WRCOG Const. Local residents concerns about buffering for 3.1 Land Use 1 surrounding land uses, traffic, 3.5 Transportation views, lighting, and loss of the 3.10 Noise rural lifestyle 3.13 Aesthetics 1 1 RORIPAUGH RANCH SPECIFIC PLAN 2ND REVISED DRAFT EIR-APRIL 1,2002 1-14 2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION This section will describe the location and characteristics of the proposed project,including the various types of land uses proposed,the number and type of residential units,acres of non-residential uses,grading,phasing, project objectives,changes from the previous project,where in this DEIR various components of the Specific Plan are analyzed, and related approvals and intended uses of this EIR. 2.1 LOCATION The City of Temecula is located in the Temecula Valley,along the I-15 and I-215 Freeways near the southern boundary of Riverside County,just north of San Diego County. The San Jacinto Mountains are visible to the ' northeast and east,while the mountains of the Cleveland National Forest are visible to the west. The project site occupies 804.7 acres at the northeast comer of the City of Temecula in southwestern Riverside County. The surrounding area, including the subject property, consists of rolling hills and valleys that have been ' actively farmed since the early 1900's. Figure 2-1 shows the regional location of Lheproject site whileFigure 2-2 shows the local vicinity of the project site. 1 Regional access to the site is available from the I-15 and I-215 Freeways to the west, while local access is planned from the future extensions of Butterfield Stage Road north from Rancho California Road and Murrieta Hot Springs Road east from Winchester Road. Two major natural channel water courses, Santa ' Gertrudis Creek and Long Valley Wash, cross the northern and central portions of the property. The Roripaugh Ranch property is presently within two govemmental jurisdictions. Approximately 170.7 acres ' (21 percent)of the property is within the City of Temecula and is commonly referred to as the"Plateau." The remaining 634 acres (79 percent) are presently within unincorporated Riverside County; this area is commonly called the"Valley"area and is divided into two sections,a"northern"portion along Santa Gertrudis ' Creek,and a"southern"portion along Long Valley Wash. Abutting the northern and eastern boundaries of the unincorporated portion of Roripaugh Ranch is the Johnson Ranch Specific Plan area,while the Mountain View/Rancho Bella Vista Specific Plan area abuts the project site north of the Plateau area. Existing large ' lot residential development (i.e., half-acre to 2.5-acre) is located south and west of the Roripaugh Ranch. 2.2 PROJECT CHARACTERISTICS Thenew Roripaugh Ranch Specific Plan proposes development of a master-planned residential community with 2,058 dwelling units planned on 804.7 acres. A Specific Plan has been prepared to guide the overall ' development of the project site. In addition to new homes,the project will also provide supporting land uses such as schools, commercial, parks, and natural open space which includes 202.7 acres dedicated for biological habitat. Tables 2-1 and 2-2 summarize the proposed land uses,while Figure 2-3 shows the proposed ' land use plan. The Specific Plan identifies 40 Planning Areas(including A and B areas)plus public and private roadways. 1 ' RORIPAUGH RANCH SPECIFIC PLAN 2ND REVISED DRAFT EIR-APRIL 1,2002 2-1 ASHBYUSA,LLC FIGURE 2-1 1 CL 1 10 O ' U Ow 1 so J �� C ' 91 LAKE PERRIS OLAKE s ' �MATHEWS •C CD 215 ' 7 15 a CANYON LAKE ' 1 60 LAK 1 ' `\ O 79 SKINNER J�� LAKE ELSINOR VO (NORTH) LOCATION TEMECULA � CITY LIMITS L _' 79 (SOUTH) - — - - - - - - RIVERSIDE COUNTY - �— SAN DIEGO COUNTY 1 1 ' ® The Keith CompaniaellililrKC • N 0- r 0Rorlpaug]l Ranch ASHBY USA,LLC FIGURE 2-2 e 1 � Ua j I b 215 ' � I j •� • I 3 79 �g x 1'b —_--- 15 V M �r-0 \�3 LEGEND �F --------- UNIMPROVED ROADWAYS IMPROVED ROADWAYS SPECIFIC PLAN BOUNDARY —•—•—•— CITY LIMITS 1 ® The Keith Comsenies�V • / i Rol pau��h � R�u1ch H O T T O 9 C A L E S�. 2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION ' Table 2-1 Proposed Land Uses Land Use/General Plan Density ' Density (units/acre) Acres Percent (units/acre) Total Residential Units Low (0.5 - 2.0) . 112.9 14.0 1.20 135 Low-Medium (3.0 - 6.0) 189.0 23.5 4.81 909 Medium 1 (7.0- 12.0) 30.9 3.8 6.02 186 Medium 2* (7.0 - 12.0) 81.2 10.1 10.20 828 Sub-Total 414.0 51.4 4.97 2,058 1 Non-Residential Neighborhood Commercial 15.4 1.9 110,000 s.f. Schools 32.0 4.0 2 sites Public Parks 24.9 3.1 2 sites Private Recreation 9.1 1.1 3 sites ' Flood Control 38.2 4.7 Landscape Slopes 21.2 2.7 Habitat** 202.7 25.2 ' Public Institution 2.0 0.2 1 site (Fire Station) Streets (public &private) 45.2 5.6 Sub-Total 390.7 48.6 ' TOTAL 804.7 100.0 2.56 2,058 Source: Roripaugh Ranch Specific Plan (revised 3/2002) ' * includes standard and clustered courtyard units (up to 20% attached duplex) ** includes 201 acres of biological habitat within AD 161 SHCP 1 1 ' RORIPAUGH RANCH SPECIFIC PLAN . 2N0 REVISED DRAFT EIR-APRIL 1,2002 2-4 ' 2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION ' Table 2-2 Proposed Land Uses By Planning Areas (PA) ' Minimum PA Land Use(Density) Acres Density Lot Size(st) Units IA Residential-Low Medium 19.0 5.2 5,000 98 ' 1B Mini-Park(private) 0.3 N/A N/A N/A 2 Residential-Low Medium 18.4 5.4 5,000 99 3 Residential-Low Medium 18.9 5.2 5,000 99 4A,B Residential-Low Medium 41.7 5.1 5,000 213 5 Recreation Center(private) 4.8 N/A N/A N/A 6 Neighborhood Park 5.1 N/A N/A N/A ' Open Space/Landscaped Slope 1.7 7 Open Space/landscaped Slope(A) 19.5 N/A N/A N/A 7 Open Space/Hood Control(B,C) 3.8 N/A N/A N/A ' 8 Open Space/Habitat 125 N/A N/A N/A 9 Open Space//Habitat(A,B) 10.6 N/A N/A N/A 10 Residential-Law 8.1 1,1 20,000 9 ' I 1 Neighborhood Commercial 15.4 N/A N/A N/A 12 Residential-Medium 2(clustered) 16.2 9.3 3,000 150 ' 13 Open Space/Habitat 179.6 N/A N/A N/A 14 Residential-Medium 2(clustered) 16,7 10.4 3,000 174 15 Residential-Medium 2(clustered) 14,5 12.0 3,000 174 ' 16 Residential-Low Medium 29.1 5.2 5,000 150 17 Residential-Low Medium 37.5 3.8 6,000 144 18 Residential-Low Medium 24,4 4.3 6,000 106 ' 19 Residential-Low 35.9 1.3 20,000 47 20 Residential-Low 30.8 Ll 20,000 35 21 Residential-Low 24.0 1.2 20,000 29 ' 22 Residential-Medium 1 13.9 6.0 4,000 84 23 Residential-Medium 2(clustered) 10.5 10.7 3,000 113 ' 24 Residential-Medium 1 17.0 6.0 4,000 113 25 Open Space/Hood Control 9.2 N/A N/A N/A 26 Open Space/Flood Control 24.0 N/A N/A N/A 27 Sports Park 19.8 N/A N/A N/A Open Space/landscaped Slope 1.2 28,29 Middle/Elementary Schools 32.0 N/A N/A N/A ' 30 Recreation Center(private) 4.0 N/A N/A N/A 31 Residential-Medium 2 23.3 9.3 3,000" 217 32 Public Institution(fire station) 2.0 N/A N/A N/A ' 33 Residential-Low (A,B) 14.1 1.06 20,000 15 Public/Private Roads 45.2 N/A N/A N/A TOTAL* 804.7 2.56 2,058 RORIPAUGH RANCH SPECIFIC PLAN ' 2N0 REVISED DRAFT EIR-APRIL 1,2002 2-6 ' ASHBYUSA,LLC FIGURE 2-3 ' CD U) 0 o ; . C L K O i �� Q •r� yy MWD PROPERTY- __I - - - - ' I 1A P--PMate M�RRrerq 1z.$nc / '9 LM 10 I 19.0 AC 2 RD7 '3.0 6.1LAC - 9B Q I ^' 90 DU'S 18.4 AC M L 4A SPR/NOS / I DU•S 6.6 AC 081 M ' r LM �L ' I O LM 99 DU'S 99 DU S 4 B AC 1100 DU'S 48 I ROgD os /Y� LM / 179.6 AC I ��/ I ]C 22.1 AC fff 1052 113 DU•5 O 11 I LOO ' O /° NC 7A 19.5 AC 154 AC ^ ' - - -- - - - - - - I (10.0 AC) W 12 Q ' NAP ? Mz y I rn 162 AC I LEGEND I m 150 DUB LM 17 LAND USE CODE ACRES DENSITY UNITS _ _*33B� .5 18 3L5 AC u' ' O LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL L 112.9 1.2 135 LM 1aa Dvs (n p 29.1 AC NicoLAs Ro ��; 14 15 lsoou•s O LOW MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL LM 189.0 4.6 909 � M2 Mz O MED. DENSITY RES. (Standard) M1 30.9 6.1 186 I .(�"' 167AC 14.M2 O MED. DENSITY RES. (Clustered Courtyard) M2 81.2 10.1 828 / '3 L e° 04.3 AC) 174DU's ' NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL NC 15.4 - - 1-41 Ac - 1]aDu•s ® NEIGHBORHOOD PARK NP 5.1 15 W'S 30 - SPORTS PARK SP 19.8 RC PRIVATE MINI PARK MP .3 N Rn.DAC 18 J ' O PRIVATE RECREATION CENTER RC 8.8 Looe LM ® EDUCATIONAL(Schools) S1, S2 32.0 Jag- 1206 ous PUBLIC INSTITUTIONAL(Fire Station) PI 2.0 - HABITAT OS1 202.7 28 --�-"` V1 W ® FLOOD CONTROL OS2 38.2s2 23.3 AC (n ' LANDSCAPE SLOPE OS3 21.2 �- 20.0 Ac 217 Du•S 1 L 35 9 AC PUBLIC STREETS 35.4 L O PRIVATE STREETS 9.8 47 DU•S I 0- GRAND GRAND TOTAL 804.7 2.56 2,05826 os2 Q 240 AC i 24 0 L_� LEGEND M? 23105AC 1].O UC 2.57 I LL 13.9 AC 113 DUB 1021 OS2 9.2 AC I O a4 DU'S ■■ City/County Boundary Pedestrian Bridge CALLS LOOP ROAD '20 L L I C -- - - - - - '2, S 5Us29DU3D 32 pi 2.0 AC (1.5 AC) ' Notes: - 'A 15'wide multi-use trail is located in Planning Areas 19, 20 and 21 adjacent to the property boundary. Keith Companies A ' Planning Areas 19, 20, 21, 33A and 33B will have 1 acre minimum lots adjacent to the property boundary ■vv- and 1/2 acre minimum lots adjacent to the 1 acre lots. ' 2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION 2.2.1 Residential Uses ' The project proposes amaximumof 2,058 single family units on 804.7 acres. Residential uses include 1,233 detached homes on a variety of lot sizes,ranging from 3,000 square feet to 1-acre. They also include 825 units clustered into courtyards on 81.2 acres. The project will have a gross density of 2.56 dwelling units per ' acre based on 2,058 total units divided by 804.7 total acres. The project will have a net residential density of 4.97 units per acre based on 2,058 total units divided by 414 net acres(i.e.,the acres specifically designated for residential uses). According to the City's General Plan Land Use Map categories, 135 units or 6.6 percent of the units are in the Low density category(0.5-2.0 units per acre),909 units or 44.2 percent are in the Low Medium density ' category(3.0-6.0 units per acre),and the remaining 1,014 units or 49.3 percent of the proposed units are in the Medium density category(7.0- 12.0 units per acre). Of the units in the Medium density category,828 units are proposed to be clustered into courtyards. The Specific Plan indicates that approximately2Qpercent ' of the clustered courtyard units may be attached,but only as"duplex"units. The lower density(i.e.,larger lot)housing areas are proposed adjacent to existing rural, large lot homes along the eastern and southern boundaries of the property(Planning Areas 10, 19-21, 33A,and 33B). The medium density housing(i.e., smaller lots and clustered homes) is proposed "inside"of the Loop Road east of Butterfield Stage Road, except for the areas immediately northeast of Butterfield Stage Road and Nicolas Road/North Loop Road. ' The residential neighborhoods west of Butterfield Stage Road and south of Murrieta Hot Springs Road(i.e., in the Plateau area)have relatively small lots(5,000 square feet)but are separated from the existing homes to the south in Nicolas Valley by a 175-foot buffer area of landscaping and/or building setbacks. The Specific ' Plan requires that any unit in the Plateau area that is within 175 feet of the southern property line shall either have additional landscaping or an additional rear yard building setback so the unit will not be visible from residences along the north side of Nicolas Road. The residential planning areas will eventually become ' separate gated communities,including those in the Plateau area and the neighborhoods along North Loop Street and South Loop Street. ' The Land Use Plan of the Specific Plan establishes a target number of units for the entire project site,as well as target dwelling unit counts and average densities for each Planning Area. However, the Specific Plan allows for flexibility in terms of adjusting the number of acres and units between Planning Areas by 25 percent,except for the lower density housing in Planning Areas 19,20,21,33A,and 33B along the eastern and southern borders of the site. If one or both of the school sites eventually convert to residential uses, density in excess of 25 percent may be transferred from other Planning Areas onto the converted site ' provided the total number of units does not exceed 2,058. Table 2-1 provides a detailed breakdown of residential uses within the project. t2.2.2 Neighborhood Commercial Center The project proposes a neighborhood commercial center on 15.4 acres at the southwest comer of Butterfield Stage Road and Murrieta Hot Springs Road. These uses entail the development of approximately 1 10,000 square feet of commercial shops and stores. RORIPAUGH RANCH SPECIFIC PLAN t2NO REVISED DRAFT ESR-,APRIL 1,2002 2-8 1 1 2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION 1 2.2.3 Schools The project plan includes a 12-acre elementary school site(Planning Area 29)and a 20-acre middle school 1 site(Planning Area 28)for the Temecula Valley Unified School District(TVUSD). TheTVUSD has already agreed in concept to the size and location of both sites. The Specific Plan designates these two planning areas for school sites. However,if the TVUSD decides not to use one or both sites for schools,they can be 1 converted to residential uses under the following 3 conditions: 1)a Specific Plan Amendment is approved by the City; 2)the TVUSD provides a letter to the City stating it does not need the elementary and/or middle school site(s);and 3)density from other Planning Areas can be transferred into the converted school site(s) 1 but the overall project cannot have more than 2,058 units. 2.2.4 Recreation 1 Public Parks The project proposes 2 parks encompassing a total of 24.9 acres to provide public recreational opportunities for project residents. A community park with lighted ballfields is proposed on 19.8 acres(part 1 of Planning Area 27)just west of and adjacent to the middle school site. This location will allow the park and school to take advantage ofjoint use programs and facilities. A smaller neighborhood park is proposed on 5.1 acres just east of the Plateau area and the MWD property just south of Murrieta Hot Springs Road 1 (part of Planning Area 6). Private Recreation The project will provide 9.1 acres of private recreation sites, including a 4.0-acre site just east of the elementary school site(Planning Area 30), a 4.8-acre site in the Plateau area(Planning Area 5),and a 0.3-acre mini-park(Planning Area 1 B)will also be provided in the Plateau area between Planning Areas 1 and 2.The City Subdivision Ordinance allows"half credit"for private recreation facilities,so the 1 project may receive Quimby credit for 4.55 (equivalent) acres of parkland. ProiectParkland Requirements The project's anticipated buildout population is 5,865 residents based on the 1 City's recommended household factor 2.85 persons per household(C.McCarthy,personal communication, January 2002). The City also has a Quimby Act parkland requirement of 5 acres of parkland per thousand residents. Therefore,the project is required to provide 29.3 acres of parkland(5,865 residents divided by 1000 times 5.0 acres/1000 residents). The Temecula Community Services Department(TCSD)has indicated that the project will receive"Quimby" 1 credit for the 24.9 acres of the 2 public park sites,plus 4.55 acres for the private recreational facilities(half credit for 9.1 acres). The project provides the equivalent of 29.45 acres of public parkland(24.9+4.55),so the project meets its Quimby parkland requirement of 29.3 acres. 1 2.2.5 Flood Control/Open Space/Habitat ' The project will provide a total of 262:1 acres of open space,of which 68.3 percent(179.6 acres)is in Santa Gertrudis Creek(Planning Area 13). Approximately 33.2 acres is in Long Valley Wash(Planning Areas 25 and 26) and 21.2 acres in landscaped slopes. The project is providing 201 acres of land as biological habitat 1 under the Assessment District 161 Sub-regional Habitat Conservation Plan (AD 161 SHOP), which also includes 550 acres purchased from the Johnson Ranch and for which the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USF&WS)has issued a Section 10(a)permit under the federal Endangered Species Act. A deed restriction ' will be placed on the 201 acres of habitat land to maintain it in its natural state and minimize intrusion from RORIPAUGH RANCH SPECIFIC PLAN 1 2N°REVISED DRAFT EIR-APRIL 1,2002 2-9 1 ' 2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION 1 recreational or other uses,except for master-planned flood control improvements. The Specific Plan will preclude buildings or other structures from being constructed within this designation. Most of the habitat area is in Planning Area 13(179.6 acres)along Santa Gertrudis Creek,with the rest provided in Planning Areas ' 8, 9A, and 9B. The habitat area in Planning Area 13 will eventually be owned by the County,and a fuel modification zone, ' including an access road,will be constructed to separate the open space/habitat land in Planning Area 13 from the residential uses. Specific guidelines for landscaping,lighting,fencing,fuel modification,and trails will be approved for the project prior to transfer of the habitat area to County ownership. ' The two main crossings of Long Valley Wash(Butterfield Stage Road at North Loop Road and South Loop Road are proposed as roadways with arched concrete culverts. However, the final design is subject to ' review and approval by the City and the Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District. 2.2.6 Fire Station ' A fire station is proposed on 2.0 acres at the southeast corner of Butterfield Stage Road and Calle Chapos/South Loop Road(Planning Area 32). The site will be conveyed to the City by the developer before issuance of the 1"building permit. The station will be constructed and equipped through a combination of financing,including the developer,the City,and/or a Community Facilities District(CFD). The station will be maintained by the City once it is accepted as complete by the Fire Department. ' According to Captain McBride with the City Fire Department,only Planning Areas 1 A,2,and the western portion of 3 (approximately 250 units)are within the 5-minute response time from existing fire facilities. ' Therefore,a permanent fire station must be in operation prior to issuance of the 251"building unit in the Plateau area. ' 2.2.7 Offsite Improvements The project developer(s)will construct a variety ofonsite improvements,including flood control detention ' basins, storm drains, water lines, sewer lines, streets, and bridges. In addition, the project will require a number of offsite improvements, some of which are being processed and constructed by other public or private agencies, including storm drains, water lines, and sewer lines. The locations of major offsite ' improvements are shown in Figure 2-4a (Street and Drainage) and Figure 2-4b (Sewer and Water). Individual sections of Chapter 3 (e.g., 3.5 - Traffic, 3.12 - Utilities) will analyze impacts of offsite improvements as necessary. The project applicant is responsible for providing(e.g.,constructing or paying ' a fair share contribution)all of the offsite improvements identified in the EIR. However,the applicant and the City are forming a new Community Facilities District(CFD)to help fund various offsite improvements (see Section 2.2.13). ' Roads Initial access to the Plateau portion of the site will require the extension of Murrieta Hot Springs Road from its current terminus at Pourroy Road to the northern project boundary. Pacific Bay Homes has ' constructed this road from its terminus west of the project to Pourroy Road. Access to the central and southern portions of the site will initially be via an extension of Nicolas Road from the west project boundary to 450 feet east of the intersection of Nicolas Road/Calle Girasol. Calle Chapos will also provide access to 1 the central and southern portions of the site,as well as temporary secondary access to the Plateau area until RORIPAUGH RANCH SPECIFIC PLAN ' 2ND REVISED DRAFT ESR-APRIL t,2002 2-10 2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION ' Nicolas Road can be permanently improved with an all-weather crossing at Santa Gertrudis Creek. Access to the southern portion of the site will eventually require the full-width offsite extension of Butterfield Stage Road from the southern project boundary to the existing pavement north of Rancho California Road. Individual sections of Chapter3 will examine impacts of full-width offsite improvement of Butterfield Stage Road from the project to Rancho California Road. A new storm drain line will be included in this road extension. 1 Drainage Flood control improvements including bank reinforcement,stabilization,and installation of rip-rap will occur downstream of the project on Santa Gertrudis Creek from Butterfield Stage Road to the MWD ' right-of-way and from Calle Girasol to Leifer Road. An all-weather crossing of Santa Gertrudis Creek will be provided at Nicolas Road and Calle Girasol by using a hydro-arch bridge structure or other designs acceptable to the City Engineer. tWater To help provide adequate water service to the area,including the project site,the Rancho California Water District(RCWD)is installing two main lines(30-inch and 60-inch)that will cross the central portion of the site from north to south,along the west side of the neighborhood park and neighborhood commercial area within an easement, then along Nicolas Road to the west. The RCWD supply lines will be located in Nicolas Road,with easements in Murrieta Hot Springs Road and Butterfield Stage Road. The RCWD has 1 already prepared an EIR analyzing the impacts of this project. The Eastern Municipal Water District (EMWD)will provide water to the site and has already constructed several reservoirs in the area that will eventually help serve the Roripaugh Ranch project, including the 6.8 MG Mountain View tank built by ' Assessment District 161 on the adjacent Rancho Bella Vista property. Sewer Project sewage flows,excepting the Plateau area,will be conveyed by a proposed 18-inch pipeline ' to Liefer Road via Nicolas Road. A proposed 18-inch line in Murrieta Hot Springs Road,from Pourroy Road to the end of the Plateau, will be required to convey flows from the Plateau area, Rancho Bella Vista, and the Tucalota Lift Station. It should be noted that no sewer lines will be within the Santa Gertrudis creek ' channel or Long Valley Wash. More information about the locations of these various lines is provided in Section 3.12 on Utilities. 1 RORIPAUGH RANCH SPECIFIC PLAN 2NO REVISED DRAFT EIR-APRIL 1,2002 2-11 ' ASHBYUSA,LLC FIGURE 2-4A 1 CU/�/� r a C q 1 •L 0 $� ' LEGEND I �i PHASE ONE O CU I p ti 1 NICOLAS ROAD 40'WIDTH FROM 450'EAST OF CALLE GIRASOU - --- NICOLAS RD TO THE 90'STREET SECTION OF WEST PROJECT BOUNDARY }� 2A CALLE CHAPOS 38'HALF WIDTH SECTION FROM BUTTERFIELD Oleo-, V• W STAGE WALCOTT 2B IIF AN AROWEEATO ERCO SING OVER SANTA GERTUDIS AT NICOLASO Y},J e ROAD IS NOT BUILT,CONSTRUCT SECONDARY ACCESS IMPROVEMENTS FROM WALCOTT LANE TO NICOLAS ROAD,AS REQUIRED 61 / ' O 3 CONSTRUCT A TRAFFIC SIGNAL AT THE INTERSECTION OF uj --J ♦� MURRIETA HOT SPRINGS ROAD AND POURROY ROAD J u. �' vJ' +-0 � 4 DOWNSTREAM BANK PROTECTION OF SANTA GERTRUDIS ' CREEK AND LONG VALLEY WASH IF NECESSARY \ • � I W 5 GRADING FOR SOUTHERLY EXTENSION OF BUTTERFIELD STAGE ROAD Q ._..•'� ., • 1 N•N 6 BUTTERFIELD STAGE ROAD HALF WIDTH FROM 200'SOUTH OF lIa • ��• •�, W ' NICOLAS ROAD TO SOUTH PROJECT BOUNDARY J Lu LOOP ROAD N / I ' Io _ - - _ — I C \ O PHASE TWO �(FCpNTFNrO OL * ■ ■ 7 IMPROVE NICOLAS ROAD FROM 450'EAST CALLE GIRASOL Cv C TO LIEFER ROAD J m OT 8 CONSTRUCT TRAFFIC SIGNAL AT BUTTERFIELD STAGE ROAD k AND SOUTH LOOP ROAD I CALLE CHAPOS p r0 * 9 40'ALL WEATHER CROSSING OF CALLE GIRASOL AND IMPROVE $ 4 /}/ /'�� ' NICOLAS ROAD OVER SANTA GERTRUDIS CREEK,WITH RELATED V BERM AND BANK IMPROVEMENTS TO LIEFER ROAD rn v i - 1 10 BUTTERFIELD STAGE ROAD FULL WIDTH FROM 550'SOUTH p LA SERENA WY._ OF NICOLAS ROAD TO SOUTH PROJECT BOUNDARY ' * 11 BUTTERFIELD STAGE ROAD FULL WIDTH STREET SECTION FROM SOUTH PROJECT BOUNDARY TO EXISTING PAVEMENT,PLUS RELATED STORM DRAIN AND WATERLINE IMPROVEMENTS, EXCLUSIVE OF EXISTING IMPROVEMENTS 12 FAIR SHARE CONTRIBUTION TO OFFSITE TRAFFIC / SIGNALS AS WARRANTED(SEE SECTION 3.5.6) ' * Depending on secondary access route NiP IND- NOTE: Improvements conceptual only-refer to Sections 3.4.6 and 3.5.6 for details pY1Fp� OC �s CN A� ' The Keith Compeniesl � I�J ® ; 0T ' 0 eC■v— Rorlpau;-h Ranch ASHBYUSA,LLC FIGURE 246 L 4 1 cu/°�' ry8 a zl �° c 1 0 i 1 _ 1 L _ I &I cn it J N LEGEND � J I PHASE 1 ��1 NICOLAS ROAD 21'SEWER MAIN FROM WEST PROJECT BOUNDARY TO 450'EAST I¢ II OF CALLE GIRASOL 1� O / i 0 1 2 30'AND 60'WATER LINES IL w J Cep <� I / INSTALLED BY RANCHO CALIFORNIA `9 < LOOP ROAD i I L— WATER DISTRICT CONSTRUCTION) �' �� RO Np CALLE =—_—_ —__—__� C444 C CL F E 1 CHAPOS O�,rF'Y O PHASE 2 r 3 NICOLAS ROAD 21'SEWER MAIN FROM 450' 2 ^, WEST PROJECT BOUNDARY TO JOSEPH ROAD -i m Y! 1 m �' T _ 4 16'WATER LINE TO SERVICE LANDSCAPING p m I,,, ALONG BUTfERFIELD STAGE RD. o U) 1 cDi . m O I LASERENAWY. 1 1 1 4% ' Vol NO 1 •� ® The KertK Cpmpenlesl r 0 1 TO _ Rol 'p-lugh� � R- nch ' 2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION ' 2.2.8 Vehicular Circulation The project proposes a series of roadways that will provide adequate interior vehicular circulation as well as connect to existing and proposed roadways consistent with the City's and the County's Master Plan of Arterial Highways. Murrieta Hot Springs Road and Butterfield Stage Road are proposed to be arterial highways(I 10'Right-Of-Way or ROW). Butterfield Stage Road,from Murrieta Hot Springs Road to Nicolas ' Road,is planned to have an Augmented Arterial Highway cross section(118-foot ROW). In addition,Nicolas Road from Butterfield Stage Road to the west project boundary is planned as a modified secondary highway with a 110-foot ROW. North Loop Road and South Loop Road are planned to provide a loop connection for the housing proposed in the southern portion of the Valley area, which is located east of Butterfield Stage Road. They are classified as modified principal collector roads (76' ROW). Modifications to roadway width will require approval by the City Department of Public Works and a General Plan Amendment from the City as outlined in the Specific Plan. The portion of this road from Nicolas Road/Butterfield Stage Road east to Long Valley ' Wash is referred to as North Loop Road while the portion from Calle Chapos/Butterfield Stage Road east to Long Valley Wash is referred to South Loop Road. The applicant also proposes to eliminate through-access on Calle Contento, as requested by the local residents. The project also proposes several roadway cross sections that are different than those in the Circulation Element. These changes require a General Plan Amendment to the Circulation Element. Section ' 3.5 contains more detailed information on the proposed vehicular circulation system.It should be noted that the Temecula Fire Department has indicated it does not want Calle Contento closed to through access,as they believe it will hinder emergency access into that area(N.Davidson,personal communication,May 2001). ' However, at a minimum the Fire Department will want some type of limited access lock so the Fire Department can still respond through this area. The project will provide access to Calle Contento via an in- tract road,as approved by the Temecula Fire Department,along the north side of Long Valley Wash. The ' Fire Department will be given keys to the restricted access lock, as will the police department. Secondary Access According to the City Fire Chief,only 107 units can be constructed in Planning Areas IA, 2, and/or 3 before an all-weather secondary access route must be provided for the Plateau area (J. McBride,personal communication,January 2002). There are 3 potential options for secondary access to the Plateau area: Option 1-Nicolas Road This option would utilize Murrieta Hot Springs Road to Butterfield Stage Road to Nicolas Road as the secondary access route for the Plateau area. Under this option, the ' project would improve Nicolas Road,both onsite and offsite. However,Nicolas Road just east of Calle Girasol is currently inundated during periods of flooding. Therefore,an all-weather crossing on Nicolas Road at Santa Gertrudis Creek would also need to be constructed prior to the 108th ' building permit in Phase 1. Option 2 - Calle Chapos/Girasol This option would utilize Murrieta Hot Springs Road to Butterfield Stage Road to Calle Chapos to Calle Girasol as the secondary access route for the Plateau area. Sufficient improvements would be required to provide safe public and secondary emergency access along this route, to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. RORIPAUGH RANCH SPECIFIC PLAN 2N°REVISED DRAFT EIR-APRIL 1,2002 2-14 1 2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION Option 3-Butterfield Stage Road This option would utilize the southern extension of Butterfield Stage Road to Rancho California Road as a secondary access route for the Plateau area. According to the traffic study,the developer would need to construct at least 2 travel lanes on Butterfield Stage ' Road south of the project. However, the City Engineer is requiring full width improvements according to the cross section shown in Section 3.5. ' Under any of these options,an all-weather crossing over Santa Gertrudis Creek at Calle GirasoVNicolas Road will eventually be constructed,either prior to issuance of the 108ih building permit in Phase 1 under Option 1, or prior to any building permits in Phase 2 under Options 2 or 3. It should be noted that for any of these options,the ultimate determination of which option and/or route(s)will provide adequate and safe secondary access to the site will be made by the City Fire Chief and the City Engineer (J. McBride, personal communication, February 2002). ' 2.2.9 Non-Vehicular Circulation ' The Roripaugh Ranch community will have a series of sidewalks, paths, and related access-ways for pedestrians and bicyclists which will offer non-vehicular access to educational,commercial and recreational facilities within the property. Sidewalks or similar non-vehicular access will be provided along both sides of ' all project roads. In addition,Class H bikeways will be installed along all of the major project roads,including Butterfield Stage Road,Murrieta Hot Springs Road,Nicolas Road,North Loop Road,South Loop Road,"A" Street,and"B"Street. To provide direct access for Planning Areas 20-24 to the community park,elementary school,and middle school,a pedestrian bridge will be provided across Planning Area 26 between Planning Area 23 and Planning Area 28 or 31. An asphalt path is proposed along both sides of Long Valley Wash to provide access to the school and park facilities (they will double as service roads for the channel). If the ' Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District(RCFCWCD)does not allow the service roads to be used as multi-use trails,trails will be constructed separate from the service roads. A trail will also be provided along the top of the landscaped slope on the south side of the Plateau area. The California Department of Fish and Game or other appropriate agency,may approve limited trails through the habitat areas(Planning Areas 8,9A,9B,and 13). Finally,a 15-foot equestrian trail within a 30-foot fuel ' modification zone is proposed along the southern and eastern boundaries of the site to allow continued access from the Nicolas Valley and Temecula wine country to the southeast and the Johnson Ranch open space property to the north and northeast. This equestrian trail will be screened from adjacent offsite lots to a large ' degree by either landscaping or topograhy. The Specific Plan also provides for a series of in-tract paseos to compliment these trails. For additional information and discussion about trails, see Section 3.12 on Recreation. r2.2.10 Drainage ' The Drainage Master Plan is based on and designed to accommodate a 100-year storm, including onsite channels,storm drains,and detention basins,as needed. Detailed engineering of drainage facilities will be completed at the time construction plans are prepared and will be in accordance with approved engineering ' practices,City of Temecula and Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District standards. The Synthetic Unit Hydrograph Method and the Rational Method were used,as appropriate,based upon the current"The Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District's Hydrology Manual,"dated April 1978. RORIPAUGH RANCH SPECIFIC PLAN ' 2N°REVISED DRAFT EIR-APRIL 1,2002 2-15 1 ' 2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION Two primary water courses cross the project site-the northem-most channel is Santa Gertrudis Creek and the southern-most channel is Long Valley Wash. Both channels generally flow east to west during seasonal ' rains,eventually converging off the project site in the area of the Nicolas Road and Calle Girasol intersection, approximately 3,500 feet west of the proposed Butterfield Stage Road. In its existing condition, Santa Gertrudis Creek carries a 100-year storm flow of 2,797 cubic feet per second (cfs)as it enters the eastern ' boundary of the site and 3,075 cfs as it exits. Once the project is built out and all flood control facilities constructed,Santa Gertrudis Creek will have an exit flow of 3,075 cfs which is the same as its existing flow. At present, Long Valley Wash has a 100-year flow entering the site at 3,768 cfs and 4,460 cfs at its exit. After buildout,it will have an exit flow of 4,460 which is the same as its existing flow. The Conceptual Drainage MasterPlan is intended to keep exit flows equivalent to or less than existing flows. ' Exit flows will be controlled by two large flow by/detention basins,one in SantaGertrudis Creekjust eastof Butterfield Stage Road and one in Long Valley Wash just east of the North Loop Road/South Loop Road. A series of hydro-arch bridges or other designs approved by the City Engineer will convey water in Santa ' Gertrudis Creek under Butterfield Stage Road, while another series of hydro-arch bridges will be used to convey water in Long Valley Wash under Butterfield Stage Road and the North Loop Road/South Loop Road. Early in the discussions on this project, the City expressed a desire to reduce offsite flows from Santa Gertrudis Creek and Long Valley Wash by approximately 5 percent to help reduce historical downstream ' flooding. The developer employed several engineering firms(i.e.,Adkan,The Keith Companies,Tettemer & Associates, and David Evans Associates) to try to design the detention basins and other flood control facilities onsite to achieve this level of reduction. However,both Santa Gertrudis Creek and Long Valley ' Wash present unique design constraints that make it difficult if not impossible to achieve a 5 percent reduction. For example,the City and several resource agencies(e.g.,Fish and Game,Army Corps,etc.)have indicated that sediment transport along these drainages must continue at or near their current levels to maintain downstream habitat characteristics. This requires that flow-by/detention basins be used in both channels,which differ from standard detention basins by allowing all but flood flows to travel directly through the channel and site,thereby allowing sediments to be carried through and off the project site as they do under texisting conditions. The locations of both basins are physically constrained. In Santa Gertrudis Creek,standard detention basins ' were once proposed just upstream(i.e.,east)of Butterfield Stage Road. A flow-by/detention basin is now proposed in this same location,however,any basin at this location is severely limited by the habitatboundary of AD 161 SHOP,which cannotbe impacted by construction. The size of any basin in this area is also limited by steep slopes to the northwest,south,and southwest. On Long Valley Wash,a standard detention basin was originally proposed just upstream(i.e.,east)of Butterfield Stage Road,but its location was moved east to just upstream of North Loop Road/South Loop Road and was redesigned as a flow-by/detention basin. This location is constrained by slopes to the south and north. In addition,the heights of these basins,both in Long Valley Wash and Santa Gertrudis Creek,are constrained to not exceed state limits that would classify them as dams,which have much more strict and time consuming approval requirements. For these reasons, ' the project will be designed so that exit flows from the site are at least equal to existing flows. However, every effort will be made to reduce offsite flows to the greatest extent feasible,given the various constraints of the site and project. Additional information supporting these design parameters is included in Appendix ' D. RORIPAUGH RANCH SPECIFIC PLAN ' 2N0 REVISED DRAFT EIR-APRIL 1,2002 2-16 ' 2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION ' 2.2.11 Project Population The current population estimate for the project is 5,865 residents, based on a household ratio of 2.85 ' persons per household. This estimate is based on average household sizes(persons per household)which are used for parkland calculations and future planning purposes (D. Hogan, personal communication, 2000). ' 2.2.12 Project Employment The current project proposes 110,000 square feet of commercial uses, which would generate 220 ' employees. These estimates were based on average factors of commercial uses which generate one employee per 500 square feet for commercial uses. 2.2.13 Community Facilities District ' As part of this project, the developer will establish a Community Facilities District(CFD)to help fund the planned improvements such as the extension of Butterfield Stage Road fromjust north of Rancho California Road to Murrieta Hot Springs Road,Nicolas Road from the project to Calle Girasol,a portion of Murrieta Hot Springs Road, the proposed fire station, and various sewer, water, and storm drain lines. Specific road improvements are identified in Section 3.5. ' 2.3 PHASING The project will be developed in 2 phases over a period of 15 to 20 years, with each phase taking ' approximately 4-8 years to complete. The current proposed phasing plan for the project is shown in Figure 2-5 and summarized below; ' Phase 1 is the Plateau area and includes the housing(Planning Areas 1 A-413),the private recreation center (Planning Area 5), the 0.3-acre mini-park (Planning Area IB), and open space (Planning Areas 7A, 713, 7C, 8, 9A, 9B, and 13). This phase also includes the 5.1-acre neighborhood park (Planning Area 6), the fire station (Planning Area 32), those portions of Butterfield Stage Road, Nicolas Road,Calle Chapos, and Calle Girasol that are needed for secondary access(see Section 2.2.8), and related drainage improvements. Phase 2 consists of low,low medium,and medium density residential uses in the Valley portion of the site,along both North and South Loop Roads. This area includes: 1)low density residential in ' Planning Areas 19,20,and 21, along the east and southern boundaries of the site;2)low medium density residential uses in Planning Areas 16, 17,and 18 along North Loop Road;and 3)medium density residential uses in Planning Areas 14, 15,22,23,24,and 31. Long Valley Wash would be improved with this phase. The public uses on the"inside"of the loop system(Planning Areas 27 through 30)in the Valley area would also be built in this phase,which includes the community sports park(Planning Area 27),the middle school(Planning Area 28),the elementary school(Planning Area ' 29), and the private recreation facility (Planning Area 30). This phase also includes the"central' portion of the site, which is the area between Butterfield Stage Road and the Plateau area(Phase 1). It includes commercial uses in Planning Area 11,low density residential uses in Planning Areas ' 10, 33A, and 3313, and medium density residential uses in Planning Area 12. RORIPAUGH RANCH SPECIFIC PLAN ' 2N°REVISED DRAFT EIR-APRIL 1,2002 2-17 ' ASHBYUSA,LLC FIGURE 2-5 Cu Oal 0 �R MWD PROPERTY-\ U) 1B 1A MP-P vete /meq �7 12.5 AC //OA 1 I 10 78.0 AC 2 3.8 AC B.1 AC 9B ee DUS LM 3 4A �RtNGs ODVS 6.6 AC 8.4 AC LMRC LM 136 ,� s9Dus wous 4.8 AC 1700DVs 4B I ROA°---- 0S (� ' LM -- - - — os, 179.6 AC ,OSZ 1�1 AC }, DU'S 5.6 C 11 I I (IJ AC NC //���� OS3) 15.4 AC(10.OAC) W D C I O NAP n 16.2 AC 75.0 50 DU'8' 17 I— LM LEGEND 33B / 16 37.5 AC LM 144 DU'9 28.1 AC rx �� 14 15 750Dvs ' Phase 1 / 16.30 14.5 AC 33A L � (143 AC) 174 DVS 14.7AC — 174 DU'3 15 Dvs i L O 30 ' Phase 2 ( 29 4.0 AC 18 I 51 UM No Phase 27 �----- \� 12.DAC 106 ous Designation 98AC 26 ! 31 (1.2 AC 052 S2 M2 1 23.3 AC NOTE I 19 2aD AC 2t7 DU5 L ' Development areas only-road I L I 35.a Ac 47 DU5 phasing discussed in section 2.3 8 3.5-6 os2 26 24.0 AC 24— C ' 22 2310 s ac – 17.0 nC 25 1Ml 3AC 113 DUS 102 DU'S OS2 MI9.2 ATO MS CALLE LOSOUTH OP ROAD 20 ' CHAPOS I 21 L 330. 5 DAC 24.0 AC 29 DU'S 32 PI 2.0 AC (1.5 AC) ' the Keith C.rhp.–es ITXv■AA■ -- ® 0 � �x ( )r11 �,tI , � 11 � IIIA II 2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION ' 2.3.1 Timing of Improvements The timing of specific roadway,intersection,and traffic signal improvements is discussed in detail in Section ' 3.5,Transportation and Circulation. The timing of other improvements are discussed inappropriate sections such as public services and utilities. ' 2.4 GRADING The grading plan is closely tied to the phasing plan in an attempt to balance earthwork across the entire site. While this will minimize the exporting or imposing of soil,it may result in the stockpiling of soil for an extended periodoftime. Where this occurs,erosion control measures will be implemented to minimize the loss of soil by wind or water erosion. The conceptual grading plan for the project is shown in Figure 2-6. Preliminary grading studies indicate the total project will require approximately 7 million cubic yards of earthwork (i.e., cut and fill) which will be balanced onsite, as shown below: Area Cut c Fill c Plateau Area 1,315,247 1,321,935 ' Valley Area 6,140,225 3,789,716 Central Area* 543,086 1,890,234 Sub-Total 7,998,558 7,001,885 Shrinkage (-12.5%) (996,673) N/A TOTAL 7,001,885 7,001,885 ' *includes commercial uses(PA 11)plus Planning Area 6, 10,12,33 The Plateau portion of the site will be graded relatively flat with a shallow slope to the southwest. The t southern portion of the Valley area will rise gradually away from the improved Long Valley Wash channel, with steeper slopes found along the southern flanks of the central ridge onsite. The central and northern portions of the site will be graded into several separate pads to help separate the various non-residential uses. 1 Most of Santa Gertrudis Creek will remain undisturbed with minimal grading or earthwork. The only exception will be grading needed for flood control improvements,including a possible detention basin,just east of Butterfield Stage Road. The top of the central ridge south of Santa Gertrudis Creek will be removed to allow for the placement of home pads. Grading will be completed with all cut and fill storage of dirt taking place in the adjacent phase area onsite. As outlined in the Specific Plan, detailed grading plans will be processed with associated Tentative Tract Maps according to City requirements. Contour grading is proposed on slopes over 30 feet in height,while maintaining adequate gradients for streets and intersection sight distances. The grading plan requires that ' graded slopes be revegetated and erosion control facilities beinstalled to protect residents and property from erosion and uncontrolled runoff. For more information,see Section 3.3 on Earth Resources and Section 3.4 on Water Resources which discuss various types of erosion. Contour grading will also be employed as much as practical in Planning Areas 16 through 19 to minimize changes to landforms. It should also be noted the extension of Butterfield Stage Road south of the project site may require up to a million cubic yards of earthwork(primarily cut) in addition to grading the project site. This work will be balanced as much as possible using the Roripaugh site for temporary stockpiling if necessary. RORIPAUGH RANCH SPECIFIC PLAN 2rvO REVISED DRAFT EIR-APRIL 1,2002 2-19 ASHBY USA LLC FIGURE 2-6 C: g Ca U) - z- it Nor k s { 14M ICU 80 4-0 CL 1 LEGEND "w Proposed Contours Proposed Slope 5 I f •^ Existing Contours Drainage Flowline I ` EHI Drainage Flowline Grading-Phase 1 — — • P ' ® Future Street Elevation Grading-Phase 2 NVO Ungraded Open Space-Phase 1 I — (AD 161 Subregbnal Habitat Conservation Plan) Borrow Area-Phase 1 4°O � CUSTOM LOTS Contour Grading of Habitat Areas •••— — Phase 2 --1220..—- •_ zoa ' u4,9 \ 94 Ungraded Open Space-Phase 1 ;n 1240 Graded Open Bottom Channelu / CALLE ' Phase 2 cwwos � � cusroM Lors 1 ' The Keith Compenienl. MC ' 2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION ' 2.5 PROJECT OBJECTIVES ' The Specific Plan proposes this project to achieve the following objectives: • Create a master-planned residential community with a variety of gated neighborhoods in northeast Temecula; • Provide a variety of quality housing compatible with existing and planned growth; ' Consider natural features and resources and incorporate open space into a community system that benefits residents and important native species; • Provide unifying community themes throughout the development; • Help provide public improvements including park sites and school sites to serve project residents and the surrounding community; • Provide backbone public infrastructure (i.e. roads, utilities) to serve project residents and the surrounding community, including full improvement of Murrieta Hot Springs Road, Butterfield Stage Road (both onsite and offsite), Nicolas Road, and partial improvements to Calle Chapos and Calle Girasol; • Provide a critical link in the Eastern Bypass Corridor (Butterfield Stage Road and Murrieta Hot Springs Road; • Provide a variety of public and private recreational facilities and opportunities with a system of trails, paths, and paseos for pedestrians, bicyclists, and equestrians; • Provide improved flood and fire protection for existing and future residents; • Preserve biological habitat consistent with the Assessment District 161 Sub-Regional Habitat Conservation Plan; • Be consistent with established policies and goals of the City's General Plan, or recommend necessary changes to the General Plan; • Minimize impacts to surrounding uses and residents; ' Minimize impacts to existing City services, utilities, and finances; and • Provide neighborhood commercial uses to serve residents and benefit the City's economy and finances. RORIPAUGH RANCH SPECIFIC PLAN ' 2N°REVISED DRAFT EIR-APRIL 1,2002 2-21 1 2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION ' 2.6 RELATED PROJECTS The CEQA Guidelines(Section 15130)require identification of related projects,both public and private,that ' together with the proposed project could have cumulative impacts on the environment. At the time this EIR was prepared, there were 17 related projects, including the proposed project, representing approximately 39,951 housing units and 2,573 acres(22 million square feet)of non-residential space in addition to the existing housing and commercial space in the City. These projects may produce city-wide and area-wide cumulative impacts related to traffic,noise,and air quality,in addition to various site-specific impacts. The cumulative impacts of these related projects are described and analyzed in Section 6 of this document. ' 2.7 COMPONENTS OF THE SPECIFIC PLAN ' The Roripaugh Ranch Specific Plan contains the following components or master plans which are addressed in various sections of the FIR document, as follows: Specific Plan Component Addressed in EIR Sections) 2.1 Comprehensive Land Use Plan 3.1 Land Use and Planning 4.0 General Plan Consistency 2.2 Circulation Master Plan 3.5 Transportation and Circulation '. 2.3 Drainage Master Plan 3.4 Water Resources 3.12 Utilities 2.4 Water Master Plan 3.12 Utilities 2.5 Sewer Master Plan 3.12 Utilities 2.6 Grading Master Plan 3.3 Earth Resources 2.7 Phasing Master Plan Sections with impacts that relate to phasing 2.8 Open Space and Recreation 3.7 Biological Resources Master Plan 3.11 Public Services 2.9 Landscape Master Plan 3.7 Biological Resources 1 3.13 Aesthetics 2.10 Walls and Fences Master Plan 3.13 Aesthetics 3.0 Development Standards 3.1 Land Use and Planning 4.0 General Plan Consistency ' 4.0 Site Planning Design Guidelines 3.13 Aesthetics 5.0 Architectural Guidelines 3.13 Aesthetics RORIPAUGH RANCH SPECIFIC FLAN ' 2rv0 REVISED DRAFT EIR-APRIL 1,2002 2-22 1 2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION ' 2.8 INTENDED USE OF THIS FIR ' Approvals for which the information in this document has been prepared include,but are not limited to,those procedural actions required by various agencies and needed by the City of Temecula to oversee the design, construction,and operation of a mixed use residential community on this site. Such approvals may include, but are not limited to, the following actions by the Planning Commission (PC), City Council (CC), or both: • Approval of annexation (CC/Local Agency formation Commission or LAFCO); ' Approval of the proposed Specific Plan (PC recommendation/CC approval); ' General Plan Amendment for change to the Land Use Element to make category boundaries consistent with proposed Specific Plan (PC/CC); • General Plan Amendment for changes to the Circulation Element to delete the Calle Contento connection through the project site and upgrade the designation for Butterfield Stage Road between Murrieta Hot Springs Road and Nicolas Road from an Arterial Highway (110-foot ' ROW) to an Augmented Arterial Highway (122-foot ROW)(PC/CC); • Approval of a Development Agreement (PC/CC); • Formation of a Community Facilities District (CFD)(CC)(County of Riverside); ' Reviewproposed land uses and make recommendations relative toconsistency with the French Valley Airport Comprehensive Land Use Plan (Airport Land Use Commission or ALUC); • Approval of tentative tract and parcel maps, final maps (PC/CC); • .Compliance with Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (CWA) for modifications to Santa ' Gertrudis Creek and Long Valley Wash (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers); • Compliance with Streambed Alteration regulations for modifications to Santa Gertrudis Creek and Long Valley Wash (California Department of Fish and Game); • Compliance with the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System(NPDES)process and the ' Clean Water Act Section 401 requirements (Regional Water Quality Control Board); • The approval of various offsite roadway improvements, flood control improvements, and ' . encroachments as identified in the Specific Plan and EIR(Section 2.2),including the extension of Butterfield Stage Road south of the site,the improvement of Nicolas Road west of the site, the all-weather crossing over Santa Gertrudis Creek at Nicolas Road, Murrieta Hot Springs Road, various improvements to Calle Girasol and Calle Chapos between Liefer Road and Butterfield Stage Road to provide effective public and secondary emergency access for the project, and various traffic signals (PC/CC); RORIPA IGH RANCH SPECIFIC PLAN , ' 2-0 REVISED DRAFT EIR-APRIL 1,2002 1 i i Consideration and approval by the Metropolitan Water District where project improvements (either on-oroffsite),such as drainage facilities,water lines,utilities,traffic,etc.,encroach onto MWD property or easements; • Permits or other approvals as necessary for construction and operation of equipment,including grading; and dust control; and iApproval of Creek Maintenance Agreements (CC/RCFCWCD/HOA). i i i 1 1 i 1 RORIPAUGH RANCH SPECIFIC PLAN i2"D REVISED DRAFT EIR-APRIL 1,2002 1 3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS The purpose of this Environmental Impact Report(EIR)is to evaluate the potential environmental effects of the proposed Roripaugh Ranch Specific Plan. Sections 3.1 through 3.14 of this EIR examine the potential environmental impacts associated with implementation of the proposed project. The following analyses focus on the following environmental issues: • Land Use and Planning Energy and Mineral Resources • Agriculture Hazards • Earth Resources Noise • Water Resources Public Services • Transportation and Circulation Utilities • Air Quality Aesthetics • Biological Resources Scientific Resources Each decimal-numbered section (e.g., 3.1, 3.2, etc.)contains the following sub-sections: ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING. This section discusses the existing conditions,services,and physical environment of the project site and vicinity. Specific references to literature or persons consulted in the course of EIR preparation are indicated by their last name or firm acronym with specific pages referenced as necessary. Sections 9.0 and 10.0 list the persons consulted and the documents used to prepare this EIR. ' CRITERIA FOR DETERMINING SIGNIFICANCE. This section provides the environmental thresholds against which project impacts can be compared to determine whether or not an impact may be considered significant. This criteria comes from established CEQA guidelines or other generally accepted ' standards or requirements. LEVEL OF IMPACT BEFORE MITIGATION. This section identifies whether or not there are significant impacts before implementation of any mitigation measures. This section will contain a discussion of the aspects of the proposed project or measures incorporated into the proposed project that minimize adverse impacts. The environmental impacts of the proposed project will be discussed in qualitative and quantitative terms as appropriate. The environmental analysis contained in this EIR uses the words"adverse" and"significant"in the discussion of potential environmental impacts. These adjectives are used specifically to define the degree of impact: An "adverse" impact is any negative result of the project, however small. As a disclosure document,the finding of an impact as"adverse"merely indicates that the project will increase the impact by some level less than significant compared to existing conditions. For example,increase in air pollution emissions by a project may not exceed significant threshold levels suggested by the South Coast Air Quality Management District; however, these increases may contribute to air quality ' degradation and are therefore considered "adverse." A"significant"impact is considered a substantial negative effect,one that exceeds some critical and accepted threshold for negative environmental effects. CEQA defines a significant effect on the environment as"...a substantial,orpotentially substantial,adverse change in any of the physical conditions within the area by the project,including land,air,water,flora,fauna,ambient noise,and objects of historic or aesthetic significance"(CEQA Guidelines,Section 15382). As recommended RORIPAUGH RANCH SPECIFIC PLAN 2N0 REVISED DRAFT EIR-APRIL 1,2002 3-1 3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS 1 in the new CEQA Guidelines, impacts are also identified as "potentially significant' prior to mitigation. 1 STANDARD CONDITIONS AND UNIFORM CODES. This section identifies those conditions and codes that are standard requirements of the City and/or other responsible agency,except for those identified ' by separate agreement(s). For analytical purposes,compliance with these regulatory requirements is not considered mitigation. Where an otherwise significant impact is avoided, in whole or in part, due to the application of standard regulatory requirements or project features, the text will note that an issue of ' environmental concern exists and that it is addressed by a standard regulatory requirement. This prevents the use of mitigation measures that are a mere repetition of common practice, City planning/approval procedures,or laws that are applicable to the proposed project regardless of the CEQA process. This also ' allows the document to focus on substantive mitigation measures. PROJECT DESIGN FEATURES. Through the planning process,a proposed project will necessarily add ' certain characteristics to avoid or minimize environmental impacts. These characteristics are referred to as "Project Design Features." Under each environmental issue area addressed in the EIR, all project design features which relate to the potential effects are clearly identified. To ensure implementation of project ' design features,these measures will be made conditions of project approval by the City. The City shall ensure compliance with all project design features through its standard procedures for the approval of permits and applications. MITIGATION MEASURES. These are measures to mitigate, avoid, or substantially lessen impacts identified as significant or potentially significant. For some impacts that have been identified as less than significant,mitigation measures may be recommended to further lessen potential project impacts. As required by CEQA, this section will address all reasonably feasible mitigation measures that can reduce adverse impacts to below a level of significance. According to CEQA,the term"mitigation measures"refers to those items that are over and above standard conditions,uniform codes,or project features that may also reduce potential impacts. ' IMPACT OF MITIGATION MEASURES. This section indicates if any of the proposed mitigation measures also have significant impacts. SUMMARY OF IMPACT AFTER MITIGATION. An indication of whether or not any significant impacts remain following implementation of all reasonable and feasible mitigation measures. r RORIPAUGH RANCH SPECIFIC PLAN ' 2N°REVISED DRAFT EIR-APRIL 1,2002 3-2 3.1 LAND USE AND PLANNING ' This section analyzes the potential land use impacts of the project on existing uses,planned uses,the City's General Plan, zoning, and various regional plans. 3.1.1 Environmental Setting a) Existing Land Uses Land in the vicinity of the project site is presently used for a variety of residential and agricultural uses, 1 including vineyards at some distance to the southeast. • Plateau Area Numerous other small residential tracts have been developed in recent years to the ' south of the Plateau and west of the Valley area - this area is generally referred to as the Nicolas Valley community. Most of these properties support large lot residences(e.g.,half-acre to5acres). This area sits lower in elevation than the Plateau,by 40-60 feet,depending on location. However, it is roughly at the same elevation as the Valley area, although small hills and the general rolling terrain make it difficult to see the Roripaugh Ranch property from Nicolas Valley other than the south end of the Plateau. Approximately one dozen residences have direct views of the Roripaugh Ranch ' property from Nicolas Valley, and most of these are located at some distance from the site to the southwest, along Calle Girasol. • Calle Contento This neighborhood lies near the southeast corner of the Roripaugh Ranch property. The areas immediately south and east of the project site are considered to be part of the Temecula Wine Country. These areas also support large lot residences(e.g.,5 to 10 acres plus). Many of the ' lots south and some east of the site are presently vacant. Only two residences to the south are elevated enough and are located in such a way as to have views onto the project site. In addition, about one dozen residences in the Calle Contento area appear to have views of the"Valley"portion ' of the site. These homes are slightly higher than the project site,although their views are limited to a gap in the hills along the eastern portion of the site provided by Long Valley Wash. In total,about 25-30 residences have views onto the project site. The areas south of the site are slightly elevated and views from ground level are somewhat limited due to the rolling terrain. Figure 3.1-1 shows existing land uses in the area of the project site as seen in an aerial photograph. b) Planned Land Uses ' The northwestern portion of the site is bordered by Murrieta Hot Springs Road and the Rancho Bella Vista Specific Plan to the north. The future extension of Butterfield Stage Road passes through the middle of the Roripaugh Ranch site,roughly separating the portion of the site that is within the City of Temecula(called the "Plateau")and the largereastemportion,called the "Valley"area. The Rancho Bella Vista project is located immediately north of the Plateau-itproposes 1,998 residential units on 798 acres(gross density 2.50du/acre). An E1R for the Rancho Bella Vista project was completed in September of 1996(SCH#95112065)through ' the County of Riverside. RORIPAUGH RANCH SPECIFIC PLAN 2NO REVISED DRAFT FIR-APRIL 1,2002 3-3 i r _, 105;NZ 4 IOR Jolmso CH i , dLk pie 14 At ir va 7 T `.t• _ � � _ I '� t 'n may. J ,,�,;� oy a L d E e +/rW�r L n ���.}}•��., . . o ' 3.1 LAND USE AND PLANNING ' The Johnson Ranch property,adjacent to the northeast portion of the site,once had a mixed use Specific Plan approved by the County, but is now planned for mainly open space through the County's AD 161 Sub- Regional Habitat Conservation Plan. An EIR for a previous development project on the Johnson Ranch project was approved by the County in 1999, but the owners subsequently transferred most of the land designated for open space in the south and southeast portions of the site to the University of California at Riverside (UCR) to manage its open space resources. There is no indication at present what, if any, developed uses might be placed on the portions of the Johnson Ranch not designated for open space. ' c) General Plan Approximately 170.7 acres of the site are currently within Temecula city limits,while the remaining 634 acres are within the City's Sphere ofInfluence onunincorporated land within the County ofRiverside. The City's Land Use Element(LUE) identifies the entire project site as having a Specific Plan Area Overlay, and is listed as Roripaugh 800, Future Specific Plan Area (Temecula 1993). However, the current LUE map identifies several specific land use categories on the project site,including numerous larger areas of Low(L) ' intensity(0.5-2.0 units/acre)and a few smallerareasofHillside(RH)intensity(0-0.1units/acre)residential uses. Figure 3.1-2 shows the location of these LUE land use designations on the project site. It should be noted that an alternative land use scenario of developing land uses on the Roripaugh Ranch site of the type and intensity identified in the Existing General Plan is provided in Section 7.0,Alternatives to the Proposed Project (called "No Project- General Plan"). Key objectives identified in the Land Use Element of the General Plan for the Roripaugh Ranch Specific Plan include the following: 1)develop the site as a master-planned residential community;2)provide a variety of housing types with a maximum density of three (3) residential units per gross acre (3.0 DU/Ac); 3) use landform or contour grading to minimize landform changes;and 4)protect sensitive natural resources. Other elements of the General Plan also contain policies and goals that have a direct relationship to the land use plan. A complete discussion of General Plan consistency is provided in Section 4.0 of this document. The above-described items 1 and 2 are addressed in detail in this section. Item 3 is addressed in Section 3.3 on Earth Resources (grading), while item 4 is discussed in Section 3.7 on Biological Resources. 0 It should also be noted that the Nicolas Valley area is subject to a Special Study Overlay in the General Plan (Figure 2-6 in the 1993 General Plan). In 1995,the City prepared this study to identify the following: 1)how services will be provided; 2)how to minimize impacts on surrounding properties; 3)provide a transition between rural and suburban uses;4)be sensitive to topography and visual impacts;and 5)preserve biological habitat and open space resources. During the public meetings and hearings,the residents requested that the area remain rural with minimal urban infrastructure. The City Council concurred with their request. 0 0 0 0 RORIPAUGH RANCH SPECIFIC PLAN a2NO REVISED DRAFT EIR-APRIL 1,2002 3-5 ' ASHBYUSA,LLC FIGURE 3.1-2 �J g ElW W ; z ' cn -0111 a ' J //cu HR' 76 L HR L OS L OS I Des I I L ' VL L D C��GOv L L L ' VL OS L — HR - - CITY LAND USE DESIGNATIONS HR HILLSIDE 0.0-0.1 UNITS/ACRE VL VERY LOW 0.2-0.4 UNITS/ACRE L LOW 0.5-2.0 UNITS/ACRE OS OPEN SPACE � The Keith Keith Companieele#/c N O TT O S L A C EE Roripaugll Ranch 0 i - - 3.1 LAND USE AND PLANNING ' d) Zoning ' The land within the City of Temecula in the Plateau area is zoned"Specific Plan"while the land in the City south of the Plateau is zoned for rural residential uses. The Valley area within County jurisdiction is zoned for open space and low density residential uses. A Specific Plan is a land use and legal regulatory document, ' adopted by City Resolution and Ordinance,as outlined in Article 8 of the California Government Code(CGC Section 65450 et seq.). Upon adoption,the Roripaugh Ranch Specific Plan would become the"zoning"code regulating all development on the project site(Temecula 1993). Figure 3.1-3 indicates the existing zoning. The Nicolas Valley and Calle Girasol neighborhoods in the City south of the Plateau are zoned for very low and low medium density residential uses,while the County areas south and east of the Valley area are zoned for rural residential and agricultural uses. ' e) Regional Plans ' The City ofTemeculaand surrounding areas are within thejurisdiction of anumberof regional agencies,and are subject to applicable portions of their respective regional plans. These include but are not limited to: • Western Riverside Council of Governments (WRCOG); • Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO); ' French Valley Airport Comprehensive Land Use Plan (Airport Land Use Commission or ALUC) ' Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG); • South Coast Air Quality Management District(SCAQMD); and • California Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB), San Diego District. These regional plans influence such environmental factors as traffic,air quality,water quality,and(to some degree)growth(e.g., SCAG's Regional Comprehensive Plan). The degree to which the proposed project affects,and is affected by,these plans is addressed under each separate environmental issue in Section 3.0 of this report(i.e.,traffic,air quality,etc.). The Western Riverside Council of Governments(WRCOG)and the County's Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC) sent correspondence to the City in response to the O Notice of Preparation for this EIR. Specific responses,or references to other sections that provide responses, to their comments are provided in Section 4.0 of this document. a3.1.2 Criteria for Determining Significance The City has not established local CEQA significance thresholds,however,potentially significant land use D impacts may result if a project:a)conflicts with the general plan designation of zoning; b)conflicts with applicable environmental plans or policies adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over the project;c)is not compatible with existing land uses in the vicinity;d)addresses agricultural resources(see Section 3.2);ore) 0 disrupts or divides the physical arrangement of an established community (CEQA Guidelines, Appendix 1). RORIPALIGH RANCH SPECIFIC PLAN 2" REVISED DRAFT EIR-APRIL 1,2002 3-7 ASHBY USA,LLC FIGURE 3.1-3 'E 01 N RC !fBP PF ! OS-R LAKE SK NNER RC Cl) BP L [LLjLLLLj It X B CH MH 1y / LU X M L Ir A PF CH P1'8'4 LLA R CH B /CH JOHNSCIN NCM UC EA CH i- (�j) COUNTY At OF RIVERSIDE CG ........... . ............. ... ......... ......................................................................................................................... ..................................... .. ........— . .......... ... ........................................ =.............. ...............=...... ............................ ............... .............. RANCH� ......... ......... ................. ..(vacant). ............... ............ .............. ................ VL........ x .................................. .-Fvv:*�M ....................................... "'XX >/ 54� VIL LM CITY COUNTY SOUTHWEST AREA PLAN DESIGNATION — CITY LIMITS RR Rum[Residential(<0.2 du/ac) V L Very Low Residential(0.4-2.0 dulac) A Agriculture LM Low Medium Residential(L2-14dLdac) CH Conservation Habitat BP Business Park SP Specific Plan(Rancho Bella Vista) PF Public Facilities VL Very Low Density(0.4-2.0 dtdac) SP Specific Plan(Rodpaugh Ranch Panhandle) L Low Density(2.0-5.0 dulac) OS Open Space M Medium Density(5.0-8.0 du/ac) BP Business Park PROJECT SITE CC Community Center OS-R Open Space-Recreation RC Retail Commercial Th. Keith C.mp.ni..J.MC 'paug] Ranch 1 ' 3.1 LAND USE AND PLANNING 3.1.3 Level of Impact before Mitigation ' a) Proposed Uses The following sections discuss and evaluate potential conflicts between land uses proposed in the project and ' existing land uses in surrounding areas. For additional analysis,visual representations and topographic cross sections are provided in Section 3.13, Aesthetics. ' "Plateau"Area Planning Areas 1 through 4 are proposed for residential uses at approximately 5.0 units per acre with lot sizes of 5,000 square feet. The Nicolas Valley area, the Plateau area, is comprised of a wide range of large lot residences,ranging from half an acre to over 5 acres. The lot sizes proposed in the Plateau area are therefore not consistent with existing residential development in the Nicolas Valley. However, there are some factors that reduce this potential impact. The Plateau is 40-60 feet higher in elevation than Nicolas Valley,and the closest residential unit in the valley is several hundred feet south of the Plateau boundary. In addition,Planning Area 7 provides a mixture of natural and landscaped open space to help buffer the proposed homes from the valley, so that only the upper portion of the first row of homes proposed in the Plateau would be visible from the valley. However, the new homes would appear much closer together (i.e., they are more dense) than the existing homes in Nicolas Valley. The elevation difference,the design guidelines of the Specific Plan,its proposed setbacks and landscaped buffer,all tend to make these two uses relatively compatible. The General Plan designates Nicolas Valley as a Special Study Zone,and the residents that participated in the Special Study conducted for this area indicated they wanted it to remain rural with little improvements. However,the project proponent met with Nicolas Valley residents numerous times since the revised project was proposed,and has established a 175-foot visual buffer zone from the property line to the southem-most units. Any units within this buffer area that are visible from homes along the north side of Nicolas Road will either have enhanced landscaping or increased rear yard building setback. This will assure that units in the Plateau area will have limited visibility from the Nicolas ' Valley area. With these changes, land use impacts of the Plateau area on Nicolas Valley are no longer significant. ' This area includes a private recreation facility (PlanningArea 5)plus the neighborhood park(Planning Area 6),which will help buffer the Nicolas Valley from the neighborhood commercial uses in Planning Area 11. North of Murrieta Hot Springs Road,proposed uses are low density residential and open space,which does not conflict with existing uses since the land to the north and northeast is vacant, nor will it conflict with planned open space on the Johnson Ranch and Rancho Bella Vista property. This area also includes Planning Areas 1B, 7A, 7B, 7C, 8, 9A, and 9B designated as open space. ' "Central'Area This area comprises Planning Areas 10, 11, 12,33A,and 33B which provides a mixture of low and medium density residential and commercial uses. Planning Area 12 was changed from apartments ' to medium density residential in a clustered courtyard configuration. In addition,Planning Area 33A and 33B were changed from townhomes to low density residential(approx. 1-acre lots). These changes now appear to provide an adequate visual/spatial separation and transition between the rural density Nicolas Valley and ' the higher density uses in the central portion of the project. The proposed uses would be in conflict with the Nicolas Valley Special Study if the project does not provide necessary infrastructure to support it. However, the land use impacts of the this central portion of the project on the Nicolas Valley are not significant. RORIPAUGH RANCH SPECIFIC PLAN ' 2 N REVISED DRAFT EIR-APRIL 7,2002 3-9 ' 3.1 LAND USE AND PLANNING ' "Valley"Area-Northern/Central Portions Planning Areas I4, 15,23,and 31 propose medium density residential units in a clustered courtyard configuration,which allows up to 20 percent attached(duplex only) ' units. Planning Areas 22 and 24 provide all detached medium density housing. These areas are considerably more dense(i.e.,smaller lots)than nearby development in the Nicolas Valley to the west,off of Calle Girasol. However,these uses would be separated from existing uses by Butterfield Stage Road,Planning Areas 28 ' and 27,which are proposed for a middle school and community park,and,to some degree,by the Long Valley Wash channel which is proposed tobe expanded and improved. Conversely,Planning Areas 16 through 18 provide housing at low medium densities. This area also includes Long Valley Wash(Planning Areas 25 and 26),a19.8-acre community park(Planning Area 27),a 20-acre middle school site(Planning Area 28), a 12- acre elementary school site(Planning Area 29),and a 4-acre private recreation facility(Planning Area 30). These uses will produce an indirect land use impact,but there is an adequate buffer of lower density land uses separating this area from surrounding areas with larger lots. Therefore,this area will not have significant land use impacts. For additional analysis related to views, see Section 3.13 on Aesthetics. "Valley" Area- Southern Portion Planning Areas 20 and 21 are proposed for Low density residential uses having a minimum lot size of 20,000 square feet(half an acre)next to South Loop Road,with a buffer of one-acre lots along the south property boundary. Units in these Planning Areas will have minimal front ' yard setbacks to provide the greatest buffer for properties to the south. A 30-foot fuel modification zone with a 15-foot wide multi-use trail will be constructed along the east property line of Planning Area 19 and the south property line of Planning Areas 19,20,21,and 32(fire station). While the proposed lot sizes are smaller ' than the existing adjacent lots, which range from 2.5 to over 5 acres, the project applicant has met with residents numerous times to workout this lot layout so it will be acceptable to the neighbors. It should also be noted that the existing lots are 20-30 feet higher in elevation than the proposed lots,and that many of the ' lots along the southern boundary of the Roripaugh Ranch property are currently vacant. Atpresent,only two residences have a direct view of the project site due to the presence of small"notches"in the rolling hills that otherwise form the southern border of the project site. Other than these 2 houses,the rest of the properties offsite to the south will not have a direct view of the"Valley" area of the site,except for the upper portions of Planning Areas 14 and 15 up to the central east-west ridge north of those Planning Areas. The project will create a buffer of one-acre lots along the south property boundary,with half-acre and smaller lots moving away from the boundary. It should also be noted that a new fire station site is proposed in this area(Planning Area 32)which may cause some minor,temporary noise impacts on the residential uses to the south when station equipment and personnel are responding to calls.With these changes incorporated into the land plan, the project will not have significant land use impact on surrounding uses in this area. The keeping of horses will be allowed in the I-acre lots in Planning Areas 20 and 21. This should not create any significant land use impacts. "Valley" Area - Eastern Portion (Calle Contento Area) Existing development off Calle Contento consists of large, rural style lots (up to 10-acre plus lots). The southeastern portions of the Specific Plan (Planning Area 19 and the eastern portion of Planning Area 20)are proposed to have minimum lot sizes of 20,000 square feet(half an acre). Units in these Planning Areas will also have minimal front yard setbacks to provide the greatest buffer for properties to the east. A 30-foot fuel modification zone with a 15-foot wide multi-use trail will be constructed along the east and south property lines in Planning Areas 19,20,21,and 32(fire station). The project will create a buffer of one-acre lots along the property boundary with smaller lots away from the boundary. While the lots in the eastern portion of the Planning Area will be the largest ones in the Planning Area, they will be smaller than existing adjacent lots in the Calle Contento area. In RORIPAUGH RANCH SPECIFIC PLAN ' 2ND REVISED DRAFT ESR-APRIL 1,2002 3-10 1 ' 3.1 LAND USE AND PLANNING ' addition,the rolling hills along the east and south sides of the project site will only partially shield views of new units from existing units. Lots in Planning Areas 16 and 17,just west of Planning Area 19,will range from ' 6,000 to 7,200-square foot lots,with lot sizes increasing as one moves toward the half-acre and one-acre lots proposed in Planning Area 19. Because of these changes and the creation of a transitional buffer next to lots in the Calle Contento area,land use impacts in this area will not be significant. In addition,the keeping of ' horses will be allowed in the I-acre lots in Planning Area 19 which should notcreate any significant land use impacts. ' Summary The proposed urban uses of the Roripaugh Ranch project will have somewhat indirect but potentially significant land use impacts on surrounding uses,primarily related to aesthetics (i.e.,views)and proposed lot sizes(i.e., land use). However,the creation of a transitional buffer of lots, with one-acre lots adjacent to the property boundary,have reduced potentially significant land use impacts to less than significant levels. ' b) Habitat Areas The open space lots proposed as part of the biological habitat for the AD 161 Sub-Regional Habitat ' Conservation Plan(Planning Areas 8-10)is consistent with the recently approved open spacelhabitat areas of the Johnson Ranch project. The proposed housing and related uses in the-Plateau portion of the project are generally consistent with the proposed uses of the Rancho Bella Vista project (i.e., moderate density ' housing) adjacent to the northwestern portion of the Plateau area. c) General Plan ' The City's General Plan(Chapter 2, Section II.D) indicates it is the City's desire to"annex many of these proposed developments(Specific Plans)prior to or concurrent with project approvals, in order to exercise control over the use,quality and design of development,and the public facilities and amenities provided" (Temecula 1993). For these reasons, the proposed Specific Plan is consistent with the land use goals and policies of the City General Plan. ' The General Plan Land Use Element(LUE)identifies the project site as the Roripaugh 800 Specific Plan, and establishes an overall density of 3 units per acre. The present Roripaugh Ranch Specific Plan proposes ' a gross density of 2.56 which is 15 percent lower than the allowable density of 3 units per acre. The proposed project is therefore consistent with the General Plan. In addition,the current LUE map shows various areas of Hillside(RE)and Low(L)intensity residential uses on the site, along with open space designations along the two major drainages onsite. The location and intensities of proposed uses generally differ with those identified in the LUE, therefore, a General Plan ' Amendment(GPA)will be required to make the proposed intensities and boundaries of land uses consistent with the Land Use Element. However,the proposed project is consistent with the goals and density limit of the General Plan for this property,so this inconsistency is minor and is not considered a significant land use ' impact. RORIPAUGH RANCH SPECIFIC PLAN ' 2ND REVISED DRAFT EIR-APRIL 1,2002 3-11 ' 3.1 LAND USE AND PLANNING d) Zoning ' The proposed Specific Plan is consistent with the current City zoning on the Plateau portion of the site (Specific Plan). e) Regional Plans The eastem three-quarters of the project site(634 acres)is presently unincorporated and under the jurisdiction ' of Riverside County. The western 170.7 acres is within the City of Temecula. As proposed,the project is consistent with applicable municipal plans and does not exceed any regional significance thresholds. However, the project will require annexation of the unincorporated portion of the site into the City of ' Temecula to be consistent with regional jurisdictional plans. For additional analysis relative to regional plans and thresholds,see Section 3.4 on Water Resources,Section 3.5 on Transportation and Circulation,Section 3.6 on Air Quality, and Section 3.7 on Biological Resources. Theprevious land useplan was not consistent with theFrench Valley Airport Comprehensive Land UsePlan (CLUP)in that they proposed a neighborhood park and elementary school site within the Plateau area,which ' is within the 2-mile planning limit of the CLUP. The Airport Land Use Commission(ALUC)discourages local agencies from allowing these types of land uses within the 2-mile zone. Therefore, this impact was considered potentially significant in the previous DEIR,even if project residents are informed that they are ' under an aircraft flight zone and the heights of structures are restricted to minimize potential accidents with low-flying aircraft,since these will not eliminate the underlying inconsistency with the CLUP. However, subsequent discussions with the City and School District led to a decision to move both the elementary school ' site and the neighborhood park out of the Plateau area. Therefore,the current project is now consistent with the CLUP as long as development is consistent with the airport's height limits. ' I) Comments on Previous DEIRs Comment letters on the original DEIR were received in 1999 from local residents during the public comment ' period. Most of the letters complimented the developer for working with the residents to address their concerns regarding Calle Contento,and land use compatibility along the eastern and southern margins of the "Valley"portion of the project,and the southern margin of the Plateau portion of the project. One lengthy letter from Mr. A. Pratt raised a number of issues including negative impacts of growth such as traffic and air pollution. Since the time this letter was submitted,the project Traffic Impact Assessment(TIA)revised to reflect the current project. Even with mitigation,the project will still produce significant air quality impacts ' according to criteria established by the South Coast Air Quality Management District. Many if not all of the comments in this letter have been addressed by the current plan and 2nd Revised DEIR. ' Comments were also received from local residents in July of 2001 on the revised plan and the second EIR. Despite a significant reduction in the number of units,local residents felt the location and sizes of lots and the location of multi-family housing was not compatible with the rural character of the area. After numerous meetings with City staff and local residents,the project applicant developed the current land plan to provide the largest lots around the east,south,and Southwestern boundaries of the site to provide a transition between or buffer from neighboring uses. By making these changes,the current land plan no longer creates significant ' land use impacts due to incompatibility with surrounding uses. RORIPAUGH RANCH SPECIFIC PLAN 2x°REVISED DRAFT EIR-APRIL 1,2002 3-12 ' 3.1 LAND USE AND PLANNING ' The County's Airport Land Use Commission commented on July 12,2001 on the previous DEIR that it did ' not comply with the French Valley Airport Comprehensive Land Use Plan(CLUP)in that homes,a school, and a park site were proposed within 2 miles of the airport. The current land plan of the project moved the school and park sites out of the airport influence area,and all residential uses will have avigation easements ' prior to occupancy, so the current plan is consistent with the CLUP g) Offsite Improvements The various offsite improvements (e.g., water, sewer, and drainage lines,road improvements)have been planned by their respective agencies. For example,the City Circulation Element of the General Plan shows ' the locations and widths of roads that will serve the Roripaugh Ranch site. However,the proposed project recommends several changes to the Circulation Element,including the widths of several roadways and making Calle Contento a cul-de-sac with only emergency access. The City and County have planned these roadways ' to support the various land uses located along them. There should be no significant land use impacts related to completing the various offsite improvements as part of the Roripaugh Ranch project. ' 3.1.4 Standard Conditions and Uniform Codes Significant land use impacts could occur if development were lobe built in ways contrary to that approved ' by the City. The City's development review and permitting processes help assure that development occurs as proposed and approved by the City, and that it meets applicable City guidelines. ' Compliance with applicable uniform codes assures thatbuilding of similar type(e.g.,adjacenthomes)are built to similar standards that otherwise might have a direct impact on other land uses,such as unsafe utility lines, homes that do not meet established safety standards,etc. ' Avigation easements are typically required for homes,businesses,and institutional uses that are constructed within airport land use zones, such as in the Plateau area (west of the MWD pipeline property). t3.1.5 Project Design Features ' The applicant has worked with City staff and local residents for the past few months to revise the land use plan and help minimize potential land use conflicts with surrounding areas. For example,the largest lots(ie., I-acre and half-acre)are proposed along the east and south boundaries of the "Valley" area, adjacent to ' existing low density development. The Specific Plan has changed the type and lowered the density of uses east of Nicolas Valley to help buffer them from existing residences in the Nicolas Valley. It creates a 175-foot wide buffer zone that requires additional landscaping and/or setbacks for units along the south side of the Plateau area that are also visible from homes along the north side of Nicolas Road (estimated to be 6 homes). ' The project will provide a mixture of housing types and upscale amenities into this area which will be viewed as beneficial(e.g.,parks and schools). The proposed Specific Plan will incorporate design features which RORIPAUGH RANCH SPECIFIC PLAN 2ND REVISED DRAFT EIR-APRIL 1,2002 3-13 1 ' 3.1 LAND USE AND PLANNING ' will create a distinctive "look" to the property and act as an "entry statement" for the City for travelers southbound on Butterfield Stage Road. ' Related Approvals Concurrent with approval of the Specific Plan,the developer is processing a General Plan Amendment to make the Roripaugh Ranch Specific Plan consistent with the Land Use Element. As ' part of the proposed project,the unincorporated portion of the site(634 acres)will be annexed into the City of Temecula according to the County's Local Agency Formation Commission(LAFCO)requirements. The project also small neighborhood commercial center which will benefit the project as well as area residents, ' provide local employment opportunities,keep more vehicle trips within the project,and increase the City's tax base. ' Unit Transfers As the project actually develops,it is possible that some Planning Areas will have slightly fewer units as it is not always possible to achieve 100 percent of conceptual design densities. The Specific Plan therefore states that some units can be transferred between Planning Areas,provided that the density ' of the receiving Planning Area does not exceed the established density range for that land use category(e.g., Low,Low Medium,etc.). No transfer of units will be allowed into Planning Areas 10, 19,20,21,33A,and 33B. In addition,one or both of the proposed school sites(Planning Areas 28 and 29)may be converted to ' residential uses if they are not acquired by the TVUSD. Density in excess of 25 percent may only be transferred into a converted school site if: 1) a Specific Plan Amendment is approved by the City; 2) the school district states in writing it no longer needs the site(s);and 3)the total number of units in the project ' does not exceed 2,058. Regardless of any unit transfers,including potential conversion of the school sites,the overall number of units proposed in the Roripaugh Ranch project (2,058) would be a"cap" that would not be exceeded. 3.1.6 Mitigation Measures ' The Specific Plan represents all feasible mitigation forpotential land use impacts related to incompatibility of uses,the General Plan,and zoning. The following measures are recommended to mitigate potential land use impacts of the proposed project relative to regional plans (i.e., the French Valley Airport): (1) Prior to approval of the Specific Plan,the developer shall transmit the Specific Plan to the County's ' Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC) for review and comment. Official comments will be transmitted to the City Planning Department prior to any decision-making action on the project. (2) Prior to recordation of any final map in Planning Areas 1-5,the developer will provide the County's Airport Land Use Commission(ALUC)with Avigation Easements for all the parcels in Planning Areas 1-5 and send a copy of that proof to the City Planning Department. ' (3) Prior to recordation of any final map in Planning Areas 1-5, the developer shall provide the City Planning Department with proof that avigation easements have been obtained for all the lots in ' Planning Areas 1-5. (4) Prior to recordation of any final maps in Planning Areas 1-5,the developer shall demonstrate to the tCity Planning Department that buyer information contains a statement regarding avigation easements. RORIPAUGH RANCH SPECIFIC PLAN ' 2ND REVISED DRAFT EIR-APRIL 1,2002 3-14 1 ' 3.1 LAND USE AND PLANNING ' This information shall be provided either in the White Report or supplementary information with an affidavit of disclosure provided by the developer. ' (5) Prior to recordation of any maps in Planning Areas 1-5, the developer shall demonstrate that proposed structures comply with the current height restrictions of the French Valley Airport and ' ALUC. (6) One or both of the proposed school sites can be converted to residential use provided that all the ' following are met: 1)approval of a Specific Plan Amendment is obtained from the City for conversion from Educational Designation to Low Medium Residential Designation;2)the school district has indicated in writing that they are no longer interested in using Planning Areas 28 or 29 as school sites; ' and 3) the total number of units for the entire project does not exceed 2,058 units. 3.1.7 Impact of Mitigation Measures ' No significant environmental impacts will occur with implementation of the proposed mitigation measures. t3.1.8 Summary of Impact after Mitigation With the standard conditions,uniform codes,project design features outlined in the Specific Plan,and the recommended mitigation measures implemented as proposed,the project will not have significant long-term impacts on local land use, and is consistent with General Plan policies regarding land use. 1 1 1 RORIPAUGH RANCH SPECIFIC PLAN ' 2 N REVISED DRAFT EIR-APRIL 1,2002 3-15 3.2 AGRICULTURE The following section analyzes the impacts of the proposed project on agricultural land and activities in the project area. ' 3.2.1 Environmental Setting ' Approximately 488 acres or60 percentof the projectsite ispresently used foragriculture,mainly dry farming of barley and alfalfa. The site was previously within the 810-acre Murrieta Hot Springs No.9 Agricultural Preserve, as shown on Figure 5-4 of the 1993 General Plan entitled Agricultural Resources. However, ' County records indicate it was withdrawn from preserve status in 1997 by the owner,Leo Roripaugh(a life long farmer)because"farming was simply no longer making enough money for us to live and pay our taxes, including the AD 161 assessment"(Leo Roripaugh,personal communication, 1999). County records show ' a that a Notice of Non-Renewal was filed with the County in 1987 to withdraw the property from preserve status,which requires a I0-year waiting period without incurring any tax penalties. Therefore,the project site can now be developed without any impacts to an existing agricultural preserve(M. Harrad,Riverside County, personal communication, September 2001). According to the U.S.Department of Agriculture's Soil Conservation Service(SCS),the site is underlain by ' 17 identifiable soil units, mainly Hanford and Ramona sand loam soils which have moderate to high permeability,slow to medium runoff,and moderate to high fertility. Because of these conditions,six of the 17 onsite soils are considered"prime"agricultural soils(SCS Classes 1-III)and are productive under both irrigated and non-irrigated conditions(SCS 1971). Figure 3.2-1 shows the location of prime agricultural soils on the Roripaugh Ranch. ' Figure 5-4 of the City's General Plan also identifies the Roripaugh Ranch site as being"Farmland of Local Importance"as shown in Figure 3.2-2. Although the General Plan text does not explain this classification, prime agricultural soils do underlie approximately 210 acres of the site. This represents approximately 26 percent of the entire site,and about 43 percent of the acreage presently under cultivation on the Roripaugh Ranch(488 acres). These prime soils are concentrated along Santa Gertrudis Creek and Long Valley Wash in the unincorporated (eastern)portion of the site. ' It should also be noted that Goal 7 of the City General Plan is"Protection of prime agricultural land from premature conversion to urbanized uses" (Temecula 1993). It has the following policies: ' 7.1 "Encourage the continued production of prime agricultural soils, groves, and other agricultural activities in the Study Area and adjacent wine country." ' 7.2 "Coordinate as necessary with Riverside County in the preparation of a County Agricultural Element." ' 7.3 "Discourage urban development in agricultural areas outside the Village Centers or the existing built- up areas of the City." RORIPAUGH RANCH SPECIFIC PLAN ' 2N0 REVISED DRAFT EIR-APRIL 1,2002 3-16 m r KI oz 1l 2 2 - - l/ k/ W M1 p 1 ` u � it II It s 0 L a , � n m 11 T L PRIME AGRICULTURAL SOILS LEGEND N AtC2 Arlin ton and Greenfield fine sandy loams,2 to 8 r y 9 dy percent slopes eroded AtD2 Arlington and Greenfield fine sandy foams,8 to 15 percent slopes,eroded. \ _ GyC2 Greenfield sandy loam,2 to 8 percent slopes eroded. HcA Hanford coarse sandy loam,0 to 2 percent slopes. C HCC Handford coarse sandy loam,2 to 8 percent slopes. (� RaA Ramona sandy loam,0 to 2 percent slopes. HcC �+ RaB2 Ramona sandy loam,2 to 5 percent slopes,eroded. ��� �� �� r RaC2 Ramona sandy loam,5 to 8 percent slopes,eroded. RaD2 Ramona sandy loam,8 to 15 percent slopes,eroded. For a list of all soils,see Table 33-3 Agricultural Soils RdOeC:YlertOat 9:M:9r AM eY T BMOER<1WO:NUtY].OaPdwp5p01-0ZEIRFlQt3-t.Qp I all 111 a . ^ / 5 v. 1 � S Y � T f� a G k M 3 I �.. jA e xr x 2 ' v � �"��� y,�S�'L a PAY � '� �r•�u: w � �� A 3.2 AGRICULTURE 1 Comments on Previous DEIRs A letter was received from the State Department of Conservation, Office of Governmental and Environmental Relations dated July 10,200lon the second DEIR. This letterrequested more information on the agricultural preserve status of the Roripaugh property and indicated that loss of this amount of prime ' agricultural land was a regionally significant impact. The 2nd Revised DER does conclude that impacts to agriculture are significant. ' 3.2.2 Criteria for Determining Significance The City has not establ fished local CEQA significance thresholds,however,potentially significant impacts to ' agriculture, as addressed relative to land use, may result if a project "affects agricultural resources or operations" (item d) (CEQA Guidelines, Appendix I). The determination of significance for this issue, including the classification and conservation and of prime farmlands and agricultural soils, is under the jurisdiction of the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Soil Conservation Service(SCS). The SCS considers any loss of"prime"soils(i.e.,SCS Class 1-ID)robe a potentially significant environmental impact which must be addressed during the CEQA process. 3.2.3 Level of Impact before Mitigation Implementation of the proposed project will convert(i.e.,permanently remove)approximately 500 acres of land being dry farmed to suburban land uses. Of this area, approximately 210 acres are considered prime agricultural soils. According to CEQA criteria recommended by the U.S.Soil Conservation Service,this is considered an adverse impact on a regional and state level. For more information on this issue,see Section 6.0 on Cumulative Impacts. The Natural Resources Conservation Service(formerly the Soil Conservation Service)historically considers this type of loss to be an adverse environmental impact on a regional and state level. This impact could be reduced by preserving portions of the dry-fanned land. However,somejurisdictions like Riverside County ' consider the conversion of farmland near urbanizing areas an unfortunate but unavoidable result of continued growth. Otherjurisdictions,like Temecula,establish General Plan policies that somehow slow or control the conversion or loss of farmland. Because the land use issues surrounding agriculture are so complex,most ' jurisdictions are not successful in preserving agricultural land once suburban uses have been constructed adjacent to fanning uses. It should be noted that,when AD 161 was formed,the Roripaugh Ranch property was assessed at the higher suburban-type development rate, rather than at the lower agricultural rate. This significantly raised the owner's property taxes which has caused farming to become no longer financially feasible on this site. A ' portion of the Roripaugh site was once in the Murrieta No. 9 Agricultural Preserve. According to County records,a Notice of Non-Renewal was filed for this property in 1987,so the agricultural preserve status no longer applied to the property as of 1997(D.Harad,Riverside County,personal communication,September 2001). In addition,none of the title reports on the properties that make up the Roripaugh Ranch show any restrictions regarding agricultural preserves. RORIPAUGH RANCH SPECIFIC PLAN 2N"REVISED DRAFT EIR-APRIL 1,2002 3-19 1 3.2 AGRICULTURE ' Another key issue in determining the local significance of this impact is the timing of conversion of the land from agricultural use to suburban development. The City's General Plan policy discourages the premature conversion of agricultural land,however,the General Plan Land Use Element designates this property as a Specific Plan with suburban residential uses. Farming is no longer economically viable,and considerable semi-annual assessments required by AD-161 support development of the property. ' The DEIR for the original project indicated that removal of the site's agricultural land would represent a potentially significant impact which could Rothe effectively reduced to less than significant levels through any mitigation available at the local level. It therefore concluded that agricultural impacts were not significant. However,the City's General Plan(GP)designates a portion of the Roripaugh property as"farmland of local importance"which originated in the County's 1988 General Plan. The main areas of the rolling terrain of the Plateau and the immediate terraces along Santa Gertrudis Creek and Long Valley Wash. Unfortunately,the General Plan text says nothing about existing agricultural resources orhow to deal with agricultural land. The GP contains I goal(#7)and 3 policies related to agriculture. The goal is to"protect prime agricultural land ' from premature conversion to urbanized uses." The focus of this goal is to encourage the protection of agricultural land from premature conversion. With Johnson Ranch remaining as open space,an argument could be made that the"Valley"portion of the Roripaugh site should remain in agricultural use. However, the majority of the land shown as locally important farmland in the GP(Figure 5-4)is within and along the 2 natural onsite drainage channels and most of the land along Santa Gertrudis will be preserved as open space. A distinction should also be made between prime agricultural soils and prime agricultural land. The determination of prime soils is relatively easy,in this case some of the soils are on the SCS list,however,the City's General Plan goal refers to prime agricultural land which would indicate land that has been in active ' agricultural production for many years. It may also be important to differentiate between passive dryland farming and more active irrigated farming, such as row crops or(in the case of Temecula) vineyards. It appears that the policies and even the goal were targeted at the wineries, although clearly the language of policy 7.1 refers to"other agricultural activities in the Study Area and adjacent wine country"(emphasis added). However,the entire argument could change if one were to consider the project site being used for vineyards similar to those of the nearby Temecula Winery area to the southeast. ItA related issue is the discussion following Goal 7 in the General Plan. The intent of the General Plan policy on agriculture is to limit impacts of growth on areas determined to be appropriate for long-term agricultural l' use. This seems to point to more specialized or intense farming activities,such as those of the wine country, I` rather than opportunistic dryland farming of the ubiquitous rolling hills. Without less expensive agricultural water,like the water available in the state's Central Valley,irrigated farming other than vineyards in the wine ll� country or avocados on the plateau has apparently not been economically feasible in this area. Il Finally,Policy 7.3 directs the City to"discourage urban development in agricultural areas"but it does not prohibit such uses. The decision about when to allow conversion should be at the request of the dryland farmers,at a point when it becomes no longer economically feasible to continue farming. No other land use is required to be maintained even if it is not financially viable. One can argue that a farmer could simply sell the land to another farmer if they went out of business,like a supermarket closing and another taking its place. _a However, the site represents fallow land with a value far below that of any type of developed land. When roads are being improved in the immediate area, such as Butterfield Stage Road and Nicolas Road, and utilitiesbecome readily available,such as the waterfines installed in Nicolas Road and Murrieta Hot Springs RORIPAUGH RANCH SPECIFIC PLAN -� 2NO REVISED DRAFT EIR-APRIL 1,2002 3-20 3.2 AGRICULTURE Road, land values and thus property taxes continue to rise in the area, adding to the already high burden created by AD 161. When these events occur,and a farmer says,"I can no longer afford to farm,"can the City say,"We think you should keep your land in agriculture." This kind of situation represents a taking of 1 private land and thus is subject to compensation. For these reasons,the loss of locally important farmland and prime agricultural soils is considered a significant ' impact, but one that cannot be effectively mitigated at the local level. 3.2.4 Standard Conditions and Uniform Codes rThe City does not have any standard conditions,nor are there any uniform codes,that protect agricultural areas from traditional urban development. ' 3.2.5 Project Design Features The property owner's estate has indicated that continued farming is no longer economically feasible due mainly to the high cost of AD 161, which will in any case eventually force the conversion of land to more urbanized uses. This loss cannot be effectively mitigated by any project design features since any ' development of the site would necessarily include the relatively flatareas thathave been historically fanned. Changes in projectphasing would only slow the conversion of agricultural land(and soils)to suburban use, but would not eliminate orreduce the long-term impact below a level of significance. The most developable portions of the site are the areas with prime agricultural soils,and the steeper upland areas are important as biological habitat for protected species. By comparison, Riverside County considers the conversion of ' farmland near urbanizing areas an unfortunate but unavoidable result of continued growth. However,the City of Temecula considers this loss to be a significant impact. Due to topographic and biological constraints,any development of the site,even at rural densities,would involve conversion of the portions of the site currently used for agriculture. Therefore,any development project would have significant impacts on agriculture and cannot be effectively mitigated. ' 3.2.6 Mitigation Measures Any project that proposes development on the previously farmed areas of the site would have significant impacts on agriculture. Therefore, there are no effective mitigation measures at the local level. 3.2.7 Impact of Mitigation Measures iNo mitigation measures related to agriculture are proposed, so no impacts are expected. RoHIPAUGH RANCH SPECIFIC PLAN 2NO REVISED DRAFT EIR-APRIL 1,2002 3-21 1 3.2 AGRICULTURE 1 ' 3.2.8 Summary of Impact after Mitigation Loss of locally important familand and prime agricultural soils cannot be effectively mitigated atthe local level ' if the project site is to develop. Therefore, this impact remains significant and a Statement of Overriding Consideration will be required. L 1 1 1 RORIPAUGH RANCH SPECIFIC PLAN ' 2ND REVISED DRAFT EIR-APRIL 1,2002 3-22 3.3 EARTH RESOURCES ' This section describes the regional and local geology,seismicity,hazards,soils,and soil erosion processes that affect the project site. In 1990,Geocon performed geotechnical studies on the subject property. Subsequent studies were also done by Leighton&Associates(L&A)in 2001 on both the Plateau and"Valley"portions of the site(L&A 2001 a and 2001 b). Appendix C of this document contains appropriate excerpts from these various geotechnical studies on the project site. The regional and local geology is first described,which is strongly influenced by many regional and local faults. 'Be existing seismic conditions are presented,along 1 with the relative risk from groundshaking and related seismic hazards. Finally,local soils,topography,and erosion are discussed. The general order of topics is from regional to local,and from greater depth(geology, faults) to surficial characteristics (soils, topography). 3.3.1 Environmental Setting a) Regional Geology and Faults ' The project area is situated in the Peninsular Ranges geomorphic province and its geology is strongly influenced by the presence of many earthquake faults. The region is characterized by northwest-southeast oriented mountains and valleys bounded by faults. The area is underlain by various igneous and sedimentary ' formations that comprise the Southern California batholith;these formations have been fractured and folded by repeated seismic activity. The project area is within the Perris Block which is bounded by the Elsinore Fault to the west,the San Jacinto Fault to the east and the San Gabriel Fault to the northwest. The locations of regional Faults are shown in Figure 3.3-1. All of Southern California,including the Temecula area,is one of the most seismically active regions in the world. Theareacontains many active and inactive faults that produce a considerable potential seismic risk for area residents. The largest and most active fault system in the state is the San Andreas,which is capable of producing earthquakes of magnitude 8.0 or greater,such as the great San Francisco earthquake of 1906. The San Andreas Fault Zone generally trends in a northwest-southeast direction and is located approximately 35 miles northeast of Temecula. Other major faults or fault-zones within 50 miles of Temecula include the Whittier-Elsinore(locally the WildomarFault),San Jacinto,San Gabriel,Newport-Inglewood,Sierra Madre- Santa Susanna-Cucamonga fault,and the Murrieta Hot Springs Faults. Table 3.3-1 summarizes regionally significant faults affecting the project area(DWA 1998). The State Geologist,under the auspices of the Alquist-Priolo Act,has identified the San Andreas as a special- studies zone, officially recognizing it as an "active" fault. The term active refers to a fault which has demonstrated surface displacement within the Holocene Epoch(within the last 11,000 years)while potentially active is defined as a fault with evidence of movement within the Pleistocene Epoch (11,000 years to 1.6 ' million years ago, late Quaternary). RCRIPAUGH RANCH SPECIFIC PLAN ' 2NO REVISED DRAFT EIR-APRIL 1,2002 3-23 rASHBYUS&LLC FIGURE 3.3-1 - p 0- CU C L � C i T0 �1 r �?.F::. E . \�0�� '• ® _'9'i SI SAN PV! � QJ m PyH�Y P ..dos. a� SAN.BERNARDINO 4h°y�4s °N F y RIVERSIDE FAUIT-�� PALM SPRINGS F< lot •� I 1 r 'EWPORr BEACH "Ors�R SITE 4G� WILDOMAR) FAULTd/ \ SAN ONOFRE 9��r r � � CEANSIDE MESA GRANDE�9 r � . 1 r The Keith Co mpaniee ITKC Roripaugh Ranch ' N 0 T T 0 5 C • l E 1 3.3 EARTH RESOURCES ' Table 3.3-1 Regional Faults Direction/ Potential Peak Horiz. Maximum Duration Distance to Richter(M) Acceleration Repeatable of Shaking Faults Fault Magnitude (gravities) Shaking(g) (seconds) San Andreas 34 miles 8.25 0.23 N/A 36 (south of northeast Garlock) San Jacinto 14 miles 7.7 0.32 0.21 26 northeast 1 Newport- 34 miles 6.5 0.07 N/A N/A Inglewood southwest ' Whittier- 3 miles 7.5 0.38 0.25 18 Elsinore southwest ' (W ildomar) Sierra Madre/ 50 miles 6.8 0.05 N/A N/A ' Cucamonga northwest Murrieta Hot Vicinity 6.0 0.65 0.42 18 Springs* 1 Source:DWA 1997 *Original Geocon report found trace evidence of faulting in the northwest comer of the Plateau, ' but subsequent studies did not reveal any faulting structures onsite(Geocon 1990). N/A= not applicable b) Local Geology and Faults iFigure 3.3-2 summarizes onsite geological conditions. Two main geologic formations are found beneath or on the project site: ' Pleistocene-aged Pauba Formation (Qps) This formation is present beneath much of the site and generally consists of silty fine to coarse sandstone interbedded with sandy siltstone and occasionally 1 claystone. It is deposited as alluvial fans and fluvial channels,which can result in the presence of sand lenses that have little to no cohesion. In general,this formation possesses satisfactory shear strength and low expansive characteristics in either an undisturbed condition or when properly compacted. However, ' this formation can experience significanterosion,especially when found in steep slopes(Geocon 1990). RORIPAUGH RANCH SPECIFIC PLAN ' 2nD REVISED DRAFT El-APRIL 1,2002 3-25 N Z C N P r. z y QIS O p o C m Q� I Ps °ps S QP s yps sA t0 Q K9 z i°e ov�el 2 3 Qps A IN, d.-Q 9 t 9 n Qal r� I lew",,c s � 5� 4A �1.�'F � e�, 9 K d � K d y \ r nWe w6°oun u.c is s QC -- 13 3 QR i 3 �� I K df Bg" n.ee,c o ; I A, l Q no Igo I e.."ic p QIS O Qal Qal Qps -- NAP '2 m ex oo a 17 338, 6 ns'.c T I tAI 1Y WB ,1 14 M �\ xp I VJ 33 Iiia ,.. UQc df x. LEGEND ` � °a1 0. m` O L29 NAC W Q Qudf UNDOCUMENTED FILL 2 31 .° ' Qp W Qal ALLUVIUM 0i QaII m xaoc ea% N �' • Qal/Oc UNDIFFERENTIATED ALLUVIUM AND COLLUVIUM Qal/ Qdf DEBRIS FLOW MATERIAL :oma CIS LANDSLIDE DEPOSITS 24 QIS aVQc Qt TERRACE DEPOSITS ?,2 z _01� 2e x.x c Cps PAUBA FORMATION aD We We 09 �-+ Kgd GRANODIORITE(BEDROCK FORMATION) Qps L s --- POSSIBLE FAULTING 21;; ssovn QIS , 32 zo•c 1,.6IG) Onsite Geologic Conditions ftB :YLO/2W28:62:28 AM BYTBMGE G :WW387.0=d.M5pOIL IRFIW.324 ' 3.3 EARTH RESOURCES ' Granodiorite Basement Rock (Kgd) and associated Metasedimentary Rock. These Cretaceous-age plutonic bedrock units are exposed in the northeast corner of the site,as well as in a borrow pit at the western end of the 'Plateau" area. These bedrock units consist of coarse-grained granodiorite with inclusions of Jurassic- to Triassic-age Metasediments, and narrow quartz-rich dikes have cut through both rock units. These units usually possess good shear strength and bearing characteristics (Geocon 1990). However, bedrock may be very shallow in some areas and could be encountered during excavation in the northwest corner of the Plateau(Planning Area 1)and in the northeast portion of the site(Planning Areas 13 and 17). The Geocon report also indicated that blasting might be necessary in some areas with shallow bedrock,or that boulders might be encountered in some non-bedrock areas (Geocon 1989). Both the Temecula and Riverside County General Plans identify the potentially active Agua Caliente Fault ' Zone approximately half a mile north and northeast of the project site on the Johnson Ranch property (Riverside 1988)(Temecula 1993)(DW A 1998). In addition,the potentially active Murrieta Hot Springs fault has been identified in the immediate area(Kennedy 1977). No Alquist-Priolo Fault Studies Zones are located on the project site. Previous geotechnical studies conducted in the area(Kennedy 1977)suggested that the Murrieta Hot Springs ' Fault may cross the southwest portion of the Rancho Bella Vista property (T&B 1996). In addition, the Geocon geotechnical report for the project site indicated some trace of fault activity in the western portion of the Plateau area,in Planning Areas 1 and 2(Geocon 1989). However,more recent studies conducted by ' Leighton&Associates(L&A)concluded that the Murrieta Hot Springs fault does not trend through the site in the location previously thought,and there is no other evidence to suggest that the fault is present elsewhere on the site (Geocon 1990)(L&A 2001). t In addition to the Plateau area,the Geocon investigations in 1989 and 1990 also found indications of faults or fault activity in the Cretaceous bedrock in the northeast portion of the site (Planning Areas 13 and 17). However, the faults did not appear to have offset the overlying Pauba Formation, so the Geocon report concluded that the fault structures were inactive (Geocon 1990). In addition, the two more recent geotechnical studies conducted by Leighton and Associates concluded that neither the Plateau nor the Valley portions of the site contained any evidence of onsite faulting (L&A 2001 a, 2001b). ' c) Seismic Effects ' An earthquake can cause a variety of hazards such as surface rupture, groundshaking, liquefaction, subsidence,differential settling,and seiches. The occurrence or severity of anyone of these effects depends ' on many factors including earthquake intensity,distance from epicenter,soils type,and moisture content of the soil: Surface Rupture Actual displacement or fracturing of the ground in either a lateral or vertical direction ' which typically occurs directly over a fault. Groundshaking The wave energy released during an earthquake will result in ground shaking with the ' intensity largely dependent on soil type,surface geology,and earthquake intensity. The peak horizontal ground acceleration expected in the project area is approximately 0.65 that could result from movement on the Murrieta Hot Springs Fault(DWA 1997). RORIPAUGH RANCH SPECIFIC PLAN 2"0 REVISED DRAFT EIR-APRIL 1,2002 3-27 ' 3.3 EARTH RESOURCES ' Liquefaction This occurs when seismically induced groundshaking causes water-laden soils without cohesion to form a quicksand-like soil condition below the ground surface. Structural damage may ensue as building foundations lose ground support. Liquefaction most often occurs in areas of shallow ' groundwater (i.e., less than 30 feet) underlying areas with loose, unconsolidated soils. The eastern Temecula area,including the project site,is generally considered to have a low to moderate potential for liquefaction(DWA 1998). Due to the absence of groundwater within 40 feet of the ground surface,and ' the presence of dense to very dense Pleistocene Age near-surface sedimentary bedrock, liquefaction is unlikely over most of the project site. However,the Safety Element of the Temecula General Plan and the Composite Environmental Hazards Map of the County's Comprehensive General Plan indicates an ' area near Long Valley Wash just east of the extension of Butterfield Stage Road to be considered a liquefaction hazard area(Temecula 1993) (Riverside 1988). ' Subsidence and Differential Settling As groundwater is withdrawn, areas of loose and soft soil materials could experience mass settlement from surface loading.Where there is a mixture of soil types with different compressibility,differential settling can occur. Shaking for any length of time could cause ' additional compression of the underlying soils,thus lowering the ground surface level. This is not usually considered a serious problem if adequate soil tests are made prior to construction and adequate building designs are employed. Seiches Seiches are standing waves or oscillations of contained water,such as in ponds and reservoirs, usually caused by earthquake shaking. With severe groundshaking,reservoirs might experienceseiching which could cause tank rupture during severe events. ' Earthquakes can also cause several indirect hazards such as landslides and rockfalls. Several areas in the southeastern portion of the site (Planning Areas 14, 15, 16, and 17), mainly within the steeper Pauba Formation, were mapped as containing suspected ancient landslides (Geocon 1990). However,the more recent studies by Leighton and Associates found no evidence of landslides (L&A 2001a, 2001b). ' The northeastern portion of the site(Planning Area 13)has a potential for rockfall due to its steep terrain and large boulder outcrops. Rockfalls can typically be eliminated through selected rock removal,pinning,grouting, ' and/or constructing protective fences and earth berms. Fortunately, this area is proposed to remain undisturbed as open space. d) Degree of Seismic Risk The project site,as well as the rest of Southern California,has a well recognized seismic risk factor that is ' directly related to geologic fault activity. Seismic damage potential depends on the proximity to active or potentially active fault zones and on the type of geologic structures. In relative terms, seismic damage is generally less intense in consolidated materials,such as bedrock,than in unconsolidated materials,such as t alluvium. It should be noted that the site is located within a Special Geologic Report Zone established by Riverside County Resolution No.94-125. In addition,both the Temecula and Riverside County General Plans indicate the project area is within Groundshaking Zone II (Riverside 1988)(Temecula 1993), which can experience moderate to strong groundshaking. Based upon studies conducted by The California Division of Mines and Geology (CDMG), the Western ' United States has been divided into four seismic risk zones. The California Building Code also assigns a code RORIPAUGH RANCH SPECIFIC PLAN 2NO REVISED DRAFT EIR-APRIL 1,2002 3-28 ' 3.3 EARTH RESOURCES which corresponds with those identified by the CDMG,as shown in Table 3.3-2,which are used to determine appropriate seismic design for structures engineered and constructed within those zones. All of California has been assigned to CDMG Zones 2 and 3, while the Temecula area has been assigned to Zone 2. The ' project site is therefore classified as Code 3 in the UBC. During a major local earthquake, the project site would be subject to considerable ground shaking,resulting in possible subsidence or differential settling. The portions of the site along the two major drainages(i.e.,Santa Gertrudi s Creek and Long Valley Wash)could be subject to liquefaction,especially if groundwater levels are within 25 feet of the surface during a major seismic event. Groundwater levels in the area fluctuate greatly but have not generally been observed at depths of less than 25 feet(DW A 1998)except adjacent to drainage channels immediately after storm flows ' (L.Roripaugh,personal communication, 1997). The project site would probably not be subject to surface rupture since no faults are located on the property (Geocon 1989). Table 3.3-2 Seismic Risk Zones* CDMG Zone Description UBC Code 0 No reasonable expectancy of earthquake damage I I Minor earthquake damage can be expected 2 2 Moderate earthquake damage can be expected 3 3 Major destructive earthquakes may occur 4 *CDMG=Califomia Division of Mines and Geology UBC=Uniform Building Code 1 The combination of unconsolidated soils and steep topography can result in the loss of onsite soils (i.e., erosion)by both water and wind. The following sections describe these onsite conditions. e) Soils The soils of the Temecula region are mainly in the Hanford-Tujunga-Greenfield Association which are found on short alluvial fans and on flood plains.They are excessively drained to well-drained and are formed in granitic alluvium washed from the uplands(SCS 1971). The project is predominantly underlain by 2 to 4 feet ' of alluvium in the lower drainage areas which is composed of loose,dry to slightly moist,silty sands,and sands. The remainder of the site is underlain by medium to very dense silts and sands derived from the Late Pleistocene Age Pauba Formation. These soils generally exhibit very low to low expansion potentials and moderate soil strengths. The Geocon study identified the following six types of soil materials on the project site (Geocon 1990): Undocumented Fill Soils These soils are generally of limited depth and extent and are associated with several unimproved roads,earthen embankments,small trash fills related to past agricultural uses,and within the Metropolitan Water District's easement for the San Diego Aqueduct located in Planning Areas RORIPAUGH RANCH SPECIFIC PLAN ' 2rv0 REVISED DRAFT EIR-APRIL 1,2002 3-29 3.3 EARTH RESOURCES 6,8,9,and 33. The Geocon report did not consider these materials suitable for support of additional fill ' and/or structural loading and recommended their removal and recompaction (Geocon 1990). Topsoil Both tilled and undisturbed topsoil layers are found onsite in varying thicknesses from I to 2 ' feet. The topsoils generally consist of silty,fine-to medium-grained sands. In the Plateau area,a layer of clay-rich,carbonate-cemented sands were found approximately 2 feet below the ground surface which could cause moderate excavation difficulties during mass grading (Geocon 1990). Alluvium The site contains various alluvial or stream-deposited materials consisting of loose,fine-to coarse-grained,silty sands. The alluvial materials within the northern and southern portions of the site are ' generally located within the low lying areas and drainages. Alluvium/Colluvium In some areas,alluvial soils have been inter-bedded with colluvium which consists ' of silty, fine- to coarse-grained sands with silt and clay inter-bedded of finer material. Debris Flows Several small debris flows are located in the Plateau portion of the property. These features occur primarily on north facing slopes with relatively steep gradients. It is anticipated that these materials consist of compressible topsoils and colluvium. These debris flows will require removal and ' recompaction in areas to receive additional fill and/or structural loading (Geocon 1990). Terrace Deposits Quaternary-aged terrace deposits,primarily silty sands,were found on the mesa top at the northeastern end of the site (Planning Area 17). ' The U.S.Soil Conservation Service(SCS)has mapped the location of 17 specific soil units on the project site. ' The SCS has also classified these soils by various physical and chemical properties. Figure 3.3-3 shows the location of onsite soils while Table 3.3-3 generally describes the characteristics of these soils. ' f) Topography/Erosion The project site comprises gently rolling hills and valleys with slopes ranging from almost flat in the valley floors to in-excess of 25 percent along the south side of Santa Gertrudis Creek. Elevations on the property ' range from approximately 1,175 feet above mean sea level(amsl)near the outlets of Santa Gertrudis Creek and Long Valley Wash,up to 1,425 feet amsl near the northeast portion of the site(north end of Planning Area 16). Figure 3.3-4 shows local elevations onsite. Erosion is the process by which the land surface is carried away through either wind or moving water: ' Water Erosion The climate,soils,and topography in the Temecula area create conditions conducive for water erosion. Lack of precipitation limits vegetation growth that would otherwise anchor soils with their root structures. Infrequent, hard storms can then erode soils and cause flooding. On the project site, ' surface runoff and erosion appear to be minimal,although onsite soils are considered to have slight to moderate potential for water erosion. Any runoff during periods of heavy rainfall flows toward the Santa Gertrudis Creek and Long Valley Wash channels. 1 RGRIPAUGH RANCH SPECIFIC PLAN ' 2ND REVISED DRAFT EIR-APRIL 1,2002 3-30 m -�.�- /7 ® s Ra02 RnE3 R 2 Ly C r y .AhCRsC m, "✓ �, LJ) RUF ' m HCC %or, ° 3 G r�1 o RMO` �) R o / Rae2 ' f RaC A _ HCC L m � LEGEND** GG F AtC2 Arlington and Greenfield fine sandy loams,2 to 8 percent slopes eroded. I HCC0 AtD2 A iington and Greenfield fine sandy foams,8 to 15 percent slopes,eroded. E3 C GyC2 Greenfield sandy loam,2 to 8 percent slopes eroded. TvC HCC GzG Gullied land GyC2 W Hc4 Hanford coarse sandy loam,0 to 2 percent slopes. HcC Handford coarse sandy loam,2 to 8 percent slopes. Ra uF I W RaA Ramona sandy loam,0 to 2 percent slopes. 02 • RaB2 Ramona sandy loam,2 to 5 percent slopes,eroded. nE3 RaC2 Ramona sandy loam,5 to 8 percent slopes,eroded. �- HCC ->� RmE3 Ra02 Ramona sandy loam,8 to 15 percent slopes,eroded. � �'_ — _ RBD _ -�-� _ HCC Rai Ramona sandy loam,15 to 25 percent slopes,severely eroded. f'rv� RmE3 Ramona and Buren sandy loams,5 to 25 percent slopes,severely eroded. RnE3 Ramona and Buren loams,5 to 25 percent slopes,severely eroded. RsC Rivenvash RuF Rough broken land. TeG Terrace escarpments. TvC Tu}unga loamy sand,channeled,0 to 8 percent slopes. {^w� '•For a list of all soils,see Figure 3.3-3 Iw.+ IBJ _ Onsite Soils Pb :8I2N20028:52:48 PM 81 TBMGER DWG:N:WM?.000WwMepOI4MRFJW.3 .dwp Ila Illr--- r r r r Ila r Ir e r r r■ r r r r _ � r Table 3.3-3 x1 Soil Clutracleristies SCS Soil Name Type Slope Clnsslf. perneohillly Runoff frmiao Fertility A1C2 Arlington and Greenfield line sandy Ioams 2-8%4 Ille-8*+ N/A NIA N/A NIA AtD2 Arliuglon and Greenfield fine sandy loanns 8-15%* IVe-8 N/A medium moderate N/A GyC2 Grecnf eld saudyloam 2-8%* lle-2** moderate slow-mediuutsligld-rmalernle high n GzG Gullied land Vllle-1 . N/A NIA NIA N/A xi flcA Hanford coarse saudyloam 0-2% lls-4** moderate slow slight. moderate 'Z1 IlcC Hanford coarse sandy loam 2-8% Ile-2** moderately rapid slow to medium slight to ulodertic moderate N RaA Ramona sandy loam 0.2% 1-1** Idgh slow slight high n Ra02 Rautmnn sandy loam 2-5%* lle-d•* moderately slow medium moderate high "u L" RaC2 lUillonn sandy lonat 5-8%* Ille-1*• uloderalely slow medium Ilaoderate N/A ' RaD2 Ramona sandy loam 8-15%* IVC-1 slow rapid high modoraic M RaG3 Ramona sandy loam I5-25%* Vle-1 slow rapid high Inv RmE3 lZunona and Buren sandy Ioams 15-25%* Vle-1 slow rapid high loan RnE3 Ramona and Ilurcm Ioams 5-25* Vie-1,8 slow rapid 111811 low RSC Riverwash Vlllw4 slow rapid high Iloilo Rup Rough broken land Ville-[ slow rapid high Iloilo TeG Terraceescarlunenls Vile-I. slow rapid high none TvC Tujuuga loamy sand, 0,8% V11w-4 rapid very slow high iqw: channeled. ' • eroded or severely eroded soils Source: U.S,.Soil Couscrvalion Service 1973 •* considered prime agricultural soil. NIA not appllcablo or dila nor available 1 ASHBYUSP,LLC FIGURE 3.3-4 3 cu 1 O) l 1zJ14J�i������'� �� in- f� O 1 > (c'-j �� r 3 777-7- � > - � �L - -- Alp, ------1 ✓ C.w 1250 1 s 1 1 ® The Keith Compeniesl�IC Rorlpa.u�,h Ranch v 1 ' 3.3 EARTH RESOURCES ' Wind Erosion Blowing dust and sand can be a temporary and infrequent hazard in the Temecula area. Similar to water erosion, the local climate, topography, and soils create conditions conducive to wind ' erosion. Almost half of the soils onsite are subject to wind erosion when exposed and thus can represent a dust hazard during periods of high wind. ' Soils with a low permeability and/or a high amount of runoff are particularly susceptible to water erosion and soils consisting of fine soil particles, as well as drained soils in alluvium surfaces, are susceptible to wind erosion. Erosion removes the smaller and/or lighter soil particles first,which are typically humus and clay ' particles, leaving the coarse, sandy soils; a soil subject to erosion processes becomes progressively more sandy and stony. Data from the U.S. Soil Conservation Service indicates that steep, upland soils on the project site are subject to high erosion potential,while the more level sandy loam soils(i-e.,in the areas used ' for agriculture) have slight to moderate erosion potential (SCS 1971). g) Comments on Previous DEIRs ' There were no comment letters received on the two previous DEIRs that specifically addressed geotechnical constraints. 3.3.2 . Criteria for Determining Significance ' The City has not established local CEQA significance thresholds,however,potentially significant impacts related to geology,seismicity,or soils may result if a project causes:a)unstable earth conditions or changes in geologic substructure;b)disruptions, displacements, compaction, or overcoming of soil;c)changes in ' topography orground surface relief features;d)destruction,covering,or modification ofany unique geologic or physical features; e) increase in wind or water erosion of soils, either on or off the site; f) changes in deposition or erosion of beach sands,or changes in siltation,deposition,or erosion which may modify the ' channel of a river or stream or the bed of the ocean or any bay, inlet, or lake; or g)exposure of people or property to geological hazards such as earthquakes,landslides,mudslides,ground failure,or similar hazards (CEQA Guidelines, Appendix 1). ' 3.3.3 Level of Impact before Mitigation ' a) Geology and Faults The geotechnical report conducted for the project concluded that deep excavations within the two bedrock ' formations (i.e.,granodiorite basement rock and metasedimentary rock) in the Plateau area could require blasting,and may generate a substantial amount of oversized material(i.e.,boulders or rocks in excess of 12 inches in maximum dimension). Bedrock exposed at finish grade would also require undercutting and ' replacingwith compacted fill soils tofacilitate the placement of building foundations and underground utilities. Cut slopes inclined at steeps of 1.0 to 1.5 are expected to be stable to heights of at least 50 feet if they are free from adversely oriented fractures orjoints. However,the City requires maximum 2:1 slopes. With the ' exception of occasional sand lenses,the Pauba Formation was considered suitable for the proposed type of development(Geocon 1990)(L&A 2001 a,2001 b). Therefore,impacts to and from local geology will not be significant as long as appropriate design standards are employed. 1 RORIPAUGH RANCH SPECIFIC PLAN ' 2N0 REVISED DRAFT EIR-APRIL 1,2002 3-34 1 ' 3.3 EARTH RESOURCES ' Currently available geologic and seismic data indicate that no major active faults traverse the project site, therefore the site should not be subject to ground rupture. ' Various regional faults, such as the San Andreas and Elsinore faults, are capable of producing major earthquakes and substantial groundshaking. Development of the proposed project will introduce additional ' residents,homes,and businesses into an area subject to moderate groundshaking,subsidence,differential settling,and possible seiching in offsite reservoir structures serving the project site. However,these hazards are similar to those experienced throughout the Temecula area and are not substantially elevated for the ' project site. According to the project geotechnical report, the site will not be subject to unusual levels of seismically induced hazards,and potential seismic effects can be mitigated to less than significant levels by the use of proper engineering and foundation design (Geocon 1989)(L&A 2001x, 2001b). Previous studies found no evidence of the Murrieta Hot Springs Fault in the Plateau area,however, testing was surficial and did not extend to bedrock(Geocon 1989). However,more recent studies by Leighton and Associates(L&A)found no evidence of faulting,either in the Plateau area or in the "Valley"portion of the site(L&A 2001 a,2001 b). These later studies included specific recommendations regarding seismic design and foundations. 0 b) Topography/Grading n Grading will require approximately 7 million cubic yards of earthwork as described in Section 2.5,Grading. !U, While it may also be possible to largely balance earthwork within each development phase,the project grading plan calls for some soil materials to be "borrowed" from Planning Area 1 I area to fill in portions of the O Plateau area. The ridge will be lowered by 20-30 feet in some areas,while some limited but steep canyons in the Plateau and Central areas will be completely filled to create buildable pads. These changes represents a potentially significant topographic impact to the site. However,they can be largely mitigated by the use of O contour grading on slopes over 30 feet,and wherever practical to help blend man-made slopes into the existing topography. For preliminary planning purposes,the Geocon report assumed that cut and fill slopes could be constructed at slopes up to 2:1 (horizontal to vertical). The gradation characteristics and occasional lack of cohesion can present a significant erosion potential. The report further recommended that graded slopes be planted, irrigated, or otherwise maintained to reduce erosion potential (Geocon 1989)(L&A 2001x, 2001b). c) Soils/Erosion The Geocon report concluded that the generally unconsolidated condition of various topsoils onsite would require special remedial measures such as recompaction,deeper than normal side-slope fill benching,and ' undercutting of cut pads and cut-fill transition pads might be necessary to adequately reduce potentially significant soil-related impacts (Geocon 1990)(L&A 2001 a, 2001 b). Local soils are sandy and do not contain clay orsimilar materials that would cause expansion orother unstable conditions. However, they would be susceptible to wind and water erosion, especially when stripped of vegetation and left uncovered for long periods of time. Grading may expose soils in the northern Valley area ' for some period of time before this area is developed - these exposed soils would be subject to wind and water erosion if not stabilized, so this represents a potentially significant impact. RORIPAUGH RANCH SPECIFIC PLAN t2"u REVISED DRAFT EIR-APRIL 1.2002 3-35 3.3 EARTH RESOURCES ' The Master Drainage Plan is designed to prevent uncontrolled runoff to the Santa Gertrudis Creek which could otherwise cause erosion of surficial soils. For additional discussion of the Master Drainage Plan,see Section 3.4, Water Resources. ' d) Liquefaction Some of the soils in the vicinity of the project site are sandy and conducive to liquefaction,especially along the Santa Gertrudis Creek and Long Valley Wash. Local data indicates fluctuating groundwater levels,and relatively shallow groundwater significantly increases the potential for liquefaction. The project does not propose developed structures or major improvements within Santa Gertrudis Creek or Long Valley Wash, so no significant impacts related to liquefaction are expected to result from implementation of the project. Planning Areas 12, 14,the south ends of 18 and 19,22,23,24,27,28,31,33A,and 33B should be evaluated for specific liquefaction hazards and appropriate foundation designs employed. Appropriate foundations will reduce or remediate the potential for liquefaction in developed areas to less than significant levels (L&A 2001 b). Oe) Other Hazards Although no landslides were detected in areas planned for development,more detailed geotechnical studies for development in Planning Areas 14, 15, 19,and 20 should be conducted to identify any evidence of historic orpre-historic landslides. Proper remediation and foundation design will prevent potential impacts related to landslides from becoming significant. If any ancient landslides are detected, earthen buttresses or other remedial measures can be provided during site development to properly stabilize these structures. In addition, slide debris typically possess zones of compressible materials,and recompaction of these soils may also be ' required (Geocon 1990). f) Offsite Improvements ' The various offsite road and utility improvements will disturb soils and overlie geologic formations similar to those already described in this section. Potential earth-related impacts of the EMW D and RCWD pipelines ' were addressed in a cursory fashion in the CEQA documents for those projects (see Section 1.7). These improvements are planned within an existing road right-of-way that currently has a dirt surface,however,it has been excavated before for previous utility lines and consists of sandy soil material from the Santa Gertrudis flood terrace that has been compacted over the years by local traffic. No unusual geotechnical constraints are anticipated,although liquefaction should be evaluated prior to road construction. Potential earth-related impacts of the extension of Murrieta Hot Springs Road west of the Roripaugh property is addressed in the Rancho Bella Vista EIR(see Section 1.7). In addition,the southerly extension of Butterfield Stage Road will impact local soils similar to those in the southern upland portion of the Valley area of the project. These soils contain no unusual constraints,so extension of the roadway south of the project is not ' expected to produce any significant geotechnical impacts. The proposed offsite extensions/improvementsto Nicolas Road and Butterfield Stage Road will temporarily disturb local soils but are not expected to produce any significant impacts related to earth resources. These improvements will experience seismic risks ' equivalent to other similar types of improvements in the general area,and are not expected to be elevated for this project. RORIPAUGH RANCH SPECIFIC PLAN ' 2NO REVISED DRAFT EIR-APRIL 1,2002 3-36 3.3 EARTH RESOURCES 3.3.4 Standard Conditions and Uniform Codes Significant impacts to the project could occur if construction did not take into account existing seismic, geologic,and soil limitations. As part of the development approval process,the City requires appropriate geotechnical reports to assure that the project will meet proper safety and other standards. aSignificant indirect impacts could occur to local residents if blasting were to occur without adequate notice or warning. The City requires that, prior to any blasting, the developer obtain permission from the City Department of Public Works. It also requires that adequate notice will be posted in at least one newspaper aof local circulation, plus local signage. Excessively high slopes could be unstable and are visually unattractive, especially in rural areas where manufactured slopes appear more"out of place"than in more suburban areas. The City requires that,prior to the issuance of oradi ng permits,developers submit grading plans for review and approval by the City Public Works Department and Planning Department. These plans must demonstrate that contour grading was employed on slopes in excess of 30 feet, and contour grading was considered for any slopes over 10 feet. Significant impacts to local soils could occur if uncontrolled runoff were allowed to flow across exposed soils. ' The City requires that, prior to the issuance of grading permits, developers submit grading plans with an appropriate erosion control plan,to the satisfaction of the City Public Works Department. These plans must include, but are not limited to, slope planting or other means of stabilizing exposed soils, and temporary ' drainage improvements to prevent uncontrolled runoff and erosion. A number of potentially significant earth-related impacts are capable of being reduced through the application ' of the following standard conditions: Impact/Hazard Code Groundshaking and related City Building Codes and applicable seismic effects seismic standards ' Liquefaction and seismically- City Building Codes and geotechnical related soil conditions report requirements Disposal of excavated material City Grading and Building Codes ' Unstable cut and fill slopes City Grading and Building Codes Trench wall stability Cal OSHA Construction Safety Orders, City Grading and Building Codes ' Erosion of graded areas City Grading and Building Codes Alteration of runoff City Grading and Building Codes Unprotected drainage ways City Grading and Building Codes ' Increased impervious surfaces City Grading and Building Codes 3.3.5 Project Design Features The residential and non-residential structures proposed for this project will be designed to withstand anticipated seismic stresses and soil conditions. This will help minimize potential impacts to new residents and employees in an area that is already subject to such hazards. The proposed project land plan will help RORIPAUGH RANCH SPECIFIC PLAN ' 2N°REVISED DRAFT EIR-APRIL 1,2002 3-37 3.3 EARTH RESOURCES aminimize impacts from potential faulting and rockslides in the northeast comer of the site because this area is planned to stay open space. aThe two main objectives of the grading plan for Roripaugh Ranch are to: 1) preserve steep slopes and prominent topographic features wherever practical; and 2) create a safe living environment for future residents through careful design of manufactured slopes and building sites. In addition,the following specific adesign and engineering elements will be utilized to achieve the project objectives as they relate to grading and site preparation: 1)manufactured slopes in excess of thirty(30)vertical feet shall be contour graded;and 2) adequate gradients for streets and sight distances at street intersections shall be provided as required by City astandards. The grading concept implements techniques to ensure that the overall shape,height and grade of any cut or fill slope over thirty feet are designed to simulate the natural terrain and blend as much as possible with the adjacent natural open space. The plan proposes that graded slopes be revegetated or landscaped and that drainage devices and erosion control facilities be constructed in accordance with project design objectives as well as City standards. Interim erosion control measures will be provided during construction phases. ' 3.3.6 Mitigation Measures The following measures areproposed to assure that potential impacts related to geology,seismicity,and soils remain below a level of significance: ' (1) Prior to the issuance of grading permits, engineering reports addressing geologic, seismic,or soil limitations and foundation design will be prepared for the following Planning Areas: ' PA(s) Report Topic(s) 12 liquefaction 14 liquefaction, landslides 15 landslides 17 landslides 1 18 liquefaction (south end) 19 landslides and liquefaction for lots along creek 20 landslides and liquefaction for lots along creek ' 22 liquefaction 23 liquefaction 24 liquefaction ' 27 liquefaction (sports park) 28 liquefaction (school site) 31 liquefaction ' 33A, B liquefaction Nicolas Road liquefaction (offsite improvements) ' If a particular lot cannot accommodate appropriate setbacks,it will not be built. These reports will specify appropriate foundations and other design parameters to alleviate identified potential geotechnical impacts. These reports will be prepared and approved by the City Department of Public ' Works prior to the issuance of grading permits. RORIPAUGH RANCH SPECIFIC PLAN ' 2NN REVISED DRAFT EIR-APRIL 1,2002 3-38 3.3 EARTH RESOURCES (2) Prior to the issuance of grading permits for offsite improvements related to the project,engineering reports addressing geologic,seismic,or soil limitations and foundation design will be prepared for any affected areas that have not already had such studies, to the satisfaction of the Public Works Department. (3) At least two days prior to scheduled blasting, the developer shall post a clearly visible sign at the intersection of Nicolas Road and Calle Girasol to notify residents of the Nicolas Valley if and when blasting will occur. Any blasting activities will be limited to the hours of 9 AM to 4 PM, Monday 0 through Friday. Prior to any blasting,the developer shall obtain permission from the City Engineer and post notice in at least one newspaper of local circulation at least one week in advance. A note to this effect shall be placed on grading plans. (4) Contour grading shall be utilized on slopes over 30 feet,however,if it cannot be used,a report by a registered civil engineer must be submitted with the grading plans that demonstrates why such ' techniques are not feasible in the particular location. Grading plans must clearly identify slopes over 30 feet high. This report must be submitted and approved by the City Public Works Department prior to the issuance of a grading permit. ' Section 3.4.6 in Water Resources contains mitigation measures for erosion control and sedimentation(i.e., water erosion). Section 3.6.6 in Air Quality contains mitigation measures for dust control(i.e.,wind erosion ' and revegetation of disturbed areas). 3.3.7 Impacts of Mitigation Measures ' No significant environmental impacts will occur as a result of implementation of the proposed mitigation measures,although the numberor location of some units may change as the result of recommendations in the ' subsequent geotechnical studies. 3.3.8 Level of Significance after Mitigation ' The implementation of standard conditions,existing codes,proposed project design features,and mitigation measures as proposed will assure that potential geologic,seismic,soil,and other earth-related impacts remain ' at less than significant levels. 1 1 RORIPAUGH RANCH SPECIFIC PLAN 2N0 REVISED DRAFT EIR-APRIL 1,2002 3-39 3.4 WATER RESOURCES This section explains the existing drainage characteristics of the site, focusing on the two large natural a channels,Santa Gertrudis Creek and Long Valley Wash. It also summarizes the project hydrology study and water quality issues. 3.4.1 Environmental Setting a) Area Drainage aSurface water consists of water in lakes and streams,as well as runoff resulting from precipitation. There are no natural surface channels that ensure continual surface water Flow in the City of Temecula. The primary source of surface water is seasonal precipitation,mainly in the winter and spring. The magnitude and variability of precipitation is the primary determinant in surface water features. ' The project site,as well as the entire City of Temecula is located in the Santa Margarita River Basin,which is divided by the coastal mountains into coastal and inland areas. The lack of continually flowing water, snowpacks melting in the summer months, and the relatively intense periods of precipitation followed by ' extended dry periods results in the seasonal,or irregular,character of the streams within the City,including the Santa Gertrudis Creek and Long Valley Wash. ' The projectarea consists of two major drainages that flow into Murricta Creek. Santa Gertrudis Creek flows through the northern Valley portion of the site and has a drainage basin or watershed of 5,152 acres or about 8 square miles. Long Valley Wash flows through the south-central portion of the site and has a watershed ' of 7,590 acres or 11.9 square miles. Figure 3.4-1 shows the locations of the area watersheds and also the creeks traversing the project site. ' b) Onsite Drainage Santa Gertrudis Creek and Long Valley Wash are the primary watercourses on the project site,although eight ' smaller intermittent channels also exist on the site,six in the Plateau area and two in the central Valley area. Santa Gertrudis Creek. Two of the six smaller drainage channels located in the Plateau area flow off the property in a southwest direction,while the other four small drainage channels flow south out of the Plateau ' area toward Nicolas Valley. The two smaller drainage channels in the southern Valley area flow in a general east-west direction and eventually flow into Long Valley Wash. The locations and runoff characteristics of these features are illustrated in Figure 3.4-2. Appendix D of this report contains the hydrological calculations ' for Santa Gertrudis Creek and Long Valley Wash (TKC 1998) and for the Plateau area (Adkan 2001). A detailed hydrological study was prepared for the project in August of 1998 by The Keith Companies. The ' study evaluated both Santa Gertrudis Creek and Long Valley Wash. Water flow records from 1936-1937 through 1964-65 were used tocharacterize and mathematically model predicted runoff. This period of time adequately reflects the general hydrological character of the area streams(TKC 1998). The hydrology study ' is based on the Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District's Hydrology Manual dated April 1978. The Synthetic Unit Hydrograph Method was used for tributary areas greater than 300 acres, while the Rational Method was used for drainage areas less than 300 acres. 1 RORIPAUGH RANCH SPECIFIC PLAN 2rvO REVISED DRAFT EIR-APRIL 1,2002 3-40 IASHBY USA,LLC . I FIGURE 3.4-1 — 01 im 4 1 2 . � � I �? Ill. I-� __I, 1, . 1, . 8 j,1, I .�1. il I I I . I I I �,4,13,:� j.,..;f.."O" *\ I"4"'.N" �,�i; ; � ,.-- � I . ;,�. _,� ., ,. � . . ,� 1i L , I ',l�,f)�, l� . .. I , - i �t -_ , 3 . -,,k�� , � 1, ., , �i�,,I,ik', :�� - - ,",' ""I ,-�. -., I� " .... I il I I I _. ., . 1-1 I I 1 6 .S, '. I" , I `l,�",:(_ � . - , , ,,, i5 I j I .I (. 5�_ ", , :�L��i._j;i�__, ';�",�,��,,�"!'�,i_i"?, , ...... , I , I I L' - - - '�ll_��i,, __ _,�, �.Z:.�,,,,,�I;`: "'Y,',-_Ilz' A �'11 I I - Z,�,�v."?, �-=--�'�-"",�,,i,-,�, - ,� iii,,,A�,,,I-,z5�,�Z� 'i 2'1,�,_: -,I� ;i,��II,,I � f � .� , L �, )� -......_.1-1.1 I t, , , Q�,`��;["',iii': , I . � .�1-,� -,'..�1�,�`ll,;-, -, ,�-,.�,o �t-� , ',�,-_�ii-� . . 1, " ,� , iI - ,.,,�5,' I.- . , I I , , - "�, , I -�� - .,;.� , �.I ,ii", � L... 11 1. -�" - -� , 'd , - I I �.. ,I I I- _;� _� "�` ".""�I-II, I I _ , . ,_ ,-".. ' � i., O' , I __ ,� I-'% - _.- __ii_L I �, L"',��-,�,�,, ' , ,zl -.1 . ",-,i-......... ,,,"L ", . . 'L ii- - -,-�-- ,-,�Zi-.�-�_� [;�7_,�::- -_ . ,�.:✓�� � , _!��,I; ,, �, -,-��,,it,����,%-��',�-�-�-'�,,��Y�,,',-,�,,�,,��-.----,�;r,, - ,�!.,LLL �...i� �'-i% _, , L,- '� " , _' I 11 L. ., -f,,'I I , ,-1 I f - - , , _', - -,I-, �," --- �,;. .- ��!�; __ -�.1�,, - 'L , ':��,��--� _", � Qi�, - -,,[�,,,g�jj�";:i'.��,, -:�-i",)�'��;,,�,.'!;` ,-i�T_.��7-�-,,'� " � ; )I 1��,_, �21 ,- , , "-- q�;,���l';" , ,: ;,�, �:.`3 - - __� �- I ,, - _f��,_,�ii�__,�Ii,�,, ��3,��� Q�,,,��;,��, . 0 x —, � I I _-,c , - I ,� f ir ,,I i..i7 �, , -J,"I�, _' �),;L L�� 1','5"� �, " _ ,�fL "i�,iii,i�;� "L,, , * l' , I Ii7 -,, I- � _ 1 . - � I �,�__'�: ...I � I � -.,i,., , � " " .,,/ I'p " i, - I j��'*L _� -,�",��ilf,�!�.� , �_.,� ,.L� l I-, � , '.'k � -,"I" _,��1,.�� _�" " , , � A I - : , �'--� I , ',, _-, , _.,I�1_-- ��.k 'iL;iVI�.'L.��) ,_ ,, -���t���,�',' �,�,�-�!�!,2��,'��113�.,� , I.',, ,�Pi, . - '� '5� r"A�f V i%-,-�- ,�-,�i;l- . (�'Uii`'�_ill))", ,�I��'- , ,\1 i I I - i..',,5�,""'7. - i, ,,,-,�,i:",i I -1 -L., l::�,;,> - , ! �,f, - '! , , ��i�i�,, ,,��, �:, ,� f;�,L , I I v I, .�I'] � � .,-.' "... ,l(li-,��[_),`I'�� ,I I '.�, .11-1i I'."" I I") , � ✓� f,1",......... -1 __,11-i '��,/ ��q��_'�'�,f: i,6,V_15�M� � '. - �__�� I ,." ,,-, "-�' 'I., ilI4,��'�,,��2,%,?,'O� v t t_ ., . 11 ",I .. ;� 1i � - , I) �, � i -� , -, ��,;V,,__,��,,�, '.-Ill ," ',.5;L-1 11, I I I I : _��,,� - , , �_,i!Ll' k .1! � .;I',--";& �l! , I., Ir _L_il��,,��__,__'_�:iii%"., n,, ., i�,7,it'I) �t L , �, "'�(! �� ��:L;;,��'�,�'&��er..���,I-, -q ) _i I i�L . I �<�i -r,,, �")� �f�. 'I,'-.- - , I-., j : � "-- , Ilo-11'il, ii�_X( �����;�'.Wl�_X_4�,,J�l�,, I.1, �� ". -- ,- z I;"-,-,. , I ,-I -1 , ,�f""Ij,�,." "�,��',,("�'t�j.",_r"i , -:,-" I. "i , -, 112,t.�, __._ � 2! , L, , � �,"'i" �L_' , ,",-, � -,,�, , -:;�,�,�,�'-��,-I����lf-,-'j��'- ___"_IiL�."�"',-,-" ',� - _11_� Ii - , . I I � ,ii,\� , . , , 5 ,, �_ _�� , �c �� -i:i�,�')ii� 7 1 �?. - ."-11 I I � ,/ - - L . I , I 11 I '_ ��'.,' " - �� �i, '�,IIT, �_ " -.,,,,,I---, I � � r,-,q.,� �I ",L'if, - _._".- - _. , ii'j-L, �....... "( , C.LY` , -L3 , " ' , , '�,� 1�1;_� 11.,z 1,II iil-, I , _ -Z-- il'_ Lj �-� __.-11 ,I. I I 3 '� � -,, ��,,Ii � ,. " ii .�...... ,,, I I - ' L'� _17 I��li� , .;', - __ ,"),,7,�Q �,,,iizi.� )"il��)I�I�r:*"_L, �, I, 'i",1, ,_;-;�j�!-, �;�,,,,-7 ,- ,/I-l',., , , iii�i�,,��, ♦IV, ,��,,,I I . � I I " I � :"� . -L ' ,- I- ''L - .,.,,I.4 ,�l"I',I I I , V'�,I � - ,, ,;, ,�'"' - I - -i� �"' -,i,-. -, -,il'y", ,�,i, L _F0 � .1. �'i�Lj ' ,�",I , � - � �� ""'i, . I I -.. -'I, -'-'-,1 Il�, --,-,-.,e .,.,-,-7 , , , � o T " I" (��l � _L 1:1� ,.,,. .-'.," ""I .i.ii(,k"iz.�7,i�-�, �.i�� ,�, II��i�,�,,.-�,�,�,F,��4;i$li4 i� �,_�,�, , ,,�,"'i...�. , -,1 % � ,�,� 1�1,�tii� - . .z � �� . , � - I i , �`'''� �"_"� I-, '' - ,,�;,,_ -,�� -"" I -.�,_� �� . ,111.1'�.',11,\, -0:_ I'll, ii� ) .- i ID-1 I ,_'1,-,.L-�1 ,,L-'� ,,-I.j,�:'l��_- , , - - w -1.1� , ,�,\I, t. - -11 -�,'�"";.,�,�'�� " - -,"�.''L�3-'- _'" 'I,�- j"I,�)�,�'�"'j...',�"r _ _,.,""I,,L� C "., .1 I. ,� --_ ,,,�,,��; !�,� ,, I , 11"- , \L-21 "I 'i-_",,-,, � , _L� " ,�i. �,�`k�,z"""! �"-",I.,�Jp�� ". ),,��,vi,',�I-,, � - I - i,- -� , -" " �/ " r . _i, , "I I/,�.�,;,,�,---,f-, �__",_" -' Ll- -,/, " - �_., I,,,I��,,,.��," -�__._"�, - Ili '4-", , ,,, , , " , , ., -_ � -- G _. ,, . ,I _.11 ., I 1 11� , .�%.. L-- ,i�,- L - 11 , � , ? , ',, , ��.I;�ia�;-,-,,��k?iL�;)�i"-�, ,�..�.,L"��L' . � ' " .e, , . I I .1 11 I- i! ;� - , j�,�.,, l .11".. , , � '"','Ll',"",/Z�f 4) ,:i,",'�:,�' , ,�, _ , ' ,_ i,"-,,_"_ ,--Lii,�,,,MA�, a . I 1, L- 1�_, ��. �m�� 11 T _� .t�;."._'21j�,-, �" �.�iIii I - i)"i � " ,I/',\ 1,P'F;! �� �!, - , ",�,., , ,,,- ,--1�,'-1 In. , , " - - ;V ,�-, ' 11, -_.," 11'.La.^r,- ,�f �' - Ili .1 .--,, "li",, , L', I ,_-, �',� - �, , ,N���.,.i:.4�',�_,N�F�,`_�,i:�. i I -1 ........)--l_ I , - C�'�.'�,:iL\,_�, li�, - ,�6�,,'ii�, �%� _-I,:, ,,- - � .I. - I I�... ... - "," ,I 111(1� ",_ ',j�),k�,�,�' ' _�� . lk�'li,� -i,�Gvl 'N" �.2�.__ � _, - , I-7,_L L, _ _, _.,,, ",'R;: ,'-' "L' - , , �, � , z:I I , , ,i��Ii�._ I L, ) - � _ _� L pl�, , . -, , � , -,x,�,i , "","'_�'' ; ",, , -- , ,�, - -," --1, , -,L"`�"`,�' l'; '-' '"" -"I 11 l 11 - _�,�'�"ti�.';,�t%- ._ , �,�'�:�j j�,i� j.__, _ _ I I I - - -1 l, _'�l�� i,_ - " 'NV 0 1, I.,-",I iijl",�))���_ kv . -� _ -��� * -�,y ,__Ii���,� _�:, '�"L'I -.,i ,�----�-� , "%�,.'e-:-�:.1�1�,`�_��"�---',--- �- -- I-,_;�;_� i:"ii-', , , i,,",�_i._�?L��, ,�j l i!I� I ,i',., j 0) I .I . 1�,�_,"L �_' . I 11 �, ')", I yI, 1-1 _�2111 ii� _� " i,L_,�,Vi,,�Lc j : ,, I ; , � 1 .,'�; ,-I,,, , . ) _,"i .1 1--i ."j"�L�_"!�-_�IiI,�"_'l'Lll$ -i , I "), �,311 V,i : _l�, _ ,L, _, , I , _ I_�)? i l�j I,,�:��''j��i' i L--,I,- �. _1 ;i i,%I; -,z 'L�'I" -' L'"%,""'i"�" __", _ " � � z?,�3 i,'_ ,�,4 �zy �, ""i; I .— - _ �- qli,� --iii- -� , " , - �. -� I,'I _�, I . .,? " ,�,,-,. ,i"�lA: -,,-, - l- ".1_1-��q �_'_j.L' .""�,��,'i"Ill,I � �l 1. ",�', L ''"-'- - I _�Y'111 -1 -1 I, .1 -1 1. I '�,& I.�t, -", I 1�� );i L, , � L� '"., 114I, .- I ,,, i_ � , �' ,� I _ij,"�,"" , ,3, �l I, , -111 I ,-,;- �, � m L� ,-I-_�,l�"",\",6,,\ I . �4(�/qi�'-.JI'L%'"�'�_���".'� �� , ,,e'.�� li � ,_- , , q _ , ,-"), / ,1 ., ,�! "� L\ ,� ' '�iO'i' , ,_ ��� '. ,�1, , -,. 1," _ _ ,,,, ( i'l, �, _ _,�Li ,� -I., -,; -�, " I - ,",I , 'U j� , ,� I �i . -�Ip _..., _ - " �"L.Z\', _,., -, , I 1 11 I, . _ ���_�; -"L� ,__,:�`�' "I �-1. .11 � .I -11 I .1 1..l ilf-,� ,-' �,)P-!,`,�-.�-j---�.,'- � ; , �- __,Y I , 11, 1. ," ,(,�, , I --I� ,�li) �, _lif_ _ I- ,I J_,.� - _�""'�`��,,�_'.�i"''�.� , , �, -, ,,_ , , --,.,,' • ,5 .-'I i,,-, ,�-,_lf�.. Llz� I. - �OE,I;-:,� �i,kzi�i",,-,i,,- ,- , z 'L , . C,� ,�; ,,- " /` '` -"-,:, �"-, , ---,i� ". . W- .!� , , L._". , t `, L; ' i,�" ,1. ,,-,, " , I--1 1_)11 Vv ��j,:' L- "-f - ,7�_'ci,,<, .;:�,',� 1��, .'..,, - - ,�,, A !�,�,��/,;,(- -11'_I,,.11�z,;i��. -, .�;�_ " ,;"�,' L� i'"'.,.�_�'�" , �.�- -,! )I)-;, , I . ,"�"W'b'NI!.!,:, -'l.`�i,,�`ii�%'.'.".. 'd.,_ __ -,. ��--,_,-t- �_,_i,,�L.__�ji_�%t��_,�', ,'. -I __ ;_.,I� a) 8 , �,�",;.,- ,I I I - ___ ."', - ,.,--";; , _, _�, I ,�li i;I-W- I-- ,;�, ,, � "I I -�"t`%�, ' I • --i-,- �, - •k,l_'-_ -�,_�' L-/ -�l'''� "' I "'.,�t��_�� ., -, , � �W- I"T.:,,-� I / . I LLL 11 1, ,�,1� !!�Pi,'��iiiV I� -"4"'L,".I L......l_ __V',� , �---L, " z , 3,q'�,-,,, 11 ,-x�,,',:'.'�,Z'f��_r ,i...... _ - ,.,q ', �ii�,,, 11 L�,L'.", ,I�'.'. ,I.✓..ii L. I I I/" .I I I I - ,� - - f . 6 1 � t. , , I. �..I'-- I I I I I - I I I 'IJ ... I. I _-� . I I I- , i", - ... I t,, " ' _�_�_ ___' --'\ I .-i- 1A-_-I , ,, :.- _.- . - ". -'LL ., ; l L:, ,�ii"'�; ' ' ,7___ :� "" _. _-, , - . . , ,1�- - - 'L.' i<, - I _ _ ___, _ _ - ---L'I��!�'';,�l;'_-� �,il'l�Cii '�,�',. i, .� I .:. .1 11:.i" - � I I,'-il-c-�: '_L,"_. .- ,L,\ ',-,-i -11 ',i�_, .Il , I _i, ) � 11 ,,<.i� ,�,,,,�,�ii,L, fr_ � ,, \ I . I , \�,, . I I _ ;!�,<I�i� I _"., _;.",L ,, . -v- "' "' �',_���\,j ',�L, , I',A,ti�',),� 11 ,LL," L ,,i�l 11 I I' , I ` "'I 1�- il� - ,I,� I "� --,\,,, -I . " -,,,I ��, "I -, I- , I I - _,-"�-,,��,',_!,C,-�,,,I I. �? , _-�-I,�_,�I, ', I c-1 .- -;;;;;;I",,��l.,jf`�A,�,��",),\��-,,. i I 11,,�,,1 i'-�-,y ........ -... - -q, "I�"�;,_ - _,- -. -l_ - _�(L,,�11,e�', i,I, 1,,. �,) ,.l I , ''I "'L '' , I -1 - , . ,,Ii, �',),_� "11 , I�.,I,1\,,-�n'l::_,, ,"," ___",��:S i" " 1� I � ��,. i"4;,��Zj, - �1-�','I - I, , - ,- _i _i�i,i...�,ll ,'�'L I L _�L'I ""ij" - L"' ," " _,,I (�__\Q�.ii�'L " I -I >,4,, �iii, , �_ -..,.,�",-��)JIIV Z, I A _�, _,r, J, -- , I ill- I- __ �� -� ,_ ,_1 C. ,,e ,_- - 1.1- � -,,'( _'-',_-'',_ -, � i" _ 'il. ,., ".1 I.,-.,; I'll,�_._.�, _,",,"".'\�:,_'e, Il,\�� I' �" �_'-e _ ,�, , I I -": I- ;\I I , ,:.,-1 . :�_, -, I � , �',',_'Ijt�L.�,L,�- � e ,. ,_�'��,' ' "'Ifi�' 1-11�1."� - , - � ;_,�\ � oi. \ , -7� Zf,-�,-_ U, ,J _-, ) ., --,,f _L'�,)ii'ii' ,� �, .1�. I�, i: ' I I I �. - .1 I ,1, i"�----��:,V",�'�,S'�"__110 �L "`�Q"7j�i�'('_\' - - l , , __, � I I I I 1, . '. - I�� � ., -,`-,O - - -�_� 11,/ -- ,, ,�I � ! I .,- - ,, ., zi--i-- _�I: - i,,, �� / �:,I I I- ) k i l,� ,I !I , L,- ' I- - . L - - _ , -," �' I ,,�J-,,,,/,, ',y ' - ! �. , I I I I I I 11 - I I ' I, �'� ', '\" - _ ,' , .L'C I I- L'?' -_j�'_' _' -'� 11 ,, � �.��g��"?�,)'L_;�', - �,,�,", , , _ , * -I I,� _ ,�_"". " , .I I - , ,-I.,V%�_.,-,,I,�i�lcrj f _.. �L '� - ___I ,Lei� -,-�1�l - L',1,I F,.-ZL I 0 - - I I I � (�/ N - - I _�4, I . I. I--- , -,i,.� _r) I ���', I "7,YL - � , 1, . �,,�,7 ,I' ' ji�L';�',�i�,". -11 I ,,�,T�- , " I 'Ll .I , - _. I-I I 1�. 1 -!jl�''.W . ".� L - - - , (, I I I ----I- ✓�1�q._,��/-�;�- .� i ,, 'JI'L""', .�'I- 1�' \, ,I ,�� - f, I �, l�,,,,lq_ I FYI . - ,I I " "I L,_�-,--� I,4�"�. � --, ," - �-,- I;"I �-,j I I I � ,ill�1,I"," ,�,i, " ��,�iul -, I - -�,i_z �� --I"1:��117,� ,,I, I I I 11 I . I I I�G- - - ,��i-18 �-�-�,I-,i_,��,::;, �_'�__,_�,.-,�-yEt�,-`i- .�,�I � ,�i`,.`%�, ,L I U--� . N I . , 1'_�ierl I 1�11� I ) '� '_ . -., ,%�_�, ,I I. ..", 5 15- -, I� )�I , ,_, )/ ,�� t L�_' -- ,. , ,.�y4ii-��P-%i;,,�,,.J.,,I 1�'t�. .� - ;P,(,-.I�7,�,:�i,Uiii!"��i,,�_,, 1�1.I I I;-I I .- ,�� _., , , A.' I I,� I" �"_'�L �.1,.-6'. � , ,- -c I I �1,1 11,N, , �I-" - I I I 1`1 I I . -)", 'id"i..li,�,Ii . 11 I - �ji�_ ," 01 71l -1 -1 , I I � c �;7,) - �'L. 11, - -2,�," � �, -, ,- , y li IS '!, __ I,-, - IV,;; - -i i,� we,(, I " ,�,-,' -1-I �,-�� , ," , " I � , ' �,X,.V ;&i'_Z,.-;� �11 I 11.l .'i L--i� -,�i J-, - -� -�./I , ; i.`�,�'.�." ,_ii�,, "i -i I � Dr----ir SANTA' ; ,-I I-GERTRUDW�,�,'�',�V' i'VREEK- 1, Ill.; ____ — � , �, " , . ?�� /I � I ..��, eelii�ee - � _-t I)� -_ ;.5 - ,,, L , � I IIIJ , 1_1_N�if:ii;,!��,g,,,-,� , _��: -,I'.. X , _11_1Iir_k1A:ii! .�c"jl ,-,,, ,�L 'L __� ,_ � j ',r�(�LA ,�����,,t�����,���,f�,',�,,--- '-)" I .�, , , , I , - _ , , . � I �--:- - - - -Z" —,<'-,'��'__ __ �/ .1�1�3 ,P,_,,I"`ilI� �)� .., 1L, -1 — , __ I , _ , _ "Ll"'11'�i , _ 11 - , , :. Y� I , i - 4,_ ;1. / I I.���� ii,- 15--_,-,1 is y I ;,.,.�'(, .�T-; ,,- ,I. — ��_ i-I I -1. I J1, 1� I , �� ; - . _ - I --"-.-"L-,c_.>--> `f: - �irll:,�lt�i'74�; -,:.6,-��; ;la��.(,Qi_'��,'i�4�fz-��- --� I - : - I --- ':C �, - �'/ �_-" � ,�45i__ `("," z " I � - -A-')- ' � ,�,el..". I I I'll I . ') 'i, /,�L�,�, .��I I I .-. I I. 11._ - � _i�ll . ci� - _. L , ",I II�, .,vi� - : �LL-V,C�'7'. IJ,�" I�V _, ._/--� 4,,\ :,-�IV Ii.y „, , -- , iy_ , __ -,”, , .�� I-,E r-i 11 W, �,..�,--,,-�' --' 1i -; "���)lii I ,`L-�-,, "" , ',- , .___�j�j,'.�.;""��i- - �izl - I - ;N�N �� , , - -i - ,_?� � .? -,,�,Ifl -1- I , ,, - -7,_ii,iiI!-,iF.5�P.�.,.,'zi�, 7-.11ic- � � I :I., �� Ii ( ,�Y�; I�, ,� I I 11- �. I I 11 11 -1,i� � -�,-f - I� l, -,1�� �, ��,' ,� . , �Z(, - � I I L " . -1 I,- ii�r --,, ". ,�,�� -A ,,�;-_-��;i' 9 - -�_�,V�� l-,,I� " I Jjj � "I I' I`� - :e:, '. ,.1 _lI_I`l`,'�) � - � L I'- _.�� ,- I:I om. i,--,- ,�,-,. - I -,�-_ -,W(-,6- . p, .1�.- I-,�,IOI-3_��,-I,�.,� I -i� ,C� I I I - - � , - i�l, I I ,,� ,�,I 1� I - , I , ,- Ile 1,11,�,,I I,-1_ i L�� ii�,,'�, - _�_. I -,�%,;�-,� g--, I�_ �, I�,�,ii,�.,"Ii�,/. ,, -).\j ___T"���,.,_-ee,j-'I'��':�,i '-L 11 .- ;;i. '�1 1, �., - ..ii ,!,f��_ ,_ ,��I-i;� , I"I' - I I )4IM"Tc (,.- ,.-,,.;I il,le, I-11 _�- I - I- ,,- 'U " - � �Zl�_,�, -. , - - 1---,-.� -. ,"�-� I�� i",� ,� - � I D��Ir ��i I - , ( ,�, 11; __--,�ii,,.,-, � ', ,',,,,', "� 1_f:;�,�,"'i,I .j-'--" -Im"'i - ..:i�,Iii�-�- -I,�-,,ye- , �']i� I I, , -�_ "I ��n, , , , �' . - - - - - I. .-���,�`L' ,V,ii-,-, 1 l i�- . , - , ""_ ,-.- ' - L ---- - I , L -) f I!-,-- - I 1,�..I 1 S�"7"'. l,- ;�5L., ,�Ili.�',',I - T� - Q" �z _7',71,�,_ " ii1z,;.,."�____ , �,�a,�'��""�.'g, -�,,�,.",,,I 4 I� ...... I�.__� ;�;i>-�,k i- "I 4-I�I� 11 I , _f,�'ii- L- ., (�,/ -�.-p' �ii�ii 5-,.; �",,I 4 ii., '_ �, I .Iiiii` -I , I.�,J,V�'�/��'�"j��'L,�;,S,,S',�",�,� - 11 l.-I I'll I_ ��.Mii�ll'D ,-I,�,.,,,;:, �1- ��,�, . 11 1. j:: . -1 [ , -I I I 11.Z,:-;I I .-V 1�1,I.-.1i,��, (;i5f��";j,��� -,', _",,_ ",'- L - - , e _ _ I -- -1 11 ), 'I- - - �, .11� ,,�,I, , ,� - , , '7ill' 4&:, __7�L�� �_ l 11��, ,,�T - ", , � p 1-�� - 1-\,/,�,��-,,-,'��,,�.� � I -< , ';, � � ,tj'L� i -LI�� ��,�_, - 71.1- , -,�IV, _._Q��,l�,)� , -- I'Z,,- -,��Q-_t -��_,��- v ei,� , � ", .,e� I, . -i i`_ ,"" i...�,�-�-,?'�", �(� ". "', , - ,��,kg�' ,� , I - - ;��'ii� ,�'I I � � , ,-p -'7, .- I-1- ,, ,_-,-tli ." ,5��%, - I .- , 1; .1 ,�� , , , , - - '. I* �,�. ��,-�,lz,� ,,� � � ( in,:,-i,�": �'!_���-,L� ,,, - -,�,�.WI-fLzi,� - ♦ .Al_" i,-,LZ" " .ee!'hil-.-, "I �,--,,ll�,�;;�;i)I�Z�,,iZ, li�`,__ `,�,ZL�'� --.-,-, -, .-�*--,, "��. - . . '05�, ->,j 7 iA •�7"��. -, ,,T2 ,�ji��?,�I fi��� _."4I�l i",,�'_�,'., �� ��l � -"-�i�I-----,, - � I ,�,.41� _!;".i-.ll",,.-i� -�,\'A .-, 'i�-��.'f��(-,/�-i,T -- I -.-i�-.�,�,1-11 l"ll-cz ,;:�_ i" ��7"�'�, , z ���_)� � � � \" -<� �*,�, I -1 . .�__' , - 1� ,�'. , ,,,,, - - , ��','!,'�*'v��., - - � �, - - %I I'll,"'i" -, 'Z�l "'," - -.�,L �I-, ,� - ,��,,,,I�'���,',--?�,'��,-,,-�,;��;-,�o��,�j ',I� '�. , Ii�, (I I 11�- ��., ,,"�,_,. ,,- - 11 I I,: &� . ,,,.., /' , ,�., 11,- I - . � "_'i - I - �,,?g " 'J" L _�T, �, Iy �___�iii�iz -,�� I - - _ ��.'� :-,� ,C-), I I )" " I - - -_L�i ",S:,�;7:'�,1, ��;�L� Y-1 1�:111 11 �ll� ._�e, ,�,��� I , j, � 'L . ,, � , - , ,�, I-111�I -1 - --- .;1 "-, "U'Ll'.'- ', , ��...... l, L e"I 'L I �__ - I ,l, 1,'P" 1-1- 11 �", �� ':,,�. "/-I I , - I - 'rII '.4 �1111 .'�/ ,I" .j��,��_�,�,".-"'i".a,_"..4[fL'. �_,�., ,- � , �, - ,� � _L ' L ' �� , ,, -, - _1,- . , V I,",, , � _��Li-� - ',,�� --'( __� _�:",�__"�'��._, 1, I 1.111- , - -,,� -�''".A,,j L I ,iii�� " llfl�vl�l Cc-L. ,",-I I- ,m" - ",-, , � .�L,, ."��,,i��"-" ""i"� I j _ C ,�� -I N,F,`�',, I�I�","'�,,,�-�, -��, .....I.,.- �Ii I 11 ,z�,?li��;`�,,�,1�. "" -I., "ll _3��,,II,�I � , , '' I , ,� ......r _� I , � L� , - L -� --��, F _ -- , ,7t�,� - '� . _ ,�,ig� i i., ,. I I I , - - I— "`I - I... � �y r�-��f.,�:r;,�,-,V� _,, ,, _ , --, _� - ` ,-� z���4S5��t i��,,�-,I��, ,�-- .I ,-"—,-- , -I il"11-.-- I--, I- ', - I I I,n.-i- 1�,'NVj/ 1'. _1,, 11 - "I"4 �� 'L�j - 11 '";,I.L... I I I , ,I -,,�, l,��:�,7r, , -,;.,"',_�, - - il, , , \��Z,F:E��zlj��.�'&, X.ETV�':ii,'�'��0�,i�,Y��,'� �WA H- ' 'L-- �11(.L�i Ig .", - _1;1'r,:�. *0!! _� 111�_l '1:i, ,(� --I'--- �1'i`�,_ FM�18�_,Jl -, 'Iii�� - _---��' j , , . t\,�, , i� .d;eiiIil,.?I I-, 01 � �� �. -_1111 17" 'I - ...�', _4'.1 _�i Y' "���::'� , �, S �� , I � �-11 "p,,�,V�� '��A"' 1;,�,I'l.",- , , ��717'!!�,� tei�,�� -,�, ,, I ��,,,ii-.. :: i�'-�,._� I,"�ii,�,/�_� - �,L' "� "�,L: _�,_ ,--.,L,,,"-,< S �L' ,-i l l�, _��, ,�_ - �:, �)r _, " A L L I 1. " 1--lit, . , L " .,1-.1�;,Il,--1.-. W-L" -' I'l-'' " J(_,.,, :�,-,,I-,��� - . -I-�- .11, . i,--" " 'j"iiiil��,'�, .I 11�L.--I"', ..... -- �� I ;1.�C� , �:,- (�� ,�,F_�,-.§�,.-j:l:� - ',�- "I��j�__,'�Z'(�_�M� ` ? " �.,m::N,71_)�ii))� ,-_.jIiL ,�,�z__ _, - . _ . " " ,.", I-," 'if I ,NiInk - .;li�, ,,:�L, •.'�lq, .- 7".'; -- ', -I , i�,, 1;,,,'��\'I� """"', ' '1"'i-i"i"'..--'_ "I�Ii, r - I. _r,).... ...� _ -_�% � " L-I I Ofz�,,��,ii,rf-.,7��, i "', . -�11 11,l""_� _. _ , � � , ,,, _ - _ , , , , -%i --I-- , I �," ��:"4 .�'��,T�-,-,,'.'-I---,'�_-c'q-,"L- ��g---�� ,i��'\,> `,( - , -�,`�, -_ _ 'F., _ ,�l) -- - ___. ��_- ", --.j ,-,"ll'�_,�_,�,,-,.f,- I - - ,-iiii - .I--I � ( I � I 'i I'll 11 I 1`111 I- ,�k� , ,'U , 11 , . "43"", ,�,Ii:�,�� , ' ' ��'��"'_I`L.li�� '��,�'�_�i, -. -Y -11 I I � ,-,, - - Z��,�z,_\ -1 , �- , J� , .- , ,,"% L" , __ - - , .1 _ _ - "i--- 'L ,, - , , I / ., ,�_I.,j...ii�,� - �_,. ��,i�I,l,-._� ',��,i" , - � -, �, � , -i�- � c-- 1-1 , - I'In`�z L, ii� �,, � - / � , , 11 - I _; , - ..,, - - _�� k '. , � - , I C� � , ,., _.�"" ,_,,_- L ;_ , sl','Z�,t-� ��J��,-,1��,� �"r,,�r - , m- m<wr,I:;-;;")t'` I ��I lii" �, I,"I � .. ,'�,v, i� , ,,,I \, � , I - - .1 . , ,. , ., -- �,_ ( il� -,L �Ni,g�;i-,,,. -,�M�,�I--�, ,> , -�,, -,, -� Ili --'�� � ' � 'i _�_i ,� - . , , , ,. . 1) I I ;.11 l! I " �',� - .......�,-��, �&�ic , ,,',2��,,�,,,��(jl,, , 11 11 I.I.,. _11a - 11 'I"i, -, , _ I I I -, \ ,��N � 1�_ " riz� , -,i'. L v"'. " - _ " ,_ -, I'll Ik�� L, - ,, '_ , .�� ;I�� , ,,,, .,i�z,) 1�11,��, , Ir � "' , ,.y-, - �-, - � ,� ,- -Z�, I ". -�. .isi-,j _ , "'IL __";��, N,-,�) " . �-I"'4,"",- -��"', ,I,, � -, -1 j[TI; ,,,11-1 .1 ,I... .,,I,,' .l .' . �___�,�"`ii I,� __ L�� -�,"�L�i ii__ C,1�til; . �,fz, I - _ ,� � �, ,•1�<�,\;�' `�� -�,,�Ii�..��ii�''_ i,�,�-.,;f?,-",v,-�;i,I,1,,�', -'- , - �' "-. -L,. 1-.r..1 iiL ,�� - '- ,r � , , . ,� �� . .I, ,-I, , -._ _1 ,�-,,)f,,,,--,I;,)I.,I'�j�� ,1`')'•,l ,�� ✓.... ir I� "�,I, , ,P i I- �, , 'IU)LI�T��, �, �,,,,,,"(, -1,, � I� I ", , -- . . ,"'I"" '��!Iil__, - - ;'� . �i;" L "_ . ;i, . " j�iii,i� - -- -- t- �', V , .- .,-" L, 1,I".---- _',,-'L -",,p .�,;li,,-il<I��,",�r,r.- �.o, - C"�' _�J_-,J:L-..'K_i�S�_.,,_ ;� l ,�:,�� -" , 1, � �L,17 I ,,-,i, - ;,/ , �,v A�il , . . �_ - L",I i ,��Y,;`,��,_"t il-'_;;ij-_liI�," _'-I"li,�- 'I I' llj,�' - ......;% �11��, , - ".l'.; l. � � - ", kil' - __ \ " ,I, .1 -- 1�1 _' ", I . .i,.,,,�,,i - I j"I 1--,-�,I-A-��\)'Z� - �.L"- � .1 r. 'J-'�, "' --"I'L., - -�fkll:,�p,-f(( J"�� Q2.' _ ij'k�iIl�- -1 li.�,_ ,,,, ,� �`�"��' ill. .. - ,�-7, ,�, � ' - -�i, ilLL�,� _ .,r , ;_�_', ., ��.. .1, . - . �, -j'z",Z�'� 7�-I L%�,Fe,z-"`,.�, ,k''"i�""""'�L,L,, '" -I "-, l iz�l,.\";_�) � - I)-) � _ �,�',,,Lj'��,,-k,�,�"_ ,_)r, ,�,;_ 1, I-1 .�_-L, i<-- lI� ;�z�, , I-_ ., I_ I 11 I - I.I I I. � �� , I I,,, _'IiZ , /N , �, , ,"",-, __'F ,'I-- ,---, - -z��mi�,�_Ii�-%V�;-\,�-- -, " - , , ♦ "I ,'. ,,;I�r�,!.,�.k�,��,'-,(�tii`.'i�,�,*,�, -,,,,.,,," ..iii,,�I", Mi,,,� - .!e,�":�, LK - - �_�"' ' '" ,li,L- �_T�_-_�j-�,-1 �,i��� � "p, , ,:��,,�-�_ , I I-- " . ,- ._-, _-_�_l . I I , -, 1,I 1,.-ii '\.,.i . , __�,._ I; _,�j L, _i,��,j 2�i'L,�,l, '7�_J,��/ Q.�,,ZT", ,'� li:V',)��',-'l,"� i, I I 11 " - I, I . _ , ,� -.i-)i�_ ,� . , , _-, ,. " .I,� � 7"l�fi��-L, I-,i--�� L . 1i7i.,,,,I,,-_ _- - --__ - .l I- lliii:41"V�' _-, ��_�, - I iii_�,'�.\_, - _ ,I,'-��1'�- _ �,3 ass.L".l. ., �� I _�,Nftftm.41� — I I "I �I ,-,, .- . . ��, _��_—__ .-..,,',_��_�1,_';r r,_ L�,(--.,-,L.,,.'j, �_L'._ii�-,4�'�','i�_ i ,�,"��,,,," ,, "'.1 , ,�17,1f,-p; �)-,'9�if, . , __ , '� w,I I-"I _,,-; _OL,,' i<,-"�,�','�q�,'��,_')�, I '"-',LL" _Z,,,�,-,,�L",-,,1 ,�, - -1 I. I _ ,_�, _L -I",�__,T7,__I j,",,�...... ,. �� , ' .,_,- _ ._S,�, ,, , _ - , , -.z-7- ,,.� _�y !4';%i�L, _ _�j� I�1, __� _`�'7i�_.' - .1 1-1'11 , "I-1 �,, I �L' -)�,- -,, "-.,L, - , I I I-1 " I......... �� T I .,�._� ,.,�'i,�.l;;":.'�:,�.'i"�_ ,,""j:1L_,- , � ,3�,�j.__ii�,I-__ _,,� I,__._,�.__. -,)--li 1 /\,7-.,,,-- �Ic 1, - _, � -';',�;;�' ,�i�.!,r__-1,,Z,1� .,r ,�_"� ,i Ill'';I,Z-ll-,L,T-'-; 'L� 'l &�Ii�"'�_"�l��,,j,, ,,I , , ' -" f , - _ � ,,5L,;��_�,� ��, ; , % P _�_��7 1 1 , >�,lQ�L _, , ;",' , _ I, , , ", " I ll, ;�� 1, ii� .� I;`�� p:� Q."L''4_ ,-- .,-- , I �- '�� -- -� �",,_ �i.. I��,_,I�,,I-W, 7� ,J�, <I __. � I-�11 , ", �`_' �- - "- ' ll, _"" ��,��,',i`iiiZl��l.;''i'�'.'ii:�,��,�_� -_" 'i " -,q I.....I�.,�� I I'-J ,, ., "L .,.�......_.�I�' �, - ,,�,, , I " .,-, i�,� ,# I L_.I ��, L lcl.Z:,�_I��'�(.I'�,.I, ,j�,`IlN��6'r �f-1 ii'6 ,ii� _�,C,i,;" _.1, - \��,,��- -f-,�'i'VL _,�L . r 1; " '' I `�'' , " (/��SL,`I��L ,,� I ,��i�o_,'i,;�,,-�_ii'�,��-,,li,iii-;,.,� - I'- -%iii-K. L, I' L�,�, I I��__ _,.__ ��'I�,l,-I i,i-;'c,�.f_, _,, , -��. ,-, . i.,��lL"�'.�I', ,_ _�i, �loil�� _ __. fl�''', � I ",, _ , _,�_j _ V'-_-i�, X� ,,,, _ - �, - ,. .I I 11 - �__Zi -I �. �,C_-v, , _ ,L " , _ i/ ) -,,, t �. I ,�,, , �I,� _-,''.', I ,,,, 11P.--I'-.L - i- I"' -1 l)--<�7�i��"ii I "'�' ' ''� ' �_��,',�"_ ",,. i. L� -T, _� `�'13��' -"I. ,,, -I,- _ I L I Ill �_�_ -,J - -,�,�;i �,��_�" ." lkl�,)>��� rj,�� -�]��_��%�,,,\,� � i��I.l�,\:z��, - ---�,�,-,����i,�,,��l,'�z'-���r---,-,�1�> -_',",�'',i.:,i-_lki_ ,�,,._.,,_�....... ��,i��� " L-l. �",- "'---_ , 1,-, ,���� ii� I- I• _�.1 L, I_._ _i� _ L- " ,' ,,, -� _,)�%_""j,,�, - 1�-Ie�,:i,,,� __�ri'�`,`�j i�`? ,,," -�,;%��:,_-,,,,, -� . I, , - � -, .�. I ,,, '.-, . 11 � _,� �. ''5,i';,'i,� ,;,,- - 1 . ,'��; -w",,'�,,��,.-�If.: - -i 111_'� I. � -/.,----�;�� l",)-,i;,'.`ii�',.iit.,:",-,C;:,., lI- I - __' �`�'_' "i. �- il'- .,- -�_,-_ i'-ee. ". , ""�"J, �Ii!4l�'I�7 ,,,���,,A�,�� 1�'�Z��,,�fi-I,,�"'li I&':�:,� Cl �'_,�`�......ll"I�,,qI�1,4,fZIIZ'5i ,, '�, -,�,7 V. i�Wit-,;-,_�.- ,1._1�,�r,,, "'"L', �''I,�- - "-"-' I -I. _`I -,__,;",I,�.��,"1 � __�� L , 1 11-11 ""t , -1, "i I -.i�i,, . ll�il�,,�, - ", _ - I",�__�f� � , , - � 1�111.<� 'r-' I )�I:. ,"lo- �1��I ljj" , , �. . - 1,-1 " . f-:"ii I i��''�-���-�- L,' '�ij'.'C'�"�� -�� - 'e,l_,i;����,'.�il��_�"Qi, ,'��'C �,-�. 1_ - - 0 � - _T' -1 _>,k"Z�, -._i-f" � _,�,,Llll- - , -,_ " � - ,L, �_� �",- I.,., - ,,� ,� _� ,iiI, -.. ,, '-!!7- ' li�'j ii�'I,- L "'�,""'I', ' ✓ ",`,�l,`,��- I'i�i-,-(g,;�ll�� � . � ,,Ill- I,,� ,10i��,�I ,-v- I �,11•'11- I 1.-, I I ii" I I ., I-,1.4,�1, �, -I% Iii,�"_,li"l". '. ," I,I-I _";'' 'L ,�' � 1, _�,-- - ,,'L"." � - l y ,if i,_, , , , -,,-�",,,,f,7 ..b,� , �', " _ �ii-''- ""l�''ri'�, i,_,4i,,,,,, ,Mi=i��V__-�zi:,--,::�,.'!��,, , , "---- --- l�- i,_' ." .. L'� '',ii,- ,,�";�i_..��'L,,i�,, v - L -�,�,��, ', ., " ... - L, 11 �I-,.; , L ,- -, I,-— _��j __",_;, .��.L I,1�' .... i � ,,Zj".i,�,,L� '��_" �"'Ii4�l"iLi-3�iii-iiii,�"ii�Ii:,l�� Fii,��,�,-:,- i.�'�, - - � " �- ��.i.... iii,-, " I-�I- , " �, " ,i�i", �'.�,,;,,,�i� - , - - - -,; �t,, ' 'I""L' L,',;* I - f�, - � I I ,,,, 1:,��,.1,',',*.`,�,� '� ,I"�� ","I - ,-�,z- - _'��� , " I __�,, .",�,L ..\I�, , , 1-i..,.,�'.�,,,,?,V,.')E�i�,ii�-r�,-\' -� 'I ,.", �,", ��___�', -fm,�,�)" ��i,,,,� f. �I?,',F,,,,. - , � , , " , * ,, / , _,��_ Lj�<::��", '�, - -� I, ,:� ,I.1, I I ���� I "II_ ,�,�-_1- , , _ - �� _- , , ,,, , .-- _",l, ",.,,i,� - - -1 ,,,,�L� L'- -"'., -I- I-,'I;,; -.,t��I�1;?��I,� �� i, , - ,. : l��:--.3 � - -,- I -,- "., L.,',�' I .L, I I I�_,i, --11�'j�-,�-�—,i", ,� _�%`ii ., , , - ,;i�,Y, ,,��,)�,,"s",i--. � , ,,1, , ��`�.��,�,�pr��,�. _, � , ( �j 11 I- ,, - L I ,--_ IV�1�'Ii�i;`,,�,�,,�-�vi,,�,-,� -�,.,� -"I I 11 I . - "',� I 1,--I, - " "`;i�r.:--- -�� Q� ;�,,!�, - �., ,-\1,,�- �" I I(Ir i � "zt'�� , - ,,,�,I �.. - � ,,, ,_,�_�.i", _,_.L I,I L,,,� � li-l-, , -b . "i", -1 I , �,",,I,, ,- , , . . L,�"--, " "- I - I ,�_.��'I j_T,-_-�>�,I , � -,.,,'.L"",c.I....I� I , " -I - ''I'l,"'I'l- - ,, I. .I ,� L� , -_ .11 I :Ji 1�1�111!��,�I�11I�l��_"� I 11 li�.��,� ,I�- 'il.i" ,�,�. ,�_il�.., I�1' ,�, , , __..,"4L'"'_-i_ "L,. I , ,,,�,1, "I--, 11 I %1, ',,, " , L , - .L'�", .,,I 5'k��11i7;/ I" _ •'L , - " L, i, %�-T,"il, .1' - - �.-�i.,�,Ji 1",! �',,,,I�.�,�;;5'��'�,�;'�-,�,"��",5,�, - _ 'l�_�",�_�'�_�'_�'�.`,__. - �_-_�"L�,l���,'�::,,�"�,,I - -,�-,j ,,,,,_�,�;f,n -,7�1:i7c,�-,�%i!_'I-_'-,�,-,-__i�- -, --- I*�", __ ,_ ,� � _,- - 1,� Xi`�i�, ,I-,-�),,",\ , , is . ��,��� _, '� - " - I �lj�.j,11 ,,r _/I"l "� � ),"�L-_ .��'11,,, , , ,"�,-,�,,---.".��l., ,�, .�_?1,_L,i- ,-- --. I�i,,�,i�,,�,� 11 �,1'� '"'�_`ii�'ijfr� _� 'I ,'I'.- ,,'1��11�I�',.I'' '.A , f�, ",7' �I_Z�'_Z__ 'L _'� -, -,.. 'L � _�'��:qii�)�':;�'.:�Li", 1. "".i- ;...�_`', , -. -, I- -,,�-,,r l'.k,j I - ,�i,---'� __q� _�,_ ,-- _ -, "I \, �� -;,,��.'. ,I-I-I,��.,li,,��Vi� _�,"'�"'L,.� -,�; '_-�,�-,,,�, ,)l I I 1. " '`�, I,L�'�'r,rf I I-I'li'Ll-1; I� ,�,." , �'_'L"�,"�'_ �J", �� . l I , j`� _,. I il",�V "i:.� -�- _2�,� - ,�',- I',�,,.A` -I 11 I,,,,,--1 L\. ....... ."_.__,�,"Z L,,,�l�. - _t-, , -, -- -,- I t,�,"�.�, -�, --�"- -I-- -� ,��:�,, Y . . , '�'� II -� ,:lil) '_,'t)� ,._�, _`,��J;,L"�, __ ,i��i,���� - 'ili�_ I I-,I- ,,_�,-,-. ��� -- . -�, I ,�.l L�, _ � --.L l"�' '�_�_� -,-�,,',,,�-,1����,,_, - �� L� . , ,�I, (I I ..," -� �X_,F � �,_ ", .-�'- j�7,L 11", '�'�i Z'�', ,", r��.��','.,�, � �r-" ", .,,�Il . . ii.,Z, _ ,, ,';i ,��,� )L,I�lI"',: Ai;�'�,�f��,:I,� �,,rii�:� �":;'11�, ,� ,�', ( I I 1. - � 'iL -I I e�"_�,, -I ,i..j_'_,1�111ii,L.�,,��, , _,�� �, ., . �;j� I,, ,;('?11 I I I ��I.. , 'j.�, ��,�,i,ii��'llii:: -�-ii I, . , 'L 1, i � _,.,�r . _�; . ) - �- I , I"" �', , ,I, -1, , --, _ ,;, i- !�, I " �, _1- L�f?� _;�__,�_�ii ,�5111�V C_'I . , �. - _, ,',,L�ii,"'II -j I, I ,���!-,'� .9,i�-,�'ii ,�',_,_, __ ,,--,L-r'�1'"� "_ior�,_ ,_i__ l ., ",-,��i� ................ . i�L" -11 I I-, 11 ,-,I 'L,�,";ji,�'--_�' , -, , ,� ;;L iii� _�-'}+`," , ,- � , I, ",�,� , I 1, , - "", \.--1-'-1__11'. I 11 i l�_ I- ,� �ii �J�', � , ,, . __�� ,:", �i_ ", ,,L;i "�' Ll "'"'` ' I" I ,') ,'iL'�""'L:L"�%���, "" � , '��-�;�i L� �`��`:,`_'�'L,:�,4:?_"L., �I, ,-� -_j, �' �'�'.'" I t-j , i-1',ji I �� I r. I �','�,.`�i_ I J'•'; t"I ,� �?� , il ���� _.......L"- .,6.'.�';'r_5 x,,,_"� L- ,_ "".- �I ,- %i',i�ziii�� _�I)l ,V,1�-", .:" I �,��,"�L,"�,��,-"�.��-,.�.,��'��,"�',�Q��-I�ii_- "L')�'-_T., _'i - ' ,��,-"i.. ,- , .- - ,I- ,--1 I��I L;" 5"�- ., -,.Af';��;lfi�� -11 , , , ,,_, _ - , �' , , J,, , _ ,�_�,�,.- _,i�, _, � 'I\' , . , i"� �i' """,, ` , , __��;V,_ ', :':\ ,,�i) I- �,"' �.I ,; ,, - - -, - ,, , , - , ,"",- "l `��', " "_ , " --- ,;" _ " ✓ "" , ' '�-, I I- I.1. I., 11 I Iii,"I . �., _�"",�"4,j,if ,, 7-� -_� - -"' , -�_; '-, "_L �f,�,Ii, _4 , , - ,;��I, , , � r. I 1 i, I �1-11'-.'T-- r_--I 1---1_- lii- .-� , � , 11 li� _,: " 11,�iiA b�5PL __ i�'. _ _ � - -- z.� ",_li,-�Ii_�,�-�,,;;�,�-_,,��'�, ',-"��',4��4'IiN-,L"`_-_ ,N-� --- I ,� I _ all �. ,"--�,,_' ','�',�)'I " "-_, ,� '�L i - -,,��.,��,,i%�j' .�I-��,,��ii-_-�, I��,�kl'11)IL�`f "_,'� _�Lj_i', I'.' "".'., L �4 ,-�'� -,.---' , ".,�.'l; � .� � 1; ,�. , I .. . - _��,�I�'-'',' ,L-L"'__, , I ' ' _, ,J, _I.... -j� -,- - --- , ,_�, - , )"�L,"� ,,- ,�i�� _��',, -,'�, ,� �2,_��lii,l " - .1 , , \ ,j, :c,�:511- ,� ,, ._�I I _;i-" _`�i*� ,l,,g,,��.,Z , _�I-, _��,,' l-� ,,,.",,,,_. '�"'l (,.�,�_. .�Z,"',�,�'\ "( �-"" ♦ _-�_j, -,__.�� ,_�. L I-."I I,��- , , I �,�. ,�-'�_,,-:-, ii-',�_�� 'i "I "I ."! '.",- _�� --,. , � ,���,`_, / , _�L',�,'�.,,� , � L � -, ."I. , __� ,�,�. � r� ,) � I j' i r,,�L_�'��,i ,�j �: , , i, �4�i,L'' 'r� I�I",I., I ,_ _, ,��'L.�,� I . - I �,���.,>�,�-"�;L��, I �- ' '�L i�Z '' - � _ �......� ,� _ ,, - _, ,___l � ,�;�,, - -",�D;"', -._,;, _���L,��.�'�'�"' L, ", ,r�.�,,, 'i -,�L_�ft� ""'"' _,� - 1,I-I..I��L,�_%�',,",,,'L,-,'I",I�'j� .--� -1�'11, W,'-4 I", , - ' ,- - 'L, ',- '",," " , Ill.� -� . ,"r,z,I :',L,''''� ���L Y'�:_ �� �-_.�i -,__ik_1,I N I .I -.I, I -- -I I "" _'.�i��)i�1. *��'I�1'��)'I;�4i J`I - � I _ I,_ � �,,� ill,1 , �_- _ 'S'� .. ... ..i"L- - ,- - Lr 1.-- L',Z,t�,. ��..�,___�::��, ,,, ,��L�''i��i",,j:,L��,L.'I',',�'[�'"-L'� :'jr.�. ��'�- ''_'''�I�1 -.5 L, ,.-" ,C, _,� - 3 .,.:-. �,'��"'�_I]i�-' __ L, -�,'l A��,, ;,�,_" -A� ,�'� -�,� - ' _ .I-. _ �i,3�:i', �;L > -, 5�,�) "l"�_I�'L "- I L- �''�, ,��"-i'L,�,f,,.L'..",\'IL", i, -i��, _ - -�,) -,�.��'iL:,�!�.',n.� -f"�-;I� ��?,4 -,v�',, �, , __'�,'.. _1 r i,,.,,I.. . "�" . ,,,_ r,,, ,� ,�� 'L , ',,� I , - ' '-- ' " - ,� _,,l�j:�", .,'� ,"."..� __�,, , __ /,, -, ,, -;_ _�:,��''Ii � �"i l,, : ';_. -,�,ili,,",,i --iii-- " . , i , lj I, _,.* --, "_j�:: -4.'i-_ -S'--' �_ "',,, __,_,'i, _ , - - `I� . ----%ii,- I ,l.,�_-�'.' -_'�I,� . , _ ,, � , ,)�'�, ✓�!r.i,�,�,,,.z�X_�,-, •" I_I'i,I,. - ---� I ,- ,,i,i,�;,�,-,-,,,,- I- i, 11 L �. L, I - .-. , , ,�,,�, _ )�,, . _� �� i%,�c .., "Li _'," ;-i. ,. _�:A _, ,.,_ ,�,. �i, - - - I ,�, _,L,� -Ii-I��,,�, .(, ,,.,.,. L ,�.i'L�--L._-., r . ,,-.__ i ,;,,�,,,liii,;lS5,, _;6 _�r,'��: I-li�i��, ��,�'�L`�, (, I '.I,">li,"" ,if,,__�,__,'.,�,I;- -"l,. I I I I -I-I,.-,, -- �� ;,_�,--_ � ,-. ,-,rC. ___.L _ �,- '-'..i.-_,,,. ,'I I �,l,,.L',.�,-"��-�', --L '/;' , ,- ..,,,�Ilill `\__',,. ,,�,.�I i�.,, r',jl,� , -.I�X,il,��7iZ I I,'�.-,'Lj,�,I�'iF,,�__��:,"L.,. L -,_�j�,.., ,.",�"".ii';%',i.--i-Iiii i:, ,- ,I-)"I,,-'-,, �i : . , �� *,�, '-A-1---i I -.", , ,- _ �," -I - , _�� L � ,�- ," , __,_ ,_.. � -1-,,-�-'rt,l . _ , _ i),I, ,gri1 ", 1 ii- �( .,�� _ .,I , , -, 'i, - 'I " ,,, -, I-- -," I _,I, , _ 'j , 1�,��w' , I , � 1, I, - ,, - -- _ �,`,� I I--- "L........r',�) ,.,_J.,,. - , ,,, ,� I .", , - ' _ _1.; , ,�j l ii I .. ' , �i) L _��_� _� -,,,,Z" _�,�, _4��',,,.li��_,_, , - "li,_L'�� - f "'" �_,, I --l I .,�, , - , I � r _�� - .. 1. , - -i, I I .- ,; ,:i i%i"-,i. __JiL i/��'���II�_��.:." I,'%'� , - c:..- � _ ,."'���,��_,lS_,�,� "...t _, -�;, _,--.-, � ,,, , \��". _C ; i I 4", I.���,"I L _i�L',�',�., , '7�ii'W%. .I ".I.1 ,�I,.-��, , .Fat rl�il� I I wilf I ,_ � , I , " - -LL,I 11. ,"."_, _''j,L..I ,I I I _."�j r,IS"'_i, - -��(�--,,---,,� (�� ,�1� Li�,�, �_ - -. ,L _ _, - __ _,�i ,._ 4JI, , .,5� , 1 - , I -11 I , e ' I _ -, -, - _\ . - I.,:' � -:iizi,,,,li"' --,-I o . ,, � VI;,-its,,��;,��"�:i - "I ,,, .I 1.I � L , , %,r�',jlij,..�, .'-, .'�4.... ..... ,ii� � ..,-, ",, L' ;:L�1�� �:, . �i-e -----; - L�, ,,� ,, ,r,�._,.,_(,, , �,r C1�;l�,�,�, - :".,7"�, -_- �_ ,, , ,,,- IL I ,, - �� -I� - - -3�'.,� �,I 1� , - ,,, , ," p , _�:,. , -__� - ,I ... ,�,/Ii__ "t;,�, � ,� J,,"I, .�,,i�� i ':�, -,�, ,�, �I, �� _ _ _,tea:.L,l'A�,"�p' P, t _r �,�,? - - , " ,,':,�,,' �.V�- ,-;,-,,t ,�, ;." ",, , , _ ��'' _:i_'�;-�l�,,,i' l� I. -. ,�- ,�� / :/,. _%�,�i�,,� -,'�, )"', 11 ".. _j I,'.", -,-",, � lil -I- �7c�-� ,�,,.��,,�;��,__� .� �I l _,�,7& I'��:'��-��"-�_'"; 'i ",, ,,,�_�i,-,-i%��,�'i I ,, I', , `'�"Le"�,'�,.�.-�"iL'" - -:.. I � �1_1'_ I I ,1�,I,,�i,.I-� �., i ,�. I ;; , ,�, -� ..,-,&z,�,1<1).� � . � I I - I'll I II I ,,,. - I I �lj�ll 7�-,:�.:�-�-:�v'��,",�,"N' L " , � .�`%`�_i�� 11% 1,,ii,L;-I'��LiII,�.P�_j��_'�I.......L I�' �,'r , 'I� '�'r;;-1, --.1,I- _,-r�'t�,--� ., � )I-i,,-,,,,I I.- .:9.i ,r.,� Il �i 1.� I . � ��,,1!,,�,)Y.��,0;v,,-,,�;�,"Lj'��',�',,�-,J,<<"���.,�,I��,ii_' - �� , _ , ,_ I .�._ "�__ �.". ,..,�...L,,. , - ,�'Li.: '..��Iii �,�., ..."i,l�c..,;\,,I ��l - �� I �- � �, ,- �,'i 2, -, * -', I, - ,;,t,�,I " i. A-l�,I I I -.-I'll",�.,, 1.I I•�I- 1, 1. "., I I L �,�,,,,---, , - , .-� I I-. I I. , - . .�jv,l- , -,,.',, � - I L. / , � � . � " ".- ,--1 �I � ' 'L ;. � � � .- - L I I I`��i,,�� � -_ .. � � , I. ;I 11 I .��' �, _� , , . " I ✓ i. 1�,t"� , .W. .1z,i,- . I � ' LL• .I !!! i � -1 . .. I _1 Ir I I I N.I. , LEGEND Ik�-_,_ i - The Keith CoMpanies 17KC � 4S,4p �_ [K] Sub Areas N 0 T T D s c A L E Rol * au �)-h Ranch I I In 6=M%MMMIM � -11) 9 I " I I . m N P ® om � --u,, . _ ✓ o m � LEGEND Existing Flows n3 1 Existing Water Course Source:TKC 1998, 2001;ADKAN 2001 Existing Hydrology Pbt1eE:�RN1002 B:51A0 MI BY T_BMGEA GWG:N:V 1]B].000WgtSp01-0ZEIRFIG].42.Exg 3.4 WATER RESOURCES ' A computerized program called HEC RAS was also used to predict potential flooding characteristics. The results of this study were refined in 2001 by David Evans Associates(DEA)during preparation of detailed ' improvement plans for the various onsite detention and flood control facilities. A detailed hydrological study using similar methodologies was also prepared for the Plateau area by Adkan Engineering (Adkan 2001). ' Existing 100-year storm flows(Q 00)along Santa Gertrudis Creek enter the project site at 2,797 cubic feet per second(cfs)and exits the site at 3,075 cfs. Runoff in Long Valley Wash enters the site at 3,768 cfs and leaves the site at 4,460 cfs (TKC 1998)(DEA 2001). The 100-year storm waters from the small onsite ' drainage channels in the Plateau area are relatively minor-there are four small channels with 100-yearstorm flows amounting to a total of approximately 241 cfs(TKC 1998)(Adkan 2001). However, since the 1998 TKC hydrology study was prepared, the southern portion of the Rancho Bella Vista project started construction and the 3 small drainages north of Murrieta Hot Springs Road are now contained within a storm drain in Murrieta Hot Springs Road(D.Agnew,DEA,personal communication,January 2002) Appendix D contains the 1998 TKC project hydrology report with calculations for the 100-year storm flows(Q100)for ' Santa Gertrudis Creek and Long Valley Wass,and the hydrological report for the Plateau area(Adkan 2001). Approximately 500 acres of the project site is presently dry farmed and survives on only local precipitation. For more information on domestic water consumption, see Public Utilities (Section 3.12). ' c) Flooding/Flood Control The National Flood Insurance Program,operated by the Federal Emergency Management Agency(FEMA), prepares Flood Insurance Rate Maps(FIRM)to identify potential flooding problems,referred to as 100-year and 500-year floods. The FEMA study for Temecula indicates a large portion of the City is within the 100- to 500-year flood zones for Murrieta Creek. The FEMA study does not include the portions of Santa Gertrudis Creek within the Roripaugh Ranch property. The Riverside County Flood Control District is responsible for planning and maintaining a regional network of flood control structures throughout the County. In addition,the U.S.Army Corps of Engineers(ACOE) is responsible under the federal Clean Water Act for modifications to drainage channels that are considered ' "Waters of the U.S." and certain wetland areas. Furthermore, the local representative of the ACOE has indicated that development of the site should not increase runoff or the potential for flooding on downstream properties (R. Smith, personal communication, 1998). According to Figure 7-4 in the City of Temecula's General Plan(Dam Inundation Areas),the project site is not within any identified inundation area associated with any dams or retention structures in the general area (Temecula 1993). d) Water Quality ' The California Porter-Cologne Water Control Act of 1968 and the Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendment of 1972 require that comprehensive water quality control plans be developed for all waters within the State. In order to accomplish this,the California State Water Quality Control Board(SWQCB)divided the state into 16 planning basins,each managed by a Regional Water Quality Control Board(R W QCB). The project site is within the Santa Margarita Watershed and is governed by the San Diego Regional Water ' Quality Control Board (RWQCB). RORIPAUGH RANCH SPECIFIC PLAN ' 2N°REVISED DRAFT EIR-APRIL 1,2002 3-43 ' 3.4 WATER RESOURCES ' The SDRWQCB currently administers the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) program. NPDES permits are issued by the State under authority of the EPA to selected industries, ' construction activities,and municipalities. The proposed project will be required to comply with the NPDES General Construction Activity Storm Water Program as well as related actions by the County of Riverside Flood Control District. ' The NPDES permit must be acquired through a Notice of Intent(NOI)filed with the State Water Quality Control Board. To adequately control storm water quality, both point and non-point sources of urban pollutants must be identified and controlled. This is accomplished through the implementation of a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) which includes Best Management Practices (BMPS). t As previously shown on Figure 3.4-1,most of the Roripaugh Ranch site drains in a southwesterly direction toward Santa Gertrudis Creek, which then drains into the Murrieta Creek further to the southwest. The Murrieta-Temecula(groundwater)Basin underlies nearly all of Santa Gertrudis Creek,including the project ' site. The overall storage capacity of the Murrieta-Temecula Basin is estimated to be 1.2 million acre feet and there are approximately 250 active wells (DWA 1998). Local well water is used for both domestic and irrigation purposes. The wells are clustered principally within the Murrieta Valley around the City of ' Murrieta. Other clusters of high-producing wells are located in the Santa Gertrudis Valley and Pauba Valley. One measure of overall water quality is "hardness"measured by the Total Dissolved Solids(TDS)which ranges from relatively"soft'water at 1-200 parts per million(PPM)of TDS up to very"hard"water at 800- 1000 PPM of TDS. At present, the quality of water withdrawn from the Murrieta-Temecula Basin ranges from 250- 1,000 PPM, depending on depth and location. The Watermaster for the Santa Margarita River Watershed indicates the well closest to the project site has a water depth of approximately 1000 feet and is ' of relatively good quality with low TDS levels (260-285 mg/1), although recent nitrate (NO,) levels were slightly elevated above historical levels (i.e., 53 mg/I versus 10-12 mgA)(SMRW 1998). The Regional Water Quality Control Board and the Army Corps of Engineers have stated that overall surface and groundwater quality will not be adversely affected by new development,including the proposed project. To that end,they have indicated that no new runoff should be contributed to Santa Gertrudis Creek or Long Valley Wash by development of this project (R. Smith, personal communication, 1998). re) Beneficial Uses ' In a comment letter on the second DEIR,the San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board provided a lengthy discussion about its classification of"beneficial uses"for various waterways- They indicated the Santa Gertrudis Creek and Long Valley Wash were classified for"freshwater habitat." f) Comments on Previous DEIRs ' The San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board provided a comment letter on July 10, 2001 on the second DEIR, mainly concerned with maintaining "beneficial uses"of the two onsite channels.. This 2n1 Revised DEIR incorporates appropriate information from that letter. However, it does not change the t proposed uses or type of flood control improvements planned along these two waterways. In addition, the SDRWQCB requested additional information on how the project would control"first flush"pollutants in urban runoff. RORIPAUGH RANCH SPECIFIC PLAN ' 2NO REVISED DRAFT EIR-APRIL 1,2002 3-44 ' 3.4 WATER RESOURCES ' State Division of Dams On July 12, 1999, the California Department of Water Resources, Division of Safety of Dams, wrote a letter outlining their jurisdiction over certain kinds and sizes of water detention ' facilities. The current Roripaugh Ranch project will not have any structures that meet these requirements. Riverside County Flood Control On May 12, 1999, the Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District(RCFCWCD)submitted a comment letter about downstream drainage impacts and methods to alleviate potential impacts. In response to these concerns,the developer has been working with the RCFCWCD for the past 2 years on the design of onsite detention structures, drainage channels, and maintenance. The developer is still negotiatingas to the exact size and design of the flood control structures on Long Valley Wash,but the design goal is to prevent an increase in offsite runoff or the potential for offsite flooding. ' 3.4.2 Criteria for Determining Significance The City has not established local CEQA significance thresholds, however,potentially significant water- related impacts may result if a project causes:a)changing absorption rates,drainage patterns,or the amount or rate of surface runoff;b)expose people or property to water related hazards;c)change the amount or type of discharge into surface waters or water bodies;d)change ocean water movements;or e)adversely affect the quantity,quality,rate of direction of flow of groundwater(CEQA Guidelines,Appendix I). In addition, government agencies responsible for flooding and water quality require that new development not produce any demonstrable impacts on downstream properties. ' 3.4.3 Level of Impact before Mitigation ' a) Runoff/Flood Control As shown in Table 3.4-1,approximately 550.4 acres or 68 percent of the site will remain in natural open space ' or maintained with pervious surfaces such as turf grass(e.g.,parks and yards)and landscaping. This figure includes all of theopen space and parkland acreage plus approximately half of the school property for fields and half the residential acres for yards. Conversely,almost a third(254.3 acres or 32%)of the site will be ' covered by impervious surfaces. Therefore,development of the project site will significantly increase the amount of onsite drainage due to the covering of native soils,which are presently very pervious,with various impervious surfaces such as asphalt, concrete, and buildings. The Drainage Management Plan for the proposed Specific Plan will maintain flows in the Santa Gertrudis Creek and Long Valley Wash at or below their present levels. This will be accomplished by installing four (4) detention basins to retain water during high flows but allow low flows to immediately exit the site. Two basins,one in Santa Gertrudis Creek and one in Long Valley Wash,will be designed as flow-by/detention basins able to detain approximately 19 acre-feet and 8.4 acre-feet,respectively. Two additional detention ' basins (each approximately 10 acre-feet)will be located in the south-central and western portions of the Plateau. Offsite flow from the small drainage channel in the southwest comer of the Valley portion of the site will be contained in storm drains as Planning Area 21 is developed,and routed into Long Valley Wash. With the completion of the master drainage facilities,Santa Gertrudis Creek will have an inlet Q100 of 2,797 cfs and an outlet of 3,075 cfs,equal to its existing outflow. Long Valley Wash will have an inlet of 3,768 cfs and an outlet of approximately 4,460 cfs,equal to its existing outflow. Exit flows will be equal or less than ' entrance flows due to flow storage in the proposed flow by/detention basins. The developer is currently RORIPAUGH RANCH SPECIFIC PLAN ' 2N°REVISED DRAFT EIR-APRIL 1,2002 3-45 ' 3.4 WATER RESOURCES ' negotiating with the Riverside County Hood Control and Water Conservation District(RCFCWCD)and the City Engineer as to the exact type of control devises to be used and the location of the detention basin in ' Long Valley Wash. Control devises may include,but are not limited to,hydro-arch bridge structures,subject to approval by Riverside County Flood Control. Figure 3.4-3 shows the Master Plan of Drainage for the proposed project. Based on continuing discussions with County Flood Control and City Public Works staff, the project developer will install flood protection on Santa Gertrudis Creek downstream of the site to approximately where Calle Girasol/Nicolas Road crosses the creek(D.Agnew,personal communication, January 2002). ' The City originally requested the project reduce offsite flows from Santa Gertrudis Creek and Long Valley Wash by 5 percent,however,there are a numberof physical constraints that prevent that amount of reductio ' (see Section 2.2.10 on Drainage). The hydrology study by Adkan Engineering in 2001 indicates that offsite flows from the easternmost of the ' original four small drainage channels in the Plateau area only carry 9 cubic feet per second (cfs). This drainage course will be channelized as Planning Area 4B is developed. These improvements will not have any significant impacts on downstream properties since the drainage master plan for the Roripaugh Ranch ' property proposes to maintain the same offsite flows as presently exist. Any concentrated offsite flows will be adequately dispersed by the use of rip-rap,armorflex,or equivalent improvements as approved by the City Engineer. A drainage study specifically for Long Valley Wash was prepared by David Evans and Associates (DEA) in February of 2000. The developer is currently negotiating with the Riverside County Flood Control and ' Water Conservation District (RCFCWCD)to determine the exact size and location(s)of onsite detention basins based on the new land plan. However, the project engineer has stated that,as long as the eventual improvements do not increase offsite runoff and the potential for flooding,no significant impacts in this regard are expected (D. Agnew, DEA, personal communication, April 2001). RORIPAUGH RANCH SPECIFIC PLAN ' 2"u REVISED DRAFT EIR-APRIL 1,2002 3-46 ' 3.4 WATER RESOURCES ' Table 3.4-1 ' Projected Runoff Changes ' Total Pervious Surfaces Impervious Surfaces Land Use Acres T. Acres % Acres Open Space (landscaping,flood 262.2 100 262.2 0 0.0 control,and habitat) Parks(public) 24.9 90 22.4 10 2.5 ' Schools 32.0 50 16.0 50 16.0 Low Residential Half to one acre lots 112.9 90 101.6 10 11.3 Low Medium Residential ' 5,000-6,000 square foot lots 189.0 55 104.0 45 85.0 Medium Residential Standard Lots 30.9 40 12.4 60 18.5 ' Clustered Courtyard 81.2 30 24.4 70 56.8 Private Recreation Centers 9.1 45 1 4.1 55 5.0 Commercial 15.4 15 2.3 85 13.1 Fire Station 2.0 5 0.1 95 1.9 ' Streets 45.2 2 0.9 1 98 44.3 TOTAL 804.7 68% 550.4 32% 254.3 ' Source: Estimates by TKC based on proposed land use plan RORIPAUGH RANCH SPECIFIC PLAN ' 2N°REVISED DRAFT EIR-APRIL 1,2002 3-47 ' 3.4 WATER RESOURCES ' b) Water Quality Implementation of the proposed project will fundamentally alter the composition of surface runoff presently ' entering local drainages. Present runoff is mainly agricultural. Conversion of the site to urban uses will increase the amount of sediment,suspended debris,landscape maintenance or associated chemicals(e.g., fertilizers,herbicides,etc.),and materials related to automotive wear(e.g.,tire rubber,oil,antifreeze,etc.). ' These materials will reach the local drainages not so much by direct dumping but by small amounts of material washing off the streets during storms or street-sweeping activities. The amount of onsite drainage and surface runoff will also significantly increase through onsite grading,the construction of impervious streets, roofs and parking facilities, and the irrigation of landscaped areas. The project drainage plan is based on the following objectives: 1) maintain, wherever possible, the basic ' existing drainage patterns,avoiding diversion of flows from existing drainage courses;2)control soil erosion and sedimentation from natural slopes and manufactured slope banks;3)provide improvements as necessary to control flooding while not hindering adequate community circulation;4)consider potential impacts to offsite ' areas in the design of community drainage facilities; and 5)maintain existing drainage courses, wherever possible, as open space or developed open space so as to minimize diversion of existing flows. After discussions with SDRWQCB staff,the project developerwill incorporate downdrain fossil filters,grassy swales (when practical), and other filtering devices to assure that urban "first flush" flows are contained onsite prior to discharge into either Santa Gertrudis Creek or Long Valley Wash (D. Agnew and J. Shaw, personal communication, January 2002). In response to these ongoing water quality concerns, a Water Quality Management Plan(WQMP)will be prepared and submitted for approval by the SDRWQCB prior to issuance of a grading permit for the project. Appendix D of this report contains recommended Best ' Management Practices (BMPs) that will be incorporated into the WQMP as appropriate. Construction of the project will introduce new impervious surfaces (mainly asphalt and buildings) on approximately 254.3 acres(or 32 percent)of the site. The remaining 550.4 acres(68 percent)of the site will have permeable surfaces such as landscaping or natural open space. These areas will facilitate the percolation of surface water and, eventually, contribute to groundwater recharge. ' Runoff entering the storm drain system will contain minor amounts of pollutants typical of urban use,including pesticides,fertilizers,oil and rubber residues,detergents,grease,hydrocarbon particles,dust particulates,and ' otherdebris. This runoff,although typical of urban use,will contribute to the incremental degradation of water quality downstream from the Santa Gertrudis and Murrieta Creeks. 1 RORIPAUGH RANCH SPECIFIC PLAN ' 2No REVISED DRAFT EIR-APRIL 1,2002 3_48 ' FIGURE 3.4-3 ASHBV USA,LLC I Li. g �5 �V V f O Z. 4� 4y �✓ ' 72, o- 42• O �� 8 �� V, 1B ' 1 M P PM"b MURR/meq SOT h' 129AC �9A �� I ` •", I Q,di'L1g15 F 98 DU S M 3 SpRrNOS 3.8 19 0 AC AC 9 DU'S OsB1 I / 18.4 AC LM / ' Q100- 99 DU'S 9198-D9 uA Cs 4.8 AC 19.6 AC ROS \5 1o0DU's 50 cfS 22 nc 6 179.6"C /Sy �t2 . I ' — — CU 11U'SNP \ L X8.1 ACAC 11 0 •� Q 7A 19.5 AC E (1OS3) 15.4 AC (10.OAC) Detention Basin ODetention Basin — — 10 Ac/Ft .0D Channel / Flow By I I 0� 18 I 12 Q / Detention Basin 4-0 cj NAP M2 y 19 AcIFt �\ 16.2 AC W i' 150 U S I n, 17 LM 16 .5AC 33B — i 13744 DuUU LEGEND 9 i. 29u C 's O Ni P`� ! I / 1 150Du's 11 " I�I I b I I' ✓ 16.7 AC % AC "Y Q7 Proposed 24 Storm Drain Pipe 33A ✓ (14.3AC) 174 DU'S 14.1 174 DU'S S is DU'S s 3C Proposed 30"Storm Drain Pipe Q100=3075 ds RC AC 18 —. _--- 00 S9 LM ' " 12.0 AC 108 DU'S ����• 24.4 AC Proposed 42 Storm Drain Pipe 27 SP 31 19.8 AC 28 ■■■ " (1Z AC OSx) Zoo AC 217 DUS 19 ' Proposed 72 Storm Drain Pipe I L Q100=4460 CfS //// ,/�i,/ , 35.9 AC �n7lllr��l0/6 I nou's Proposed Storm Drain Inlet/Outlet Structure � 0 ` Proposed Hydro Arch Bridges Mz M4 .� or other design approved by City Engineer M2 2319 s Ac 10'DU s 113.9 AC 113 DU'Slull l l IF�JL• O Improved Natural Drainage 3��s I 3'Dus SOUTH Looe aoAo 20 Flow By I / '� Q'"c3j6 1 CALLECHAPOS 24.OAC 30.8 AC. DetentionBasl I 8 Local Storm Drain flows are excluded ra 2129 DU'S 35 DU'S 8.4 ActFI I s ' from this exhibit = — Sources: Plateau drainage by Adkan Engineering, (2001) P2.0 AC 2 Qom, Valley portion by TKC (1988, 20001) (1.5AC) �sgcf ' s ® The Keith C.-,.mesh /■K_Av 0 ID 400 900 , ■ 1600— 3.4 WATER RESOURCES ' c) Offsite Improvements Construction of offsite roadways and utility improvements may cause temporary erosion or water quality ' impacts if local soils are exposed for any length of time,especially during periods of rain or wind. Potential water-related impacts of construction of the RCWD and EMWD utility lines were addressed in a cursory fashion in the CEQA documents for these projects(see Section 1.7). The current alignment of Nicolas Road has been used for local traffic for many years,and no significant water quality-related impacts are expected from its improvement. Prior to issuance of any building permits for Phase 2,Nicolas Road will be improved to a40-foot width and an all-weather crossing constructed over Santa Gertrudis Creek. This improvement ' will require future permitting from the U.S.Army Corps of Engineers,and possibly the California Department of Fish and Game. However, the revised drainage study by David Evans & Associates (DEA)for Santa Gertrudis Creek indicates that this structure can be designed so as to not restrict flows along this portion of ' Santa Gertrudis Creek,and it can be designed to safely withstand expected storm flows(D.Agnew,DEA, personal communication,January 2002). A road crossing of this size would cause negligible impacts to Santa Gertrudis Creek as long as current flows are maintained and the banks immediately upstream and dowstream of the crossing are protected, as is planned. As a result of this work, Calle Girasol in the vicinity of its intersection with Nicolas Road, will be modified to make a safe intersection (D. Agnew, DEA, personal communication,January 2002). Runoff from the roadway will be tied into the existing storm drain system ' downstream of the roadway,so no new urban pollutants will be introduced into the creek. In addition,the City and Riverside County Flood Control have recommended additional bank protection downstream of the site on Santa Gertrudis Creek,which the project applicant will install as recommended. It is also possible that flood control improvements in Santa Gertrudis Creek could impact M WD's San Diego Pipelines Nos.3,4, and 5. As long as the mitigation measures applied to onsite construction activities are applied to offsite improvements, including potential impacts to MWD pipelines, no significant water-related impacts are ' expected. Construction of Butterfield Stage Road south of the project will slightly increase area runoff by adding impervious surfaces. These additional flows will also contain urban pollutants. However,the roadway design includes a storm drain which will safely convey runoff from the roadway. Shea Homes is currently constructing a segment of this roadway(approximately 1,900 feet)and has prepared a Mitigated Negative Declaration that arrives at the same conclusion. As long as construction of Butterfield Stage Road related to the Roripaugh Ranch Project is included in the Water Quality Management Plan for the project,it will not have any significant impacts to water quality or water resources. Hydro-arch bridges or other approved structures will be built in Phase 1 to convey flow in Santa Gertrudis Creek and Long Valley Wash under Butterfield Stage Road. The Santa Gertrudis Creek bridge over North ' Loop Road and Butterfield Stage Road will be built in Phase 1. Additional hydro-arch bridges or other approved structures will be built in Phase 2 to convey Long Valley Wash under North Loop Road/South Loop Road and Santa Gertrudis Creek under Nicolas Road(the all-weather crossing over Santa Gertrudis Creek ' may be moved up to Phase I if Nicolas Road alone is to be used for secondary access for the Plateau area). d) Beneficial Uses The flow within the lower portion of Santa Gertrudis Creek(i.e.,downstream of Butterfield Stage Road)is totally intermittent and does not contain a surface water environment. However,the"upper"portion does ' contain at least one identifiable impoundmentjust east of Butterfield Stage Road,at the confluence of a small RORIPAUGH RANCH SPECIFIC PLAN ' 2NO REVISED DRAFT EIR-APRIL 1,2002 3-50 1 3.4 WATER RESOURCES ' drainage identified in the Jurisdictional Delineation prepared by Glenn Lukos Associates(GLA 2000). This area is relatively undisturbed and does support freshwater habitat at present,but does not contain water other than during or immediately after major storm events,so itis also intermittent. The channel just upstream of ' Butterfield Stage Road will have a detention/desilting basin that will actually improve the downstream hydrology both in terms of flood control and future habitat as approximately 10 acres of riparian vegetation will be planted as mitigation for impacts of the project(D.Shelley,GLA,personal communication,August ' 2001). It is evident that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service(USF&WS)also took wildlife movement into account ' when approving the Sub-Regional Habitat Conservation Plan for Assessment District 161 (AD 161 SHCP) which includes the Roripaugh Ranch project. In their environmental assessment for AD 161 SHCP, the USF&WS indicated that wildlife movement could continue if flood control structures were of sufficient size L and limited length. The proposed structures under Butterfield Stage Road include 800 feet of open channel and 300 feet of"hydro-arch" bridges or similar structures approved by the City Engineer, which have sufficient clearance to allow movement of wildlife tolerant of human activity(e.g.,deer,coyote,etc.)along Santa Gertrudis Creek during non-storm periods. In addition,wildlife can also move along the upper portion of the creek,then cross the main channel and proceed up the many small drainages along the northern slopes of the channel north and west to Skunk Hollow, a regionally significant vernal pool. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is providing a Section 7 Consultation with the U.S.Army Corps of Engineers on the Clean Water Act Section 404 permit being processed for this project, and this is one factor they are taking into account in their review. Long Valley Wash,by comparison,is extensively disturbed and does notcontain any significant riparian or freshwater habitat either on or adjacent to the project site,both upstream and downstream.This is because 1 the channel is adjacent to areas that have been farmed for many years. The existing channel is narrow and shallow,with a very limited sandy bottom in most areas,and no ponds orpools except for immediately after major storms. Statements included in the SDRWQCB letter indicate the channel has marginal physical characteristics to support freshwater or riparian habitat. For example, the channel does not have a wetland/upland transition zone that is necessary in a functioning stream. It also does not have a natural floodplain or the necessary hydrologic soils. The proposed project will actually improve the habitat value of Long Valley Wash by widening it and creating a soft bottom channel approximately 200 feet wide that will eventually be fully vegetated through natural cycling(D.Shelley,GLA,personal communication,August 2001). The developer,the City,and Riverside County Flood Control are currently negotiating the size and design of the bridge structures over Long Valley Wash and under Butterfield Stage Road,but it is relatively certain they ' will be "concrete arch' structures of sufficient height (i.e., 14 feet) to allow wildlife to move along this corridor as well, which at present is extremely limited due to the channel condition. ' According to the environmental assessment prepared for the AD 161 Sub-Regional Habitat Conservation Plan, the significant habitat areas of Santa Gertrudis Creek are being preserved under this plan,while the Long Valley Wash was not considered by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the U.S. Army Corps of 1 Engineers,or the California Department of Fish and Game to contain significant biological habitat. Therefore, the project is not expected to have significant impacts on beneficial uses as identified by the SDWQCB. RORIPAUGH RANCH SPECIFIC PLAN ' 2N°REVISED DRAFT EIR-APRIL 1,2002 3-51 1 ' 3.4 WATER RESOURCES 1 3.4.4 Standard Conditions and Uniform Codes Significant impacts to water resources could occur if runoff from new development is not properly controlled. The City has an urban runoff ordinance that is based on the general stormwater permit process of the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) program of the federal government. This ordinance helps minimize runoff into the municipal storm water system through Best Management Practices (BMP). The City requires registered civil engineers and other qualified professional personnel to plan,design, and monitor private development projects. ' In addition,the City requires that,prior to issuance of grading permits,the developer submit a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan(SWPPP)to prevent uncontrolled runoff during construction activities. Sucherosion control activities include,but are no limited to,planting of manufactured slopes,protection of excavated soils stockpiled for more than 10 days,temporary runoff control structures,blankets,netting,hydroseeding,fiber rolls, sandbags, and silt fences. Uncontrolled connections (or the lack of connections) to responsible service agencies could result in significant impacts to area groundwater or surface waters. Water service and connections are coordinated through the local water agency(i.e.,EMWD and RCWD). Sewer service and connections are coordinated through the EMWD and the City during the development review process. The developer is also required to meet the requirements of the Regional Water Quality Control Board and U.S. Natural Resources Conservation Service regarding potential surface water impacts. To prevent significant flooding impacts, the design of flood control structures will be reviewed by the Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers ' during their review process which will assure compliance with established flood control practices in this area. Prior to the issuance of grading permits,the City will require the applicant to meet applicable requirements 1 of the Clean Water Act Section 404 as administered by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to prevent significant impacts in terms of erosion to offsite properties. The project is already in the process of obtaining a 404 permit as well as a streambed alteration agreement. For related discussion,see Section 3.7,Biological ' Resources. 3.4.5 Project Design Features Project-related improvements have been arranged and designed to prevent uncontrolled runoff to Santa Gertrudis Creek and Long Valley Wash. Onsite flows generated by the development of the project site will ' be carried through the streets within rights-of-way until street capacities are reached. Flows beyond street capacities will necessitate a series of catch basins and storm drain systems. The Conceptual Drainage Master Plan for the project proposes the construction of four detention basins in the following locations: 1)in Planning Area 13 just upstream of Butterfield Stage Road in Santa Gertrudis Creek; 2)in Planning Area 25 adjacent to Long Valley Wash; 3)at the south end of Planning Area 3; and 4) the southwest portion of Planning Area IA. Other improvements anticipated for both Santa Gertrudis Creek and Long Valley Wash involve hydro-arch bridges or other design approved by the City Engineer at major road crossings, as previously depicted in Figure 3.4-3. RORIPAUGH RANCH SPECIFIC PLAN ' 2N1)REVISED DRAFT EIR-APRIL 1,2002 3-52 1 3.4 WATER RESOURCES 1 All drainage and flood control facilities and design standards shall be subject to review and approval of the City of Temecula and,where applicable,the Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District. All structures onsite will be constructed at least one foot above established 100-year flood limits,as required 1 by flood insurance standards. 3.4.6 Mitigation Measures The following measures are proposed to assure that potential offsite drainage impacts do not become significant: (1) Prior to the issuance of a grading permit,the developer shall provide a Drainage Management Plan (DMP)covering both Santa Gertrudis Creek and Long Valley Wash immediately downstream of the 1 project site. The DMP must provide permanent erosion control measures sufficient to protect downstream properties from flooding,scour,erosion,and/or other drainage-related damage up to a 100-year storm. The DMP will demonstrate that runoff leaving the project site will not negatively increase velocity or flow. The report will demonstrate how total offsite flows from the 2 channels can be reduced to the greatest extent feasible from existing flows. The DMP shall identify maintenance responsibilities and be prepared to the satisfaction of the City Public Works Department and the Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District, The DMP shall incorporate any changes to the project drainage reports and demonstrate the project ' meets all applicable requirements of the Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District(RCFCWCD)relative to drainage improvements and drainage-related construction activities. The DMP must demonstrate the planned improvements will prevent downstream erosion and flooding ' impacts and any increases in offsite runoff. If it cannot demonstrate these conditions are met,the onsite flood control structures will be modified or the number/layout of residential units or non- residential uses will be modified to achieve these standards, to the satisfaction of the City Public 1 Works Department and the RCFCWCD. For the purposes of this measure,downstream impacts also refers to MWD pipelines that could be impacted. (2) Prior to recordation of any map or issuance of a grading permit,whichever is first,the developer shall provide a maintenance agreement for the portions of the Santa Gertrudis Creek and Long Valley Wash on the project site. It must be mutually agreeable to the City Public Works Department,the ' Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District(RCFCWCD), and the Home Owners Association (HOA). This agreement shall state that the City is only responsible for maintaining flood control facilities under public roads,and is not responsible for maintaining the Santa 1 Gertrudis Creek and Long Valley Wash channels ordetention basins,and the other facilities must be maintained by RCFCWCD/HOA, with funding provided by the HOA. 1 (3) Prior to issuance of grading permits, the developer shall coordinate any construction that could impact facilities of the Metropolitan Water District(MWD)to assure that their facilities are not damaged by project construction, either onsite or offsite. RORIPAUGH RANCH SPECIFIC PLAN ' 2no REVISED DRAFT EIR-APRIL 1,2002 3-53 1 3.4 WATER RESOURCES 1 (4) Prior to the issuance of grading permits,the developer shall identify and make,as necessary,interim channel improvements including,but not limited to,grading and construction of detention basins during the period before Phase 2 permanent channel improvements are constructed to protect downstream ' drainage facilities constructed during Phase 1, to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. (5) The City reserves the right to require the developer to mitigate any concentrated offsite flows and to adequately disperse them by the use of rip-rap, armortlex, or equivalent improvements, as approved by and to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. This measure shall be in force during the entire development process for the project. (6) The dmingof all bridge improvements shall be consistent with the transportation mitigation measures, to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. In addition to the proposed Master Plan of Drainage, the following measures are proposed to mitigate potentially significant impacts to surface and/or groundwater quantity and quality that might result from project implementation, including offsite roadway and utility line work: (7) Prior to recordation of each final map, the developer shall provide a Conditional Letter of Map 1 Revision and comply with that process, to the satisfaction of the City Public Works Department. (8) Prior to issuance of the first building permit for Phase 2, the developer shall submit appropriate ' documentation to the Federal Emergency Management Agency sufficient to update the Flood Insurance Rate Maps for Planning Areas 12, 13, 14, 27, 33A, and 33B for Santa Gertrudis Creek, and Planning Areas 18, 19, 20, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, and 31 for Long Valley Wash. (9) Prior to issuance of a grading permit, the developer shall prepare and submit a Water Quality Management Plan to the SDRWQCB for review and comment covering both construction and ' occupancy of the project. The WQMP shall be implemented to the satisfaction of the City Public Works Department. 3.4.7 Impacts of Mitigation Measures Implementing the proposed mitigation measures to control temporary runoff may generate minornoise and air pollutants during grading and construction, but no significant environmental impacts are anticipated. 3.4.8 Summary of Impact after Mitigation With implementation of the project as proposed,including standard conditions,uniform codes,project design features,and the recommended mitigation measures,the project will have no significant long-term impacts ' on water-related resources. RORIPAUGH RANCH SPECIFIC PLAN 2N0 REVISED DRAFT EIR-APRIL 1,2002 3-54 ! 3.5 TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION ! This section summarizes a traffic impact analysis for the Roripaugh Ranch Specific Plan prepared by Urban Crossroads(formerly Robert Kahn-John Kam Associates or RKJK)dated November 26,2001 which was ' revised from the previous DEIR versions dated May 25, 1999 and May 18,2001. Urban Crossroads(UC) also provided clarification to several pages on February 22, 2002 which were incorporated into the traffic study in the appendices of this document (Appendix E). The complete report, including details on methodology,assumptions,definitions of terms and findings,is included in Appendix E of this report. The purpose of this section is to examine potential impacts of project-related traffic on area roadways and intersections,and to identify the type and timing of improvements that will effectively mitigate these impacts. ' 3.5.1 Environmental Setting ! a) Existing Roadways The project site is a largely undeveloped area with residential units to the west, south, southwest, and ! southeast. The project study area is largely undeveloped to the north and northeast,but has regional access via Rancho California Road to the south and the I-215 and I-15 Freeways to the west. Local access to the site is only available at present from Nicolas Road which is not paved at present. The following provides a ! brief description of the major roads in the project area as shown in Figure 3.5-1: Interstate 15 Freeway (1-15) provides regional access to the project area. This north-south oriented ! freeway provides access between Lake Elsinore and Corona to the north and San Diego to the south. In the vicinity of Temecula,this freeway has 6 and 8 travel lanes(3 and 4lanes in each direction)with interchange access at Murrieta Hot Springs Road, Winchester Road (SR-79 North), and Rancho California Road. ! Interstate 215 Freeway(I-215)intersects the I-15 Freeway about 3 miles due west of the project site and has local access (i.e., north- and south-bound ramps) off of Murrieta Hot Springs Road. This freeway ! provides access to Hemet,Moreno Valley, Riverside,and San Bernardino to the north. The I-215 ends at the intersection of the I-15 with two travel lanes in each direction in the vicinity of the I-15. ' State Route (SR)79 North also known as Winchester Road is located 1.5 miles west of the project site and has two travel lanes for most of the way to Hemet, although it has been improved to 6 lanes from Murrieta Hot Springs Road to the I-15 Freeway. This regional arterial provides non-freeway access to the Hemet area to the north. ! Rancho California Road is a 4-lane major arterial providing access to the Temecula wine country east of the I-15 Freeway. It is located approximately one mile south of the southern boundary of the project site. ! Murrieta Hot Springs Road is a 4-lane road that extends east from the I-15 and I-215 Freeways and provides local access to the areas east of Winchester Road(just west of the project site). ' Butterfield Stage Road is presently a 2-lane road from SR-79 South to just north of Rancho California Road. This road is a major arterial planned for extension north of Rancho California Road with 4 lanes, across the Roripaugh Ranch Specific Plan area, and ultimately through the Johnson Ranch Project. ! RORIPAUGH RANCH SPECIFIC PLAN ! 2"-REVISED DRAFT EIR-APRIL 1,2002 3-55 ' ASHBYUS&LLC FIGURE 3.5-1 1 /V/ 6 ca / 9 t � 9 Cz 1 oR i Cz w L � � r i i m N 1 215 $i s' s' O /�► 15 iii 1.1.. i� t / 3 \0 79 g 3 use�++wr. / 15 1 i ' l 1 LEGEND - UNIMPROVED ROADWAYS IMPROVED ROADWAYS 1 ® The Keith ComGenieel.Mv 1 H o t T 0 e L A L E Rorlpaug], Ranch 1 ' 3.5 TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION ' Nicolas Road currently provides the only direct access to the project site,coming east off of Winchester Road. This local roadway has four travel lanes to about one-half mile west and two travel lanes to about a quarter mile west of the project site, then becomes a dirt road onto the Roripaugh Ranch property. Other Roads that currently provide ei tber director indirect access to the project area include Calle Contento to the east and Calle Girasol/Calle Chapos/Walcott Lane which are a series of small local streets that form ' a loop from Winchester Road (via Nicolas Road) to Rancho California Road (via La Serena Way). In addition,Ynez Road is an arterial highway that connects Winchester Road with Rancho California Road just east of the I-15 Freeway. ' b) Study Area Intersections ' Based on discussions with the City Traffic Engineer, the Urban Crossroads traffic report analyzes the potential impacts to the following intersections, as shown in Figure 3.5-2: I-215 Freeway at Murrieta Hot Springs Road (both on- and off-ramps); 1-15 Freeway at Winchester Road (both on- and off-ramps); • I-15 Freeway at Rancho California Road (both on- and off-ramps); • Ynez Road at Winchester Road and Rancho California Road; • Margarita Road at Murrieta Hot Springs Road, Winchester Road, La Serena Way, and Rancho California Road; 1 Winchester Road at Murrieta Hot Springs Road and Nicolas Road; • North General Kearny Road at Nicolas Road; • Meadows Parkway at La Serena Way and Rancho California Road; • Butterfield Stage Road at Murrieta Hot Springs Road, Nicolas Road, Calle Chapos, La Serena Way, and Rancho California Road; • Pourroy Road at Murrieta Hot Springs Road; and ' Calle Contento at Rancho California Road. c) Roadway Service Criteria ' The current technical guide to the evaluation of traffic operations is the 1994 Highway Capacity Manual (HCM)as outlined in Transportation Research Board Special Report 209. The 1994 HCM defines Level Of ' Service (LOS) as a qualitative measure which describes operational conditions within a traffic stream, generally in terms of such factors as speed and travel time,freedom to maneuver,traffic interruption,comfort and convenience, and safety. The 1994 HCM methodology expresses the LOS at an intersection in terms ' of delay time for the various intersection approaches or legs.The HCM uses different procedures depending on the type of intersection control. For signalized intersections,average delay per vehicle is used to determine LOS based on optimized signal timing and the HCM intersection analysis program. Intersections which are controlled by stop signs on the minor streets only have been analyzed using the'unsignalized intersection methodology of the HCM,which is also based on average delay of vehicles. Table 3.5-1 also shows the LOS criteria for these intersections. After discussions with the City Traffic Engineer,it was decided to continue ' using the 1994 HCM methodology so the latest traffic report would be consistent with the previous reports, and it was felt the differences between the 1994 and 2000 HCM methodologies were not significant in regard to this project (L Kain, UC, personal communication, December 2001) RORIPAUGH RANCH SPECIFIC PLAN ' 2ND REVISED DRAFT EIR-APRIL 1,2002 3-57 ASHBYUSA LLC FIGURE 3.5-2 VJ i 03 1 W L a) / s 215 I ' 41 15 1 g a of 20- 0 - CITY Ln4I9 NNNNEIAIpl �� T S^RINg5 q0. a 17 5 L y{ i 79 \ \fir, 7 13 18 `\ 15 � I 21 G� 4 � 2 \ 12 8 14 19 \ 9 \ .°� 5 2\ 24 3 LEGEND — — — — — UNIMPROVED ROADWAYS IMPROVED ROADWAYS ' 1 1-215 Freeway/Murrieta Hot Springs Road 12 North General Kearny Road/Nicolas Road (both on-and off-ramps) 13 Meadows Parkway/La Serena Way 2 1-215 Freeway/Winchester Road 14 Meadows Parkway/Rancho California Road (both on-and off-ramps) 15 Butterfield Stage Road/Murrieta Hot Springs Road 3 1-15 Freeway/Rancho California Road 16 Butterfield Stage Road/Nicolas Road (both on-and off-ramps) 17 Butterfield Stage Road/Calle Chapos 4 Ynez Road/Winchester Road 18 Butterfield Stage Road/La Serena Way ' 5 Ynez Road/Rancho California Road 19 Butterfield Stage Road/Rancho California Road 6 Margarita Road/Murrieta Hot Springs Road 20 Pourroy Road/Murrieta Hot Springs Road 7 Margarita RoadNVinchester Road 21 Calle Contento/Rancho California Road 8 Margarita Road/La Serena Way 9 Margarita Road/Rancho California Road 10 Winchester Road/Murrieta Hot Springs 11 Winchester Road/Nicolas Road ' The Kai[h CompanieelMMA • N O T 1 0 8 C A■■LL EE Ronpaug] Ranch ' 3.5 TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION ' Table 3.5-1 Level of Service Interpretation ' Roadway Signalized Unsignalized Level of Volume to Intersection Intersection ' Service Description of Capacity Ratio Ave.Delay Ave.Delay (LOS) Traffic Flow (seconds) (seconds) A Excellent operation or "free flow" All 0.0-60.60 0.0-5.00 0.0-5.00 ' approaches to the intersection appear quite open, turning movements are easily made, and nearly all drivers find freedom of operation. ' B Very good operation or relatively stable flow. .61-.70 5.01 - 15.00 5.00- 10.00 Many drivers begin to feel somewhat restricted within platoons of vehicles. This represents ' stable flow. An approach to an intersection may occasionally be fully utilized and traffic queues"start to form. ' C Good operation and stable but with occasional .71-.80 15.01 -25.00 10.01 -20.00 delay. Some drivers may have to wait more than 60 seconds, and back-ups may develop behind ' turning vehicles. Most drivers feel somewhat restricted. ' D Fair operation with high-density but stable flow. .81-.90 25.01 -40.00 20.01 -30.00 Cars are sometimes required to wait more than 60 seconds during short peaks. There are no long-standing traffic queues. This level is ' typically associated with design practice for peak periods. ' E Poor operation approaching capacity. Some .91-1.00 40.01 -60.00 30.01 -45.00 long-standing vehicular queues develop on critical approaches to intersections. Delays may be up to several minutes. F Forced or breakdown flow. Represents jammed Over 1.00 60.01 45.01 conditions. Backups from locations and up and up ' downstream or on the cross street may restrict or prevent movement of vehicles out of the intersection approach lanes; therefore, volumes carried are not predictable. Potential for stop and go type traffic flow. Source: Highway Capacity Manual,Special Report 209,Transportation Research Board, 1985 RORIPAUGH RANCH SPECIFIC PLAN I2NO REVISED DRAFT EIR-APRIL 1,2002 3-59 1 3.5 TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION ' The criteria used to evaluate LOS conditions vary based on the type of roadway and whether the traffic flow is considered interrupted or uninterrupted. The definitions of LOS for interrupted traffic flow, or flow ' restrained by the existence of traffic signals and other traffic control devices,differ slightly depending on the type of traffic control. The LOS is typically dependent on the quality of traffic flow at the intersections along a given roadway. In addition,the City's General Plan Circulation Element requires LOS"C'or better during peak hours, although LOS "D"can be allowed during limited (i.e., peak) periods. d) Existing Traffic Existing traffic levels in the vicinity of the project site are relatively low,although traffic on neighboring roads in Temecula have experienced considerable growth in recent years. The DEIR for the previous project ' indicated that area intersections operate at LOS Dorbetterduring peak hours except for the northbound I-15 ramp at Rancho Califomia Road(LOS F),and the intersections of Ynez Road/Winchester Road and Ynez Road/Rancho California Road (both performing at LOS F). ' Existing average daily traffic(ADT)on major roads throughout the project study area are shown in Figure 3.5-3. These figures are based on the latest traffic data collected by the project traffic consultant. The ' updated traffic study for the DEIR identifies four intersections that currently operate below LOS D during peak hours: I) 1-215 northbound ramps at Murrieta Hot Springs Road (LOS F during PM peak); 2)I-15 southbound ramps at Rancho California Road(LOS Fat PM peak);3)Ynez Road at Winchester Road(LOS ' E during PM peak); and 4) Butterfield Stage Road at Rancho California Road (LOS E during PM peak). Existing LOS for area intersections are presented in Table 3.5-2. Rancho California Road is presently carrying 19,300 ADT east of Margarita Road but almost twice that amount(37,300 ADT)just east of the I-15 Freeway. Murrieta Hot Springs Road is only carrying 2,900 ADT west of the project site(cast of Winchester Road),but is carrying 26,900 ADT just east of the I-15 Freeway. Nicolas Road is presently carrying 6,300 ADT just west of the project site (just east of North General Kearny Road). ' e) Existing Transit Service ' The project area is currently served by the Riverside Transit Agency(RTA)by Route 23 along Murrieta Hot Springs Road,Winchester Road(SR-79 North),Ynez Road,Rancho California Road,and Margarita Road. ' f) Future Growth/Planned Improvements The previous DEIR indicated the project's opening year would be 2001. The current project traffic analysis ' and the DEIR evaluation are based on the opening year of the project being approximately 2003. The Circulation Element of the Temecula General Plan anticipates considerable growth within the city limits and surrounding areas in the future. By 2003,the following intersections are expected to operate at LOS E or ' F during peak hours without any traffic contribution from the proposed project:(1)the southbound ramp of the I-15 at Rancho California Road (PM peak); (2)Ynez Road at Winchester Road(PM peak); (3)Ynez Road at Rancho California Road(PM peak);(4)N.General Kearny Road at Nicolas Road(AM/PM peaks); and(5)Butterfield Stage Road at Rancho California Road(AM/PM peaks). It should be noted that these intersection LOS values are without implementation of any of the planned improvements(see Table 3.5-3a). RORIPAUGH RANCH SPECIFIC PLAN 2N0 REVISED DRAFT EIR-APRIL 1,2002 3-60 ASHBY USA,LLC FIGURE 3.5-3 Q S g 1 O O N ' ''\ 9 W i O o 1^ ��P PRS dr O V� 1 n a ' S > aV' jPOU RROV RD. y N u =¢ O MUq 3 N 1 SPR I RIET4 N01 ,aN c d 26S R x 76 r> T ' 9 2.9 c 1 =1 .. OELLALLE GO X80 3 3.5 1 Av� -_A _T ' NTC0�630 � ? i n •^cu s 71A 1 t~ Zr I� ,y CALLE CHAPOS O ' o�dF•10 G� IA SEREN_A_- �t o f YYY. t t 9 N.GENERAL e5 19 c KEARNY RD. ' •yN• D VJ �B 47.4 63 W j I W UTTERi1ELD STAGE RD. OVERLAND DR. o N H 23.5 �RANC�O ,�y9 EADOWS PKWY. 1 O 3�9 w 16 +t� 4 SQ O ' LEGEND ' - 6.3= VEHICLES PER DAY(1000'S) - UNIMPROVED ROADWAYS IMPROVED ROADWAYS ' The Keith CompenieelimlWC ��' � N O T T O S C A L E ROrl.paugh JRC.Inch 3.5 TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION ' Table 3.5-2 Existing Traffic Conditions (Levels of Service- Intersection Peak Hours) Level of Service AM PM Roadway (NS) Intersection (EW) Peak Peak I-215 Freeway - SB Ramps Murrieta Hot Springs Road B D I-215 Freeway - NB Ramps Murrieta Hot Springs Road B F ' I-15 Freeway - SB Ramps Winchester Road A B Rancho California Road C F ' I-15 Freeway - NB Ramps Winchester Road A B Rancho California Road B B Ynez Road Winchester Road D E Rancho California Road C D ' Margarita Road Murrieta Hot Springs Road C C Winchester Road C D La Serena Way B B ' Rancho California Road D D Winchester Road Murrieta Hot Springs Road C C ' Nicolas Road D D N. General Kearny Road Nicolas Road C C ' Meadows Parkway La Serena Way* B B Rancho California Road C C ' Butterfield Stage Road Rancho California Road* D E Calle Contento Rancho California Road* B B ' Source:from Table 3-1 in Urban Crossroads,November 2001 (revised). EW=east-west NB=northbound NS=north-south SB=southbound * cross street stop-rest of intersections have traffic signals Note:Existing baseline is from Year 2000 per City Traffic Engineer(December 2001) t RORIPAUGH RANCH SPECIFIC PLAN ' 2"D REVISED DRAFT EIR-APRIL 1,2002 3-62 ' 3.5 TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION ' Table 3.5-3a Future Conditions Without Project ' (Levels of Service without Planned Improvements - Intersection Peak Hours) 2003 2007 GP Buildout** ' AM PM AM PM AM PM Roadway(NS) Intersection(EW) Peak Peak Peak Peak Peak Peak I-215 Fwy-SB Ramps Murrieta Hot Springs Rd. A A A A C B I-215 Fwy-NB Ramps Murrieta Hot Springs Rd. A A A B A B I-15 Fwy-SB Ramps Winchester Road B C F F C F Rancho California Road C F F F B D ' I-15 Fwy-NB Ramps Winchester Road A C A F C F Rancho California Road B B B F B B Ynez Road Winchester Road D F F F F F tRancho California Road D F F F D D Margarita Road Murrieta Hot Springs Rd. C C C C C D Winchester Road C D D F D F ' La Serena Way B B B B B C Rancho California Road D D D F D D ' Winchester Road Murrieta Hot Springs Rd. C D C D D D Nicolas Road D D E F D D N.General Kearny Rd. Nicolas Road E E F F C C ' Meadows Parkway La Serena Way B B C B A A Rancho California Road C C D D D C Butterfield Stage Rd. Murrieta Hot Springs Rd. * * * * C C Nicolas Road * * * * B C Calle Chapos * * * * C B ' La Serena Way * * * * C D Rancho California Road F F F F C D Pourroy Road Murrieta Hot Springs Rd. * * * * C C ' Calle Contento Rancho California Road C C C C C C Source:from Tables 5-1,5-3,and 5-5 in Urban Crossroads,November 2001 (revised) ' EW=east-west NB=northbound NS=north-south SB=southbound intersection not in place ** Urban Crossroads traffic study did not evaluate General Plan buildout without proposed improvements t RORIPAUGH RANCH SPECIFIC PLAN 2N°REVISED DRAFT EIR-APRIL 1,2002 3-63 1 ' 3.5 TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION ' Table 3.5-3b Future Conditions Without Project ' (Levels of Service with Planned Improvements-Intersection Peak Hours) 2003 2007 GP Buildout ' AM PM AM PM AM PM Roadway(NS) Intersection(EW) Peak Peak Peak Peak Peak Peak I-215 Fwy-SB Ramps Murrieta Hot Springs Rd. A A A A C B I-215 Fwy-NB Ramps Murrieta Hot Springs Rd. A A A B A B ' 1-15 Fwy-SB Ramps Winchester Road B C A F C F Rancho California Road B D B E B D ' I-15 Fwy-NB Ramps Winchester Road A C A A C F Rancho California Road B B B C B B Ynez.Road Winchester Road D F D F F F Rancho California Road D D F F D D Margarita Road Murrieta Hot Springs Rd. C C C C C D Winchester Road C D D D D F ' La Serena Way B B D B B C Rancho California Road D D D D D D ' Winchester Road Murrieta Hot Springs Rd. C D C D D D Nicolas Road D D D D D D N.General Kearny Rd. Nicolas Road B A B A C C ' Meadows Parkway La Serena Way B B C B A A Rancho California Road C C D D D C ' Butterfield Stage Rd. Murrieta Hot Springs Rd. * * * * C C Nicolas Road * * * * B C Calle Chapos * * * * C B La Serena Way * * * * C D Rancho California Road A A B B C D Pourroy Road Murrieta Hot Springs Rd. * * * * C C ' Calle Contento Rancho California Road C C C C C C Source:from Tables 5-3 and 5-5 in Urban Crossroads,November 2001 (revised) 1 EW=east-west NB=northbound NS=north-south SB=southbound ' *intersection not in place Note:Planned improvements are identified in Table 5-5 of the Urban Crossroads traffic study and outlined in Traffic Mitigation Measure I (Section 3.5.6) RORIPAUGH RANCH SPECIFIC PLAN ' 2ND REVISED DRAFT EIR-APRIL 1,2002 3-64 1 3.5 TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION With planned improvements,only the intersection of Ynez Road at Winchester Road is expected to exceed LOS D during peak hours by 2003 without project traffic (Table 3-1, Urban Crossroads, 2001). Urban ' Crossroads reviewed the planned improvement list and determined it was still valid for the updated study,and no additional improvements,other than those identified in this document,are needed for the current project (J. Kain, UC, personal communication, December 2001). Six new traffic lights were recently constructed to help offset traffic impacts from development of the Temecula regional mall. Improvements also included the widening of Margarita Road,south of Winchester ' Road, from two to four lanes, and the Overland I-15 Freeway crossing. At General Plan buildout, if the planned improvements discussed in the traffic report are constructed as ' proposed,area intersections will operate at LOS D or better during peak hours(Urban Crossroads 2001),as shown in Table 3.5-3b, except for the following: 1) 1-15 Freeway north- and south-bound ramps at Winchester Road (PM peak LOS F); 2)Ynez Road at Winchester Road(AM and PM peaks LOS F); and t3)Margarita Road at Winchester Road (PM peak LOS F). The project traffic report indicated that signal warrants were already met at Butterfield Stage Road and Rancho California Road. By the year 2003 without project traffic conditions and without other planned improvements,a traffic signal is expected to be warranted at North General Kearney Road and Nicolas Road. By 2007,traffic signals will be warranted without project traffic and without other planned improvements at ' the following intersections: the Project Entrance at Murrieta Hot Springs Road; and Butterfield Road at Nicolas Road. At General Plan buildout,traffic signals will be warranted at the following intersections without project traffic: Pourroy Road at Murrieta Hot Springs Road; Meadows Parkway at La Serena Way; and Butterfield Stage Road at Murrieta Hot Springs Road, Calle Chapos, and La Serena Way. g) Pedestrian Circulation Needs The City's General Plan identifies a number of trails and other improvements needed to provide access for pedestrians,bicyclists,and equestrians. Amulti-purpose trail is eventually planned along the MWD pipeline ' property, and major roads are planned to have Class II bike lanes. New developments need to provide a variety of non-vehicular access options for future residents. ' h) Comments on Previous DEIRs On June 14 and July 7, 1999,the California Department of Transportation(Caltrans) submitted comment letters on the previous DEIR with minor corrections and requested a copy of any updated or future materials. On July 17,2001,the City of Murrieta sent a letter commenting on the previous DEIR. In the letter,the City ' expressed concern that project traffic would impact intersections in Murrieta that had not been included in the project traffic study, mainly Murrieta Hot Springs Road and Alta Murrieta. RORIPAUGH RANCH SPECIFIC PLAN ' 2N°REVISED DRAFT EIR-APRIL 1,2002 3-65 3.5 TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION 3.5.2 Criteria for Determining Significance The City has established the following local CEQA significance thresholds for traffic-related impacts: 1) project-related traffic may not exceed LOS D on area intersections that are presently at LOS D or better; and 2)project-related traffic may not cause LOS to increase in areas with existing LOS E or F. ' Appendix I of theCEQA Guidelines indicates thatpotentially significant transportation-related impacts may occur if a project causes:a)generation of substantial additional vehicular movements,b)effects on existing ' parking facilities,or demand for new parking,c)substantial impact on existing transportation systems,d) alteration to present patterns of circulation or movement of people and/or goods,e)alterations to waterbome, rail,or air traffic, or f)an increase in traffic hazards to motor vehicles,bicyclists, or pedestrians (CEQA Guidelines, Appendix I). ' 3.5.3 Level of Impact before Mitigation The following analysis is based on the project traffic report prepared by Urban Crossroads dated November 26,2001 which was updated from the previous report done by RKJ K in March of 1999. The traffic report ' divided the project site into five traffic zones and estimated project build-out by the year 2015. Theproject traffic report uses 2000 as the baseline year and projects traffic impacts for 2003(opening year),2007,and General Plan buildout(post-2015). a) Short-Term Traffic Impacts ' Construction activities typically generate the following two types of traffic impacts:a)workers traveling to and from the construction site;and b)trucks hauling material to and from the construction site. A typical construction day will occur from 7:30 AM to 3:30 PM Monday through Friday. Since traffic generated by ' the construction workers will leave the construction site before PM peak hour,it will not produce a significant traffic impact at that time. For the same reason,trucks bringing equipment and/or materials to and from the site will also not occur during the peak PM period, so they will also not have a significant traffic impact. ' There may be temporay delays on Nicolas Road or La Serena Way as trucks access the site,but this is expected to be a minimal impact due to the low level of traffic in the area at present. There is a potential for turning movement conflicts on Rancho California Road, Winchester Road, and Murrieta Hot Springs Road at or east of the I-15 and 1-215 Freeways from project traffic,particularly trucks traveling to and from the site. However,grading of the project will be balanced onsite,so offsite construction ' traffic will be significantly reduced. It is anticipated that this increase in local truck traffic will not represent a significant traffic impact or safety concern to existing traffic as long as drivers do not exceed the posted speed limit, maintain proper sight distances, and maintain legal vehicle clearances. b) Long-Term Traffic Impacts ' The following analysis is based on "worst-case"estimates of project operations as outlined in the project traffic report prepared by Urban Crossroads(formerly RKJK-see Appendix E). To account for area-wide growth on roadways, future traffic volumes were calculated based on a 7 percent annual growth rate of existing traffic volumes over a 2-year period. Area-wide growth was derived from the"Traffic Volumes on RORIPAUGH RANCH SPECIFIC PLAN ' 2N°REVISED DRAFT EIR-APRIL 1,2002 3-66 1 ' 3.5 TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION ' California State Highways"prepared by Caltrans based on traffic volumes over the past 10 years. Growth rates were also calculated for Winchester Road (SR-79 North) east of the I-15 Freeway for the past 10 years. Area-wide growth was then added to daily and peak hour traffic volumes on surrounding roadways, ' in addition to traffic generated by the project. The traffic report for the original project(2,058 units) would have generated a total of 28,047 Average Daily ' Traffic (ADT)trips per day at build-out. It was also estimated the project would have generated a total of 2,392 AM peak hour trips and 2,767 PM peak hour trips(RKJK 1999). According to the traffic report, the new proposed project is expected to generate a total of 28,165 ADT per day at buildout, as shown in Table t 3.5-4. The new project is therefore expected to generate approximately the same traffic (i.e., ADT) compared to the previous project. The new project will also generate 2,327 AM peak trips,2,917 PM peak trips,and approximately 202,788 total Vehicle Miles Traveled(VMT)based on 28,165 trips times an average ' trip length of 7.2 miles (Urban Crossroads, 2001). By comparison,the previous project(1,721 units)was expected to generate a total of 28,165 ADT per day at buildout. This project would have generated approximately the same amount of traffic (i.e., ADT) compared to the original project due to changes in the types of units and addition of non-residential uses. This new project would also have generated 2,327 AM peak trips,2,917 PM peak trips,and approximately 202,788 ' total Vehicle Miles Traveled(VMT)based on 28,165 trips times an average trip length of 7.2 miles(Urban Crossroads, 2001). ' According to the latest project traffic report,the current project is expected to generate a total of 30,748 ADT per day at buildout, as shown in Table 3.5-4. The new project is therefore expected to generate a slightly higher amount of traffic(i.e.,ADT)compared to the previous projects. The new project will also generate ' 2,573 AM peak trips,3,261 PM peak trips,and approximately 221,386 total Vehicle Miles Traveled(VMT) based on 30,748 trips times an average trip length of 7.2 miles (Urban Crossroads, 2001). It should be noted that trip generation by land use is based on trips during the peak morning and evening(i.e., AM and PM)commuting hours which may not coincide with the peak hours for other land uses on the site, such as parks and schools. However,these peak commuting hours are used as a"worst case"scenario since ' it is at these times that project traffic will have the most impact on local roads and intersections. The City of Temecula requires developers to prepare focused traffic analyses for proposed development ' projects. These traffic studies typically include an analysis of cumulative traffic impacts that would result from future growth including the specific project being analyzed in the traffic study. Traffic generated from future development,along with traffic from the proposed project,may generate additional cumulative impacts along area roadways(e.g.,Winchester Road). Figures 3.5-4 and 3.5-5 illustrate the long term traffic impacts of the project after the opening year(2003) and at buildout(post 2015). Tables 3.5-5, 3.5-6, and 3.5-7 summarize the LOS calculations performed by Urban Crossroads in their project traffic impact analysis. The ' traffic report in Appendix E contains more detailed tables and graphical presentations of this information. 1 RORIPAUGH RANCH SPECIFIC PLAN ' 2ND REVISED DRAFT EIR-APRIL 1,2002 3-67 1 ' 3.5 TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION Table 3.5-4 ' Project Trip Generation* ' Peak Hour ADT AM PM Total Daily ' Land Use In Out In Out Peak Total Single Family Residential 391 1,153 1,337 740 3,621 19,694 Recreation/Parks 34 34 133 133 334 833 Elementary School** 136 96 8 8 248 816 Middle School** 312 240 96 96 744 1,740 Commercial Retail 109 70 340 368 887 7,664 OTAL 982 1,591 1,915 1,346 5,834 30,748 Source:Summarized from Table 4-3 from Urban Crossroads 2001 ' * Project land uses times per unit generation rates Peak figures are land use values times the per unit trip generation rate ' All peak hour trips rounded to nearest 5 and all daily trips rounded to nearest 10. ** Data from City-"peak hour"traffic generation for parks and schools do not ' correspond to their peak usage-only traffic during"commuting"hours 1 1 RORIPAUGH RANCH SPECIFIC PLAN 1 2N REVISED DRAFT EIR-APRIL 1,2002 3-68 ' ASHBYUSA,LLC FIGURE 3.5-4 M � 1 O x O N ' cn ' U 1 (6 ; Q. 1 v, V\P PRi m ' w o N N e < OO �POURROY RD. cu SPR13G5 R NOS 17.o ¢7 Z7 CALLS tiW OI DEL LAGO 4-0 m 9 J ry 74.7 7 �y�' u— CALLE CHAPOS Ile m 7 � e N.GENERAL 6? tt i 1?A% ' e KEARNY RD. em �J 8.5 P PRGO O1 UTTERFIELD STAGE RD. �{ N tP6 OVERLAND DR �jtl 2R.9 NC T} EADOWS PKWY. J1 J ' 6 1 ' LEGEND 66.6= VEHICLES PER DAY(1000'S) — — — — UNIMPROVED ROADWAYS IMPROVED ROADWAYS ' The Keith Compenieel�C f�� ® e 0- r 0 9- Ron' paugh Ranch ' ASHBYUSA LLC FIGURE 3.5-5 UD I � a N � co U (Q Q w, i J\P PRi c E aU <3 13 POURROY RD.1l^ I. a 1 MURRIE7 l �. E 1 � `� 8 SPRINGS A Hp �1 v p m <7 t s l D d 3g5 V ` CI /3 46.7 ZI zl ' CAL LE f01e DEL . g lAGO � �e i a) $1 �1►' W a u 1 �� 5.0 1 L 3 1.0lP5 BO psoG• z . GA[�al` ' � h NICp 15n � � \IC •�E .f• 30.9 Im �yT ro IT �fH '^b $ ULLE CHAPOS j __SERE N_A �S ;O ' 1 1 ► N.GENERAL 92 KEARNY RD. PaGOp130 \ w, w \ 0.O \►O 9 76Q BUTTERFIELD STAGE RD. a NO ` O OVERLAND DR. W H 36.3 N RAN 9 EADOWS PKWY. v�. ' 7s LEGEND 67.3= VEHICLES PER DAY(1000•S) — — — — UNIMPROVED ROADWAYS IMPROVED ROADWAYS ' The Keith CempeniesITKO N O T 7 0 9 C • L E Roripaug Ranch i _ ' 3.5 TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION ' Table 3.5-5 Year 2003 Conditions* With and Without Project ' (Levels of Service-Intersection Peak Hours) LOS Without Project LOS With Project AM PM AM PM Roadway(NS) Intersection(EW) Peak Peak Peak Peak ' 1-215 Freeway-SB Ramps Murrieta Hot Springs Road A A A A I-215 Freeway-NB Ramps Murrieta Hot Springs Road A A A A ' I-15 Freeway-SB Ramps Winchester Road B C B D Rancho California Road B D B D I-15 Freeway-NB Ramps Winchester Road A C A C Rancho California Road B B B B Ynez Road Winchester Road D F D F ' Rancho California Road D D D D Margarita Road Murrieta Hot Springs Road C C C C Winchester Road C D D D ' La Serena Way B B B B Rancho California Road D D D D Winchester Road Murrieta Hot Springs Road C D C D Nicolas Road D D D D N.General Kearny Road Nicolas Road B A B A Meadows Parkway La Serena Way B B B B Rancho California RoadA C C C C Butterfield Stage Road Rancho California Road A A A A Calle Contento Rancho California Road C C C C ' Source:Tables 5-1 and 5-2 from Urban Crossroads,November 2001 (revised) EW=east-west NB=northbound NS=north-south SB=southbound ' Note:LOS values are with implementation of planned improvements (see Traffic Mitigation Measures 1 and 2 in Section 3.5.6) t RORIPAUGH RANCH SPECIFIC PLAN 1 2"D REVISED DRAFT EIR-APRIL 1,2002 3-71 1 3.5 TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION ' Table 3.5-6 Year 2007 Conditions With and Without Project ' (Levels of Service-Intersection Peak Hours) LOS Without Project LOS With Project ' AM PM AM PM Roadway(NS) Intersection(EW) Peak Peak Peak Peak I-215 Freeway-SB Ramps Murrieta Hot Springs Road A A A A I-215 Freeway-NB Ramps Murrieta Hot Springs Road A B A A ' I-]5 Freeway-SB Ramps Winchester Road A F A F Rancho California Road B E B F I-15 Freeway-NB Ramps Winchester Road A A A A Rancho California Road B C B C Ynez Road Winchester Road D F D F ' Rancho California Road F F F F Margarita Road Murrieta Hot Springs Road C C D D Winchester Road D D C F La Serena Way B B B C Rancho California Road D D D D ' Winchester Road Murrieta Hot Springs Road C D C D Nicolas Road D D D D N.General Kearny Road Nicolas Road B A B A ' Meadows Parkway La Serena Way C B C C Rancho California Road D D D D ' Butterfield Stage Road Rancho California Road B B B C Calle Contento Rancho California Road C C C C Source:Tables 5-3 and 5-4 from Urban Crossroads,November 2001 EW=east-west NB=northbound NS=north-south SB=southbound ' Note:LOS values are with implementation of planned improvements (see Traffic Mitigation Measures 1 and 2 in Section 3.5.6) RORIPAUGH RANCH SPECIFIC PLAN ' 2N°REVISED DRAFT EIR-APRIL 1,2002 3-72 ' 3.5 TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION ' Table 3.5-7 Buildout Conditions With and Without Project ' (Levels of Service-Intersection Peak Hours) LOS Without Project LOS With Project ' AM Peak PM AM PM Roadway(NS) Intersection(EW) Peak Peak Peak ' I-215 Freeway-SB Ramps Murrieta Hot Springs Road C B C B I-215 Freeway-NB Ramps Murrieta Hot Springs Road A B A B I-15 Freeway-SB Ramps Winchester Road C F C F Rancho California Road B D B D I-15 Freeway-NB Ramps Winchester Road C F C F Rancho California Road B B B B Ynez Road Winchester Road F F F F Rancho California Road D D D D ' Margarita Road Murrieta Hot Springs Road C D C D Winchester Road D F D F ' La Serena Way B C B C Rancho California Road D D D D Winchester Road Murrieta Hot Springs Road D D D D ' Nicolas Road D D D D N.General Kearny Road Nicolas Road C C D D ' Meadows Parkway La Serena Way A A A A Rancho California Road D C D D Butterfield Stage Road Murrieta Hot Springs Road C C D D Nicolas Road B C C D Calle Chapos C B D C La Serena Way C D C D ' Rancho California Road C D C D Pourroy Road Murrieta Hot Springs Road C C D D ' Project Entrance Murrieta Hot Springs Road * * B C Calle Contento Rancho California Road C C C C ' Source:Table 5-5 and 5-6 from Urban Crossroads,November 2001 EW=east-west NB=northbound NS=north-south SB=southbound ' * no intersection Note:LOS values are with implementation of planned improvements ' (see Traffic Mitigation Measures 1 and 2 in Section 3.5.6) RORIPALIGH RANCH SPECIFIC PLAN ' 2N°REVISED DRAFT EIR-APRIL 1,2002 3-73 1 ' 3.$ TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION With development of the proposed project and implementation of recommended improvements,all of the study area intersections will operate at LOS D or better for the study years(2003,2007)as well as buildout of the General Plan (post-2015), except for the following: ' Year 2003 * Ynez Road at Winchester Road (PM Peak) ' Year 2007 * I-15 southbound ramps at Winchester Road (PM Peak) * I-15 southbound ramps at Rancho California Road (PM Peak) * Ynez Road at Winchester Road (PM Peak) * Ynez Road at Rancho California Road (AM/FM Peak) ' * Margarita Road at Winchester Road (PM Peak) Buildout(Post 2015) ' * I-15 north- and southbound ramps at Winchester Road (PM Peak) * Ynez Road at Winchester Road (AM/PM Peak) * Margarita Road at Winchester Road (PM Peak) These identified intersections will operate at LOS E or F with or without the proposed project. However, project-related traffic will cause the I-15 southbound ramps at Rancho California Road to drop from LOS E ' to LOS F by 2007. In addition,project traffic will cause the intersection of Margarita Road at Winchester Road to drop from LOS D to LOS F by 2007. Project traffic does cause the City's CEQA significance criteria to be exceeded at these intersections, therefore, traffic impacts of the project are considered ' significant,even with implementation of planned and proposed traffic improvements. It should also be noted that the project contributes traffic to 3 intersections that will exceed City LOS standards by 2007 both with and without the project(see Section 6.2 on Cumulative Impacts). ' c) General Plan Implementation of the proposed land use plan will result in the elimination of through access on Calle Contento east of the project site. While this"disconnection"is desired by local residents to help maintain the area's ' rural condition,it is not consistent with the City's Circulation Element. The roadway cross sections proposed in the Specific Plan also do not match those of the Circulation Element. These changes will also require an amendment to the General Plan Circulation Element. In addition, the Specific Plan proposes a downgrading to the roadway classification and cross section of Nicolas Road from an arterial highway at 110-foot right-of-way(ROW)to secondary highway,maintaining ' the II0-footROWbutconstructedatacurb-to-curb width of 70feet. Thecross section forButterfield Stage Road is also being upgraded from Arterial Highway(110-foot ROW)to Augmented Arterial Highway(122- foot ROW) from Nicolas Road to Murrieta Hot Springs Road. ' The cross sections for some of the proposed project streets do not match the standard cross sections in the Circulation Element of the General Plan. Cross sections for an arterial highway,a principal collector road, ' collector road,and local road have been"modified"from the guidelines of the City's Circulation Plan (see Figures 3.5-6A and 3.5-6E-Typical Street Sections). RORIPAUGH RANCH SPECIFIC PLAN ' 2N0 REVISED DRAFT EIR-APRIL 1,2002 3-74 tASHBYUSA,LLC FIGURE 3.5-6A O RAY RAISED LANDSCAPED MEDIAN RAY 8'CUSS I I 8'CLASS I A BIKE LANESIDEWALK r, BIKE LANESIDEWALK '^ CURB CURB v/1 ' PA's 11,12 _ — _—_ _ _ PAS 13,14 1T �12�12'�14'—L12'--"2'� it W a s ss s 9' (3) ' L 122' /•4-�-� VJ B Augmented Arterial Highway(122') •Butterfield Stage Road(from Murrieta Hot Springs Road to Nicolas Road U -adjacent to Planning Areas 11,12,13,14) •jam i � RAY RAN SIDEWALK I CURB RAISED LANDSCAPED MEDIAN SIDEWALK rt ' PA's 33A W CLASS 11 BIKE LANE 10'CLASS II BIKE LANE CURB PA's 22,27,32 aa' 0 12' 14' 14' 14' + 12' 10' a, a, ' 110,' ' Arterial Highway (110') •Butterfield Stage Road(adjacent to Planning Areas 22,27,32 and 33A 1 'NEST EAST RAY I RM I SIDEWALK RAISED LANDSCAPED MEDIAN CURS rt CURB ' 1I CLASS II --_ — 10'CLASS II BIKE LANES BIKE LANES CITY _ _ - COUNTY 6' a' 0 12' 14' 14' 14' 12' 0'---�� 12' 110, ' 0 Arterial Highway (110') Butterfield Stage Road--offsite(from southem project boundary to Rancho Califomia Road) NOTE:Parkways shall drain at 2°k toward streets. Streets shall have 2%cross fall. No on street parking allowed except on local roads. I� The Keith C.mpeniss lTKC T C _ Roripaug]l Ranch 1 ASHBYUSA,LLC FIGURE 3.5-6B O a7 c RNJ ' rSIDEWALK I RAISED LANDSCAPED MEDIAN SIDEWALK g CURB 10 CLASS 11 BIKE LANE 10'CLASS II BIKE UNE CURB ^+ g PA9A,9B,10 U) $g _ v J 6' 6' 0 12' � 14' � 14'=14' � 12' 0 6, 6, ��1)� 88' W 110' (D B Modified Arterial Highway A(110') U) s •Murrieta Hot Springs Road(from MWD to Butterfield Stage Road- n� E -adjacent to Planning Areas 6,9A,9B, 10, 11) V U H ' RNV RW SIDEWALK RAISED LANDSCAPED MEDIAN CURB ' — 10'CLASS BIKE LANE 10'CUSS II BIKE UNE CURB PA14A,4B,SBA - PA%B,22,28,27 6' 6' 0 12' ---L 14' 14' 14' --L 12' 10' 61 61 851 1 110, ' © Modified Arterial Highway B (110') •Butterfield Stage Road(crossings in Planning Areas 22,26,27,33A) •Murrieta Hot Springs Road(from Pourroy to MWD-Planning Areas 4A,4B,8) RESERVED ASPHALT PATH TURN LANE RESERVED RAY RAN I DI RNV RNV AC F ' — --- _ _ DIKE — -- ---- NORTH SOUTH 10' 13' 6' 6' do 14' 12' 14' 25' ' 25' 40' 90' 110' ' Modified Secondary Road (110') •Nicolas Road—40'offske Section to be built ' NOTE:Parkways shall drain at 2%toward streets, Streets shall have 2%cross fall. No on street parking allowed except on local roads. The Keith Compeniesl.MC • 1/�l� 0 T r 0 Rorlpaugh Ranch ' ASHBYUS&LLC FIGURE 3.5-6C yy ' C: 3 RESERVED RESERVED O qqq RhV RAN I RTW' RAN PAINTED STRIPED MEDIAN }/ CURB SIDEWALK SIDEWALK �\ CURB W M 5'CLA5511 BIKE LANE S CLASS II BIKE LANE � PA 33A - _ - - PA's 12,33B = 4 6 5 - - - _ _. _.. - ---5' 6 4p. - 12'�� 12' --1-12' 12'12' �� 12' 10' 1 70' - - •0' W , 90' a 110' 0 e u(juu Modified Secondary Highway(90'1110' Right-of-Way) -Nicolas Road(from Butterfield Stage Road to the west project boundary adjacent to Planning Areas 12,33A,33B) -Onsite Section and Ultimate Offsite Section *Mulfi-UseTrail will be added upon submittal of street improvement plans 1 LHL ' R/W I RAISED LANDSCAPE RM, ISLAND SIDEWALK (i ISLAND SIDEWALK CURB 5'BIKE CLASSII 5'CLASS II LANES BIKE LANES PA's 22,23,24,28 - PA's 75,15,17, ' 27,28,29,30,31 5' - - - -- - - -- - - - 18,20 20,21,25,32 4' 5' 6' 1 � 12, --I� 12, _-+�. 12, 5' 6' S' 4' 15' -+- 46' - 15' 76' ' ■■ Modified Principal Collector Road (76') •North Loop Road and South Loop Road ' (adjacent to Planning Areas 14, 15, 16, 17, 18,20, 21,22,23,24,25,27,28,29,30,31,32) 1 ' RAN I TURN LANE RAN {�SIDEWALK rt� CURB SIDEWALK CURB 5 CLASS II 5'CLASS 11 E SOUTH BIKE LANES BIKE LANES NORTH 4 5 6 5' 12'--A-- 12 ��12' 5' 6' 5' 4' 15' 46' 15' 76' 0 Modified Collector Road (76') •Calle Chapos Road(from Butterfield Stage Road to Calle Girasol) ' •Ultimate offsite Section NOTE:Parkways shall drain at 2%toward streets, Streets shall have 2%cross fall. No on street parking allowed except on local roads. The Keith Companies • ITKC Rot )augh Ranch H o r T o s c A L c J ' ASHBYUSA,LLC FIGURE 3.5-6D (n a t RhV O RAN p ' CURB U g CURB� a) p$ SOUTH - - ___ - _ NORTH 38' ^, W L m ' Modified Collector Road (76') •Calle Chapos(Walcott Lane to Calle Girasol) •offsite center section to be constructed U � 1 R/ RAY SIDEWALK SIDEWALK 5'CLA5511 CURB ' Streei'A' CURB BIKE LANES 5'CLASS II — PA'S 6,NAP,12 BIKE LANES Street'A':PA 11 el Stre 'B' I NAP,PA 33B 5' 6' 5' 12'—i-10'-IL-12' 5. 6' 5' Stivel'B':PA 12 66' ' ® Modified Collector Road (66') -Streets"A"and"B"(adjacent to Planning Areas 6, 11, 12,336) ' RM SIDEWALK SIDEWALK I CURB ' CURB rt 4. 6 --- - -20 _ - - - -20'- 61 4' t 10' 40' 10' 60' ' 0 Local Road (60') •Local roads within planning areas NOTE:Parkways shall drain at 2%toward streets, ' Streets shall have 2%cross fall. No on street parking allowed except on local roads. ' The Keith Companies lMMC t N 0 T T O e 0 A L E ' ASHBYUSA LLC FIGURE 3.5-6E C: O ' RAv RW 'Al Wv, t SIDEWALK E SIDEWALK CURB CURB q PUE PUE (D a� W 1 .5' 5.5' 36' 5.5' 4.5' r 's 4T e 56 Private Streets (36756') 0 •Private streets within Single Family Planning Areas ' •Parking on one side •Q\\ i^ RfW I R/W ' SIDEWALK It SIDEWALK CURB CURB PUE PUE ' .5' 5.5' 30, 5.5' 45' 41' 50' ' 0 Private Streets (30750') .Private streets within Cluster Planning Areas RM I RIW SIDEWALK It SIDEWALK CURB CURB ' PUE PUE .5' 5.5' 24, 5.5' 145- ' 35' I 44, _I ' Private Streets (24744') •Private streets within Custom Lots Planning Areas NOTE:Parkways shall drain at 2%toward streets, Streets shall have 2%cross fall. ' No on street parking allowed except on local roads. 1 The Keith Com Panieah/A ��� r 1 3.5 TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION ' Due to public concern in adjacent communities to the southeast of the project site,the project applicant has agreed not to connect onsite roadways to Calle Contento for through traffic. This is to keep onsite and ' through traffic from entering these adjacent communities, for the purpose of preserving the rural character of their neighborhoods. According to the previous project traffic report,the project would have added less than 300 ADT to Calle Contento,if connected,as outlined under General Plan buildout conditions. The new t traffic report by Urban Crossroads also supports this proposal (UC 2001). However,emergency access will be maintained from South Loop Road to Calle Contento to the east via some type of crash gate or other restricted connection. It will have an all-weather surface and be a minimum of 26 feet wide. ' d) Impacts to Murrieta ' The project and City traffic engineers reviewed the City of Murrieta's comments regarding potential impacts to the intersection of Murrieta Hot Springs Road and Alta Murrieta. At first,analysis of this impact did not appear to be warranted. However,after additional review,the City determined that this intersection could - be impacted by Roripaugh Ranch Project traffic so the project should make a fair share contribution toward its improvement(J.Kain,UC,personal communication,September 2001). This will be added to the mitigation measures. e) Other Impacts ' Regional Impacts Eliminating through access on Calle Contento is not consistent with the City's Circulation Element,and a General Plan Amendment is needed to bring the planned change into conformance with the General Plan. In addition,the project traffic report indicates that project-related traffic will not have ' a significant impact on regional roadways or freeways, but it does exceed the minimum thresholds for preparing a Traffic Impact Assessment (TIA) consistent with Congestion Management Plan guidelines. ' Emergency Access The proposed project will improve local circulation(including emergency access)as well as access to nearby uses by providing needed roadway and intersection improvements. The circulation portion of the Specific Plan will help provide adequate access for local residents and emergency vehicles. ' A gate or other type of restricted access connection will be provided from Loop Road North to the existing Calle Contento to the east for emergency vehicles. This access will have an all-weather surface and be a minimum of 26 feet wide. Parking The proposed public facilities(e.g.,parks,schools)and commercial areas will provide adequate onsite parking so no offsite parking should be impacted. No parking will be allowed on any major roads. ' There will be no construction parking on adjacent streets; therefore,offsite parking impacts would not be significant. Pedestrian/Bicycle Circulation The project site does not presently provide access for pedestrians or bicyclists due to its unimproved condition and isolated location. The Specific Plan provides for both pedestrian and bicycle circulation for area residents as well as project visitors. Murrieta Hot Springs Road,Butterfield ' Stage Road, North and South Loop Roads, "A" Street, and `B" Street will have sidewalks and Class II bicycle lanes on both sides of the street. The proposed network of sidewalks and trails will provide non- vehicular access to the commercial area, both schools, the two parks, and along Long Valley Wash. The tsidewalks on Murrieta Hot Springs Road and Butterfield Stage Road will eventually allow pedestrian access RORIPAUGH RANCH SPECIFIC PLAN t2NO REVISED DRAFT EIR-APRIL 1,2002 3-80 3.5 TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION ' offsite into developing areas to the west,south,and north,and a trail is proposed along the east,south,and west sides of the Plateau area. Many of the gated neighborhoods will have landscaped paseos separated from local streets to provide pedestrian and bicycle access. A pedestrian bridge will also be provided across Planning Area 26 between Planning Area 23 and Planning Area 28 or 31. This will allow residents south of the channel to have access to the community park, middle school, and elementary school. Future tract maps will incorporate connections from residential streets to facilitate pedestrian access to the trail along Long ' Valley Wash and the pedestrian bridge across Long Valley Wash. The project will also have a 15-foot wide multi-use trail within a 30-foot wide fuel modification zone,located ' along the south and east project boundaries within Planning Areas 19,20,21,25,and 32. The trail will have access from both Butterfield Stage Road and Calle Contento. ' The City has also indicated it desires a trail along the MWD pipeline property adjacent to the Plateau area and Planning Areas 6 and 33(C.McCarthy,personal communication,August 2001). Ina comment letter on the previous DEIR,the MWD indicated it has no plans at this time to constructor allow construction of a trail ' along their pipeline property in this area(L.Simonek,MWD,letter dated July 25,2001). An asphalt trail will also be installed along the both sides of Long Valley Wash to further facilitate access in this area-this trail is also intended to serve as an access road for flood control personnel when needed. If the Flood Control ' District does not allow the maintenance roads to be used as trails, separate trails will be provided. For the location of these trails,see Figure 3.11-3 in Section 3.11 on Open Space and Recreation. With this ' system of trails, including a pedestrian bridge over Long Valley Wash and paths along both sides of the channel, no significant impacts are expected related to pedestrian access. ' Alternative Transportation The existing site does not now provide alternative transportation opportunities for area residents. The circulation portion of the Specific Plan will provide for alternative transportation opportunities. The project is proposing to provide 50 designated park and ride spaces in Planning Area 11. ' As an alternative,the project shall pay the City$8,000 per space for a total of$400,000. In these ways,the project will not contribute to significant impacts related to alternative transportation. ' Rail/Waterborne/Air Transportation No railroad lines or navigable rivers are located in the vicinity of the project site. At its closest point,the project site is one mile southeast of the French Valley Airport,and the Plateau portion of the site is under one of the airport's current flight tracks. For additional analysis of this potential hazard condition,see Section 3.9,Hazards. Other than that,the proposed project is not expected to have any significant impacts on the utilization of rail, waterborne, or air transportation systems. ' e) Offsite Improvements Two offsite improvements will have temporary impacts to local roadways. The project and/or Community ' Facilities District(CFD)will construct40feet ofpavement consisting oftwo l4-foot lanes and a 12-foot tum lane on Nicolas Road from the west project boundary to within 450 feet of the Santa Gertrudis Creek crossing at Calle Girasol. The bridge will be a hydro-arch or some other design approved by the City ' Engineer. Prior to the start of Phase 2 of the project,a permanent,all-weather crossing of the creek will be constructed for Nicolas Road at Calle Girasol. Funding will either be by the developer and/or the CFD. Nicolas Road will follow its existing alignment,which is also its ultimate alignment. Calle Girasol,and its RORIPAUGH RANCH SPECIFIC PLAN ' 2N0 REVISED DRAFT EIR-APRIL 1,2002 3-81 3.5 TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION ' intersection with Nicolas Road,will have to be realigned slightly,including right-of-way acquisition,as part of constructing an all-weather crossing over Santa Gertrudis Creek at Nicolas Road. ' In Phase 1,the project will also improve Calle Chapos/Calle Girasol from Butterfield Stage Road to Liefer Road to provide adequate public and secondary emergency access for the project, including curve realignments if Calle Chapos is selected to provide secondary access. The project and/or CFD will also construct improvements, as shown in the appropriate cross section,on Butterfield Stage Road from the south project boundary south at Planning Area 33A to Rancho California ' Road, exclusive of any existing improvements. These improvements will have temporary impacts on local traffic,and may cause temporary congestion at ' intersections or along roadway segments that are under construction. nese improvements will also produce short-term air quality and noise impacts(see Sections 3.6 and 3.10,respectively). However,these impacts are expected to be minor, and will cease upon completion of construction. 3.5.4 Standard Conditions and Uniform Codes ' The project will participate in the City's Development Impact Fee (DIF) program. During the City's development review process,maps will be forwarded to the RTA for review regarding bus turnouts,shelters, etc. Plans are also reviewed by the City to assure that pedestrian and bicycle facilities are provided as ' needed. No other standard conditions or code applications have been identified which would reduce transportation or circulation impacts. 3.5.5 Project Design Features The project traffic report indicated that the developer should construct a number of roadway, intersection, and traffic signal improvements to coincide with the overall project phasing plan. Phase I improvements are mainly onsite and include those needed to serve the Plateau area and to provide secondary access via Nicolas Road and Calle Chapos. Phase 2 improvements include the offsite regional connections such as the construction of Butterfield Stage Road to Rancho California Road. Some of the regional improvements may be funded through the Community Facilities District(CFD)that is being established by the developer and the City. 1 Although the proposed project will generate substantial additional traffic in the area,the proposed roadway and intersection improvements will help alleviate existing and future traffic problems. The circulation portion ' of the Specific Plan will also help prevent the creation of hazardous traffic conditions. The proposed project circulation system, as shown in Figure 3.5-7,is designed to facilitate the efficient movement of people to, from and within the community,consistent with the Circulation Element of the City's General Plan. The ' circulation portion of the Specific Plan includes the improvement and/or extension of various master planned roadways as described in the Circulation Element of the City General Plan. RORIPAUGH RANCH SPECIFIC PLAN ' 2N0 REVISED DRAFT EIR-APRIL 1,2002 3-$2 1 ASHBY USA,LLC FIGURE 3.5-7 L d 1 s cU3 D - S 1 MURRIETA HOT SPRINGS ROAD IMPROVEMENTS NORTH OF }� R THE PROPERTY BOUNDARY TO BE COMPLETED BY OTHERS _ (ARTERIAL HIGHWAY) 1 - MURRIETA - - - - - - - - - - - - CU �eI 1B ••• N 7 8 /� • AC 1A P'P vate • •• SP 051 / 10 • c LM /> �. ••• RINGS ,2.5 AC 9A L !� • 19.0 AC 2 ••••• //. g8AC 8.1 AC �S 9g • R I 9e ovs LM 4A ••• o D1fS s.6�Ac tt 2A LM nwc 1RIC LM 99D1 s 990AC 4.88 AC 19.AC qg ROAD 13 052 100 DU5 .L.1 ' 6 178 8 AC 13 AC OS2 113DUS 5.1JAC7AC NC 11 - - - - - 7A 19.5 AC (1 15.4 15 4 AC < L (10.0 AC) D 'A'STREET _V iILI NAP N 12 Mz 18.2 AC 1 m CL 150 DUS 17 9 LM .33g\ 1 s 37.5 AC U LM 144 DVS 29.1 AC LEGEND S"P 14 15 150 DUs Q kicD 3A�� 16.7 AC U :AC / 1 Augmented Arterial Highway(122') ® Signalized Intersection L (14.3 AC) 174 DUs 1 14.1 AC 174 DUs �15 DU'S- Arterial Highway(110') ® Transit StoplPark'n Ride Site' j • � 29 4.0 AC 18 1 S1 LM .4 Modified Arterial Highway A(110') 1N Planning Area Boundary 27 L 1z.o Ac 106� 19 a AC 28 31 •• Modified Arterial Highway B(110') ® Potential Access Point (1.2 AC OS2) psz� i 3.3 AUCs 19 1 111111111 Modified Secondary Highway � Staffed Gated Primary Entry(3) L (90'/11 0'Right-of-Way) 35.9 AC 47 DU'S 1 ■■ Modified Principal Collector Road(76) © Card Key Gated Secondary Entry(7) 26 2.0AC 24 22 231asAC 11 o C 2. ♦•�♦ Modified Collector Road(66') Pedestrian Bridge 13.9 AC 113DUI 1 84 DUs 9.2 AC D O Local Road(60') CALLE STH LOOP a0 20 '50 spaces in PA 11 or in lieu fee cHAPOs 21 24.D AD 30.8 As ' - - - - 29ou's - 35- - 32 - - - - PI 1 2.0 AC The Keith Compenieel�w •� �J '�- R01 �au01 Ranch 1 1 ' 3.5 TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION 1 It should be noted that the City and developer can make minor modifications to the project roadway cross- sections, as shown in Figures 3.5-6A through 3.5-6E, by mutual agreement which will not result in any significant traffic-related impacts. The following paragraphs describe the proposed project's roadway cross sections (ROW refers to right-of-way distance and CC refers to curb-to-curb distance): Augmented Arterial Highway(122'ROW/96' CC)—This street cross section is for Butterfield Stage Road from Murrieta Hot Springs Road to Nicolas Road and consists of a 14- foot wide raised landscaped median, four 12-foot travel lanes and two 17-foot travel lanes within a 96-foot curb-to-curb width. The 1 parkways within the street section each include an 8-foot Class I bicycle lane/sidewalk to the edge of ROW separated from the curb with a 5-foot landscaped area. An additional variable landscape zone will be provided on the west side of the street and no on-street parking is allowed. 1 Urban Crossroads,the project traffic engineer,originally designated this roadway segment as a4-lane Arterial Highway with a 110-foot section,but laterincreased the section to a 6-lane, 118-footROW. However,recent discussions with County and City staffs indicate this particular roadway segment(i.e.,Butterfield Stage Road from Murrieta Hot Springs Road to Nicolas Road)should be designated for 6 lanes but with a 122-foot ROW section to adequately carry projected future traffic (S. Sato,Urban Crossroads,personal communication, ' February, 2002). NOTE: this 6-lane section only applies to the segment of Butterfield Stage Road from Murrieta Hot Springs Road to Nicolas Road - all other segments are 4-lane sections. 1 Arterial Highway (110' ROW/86' CC)—This street cross section is for Butterfield Stage Road from Nicolas Road to the southern project boundary and consists of a 14-foot wide raised landscaped median,two 14-foot travel lanes,two 12-foot travel lanes,and two 10-foot emergency parkingibike lanes within an 86-foot curb-to-curb width. The parkway within the street section includes a 6-foot sidewalk separated from the curb by a 6-foot landscape area. An additional variable landscape zone will be provided and no on-street parking ' allowed. This same section,with minor modification,also applies to the extension of Butterfield Stage Road south of 1 the project to Rancho California Road,exclusive of any existing improvements. The only modification is that a 6-foot,curb-adjacent sidewalk will be installed on the City(west)portion of the roadway,but no sidewalk will be installed on the County(east)portion of the roadway. These improvements include streetlights on both sides of the street. NOTE:Tthe project traffic report recommended Butterfield Stage Road have a minimum width of 34 feet south of the project site. However,the City determined that full width improvements were needed to accommodate anticipated future traffic, since the project is contributing to cumulative traffic ' impacts and growth inducement by providing full width improvements to this critical link in the Eastem Bypass Corridor(i.e., Butterfield Stage Road). 1 Modified Arterial,Highway A(110'ROW/86'CC)— This street cross section is for Butterfield Stage Road from Murrieta Hot Springs Road to Nicolas Road and for Murrieta Hot Springs Road from the northwestern project boundary to Butterfield Stage Road. It consists of a 14-foot wide raised landscaped 1 median,two 14-foot travel lanes,two 12-foot travel lanes,and two emergency parking/bike lanes within an 86-foot curb-to-curb width. One side of the street, that bordering open space areas will have a 12-foot parkway consisting of a 6-foot sidewalk directly behind the curb with the remaining 6 feet behind sidewalk. 1 The other side will consist of a curb separated 6-foot sidewalk located 6 feet behind curb within a 12-foot RORIPAUGH RANCH SPECIFIC PLAN 1 2rv0 REVISED DRAFT EIR-APRIL 1,2002 3-84 1 ■ 3.5 TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION parkway. An additional landscape zone variable width will be provided and no on-street parking will be allowed. ' Modified Arterial Highway B (110' ROW/86' CC) - This street cross section is on Butterfield Stage Road from Murrieta Hot Spring Road to the northern project boundary,and the crossings at Santa Gertrudis Creek and Long Valley Wash. It consists of a 14-foot wide raised landscaped median, two 14-foot travel I lanes,two 12-foot travel lanes,and two I 0-foot emergency parking/bike lanes within an 86-foot curb-to-curb width. Both sides of the street consist of 6-foot sidewalks directly behind curb within the right-of-way. No on-street parking will be allowed. ' Modified Secondary Highway(110'ROW/90' CC)- This street cross section is on Nicolas Road from Butterfield Stage Road to the western project boundary. This cross section consists of a 12-foot striped median,four 12-foot travel lanes,and two 5-foot bike lanes,somewhat similar to City standards excepting painted median and bike lane widths. Parkways shall be 20 feet with 6-foot sidewalks adjacent to the curb. The developer shall dedicate 110 feet of right-of-way,but construct 90 feet of pavement from curb-to-curb and reserve an additional 10 feet of right-of-way on each side of street—refer to Figure 3.5-6). No parking will be allowed on secondary.highways. ' This cross section also applies to the permanent improvement of Nicolas Road from the western project boundary to its current terminus at Calle Girasol. Until the permanent cross section is built,this stretch of road would be improved to 40 feet,consisting of two 14-foot travel lanes and a 12-foot tum lane centered ' within the right-of-way with an asphalt concrete(AC)curb at the edge of the pavement and a 6-foot asphalt path along the north side of the roadway 1 Modified Principal Collector Road (76' ROW/46' CC) - This street cross section is on North Loop Road from Butterfield Stage Road to Long Valley Wash,and on South Loop Road from Long Valley Wash ' to Butterfield Stage Road. It consists of a 12-foot turn lane, two 12-foot travel lanes, and two 5-foot bike lanes. Both sides of the street will consist of a 5-foot concrete path,setback from the curb 6-feet within a 15-foot parkway. No parking will be allowed on the loop road. ' Modified Collector Road (66' ROW/44' CC)—This street cross section is on "A" Street behind the neighborhood commercial center from Butterfield Stage Road to Murrieta Hot Springs,and"B"Street from ' Nicolas Road to"A"Street. It consists of a 10-foot tum lane,two 12-foot travel lanes,and two 5-foot bike lanes located within 44 feet from curb-to-curb. Per City standards,a 6-foot sidewalk is to be located behind the curb on both sides of the street within an 11-foot parkway. No parking will be allowed on collector roads. ' Providing an HOA or POA agrees to maintain both the landscaping and sidewalk within the 11-foot parkways, the Developer may choose to construct 6-foot sidewalks 5 feet behind the curb within the parkways. Modified Collector Road (76'ROW/46'CC)-This cross section is on Calle Chapos from Butterfield Stage Road to Walcott Lane. The ultimate cross section consists of two 12-foot travel lanes and a 12-foot turn lane,with two 5-foot class II bike lanes and 6-foot curb-separated sidewalks. However,this project will construct a 38-foot wide center section of this offsite roadway at this time consisting of two 14-foot travel lanes and a 10-foot turn lane. RORIPAUGH RANCH SPECIFIC PLAN ' 2NO REVISED DRAFT EIR-APRIL 1,2002 3-85 3.5 TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION Local Road (60'ROW/40'CC)-This street cross section is on all interior streets and is consistent with Citystandards. It consists of two 20-foot travel lanes and contains 6-foot wide sidewalks directly behind the curbs and a 4-foot landscaped area to the edge of ROW. If curb separated walkways are proposed,sidewalk and landscaping shall be maintained by a Home Owners Association (HOA). Private/Internal Streets Within each Planning Area,a series of smaller local streets will be constructed 1 to provide project residents with adequateaccess within their neighborhoods,with appropriate connections to adjacent neighborhoods,collector streets, and major roadways. In-tract private streets will range from 35 to 47 feet ROW with 4.5-foot wide Public Utility Easements(PUE)on both sides,as shown in the previous ' street sections. Roads with a right-of-way less than 60 feet will be shown on subsequent tract maps prior to approval by the City. Roads in Planning Areas 17, 18,and 19 will be curvilinear to reduce downhill speeds, ' e Pedestrian/Bicycle trriiaann/BicycleCirculation Figure 3.5-8 of this report shows the circulation improvements and Figure ' 3.5-9, the proposed pedestrian/bicycle circulation plan. Calle Contento The Specific Plan provides for a private street within Planning Area 19 to connect to Calle Contento for an emergency access (i.e., gated with police/fire access only). 3.5.6 Mitigation Measures ' The following measures are proposed to help prevent potential traffic-related impacts of the project from becoming significant: (1) The following shall be used to implement the mitigation measures in this section: ' (a) All proposed road improvements shall include associated flood control,storm drain,water, and sewer lines. ' (b) All references to bridges shall mean hydro-arch bridges or other designs as approved by the City Engineer. ' (c) Full-width improvements shall consist of the complete street and landscape improvements within the right-of-way. ' (d) Half-width improvements shall consist of the construction of the improvements from the curb to the raised landscaped median,the full-width raised landscaped median,where applicable, and a travel lane adjacent to the median on the unimproved half. ' (e) On center improvements shall mean: i) A 38'width improvement consisting of two 14'travel lanes and a 10'tum lane; or ii) A 40'width improvement consisting of two 14'travel lanes and a 12'turn lane. RORIPAUGH RANCH SPECIFIC PLAN ' 2N.REVISED DRAFT EIR-APRIL 1,2002 3-86 3.5 TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION (2) Prior to the issuance of building permits for each phase,the developer or the CFD must construct the improvements identified below. The City reserves the right to withhold building permits in excess of those indicated below until the mitigation measures necessary to improve the Level of Service to ' LOS D or better are completed for each phase of development, except for the following five intersections that will exceed City standards even without project-related traffic: 1)I-15 southbound ramps at Winchester Road; 2) the I-15 southbound ramps at Rancho California Road; 3) the ' intersection of Ynez Road at Winchester Road; 4) the intersection of Ynez Road at Rancho California Road; and,5) the intersection of Margarita Road at Winchester Road. However, the developeris still responsible to comply with the mitigation measures for the improvement of the above ' five intersections.The developer and/or CFD will be responsible for acquiring right-of-way where necessary for any required onsite and offsite improvements. The City will require additional or supplemental traffic studies prior to approval of future tentative tract maps. If these studies confirm that area intersections are operating below LOS D or otherwise pose an unsafe condition,then the developer shall be responsible for mitigating these conditions,in addition to the mitigation measures already identified in the EIR In general,the supplemental traffic studies will: 1)document ambient traffic volume conditions;2) ' estimate trip generation for the particular development phase;and 3)assess traffic conditions with the traffic added by the particular development phase. The exact study area to be addressed in each of the traffic studies should be defined through discussions with the City Traffic Engineer. In general, the study area should include the immediate access intersections and roadways which would serve the new development phase,and those critical offsite intersections and roadways that will provide primary access to the new development. Critical intersections/roadways are defined as those facilities that are experiencing high levels of peak period traffic congestion at the time the traffic study is to be performed. The traffic study findings would assist the City in proactively planning for area roadway improvements. PHASE 1 (Planning Areas 1-4113, 6,and 32) Onsite Prior to issuance of the 34"building permit, the following improvements shall be completed: ' 1. Secondary Access-Provide secondary access limited to right-turns only from Planning Areas 1, 2, or 3A to Murrieta Hot Springs Road. Prior to issuance of the 108"building permit, the following improvements shall be completed: ' 2. Butterfield Stage Road-Construct half-width improvements from Murrieta Hot Springs Road to the south project boundary at Planning Area 32,including construction of two full-width bridges within and over Santa Gertrudis Creek and Long Valley Wash. r3. Butterfield Stage Road-Dedicatefull_width right-of-way from the northern project boundary to Murrieta Hot Springs Road. RORIPAUGH RANCH SPECIFIC PLAN ' 2"0 REVISED DRAFT ESR-APRIL 1,2002 3-87 1 ' 3.$ TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION ' 4.Murrieta Hot Springs Road-Construct full-width improvements from east of Pourroy Road at the northern project boundary to the MWD pipeline property. 5.Murrieta Hot Springs Road-Construct half-width improvements from the MWD pipeline property to Butterfield Stage Road. 6. Nicolas Road-Offer a dedication fora 1 10'right-of-way from Butterfield Stage Road to the west project boundary. ' 7. Nicolas Road-Construct half-width from Butterfield Stage Road to the western project boundary. 8. South Loop Road - Construct half-width in front of fire station (Planning Area 32) 1 Prior to issuance of the 400" building permit, the following improvements shall be completed: ' 9. "A" Street - Construct full-width from Murrieta Hot Springs Road to Butterfield Stage Road 10. "B" Street - Construct full-width improvements from Nicolas Road to "A" Street. 11. North Loop Road- Construct a full-width bridge over and within Santa Gertrudis Creek and connect the bridge to Butterfield Stage Road with full width improvements. 12.Traffic Signals-Construct traffic signals and related intersection improvements as warranted at: (a) Murrieta Hot Springs Road and Pourroy Road and (b) All project entrances on Murrieta Hot Springs Road. Offsite ' Prior to the issuance of the 108ih building permit, the following improvements shall be completed: 1. Nicolas Road-Construct 40'width on center improvements from the western project boundary to 450' east of the existing Nicolas Road/Calle Girasol intersection. 2. Secondary Access - The required secondary access for the Plateau area shall be provided by ' one of the following options: a. If Nicolas Road is designated as the secondary access route, the following improvements shall be completed: i. Construct 40'width on center improvements from 450 feet east of the existing Nicolas Road/Calle Girasol intersection to Leifer Road including the full width bridge structure over and within Santa Gertrudis Creek. 1 RORIPAUGH RANCH SPECIFIC PLAN ' 2NO REVISED DRAFT EIR-APRIL 1,2002 3-88 3.5 TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION ii. Realign existing Calle Girasol to its ultimate intersection with Nicolas Road including right-of-way acquisition. ' b. If Calle Chapos from Butterfield Stage Road to Walcott Lane and Calle Girasol from Walcott Lane to the existing Nicolas Road/Calle Girasol intersection is designated as secondary access, the following improvements shall be completed: i. Calle Chapos from Butterfield Stage Road to Walcott Lane - Construct 38' width improvements on center to existing pavement. 1 ii. Calle Girasol from Walcott Lane to the existing Nicolas Road/CalleGimsolintersection- Construct 38'width on center improvements,as required by the City Fire Chief and City Engineer(including right-of-way acquisition),on Calle Girasol from Walcott Lane to the existing Nicolas Road/Calle Girasol intersection. ' c. If Butterfield Stage Road from the southern project boundary to Rancho California Road is designated as secondary access,construct half width improvements from the southern project boundary at Planning Area 32 to Chimen Clinet, excluding any existing improvements. ' PHASE 2 (Planning Areas 10, 11, 12, 14 - 24, 27 -31, 33A,and 33B) ' Prior to the issuance of the 510'"building permit in Phase 1,or any building permit in Phase 2, the following improvements must be completed: ' Onsite 1. Butterfield Stage Road-Construct remaining half-width improvements from Murrieta Hot Springs ' Road to 200'south of the intersection of Butterfield Stage Road and Nicolas Road. 2. Butterfield Stage Road-Construct or bond for grading and full-width improvements from the ' northern project boundary to Murrieta Hot Springs Road. 3. Murrieta Hot Springs Road -Construct remaining half-width improvements from the MWD pipeline property to Butterfield Stage Road. 4.North Loop Road-Construct full-width improvements from the bridge structure at North Loop Road/Santa Gertrudis Creek crossing to the Long Valley Wash Bridge structure at South Loop Road. 5. South Loop Road-Construct the full width bridge structure crossing Long Valley Wash and construct full width street improvements from this bridge to Butterfield Stage Road. 6.Nicolas Road-Construct remaining improvements from Butterfield Stage Road to western project ' boundary. 1 RORIPAUGH RANCH SPECIFIC PLAN ' 2No REVISED DRAFT EIR-APRIL 1,2002 3-89 1 ' 3.5 TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION ' 7. Traffic signal-Construct traffic signals and related intersection improvements,as warranted,at the intersections of: ' a. Murrieta Hot Springs Road at Butterfield Stage Road, b. Butterfield Stage Road at North Loop Road, and c. Buttefield Stage Road at South Loop Road. Offsite 1.Butterfield Stage Road- Construct remaining half-width improvements from 550'south of the intersection of Butterfield Stage Road and Nicolas Road to the south project boundary at Planning Area 32. ' 2.Butterfield Stage Road-Construct full width improvements from the southern project boundary at Planning Area 32 to Rancho California Road excluding any existing improvements. 3. Nicolas Road - Construct 40'width improvements from 450 feet east of the existing Nicolas Road/Calle Girasol intersection to the Leifer Road including the full width bridge structure over Santa ' Gertrudis Creek. 4. Calle Girasol and the Nicolas Road/Calle Girasol Intersection-Realign existing Calle Girasol to ' its ultimate intersection with Nicolas Road including right-of-way acquisition. 5: Calle Chapos-Construct 38'width on center improvements from Butterfield Stage Road to the ' existing paved terminus at Calle Girasol. (3) 'Be developer must make a fair share contribution towards the improvement of the following ' intersections identified below. The City reserves the right to withhold building permits in excess of those indicated below until the mitigation measures necessary to improve the Level of Service to LOS D or better,are in place for both phases of development,except for the following five intersections ' that will exceed City standards even without project-related traffic; 1)I-15 southbound ramps at Winchester Road;2)the I-15 southbound ramp at Rancho California Road; 3)the intersection of Ynez at Winchester Road;4)the intersection of Ynez Road at Rancho California Road;and 5)the intersection of Margarita Road at Winchester Road. However,the developer is still responsible to comply with the mitigation measures for the improvement of the above five intersections. A fair share contribution is based on the intersection trip distribution percentages identified in the EIR traffic ' study and future traffic studies, as shown in Table 3.5-8. The developer and/or CFD will be responsible for acquiring right-of-way where necessary for any required onsite and offsite improvements. Additional or supplemental traffic studies shall be conducted prior to approval of future tentative tract maps. If these studies confirm that these intersections are operating below LOS D or otherwise pose an unsafe condition,then the developer shall be responsible for mitigating these conditions,in addition to the mitigation measures already identified in the EIR 1 RORIPAUGH RANCH SPECIFIC PLAN ' 2ND REVISED DRAFT EIR-/APRIL 1,2002 3-90 1 ' 3.5 TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION In general,the supplemental traffic studies will: 1)document ambient traffic volume conditions;2) estimate trip generation for the particular development phase;and 3)assess traffic conditions with the traffic added by the particular development phase. The exact study area to be addressed in each ' of the traffic studies should be defined through discussions with the City Traffic Engineer. In general, the study area should include the immediate access intersections and roadways which would serve the new development phase,and those critical offsite intersections and roadways that will provide primary access to the new development. Critical intersections/roadways are defined as those facilities that are experiencing high levels of peak period traffic congestion at the time the traffic study is to be performed. The traffic study findings would assist the City in proactively planning for area roadway improvements. Phase 1 (prior to issuance of 1" building permit in Planning Areas 14B,6, and 32) 1. I-15 Freeway (southbound ramps) at Rancho California Road - southbound left tum lane, southbound free right-turn lane, and eastbound free right turn lane ' 2. I-215 Freeway (southbound ramps)at Murrieta Hot Springs Road - southbound left-tum lane, southbound right-turn lane, eastbound through lane, eastbound right-tum lane, westbound ' through lane, and westbound free right-tum lane 3. Ynez Road at Winchester Road - southbound right-turn overlap 4. Ynez Road at Rancho California Road - eastbound through lane ' 5. North General Kearny Road at Nicolas Road - traffic signal. 6. Butterfield Stage Road at Rancho California Road - traffic signal ' 7. Murrieta Hot Springs Road at Alta Murrieta (in the City of Murrieta) - lane improvements (as yet undetermined). The developer shall provide the City of Temecula with a letter from the City of Murrieta stating that a fair share contribution to identified improvements at this intersection has been made. ' Phase 2 (prior to issuance of V building permit in Planning Areas 10 - 12, 14 - 24,27, 28, 29,30,31,33A,and 33B) ' 1. I-15 Freeway (southbound ramps) at Winchester Road - southbound left-tum lane, southbound right-tum lane, and eastbound right-tum lane, westbound through lane, eastbound through lane, and eastbound free right-tum lane. 2. Traffic signal and related intersection improvements, as warranted, at the intersection of La Serena and Meadows Parkway. 3. I-15 Freeway (northbound ramps) at Winchester Road - northbound left-tum lane, northbound free right-turn lane, westbound through lane, and westbound free right-turn lane RORIPAOGH RANCH SPECIFIC PLAN ' 2NO REVISED DRAFT EIR-APRIL 1,2002 3-91 3.5 TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION ' 4. 1-15 Freeway (southbound ramps) at Rancho California Road - southbound left-tum lane, southbound, eastbound, and westbound free right-turn lanes ' 5. I-15 Freeway (northbound ramps) at Rancho California Road - northbound left-tum and right-tum lanes ' 6. Ynez Road at Winchester Road - southbound left-tum lane, southbound right-turn overlap, and eastbound left-tum lane 7. Ynez Road at Rancho California Road - westbound left-turn lane, westbound right-tum lane, eastbound through lane, southbound through lane, southbound free right tum lane, eastbound free right-tum lane, and eastbound through lane 8. Margarita Road at Winchester Road -eastbound left-turn lane, southbound right- tum lane, westbound right-turn lane, and southbound right-turn overlap 9. Margarita Road at Rancho California Road - northbound and southbound through lanes, southbound right-tum lane, eastbound left-tum lane, eastbound right-turn ' overlap, westbound left-tum lane, northbound right-tum lane, and westbound right tum overlap 10. Margarita Road at Murrieta Hot Springs Road - northbound shared left-through lane, eastbound through lane, and westbound through lane ' 11. Winchester Road at Nicolas Road - northbound left-tum lane, northbound right tum overlap, westbound left-tum lane, northbound through lane, southbound left-tum lane, southbound through lane, eastbound right-tum overlap, and westbound left-turn lane 12. Winchester Road at Murrieta Hot Springs Road - northbound through lane, southbound through lane, and westbound through lane 13. Butterfield Stage Road at Rancho California Road - northbound left-tum lane, northbound through lane, southbound left-tum lane, southbound through lane, eastbound left-tum 1 lane, eastbound through lane, westbound left-tum lane, and westbound through lane 14. Calle Contento at Rancho California Road - eastbound left-turn lane, eastbound through 1 lane, westbound left-turn lane, and westbound through lane These improvements shall be constructed and the developer shall provide appropriate fair share ' contributions to these improvements as shown in the attached Table 3.5-8. 1 RORIPAUGH RANCH SPECIFIC PLAN ' 2N0 REVISED DRAFT EIR-APRIL 1,2002 3-92 ' 3.5 TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION Table 3.5-8 Project Fair Share Contributions ' Project Percent of New Traffic Roadway(NS) Intersection(EW) AM PM 1-215 Freeway-SB Ramps Murrieta Hot Springs Road 4.4 5.8 1-215 Freeway-NB Ramps Murrieta Hot Springs Road 7.3 6.8 1-15 Freeway-SB Ramps Winchester Road 3.2 5.7 Rancho California Road 5.7 6.8 ' 1-15 Freeway-NB Ramps Winchester Road 2.4 4.9 Rancho California Road 7.8 10.0 ' Ynez Road Winchester Road 4.5 5.6 Rancho California Road 6.2 5.9 Margarita Road Murrieta Hot Springs Road 11.4 12.4 Winchester Road 11.1 11.2 La Serena Way 6.6 7.4 Rancho California Road 5.6 6.4 Winchester Road Murrieta Hot Springs Road 11.1 9.3 Nicolas Road 10.1 12.3 tN. General Kearny Road Nicolas Road 18.6 18.3 Meadows Parkway La Serena Way 30.5 22.1 Rancho California Road 28.6 23.6 Butterfield Stage Road Murrieta Hot Springs Road 23.3 24.2 Nicolas Road 39.7 35.7 Calle Chapos 29.5 25.8 La Serena Way 20.8 19.0 Rancho California Road 21.3 19.1 Calle Contento Rancho California Road 10.3 11.3 Source: Table 6-1 from Urban Crossroads,November 2001 ' EW=east-west NB=northbound NS=north-south SB=southbound RORIPAUGH RANCH SPECIFIC PLAN ' 2NO REVISED DRAFT EIR-APRIL 1,2002 3-93 ' 3.5 TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION (4) When the appropriate warrants are met, the developer will contribute a fair share contribution towards the installation of traffic signals and related intersection improvements at: a. Butterfield Stage Road at La Serena Way, and b. Meadows Parkway at La Serena Way. ' The following measures are designed to help prevent potential impacts of the project related to onsite intersections from becoming significant: (5) Prior to the approval of the street improvement plans,the developer shall demonstrate that the sight distance at all intersections meets City and Caltrans standards, to the satisfaction of the City 1 Engineer. (6) Prior to the approval of the tentative tract maps for Planning Areas 17, 18, and 19,the streets shall ' be designed to provide safe horizontal and vertical alignments including special considerations to speed control on steep grades. ' The following measures are proposed to assure that the project is consistent with the City General Plan: (7) At the same time the Specific Plan is approved,the developer will obtain approval fora General Plan ' Amendment to the Circulation Element for the following: (a)The designation of Calle Contento as a Principal Collector Road is recommended to be deleted within the project site; and (b) The designation of Butterfield Stage Road as an Augmented Arterial Highway (122'right-of- way) from Murrieta Hot Springs Road to Nicolas Road. The following transportation system management/transportation demand management(TSMffDM)measures are proposed to help reduce project-related traffic impacts: (8) Prior to the approval of development plans for Planning Area 11, the developer shall provide pedestrian and bicycle facilities in these areas,to the satisfaction of the City Planning Department. (9) Prior.ro issuance of any building permits for Planning Areas 10, 11, 12, 14-31, 33A, or 33B, the developer shall provide and construct 50 designated Park-N-Ride spaces in Planning Area 11,or as an alternative, pay a sum or$8000 per space for a total of$400,000 to the City. RORIPAUGH RANCH SPECIFIC PLAN ' 2NO REVISED DRAFT EIR-APRIL 1,2002 3-94 1 ASHBYUSA,LLC FIGURE 3.5-8 x 1 N � 1 �` THE PROJECT SITE IS INCLUDED WITHIN THE / 1 BOUNDARIES OF THE SOUTHWEST AREA RBBD. CONSTRUCT BUTTERFIELD STAGE O L z FOR GENERAL PLAN RD.FROM MURRIETA HOT THE PROJECT SHALL PARTICIPATE ON A Z PROD TA BASIS IN THE DISTRICT TO BUILD BUILDOUT TRAFFIC SPRINGS RD.TO NICOLAS RD.ATAREANb CONDITIONS,THE ITS ULTIMATE CROSS-SECTION HOWEVER E ROADWAY IMPROVEMENTS. CONSTRUCTION OF WIDTH AS AN AUGMENTED w HOWEVERRANCHIS SHOULD PROGRAMMEDBE NOTED BUTTERFIELD STAGE ARTERIAL HIGHWAY(11 B FOOT o ' PARTICIPATE F THE CONST U C RANCH IS PROGRAMMED R RD.NORTH OF THE RIGHT-FO-WAY)IN CONJUNCTION EXTENSION OF CONSTRUCT STAGE TAGE R HOT SPRINGS RD.AND PROJECT SITE HAS WITH DEVELOPMENT.(SEE RD.EAST AHOTSPRING BUTTERFIELD STAGEAE WRSS-THEPROJECT BEEN ASSUMED. EXHIBIT Ss) EXISTING EAST OF ITS SITE AT THEIR ULTIMATE GROSS-SECTION ECTION m EXISTING ATERMINUS AT > WIDTHS,M NTSADDITIONPRO PROVIDING OFFSITE CALISTOGA OR. y IMPROVEMENTS TO PROVIDE SITE ACCESS. Oo MURRIETA HOT SPRINGS RD 1 Un3Q IT rc cu CONSTRUCT BUTTERFIELD I L STAGE RD.FROM NICOLAS RD. ( TO THE SOUTHERLY BOUNDARY OF TRAFFIC ANALYSIS ZONE 4 AT ( ITS ULTIMATE WIDTH AS AN f ARTERIAL HIGHWAY(110 FOOT 'lt JRIGHT-OF-WAY)IN CONJUNCTION I 1 RD W WITH DEVELOPMENT. NOCOLAS . 5 U) 1 FOR PHASE 1 SINCE NICOLAS RD.IS PROJECTED TO (DEVELOPMENT OF UP TO SERVE LESS THAN 11,200 ADT WEST OF m O 511 DWELLING UMTS) BUTTERFIELD STAGE RD.FOR GENERAL w ( L TRAFFIC CONDITIONS, PLAN BUILDOUT WITH PROJECT TRAFFIC MURRIETA HOT SPRINGS CONDITIONS,THE CITY OF TEMECULA WI RD.AND NICOLAS RD. CIRCULATION ELEMENT COULD BE F 1 SHOULD BE EXTENDED TO AMENDED TO DOWNGRADE NICOLAS RD. m( THE PROJECT SITE WITH A FROM AN ARTERIAL TO A SECONDARY SOUTH LOOP RD MINIMUM 34 FOOT (118 FOOT RIGHT-OF-WAY)BETWEEN CALLE PAVEMENT SECTION TO CALLE GIRASOLA DN BUTTERFIELD CHAPOS 1 PROVIDE SITE ACCESS. STAGE RD. CONSTRUCT BUTTERFIELD STAGE RD.FROM THE SOUTHERLY BOUNDARY OF TRAFFIC ANALYSIS ZONE 4 TO THE SOUTHERLY PROJECT BOUNDARY AT ITS ULTIMATE HALF SECTION WIDTH AS AN ARTERIAL HIGHWAY(110 FOOT RIGHT-DF-WAY)IN 1 CONJUNCTION WMTH DEVELOPMENT. FOR PHASE 2(DEVELOPMENT BEYOND 511 DWELLING UNITS)TRAFFIC CONDITIONS,BUTTERANCH CALL STAGE RD. SIGHT DISTANCE AT EACH PROJECT ENTRANCE SHOULD BE SHOULD BE EXTENDED FROM RANCHO CALIFORNIA O T RD. REVIEWED WITH RESPECT TO STANDARD CRY OF TEMECULA TO THE PROJECT SITE WITH A MINIMUM ACCESS.ITE FOOT SIGHT DISTANCE STANDARDS AT THE TIME OF PREPARATION OF PAVETRUCTINMENT ON UTTO PROVIDE STAGERD.NFINAL GRADING,LANDSCAPE AND STREET IMPROVEMENT CONSTRUCTION SITE BUTTERFIELD NOT STAGE RD.NORTH PLANS OF THE PROJECT SITE HAS NOT BEEN ASSUMED FOR YEAR 200]TRAFFIC CONDITIONS. TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM MANAGEMENT ACTIONS AND A TRAFFIC MIT GATONIMONITORING PROGRAM ARE DESCRIBED IN SECTION].0 OF THIS REPORT. 1 LEGEND 1 0 TRAFFIC SIGNAL ® The Keith CempanieslMjrjKj= ]� a ® TM T 0m S C A Lt Ronpir-luic) 1 / ]-'Ranch J� i ASHBV USA,LLC FIGURE 3.5-9 n ' o o O 0 0 a ¢ g 1A MP-Prrvace 2esi, Z9A 19.0AC 2 __ __ URRIETq ��. _ /38AC j.,A/� 96 DU'S 3 Horseost 184AC LM RC 4A RINOSROAD r� .a, m j029 999 c 48 AC 19.6 AC 4B 13 1 100 Du'SLM '7C: 221 AC '6 7796AC '1 BnC 113 DU'S NP 1052 5,AC 11 I I U g ?a _ 1;7 AC..' NC 15.4 AC (10.0 AC) Xyl D 'A'STREET U — r � NAP Ms �� .' (U n 16.2 AC n s.0 AC) – – 17 0° L ' .. — 150 DU'S r; .9 LM ❑ I "FJ LEGEND � ,�� 33B _ 16 37.5 AC � fVA� . ;.. LM 144 DU's I1 Water District Easements Class Bike Lanes o 29.1 AC ❑ (160'Open Space Buffer) ( ) P� 150 Du's ❑ echslaes �— - F / 14 15 ❑ ' Q ), J16.7�AC 14.5 AC — ❑°.. IW 0 ace Class II Bike Lanes 33A n S e / (14.3 AC) 174 Du'S ❑ P '(both sides) �' " _ 14.i Ac 174 Du'S 13 River Walk Trail 15 Du s` �p NO 30 0 ' Park (12 Asphalt Multi-Use Trail) — — / / - _��Hoa�N` 29 4.o AC �^ 18 0 LM - 27 } ' $1 244u' a Existing Residential Nature Trail*Plateau" �, r r - 12.0 AC 1p6 AC 1 _ r 19a AC ❑ 15'Multi-Use Trail w/in 30' 1 sr s n 28 M2 f L1❑ Fuel Modification Zone Pedestrian Bridge I (12Ac os2)' � s2 23.3 AC S ° �'3� 20o Ac 217 DU S 19 ❑ f a 35.9 AC ° Future Proposed Trail o—� ` �`` t_ >� w `k ,'_- 47 DU's 0 (MWD Easement) Pedestrian Link tea _ ❑ v osz r t' ° Emergency Access Road a za0na,-,� 24 i 26 M1 ❑ 097 22 231osnc 0Ac �s� t _ 25 ° ti 13.9 AC 113 DU102 DU'S - 0S2 . rt Pti Paseo(Conceptual) B4 DU'S SOUT LOOP ROAD 92AC ( ��❑. 1O ❑ CALLE � — — — — — — — 2O � ❑ —__ a IT ..wossiw KDEm C.. L ' GHAPOS 24.0 AC 30.BAC ❑ ❑ I- ❑ 21 29 DU'S 35 DU's ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑❑❑❑❑❑❑❑❑❑❑❑❑❑❑❑❑❑❑❑❑❑❑❑❑❑❑❑❑❑❑❑❑❑ ❑❑❑❑o❑❑❑❑o❑❑❑o❑o❑❑❑o❑❑❑❑❑❑❑o❑❑❑❑❑❑O � ' 32 - - - - - - - - , - - PI 2.0 AC (1.5 AC) ® The Kalth CompanieslTK� 4 0 z_ Rol* )augli , 1Zaricll 3.5 TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION ' (10) Prior to the issuance of the first building permit in Phase 2, the developer shall fund operation of a shuttle bus services to and from the project The developer shall pay the RTA to operate the shuttle ' bus service for a period of 3 years for project residents,but may be expanded to serve areas outside of the project on a fair share contribution basis. This measure shall be implemented to the satisfaction of the Planning Director and the RTA. ' (1 1) Prior to tentative tract map approval in each phase,the developer shall coordinate with the RTA to incorporate transit-related facilities and design features to the satisfaction of the City Public Works ' Department. (12) In conjunction with constructing Nicolas Road offsite in Phase 1,the developer shall install a 6-foot ' wide temporary asphalt path so residents along Nicolas Road can access the public facilities in the project east of Butterfield Stage Road(e.g.,sports park,middle school,etc.). This path shall be built to the satisfaction of the Temecula Community Services Department. The asphalt path shall be extended from 450 feeteast of the Nicolas Road/Calle Girasol intersection to the bridge over Santa Gertrudis Creek during Phase 2. (13) Pfiorto the issuance of the grading pemiiLs andbuilding permits,the developer shall providetheCity with a letter stating that all contractors will be prohibited from using Nicolas Road for construction related traffic. ' (14) Prior to tentative map approval for Planning Area l9,the 15-foot wide multi-use trail within a30-foot fuel modification zone shall be designed to be screened from adjacent offsite homes on an as needed ' basis. Screening shall be accomplished through the use of either landscaping or topography,to the greatest extent feasible. However,the primary goal of this trail is to provide access to the trail from adjacent onsite and offsite lots. 3.5.7 Impact of Mitigation Measures ' Construction of the recommended improvements may cause temporary traffic congestion or re-routing of traffic. However,no significant impacts areexpected from implementation of the recommended measures. 3.5.8 Summary of Impact after Mitigation ' Even with implementation of the project as proposed, including the Specific Plan Circulation Master Plan, standard conditions, uniform codes, and mitigation measures, including recommended roadway and intersection improvements, the project will produce significant traffic impacts in that the LOS at two intersections,the I-15 southbound ramps at Rancho California Road and the intersection of Margarita Road at Winchester Road, will cause City standards to be exceeded by 2007 (i.e., project traffic causes ' intersections to go from LOS D to E or F). In addition, the following three intersections are projected to exceed City standards with or without project traffic: 1)I-15 southbound ramps at Winchester Road(PM Peak); 2) Ynez Road at Winchester Road (PM Peak); and 3) Ynez Road at Rancho California Road ' (AM/PMPeak). However,this cumulative impact can be effectively mitigated by the project providing a key link in the Eastern Bypass Corridor(Butterfield Stage Road). A Statement of Overriding Consideration will therefore be required to approve the project. RORIPAUGH RANCH SPECIFIC PLAN ' 2ND REVISED DRAFT EIR-APRIL 1,2002 3-97 3.6 AIR QUALITY ' This section describes regional and local air quality and estimates the amount of air pollutants that maybe generated by construction and occupancy of the proposed project. It also places this information in the context of regional air quality management and effective mitigation strategies for air pollutants. ' 3.6.1 Environmental Setting a) Climate Southern California is located within the South Coast Air Basin(SCAB)which enjoys a Mediterranean-type climate,characterized by warm summers,mild winters,infrequent rainfall,moderate afternoon breezes,and ' generally fair weather. The Temecula area is an interior valley of the SCAB with a similar Mediterranean climate. Clouds and fog that form along the coast rarely extend as far inland as the San Jacinto Valley,and usually burn off quickly after sunrise. The most important weather pattern is associated with the warm season airflow across populated area of the Los Angeles Basin which brings polluted air into western Riverside County late in the afternoon. This transport pattern creates unhealthful air quality when the fringes of this polluted air mass extends into the Temecula area during the summer months. ' Temperatures in the Temecula area average a verycomfortable 65 degrees Fahrenheit('F)year-round,with warm summer afternoons(+95'F)and often cool winter mornings(around 35°F). Precipitation is variable, ' with almost all the annual rainfall coming from late Novembertoearly April,with summers often completely dry. Rainfall in Temecula averages 12.5 inches per year,but varies from year to year. Daytime winds are from the west-northwest 6-8 miles per hour(mph)as airmoves regionally onshore,while this flow is generally reversed,although not as strong,at night. These winds allow for good local mixing,but they may bring air pollutants from urbanized coastal areas into interior valleys. Strong"Santa Ana"winds may gust in excess of 90 miles per hour during the fall and winter months. Local winds, though mild,are relatively constant ' throughout the year. Strong thermal convection in the summer in the San Jacinto Valley ultimately dilutes the smog cloud from ' urbanized development,but the project area is too close to Los Angeles Basin emissions sources tocompletely avoid the regional airquality degradation resulting from the photochemical airborne reactions thatcreate the summer smog and haze throughout the air basin. Atnight,air drains off surrounding mountains and pools on the valley floor. These breezes are cool and clean,but they may allow for local stagnation of air on the valley floor. Such mild winds,in conjunction with localized temperature inversions,tend to maximize the impact of any local pollution emissions sources such as freeways, shopping centers, etc. ' In addition to winds thatcontrol the rate and direction of pollution dispersal,Southern California is notorious for strong temperature inversions that limit the vertical depth through which pollution can be mixed. In ' summer,coastal areas are characterized by a sharp discontinuity between the cool marine air at the surface and the warm, sinking air aloft within the high pressure cell over the ocean to the west. This marine/subsidence inversion allows for good local mixing, but acts like a giant lid over the basin. A second inversion type forms on clear winter nights when cold air off the mountains sinks to the valley floor while the air aloft over the valley remains warm. This forms radiation inversions. These inversions, in ' conjunction with calm winds, trap pollutants such as automobile exhaust near their source. While these inversions may lead to air pollution "hot spots" in heavily developed coastal areas of the basin,there is not RORIPAUGH RANCH SPECIFIC PLAN 2N0 REVISED DRAFT EIR-APRIL 1.2002 3-98 3.6 AIR QUALITY ' enough traffic in inland valleys to cause any winter air pollution problems. Thus,while summers are periods of hazy visibility and occasionally unhealthful air,winter is often a period of spectacular visibility and excellent air quality in the project area, particularly as it relates to gaseous air quality from sources such as cars or heavy industrial development. Winter air quality impacts tend to be highly localized such as odors near agricultural operations or dust near mineral resource recovery operations. Such sources tend typically to be ' more of a nuisance rather than an adverse air quality impact. b) Air Pollutants Most of the major air pollutants are by-products of internal combustion engines. Carbon Monoxide(CO) supplants oxygen in the blood; it is an odorless, tasteless, poisonous gas that results from incomplete ' combustion in vehicle engines. Nitrogen Dioxide (NO,)is a brown gas that also results from incomplete combustion. Sulfate is mainly from the refining of sulphur-rich oil, while Lead is a former constituent of gasoline and paint,but is no longer found in large amounts in urbanized areas. Another major pollutant is 1 inhalable particulate matter(i.e.,dust)with a diameter of ten microns or less;this is often referredtoasPM,o. All of these are considered "primary" pollutants because they are emitted directly by a pollution source. Air quality impacts can occur locally near a source if the pollutants are already emitted in their most harmful form. Many pollutants,however,require a subsequent transformation before their exposure is maximally unhealthful. Such pollutants are called "secondary pollutants." Photochemical smog(mostly ozone)is the most common secondary pollutant in Southern California. This transformation of precursor emissions into secondary pollutants may take several hours and occur miles away from the source. During such transport, the emissions from any single source will be diluted to an immeasurably small amount. c) Ambient Air Quality Standards (AAQS) The National Ambient Air Quality Standards(NAAQS)are the levels of air quality considered"safe"with an adequate margin of safety, to protect the public health and welfare. They are designed to protect those people most susceptible to further respiratory distress such as asthmatics, the elderly, very young children, people already weakened by other disease or illness, and persons engaged in strenuous work or exercise, called"sensitive receptors". Healthy adults can tolerate occasional exposure to air pollutant concentrations considerably above these minimum standards before adverse effects are observed. Recent research has ' shown that chronic exposure to ozone(the primary ingredient in photochemical smog)may lead to adverse respiratory health even at concentrations close to the ambient standard. ' The NAAQS were established in 1971 for six pollution species with states retaining the option to add other pollutants,require more stringent compliance,or to include different exposure periods. Because California had established AAQS several years before the federal action and because of unique air quality problems introduced by the restrictive dispersion meteorology, there is considerable difference between state and national clean air standards. Those standards currently in effect in California are shown in Table 3.6-1. In the SCAB, AAQS are exceeded at times for four pollutants, ozone(O,), carbon monoxide(CO),nitrogen dioxide (NO,) and particulate matter (PM,,); these are called "non-attainment pollutants." i RORIPAUGH RANCH SPECIFIC PLAN ' 2NO REVISED DRAFT EIR-APRIL 1,2002 3-99 3.6 AIR QUALITY ' d) Air Quality Management The Federal Clean Air Act(CAA)and the 1977 CAA Amendments stated that designated agencies in any area of the nation not meeting national clean air standards must prepare a plan demonstrating the steps that would bring the area into compliance with all national standards by December 31, 1987. Since the SCAB ' could not meet the deadline for ozone,nitrogen dioxide,carbon monoxide,or PM-10,the SCAQMD and the Southern California Association of Governments(SCAG)have been designated to develop regional air quality plans. The two agencies first adopted an Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP)in 1979 and revised it in 1982 to project attainment of the standards in 2000. In 1988,because of uncertainty in reauthorization of the Federal CAA,the California Legislature enacted the California Clean Air Act(CCAA)which requires that regional emissions be reduced by 5 percent per year, averaged over 3 year periods,until attainment can be demonstrated. Each area that did not meet a national or state ambient air quality standard was required to prepare a plan which demonstrated how the 5 percent reductions was to be achieved. The most current AQMP was updated and adopted in 2000. The California Air Resources Board(CARB) has forwarded this plan on to EPA for its consideration and recommended approval. The AQMP is designed to meet both federal (EPA)and state(ARB)air quality planning guidelines. Components of the 1997 plan update include: 1)demonstration of attainment forozone,CO,and PM-10;2)updated emissions inventories (1993 base year)of VOC,NOx,CO,SOx,and PM,,;3)emissions budgets for future years of the inventoried compounds;4)an updated pollution control strategy;and 5)contingency measures if the plan as presently proposed fails to meet stated timetables. A residential and commercial development project such as the Roripaugh Ranch Specific Plan relates to the air quality planning process through the growth forecasts that were used as inputs into the regional transportation model. If a proposed development is consistent with those growth forecasts,and if all available emissions reduction strategies are implemented as effectively as possible on a project-specific basis,then the air quality impact on a regional basis should be considered as less than significant. The AQMP also contains a number of land use and transportation control measures (TCMs). Many of these measures can not be implemented on any single development basis because they require an integration of all developmentand all transportation planning. The effectiveness of many TCMs is expected to increase over the next decade. ' AQMP consistency on a single development basis is thus more a matter of facilitating or providing the infrastructure for TCM implementation than of actually specifically being solely responsible to carry out regionally comprehensive AQMP measures. Residential,civic/institutional,recreational and commercial land uses such as those proposed forthe Roripaugh Ranch Specific Plan potentially impact air quality almost exclusively through increased automotive emissions. ' Any single project typically does notcause enough traffic and associated airpollutants to be generated as to individually threaten clean air standards. It is typically the cumulative effect of hundreds of such developments that causes the small incremental impact from any one development to become cumulatively significant. Minor secondary emissions during construction,from increased fossil-fueled energy utilization and from small miscellaneous sources will also be generated, but these are usually much smaller in both duration and volume than the mobile source emissions. 1 RORIPAUGH RANCH SPECIFIC PLAN 2N°REVISED DRAFT EIR-APRIL 1,2002 3-100 3.6 AIR QUALITY Table 3.6-1 Ambient Air Quality Standards ' FEDERAL PRIMARY STATE STANDARD STANDARD AIR CONCENTRATION/ CONCENTRATION/ POLLUTANT AVERAGING TIME AVERAGING TIME MOST RELEVANT EFFECTS Ozone 0.09 ppm, I-hr avg> 0.12 ppm, I-hr avg> (a)Short-term exposures:(1)Pulmonary function decrements and localized lung edema in humans and animals. (2)Risk to public health implied by alterations in pulmonary morphology and host defense in animals;(b)Long-term exposures:Risk to public health implied by altered connective tissue metabolism and altered pulmonary morphology in animals alter long-term exposures and pulmonary function decrements in chronically exposed humans; (c) Vegetation damage: and (d) Property damage Carbon 9.0 ppm.8-hr avg> 9.0 ppm,8-hr avg> (a) Aggravation of angina pectoris and other aspects of Monoxide 20 ppm, 1-hr avg> 35 ppm, I-hr avg> coronary heart disease: (b) Decreased exercise tolerance in persons with peripheral vascular disease and lung disease;(c) Impairment of central nervous system functions:(d)Possible increased risk to fetuses ' Nitrogen 0.25 ppm, I-hr avg> 0.053 ppm,ann.avg> (a) Potential aggravate chronic respiratory disease and Dioxide respiratory symptoms in sensitive groups; (b) Risk to public health implied by pu Imonary and extra-pulmonary biochemical ' and cellular changes and pulmonary structural changes,(c) Contribution to atmospheric discoloration Sulfur Dioxide 0.04 ppm.24-hr avg> 0.03 ppm-ann.avg> (a)Bronchoconstriction accompanied by symptoms which may 0.2.5 ppm. I-hr avg> 0.14 ppm,24-hr avg> include wheezing, shortness of breath and chest tightness, during exercise or physical activity in persons with asthma Suspended 30 pg/m',ann.geometric 50 pg/m',ann.arithmetic (a)Excess deaths form short-term exposures and exacerbation Particulate mean> mean> of symptoms in sensitive patients with respiratory disease;(b) Matter(PM„) 50 pg/m'.24-hr avg.> 150 pg/m',24-hr avg.> Excess seasonal declines in pulmonary function,especially in children Sulfates 25 pg/m',24-hr avg.>= (A) Decrease in ventilatory function;(b)Aggravation of asthmatic symptoms; (c) Aggravation of cardio-pulmonary disease;(d)Vegetation damage,(e)Degradation of visibility;(f) Property damage Lead 1.5 pg/m', 30-day avg.>= 1.5 pg/m',calendar (a)Increased body burden;(b)Impairment of blood formation quarter> and nerve conduction Visibility- In sufficient amount to reduce Visibility impairment on days when relative humidity is less ' Reducing the visual range to less than 10 than 70 percent Particles miles at relative humidity less than 70 percent. 8-hour average(1 Oam-bpm) RORIPAUGH RANCH SPECIFIC PLAN 2"O REVISED DRAFT EIR-APRIL 1,2002 3-101 I 3.6 AIR QUALITY e) Regional Air Quality Air pollutant levels throughout the SCAB are monitored by the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD). The southeastern portion of the basin is sometimes affected by air pollutants from the nearby Los Angeles and Riverside/San Bernardino areas due to regional wind patterns and other climatological factors. The SCAQMD maintains a number of stations to monitor air pollutants throughout the basin. For many years,the SCAQMD maintained two monitoring stations in south-western Riverside County-one in Temecula and one in Perris Valley. The Perris station monitored ozone, nitrogen oxides, and PM-10, but the closest data resource for some pollutants is in downtown Riverside. Some air quality monitoring was conducted in Temecula in the late 1970s and early 1980s,but the station was closed because air quality levels were only marginally degraded and the population density was low. With the recent growth of the southern San Jacinto Valley,the Temecula station was reactivated in late 1991. Table 3.6-2 summarizes six years of monitoring data(from 1992 to 1997)from ' these three stations. t) Local Air Quality ' Ozone and particulates appear to be the two most significant air quality concerns. The six-year trend of data shown in Table 3.6-2 shows that the frequency of first stage smog alerts(hourly ozone levels over 0.20 ppm) has averaged less than one per year in the project vicinity in 1992-97. Ozone levels show a very noticeable spatial change in moving southward from Perris as the 1992-93 Temecula data showed tenor less violations of the California ozone standard versus the 100+ violations observed farther north in the valley. This difference maybe due in part to a meteorological phenomenon called the Lake Elsinore Convergence Zone (LECZ),which is a boundary between waren smoggy airmoving north to south up the valley versus a slightly cooler airstream moving south to north deriving from onshore flow across far northern San Diego County- Smog levels ounty.Smoglevels are much higheron the north side of this"smog front"than on the south side where Murrieta and the project site are located. More localized pollutants such as carbon monoxide,nitrogen oxides,lead,etc.are very low near the project site because background levels even in Riverside rarely exceed allowable levels, and there are almost no sources of such emissions near the project site. ' Suspended particulate levels are sometimes high throughout Riverside County because of agricultural activities,dry soil conditions and upwind industrial development,but only a portion of the total particulate ' burden is contained within the human respirable range. PM,,measurements beginning in1987inPerris show a very high frequency of violations of the state PM,0 standard,but only a small number of violations of the less stringent federal standard. Particulate exposure, from both a health and a visibility perspective, is, however,a serious air quality concern in Riverside County. As with ozone,the LECZ protects air quality in the far southern San Jacinto Valley. PMIO measurements during 1992 to early 1994 at Temecula showed dramatically lower levels than those observed farther north in Perris. Although the project site is not developed at present,current agricultural activities,primarily tilling,discing, and other clearing activities generate considerable dust,especially during periods of high wind. However,it is difficult to estimate the current level of dust production on the site. RORIPAUGH RANCH SPECIFIC PLAN 2N0 REVISED DRAFT EIR-APRIL 1,2002 3-102 3.6 AIR QUALITY Table 3.6-2 Local Air Quality* IPollutant 1992" 1993" 1994 1995 1996 1997 Ozone (03) ' State Standard I-Hour>0.09 ppm 8 10 125 107 1` 1' Federal Standard I-Hour A.12 ppm 2 1 59 36 0' 0' Federal Standard 1-Hour>0.20 ppm 0 0 0 1 0' 0' Max.I-Hour Concentration (ppm) 0.13 0.13 0.18 0.20 0.10` 0.10' Carbon Monoxide (CO) State 1-Hour Standard >20.0 ppm 0 0 0 0 0 0 State 8-Hour Standard > 9.0 ppm 0 0 0 0 0 0 ' Max. I-Hour Concentration (ppm) 5.0 4.0 11.0 9.0 9.0 7.0 Max. 8-Hour Concentration (ppm) 4.0 2.7 7.3 6.5 5.0 5.8 ' Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2) State Standard 1-Hour>0.25 ppm 0 0 0 0 0 0 Max. 1-Hour Concentration (ppm) 0.12 0.13 0.18 0.15 0.11 0.19 Particulate Lead (Pb) I-Hour>1.5 ug/m' 0/12 0/12 0/12 0/12 0/12 0/12 Max. 1-Month Concentration (ug/m') 0.03 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.05 0.07 Particulate Sulfate (SOx) State Standard 24-Hour>25 ug/m' 0/58 0/61 0/61 0/61 0/61 0/59 Max. 24-Hour Concentration (ug/m3) 10.2 15.1 15.7 22.8 14.9 13.1 Inhalable Particulates(PM,,) 24-hour>50 ug/m3 2/57 2/61 0/15 ' 23/60 32/61 19/60 24-hour> 150 ug/m' 0/57 0/61 0/15 ' 0/60 3/61 0/60 Max. 24-hour(ug/m') 88 105 48 ' 145 250 139 Source:SCAQMD Perris Air Quality Monitoring Station supplemented with Riverside and Temecula data, 1992-1997. NOTES ' ppm = parts per million Ug/M' = micrograms per cubic meter Days exceeding standards and maximum concentrations. 1994 PM-10 data and 1996-97 ozone data were from incomplete years at Temecula station 1992 and 1993 data from Temecula station for most pollutants (Temecula station closed in 1993) RORIPAUGH RANCH SPECIFIC PLAN ' 2NO REVISED DRAFT EIR-APRIL 1,2002 3-103 3.6 AIR QUALITY g) Comments on Previous DEIRs The South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) sent a letter on July 12, 2001 providing clarifications and minor changes to the material in the previous DEIR on the revised project. The first comment was about a change in the methodology for assessing air quality impacts (from MAAQI to ' URBEMIS7G). The more recentformat was used in calculating the air quality impacts of the current project in this 2nd Revised DEIR. The SCAQMD also provided additional wording formitigation measures related to dust(PM 10)and diesel construction equipment and vehicles. Those changes have been incorporated into this DEIR. 3.6.2 Criteria for Determining Significance The City has not established local CEQA significance thresholds,however,potentially significant air quality- related impacts if a project causes:a)substantial airemissions or deterioration of ambient air quality;b)the creation of objectionable odors;orc)alteration of airmovement,moisture,or temperature,or any change in climate, either locally or regionally (CEQA Guidelines, Appendix I). ' Airquality impacts are typically considered significant if they cause clean air standards to be violated where they are currently met,or if they measurably contribute to an existing violation of standards. Anysubstantial emissions of air contaminants for which there is no safe exposure would also be considered a significant impact. In its 1993"CEQA Air Quality Handbook,"the SCAQMD has developed a set of surrogate factors to indirectly assess potential significance because the emissions from any one source can typically not be translated directly into an ambient air quality impact. The following project-related emission levels are ' considered to have both an individual and cumulative significant air quality impact if they represent an increase over existing regional emissions: Pollutant SCAQMD Standard (pounds/day) Reactive Organic Gases (ROG) 55 (75 during construction) Nitrogen Oxides (NO,) 55 (100 during construction) Carbon Monoxide (CO) 550 Sulfur Dioxide (SO2) 150 Particulate Matter(PMS,) 150 The SCAQMD Handbook also identifies a number of secondary sources of potentially significant impacts. These sources include: • project could interfere with the attainment of the federal or state ambient air quality standards by either violating or contributing to an existing or projected air quality violation; • project could result in population increases within the regional statistical area which would be in excess of that projected in the AQMP; • potential to create microscale "hot spots" of pollutants like CO; • generation of odors, dust or other nuisance; or ' project could produce hazardous or air toxic emissions. RORIPAUGH RANCH SPECIFIC PLAN ' 2""REVISED DRAFT EIR-APRIL 1,2002 3-104 1 3.6 EMIR QUALITY The SCAQMD CEQA Handbook recommends that these sources should be quantified for evaluation on a project-specific basis. If quantitative analysis is not feasible,they should at least be addressed on a qualitative basis. It should be noted that these thresholds do not take into account several important considerations: 1. Emission levels from one large project may exceed thresholds while those from numerous smaller projects with identical emissions might not,even though the regional impact is the same; 2. Large developments have a greater opportunity to effectively implement transportation control measures(TCMs)because of a greater potential participant pool in trip/vehicle miles traveled (VMT) diversion programs; 3. Project-related emissions and their regional impact may already have been incorporated into regional growth projections; and 4. Emissions generated in or near Temecula have essentially the same regional air quality impact if they were released in any other nearby community. If the anticipated demand for residential and specialty commercial growth is not met at Roripaugh Ranch but in some other tlocality, the no-project alternative will have basically the same regional air quality impact. These considerations can be used by the Lead Agency as a basis for supporting a finding of a less than significant impact,even if the SCAQMD advisory thresholds are exceeded. Alternately,the Lead Agency may make a finding of a significant impact forprojects exceeding the SCAQMD thresholds,but use as many of the above criteria in a statement of overriding considerations as are applicable. 3.6.3 Level of Impact Before Mitigation A project airquality study was performed by Giroux and Associates in 2001 which is contained in Appendix E. This study is based on data,calculations,and methodologies to assess air quality impacts recommended in the 1994 SCAQMD CEQA Handbook. Intensification of land uses in Riverside County potentially impacts ' ambient air quality on two scales of motion. As cars drive throughout Southern California, the small incremental contribution to the basin air pollution burden from any single vehicle is added to that from several million other vehicles. The impact from the Roripaugh Ranch project,even if it generates a significant number of new vehicle trips; is very small on a regional scale. Basin-wide air quality impacts are, therefore, addressed in terms of project compatibility with regional air quality plans if any given project or plan has been properly incorporated into basin-wide growth projections which are the basis for regional air quality/ transportation planning,thentheregional impact of any proposed development is presumed,by definition,to be less than significant. ' Locally,changes in the location of any collection of automotive sources,or changes in the number of vehicles or travel speeds may impact the micro-scale air quality around any given development site. Traffic increases notonly contribute air pollutants indirect proportion to their cumulative percentage of traffic volume growth, but they may slow all existing traffic to slower,more inefficient travel speeds. The development traffic/air quality impact is thus potentially compounded. RORIPAUGH RANCH SPECIFIC PLAN ' 2N°REVISED DRAFT EIR-APRIL 1,2002 3-105 3.6 AIR QUALITY Temporary or short-term emissions will occur during construction of the project. Such emissions include onsite generation of dust and equipment exhaust, and off-site emissions from construction employee ' commuting and/or trucks delivering building materials. Construction activity emissions are difficult to quantify, since the exact type and amount of equipment that will be used or the acreage that may be disturbed on any given day in the future is not known with any reasonable certainty. The emphasis in environmental documents ' relative to construction activity emission impacts has therefore been to minimize the emissions as fully as possible through comprehensive mitigation even if the precise amount of emissions can not be precisely quantified. ' a) Construction Activity Impacts Dust Dust is normally the primary concern during construction of new buildings and infrastructure. Because such emissions are not amenable to collection and discharge through a controlled source, they are called"fugitive emissions." Emission rates vary as a function of many parameters(soil silt,soil moisture,wind ' speed,area disturbed,numberof vehicles,depth of disturbance orexcavation,etc.).Regulatory agencies use one universal factor based on the area disturbed assuming that all other input parameters into emission rate prediction fall into mid-range average values- This assumption may or may not necessarily be applicable to 1 specific conditions on the project site- As noted previously,emissions estimation for project-specificfugitive dust sources is therefore characterized by a high degree of imprecision. ' The PM,,fraction of fugitive dust emissions are predicted robe around 55 pounds per day per acre disturbed in the absence of any dust control measures being applied(AQMD CEQA Handbook,Table 92).Mandatory measures required by South Coast AQMD Rule 403(Fugitive Dust)are generally assumed to reduce this rate ' by approximately 50 percent. Average daily PM,,emissions during site grading and other disturbance are stated in the SCAQMD Handbook to be 26.4 pounds per acre. Enhanced dust control procedures such as continual soil wetting, use of supplemental binders, early paving, etc. can achieve a higher PM,,control efficiency. PM,,,emissions were calculated by assuming that, at worst case, five percent of the project site is under ' simultaneous heavy construction at some point during the build-out lifetime of the project. While the actual daily rate will depend on individual project phasing,the daily PM-10 generation could be as high as 1,040 pounds per day for the assumed 39.4 acre disturbance area(39.4 ac x 26.4lbs/ac). Dust control as required ' by SCAQMD Rule 403 was assumed to reduce PM,,emissions by around 50 percent. A more successful dust control program using multiple techniques (e.g., chip sealing access roads, hydroseeding exposed surfaces,adding chemical binders or surfactants to the water,etc.)may achieve up to 80 percent reduction. Even with a dust control program that exceeds minimum requirements,(i.e.,an 80 percent control rate)daily PM,,emissions of 420 pounds per day would still be over the SCAQMD daily significance threshold of 150 pounds per day- Because of the large degree of uncertainty in defining whatconstitutes"simultaneous disturbance"and inthe value of the PM,,,generation factor itself, the use of rigid significance thresholds for construction PM,o impacts is perhaps not well supported in practice. The proposed project site is sufficiently large,however, and construction activities are a major contributor to the PMIO non-attainment status of the air basin,such that project development will likely create a temporarily significant PM,Qimpact. Without enforceable limits on ' the size of the daily disturbance"footprint,"PM,,emissions during portions of project development cannot be maintained below significance threshold levels. RORIPAUGH RANCH SPECIFIC PLAN 2NO REVISED DRAFT EIR-APRIL 1,2002 3-106 ' 3.6 AIR QUALITY ' Current research in particulate exposure health effects suggest that the most adverse effect derives from ultra-small diameter particulate matter comprised of chemically reactive pollutants such as sulfates,nitrates ' or organic material. A new national clean air standard for particulate matter of 2.5 microns or smaller in diameter(called"PM-2.5")was adopted in 1997. Very little construction activity particulate matter is in the PM-2.5 range. Soil dust is also more chemically benign than typical urban atmospheric PM-2,5.Magnitude of project-related construction activity PM,0 is therefore not of itself a good indicator of soil disturbance activity air quality impact potential. In addition to fine particles that remain suspended in the atmosphere for long periods of time,construction activities generate many larger particles with shorter atmospheric suspension times. This dust is comprised mainly of large diameter inert silicates that are chemically non-reactive and are further readily filtered out by human breathing passages. These fugitive dust particles are therefore more of a potential soiling nuisance as they settle out on parked cars,outdoor furniture or landscape foliage rather than any adverse health hazard. With a low population density downwind of the project site, dust nuisance potential for this project is not considered individually significant. Any nuisance potential will tend to be highly localized when a new tract is built in very close proximity to an already completed development. Soiling nuisance can also be minimized by performing mass grading and subsequent reseeding of larger tracts before any residential occupancy to reduce later heavy equipment operations near already occupied dwellings. As noted above,however,very large-scale mass grading creates high regional PM-10 emissions that offset any localized nuisance reduction benefit. ' Vehicular Emissions Exhaust emissions will result from on-and off-site heavy equipment.The types and numbers of equipment will vary among contractors such that such emissions can not be quantified with certainty. Typical emission rates for a single diesel-powered scraper were obtained from the SCAQMD Air Quality Handbook and are provided in Table 3.6-3. Diesel scrapers are the most common equipment used for grading activities. The proposed project may utilize 10-20 pieces of heavy equipment at any one time during mass grading operations. Assuming that 10 pieces of heavy equipment were operated an average of eight hours per day, the emissions that would be anticipated are also shown in Table 3.6-3. Although the NOx emissions exceed the SCAQMD significance threshold,the mobile nature of the onsite construction equipment and off-site trucks will prevent any localized violation of the NOx standard. There may be localized instances when the characteristic diesel exhaust odor is noticeable from passing trucks or nearby heavy equipment, but such transitory exposure is a brief nuisance and will not threaten air quality standards. Truck exhaust impacts can be minimized by controlling construction routes to reduce interference with non-project traffic patterns and to preclude truck queuing or idling near sensitive receptor sites. Some mitigation in the form of anticipated future emission standards for heavy,off-road equipment have been passed by the California ARB to be phased in later in this decade. Until such mandatory standards are ' promulgated,the SCAQMD urges the inclusion of control measures forconstruction activities as partof any local discretionary actions that are comparably effective as the future mandatory measures. Recommended measures abstracted from the SCAQMD"menu" of possible control options are detailed in the mitigation section of this report. With mitigation to keep equipment in good tune(low-NO,tuneups), average daily construction equipment emissions can be reduced,but not to less than significant levels during maximum grading activity days. 1 RORIPAUGH RANCH SPECIFIC PLAN 2rv°REVISED DRAFT EIR-APRIL 1,2002 3-107 1 3.6 AIR QUALITY ' Construction activity air quality impacts occur mainly inclose proximity to individual disturbance areas. There may, however, be some "spill-over" into the surrounding community. That spill-over may be physical as vehicles drop or carry out dirt or silt that is washed into public streets. Passing non-project vehicles then pulverize the dirt to create off-site dust impacts. Spill-over may also occur via congestion effects. Construction may entail roadway encroachment,detours,land closures and competition between construction vehicles(trucks and contractor employee commuting)and ambient traffic for available roadway capacity. Emissions controls require good housekeeping procedures and a construction traffic managememplan that maintains such "spill-over" effects at a less than significant level. Construction activities also generate evaporative emissions of volatile organic compounds(VOC)from paints, solvents,asphalt,roofing tar and other coatings. The volatility of the materials used in asphalt is regulated by ' SCAQMD rules, as are paints and solvents. Even water-based paint, however, still contains a high percentage of VOCs such that paint and other architectural coatings are the primary source of construction- related VOC emissions. Typical water-based paints contain around 2 pounds of VOC per gallon of paint ' (AQMD CEQA Handbook, Table A9-13-C). If painting one home requires 20 gallons of paint, about 40 pounds of VOCs will be released per house painted(inside and out). Painting more than two homes per day would cause the SCAQMD threshold of 75 pounds per day of VOCs to be exceeded. Unless the average number of residences painted can be limited to two per day,or the average daily consumption of paint can be limited to 37.5 gallons per day, VOC emissions will exceed SCAQMD significance levels. ' Table 3.6-3 Short-Term (Construction) Emissions Construction Emissions* CO ROC** NOx SO2 PM,,, Emission Rate (pounds/hour) 1.25 0.27 3.84 0.46 0.41 Emissions (pounds/day) 100 22 307 37 33 SCAQMD Threshold 550 75 100 150 150 (pounds/day) Exceeds Threshold? No No Yes No No Source: SCAQMD Air Quality Handbook, Table 4 of Giroux 2001. * based on 10 pieces of equipment used for 8 hours per day ** Reactive Organic Compounds ' b) Operational Impacts The single largestproject-relatedair quality impact results from the 30,748"net"new vehicle trips that will be generated at project build-out. Based on currenttypical Riverside County residential triplengths(i.e.,7.2 miles),additional vehicle travel from project implementation will be approximately 250,000 vehicle miles ' traveled(VMT). Secondary impact potential will derivefrom energy consumption inpower plants oronsite RORIPAUGH RANCH SPECIFIC PLAN ' 2rvOREVISED DRAFT EIR-APRIL 1,2002 3-10$ 3.6 AIR QUALITY ' heaters,stoves,water heaters,etc. General development also creates miscellaneous emissions from a variety of sources such as cleaning products,landscaping equipment,or fireplaces,and also contributes to off-site emissions at restaurants, gas stations, dry cleaners, or sand and gravel plants. Except for more readily ' quantifiable energy consumption(stationary sources),many of the small miscellaneous sources are typically not quantified on a single project basis. The SCAQMD has developed a land use and air pollution emissions computer model to estimate the daily emissions increase associated with the proposed project. This model,called URBEMIS7G, was run for a "worst case"build-out year of 2010(actual buildout expected by 2015).Outputfrom the URBEMIS7G model run is included in Appendix E. The project-related emissions burden,along with a comparison of SCAQMD recommended significance thresholds, are shown in Table 3.6-4. According to the URBEMIS713program,the project clearly contributes to the regional inability to attain the ozone standard based on SCAQMD's recommended significance levels. Project-related emission levels for the three primary exhaust pollutants (CO, NOx, and ROG) exceed the threshold by 367 to 909 percent. ' Emissions of PM,Ofrom exhaust and tire wear will not exceed the 150 pound perday significance threshold. The PM,o calculations, though, do not include the resuspension of roadway dust generated by vehicular turbulence. The inclusion of this source would increase projected PM HI emissions to well above significance threshold levels as well. Ultimately,the question of impact significance from growth-associated emissions should not be solely related to the size of a project or the magnitude of its emissions,but rather whether such growth has been properly anticipated in the airquality planning process. The growth assumptions for the 1994 Regional Comprehensive Plan(RCP)calls for an increase of over 1 million residents in western Riverside County between 1990-2010 thoused in 367,000 new homes, along with an increase of over 300,000 jobs. The conversion of agricultural/ranch land to more transportation-intensive land use is therefore anticipated. The Roripaugh Ranch project provides housing with mixed public and commercial uses within the planning area well within forecast levels. A more compelling reason fordetermining significance would be a project's inconsistency withjobs/housing (J/H)goals,or,alternately,an inability to meet vehicle mile traveled/vehicle trip(VMT/VT)reduction goals. The Roripaugh Ranch project as presently proposed does not compare favorably to J/H or VMTNT goals, mainly because it is a large residential project proposed in a largely residential suburban community. The Roripaugh Ranch will be almostcompletely a bedroom community with out-of-project commuting required for all but the most basic needs. Long term assessment of this project should,however, take into account other nearby development plans in thatj ob-intensive development is planned for the I-15/215 Corridor,while ' more housing-intensive uses are planned for off-corridor locations. In that respect,the Roripaugh Ranch project is consistent with long-term land use goals of providing housing to support non-residential uses along the Corridor. 1 r RORIPAUGH RANCH SPECIFIC PLAN ' 2rvO REVISED DRAFT EIR-APRIL 1,2002 3-109 ' 3.6 AIR QUALITY ' Table 3.6-4 ' Long-Term (Operation) Emissions (pounds/day) ' Vehicular Sources CO ROC NOx Sox ' PMI0 Mobile Sources ' Low Medium Residential 1,012 123 279 121 Medium Residential 148 20 41 18 ' Schools 142 43 43 18 Parks 2 <1 1 <1 ' Commercial Retail 325 .34 100 42 Total Mobile Emissions 1,629 221 464 200 ' -10 Percent Internal Trips 163 22 46 20 ' Net Mobile Emissions 1,466 199 418 -- 180 Stationary Sources Low Medium Residential 13 2 60 3 1 Medium Residential 2 <1 10 1 <1 Schools I <1 7 1 <1 Parks 0 0 0 0 0 ' Commercial Retail 1 <1 5 <1 <1 Total Stationary Emissions 17 3 82 5 2 TOTAL -ALL SOURCES 1,483 202 500 5 182 SCAQMD Threshold 550 55 55 150 150 Exceeds Threshold? Yes Yes Yes No Yes Source: Table 5 from Giroux 2002 (Appendix E) based on SCAQMD URBEMIS7G Computer Model ' 'Mobile source emissions for SOx are too small to calculate in computer model. RORIPAUGH RANCH SPECIFIC PLAN 2ND REVISED DRAFT EIR-APRIL 1,2002 3-110 ' 3.6 AIR QUALITY ' The basis of this conclusion is that regional air quality impact significance from general development cannot ' be properly evaluated by examining any single project. Emissions from the proposed project substantially exceed the SCAQMD's significance thresholds and the project itself contributes little to J/H or VMT/VT goals. Conversely, the project represents a small fraction of planned growth, and land use mixes on a ' somewhat larger scale do provide more employment and service opportunities within reasonable proximity. Both a finding that the project's air quali ty impact is individually significant(with overriding considerations) or a finding that the impact is cumulatively significant(in that all regional growth retards attainment of air ' quality standards) are equally defensible. The SCAQMD strongly recommends that any project that causes its published significance thresholds to be exceeded,should be designated as being individually and cumulatively significant. Because the SCAQMD is a commenting agency on general development projects and airquality is their field of technical expertise, regional air quality impacts should therefore be determined to be significant but with the overriding ' considerations previously noted. c) Microscale Impacts In addition to regional air quality concerns which focus on the photochemical conversion of air pollution emissions to more harmful forms, vehicular exhaust may impact air quality immediately adjacent to the ' roadway travel lanes. Such impacts occur during periods of maximum traffic congestion and minimum atmospheric dispersion. Microscale air quality impacts are a potential problem because a large number of intersections are forecast to operate at congested levels of service at area build-out. ' In order to determine whetherany possible traffic congestion may contribute to localized airpollution standard violations,a screening procedure based upon the California roadway dispersion model CALINE4 was run on several roadways surrounding the Roripaugh Ranch area. Carbon monoxide (CO) was used as an indicator pollutant to determine"hot spot"potential. Rush hour traffic was combined with minimum dispersion conditions in order to create a theoretical worst-case impact estimate for a build-out year of 2015- Theresults ' of these calculations are shown in Table 3.6-5. Maximum hourly CO levels of 9.0 ppm over background will occur near the Rancho California Road/Ynez Road intersection at the opening year. The maximum existing background CO levels measured at Temecula are 4-5 ppm. If existing background levels persist, combined future theoretical maximum levels,plus the background of 13-14 ppm, will not exceed the hourly CO standard of 20 ppm. Table 3.6-5 shows that the maximum project-related CO increment is 1.1 ppm at the Butterfield Stage Road/Murrieta Hot Springs Road intersection. This small increment will not cause the hourly standard to be ' exceeded. It should be noted that all "with-project"CO increments are dominated by the non-project area growth of traffic and congestion. Although intersections operating near LOS F are considered air quality negative,no microscale"hot spots"will occur with or without Roripaugh Ranch development despite possibly congested intersected operation. Microscale air quality impacts are not considered significant. RORIPAUGH RANCH SPECIFIC PLAN t2"D REVISED DRAFT EIR-APRIL 1,2002 3-111 1 ' 3.6 AIR QUALITY tTable 3.6-5 CO "Hot Spots" Analysis ' (hourly Co levels in ppm above non-local back round) Opening Year(2000) Build-out (2020) No With No With Roadway* Intersection Project Project Project Project 1-215 Freeway-SBR Murrieta Hot Springs Road 1.6 1.6 L9 1.9 1-215 Freeway-NBR Murrieta Hot Springs Road 1.8 2.3 1.8 1.9 ' 1-I1 Freeway-SBR Winchester Road 3.5 3.6 1.5 1.6 Rancho California Road 4.7 4.9 1.9 2.0 I-15 Freeway-NBR Winchester Road 3.1 3.1 2.0 2.0 ' Rancho California Road 6.7 6.7 1.2 1.2 Ynez Road Winchester Road 5.1 4.7 5.0 4.7 Rancho California Road 8.9 9.0 2.3 2.3 Margarita Road Murrieta Hot Springs Road 1.1 1.1 1.8 1.9 Winchester Road 2.5 2.6 3.3 3.5 La Serena Way 1.4 1.5 1.1 1.1 Rancho California Road 2.4 2.5 2.6 2.7 Winchester Road Murrieta Hot Springs Road 1.5 1.6 2.8 3.1 ' Nicolas Road 2.0 2.1 2.4 3.2 Jefferson Avenue Winchester Road 6.0 6.0 2.0 2.1 General Kearny Road Nicolas Road 0.6 0.9 1.2 1.3 Meadows Parkway La Serena Way 0.5 0.6 0.4 0.5 Rancho California Road 1.5 1.6 1.2 1.2 Butterfield Stage Rd. Murrieta Hot Springs Rd. 1.0 2.1 Nicolas Road -- -- 1.4 1.8 ' Calle Chapos =_ 1.0 1.5 La Serena Way 1.2 1.4 Rancho California Road 0.5 0.5 1.0 1.6 Pourroy Road Murrieta Hot Springs Road -- -- 0.9 1.7 Calle Contento Rancho California Road 0.4 0.6 0.2 0.3 ' Project Central Entr. Murrieta Hot Springs Road -- -- -- 1.0 Project West Entrance Murrieta Hot Springs Road -- - -- 1.4 ' Project East Entrance Murrieta Hot Springs Road - - -- 1.0 Source:Table 6 from Giroux 2001 -screening procedure based on CALINE4 model. ' *SBR=south-bound ramp NBR=nonh-bound ramp RORIPADGH RANCH SPECIFIC PLAN ' 2NO REVISED DRAFT EIR-APRIL 1,2002 3-112 ' 3.6 AIR QUALITY e) Offsite Improvements Construction of offsite roads such as Nicolas Road and Butterfield Stage Road and associated_utility pipelines ' will result in incremental increases in the production of airpollutants. It is expected that emissions from these activities will not exceed more than 5 percent of the average daily emissions during project construction. ' Since project construction emissions already exceed significance thresholds, construction of offsite improvements will only incrementally increase these emissions, and they will still be significant. These emissions can be reduced to the greatest extent feasible by implementing the recommended onsite mitigation measures when completing offsite improvements. I) Project Air Quality Impacts and the Potential for Mitigation The proposed project exceeds daily and ongoing significance thresholds established by the SCAQMD. In addition,the project will incrementally contribute to long-term regional air quality impacts. However,almost ' all of the project impacts are from mobile source emissions, which are largely beyond the control of the project sponsors. Therefore, there is only a limited potential for reducing a significant percentage of the project's air quality impacts. Some"standard"mitigation measures such as using dust control measures during ' construction mandated by the SCAQMD and using energy efficient design practices required by Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations will be adopted,but they do not address the fundamental transportation- related air quality impacts. ' Effective emissions reduction of mobile source emissions will require a unified transportation system management (TSM) approach where a wide variety of transportation control measures (TCMs) are ' integrated into a comprehensive system of procedures and goals. An effective TSM program as a means for reducing vehicular traffic and its associated environmental effects (air pollution, noise, energy consumption,etc.)is difficult to achieve in practice because of the dependence on the low (mainly single) occupant vehicle as the primary means of transportation. The difficulties inherent in TCM implementation notwithstanding,Riverside County and the City of Temecula are committed in the Air Quality Elements of their General Plans to identify effective and feasible tactics to improve air quality for local government ' implementation. The components of any mobile source emissions reduction program should include: 1)cooperation with the ' SCAQMD to implement regional strategies and tactics; 2) development of park-and-ride facilities; 3) encouragement of bicycle and pedestrian circulation alternatives;4)express transit access from the Temecula area to other regional employment centers;and 5)encouragement of local job-intensive uses to reduce the existing and growing jobs-housing imbalance that promotes long commutes in and out of the local area. 3.6.4 Standard Conditions and Uniform Codes ' It is possible the projectcould produce significant amounts of airpollutants if jtdoes not comply with existing airquality regulations. The SCAQMD Rule 403.2 prescribes standard conditions for construction activities ' to minimize the production ofairpollutants including fugitive dust. The City requires construction activities for its public works projects and at private developments within itsjurisdiction to be in conformance with this and other applicable SCAQMD regulations regarding grading and construction. RORIPAUGH RANCH SPECIFIC PLAN ' 2NO REVISED DRAFT EIR-APRIL 1,2002 3-113 t 3.6 AIR QUALITY ' 3.6.5 Project Design Features ' The proposed project contains a pedestrian circulation system(i.e.,sidewalks,multi-use paths,pedestrian bridge over Long Valley Wash)that will help reduce vehicular trips to parks,schools and commercial uses, ' which will incrementally reduce vehicular trips within the project. In addition, the project will provide commercial uses that will help meet the convenience shopping needs of project residents,which will help reduce some off-site shopping trips. Providing two school sites will also reduce off-site trips that would ' otherwise be required for parents to take their children to school. There will also be non-vehicular connections to allow people to move between neighborhoods and help reduce vehicular emissions. ' 3.6.6 Mitigation Measures The following measures are recommended to reduce potential short-term(construction-related)and long-term (operational) air quality impacts to the greatest extent feasible: (1) Prior to the issuance of grading permits,the developer will submita DustControl Plan(DCP)to the ' City consistent with SCAQMD guidelines. These requirements apply to offsite as well as onsite improvements. The DCP will include activities to reduce onsite and offsite dust production. Such activities will include but are not limited to: ' a) Throughout grading and construction activities, exposed soil will be kept moist through a minimum of twice daily watering to reduce fugitive dust. b) Street sweeping will be conducted,as needed,along paved site access roadways to remove dirt dropped by construction vehicles or dried mud carried off by trucks moving dirt or ' bringingconstructionmaterials. Site access driveways and adjacent streets will be washed if there are visible signs of any dirt track-out at the conclusion of any work day. ' c) All trucks hauling dirt away from thesite will be covered to prevent thegenerationof fugitive dust. ' d) During high wind conditions(i.e.,wind speeds exceeding 25 mph),areas with disturbed soil will be watered hourly, chip sealing access roads, hydroseeding exposed soil surfaces, sprayed with chemical binders with surfactants in the water, or activities on unpaved ' surfaces will be terminated until wind speeds no longer exceed 25 mph. During the construction phase of the project, if the measures identified in the DCP are not ' implemented as proposed,the City shall halt construction until such time as the situation iscorrected, to the satisfaction of the Public Works Department. ' (2) Prior to the issuance of grading and building permits,the developer will document to the City that appropriate construction equipment has had tune-ups or equivalent work to assure low NO, emissions. These requirements apply to offsite as well as onsite improvements. This documentation must be provided prior to the commencement of any work on any equipment anticipated to be used for more than 30 days. In addition, the developer shall encourage the use of alternative fuels(e.g., RGRIPAUGH RANCH SPECIFIC PLAN ' 2NO REVISED DRAFT EIR-APRIL 1,2002 3-114 ' 3.6 AIR QUALITY ' compressed natural gas)on construction vehicles and equipment. All diesel equipment and vehicles must be equipped with particulate filters and use only low sulfur fuel (less than 15 ppm sulfur content). (3) Priorto the issuance of grading and building permits,the developer will document to the City that all workers have been encouraged to carpool, and workers will be informed in writing. These ' requirements apply to offsite as well as onsite improvements. (4) Priorto the issuanceof building pernnits,individual contractors will submitaTraffic ManagementPlan to the Public Works Department that includes, but is not limited to: ' a) scheduling receipt of construction materials to non-peak travel periods(i-e.,7:30-8:30AM and 4:00 - 6:00 PM); ' b) routing construction traffic through areas of least impact sensitivity; and C) limiting lane closures and detours to off-peak travel periods; and d) staging areas away from existing residential uses. In addition to these measures to control construction-related emissions,the Mitigation Measures portion of the Transportation and Circulation section of this document(Section 3.5.6)includes several transportation system management/transportation demand management(TSM/TDM)measures to help reduce long-term 1 (operationally-related) air quality impacts, including a shuttle bus, transit pickup points and park `n ride locations, and design for alternative transportation options. 3.6.7 Impact of Mitigation Measures The proposed mitigation measures will produce no significant impacts. 3.6.8 Summary of Impact After Mitigation Even with implementation of the proposed Specific Plan,standard conditions,uniform codes,project design ' features,and the recommended mitigation measures,the proposed project may still contribute to both short- and long-term significant air quality impacts according to SCAQM D thresholds. Therefore,a Statement of Overriding Consideration is required to approve this project. In addition,when considered with other projects ' in the area, the proposed project will contribute to cumulative air quality impacts. 1 RORIPAUGH RANCH SPECIFIC PLAN ' 2rvO REVISED DRAFT EIR-APRIL 1,2002 3-115 ' 3.7 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES ' This section will discuss the project impacts to site vegetation,wildlife and wildlife movement corridors. A biological assessment and specific species surveys for the project site were undertaken by Natural Resource Consultants(NRC)in May of 1999. This report incorporates the findings of surveys conducted by Tierra Madre Consultants (TMC)(1989, 1994), Thomas Olsen Associates, Inc. (TOA) (1997), and Glen Lukas Associates(GLA)(1999)with the results of NRC's studies conducted between January and May of 1999. 3.7.1 Environmental Setting NRC alsoconducted a variety of sensitive species surveys in 1999. These surveys included focused searches for sensitive plant species, including vernal pool endemics, the Quino checkerspot butterfly (Euphydryas editha quino), sensitive bird species, including the federally threatened coastal California gnatcatcher (Polioptila californica califomica),various riparian bird,and nesting raptors,and sensitive reptiles including the San Diego coast horned lizard and orangethroat whiptail. In addition, this section incorporates the findings of a wetland delineation prepared by Tierra Madre in October of 1994 and a biological assessment of the project site performed by Harmsworth Associates(HA) in June of 1998. The City of Temecula General Plan,dated November 9, 1993,and the General Plan Final EIR,dated July 2, 1993 were also utilized in the preparation of this section. The following sections summarize the results of the NRC and other reports,and Appendix Fof this document contains excerpts as needed from the various reports. ' a) Vegetation ' Much of the site,both valleys and rolling hills, is currently in use for grain farming. Steeper parts and hilly areas are occupied by Riversidian sage scrub. Most of the site has been cleared one or more times in the past for agricultural uses. The past disturbance has led to an intricate mosaic of grassland, ruderal, and regenerating sage scrub vegetation,with the sage scrub often exhibiting low plant diversity. More diverse native vegetation is limited to the steepest hillsides and in the extreme northeast portion of the site. The site retains an overall high floral diversity. During the February and March NRC surveys,a total of 175 different plant taxa were identified, and more would be added by surveys conducted later in the season. However,56 of these taxa are introduced species,which again emphasizes the disturbance that the site has undergone. A total of six(6)different vegetation communities and land uses have been identified on the site. They are described below, summarized in Table 3.7-1, and are shown in Figure 3.7-1. RORIPAUGH RANCH SPECIFIC PLAN 1 2NO REVISED DRAFT EIR-APRIL 1,2002 3-116 3.7 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES ' TABLE 3.7-1 EXISTING VEGETATION COMMUNITIES MAP EXISTING VEGETATION CODIMUNITY* SYMBOL ACRES RIVERSIDIAN SAGE SCRUB 165.3 RSS-California Sagebrush RSS-A 2.3 RSS-Flat-top buckwheat RSS-B 20.2 RSS-California sagcbrush/buckwheat RSS-AIB 29.2 RSS-California sagcbmsh/vellow bush RSS-A/K 10.0 RSS-Califomia sagebrush/white sage RSS-A/W 8.9 RSS-mixed RSS-M 45.0 RSS-disturbed RSS-D 39.4 Southern cactus scrub SCS 0.3 ' TRANSITIONAL 58.6 RSS-Annual Grasslands RSS/AGL 43.5 RSS-Native Grasslands RSS/NGL 1.5 RSS-Rudcral RSS/RUD 10.1 Ruderal with RSS elements RUD/RSS 3.5 GRASSLAND 24.9 Annual Grassland AGI, 24.7 ' Native Grassland NGL 0.2 RIPARIAN 24.6 Alluvial fan scrub ALSC 16.9 Mulefat scrub MFS 0.2 Riparian scrub RW 5.1 Riparian woodland RS 0.1 Sandy stream wash SW 3.3 E hemeral nool Pond 0.05 ' WOODLAND 7.8 Live oak woodland OW 0.5 ' Eucalyptus woodland EW 7.3 OTHER 537.5 Ruderal RUD 45.1 Agricultural AGR 451.9 Graded GR 10.0 ' Developed DEV 15.5 TOTAL 804,7 *vegetation is mapped by major category in Figure 3.7-1 ' Source: Modified from Natural Resource Consultants, 1999 RORIPAUGH RANCH SPECIFIC PLAN 2ND REVISED DRAFT EIR-APRIL 1,2002 3-117 ' ASHBY USA LLC FIGURE 3.7-1 '^ p VJ s 4 3 AD 161 Habitat o 1 • Pond d � O � / CIL a� CD 1 - _ _ l Total Acres — RWersidlan Sage Scrub 165.3 Acres / f — Transitional 58.6 Acres — — — Grassland 24.9 Acres I — Riparian 24.8 Acres I I i — Woodland ` e e 7.8 Acres , O 'Others 523.5 Ames TOTAL-804.7 Acres 0 ' 'Ruderal,Weedy,Apicrdarrel,Graded and Devdope0 ' ` Source: Natural Resource Consultants, May 1999 II�f ® The Kerte CompenieslTK� �� Ron,paugh ` Rauch 3.7 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES Riversidian Sage Scrub Riversidian sage scrub(RSS)is one of the two dominant native vegetation types in this part of Califomia(the other is chaparral,which does not occur on the site). Sage scrub and chaparral occur in the same general areas,but sage scrub tends to occupy drier,more xeric situations,such as south- facing slopes,or areas that have been subjected to more disturbance. Sage scrub communities are dominated by relatively low-growing shrubs and subshrubs that lose their leaves to minimize water losses during summer drought. Many of the shrubs and subshrubs in RSS are less than 3 feet tall, and are often relatively widely spaced. Therefore, there is often a significant herbaceous understory,including grasses and sometimes where it is undisturbed, colorful native annual wildflowers. The major subtype of RSS is dominated by a mix of California buckwheat(Eriogonumfasciculatum).California sagebrush(Artemisia calhfornica),yellow-bush ' penstemon (Keckiella antirrhinoides), and white sage (Salvia apiana). Eight different types of RSS have been identified by the NRC study,based on the dominant shrubby species in each case. Each of these subtypes are described in-depth in the NRC report. In addition, transitional associations have been recognized. All vegetation types are listed in Table 3.7-1. All of these are shown on Figure 3.7-1,except for a rock outcrop community,which occurs in areas too small to map. Riversidian sage scrub (not including the transitional habitats) totals 165.3 acres on the site. Southern Cactus Scrub Southern cactus scrub on the site is dominated by cactus,mainly valley cholla, with lesser amounts of coast prickly pear. Between the cacti,flat-top buckwheat and California sagebrush are present. Patches of the Southern cactus scrub onsite total about 0.3 acres. Transitional Communities Areas of vegetation with between 15 and 50 percent cover by sage scrub shrubs are considered transitional vegetation communities. The areas between the widely spaced shrubs are occupied by grassland or ruderal vegetation. The hill slopes often exhibit a mosaic of these transitional communities,passing into sage scrub or grassland or ruderal communities. These transitional vegetation communities have a total area of 58.6 acres. Grasslands Grasslands on site range between relatively pristine native grassland,through grasslands with introduced annual grasses and native annual wildflowers,to low-diversity grasslands that generally occupy disused,or fallow, agricultural land. All except the areas of native grasses have been mapped as annual ' grassland. All types of grassland together make up a total of 24.9 acres. Annual grassland is widely distributed on the site,especially in small patches adjacent to agricultural land,on steeper hillsides,and next to gullies. The principal grasses in most areas are wildland oats,accompanied by abundant foxtail chess and soft chess. Annual grasses constitute up to 24.7 acres. Although significant areas containing native grasses have been mapped as the transitional community Riversidian sage scrub-native grassland,only one small patch has been separated out as native grassland, without a sage scrub component. This 0.2 acre patch is in the southeast portion of the site and surrounded by agricultural land. The vegetation is dominated by purple need]egrass,with tall buckwheat and cudweed- aster. RORIPAUGH RANCH SPECIFIC PLAN 2x0 REVISED DRAFT EIR-APRIL 1,2002 3-119 3.7 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES Riparian Communities Although creeks and drainages makeup only a relatively small proportion of the site,they exhibit a variety of different riparian vegetation communities ranging from open,sparsely vegetated areas,to scrublands,to woodland. Altogether,the riparian communities make up 25.6 acres of the site. The communities include seasonal creek beds,sandy stream washes,alluvial fan scrub,mule fat scrub,riparian scrub,a very small area of riparian woodland,and a small man-made ephemeral pond. These communities are described in greater depth in the NRC report. Woodlands Several patches of oak woodland have been mapped on the steep southern side of Santa ' Gertrudis Creek in the eastern part of the site. The oaks present are California scrub oak,but are unusually tall,tree-like individuals,and their canopies have resulted in the development of a typical oak wood understory beneath them. An additional, very small area of oak woodland has been mapped near the northern site boundary within the Plateau. Here there is a coast live oak(Quercus agrifolia). Itis associated with exotic trees,and it remains uncertain whether this tree is growing here naturally or not. The mapped areas of live oak woodland total 0.5 acres. Almost all the woodland on site has been planted,although some of the trees have become naturalized and are spreading naturally. The total mapped area of woodland is 7.8 acres. A large grove of eucalyptus trees(Eucalyptus sp.)is located on the north side of Santa Gertrudis Creek,just east of the Butterfield Stage Road alignment. Much smaller lines of eucalyptus trees have been planted in Long Valley and in the northern part of the Plateau. These fashgrowing trees produce a large amountof leaf and bark litter, which inhibits most other species from growing in the understory. The various stands of eucalyptus trees make up 7.3 acres. ' Other Vegetation Ruderal habitat is indicative of disturbed areas. It is dominated by coarse weedy introduced species,especially perennial mustard. Ruderal vegetation is widespread on the site.Some of it is found around the periphery of agricultural areas,but much of it forms a mosaic with variously disturbed Riversidian sage. There are 45.1 acres of ruderal vegetation on the site. Most of the flat or gently sloping land on the site is in use for growing cereal wheat (Triicum aestivum). Other vegetation in the agricultural areas is mostly weeds including perennial mustard, vinegar weed,and common fiddle-neck among others. Over half of the total area of the site,or 451.9 acres,is agricultural land. There are three areas where dirt has recently been piled by heavy-earth moving equipment, around the developed area on the western edge of the main part of the site. These areas occupy a total of 10.0 acres ' and presently have no native vegetation. Areas of the site that have been mapped as developed include residences and their yards,major dirt access roads, an airstrip in the center of the site, several rural residences north of Nicolas Road and east of the MWD pipeline property,and working areas where a variety of heavy vehicles are maintained. Ornamental trees and shrubs surround the residences on the site, while weedy species are found near the work areas. Developed areas on the site total 15.5 acres. RORIPAUGH RANCH SPECIFIC FLAN ' 2N°REVISED DRAFT EIR-APRIL 1,2002 3-120 3.7 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES b) Regional Linkages The site is situated in the vicinity of three large and regionally important habitat areas. The site lies south and west of the Lake Skinner Reserve and immediately south of Skunk Hollow,a regionally important vernal pool and preserve. The northeast portion of the site also includes the drainage and rugged natural habitats associated with Santa Gertrudis Creek. This area is contiguous with U.C.Riverside property that is currently undisturbed open space. It is likely that wildlife moves between the native habitats within these natural areas via a number of routes, including some that cross the Roripaugh Ranch site; especially within the Santa Gertrudis Creek watershed. Wildlife movement between large patches of Riversidian sage scrub are of particular importance in this region. Regional conservation plans that preserve and link areas of Riversidian sage scrub in the vicinity of the Roripaugh Ranch site include the Multi-Species Habitat Conservation Plan for Southwestern Riverside County(MWD 1992)and the SKR-HCP. Two large preserves in this region which are managed under these plans include the Domengoni Valley Reserve and the Lake Skinner Reserve. These two areas preserve approximately 5,600 acres of Riversidian sage scrub. An additional 200 acres of Riversidian sage scrub are located with the UCR land immediately south of the site. Maintaining a viable preserve area and regional link 1 between these open space preserves is a primary focus of the biological mitigation program for the Roripaugh Ranch project. ' In 2001, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USF&WS) and the County of Riverside approved the establishment of a Sub-Regional Habitat Conservation Plan(SHCP)for the Assessment District 161 property. A number of parcels within this SHCP area will help provide for wildlife movement between the various areas t mentioned in the previous paragraph.The Roripaugh Ranch is providing 201 acres of land into the AD 161 SHCP,which are located along the Santa Gertrudis Creek and lands connecting to Skunk Hollow(Planning Areas 8, 9A, 913, and 13) c) Sensitive Biological Resources Sensitive biological resources potentially occurring in the vicinity of Roripaugh Ranch were determined through evaluation of the California Natural Diversity Database(CDFG 1998)and the California Native Plant Society's Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants of California(Skinner and Pavlik 1994),supplemented ' by published documents pertaining to the biological resources in this area. Sources used for the determination of listing status include:Holland(1990)for vegetation communities;USFWS(1996)for plants;and CDFG (1996) for wildlife. Figure 3.7-2 shows sensitive biological resources in the project site. The sensitive vegetation communities,sensitive plant species,and sensitive wildlife species that have been detected on the Roripaugh Ranch site are discussed in this section. A complete list of sensitive plant and ' wildlife species detected on site,and species potentially occurring and not detected on site is included in the NRC report. RORIPAUGH RANCH SPECIFIC PLAN 1 2 u REVISED DRAFT EIR-APRIL 1,2002 3-121 i� � li +� � � +• r � �■ � � s a�l� 1. � s �■■ me N 2 N C N 0 o m \ r 2 33B 06 A ,/ Y m ■ , r-_ 33A i� 19 -n 31 m I � W O O� Gnatcatcher Pairs Observed I �+ 26 Quino Checkerspot Butterfly Observed �4 26 P Planning Area Boundary _ 2 Sensitive Biological Resources ftM :32N]00210:03:30AMBYT_B GEROM:N:111381000 x pOl-0MIWIG3.1-2.0v 3.7 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES d) Sensitive Vegetation Communities Sensitive vegetation communities are those communities that are of highly limited distribution. These communities may also support concentrations of sensitive plant or wildlife species. ' Riversidian Sage Sera The extent of Riversidian sage scrub is substantially declining in western Riverside County due to degradation from cattle or sheep grazing, conversion to agricultural lands, and urban development. This vegetation type is concentrated in the northwest portion of the site straddling the aqueduct road and in the northeast comer of the property. Small, isolated stands sometimes occur within the agricultural fields,principally around rocky outcrops that cannot be readily disced. Because of the scarcity of this habitat and the number of sensitive species associated with it,Riversidian sage scrub is considered a sensitive habitat by the CDFG. Wetland Habitats The site includes vegetation communities that maybe under the jurisdiction of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (ACOE) according to Section 404 of the Clean Water Act and the CDFG according to section 1600 of the Fish and Game Code. These areas include alluvial scrub,sandy wash,mute fat scrub, ephemeral pond, riparian woodlands, and riparian scrub vegetation. e) Sensitive Plant Species No sensitive plant species have been observed on the site. Some sensitive plant species do have the potential to exist on the site,based on the availability of appropriate habitat,and their presence at other location in this general part of Riverside County. However,none of these plant species have been detected on site. A list of sensitive plant species potentially occurring but not detected on the site is provided in the NRC report. f) Sensitive Wildlife Species Sensitive wildlife species detected or potentially occurring and not detected on the site are summarized in the NRC report. Twenty sensitive wildlife species have been detected on the Roripaugh Ranch site. The ' majority of these species are associated with the Riversidian sage scrub habitats; however, several are associated with the disturbed/agricultural lands. Two federally listed species were recorded on site in 1999; the coastal California gnatcatcher and the Quino checkerspot butterfly. The recorded location of these ' species is shown in Figure 3.7-2. Quino Checkerspot Butterfly (Euphydryas editha quinol The Quino checkerspot butterfly (QCB)was recorded in the northwest portion of the Roripaugh Ranch site during NRC's surveys of the site between March 17 and May 9, 1999. This species was recorded as an uncommon butterfly on one ridge top supporting disturbed Riversidian sage scrub vegetation(see Figure 3.7-1). The site supports many scattered patches of dwarf plantain (the larval food plant for the QCB), adult nectaring sources, and areas of exposed soils; however, only one small area of potential habitat was found to actually support the QCB. The site occurs within a region of Riverside County known to support scattered populations of the QCB. In 1999, several populations of the QCB were recorded within the near vicinity of the site near Lake Skinner Preserve, Bachelor Mountain, and Johnson Ranch. Other populations of QCB are known to occur in scattered locations south and west of the site in Murietta Hot Springs, Temecula, and Oak Mountain. RORIPALIGH RANCH SPECIFIC PLAN ' 2N0 REVISED DRAFT EIR-APRIL 1,2002 3-123 ' 3.7 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES ' Coastal California Gnatcatcher(Polioytilia californica californica) The coastal California gnatcatcher (CCG) occurs as a resident species within the Riversidian sage scrub vegetation communities on the site. In 1999, 25 breeding pairs and three unpaired males were recorded on the site. Figure 3.7-2 shows the observed locations of coastal California gnatcatchers on the site. The symbols indicating the location of a breeding pair represents the approximated center of that pair's observed use area. It is expected that these use areas overlap,especially in non-breeding months. For purposes of this report,it is assumed that all sage scrub areas are occupied by this species. Orangethroat Whiptail (Cnemidophorus hvpervthrus) The orangethroat whiptail is a federal and ' California Species of Concern. This species occurs in scrub habitats,grasslands,and ruderal areas. Where it occurs,this species prefers sandy areas where there are intermittent rocks and shrubs. The orangethroat whiptail was observed in 1999 within the sage scrub located in the northern half of the site. It is likely that this species occurs throughout the Riversidian sage scrub habitats on the site. San Diego Coast Homed Lizard(Phrvnosoma coronatum blainvillei) The San Diego coast homed lizard is a federal and State Species of Concern. This species occurs in scrub habitats, grasslands, and ruderal areas. Where it occurs,this species prefers sandy areas. NRC observed one individual homed lizard in the northern half of the site in 1999 and this species was recorded in 1997 on the central ridges of the site. The ' homed lizard is expected to occurin scattered locations throughoutthe Riversidian sage scrub and disturbed grassland habitats on the site. ' Coastal Western Whiptail (Cnemidophorus tirris multiscutatus) The coastal western whiptail is a State Species of Concern. This species occurs in scrub habitats,chaparral,and low density grasslands. Several coastal western whiptails were observed during the 1997 and 1999 surveys of the site. The coastal western whiptail is expected to occur in scattered locations throughout the sage scrub and grassland habitats on the site. Burrowing Owl (Athene cunicularia) The burrowing owl is a federal and State Species of Concern. This small owl nests in small colonies in burrow abandoned by rodents or squirrels. The species prefers open grasslands,desert,and shrub lands near water and agricultural areas. One burrowing owl was observed by ' NRC in the southeastern portion of the site in 1999. White-tailed Kite(Elanus caeruleus) The white-tailed kite has no federal or State status, however it is considered sensitive by local and regional resource protection agencies. This species nests and perches within woodlands and mature scrub habitats adjacent to foraging areas,such as grasslands and sage scrub habitats. Several white-tailed kites were detected on the site in 1997 and 1999. Agricultural lands and open Riversidian 1 sage scrub vegetation on this site provide foraging habitat for this species. No nests were detected during any of these surveys. These kites were observed foraging over the disturbed/agricultural lands. Northern Hamer (Circus cvaneus) The northern harrier is a State Species of Concern. This species forages over agricultural lands,disturbed habitats,grasslands and open scrub habitats. One northern harrier was observed foraging over various portions of the site in 1997 and 1999. Agricultural lands and open Riversidian sage scrub vegetation on the site provide foraging habitat for this species. No nesting habitat for this species occurs on the site. 1 RORIPAUGH RANCH SPECIFIC PLAN 2NO REVISED DRAFT EIR-APRIL 1,2002 3-124 ' 3.7 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES ' Cooper's Hawk(Accipter cooperii) Cooper's hawk is a State Species of Special Concern. This species occurs primarily in riparian areas and may forage over scrub and grassland habitats. This species was observed in 1997 and 1999. Agricultural lands and open Riversidian sage scrub vegetation on this site provide foraging habitat for this species. California Homed Lark (Eremophilia alpestris actia) The California homed lark is a State Species of Special Concern, This species occurs in grasslands and open scrub habitats. Several groups of this bird were observed foraging within the fields onsite during the 1997 surveys. Golden Eagle e(Aguila chrvsaetos) The golden eagle is a State Species of Concern and is protected by the Eagle Protection Act as amended in 1978. One golden eagle was observed foraging over the site in 1997 and 1999. Agricultural lands and open Riversidian sage scrub vegetation on this site provide foraging habitat for this species. Loggerhead Shrike(Lanius ludovicianus) Loggerhead Shrikes area State Species of Concern and have been detected on the site in 1997 and 1999. This species occurs in open scrub habitats and grasslands areas. Populations of loggerhead shrikes appear to be scattered throughout southern California,however,where they occur, they appear to be rather abundant. Coastal Rufous-crowned Sparrow(Aimophilia neficeps canescens) The coastal rufous-crowned sparrow is a federal and State Species of Concern. This species occurs in scrub habitats, rocky canyons, and may forage in grassland areas. This species was observed on site during the 1998 and 1999 surveys. Bell's Sage Sparrow(Amphispiza belli Belli) The Bell's sage sparrow is a State Species of Concern. This species was observed on the site during the 1997 and 1999 surveys. This species occurs in chaparral and dense scrub habitats. Although the coastal sage sparrow can be found in chaparral habitats,they appear to be scattered in patches throughout their range, although when present, they are generally common. 1 San Diego Black-tailed Jackrabbit(Lepus californicus bennetti) The San Diego black-tailed jackrabbit is a federal and State Species of Concern. This species occurs primarily in open scrub habitats adjacent to ' grasslands and agriculturalareas. The black-tailedjack rabbit is common within the Riversidian sage scrub portions of the site. ' Stephens' Kangaroo Rat(Dipodomvsstephensi) Stephen's kangaroo rats were detected on the site during surveys conducted by Tierra Madre in 1994. The site maintains the potential to support this species within grassland and transitional habitats. Los Angeles Pocket Mouse (Perounathus loneimembris brevinasus) The Los Angeles pocket mouse is a State Species of Concern. This species was recorded in 1994 during small mammal trapping studies. 1 The mouse is considered uncommon on the site. g) Assessment District 161 Sub-Regional Habitat Conservation Plan (SHCP) ' In January of 2001,the U.S.Fish and Wildlife Service approved the final Sub-Regional Habitat Conservation Plan(SHCP)for the County's Assessment District 161 (AD 161). This plan involves 3 public agencies and 9 individual property owners in the project area. The projects covered by the SHCP are listed in Table 3.7-2. RORIPAUGH RANCH SPECIFIC PLAN 1 2rvO REVISED DRAFT EIR-APRIL 1,2002 3-125 1 ' 3.7 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES 1 Figure 3.7-3 shows the boundaries of AD 161 and the properties participating in the SHCP. The SHCP is designed toprotect4listed and 17 unlisted but sensitive plant and animal species summarized in Table 3.7-3. As part of this agreement, the USF&WS required the development south of Santa Gertrudis Creek to be moved"back"(south)off of the ridgeline to provide more physical and visual buffering between the homes and the open space area,and to prevent any urban runoff from reaching this portion of the creek. The new ' open space arrangement of Planning Areas 8,9,and 13 allowed for a connection between the UCR reserve property and Skunk Hollow on the Rancho Bella Vista property to the northwest. The USF&WS also required reseeding graded areas with coastal sage scrub species. The conservation area of SHCP covers 1,438 acres in different 8 projects orproperties,including 201 acres (14 percent)within the Roripaugh Ranch project. The SHCP formalizes the general mitigation measures in ' the Draft FIR regarding acquisition and maintenance of biological habitat for impacts related to the gnatcatcher and Quinobutterfly. Specifically,the SHCP expands or otherwise addresses several Mitigation Measures in Section 3.7 of the original DEIR,including"purchase of Riversidian Sage Scrub(RSS)habitat in the vicinity of the site"(MM 3.7-2),and"participation in a regional multi-habitat planning effort"(MM 3.7-3 and MM 3.7-9). The SHCP therefore reduces uncertainty for the City regarding implementation of these measures. ' A portion of the extension of Butterfield Stage Road south of the Roripaugh Ranch was included in the County's environmental analysis and CEQA approval of the AD 161 SHCP. According to that document, construction of Butterfield Stage Road south of the Roripaugh site to the proposed SDI Communities property would remove 59 acres of upland sage scrub that is suitable but unoccupied habitat for the California gnatcatcher. The AD 161 SHCP took this impact into account when formulating the amountof land needed within the SHCP to mitigate loss of habitat,including the gnatcatcher. However,the portion of Butterfield Stage Road south of the SDI property to the existing pavement north of Rancho California Road approximately 2000 feet or 5.9 acres of Riversidian sage scrub was not included in the AD 161 HCP ' agreement. The Environmental Assessment for AD 161 indicates the SDI property is Riversidian sage scrub, so it is likely the roadway area south of the SDI property is also Riversidian sage scrub that maybe occupied by gnatcatchers. Additional surveys will have to be conducted in this area to assure there are no impacts to ' this listed species. As part of the AD 161 SHCP agreement,the USF&WS required the development south of Santa Gertrudis Creek to be moved"back"(south)off the ridgeline to provide more physical and visual buffering between the homes and the open space area,and to prevent any urban runoff from reaching this portion of the creek. The new open space arrangement of Planning Areas 8,9,and 13 allowed for a connection between the UCR ' reserve property and Skunk Hollow on the Rancho Bella Vista property to the northwest. The USF&WS also required reseeding graded areas with costal scrub species. For more information on the AD 161 SHCP,see the end of Appendix G which contains excerpts from the AD 161 SHCP documents. RORIPAUGH RANCH SPECIFIC PLAN ' 2NO REVISED DRAFT EIR-APRIL 1,2002 3-126 3.7 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES ' Table 3.7-2 AD 161 SHCP Covered Projects ACREAGE TOTAL TO BE PROJECTNAME ACREAGE DEVELOPED PROJECT DESCRIPTION SDI Communities 80 80 220 single-family units,1 park site Crown Hill 335 335 805 single-family units, I school site,and 2 park sites Roripaugh Ranch 839 563 1,310 single-family units,315 apartments,2 school sites, and 3 park sites ' Silverhawk 481 335 364 single-family units, 192 acres light industry,and 1 park site Costa-Pulte 65 65 185 single-family units Murrieta Springs 220 220 876 single-family units, I I acres of commercial development,and I school site Parcel 5 43 39 162 single-family units Rancho Miramosa 157 140 523 single-family units,I school site,and I park site Lincoln Ranch 235 175 459 single-family units,and 27 acres of commercial/multi- family residential development Buie 127 101 300 single-farmly units SUBTOTAL 2,582 2,053 5,204 single-family units,5 school sites,8 park sites,multi- family,commercial and light industrial development EM-20 Turnout and 53 53 Up to 9-foot diameter pipeline from Lake Skinner along Transmission Main/ Butterfield Stage Road alignment and Nicolas Road ' Pipeline No,3 Bypass Nicolas Reservoir 32 12 6.8 MG storage tank,pipeline&access road Pipeline No.6 53 53 Up to 10-foot diameter pipeline within Buck&Anza Road alignments in Johnson Ranch and UC Riverside Vista Murrieta 179 87 High School classrooms,athletic fields and parking,access High School roads Butterfield Stage Road 83 83 1 10-foot wide arterial roadway from Night Hawk Road to Anza Road and Rancho California Road to Washington Street,widen existing road from Washington Street to Winchester Road ' French Valley Airport 86 86 Extend existing runway by 1,600 feet;relocate Hotel Road Runway Extension Newport Road 20 20 Widen 2 lane to 4 lane roadway between Menifee Road and ' Briggs Road .Southwest Justice 12 12 24 courtrooms,200 bed juvenile detention center and Center Expansion parking structure Winchester Road 36 36 Widening 2-lane to 4-lane roadway from Hunter Road to Benton Road TOTAL 4,070 2,495 Source—Helix Environmental Planning,Inc.,7/2000 1 RORIPAUGH RANCH SPECIFIC PLAN ', 2NO REVISED DRAFT EIR-APRIL 1,2002 3-127 3.7 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES ' Table 3.7-3 AD 161 SHCP - Covered Species of Concern ' ACRES OF PRESENCE/ HABITAT COMMON NAME SCIENTIFIC NAME STATUSI HABITATZ ABSENCE IMPACTED ' California Orcull Grass Orcuttia californicia FE,SE VP Not 43 Observed Palmer's grapplinghook Harpagonella pahneri Clip,CSS,G Present 1,302 ' Long-spined spineflower Chorizanthe polygonoides CSS,Clip,G Present 1,302 var.longlsprna Riverside fairy shrimp Streptocepholus wooltoni FE,SE VP Not 43 Observed Quino checkerspot Euphydryas editha quino FE G,CSS Present 1,695 butterfly Western shadefoot Spea hammondii R,G,CSS, VP Present 1,230 San Diego homed Phrynosoma coronatum CSS,CHP,G Present 1,302 blainvillei Orange-throated whiptail Cnemidophorus CSS,CHP,G Present 1,302 hyperythrus beldingi ' Costal California Poloiptila californica FT CSS,CHP Present 748 ' gnalcatcher califomica Burrowing owl Athene cunicularia G Present 554 Southern California rufous- Aimophila ruficeps CSS Present 1,302 ' crowned sparrow canescen Bell's sage sparrow Amphispiza belli belli CSS,CHP Present 1,302 ' Grasshopper sparrow Ammodramus savannarum G Present 1,302 American peregrine falcon Falco peregrinus anarus G.CHP,CSS Present 1,302 Copper's hawk Accipiter cooperii G,CHP,CSS Present 1,302 ' Ferruginous hawk Buteo regalis G,CHP,CSS Present 1,302 Golden eagle Aquila chrysaetos G,CHP,CSS Present 1,302 ' Long-eared owl Asia oris G,CHP,CSS Present 1,302 Merlin Falco linearus G,CHP,CSS Present 1,302 ' Sharp-shinned hawk Accipiterstriatus G,CHP,CSS Present 1,302 White-tailed kite Elanus leucurus G,CHP,CSS Present 1,302 'FE-Federal endangered;FT-Federal threatened;SE-State endangered;ST-State threatened 'CSS-Costal Sage Scrub;G-Grassland;R -Riparian habitat;CHP-Chaparral;VP-Vernal Pool 3 Watershed for Skunk Hollow is included within the plan area Source-Helix Environmental Planning,Inc.,7/2000 RORIPAUGH RANCH SPECIFIC PLAN . 2"D REVISED DRAFT EIR-APRIL 1,2002 3-128 RANCHO MIRAMOSA MITIGATION SITES t C y BUIE i MURRIETA I SPRINGS i I '' q; O ® i MODLN VISTA i / eavwniw.roe° amxnrJw SOUTHWESTERN RANCH MURRIETA elprvnm0.•e &M,mrsed5 RIVERSIDE STERN HIGH SCHOOL MULTI SPECIES RESERVE A777zV—Swurweu Jubre JOHNSON / I Corer E+u TO 1 o ° I �r ICM AT i x -� • • SITE RANCHO MIRAMOSA---• 'a Fmm✓ewY.r/m°+ _ 3 d / o -d _ py Noa JOHNSON Y 'l ._ RANCHNAP MITIGATION PARCELS ; SILVERMAWK NRvns SITE COeTU ° PULTE m I i LOSTA/ /ROPIPAUGH _ t PULTE RANCH UC RIVERSIDE j f �'^-�� •-- G) Extension ension a ion Stage Road j G) LEGEND SDI O AD 181 Boundary \ COMMUNITIES m OParticipating Owners ,^�" / w c Other Conserved PropeNas 'I I - �'• W 1`r11�/ RCWCUetropolitan Projects County Roadli ao.d�e. 1 Improvement m¢nl PrOjeCLt l <� Omer County Projects - CROW NE �I � HILL I..J Boundaries of AD 161 & Participating Properties Plollen: 3/20/2002 10:03:49 AM By: TBARGER DWG', N.\31367.000\dwg\Sp01-02\EIRF103.7-3.d.g ' 3.7 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES ' h) Comments on Previous DEIRs U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service On July 16, 1999, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service(USF&WS)sent a letter commenting on the DEIR. Theletter indicated concerns about the following: 1)"take"of listed species, specifically the California gnatcatcher,Quino checkerspotbutterfy,and Stephen's kangaroo rat(SKR);2) ' an alternative that provides more open space for biological habitat; 3)a habitat assessment for the Arroyo toad; 4) subsequent permitting requirements under the federal Endangered Species Act and related requirements of the California Department of Fish and Game. ' The revised section 3.8 of the DEIR on biological resources addresses all of these comments. The project is within the Riverside County SKR Habitat Conservation Plan area and will pay the required mitigation fee ' of$500 per gross acre. The project biologist surveyed the site for arroyo toad and found no suitable habitat onsite,and concluded there was little or no potential for the species onsite due to the physical constraints of the onsite drainage courses (i.e., substrate, steepness, etc.)(D. Levine, personal communication, August ' 1999). The current project is included in the AD 161 Sub-Regional Habitat Conservation Plan(SHCP)which was ' approved by the USF&WS in November of 2000. This HCP addresses sub-regional impacts to a number of species including the gnatcatcher and Quino butterfly. In fact, the current project was developed in response to negotiations with the USF&WS during the SHCP approval process. Because of this, development of the current project is not expected to produce any significant biological impacts. California Department of Fish and Game On July 16, 1999,the California Department of Fish and Game ' (CDF&G)wrote a letter on the original DEIR expressing concerns similar to those of the USF&WS (e.g., take of listed species, loss of habitat, etc.). They also expressed concern about wildlife movement, the adequacy of mitigation measures,and revegetation. The current project is included in the AD 161 SHCP which is expected to mitigate all potential biological impacts to less than significant levels. The CDF&G also wrote a letter on July 26, 2001 on the second DEIR for the revised project expressing concerns similar to its previous letter and the previous letter from the U.S.Fish and Wildlife Service. The CDF&G recommended analysis of a number of sensitive species, that the project enter into a streambed alteration agreement,and that it obtain a Clean Water Act Section 404 permit. In addition,they recommended ' the analysis of different alternatives that would reduce impacts to biological resources. The current 2"a Revised DEIR incorporates the information provided by the CDF&G regarding sensitive species,and will obtain the various indicated agreements/permits. Since the DEIR does not identify significant biological ' impacts after mitigation,including participation in the AD 161 SHCP,no additional or modified alternatives need to be analyzed, which are developed specifically to reduce identified significant impacts. 1 1 RORIPAUGH RANCH SPECIFIC PLAN 2""REVISED DRAFT EIR-APRIL 1,2002 3-130 I� ' 3.7 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES ' 3.7.2 Criteria for Determining Significance ' The City has not established local CEQA significance thresholds,however,potentially significant impacts to biological resources may result if a project causes: a)loss or disturbance of individuals orpopulations of a Federal or State Threatened or Endangered Species; b)substantial loss of individuals or populations of a ' Federal or State species ofconcern,regionally rare,or otherwise sensitive species;c)net degradation or loss of a sensitive habitat; d) loss of a critical, yet limited resource used by a Federal or State Threatened or Endangered Species;e)substantial loss of native habitat;or f)interference with or complete disruption of ' heavy-use wildlife movement areas,such as wildlife movement corridors(CEQA Guidelines,Appendix I). It should be noted that a habitat is usually considered sensiti ve if itis regionally unique,declining,or designated as sensitive by resource agencies,but the degree of impact is,in the end,subjective and based on a judgement ' regarding the likelihood of the project to disrupt ecosystem function or threaten the persistence of habitat in the area. In addition, CEQA Guidelines prior to 1997 list the following as potentially significant land use impacts:a)substantially affect a rare or endangered species of animal or plant or the habitat of the species; b) interfere substantially with the movement of any resident or migratory fish or wildlife species; or c) substantially diminish habitat for fish,wildlife,or plants(Appendix G). A careful examination of these Criteria, however,reveals that the determination of"significance"is subjectively based on the professional judgement ' by qualified individuals as to when a "substantial" impact occurs. ' 3.7.3 Level of Impact before Mitigation a) Impacts to Vegetation Communities Construction of the proposed project would result in the development of approximately 665 acres, or approximately 83 percent of the site. The majority of the habitats removed by grading for this project would be agricultural areas(436.6 acres)and previously disturbed habitats including ruderal areas(45.1),graded areas(10.0 acres),and developed areas(15.5 acres). Removal of these disturbed areas,totaling 505.5 acres, would not be a significant impact to biological resources. Likewise, loss of approximately 7.3 acres of eucalyptus woodlands is not a significant impact. ' Riversidian Sage Scrub, Transitional Areas, and Native Grasslands As listed in Table 3.7-5, implementation of the proposed project would result in the direct removal of 87.1 acres of Riversidian sage ' scrub vegetation from the site. The direct removal of Riversidian sage scrub communities would be a significant impact. In addition,the proposed project would result in the removal of transitional scrub and grassland habitats totaling 66.7 acres. The direct removal of these habitats would also be a significant impact. In total 153.8 acres or approximately 62 percent of these three habitats would be removed(total 248.8 acres). Impacts to native grasslands(0.2 acres removed)are not a significant impact due to their isolated and limited nature. Riparian Communities As listed in Table 3.7-5,the proposed project would result in the direct removal ' of riparian habitats including, alluvial fan scrub (8.2 acres), mulefat scrub(0.2 acres), riparian scrub (1.3 acres), and sandy wash habitat (1.1 acres). Removal of these areas is a significant impact to biological resources. These areas may be under the jurisdiction of the ACGE and CDFG. RORIPAUGH RANCH SPECIFIC PLAN ' 2NO REVISED DRAFT EIR-APRIL 1,2002 3-131 1 3.7 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES TABLE 3.7-4 ' IMPACTS TO VEGETATION COMMUNITY . EXISTING ACRES TO BE ACRES TO BE VEGETATION COMMUNITY* ACRES DEVELOPED PRESERVED RIVERSIDIAN SAGE SCRUB 165.3 87.1 78.2 RSS-California Sage Brush 2.3 0.5 1.8 RSS-Flat-top buckwheat 20.2 18.6 1.6 RSS-California sagebmshibuckwheat 29.2 23.1 6.1 RSS-California sagebrush/keckiella 10.0 1.9 8.1 RSS-California sagebrush/while sage 8.9 1.2 7.7 RSS-mixed 45.0 10.2 34.8 ' RSS-disturbed 39.4 31.6 7.8 Southern cactus scrub 0.3 0.00 0.3 TRANSITIONAL 58.6 43.5 15.1 RSS -Annual Grasslands 43.5 31.8 11.7 RSS-Native Grasslands L5 0.9 0.6 ' RSS-Ruderal 10.1 8.0 2.1 Ruderal-RSS 3.5 2.7 0.8 ' GRASSLAND 24.9 23.2 1.7 Annual Grassland 24.7 23.0 1.7 Native Grassland 0.2 0.2 0.0 ' RIPARIAN 24.6 9.9 14.7 Alluvial fan scrub 16.9 8.2 8.7 ' Mulefat Scrub 0.2 0.2 0.0 Riparian scrub 5.1 1.3 3.8 Riparian woodland 0.1 0.00 0.1 Sandy wash 3.3 1.1 2.2 Pond 0.05 0.05 0.0 WOODLAND 7.8 7.3 0.5 Live oak woodland 0.5 0.0 0.5 Eucalyptus woodland 7.3 7.3 0.00 OTHER 537.5 505.5 32.0 Ruderal 55.1 30.5 15.0 ' Agricultural 451.9 436.6 15.3 Graded 10.0 10.0 0.00 ' Developed 20.5 13.3 1.8 TOTAL 804.7 1 664.7 1 140.0 *Map symbols correspond to figure in report by Natural Resource Consultants 1999 ' Source:Natural Resource Consultants, 1999 RORIPAUGH RANCH SPECIFIC FLAN ' 2NO REVISED DRAFr EIR-APRIL 1,2002 3-132. 1 3.7 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES Riversidian Sage Scrub and Alluvial Fan Sage Scrub Within the project site, Riversidian sage scrub encompasses approximately 165 acres and alluvial fan sage scrub covers approximately 17 acres. The proposed land use plan was developed with consideration given to the regional importance of the sage scrub ' areas on site. The proposed land use plan will result in loss of approximately 83 acres of Riversidian sage scrub(roughly 52 percent)and approximately 8 acres(48 percent)of alluvial fan sage scrub. However,the most undisturbed areas of Riversidian sage scrub and the riparian vegetation associated with the northern tributary of Santa Gertrudis Creek will be permanently preserved as open space as part of the Assessment District 161 Sub-Regional Habitat Conservation Plan. b) Impacts to Sensitive Species The project would result in the removal of Riversidian sage scrub habitat and a variety of natural and disturbed ' habitat covering a total of 680 acres. These vegetation communities support a diverse array of wildlife species including at least 19 wildlife species recognized as sensitive by local,regional,and federal resource protection agencies and special-interest groups. The impacts to these sensitive species are described below. c) Sensitive Wildlife ' Ouino Checkerspot Butterfly The project would result in the direct removal of occupied habitat for the Quinocheckerspot butterfly(QCB). In 1999,one small population of QCB was detected on a ridge covering less than two acres in the northwest corner of the site. Vegetation on this ridge top is disturbed Riversidian sage scrub habitat. Removal of occupied habitat for the QCB is a significant impact of the proposed project. No other QCBs were recorded on any portion of the site. Implementation of the project would also remove several areas on the site,not occupied by QCB in 1999,that support larval food plants and/or adult nectaring sources for this species. All of these areas occur within Riversidian sage scrub habitats or transitional areas. Removal of these potential habitat areas is not a significant impact. The project will preserve approximately 95 acres of potential habitat for the QCB including Riversidian sage scrub areas and transitional habitats. These areas are known to support larval food plants and adult nectaring sources for the QCB. Preservation of potential,yet unoccupied,habitat is a beneficial effect of the project. Coastal California Gnatcatcher The project would remove 87.1 acres of Riversidian sage scrub and 43.5 acres of transitional habitats(totaling 130.6 acres)that are occupied by the coastal California gnatcatchers. Based on the observed distribution of the gnatcatchers on the site in 1999,development within the Plateau ' would result in the displacement of two pairs, development of the northern Valley area would result in the displacement of eleven pairs,and development of the southern Valley area would not displace any pairs. The project would also result in preservation of Riversidian sage scrub habitat occupied by twelve gnatcatcher pairs. All twelve of these pairs are located in Planning Area 13 which is designated as open space. The removal of suitable and occupied habitat would occur outside the gnatcatcher nesting season and would ' minimize the direct loss of nests and birds. In the short term,the gnatcatchers are expected to"pack"into undisturbed Riversidian sage scrub and the number of gnatcatchers on the site is not expected to be substantially reduced. Over time, however, as competition for available resources is increased by the misplaced birds, a reduction in gnatcatcher numbers is expected. RORIPAUGH RANCH SPECIFIC PLAN ' 2NO REVISED DRAFT EIR-APRIL 1,2002 3-133 t 3.7 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES The project will preserve approximately 78 acres of occupied habitat for the coastal California gnatcatcher. The proposed preservation area corresponds with the areas supporting the highest density of gnatcatchers. ' Based on the observed distribution of gnatcatchers on the site in 1999,preservation of existing scrub habitats would support approximately 12 gnatcatcher pairs. The majority of these pairs are located in the northeast corner of the site that is designated as natural open space. This is a beneficial effect of the proposed project. ' Stephens'Kangaroo Rat Implementation of the project would result in the direct removal of habitat occupied by the Stephens' kangaroo rat;a federally endangered species. This impact would be offset according to the terms of the Stephens' Kangaroo Rat Habitat Conservation Plan (SRK-HCP) covering impacts to this endangered species in this region of Riverside County. ' Other Sensitive Wildlife Species Grading and construction of the proposed project would remove approximately 130.6 acres of Riversidian sage scrub habitat and transitional areas. In addition, the project would remove I 0 acres of riparian habitats adj acent to these scrub areas that are important ecosystems on the ' site. As described earlier in this section,these lands support a variety of sensitive,although not federally or State listed, reptile, bird, and mammal species. These species include the orangethroat whiptail, coastal western whiptail,San Diego homed lizard,southern Califormamfous-crowned sparrow,Bell's sage sparrow, California honed lark,loggerhead shrike,western burrowing owl,and San Diego black-tailed jack rabbit. The removal of occupied habitat for sensitive reptile,birds and mammals would be a significant adverse impact to biological resources. Sensitive Raptors A variety of sensitive raptor species have been identified foraging, perching, and/or nesting on the site. These species include the golden eagle(foraging,perching),ferruginous hawk(foraging, ' perching),Cooper's hawk(foraging,perching),burrowing owl(foraging,nesting),prairie falcon(foraging, nesting),northern harrier(foraging),and white-tailed kite(foraging,perching). Other more common raptors, such as the red-tailed hawk and northern kestrel were also observed on the site. A red-tailed hawk nest was ' observed in the eucalyptus grove in February of 1999. This nest was not occupied. If active at the time of construction, this nest would be protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act. ' Implementation of the proposed project will remove approximately 665 acres of potential foraging habitat for these species. The reduction in foraging habitat will require that nesting birds travel further from the woodlands to procure food which reduces the value of the woodlands for nesting. Over time,it is expected ' that fewer raptors will use the site. The reduction in foraging habitat and overall use of the site by raptor species is a significant adverse impact. ' d) Sensitive Plants The project would not result in the removal of any rare or sensitive plant species. ' e) Wildlife Movement ' The proposed project site lies between the regionally important habitat areas of Lake Skinner to the north, Santa Gertrudis Creek to the east, and Skunk Hollow to the north. Implementation of the project would obstruct wildlife movement between Santa Gertrudis Creek and Skunk Hollow.Movement between these open ' spaces could be maintained using habitats located north of the Roripaugh Ranch boundary with the U.C. RORIPAUGH RANCH SPECIFIC PLAN ' 2ND REVISED DRAFT EIR-APRIL 1,2002- 3-134 ' 3.7 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES ' Riverside property and within designated open space within the Rancho Bella Vista Specific Plan Area. This partial obstruction to wildlife movement between Santa Gertrudis Creek and Skunk Hol low is not a significant impact. The project would maintain a viable habitat patch (approximately 93 acres of scrub, riparian,and ' transitional habitats) in the northeast corner of the site connecting the drainage of Santa Gertrudis Creek (located east of the site)with the U.C.Riverside property and,eventually,Skunk Hollow further to the west. Multiple species conservation planning in western Riverside County may benefit from the preservation of ' natural open space in the northeast corner of the Roripaugh Ranch. I) Assessment District 161 Sub-Regional Habitat Conservation Plan ' In November of 2000,the U.S.Fish and Wildlife Service(USF&WS)approved ajoint Sub-Regional Habitat Conservation Plan for the area known as Assessment District 161. This plan is designed to protect a multitude ' of sensitive plant and animal species,a number of them federally listed. Along with the County of Riverside and numerous private property owners,the USF&WS set aside over 1,400 acres including 201 acres on the Roripaugh Ranch property for this SHCP. Implementation of this plan will assure that regional impacts to ' listed and other sensitive species remains at less than significant levels. g. Offsite Improvements ' Construction of the various offsite improvements will mainly impactdisturbedareas,such asexistingdirt roads following proposed future roadway alignments. However,construction of some facilities could remove some amount of native vegetation,primarily sage scrub. Loss of biological habitat as a result of full improvements to Butterfield Stage Road were partially addressed in the CEQA documentation for the AD 161 SHCP prepared by the County-these impacts were determined to be fully mitigated by the adoption of the AD 161 SHCP. However,additional mitigation may be needed for the loss of 5.9 acres of potential gnatcatcherhabitat south of the SDI Communities property from extending Butterfield Stage Road to Rancho California Road.. The impacts to local plants and animals as a result of installing the EMWD and RCWD pipelines are addressed were addressed in cursory fashion in the respective CEQA documents for those projects,as shown in Section 1.7. The pipelines will be installed in areas already studied within the Roripaugh project,or will be within existing roadway rights-of-way which have been extensively disturbed by local traffic and contain at most only weedy vegetation along the sides of the road. Removal of a minor amount of this weedy vegetation will not represent a significant impact. Biological impacts that could result from construction of Murrieta Hot ' Springs Road are addressed in the Rancho Bella Vista EIR. Implementation of AD 161 SHCP, of which Roripaugh Ranch is a participant,will assure that no significant biological impacts result from construction of that project, including planned offsite improvements. rRealignment of Calle Girasol from Liefer Road to Walcott Lane, including reconstruction of the Nicolas Road/Calle Girasol intersection will eventually disturb approximately 1.0 acre of land,however,this area is already disturbed and does not contain any significant habitat. In addition,this work will place permanent flood control improvements within an area of approximately 2 acres along Santa Gertrudis Creek,from the planned all-weather crossing to approximately Liefer Road. Flows in Santa Gertrudis Creek are not expected to change substantially,but a Clean WaterAct Section 404 permit will be needed to accomplish the work within the creek for the Nicolas Road bridge over Santa Gertrudis Creek. As long as the project obtains this permit, no significant impacts to biological resources from this work are expected. t RORIPAUGH RANCH SPECIFIC PLAN ' 2NO REVISED DRAFT EIR-APRIL 1,2002 3-135 1 3.7 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES ' 3.7.4 Standard Conditions and Uniform Codes Significant impacts could occur unless the project complies with existing state and federal laws regarding biological resources. Federal law requires applicants to obtain a Clean Water Act Section 404 Permit from the U.S.Army Corps of Engineers for impacts to onsite drainages,including but not limited to Santa Gertrudis Creek and Long Valley Wash. State law also requires a applicant to obtain a Clean Water Act Section 401 ' Certification or Waiverof Certification from the Regional Water Quality Control Board for impacts to onsite drainages. t Stephen's Kangaroo Rat Mitigation Fee Implementation of the Roripaugh Ranch project would result in the removal of occupied and potentially occupied habitat for the Stephens' kangaroo rat. The Riverside County Habitat Conservation Agency (RCHCA) obtained approval of the Stephens' Kangaroo Habitat ' Conservation Plan(SKR-HCP)which covers approximately 517,900 acres in western Riverside County. The SKR-HCP provides a mechanism allowing incidental take of the Stephens' Kangaroo Rat(SKR)on certain land within the SKR-RCP's boundaries. In addition,the SKR-HCP establishes a regional system of seven ' Core Reserves for conservation of the Stephens' kangaroo rat and the ecosystems on which this species depends. The Core Reserves encompass 42,939 acres,including over 12,593 acres of occupied SKR habitat. t RCHCA member agencies also maintain a Stephens' kangaroo rat (SKR)mitigation fee. This fee will be maintained by the RCHCA member agencies until the Core Reserves System has been completed and management programs are adequately funded. The SKR-HCP,if successfully implemented,will provide a 1 95 percent probability that the Stephens's kangaroo rat will survive in the wild (RCHCA 1995). Payment of the SKR-HCP fee helps mitigate potential impacts to the SKR. Prior to issuance of the first t gradingpermit,theapplicantisrequiredtoparticipateintheexistingRiversideCountyHabitatConservation Plan (HCP) for Stephens' kangaroo rat by contributing the required mitigation fee of$500 per gross acre (804.7 acres times $500=$402,350). The development must also comply with local regulations regarding plant or animal species. Following construction,drought-tolerant native and non-native vegetation will be planted as required by the Temecula Development Code. 3.7.5 Project Design Features ' The land use plan for the Roripaugh Ranch site incorporates natural open space areas and open space management guidelines that reduces the direct impacts of the proposed project. Specifically,the plan includes ' permanent preservation of approximately 201 acres of open space as part of the AD 161 SRHP. Of this, approximately 92 acres of Riversidian sage and transitional habitats(supporting approximately eight coastal California gnatcatcher pairs), and approximately 15 acres of riparian habitats. ' The proposed Specific Plan shows a Fuel Modification Zone around the border of the AD 161 SHCP habitat areas(Planning Areas 8,9A,9B,and 13). The California Department of Fish and Game has commented that ' this zone must be outside of the habitat area, while the City Fire Department has requested that the habitat area have an adequate setback zone for fire protection. The City and CDF&G are currently working to resolve the exact composition and location of the Fuel Modification Zone relative to the AD 161 SHCP habitat 1 RORIPAUGH RANCH SPECIFIC PLAN ' 2°1 REVISED DRAFT EIR-APRIL 1,2002 3-136 ' 3.7 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES areas. Until this issue is resolved, this impact is considered potentially significant due to its affect on an established conservation plan. ' 3.7.6 Mitigation Measures The impactof removing Riversidian sage scrub,transitional areas,and native grasslands will be offset by the ' preservation and management of 201 acres of land under the AD 161 SHCP. The removal of alluvial fan scrub,mulefat scrub,riparian scrub,and sandy wash habitat would be offset through measures associated with the following permit acquisition processes: ' (1) Prior to the issuance of a grading permit or map recordation,whichever is first,the developer shall obtain Streambed Alteration Agreements(SAA)with the CalifomiaDepartment of Fish and Game 1 for impacts to onsite drainages,including but not limited to,Santa Gertrudi s Creek and Long Valley Wash. While this is a standard agency requirement,several unique requirements of the Roripaugh site require this measure to be spelled out in detail. ' Existing disturbed wetland areas on the site will be restored and maintained according to conditions of approval of the SAA. The two flow by/detention basins shown in the Drainage Management Plan ' in the two major drainage channels will be constructed with "soft"(i.e.,natural)bottoms and be allowed to revegetate naturally fin Planning Areas 13 and 25). They will be maintained on a regular basis for flood control purposes. Willow and other appropriate riparian species will be planted in ' areas designated in the CWA 404 permit being processed for this project. This vegetation will create new wetland habitat(approximately 1.6 acres)to compensate for the loss of existing onsite wetlands (0.8 acres). The revegetation areas may be near the detention basins or within the creek channels, t as approved by the Army Corps in approved 404 permitting documents. As shown in Figure 3.4-3, Drainage Management Plan, the basins will be constructed prior to the issuance of occupancy permits for the following areas: ' Basin Location Constructed prior to the issuance of... ' South End of PA 3 first building permit for Planning Area 3 and 4A or 413 (PA 7C) ' Southwest portion of first building permit in Planning Area 1A, 2, or 3 PA I (PA 7B) Santa Gertrudis Creek 250ih building permit for Planning Areas 1A, 2, or 3 Habitat Area (PA-13) Long Valley Wash first building permit east of Butterfield Stage Road (PAs 25 and 26) (PAs 14, 18, 19, 20, 22, 23, 24, 27, 28, or 31) and concurrent with Long Valley Wash channel improvements These basins shall be maintained by the Homeowners Association(HOA)or the Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District(RCFCWCD),although the basin in Planning Area 13 may be maintained by the County's designated conservation organization under the AD 161 RORIPAUGH RANCH SPECIFIC PLAN 2NO REVISED DRAFT EIR-APRIL 1,2002 3-137 3.7 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES ' SHCP. Non-performance of maintenance duties will be cause for suspension of building permits for the project,regardless of development phase. In addition,the developer shall transmit a copy of the approved CWA 404 permit for the project within 30 days of approval by the ACOE. ' The County of Riverside is currently workingonaMulti-Species Habitat Conservation Plan(MSHCP)aspart of its Integrated Plan process. The proposed project will be consistent with the MSHCP since it is already ' participating in the approved AD 161 SHCP. The following measure will assure that potential impacts to California gnatcatchers will remain at less than significant levels: , ' (2) Prior to any grading or vegetation clearing, a directed survey shall be conducted to locate on site coastal California gnatcatcher nests. If gnatcatcher nests are present, no grading or removal of habitat will take place within 100 feet of known nesting sites during the nesting/breeding season(mid- February through mid-July). The developer shall provide the City with acopy ofthe report approved by the appropriate resource agency. The following measure will assure that potential impacts to raptors will remain atless than significant levels: ' (3) Prior to the issuance of a grading permitor any vegetation clearing,including offsite roadway or other improvements,a focused burrowing owl survey will be completed and any burrowing owls occurring on the site will be excluded from active burrows. Owl surveys and burrow exclusion will follow the ' CDFG protocols for this species(CDFG 1993). The developer shall provide the City with a copy of the report approved by the appropriate resource agency- (4) Prior to the issuance of a grading permit or any vegetation clearing,including offsite roadway or other improvements,a directed survey shall be conducted to determine the presence or absence of nesting raptor species. Surveys will be conducted between April and June. If raptor nests are present,no grading or removal of habitat will take place within 500 feet of known nesting sites during the nesting/breeding season(mid-March through mid-July). The developer shall provide the City with a copy of the report approved by the appropriate resource agency. ' In addition to participation in the AD 161 SHCP, the developer shall perform the following to assure the continued integrity of the SHCP habitat areas, to the satisfaction of the City of Temecula: ' (5) The open space in Planning Areas 8,9A,913,and 13 will be managed by a conservation organization authorized by the most current AD 161 SHCP Agreement. Prior to final map recordation the developer shall provide the City with a Habitat Management Plan(HMP)covering project-related activities that could affect the AD 161 habitat areas in Planning Areas 8,9A,913,and 13. The HMP will address the exact boundaries of the area,fencing,lighting,landscaping,fuel modification,access ' roads for fire equipment,pedestrian trails,and access gates to the preserve area. The.developer shall comply with all applicable requirements of the AD 161 SHCP, including but not limited to the following: ' a. Roadways in or adjacent to the open space areas,including security and maintenance roads, shall have highly visible signs notifying drivers of the potential for wildlife(e.g."WARNING ' WILDLIFE XING"). Speed laws near corridors should be strictly enforced. RORIPAUGH RANCH SPECIFIC PLAN ' 2NO REVISED DRAFT EIR-APRIL 1,2002 3-138 1 ' 3.7 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES ' b. No fences shall impede movement within the corridor. If a fence is necessary in these areas, it should be a two-strand smooth-wire or split-rail type. The bottom strand or rail should occur no lower than 20 inches above the ground, with the second strand or rail occurring no higher than 40 inches above the ground. C. Fencing shall be installed and maintained along the perimeter of the open space areas (Planning Areas 8, 9A, 913, and 13) to minimize intrusion by humans, pets, vehicles, etc. d. Habitat or corridors shall be screened from the direct view of adjacent homes, roads,etc. by trees and shrubs. Dense vegetative screening is required for the edge of any developed areas adjacent to corridors. ' e. If night-time lighting is necessary in the area of wildlife corridors,only appropriate restrictive lighting pointed away from the corridor should be allowed. In addition,streets should not terminate at the edge of the corridor because this may promote turning of automobiles which would flood the corridor with headlight illumination. Streets that do terminate shall have fencing or other visual screening to limit light intrusion into the habitat area. f. During the vegetation clearing or grading,all areas ofRiversidiansagescrub proposed tobe preserved in the vicinity of construction activities shall be protected through the construction of temporary fencing. No construction access,parking or storage will be permitted within ' the fenced area. Vehicle transportation routes between cut-and-fill locations will be restricted. Failure of the developer to abide by the guidelines of AD 161 SHCP and the HMP will be grounds for suspension of building permits for the project,regardless of phase. This action is appealable to the City Council in disputed cases. ' (6) Prior to map approval,the developer shall document that an effective Fuel Modification Zone(FMZ) has been planned around the AD 161 SHCP area(Planning Areas 8,9, and 13), to the satisfaction ' of the City Planning and Public Works Departments, City Fire Department, and the California Department of Fish and Game. No maps shall be approved until a mutually agreeable FMZ plan is approved by the City Public Works Department, subject to concurrence with the other affected ' agencies/departments. In addition,the project will provide the following additional measure to help offset the loss of native trees onsite: ' (7) Prior to approval of any maps, all mature trees should be shown in the tentative map (mature=3 inches trunk diameter at breast height or larger). The developer shall replace mature trees lost through development at a minimum 1.5:1 ratio as outlined in the Master Landscape Plan and Landscape Material Palette in Section 5 of the Specific Plan at appropriate locations throughout the project. The following is intended to assure there will be no impacts to state-listed species or species otherwise considered sensitive since the CDF&G was not a participant in the AD 161 SHCP process: ROMPAUGH RANCH SPECIFIC PLAN ' 2x-REVISED DRAFT EIR-APRIL 1,2002 3-139 1 3.7 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES ' (8) If the project will result in the potential take of any state-listed species or species otherwise considered sensitive by the CDF&G,the developer shall obtain the necessary incidental take permits from CDF&G prior to the issuance of a grading permit- The following measure is intended to assure there are no impacts to listed or otherwise sensitive species from the various offsite improvements proposed as part of this project: ' (9) Prior to construction of the all-weather crossing of Santa Gertrudis Creek at Nicolas Road, the developer shall obtain an appropriate Clean Water Act(CWA)permit as determined by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. The project shall mitigate the loss of identified jurisdictional land at a minimum 1:1 ratio within the general project area. Prior to issuance of a grading permit, the developer shall transmit a copy of the approved CWA permit to the City Planning Department. ' 10) Prior to grading the portion of the Butterfield Stage Road extension south of the SDI Communities property(as identified in the AD 161 HCP documents),the developer shall conduct protocol surveys for coastal California gnatcatchers within and immediately adjacent to the roadway alignment. If individuals or nests of the species are found within the extension right-of-way,the developer shall mitigate the loss of occupied habitat at a minimum 1:1 ratio within an existing Habitat Conservation ' Plan in the general project area. This mitigation must be provided prior to issuance of any building permits in Phase 2 of the proposed project. 3.7.7 Impact of Mitigation Measures No significant environmental impacts will occur as a result of implementation of the proposed mitigation ' measures. 3.7.8 Summary of Impact after Mitigation ' Without AD 161 SHCP, the previous EIR indicated that impacts of the project would have an unavoidable significant adverse impact on raptor foraging habitat. However,implementation of AD 161 SHCP and the recommended mitigation measures will assure that all potential project impacts related to biological resources will be mitigated to below a level of significance. RORIPAUGH RANCH SPECIFIC PLAN ' 2rvO REVISED DRAFT EIR-APRIL 1,2002 3-140 3.8 ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES ' This section examines the potential impacts of the project on energy and mineral resources, such as construction aggregate (sand and gravel) within the onsite drainages. 3.8.1 Environmental Setting ' a) Energy Resources The Temecula area does not produce significant amounts of raw materials for energy resources such as coal, ' oil,or natural gas. The primary energy systems in the area are electricity and natural gas which are supplied to the area by regional distribution systems. Electricity is supplied to the area by Edison International (EI), while natural gas is supplied by the Southern California Gas Company(SCGC). The state Energy Master Plan states that California will have adequate energy supplies to serve the area for well into the next century(CEC 1998). The project site is not designated as a"Resource Area"on the County of Riverside Energy Resources Map,and the Temecula area does not,at this time,support any substantial alternative energy resources(e.g., geothermal,wind,hydroelectric,etc.). However,the climate of the area does lend itself to utilizing active and passive solar energy for urban development projects. ' In 1997, the State deregulated the electric utility industry. In the fall of 2000, problems inherent with the deregulation legislation resulted in an"energy crisis"in California. This crisis took the form of skyrocketing rates for electricity, and brought several major energy companies to the brink of bankruptcy, most notably 1 Pacific Gas and Electric and Southern California Edison. A major result of the crisis was what are called Stage 2 and 3 Energy Alerts throughout the state,and some areas experienced rolling brownouts and even a few blackouts. These alerts occur when the supply of electricity comes within a few percentage points of demand, according to the State's Independent Systems Operator(ISO). The ISO is a quasi-governmental group that monitors and brokers the state's energy supply. The power suppliers of electricity for the western U.S.have indicated there is sufficient generating capacity to supply the state,it is"simply"a matter of paying ' for the supply. The State legislature and the Public Utilities Commission are currently working on a solution to this situation,but it will most likely involve higher energy rates. However,this situation appears to beheaded toward resolution with the focus of the solution on the price of electricity. If that condition holds true,this issue becomes one of economics rather than an environmental issue under CEQA. Since these conditions and potential solutions are beyond the control of the project's property owner or the City,this document will not analyze the potential effects of the current energy crisis on the proposed project. b) Mineral Resources The south-western Riverside County area has yielded only minor amounts of important mineral resources over the years(CDMG 1968). At present,the only significant mineral resource identified by the California Division of Mines and Geology(CDMG)in the Temecula area is construction aggregate(i.e., sand and gravel). As part of its responsibilities under the Surface Mining And Reclamation Act(SMARA)of 1975, the CDMG classifies the importance of Mineral Resource Zones(MRZs)and Aggregate Resources Areas(ARAB)based on a variety of factors such as the extent and quality of the resource,ease of extraction,etc. Approximately 2 acres of the project site,along the lowerportion of SantaGertrudis Creek,is presently being mined forsand and gravel by the property owner. RoRIPAUGH RANCH SPECIFIC PLAN ' 2N°REVISED DRAFT EIR-APRIL 1,2002 3-141 ' 3.8 ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES According to the CDMG,this portion of the western Riverside Production-Consumption(P-C)area contains few mineral resources(CDMG 1968)other than construction aggregate. The Santa Gertrudis Creek and Long Valley Wash are not presently classified as an important ARA or MRZ under SMARA. Both channels do contain observable sand and gravel deposits due to the ongoing mining, but their status is such that the importance of the deposits "cannot be evaluated based on available data" (CDMG 1987). 3.8.2 Criteria for Determining Significance The City has not established local CEQA significance thresholds,however,potentially significant impacts to energy or mineral resources may result if a project causes:a)use of substantial amounts of fuel or energy b) substantial increase in demand upon existing sources of energy,or require the development of new sources ' of energy; c) an increase in the rate of use of any natural resources (including mineral resources); or d) substantial depletion of any nonrenewable natural resource (CEQA Guidelines, Appendix I). 3.8.3 Level of Impact Before Mitigation a) Energy Resources Developmentof the proposed project will consume non-renewable fossil fuels,mainly in the form of gasoline and diesel fuel forconstruction vehicles. Operation of the project will also consume non-renewable fossil fuels, mainly for the consumption of natural gas, the generation of electricity, and vehicle fuels for residents, ' employees, and project visitors. At build-out,the current project will consume 36,940 Kilowatt-Hours of electficity per day and 464,667 cubic feet per day of natural gas. Although this represents a substantial increase in energy resources over existing levels,both of the energy utility companies serving the project area indicated they could adequately serve the proposed project. This conclusion is valid even taking into account the current energy crisis. Inaddition,the implementation of standard conditions and uniform codes can reduce the level of this impact below a level of significance. b) Mineral Resources The project site is not located within an ARA,nor are its channels classified as MRZs by the CDMG. A small 1 portion of the Santa Gertrudis Creek is presently mined for small amounts of sand,although this practice will likely cease as the property is developed. Neither of the stream channels will be developed to any appreciable degree, other than for drainage retention, so they would be available in the future if needed for mining of aggregate resources. Therefore, the impact of development on local mineral resources is not considered significant. ' 3.8.4 Standard Conditions and Uniform Codes Significant impacts to energy resources might occur if the project did not comply with applicable energy ' conservation regulations. The City requires private development projects within itsjurisdictiontoconform to state Title 24 requirements for energy conservation. City staff will review development plans submitted for this project to assure that applicable energy conservation codes are met. In addition,projects shall facilitate the use of passive solar design (i.e., architecture, landscaping) and active solar systems (i.e., hot water or RORIPAUGH RANCH SPECIFIC PLAN 2NO REVISED DRAFT EIR-APRIL 1,2002 3-142 3.8 ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES ' space heating)where practical(e.g.,commercial uses,multi-family housing buildings,recreation buildings, swimming pools, etc.). Significant health impacts might occur if electrical or natural gas systems were not installed properly. The City's development review process will assure that the project conforms with the City Fire Code,Building Code, and Plumbing Code to assure safe installation of electrical and natural gas systems. 3.8.5 Project Design Features Utilization of the onsite commercial and office uses will help reduce offsite trips and vehicle miles traveled, which will reduce gasoline consumption. Uses proposed for this project will help minimize impacts to both energy and mineral resources. No significant impact to mineral resources are expected. ' 3.8.6 Mitigation Measures ' With implementation of theprojectas designed,including standard conditions and uniformcodes,nosignificant impacts are expected with respect to energy or mineral resources. ' 3.8.7 Impacts of Mitigation Measures No measures are proposed so no impacts are expected. ' 3.8.8 Summary of Impacts After Mitigation With implementation of the project as designed,including standard conditions and uniform codes,no significant impacts are expected with respect to energy or mineral resources. RORIPAUGH RANCH SPECIFIC PLAN ' 2NO REVISED DRAFT EIR-APRIL 1,2002 3-143 r 3.9 HAZARDS rThis section evaluates potential hazards relative to the proposed uses of the project and recommends measures to help assure that potential impacts do not become significant. r3.9.1 Environmental Setting According to the Public Safety Element of the City's General Plan, the City faces a variety of natural and man-made hazards,including earthquakes,floods,fire,and hazardous materials. A number of these hazards are addressed in the following section:geologic,seismic,and soil-related hazards(Section 3.3);flooding and r flood-related hazards(Section 3.4);and urban and wildland fires(Section 3.11). The City of Temecula and the project site lie outside of the Emergency Planning Zone and Public Education Zones of the San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station (SONGS), as established by the federal Nuclear Regulatory Commission. r However, the City and project do lie within the SONGS Ingestion Pathway Zone, which mainly affects evacuation routes for the City. ra) Hazardous Materials The City is partially divided by a major freeway (I-15)and State Route 79, but not by railroad lines. The r interstate highway is federally regulated, and Highway 79 is regulated by the state(Caltrans), so the City's ability to regulate the transport of hazardous materials(hazmat)is severely limited. The chances of a major hazmat incident(i.e.,spill,release,explosion,etc.)are considered moderate for all communities in Southern r California. There are a number of minor hazmat storage facilities within the City, and sometimes the surrounding open lands are used for illegal hazmat dumping. At present,the County Haz-Mat Response Team, supported by the County Fire and Health Departments,provides support for local jurisdictions in handling ' hazmat situations. In addition, the state requires each County to prepare a County Hazardous Waste Management Plan (CHWMP). In 1996, the City adopted the CHWMP by ordinance consistent with the County's plan. A Phase 1 Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) was performed for the entire site in 1999 by Gradient Engineers. A copy of portions of this document are included in Appendix J at the end of this document The ESA found two limited areas onsite contaminated by fuel and other vehicular chemicals spilled duringroutine maintenance activities related to fanning and the airstrip. Several abandoned underground storage tanks were also found. The two sites are located in Planning Areas 10, 11, and 13. 1 b) Emergency Planning ' The City has adopted a Multi-Hazard Functional Plan (MHFP) as required by the California Emergency Services Act.This plan is required to integrate with the State's Standardized Emergency Management System while meeting the requirements of Federal Emergency Management Administration's(FEMA's)planning guidance.The purpose of the plan is to improve emergency preparedness,response and recovery. The MHFP addresses the City's planned response to extraordinary emergency situations associated with natural disasters, technologicalincidents,and national security emergencies. The City also has emergency and disaster response plans, including designated evacuation routes (Temecula 1993). RORIPAUGH RANCH SPECIFIC PLAN ' 2"D REVISED DRAFT EIR-APRIL 1,2002 3-144 ' 3.9 HAZARDS ' c) French Valley Airport The Plateau portion of the project site is within the 2-mile radius of the French Valley Airport Comprehensive ' Land Use Plan. This means that the County's Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC) must review and comment on proposed land uses that might affect airport operations (K. Downs, personal communication, January 2000). The Plateau area is also under one of the east-west approach flight tracks to the airport which ' creates a potential hazardous condition in addition to potential noise impacts(see Section 3.10 for an analysis of noise impacts in this regard). I3.9.2 Criteria for Determining Significance City has not established local CEQA significance thresholds,however,potentially significant impacts may occur if a project: a)creates any health hazard or potential health hazard (excluding mental health); or b) exposes people to potential health hazards (CEQA Guidelines, Appendix I). ' 3.9.3 Level of Impact Before Mitigation a) Hazardous Materials rThe two contaminated areas onsite are located in Planning Areas 10, 11, 12,and 13. The property owner is in the process of cleaning up these sites according to appropriate regulations. Records of the cleanup and safe ' disposal of these areas will have to be submitted to the City prior to the issuance of grading permits. Upon effective remediation, these sites will not pose a hazard to development of the site. Excavation of contaminated soils will require sampling and following appropriate Land Disposal Restrictions(LDR). It is also ' important to note that state regulations have changed recently regarding potential contamination for sites being considered for schools,including contamination from previous farming activities(e.g.,pesticides,herbicides, etc.). The Temecula Valley Unified School District is aware of these regulations regarding the proposed elementary and middle school sites in the Valley portion of the site(Planning Areas 28 and 29). The applicant is also required to contact the Voluntary Cleanup Program (VCP) for cleanup oversight and DTSC if a Preliminary Endangerment Assessment must be prepared. The western portion of the City could be adversely affected by the release of hazardous materials from a truck accident on the I-15 freeway,and,depending on prevailing winds,the eastern portion of the City might also be affected. Due to the distance of the project site to the 1-15 Freeway,the proposed project site is not likely to be affected by a hazmat incident involving the I-15 Freeway or Highway 79. Development of the project site will involve the use and may require the temporary storage of vehicle fuels ' onsite. After construction is complete,operation of the project will involve the minor use of chemicals and other materials typical of suburban areas(e.g.,cleaning and automotive compounds,etc.)including landscape maintenance (i.e., pesticides, fertilizers). Due to the types of land uses proposed (e.g., residential, retail ' commercial), large amounts of hazardous materials will not be stored onsite, although small amounts of necessary maintenance chemicals will be stored in individual structures. These practices are typical of suburban areas and not anticipated to produce any significant impacts related to hazards. ' The two park sites(Planning Areas 6 and 27)will need to be certified as free of contamination by hazardous materials prior to transferring ownership to the City. Likewise,the two school sites(Planning Areas 28 and 29) will have to be certified as free of contamination prior to transferring ownership to the school district. RORIPAUGH RANCH SPECIFIC PLAN ' 2ND REVISED DRAFT EIR-APRIL 1,2002 3-145 1 ■ 3.9 HAZARDS b) Emergency Planning Development of the proposed project will improve local roads which will actually benefit local emergency ' planning by enhancing evacuation routes. c) French Valley Airport If developed as proposed,the current project will introduce residential units into an area underan airport flight track and within 2 miles of the French Valley Airport.It is therefore subject to review by the County Airport ' Land Use Commission. Without mitigation, this hazard is considered potentially significant. d) Comments on Previous DEIRs ' On June 9, 1999,the Riverside County Airport Land Use Commission(ALUC)sent a comment letter about aircraft safety and noise impacts related to the French Valley Airport (FVA). According to the FVA ' Comprehensive Land Use Plan(CLUP),the Plateau portion of the site is within the 2-mile planning limits of the FVA, and one flight track from the airport crosses the Plateau from east to west. The ALUC was concerned that an elementary school and neighborhood park proposed in the two previous plans would be impacted by potential aircraft accidents. For additional information on aircraft noise, see Section 3.10 on Noise. In addition to several noise analyses,ALUC requested the developer require avigation easements for all the residences and the school to make future residents fully aware of the potential safety impacts from the FVA. In response to ALUC concerns,the elementary school site and the neighborhood park were moved out of the Plateau area,the mitigation measures in Section 3.9.6 were revised to require avigation easements from the residential units. With these changes,the current project will not create significant hazard impacts relative to the French Valley Airport. 1 On July 6, 2001, the State Department of Toxic Substance Control (DTSC) requested more information regarding any Phase 1 ESA reports prepared on the Roripaugh site to identify any contamination by hazardous ' materials. They also provided detailed information about remediation and the responsibilities of various state departments. ' 3.9.4 Standard Conditions and Uniform Codes Significant impacts related to hazards might result if the project were not consistent with established emergency and disaster plans. The City's development review procedures include an evaluation of impacts to the City's MHFP,emergency plans,evacuation routes,and disaster response plans. Construction of new structures on the project site will be according to uniform building and fire codes which will minimize the ' potential for fire-related hazards. 3.9.5 Project Design Features ' Thecommercial uses proposed will have security personnel available which may help to incrementally reduce the amount of calls for police and fire services. 1 RORIPAUGH RANCH SPECIFIC PLAN ' 2nD REVISED DRAFT EIR-APRIL 1,2002 3-146 r ' 3.9 HAZARDS ' 3.9.6 Mitigation Measures The following measure is proposed to mitigate potential impacts related to hazardous materials: ' (1) Prior to issuance of a grading permit, the developer shall demonstrate that the contaminated areas identified in the 1999 Phase 1 ESA report have been remediated according to applicable regulations, to the satisfaction of the Public Works Director. (2) Priorto issuance of any building permits,the developer shall contact the Voluntary CleanupPrograrn (VCP) if cleanup oversight is required, and contact DTSC if a Preliminary Endangerment Assessment must be prepared. r (3) Prior to the City's acceptance of the grant deeds for the 2 park sites (Planning Area 6 and 27)and the fire station (Planning Area 32), the developer shall demonstrate that the sites are not contaminated by hazardous materials, to the satisfaction of the Temecula Community Services ' Department (TCSD). The Mitigation Measures under Land Use and Planning(Section 3.1.6)have already addressed potential land use impacts that result from proximity to the French Valley Airport to residential units (i.e., avigation easements). With these changes,and the previously identified mitigation measures,the proposed project will not create significant hazards related to land uses within the French Valley Airport authority. r3.9.7 Impacts of Mitigation Measures rNo significant impacts are expected relative to hazardous materials or obtaining avigation easements. 3.9.8 Summary of Impacts After Mitigation With implementation of theprojectas designed,including standard conditions and uniform codes,no significant impacts are expected with respect to hazards. r r r r r r RORIPAUGH RANCH SPECIFIC PLAN r2N°REVISED DRAFT EIR-APRIL 1,2002 3-147 1 3.10 NOISE ' This section identifies potential noise sources,and estimates the increase in future noise levels as a result of traffic generated by the proposed project. Specific information is provided on noise impacts to the Plateau ' from aircraft using the nearby French Valley Airport. 3.10.1 Environmental Setting a) Sound Characteristics A complete noise study for the project was conducted by Hans Giroux and Associates in April of 1999. Sound is mechanical energy transmitted by pressure waves in a compressible medium such as air. Noise is generally considered to be unwanted sound. Sound waves are characterized by various parameters such as the rate of oscillation(frequency),distance between successive troughs or crests (wavelength),and the pressure level or energy content of a given sound. In particular, the sound pressure level has become the most common descriptor used to characterize the loudness of an ambient sound level. The decibel(dB)is a logarithmic scale used to quantify sound pressure levels. One dB is the faintest sound detectable by a young person with good auditory acuity. Since the human ear is not equally sensitive to all ' sound frequencies,a weighted scale(the "A" scale)is used because it most closely represents the range of human hearing. All further references to decibels will be on this scale (dBA). Time variations in noise exposure are typically expressed in terms of a steady-state energy level equal to the energy content of the time varying period (called LEQ). Because community receptors are more sensitive to unwanted noise intrusion during the evening and at night,state law requires that,for planning purposes,an artificial dB increment be added to quiet time noise levels in a 24-hour noise descriptor called the Ldn (day-night)or the Community Noise Equivalent Level(CNEL). The CNEL scale has gradually replaced the Ldn factor, but the two descriptors are essentially identical. An interior CNEL of 45 dB is mandated by state law for multiple family dwellings, and is considered a desirable interior noise exposure for single family dwelling units as well. Since typical noise attenuation within residential structures may range from 10 to 25 dB,depending on door and window positions,an exterior noise exposure of 55 to 70 dB CNEL or Ldn is thus typically the design exterior noise exposure for new residential dwellings in California that meets a 45 dB interior goal. Because commercial or industrial uses are not ' occupied on a 24-hour basis,a less stringent noise/land use compatibility criterion is generally specified for these less noise sensitive land uses. CNEL-based noise standards generally apply to sources preempted from local control such as motor vehicles, aircraft,trains,etc. They focus more on the land use authority of a jurisdiction related to siting a use in a given noise environment rather than control of the source itself. CNELs are the noise metric that is required for use ' in the Noise Element of the General Plan. Authority of the adoption of a Noise Element and implementation of noise/land use compatibility standards derives from the California Public Resources Code. ' For noise sources not preempted from localcontrol,the California Health&Safety Code provides the authority for creation of a noise ordinance as part of the municipal code. State law contains a blanket prohibition against creation of a noise nuisance. A noise nuisance is one that annoys,irritates or offends any considerable number ' of people of normal auditory sensitivity. Abatement of noise under nuisance rule, however, is difficult. It RORIPAUGH RANCH SPECIFIC PLAN ' 2NO REVISED DRAFT EIR-APRIL 1,2002 3-148 3.10 NOISE generally requires a legal finding that a noise is a nuisance which may then entail hearings,appeals,etc. For a temporary noisy activity,it is often finished long before the legal process under the nuisance rule runs it course. Figure 3.10-1 provides a comparison of typical noise levels from various local sources- The noise ' study prepared by Giroux and Associates in April of 1999 is included in Appendix G. b) Regional Noise Sources ' On a regional basis,the City of Temecula experiences elevated noise levels adjacent to the I-15 freeway(e.g., 75 CNEL) and along major roadways such as Rancho California Road and Winchester Road (SR-79). Although the freeway and major roads are several miles west of the project site,they are identified as major sources of noise on a community-wide basis in the City's General Plan Noise Element. The Noise Element shows existing 65 CNEL noise contours along the 1-15 freeway and south and north of the French Valley Airport. Neither of these two contours affect the project site. Figure 3.10-2 provides a comparison of the suitability of various land uses to community noise levels. c) Local Noise Sources Existing noise levels in the vicinity of the proposed project site are relatively low,which is consistentwith the ' mainly undeveloped characterof the area.Due to theexisting low level of development and traffic in the area, only two ambient noise measurements were taken.'Be primary source of noise is roadway traffic,although a minor source would be occasional airplanes from the nearby French Valley Airport. Table 3.10-1 shows the ambient noise levels measured at two locations in the vicinity of the project site. One location was made near the currently completed Silverhawk residential development which is representative of development intensities planned for the Plateau area. The other location was made at the Nicolas Road ranch entrance, ' the future location of the Butterfield Stage Road/Nicolas Road intersection. Table 3.10-1 shows that ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project site are quite low (41.6 - 52.4 LEQ average). ' e) Future Noise Levels The City's Noise Element estimates future noise levels along various roadways,including several roads that ' will serve the project site, as shown in Table 3.10-2. In the future, Butterfield Stage Road will have a 65- CNEL contour as shown in Figure 8-5 of the City's Noise Element. I) Local Noise Control The City does have a noise ordinance to control construction-related noise. Although it does not have a noise ordinance for`operational"types of noise,it does regulate unwanted sounds under the concept of"nuisance" according to Section 415 of the California Government Code(Title 11). This code section provision forjudicial relief through summary abatement,restraining order or injunction. Nevertheless,the definition of discomfort ' or annoyance to reasonable persons of normal sensitiveness is sometimes open to interpretation. The term nuisance has been successfully applied to the operation of machinery that increases the noise level on an adjacent property by more than five(5)decibels. This criterion is most often applied to air conditioners,pool ' pumps orsimilaF mechanical equipment. It could also apply to construction equipment or vehicles not operating on a public street. Construction activity(and its resulting noise)is most typically restricted from 7 p.m.to 7 a.m. every day, and all day on Sundays and public holidays. If it is in the public interest to work nights or weekends, or if the project is an emergency, these limits can be waived. RORIPAUGH RANCH SPECIFIC PLAN ' 2NO REVISED DRAFT EIR-APRIL 1,2002 3-149 ' ASHBY USA,LLC FIGURE 3.10-1 Cl) p b d dBA U) 145 (DU)_ 3 ' PHYSICALLY PAINFUL 140 Sonic Boom .O g EXTREMELY LOUD 135 z 130 125 Jet Takeoff at 200' g DISCONFORTING 120 Oxygen Torch V �Q8 115 Discotheque 110 Construction Noise at 3 Meters 105 Power Mower at 3' VERY LOUD 100 Newspaper Press,Subway Train 95 Freight Train at 50' 90 Food Blender 85 Electric Mixer,Alarm Clock 80 Heavy Truck at 50',Average Factory 75 Busy Street Traffic at 50' 70 .,.,..; Average Traffic at 100',Vacuum Cleaner at 10' �::: LOUD ;:: 65 ;;. Electric Typewriter at 10' 60 Dishwasher at 10',Air Conditioning Unit at 15' 55 ;:. Normal Conversationat 5' ' QUIET 50 ': Typical Daytime Suburban Background, Quiet Office 45 Refrigerator at 10' ' 40 Bird Calls 35 :::....: Library VERY QUIET 30 Soft Whisper at 5 Meters ' 25 20 Motion Picture Studio ' 15 BARELY AUDIBLE 10 ;;. Leaves Rustling 5 ' THRESHOLD OF HEARING 0 The Keith Com penins . ITKC N O T T O 5 C A L E Ronpaugh Ranch t ' ASHBYUSA,LLC FIGURE 3.10-2 Land Uses CNEL or Ldn Value(dbA) Q ' 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 Residential Land Uses:Single and Multiple Family Dwellings,Group Quarters,Mobilehomes O 0 o - w n � Transient Lodging:Hotels,Motels U �5 School Classrooms,Libraries,Churches,Hospitals, tip Nursing Homes,etc. H C: fi$$ ' Z Recreational Land Uses:Golf Courses,Open Space ' rf�t Areas with walking,bicycling or horseback riding trails, ICU $¢ water base recreationareas where motorized boats .J ' and jet-skiis are prohibited. Office Buildings,Personal,Business,and Professional Services ' Auditoriums,Concert Halls,Amphitheater,Music Shells(maybe noise sensitive or noise producer) Sports Arenas,Outdoor Spectator Sports J v Recreational Land Uses:Playgrounds,Neighborhood dBall Parks,Motorcycle Parks,and Water-based kp Recreation Areas where motorized boats and jet-skiis o are permitted. Z Commercial Land Uses:Retail Trade,Movie Theaters, Restaurants,Bars, Entertainment-Related Commercial Activities,Services. Commercial Land Uses:Wholesale, Industrial/Manufacturing,Transportation,Communications and Utilities. ' NORMALLY ACCEPTABLE GENERALLY UNACCEPTABLE With no special noise reduction requirements New construction is discouraged.If new construction assuming standard construction.(Category A) or development does proceed,a detailed analysis of the noise reduction requirements must be made ' CONDITIONALLY ACCEPTABLE and needed noise insulation features included New construction or develop- ment should be in the design.(Catergory C) undertaken only atter a detailed analysis of the noise reduction requirement is made and ® NORMALLY UNACCEPTABLE needed noise insulation features included New construction or development should generally in the design.(Category B) not be undertaken.(Category D) 1 ® The Keith ComPenies111rKv N 0 T r 0 S C A L r Ronpangl1 ` Ranch 3.10 NOISE ' Table 3.10-1 Ambient Noise Levels (dsA) ' Noise Parameter Silverhawk Nicolas Road LEQ (average) 52.4 41.6 Lmax 64.5 45.5 ' Lmin 40.0 39.0 L10 (10 percent level) 57.5 43.5 ' L50 (50 percent level) 49.0 41.0 L90 (90 percent level) 41.0 39.5 ' Source: Giroux 1998 Table 3.10-2 Future Community Noise Levels* ' Roadway** Existing Future Interstate 15 74.4 - 75.3 77.5 - 80.0 Winchester Road 62.7 - 72.4 62.7 - 76.7 Nicolas Road 53.2 - 53.2 63.0 - 64-1 Margarita Road 46.6 - 59.5 61.1 - 67.6 Rancho California Road 57.5 - 65.7 59.4 - 71.0 Ynez Road 52.5 - 64.9 60.2 - 70.7 La Serena Way 52-6 - 54.9 56.8 - 60.9 Source: from Tables 8-2 and 8-3 of Temecula Noise Element * CNEL range at 100 feet from the centerline of streets near the proposed project ** at 150 feet from centerline RORIPAUGH RANCH SPECIFIC PLAN ' 2ND REVISED DRAFT EIR-APRIL 1,2002 3-152 ' 3.10 NOISE ' g) French Valley Airport The Plateau portion of the project site is within 2 miles of the French Valley Airport. Therefore,the proposed project is subject to review and comment by the County's Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC). The airport's Master Plan discourages residential and public assembly uses(i.e.,schools,parks)within the 2-mile zone. While the ALUC does not have any permitting authority over the City of Temecula,the City is required to take ALUC's recommendations into account when making land use decisions on projects within an airport's authority (K. Downs, personal communication, November 2001). The ALUC indicated the Plateau area was under one the airport's flight tracks,and additional noise analysis needed to be provided in the document. In accordance with ALUC's request, Giroux and Associates, the project noise consultant, prepared a "single event" and "time above" scenarios to determine if the project ' would experience any significant noise impacts from aircraft overflights. A copy of the Giroux materials is included in Appendix H-Noise. The Giroux analysis concluded that there would be no significant noise impact to residents in the Plateau area as long as homes had double paned windows. The project is required to be ' formally submitted to ALUC for review and comment. In response to ALUC concerns,the proposed elementary school and neighborhood park were moved out of the Plateau area. The ALUC also requested specific construction techniques to help reduce interior noise levels to within acceptable limits. With these changes,the current project will not create si0ificant noise impacts relative to the French Valley Airport. ' h) Comments on Previous DEIRs On June 9, 1999,the Riverside County Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC)sent a comment letter about ' safety and noise impacts related to the French Valley Airport (FVA) and the French Valley Airport Comprehensive Land Use Plan(CLUP). According to ALUC, the Plateau portion of the Rodpaugh Ranch site is within 2 miles of the airport, which requires acknowledgment in the FIR and new buyer/resident ' notification relative to avigation easements. ALUC was concerned-when the previous land plans proposed m an'eleentary school and neighborhood park which would be impacted by aircraft noise and (potential) accidents. For additional information on aircraft safety, see Section 3.9 on Hazards. A map of the FVA ' Master Plan is provided in Figure 3.10-4. 3.10.2 Criteria for Determining Significance ' The City has notestablished local CEQA significance thresholds,however,potentially significant noise impacts may occur if a projectcauses:a)an increase in existing noise levels;b)exposes people to severe noise levels; or c)exposes people to excessive vibration (CEQA Guidelines, Appendix I). Noise impacts may also be considered significant if they: a)cause noise standards to be exceeded where they are currently met; or b) cause a measurable further degradation of an already excessively noisy environment. r RORIPAUGH RANCH SPECIFIC PLAN ' 2N°REVISED DRAFT FIR-APRIL 1,2002 3-153 ' 3.10 NOISE 3.10.3 Level of Impact Before Mitigation A complete noise study for the previous project was conducted by Hans Giroux and Associates in the spring ' of 1999 which was updated in 2001 to evaluate the current project. Two characteristic noise sources are typically identified with land use intensification such as that proposed for ' the Roripaugh Ranch. Construction activities, especially heavy equipment, will create short-term noise increases near the project site. Such impacts may be important for nearby noise-sensitive receptors such as already completed residential uses. A copy of the project noise study is included in Appendix G- ' As the site is developed,project-related traffic will cause an incremental increase in area-wide noise levels throughout the northeast Temecula area. Traffic noise impacts are generally analyzed both to insure that the ' prol.ectnotadverselyimpacttheacousticenvironmentofthesurroundingcommunity,aswellastoinsurethat the project site is not exposed to an unacceptable level of noise resulting from the ambient noise environment. ' a) Construction Noise Impacts Temporary construction noise impacts vary markedly because the noise strength of construction equipment ' ranges widely as a function of the equipment used and its activity level. Short-term construction noise impacts tend to occurin discrete phases dominated initially by earth-moving sources,then by foundation and parking area construction,and finally for finish construction. Figure 3.10-3 shows the typical range of construction activity noise generation as a function of equipment used in various building phases. Earth-moving equipment will be the loudest equipment with noise ranging up to about 90 dB(A)at 50 feet from the source. Measurements have shown,however, that the noise emission levels in Figure 3.10-3 tend to be more associated with periodic events under full load rather than chronic (hourly or longer)noise exposure. Short term noise generation thus tends to be on the higher end of the ranges shown in Figure 3.10-3, while ' longer term exposure is at the quieter end of the noise spectrum. Actual noise measurements from a typical construction site are also shown in Table 3.10-3. ' Noise emissions from point sources are attenuated by a factor of 6 dB per doubling of distance,or about 20 dB in 500 feet of propagation. The loudest earth-moving noise sources will therefore sometimes be temporarily detectable above the local background beyond 1,000 feet from any individual construction area. Fortunately, ' the general area is largely undeveloped and there are few adjacent uses(i.e.,residences)that will be affected by construction noise. In addition,the topography of the site will further limit offsite noise impacts,especially to residences along Calle Contento since there is an intervening ridge between the project site and this existing ' residential area. Construction noise sources are difficult to relate to a noise standard because they occuronly during selected ' times and the source strength varies sharply with time. The penalty associated with noise disturbance during quiet hours and the nuisance factor accompanying such disturbance usually leads to time limits on grading activities imposed as conditions on grading permits. The hours from 7 a.m. to 7 p.m. on weekdays are the times normally allowed for construction activities except in an emergency. These time limits are usually set as conditions on the project grading and building permits. RORIPAUGH RANCH SPECIFIC PLAN ' 2NO REVISED DRAFT EIR-APRIL 1,2002 3-154 ASHBYUSA,LLC FIGURE 3.10-3 ' � n ' e Noise Level (dBA) at 50 feet 0 ' 60 70 80 90 100 110 (_n Front Loader ' z " 0 Dozer E s o Dragline Qm m Backfiller w w C Scraper/Grader 0 U Trucks i a-U) c' Concrete Mixers C ica _� _w Concrete Pumps Motor Crane "Q Pumps c Generators 1 � Compressors ' Source: EPA, 1971:"Noise from Construction Equipment and Operation, Building Equipment, and Home Appliances". NTID300.1 ® The Keith G.mpenieslmjrKC . 0_ T 0 _ Roripaugh Ranch 1 ' 3.10 NOISE Construction noise impacts will generally occur in the immediate project vicinity. However,truck traffic on local streets may temporarily increase local noise levels away from the project site,however,the amount of ' traffic will be minimal (i.e., ten trips per hour in a worst case scenario). This incremental traffic increase should not generate significant noise levels. ' Table 3.10-3 Estimated Noise Levels for Earth-Moving Equipment Distance(feet) Sound Level in dB(A) ' 50 78 100 72 ' 200 66 250 64 320 62 ' 400 60 500 58 640 56 800 54 Source: Giroux and Associates 2002 1 1 RORIPAUGH RANCH SPECIFIC PLAN ' 2N°REVISED DRAFT EIR-APRIL 1,2002 3-156 ' 3.10 NOISE b) Long-Term Impacts Development of the project site will produce incremental long-term noise impacts,in addition to cumulative ' noise impacts that will result from increased urbanization of the Temecula area. The majority of noise increases will be due to mobile sources (i.e. vehicles)on area roadways. The project noise study projected and analyzed future noise impacts from the project using a widely accepted roadway noise prediction computer ' model developed by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). The traffic report used the California specific vehicle noise curves(CALV ENO)in the FHWA Highway Traffic Noise Prediction Model(FHWA- RD-77-108). The model calculates the LEQ noise level for a particular reference set of input conditions,and ' then makes a series of adjustments for site-specific traffic volumes,distances,speeds,or noise barriers. Table 3.10-4 summarizes the 24-hour CNEL level at 100 feet from the roadway edge along area roads for existing, opening year, and build-out (after year 2015) both without and with the project. Research shows that typical suburban development noise levels,which includes natural and man-made noise attenuation features(e.g.,landscaping,vegetated surfaces, slight terrain irregularity,etc.),drop off at a rate of 4.5 dB per doubling of distance. Table 3.10-5 shows the calculated distance of the 65 dB CNEL contour from the roadway centerline using this drop-off assumption. The distances in Table 3.10-5 are the setbacks that would be needed to achieve an acceptable(65 dB CNEL)exposure for noise-sensitive land uses if walls or other barriers were not used to accelerate the noise drop-off rate. In areas where intervening structures or other barriers are or will be situated, the theoretical maximum distances of the 65 dB CNEL contours shown in Table 3.10-5 are likely overestimated. Distances up to 300 feet for the 65 dB CNEL contour distance will probably not be observed along area roadways because intervening development will shorten the distance of potential excessive noise exposure. Such predicted levels, however,should not be surprising in that predicted future traffic volumes of over 75,000 vehicles per day on area arterial roadways clearly will have significant noise implications relative to being able to sight noise- sensitive land Uses in proximity to such roadways. ' The high future traffic noise environment in the project vicinity is almost exclusively due to cumulative growth. Table 3.10-5 compares the noise level changes attributable to area build-out without the project versus the increment attributable to the proposed project. Maximum noise level increases from no-project to build-out are 21.2 dB, while the maximum project traffic-related noise impact is 1.7 dB CNEL along Murrieta Hot Springs Road between Pourroy and Butterfield Stage Road. As a general planning guide, noise level differences of less than 1 dB are not perceptible,and 3 dB is the commonly accepted threshold for people to ' perceive that noise levels have measurably changed. Although the individual project noise impact is below the generally accepted significance threshold, cumulative noise impacts are well in excess of these thresholds. ' Along the perimeter of the proposed project,Table 3.10-5 shows that the 65 dB contour as a desired residential setback (without block walls or other attenuation features) is 220 feet from the Butterfield Stage Road centerline. At 50 feet from the centerline, the noise level will be 74.6 dB CNEL. These noise levels are ' typical for suburban development,and is typically attenuated by the installation of a perimeter block wall. Such a wall usually provides about I dB of attenuation per foot of wall height once the wall interrupts the line of sight from the source to the receiver. RORIPAUGH RANCH SPECIFIC PLAN ' 2mO REVISED DRAFT EIR-APRIL 1,2002 3-157 3.10 NOISE ' Table 3.10-4 Traffic Noise Impact Analysis (CNEL in dB at 100 Feet from Centerline) ' Opening Year(2003) Build-out(+2015) ' With Without With Roadway/Segment Existing No Project Project Project Project ' Murrieta Hol Springs Road West of 1-215 Freeway 65.5 66.1 66.2 71.6 71.7 1-215 to Via Princesa(W) 67.5 68.1 68.2 71.6 71.8 Via Princesa(W)- Margarita 65.2 65.8 65.9 69.7 70.1 Margarita- Via Princesa(E) 65.2 65.8 65.9 69.3 69.7 Via Princesa(E)-Winchester Road 62.5 63.1 63.5 68.6 69.2 East of Winchester Road 57.4 58.1 58.2 69.4 70.0 ' West of Leon(N) -- 67.4 68.4 Leon(N)to Leon(S) 68.2 68.6 Leon(S)-Pourroy Road -- -- -- 67.1 68.6 ' Pourroy Road-Butterfield Stage Road -- -- -- 66.8 68.5 Nicolas Road East of Winchester Road 63.2 63.8 64.5 67.6 68.1 ' West of Leon 60.8 61.4 == 65.8 66.7 Leon-Calle Girasol 65.1 66.1 Calle Girasol-Butterfield Stage Road -- -- -- 63.4 64.7 La Serena Way East of Margarita 61.9 625 62.5 64.1 64.5 Walcott-Butterfield Stage Road 61.2 61.8 61.8 62.2 63.0 East of Butterfield Stage Road -- -- -- 59.0 59.0 Rancho California Road Southwest of 1-215 Freeway 68.8 69.4 69.4 69.5 69.6 1-215 to Ynez Road 70.4 71.0 71.0 71.5 71.6 Nonheast of Ynez Road 68.8 69.3 69.4 69.3 69.5 West of Margarita Road 67.0 67.6 67.7 68.7 68.9 Margarita-Meadows 66.2 66.8 66.8 67.6 67.9 Meadows-Butterfield Stage Road 637 64.3 64.5 63.9 64.7 Butterfield Stage Road-La Serena Way 61.9 62.5 62.8 63.9 64.0 ' La Serena-C.Contemn 61.7 62.3 62.3 62.2 62.3 Northeast of Calle Contento 61.3 61.9 6L9 1 62.1 62.3 Winchester Road ' Southwest of Jefferson 67.4 68.0 68.0 67.4 67.7 Jefferson- 1-215 Freeway 68.9 67.8 69.4 70.6 70.7 1-215 to Ynez Road 69.1 69.7 69.8 71.7 71.8 ' Ynez Road to Margarita Road 67.1 -- 67.8 71.2 71.4 Margarita Road-Nicolas Road 66.0 66.5 66.7 71.9 72.2 Nicolas Road to Murrieta Hot Springs Road 65.3 65.9 66.2 71.7 71.7 North of Murrieta Hot Springs Road 1 65.3 1 65.9 1 65.9 1 70.1 70.2 RORIPAUGH RANCH SPECIFIC PLAN ' 2NO REVISED DRAFT EIR-APRIL 1,2002 3-158 ' 3.10 NOISE ' Table 3.10-4 (Continued) ' Opening Year(2003) Build-out(+2015) With Without With Roadway/Segment Existing No Project Project Project Project ' Ynez Road North of Winchester Road 63.6 64.1 64.2 69.4 69.4 ' South of Winchester Road 67.9 68.4 68.4 70.6 70.7 North of Rancho California Road 67.8 68.4 68.4 70.6 70.0 South of Rancho California Road 66.2 66.7 66.7 69.9 69.9 ' Margarita Road South of Murrieta Hot Springs Road 63.0 63.6 63.6 65.1 65.2 North of Winchester Road 63.4 63.9 64.0 66.5 66.6 ' South of Winchester Road 64.2 -- 64.8 69.2 69.2 West of La Serena Way 64.3 64.9 64.9 67.9 68.1 La Serena-Rancho California Road 65.6 66.2 66.2 66.8 66.8 South of Rancho California Road 66.2 66.7 66.7 66.8 66.8 Leon Road North of Murrieta Hot Springs Road -- -- -- 59.0 60.6 ' South of Murrieta Hot Springs Road -- -- - 60.8 60.9 Calle Girasol South of Nicolas Road -- -- -- 60.8 61.3 Pourroy Road North of Murrieta Hot Springs Road -- -- -- 63.1 64.1 Calle Chapos - -- West of Butterfield Stage Road 59.2 59.8 Walcott Lane -- -- North of La Serena Way 60.4 60.4 Meadows Parkway North of Rancho California Road 53.7 54.1 54.1 59.3 59.3 South of Rancho California Road 58.7 59.3 593 65.3 65.4 Butterfield Stage Road North of Murrieta Hot Springs Road - -_ _= 68.4 68.9 Murrieta Hot Springs Road- Nicolas Road 68.9 70.1 Nicolas Road-Calle Chapos -- -- 55.6 68.1 69.1 ' Calle Chapos-La Serena -- -- -- 68.3 69.1 La Serena-Rancho California Road 46.3 46.3 53.3 67.5 68.3 South of Rancho California Road 57.4 58.1 58.2 67.2 67.7 ' Calle Contento North of Rancho California Road 46.3 46.3 46.3 55.1 55.1 South of Rancho California Road 51.8 52.3 52.3 57.4 57.4 Source:Table 1 from Giroux and Associates,2002. RORIPAUGH RANCH SPECIFIC PLAN ' 2N0 REVISED DRAFT EIR-APRIL 1,2002 3-159 3.10 NOISE ' Table 3.10-5 Traffic Noise Impact Analysis ' (Distance in Feet of 65 CNEL from Centerline) ' Opening Year(2003) Build-out(+2015) With Without With Roadway/Segment Existing No Project Project Project Project ' Murrieta flat Springs Road West of 1-215 Freeway 110 120 120 275 280 1-215 to Via Princesa(W) 145 160 165 275 285 Via Princesa(W)-Margarita 105 115 115 205 220 Margarita-Via Princesa(E) 105 115 115 195 205 Via Princesa(E)-Winchester Road 70 75 80 175 190 ' East of Winchester Road <50 <50 <50 195 215 West of Leon(N) 145 170 Leon(N)to Leon(S) -- -- -- 160 175 ' Leon(S)-Pounoy Road =_ -- - 140 170 Pounoy Rd.-Butterfield Stage Road 130 170 Nicolas Road ' East of Winchester Road 75 85 90 150 160 West of Leon 50 55 115 130 Leon-Calle Girasol -- -- -- 100 120 Calle Girasol -Butterfield Stage Road -- -- -- 80 95 La Serena Way East of Margarita 60 70 70 85 95 Walcott-Butterfield Stage Road 55 60 60 65 70 East of Butterfield Stage Road <50 <50 Rancho California Road Southwest of 1-215 Freeway 180 195 195 200 200 1-215 to Ynez Road 230 250 250 270 275 Northeast of Ynez Road 180 195 195 195 200 West of Margarita Road 135 150 150 175 180 Margarita-Meadows 120 130 130 150 155 Meadows-Butterfield Stage Road 80 90 90 85 95 ' Butterfield Stage Road-La Serena Way 60 70 70 85 85 La Serena-C.Contento 60 65 65 65 65 Northeast of Calle Contento 55 60 60 65 65 ' Winchester Road Southwest of Jefferson 145 160 160 145 150 Jefferson -1-215 180 155 200 235 240 ' 1-215- Yncz 190 205 210 280 280 Ynez Road to Margarita Road 135 155 255 265 Margarita Road-Nicolas Road 115 125 130 290 300 Nicolas Road to Murrieta Ilot Springs Road 105 115 120 280 280 North of Murrieta Hot Springs Road 105 115 115 220 220 RORIPAUGH RANCH SPECIFIC PLAN 2NO REVISED DRAFT EIR-APRIL 1,2002 3-160 ' 3.10 NOISE ' Table 3.10-5 (Continued) ' Opening Year(2003) Build-out(+2015) with Without with Roadway/Segment Existing No Project Project Project Project Ynez Road North of Winchester Road 80 85 90 195 200 South of Winchester Road 155 170 170 235 240 North of Rancho California Road 155 170 170 215 215 South of Rancho California Road 120 130 130 210 210 ' Margarita Road South of Murrieta Hot Springs Road 75 80 80 100 105 North of Winchester Road 80 85 85 125 125 ' South of Winchester Road 90 -- 95 190 190 West of La Serena Way 90 too loo 155 160 La Serena-Rancho California Road 110 120 120 130 130 ' South of Rancho California Road 120 130 130 130 130 Leon Road North of Murrieta Hot Springs Road — -- -- <50 50 ' South of Murrieta Hot Springs Road -- -- -- 50 55 Calle Girasol South of Nicolas Road -- -- -- 50 55 ' Pourroy Road North of Murrieta Hot Springs Road -- -- -- 75 85 Calle Chapos - West of Butterfield Stage Road <50 <50 Walcott Lane North of La Serena Way 50 50 Meadows Parkway North of Rancho California Road <50 <50 <50 <50 <50 South of Rancho California Road <50 <50 <50 105 105 Butterfield Stage Road North of Murrieta Hot Springs Road 170 180 Murrieta Hot Springs Road-Nicolas Road -- -- -- 180 220 Nicolas Road-Calle Chapos -- -- <50 160 185 ' Calle Chapos-La Serena -- -- -- 165 190 La Serena-Rancho California Road <50 <50 <50 145 165 South of Rancho California Road <50 <50 <50 140 150 ' Calle Contento North of Rancho California Road <50 <50 <50 <50 <50 South of Rancho California Road <50 <50 <50 <50 <50 ' Source: Table 2 from Giroux and Associates, 2002. HORIPAUGH RANCH SPECIFIC PLAN ' 2 N REVISED DRAFT EIR-APRIL 1,2002 3-161 3.10 NOISE As traffic disperses within the project site,noise levels will decrease. As volumes decrease and speeds drop within residential communities,the need for perimeter noise protection will also decrease. Fora travel speed of 40 mph,the 65 dB CNEL contour distances decreases to less than 50 feet from the centerline when daily traffic volumes drop to less than 7,000 ADT. Streets with less than this threshold volume likely will not require noise protection,or alternately,will offer the opportunity to have the homes front the street instead of having a rear yard exposure to the roadway. ' The threshold level for evaluation of noise protection requirements is 60 dB CNEL. This level occurs at 50 feet from the roadway centerline when daily traffic volumes exceed 2,000 ADT. Any future roadway that has abutting noise-sensitive(homes,schools,parks,religious institutions)uses and is forecast to carry over 2,000 vehicles thus will require a noise abatement study at the tract map level for future project construction. As noted above,however,the triggering level for actual noise mitigation likely will not be reached until a 7,000 ADT daily traffic level. The EIR noise analysis indicates that the northern boundary of the neighborhood park(Planning Area 6)is not within the 70 dB limit,but the 70 dB limit is approximately 45 feet within the western boundary of the sports park (Planning Area 27). This noise impact should be attenuated with berms rather than block walls to maintain views of the park from Butterfield Stage Road. ' c) Significance Conclusion It should be noted that these figures are based on a buildout of 2,058 units. Therefore,project-related noise will not be significant. d) Offsite Improvements Construction of offsite roads and utility improvements along Nicolas Road, Butterfield Stage Road, Calle ' Chapos,and the Calle Girasol/Nicolas Road intersection will incrementally increase ambient noise levels,but these will not be raised significantly above those levels already identified in this EIR(see Section 3.10.2). As long as noise mitigation measures are applied to offsite construction, there should be no significant noise impacts from these projects. e) Project Noise Impacts and Potential Mitigation The project noise impact study concludes that off-site noise impacts will be individually less than significant, but cumulatively significant. Offsite impact mitigation is generally not feasible because the cumulative impact ' is incrementally due to many planned developments. Over the long-term,noise-sensitive land uses typically incorporate their own noise protection(e.g.,schools install block walls,double-glazed windows,or air condition classrooms so windows can be kept closed). In addition, less sensitive land uses are often allowed to be ' located and used as a buffer between roadways and sensitive receivers. 1 RORIPAUGH RANCH SPECIFIC PLAN ' 2"D REVISED DRAFT EIR-APRIL 1,2002 3-162 m N D m N N N Z ♦ \ ♦'ll rF y\`I �'��\ r,�\ �• \ � ' a. 1 I ^v/1YdT.R1�V�1l. aa� 1♦♦ �i .. :LF� \\` I, rl,. � 1 ,I'1L 05Ml T ti, 7 p i' \ ♦ 1 i. 1 981Q1i 17NCI�I i a N W G N N C ������ .rl 87 ' 3 `� N 7 •N.,1., k� C 'p�J 3QICU3Nltl ; o m N � o (7 m \♦ \♦ (� ' L 1 CL p t N j J \ . p CD 11i ♦�♦ 1 1 �r \ ;.. -n mova1 f1 ( iM17Ald•-- '•� — N bv.Af,.w , s \ a2 Ill u1�1 / T TQ --1m - _._ .•� ILL ` (L L �\ C) '.-1, . ►r C C C K — \ 1 FL 1 m ♦ .^ a � el � A fD fD n O r 1 '' • \ t CM, a f Dam a pCD m m M. (A 3OI —'rrT4dT7 m ....vl V V N 2. 3 7 1 t . . m CD CL CD N 42 CD �' / ! - ''• r� l v3HV ODN31111NI iMo4vly-L 119N1i3 ti French Valley Airport Planning ) reas ftft8 :WOW02 8:18:18 MA By:T_BM°ER BWO:N:111382.00Ddwy14y01-02�EIRiI."104.0n 3.10 NOISE 3.10.4 Standard Conditions and Uniform Codes ' Significant noise impacts might occur if the project were to exceed local noise standards or regulations. The City will continue to regulate nuisance noise during all phases of construction and operation of the project. The City will review advisory comments from the County Airport Land Use Commission before making a decision ' on the project. 3.10.5 Project Design Features The conceptual walls and fences master plan in the Specific Plan indicates that block walls("theme"walls) will be located along the south side of Murrieta Hot Springs Road in the Plateau area,along the south side of the neighborhood park(Planning Area 6),the north and west sides of the medium density housing in Planning Area 12,the north side of the low density housing in Planning Area 3313, and around all of the low density housing in Planning Area 33A. A copy of the conceptual walls and fence master plan is included in this document as Figure 3.13-3 in the section on aesthetics. This masterplan also identifies theme walls along both sides of North Loop Road and South Loop Road, although view fences may also be used in these areas if detailed noise studies prepared for the tentative maps show that noise levels along these roads will be below ' City standards. In response to concerns by the Airport Land Use Commission,the elementary school and park were moved out of the Plateau area, beyond the planning boundary of the French Valley Airport. ' 3.10.6 Mitigation Measures The following measures are recommended to minimize short-term for both onsite construction as well as offsite improvements: (1) Prior to the issuance of a grading permit,the developer shall prepare and file a Noise Control Plan ' (NCP)with the City Public Works Department. The NCP will commit the developerto the following measures. Failure of the developer to abide by these restrictions will be grounds for suspension of building permits,regardless of phase,to the satisfaction of the Community Development Department. t (a) All construction and general maintenance activities,except in an emergency,shall be limited to the hours of 7 a.m. to 7 p.m. Monday through Friday. ' (b) All construction equipment shall use properly operating mufflers,and no combustion equipment such as pumps or generators shall be allowed to operate within 500 feet of any occupied residence from 7 p.m. to 7 a.m. unless the equipment is surrounded by a noise protection barrier. (c) All construction staging shall be performed as far as possible from occupied dwellings. The location of staging areas will be subject to review and approval by the City prior to the issuance of grading and/or building permits. ' (2) Prior to map approval,a noise mitigation analysis shall be performed for single family residences within 200 feet of the edge of fight-of-way,-Murrieta Hot Springs Road,Butterfield Stage Road,the North and South Loop Roads, or for any other noise-sensitive uses on the project site potentially exposed to exterior noise levels in excess of 60 dB CNEL. The analysis must demonstrate that RORIPAUGH RANCH SPECIFIC PLAN ' 2NO REVISED DRAFT EIR-APRIL 1,2002 3-164 ' 3.10 Nom planned noise protection will meet City standards, to the satisfaction of the City Community Development Department. ' (3) Priorto mapapproval,the developer shall prepare a noise mitigation analysis forall non-residential uses within 100 feet of the edge of right-of-way for Murrieta Hot Springs Road or Butterfield Stage Road(e.g., Planning Area 11),or for any other noise-sensitive uses on the project site potentially ' exposed to exterior noise exceeding 70 dB CNEL. The analysis must demonstrate that planned noise protection will meet City standards, to the satisfaction of the City Community Development Department. (4) Prior to approval of the final park design, the developer shall document that outdoor recreational areas are designed to have exterior noise levels of less than 70 dB CNEL,to the satisfaction of the City Community Development and Development Services Departments. Noise attenuation along Butterfield Stage Road for the sports park should be in the form of berms rather than walls. ' (5) Prior to tentative map approval, the developer shall document that interior living areas have noise levels less than 45 dB CNEL, to the satisfaction of the City Planning Department. ' Mitigation Measures under Land Use and Planning(Section 3.1.6)address potential noise impacts related to operations at the French Valley Airport. In addition,the following measure is recommended to further reduce potential noise impacts from aircraft ' (6) Prior to the issuance of building permits for homes in Planning Areas I -413, the developer shall demonstrate to the City Planning Department that the homes will have double-paned windows with ' at least a 25 STC rating installed to reduce noise from occasional aircraft overflights from French Valley Airport. (7) Prior to the issuance of occupancy permits in each Planning Area,the developer shall demonstrate to the City Planning Department that written information is available and being provided to prospective residents in Planning Areas 1-4 on avigation easements, height restrictions, and occasional overflights (noise and hazards), 3.10.7 Impact of Mitigation Measures ' Implementation of the proposed mitigation measures will produce no significant impacts. ' 3.10.8 Summary of Impacts After Mitigation With implementation of standard conditions,uniform codes,and proposed mitigation measures,the project will not have significant noise impacts. However,cumulative noise impacts are considered significant over the long-term. RORIPAUGH RANCH SPECIFIC PLAN ' 2rvO REVISED DRAFT EIR-APRIL 1,2002 3-165 ' 3.11 PUBLIC SERVICES This section addresses fire protection,police protection,schools,recreation,library,medical services,roads, and general government. ' 3.11.1 Fire Protection ' a) Environmental Setting Community-wide fire protection ratings are provided by the Insurance Service Organization(ISO)based on the location of fire stations, response times,and availability of water. ISO rankings are on a scale of I to X (1-10)with I (or one)being the best protection and X (or ten)being the worst or no protection. The current ISO rating for the project area is IV(or four)which is relatively high considering the lack of development in the immediate area. The Riverside County Fire Department(RCFD)serves the sphere area of the City of Temecula,including the ' Valley portion of the site. The City of Temecula Fire Department serves the Plateau portion of the site,which is within the City of Temecula. The RCFD operates in cooperation with the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CDF) both of which provide fire protection services to the unincorporated areas of ' Riverside County. The RCFD provides service to the City on a contractual basis, and the City contract provides funding for 62 fire personnel. ' The local level of service is determined by the City and is set at a 5-minute response time. At present, the Roripaugh Ranch site is outside of the 5-minute response time. Even when Murrieta Hot Springs Road is extended to the project site,only the far west end of the Plateau area(i.e.,Planning Areas IA,2,and part of 3)will be within the City's standard 5 minute response time from the closest fire station. Therefore,a new fire station will be required to support development of the site. In addition,the National Fire Protection Association(NFPA)recommends a service ratio of 1.5 firefighters per 1,000 population. The Temecula area presently has a service level of 1 station per 15,000 population. The City's General Plan acknowledges that population growth in the project area will require additional fire protection personnel and/or services(Temecula 1993). Current fire emergency response to Roripaugh Ranch is approximately 4.75 to 5.25 miles (driving distance)from the closest fire station with response times to emergency calls averaging 8 minutes N.Davidson,personal communication,February 2002). The City's Fire Chief has indicated that the City currently applies a 5-minute response time for new development,but that previous developments were approved based on the older County standard of 8 minutes based on rural area service requirements(Captain McBride,City Fire Chief,personal communication,February 2002) The area ' is currently served by the fire stations, equipment, and staff shown in Table 3.11-1. b) Criteria for Determining Significance ' The City has notestablished local CEQA significance thresholds,however,potentially significant impacts to public services may occur if a project has an effect upon,or result in a need for new or altered government ' services, such as ... fire protection ... or other governmental services (CEQA Guidelines, Appendix 1). In addition,the City Fire Department requires new development to be within a 5-minute response time from the closest existing fire station (Capt. McBride, personal communication, February 2002). RORIPAUGH RANCH SPECIFIC PLAN ' 2NO REVISED DRAFT EIR-APRIL 1,2002 3-166 3.11 PUBLIC SERVICES ' Table 3.11-1 Fire Protection Services ' Station/Location Equipment/Staffing* Station#73 One engine (1,000 gpm) 3 27415 Enterprise Circle West in personnel Temecula approximately 5.0 miles One aerial ladder truck(1,750 gpm) 4 personnel southwest of the project site Seven (7) full-time firefighters ' Station #12 One Type I fire engine (1,000 gpm) 3 personnel 28330 Mercedes in Temecula One Type 111 CDF Wildland Engine 3 personnel 5.5 miles south-southwest of the project site Nine (9)full-time firefighters Station #84 One engine (1,000 gpm) 3 personnel ' 30650 Pauba Road in Temecula One medic squad 2 medics approximately 4.0 miles southwest of One volunteer reserve engine (1,000 gpm) the project site One volunteer breathing squad unit (light rescue and air support) Station #83 One fire engine (1,000 gpm) 3 next to Airport, east of SR-79 and personnel Borel about 2.0 miles northwest of the project site Three (3) full-time firefighters ' Station #92 One engine (1,000 gpm) 3 Overland Trail near Redhawk Drive, personnel ' about 5 miles south of the project site. Three (3) full-time firefighters Source:P.Albannese,personal communication,April 1998; N. Davidson,personal communication,May 2001 * all stations are staffed full-time ' c) Level of Impact Before Mitigation Utilizing the City Fire Department's planning criteria of 1.5 paid firefighters per 1,000 population,the project ' would require additional equipment,facilities,and approximately 9 additional firefighters for the anticipated 5,865 project-generated population to continue providing adequate fire protection. According to the City of Temecula General Plan,current contract personnel provide adequate levels of service to the City. However, ' Roripaugh Ranch will adversely impact the fire department and the service currently being provided to the area. These impacts are due to the increase in population and the associated increased number of emergency and/or public service calls,especially calls from outside the 5-minute response zone. In March of 2001,the Temecula Fire Department indicated that only Planning Areas IA,2,and the western portion of 3 are within RORIPAUGH RANCH SPECIFIC PLAN ' 2N0 REVISED DRAFT EIR-APRIL 1,2002 3-167 3.11 PUBLIC SERVICES the Department's 5-minute response time. Without a new fire station in the immediate area, this impact is considered potentially significant, if the project proceeds. ' Norm Davidson, with the Temecula Fire Prevention Bureau (part of the fire department), has indicated the Fire Department does not want Calle Contento closed to through traffic since it would limit quick access into the wine country area from the project area. However,he indicated at a minimum the Fire Department would ' want a "knox" box or similar restricted access devise on any gate in this area. A large portion of the project is located within it Hazardous Fire Area, and will require special mitigation measures. Chapter 15 of the Temecula Municipal Code requires that a Fire Fuel Modification Zone(FMZ) be maintained along residential edges at natural open space areas in order to reduce potential impacts from fires in the nearby natural open space,as well as to help reduce the potential forfires within developed areas ' from spreading to the natural open space. General FMZ width requirements are 40 feet clear on flat ground but up to 100 feet for slopes. ' d) Standard Conditions and Uniform Codes On an ongoing basis,a conservation organization retained by the County as part of the AD 161 SHCP will maintain a Fire Fuel Modification Zone along the boundaries of Planning Areas 8,9A, 913, and 13 between residential development and natural open space areas. ' Prior to map approval, the project will meet the following standard conditions of approval for fire impacts including; 1)paying the fire mitigation component of the City's Development Impact Fee(DIF)program;2) inhabited structures adjacent to the Fuel Modification Zone will be equipped with fire suppression sprinkler ' systems,walls,or landscaped setbacks;3) water mains and fire hydrants provide required fire flows and shall be constructed in accordance with the appropriate City guidelines; 4) the developer will prepare a Fuel Modification Plan for Hazardous Fire Areas, subject to approval of the Temecula Fire Department during ' design review;5)a Fire Fuel Modification Zone will be created along the boundaries of residential development and natural open space areas; and 6) compliance with fire flow, street width, and design requirements. 1 e) Project Design Features The new project proposes a new 2.0-acre fire station site at the corner of Butterfield Stage Road and Calle ' Chapos.Until the new station is built,the developer will provide a temporary fire station site in the western parcel of Planning Area 10,just north of Murrieta Hot Springs Road.The temporary station will be required if the developer chooses to build outside of Planning Area I (the current 5-minute response time limit)prior ' to completion of the permanent fire station. The developer has already discussed and reached tentative agreement on these two fire station sites with the City Fire Department. ' The commercial facilities will have fire sprinkler systems and personnel to assist with onsite security to further reduce the need for fire and police services. The gates at Calle Contento will be equipped with"Knox"boxes to allow emergency personnel access during emergencies. Figure 3.1 1-1 shows the proposed location of the ' Fuel Modification Zone(FMZ),while Figure 3.11-2 shows a cross-section or elevation view of the FMZ. In addition,Figure 3.11-3 shows the master plan for recreation(parks),open space,and trails for the proposed project. RORIPAUGH RANCH SPECIFIC PLAN 2"D REVISED DRAFT EIR-APRIL 1,2002 3-168 ' ASHBYUSA,LLC FIGURE 3.11-1 t C a o ' O 00 a rc }� ' — — — — — — — MWD PROPERTY� � — — — (� iac MUR•!.>i„�,r;;;;, 8 osmz isx• I 4— $ ' 1A P-Private R��q 051 10 •, LM ••�?gg.,12.5 AC /9 ' 19D AC NOT ,” �/ OS L 980DUS AC 2 3 3.BA 9DUS 2pS•• O '} O S.4 AC 8.9 1 R 4M RIN03 %' a 0 ry8 A K 6 {;.•9ngo. 5 ' zoBC 99 DU'S 99 DU•S 41AC 19.6 AC 100 DVS 1 3 4B I '� ROAD 13 :/•'• f� ••t OS2 si 7C 22 1 AC 16 179.6 AC 4� LBAC 113 DU'S NP5.1 AC AC ' O' (1.7 AC 15 4 AC NC r� b =3AC — — — — ,f/ OS3) (10.0 AC) #j I L E 12 II lr W Sf�� 3 NAP WX M2 ' 4 H 16.2 AC / ...•.... G m (15.0 AC) :> 7••;�.9/3:%isrl,.%%'. �'i.. 150 DU'S ���%�'' 17 ¢: / 11/ 33B o .. <•.. LM LM .< �..J.•f 37.5 AC If/ �'� LM 144 DU'S � 29.1 AC LEGEND I wcotas Rpgp ��� / 14 15 IsoDVs 16.71 AC 145 AC �l ! 33A o� / 174 DUC) n4 DU'S ' Fuel Modification Areas �' ; _ _1S.p�s` — "`DD•S / R6 / N Selectively Cleared and Revegetated as Natural LOOP R 29 a.o Ac 18 ' Habitat in accordance with AD161 SHCP. 1z o AC 24 a nc 27 os Dvs 19.9 AC 28 31 (1.2 AC OS2) S2 23.3 AC 20.0 AC 217 OU'S 19 L 35.9 AC 47 DVS OS2 26 24.0 AC 24 ' M1 O 13.9 MI 1 1133 MAC DVS 2 17.0 AC 25 M7 23 102 DU•S OS2 AC 6/DU'S 9.2 AC 't'Tp ' SOUTH LOOP ROAD CALLE 20 CHAPOS I L 30.8 AC L i 21 24.0 AC 3 29 DU5 5 DVS . •nvi n 4n . r vi n it .H• .P/'/:a'.NY .'f'q . 324 PI 2.0 AC (1.5 AC) 1 ® The Keith Companies lTKv 0 200 400 8001600 1?01aI Ranch ASHBYUSA,LLC FIGURE 3.11-2A p b }/ 4 L ALTERNATIVE 1 Q m, sic RCP! \,>y. .Y,S7�l'•?f.... W COMMON RESIDENTIAL ��`�e W MAINTENANCE DEVELOPMENT `• e` AREA OLU _ -TY = _ U 0 Q J WALL OR FENCE EDGE ' OPEN SPA U— UNGRADED NATURAL SLOPE LANDSCAPE AND IRRIGATED REAR YARDS ' ' ZONE 2 ( ZONE 1 20' 20' NOTE:THE TOTAL COMBINED AREA OF ZONE 1 &2 SHALL NOT BE LESS THAN 40 FEET. ' 'SELECTIVELY REMOVE HIGHLY FLAMMABLE PLANT SPECIES. SELECTIVELY THIN OUT LARGE,DENSE GROUPINGS OF PLANT MATERIALS. •REMOVE PLANT MATERIAL IN A MANNER THAT WILL PROMOTE A NATURAL APPEARANCE. •ALTERATIONS TO EXISTING PLANT MATERIALS TO BE IN COMPLIANCE WITH ' SUB-REGIONAL HABITAT CONSERVATION PLAN ' The Keith Com peniee ITKC Roripaug] Ranch N O T T 0 S O L E ' ASHBYUSA,LLC FIGURE 3.11-2B g N8� 1 No cu - z ALTERNATIVE 2 Q C O ' m t > � ' COMMON RESIDENTIAL � n MAINTENANCE DEVELOPMENT AREA W Yd y ,_ LLJ _ 1ss O a Lu ^ a i' V a � O 3 C WALL OR FENCE' _EDGE OF / Q3 OPEN SPACE / ^� U- FIRE ROAD �pEp SLOPE 0000 LANDSCAPE AND IRRIGATED REAR YARDS ZONE 2 NE 1 20' 20' NOTE: OPEN SPACE SLOPE ADJACENT TO DEVELOPMENT GRADED DURING CONSTRUCTION AND REVEGETATED WITH LOW FUEL PLANT MATERIAL PER THE REQUIREMENTS OF ADI61, SUB-REGIONAL HABITAT CONSERVATION PLAN a ® The Keith C.m,eniacl.MC N 0 T T 0 _ Roripaugh ` Ranch ' ASHBYUSA,LLC FIGURE 3.11-2C M € > � ' 4 (u L w 0 ' ; 1 3.11 PUBLIC SERVICES f) Mitigation Measures To mitigate potential impacts to other fire services, the following measures are proposed: Fire Protection ' (I) Prior to issuance of a building permit in any Planning Area other than IA,2,or 3,and completion of a permanent onsite fire station, the developer shall demonstrate that the proposed unit is within a 5- minute response time for the City Fire Department. (2) The developer shallprovide,in fee title,apermanentfire station site to the Temecula Fire Department (Planning Area 32). The station shall be operational,including all permanent utilities,prior to issuance of the 250th building permit within Planning Areas IA,2,or 3. No additional building permits shall be granted until adequate onsite fire services are available, as determined by the Temecula Fire Department. (3) Prior to the issuance of the 25 1"building permit for the project,and if a permanent fire station is not yet operational,the developer shall provide a site,construct,and fund the operation of a temporary-fire ' station. The location and other parameters of this station are up to the discretion of the Fire Chief. (4) Prior to the issuance of occupancy permits,the developer shall pay the appropriate fire component of the Development Impact Fees (DIF), to the satisfaction of the City Building Official. g) Impact of Mitigation Measures ' No significant impacts are expected. h) Summary of Impact After Mitigation With implementation of the project as proposed,including standard conditions,uniform codes,and mitigation measures, the project will not result in any significant impacts on fire protection services. 3.11.2 Police Protection ' a) Environmental Setting ' The Riverside County Sheriffs Department provides police protection services to the City of Temecula on a contractual agreement. The existing police station serving the project site is located at 30755-a Auld Road in Murrieta. The County provides a total of 118 personnel to serve the Temecula area. Of these, 91 are sworn with 26 City patrol officers, 15 County patrol officers,9 traffic"team"members. Patrol officers are supported by 3 lieutenants, 11 sergeants, and 5 investigators. Other manpower resources such as bomb disposal, emergency services team,and internal affairs investigation are provided through various divisions within the Sheriffs Department(S. Garcia, personal communication, February, 2002). The Federal Bureau of Investigation(FBI)typically recommends a Level of Service(LOS)standard of one officer per 1,000 residents for urban/suburban communities of similar size to Temecula.Based on the City's 2000 population(53,791)and police staffing levels,police protection needs are being met by existing contract RORIPAUGH RANCH SPECIFIC PLAN ' 2ND REVISED DRAFT EIR-APRIL 1,2002 3-173 3.11 PUBLIC SERVICES levels. Average response times provided by the Sheriffs dispatch are 4-6.5 minutes for priority one calls,and 13.9 minutes for priority two calls (S. Garcia, personal communication, February 2002). ' b) Criteria for Determining Significance The City has not established local CEQA significance thresholds,however,potentially significant impacts to public services may occur if a project has an effect upon, or result in a need for new or altered government services, such as ... police protection ... or other governmental services (CEQA Guidelines, Appendix I). ' c) Level of Impact Before Mitigation Utilizing the City's General Plan policy and the Sheriff Department's criteria of one deputy per 1,000 in 1 population,the project would require approximately 6 deputies for adequate police protection based on the projected population of the Roripaugh Ranch Specific Plan. The proposed project is consistent with the City's General Plan because it will identify the mitigation necessary to alleviate potential impacts to the Riverside County Sheriffs Department and the Temecula Police Department. d) Standard Conditions and Uniform Codes Based on annexation into the City, the project will provide a police protection component of the City's Development Impact Fees (DIF)for anticipated service impacts. These impact fees are intended to cover the costs to provide police protection services within the project boundaries. e) Project Design Features ' Representatives of the City's police department review and comment on development plans proposed within the City, including the Roripaugh Ranch Specific Plan. LD Mitigation Measures (5) Priorto the issuanceof building permits,the developer shall incorporate the following crimeprevention measures within the detailed design plans for each tract map submitted to the City for review. The City of Temecula,Crime Prevention Officer shall review detailed design plans for proposed residential and commercial uses in order to insure incorporation of these measures: (a) Onsite street,walkways and bikeways shall be illuminated in order to enhance night time visibility; (b) Doors and windows shall be visible from the street and between buildings in order to discourage burglaries and potential suspect hiding places; (c) Fencing heights and materials utilized are intended to discourage climbing; ' (d) The numbering identification system utilized onsite shall be visible and readily apparent in order to aid emergency response agencies in quickly finding specific locations; and RORIPAUGH RANCH SPECIFIC PLAN ' 2"D REVISED DRAFT EIR-APRIL 1,2002 3-174 ' 3.11 PUBLIC SERVICES (e) Walls along backbone streets will utilize graffiti resistant materials in their construction. In addition, shrubs, vines, and/or espaliers may be planted along the outside of these walls in order to provide coverage thereby further discouraging graffiti and climbing. g) Impact of Mitigation Measures No significant impacts are expected. h) Summary of Impact After Mitigation With implementation of theproject as proposed,including standard conditions,uniform codes,and mitigation measures, the project will not result in any significant impacts on police services. 3.11.3 Schools a) Environmental Setting Comprehensive K-12 public school services are provided by the Temecula Valley Unified School District (TVUSD). TheDistrict maintains atotal of 10 elementary schools,4 middle schools,and 2 high schools. The following TVUSD schools serve the project area:Nicolas Valley Elementary School,Margarita Middle School, and Chaparral High School. The TVUSD maintains interim,relocatable facilities which are included within the school capacity levels. According to the District,elementary,middle and high school enrollments currently exceed school capacities,and enrollments are currently increasing at a rate of approximately ten percent per year (S. Rechter, personal communication, February 2002). ' According to the District's Master Plan of Growth, the use of additional portable classrooms is anticipated throughout the District as well as the construction of approximately eleven elementary,four middle and one high school to serve future students in the District f 1 total schools,including the Roripaugh elementary and middle schools). According to the School District,these schools will be constructed in response to demand created by residential growth(and associated student generation)throughout the District. The new Chaparral ' High School currently has an enrollment of 2100 students. Comments on Previous DEIRs On December 17, 1997,the Temecula Valley Unified School District(TVUSD)responded to the NOP and provided information on school enrollments and school impact fees,and recommended close coordination with the District on this project. The TV USD then responded to both previous EIRs and has continued to work with the applicant as the project has changed. The TVUSD has indicated its facilities are already impacted,and new development would create substantial impacts on the District to provide additional services and facilities (see Appendix B). In lune of 1998,the District updated their student generation rates and indicated it needed to build 21 schools over the next 20 years,based on the housing projections of 80 builders(J. Dixon,letter dated June 16, 1998). Proposition IA, approved by voters in November 1998, will require developers to ' provide the current state mandated developer fee which is$1.93 per square foot for new residential areas and $0.31 per square foot for new non-residential areas. On July 12,2001,the TVUSD provided another letter correcting some of the school information in the previous DEIR. This information has been incorporated into this 2nd Revised DEIR as well. RORIPAUGH RANCH SPECIFIC PLAN ' 2N°REVISED DRAFT EIR-APRIL 1,2002 3-175 3.11 PUBLIC SERVICES b) Criteria for Determining Significance The City has not established local CEQA significance thresholds,however,potentially significant impacts to ' public services may occur if a project has an effect upon, or result in a need for new or altered government services, such as ... schools ...or other governmental services (CEQA Guidelines, Appendix I). c) Level of Impact Before Mitigation According to student generation figures from the TVUSD, the residential units of the proposed project will ultimately generate approximately 1,565 students at buildout, as shown in Table 3.11-3. According to information from the TVUSD, the proposed project will generate students in excess of capacity at Nicolas Valley Elementary, Margarita Middle, and the new Chaparral High School (letter from J. Dixon,TVUSD 1998). According to TVUSD student generation factors, the proposed project would create the need for 1.2 new elementary school,0.3 middle school,and 0.2 high school (TVUSD 1999). According to Janet Dixon with TVUSD,the elementary and middle school students can not be accommodated with current facilities(J.Dixon, personal communication, 2000). ' It should also be noted that the project will ultimately consist of a series of gated communities,which may have, indirect impacts on the TVUSD regarding school bus stops and bus routes. Bus stop locations are based on ' a number of factors, including existing routes and number of students actually generated by a particular development, therefore,specific bussing impacts cannot be quantified at this time. It may be necessary for school busses to have access to gated entrances, so they should be designed with this option in mind. ' However,the TVUSD has indicated that they can provide bus service for gated communities if the developer, City,and District mutually agree on bus stops on major adjacent streets. TVUSD busing guidelines are I mile for elementary students and 2 miles for middle school students. (D. Gallaher, TVUSD, personal 1 communication, February 2002). It is likely most of the Roripaugh Ranch Project will be within walking distance to existing or future schools. Table 3.11-3 Project-Related Student Generation Grade Factor* Units** Students K-5 0.390 2,058 SF 803 6-8 0.188 2,058 SF 387 9-12 0.182 2,058 SF 375 Total 0.760 2,058 SF 1,565 Source:S.Rechter,Temecula Valley Unified School District 2002 * students generated per single family dwelling unit ** SF= single family RORIPAUGH RANCH SPECIFIC PLAN 2ND REVISED DRAFT EIR-APRIL 1,2002 3-176 3.11 PUBLIC SERVICES There may be incremental impacts from children of site employees,however,the impact of these students is expected to be minimal compared to the generation of students from residential development. The project will provide legally established school mitigation fees(presently$1.93 per square foot of residential use and$0.31 I per square foot of non-residential uses) or the equivalent in property and/or facilities (City of Temecula Resolution 96-119). According to CEQA, this represents complete mitigation of potential school impacts. Developers are currently required to pay appropriate school mitigation fees according to SB 50 requirements ' and state law. The Roripaugh Ranch Specific Plan proposes toprovide 12 acres fora new elementary school(Planning Area 29)and 20 acres for a new middle school (Planning Area 28). The middle school site is located adjacent to the sports park site(Planning Area 27)to allow for a more efficient use of the land,and is anticipated to meet the state siting and facilities criteria for the new school. ' Comments on Previous DEIRs The Temecula Valley Unified School District(TVUSD)has provided detailed information on school facilities and services throughout the CEQA process for this project,including comment letters on the NOP and both previous EIRS. They have also provided general requirements for the two proposed school sites and ' development impact fees. The current DEIR incorporates all of the information from the TVUSD to date. The TVUSD has agreed to the location and conceptual design of both school sites,and the Final EIR for this project will address each individual comment by the TVUSD(D.Gallaher,TVUSD,personal communication, ' November 2001). d) Standard Conditions and Uniform Codes The developer will provide legally established school mitigation fees to the Temecula Valley Unified School District to help offset increased costs associated with school facilities. These fees may also be in the form ' of property for new schools,or actual construction of school facilities. As stated previously,payment of these fees or in lieu contributions is considered complete mitigation under CEQA. e) Project Design Features The project has designated a 20-acre site fora future middle school(Planning Area 28)and a 12-acre site for a future elementary school (Planning Area 29). f) Mitigation Measures (6) The developer shall pay applicable developer fees according to SB 50 and state law. (7) Prior to approval of tentative maps for any Planning Area,the developer shall obtain a letter from the TVUSD indicating if or where and when it needs school bus stops to serve that Planning Area. The developer shall coordinate,as needed,with the TVUSD and install bus stops as needed for students from the project site, to the satisfaction of the TVUSD. (8) Prior to the issuance of building permits in each Planning Area, the developer shall enter into an agreement with the TVUSD so that TVUSD busses can obtain access through all staffed gates within the project when necessary. RORIPAUGH RANCH SPECIFIC PLAN ' 2ND REVISED DRAFT EIR-APRIL 1,2002 3-177 ' 3.11 PUBLIC SERVICES g) Impact of Mitigation Measures No significant impacts are expected. h) Summary of Impact After Mitigation ' With implementation of theproject as proposed,including standard conditions,uniform codes,and mitigation measures, the project will not result in any significant impacts on school services. 3.11.4 Recreation- Parks a) Environmental Setting ' The project area is served by several regional recreational and park facilities which can accommodate boating, fishing,and swimming. These facilities include Lake Skinner,Lake Perris,and Lake Elsinore. While Lake Skinner is a Metropolitan Water District facility, a Riverside County regional park is also located at Lake Skinner. The Lake Skinner County Park offers camping,fishing,picnicking and other outdoor activities within its 6,440 acre boundary. The Cleveland National Forest,encompassing the Santa Ana Mountains,lies to the 1 west of the project site,and a portion of the San Bernardino National Forest is located to the east.These areas provide equestrian, camping and hiking activities. ' The Santa Rosa Plateau is a cooperative venture between the County of Riverside,the Nature Conservancy, the California Fish and Game Department,and the Federal Fish and Wildlife Service. This recreational area is located in Murrieta off of Clinton Keith Road and consists of a 7,000 acre nature park which is free to the ' public from sunrise to sunset. The park offers several trail systems both guided and un-guided. The guided trails include"Saturday morning walks",and twice a month "bird walks". The park contains a vast array of natural habitat as well as the largest vernal pools in the State of California.This vast array of habitats within the Santa Rosa Plateau is home to the golden eagle and the mountain lion,as well as approximately 50 other species, including several endangered species. The City of Temecula currently owns 287 acres of land forpark purposes,of which approximately 200 acres are developed within 26 parks (Temecula Community Services Department, February 2002). Parks and facilities include the Rancho California Sports Park and Community Recreation Center, Veteran's Park, ' Paloma Del Sol Park,Mary Phillips Senior Center,Temecula Community Center/Rotary Park,and Sam Hicks MonumentPark. In addition,the City opened a local museum within Sam Hicks Monument Parkin November of 1999. 1 The City-owned facilities are operated and maintained by the Temecula Community Service District(TCSD). Local recreational facilities are also available from Temecula school campuses. School facilities are generally ' open to the public during non-school hours,weekends and vacations. Facilities available on school campuses generally include football, soccer, and baseball fields, as well as basketball, volleyball, tennis courts, and playground equipment. Due to the partial availability of school recreation facilities to the public at large,such ' facilities are considered adjuncts to the city-wide park system. According to the City of Temecula's Parks and Recreation MasterPlan,the City currently requires 5.0 acres of parkland per 1,000 population. RORIPAUGH RANCH SPECIFIC PLAN ' 2ND REVISED DRAFr EIR-APRIL 1,2002 3-178 1 1 3.11 PUBLIC SERVICES In addition to public recreation facilities,private recreation facilities are often provided in planned communities and apartment complexes. These facilities usually include tennis and/or basketball courts. However,these facilities are often so few and scattered that they have little impact on meeting the demand for parks and recreation facilities within a community. b) Criteria for Determining Significance The City has not established local CEQA significance thresholds,however,potentially significant impacts to public services may occur if a project has an effect upon,or result in a need for new or altered government ' services, such as ... parks or other recreational facilities (CEQA Guidelines, Appendix I). c) Level of Impact Before Mitigation ' Implementation of the Roripaugh Ranch Specific Plan will create a demand forparks and recreation facilities in the project area. According to the City of Temecula's Parks and Recreation Master Plan,a total of 5 acres of parkland per 1,000 residents should be provided in the City to meet local demands for park facilities. The current project is expected to generate a population of 5,865 new residents, based on an average household size factor of 2.85 residents per household (C. McCarthy, personal communication,November 2001). This means the project must provide 29.3 acres of parkland under the City's current Quimby Act requirements. To meet that demand, the current Specific Plan proposes several public and private recreational facilities. In terms of public parks, the current project provides a 19.8-acre sports park (Planning Area 27), a ' neighborhood park(5.1 acres)just east of the Plateau area(Planning Area 6), and a private mini-park(0.3 acres)in Planning Area I B. In addition,the project will provide 2 other private recreational facilities,a 4.0- acre facility in Planning Area 30 to serve the Valley neighborhoods,and a 4.8-acre facility in Planning Area 5 to serve the Plateau neighborhoods. Based on the net acreages of the proposed public parks,and receiving "half credit"for the proposed private recreational facilities,the project will provide the equivalent of 29.45 acres of parkland. Therefore,it meets its parkland requirements(see Section 2.5 for additional information) d) Standard Conditions and Uniform Codes 1 As appropriate,the project will provide a parkland component of the City's Development Impact Fees(DIF) for anticipated service impacts. These impact fees are intended to cover the costs to provide public recreational facilities to project residents. e) Project Design Features The project provides 2 public parks;a 19.8-acre sports park,5.1-acre neighborhood park..The project will also provide 2 private recreational facilities (4.0 and 4.8 acres), and a private 0.3-acre mini-park. ' f) Mitigation Measures (9) Prior to the issuance of the first building permit,the developer will demonstrate that a minimum of 29.3 ' acres of park credit has or will be provided to the satisfaction of the Community Services Director (See Figure 3.11-4). RORIPAUGH RANCH SPECIFIC PLAN 2N°REVISED DRAFT EIR-APRIL 1,2002 3-179 ' 3.11 PUBLIC SERVICES (10) Prior to tentative tract approval,all recreational facility parking areas shall be reviewed and approved by the Planning Department and the Director of Community Services, to ensure that they are in accordance with the City of Temecula standards, including permanent utilities. (11) Priortotheissuanceofthe400thbuildingpermitintheproject,the5.1-acreparksite(Planning Area 6) will be developed, including all permanent utilities and the 90-day maintenance period, to the ' satisfaction of the Community Services Director, and the grant deed accepted by the City Council. (12) Prior to issuance of the 100"building permit, the 0.3-acre mini-park (Planning Area 113) will be completed to the satisfaction of the Community Services Director, including permanent utilities. (13) Prior to issuance of the 250"building permit, the park portion of the private recreation center in the ' Plateau area (Planning Area 5) will be completed to the satisfaction of the Community Services Director. (14) Prior to issuance of the 350"building permit, the building and pool portion of the private recreation center in the Plateau area(Planning Area 5)will be completed to the satisfaction of the Community Services Director. ' (15) Prior to issuance of the 700th building permit for the project,the 19.8-acre sports park site(Planning Area 27)will be developed,including permanent utilities and the 90-day maintenance period,to the satisfaction of the Community Services Director, and the grant deed accepted by the City Council. (16) Prior to issuance of the 800"building permit, the park portion of the private recreation center in the Valley area (Planning Area 30) will be completed to the satisfaction of the Community Services Director. ' (17) Prior to issuance of the 1150"building permit, the building and pool portion of the private recreation center in the Valley area(Planning Area 30)will be completed to the satisfaction of the Community Services Director. ' (18) Prior to the issuance of occupancy permits,the developer shall pay the appropriate parks component of the Development Impact Fees (DIF), to the satisfaction of the City Building Official. ' g) Impact of Mitigation Measures ' No significant impacts are expected. h) Summary of Impact After Mitigation ' With implementation of the project as proposed,including standard conditions,uniform codes,and mitigation measures, the project will not result in any significant impacts on public parks. 1 RORIPAUGH RANCH SPECIFIC PLAN 2ND REVISED DRAFT EIR-APRIL 1,2002 3-180 ' 3.11 PUBLIC SERVICES 3.11.5 Trails/Open Space a) Environmental Setting ' Trails and bicycle paths are identified in the General Plan Conservation and Open Space Element as generally extending across the project site, but no precise alignments are planned at present. The general goal is to provide residents with options for non-vehicular travel within the City and connecting to regional trails. Approximately eight percent of the City of Temecula is presently devoted to open space uses including parks, ' golf courses, passive open space, and agriculture uses. Areas designated as open space for resource conservation are primarily within the major drainages and tributaries. ' Comments on Previous EIRs The Metropolitan Water District of Southern California(MWD)submitted a letter on July 25,2001 on the ' previous DEIR which stated the MWD was not willing to constructor allow construction of a trail at this time over its pipeline property on the Roripaugh site. ' b) Criteria for Determining Significance The City has notestablished local CEQA significance thresholds,however,potentially significant impacts to ' public services may occur if a project has an effect upon, or result in a need for new or altered government services, such as... parks or other recreational facilities (such as trails and open space), or other governmental services (CEQA Guidelines, Appendix ])(examples added). c) Level of Impact Before Mitigation The entire Roripaugh Ranch community will be connected by a series of sidewalks,bike lanes,and multi-use paths forpedestrian and bicycles which will offer non-vehicular access to other educational,commercial and recreational facilities within the Specific Plan area and(eventually)to adjacent development. The proposed multi-use trails will connect neighborhoods to the proposed parks,schools, and commercial center. Amulti- use trail is proposed along the southern and eastern borders of the site, with public access available at Butterfield Stage Road and Calle Contento. This trail will allow equestrians to continue riding their horses ' along the rolling hills between the Temecula wine country and the Johnson Ranch open space/habitat preserve area. The City also desires a multi-use trail along the MWD pipeline property along the"back"of Planning Areas 33A, 33B, and the neighborhood park in Planning Area 6(C. McCarthy, personal communication, August 2001). However, it should be noted the MWD has stated it has no plans to construct or allow construction of a trail along this property for the foreseeable future(L.Simonek,MWD,letter dated July 25, 2001). RORIPAUGH RANCH SPECIFIC PLAN ' 2ND REVISED DRAFT EIR-APRIL 1,2002 3-181 ' ASHBYUSA.LLC FIGURE 3.11-3 C $ L a o N � 0 � � �- - - - _ - - - - - - - - c6 to 8 _ 0.3 AC W 1Lr^ '____= PPMaIe _ __ ` 12.5 AC 9A osiLD Q o I o +9.0 AC 2 3 MURR/ETA ryO` /3.8 AC 9 6U OSB+ ` K i 98 DU'S +8.4 AC ■ 4A SPRIN I O 8.8 AC O '- ' ]UAG 99 DUS 996.9 AC DU'S 48AC +9.6 AC 46 CS ROAD 13 m 100 DU'S LM O$, 7C 22.1 AG 179.6 AC le ;1052 113 DU'S 11 I A\ yyy — — — — NC ,6.4 AC 19.S AC (10.OAC) ai ' J x w NAP tins K J m ,82 AC ' Act 150 U'S - ^' LEGEND +5o DU'S LMU W 33B m 16 375 Ac o U ICU Water District Easements 15'Multi-Use Trail wl in 30' — — �' �u AG as DUs 0 OOOOOOD Q (160'Open Space Buffer) Fuel Modification Zone 1 / 14 15 IWDU's 13❑ wa M2 _i Q t / 16.7 AC 14.5 AC U) Open Space Future Proposed Trail 3' / ni ovs 174 DU'S ' (MWD Easement) _ T5* AC\ — � 36r+us aoPo 30 Class I Bike Lanes `0oa RC Sana. Flood Control �� (both sides) , NOazH 29 a.oAC L8 Q 81 12.0 AC 24.4 AC O Class II Bike Lanes 106 ou's ® Park -0 (both sides) 28 31 M2 zoonc 217ous 9»c 19 Recreation Center Nature Trail"Plateau" I 35 BAC _ -=3 ' 47 DU'S 0 River Walk Trail 26 ° U Landscaped Slope CL za0o5nc Q� (tz Aspnan Mum us6 Trail) 24 22 23 M2 M' 25 F 70.5 AC 17.0 AC erttsnnw cnmwe Pedestrian Bridge M' „a0us 102 DU'S 052 (approximate location) ea ou s sotm, OOP ROAD 9. 2 AC ro ' CALLEMISS I may"24.a�xc aostc 2L U Paseo(Conceptual) CMAPOS I 21 0AC 30 88AACS 29 DS c . DDDOODDOODOOODDDDODDDDUOOODOOODDOO❑ OOOOOOOODOOOOUOOOOOOOOOOOOD000000CL P2 _ 20 AC (1.5 AC) 1 The Keith Companies r _ 0 2W 4W M Roripc-111( -11 ' ASHBYUSA,LLC FIGURE 3.11-4 ' Cg C g Q. WINCHESTER Q� 1 18110 V i 1 1 1 1 - - - - - -- - - - -- -- - y r... �� Q 1 ; 1 1. 1 1 \V iRANCHO RU A N VISTA 1 1 1 16.......... •---. RORIPAUGH C i RANCH t 1 ' ............. CITY OF TEMECULA r - A I b A t 1 C® S The Keith CamOenleel�! •s Rori rillC�h � R�u1ci ' N O T T O 8 C A L E � (rte 1 r S V ti_ J v' f 1 ' 3.11 PUBLIC SERVICES Sidewalks and Class II bikeways are included in all the major project streets,including Munieta Hot Springs Road,Butterfield Stage Road,Nicolas Road,North and South Loop Roads,and"A"and`B"Streets. A trail ' will be provided along the top of the landscaped slope in the Plateau area.Trails will be provided along both sides of Long Valley Wash,and a pedestrian bridge will be provided across Planning Area 26(Long Valley Wash)between Planning Area 23 and Planning Areas 28 or 31. This will give residents living south of the ' channel access to the community park,elementary school,and middle school. The surrounding tracts will be designed with pedestrian access points to the 15-foot wide asphalt paths and the pedestrian bridge. Figure 3.11-3 shows the location of the various trails onsite. In addition to public parks,implementation of the Roripaugh Ranch Specific Plan will create a demand for passive or natural open space. To that end, the project proposes to preserve approximately 259 acres of natural open space,most of which is along Santa Gertrudis Creek and Long Valley Wash,but also includes landscaped slopes and other flood control areas. This will help provide a continuous open space corridor along Santa Gertrudis Creek along with the open space/habitat conservation programs established within the Johnson ' Ranch and Mountain View/Rancho Bella Vista areas. Eventually,the open space areas preserved in these three projects will allow for a contiguous open space corridor from Lake Skinner to the north,Santa Gertrudis Creek to the south, and Skunk Hollow to the west(See Section 3.11-6 d). d) Standard Conditions and Uniform Codes ' The City hasestablished policies and procedures for the identification and dedication of land forpublic parks. The proposed project is consistent with these guidelines. ' e) Project Design Features The Specific Plan includes 262.2 acres of land designated as open space:202.7 acres of biological habitat, including 201 acres within the AD 161 Sub-Regional Habitat Conservation Plan. In addition,the project will provide 38.2 acres of land in flood control channels and 21.3 acres of land in landscaped slopes. ' f) Mitigation Measures (19) All proposed TCSD slope/landscaping maintenance easements shall be offered for dedication on the 1 final maps. (20) Prior to final map approval,the developer will certify to the City that ownership and maintenance of ' all open space areas shall be the responsibility of an appropriate conservation organization. TCSD does not assume maintenance of open space or habitat areas. ' (21) Prior to issuance of the 400ih building permit, the Plateau trail in Planning Area 7A and the trail between Planning Areas 413 and 6 shall be completed to the satisfaction of the Community Services Director. (22) Prior to tentative map approval,the developer shall provide written authorization from RCFCWCD that the maintenance roads along both sides of Long Valley Wash can be used as trails. RORIPAUGH RANCH SPECIFIC PLAN ' 2 N REVISED DRAFT EIR-APRIL t,2002 3-184 ' 3.11 PUBLIC SERVICES ' (23) Prior to tentative map approval, if the Long Valley Wash trails cannot be constructed within the maintenance roads,separate trails shall be designed and shown on the tentative map outside the flood control right-of-way. ' (24) Prior to issuance of the V building permit in Phase 2, the Riverwalk multi-use trails within the maintenance roads on both sides of Long Valley Wash shall be completed to the satisfaction of the ' Community Services Director. (25) If the maintenance road along the north side of Long Valley Wash cannot be used as a multi-use trail, a separate trail along the north side of Long Valley Wash shall be completed prior to issuance of the 50"building permit in Planning Area 31, to the satisfaction of the Community Services Director. (26) If the maintenance road along the south side of Long Valley Wash cannot be used as a multi-use trail, a separate trail along the south side of song Valley Wash shall be completed prior to issuance of the 75"building permit in Planning Areas 22,23,or 24, to the satisfaction of the Community Services ' Director. (27) Prior to the issuance of the 75"building permit in Planning Areas 22, 23,or 24,the developer shall ' construct a pedestrian bridge across Long Valley Wash,consistent with the guidelines in the Specific Plan and to the satisfaction of the Community Services Director. ' (28) Prior to the issuance of any building permits in Planning Areas 19, 20, or 21, the developer shall constructs 15-foot wide multi-use trail within a 30-footwide fuel modification zone along the south side of Planning Areas 20, 21, the south and west sides of Planning Area 32, and the east sides of ' Planning Areas 19 and 20,to the satisfaction of the Community Services Director. The trail will be designated as an easement for public use on any tentative maps for these areas. ' g) Impact of Mitigation Measures No significant impacts are expected. ' h) Summary of Impact After Mitigation ' With implementation of theprojectas proposed,including standard conditions,uniform codes,andmitigation measures, the project will not result in any significant impacts on open space or trails. ' 3.11.6 Library Services a) Environmental Setting The City of Temecula is a member of the Riverside County Library System, which maintains 25 facilities throughout the unincorporated and incorporated areas of Riverside County. Library services and facilities are ' provided to the area by the Riverside County Public Library. The branch serving the proposed project site is located in the Walt Abraham Administrative Center. This branch occupies 15,380 square feet and contains 93,819 items and serves a population of approximately 96,000 residents(G.Christmas,personal communication, ' June 1998). RORIPAUGH RANCH SPECIFIC PIAN ' 2ND REVISED DRAFT EIR-APRIL 1,2002 3-185 ' 3.11 PUBLIC SERVICES ' Anew City library is proposed The proposed facility will be approximately 33,000 square feet.on Pauba Road, located above the Rancho California Sports Park. At this time,partial funding has been identified to construct the facility (C. McCarthy, TCSD, personal communication, May 2001). County staff has indicated that the current level of service provided by the library is substantially inadequate. Service levels have declined over the last decade due to the impact of rapid population growth throughout the ' entire county. The Riverside County Public Library System has standards calling for 1.2 titles and 0.5 square feet of library space per capita. The District currently provides only 0.18 square feet and 0.85 titles per capita county-wide. Revenue for the Library District is obtained from a Special District tax collected by the County. ' The City does augment the Temecula Library budget by providing funding to keep the library open additional hours and by funding a part-time library volunteer coordinator. ' b) Criteria for Determining Significance The City has not established local CEQA significance thresholds,however,potentially significant impacts to ' public services may occur if a project has an effect upon, or result in a need for new or altered government services,such as...maintenance of public facilities such as libraries)or other governmental services(CEQA Guidelines, Appendix I)(example added). ' c) Level of Impact Before Mitigation ' The proposed project will increase the area population and community demand for library services. The increase in population to be served would require an increase in funding to the County Library to maintain the current level of service. The per capita costs are estimated at$11.01 for operations and$156 for capital costs. This compares to the California State average per capita expenditure of$18.00 for operating costs and$157 for capital costs. Upon implementation of the proposed mitigation measures,the project will be consistent with the City's General Plan. td) Standard Conditions and Uniform Codes One component of the City's Development Impact Fee covers library services. e) Project Design Features 1 There are no specific design features of the project that apply to library services other than a fair share contribution to a regional shuttle bus service that could take project residents to a library. ' f) Mitigation Measures ' (29) Priorto the issuance of occupancy permits,the developer shall pay the library facilities component of the Development Impact Fees, to the satisfaction of the City Building Official. ' g) Impact of Mitigation Measures No significant impacts are expected. RORIPAUGH RANCH SPECIFIC PLAN ' 2N0 REVISED DRAFT EIR-APRIL 1,2002 3-186 ' 3.11 PUBLIC SERVICES h) Summary of Impact After Mitigation With implementation of the project as proposed,including standard conditions,uniform codes,and mitigation ' measures, the project will not result in any significant impacts on library services. 3.11.7 Medical Services ' a) Environmental Setting ' TbeTemeculaarea is served by four comprehensive and specialized medical facilities,as shown in Table 3.11- 2. There are also two County Health Clinics,located in Lake Elsinore and Perris,with facilities that include family planning services,prenatal care,child health services,immunizations and primary care. In addition to ' these public facilities, there are a number of private care facilities that include retirement homes,substance abuse clinics, child and sexual abuse clinics,and counseling, etc. available throughout the County. ' Table 3.11-2 Major Health Care Facilities ' Name/Address Location #Beds Riverside County General Hospital 30 miles north of the 258 9857 Magnolia Avenue, Riverside project site Inland Valley Regional Medical Center 9 miles northwest of 80 36485 Inland Valley Drive, Wildomar the project site ' Menifee Valley Medical Center 15 miles north of the 84 28400 McGaw Boulevard, Sun City project site Rancho Springs Medical Center 6 miles northwest of 99 ' 25500 Medical Center Drive, Murrieta the project site ' b) Criteria for Determining Significance ' The City has notestablished local CEQA significance thresholds,however,potentially significant impacts to public services may occur if a project has an effect upon,or result in a need for new or altered government services,such as...maintenance of public facilities(like hospitals),or other governmental services(CEQA ' Guidelines, Appendix I)(example added). c) Level of Impact Before Mitigation The increase in population due to the development of Roripaugh Ranch will increase the need for medical services and facilities. The additional population will require emergency medicine as well as preventative ' medicine. However,the occupancy rates are generally under patient capacity in the medical facilities located throughout the County; thus,it is anticipated that adequate health care service and facilities will be available. RORIPAUGH RANCH SPECIFIC PLAN ' 2H0 REVISED DRAFT EIR-APRIL 1,2002 3-187 ' 3.11 PUBLIC SERVICES Therefore, according to the Inland Valley Regional Medical Center, these additional demands are not considered to be significant as the medical community generally increases services with the increase in population. d) Standard Conditions and Uniform Codes There are no specific conditions or uniform codes that apply to medical services. e) Project Design Features There are no specific design features of the project that apply to medical services other than a fair share contribution to a regional shuttle bus service that could take project residents to area hospitals. The project ' will also have adequate emergency access so fire trucks and ambulances can transport project residents quickly to area hospitals if necessary. ' f) Mitigation Measures No specific measures are proposed since increased demand on area medical facilities will be incremental and ' not significant. g)' Impact or Mitigation Measures ' No significant impacts are expected because no measures are proposed. h) Summary of Impact After Mitigation Implementation of the project as proposed will not result in any significant impacts on medical services. 1 3.11.8 Roads ' a) Environmental Setting The planning,construction,and maintenance of public roadways in the project area are the responsibility of ' the following agencies:Federal Highway Administration(I-15);State of California-Caltrans(State Route 79); County of Riverside (various County roads); and the City of Temecula (city or local streets). There are presently no maintained roads on the project site. For more information on existing and planned roadways,see ' Section 3.5 on Transportation and Circulation. b) Criteria for Determining Significance ' The City has not established local CEQA significance thresholds,however,potentially significant impacts to public services may occur if a project has an effect upon,or result in a need for new or altered government ' services, such as ....maintenance of public facilities, including roads ... (CEQA Guidelines, Appendix 1). 1 RORIPAUGH RANCH SPECIFIC PLAN ' 2N0 REVISED DRAFT EIR-APRIL 1,2002 3-188 1 ' 3.11 PUBLIC SERVICES ' c) Level of Impact Before Mitigation The project will generate incremental maintenance for federal, state, County, and City government by ' increased traffic from project residents. The project will provide additional funds to the City and County in the form of increased property and gasoline taxes to help fund road maintenance. d) Standard Conditions and Uniform Codes All improvements constructed as part of the proposed project will meet applicable City and County standards ' such as roads, curbs, sidewalks, etc. The City's development review process and construction inspection program will assure that these improvements are constructed according to appropriate standards. ' The project will provide a roads component of the City's Development Impact Fees (DIF) for anticipated service impacts. These impact fees are intended to cover the costs to provide roads to serve project residents. ' e) Project Design Features The project proposes a network of roads, traffic signals, and other onsite improvements to serve project residents,and provide adequate public access to and from the project site. The project will also help provide a number of offsite road improvements and provide fair share contributions to area roadway,intersection,and traffic signal improvements. ' f) Mitigation Measures ' No mitigation measures are proposed other than the proposed onsite and offsite improvements. g) Impact of Mitigation Measures ' No significant impacts are expected since no measures are proposed. However, there will be temporary traffic disruption, noise, and air pollutants generated during construction of the various road-related improvements. III) Summary of Impact After Mitigation ' With implementation of the project as proposed,including standard conditions,and uniform codes,the project will not result in any significant impacts on public roads. 3.11.9 General Government ' a) Environmental Setting General government services are currently provided to the Valley portion of the project site by the County of ' Riverside, while the Plateau portion of the site is within the jurisdiction of the City of Temecula. RORIPAUGH RANCH SPECIFIC PLAN ' 2NO REVISED DRAFT EIR-APRIL 1,2002 3-189 ' 3.11 PUBLIC SERVICES ' b) Criteria for Determining Significance The City has not established local CEQA significance thresholds,however,potentially significant impacts to ' public services may occur if a project has an effect upon, or result in a need for new or altered government services,...maintenance of public facilities...or other governmental services(CEQA Guidelines,Appendix I). ' c) Level of Impact Before Mitigation ' The project will generate 5,865 additional residents that will require general governmental services from the County and City. Conversely,the project will provide additional funds to the City and County in the form of increased sales taxes, subventions, and other taxes to help fund governmental services. d) Standard Conditions and Uniform Codes ' Based on annexation into the City, the project will provide a general government component of the City's Development Impact Fees (DIF)for anticipated service impacts. These impact fees are intended to cover the costs to provide general government services to project residents. ' e) Project Design Features The project does not contain any specific attributes that would necessarily benefit general government services. ' f) Mitigation Measures None proposed other than payment of appropriate DIF fees. g) Impact of Mitigation Measures ' No significant impacts are expected since no measures are proposed. h) Summary of Impact After Mitigation ' With implementation of the project as proposed,including standard conditions,uniform codes,and mitigation measures, the project will not result in any significant impacts on general government services. 1 RORIPAUGH RANCH SPECIFIC PLAN ' 2N°REVISED DRAFT EIR-APRIL 1,2002 3-190 ' 3.12 UTILITIES nefol lowing section analyzes potential impacts of the project on utility systems including water,sewer,flood control,electricity,natural gas,and solid waste. A more detailed analysis of drainage impacts is provided in ' Section 3.4 (Water Resources). This section is organized somewhat differently than the preceding and following sections. Since there are so many sub-topics within this section(e.g.,water,sewer,flood control), each utility will have a separate analysis that presents the following: 1)existing conditions;2)thresholds of significance;3)impacts before mitigation;4)standard conditions and uniform codes;5)project design features; 6)mitigation measures; 7)impacts of mitigation measures; and 8) impacts after mitigation. Table 3.12-1 summarizes the expected utility impacts from the proposed project. Table 3.12-1 Estimated Utility Impacts Utility System Rate of Use Estimated Impacts* Water. 218 gallons/person/day 1.33 million gallons/day (MGD) ' Sewer 100 gallons/person/day 611,500 gallons/day (0.6 MGD) Electricity 6,081 KwH per unit/year 36,940 Kilowatt-Hours/day (residential) (13.48 million KwWyear) 8.8 KwWsf/year(commercial) Natural Gas 6,665 CF/SF unit/month 464,667 cubic feet/day t 2.0 CF/sf/month (13.94 MCF/month) (commercial) Solid Waste 4,400 pounds/du/year 25,918 lbs/day (residential) 9.46 M pounds/year 365 pounds/100 sf/year (4,728 tons/year) ' (commercial) Sources: Water =EMWD,RCWD sf =square feet lbs=pounds Sewer=EMWD CF =cubic feet M=million ' Solid Waste=Riv.County SF =single-family MCD=millions of gallons/day Electric/Natural Gas =SCAQMD Kilowatt-Hour=KwH ' "'worst case"impacts assuming total project population of 6,085 persons including 5,865 residents from 2,058 homes plus 220 employees from 110,000 square feet of commercial space. 1 RORIPAUGH RANCH SPECIFIC PLAN ' 2N0 REVISED DRAFT El-APRIL 1,2002 3-191 1 3.12 UTILITIES ' Comments on the Previous DEIRs County Health Department The Riverside County Health Department provided information on the local ' water and wastewater service. This information was incorporated into the DEIR. Metropolitan Water District The Metropolitan Water District of Southern California (MWD)provided information on local water service,water consumption rates,the MWD's property across the Roripaugh Ranch property, and consistency with regional growth plans. This information was incorporated into the-DEIR. Rancho Cali fomiaWater District The Rancho Cali fomia Water District(RCWD)provided information on local water service and facilities. This information was incorporated into the DEIR text. 3.12.1 Water a) Environmental Setting ' TheEastern Municipal Water District(EMWD)currently provides water service to the project area and most of the project site. The project site is located within the 1508 Pressure Zone and, at present, the closest ' existing water lines to the project site are: I)a 24-inch line located approximately half a mile west of the Plateau area;and 2)a 30-inch main line in Promontory Parkway about half a mile north of the Plateau area. The Metropolitan Water District of Southern California(MWD),a regional wholesale water supplier,maintains a 96-inch regional waterline that crosses the Plateau portion of the project. The closest connection for water service to the project site is an MWD "turnout" located two miles north of the Plateau area(EM-17)at the north end of the Rancho Bella Vista property,which also has two existing reservoirs(2.0 MG and 6.8 MG). The Rancho California Water District(RCWD)also owns a nearby"turnout"on the MWD pipeline referred to as EM-20. It should be noted that Planning Areas 33A and 33B (approximately 15 units)are within the service boundary of the Rancho California Water District (RCWD). At some point in the future,a water line will be extended from the existing Rancho Bella Vista reservoirs south and west to provide a more complete water service network for this area. A 3.0 MG reservoir and a new ' MWD turnout(EM-11) is also planned for the Johnson Ranch property northeast of the Plateau area. The following was recommended to be included in this document by the MWD in their comment letter on the original Draft EIR dated July 14, 1999: "The MWD is a regional imported water wholesaler whose service area covers the project site. While MWD ' does not provide retail water service, the proposed project is located within the Eastern Municipal Water District(EMWD)service area,an MWD member agency. MWD's service connection turnouts,such as EM- 17 and EM-I 1 referenced in the previous EIR,provide wholesale water supply to member agencies such as EMWD and only upon their request. These service connections are not and cannot be indicative of any commitment to provide retail water service. Requests for MWD water service should be coordinated through EMWD and not MWD. Contacts with EMWD indicate that they do not currently or in the future plan to ' request service from MWD at the EM-11 location indicated in the previous EIR." RORIPAUGH RANCH SPECIFIC PLAN ' 2ND REVISED DRAFT EIR-APRIL 1,2002 3-192 ' 3.12 UTILITIES Comments on Previous DEIRs The Rancho California Water District(RCWD)provided information and corrections on the water service ' section for the previous DEIR on July 10,2001. They indicated EM-20 was actually their facility(not MWD) and that offsite impacts from various improvements in Nicolas Road were not analyzed in their EIR for that project. Additional analysis was added to appropriate sections of this document to cover those offsite improvements to the level required by CEQA. They also indicated they serve a small portion of the project site. This information was added to this EIR. ' The MWD also submitted a comment letter on the original Draft EIR dated July 14, 1999. The information from that letter has been incorporated into the environmental setting of this section. In addition, since the time the previous DEIRs were circulated,the state has approved SB 221 and SB 610 which require local agencies to determine that land development projects over a certain size have a guaranteed water supply for 20 years. The applicant is in the process of obtaining such documentation from the RCWD ' and the EMWD which supply water to this area. b) Criteria for Determining Significance ' The City has not established local CEQA significance thresholds,however,potentially significant impacts to utilities may occur if a project results in a need for new systems, or substantial alterations to the following systems: ... water ...(CEQA Guidelines, Appendix 1). c) Level of Impact before Mitigation ' Consumption As shown in Table 3.12-1,it is estimated the project will ultimately consume approximately 1.33 million gallons per day(MGD)of domestic or potable water each year,which is equivalent to 1,489 acre-feet ' (AF)per year(1 AF= 326,000 gallons)or 4.08 AF per day. However, maximum daily peak consumption could be at least 50 percent higher(2.0 MGD or 6.1 AF/day). These figures are based on a consumption factor of 208 gallons of potable water per person per day of water, as recommended by the MWD in their ' comment letteron the previous DEIR. ThcEMWD has indicated it has adequate capacity to serve the project, so no significant water consumption impacts are expected(M.Gow,personal communication, 1998). The original project was estimated to consume 1.12 MGD. The Urban Water Master Plan for the EMWD(1995) ' indicates it can supply waterin adequate amounts andof adequate quality to support buildout of the proposed project. ' Less than one percent (0.7%) of the project (i.e., Planning Areas 33A and 33B) is actually served by the Rancho California Water District(RCWD). Even though the number of units in these Planning Areas is far below the SB 221 requirements(15 vs.500),the cumulative nature of the proposed project would indicate an ' SB 221-type letter should be obtained from both water agencies. Onsite System Domestic water will be supplied to most of the project site by EMWD,although Planning Areas 33A and 33B are served by the RCWD. The project's master water system is designed to provide domestic water to the future residents of Roripaugh Ranch in a manner consistent with the City and EMWD requirements. The project site is within the 1508 pressure zone. The daily water supply will be serviced by ' theexisting 6.8-million gallon (MG reservoirbuilt by Assessment District 161. This reservoiris located in the Rancho Bella Vista Specific Plan area,approximately 3,000 feet west of the future Butterfield Stage Road and RGRIPAUGH RANCH SPECIFIC PLAN 2N°REVISED DRAFT EIR-APRIL 1,2002 3-193 1 ' 3.12 UTILITIES approximately 3,400 feet north of Murrieta Hot Springs Road. A24-inch feeder line from the reservoir to the project site is needed, which is scheduled to be constructed by the applicants of Rancho Bella Vista and Roripaugh Ranch. The onsite water system is shown in Figure 3.12-1 and will consist of backbone lines ' ranging from 8 to 16 inches in diameter. Design and inspection criteria will be under the jurisdiction of EMWD, although fire flow requirements are also regulated by the Riverside County Fire Department. RCWD lines are also available in Nicolas Road to serve Planning Areas 33A and 33B,although RCWD and EMWD may want to discuss some agreement regarding EMWD serving the entire project(A.Webster,RCWD,personal communication, November 2001). It should be noted that the Water Master Plan is conceptual and will be refined and adjusted during the tentative tract map process. Precise alignments and facility sizing will be finalized at that stage of development and,therefore,the location and size of water facilities depicted in this document may change,as approved by ' the City of Temecula Public Works Department. Build-out of the City under its General Plan will increase water demands. Future development could consume over 24.4 million gallons per day(MGD),or more than 15.8 million more gallons than was consumed in 1997. As growth occurs, the water distribution system will have to be expanded and improved as needed to accommodate new demands. Currently,improvements made to the existing system,and the construction of ' facilities added to the system,are financed through water rates charged to customers,and contributions paid by applicants (Temecula 1993). The local water districts have indicated they have more than adequate capacity to serve the proposed project. ' Regional System Based on the new EMWD policy, the existing 6.8 MG reservoir has the operational capacity to serve 4,666 dwelling units, which is enough to serve the communities of Rancho Bella Vista, ' Roripaugh Ranch,and portions of Johnson Ranch. The water supply of this reservoir is provided by EM-17, a regional turnout connection from a 96-inch line operated by the Metropolitan Water District(MWD). EM-17 is located at the intersection of Leon Road and Auld Road about half a mile northeast of the reservoir. A smaller reservoir(2.0 MG)is located about half a mile north of the northwest comer of the Plateau and is the backup storage facility to the system (i.e., the water needed for fire fighting and emergency use). The project site will be supplied by the existing 6.8 MG Mountain View tank builtby Assessment District 161. The tank is located within the Mountain View/Rancho Bella Vista Specific Plan area,approximately 3,000feet west of the proposed Butterfield Stage Road and approximately 3,400 feet north of Murrieta Hot Springs Road. The proposed project will require a 24-inch feeder line from the tank according to the EM WD's WaterMaster Plan. The feeder line is scheduled to be constructed by the applicants of Rancho Bella Vista, Roripaugh Ranch,and the Johnson Ranch projects. The Johnson Ranch project receives most of its water from EM-17, ' a Metropolitan Water District facility. Johnson Ranch will construct a pump and metering station to supply water to a proposed 6.0 MG tank,located on their site,which will create a 1627 Pressure Zone. This tank will also be backup to Roripaugh Ranch during peak demand hours. ' It is anticipated that EMWD will collect a water connection fee at the time of occupancy for the Roripaugh Ranch residences,and part of the connection fee will be contributed to the construction of the above mentioned ' Johnson Ranch backbone facilities. Rancho California Water District (RCWD) is proposing a 30- and 60-inch transmission main located in ' Butterfield Stage Road and Murrieta Hot Springs Road,respectively. Although not required for the proposed project, coordination during the installation of these transmission mains will be required. RORIPAUGH RANCH SPECIFIC PLAN ' 2N°REVISED DRAFT EIR-APRIL 1,2002 3-194 3.12 UTILITIES ProjectBuild-out Under the previous plan,ultimate demand for the bulk of the project was to be provided by EM-1 I which was to be constructed within the Johnson Ranch project. EM-1 1 is a regional turnout connection from MWD's mainline and is located at the intersection of Washington and Auld Roads,approximately two ' miles north and one mile east of the future intersection of Murrieta Hot Springs Road and Butterfield Stage Road. However, the Johnson Ranch project has been set aside as open space and will not develop. According to the previous EIR,a 60-inch transmission line and a4.1 MG reservoir will need to be constructed on the Johnson Ranch project to ultimately serve the Roripaugh Ranch project. In addition, a booster pump/metering station is necessary to provide adequate service pressure of 50 PSI to the site, as well as comply with fire flow requirements of the Riverside County Fire Department. The applicant will need to identify and receive assurances that an adequate source of water is available to serve the project. ' NOTE: It is possible the project applicant may wish to construct certain offsite water improvements on or ahead of theirplanned schedules to adequately serve the proposed project. The funding and scheduling of such improvements would be coordinated through the EMWD. ' SB 22]/SB 610 Requirements The applicant must provide the City with appropriate documentation from local water agencies that its water supply is guaranteed for at least 20 years, according to the requirements of SB 221 and SB 610. d) Standard Conditions and Uniform Codes ' Significant impacts to utility systems may occur if the project is not constructed according to applicable health and safety codes. All water-related improvements constructed as part of the proposed project will meet ' applicable City,County,and(uniform)California codes(i.e.,plumbing,fire,building). The City's development review process and construction inspection program will assure that these improvements are constructed according to appropriate standards. ' Significant utility impacts could occur if water is not conserved by the project. Water conservation measures recommended by the California Department of Water Resources will be incorporated as appropriate,including ' but not limited to: a)low flush toilets of no greater than 1.6 gallons per flush;b)low flow shower heads;c) insulation of hot water lines to provide hot water faster with less waste; and e)keeping water pressure at 55 pounds per square inch or less. Some portion of the landscaping,especially shrubs and trees,may be native species or species that are adapted to drought conditions. However, the nature of the project(i.e., largely residential) means that a good portion of each lot will likely be turf, and even varieties of grass that are considered to have`low"water consumption still consume considerable quantities of water,especially during ' the summer months. e) Project Design Features ' Water-related improvements on the project site will be made according to the master utility plans included in the Specific Plan,specifically the following figures:Master Water Plan(Figure 3.12-1);Master Sewer Plan (Figure 3.12-2); and Drainage Management Plan (Figure 3.12-3). Utility connections will be made to all needed systems in cooperation with the affected serving agency,either EMWD or RCWD. It should be noted that water lines will be constructed along with their respective roads. Based on annexation into the City,the ' project will provide a variety of development impact fees for anticipated utility impacts, in addition to constructing a number of water-related improvements onsite. RORIPAUGH RANCH SPECIFIC PLAN ' 2N°REVISED DRAFT EIR-APRIL 1,2002 3-195 ASHBY USA,LLC FIGURE 3.12-1 ' 24" Exist. EMWD 6.8 mg Mountain View tank ♦: 41 (1508 Pressure Zone) &� W ' 0 a (V a rc ww I �\ m B K I W a4 1A MP-Private MURR7FT�w " 12SSAC /9A 1 LM ♦V ' I 98 DUS 2 3 7 19 DACSPR1ryG\w, /3.8 AC 98 1 AC 9B DU'S DS1 LM 18.4 AC LM RC 4M ROgO O 6.8 AC !.D 99'DUS gg DUS 4.8 AC 19.6 AC 4g I 13 100 DUS LM t w OSA 179.6 AC ' 22.1 AC 6 1OS2 143 DUS Q �S.NAC 11 5 (1 7AC NC p4-0 7A 19.5 AC 053) 15.4 AC a0 3 ;D D 12" U 'A'STREET ' O� NAP w M2 �c : i ¢ 12" 16.2AC y 'I F (,S.DAC) • 17U U 9 w ISO OLPS 6 LM LEGEND 3 m S 16 LM 1344 DUS 29.1 AC B w Proposed 8"Water Mainw Joh i 14 15 M2 50 OU'S i IIN1C Rp 0 16.71AC 14.5 AC 33A qo i (14.3 AC) 174 DUS �r w Proposed 12"Water Main 14.1 AC 174 DVST5 wcS �g 30 5 Proposed 15"-16"Water Main 3 \K�_w�� ,4os9 4.0 AC LS ' 120 AC 24.4 AC © 2 106 DUS 8P . 31 Proposed 24"Water Main AC 28 19. ' 3(, AC OS2) S2 23.3. 2 C 19 20.0 AC 217 DU'S L 35. Existing Water Line 9 AC I B> 47 DUS Existing Water Tank 26 24°AC 2 M11 F� 9ACA 2311 S 13 DUS 102D OS2 16" �F�d.fLO� 84 DUS SOUTH LOOP ROAD M/ 9.2 AC CALLE 20 MO 30.8 AC ' CHAPOS w — — — .21 2 — — — — 35 DUS z9 DUS s _ _ I 32 PI ' 20 AC 1.5 AC) 1 T❑e K.,th Cpmpanieel TKO -T ® 0 _ M 1W Roripaugh ` Rallch ' 3.12 UTILITIES ' f) Mitigation Measures Implementation of the projectas proposed,including the Specific Plan master utility plans,standard conditions, ' and uniform codes, is not expected to produce any significant impacts on water systems. The following measure is recommended to assure an adequate source of water for the life of the project: ' (1) Prior to the recordation of maps,the developer will demonstrate that water in adequate volume and of adequate quality is available to serve project start-up through completion and full occupancy per requirements of the Eastern Municipal Water District and Rancho California Water District, as applicable. (2) Prior to approval of the Specific Plan, the developer shall provide the City with adequate ' documentation from the local water purveyors(EMWD and RCWD)that they have adequate water supplies according to the requirements of SB 221 and SB 610. ' g) Impacts of Mitigation Measures The proposed mitigation measures will create no significant impacts,although dedication of some potable water ' source(s) to serve the project could reduce the amount of water available for other suburban uses. h) Summary of Impacts After Mitigation With implementation of the project as proposed,including standard conditions,uniform codes,and mitigation measures, the project will not result in any significant water-related utility impacts. ' 3.12.2 Sewer a) Existing Conditions The Eastern Municipal Water District (EMWD)currently provides sewer service to the project area. At ' present, there are no sewer lines on or immediately adjacent to the project site. The closest existing sewer lines to the project site are: I)a 21-inch to 30-inch gravity line located about half a mile west of the Plateau area;and 2)a 21-inch gravity line in Nicolas Road about a mile southwest of the Plateau area. The EMWD has the present on-line capacity to treat 49 million gallons per day (MGD) of wastewater. The EMWD's Temecula Valley Plant,which serves the project area,is rated at 8 MGD but is currently treating 6 MGD(M. Gow,personal communication,June 1998). The EMWD has indicated it can accommodate planned growth ' in the Temecula area for the foreseeable future. b) Criteria for Determining Significance ' The City has not established local CEQA significance thresholds,however,potentially significant impacts to utilities may occur if a project results in a need for new systems, or substantial alterations to the following ' systems: ... sewer or septic tanks... (CEQA Guidelines, Appendix I). RORIPAUGH RANCH SPECIFIC PLAN ' 2N0 REVISED DRAFT EIR-APRIL 1,2002 3-197 ' 3.12 UTILITIES ' c) Level of Impact before Mitigation Generation The transmission and treatment of waste generated within Roripaugh Ranch will be provided by ' EMWD. As shown in Table 3.12-1,build-out of the proposed project could generate an average of 0.61 MGD of wastewater,although the maximum daily peak could be up to 50 percent higher(0.92 MGD). Thesefigures are based on an average generation factor of 100 gallons of sewage per person per day. The EMWD has indicated it has adequate capacity to serve the project, so no significant sewage treatment impacts are expected(M.Gow,personal communication, 1998). The original plan estimated its sewage generation at 0.58 MGD. Under the original project,the Sewer Master Plan for the proposed project shows an estimated sewage flow of 0.89 MGD. It was expected that Johnson Ranch,with an estimated sewage flow of 1.73 MGD,and other ' future offsite flows,of approximately 0.74 MGD,would enter into the Roripaugh Ranch sewer system. The total average flow to EMWD's system was thus expected to be 3.36 MGD. ' The sewage input to the Roripaugh system under the current land plan will be slightly lower than that projected under the original project. This is due to the current project having fewer units(thus lower population)plus the Johnson Ranch property was recently obtained for biological habitat and thus will have no development ' and no homes on it to generate sewage. It should be noted that all sewer service to the project site will be via gravity flow. ' Regional System The total average sewage flow from the project(0.62 MGD),except for that portion in the Plateau that flows northwesterly to Murrieta Hot Springs Road(0.147 MGD),will flow to Nicolas Road and be conveyed by a proposed 18-inch pipe to Liefer Road. From that point,a 21-inch pipe is proposed to t Joseph Road where it will connect to an existing 18-inch line maintained by EMWD. A proposed 18-inch line in Murrieta Hot Springs Road,from Pourr6y Road to the end of the Plateau will be required to convey flows from the Plateau area, Rancho Bella Vista, and the Tucalota Lift Station. Onsite System The Specific Plan contains a master plan designed to provide sewer services to the future project residents in a manner consistent with requirements of the City and EMWD. A series of 8 to 18-inch lines would serve the project site tied to a new 18-inch main line in Nicolas Road. Interior lines servicing individual subdivisions will consist of 8-inch lines. This system is designed to also accommodate future flows from the Rancho Bella Vista and Johnson Ranch projects to the north and from the Calle Contento area to the ' southeast. Figure 2-6b shows the proposed regional improvements while Figure 3.12-2 shows the master sewer plan for the project site. Precise alignments and sizing of sewer facilities will be determined at the tentative tract map stage of development. The location and size of facilities identified in the document may change, subject to the approval of the City of Temecula Public Works Department and EMWD. NOTE: It is possible the project applicant may wish to construct certain offsite sewer improvements on or ' ahead of their planned schedules to adequately serve the proposed project. The funding and scheduling of such improvements would be coordinated through the EMWD. RORIPAUGH RANCH SPECIFIC PLAN 2N°REVISED DRAFT EIR-APRIL 1,2002 3-198 ASHBY USA,LLC FIGURE 3.12-2 FUTURE RANCHO BELLA VISTA a ' O �/ 8 18" 181, 18.. 2 B" MWD PROPERTY Cu I 5w 1B b _ . L t I 1A a-'P'tcm URR� '° „p 12.!5 Ac / '9A 1LD (� p I LMV/ CD 19.0 AC 2 T OS1 8.1 AC 9B a0 I m 3.8 AC s . LM 3 5 4A sPR.Mps oou s e enc S I 8 18.4 AC 18 LM 13 �g xnBc 99 DU'S gg DUS 4.8 AC 19.6 AC' 4g � pAp OS2 100 DU'S Z 051 8• 22.1 C 6 179.6 AC 1NP 0 2 8" 5.1 AC 11 OS3) 8" 15.4 Ac (10.0 AC) D � ICL ' NAP Of1vz y V N 16.2 AC ED 50 AC) 150 Dus 17 LM O Proposed 18"-21"Sewer 3 g 16 37`.5AC (Off-Site to Joseph Road) - - LM 144 Du'S U ' 29.1 AC 14 15 150 Dvs LEGEND ', �: 33AP 1671 AC 4.M2 M2 14.1 AC L / (174 DU'S14.3 AC) 174 DU'S 4 x I Proposed Gravity �' - -15 DU'S l] ' Sewer Main,Size Noted - _ a.o 18 5, 21 30 LM 12.0 AC 24.4 AC Proposed Manhole 27 106 DU'S SP 31 19.8 AC 28 _ (1.2 AC OS2) 2 23.3 AC 19 Flow Direction = 20.0 nc 8, 2n Du s 1 L 35.9 AC 8" 47 Du's 26 24O AC M2 c M7 17.0 AC 25 13.9 AC 113 DU'S 102 DU'S 02 84 DU•S 9.2 AC 0 ' CALLE 20 30.1 AC CHAPOS - - - .21 2 - - - - 35 DU5 - - 299 DU'S DU'S ' P2 _ I 2.O AC (1.5 AC) The Keith Comp-es h /A . 3.12 UTILITIES ' d) Standard Conditions and Uniform Codes ' All utility improvements constructed as part of the proposed project will meet applicable City,County,and California plumbing,fire,and building codes including potable water and sewer pipelines,electrical cables and wiring,natural gas lines,solid waste containers and enclosures,and telephone lines. The City's development review process and construction inspection program will assure that these improvements are constructed according to appropriate standards. e) Project Design Features Sewer-related improvements on the project site will be made according to the master utility plans included in the Specific Plan. Utility connections will be made to all needed systems in cooperation with the affected serving agency. ' f) Mitigation Measures Implementation of the project as proposed,including the Specific Plan master utility plans,standard conditions, ' and uniform codes, is not expected to produce any significant impacts on sewer systems. Therefore, no mitigation measures are needed or proposed. However,the following additional measure is proposed to help with minimizing long-term production of sewage and encourage recycling of wastewater for useful purposes: ' (3) If available,the developer shall obtain reclaimed water for irrigating landscaped areas on the project site, to the satisfaction of the Temecula Community Services and Public Works Departments. g) Impacts of Mitigation Measures ' The proposed additional measure will create no significant impacts,although the installation of additional pipes both on-and offsite will create temporary impacts such as noise,air pollution,and traffic congestion(where pipelines are in roads). These are not expected to be significant. ' h) Summary of Impacts After Mitigation ' With implementation of the project as proposed,including standard conditions,uniform codes,and mitigation measures, the project will not result in any significant utility impacts related to sewer service. ' 3.12.3 Flood Control a) Existing Conditions Local drainage west of the project(i.e.,within the City limits)is the responsibility of the City of Temecula, while regional drainage facilities are under thej urisdiction of the Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District(RCFCWCD). Since the Santa Gertrudis Creek is a blue-line stream and is classified as a federal"navigable waterway,"it is under thejurist iction of the U.S.Army Corps of Engineers(ACOE). For new facilities,the RCFCWCD has the primary responsibility forlocal review of flood control structures. ' For more information on flood control, see Section 3.4 on Water Resources. RORIPAUGH RANCH SPECIFIC PLAN ' 2rvO REVISED DRAFT EIR-APRIL 1,2002 3-200 ' 3.12 UTILITIES ' b) Criteria for Determining Significance ' TheCityhas notestablished local CEQA significance thresholds,however,potentially significant impacts to utilities may occur if a project results in a need for new systems, or substantial alterations to the following systems: ...storm water drainage ... (CEQA Guidelines, Appendix I). ' c) Level of Impact before Mitigation ' The Riverside County Flood Control District and the U.S.Army Corps of Engineers will review and approve appropriate drainage structures along Santa Gertrudis Creek and Long Valley Wash. Onsite drainage and control structures are designed to prevent an increase in offsite flow. Based on this information,no significant ' flood control impacts are expected. The drainage master plan for the project site was previously described in Section 3.4. ' d) Standard Conditions and Uniform Codes Significant safety impacts could result from the project not planning or constructing drainage improvements 1 to applicable standards. All drainage improvements will meet applicable City codes. The City's development review process and construction inspection program will assure that these improvements are constructed according to appropriate standards. e) Project Design Features Flood control improvements on the project site will be made according to the master utility plans included in the Specific Plan,specifically the Drainage Master Plan(Figure 3.12-3). Drainage connections will be made to all needed systems in cooperation with the affected serving agency. Based on annexation into the City,the project will construct a number of onsite facilities to alleviate flood control-related impacts. f) Mitigation Measures Implementation of the project as proposed,including the Specific Plan master utility plans,standard conditions, and uniform codes, is not expected to produce any significant impacts on flood control systems. g) Impacts of Mitigation Measures No mitigation measures are proposed as no significant impacts are expected. h) Summary of Impacts After Mitigation With implementation of the project as proposed,including standard conditions,uniform codes,and mitigation measures, the project will not result in any significant utility impacts related to flood control. RORIPAUGH RANCH SPECIFIC PLAN ' 2ND REVISED DRAFT EIR-APRIL 1,2002 3-201 ' ASHBYUSA,LLC FIGURE 3.12-3 p a 1 � 8 uyci 06 T2• 4zarc Q • i- ' 1LM P-Pmate MURRrprq h012.6fAG /9A L0 I ... �.•' I n ',Z�gl p(S @ 19.0 AC T \ 96 0 ACDUS 2 SP/jrN 73 6 AC 9 1 ACU'S OSB, I �,7 3 5 CS o 6.8 AC ' 16A AC LM 4LM A ' d Q1W- ]OBi1L 99 DU'S 16.9AC 46AC 19136AC ROS \S ' 99 DUS ,00Du•s � Ds, 50 cfs 2C 22�MAc g 96AC — — •OS2 — 11 U'S g S.NAC NC 7A 19 5A 5 OS3) 154 AC \ / 75 Detention Basin �5 _ _ ^� (10.0 AC) �,/ 10 Ac/Ft �° Det 1OntiA�Bi sin p /Channel / 100 Flow By Detention Basin a--' o NAP M2 y 19 Ac/Ft 16.2 AC ' — I oUS 17LM s J 3 16 37.5 AC O LM 144 DU'S O ' . LEGEND 291 AC NiCOLAS ?� 14 15 150 DU•S M2 M2 v 145AC R Proposed 24" Storm Drain Pipe 33A "O 0° (143Ac) n4DU'u's 14.1 Ac 174 DU'S S. — o� 0 Proposed 30" Storm Drain Pipe 0,00=3075 cfs dA 18 00 S9 LM ' 120AC Dur 264A •���• Proposed 42" Storm Drain Pipe 2P °6s 196AC 28 M2 ' • Proposed 72" Storm Drain Pipe 1 (1 20 200AC mous 1L( L Q1oo=4460 cfS —• % ai ou s I Q— .. . Proposed Storm Drain Inlet/Outlet Structure �.. . �' 1 Lon�a /afleyNarinT 26 s°4 bs c— — ^ Proposed Hydro Arch Bridges 22 23 M2 7 o AC _° "<<F or other design approved by City Engineer Q,�� 13 SMAC 10 5 A0 102 DUS Os2 3 DU'S 9.2 AC TO 3Se SOUTH LOOP ROAD Improved Natural Drainage 84 DU'S 20 N3?66, L - Flow By I cuLe cw Pos — — 30.6 AC Detention Basi1Local Storm Drain flows are excluded2lzeous 3s8AC 8.4AdFt from this exhibit — — — — — — 32 P, Sources: Plateau drainage by Adkan Engineering, (2001) 2 SAC, ^^�sg ' Valley portion by TKC (1988, 2000 1) °fs 1 The Keith Compenmaj..MA 1 ' 3.12 UTILITIES ' 3.12.4 Electricity a) Existing Conditions ' Edison International supplies electricity to the City including the project site. Edison has indicated it has sufficient energy sources,substation facilities,and distribution systems to adequately serve the project area, including the project site(P.McDonnell,personal communication,June 1998). Fora brief discussion of the ongoing energy "crisis," see section 3.8). ' b) Criteria for Determining Significance The City has not established local CEQA significance thresholds,however,potentially significant impacts to utilities may occur if a project results in a need for new systems, or substantial alterations to the following systems: ... [electrical] power ...(CEQA Guidelines, Appendix I). c) Level of Impact before Mitigation Edison International will serve the proposed project. Providing service to the project site will require connection to and extension of local distribution lines serving the project area. It is estimated the project will consume 36,940 Kilowatt-Hours (KwH) of electricity each day based on average electrical consumption factors developed by EI and the South Coast Air Quality Management District in its CEQA Handbook t (SCAQMD 1994). Table 3.12-1 shows the electrical consumption calculations for the proposed project. Based on this information,no significant electrical utility impacts are expected. The original project had been estimated to consume 36,799 KwH of electricity per day. ' d) Standard Conditions and Uniform Codes Significant health or safety impacts might result if the proposed electrical system of theproject were notbuilt according to applicable safety codes. All utility improvements constructed as part of the proposed project will meet applicable City,County,and California plumbing,tire,and building codes,including electrical cables and t wiring. The City's development review process and construction inspection program will assure that these improvements are constructed according to appropriate standards. e) Project Design Features The project design does not include any features applicable to electrical service. ' f) Mitigation Measures ' Implementation of the project asproposed,including the Specific Plan masterutility plans,standard conditions, and uniform codes, is not expected to produce any significant impacts on electric systems. tg) Impacts of Mitigation Measures No mitigation measures are proposed as no significant impacts are expected. RORIPAUGH RANCH SPECIFIC PLAN 1 2N°REVISED DRAFT EIR-APRIL 1,2002 3-203 1 3.12 UTILITIES ' h) Summary of Impacts After Mitigation With implementation of the project as proposed,including standard conditions,uniform codes,and mitigation measures, the project will not result in any significant impacts to electrical service. 3.12.5 Natural Gas ' a) Existing Conditions ' The Southern California Gas Company (SCLC)supplies natural gas to the City including the project site. SCGC has indicated it has sufficient energy sources,substation facilities,and distribution systems to adequately serve the project area (B. Holmes,personal communication, June 1998). ' Comments on Previous DEIRs t The SCGC sent a letter on July 2,2001 on the previous DEIR providing current gas consumption figures for the proposed land uses. The current 2n°Revised DEIR incorporates these consumption figures. ' b) Criteria for Determining Significance The City has not established local CEQA significance thresholds,however,potentially significant impacts to utilities may occur if a project results in a need for new systems, or substantial alterations to the following systems: ... natural gas ... (CEQA Guidelines, Appendix I). ' c) Level of Impact before Mitigation The project will be served by the Southern California Gas Company(SCGC). Providing service to the project ' site will require connections to SCGC local facilities. It is estimated the project will consume 464,667 cubic feet of natural gas each day based on average consumption factors from SCAQMD's CEQA Handbook (SCAQMD 1994). Table 3.12-1 shows the natural gas consumption calculations for the proposed project. ' Based on this information, no significant natural gas utility impacts are expected. The original project was estimated to consume 356,000 cubic feet of natural gas each day. ' d) Standard Conditions and Uniform Codes All utility improvements constructed as part of the proposed project will meet applicable City,County,and uniform codes(i.e.,plumbing,fire,building)including natural gas lines. The City's development review process and construction inspection program will assure that these improvements are constructed according to ' appropriate standards. e) Project Design Features The project design does not include any features applicable to natural gas utilities. RORIPAUGH RANCH SPECIFIC PLAN 1 2x0 REVISED DRAFT EIR-APRIL 1,2002 3-204 1 ' 3.12 UTILITIES ' fj Mitigation Measures Implementation ofthe project as proposed,including the Specific Plan master utility plans,standard conditions, ' and uniform codes, is not expected to produce any significant impacts on natural gas utility systems. g) Impacts of Mitigation Measures ' No mitigation measures are proposed since no significant impacts are expected. ' h) Summary of Impacts After Mitigation With implementation of the project as proposed,including standard conditions,uniform codes,and mitigation ' measures, the project will not result in any significant utility impacts related to natural gas systems. 3.12.6 Solid Waste a) Existing Conditions ' According to the County of Riverside Waste Management Department, the site lies within the service area of both the El Sobrante Landfill and the Lamb Canyon Landfill. The El Sobrante Landfill is located in Dawson Canyon,east of Interstate 15,approximately 35 miles from the project site,and the Lamb Canyon Landfill is ' located at 16411 Lamb Canyon Road, northeast of the project. These landfills will reach capacity in approximately 2004-2005, however, they have the potential for expansion beyond their current capacity. The El Sobrante Landfill is a Class III landfill. It occupies 160 acres and accepts an average of 900 tons per day. The Lamb Canyon Landfill encompasses 788 acres and serves a regional area of 515 square miles. Lamb Canyon has a permitted annual capacity of 682,000 tons with the average daily capacity of the first ' quarter of 1993 being approximately 500 tons. The total capacity of this landfill is 8 million tons. The approximate remaining capacity for the landfills as of 1995 was 4.667 million tons and 1.042 million tons respectively. ' A third landfill,the Badlands Sanitary Landfill,can also service the project site. The Badlands Sanitary Landfill encompasses 1,081 acres and is located in the unincorporated area of Riverside County,east of the City of Moreno Valley. This facility currently has a disposal area of 141 acres and has an annual capacity of 432 thousand tons of solid waste. The facility is expected to close by the year 2010. ' The City of Temecula's current franchised waste hauler is CR&R,Inc.,located in the City of Perris. CR&R currently provides all solid waste collection services for the City of Temecula. All solid waste generated within the City of Temecula is disposed of at the Badlands Sanitary Landfill. ' In addition, the Integrated Waste Management Act of 1989 (A.B. 939) requires all cities and counties to develop a waste stream source reduction and recycling plan that will reduce waste streams to landfills 25 ' percent by 1995 and 50 percent by the year 2000. The project site currently generates minimal amounts of solid waste, mainly from agricultural activities, animal waste and domestic waste. RORIPAUGH RANCH SPECIFIC PLAN ' 2NO REVISED DRAFT EIR-APRIL 1,2002 3-205 ' 3.12 UTILITIES ' b) Criteria for Determining Significance _ The City has notestablished local CEQA significance thresholds,however,potentially significant impacts to ' utilities may occur if a project results in a need for new systems, or substantial alterations to the following systems: ... solid waste and disposal (CEQA Guidelines, Appendix I). ' c) Level of Impact before Mitigation The proposed project will increase the amount of solid waste generated on the project site and thus increase service needs for waste haulers. As indicated in Table 3.12-1,the project site is anticipated to generate 25,918 pounds per day or 4,728 tons of solid waste per year. Generation factors utilized to calculate project-related solid waste were provided by the Riverside County Solid Waste Management Department and the National ' Solid Waste Management Association(NSWMA). This waste stream will include various types of recyclable (e.g.,aluminum cans,glass bottles)and non-recyclable(e.g.,restaurant or kitchen food)wastes,but does not account for"green"wastes produced by yard or landscape maintenance. The original project was projected ' to generate 4,282 tons per year of solid waste. The construction phase of development will also produce solid waste. Construction wastes are calculated at ' approximately 16 pounds per square foot of building space and generally consist of lumber,roofing material, concrete,debris, etc. Assuming 2,000 square feet per dwelling unit combined with the square footage for commercial uses,the solid waste associated with the overall construction phase of the project is approximately ' 29,008 tons (based on 3.63 MSF). The California Integrated Waste Management Act of 1989 requires cities to adopt a Source Recovery and ' Recycling Element(SRRE),which requires the City to divert 25 percent of its solid waste from its landfills by 1995 and to divert 50 percent by the year 2000. The City adopted its SRRE in July of 1992,pursuant to State law. The City achieved its 50 percent diversion goal for the year 2000. Recycling reduces the quantity of ' waste disposal,but lower future annual percentage increases in daily per capita waste generation is necessary for the City and County in meeting their State-mandated goals of Assembly Bill 939. ' The County Waste Management District recommends that new development projects include methods to reduce the quantity of waste being sent to local landfills, including proper site design for the storage of recyclables separated for pick-up. Implementation of a waste disposal strategy for the proposed project can ' assist the City and County in achieving their mandated goals of the Integrated Waste Management Act by developing feasible waste programs that encourage source reduction, recycling and composting. ' There appears tobe adequate landfill space for the present and immediate future,and the City participates in solid waste management activities through its SRRE. Based on this information,no significant solid waste utility impacts are expected. The project will be consistent with the goals of the General Plan related to utility ' systems after implementation of the proposed mitigation measures. d) Standard Conditions and Uniform Codes ' The City's development review process and construction inspection program will assure that these improvements areconstructed according to appropriate standards regarding recycling(i.e.,all residential units ' within RoripaughRanch willberequired toparticipate in theCity's threebin system for the collection of solid waste, recyclable, and green waste materials). RORIPAUGH RANCH SPECIFIC PLAN 2rvO REVISED DRAFT EIR-APRIL 1,2002 3-206 ' 3.12 UTILITIES ' e) Project Design Features The project design does not include any features applicable to solid waste utilities. ' f) Mitigation Measures ' Implementation of the project as proposed,includingthe Specific Plan master utility plans,standard conditions, and uniform codes,is notexpected to produce any significant impacts on water,sewer,flood control,electric, or natural gas utility systems. However,the following measures are proposed to prevent solid waste impacts from becoming significant (5) Priorto theissuanceof occupancy permits,the developer will inform all refuse generators within the ' project site in writing about opportunities for recycling and waste reduction(i.e.buy-back centers, curbside recycling, etc.). The use of such facilities will be encouraged by the developer through information (e.g. materials accepted, location, etc.)provided in sales literature. ' (6) Priorto the issuance of building permits,the developer will provide adequate areas forcollecting and loading recyclable materials(recycling areas)in the commercial area. This will help the City comply ' with the California Solid Waste Reuse and Recycling Access Act of1991 (AB 1327). Thedeveloper will also demonstrate compliance with established standards for design, siting, and operation of recycling areas and programs. ' (7) All commercial wastes shall be processed at the Materials Recovery Facility in the City of Perris,or similar recovery facility. (8) The developer shall provide proof toTCSD that construction debris,includingbut notlimited to lumber, asphalt, concrete, sand, paper, and metal is recycled. ' g) Impacts of Mitigation Measures ' Implementation of the proposed mitigation measures will create no significant impacts. h) Summary of Impacts After Mitigation ' With implementation of the project as proposed,including standard conditions,uniform codes,and mitigation measures, the project will not result in any significant utility impacts. 1 RGRIPAUGH RANCH SPECIFIC PLAN 2NO REVISED DRAFT EIR-APRIL 1,2002 3-207 ' 3.13 AESTHETICS ' This section provides a detailed analysis of how existing views of the project area will change as a result of development of the proposed project. This section presents visual graphic materials to illustrate the magnitude of the visual changes, including computerized photographic renderings and elevational cross sections. 3.13.1 Environmental Setting a) Views The project site and surrounding areas are largely vacant with views of the Santa Ana Mountains to the west and the San Jacinto Mountains to the east and northeast. The site consists of low rolling hills and gently sloping terraces, most of which have been disced for agriculture. The northern and northeastern portions of the ' project site contain higher elevations which block views of the site from the north and east. The central portion of the site is dominated by two tributaries of Santa Gertrudis Creek. Tree cover within the northern tributary of the creek is dense in some places,mainly cottonwoods and willows. Large lot rural residential development ' exists to the west,south,and east of the site. Lands to the north,including the approved Rancho Bella Vista Specific Plan and the Johnson Ranch Specific Plan, are largely undeveloped with rolling hills and water courses. Some residences in the City of Temecula are visible from the far west boundary of the Plateau area. ' At present, the project site supports agriculture (dry farming) and limited mining (i.e., sand and gravel extraction)activities. The general area is relatively rural but developing with residential uses. It presently ' contains few sources of light and glare other than isolated residences. Figure 3.13-1 shows various views of the project site. Views in the center portion of the site are dominated by the Santa Gertrudis Creek,especially from the existing knoll of the Roripaugh residence.From this vantage point,one can see southwest toward Temecula and north toward Lake Skinner and the Hemet area. Also from this point,one can see the ridgeline along the south side ' of Santa Gertrudis Creek and the ridgeline further south that forms the southern boundary of the site. The flatter portions of the site supports agriculture (dry farming), while the steeper slopes support relatively undisturbed native scrub vegetation. One large grove and several small strands of eucalyptus trees are found onsite, which provide some visual interest in the gently rolling terrain- The MWD water transmission easement,that crosses the Plateau portion of the site,contains a number of tall (+100 foot) vent towers clearly visible on the project site and from a distance off the site. 1 1 1 FoRIPAUGH RANCH SPECIFIC PLAN ' 2N0 REVISED DRAFT EIR-APRIL 1,2002 3-208 ASHBY USA,LLC FIGURE 3.13-1A ' Of-6-1111 O � 1 - g 1 Looking northeast across Santa Gertrudis Creek (across Planning Areas 10) 2 ' Looking northwest across Santa Gertrudis Creek toward Neighborhood commercial (MWD vent pipes in distance) ° ° wt ° to ro r n ta' a ' u n a at ' KEYMAP SCALE:1'=4000' xt xa ' The Keith Companies ITKC ® � Roripaugh , Ranch H O i T O $ C • L E 1 ASHBYUSA,LLC FIGURE 3.13-1B Of 1 0 1 � 1 � m 1 1 s 1 Looking east across Plateau toward Eucalyptus grove (across Planning Areas 1-3) 1 1 1 _ 1 4 1 Looking southwest across"southern"area toward future Butterfield Stage Road Alignment to l i Y 10 yJ �B 1] yy 19 4 N 15 17 19 A " e 9 .m 31 1 KEYMAP 1'J P SCALE: a a ]1 A Y 1 TM1e KaitM1 Compeniee �C , f,��1, ® _ T . 0 S C A L E Roi augh ` Ranch i — 1 ASHBYUSA,LLC Figure: 3.13-1C p N d 1 �/}� ri \V a 1 L o 1 0 � s n 3 1 -feew 1 ' S Looking northwest across Nicolas Valley toward the "Plateau" 1 i 1 6 Looking north from Nicolas Road toward west end of"Plateau" 1 �.. 1A 2 3-6._.� 8 M 10 13 0 11 1 6T 12 M 11 1 �V/ N iJ M 31 KEYMAP 2 SCALE:1'i000' 2z n 21 20 1 fir The Kafth Campaeieel.MC 1T 0 — Ronpaugh Ranch ASHBY USA.LLC Figure: 3.13-1D (U ' L 4 � y 0 Dee 1 W 7 � ' Looking south along future extension of Butterfield Stage Road toward south boundary of"Valley" area Looking north along future extension of Butterfield Stage Road tnear south boundary of"Valley" area � 3B 13 IA °I ,3 m 16 17 KEYMAP 1B 13 1° a I— SCALE:1 X000' n m x 31 1e 8 3B a H The Keith CompanleelMMC 1 / N 0= T 0 — Roripaugh Ranch ASHBY USA,LLC Figure: 3.13-1E ^^ g ' — b y A 8 ' CIO 4 4-0 t � R m ' Looking southwest across residences along Calle Girasol west of"Valley" area 10 a _ _ Looking east along Long Valley Wash toward ' Calle Contento area m ''3 ] b M e to — m � 13 e tt I t. t] e to y %p tb KEYMAP zs n of e SCALE,1 40W ' 10 Tha Keith C"mpeni .ITKC l�l� N 0T r 0 _ Ronpaug]l Rarnch ' 3.13 AESTHETICS ' b) "Dark Skies" The Roripaugh Ranch project site is currently vacant and does not generate any significant light or glare. The ' City of Temecula is within the nighttime lighting restrictions area of the Mt.Palomar Observatory. The Mt. Palomar Observatory requires nighttime lighting restrictions in order to prevent a condition known as"skyglow", which interferes with the use of the telescope at the observatory. The City of Temecula has adopted an ' ordinance which restricts nighttime lighting for areas within a 15- and 45-mile radius of the Mt. Palomar Observatory. Roripaugh Ranch is within the 45-mile radius line so various types of lighting controls and restrictions are required. ' Comments on Previous DEIRs t Many local residents wrote letters of support for the original DEIR. However, the various changes to the project that occurred after that document was circulated were not acceptable to many residents in the Nicolas Valley and Calle Contento area. A number of residents provided comment letters on the revised DEIR ' expressing concern about views and compatibility of the proposed uses in their rural area. The project was subsequently changed and the new project now has abufferof large lots around the east,south,and southwest boundaries to make it more compatible with surrounding uses. These changes also have improved views from ' the Nicolas Valley since the homes on the"Plateau'area have been moved back from the edge and are less visible,and the Village Core area proposed in the previous DEIR,with office,institutional,and commercial uses immediately adjacent to the Nicolas Valley, has been eliminated from the current plan. ' 3.13.2 Criteria for Determining Significance t The City has not established local significance thresholds. However,the environmental checklist form provided in the CEQA Guidelines(Appendix I)suggests the following three significance criteria related to aesthetic impacts; a)the obstruction of any scenic vista or view open to the public;b)the creation of an aesthetically offensive site open to public view; or c) introduction of new sources of light or glare into an area. 3.13.3 Level of Impact Before Mitigation a) Viewsheds Development of a suburban residential community will add nighttime activities and lighting, which will contribute to an overall change in the aesthetic character of the area. As the project site develops, it will slowly transition from agriculture and rural residential views to those typically associated with suburban communities. While this will be a substantial change in views compared to those at present,it should not be an adverse change as long as structures and improvements added to the site are visually appealing or at least unobtrusive. Residential rooftops and streets will replace agricultural fields and,in some areas,natural hillsides of scrub vegetation. The project calls for the preservation of 261 acres of natural open space,mainly in the steeper upland areas. These open space areas will preserve two natural drainage corridors through the site (i.e., Santa Gertrudis Creek, Long Valley Wash) and will provide a more natural visual backdrop from ' developed areas. Removal of the large eucalyptus grove in Planning Area 13 will result in minor visual impacts,but the Specific ' Plan proposes to install hundreds of landscaped trees which will provide interesting visual elements to replace those lost by development. RORIPAUGH RANCH SPECIFIC PLAN ' 2NO REVISED DRAFT EIR-APRIL 1,2002 3-214 ■ 3.13 AESTHETICS ' Views of the site differ depending on the location and vantage to and from a particular site location. The site comprises five main view areas of potential impact. These are: 1)the"Plateau'area;2)the"Central'area; 3)North/Central Valley Area;4)Southern Valley Area;and 5)Calle Contento area. Each area will be visible ' in different ways from neighboring residences,each proposes different land uses,and each will create different impacts to views. ' Plateau Planning Areas 1 through 4B are proposed for residential uses at approximately 5.0 units per acre with lot sizes of 5,000 square feet. Homes will likely be 1-and 2-story and range from 1,750 to 2,200 square feet. The Nicolas Valley area,immediately south of the Plateau area,is comprised of a wide range of large ' lot residences, ranging from half an acre to over 5 acres. These properties contain a variety of residences, from mobile homes to sprawling ranch homes. The Plateau is 40-60 feet higher in elevation than Nicolas Valley,and the closest residential unit in the valley is several hundred feet south of the Plateau boundary. In ' addition,Planning Area 7 provides a mixture of natural and landscaped open space to help buffer the proposed homes from the valley,so that only the upper portion of the first row of homes proposed in the Plateau would be visible from the valley. However, the new homes would appear much closer together than the existing ' homes in Nicolas Valley. The Specific Plan indicates that any units along the southern Plateau area that are within 175 feet of the southern property line,and that are visible from homes along the north side of Nicolas Road, will either have an additional rear yard building setback or be visually screened with landscaping to help ' protect views from Nicolas Valley. When all of the visual factors are weighed,the elevation difference,the design guidelines of the Specific Plan,the visual buffer with expanded setbacks and/orenhancedlandscaping, there should not be significant adverse impacts related to views of the Plateau from Nicolas Valley. This ' potential impact is illustrated in Figures 3.13-4 and 3.13-5, which provide cross sections and photographic renderings of these two areas, respectively. This area may be subject to some increased ambient nighttime light levels when the fieldlights are on at the community park (Planning Area 27). See the section on "Night Lighting" for more details. ' Central Area This area comprises Planning Areas 11, 12,and 33 and will provide a mixture of medium density residential and commercial uses,ranging from 1-to 2-story in height. The western boundary of this area is separated from the lower density residential uses of the east Nicolas Valley by two MWD adjacent ' pipeline areas(one 70-foot wide property actually owned by MWD and one 50-foot wide easement area),plus a 40-foot wide RCWD easement. The 50-foot wide MWD pipeline easement and the RCWD easement are on the Roripaugh Ranch property. Three factors appear to provide an adequate visual and logistical separation ' between the proposed uses and the rural residential uses of the Nicolas Valley. The MWD property, the proposed landscape buffer, and the elevation and topographic separation of this area are from the Nicolas Valley appear to provide adequate separation between it and Nicolas Valley. Therefore,no significant impacts ' are expected regarding views between these two areas. This potential impact is illustrated in Figures 3.13-4 and 3.13-5 which provide several elevational cross sections and photographic renderings and of these two areas, respectively. ' This area will be subject to increased ambient nighttime light levels when the fieldlights are on at the community park (Planning Area 27),but it will also create its own skyglow conditions as a result of night 1 lighting for the various commercial uses at night(i.e.,a shopping center). Its location part way up the slope will exacerbate this problem with existing residents to the south and southwest as well as new project residents to the southeast. See the section on "Night Lighting" for more details. RORIPAUGH RANCH SPECIFIC PLAN 2NO REVISED DRAFT EIR-APRIL 1,2002 3-215 1 ' 3.13 AESTHETICS ' North/Central Valley Area Planning Areas 14, 15,23,and 27 through 31 propose mainly medium density residential uses with some in clustered courtyard designs, while others are in more standard single family design with lot sizes ranging from 5,000 to 6,000 square feet.These areas are considerably more dense(i.e., ' smaller lots) than nearby development visible in the Nicolas Valley to the west, off of Calle Girasol. In addition,low medium density housing will be built in Planning Areas 17, 18, 19,and 23. These uses would be separated from existing uses by Butterfield Stage Road,Planning Areas 28 and 27, which are proposed for ' a middle school and community park,and,to some degree,by the Long Valley Wash which is proposed to be expanded and improved. It could also be argued that a major arterial like Butterfield Stage Road is also not completely compatible with existing rural conditions in the Nicolas Valley(i.e.,half-acre to 5-acre plus lots). 1 AlimitednumberofhomesoffofCalleGirasolwillhavearelativelydirectviewoftheprojectsite,including the ballfield lighting for night use of the proposed community park. In addition,the lights on the athletic fields will create a "skyglow" effect over the entire area. Figure 3.13-4A provides a cross section of the far ' northern portion of this area,adjacent to Santa Gertrudis Creek,while this potential impact is visually illustrated in Figures 3.13-5 through 3.13-8 via a photographic rendering. These figures show that as much as 40 to 50 feet of the top of the central east-west ridge will be removed to provide soil and easier grading for home pads. For these reasons,this is considered a significant aesthetic impact due to the fundamental change of views and ambiance it will bring to this rural area(i.e., loss of the existing ridge and the area is currently very dark at night). ' There will be some local improvement of viewsheds to the north when the ridgeline is lowered and typical suburban housing is constructed along this new ridge. However, the change in views is not considered a ' significant benefit, and many would argue the lowering of the natural ridgeline is relatively adverse. This area will be subject to increased ambient nighttime light levels when the field lights are on at the ' community park (Planning Area 27). See the section on "Night Lighting for more details. Southern Valley Area Planning Areas 20 and 21 are proposed for residential uses with lot sizes of 20,000 square feet(half- and one-acre). However, the larger lots are planned along the southern boundary of the site(l acre). Houses in these areas could range from 3,000 to 5,500 square feet or more. These lot sizes are considerably smaller than existing adjacent lots, which run from 2.5 to over 5 acres. It should be noted, ' however,that many of the lots along the south boundary of the Ronpaugh Ranch property are currently vacant, and only two residences have a direct view of the project site due to the presence of small "notches"in the rolling hills that otherwise form the southern border of the project site. Other than these 2 houses,the rest of the properties offsite to the south will not have a direct view of the Valley portion of the site,except for the upper portions of Planning Areas 16 and 17 up to the central east-west ridge north of those Planning Areas. It should also be noted that a new fire station site is proposed in this area(Planning Area 32)which may cause ' some minor,temporary noise impacts on the residential uses to the south when station equipment and personnel are responding to calls. For these reasons,this area should not have significant visual and aesthetic impacts on neighboring uses(although land use impacts are still significant). This potential impact is illustrated in ' Figures 3.13-413 and 3.134C which provide elevation cross sections of the two areas. This area will be subject to increased ambient nighttime light levels when the field lights are on at the community park (Planning Area 27). See the section on "Night Lighting" for more details. Calle Contento Area Existing development off of Calle Contento consists of large,rural style lots ranging up to 10-acre plus lots. Homes in Planning Area 19 are proposed to have lots ranging from 20,000 to one acre, RORIPAUGH RANCH SPECIFIC PLAN ' 2N°REVISED DRAFT EIR-APRIL 1,2002 3-216 3.13 AESTHETICS ' with the larger lots located adjacent to the eastern boundary. By comparison, these proposed lot sizes are considerably smaller than the existing lots adjacent to the east,which is considered part of the Temecula wine country. The rolling hills along the east and south sides of the project site will only partially shield views of new ' units from existing units. For these reasons, land use impacts in this area are considered to be at least potentially significant. Figure 3.13-7 shows a rendering of views looking"up"(east)Long Valley Wash toward the Calle Contento area. This area will be subject to increased ambient nighttime light levels when the field lights are on at the community park (Planning Area 27). See the section on "Night Lighting"for more details. (b) Night Lighting ' The neighborhood park(Planning Area 6)or the athletic fields of the elementary school (Planning Area 29) will not be lighted for night use. However,they will include security lighting. The fields at the community sports park and middle school (Planning Areas 27 and 28) will be lighted for nighttime athletic events. ' However, the City installs lighting controls to limit hours of use to no later than 10 PM. Lights for the bal lfields at the communi ty sports park will create significant impacts on surrounding land uses, ' both on the project site and in surrounding neighborhoods. Even with the most extensive shielding,the increase in ambient night lighting levels from the existing dark(rural)condition will be significant. This can be mitigated to some degree,but notfully,by careful lighting design and placement. The increase in ambient nightlighting ' when the park lights are on will affect essentially all portions of the project site,plus neighboring areas such as Nicolas Valley, the Calle Girasol area, and the Calle Contento area. ' Street and other outdoor night-lighting will be installed as the project develops,and new structures will have windows that may create isolated glare at certain times of the day. As long as standard locations and lighting and window fixtures are utilized, no significant impacts are expected to result from light and glare. ' Street lighting in the Valley neighborhoods is proposed to be reduced or eliminated, depending on the neighborhood,to help maintain the rural atmosphere and to reduce night light impacts on the existing residences ' to the south and east. Security,street,orresidential building lighting next to habitatareas(i.e.,Planning Areas 10, 11,and to alesser degree,Planning Areas 12, 14, 15, 16,and 17 may cause impacts to sensitive biological species,especially noctural animals that are sensitive to the presence of humans. Such areas must be shielded or lighting limited or eliminated to minimize potential impacts to these areas. ' e) "Dark Skies" ' Due to the projects location relative to the Mt. Palomar Observatory,new onsite lighting requirements could potentially contribute to a regional condition known as"skyglow"which interferes with the use of telescopes at the Mt Palomar Observatory. Although much of this potential impact can be mitigated by low pressure "yellow"sodium lighting,the athletic fields at the community park and middle school will have metal halide lighting,which does significantly contribute to skyglow. City staff shall review all non-athletic field lighting to assure that it consists of low pressure sodium vapor lamps and is oriented and shielded to prevent upward ' illumination. RORIPAUGH RANCH SPECIFIC PLAN 2NO REVISED DRAFT EIR-APRIL 1,2002 3-2.17 ' 3.13 AESTHETICS ' 3.13.4 Standard Conditions and Uniform Codes Significant aesthetic impacts could occur if the project did not incorporate the proposedlighting restrictions. The proposed project will be built to applicable codes and standards,such as the California Building Code or Fire Code. Adherence to these standards will help assure that the public can safely use the new facilities at night. The City will also require the project to comply with its Mt. Palomar"dark skies"ordinance. 3.13.5 Project Design Features ' The architectural and landscape design standards contained in the Specific Plan will create visually attractive development areas within the project site,which will help minimize visual impacts as the area transitions from rural use to more urban use. In addition,existing views will be maintained wherever practical. The Specific Plan calls for the installation of hundreds of new trees,extensive landscaping,and decorative walls and fences, which will help create an attractive suburban visual environment in this area. Figure 3.13-2 shows the proposed Landscape MasterPlan for the project,while Figure 3.13-3 shows the proposed master plan for walls and fences. Specifically regarding units along the southern end of the Plateau area,any units or structures within 175 feet of the southern property line,that are visible from units on the north side of Nicolas Road, will require an additional rear yard building setback(or be screened with enhanced landscaping to help protect ' views from the Nicolas Valley. The lighting on the community park and commercial center will be designed to minimize spill onto adjacent properties,through careful location of lighting and the use of either shielded pole or ground-mounted lighting fixtures. The Temecula Community Services Department(TCSD)currently limits the hours of lighting to 10 PM. 3.13.6 Mitigation Measures ' The following measure is proposed to help reduce potentially significant aesthetic impacts to the greatest degree feasible: ' (1) The developer will submit all architectural and landscape design plans, along with plant material palettes,to the City for review and approval prior to the issuance of building permits in conformance with the approved Specific Plan. ' (2) Priortoapproval of the tentative tract map or Development Plan,wbicheveris applicable,forPlanning Area 31, a 25-foot building setback consisting of a landscaped buffer zone or an internal street or ' driveway shall be provided along the north and west boundary of Planning Area 31. If one or both of the schools are built before prior to approval of the tentative map or the development plan for Planning Area 31,and an equivalent buffer,as determined by the Community Development Director, ' is provided on the school sites,the developer may request the City to reduce oreliminate this buffering requirement. ' The following measures are proposed to help reduce significant aesthetic impacts from night lighting: (3) The Community Services Director shall review and approve the sports field lighting during design ' development. RORIPADGH RANCH SPECIFIC PLAN ' 2N°REVISED DRAFT EIR-APRIL 1,2002 3-218 1 ' 3.13 AESTHETICS (4) The City will evaluate the commercial center lighting for potential offsite impacts prior to the issuance of building permits for Planning Area 11. The lighting in these areas will be adequately shielded or directed to minimize offsite impacts, to the satisfaction of the Planning Director. 1 (5) The developer shall submit plans•for rural-oriented lighting for Planning Areas 14-26,30,and 31. These plans are subject to review and approval by the City Community Development and Public Works Departments. No building permits will be issued until the lighting plan is approved. (6) The Master developer shall provide prospective homebuyers with notice that the community sports ' park will include sports field lighting forevening use. Proof of the notification shall be provided to the Planning Director prior to the recordation of the final map. ' The following measure is proposed to prevent potentially significant impacts from lighting on the biological habitat areas: (7) Prior to recordation of final maps or issuance of gradingpermits,the developer shall submit plans to the Planning Department for Planning Areas 10, 12,and 14 through 17 for those uses adjacent to the AD 161 SHCPopen space areas of sufficient scale and detail for City staff to review potential lighting impacts on the open space areas. The developer shall make any changes to the plans, including reduction in the amount or placement of street lights, night lighting, fencing, etc. to preclude light spilling into the habitat areas. Review of plans for possible changes to street lighting should be ' coordinated with the City Public Works Department. 3.13.7 Impact of Mitigation Measures ' No significant impacts are expected from the implementation of the mitigation measures. 3.1 3.8 Summary of Impact After Mitigation Implementation of the project as proposed, including the recommended mitigation measures, will result in ' significant aesthetic impacts, mainly views and "skyglow' from nightlighting. Therefore, a Statement of Overriding Consideration will have to be approved for this project. 1 1 RORIPAUGH RANCH SPECIFIC PLAN 2"D REVISED DRAFT EIR-APRIL 1,2002 3-219 ASHBY USA.LLC FIGURE 3.13-2 � F o L t osi LM PPMeie `��� ISA 12.5 AC 9A 10 1 19.0 AC ``````p= 051 8.1 AC L 96 Du's 2 3 5 4A ` SPR/NGS 3.6 AC 9 OUS OSB) 164AC LM 10 6.e AC rl RC LM IOAC89 DUS BB Dus 18.9 AC 4.6AC 796 AC 4B R 13 CU U 1 700 DUSLM - OSt 7C 22.1 AC 6 179.6 AC ISAC 113 DU'S NP VJ OS2 5.1 AC 11 O (1.7 ACN -0 3) ' OS3) 75.4.4 AC (10.0 AC) ICU J I � - 1j NAP 12 yICU 15.2 AC 1 AC) 150 17 }�@ 750 DU'S LM 33B .i 0 16 3i AC LEGEND - LM 144DU'S 29.1 AC Variable Width LDZ 14 M5 150 DU'S V 1 Staffed Gated Primary Entry (LaDevelopment zone) 33A t 16.7 Ac 14.5 AC O .I (14.3 AC) 174 DU'S 4.L 174 DU'S 0. /\ North and South Loop 155 DUs r „ U 1 J Cab Key Gated Secondary Entry 30 ® Road Treatment 7 _ - IRC 29 4.0 AC 18 M .... Bridge Entry Statement ® Parkway Street Treabnent 27 12.0 AC 1206 ous 1 SP ® 9.6 AC 28 31 Primary Monumentation I 1.2 ACOS2) S2 233AC zo.o Ac 217 DU'S 19 L 35.9 AC 1 67 DU'S 052 24.0 AC 24 1 INFORMATION 22 23 M2 17.0I 25 0.5 AC All plant materials are conceptual and will be reviewed by the Planning 13.9 ACALLE C 113DU•S 102Dus 9 S22C tir Department and/or TCSD during the development review process 64 MISp I p 20 1 CHAPOSI - - - z 124 DU'S0 AC - 35 29 DU'S 35 DU•S P2 - - 1 2.0 AC (1.5 AC) � 1 ' 1The Kann com Pa��esf � � l ■ ■\VM � M I" Mori pau �h� Ranch 1 ASHBY USA LLC FIGURE 3.13-3 MilleC 0 � Cl) R_ ' — — — — — — MWD PROPERTV� — — — — CU eI i 03 nc • MIF \ B / 1A C P-Privele 10 • q r 12.55AC 9A n hp _ L Q p N L' 19 OAC 2 0 '• • T ` 3.8 Ai 8.1 AC 9 < 1 98 DU'S LM 3 R 4LA G' • • • SPR.IN r1 9DUS t6.8 AC /1'_'r\ 18.4 AC LM 1 I 13 } V m 99 DU'S 18.9 9.6 AC f W DU'S 4.8 AC 11D0 Mrs 4B ROS Os1 ' LM I 179.6 AC ' \+ ^, 1 6 * I y 113 DU'S ) NP W dF OS2 "- 5.1 AC 11 ifi rt 1 L (1.7 AC NC I / \ I L ' 7A 19.5 AC — — — B DS3) 15.4 AC ( x NAP 12 �Q / _x—x— J {X— fn M2 g 'A 16.2 AC / xJx� • _ 150 US �"Jx— _x 17 (U $ _ } 16 37L AC 336 • • / % J LM 144 DU'S 29.1 AC LEGEND NICOLAS RO • ��O /�• 14 15 150 DU'S ' .7 33A �� i• 18.7 AC �} 1152 J Ca 4) /• (14.3 AC) 174 OU'S Theme Wall-Colored Block or Stucco 14.1 AC • 174 DU�S +, 1s U'S •• 18 View Fence-Block wlWrought Iron L OP" si • LM 24.4AC U 27 2'0 ••• ,D6 Dus SP Habitat Fence 19.8 AC 28 000• Mz O (1.2 AC OS2) S2 23.3 AC ! , 20.0 AC • 217 DU'S `:�--- 19 v Optional-Theme Wall or View Fence I • • • • 35.9 AC 47Us (Depending on results of noise studies) • 26 24A AC 24 Potential Access Point 22 23M1 25 M1 t0.5AC ,� • 13.9 AC - CJ 113 DU'S `�) (/ 102 DU'S 9.2 AC p • 84 DUS **00000 #00000 * CALLE I P RO • AD 20 CNAPOS � L c? L I35 21 AC 29 DU9 �DU9 _ I ' PA 2.0 AC (1.5 AC) The Keith CompenleeITKO Mi o _ _ Roi aughRauch ASHBYUSA.LLC FIGURE: 3.134A existing parcel apn: 957-340-0004 ' U � Cl3 � ' 'B8 a 1A 2 3 5 10 o 4A 4B 9813 W (¢8g ]c /B 1112 NFP 16 17 19 4=--yy1J 14 15 z 29' 0 3 2] 46 31 w xiI 22 23 24 25 21 20 L m KEY MAP a NOT TO SCALE u g z / LM 6 ^a AC o' Q 11313 DU'S /a �I NP �g /i 5.1 AC 11 (t6S3) 1NC — — — AC O /I (10.0-0 OAC) o ET h PLAN VIEW (A) I !! w U) NOT TO SCALE ',2 �� NAP 16.2 AC 150 DS) `0 DUSAC) =oMR SEDW d uUSTUt `g e RESIDENTIAL a�a as o 5 e� 6&.CCN WALL 10 SI MAIK SIDEWALK -I - - I ID 66' �bL12' 1 51 44- RAN RAY W ' LMIOSCAPE— ' SLOPE CROSS SECTION (A) 15"----- SCALE: I'=20' ® The Keith Companies IMMC /� N O T i 0 S C A L E R o Fi I�L ugh � R, I/ h 1!l AAA`2�l L� LGLL ll ll. ' ASHBYUSA,LLC FIGURE: 3.134B tB 1A 2 3 1� 44A 10 ya \V a 18 B 13 \ 4 � vC I; 11 W 8 ]A' 12 16 i9 17 cz MA 14 16 i .X 29 » 18 z B 27 28 31 �y rc 22 23 24 2s —P.-t �j0 —L.\ 20 m� }t ~ KEY MAP O =3000' m 26z 0SAC 24 �_ ' 5 .Q 17.0 AC / 2310.5 AC 102 DU'S \ L 113 DU'S ^ I..L ' SOUTH LOOP ROAD 20 L B L 12 24.0 AC 30.8 AC 29 DU S 35 DU'S Q ' PLAN VIEW (B) �y^ 1"=500' B m 0 '+-0 r EXISTING to �/1 RESIDENCE ,U VIEW LINE ____---- --- U) ' I VINEYARD FENCE -- — — — _ _ — — ® m ®_ _ _ EXISTING GRADE � PARCEL 12 —3 1 HORSE 31HORSE (CURB ' TRAIL 1 ACRE LOTS —� 1/2 ACRE LOTS mmFJaw sr. FUEL L�80 MODIFICATION ' CROSS SECTION (B) ® The Keith Companies lTWC 0 B c A t B Ronpaug] ' J Ranch tASHBYUSA.LLC FIGURE: 3.13-4C ,a I N 78 —1A 2 3 r 4A ! 4B 13 )Ni � S 12 17 aan 14 15 16 19 21 x C a z 27 31 8 I U 9 26 ' w iI 22 23 26 24 35 21 20 KEY MAP 1 =3000 S. m Q� Q MURR��TA OO S1 ' NOT 12.5 AC // / OA �1 4A SP 3.8 3.8 AC 1 ' s LM 16 100 s 4B !j O LM ' 22.1 AC 113 DU'S �a NP V C ij 5.1 AC ''�^ ' — — — / / (1OS3) vJ 9.5.5 AC � �j PLAN VIEW (C) j 1"=500' C U RM Tract Boundary ENHANCED LANDSCAPING I m ' EXISTING GRADE 1- —�• PARCEL � , G2ded 98 EXISTING I � dOPe L*Additional Setback [RESIDENCE— 735' visiv Open Space oo®oma –1q— Existing 30' J I Cu Sldpe Existing Dirt Road ' 284' t/-175' `IF PROPERTY LINE TO HOUSE IS LESS THAN 176,SLOPE WILL HAVE ENHANCED LANDSCAPING AND/OR INCREASED BUILDING SETBACK CROSS SECTION (C) IF IT IS VISIBLE FROM HOMES ON NORTH SIDE OF NICOLAS ROAD 1.=50. ® The Keith Companlesj.MC T 0 e C R L EE Roripaugll ` Ranch t ASHBYUSA,LLC FIGURE 3.13-4D ' � g Ux c 3 1 ¢¢ 0 6 I 3 m 1A 2 3(c ] 4Am 10 ga� CD 4B y 7c--� 13 -I.—o 7A C: E. ' NAV 1 9 6 7 19 � a WA %14 � 15 ^W' c ° w 29 6 L u D 27 26 31 I ' 22 23 24 /25 ' 21 1 20 �{J KEY MAP 0)' T 300Y IPE L 0- ' D 17 LM Q ' 16 37.5 AC D LM 144 DU'S 29.1 AC ' 15 150 DU'S O M2 14.5 AC V S) 174 DU'S �� '^ ' nn V, PLAN VIEW (D) (n O L U "ISTINGGRADE J m ._..._-.".- -- VIEW LME------------------ _______ _______`__-GRADED 00SLOVE.._ 1 'FUELMODIFRATION ZONE_7NATURAL SLOPE------- EMERGENCY CROSS SECTION (D) T ACCESS ROAD OSAMAGER RUDISCREEK.� SCALE:1"=50' ® The Keith ComRenleeljr.KC / � �=� Roi augh ` , Ranch m s Y O � x 0 3 m � C Aq 1`1 Looking northwest from southern project boundary(Planning Area 21)across Long Valley Wash toward"Plateau". ti Photographic Simulation A (without project) Pbroed:3HIR0029:41:A0AMBY'T_B GERDWG:N:Ul M7.000Wwg%Wl-0 IRFIW.1J .&, N N P r r n i o x i •' n 0 3 a O d 0 n m \I P. 5 C M w � W ( �)) Looking northwest from southern project boundary(Planning Area 21)across Long Valley Wash toward the"Plateau". r^.J n Photographic Simulation A (with project) x m C N D (1 y J Q 0 x J O 3 o 0 n s m� T_ Iv C': M Ow 1\ W J` D Looking north along MWD easement toward Plateau area (proposed"Neighborhood Park"to the right and proposed Planning Area 4B to the left). N) ti n Photographic Simulation B (without project) PI"""E:3rt0l1902942:WM1BYT B GERDWG:N:U1WODDkMvV i1 MIRFIG3.13M.dv9 r r r r r r� r r r r r r r r r r■ rlr r r � I r C> 0 F i" n 0 � 3 o m m I 1. -n �ml V C w .� y. CO Jam:. Looking north along MWD easement toward Plateau area proposed neighborhood park(Planning Area 6) to the right and proposed Planning Area 4B on the"Plateau"to the left ti Photographic simulation B (with project) FbIbJ:3RG290]9.Q:W"By.T_BRRGERGWG'.MZ1W].90QWxgkBpOIU IRFIG3A1 BAx9 D N 2 m C N D r r n 0 m x s n 0 3 o 'm o 0 m m I� 10 xa.na"r ICS^"+,a{dN, ... xm.-, .-Yap-... yrws„ -:...:,.. T X rl r.... a �.}` ? " ). `f,�Sr+ w� ._. . +♦ moi. _. , r f� Looking east along Long Valley Wash Toward Calle Contento area (showing proposed development along Channel without Planning Areas 13 and 14 on hills to left). 1 . n. r.r n Photographic Simulation C (without project) pbtlmE:]20.20019:O:MM.1By.T_RRRGEROM:N:tt1W,000WWg pp1-0T"EIRFIM.I17A4q D N_ 0 C N D n o m F f 3 0 m T � C ►. Wg- m ►� ::R' W n, W I� J COC !� Looking east along Long Valley Wash Toward Calle Contento area (showing proposed development along Channel without Planning Areas 13 and 14 on hills to left). ti Photographic Simulation C (with project) Rbpep:2/10/10 0 2 9:041 AM By:T BARBER BWB:N:QIM7.BBBVwV1Wl-0 IRFI03.I17B.dn r r� r r r r r r r r r � r r r r r �■ r D N S m C N P r r O i m o x s n 3 0 i e m T co D J� Looking north from Nicolas Road toward west end of Plateau area. ti Photographic Simulation D (without project) FbtleE:�9:0:WMIBYT B GERO :N:WWBpBpwgV9p I1 IRFIOB.1}B &. . L tx r � r .. .. h_r"mi mb weiwY "� .^..,.e�,N� , y+ "" �' .' - �" ��1e L_�..... 'e�i�Y _ • r s+C f>� � � rc MIN��ri^'^' ,�%-"9wr 'Intl fir.+.F/, r '�.w� � t� rl •. 14 Looking north from • R•." toward west end of Plateau area. Photographic I • , project) 3.14 SCIENTIFIC RESOURCES This section evaluates development of the proposed project as it could affect potential archaeological artifacts, paleontological fossils,and historical resources. In 1989,a cultural resource assessment was conducted for ' the site by Chris Drover,Ph.D., a consulting archaeologist, and a review of paleontological resources was conducted by Heritage Resources Consultants. Copies of these reports are included in Appendix 1. 3.14.1 Environmental Setting a) Archaeological Resources ' Only one archaeological site was observed on the subject property which is located near the southwest comer of the Plateau area. The site is considered a lithic scatter of ground stone consisting of one bifacial, symmetricalmanoand four metatefragments. While the site has been heavily disturbed by plowing activity, a potential exists for discovering subsurface deposits (Drover 1989). b) Paleontological Resources A review of records of known paleontological sites in the regions was completed and a survey of paleontological and geological publications for the project region were completed. Additionally,field surveys of the property have also been conducted and no paleontological resources were discovered (HRC 1989).. From a geologic standpoint,the Pauba Formation and unnamed Sandstone units found on the property have a moderate to high paleontological sensitivity. This is due to the fact that localities of these same geologic units containing fossils are known to exist in areas within two miles of the project site. Given the geology of the ' project site,there is a moderate to high possibility that fossils will be found during grading or other carthmoving activities. c) Historical Resources The site has been utilized for farming for almost 100 years(L.Roripaugh,personal communication, 1997). A literature search and brief walk-over survey of the project site for potential historical resources revealed no evidence of structures that would be considered historic. However,it is possible,although not likely,that historical artifacts may be buried on the project site (Drover 1989) ' d) Comments on Previous DEIRs ' On July 16, 1999, the Pechanga Band of Native American Indians wrote a comment letter on the original DEIR about impacts to archaeological resources. They suggested it was likely that prehistoric remains would be found on the site and recommended monitoring during grading in case artifacts were found. In response ' to these concerns,Mitigation Measures 1 and 2 in Section 3.14.6 were modified from the original DEIR to provide for: 1)onsite monitoring by a qualified archaeologist during grading; and 2)onsite monitoring by representatives of the PechangaBand. These modifications will prevent any significant impacts toprehistoric resources. RORIPAUGH RANCH SPECIFIC PLAN ' 2rvO REVISED DRAFT EIR-APRIL 1,2002 3-229 1 ' 3.14 SCIENTIFIC RESOURCES ' 3.14.2 Criteria for Determining Significance The City has not established local CEQA significance thresholds,however,potentially significant impacts to scientific resources may result if a project: a) causes alteration or destruction of a prehistoric or historic archaeological site; b) causes adverse physical or aesthetic effects to a prehistoric or historic building, structure,orobject;c)has the potential to cause a physical change which would affect unique ethnic cultural ' values; or d) restricts existing religious or sacred uses within the potential impact area (Appendix I). 3.14.3 Level of Impact before Mitigation ' The project grading plan indicates that earthwork(either cut or fill)will exceed ten feet at various locations during construction. Therefore,grading in the Paubaand unnamed Sandstone Formations might disturb fossil- hearing strata. The scientific resources surveys found only one archaeological and no historical resources onsite or offsite that would be impacted by development of the project site.Any grading in Planning Areas 1-4 has the potential for disturbing archaeological resources that may be present (Drover 1989). 3.14.4 Standard Conditions and Uniform Codes The City's grading inspection process will monitor earthwork on the project site,including soil stockpiles,which should reveal if any unanticipated scientific resources are uncovered. If human remains are discovered during excavation,work will be halted and the appropriate authorities informed as per State law. There are no other ' standard conditions or unifornit codes that apply to scientific resources. 3.14.5 Project Design Features ' There are no project design features that apply to scientific resources. ' 3.14.6 Mitigation Measures The following measures are proposed to reduce impacts to potential paleontological, archaeological, or ' historical resources: (1) Prior to the issuance of a grading permit,the developer shall retain an archaeological/paleontological ' monitor to observe onsite grading,including excavated soil stockpiles,especially in areas where Pauba or unnamed Sandstone formations are disturbed,for evidence of paleontological,archaeological,or historical artifacts (e.g., shells, fossils,bones,pottery, charcoal deposits, arrowheads,etc.). If any ' artifacts are discovered during grading,work will be halted and qualified personnel will be retained to examine, evaluate, and determine the most appropriate disposition of the resource(s). ' (2) Prior to the issuance of a grading permit,the developer shall enter into a Pre-Excavation Agreement with the local Native American (NA)Pechanga Band to fund up to 2 NA representatives to have access to the site during grading activities. This effort will be coordinated through the archaeological monitor,to the satisfaction of the City Planning Department. The NA representatives must give the developer at least 24 hours notice of wanting access to the site so the developer can assure the safety of the NA representatives. Additional clarification and expansion of this measure shall be in accordance with the items listed by the California Indian Legal Services letters dated July 18 and July 20, 2001 (items i, ii, iii, iv, and 2). RORIPAUGH RANCH SPECIFIC PLAN ' 2"-REVISED DRAFT EIR-APRIL 1,2002 3-230 ' 3.14 SCIENTIFIC RESOURCES ' 3.14.7 Impacts of Mitigation Measures Other than possible delay of grading if artifacts are found, no significant impacts are anticipated from the application of the proposed mitigation measure. 3.14.8 Summary of Impacts After Mitigation ' With application of the mitigation measure as proposed, the project will have no significant impacts on paleontological, archaeologic, or historic resources. 1 1 1 1 1 1 RORIPAUGH RANCH SPECIFIC PLAN ' 2 N REVISEo DRAFT EIR-APRIL t,2002 3-231 ' 4.0 GENERAL PLAN AND WRCOG CONSISTENCY This section compares the proposed project to the City's General Plan,the City's recently adopted Growth Management Action Plan program, and Sub-Regional goals of the Western Riverside Council of Governments ' (WRCOG). 4.1 CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN The Roripaugh Ranch Specific Plan proposes development that assists in the overall implementation of the General Plan through participation in the realization of relevant General Plan goals and objectives. The ' following goals are taken from each of the elements of the General Plan. The goals are numbered and listed as they are in the General Plan. Those goals which are not applicable to Roripaugh Ranch are addressed accordingly. Aftereach applicable goal statement,an indented discussion is provided which describes how ' Roripaugh Ranch complies with, and assists in the implementation of, each General Plan Goal. 4.1.1 Land Use Element ' Goal 1. "A complete and integrated mix of residential,commercial,industrial,recreational,public and open space land uses." ' Analysis-The project will provide a spectrum of residential product styles and designs as designated by the General Plan Specific Plan Overlay. The project creates unified,cohesive neighborhoods,and a,neighborhood-level commercial center. In addition to these land uses,Roripaugh Ranch provides neighborhood amenities as well as open space,schools,and public and private recreational facilities. The development proposal is sensitive to adjacent existing and proposed land uses. TheSpecificPlan ' provides well-defined development standards and design guidelines to guide private sector planning and development. For additional information, see Section 3.1 on Land Use and Planning. Goal 2. "A City of diversified development character where rural and historical areas are protected and co- exist with newer urban development." ' Analysis-The proposed land uses are more intense than the existing agriculturalandruralresidential uses that the area currently supports. The proposed habitat resource areas and Santa Gertrudis Creek ' contribute somewhat to the continued rural nature of the area. For additional information,see Section 3.11 on Public Services(recreation/open space)and Section 3.14 on Scientific(including Historic) Resources. ' Goal 3. "A land use pattern that will protect and enhance the residential neighborhoods." ' Analysis - Internally, the Specific Plan clearly defines land uses, and establishes development standards,regulations and building criteria for each land use type. These regulations,which include land use intensities,setback requirements,lighting and landscaping standards,and signage regulations all contribute toward the protection of proposed residential neighborhoods in the area as well as some reduction of possible negative impacts to adjacent properties. Rural areas adjacent to the east and south sides of the project will be buffered with 1-acre lots along the boundary, with half-acre lots "inside"of the I-acre lots. A 175-foot buffer zone with building setbacks or enhanced landscaping will be constructed to visually screen homes in the Plateau area from homes along the north side of Roripaugh Ranch Specific Plan ' 2"D REVISED DRAFT EIR-APRIL 1,2002 4-1 4.0 GENERAL PLAN AND WRCOG CONSISTENCY Nicolas Road. For additional information,see Section 3.1 on Land Use and Planning and Section 3.13 on Aesthetics. ' Goal 4. "A development pattern that preserves and enhances the environmental resources of the Study Area." ' Analysis-The project has been designed to conserve the valuable natural resources associated with Santa Gertrudis Creek as well as the sage scrub community found on the project site. For additional information, see Section 3.7 on Biological Resources. ' Goa15. "A land use pattem and intensity of development that encourages alternative modes of transportation, including transit, bicycling, and walking." Analysis-The proposed development plan includes a series of sidewalks multi-use trails,Class II bicycle lanes, and a pedestrian bridge that help connect the various neighborhoods as well as the ' support uses such as educational,recreational and commercial facilities proposed within the project site. For additional information, see Section 3.5 on Transportation and Circulation. ' Goal 6. (addresses Old Town Temecula) Not applicable. ' Goal 7. "Orderly annexation and development of unincorporated areas within Temecula's Sphere of Influence." ' Analysis-The project site is proposed to be annexed to the City of Temecula concurrently with the development entitlement process. Being directly adjacent to the city limits, annexation and ' development of the property is consistent with the orderly progress of growth desired by the City and WRCOG. For additional information,see Section 3.1 on Land Use and Planning and Section 4.2 on WRCOG Compliance. ' Goal 8. "A City which is compatible and coordinated with regional land use patterns." ' Analysis-The project is consistent with the General Plan of the City of Temecula and the County of Riverside, and therefore consistent with applicable regional planning efforts. For additional information, see Section 3.1 on Land Use and Planning. ' General Plan Amendment Although the proposed Specific Plan is consistent with the goals and policies of the Land Use Element(LUE),the site plan proposes land uses indifferent density categories and locations ' than are shown in the currently approved LUE map. However,it is consistent with 3.0 units per acre which is the specified density for this property in the General Plan. A General Plan Amendment(GPA)to the Land Use Element will be processed in concert with the Specific Plan to adjust land use category boundaries and ' establish overall densities on the project. There is additional discussion of this issue in Section 3.1 on Land Use. Roripaugh Ranch Specific Plan ' 2"D REVISED DRAFT EIR-APRIL 1,2002 4-2 ' 4.0 GENERAL PLAN AND WRCOG CONSISTENCY 4.1.2 Circulation Element Goal 1. "Strive to maintain a Level of Service"D"or greater at all intersections within the City during peak ' hours and Level of Service "C" or greater during non-peak hours." Analysis-The design criteria and standards for vehicular circulation facilities will maintain acceptable ' levels of service at most intersections throughout the project site. However, two intersections are expected to exceed this standard regardless of whether the project is built or not. For additional information, see Section 3.5 on Transportation and Circulation. Goal 2. "Enhance traffic safety on City streets." ' Analysis-The design standards for streets and circulation facilities established within this Specific Plan are generally consistent with City standards and include safety for those who utilize these facilities as a primary component. For additional information,see Section 3.5 on Transportation and Circulation. ' Goal 3. "A regional transportation system that accommodates the safe and efficient movement of people and goods to and from the community." ' Analysis - The circulation system proposed for the Roripaugh Ranch is consistent with both the County of Riverside and City of Temecula General Plans and implements the applicable circulation components of the circulation elements of both General Plans. For additional information,see Section 3.5 on Transportation and Circulation. Goal 5. "An adequate supply of private and public parking to meet the needs of residents and visitors to the City." Analysis-The development standards established within the Specific Plan require that adequate off- street parking be provided for all land uses proposed within the project site. For additional information, see Section 3.5 on Transportation and Circulation. ' Goal 6. "Safe and efficient alternatives to motorized travel throughout the City." Analysis-The proposed plan includes a network of pedestrian,bicycle and equestrian trails within ' the project site thatprovide opportunity to access all land uses within as well as outside thecommunity by way of non-vehicular travel. For additional information,see Section 3.5 on Transportation and Circulation. ' Goal 7. "A truck circulation system that provides for the safe and efficient transportation of commodities and also minimizes noise, air pollution and traffic impacts to the City." Analysis-The proposed circulation and land use plans for the project acknowledge and incorporate the use of trucks for the transportation of commodities. Additionally,any significant impacts to noise, 1 Roripaugh Ranch Specific Plan ' 2N°REVISED DRAFT EIR-APRIL 1,2002 4-3 ' 4.0 GENERAL PLAN AND WRCOG CONSISTENCY air quality and traffic which are identified and associated with truck traffic will be mitigated to a level of insignificance. For additional information, see Section 3.5 on Transportation and Circulation. ' General Plan Amendment Although the proposed Specific Plan is generally consistent with the goals and policies of the Circulation Element(CE),the project proposes several roadway cross-sections that differ from those in the currently approved CE. A General Plan Amendment(GPA)to the Circulation Element will be ' processed in concert with the Specific Plan to eliminate through access on Calle Contento at the eastern property line of the Roripaugh project site and upgrade the designation for Butterfield Stage Road from Murrieta Hot Springs Road to Nicolas Road. ' 4.1.3 Housing Element ' Goal]. "A diversity of housing opportunities that meet the physical,social and economic needs of existing and future residents of Temecula." ' Analysis-The project proposes to provide a variety of single-family detached housing on individual lots ranging in size from 3,000 square feet to one acre,with an overall project density of2.56 dwelling ' units per acre on 804.7 acres. The net residential density on land designated as residential will approach 4.26 dwelling units per acre. The proposed housing mix will provide opportunity and assist in satisfying various segments of the local housing market. For additional information,see Section 3.1 on Land Use and Planning. Goal 2. "Affordable housing for all economic segments of Temecula." ' Analysis-It is anticipated that the project will provide housing which is affordable to households eaming in excess of 120 percent of the current median income of the County of Riverside,although ' the higher density units will be more affordable to both buyers and renters. For additional information, see Section 3.1 on Land Use and Planning. ' Goal 3. "Removal of governmental constraints on the maintenance,improvement and development of housing, where appropriate and legally possible." ' Analysis-The proposed Specific Plan offers the opportunity for the City of Temecula to assist in the improvement and development of housing in this area. For additional information,see Section 3.1 on Land Use and Planning. ' Goal 4. "Conservation of existing affordable housing stock." Not applicable. Goal 5. "Equal housing opportunity for all residents of Temecula." Analysis -The project will offer housing to a wide variety of residents of the City of Temecula, ranging from medium density with clustered courtyards and 3,000 square foot lots up to low density ' one acre parcels. For additional information, see Section 3.1 on Land Use and Planning. Roripaugh Ranch Specific Plan ' 2ND REVISED DRAFT EIR-APRIL 1,2002 4-4 ' 4.0 GENERAL PLAN AND WRCOG CONSISTENCY ' 4.1.4 Open Space and Conservation Element. Goal 1. "A high quality parks and recreation system that meets the varying recreational needs of residents." Analysis-The project proposes one neighborhood park and one community sports park which will t offer public recreational facilities and amenities to meet the needs of project residents and also contribute to the recreational opportunities available to the residents of the City of Temecula. The project will also provide 3 private recreational facilities totaling 9.1 acres. For additional i nformation, ' see Section 3.11 on Public Services (recreation). ' Goal 2. "Conservation and protection of surface water, groundwater and imported water resources." Analysis-Overtwo thirds(69%)of the site will continue to have pervious surfaces which will allow for continued percolation of rainfall on the site. The project will also meet all applicable regional and state regulations regarding water quality. For additional information, see Section 3.4 on Water Resources and Section 3.12 on Utilities (water system). Goal 3. "Conservation of important biological habitats and protection of plant and animal species of concern, wildlife movement condors, and general biodiversity." ' Analysis-By maintaining and conserving the primary watercourses and riparian habitat which exist within the project site,this Specific Plan assists in the conservation of important biological habitats, protects plant and animal species of concern, and maintains wildlife movement corridors. For additional information, see Section 3.7 on Biological Resources. ' Goal 4. "Conservation of energy resources through the use of available technology and conservation practices." ' Analysis-All programs and mechanisms available to conserve energy resources will be promoted within this development, including but not limited to solid waste disposal, alternative modes of transportation,or efficient lighting systems. For additional information,see Section 3.8 on Energy Resources and Section 3.12 on Utilities. Goal 5. "Conservation of open space areas for a balance of recreation,scenic enjoyment,and protection of ' natural resources and features." Analysis-The Specific Plan conserves the major habitat areas which support sensitive wildlife and ' plant life in the area as well as existing watercourses within the project boundaries. The Specific Plan incorporates these features into the overall open space/recreation plan,while protecting the habitats of natural resources found in the area. The proposed open space plan is consistent with the open space plans for the neighboring Rancho Bella Vista and Johnson Ranch projects. For additional information, see Section 3.7 on Biological Resources and Section 3.11 on Public Services (recreation/open space). Roripaugh Ranch Specific Plan ' 2"D REVISED DRAFT EIR-APRIL 1,2002 4-5 4.0 GENERAL PLAN AND WRCOG CONSISTENCY Goal 6. "Preservation of significant historical and cultural resources." Analysis-The site does not contain any identified significant resources. Grading will be monitored to assure that any buried resources are properly identified and mitigated. Additional information is provided in Section 3.14 on Scientific (historic and archaeologic) Resources. ' Goal 7. "Protection of prime agricultural land from premature conversion to urbanized uses." ' Analysis - The property was formally removed from Agriculture Preserve status in 1995, and eventual development and urbanization of the property has been formally planned and considered by the City of Temecula. For additional information, see Section 3.1 on Land Use and Planning. tGoal 8. "A trail system that serves both recreational and transportation needs." ' Analysis-The trail system within the community includes opportunity for pedestrian,bicycle and equestrian users to move to and from the property and surrounding properties. For additional information,see Section 3.5 on Transportation and Circulation and Section 3.12 on Public Services ' (recreation/trails). Goal 9. "Protection of dark skies from intrusive light sources which may impact the Palomar Observatory." Analysis-All proposed outdoor lighting for commercial,residential,and park areas will conform to the Mt. Palomar Observatory Lighting Standards. For additional information, see Section 3.13 on ' Aesthetics. 4.1.5 Growth Management/Public Facilities Element ' Goal 1. "Cooperative management of growth among local governments within Riverside County." ' Analysis-The project proponents have consulted,communicated and discussed relevant issues with relevant local,state and federal agencies having jurisdiction over the development of the property. For additional information, see Section 3.1 on Land Use and Planning. ' Goal 2. "Orderly and efficient patterns of growth within Temecula that enhance the quality of life for residents." Analysis-The public services,as well as recreational facilities that are proposed will promote orderly and efficient patterns of growth in Temecula and enhance the quality of life for residents. ' Additionally,the natural open space/habitat conservation areas proposed will enhance the quality of life for residents by conserving land housing sensitive wildlife and plant life. For additional information, see Section 3.1 on Land Use and Planning and Section 6.0 on Growth-Inducing and Cumulative Impacts. . Rocipaugh Ranch Specific Plan ' 2NO REVISED DRAFT EIR-APRIL 1,2002 4-6 4.0 GENERAL PLAN AND WRCOG CONSISTENCY ' Goal 3. "Effective and cost-efficient sheriff, fire and emergency medical services within the City." Analysis-Project proponents will participate in those applicable and equitable programs established ' to ensure the adequate provision of police, fire and emergency services to the area. For additional information, see Section 3.11 on Public Services. ' Goal 4. "A quality school system that contains adequate facilities and funding to educate the youth of Temecula." ' Analysis-The Specific Plan identifies one elementary andone middle school site to be located within the project boundaries. Appropriate agreements and financial arrangements will be pursued with the ' school district for the financing of the school facility construction. For additional information,see Section 3.11 on Public Services (schools). Goal 5. "Public and Quasi-public facilities and services which provide for the social,cultural,civic,religious, and recreational needs of the community." ' Analysis-Two public parks and three private recreational facilities are proposed within the project site which will help meet the recreational needs of project residents and also assist in meeting the recreational needs of the larger Temecula community. For additional information,see Section 3.11 ton Public Services. Goal 6. "A water and wastewater infrastructure system that supports existing and future development in the tStudy Area." Analysis-As outlined in the Master Water and Sewer Plans,the project proponents will participate in those existing infrastructure improvement programs which will result in the extension and improvement of necessary water and wastewater systems. For additional information,see Section 3.4 on Water Resources and Section 3.12 on Utilities. ' Goal 7. "An effective, safe and environmentally compatible flood control system." ' Analysis-The Drainage Management Plan achieves an effective and safe flood control system while being environmentally compatible by monitoring runoff waterquality and by maintaining natural water courses wherever possible. For additional information, see Section 3.4 on Water Resources and Section 3.12 on Utilities (flood control). Goal 8. "A solid waste management system that provides for the safe and efficient collection,transportation, recovery and disposal of solid wastes." Analysis-The project will comply with all required solid waste reduction measures and implement existing collection,transportation,recovery and disposal practices. For additional information,see Section 3.12 on Utilities (solid waste). Roripaugh Ranch Specific Plan ' 2NO REVISED DRAFT EIR-APRIL 1,2002 4-7 1 4.0 GENERAL PLAN AND WRCOG CONSISTENCY ' Goal 9. "Adequate electrical,natural gas,and telecommunication systems to meet the demand of new and existing development." Analysis - All necessary utility services and facilities will be available to project residents. For additional information, see Section 3.12 on Utilities. ' 4.1.6 Public Safety Element Goal 1. "Protection from natural hazards associated with geologic instability,seismic events,and flooding." ' Analysis-The Drainage Management Plan incorporates necessary flood control measures necessary to protect the existing and future residents. Construction design,methods and materials will comply with all applicable Building Codes and requirements so as to provide protection from geologic instability,seismic events and other natural disasters. For additional information,see Section 3.3 on Earth Resources and Section 3.4 on Water Resources (flooding). Goal 2. "Protection of the public and environmental resources from exposure to hazardous materials and ' waste." Analysis-Collection,transport and disposal of any and all hazardous materials and waste will comply ' with all applicable regulations designed to protect the public and environmental resources. For additional information, see Section 3.9 on Hazards. ' Goal 3. "A safe and secure community free from the threat of personal injury and loss of property." Analysis-Effective mitigation measures will be implemented in the design and construction phases of the project to ensure a safe and secure community,including the provision of law enforcement. For additional information,see Section 3.4 on Water Resources(flooding),Section 3.9 on Hazards,and Section 3.11 on Public Services (police). Goal 4. "An effective response of emergency services following a disaster." Analysis-Project proponents will participate in the adequate provision of emergency services for future project residents and the surrounding community. For additional information,see Section 3.9 on Hazards. 4.1.7 Noise Element ' Goal 1. "Land use planning that provides for the separation of significant noise generators from sensitive receptor areas." Analysis-Land use pattems and regulations will provide adequate protection from significant noise generators such as commercial centers. The Plateau portion of the site is within the 2-mile planning radius for the French Valley Airport,but its proposed land uses are consistent with the Master Plan ' for the airport. For additional information, see Section 3.10 on Noise. Ronpaugh Ranch Specific Plan ' 2NO REVISED DRAFT EIR-APRIL 1,2002 4-8 ' 4.0 GENERAL PLAN AND WRCOG CONSISTENCY ' Goal 2. "The control of noise between land uses." Analysis-Performance standards will ensure effective control of noise between adjacent land uses. For additional information, see Section 3.10 on Noise. ' Goal 3. "Consider noise issues in the planning process." Analysis - Incompatible land uses are regulated within the project so as to minimize conflicts by ' providing buffers between uses such as residential and commercial. For additional information,see Section 3.10 on Noise. 1 Goal 4. "Minimize noise impacts from transportation noise resources." Analysis -Design features such as screening and setbacks will assist in minimizing noise impacts from transportation noise resources. However, the Plateau portion of the site is within the 2-mile planning radius for the French Valley Airport, but the proposed land uses are consistent with the Master Plan for the airport. For additional information, see Section 3.10 on Noise. ' 4.1.8 Air Quality Element ' Goal 1. "Improvement of air quality through proper land use planning in Temecula." Analysis-Provision of commercial,educational and recreational services and facilities within the ' project site will contribute to mitigation of air quality impacts. For additional information,see Section 3.6 on Air Quality. ' Goal 2. "Enhanced mobility to minimize air pollutant emissions." Analysis - A comprehensive non-vehicular Vail system is proposed as an alternative means of ' transportation for local needs. For additional information, see Section 3.6 on Air Quality. Coal 3. "Incorporate energy conservation practices and recycling to reduce emissions." ' Analysis-Applicable energy conservation measures and recycling programs will be incorporated into the project. For additional information, see Section 3.8 on Energy Resources and Section 3.12 on Utilities. Goal 4. "Effective coordination of air quality improvement efforts in the Western Riverside area." Analysis-The design as well as the entitlement process includes the participation and input from various agencies and jurisdictions monitoring air quality improvement efforts in Western Riverside ' County. For additional information, see Section 3.6 on Air Quality. Roripaugh Ranch Specific Plan ' 2NO REVISED DRAFT EIR-APRIL 1,2002 4-9 ' 4.0 GENERAL PLAN AND WRCOG CONSISTENCY 1 4.1.9 Community Design Element Goal 1. "Enhancement of the City's image related to its regional and natural setting and its tourist orientation." ' Analysis-The recreational facilities proposed for the site will mainly serve project residents,although City residents from outside the project will likely use the community park facilities. For additional ' information, see Section 3.7 on Biological Resources and Section 3.11 on Public Services (recreation/open space). 1 Goal 2. "Design excellence in site planning, architecture, landscape architecture and signage in new development and modifications to existing development." ' Analysis - The Specific Plan contains design guidelines and regulations governing architecture, landscaping,and signage forthe project. Foradditional information,see Section 3.13 on Aesthetics. ' Goal 3. "Preservation and enhancement of the positive qualities of individual districts or neighborhoods." Not applicable. Goal 4. "A streetscape system that provides cohesiveness and enhances community image." ' Analysis - The streetscape design program for the project site will result in a positive sense of community and place by establishing design features that tie the community together. Foradditional ' information, see Section 3.13 on Aesthetics. Goal 5. "Protection of public views of significant natural features." ' Analysis-The project largely preserves the major natural feature onsite(i.e.,Santa Gertrudis Creek) including the natural ridgeline to its north and along the eastern boundary of the site. The project will ' modify onsite topography including the southern ridge along Santa Gertrudis Creek. The site is not generally visible to the general public,although about 2 dozen residences now have views of the site from the Nicolas Valley,Calle Girasol area,and the Calle Contento area. For additional information, see Section 3.13 on Aesthetics. Goal 6. "Maintenance and enhancement of the City's public spaces and resources" ' Analysis-The two proposed parks will enhance the existing stock of public spaces and resources within the City of Temecula. For additional information, see Section 3.11 on Public Services. Goal 7. "Community gathering areas which provide for the social,civic,cultural and recreational needs of the community." ' Analysis-The proposed parks and private recreational facilities will provide informal public gathering places associated with recreational activities,and may provide more formal gathering places to help 1 Roripaugh Ranch Specific Plan ' 2NO REVISED DRAFT EIR-APRIL 1,2002 4-10 4.0 GENERAL PLAN AND WRCOG CONSISTENCY ' meet cultural and civic needs of the community. For additional information, see Section 3.11 on Public Services. 4.1.10 Economic Development Element Goal 1. "Development of a strong base of clean manufacturing activities which employs a skilled labor force ' and can be successfully integrated into Temecula's community character." Not applicable. ' Goal 2. "Diversification of the economic base to include a range of manufacturing, retail and service 1 activities." Not applicable. ' Goal 3. "Maintain an economic base to provide a sound fiscal foundation for the City as well as quality community facilities and high service levels." Analysis - The development of the project will enhance the quality and quantity of community facilities available for use by residents of Temecula. 1 Goal 4. "Establishment of a diverse education and training and job placement system which will develop and maintain a high quality work force in Temecula." Not applicable. ' Goal 5. "Promote the advantages to businesses of locating in Temecula,including cost advantages,amenities, housing, community activities and civic services." ' Analysis-The project will contribute a wide range of housing opportunities as well as recreational facilities which act as advantages to businesses considering locating in Temecula. For additional information, see Section 3.1 on Land Use and Planning. Goal 6. "Develop Temecula as a comprehensive,recognizable tourist destination,with a range of attractions throughout and beyond the Sphere of Influence." ' Not applicable. ' 4.1.11 General Plan Consistency Based on this analysis,the proposed project is consistent with the goals,policies,and objecti ves of the City of Temecula General Plan. 1 Roripaugh Ranch Specific Plan ' 2"D REVISED DRAFT EIR-APRIL 1,2002 4-11 1 ' 4.0 GENERAL PLAN AND WRCOG CONSISTENCY ' 4.2 CITY GROWTH MANAGEMENT PROGRAM ACTION PLAN On March 21,2000,the City Council adopted a Growth Management Program Action Plan(GMPAP)to plan ' for and accommodate future growth in the City. The GMPAP identifies a number of actions to be taken by the City that do not directly affect the proposed Roripaugh Ranch Specific Plan, such as Inter-Agency Coordination(Section 1). The following analysis demonstrates that the proposed project is consistent with ' applicable GMPAP sections and measures. 4.2.1 Inter-Agency Coordination ' This section applies to City activities and is not project specific. t4.2.2 Redirect Urban Development to Urban Areas While most of this section applies to City activities,the Roripaugh Ranch Specific Plan will further some of these goals: ' Cluster Densities related to Specific Plans According to the General Plan,the project site is designated for a Specific Plan with an overall density of 3.0 units per gross acre (GP Figure 2-5 and Table 2-9). The proposed project has a net residential density of 4.26 unit per acre,but actually has a gross density of 2.56 units t per acre that uses clustering to preserve over 200 acres of biological habitat. Higher density single family residential uses(i.e.,5,000 square foot lots)are proposed in the Plateau area but separated by setbacks and landscaped buffering from the top of the slope and views from Nicholas Valley. Higher density housing is also ' located in the central portion of the Valley area east of Butterfield Stage Road,while lower density uses are located around the periphery of the site, adjacent to rural uses to the east and south. In these ways, the proposed project provides appropriate clustering within the Specific Plan, and thus is consistent with this ' requirement of the GMPAP Evaluate Opportunities for Open Space Approximately a third(259 acres or 32 percent)of the proposed ' project is reserved for open space,including 201 acres for the AD 161 Sub-Regional Habitat Conservation Plan recently approved by Riverside County and the U.S.Fish and Wildlife Service. The project is therefore consistent with this requirement of the GMPAP ' Goal B of this section addresses the City's Development Review Process and directs the Planning Commission to"consider approving residential projects at the lowest allowable density in each density category." It further ' states the Commission may"consider approving a project above the lowest density if the project provides onsite orcommunity amenities." The project amenities include:a community park;a neighborhood park;3 private recreational facilities;trails;open space consistent with the AD 161 SHCP;provision of major onsite ' and offsite public improvements and region-serving roads(i.e.,Murrieta Hot Springs Road and Butterfield Stage Road); flood control facilities; a new fire station; an elementary school site and a middle school site. 4.2.3 Preserve Open Space The first recommended goal in this section is to"acquire vital open space and resource areas." The project ' as proposed does contain significant open space and habitat resources,which have been incorporated into the Roripaugh Ranch Specific Plan ' 2xo REVISED DRAFT EIR-APRIL 1,2002 4-12 1 ' 4.0 GENERAL PLAN AND WRCOG CONSISTENCY ' recently approved Assessment District 161 Sub-Regional Habitat Conservation Plan. The large permanent open space of the project fulfills this requirement. ' The second action item is to"condition Specific Plans to preserve a significant amount of open space." The proposed Roripaugh Ranch plan includes 201 acres of land for biological habitat mainly for the California gnatcatcher and Quino checkerspotbutterfy. The majority of the proposed open space land is adjacent to the ' Johnson Ranch open space lands to be included in the Assessment District(AD) 161 Sub-Regional Habitat Conservation Plan (SHCP)recently approved by the County and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. The proposed project therefore meets this requirement of the GMPAP. ' The third action item is to"maintain large parcel sizes in rural areas. Parcel sizes should increase the greater the distance for urban core areas. Encourage down zoning and parcel merging to maintain large rural lot sizes." The proposed Roripaugh Ranch plan also calls for suburban densities and lot sizes in the Plateau area consistent with development to the west along Murrieta Hot Springs Road and larger lots adjacent to the rural areas to the south and east. In these ways, the proposed project is consistent with this requirement of the ' GMPAP. The remaining action items 4-6 address funding mechanisms for preserving open space, such as tax ' advantages or state bond funds, and conducting a study to identify the amount and cost of open space land remaining in the City. ' 4.2.4 Traffic Circulation System Improvements The GMPAP addresses traffic circulation system improvements, and the first goal is to "ensure that ' infrastructure is constructed ahead of new development,"while the third goal is to"continue to condition new develoment to ensure that infrastructure is constructed in conjunction with development impacts." The Roripaugh Ranch Specific Plan identifies a variety of improvements needed foroverall growth in the project ' area as well as specific improvements needed to serve the proposed project. As required by CEQA,the EIR and project traffic study identify the timing and fair share contributions required for specific improvements. In this way,the proposed project is consistent with this requirement of the GMPAP. Other action items under ' this goal are for the City to implement the Capital Improvement Program (CIP) and to work with other agencies regarding the timing and funding of improvements. ' One specific method of potential funding identified in this section of the GMPAP is a Traffic Uniform Mitigation Fee(TUMF). The cities of lake Elsinore,Murrieta,Temecula,and Riverside County are currently working on a TUMF to help fund a variety of roads and other improvements that will help relieve local and ' regional traffic congestion. The proposed project will be required to pay such a fee if appropriate. 4.2.5 Maximize Existing Transportation Network Efficiency ' This section mainly addresses City programs and responsibilities regarding public transit that are not directly related to the Roripaugh Ranch project. The commercial uses in Planning Area 1 1 will include 50 designated park and ride spaces,the project will make a 3-year contribution to the RTA for a shuttle program for project residents and provide other transit-related features deemed appropriate by the City during the design review phase of development. In this way, the project will be consistent with this requirement of the GMPAP. 1 Roripaugh Ranch Specific Plan ' 2D REVISED DRAFT EIR-APRIL 1,2002 4-13 1 ' 4.0 GENERAL PLAN AND WRCOG CONSISTENCY 4.2.6 Summary As demonstrated by the previous paragraphs,the proposed Roripaugh Ranch Specific Plan is consistent with ' the City's Growth Management Strategies and the goals and actions recommended in the City's Growth Management Program Action Plan. Therefore, the project will not have a significant environmental impact relative to the City's Growth Management Program Action Plan. 4.3 WESTERN RIVERSIDE COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS The Westem Riverside Council of Governments(WRCOG)is an association of municipal governments and the county that act as a quasi-regional planning agency. WRCOG's guidelines are not binding on local agencies,but are intended as goals toward which development and governmental actions should strive. The ' WRCOG maintains an Intergovernmental Review(IGR)process to assure that local development plans are consistent with adopted regional plans,including the Regional Comprehensive Plan(RCP)prepared by the Southern California Association of Governments(SCAG)as well as WRCOG's Subregional Comprehensive tPlan (SCP). The SCP consists of eightelements:Growth Management;Economic;Mobility;Air Quality;Housing;Open ' Space and Habitat Conservation;Water Resources; and Solid Waste. The elements contain various goals, policies,and objectives that may apply to new development. In addition,the WRCOG sent acomment letter during the Notice of Preparation period(dated January 6, 1998). The letter referred to specific SCP policies ' and the following sections address those policies plus questions and comments in the WRCOG letter. The reader is also referred to the appropriate section of the EIR for further information on particular issues. ' Comments on Previous DEIRs On July 12, 1999, the Western Riverside Council of Governments (WRCOG)submitted a comment letter ' regarding the Southern California Association of Governments(SCAG),regional comprehensive plans,growth projections,and encouraged consistency with WRCOG's policies and goals. In response,Section 4.2 of the new DEIR incorporates this information and analyzes the project's consistency with this information. ' 4.3.1 Growth Management Element Goal 1. "Attach urban development to existing urban centers to establish a balanced subregional land use pattern which maintains the quality of life, provides for efficient service delivery, and helps attain other subregional goals while accommodating a range of life styles." ' Analysis-The project is within a quarter mile of existing new development(e.g.,Silver Hawk)and is planned for residential development along with several other large Specific Plans in the immediate area(e.g.,Rancho Bella Vista). The project will improve key links of Murrieta Hot Springs Road, Butterfield Stage Road,Nicolas Road,and Calle Chapos,which will provide local and regional access ' for this area. For additional information, see Section 3.1 on Land Use and Planning. Goal 3. "Develop a stable and equitable financing structure which will enable government and the private ' sector to provide the services and facilities necessary to accommodate growth and maintain the quality of life in the subregion." Roripaugh Ranch Specific Plan ' 2N°REVISED DRAFT EIR-APRIL 1,2002 4-14 1 ' 4.0 GENERAL PLAN AND WRCOG CONSISTENCY ' Goal 4. "Provide adequate services and facilities to maintain and improve the quality of life as the subregion's population increases." ' Analysis -The EIR outlines various "fair share"contributions that will be required by the project proponents to fund local and regional improvements such as water,sewer,and roads. The applicant and the City will establish a Community Facilities District to help with the financing of these improvements. For additional information, see Section 3.11 on Public Services, Section 3.12 on Utilities,the Fiscal Impact Assessment report,and the Capital Improvement Plan for the Roripaugh Ranch project on file with the City. WRCOG's Subregional Comprehensive Plan(SCP)contains an objective that states"Natural reserves such as mountain ridges, or stream should be set aside to serve as ecological preserves, habitat for endangered species, and open space for residents. Urban development should be clustered to preserve these areas." Analysis -The proposed land plan allows the for preservation of 110 out of 282 acres (almost 40 percent)of the sage scrub and other native vegetation/habitat onsite,which supports various protected species,including the listed California gnatcatcher and Quino checkerspot butterfly. The land and circulation plans were also modified to protect the Skunk Hollow watershed. Together, these ' resources will form a regional wildlife corridor. The Roripaugh Ranch Project contains 201 acres of habitat under the AD 161 Sub-Regional Habitat Conservation Plan. For additional information,see Section 3.7 on Biological Resources. ' The SCP also contains an objective that states"A cooperative program between local government and school districts is necessary to provide adequate facilities and programs in both public and private schools." Analysis-The City requires that local applicants obtain a letter agreement with the Temecula Valley Unified School District prior to approval of a project such as a Specific Plan. The project is presently negotiating an agreement with the school district regarding the Roripaugh Ranch site. Foradditional information, see Section 3.11 on Public Services (schools). ' 4.3.2 Economic Element Goal 4. "Increase economic growth and job creation in western Riverside County." ' Analysis-Employment impacts of the project are relatively minor(+220 employees)because this area has been long planned for primarily residential uses. Local land planning efforts within the Cities ' of Temecula and Murrieta have concentrated employment-generating uses closer to the I-15/1-215 corridors. For additional information, see Section 7.0 on Alternatives. 1 Goal 5. "Achieve economic growth and prosperity while preserving natural beauty and the social quality of life." ' Analysis-The project contains a modest employment component(i.e.,thecreation of 220retail sales jobs in Planning Area 11). The proposed land plan also seeks to preserve local biological and open space resources. For additional information, see Section 3.7, Biological Resources. Roripaugh Ranch Specific Plan ' 2rv0 REVISED DRAFT EIR-APRIL 1,2002 4-15 ' 4.0 GENERAL PLAN AND WRCOG CONSISTENCY 4.3.3 Housing Element Goal 1. "Provide housing in convenient proximity to jobs and employment centers." ' Analysis-The various types of housing proposed as part of this project will be within three miles of Winchester Road(SR-79),1-15,and the I-215 corridors which provide ready access to employment centers in Temecula, Murrieta, Lake Elsinore, and San Diego County. As the Temecula/Murrieta area grows, plans have already been made for the creation of land uses that generate employment, mainly along the I-15/I-215 corridor. In addition, the project will provide 110,000 square feet of commercial uses, which will require approximately 220 employees. However, the project is not located close to any major employment centers other than Temecula and,to some degree,Murrieta. ' For additional information, see Section 3.1 on Land Use and Planning. Goal 4. "Provide a selection of housing choices to preserve residential and community life style choices." ' Analysis-The Roripaugh Ranch project offers a wide variety of housing for first time homebuyers, move-up buyers, and renters. The location and type of housing has been proposed in certain areas ' to be consistent with neighboring uses and the area as a whole. For additional information,see Section 3.1 on Land Use and Planning. The SCP contains the following housing objectives..."support public policies designed to increase housing opportunities for residents of all economic groups...and guide the development process in a fashion which will allow for levels of growth consistent with our communities'ability to provide the facilities and services needed ' to protect our quality of life." Analysis- As stated previously in the answer to Housing Goal 3, the project will provide a wide variety of housing for all economic groups. Compliance with City guidelines,the General Plan,and facilities financing plans will assure that improvements are made as needed. For additional information, see Section 3.1 on Land Use and Planning. ' 4.3.4 Open Space and Conservation Element ' No applicable goals listed by WRCOG in the NOP comment letter,but the SCP does contain an objective that states"preserve and maintain agricultural lands...as a desirable open space use,consistent with existing and future needs for agricultural products and open space." Analysis-One of the reasons for proposing development at this time is that agricultural activities are no longer economically viable on the project site. The site was used for agriculture for many years, ' but has been planned for by the City and County to support residential development. For additional information,see Section 3.1 on Land Use and Planning and Section 3.3 on Earth Resources(prime agricultural soils). ' The SCP also contains the following objectives..."support sustainable development that will reducethe loss and fragmentation of native species and habitats...maintain,protect,and preserve as permanent open space ' those natural areas and habitats with sensitive biotic species...preserve and protect scenic and visual resources...support sustainable development which avoids or reduces adverse environmental effects on natural Roripaugh Ranch Specific Plan ' 2N1)REVISED DRAFT EIR-APRIL 1,2002 4-16 ' 4.0 GENERAL PLAN AND WRCOG CONSISTENCY ' and sensitive resources...limit development or use special design requirements for land with lower suitability for development...and protect residents and structures from man-made and natural hazards." ' Analysis -The proposed land plan was developed to take into account regional needs for wildlife movement which will reduce fragmentation of natural open space. For additional information,see Section 3.7 on Biological Resources. ' 4.3.5 Water Resources Element Goal 5. "Schedule future development at a pace consistent with the provision of public infrastructure, facilities, and available funding." ' Analysis - The Water Master Plan, Sewer Master Plan, and other utility master plans all seek development that is consistent with local infrastructure planning. For additional information, see Section 3.11 on Public Services and Section 3.12 on Utilities. tThe SCP also contains the following objectives... "Establish stable, reliable, and secure water supplies of adequate quality to meet the needs of existing population and projected growth...and ensure that water supply ' and facilities are sufficient for domestic consumption and fire protection,and capable of serving both existing and proposed development needs, are available or assured prior to approving new development." Analysis-During development of the Specific Plan, the local water suppliers and fire department, among others, were contacted to assure there were adequate resources available to support the ' proposed development. For additional information,see Section 3.4on Water Resources and Section 3.12 on Utilities. ' 4.3.6 Mobility Element The SCP contains an objective that"requires new development to contribute to public transit facilities...support ' mixed uses which encourage walking and bicycling...and locatejobs and housing neareach other to produce shorter work commutes." Analysis-The project supports the provision of adequate public transit facilities,as do the City and the County. Murrieta Hot Springs Road and Butterfield Stage Road can accommodate bus turnouts, and the commercial uses,will eventually be developed with appropriate transit,bicycle,and park and ' ride facilities. For additional information, see Section 3.5 on Transportation and Circulation. The SCP also contains an objective for projects to"coordinate transportation improvements with RCTC,RTA, ' and other transportation providers to assure a multi-modal mix." Analysis - Future development plans for the project site will be reviewed by applicable transit agencies as allowed for in the City's development review process. The project will contain one or more transit stops to facilitate public transit for project residents. Roripaugh Ranch Specific Plan ' 2N°REVISED DRAP7 EIR-APRIL t,2002 4-17 ' 4.0 GENERAL PLAN AND WRCOG CONSISTENCY ' The SCP contains a number of objectives related to Regional Mobi I ity specifically addressing Transportation Demand Management,including.."Provide additional park and ride or other similar facilities...Encourage mixed land use development...and Support planned land use patterns that locate homes near employment centers." Analysis-The proposed project site has been planned for primarily residential uses for many years, the most recent being the City's General Plan land use map. This and other large residential specific ' plans will eventually lead to the creation of a complete suburban community in this area as a logical extension of Temecula and Murrieta. The project supports the provision of adequate public transit facilities, such as park and ride or other TDM improvements.The project will contain one or more transit stops for residents to use public transit. For additional information, see Section 3.5 on Transportation and Circulation. ' The SCP contains a number of objectives related to Regional Mobility specifically addressing Streets and Highways/Freeways/HOV, including..."Support the implementation of site design standards that reduce localized roadway congestion forthe safety of motorists,pedestrians,and bicyclists...Design all future traffic ' signals for traffic actuated operation...Restrict on-street parking when necessary to reduce traffic congestion...and Encourage employers to utilize TDM measures..." ' Analysis-The proposed project includes a network of sidewalks,multi-purpose trails,Class 11 bicycle lanes,and a pedestrian bridge to allow bicyclists access throughout the project site,including parks, schools,and commercial centers. For additional information,see Section 3.5 on Transportation and Circulation. The SCPcontains a number of objectives related to Regional Mobility specifically addressing Non-motorized ' Transportation,including..."Provide facilities that support non-motorized means of transportation(e.g.,walking, bicycling,telecommuting),and are designed to provide for safety...Is the project consistent with the WRCOG Subregional Non-motorized Transportation Plan?...Encourage major employers to utilize telecommuting and ' other TDM measures and provide incentives to do so." ' Analysis - The proposed project does not include major employers or a substantial employment component,so these policies are not applicable. However,the various transit stops will allow project residents,employees,and customers of the commercial uses in Planning Area I 1 to access various ' transit options. In addition, SCAG uses 8 Regional Performance Indicators and associated objectives when evaluating ' transportation investments of individual projects. The 8 indicators are: 1) Mobility-Transportation Systems should meet the public need for i mproved access,and for safe, comfortable, convenient, and economical movements of people and goods. * Average Work Trip Travel Time - 22 minutes * PM Peak Highway Speed - 33 mph ' * Percent of PM Peak Travel in Delay (all trips) - 33 percent 2) Accessibility - Transportation Systems should ensure the ease with which opportunities are ' reached. Transportation and land use measures should be employed to ensure minimal time and cost. * Work Opportunities within 25 Minutes - 88 percent Rodpaugh Ranch Specific Plan ' 2x0 REVISED DRAFT EIR-APRIL 1,2002 4-18 ' 4.0 GENERAL PLAN AND WRCOG CONSISTENCY 3) Environment-Transportation Systems should sustain development and preservation of the existing system and the environment (all trips). * Meeting Federal and State Standards * Meet Air Plan Emission Budgets 4) Reliability - Reasonable and dependable levels of service by mode (all trips). * Transit- 63 percent * Highway -76 percent 5)Safety-Transportation Systems shouldprovide minimal risk,accident,death,and injury(all trips). * Fatalities Per Million Passenger Miles - 0.008 ' * Injury Accidents - 0.929 6)Livable Communities-Transportation Systems should facilitate Livable Communities in which all ' residents have access to all opportunities with minimal travel time(all trips). * Vehicle Trip Reduction- 1.5 percent * Vehicle Miles Traveled Reduction - 10.0 percent ' 7)Equity-the benefits of transportation investments should be equitably distributed among all ethnic, age, and income groups (all trips). * Low Income (household income $12,000) ' * Share of Net Benefits * Equitable Distribution of Benefits ' 8) Cost Effectiveness - Maximize return on transportation investment (all trips). * Net Present Value - Maximum return on transportation investment * Value of a Dollar Invested - Maximum return on transportation investment ' Analysis:The various Homeowner Associations(HOAs)and Property Owners Associations(POAs) ' of the project will help fund a shuttle transit system within the project that will eventually connect to other major destinations within the City,such as the mall or Old Town. The project will have several shuttle stops and parking areas for residents to leave their cars. The project maintains more than the minimum required open space and biologicalhabitat,and will provide at leasta small amountof new employment(approx.220 retail sales positions). The various road and other improvements may be funded,at least in part,through a Community Facilities District. The project provides a large variety ' of housing types(clustered courtyards at medium density up to one-acre lots)that will be available to many income groups. In these ways,the project meets SCAG's 8 regional performance indicators. ' 4.3.7 Air Quality Consistent with the Air Quality Management Plan prepared by the South Coast Air Quality Management District,the SCPcontains a numberof airquality objectives,including "Relieve congestion toreduceemission through the implementation of TSM techniques through the Riverside County Congestion Management Program and the Comprehensive Transportation Plan...Development and maintain a process toward attaining air quality standards...Implement measures to support walking,biking,ridesharing,telecommuting,and the use Roripaugh Ranch Specific Plan ' 2N°REviSED DRAFT EIR-APRIL 1,2002 4-19 ' 4.0 GENERAL PLAN AND WRCOG CONSISTENCY ' of transit...Provide for the mitigation of project air quality impacts,consistent with the legal requirements of CEQA...and evaluate new projects for air quality impacts under CEQA." ' Analysis-The project proposes a series of sidewalks,multi-use trails,Class II bicycle trails,and a pedestrian bridge that will facilitate pedestrian and bicycle access throughout the area. The proposed project does not include major employment, so these policies are not applicable. For additional ' information, see Section 3.5 on Transportation and Circulation and Section 3.6 on Air Quality. ' 4.3.8 Water Quality Consistent with water quality plans maintained by the Regional Water Qual ity Control Board,the SCP contains a number of air quality objectives, including "Support the retention (reclamation) and reuse of wastewater...protect surface and groundwater from degradation...development water conservation and reuse Best Management Practices...and Encourage maximum reuse of reclaimed wastewater and other non-potable waters." ' Analysis-The proposed project is consistent with the goals and planning guidelines of the RWQCB. Maintaining Santa Gertrudis Creek and Long Valley Wash in a relatively natural condition will allow for the continued percolation of surface water into the groundwater. Unfortunately, reclaimed wastewater is not available or affordable in this area at this time. ' 4.3.9 WRCOG Summary ' The project will generate a need for an additional 250 retail sales and office workers,but does not propose major new businesses,industries,or significant new employment. Therefore,many of the W RCOG goals and objectives related to employers are not applicable to the project. The project offers a variety of housing t opportunities close to two growing employment centers (Temecula and Murrieta). However, it is a large residential project and does not contain significant employment generation onsite. In this regard, it will incrementally add to a jobs/housing imbalance in the immediate area over the short-term. As the Temecula and Murrieta areas develop,they are planned fora variety of uses that will require significant employment(i.e., thousands of workers). Eventually,this area will achieve a balance of jobs and housing as residents are able to find employment closer to home. Based on this information,the proposedproject is consistent with the goals and objectives of the Subregionall Comprehensive Plan as promulgated by the Western Riverside Council of Governments. Roripaugh Ranch Specific Plan ' 2"D REVISED DRAFT EIR-APRIL 1,2002 4-20 1 5.0 UNAVOIDABLE AND IRREVERSIBLE IMPACTS ' The California Environmental Quality Act(CEQA)requires EIRS to specifically identify what significant adverse impacts the proposed project will produce, even with implementation of all feasible mitigation measures. CEQA also requires an EIR to identify any irreversible impacts that would result from development of the project. 5.1 UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE IMPACTS ' Agriculture Development of the project site will cover over 210 acres of prime agricultural soils,including land designated in the City General Plan as Locally Important Farmland. This is considered a significant impact that cannot be mitigated at a local level. ' Transportation and Circulation As a result of project traffic, the Levels of Service (LOS) at two intersections,the I-15 southbound ramps at Rancho California Road and the intersection of Margarita Road at Winchester Road, will cause City standards to be exceeded by 2007 (exceed LOS D during peak hours). ' The project traffic study also identified 3 intersections where project traffic would not cause a LOS change, but still contributed to these intersections exceeding City LOS standards by 2007. These intersections are: 1) I-15 southbound ramps at Winchester Road(PM Peak);2)Ynez Road at Winchester Road(PM Peak);and ' 3) Ynez Road at Rancho California Road (AM/FM Peak). However, this cumulative impact can be effectively mitigated by the project providing a key link in the Eastern Bypass Corridor(Butterfield Stage Road). Nine other intersections are expected to exceed City LOS standards with or without project traffic. ' Air Quality The proposed project will create temporary significant air quality impacts from air pollutants generated by construction activities,primarily dust and vehicular emissions. Daily operation(i.e.,occupation) ' of the project will also produce significant air quality impacts from vehicular emissions, based on CEQA significance criteria established by the South Coast Air Quality Management District. These impacts are equivalent to those identified in the previous DEIR because the amount of traffic generated in the two plans ' does not differ by more than 2 percent. Aesthetics The project will fundamentally change the Roripaugh Ranch property from rolling agricultural ' fields to suburban development. The project will be visible from several dozen residences in the Nicolas Valley and the Temecula Wine Country(Calle Contento area). Due to the number and intensity of residential units, plus lighting of athletic fields at the community park,ultimate development of the project will have significant aesthetic impacts in terms of views and skyglow. 1 Roripaugh,Ranch Specific Plan 2"°REVISED DRAFT EIR-APRIL 1,2002 5-1 1 $.0 UNAVOIDABLE AND IRREVERSIBLE IMPACTS 5.2 IRREVERSIBLE IMPACTS There are several irreversible environmental changes that will result from implementation of the proposed ' project. Construction of the proposed suburban development will result in the short-term, essentially irretrievable commitment of a variety of non-renewable or slowly renewable resources. These resources include sand and gravel,asphalt,lumber,petrochemical construction materials,metals,fossil fuels,and water. ' Over the long-term,resource commitment for daily operation(i.e.,occupation)of the project will be similar to other suburban development in the Temecula area. A long-tern change in views and an increase in skyglow will also be an irreversible aesthetic impact to this area. ' The primary irreversible environmental changes produced by implementation of theprojectwill occurmainly as a result of alterations to the physical environment in the form ofcommitted capital,labor,and materials to ' construct and occupy a suburban development. The project site itself will more or less be permanently committed to long-term use as a suburban development. In addition,the new uses will utilize additional fossil fuel resources over the long-term. 1 1 1 Roripaugh Ranch Specific Plan 2N0 REVISED DRAFT EIR-APRIL 1,2002 5-2 ' 6.0 GROWTH-INDUCING AND CUMULATIVE IMPACTS ' The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and CEQA Guidelines require the evaluation of growth-inducing impacts of the proposed project,as well as the cumulative impacts of the project plus other reasonably foreseeable public or private projects planned in the same area. 6.1 GROWTH-INDUCING IMPACTS ' The CEQA Guidelines (Section 15126) require the evaluation of growth-inducing impacts of a proposed project. This discussion must address ways the project could encourage economic and population growth,or ' construction of additional housing in the surrounding area,either directly or indirectly. Also required is a discussion of project characteristics which may encourage or facilitate other activities that could significantly affect the environment, either individually or cumulatively. Growth inducement can take many forms. A project can remove barriers,provide access,or eliminate other constraints which encourage growth that has already been approved and anticipated through the General Plan ' process.The"planned"growth would be reflected in land use plans that have been developed and approved with underlying assumptions that adequate supporting infrastructure will be built. This is perhaps best described as accommodating or facilitating growth,but for the purpose of this section,the term"inducing"is used. The proposed project will both accommodate and stimulate growth in this area,especially in that much of it is being annexed into the City of Temecula. It should be noted that the City's General Plan already anticipates considerable growth over the next 25 years. The General Plan projects housing growth in this area of over 30,000 units, and growth in non-residential uses of over a million square feet through the year 2020. The project will be located in the growing community of Temecula and proximate to the I-15 corridor, which provides excellent regional access and growth-oriented services. The project improving Butterfield Stage Road from Rancho California Road to Murrieta Hot Springs Road could be considered a growth-inducing ' improvement since it provides a key link in the planned Eastern Bypass Corridor. However,City staff believe that the project providing full width improvements to this roadway segment will help eliminate any potential growth-inducing or cumulative traffic impacts of the project in this regard. ' The purpose of this analysis under CEQA is to identify and acknowledge potential growth-inducing impacts of a proposed project so that the public and its decision-makers will be aware of them and take them into ' consideration in its decision-making process. This helps the City to adequately plan for future needs such as infrastructure or services, if it decides to approve a project with growth-inducing consequences. ' 6.2 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS The CEQA Guidelines(Section 15130)requires the identification and analysis of development projects,both public and private,that together with the proposed project could cumulatively impact the environment. Western Riverside County is located adjacent to the urbanized core of Southern California and is currently facing increased development pressure from Orange County and Los Angeles County. Table 6-1 shows historical ' and projected County population figures along with annual growth rates. Over the next twenty years, it is estimated that the County will reach a population of almost 3 million persons. Roripaugh Ranch Specific Plan ' 2ND REVISED DRAFT EIR-APRIL 1,2002 6-1 ' 6.0 GROWTH-INDUCING AND CUMULATIVE IMPACTS ' Associated with this increase in population is a change in the previously rural character of the County. Although agriculture is still the major industry,other local industrial growth has brought diversification to the ' economic base. A major force in the development of the county has been the overall demand for affordable housing in Southern California. As property values have risen in Los Angeles and Orange Counties, many residents have migrated to Riverside County seeking lower cost housing. Table 6-1 Riverside County Population Forecasts Annual Percent Period Population Increase* Growth** Historical 1970 456,914 NA NA 1983 731,173 21,097 4.6% 1994 1,376,900 58,636 8.0% ' 2000 1,687,800 51,817 3.8% Future ' 2005 1,976,900 57,820 3.4% 2010 2,265,300 57,680 2.9% 2015 2,531,700 53,280 2.4% 2020 2,816,000 56,860 1 2.2% Source: Adopted Forecast from SCAG 1998 * average (current minus previous divided by number of years). ** arithmetic average of annual increase divided by previous period population NA =not applicable ' Temecula is no exception to the present growth trends which characterize Riverside County. Development activity in the City has been relatively constant with a minimum annual growth rate of over 5 percent even during the"slow"years of the early 1990's. The City of Temecula Planning Department has helped identify related projects that might result in cumulative impacts both within the City,unincorporated County land,and in neighboring communities (J. DeGange, 1998). The City currently has 15,545 housing units but is expecting approximately 37,780 new housing units and 2,562 acres of commercial and industrial space to be developed over the next 20 years. These projects are described ' in Table 6-2 and their locations shown in Figure 6-1. At the time this EIR was prepared, there were 17 proposed or active development projects within the project area(i.e.,within a three-mile radius of the project site) including the proposed project. Roripaugh Ranch Specific Plan ' 2u°REVISEo DRAFT EIR-APRIL t,2002 6-2 6.0 GROWTH-INDUCING AND CUMULATIVE IMPACTS ' While each individual project may represent an incremental contribution to growth in the area,together the collective projects will create an overall change in the rural, sparsely populated nature of this area east and ' northeast of Temecula. The incremental increase in dwelling units and related demands for local services and infrastructure will cumulatively affect the area. In addition, the development of these projects in what is currently a semi-rural but steadily developing area could result in conversion of adjacent lands to similar uses. Therefore,ultimate development of the project vicinity could have a potential indirect influence upon the overall urbanization of the area. ' The City has already anticipated considerable growth in this"sphere"area,as discussed in Sections 3.1 (Land Use and Planning) and 6.1 (Growth-Inducing Impacts). The EIR for the General Plan (Temecula 1993) evaluated cumulative impacts of City-wide growth,including traffic using a new City-wide traffic model. The ' proposed project will contribute incrementally to impacts associated with new growth,including additional traffic, air pollution, increased consumption of water, and increased generation of sewage and solid waste. ' By itself,the proposed project represents only an incremental increase in development and development-related impacts to the City. However, Section 6.1 of this document does identify growth-inducing impacts of the proposed project,so it can be reasonably assumed that,at some point in the future,this area will have additional development. Several projects have been proposed at this time either adjacent to or in the immediate area of the proposed project(i.e.,Rancho Bella Vista,Johnson Ranch). These projects have had their own CEQA review process, and have included a cumulative evaluation of potential future projects as well. Other ' development projects in the general area will require separate evaluations of their specific environmental impacts. However, it is reasonable to assume that future uses will require substantial public and private improvements,including roads,water and sewer,schools,and other public services,especially when residential uses are proposed. The 17 major land development projects in the area occupy a cumulative total of 11,351 acres (almost 18 1 square miles)with an estimated 39,951 dwelling units and approximately 2,573 acres and about 22 million square feet of non-residential uses(i.e.,office,commercial, industrial). It is estimated that this cumulative growth will generate a population of approximately 113,860 persons based on 2.85 persons per unit times ' 39,951 units. Individual projects will contribute to an overall change in the once rural and sparsely populated nature of the region. The overall increase.in units and related demands along neighborhood roads and for local services and utilities will cumulatively impact the area. In addition,the development of these projects in what was once a semi-rural but steadily developing area could result in conversion of adjacent lands to similar uses. Ultimately, ' the development of one or more large projects could trigger general urbanization of the project area and influence expansion throughout the region (i.e., growth-inducing effects). Cumulative impacts that are particularly noteworthy are discussed in the following sections. 1 Ronpaugh Ranch Specific Plan ' 2NO REVISED DRAFT EIR-APRIL 1,2002 6-3 ' 6.0 GROWTH-INDUCING AND CUMULATIVE IMPACTS ' Table 6-2 Cumulative Projects 1 Non-Residential Uses Total ' Total Housing Square Projects Location* Acres Units Acres Feet Costco Relocation Temecula 25 -- 25 147,000 Bella Vista Spec. Plan 184 County 798 1,998 412 Quinta del Lago Spec.Plan 284 County 470 1,318 96 836,000 Murrieta Hot Springs Spec.Plan 103 Murrieta 2,715 12,366 36 314,000 ' Winchester Properties Spec.Plan 213 County 1,042 2,395 692 6,029,000 Warm Springs Spec.Plan 220 County 475 1,075 37 322,000 Margarita Village Spec.Plan 199 Temecula 1,396 3,923 506 4,408,000 Winchester Hills Spec.Plan 255 Temecula 570 1.948 147 1,281,000 ' Temecula Mall (Phases I and II) Temecula 202 300 103 1,644,000 Campos Verdes Spec.Plan 1/EIR 348 Temecula 133 308 160 523,000 Winchester 1800 Spec. Plan 286 County 1,577 4,703 65 566,000 Winchester Marketplace Temecula 10 -- 10 109,000 ' Promenade Temecula 65 60 -- -- Paloma del Sol Spec.Plan 219 Amend.5 Temecula 1,392 5,328 358 3,119,000 ' Villages of Old Town Specific Plan Temecula 153 1,631 3 20,000 North Village PDO Temecula 63 540 1 8 56.000 ' Sub-Total(without project) 10,546 37,893 2,558 21,921.000 Roripaugh Ranch Specific Plan Temecula 805 2,058 15 110,000 (Percent of Total) (Region) (7.6%) (5.4%) (0.6%) (0.5%) TOTAL (with project) 11,351 39,951 2,573 22,031,000 ' Source: City of Temecula Planning Department,2002. * jurisdiction within which project is located t Roripaugh Ranch Specific Plan ' 2N0 REVISED DRAFT EIR-APRIL 1,2002 6-4 ' ASHBYUSA,LLC FIGURE 6-1 •A a V}I U `= N � 1 .^o O ' 0 CL 0 1 w V J 3 U f s 1 - M o 1 1 a 5 6 O .. 1 � 10 9 1 1. Cos co Relocation I tia oca on 2. Bella P1 e a VistaS 84 in I P 284 3. u to de Lago S O 9 4. Murrieta Hot Springs SP 103 5. Winchester Properties SP 213 1 6. Warm Springs SP 220 7. Margarita Village SP 199 8. Winchester Hills SP 255 O " . 9.Temecula Mall 10. Campos Verde SP 11. Winchester 1800 SP 286 ' 12. Marketplace 13. Promenade 14. Paloma Del Sol SP 219 15. Villages of Old Town SP 16. North Village PDO *Roripaugh Ranch Specific Plan 1 The Keith C.mpenieel.MC N O T T 0 5 C 6 L E Ron•paug] Ranch ' 6.0 GROWTH-INDUCING AND CUMULATIVE IMPACTS ' 6.2 ANALYSIS OF CUMULATIVE IMPACTS ' The following sections evaluate potential cumulative impacts of area-wide growth,including the proposed project. The topics are in the same order as those analyzed in Section 3.0, Environmental Analysis. 6.2.1 Land Use Development of the area will cumulatively impact over 11,351 acres which will convertthe area from largely rural and vacant with scattered agriculture to a typical suburban community. Within this developed area,a substantial amount of recreational area(over 300 acres and two golf courses)and natural open space(over 1,200 acres)will be established to help preserve the natural open feel of the area. Although these proposed ' projects will fundamentally change the character oratmosphere of the area,this transition has been anticipated for many years as the outlying areas around the cities of Temecula and Murrieta grow. Area development will eventually add 113,860 new residents to the area, along with a number of jobs. 6.2.2 Agriculture ' Construction of the various projects will continue the trend of converting agricultural land to urban use. Over 1,000 acres of this area is classified as having"prime"agricultural soils,and an even larger area is classified in the City General Plan as land that is considered"Locally Important Farmland." It is likely that this land will eventually be lost through the conversion of existing agricultural uses to more urban use. This is considered a significant cumulative impact of development in the area. ' 6.2.3 Earth Resources Impacts resulting from grading for construction of numerous development projects in the area wi I I potentially ' alter the natural topography of 11,351 acres in the region. Cut and fill operations will be necessary in areas designated for development of lots and pads. Much of the project area is gently rolling hills with well-defined watercourses. This may,in some cases,require extensive cut and fill operations which will impact landforms. ' Because of the presence of regional faults,the potential exists for impacts as a result of a major earthquake. Certain areas are subject to potential inundation due to a seismically-induced failure to the Lake Skinner Dam. Some of the soils in the area have constraints that limit their use for development,however,potential impacts 1 can be mitigated by careful foundation design and grading. 6.2.4 Water Resources ' Drainage patterns and the quality,velocity and composition of runoff will be altered by large scale grading of areas planned for construction,as well as the creation of impervious surfaces such as roadways,driveways, orparkinglots. Runoff entering streams will contain individually minor but cumulatively considerable amounts of pollutants typical of urban use,thereby impacting the downstream waterquality in Munieta Creek. Siltation resulting from exposed ground surfaces from grading also may affect downstream water quality. Increases ' in water used for irrigation of landscaped areas throughout the vicinity may affect the abundance and distribution of groundwater. It is anticipated that storm drain systems will be constructed in accordance with the County's Drainage Management Plan to partially address local drainage changes. 'Be state recently promulgated SB 221 and SB 610 which now require large residential and commercial projects to demonstrate they have guaranteed sources of water for at least 20 years. Roripaugh Ranch Specific Plan ' 2uo REVISED DRAFT EIR-APRIL 1,2002 6-6 1 ' 6.0 GROWTH-INDUCING AND CUMULATIVE IMPACTS ' 6.2.5 Traffic and Circulation ' Ultimate development of additional dwelling units and non-residential uses will generate almost 600,000 average daily trips(ADT)and 6 million vehicle miles traveled within the area. Traffic generated by development will impact existing roadways,necessitating the expansion and improvement of existing and construction of new regional roadway networks in order to accommodate additional traffic flows. Within developments it will be necessary to install circulation systems with sufficient capacity to accommodate traffic generated, in ' coordination with the regional roadway system. The traffic analysis for the proposed project includes an analysis of cumulative impacts, and concludes that the regional impacts will not be significant as long as recommended and needed improvements are completed in a timely manner(for additional information,see the ' appendices to this document). The project traffic study also identified 3 intersections where project traffic would not cause a LOS change, but still contributed to these intersections exceeding City LOS standards by 2007. These intersections are: 1) I-15 southbound ramps at Winchester Road TM Peak);2)Ynez Road at Winchester Road(PM Peak);and 3) Ynez Road at Rancho California Road (AM/FM Peak). However, this cumulative impact can be ' effectively mitigated by the project providing a key link in the Eastern Bypass Corridor(Butterfield Stage Road) full width from the project site to Rancho California Road. ' While the cumulative impact of this project may be viewed as a substantial increase that will necessitate expansion and improvement of the existing road network, it is important to reiterate the County's goals reflected in the Master Plan of Arterial Highways, include programming major roads in the area for ' incremental widening and/or extension to serve expected growth in surrounding areas. Improvement of the system of streets and highways in the area respond to County planning goals that anticipate local growth. ' 6.2.6 Air Quality Construction of numerous development projects will have cumulative air quality impacts. Air quality will be ' temporarily degraded during construction activities which occur both separately and simultaneously. However, the greatest cumulative impact on regional air quality will be incremental additional pollutants from increased traffic and vehicular emissions in the area,and by increased energy consumption by residents of the planned projects. This will be a significant air quality impact both on a project level and on a regional basis. Buildout of the area will generate over 600,000 trips per day based on standard trip generation factors. Assuming an average trip length of 10 miles,area development will produce 6 million vehicle miles,producing over 75,000 pounds per day of CO and over 15,000 pounds per day of NOz (based on SCAQMD rates). 6.2.7 Biological Resources ' Development in the area will contribute to an incremental but cumulatively significant impact on regional biological resources. Although it is anticipated that impacts to individual protected species(e.g.,gnatcatcher, ' Quino butterfly)will be mitigated on a project by project basis,development will eventually force the movement of much of the native wildlife out of the area, and will result in the loss of native vegetation. Growth will eventually lead to an overall reduction in the native and non-native species in the region, and the loss of ' secondary foraging habitat for migratory birds of prey which are winter visitors to the region. It should be Roripaugh Ranch Specific Plan ' 2ND REVISED DRAFT EIR-APRIL 1,2002 6-7 ' 6.0 GROWTH-INDUCING AND CUMULATIVE IMPACTS ' noted that over ten percent of the area will be preserved as natural open space, which will help protect biological resources in these areas. ' 6.2.8 Energy and Mineral Resources ' The Temecula area contains some significant mineral resources,most notably sand and gravel in the many natural drainages. The largest drainage in the area with significant sand and gravel resources is the Murrieta Creek. However, it is unlikely this channel will be mined extensively due to its high importance for flood ' control,biological habitat,and aesthetic views. Continued growth will eventually remove lesser sources of construction aggregate,with the resulting cumulative impact of having to import aggregate from more distant sources. This causes additional indirect impacts such as increased truck traffic, air pollution, and noise. ' The project area does contain some limited geothermal resources, as evidenced by local hot springs (i.e., Murrieta Hot Springs). While the current energy crisis may increase demand for alternative energy sources such as geothermal,it is not likely to represent a major energy source in the future. The area does not contain any other significant energy resources. 6.2.9 Hazards As the area grows, the use of hazardous materials will also grow, thus increasing the cumulative risk for ' incidents involving releases of such materials. Since the area is planned for mainly residential growth, the additional risk of hazmat incidents is relatively minor. Areas with concentrations of non-residential uses, especially light and heavy industrial uses, will have significantly higher risks for hazmat incidents. 6.2.10 Noise ' Noise during construction activities will impact noise conditions on a short-term basis. Itis expected that any cumulative construction noise impacts would be mitigated at a project level. The major cumulative noise impacts in the area would result from increased traffic volumes impacting existing surrounding dwelling units and increasing noise levels beyond local standards (i.e., 60 CNEL). Future noise levels are projected to increase over existing noise levels by more than 3 dBA on the CNEL scale for many of the roadways in the project area,however,in many cases the 3 dB increase is the result of very low traffic volumes on rural roads. ' Existing residences should not be exposed to significant noise impacts,even with the general increase in area- wide noise levels. Also,only those roadways that have a significant noise increase and are adjacent to existing residential developments are of concern. Roadways along planned residential areas that are not yet developed ' can be mitigated by the applicant at the time of design. Area roadways are expected to experience significant cumulative noise impacts due to regional growth (+6 dB). t6.2.11 Services Continued development of the project area will incrementally increase the demand for public services such as ' fire,police,recreation,schools,libraries,and medical services. On a cumulative basis,impacts to local schools will be significant,but should be mitigable as long as local school districts continue their long-range planning programs and receive adequate funding from the state school construction program. Park facilities will be ' provided as part of the development to alleviate demands upon existing parks in the area. Roripaugh Ranch Specific Plan ' 2u0 REVISED DRAFT EIR.APRIL 1,2002 6-8 ' 6.0 GROWTH-INDUCING AND CUMULATIVE IMPACTS 6.2.12 Utilities ' Development will place increased demands on utility systems,including water,sewer,flood control,electricity, natural gas, and solid waste disposal. Projects-specific planning should take into account the provision of adequate services and utilities. This increased demand may be viewed as a growth inducement as these services and utility systems are expanded and improved to serve new development. 6.2.13 Aesthetics ' The area contains significant visual resources such as rolling hills,valleys,stream channels,and surrounding mountains. As the area develops, many of these localized features will be lost, although others will be incorporated into development plans (i.e., preserved ridgelines and streams). There will be cumulatively ' considerable impacts on aesthetics as rural and agricultural areas are developed into more traditional suburban uses. The area will also have additional sources of light and glare such as park ballfield lighting and streetlights. 6.2.14 Scientific Resources ' Development of the area will probably impact archaeological and/or paleontological resources because excavation activities will disturb native soils,some of which undoubtedly contain these resources. However, over ten percent of the area will be preserved as natural open space, which will help protect potential ' resources in these areas. As long as qualified personnel are present during grading of these projects,potential impacts to these resources can be largely mitigated. t 1 1 Roripaugh Ranch Specific Plan ' 2N°REVISED DRAFT EIR-APRIL 1,2002 6-9 ' 7.0 ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT ' The California Environmental Quality Act(CEQA)Guidelines Section 15126(d)requires consideration of alternatives to the proposed action in the Environmental Impact Report. More specifically,Section 15126(d) prescribes the following: "(d)Alternatives to the Proposed Action. Describe a range of reasonable alternatives to the project,or to the ' location of the project,which would feasiblelly attain most of the basic objectives of the project but would avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant effects of the project,and evaluate the comparative merits of the alternatives. ' (d.1)Purpose. Because an EIR must identify ways to mitigate or avoid the significant effects that a project may have on the environment(Public Resources Code Section 2)001.1),the discussion of alternatives shall ' focus on alternatives to the projector its location which are capable of avoiding or substantially lessening any significant effects of the project,even if these alternatives would impede to some degree the attainment of the project objective, or would be more costly. (d.2) Selection of a range of reasonable alternatives. The range of potential alternatives to the proposed project shall include those thatcould feasiblely accomplish most of thebasic purposes of the projectand could ' avoid or substantially lessen one or more of the significant effects. The EIR should briefly describe the rationale forselecting the alternatives to he discussed. The EIR should also identifyany alternatives that were considered by the lead agency but were rejected as infeasible during the scoping process and briefly explain ' the reasons underlying the lead agency's determination. (U)Evaluation of alternatives. The EIR shall include sufficient information about each alternative to allow meaningful evaluation,analysis,and comparison with the proposed project. A matrix displaying the major characteristics and significant environmental effects of each alternative may be used to summarize the comparison. If an alternative would cause one or more significant effects in addition to those that would be caused by the project as proposed,the significant effects of the alternative shall be discussed but in less detail than the significant effects of the project as proposed. (d.4)"No project"alternative. The specific alternative of"no project"shall also be evaluated along with its impact. The"no project"analysis shall discuss the existing conditions,as well as what would be reasonably expected to occur in the foreseeable future if the project were not approved, based on current plans and consistency with available infrastructure and community services. If the environmentally superior alternative is the"no project"alternative,the EIR shall also identify an environmentally superior alternative among the other alternatives. ' (d.5) Rule of reason- The range of alternatives required in an EIR is governed by a "rule of reason" that requires the EIR to set forth only those alternatives necessary to permit a reasoned choice. The alternatives ' shall be limited to ones that would avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant effects of the project. Of those alternatives, the EIR need examine in detail only the ones that the lead agency determines could feasiblely attain most of the basic objectives of the project." Roripaugh Ranch Specific Plan ' 2N°REVISED DRAFT EIR-APRIL 1,2002 7-1 ' 7.0 ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT ' 7.1 DEVELOPMENT OF ALTERNATIVES During the early preparation and evaluation of environmental impacts of the proposed project,local property owners raised objections to the planned type,density,and intensity of development in the project. After many months of considering local concerns and environmental constraints,the following three alternatives plus the no project alternative were selected for detailed evaluation. These four alternatives represent a reasonable range of alternatives and were selected to determine which were most practical (i.e.,cost effective),would eliminate one or more significant environmental impacts, yet still meet the project objectives. The six ' alternatives selected for further study are briefly described in the following sections. During the environmental scoping process,the following were identified as potential environmental issues by ' local residents or affected agencies: • land use types and intensities compatible with surrounding development; ' protection of onsite biological resources; and • traffic conflicts with land uses east of the project (access from Calle Contento). ' This information was used to develop the following alternatives which focus on reducing potential traffic and/or land use impacts. These alternatives were analyzed in detail to determine if any of them would avoid or reduce potentially adverse effects of the proposed project while still meeting the project objectives. Chapter 7.0 ' provides a more detailed,comparative analysis of these alternatives to the proposed project. The land uses and other characteristics of the project alternatives are summarized in Table 7-1. ' 7.1.1 No Project- No Development This alternative would leave the site in an undeveloped state and continue agricultural activities,most likely dry t farming as is done at present. An option to continued agricultural use that would provide some measure of continued open space would be a golf course. ' 7.1.2 Alternative 1 - Agriculture-Clustered Development This alternative would cluster low medium density residential development along Murrieta Hot Springs Road ' and Butterfield Stage Road, and would allow more intensive farming (e.g., irrigated vineyards) on approximately 373.5 acres of land onsite that was historically dry farmed,both in the southern portion of the Plateau area and the eastern portion of the Valley area. This plan would also include 201 acres of biological habitat designated for the AD 161 SHCP plus 6.5 acres of neighborhood parks. This alternative would have approximately 472 units with 24 low density units(1.2 units/acre)and 448low medium density units,mostly 5,000 to 6,000 square foot lots(5.3 units/acre). This alternative would have 124.7 acres of land designated for ' residential uses with a net residential density of 3.8 units per acre. This alternative overall would have a density of 0.60 units per acre. 7.1.3 Alternative 2 - Reduced Intensity This alternative would eliminate all medium density residential uses and have only low and low medium density 1 residential uses onsite This alternative would have a total of 1,131 units which is 927 units less than the Roripaugh Ranch Specific Plan ' 2NO REVISED DRAFT EIR-APRIL 1,2002 7-2 1 ' 7.0 ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT ' proposed project and would have a gross density of 1.41 units per acre. This alternative would keep the commercial uses and the sports park, but would eliminate the lighted ballfields at the sports park. ' 7.1.5 Alternative 3 - Rural Density This alternative would place 2.5-acre lots in the flatter portions of the site and 5-acre parcels in the steeper ' portions of the site. This alternative would provide 170 single family units and no non-residential uses. This alternative also assumes there is only a small park and no school sites required due to the lowered density. This alternative would have 1,888 units less than the current proposed project. Table 7-1 ' Characteristics of Alternatives No Project Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 ' Project Proposed Agriculture Reduced Rural Characteristics Project No Develop. Clustered Dev. Intensity Density Residential (ac) 414 0.0 125 498 518 Housing Units Low-Low Med. 1,233 0 472 1,131 170 ' Med. 825 0 0 0 0 Total 2,058 0 472 1,131 170 Density gross 2.56 0 3.78 1.41 0.33 net residential 4.97 0 5.87 2.27 2.11 ' Population* 5,865 0 1,345 3,223 485 (-77%) (45%) (-92%) Commercial ' Acres 15 0 0 15 0 Squ.Ft. 110,000 0 0 110,000 0 Employees** 220 0 0 220 0 Other Uses parks(ac) 24.9 0.0 6.5 24.9 2.4 ' schools(ac) 32.0 0.0 0.0 32.0 0.0 private recreation yes no yes yes no fire station yes no yes yes yes? Agriculture no yes yes no no Flood Control(ac) 38 0.0 35 37 33 ' Biol. Habitat(ac) 201 0.0 201 201 201 * based on average of 2.85 persons per unit ** based on I employee per 250 square feet of retail space Roripaugh Ranch Specific Plan ' 2NO REVISED DRAFT EIR-APRIL 1,2002 7-3 7.0 ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT ' 7.2 EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVES 7.2.1 No Project - No Development ' Under this alternative, the 805 acres of private property would remain vacant and not be developed into a mixed-use suburban community. Agricultural activities would continue,although at an increasing economic ' loss. From the property owner's perspective,this alternative is not viable over the long-term,and it would not accomplish any of the project objectives (see Section 2.5). ' This alternative would eliminate,all the significant impacts of the project related to agriculture, traffic, air quality,and aesthetics(both views and skyglow). While this alternative would eliminate significant impacts to agriculture, it would not help conserve important biological habitat because it would likely result in the ' cancellation of the AD 161 Sub-Regional Habitat Conservation Plan. It is possible that more actively cultivating the site(e.g.,vineyards)instead of dry farming might be more profitable,and might allow the owner to continue farming the site. However, local retail water is priced for suburban use rather than at the tremendous discount that many agricultural areas like the Central Valley in California receive. In addition,it would take several years for a new crop to begin producing in a cost effective fashion (i.e., at a profit). This alternative is environmentally superior to the proposed project. However,it could produce significant biological impacts and it does not achieve the project objectives to the same degree as the proposed project. ' Evaluation of Impacts ' Land Use and Planning-reduced from proposed project(i.e.,no suburban land uses)and existing farm uses would continue. ' Geology - reduced from proposed project as existing farming would continue and no people added to site. Seismicity-reduced from proposed project as existing farming would continue and no new residents would ' be introduced to site.. Grading- reduced from the proposed project for continued farming. ' Soils/Agriculture -beneficial compared to proposed project-existing agriculture would continue and no native soils would be covered by development. Prime agricultural soils would remain in production. ' Hydrology-overall runoff would remain as with existing conditions,with occasional flooding orerosion along Santa Gertrudis Creek and Long Valley Wash. ' Water Quality - no significant change from existing conditions. ' Transportation and Circulation - little or no traffic would be generated by continued fanning. Access through Calle Contento neighborhood would continue. No road improvements would be made, such as Butterfield Stage Road or Murrieta Road, but there would be no project traffic to need new roads. Ronpaugh Ranch Specific Plan ' 2N0 REVISED DRAFT EIR-APRIL 1,2002 7-4 ' 7.0 ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT ' Air Quality - no increase over existing because site will have no new development. Biology - the vegetation and habitat along Santa Gertrudis Creek would not be impacted by proximity to ' human activity, but the AD 161 SHCP may no longer apply if the remainder of the site is not able to be developed. No impacts to listed species, raptors, etc. as farming would continue as at present. ' Open Space-site would remain largely vacant and underutilized,but would function as passive open space for this rural area. ' Energy - no impacts over existing conditions. Mineral Resources-onsite mining of aggregate materials would continue-could eventually cause localized erosion to creek channel if mining activities occurred during rainy periods. Hazards-beneficial-no improved uses orhazardous materials would be introduced into the area other than ' existing farming chemicals.. Noise - no increase over ambient conditions if site does not develop. Public Services - no additional police, fire, library, health, or recreation services would be needed if agricultural activities continued on the site. ' Utilities- no additional utilities needed if site does not develop. Aesthetics -site would remain as passive open space with views of rolling hills and valleys. Scientific Resources-no impacts unless farming or related activities happen to expose an archaeological site or fossils. ' Summary This alternative eliminates all of the significant impacts identified for the proposed project(i.e.loss of agriculture,traffic,short-term and long-term air quality, views of the proposed project from surrounding areas,and skyglow. However,it could cause significant impacts to biological resource if the AD 161 SHCP were to be cancelled. According to the CEQA Guidelines, if the No Project-No Development alternative is environmentally superior to the proposed project,then the EIR should also identify an environmentally superior alternative among the other alternatives. 1 Roripaugh Ranch Specific Plan ' 2rvD REVISED DRAFT EIR-APRIL 1,2002 7-5 ' 7.0 ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT ' 7.2.2 Alternative I -Agriculture- Clustered Development This alternative would continue agricultural activity on the site,but transition to more intense cultivation,most ' likely irrigated vineyards similarto those to the southeast. Residential development would be clustered along the south side of Murrieta Hot Springs Road in the Plateau area, and along both sides of Butterfield Stage Road. Residential uses would be primarily low medium density with 5,000 to 6,000 square foot lots. The ' project would have a gross density of 0.59 units/acre(472 units on 804.7 acres)and a net residential density of 3.79 units/acre(472 units on 124.7 acres). This alternative would have one public park on 6.5 acresjust east of Butterfield Stage Road(Planning Area 17). It would not have any commercial uses or community ' sports park. Roads onsite would be similar to those of the proposed project except,North and South Loop Roads would no longer loop but would cul-de-sac east of B utterfield Stage Road. Thisalternative would retain the 201 acres of biological habitat under the AD 161 SHCP. The agricultural areas and the residential uses would be separated by walls and a landscaped buffer approximately 50 feet wide. See Figure7-1fora graphic presentation of this alternative. ' Evaluation of Impacts Land Use and Planning-the Valley area would be completely buffered from neighboring rural uses to the east and south,and the Plateau area would be completely buffered from Nicolas Valley. The ridgeline along the north part of the Valley would be planted and not graded down for housing pads. Residential uses,although higher density than surrounding areas,would be clustered away from rural uses to enhance compatibility. It is possible that there may be some conflicts between agricultural and residential uses,such as dust,spraying of chemicals, etc. However, these are not expected to be significant. ' Geology - This alternative would have reduced geotechnical impacts because there would be 85 percent fewer people introduced to the site. Seismicity - Reduced impacts due to 79 percent fewer people on the site. Grading-if the northern ridgeline were left intact,it is possible that grading would not balance,and that some ' material from offsite might have to be imported. Overall,there would be less grading by keeping the ridgeline intact and leaving almost half(379 acres)of the site in agricultural use. ' Soils/Agriculture-This alternative would prevent the covering over of most of the prime agricultural soils and land classified as locally important farmland on the project site. Because of this,impacts to agriculture are no longer significant. It should be noted, however, that it may not be possible to successfully raise ' vineyards on this site due to weather and other physical conditions,although it is possible some other type of irrigated crop could be grown. Hydrology-The site would have substantially less impervious surfaces due to fewer units and more open space acreage,so overall runoff would be less and impacts would be reduced. There w ill still be a need for flood control improvements to protect the Plateau, Valley, and downstream uses. Water Quality - Improved due to site having more percolation and opportunity to recharge the local groundwater basin, however, increased use of fertilizers and pesticides may degrade water quality. Roripaugh Ranch Specific Plan ' 2N0 REVISED DRAFT EIR-APRIL 1,2002 7-6 7.0 ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT ' Transportation and Circulation - This alternative would generate 85 percent less traffic than from the proposed project(4,720 vs.30,748 ADT). Similar main road improvements would be needed,although there would be somewhat fewer local roads. There would also be substantially fewer units to help fund the ' Community Facilities District that is planned for some of the major road improvements planned in this area. Urban Crossroads evaluated this alternative and determined its traffic impacts would be reduced to less than significant levels. ' Air Quality-This alternative would generate 85 percent less air pollutants which,depending on how much construction was done each day, and depending on the amount of dust generated during tilling and other ' agricultural activities. This alternative would most likely reduce air pollutant emissions to less than significant levels. Biology-Under this alternative,the project would still pa ticipate in the AD 161,and vineyards could provide some modest habitat for local species. ' Open Space-The southern portion of the Plateau area and the eastern two thirds of the Valley area would remain in agriculture, which represents a type of open space. ' Energy - less energy consumed compared to the proposed project because of the fewer number of units, although agriculture will consume some additional amount of energy,mainly electricity for irrigation pumps. ' Mineral Resources-both this alternative and the proposed project would make minimal improvements along the two main drainage channels onsite that might otherwise preclude future sand and gravel extraction. ' Hazards-this alternative would have fewer residents in the Plateau area,and no park or school uses in the Plateau area. Therefore,potential impacts related to hazards from French Valley Airport but would not be significant. Noise-fewer number of units would produce slightly less cumulative noise contribution which would keep it below the typical significance threshold of 3 dB. ' Public Services-this alternative would require less public services such as police,fire, library,health,and recreation services due to generating 79 percent less population compared to the proposed project(1,345 vs. ' 5,865 persons) . Utilities-this alternative would generally reduce impacts on utilities such as sewer,electricity,and natural ' gas,compared to the proposed project. Irrigated agricultural uses could consume as much or more water than a similar area of suburban development. However, this impact is not considered significant. ' Aesthetics-this alternative would improve views from south and southeast of the site toward the ridgeline along the south side of Santa Gertrudis Creek. It would also improve views along Nicolas Valley and the Calle 1 Contento areas. With agricultural uses present and no lighted sports park,this alternative would reduce the impacts to views and skyglow to less than significant levels. Roripaugh Ranch Specific Plan ' 2x0 REVISED DRAFT EIR-APRIL 1,2002 7-7 7.0 ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT ' Scientific Resources - any development in this area has the potential to impact local archaeological or paleontological resources if grading is not monitored. However,usingalmost half the site for agriculture and another quarter of the site for undisturbed open space would substantially reduce potential impacts to these ' resources. Summary ' This alternative would reduce impacts to agriculture, traffic, air quality, views, and skyglow to less than significant levels. It is not fully known if irrigated farming can be successful on this site,or how much water ' would be consumed under this alternative. Benefits to biological resources and open space would be similar to those of the proposed project. However,the number of units in this alternative would not support a CFD to fund major roadways and other onsite and offsite improvements,and it would not achieve the objectives of ' the project to the same degree as the proposed project. 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Roripaugh Ranch Specific Plan ' 2"D REVISED DRAFT EIR-APRIL 1,2002 7-8 ASHBY USA.LLC FIGURE 7-1 W i§¢ qR 0 = ' 1A LM LM 8 / Q x 6.0 AC 4.00 A AC 7.D AC LM 051 / I 24 DU'S 16 DU'S 26 DU'S 4A 10.D Ac 12.5 AC / 9 10 I 40 DU'S OS 8.1LAC 9B 3Bc L / 3.BA Og DU'S �}+ ' MP-private G 4B3fiDU8 / 6.6 AC 13 67.0 AC 7B / 6 779.6 AC 2 5.1 AC 11 (1 052 20 DU'S v /a (1.7 AC LM \� -_ ?A 9.5 AC 15.4 AC _ / / OS3) 60 DU'S a) I � NAP 12 = LEGEND / 162 AC U 60 DU'S ' LAND USE CODE ACRES DENSITY UNITS �( I _ 21B _ •L-'AGRICULTURE AG 379.5 �1 LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL L 22.2 1.2 24 1 LOW MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL LM 102.5 5.3 448 / MED. DENSITY RES. (Standard) M1 0 // 21A MED. DENSITY RES. (Clustered Courtyard) M2 0 --- 14.1 AC NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL NC 0 / I -15-Du5 14 AG r NEIGHBORHOOD PARK NP 6.5 -- ___ �� 225.5 AC MINI PARK MP .3 Q� PUBLIC INSTITUTIONAL(FIRE STATION) PI 2.0 > HABITAT OS1 202.7 FLOOD CONTROL OS2 35.0 19 LANDSCAPE SLOPE OS3 19.5 19.8 AC PUBLIC/PRIVATE STREETS 35-0 80 Du'S L GRAND TOTAL - 804.7 2.38 472 LEGEND 18 oLm 2 13.9 AC' 33.2 AC■■ City/County Boundary Pedestrian Bridge 84 DU'S 16 AG 815 AC 20 17 PI NP 2.O AC 6.5AC ' (1.5 AC) ' The Keith C0mPao,eSl�/+ ,+'' -_ ■■VVI- (p } 7 p S t ( /jy{'q i } F ' I Y6 CI 1C ,yl ' 7.0 ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT ' 7.2.4 Alternative 2 - Reduced Intensity This alternative would eliminate all medium density residential uses and have only low and low medium density uses in similar areas to those planned for residential uses in the proposed project This alternative would have a total of 1,131 units which is 927 units or 45%less than the proposed project-it would retain the commercial uses but eliminate the lighted fields at the sports park. See Figure 7-2 for a graphic presentation of this ' alternative. Evaluation of Impacts Land Use and Planning-the project more compatible with existing land uses in the Nicolas Valley because lot sizes along Nicolas Road would be larger(i.e., one acre)although the uses in the Plateau area would be similar in type and number to the proposed project. Geology-This alternative would have less geotechnical impacts because there would be 45 percent fewer ' people introduced to the site. Seismicity- Reduced impacts due to the introduction of 45 percent less people to the site. ' Grading-the site would require approximately the same amount of grading than under the proposed project. ' Soils/Agriculture-This alternative would still require the covering over of prime agricultural soils and land classified as locally important farmland. Because of this, impacts to agriculture are still significant. ' Hydrology-although site will have more pervious surfaces due to fewer units,overall runoff impacts will be similar due to the need for Flood control improvements to protect downstream uses. Water Quality-slightly improved due to site having more percolation and opportunity to recharge the local groundwater basin. Transportation and Circulation-This alternative would generate about 57 percent less traffic than from the proposed project(approximately 20,000 vs. 30,748 ADT). Fewer improvements would be needed,but there would be considerably fewer units to help fund the Community Facilities District that is planned to fund some of the major road improvements planned in this area. Urban Crossroads has determined that traffic impacts would still be significant under this alternative. Air Quality-this alternative would generate about 50 percent less-air pollution. Due to this,is possible that air pollutant emissions would not be significant. ' Biology-This alternative would have approximately the same amount of open spacelhabitat land preserved and so biological impacts would be equivalent to the proposed project. The project would still participate in the AD 161 SHCP. Open Space - approximately the same amount of habitat compared to the proposed project. Roripaugh Ranch Specific Plan 1 2 N REVISED DRAFT EIR-APRIL 1,2002 7-10 1 ' 7.0 ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT ' Energy-substantially less energy consumed compared to the proposed project because of the fewer number of units. Mineral Resources-both this altemative and the proposed project would make minimal improvements along the two main drainage channels onsite. ' Hazards-this alternative proposes approximately 45 percent fewer units than under the proposed project. However,there would still be suburban density residential uses in the Plateau area. Potential impacts related to hazards from French Valley Airport are still not significant. Noise - the fewer number of units and lack of non-residential uses onsite lead to a cumulative noise tcontribution of only 2 dB which is less than the typical significance threshold of 3 dB. Public Services-this alternative would require a considerably reduced amount of police,fire,library,health, ' and recreation services due to generating only 45 percent of the population compared to the proposed project (3,223 vs. 5,865 persons) . ' Utilities-this alternative would substantially reduce impacts on utilities(i.e.,water,electricity,and natural gas)compared to the proposed project since it will have fewer units and no non-residential uses. Aesthetics - this alternative would still create neighborhoods that would not have a similar appearance to existing development in the Nicolas Valley and the Calle Comento area, with no lighted sports park. This would reduce visual and skyglow impacts to below significant levels. ' Scientific Resources - any development in this area has the potential to impact local archaeological or paleontological resources if grading is not monitored- Otherwise,the alternative would have less impacts on ' these resources as long as the area is graded in more focused areas rather than site-wide mass grading. Summary This alternative would have a total of 1,131 units which is 927 units or 45% less than the proposed project. Residential uses in the Valley area would be less intense and all medium density residential uses would be eliminated. There would still be commercial uses but the lighted fields at the sportspark would be eliminated. This alternative would eliminate significant impacts to aesthetics,both views and skyglow,and it could reduce air quality impacts to a point where they may not be significant. However,significant impacts to agriculture and traffic would remain. In addition,this alternative would not meet the project objectives to the same degree as the proposed project. Ron,augh Ranch Specific Plan ' 2NO REVISED DRAFT EIR-APRIL 1,2002 7.11 ' ASHBYUSA,LLC FIGURE 7-2 I/CU� lV OI q O MWD PROPERTY IS ' .3 1A P-Prt a MURRINA OSI �e LM 12.5 AC 9F 19.0AC ROT OS6.1LAC ' 86 DVS M LI a QA SPRINGS 3.BA DUS OS1 , $$ 7B 16A AC18 RC 9 ACLM 6.8 AC I _ 70,E BS DU'S 85 DUS 48AC 19.6 AC 46 AG V O52 Ro 13 90 DU'S LM p2 051 179.6 AC ' 1NP 0 2 103 DU' 6.5 AC 11 7A 19.5 AC � (5.1 AC) NC (10DAC) NAP rc 12 tie / LM y w 16.2 AC m (ISOAC) > LEGEND 70 DU'S 17 }' LAND USE CODE ACRES DENSITY UNITS' II -33B 16 37.5 AC f!S I L 70 DU'S V LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL L 235.1 1.3 309 29.1 Ac LOW MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL LM 178.8 4.6 822 I NICOLAS RDq �„ 14 15 so L NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL NC 15.4 L L 4.5 AC NEIGHBORHOOD PARK NP 6.8 '33A ) zoDu•s (ie.snc .�..� ' SPORTS PARK SP 21.0 I 14.1 AC ' 20 Dus MINI PARK MP .3 // / -15-DU's 30 RECREATION CENTER RC 8.8 '-- EDUCATIONAL(Schools) S1,S2 32.0 N R a 29 4.0 AC 18 ' PUBLIC INSTITUTIONAL(FIRE STATION) PI 2.0 LOOP s1 L 24.4 AC HABITAT OS1 202-7 27 12.0 AC SODus FLOOD CONTROL OS2 37.0 SP LANDSCAPE SLOPE OS3 19.6 210AC 28 31 LM PUBLIC STREETS 35.4 (19.7AC) S2 23.3 AC PRIVATE STREETS 9.8 20.0 AC 121 DU's '19 L 35.9 AC GRAND TOTAL 804.7 5.9 1,131 30DU'S 26 os2 LEGEND 24.0 2AC 24 L2 LM Lm ------ 5 __ LM 17.0 AC ■■ Ci /County Boundary Pedestrian Bride LM 23 10.5 AC 7o Du•s osz ` ry 9 13.9 AC 50 DU'S \ 9.2 AC ` ' 60 DU'S O SOUTH P ROAD CALLE I '20 CHAPOS L II L *2120 24.0 AC II 30.6 AC 21 20 DU'S 25 DU'S 32 PI 2.0 AC ' (1.5 AC) ® The Keith Compe niesh //� (g( \ ) ` \ j i pE[q{t 0 700 100 B00 ' ■K_■ ,v600= t.�ry�1 - - b ®ft.< ' 7.0 ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT ' 7.2.5 Alternative 3 - Rural Density This alternative would locate 2.5-acre lots in the flatter portions of the site and 5-acre parcels in the upland ' portions of the site. This alternative would provide 170 single family units and no non-residential uses. Itwould have substantially less impacts related to traffic,air quality, views,and skyglow,but it would not eliminate agricultural impacts or meet the housing or financial goals of the project. This alternative also assumes there ' is only a small neighborhood park and no school sites required due to the lowered density. See Figure 7-4 for a graphic presentation of this alternative. ' Evaluation of Impacts Land Use and Planning-rural intensity residential development throughout the site would make the project ' the most compatible with existing land uses in the Nicolas Valley and the Calle Contento area. The reason for this is that lot sizes would now be similar to existing ones offsite. ' Geology-This alternative would have less geotechnical impacts because there would be only 8 percent of the people introduced to the site than under the proposed project. ' Seismicity - Reduced impacts due to huge decrease in the number of units and people on the site. ' Grading-the site would likely require less grading than under the proposed project since ithas considerably fewer units (92 percent) and many would likely be custom with limited grading. ' Soils/Agriculture-This alternative would still require the covering overof prime agricultural soils and land classified as locally important farmland. Because of this, impacts to agriculture are still significant. Hydrology - Although the site will have more pervious surfaces due to fewer units and more rural uses, overall runoff impacts will be similar due to the need for flood control improvements to protect downstream uses. ' Water Quality-slightly improved due to site having more percolation and opportunity to recharge the local groundwater basin. ' Transportation and Circulation-This alternative would-generate 95 percent less traffic than that expected from theproposed project(1,700 vs.30,748 ADT). Traffic impacts could be reduced to less than significant, ' and fewer improvements would be needed, but there would be considerably fewer units to help fund the Community Facilities District that is planned to fund some of the major road improvements planned in this area. Air Quality-this alternative would generate approximately 95 percent less airpollution which would reduce project air impacts to less than significant levels. ' Biology-Under this scenario,about the same amount of land would be preserved as habitat than under the proposed project(202.7 acres). Project would still participate in the AD 161 SHCP,although with fewer units, the project may not be feasible at this point,which would cancel plans for the to help fund major improvements in the area. Roripaugh Ranch Specific Plan ' 2N0 REVISED DRAFT EIR-APRIL 1,2002 7-13 ' 7.0 ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT ' Open Space-approximately the same amount of open space(i.e.,habitat)than under the proposed project. Energy-substantially less energy consumed compared to the proposed project because of the fewer number ' of units and no commercial or other non-residential uses. Mineral Resources-both this alternative and the proposed project would make minimal improvements along ' the two main drainage channels onsite. Hazards- this alternative proposes approximately 8 percent of the units proposed in the project. Potential ' impacts related to hazards from French Valley Airport are still not significant. t Noise - the fewer number of units and lack of non-residential uses onsite lead to a cumulative noise contribution of only I dB which is less than the typical significance threshold of 3 dB. ' Public Services-this alternative would require a considerably reduced amount of police,fire,library,health, and recreation services due to generating only 8 percent of the population compared to the proposed project (485 vs. 5,865 persons) . ' Utilities-this alternative would substantially reduce impacts on utilities(i.e.,water,electricity,and natural gas)compared to the proposed project since it will have fewer units and no non-residential uses. ' Aesthetics-this alternative would create neighborhoods that would have a similar appearance to existing development in the Nicolas Valley and the Calle Contento area, and no lighted sports park or large public ' facilities. Impacts would therefore be reduced to below a level of significance compared to the proposed project. Scientific Resources - any development in this area has the potential to impact local archaeological or paleontological resources if grading is not monitored. Otherwise,the alternative would have less impacts on these resources as long as the area is graded in more focused areas rather than site-wide mass grading. tSummary ' This alternative would locate 2.5-acre lots in the flatter portions of the site and 5-acre parcels in the upland portions of the site. This alternative would provide 170 single family units and no non-residential uses,as shown in Table 7-1. It would reduce significant impacts to traffic,air quality,views and skyglow. However, ' it would still have significant impacts on agriculture and would not meet the project objectives to the same degree as the proposed project. 1 1 Roripaugh Ranch Specific Plan 2N0 REVISED DRAFT EIR-APRIL 1,2002 7-14 1 ASHBYUSA,LLC FIGURE 7-3 o 8 � C � ' MWD PROPERTY ' MURRr�AOS7 12 .5 AC / , 2.5 ACRE LOTS ROT j'OS1 2.5 ACRE LOTS < I H 8 02 ' SPR,ROS 3.8 AC 3DU5 OS7 K 1 1 SAC0US 6.8 AC I ROgO I i OS7 I gg Iz.S AC 179.6 AC ' r 16.8 AC 2.5 ACRE LOTS I M O lk i 2 DU'S 15.4 AC -- -- _--- 19.5 AC 6DU'S ^' II ,I 1 ( a NAP y rr g w 1 If ¢t I ;4 2.5 ACRE LOTS L P4' 1B.z AC (�1 LEGEND Ir U 7DU'S Ir 1 LAND USE CODE ACRES UNITS II --- -- 5.0 ACRE LOTS II rr O 158.1 AC II I NICOLltS R Q��y 31 DU'S VERY LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL VL 494.4 170 II �P PUBLIC INSTITUTIONAL(FIRE STATION) PI 2.0 It I i 2.5 ACRE LOTS 1 HABITAT OS1 202.7 u r 14.t Ac FLOOD CONTROL OS2 33.2 Ir I 5 DU'S LANDSCAPE SLOPE OS3 19.6 if PUBLIC STREETS 35.4 R a PRIVATE STREETS 9.8 LDOP 1 GRAND TOTAL 804.7 170 2.5 ACRE LOTS 80.3 AC 32 DU'S PLATEU AREA=2.5 ACRE LOTS CENTRAL AREA=2.5 ACRE LOTS VALLEY AREA=2.5 AND 5.0 ACRE LOTS OS2 ' 24.0 AC 2.5 ACRE LOTS 41.4 AC 1 LEGEND 16 DU'S OS2TH LOO92AC O P ROAD ■■ City/County Boundary CALLE CHAPOS , 5.0 ACRE LOTS 54.8 AC 1 1 ------------- 21 DU5 J PI 2.0 AC (1S AC) 1 The Keith Compshiesljr.KA 1 7.0 ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT ' 7.3 COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVE IMPACTS ' No Project-No Development would eliminate all of the project's significant impacts because it would allow farming to continue on the site. However,may result insignificant impacts to regional biological resources if it causes the cancellation of the AD 161 Sub-Regional Habitat Conservation Plan. Alternative 1-Agriculture/Clustered Development would result in 1,586 fewer single family units(total 472 units or 77%less units than the proposed project)- This alternative would reduce significant impacts to agriculture,traffic,airquality,views,and skyglow to less than significant levels. However,it is unknown if irrigated agriculture can be successful on this site,or how much water would be consumed by such agricultural uses. Despite these speculative effects, this alternative is considered to be environmentally superior to the ' proposed project. This alternative does not meet the project objectives to the same degree as the proposed project. ' Alternative 2 - Reduced Intensity would have a total of 1,131 units which is 927 units or 45% less than the proposed project. It would eliminate medium density residential uses and have all low and low medium density residential uses. The commercial uses would remain,but the lighted fields at the sports park would be ' eliminated. It would eliminate significant impacts to aesthetics(both views and skyglow),and could reduce auquality impacts to less than significant levels. However,significant impacts to traffic and agriculture would remain. This alternative is environmentally superior to the proposed project. This alternative does not meet ' the project objectives to the same degree as the proposed project. Alternative 3-Rural Density would locate 2.5-acre lots in the flatter portions of the site and 5-acre parcels ' in the upland portions of the site. This alternative would provide 170 single family units and no non-residential uses. It would have only 8 percent of the population of the proposed project and thus would reduce impacts to traffic,air quality, views, and skyglow to less than significant levels.This alternative is environmentally ' superior to the proposed project. This alternative does not meet the project objectives to the same degree as the proposed project. ' Summary All of the alternatives are environmentally superior to the proposed project,mainly because they were developed to help reduce significant impacts of the proposed project while not creating additional or different significant impacts. Alternatives 2 and 3 reduce all but one of the identified significant impacts to less than significant levels,with only loss of agriculture remaining as significant. Altemative 1 reduces all of the impacts to less than significant levels,but it likely does not have enough units to support a CFD,provide the many onsite and offsite improvements(a similar drawback to Altemative 3). None of the alternatives meets ' the objectives of the project to the same degree as the proposed project,although Alternative 2 comes closer to meeting them than Alternatives 1 or 3. Table 7-2 compares the anticipated impacts of alternatives 1 through 3 to those of the proposed project, while Table 7-3 summarizes their significant impacts. t Ronpaugh Ranch Specific Plan 2N0 REVISED DRAFT EIR-APRIL 1,2002 7-16 ' 7.0 ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT ' 7.4 "ALTERNATIVE SITES" ANALYSIS ' TheCEQA Guidelines(Section 15 126)requires the analysis of alternative sites fortheproposed projectwhen the proposed project has adverse environmental impacts and project proponent has property elsewhere that could adequately support the project while reducing adverse environmental impacts. Typically,this analysis ' is not required if the proposed project does not produce any adverse environmental impacts after implementation of all feasible mitigation measures(see Section 4.0). However,there are several reasons why alternative sites are not appropriate for the proposed project. First,the developer does not own any other large vacant sites in the Temecula area, since this has been his family's farm for many decades. In addition, this particular site has unique constraints butalso unique opportunities that have led to the proposed land plan such as Santa Gertrudis Creek and past agricultural use. For these reasons,alternative sites are rejected in favor ' of the proposed project site. 1 1 RonpaDgh Ranch Specific Plan 2NO REVISED DRAFT EIR-APRIL 1,2002 7-17 1 ' 7.0 ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT ' Table 7-2 Impacts of Alternatives Compared to the Proposed Project Alternative I Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Proposed Agriculture Reduced Rural ' Env. Issue Project Clustered Devel. Intensity Density Land Use conversion of land to Provides large open space Elim.med.density Use whole site for very suburban uses. Project buffers for Plateau and and only have low low and low density ' generally compatible with Valley portions of site. medium housing. rural housing existing uses and French Possible conflicts between No lighted sports fields. Valley Airport Plan agric.and residential uses. (Not Signif.) (Not Signif.) (No(Signif.) (Not Signif.) ' Population +5,865 pop. 1,345 pop. 3,223 pop. 485 pop. Housing +2.058 units 472 units 1,131 units 170 units Employ. +220jobs Ojobs 220jobs Ojobs ' Commercial Yes No Yes No Agriculture Loss of 210 acres of Retains agric.uses in same Similar although some ' prime ag.soils and south Plateau and east owners may grow crops. local important Valley areas,but not farniland sure that crops can grow (Signif.) (Not Signif.) (Signif.) (Signif.) ' Earth potential fault(s) reduced reduced reduced and rockslides- because of because of because of can be handled by fewer people fewer people fewer people ' design/engincering Hydrology Santa Gertrudis and main flood control equivalent substantially Long Valley Wash improvements still reduced ' channels-uses needed. Reduced downstream runoff from less concerned about development flooding Traffic 30,748 ADT 4,612 ADT Approx.20,000 ADT 2,040 ADT 3,261 peak PM 46 peak PM 2,000 peak PM 204 peak PM 2 intersections over City LOS standards (Signif.) (Not Signif.) (Signif.) (Not Signif.) Air Quality 2.6 tons/day total 0.35 tons/day 1.2 tons/day 0.2 tons/day ' ROC/NOx (Signif). (Not Signif). (Poten.Signif). (Not Signify. ' Noise +2.6 dB +3dB +1.5 dB < I dB (Not Signif.) (Not Signif.) (Not Signif.) (Not Signif.) Roripaugh Ranch Specific Plan ' 2rvO REVISED DRAFT EIR-APRIL 1,2002 7-I8 7.0 ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT Table 7-2 (cont'd) Impacts of Alternatives Compared to the Proposed Project ' Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Proposed Reduced Rural Env.Issue Project Agriculture Intensity Density ' Clustered Devel. Biology 201 acres of native sage Similar to project but same same ' scrub preserved in AD 161 some potential SHCP. Loss of 80 acres of increase in habitat native habitat types in planted areas .. (Not Signif.) (Not Signif. (Not Signif) (Not Signif.) Energy increased Less people but somewhat reduced substantially consumption agric. may use more because less people reduced (Not Signif) (Not Signif.) (Not Signif.) (Not Signif.) Minerals no MRZs affected same same same Hazards increased pop. Reduced due to similar- substantially and strictures but fewer homes. homes and reduced no French Valley Other uses still in other uses still Airport conflicts Plateau area in Plateau (Not Signif.) (Not Signif.) (Not Signif) (Not Signif.) Public increased need for reduced moderately substantially ' Services police,fire.and reduced reduced school services (Not Signit.) (Not Signif) (Not Signif.) (Not Signif) ' Utilities 33,260 KwH/dav Possibly reduced but moderately substantially 353,100 of nat.gas agriculture may use reduced reduced 4,130 tons/yr waste more water (Not Signif.) (Not Signif.) (Not Signif.) (Not Signif.) Aesthetics fundamental More open space and substantially equivalent to change from buffering-reduced reduced impacts existing ' rural to impacts to views and to both views and conditions suburban uses skyglow skyglow and"skyglow" (Signif.) (Not Signif.) (Not Signif.) (Not Signif) Scientific potential impacts same same more difficult to Resources if not monitored monitor home sites (Not Signif) (Not Signif.) (Not Signific.) (Poten.Signif.) Meets Yes - No Marginal No Project Objectives? * no project alternative represents no change from existing conditions **traffic figures based on project traffic report by Urban Crossroads Roripaugh Ranch Specific Plan 2N°REVISED DRAFT EIR-APRIL 1,2002 7-19 ' 7.0 ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT ' Table 7-3 Comparison of Significant Impacts ' Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Environmental Agriculture Reduced Rural ' Issue Clustered Devel. Intensity Density Agriculture Not Significant Significant Significant Traffic Not Significant Significant Not Significant Air Quality Not Significant Potentially Not Significant Significant Aesthetics-Views Not Significant Not Significant Not Significant ' Aestbelics-Skyglow Not Significant Not Significant Not Significant Cultural Resources Not Significant Not Significant Potentially Significant ' Source: Table 7-2 Roripaugh Ranch Specific Plan ' 2N0 REVISED DRAFT EIR-APRIL 1,2002 7_25 ' 8.0 ORGANIZATIONS AND PERSONS CONSULTED Alzency/Company Person Telephone ' Ashby Development Co. Richard Ashby (909) 823-4430 Kevin Everett ' Building Industry Assoc. Bora Winkle (909) 781-7310 (Riverside County office) ' California Department Dee Sudduth (310) 590-3157 Fish and Game Lilia Martinez (310) 590-3157 ' Caltrans Cecil Karstensen (909) 383-4655 City of Murrieta James Miller (909) 698-1040 City of Temecula Planning Department Gary Thornhill (909) 694-6400 ' David Hogan Saied Naaseh Community Services Cathy McCarthy (909) 694-6480 ' Fire Department Howard Windsor (909) 694-6405 Capt. Jim McBride (909) 696-3000 Fire Prevention Bureau Phil Albannese (909) 694-6405 ' Norm Davidson (909) 694-6405 Police Department Sylvia Garcia (909) 696-3000 ' County of Riverside Flood Control Zully Smith (909) 275-1233 Habitat Conserv. Agency Kristy Lovelady (909) 275-1100 ' Library Services Gary Christmas (909) 955-1114 Planning Department Richard MacHott (909) 275-3299 Sheriffs Department Lt. Jim Domino (909) 696-3000 Transit Agency (RTA) Stephen 011er (909) 684-0850 David Evans & Assoc. David Agnew (909)481-5750 Brian MacClellan Eastern Municipal Mike Gow (909) 925-7676 ' Water District Giroux & Associates Hans Giroux (714) 851-8609 (air quality/noise) Glenn Lukos Associates Glenn Lukos (949) 837-0404 ' GRC Development Co. Joe Fadrowsky (808) 599-8386 Ronpaugh Ranch Specific Plan ' 2N0 REVISED DRAFT EIR-APRIL 1,2002 8.1 1 ' 8.0 ORGANIZATIONS AND PERSONS CONSULTED Aaency/Company Person Telephone Harmsworth Associates Rod Harmsworth (949) 858-1553 ' Heritage Resource Chris Drover (714) 540-0800 Consultants (archaeo/paleo) ' The Keith Companies, Inc. Kent Norton (909) 653-0234 Frank Coyle Leighton & Associates Bob Raya (909) 296-0530 ' The Mounts Company Chris Mounts (760) 931-6654 Pacific Summits Conslt. Wes Hylen (909) 823-4430 ' Rancho California Water Andrew Webster (909) 676-4101 1 The Roston Company James Fergus (760) 720-4600 Robert Kahn-John Kain John Kain (949)477-0809 ' & Associates (traffic) Carl Ballard (now Urban Crossroads) Edison International Paul McDonnell (800) 655-4555 Southern California Betty Holmes (909) 335-7725 Gas Company Santa Margarita River James Jenks (760) 728-1028 Watershed W atermaster Temecula Valley Unified David Gallaher (909) 676-2661 School District Shirley Rechter (909) 506-7903 University of California Trisha Thrasher (909) 787-1012 ' at Riverside (UCR) U.S. Army Corps of Robert Smith (213)452-3419 ' Engineers (ACOE) Spenser McNeal (213)452-3418 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Michelle Shanessey (760)431-9440 ' Service (USF&WS) Western Riverside Council Steve Ruddick (909)787-7985 of Governments (WRCOG) ' Roripaugh Ranch Specific Plan 2rvD REVISED DRAFT EIR-APRIL 1,2002 8.2 ' 9.0 REFERENCES ' Adkan 2001 Adkan Engineering(Adkan),"Hydrology/Hydraulic Study for Tract 29,661 Located in the County of Riverside, California." Hydrology study for the Plateau area. ' January 23, 2001. BIA1998 Building Industry Association(BIA),"Letter from Borre Winckel toRick Robotta," December 16, 1998. CARB1994 California Air Resources Board(CARB),"California Air Quality Data,Vols. XXI -XXVI," Sacramento, CA. 1989-94. CDF 1998 California Department of Finance (CDF), "Population and Housing Figures for ' California Cities," January I, 1998. CDMG 1968 California Division of Mines and Geology (CDMG), "Map of Riverside County ' Showing Locations of Mines and Mineral Resources." CDMG Open File Report 68- 7. 1968. CDMG 1975 Cal ifornia Division of Minesand Geology(CDMG),"Guidelines forGeologic/Seismic Considerations In Environmental Impact Reports," (Note 46). June 1975. ' CDMG 1987 California Division of Mines and Geology(CDMG),"Mineral Land Classification of Concrete Aggregate Resources in the Greater Los Angeles Area.," CDMG Open File Report 143. 1987. CEC 1998 California Energy Commission(CEC),"California Energy Plan-Critical Changes: The Energy Future." Docket 96-BR-1. 1998. DEA 2000 David Evans&Associates. "Draft Roripaugh Ranch Prel i in i nary Design Report for Long Valley Wash in the County of Riverside." February 29, 2000. Drover 1989 Christopher Drover, Ph.D. "A Cultural Resource Assessment of the Roripaugh Ranch." March 27, 1989. ' DTA 1994 David Taussig & Associates, Inc. (DTA), Residential Development Impact Mitigation Plan for Temecula Valley Unified School District," March 30, ' 1994. DWA 1998 Douglas Wood&Associates,Inc. "Johnson Ranch Specific Plan No. 307 and EIR No. 402." Johnson Machinery Company. Draft January 1998. FEMA 1981 U.S.Federal Emergency Management Agency-Federal Insurance Administration (FEMA), "Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) for Riverside County, California. ELISE 1995 Linscott,Law,&Greenspan,Engineers(LLGE),"Traffic Analysis forthe Roripaugh Ranch," May 22, 1995. ' Roripaugh Ranch Specific Plan 2"D REVISED DRAFr EIR-APRIL 1,2002 9-1 ' 9.0 REFERENCES 1 Munger 1992 Munger Map Book, Califomia-Alaska, Oil and Gas Fields, May, 1992. Geocon 1989 Geocon Incorporated. Letter summarizing results of geotechnical studies for the Roripaugh Ranch. November 7, 1989 (included in Appendix B). Geocon 1990 Geocon Incorporated. "Geologic Feasibility Study and Fault Evaluation for the Roripaugh Property,an 800-acre Site in the Ranch Cali fomia Area,Riverside County, California." Ranpac Engineering Corp. August 1990(portions included in Appendix B) Giroux 1995a Giroux&Associates(Giroux), "Noise Impact Analysis for the Roripaugh Ranch." original report prepared May 23, 1995 with tabular data updated to December 1997 based on current land plan and traffic report. Giroux 1995b Giroux&Associates(Giroux),"Air Quality Impact Analysis for Roripaugh Ranch." original report prepared May 23, 1995 with tabulardata updated to December 1997 based on current land plan and traffic report. Giroux 1998a Giroux and Associates (Giroux). "Noise Impact Analysis, Roripaugh Ranch, California." January 20, 1998 (a). Giroux 1998b Giroux and Associates(Giroux). "Air Quality Impact Analysis,Roripaugh Ranch, California." January 20, 1998 (b). Giroux 1999a Giroux and Associates (Giroux). "Noise Impact Analysis, Roripaugh Ranch, Temecula, California." April 19, 1999 (a). ' Giroux 1999b Giroux and Associates(Giroux). "Air Quality Irnpact Analysis,Roripaugh Ranch, Temecula, California." April 13, 1999 (b). ' GLA 1998 Glenn Lukos Associates(GLA),"Wetland Delineation and Jurisdictional Survey for the Roripaugh Ranch, California., August 1998. ' Harmsworth 1998 Harmsworth Associates,Inc.(Harmsworth),"Biological Resources on the Roripaugh Ranch, California," July 1998. HRC 1989 Heritage Resource Consultants (HRC). "A Paleo Survey and Assessment of the Roripaugh Ranch,Rancho California Area,Riverside County,California." February ' 14, 1989. L&A 2001a Leighton & Associates. "Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation, Portion of the Roripaugh Ranch, Tentative Tract No. 29661, City of Temecula, California." February 28, 2001. (Plateau) Roripaugh Ranch Specific Plan 2NO REVISED DRAFT EIR-APRIL 1,2002 9-2 ' 9.0 REFERENCES L&A 2001 b Leighton & Associates. "Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation, Portion of the Roripaugh Ranch,Tentative Tract No.29661,City of Temecula,California." May 23, 2001. ("640" Portion) ' PE 1996 Press-Enterprise, "Temecula Mall Plans Confirnied," November 16, 1996 PE 1999 Press-Enterprise, "4 Road Projects Under Way," March 18, 1999. Ranpac 1990 RANPAC Engineering Corporation (Ranpac), "Geological Hazards ' Report."January 23, 1990. RKJK 1997 Robert Kahn-John Kam Associates(RKJK). "Roripaugh Ranch Traffic Analysis, Temecula, California." December 11, 1997. Revised June 26. 1998 and April 1, 1999. ' Riverside 1988 County of Riverside. "Comprehensive General Plan." Planning Department. 1988. SCAG 1998 Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG), Adopted Forecast for Regional Transportation Plan (RTP), April 1998. SCAQMD 1993 South Coast Air Quality Management District (SQAMD). "CEQA Air Quality Handbook." April 1993. SCAQMD1996 South Coast Air Quality Management District(SCAQMD)."Air Quality Data Sheets for SCAB." 1991 through 1996. SCS 1971 U.S. Department of Agriculture,Soil Conservation Service(SCS),"Soil Survey of Western Riverside Area, California." November 1971. SMRW 1998 Santa Margarita River Watershed(SMRW),Historical Data for Rancho California Water District Well No. 129 (7S/2W-20L), 1987 - 1998. T&B 1996 Turrini&Brink Planning Consultants,Inc. "Rancho Bella Vista Specific Plan No. 184 and Supplemental EIR No. 401, Amendment No. 2." County of Riverside Planning Department. Draft September 20, 1996. Temecula 1993a City of Temecula, "General Plan Final EIR."certified on July 2, 1993. Temecula 1993b City of Temecula, "City of Temecula General Plan."November 9, 1993. ' Temecula 1995 City of Temecula, "Development Code."January 25, 1995. Temecula 1997 City of Temecula. "Demographics Survey of the City of Temecula." Planning Department. June 11, 1997. TKC 1998 The Keith Companies. "Specific Plan Drainage Report for Roripaugh Ranch, Temecula, California." August 1998. Roripaugh Ranch Specific Plan 2N0 REVISED DRAFT EIR-APRIL 1,2002 9-3 1 ' 9.0 REFERENCES ' TPC 1992 Trans-Pacific Consultants,Inc. (TPC). "Assessment District No. 161 - Supplemental Assessment-Subsequent Environmental Impact Report(SCH#92072087)." August 1992. TRB 1985 Transportation Research Board (TRB). "Highway Capacity Manual." 1985. ' TVUSD 1999 Temecula Valley Unified School District (TVUSD). "School Facilities Needs Analysis." March 1, 1999. UC 2001 Urban Crossroads. "Roripaugh Ranch Revised Traffic Analysis, Temecula, California." May 18, 2001. ' USFWS 1997 U.S.Fish and Wildlife Service(USFWS). "Interim General Survey Protocols and Mitigation Guidelines for the Endangered Quino Checkerspot Butterfly(Euphydryas editha quino). Interim document. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Carlsbad, ' California. 1997. USFWS 1999 United States Fish and Wildlife Service(USFWS). "Assessment District 161, Multi- Species Subarea Habitat Conservation Plan." Volume 1, Volume II, and Environmental Assessment. July 2000. 1 1 1 Roripaugh Ranch Specific Plan ...• 2ND REVISED DRAFT FIR-APRIL 1,2002 9-4