Agenda — Temecula City Council, January 27, 2026 (part 5 of 6)

is based on a Runoff Coefficient of 0.9 and Intensity of 0.2 in/hr and an area of 1.65 acres.

Please note the Water Quality Treatment Flow Rate of 0.297 cfs is less than the Kraken Treatment Flow Rate of 0.071 cfs. However, a calculation can be done to determine the overall benefit the Kraken will have in treating DMA D1, B1.1 and B2. The benefits are calculated as follows:

1. Using the Kraken Treatment Flow Rate of 0.071 cfs, determine an BMP Flow Rate Design Intensity (1) from the rational method equation (Q=CIA) using a Runoff Coefficient of 0.9 and an area of 1.65 acres.

2. Based on the BMP Flow Rate Design Intensity (1) determine a Flow Thru BMP Design Capture (Cl) using the Figure B.4. For this project based on a time of concentration of 10 minutes C, is equal to 0.4.

3. Using Worksheet A.4 and the Pollutant removal efficiency for a Kraken Insert determine the BMP Efficacy. This is equal to 0.21.

4. Table 2 provides the documentation and based on the BMP Efficacy of 0.21, the total DCV Reduction allowed is 1,132.1 ft3 based on the total area of 1.65 generated by area B1, B1.1 and B2.

Table 3 provides the final conclusions of the WQE. Table 3 indicates that the total DCV volume for DMA B1.1 and B2 is 2,679 ft3. The project has a DCV reduction of 1,132.1 ft3. Asa result, the project has a remaining volume of 1,546.9 ft3 that must be treated or can be offset with Water Quality Credits.

Based on meetings with the City of Temecula, the project will be using Water Quality Credits to offset the impacts associated with the Ynez Road Extension. 12/12/2023 JLC ENGINEERING & CONSULTING, INC.
41660 Ivy Street, Suite A - Murrieta, Ca. 92562
Ph. 951.304.9552 Fax 951.3568

EXHIBIT A - WQMP SITE PLAN

SHEET 1 OF 1
N
0 (Z
O
O
•� o
� o
0•,
X T
W 1]
0 Q
O 't
Ln
U
0 �N
O
oN
N
N
/ U
O �
0 E_6
SC)
z
�o
0�
�o
of
�Iw - ✓ #3 ---, j. IJ - 77 v%I1611wyl
� �'° I / - - TYPE C,•` TT _ � —""— �.,, _f M4 \. \ ��_�`` � _ __ YPET ' �' v> 'Y✓', n. '� ". / '
i
(T1'PE
#5#5 K
• Ike I �I -_ __ - --
5 o
i a i
r7_-
r
„ 'am --• �-�� i .__ � �� s� / �� a
�i � •tit JFVA
. � �_ ,ti•, I --. �I��/�:�/� ;�� tit. �� ,• .. , - ��. ��' f
Of`Af
A-
rff
_—w
•.
k
MUW.
c
�� '�i�l«�i
��41q7!
4�
--
►_':.;fly
R�
TYPE J - _ +s� � :� �.:wy:• I � � a �r` - - o: ,'.t,` ! } 't ,1 _ r � _ _ ,� - ,,� y
q f
�- �cl - - � r �� III _•• !' rY � '� � .}Iti � - � `'' f �.x f .�� / r As w'
r
{ ,- •4t
/ an
C
aA
'I
rt-
o
-41 IL Ph v - - - _� •�. �,.• �.

I/
i
r ry
- • /_ r, i_ `�\' { \ _ _ _ .fit of .'.. f f 1 '1 Q ' ' �� 1Y'. jl•~' j _ _ +
t
M ! , �,,� Ai Y s $Lf'� .n� t� c•,• - ?''� -ice �r
TYPE
�
wooi 1
sow
• ti � > C, _ �1
>Ir I
r
�. • � � �� '��•_�. , . —I- - _ I • — ;. 7 � 4,f .i �r PaYv i. t"►"� �'>� � . ��'. may. � I o.

E
\ u
i
L •
/ v -owl1�
mum mum
TYPED
r '�'._ I •�' \ \\\\_err \'.�woo
-- J •_ `�'_-Qla.. "_.Illlllllllllll - - - !� - S •hT. ♦_ -ate ` r it .\
mow Noe-
r r
- :vr i „rs � \\`.�V�\� _ _ — � r ♦'. _ „ e_... ,T�,�� ,� �+3Za+ 'i"r yr , {. • >" i-` - y`, T PROPOSED CATCH BASIN & KRAKEN CATCH BASIN —
_INSERT PER TR23992 RANCHO HIGHLANDS 00 - -�� , •- I
0 PO
_- -- ) _ — r: *•!' =' REA B 1 1 . I S PA
•' • - - RT OF THE . -..,.

YNEZ ROAD EXTENSION PROJECT
HICH CREATES 0.5 ACRES OF
r
IMPERVIOUSVAREAwaft
.
---
YNEZ ROAD •� 'v �; - __ - _ , ..

B2 :
8 ..
1 --
' •.•f. -- ---- _
Ilk 0�
-,
- — - - ✓ t+- a y ` i
L—
\ r-- —.- AREA B2 COVERED BY TR23992.

RANCHO HIGHLANDS WOMP '` tt ''f '` B�
„� �—
�'' B2 CONSIST OF 0.32 AC — -- —-- �' "� `
♦ 'r. --� --- — 'n------- :AREA B 1 COVERED BY TR23992 =

0.47 OF NEW PAVEMENT AREA a �;, ♦ r —, ----— -- •r'
.- t, ` / : r J� RANCHO HIGHLANDS WQMP -- -- — ~ ---- --- --- — — -- ` r r •- j /M� r' - AREA B 1 IS EXISTING PAVEMENT
1 Ir
t ♦ �...... r r
rv� Now
` -�.. '4' _. - - ! >/"'h► t � � ram' ,r � + >< _ ' . - , 41 ' s ♦ s. ti\ �- ' r a a, tr+} Rr r. F •' ., , ; i. XT••.• t'''/+ fe �' ' •� 'i. '' •A. i•'\ \ � � � t i' vJ _ y 4- .i r • J_ A yrA • 1 � r `�►T! �� . �: , i + � tjfk mdi
lop* L
Ir
1 • 'l!'•� ! • . h I r' ril
A •
1 ` ;'.. ^, `!� ` '(/• - - � �j � - _ �• + . ! �.i � � - of _ • � • r � ` . r �`. �,+' 1 ; �i , y t.r %_ Opp,. ! ' „y S}S �'; * I
off
Q.fP - 4 , • ,.r •k jr
?rtl
lip.14
' A + ( `wn
Engineering & Consulting, Inc.
41660 IVY STREET, SUITE A
MURRIETA, CA 92562
PH. 951.304.9552 FAX 951.304.3568
EXHIBIT °A"

YNEZ ROAD EXTENSION

WOMP DMA

EXHIBIT

TABLE 1, TABLE 2, AND TABLE 3

TABLE 1 - BMP EFFICACY AND Ccv REDUCTION ANALYSES FOR YNEZ ROAD NEW PAVEMENT IMPROVEMENTS DMA B2 AND ONSITE DMA C1 THAT COMINGLE WITH OFFSITE IMPERVOUS AREAS USING KRAKEI' r ATrN RACIKI Pil TFRC

WATER QUALITY

KRAKEN BMP

BMP FLOW RATE
DMA ID

DMA AREA

IMPERVIOUS

PERVIOUS RATIO

RUNOFF FACTOR

TREATMENT

FLOW RATE
DESIGN
RATIO
„
VOLUME (Dcv)
FLOW RATE Qwc

CAPACITY

INTENSITY
62 0.32
1 0

0.90 1045

0.058

0.071

0.24 131.1

0.5 1
0 0.90
1634

0.090

0.071

0.16 TABLE 2 - BMP EFFICACY AND Ccv REDUCTION ANALYSES FOR YNEZ ROAD NEW PAVEMENT IMPROVEMENTS DMA B1 & B2 AND ONSITE DMA C1 & C2 THAT COMINGLE WITH OFFSITE IMPERVOUS AREAS USINC

KRAKEN CATCH BASIN FILTERS

WATER QUALITY

KRAKEN BMP

BMP FLOW RATE

FLOW THRU BMP

POLLUNTANT
DMA ID

DMA AREA

IMPERVIOUS

PERVIOUS RATIO

RUNOFF FACTOR

TREATMENT

FLOW RATE
DESIGN

DESIGN CAPTURE

REMOVAL

BMP EFFICACY
Dcv Reduction
RATIO
„C„
VOLUME (Dcv)
FLOW RATE Q,No

CAPACITY

INTENSITY
C,

EFFICIENCY
FACTOR
131, 131.1 & B2

1.65 1
0 0.90
5391

0.297

0.071

0.05 0.40

0.52 0.21
1132.1
Total DCV
Reduction
1132.1
TABLE 3 -DCV VOLUME PER DMA AREA & RESULTING UNTREATED DC\ DMA
DCV

31.1 1045
B2
1634

TOTAL DCV TO BE TREATED
2679

DCV REDUCTION
1132.1

CREDITS REQURIED FOR YNEZ RD

EXTENSION
1546.9

WORKSHEET B1.1

Automated Worksheet B.1-1: Calculation of Design Capture Volume (V1.3) U
Drainage Basin ID or Name
131.1
B2
MOIL
B1, B1.1, B2
unitless
1 Basin Drains to the Following BMP Type
Flow-Thru
Flow-Thru
Flow-Thru
unitless
2 85th Percentile 24-hr Storm Depth

1.00 1.00

1.00 inches
3 Design Infiltration Rate Recommended by Geotechnical Engineer

0.000

0.000
in/hr
4 Impervious Surfaces Not Directed to Dispersion Area (C=0.90) 21,780
13,939
71,874
sq-ft
"
5 Semi -Pervious Surfaces Not Serving as Dispersion Area (C=0.30) 0 0
sq-ft
6 Engineered Pervious Surfaces Not Serving as Dispersion Area (C=0.10) 0 0
sq-ft
7 Natural Type A Soil Not Serving as Dispersion Area (C=0.10) sq-ft
8 Natural Type B Soil Not Serving as Dispersion Area (C=0.14) sq-ft
9 Natural Type C Soil Not Serving as Dispersion Area (C=0.23) sq-ft
10 Natural Type D Soil Not Serving as Dispersion Area (C=0.30) sq-ft
11 Does Tributary Incorporate Dispersion, Tree Wells, and/or Rain Barrels? No
No
yes/no
12 Impervious Surfaces Directed to Dispersion Area per SD-B (Ci=0.90) sq-ft
13 Semi -Pervious Surfaces Serving as Dispersion Area per SD-B (Ci=0.30) sq-ft
14 Engineered Pervious Surfaces Serving as Dispersion Area per SD-B (Ci=0.10) sq-ft
15 Natural Type A Soil Serving as Dispersion Area per SD-B (Ci=0.10) sq-ft
16 Natural Type B Soil Serving as Dispersion Area per SD-B (Ci=0.14) sq-ft
•
17 Natural Type C Soil Serving as Dispersion Area per SD-B (Ci=0.23) sq-ft
18 Natural Type D Soil Serving as Dispersion Area per SD-B (Ci=0.30) sq-ft
19 Number of Tree Wells Proposed per SD -A
#
20 Average Mature Tree Canopy Diameter
ft
21 Number of Rain Barrels Proposed per SD-E
#
22 Average Rain Barrel Size
gal
23 Does BMP Overflow to Stormwater Features in Downstream Drainage? No
No
unitless
24 Identify Downstream Drainage Basin Providing Treatment in Series unitless
25 Percent of Upstream Flows Directed to Downstream Dispersion Areas percent
26 Upstream Impervious Surfaces Directed to Dispersion Area (Ci=0.90) 0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
cubic -feet
27 Upstream Impervious Surfaces Not Directed to Dispersion Area (C=0.90) 0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
cubic -feet
28 Total Tributary Area
21,780
13,939
71,874
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 sq-ft
29 Initial Runoff Factor for Standard Drainage Areas

0.90 0.90

0.90 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00
unitless
•
30 Initial Runoff Factor for Dispersed & Dispersion Areas

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00
unitless
31 Initial Weighted Runoff Factor

0.90 0.90

0.90 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00
unitless
32 Initial Design Capture Volume
1,634
1,045
5,391
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 cubic -feet
33 Total Impervious Area Dispersed to Pervious Surface
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
sq-ft
34 Total Pervious Dispersion Area
0 0
0 0
1 0
0 0
0 0
0 sq-ft
35 Ratio of Dispersed Impervious Area to Pervious Dispersion Area n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
ratio
36 Adjustment Factor for Dispersed & Dispersion Areas

1.00 1.00

1.00 1.00
ratio
37 Runoff Factor After Dispersion Techniques

0.90 0.90

0.90 n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
unitless
38 Design Capture Volume After Dispersion Techniques
1,634
1,045
5,391
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 cubic -feet
39 Total Tree Well Volume Reduction
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
cubic -feet
•
40 Total Rain Barrel Volume Reduction
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
cubic -feet
41 Final Adjusted Runoff Factor

0.90 0.90

0.90 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00
unitless
42 Final Effective Tributary Area
19,602
12,545
64,687
0 0
0 0
1 0
1 0
0 sq-ft
Initial Design Capture Volume Retained by Site Design Elements 0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
cubic -feet
13 Final Design Capture Volume Tributary to BMPI
1,634
1,045
1 5,391
0 0
0 0
1 0
0 1 0
1 cubic -feet
Worksheet B.1-1 General Notes:

A. Applicants may use this Worksheet to calculate design capture volumes for up to 10 drainage areas User input must be provided for yellow shaded cells, values for all other cells will be automatically generated, errors/notifications will be highlighted in red and summarized below.

Upon completion of this worksheet, proceed to the appropriate BMP Sizing worksheet(s).

WORKSHEET A.4

WORKSHEET A.4
DMA B1, B1.1 AND B2 EFFICACY FACTOR

FOR RANCHO HIGHLANDS PROPOSED KRAKEN
Autnm d 5nrwaA.hwwt raln,latinn fnr Wnrk.h— A_A- Trwatm Train RMD Fffi— Fartnr n—nni—inn fnr Wf1F 01—inn 1 fll BMP,
BMP2
BMP3
Pollutant
Pollutant
Pollutant
BMP Efficacy
Pollutant
Removal
Provided
Removal
Provided
Removal
Provided
Factor
Capture Value
Capture Value
Capture Value
Efficiency
Efficiency
Efficiency
B
E,
C,
Ei
Cz
E3
C3
TSS

0.850

0.400

0.34 FC

0.600

0.400

0.000

0.24 TN

0.000

0.400

0.000

0.00 TP

0.720

0.400

0.000

0.29 Ttu

0.520

0.400

0.000

0.21 TZn

0.580

0.400

0.000

0.23 TPb

0.400

0.000
1 0.000

0.00 Notes:

1. Applicants must provide user input for yellow shaded cells. Values for all other cells will be automatically generated.

2. This worksheet is for use in the determination of BMP Efficacy Factors for a single BMP that incorporates multiple treatment elements. All elements identified in this worksheet must accept drainage from the same tributary area with BMP, representing the most upstream treatment element, and BMP3 representing the most downstream treatment element.

3. Provide user input for pollutant removal efficiencies (E) for each of the proposed treatment elements as a decimal percentage.

Retention and biofiltration elements provide pollutant removal efficiencies of 1.00 and 0.666 across all pollutants respectively.

Flow-thru pollutant removal efficiencies have not been established by this document; if established, such values will vary for each pollutant considered. Refer to Section 2.3.1.3.1 for additional text on pollutant removal efficiencies.

4. Provide user input for provided capture values (C) for each of the proposed treatment elements as a decimal percentage.

Provided Capture values for retention, biofiltration, partial retention, and flow-thru BMPs are determined per Sections 2.3.1.3.2.1 through 2.3.1.3.2.4 respectively. Treatment trains BMPs implementing a combination of volume -based and flow -based BMPs and/or implementing treatment elements downstream of a retention element require additional considerations to determine appropriate provided Capture values as discussed in Section 2.3.1.3.2.S.

5. Calculate the BMP Efficacy Factor for the proposed treatment train BMP per Equation 2-5. (Note that the sumation of ExCx products may never be greater than 1.00).

E .anion 2-5: BMP Effca Factor for Treatment Team BMP.

B = E,C, + [(1-E,C,) x E,Cr) + [(I-E,C,-ErC,) x E,Cn]
Where:

B: BMP Efficacy Factor
E,,x,e: Pollutant Removal Efficiency (1 being most upstream and 3 being most downsteesm element) C,: Provided Capture (1 being most upstream and 3 being most downstream element) Composition of BMP Efficacy Factor graphic is for illustrative purposes only.

Composition of Treatment Train BMP Efficacy Factor

1.00 0.90

0.80 0.70
0 LL 0.60

0.50 ■ BMP3
iE ■ BMP2
a 0.40
g ■ BMP1
O0 0.30

0.20 0.10

0.00 TSS FC TN TP Tcu TZn TPb
WQE Pollutants of Concern

CAPTURE CURVES FOR DESIGN INTENSITY

1.00 0.90

0.80 _

0.70 CL
-0

0.60 0
CL

0.50 -0

0.40 Tc _ 7.5 mtn
DMA 131, 131.1, AND B2, Tc=10 MIN
0 0.30
DESIGN INTENSITY = 0.5,
CAPATURE Cl = 0.40
` ��
r
—• Tc _ -0 miil
0,20
n
Tr 30 min

0.10 TC = 60 rain
ao
0100
0,05 0J0 0.15 0.20 0.25 0.30 0.35
0,40 0.45 0,50
Design Intensity, inches per hour
Figure BA Flow-Thru Provided Capture Curves

ODEEMT
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
❑� CONSULTING Ynez Road Improvement -Phase I, PW23-02
Appendix F
Ynez Road Widening Project — Noise Review Letter —Temecula, CA MD Acoustics
August 1, 2025

MDACOUSTICS AZ Office UT Office CA Office
4960 S. Gilbert Rd, Suite 1-461 42 N University Ave. Ste 205 1197 Los Angeles Ave, Suite C-256 Sound Solutions for Planning and Design Chandler, AZ 85249 Provo, UT 84601 Simi Valley, CA 93065 p. (602) 774-1950 p. (805) 426-4477
August 1, 2025
Mr. Travis McGill
ELMT Consulting, Inc.
2201 N Grand Ave, Ste #10098
Santa Ana, CA 92711
Subject: Ynez Road Widening Project — Noise Review Letter — Temecula, CA Dear Mr. McGill:

MD Acoustics, LLC (MD) is pleased to submit this letter as part of the noise assessment for the proposed Ynez Road Widening Project in the City of Temecula, CA. The project proposes to widen the easterly side of Ynez Road, from Rancho Vista Road north roughly 1600 feet, to two lanes in each direction and complete missing segments of curb and gutter, sidewalk, and striped medians in coordination with adjacent development between Terra Vista Road and Rancho Vista Road.

1.0 Local Acoustical Requirements
According to the City of Temecula's noise compatibility matrix (Table N-2 of the City's General Plan), an exterior noise level of up to 60 dBA CNEL is normally acceptable for residential uses and an exterior noise level of up to 70 dBA CNEL is conditionally acceptable for residential uses. This study, therefore, compares the traffic noise levels to the City's noise requirements.

According to the City of Temecula's Code of Ordinances in Section 9.20.060(D):

No person shall engage in or conduct construction activity, when the construction site is within one -quarter mile of an occupied residence, between the hours of six -thirty p.m. and seven a.m., Monday through Friday, and shall only engage in or conduct construction activity between the hours of seven a.m. and six -thirty p.m. on Saturday. No construction activity shall be undertaken on Sunday and nationally recognized holidays unless exempted by Section 9.20.070 of the Temecula Municipal Code. Public works projects of any federal, state or local entity or emergency work by public utilities are exempt from the provisions of this subsection.

Residents working on their homes or property are exempt from the prohibition of construction activities on Sundays and holidays and shall only engage in or conduct construction activity between the hours of seven a.m. and six -thirty p.m. when working on Sundays and holidays. The city council may, by formal action, exempt projects from the provisions of this chapter.

2.0 Study Method and Procedure

2.1 Existing Noise Conditions
A 24-hour noise measurement was conducted at the project site on July 16, 2025. Noise data in Table 1 indicate that the ambient noise level ranges from 49 to 58 dBA Leq. The noise measurement location is shown in Exhibit A, and additional field notes and photographs are provided in Appendix D.

MD Acoustics, LLC
JN: 07392508 Letter Report

Ynez Road Widening Project
Noise Review Letter
City of Temecula, CA
Table 1: NM1 Long -Term Noise Measurement Data'
Date
Start Time
Stop Time
Leq
Lmax
Lmin
L(2)
L(8)
L(25)
L(50)
L(90)
7/16/2025
9:30 AM
10:30 AM

53.1 67.8

39.7 60.7

54.6 52.S

51.7 49.9
7/16/2025
10:30 AM
11:30 AM

52.6 65.7

40.4 56.7

54.S

53.2 52.1

49.7 7/16/2025
11:30 AM
12:30 PM
S2.9

64.3 40.9

56.2 54.6

53.3 52.S

50.6 7/16/2025
12:30 PM
1:30 PM
S3.4

74.2 41.2

57.2 54.S

53.3 52.6
51 7/16/2025
1:30 PM
2:30 PM
S3.1

63.9 44.3
5S.S

54.6 53.8

52.9 51.4
7/16/2025
2:30 PM
3:30 PM
S4.4
70 44.8

58.2 56.S

54.9 53.9

52.1 7/16/2025
3:30 PM
4:30 PM
S7.5

83.7 4S.1

60.1 56.4
5S.1
54 51.9
7/16/2025
4:30 PM
S:30 PM
S6.4

77.6 4S.2

62.8 57.1
5S.3

54.5 52.4
7/16/2025
5:30 PM
6:30 PM

53.8 68.5

43.9 57.1

55.9 54.6

53.4 51
7/16/2025
6:30 PM
7:30 PM

54.5 74.1

41.3 61.5

56.2 54.3

53.2 50.8
7/16/2025
7:30 PM
8:30 PM

52.8 63.3

40.2 55.6

54.5 53.6

52.5 50.9
7/16/2025
8:30 PM
9:30 PM

53.8 73.5

45.6 57.4

55.4 53.9

52.9 51.2
7/16/2025
9:30 PM
10:30 PM

52.3 74.5

41.6 56.6

53.7 51.9

51.1 50.1
7/16/2025
10:30 PM
11:30 PM

50.3 75

40.5 52.8

51.2 50.2

49.1 47
7/16/2025
11:30 PM
12:30 AM

48.6 68.6
38 54.5

50.5 48.5

47.6 43.7
7/17/2025
12:30 AM
1:30 AM

49.6 68.9

36.5 53.7

50.5 49

47.7 42.5
7/17/2025
1:30 AM
2:30 AM

48.9 69.8

36.8 56.8

51.1 48.1

46.2 39.9
7/17/2025
2:30 AM
3:30 AM

48.6 61.1
38 53.2
52 49.4

48.1 42.2
7/17/2025
3:30 AM
4:30 AM

48.6 63.3

35.7 53.6

51.5 49.4
48 41.8
7/17/2025
4:30 AM
5:30 AM

53.1 66.5

37.9 57

55.7 54.4

52.1 47.9
7/17/2025
5:30 AM
6:30 AM
57 65.8

42.2 59.6

58.8 57.8

56.8 54.6
7/17/2025
6:30 AM
7:30 AM
54 64

40.1 56.9

56.2 55

53.4 51.2
7/17/2025
7:30 AM
8:30 AM

53.2 70.8

39.6 56.7
55 53.5

52.7 50.7
7/17/2025
8:30 AM
9:30 AM
52 65.1

39.4 55.4
54 52.8

51.5 49.8
CNEL

59.4 Notes:
1 Long-term noise monitoring location is illustrated in Exhibit A.

2.2 FHWA Traffic Noise Calculator
Traffic noise from vehicular traffic was projected using the FHWA Traffic Noise Prediction Model (FHWA- RD-77-108) standards. The FHWA model arrives at the predicted noise level through a series of adjustments to the Reference Energy Mean Emission Level (REMEL). Roadway volumes and percentages for existing conditions correspond to the City of Temecula traffic counts. The referenced traffic data was applied to the model and is in Appendix B. The following outlines the key adjustments made to the REMEL for the roadway inputs:
• Roadway classification - (e.g., freeway, major arterial, arterial, secondary, collector, etc.), • Roadway Active Width - (distance between the center of the outermost travel lanes on each side of the roadway)
MD Acoustics, LLC
JN: 07392508_Letter Report

Ynez Road Widening Project
Noise Review Letter
City of Temecula, CA
• Average Daily Traffic Volumes (ADT), Travel Speeds, Percentages of automobiles, medium trucks, and heavy trucks
• Roadway grade and angle of view
• Site Conditions (e.g., soft vs. hard)
• Percentage of total ADT which flows each hour throughout a 24-hour period Table 2 provides the traffic noise model assumptions along Ynez Road.

Table 2: Roadway Parameters and Vehicle Distribution
Roadway
Segment
Existing ADT'
Speed (MPH)
Site
Conditions
Ynez Rd
Tierra Vista to Rancho Vista
29,800
45 Soft
Vehicle Distribution and Mix'
Daytime %
Evening %
Night %
a
Total / of
Motor -Vehicle Type
(7AM to 7
(7 PM to 10
(10 PM to 7
Traffic Flow
PM)
PM)
AM)
Automobiles

77.5 12.9

9.6 97.4
Medium Trucks

84.8 4.9

10.3 1.8
Heavy Trucks

86.5 2.7

10.8 0.7
Notes:
1 ADTs and Vehicle Distribution from City of Temecula traffic counts.

2.3 Construction Noise Modeling
Construction noise associated with the proposed Project was calculated utilizing methodology presented in the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual (2018) and the FHWA Roadway Construction Noise Model (2018), together with several key construction parameters, including distance to each sensitive receiver, equipment usage, percent usage factor, and baseline parameters for the project site.

The Project CaIEEMod was utilized to determine the construction equipment. Construction noise levels were calculated for various construction phases based on CaIEEMod Air Quality Model assumptions. Three or four of the loudest pieces of equipment were used as a worst case scenario as all equipment could not be adjacent to a single sensitive receptor at the same time. All equipment was assumed to be situated at the center of the project site. Construction equipment typically moves back and forth across the site, and it is an industry standard to use the acoustical center of the site to model average construction noise levels. construction worksheets are provided in Appendix C.

3.0 Findings and Recommendations

3.1 Traffic Noise Impact
The potential off -site noise impacts caused by the proposed roadway expansion were calculated at distances of 80 feet on the south side, and distances of 105 feet on the north side, which are the closest residential properties to the roadway. The Project proposes widening Ynez Rd from three travel lanes to four travel lanes. The noise levels were calculated for the Existing and Future traffic conditions along the study roadway segments with and without the proposed Project. Table 3 compares the traffic noise levels MD Acoustics, LLC
JN: 07392508 Letter Report

Ynez Road Widening Project
Noise Review Letter
City of Temecula, CA
from Existing traffic conditions with the existing lane configuration (Existing without Project) to the noise levels from Existing traffic conditions with the proposed lane configuration (Existing plus Project).

Table 3: Existing/Existing + Project Scenario — Noise Levels (dBA CNEL) CNEL (dBA)
Change in
Existing
Existing Plus
Roadway
Segment
Noise
Receptor Location
(Without
Project
Level
Project)
Southern Residential P/L

64.6 64.7

0.1 Ynez Rd
Tierra Vista to Rancho Vista
Northern Residential
Facade

65.4 66.9

1.5 As shown in Table 3, the width increase of Ynez Road will increase the existing traffic noise levels by 0.1 to

1.5 dB. It takes a change of 3 dB or more to hear an audible difference, which would occur with a doubling of traffic. Therefore, the traffic noise impact is less than significant. Traffic calculations are provided in Appendix B.

3.2 Construction Noise Impact
The degree of construction noise may vary for different areas of the project site and also vary depending on the construction activities. Project construction is anticipated to occur in four phases, as shown in Table 4.

Noise levels at the nearest sensitive receptor (residencies to the south) are shown in Table 4. The construction model assumes equipment operating as close as 75 feet and an average of 200 feet away from the southern residencies. Many sensitive receptors are further than these distances and have walls and will therefore have lower levels than those presented in the table. The construction noise calculation output worksheet is located in Appendix C.

Table 4: Construction Noise Level by Phase (dBA)
Phase
Leq at Nearest
Residences
Linear, Grubbing, & Land Clearing
71 Linear, Grading, & Excavation
78 Linear, Drainage, Utilities, & Sub -Grade
73 Linear, Paving
76 Construction noise is considered a short-term impact and would be considered significant if construction activities are taken outside the allowable times as described in the City of Temecula's Municipal Code.

Construction is anticipated to occur during the permissible hours accordingto the Municipal Code. As shown in Table 4, project construction noise will be up to 78 dBA Leq(h) near sensitive receptors. These reflect the worst -case noise levels at Temecula residences closest to the construction work. In addition, residents with walls will have a reduction in sound level. The impact is therefore less than significant.

MD Acoustics, LLC 4
JN: 07392508 Letter Report

Ynez Road Widening Project
Noise Review Letter
City of Temecula, CA
Construction operations shall follow the City's Municipal Code, which states that construction work performed must occur within the permissible hours. To ensure that construction activities do not disrupt the adjacent land uses, the following measures shall be taken:

1. Construction shall occur during the permissible hours as defined in the City of Temecula's Municipal Code.

2. During construction, the contractor shall ensure all construction equipment is equipped with appropriate noise attenuating devices.

3. The contractor shall locate equipment staging areas that will create the greatest distance between construction -related noise/vibration sources and sensitive receptors nearest the project site during all project construction.

4. Idling equipment shall be turned off when not in use.

5. Equipment shall be maintained so that vehicles and their loads are secured from rattling and banging.

3.3 Construction Vibration
Construction activities can produce vibration that may be felt by adjacent land uses. The construction of the proposed project would not require the use of equipment such as pile drivers, which are known to generate substantial construction vibration levels. The primary vibration source during construction may be from a vibratory roller. A vibratory roller has a vibration impact of 0.210 inches per second peak particle velocity (PPV) at 25 feet which is perceptible but below any risk to architectural damage.

The fundamental equation used to calculate vibration propagation through average soil conditions and distance is as follows:

PPVequipment = PPVref (100/Drec)n
Where: PPVref = reference PPV at 100ft.

Drec = distance from equipment to receiver in ft.
n =1.1 (the value related to the attenuation rate through ground) Construction activities are anticipated to occur as close as 130 ft to the nearest buildings. At a distance of 130 feet, a vibratory roller would yield a worst -case 0.034 PPV (in/sec), which is perceptible but below any risk of damage. The impact is less than significant, and no mitigation is required.

MD Acoustics, LLC 5
JN: 07392508 Letter Report

Ynez Road Widening Project
Noise Review Letter
City of Temecula, CA

4.0 Conclusions
MD has evaluated the traffic noise and construction noise impacts for the proposed Ynez Road Widening Project located in Temecula, CA. The study shows that the traffic noise will fall within the normally acceptable to conditionally acceptable range, per the Noise Compatibility Guidelines of the General Plan.

Construction noise is less than significant with the implementation of construction best practices. MD is pleased to provide this noise assessment. If you have any questions regarding this analysis or need further review, please call our office at (805) 426-4477.

Sincerely,
MD Acoustics, LLC
16� ..:�
Claire Pincock Mark Carlisle
Sr. Acoustical Consultant Acoustical Consultant
Bethany Wu
Acoustical Consultant
MD Acoustics, LLC 6
JN: 07392508 Letter Report

� ` � ••, +h� r. - '"yam - �� .. _' ,.
y
� % µAI -7► ��> ,Y•'�
41 17
I OF —Hi
a All, 17
br
G-,e\o
IL too
400 ft

Appendix A
Glossary of Acoustical Terms

Glossary of Terms
A -Weighted Sound Level: The sound pressure level in decibels as measured on a sound level meter using the A -weighted filter network. The A -weighting filter de-emphasizes the very low and very high frequency components of the sound in a manner similar to the response of the human ear. A numerical method of rating human judgment of loudness.

Ambient Noise Level: The composite of noise from all sources, near and far. In this context, the ambient noise level constitutes the normal or existing level of environmental noise at a given location.

Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL): The average equivalent A -weighted sound level during a 24-hour day, obtained after addition of five (5) decibels to sound levels in the evening from 7:00 to 10:00 PM and after addition of ten (10) decibels to sound levels in the night before 7:00 AM and after 10:00 PM.

Decibel (dB): A unit for measuring the amplitude of a sound, equal to 20 times the logarithm to the base 10 of the ratio of the pressure of the sound measured to the reference pressure, which is 20 micro -pascals.
dB A : A -weighted sound level (see definition above).

Equivalent Sound Level (LEQ): The sound level corresponding to a steady noise level over a given sample period with the same amount of acoustic energy as the actual time varying noise level. The energy average noise level during the sample period.

Habitable Room: Any room meeting the requirements of the Uniform Building Code or other applicable regulations which is intended to be used for sleeping, living, cooking or dining purposes, excluding such enclosed spaces as closets, pantries, bath or toilet rooms, service rooms, connecting corridors, laundries, unfinished attics, foyers, storage spaces, cellars, utility rooms and similar spaces.

L n : The A -weighted sound level exceeded during a certain percentage of the sample time. For example, L10 in the sound level exceeded 10 percent of the sample time. Similarly L50, L90 and L99, etc.

Noise: Any unwanted sound or sound which is undesirable because it interferes with speech and hearing, or is intense enough to damage hearing, or is otherwise annoying. The State Noise Control Act defines noise as "...excessive undesirable sound...".

Noise Criteria (NC) Method: This metric plots octave band sound levels against a family of reference curves, with the number rating equal to the highest tangent line value as demonstrated in Figure

1. Outdoor Living Area: Outdoor spaces that are
associated with residential land uses typically used for passive recreational activities or other noise -sensitive uses. Such spaces include patio areas, barbecue areas,
jacuzzi areas, etc. associated with residential uses;
outdoor patient recovery or resting areas associated
with hospitals, convalescent hospitals, or rest homes;
outdoor areas associated with places of worship which
have a significant role in services or other noise -sensitive M
76 so-
a
w 50
m
M ab
activities; and outdoor school facilities routinely used for Q educational purposes which may be adversely impacted n
30 by noise. Outdoor areas usually not included in this definition are: front yard areas, driveways, greenbelts, 20 maintenance areas and storage areas associated with
residential land uses; exterior areas at hospitals that are ,6 FIGURE 1: Sample NC Curves and
Sample Spectrum Levels
Il f
. . .... .... .......... .
�1 NC 63
NO 60
NC 55
tom. NC 50
�4. N�AS
:.... .. ... --- ---
N �b5
NO W
NC35
--------= i----- - - a ---- ---- --------------
NO 30
_.. .. �_...._.. . _.... _.......... NC.

HEARING
MMAT�: � •• NO 20
THK�snaa
N t

31.5 63 125 20 506 tk 2k 4k U
not used for patient activities; outdoor areas associated OCTAVE BAND rREUUEHCY. Hr with places of worship and principally used for short-term social gatherings; and, outdoor areas associated with school facilities that are not typically associated with educational uses prone to adverse noise impacts (for example, school play yard areas).

Percent Noise Levels: See L(n).

Room Criterion (RC) Method: When sound quality in the space is important, the RC metric provides a diagnostic tool to quantify both the speech interference level and spectral imbalance.

Sound Level (Noise Level): The weighted sound pressure level obtained by use of a sound level meter having a standard frequency -filter for attenuating part of the sound spectrum.

Sound Level Meter. An instrument, including a microphone, an amplifier, an output meter, and frequency weighting networks for the measurement and determination of noise and sound levels.

Sound Transmission Class (SEC): To quantify STC, a Transmission Loss (TL) measurement is performed in a laboratory over a range of 16 third -octave bands between 125 — 4,000 Hertz (Hz).

The average human voice creates sound within the 125 — 4,000 Hz 1/3rd octave bands.

STC is a single -number rating given to a particular material or assembly. The STC rating measures the ability of a material or an assembly to resist airborne sound transfer over the specified frequencies (see ASTM International Classification E413 and E90). In general, a higher STC rating corresponds with a greater reduction of noise transmitting through a partition.

STC is highly dependent on the construction of the partition. The STC of a partition can be increased by: adding mass, increasing or adding air space, adding absorptive materials within the assembly.

The STC rating does not assess low frequency sound transfer (e.g. sounds less than 125 Hz). Special consideration must be given to spaces where the noise transfer concern has lower frequencies than speech, such as mechanical equipment and or/or music. The STC rating is a lab test that does not take into consideration weak points, penetrations, or flanking paths.

Even with a high STC rating, any penetration, air -gap, or "flanking path can seriously degrade the isolation quality of a wall. Flanking paths are the means for sound to transfer from one space to another other than through the wall. Sound can flank over, under, or around a wall. Sound can also travel through common ductwork, plumbing or corridors. Noise will travel between spaces at the weakest points. Typically, there is no reason to spend money or effort to improve the walls until all weak points are controlled first.

Appendix B
Traffic Noise Modeling Output

NOISE IMPACTS (WITHOUT

TOPO OR BARRIER SHIELDING)

NOISE IMPACTS
(WITH

TOPO AND BARRIER SHIELDING)
,
0�

NOISE IMPACTS (WITHOUT

TOPO OR BARRIER SHIELDING)

NOISE IMPACTS
(WITH

TOPO AND BARRIER SHIELDING)
,
0�

NOISE

IMPACTS (WITHOUT

TOPO OR BARRIER SHIELDING)
NOISE

IMPACTS
(WITH

TOPO AND BARRIER SHIELDING)

NOISE IMPACTS (WITHOUT

TOPO OR BARRIER SHIELDING)

NOISE IMPACTS
(WITH

TOPO AND BARRIER SHIELDING)

NOISE IMPACTS (WITHOUT

TOPO OR BARRIER SHIELDING)

NOISE IMPACTS
(WITH TOPO

AND BARRIER SHIELDING)

Appendix C
Construction Noise Modeling Output

Linear, Grubbing, & Land Clearing
(&"
Linear, Grading, & Excavation
W
)-
-
-
W
+-&-
(&"
Linear, Drainage, Utilities, & Sub -Grade
#
(°
,
%"
"
"
&"
"&"
+&.
#'
("
%-
)-
-
&�-
(&"
+.&-
2/
""
""
W
%"
"
&%"
"&"
&"
(&"
Linear, Paving
(+&"
$34�3678-6/A& 529/5!,/"-$

VIBRATION LEVEL IMPACT

DATA INPUT
( 34- )ti+-)4
( 53433 )"-.r'6*)+
( 43 777-
2). p'P9%&'%)/")$/&33: &/5; <=54

DATA OUT RESULTS

0.034 0=' 1 !$!$0-

Appendix D
Field Sheet

24-Hour Continuous Noise Measurement Datasheet - NM1
Project Name:

Ynez Road Widening Noise
Project: #/Name:
0739-2025-008
Site Address/Location:

Date:
07/16/2025
Field Tech/Engineer:

Jason Schuyler / Bethany Wu
Sound Meter: Piccolo -II, Soft dB SN: P0222022803
Settings: A -weighted, slow, 1-min, 24-hour duration
Site Id: NM1

MIACOUSTICS
Site Observations:
74F winds 0-12MPH mostly clear skies. The primary noise sources are traffic and residential noise.

f�
'�.. r • , .

O
L r
Jul 1, 202 9 kd I
43561, !stR_ Yr
ecuk
duwt
1� f f R California
?Peed:OrOkrij�t
Index number: <.

I ,I
�k
Jul 16,
2025 9:14:05 AI
314° M
�*
�.`
28076 Calle Lumir
Temecu
"N
Riverside Couri
Californ
Altitude:291.6i
A
Speed:O'.Okmi
Index number: 1

Project Name: Ynez Road Widening Noise
Site Address/Location:

Site Id:

NM1
Date
Start
Stop
Leq
7/16/2025
9:30 AM
10:30 AM

53.1 7/16/2025
10:30 AM
11:30 AM

52.6 7/16/2025
11:30 AM
12:30 PM

52.9 7/16/2025
12:30 PM
1:30 PM

53.4 7/16/2025
1:30 PM
2:30 PM

53.1 7/16/2025
2:30 PM
3:30 PM

54.4 7/16/2025
3:30 PM
4:30 PM

57.5 7/16/2025
4:30 PM
5:30 PM

56.4 7/16/2025
5:30 PM
6:30 PM

53.8 7/16/2025
6:30 PM
7:30 PM

54.5 7/16/2025
7:30 PM
8:30 PM

52.8 7/16/2025
8:30 PM
9:30 PM

53.8 7/16/2025
9:30 PM
10:30 PM

52.3 7/16/2025
10:30 PM
11:30 PM

50.3 7/16/2025
11:30 PM
12:30 AM

48.6 7/17/2025
12:30 AM
1:30 AM

49.6 7/17/2025
1:30 AM
2:30 AM

48.9 7/17/2025
2:30 AM
3:30 AM

48.6 7/17/2025
3:30 AM
4:30 AM

48.6 7/17/2025
4:30 AM
5:30 AM

53.1 7/17/2025
5:30 AM
6:30 AM
57 7/17/2025
6:30 AM
7:30 AM
54 7/17/2025
7:30 AM
8:30 AM

53.2 7/17/2025
8:30 AM
9:30 AM
52 MDXACOUSTICS
24-Hour Continuous Noise Measurement Datasheet - Cont. - NM1 Site Topo: Buildings 1-4 stories Day: 1 of 1
tall site Noise Source(s) w/ Distance:

Meteorological Cond.: 74F road noise and residential noise Ground Type: Sandy soil and clay
Table 1: Baseline Noise Measurement Summary
Lmax
Lmin
L2

67.8 39.7

60.7 65.7

40.4 56.7

64.3 40.9

56.2 74.2

41.2 57.2

63.9 44.3

55.5 70

44.8 58.2

83.7 45.1

60.1 77.6

45.2 62.8

68.5 43.9

57.1 74.1

41.3 61.5

63.3 40.2

55.6 73.5

45.6 57.4

74.5 41.6

56.6 75

40.5 52.8

68.6 38

54.5 68.9

36.5 53.7

69.8 36.8

56.8 61.1
38 53.2

63.3 35.7

53.6 66.5

37.9 57

65.8 42.2

59.6 64

40.1 56.9

70.8 39.6

56.7 65.1

39.4 55.4
L8
L25
L50
L90

54.6 52.5

51.7 49.9

54.5 53.2

52.1 49.7

54.6 53.3

52.5 50.6

54.5 53.3

52.6 51

54.6 53.8

52.9 51.4

56.5 54.9

53.9 52.1

56.4 55.1
54 51.9

57.1 55.3

54.5 52.4

55.9 54.6

53.4 51

56.2 54.3

53.2 50.8

54.5 53.6

52.5 50.9

55.4 53.9

52.9 51.2

53.7 51.9

51.1 50.1

51.2 50.2

49.1 47

50.5 48.5

47.6 43.7

50.5 49

47.7 42.5

51.1 48.1

46.2 39.9
52 49.4

48.1 42.2

51.5 49.4
48 41.8

55.7 54.4

52.1 47.9

58.8 57.8

56.8 54.6

56.2 55

53.4 51.2
55 53.5

52.7 50.7
54 52.8

51.5 49.8
DNL

59.4 CNEL

59.4 24-Hour Continuous Noise Measurement Datasheet - Cont. - NM1 Project Name: Ynez Road Widening Noise Site Topo: Buildings 1-4 stories Day: 1 of 1 Site Address/Location: tall site Noise Source(s) w/ Distance:

Site Id: NM1 Meteorological Cond.: 74F road noise and residential noise Ground Type: Sandy soil and clay
24Hr - 1Hr Leq & L90
Leq L90
90 90
80 80
70 70
60 57.5

56.4 57
60 Q
a
aai
50 53.1

52.6 52.9

53.4 53.1

54.4 53.8

54.5 52.8

53.8 52.3

50.3 48.6

49.6 48.9

48.6 48.6

53.1 54

53.2 52
50 a
Q)
J
J
40 1
40 30
30 20
20 a
a
Q
0-
a
a
a-
c-
a-
a
0-
a
a_
Q
a
Q
a
a
a
Q
Q
a
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
6)
O
—
N
f
N
M
�t
LO
(0
I�
M
O
co
U')
co
O
Time

MDXACOUSTICS

Project Name:

Site Address/Location:

Site Id:
:1
T
30 24-Hour Continuous Noise Measurement Datasheet - Cont. - NM1 Ynez Road Widening Noise Site Topo: Buildings 1-4 stories Day: 1 of 1 tall site Noise Source(s) w/ Distance:

NM1 Meteorological Cond.: 74F road noise and residential noise Ground Type: Sandy soil and clay
24 Hr - 1Min Leq & L90
Leq Lmax Lmin
20 ¢¢¢¢¢¢¢aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa¢¢¢¢¢¢¢¢¢¢¢¢¢¢¢¢¢¢¢¢¢¢¢ O O O O O o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PIP 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 07oD N(DO'�t WN(OO V o0N(O0 V CONCOOV GO 04(00It00 N(OOV 00 NCOO'It aO N(OO V a0N0007c0N(007 WN(D0'It 00 N(O M10 V O CO Ln 7-'!t O M 0— V O C2 �q V O c)�q—;1- O c? �q 7 V O M LO 7�: O cM 1 V O M Ln — V O 10 Ln 7 V O M Ln 771!t O M Lq 7: 5: O 0 0 N N — — r N N M M M V VU) LO In CO CO f-- r- r-- CO CO W O W O O N N CO CO CO V V In In In O O h I- h W O O Time

MDXACOUSTICS

85 a
75 a�
70 L
65 .m
Weather forcast for 2025-07-16 to 2025-07-17
55 00 00 00 CC 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00
Source: Global Forecas �tSmO
- �-

Wind speed and directions for 2025-07-16 to 2025-07-17
16 14
12 6
.19
2 X
00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00
Source: Global Forecasy,�tSmO(� 9�w2gth� fcrj�s,�Prho(*)\6'��,� N6)20,�,�6�2 ,� N'1�001'"\,��0 1,��O�1'�IIOcO� 1,��0`�'

ODEEMT
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
❑� CONSULTING Ynez Road Improvement -Phase I, PW23-02
Appendix G
Ynez Road Widening Project Transportation Screening Assessment Ganddini Group, Inc
July 9, 2025

transportation ■ noise ■ air quality I GANDDINI GROUP

TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM
TO: ELMT CONSULTING, INC.

FROM: Po Leung, Giancarlo Ganddini I GANDDINI GROUP, INC.

DATE: July 9, 2025
SUBJECT: Ynez Road Widening Project Transportation Screening Assessment GGI Project No. 19839
Ganddini Group, Inc. is pleased to provide this Transportation Screening Assessment for the Ynez Road Widening project in the City of Temecula. The purpose of this memorandum is to determine if the preparation of a traffic impact analysis with vehicle miles traveled (VMT) analysis is necessary based on the traffic impact guidelines and screening criteria established by the City of Temecula. We trust the findings of this analysis will aid you and the City of Temecula in assessing the project.

PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The project site is located on Ynez Road between Tierra Vista Road and Rancho Vista Road in the City of Temecula, California.

The proposed project involves adding a second northbound through lane on the approximately 0.3-mile segment of Ynez Road between Tierra Vista Road and Ranch Vista Road, along with bicycle lane and sidewalk improvements. The proposed improvement plans are shown in Attachment A.

VEHICLE MILES TRAVELED (VMT) SCREENING CRITERIA (CEQA)
The project VMT impact has been assessed in accordance with guidance from the City of Temecula Traffic Impact Analysis Guidelines ["TIA Guidelines"]. The City VMT Guidelines provide screening thresholds for certain types of projects that may be presumed to cause a less than significant VMT impact based on recommendations provided in the Office of Planning and Research (OPR) Technical Advisory on Evaluating Transportation Impacts in CEQA (State of California, December 2018) and additional substantial evidence documented in the City's VMT guidelines.

Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) Screening Criteria (CEQA) for Transportation Projects Exhibit D of the City's TIA Guidelines contains the following list, based on guidance from the OPR Technical Advisory, for transportation projects that "would not likely lead to a substantial or measurable increase in vehicle travel, and therefore generally should not require an induced travel analysis:" ■ Rehabilitation, maintenance, replacement, safety, and repair projects designed to improve the condition of existing transportation assets (e.g., highways; roadways; bridges; culverts; Transportation Management System field elements such as cameras, message signs, detection, or signals; tunnels; transit systems; and assets that serve bicycle and pedestrian facilities) and that do not add additional motor vehicle capacity ■ Roadside safety devices or hardware installation such as median barriers and guardrails 555 Parkcenter Drive, Suite 225, Santa Ana, California 92705 714 795 3100 1 ganddini.com

City of Temecula
Ynez Road Widening
July 9, 2025
■ Roadway shoulder enhancements to provide "breakdown space," dedicated space for use only by transit vehicles, to provide bicycle access, or to otherwise improve safety, but which will not be used as automobile vehicle travel lanes
■ Addition of an auxiliary lane of less than one mile in length designed to improve roadway safety ■ Installation, removal, or reconfiguration of traffic lanes that are not for through traffic, such as left, right, and U-turn pockets, two-way left turn lanes, or emergency breakdown lanes that are not utilized as through lanes
■ Addition of roadway capacity on local or collector streets provided the project also substantially improves conditions for pedestrians, cyclists, and, if applicable, transit ■ Conversion of existing general purpose lanes (including ramps) to managed lanes or transit lanes, or changing lane management in a manner that would not substantially increase vehicle travel ■ Addition of a new lane that is permanently restricted to use only by transit vehicles ■ Reduction in number of through lanes
■ Grade separation to separate vehicles from rail, transit, pedestrians or bicycles, or to replace a lane in order to separate preferential vehicles (e.g., HOV, HOT, or trucks) from general vehicles ■ Installation, removal, or reconfiguration of traffic control devices, including Transit Signal Priority (TSP) features
■ Installation of traffic metering systems, detection systems, cameras, changeable message signs and other electronics designed to optimize vehicle, bicycle, or pedestrian flow ■ Timing of signals to optimize vehicle, bicycle, or pedestrian flow ■ Installation of roundabouts or traffic circles
■ Installation or reconfiguration of traffic calming devices ■ Adoption of or increase in tolls
■ Addition of tolled lanes, where tolls are sufficient to mitigate VMT increase ■ Initiation of new transit service
■ Conversion of streets from one-way to two-way operation with no net increase in number of traffic lanes ■ Removal or relocation of off-street or on -street parking spaces ■ Adoption or modification of on -street parking or loading restrictions (including meters, time limits, accessible spaces, and preferential/reserved parking permit programs) ■ Addition of traffic wayfinding signage
■ Rehabilitation and maintenance projects that do not add motor vehicle capacity ■ Addition of new or enhanced bike or pedestrian facilities on existing streets/highways or within existing public rights -of -way
■ Addition of Class I bike paths, trails, multi -use paths, or other off -road facilities that serve non -motorized travel
■ Installation of publicly available alternative fuel/charging infrastructure g31ddi1 ez Road Widening
Transportation Screening Assessment
2 19839

City of Temecula
Ynez Road Widening
July 9, 2025
Addition of passing lanes, truck climbing lanes, or truck brake -check lanes in rural areas that do not increase overall vehicle capacity along the corridor
Northbound Ynez Road currently provides two lanes south of the project limits (Rancho Vista Road), one lane through the project limits, and two lanes north of the project limits (Tierra Vista Road). There are currently no bicycle facilities or sidewalks provided on Ynez Road within the project limits. The proposed project would complete Ynez Road at its ultimate half -section width in accordance with the City's General Plan circulation element, including construction of a dedicated Class II bicycle lane with green rectangular markings at the intersection approach to Tierra Vista Road for enhanced safety and sidewalk improvements that would improve roadway safety.

Considering the relatively short distance (less than one mile), any potential near -term increase in VMT relating to additional vehicular capacity is expected to be minor and would be offset by the enhanced bike lane and sidewalk improvements. Furthermore, since the proposed project is consistent with the City of Temecula General Plan Circulation Element, the project would not increase VMT beyond long-range forecasts included the Southern California Associations of Government (SCAG) Regional Transportation Plan (Connect SoCal 2024). Thus, the proposed project generally aligns the City -established screening criteria for transportation projects that may be presumed to result in a less than significant VMT impact.

CONCLUSION
The proposed project generally aligns the City -established screening criteria for transportation projects that may be presumed to result in a less than significant VMT impact.

We appreciate the opportunity to assist you on this project. Should you have any questions or if we can be of further assistance, please contact us at (714) 795-3100. g31ddi1 Ynez Road Widening
Transportation Screening Assessment
3 19839

ATTACHMENT A

IMPROVEMENT PLANS

48"
24"

GREEN BIKE
PANEL

WHITE ARROW
36CIO

GREEN BIKE
PANEL

WHITE LEGEND
00 36" N N-

GREEN BIKE
00 PANEL

WHITE LEGEND
NOTE. NSTALL THERMOPLASTIC PAVEMENT MARKINGS WITH GREEN PANEL.

BIKE LANE PAVEMENT MARKING
N. T S.
24"
R4-7
"KEEP RIGHT" SIGN
OM2-1 H SIGN

PAINT MEDIAN NOSE

YELLOW WITH REFLECTIVE
BEADS
'LAN VIEW
W12
W �

LEFT TURN POCKETS
R4-7 AND OM2- 1H SIGN ON SIGN POST
N. T S.

CONTRACTORS NOTE:

CONTRACTOR TO REFRESH CROSSWALK STRIPING AS DEEMED

NECESSARY BY THE FIELD INSPECTOR AT TIERRA VISTA ROAD

AND RANCHO VISTA ROAD INTERSECTIONS
SIGNING AND STRIPING NOTES:

1. STRIPING, SIGNING, OR PAVEMENT LEGENDS SHALL NOT BE INSTALLED PRIOR TO FIELD INSPECTION AND APPROVAL BY THE INSPECTOR.

2. ALL PAVEMENT MARKINGS AND SIGN LOCATIONS MUST BE INSPECTED AND APPROVED BEFORE STRIPING BEGINS. THE INSPECTOR SHALL DETERMINE THE EXACT LIMITS OF THE MATCH STRIPING.

J. ALL REGULATORY SIGNS AND WARNING SIGNS SHALL USE HI —INTENSITY DIAMOND GRADE REFLECTIVE SHEETING AND BE A MINIMUM OF 30 "X30':

4. UNLESS OTHERWISE STATED, ALL STRIPING SHALL BEGIN AND TERMINATE AT QUARTER DELTA OF THE CURB RETURN, OR BACK OF THE CROSSWALK OR STOP BAR.

5. ALL R1 SIGNS WILL BE LOCATED 2 FEET BEHIND CURB AT THE B.C.R. OR AS SPECIFIED ON THE PLAN.

6. ALL STOP BARS WILL BE LOCATED AT THE PROLONGATION OF THE CENTER DELTA OF THE CURB RETURN OR BEHIND THE WHEELCHAIR ACCESS RAMPS UNLESS OTHERWISE SPECIFIED ON THE PLAN.

7. THE STOP LEGEND SHALL BE 8 FEET BEHIND THE STOP BAR. IF REQUIRED, DIRECTIONAL ARROWS SHALL ALSO BE 8 FEET BEHIND THE STOP BAR OR 8 FEET BEHIND THE STOP LEGENDS.

8. ALL PAVEMENT MARKERS, STRIPING, AND PAVEMENT MARKINGS SHALL CONFORM TO THE LATEST VERSION OF THE CALIFORNIA MANUAL ON UNIFORM TRAFFIC CONTROL DEVICES (MUTCD), AND CALTRANS STANDARD PLANS: A20—A THROUGH A24—E.

9. STREET NAME SIGNS SHALL BE INSTALLED AT ALL INTERSECTIONS AND MAY BE INSTALLED ABOVE THE R1 SIGN OR AS SPECIFIED ON THE PLAN.

10. THE POST MATERIAL SHALL BE "TELESPAR QWIK—PUNCH" OR APPROVED EQUAL WITH RECEPTIVE 30—INCH OR 36—INCH ANCHOR ASSEMBLY.

11. ALL PAVEMENT STRIPING AND LEGENDS SHALL BE INSTALLED PER SECTION 84-2 OF THE CALTRANS STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS.

12. ALL CONFLICTING PAVEMENT LEGENDS, STRIPING (INCLUDING RAISED PAVEMENT MARKERS), AND PAVEMENT MARKINGS SHALL BE REMOVED BY GRINDING METHOD, PRIOR TO GRIND AND OVERLAY, PER SECTION 84-9 OF THE CALTRANS STANDARD SPECIFICATION.

13. ALL PAINTED STRIPING SHALL BE DOUBLE COATED IN NOT LESS THAN 7 DAYS, BUT NO MORE THAN 14 DAYS FROM DATE OF INITIAL INSTALLATION.

14. ALL PAVEMENT MARKINGS, PAVEMENT LEGENDS, AND LINES 8" OR WIDER SHALL BE THERMOPLASTIC UNLESS OTHERWISE APPROVED BY THE DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS.

15. ALL PAVEMENT STRIPING SHALL HAVE RAISED PAVEMENT MARKINGS (RPM) PER SECTION 81-3 OF THE CALTRANS STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS.

16. A 6" SOLID WHITE LEAD LINE WITH TYPE 'G' RPM'S AT 25' SPACING SHOULD BE USED FOR EACH LANE LINE WHERE IT BREAKS ACROSS AN INTERSECTION. 50' OF LEAD IN LINE ON THE APPROACH SIDE AND 50' ON THE LEAD OUT DEPARTURE SIDE.

Underground Service Alert

BASIS OF BEARINGS

BEARINGS ARE BASED ON THE CALIFORNIA STATE
PLANE COORDINATE SYSTEM (CCS83), ZONE 6 BASED
CALL TOLL FREE LOCALLY ON N.G.S. CORS STATION "ROSA,
1- 8 0 0 - 4 2 2 - 413 3 PID—DX3769. DISTANCE SHOWN HEREON ARE GROUND DISTANCES. TO OBTAIN GRID LEVEL DISTANCES,
MULTIPLY DISTANCES BY 1.00008466.

TWO WORKING DAYS BEFORE YOU DIG

I CONSTRUCTION RECORD I DATE I BY
Contractor
Inspector
Date Completed
w
x-
T
W W _raw
D 101+00
APN 944-331-026
VISTA
ROAD
rl
R4-7
0 OM2-1 H
I

I PARCEL BOUNDARY
I
I
PARCEL

BOUNDARY
I
I
I
I
APN 944-290-016
EXISTING 6" CURB

AND GUTTER
APN 944-352-015
BIKE
O
LANE
R7-9A
I m
9 W
-
_ F
<
Q
— _
co
—G—
PARCEL
APN 944-290-016 I BOUNDARY APN 944-290-017 I
8 SPEED I I i ❑

LIMITBIKE
O I LANE BIKE 3 I
m I 45 LLANEji
Q I R7-9A R2-1 R7-9A I I
❑
W 9 2 � o ` ��'F�TINGD GU 1� -�
RIGHT- OF -WAY PROPOSED CURB 4 -9 -
i I � &GUTTER �
1 O _ CD VV
f T T T 6 W w W
— W - W W, A w T W �—�=� W W T W W �W W w W W W- W W — w — CJ �� CN (p
Q� 670, ss ss� ss ss ss ss ss ss ss s 8 ss ss ss s s 6 ss s ss ss ss— �7 � ss 6 ss G' g+0— =� —— —— _w_ --w 1 —=350' -M -6 w — =6w _
Typ.I w
-- -
V -------------- ----------- -- -----______ —— — — FQ ------ -- -- - SP
Q — T
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
RIGHT-OF-WAY g 120 I 5 4 APN 944-363-010
BAY TAPER EXISTING 6 CURB I PARCEL 9
AND GUTTER BOUNDARY cin
`'' CONTRACTORS STRIPING NOTE:

APN 944-352-015 ® I(& SEE YNEZ ROAD SIGNING AND STRIPING EXHIBIT FOR

BIKE YNEZ ROAD I BIKE ADDITIONAL STRIPING WORK TO BE COMPLETED BY \LLANEJ LANE CONTRACTOR
R7-9A R7-9A
Q DETAIL 39A DETAIL 39 OPTAMARK, OPTATRAC OR

ENNIS FLINT PRE -MARK

PAVEMENT MARKINGINGS
CONSTRUC77ON NOTES
14 INSTALL
DETAIL 38, 8" CHANNELIZING LINE PER CALTRANS STANDARD PLAN A20D 35 INSTALL W3-3 SIGN ON POST OR ON STREET LIGHT PER CA MUTCD STANDARDS 15 INSTALL
DETAIL 12, 6" WHITE DASHED LANELINE PER CALTRANS STANDARD PLAN A20A 36 REMOVE DETAIL 38, 8" CHANNELIZING LINE PER CALTRANS STANDARD PLAN A20D 16 INSTALL
TYPE IV TURN ARROW PER CALTRANS STANDARD PLAN A24A
37 REMOVE DETAIL 22, DOUBLE YELLOW LINE STRIPING
17 INSTALL
DETAIL 29, DOUBLE YELLOW MEDIAN ISLAND PER CALTRANS STANDARD PLAN A20A 38 INSTALL DETAIL 39, BIKE LANE LINE PER CALTRANS RSP A20D 18 INSTALL
DETAIL 25, LEFT EDGELINE PER CALTRANS STANDARD PLAN A20B 39 INSTALL LOOP DETECTOR TYPE F PER CALTRANS RSP ES-5B
19 REMOVE
DETAIL 12, 6" WHITE DASHED LANELINE PER CALTRANS STANDARD PLAN A20A 43 INSTALL DETAIL 39A, LANE LINE EXTENSIONS PER CALTRANS RSP A20D 21 REMOVE
TYPE IV TURN ARROW PER CALTRANS STANDARD PLAN A24A
49 INSTALL R7-9A NO PARKING SIGN PER CA MUTCD STANDARDS ON POST

OR ON STREET LIGHT PER PLAN
�5

INSTALL

LOOP DETECTORS PER DETAIL ON HEREON
54 INSTALL R2-1 "SPEED LIMIT" SIGN PER CA MUTCD, SPEED AS NOTED PER PLAN �6

INSTALL BIKE LANE PAVEMENT MARKING PER DETAIL HEREON
55 INSTALL 6" SOLID WHITE LINE WITH TYPE "G" RPM'S AT 25' O.C., 2" OFFSET FROM LINE �7

INSTALL
R4-7 & OM2-1H SIGN ON SIGN POST PER DETAIL ON HEREON
56 APPLY 12" WHITE LIMIT LINE PER CALTRANS STANDARD A24G @9

INSTALL
12" WHITE BASIC CROSSWALK 12' WIDE PER CAL TRANS STANDARD A24F 57 REMOVE DETAIL 29, DOUBLE YELLOW MEDIAN ISLAND PER CALTRANS STANDARD PLAN A20A 30 INSTALL
'AHEAD" PAVEMENT MARKING PER CALTRANS STANDARD A24D
58 INSTALL DETAIL 22, DOUBLE YELLOW LINE STRIPING PER CALTRANS STANDARD PLAN A20A 31 INSTALL
'SIGNAL " PA VEMENT MARKING PER CALTRANS STANDARD A24D
66 APPLY GREEN RECTANGULAR PAVEMENT MARKING FOR BIKE LANES PER DETAIL HEREON 33 INSTALL
LOOP DETECTOR TYPE E PER CALTRANS RSP ES-5B
34 INSTALL
SQUARE DETECTOR TYPE Q (3'X6) PER CALTRANS RSP ES-5B
REVISIONS I DATE APP'D BENCHMARK SEAL: DESIGNED BY DRAWN BY CHECKED BY - `DETAIL 39A DETAIL 39
TYP. TYR

GREEN RECTANGULAR MARKINGS FOR BICYCLE LANE DETAILS
N. T S.
44' TYPE Q CURB EDGE OF
12" (3'X6') FACE GUTTER

RIGHT LANE

BIKE LANE

E) - - THRU LANE
$ - - THRU LANE 40' 0 40' 80' 120'
12'P o - �— LEFT LANE
SCALE: 1 "=40'

TYPE F TYPE E
(6' DIA.) (6' DIA.) PROACTIVE ENGINEERING
25 L OOP INS TALLA TION DETAIL CONSUL 27404 VIA TAN ITS WEST INC.

NDUSTRIA
TEMECULA, CA 92590
N.T.S. L5 951-200-6840
RIVERSIDE COUNTY BENCH MARK T-32-81.

LOCATED IN THE NORTHERLY SIDEWALK OF
RANCHO CALIFORNIA ROAD 6" WEST OF THE

CURB RETURN, WEST OF JEFFERSON AVENUE,
20' f EAST OF THE BRIDGE OVER THE
SCALE
� VESS/
pQPEC WEST PEC WEST PEC WEST
�� PLAN �FN �F Plans Pr pared Under The Supervision Of
W m y
No. 45920 m 02118125
RECOMMENDED BY: DATE:

AVLIN ODVIAR, PRINCIPAL CIVIL ENGINEER
ACCEPTED BY: DATE:

RON MORENO

CITY U F TEMEU ULA DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS
of T
�� YNEZ ROAD IMPROVEMENTS —PHASE l PROJECT PW23-02
�~ 9 '

HORIZONTAL

AS SHOWN
Date:

MURRIETA CREEK. FOUND 2 1/2" BRASS DISK
"T-32-81

DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS / CITY ENGINEER
YNEZ ROAD STA l01 +99.21 TO STA l 17+6 /. 65
STAMPED R-6-30-05 EL=

VERTICAL
��q CIVI� ��Q
TFOF
F
1006-84"
ELEVATION: 1006.84'

AS SHOWN
CA��F� R.C.E. No. 45920 Expires 12IJ1126
R.C.E. No. 69156
rTloNs�sBs p44°4 SIGNING AND STRIPING PLAN
Drawing No.

C-7
SHEET 8 OF 14
3 ;a
N
I
0 V)
i
E
0 a
E
L
0 0
i
0 .N
C
0 a
w
0 0
N
N
0 0
0 0
N
0 i
z
ca
0 T
.o
m
E
a
00 n
N
1 tn
N
0 N
60 EE M T Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
❑� CONSULTING Ynez Road Improvement -Phase I, PW23-02
Appendix H
Project Plans

GENERAL NOTES

UTILITY CONTACTS

1. STANDARDS. ALL WORK SHALL CONFORM TO THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE

CURRENT EDITION OF THE CITY'S IMPROVEMENT STANDARD DRAWINGS FOR

PUBLIC WORKS CONSTRUCTION (AND SUBSEQUENT AMENDMENTS), THE CITY'S ENGINEERING AND CONSTRUCTION MANUAL. CITY CODES AND REQUIREMENTS.

2. LICENSE/PERMIT REQUIREMENT.
a. PRIOR TO START OF ANY WORK, A BUSINESS LICENSE SHALL BE OBTAINED FROM THE CITY.
b. A GRADING PERMIT SHALL BE OBTAINED, PRIOR TO ANY WORK ON PRIVATE DEVELOPMENT. THE PERMIT AND AN APPROVED SET OF IMPROVEMENT PLANS MUST BE PRESENT AT THE JOBSITE DURING CONSTRUCTION.

J. ERRORS OR OMISSIONS. APPROVAL OF THESE PLANS BY THE CITY DOES NOT

RELIEVE THE APPLICANT AND ENGINEER OF RECORD FROM THE RESPONSIBILITY

FOR THE CORRECTION OF ERRORS OR OMISSIONS DISCOVERED DURING CONSTRUCTION.

4. WORKING HOURS. CITY ORDINANCE NO. 94-25 STATES THAT NO PERSON SHALL

ENGAGE IN OR CONDUCT CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITY, WHEN THE CONSTRUCTION

SITE IS WITHIN ONE -QUARTER OF A MILE OF AN OCCUPIED RESIDENCE, BETWEEN THE HOURS OF 6:30 PM AND 6:30 AM, MONDAY THROUGH FRIDAY

AND SHALL ONLY ENGAGE IN OR CONDUCT CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITY BETWEEN THE HOURS OF 7.00 AM AND 6:30 PM ON SATURDAY. NO CONSTRUCTION

ACTIVITY SHALL BE UNDERTAKEN ON SUNDAY AND NATIONALLY RECOGNIZED HOLIDAYS.

5. REGULATORY AGENCY CLEARANCES. THE ISSUANCE OF A PERMIT BY THE CITY

DOES NOT IMPLY OR PROVIDE ANY CLEARANCES FROM STATE OR FEDERAL

AGENCIES REGULATING THE PROVISIONS OF STATE OR FEDERAL ENDANGERED SPECIES ACTS OR WATER QUALITY REGULATIONS. THE APPROPRIATE CLEARANCES

FROM THESE AGENCIES SHALL BE OBTAINED PRIOR TO ANY SITE DISTURBANCE OR GRADING.

6. CONSTRUCTION CHANGE. ANY CONSTRUCTION CHANGE MUST BE FIRST

SUBMITTED TO THE CITY AS A REDLINE REVISION FOR REVIEW AND APPROVAL PRIOR TO IMPLEMENTING THE CHANGE IN THE FIELD. REFER TO THE CITY'S ENGINEERING AND CONSTRUCTION MANUAL.

7. PRE -CONSTRUCTION MEETING. A PRE -CONSTRUCTION MEETING SHALL BE SCHEDULED TWO WORK DAYS PRIOR TO THE START OF CONSTRUCTION. DURING

CONSTRUCTION, A DEPENDABLE AND RESPONSIVE CONTRACTOR'S
REPRESENTATIVE SHALL BE AT THE JOB SITE AT ALL TIMES.

8. UTILITIES. APPROVAL OF THESE PLANS BY THE CITY DOES NOT CONSTITUTE A

REPRESENTATION AS TO THE ACCURACY OR COMPLETENESS OF THE LOCATION,

NOR THE EXISTENCE OR NON-EXISTENCE OF ANY UNDERGROUND UTILITIES WITHIN THE PROJECT LIMITS. ANY UTILITY DAMAGED DURING THE PERFORMANCE

OF THE WORK SHALL BE REPAIRED OR REPLACED TO THE SATISFACTION OF THE GOVERNING AGENCY BY THE CONTRACTOR, AT HIS EXPENSE.

9. SURVEY. IT SHALL BE THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE CONTRACTOR TO NOTIFY

THE ENGINEER OF RECORD AND TO INSTALL STREET CENTERLINE MONUMENTS, AS REQUIRED BY RIVERSIDE COUNTY ORDINANCE NO. 461. CENTERLINE TIES

SHALL BE PROVIDED TO THE CITY ENGINEER, UPON COMPLETION OF THE PROJECT AND BEFORE ACCEPTANCE IS GRANTED. ALL EXISTING MONUMENTATION (DISTURBED OR DESTROYED DURING CONSTRUCTION) SHALL BE REPLACED TO

CITY STANDARDS IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE LAND SURVEYORS ACT AND THE STREETS AND HIGHWAY CODE, AND AS APPROVED BY THE CITY ENGINEER.

UPON REQUEST, SURVEY CUTS SHEETS SHALL BE PROVIDED TO THE CITY ENGINEER.

10. DUST CONTROL. DUST SHALL BE CONTROLLED BY WATERING OR OTHER

METHODS, AS APPROVED BY THE CITY ENGINEER AND SHALL COMPLY WITH SOUTH COAST AIR QUALITY MANAGEMENT DISTRICT'S (SCAQMD) RULE 403.

11. CONSTRUCTION FENCING. A SIX FOOT CHAIN LINK FENCE IS REQUIRED ON ALL

INDUSTRIAL AND COMMERCIAL PROJECTS UNTIL ROOF SYSTEMS ARE COMPLETED OR AS DEEMED NECESSARY BY THE CITY ENGINEER FOR PUBLIC SAFETY. THE

MAINTENANCE OF THE FENCE IS THE SOLE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE CONTRACTOR.

12. INSPECTIONS. ALL WORK PERFORMED WITHOUT PROPER INSPECTION FROM THE CITY MAY BE SUBJECT TO REJECTION.
13, OTHER CONSTRUCTION NOTES. REFER TO SEPARATE NOTES FOR "GRADING," "EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL," "PAVING" AND "TRAFFIC" REQUIREMENTS, IF APPLICABLE.
14, OTHER PERTINENT INFORMATION. REFER TO THE CITY OF TEMECULA MUNICIPAL CODE, TITLE 18, "CONSTRUCTION, GRADING AND ENCROACHMENTS".

CONTRACTORS NOTE

THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE

RESPONSIBLE FOR THE LOCATION AND
PROTECTION OF ALL UTILITIES. FOR

LOCATION OF UNDERGROUND UTILIZES,
OR FOR EMERGENCY ASSISTANCE CALL:

TELEPHONE:

FRONTIER COMMUNICATIONS
PH. 800-921-8101
GAS:

SOCAL GAS COMPANY
527 NORTH SAN JACINTO STREET
HEMET, CA 92543
PH. 800-427-2200
.ELECTRICITY -

SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDITON
24487 PR/ELIPP ROAD
W/LDOMAR, CA 92595
PH. 800-684-8123
CABLE:

TIME WARNER CABLE
26487 YNEZ ROAD, SUITE G
TEMECULA, CA 92591
PH. 888-892-2253
SEWER:

EASTERN MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICT
2270 TRUMBLE ROAD
PERRIS, CA 92572
PH. 951-928-3777 EXT 4372
WATER:

RANCHO CALIFORNIA WATER DISTRICT
42135 WINCHESTER ROAD
TEMECULA, CA 92590
PH. 951-296-6900
SOLID WASTE:

CR&R INCORPORATED
1706 GOETZ ROAD
PERRIS, CA 92570
PH. 800-755-8112

CONTRACTOR AGREES THAT HE SHALL ASSUME SOLE AND COMPLETE RESPONSIBILITY FOR JOB SITE

CONDITIONS DURING THE COURSE OF CONSTRUCTION OF THIS PROJECT, INCLUDING SAFETY OF ALL

PERSONS AND PROPERTY- THAT THIS REQUIREMENT SHALL APPLY CONTINUOUSLY AND NOT BE LIMITED TO NORMAL WORKING HOURS: AND THAT THE CONTRACTOR SHALL DEFEND, INDEMNIFY AND

HOLD THE OWNER AND THE ENGINEER HARMLESS FROM ANY AND ALL LIABILITY, REAL OR ALLEGED,

IN CONNECTION WITH THE PERFORMANCE OF WORK ON THIS PROJECT, EXCEPTING FOR LIABILITY ARISING FROM THE SOLE NEGLIGENCE OF THE OWNER OR THE ENGINEER.

THE EXISTENCE AND LOCATION OF ANY UNDERGROUND UTILITIES OR STRUCTURES SHOWN ON THESE PLANS ARE OBTAINED BY A SEARCH OF AVAILABLE RECORDS. TO THE BEST OF OUR KNOWLEDGE, THERE ARE NO EXISTING UTILITIES EXCEPT THOSE SHOWN ON THESE PLANS. THE CONTRACTOR IS

REQUIRED TO TAKE ALL PRECAUTIONARY MEASURES TO PROTECT THE UTILITIES SHOWN, AND ANY

OTHER LINES OR STRUCTURES NOT SHOWN ON THESE PLANS AND IS RESPONSIBLE FOR THE PROTECTION OF OR ANY DAMAGE TO THESE LINES OR STRUCTURES.

CONTRACTOR SHALL VERIFY ALL CONDITIONS AND DIMENSIONS AND SHALL REPORT ALL DISCREPANCIES TO THE ENGINEER PRIOR TO COMMENCEMENT OF WORK.

PROACTIVE ENGINEERING
CONSUL TANTS WEST, INC.
27404 VIA INDUSTRIA
TEMECULA, CA 92590
r7 951-200-6840
unaergroun(
service /Aieri

BASIS OF BEARINGS

BEARINGS ARE BASED ON THE CALIFORNIA STATE
PLANE COORDINATE SYSTEM (CCS8J4OSA,
ZONE 6 BASED
CALL TOLL FREE LOCALLY ON N.G.S. CORS STATION
1- 8 0 0 - 42 2 - 413 3 PID—DX3769. DISTANCE SHOWN HEREON ARE GROUND DISTANCES. TO OBTAIN GRID LEVEL DISTANCES,
MULTIPLY DISTANCES BY 1.00008466.

TWO WORKING DAYS BEFORE YOU DIG

CONSTRUCTION RECORD I DATE I BY
Contractor
Inspector
Date Completed

CITY OF TEMECULA

STREET IMPROVEMENT PLAN
YNEZ ROAD IMPROVEMENTS -PHASE 1, PW23-02
APN 942=330-01 4 I
APN 944-331-026 RA
VIA
ED
APN 944-330-048
I I
APN 944-290-016 I APN 944-290-017
I I
I
3ANCH
i
VITA
I
ROAD
----------
1Q3 1�6 --- 197 1Q8 1Q9 110 1)1 112 _V14 -115 T1-6 ---117 118

YNEZ ROAD
APN 944-334-028 i APN 944-352-015 i APN 944-363-010
I I
� I I

VICINITY MAP
100' 0 100' 200' 300'
SCALE: 1 "--100'
LEGEND

RIGHT-OF-WAY, R/W

DAYLIGHT LINE

MANHOLE

PROP CONTOUR

EXISTING CONTOUR

CURB & GUTTER

CENTERLINE, CL

MIDWEST GUARDRAIL SYSTEM

TUBULAR STEEL FENCE

USACE JURISDICTIONAL LIMITS

CDFW JURISDICTIONAL LIMITS
MH
XXXX
(xxxx)
SHEET INDEX N. T.S.

TITLE SHEET NO. DRAWING NO. CONCRETE
TITLE SHEET/NDEX MAP & NOTES .................................. 1 Tl DEMOLITION PLAN AND NOTES ........................................ 2 C 1

AC PAVING
ADDITIVE PLAN................................................................. 3 C2 TYPICAL SECTIONS AND DETAILS ..................................... 4 C3 COLD PLANE PLAN AND PROFILES....................................................... 5-6 C4-05 MEDIAN PLAN AND PROFILE ............................................ 7 C6 SIGNING AND STRIPING PLAN .......................................... 8 C7 REMOVE EX. AC PAVING EROSION CONTROL PLAN ................................................. 9-10 C8 & C9 STREET LIGHT PLAN........................................................... 11 C 10 STREET LIGHT SEWER AND CURB RAMP DETAILS ..................................... 12 C 11 FIRE HYDRANT 10 RETAINING WALL DETAILS .................................................. 13-14 S 1-S2 EXISTING FIRE HYDRANT 0'

DECLARA TION OF RESPONSIBLE CHARGE PROPOSED SIGN
1, GEORGE LENFESTEY. HEREBY DECLARE THAT I AM THE ENGINEER OF EXISTING SIGN

WORK FOR THIS PROJECT, THAT I HAVE EXERCISED RESPONSIBLE CHARGE OVER THE DESIGN OF THE PROJECT TYPE E DETECTOR LOOP 0
AS DEFINED /N SECTION 6703 OF THE BUSINESS AND PROFESSIONS CODE, AND THE DESIGN IS CONSISTENT WITH CURRENT STANDARDS AND CITY OF TYPE F DETECTOR LOOP 0 TEMECULA.

TYPE Q DETECTOR LOOP 3'X6' 0
l UNDERSTAND THAT THE CHECK OF PROJECT DRAWINGS AND ( )

SPECIFICATIONS BY THE CITY OF TEMECULA IS CONFINED TO A REVIEW ONLY AND DOES NOT RELIEVE ME OF RESPONSIBILITIES FOR PROJECT DESIGN. SECTION REFERENCE X

SUR VEY NO TE SHEET REFERENCE XX
THE BEARINGS SHOWN HEREON ARE BASED ON THE BEARING OF NORTH 48' 15' 11 " WEST PER TRACT NO. 23992, MB 231/9-12, ON FILE /N THE OFFICE OF THE RIVERSIDE COUNTY RECORDER.
'AS BUILT"
DATE
RCE EXP.

REVIEWED BY -

INSPECTOR DATE

REVISIONS DATE APP'D BENCHMARK
RIVERSIDE COUNTY BENCH MARK T-32-81.

LOCATED IN THE NORTHERLY SIDEWALK OF
RANCHO CALIFORNIA ROAD 6" WEST OF THE

CURB RETURN, WEST OF JEFFERSON AVENUE,
20' f EAST OF THE BRIDGE OVER THE
MURRIETA CREEK. FOUND 2 1/2" BRASS DISK
STAMPED "T-32-81 R-6-30-05 EL=
1006-84"
ELEVA TION: 1006.84'

RETAINING WALL

ABBREVIA TIONS
AonA

PROPOSED
EXIST.

EXISTING

CL, CIL

CENTERLINE
TC

TOP OF CURB
FL

FLOW LINE
FS

FINISHED SURFACE
D/A

DIAMETER
EP

EDGE OF PAVEMENT
CB

CATCH BASIN
AC

ASPHALTIC CONCRETE
CAB

CRUSHED AGGREGATE BASE
BCR

BEGIN CURB RETURN
ECR

END CURB RETURN
BVC

BEGIN VERTICAL CURVE
MVC

MIDDLE VERTICAL CURVE
EVC

END VERTICAL CURVE
PRC

POINT OF REVERSE CURVE
PCC

POINT OF COMPOUND CURVE
PRVC
(1329.02)
WATT gfh VERTICAL CURVE
1479.70

PROPOSED ELEVATION
LT
LEFT
RT
RIGHT
FH

FIRE HYDRANT
ST
STREET
R1W

RIGHT OF WAY
D/W

DRIVEWAY
V. C.

VERTICAL CURVE
PI

POINT OF INTERSECTION
PV/

POINT OF VERTICAL INTERSECTION
PUE

PUBLIC UTILITY EASEMENT
7W

TOP OF WALL
TF

TOP OF FOOTING

CONSTRUCTION COORDINATION TABLE
AGENCY

IMPROVEMENT
DWG STD.

EST/MATED DURATION

STATION

REMARKS
CHARTER NEEDS 2 WEEK NOTICE PRIOR TO START OF WORK

CHARTER
RELOCATE 2 VAULTS
-
2 WEEKS
10 7+ 65 & 111+90
AND TO BEGIN AFTER ULTIMATE PARKWAY IS GRADED. CHARTER

TO COMPLETE WORK AND COVER CONSTRUCTION COST
EMWD
CONSTRUCT 1 MEDIAN ROLLED CURB
SB-53 , SB-61,
_
101 +75 - 117+75

CONTRACTOR TO PERFORM WORK

ACCESS MANHOLE CUT OUT
SB-183
ADJUST 3 EXISTING MANHOLES
CONTRACTOR TO PERFORM WORK. FRONT/ER NEEDS 2 WEEK

FRONTIER

TO GRADE
-
2 DAYS
110+07 & 116+23
NOTICE PRIOR TO START OF WORK AND TO BEGIN AFTER A.C.
1st LIFT
RELOCATE 1 EXISTING FIRE HYDRANT,
RCWD NEEDS 4 WEEK NOTICE PRIOR TO START OF WORK AND
RCWD

EXTEND LATERAL AND REPLACE BLOW
RW-8, RW-30
2 DAYS
108+55
TO BEGIN AFTER ULTIMATE PARKWAY IS GRADED. CONSTRUCTION

OFF WITH HYDRANT
COST /S COVERED BY RCWD.

RCWD
ADJUST 4 VALVES TO GRADE
-
-
-

CONTRACTOR TO PERFORM WORK
SCE
ADJUST 1 EX/STN/G MANHOLE TO GRADE
-
-
103+05
-
SEAL:

SCALE
QQOF ESS/�,w
o
o

HORIZONTALCD

AS SHOWN
No. 45920
`sT C10- �P
qTF

VERTICAL
OF CAI-\F

AS SHOWN

PEC WEST PEC WEST PEC WEST
Plans Pr pared Under The Supervision Of
xf_� Date: 11126125
R.C.E. No. 45920 Expires 12IJ1126
RECOMMENDED BY: DATE:

NINO ABAD, PRINCIPAL CIVIL ENGINEER
ACCEPTED BY: DATE:

RON MORENO

DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS / CITY ENGINEER
R.C.E. No. 69156

BID ITEM TABLE

DESIGN DA TA

YNEZ ROAD
ROADWAY CALSSIFICATION:

DESIGN SPEED: 45 MPH

EARTHWORK VOL UMES
FILL .............. 6, 020.0 CY
CUT .............. 9.7 CY
NET .............. 6, 010.3 CY FILL
NOTE: VOLUMES ARE UNADJUSTED.

GRADING NOTES
SEE SHEET 2
NO.

DESCRIPTION

OUANITY
UNIT
1 MOBILIZATION/DEMOBILIZATION
1 LS
2 CLEARING AND GRUBBING
1 LS
3 ENGINEERING/ CONSTRUCTION SURVEYING
1 LS
4 TRAFFIC CONTROL
1 LS
5 NPDES COMPLA/NCE
1 LS
6 EARTHWORK
1 LS
7 CRUSHED AGGREGATE BASE (15—INCH)
2,500
C. Y.
8 ASPHALT CONCRETE PAVEMENT
2,008
TON
9 ASPHALT RUBBER HOT MIX
621
TON
10 REMOVE EXISTING BERM
1,579
L. F.
11 SAWCUT AND REMOVE AC PAVEMENT
31,344
S. F.
12 COLD MILL EXISTING AC PAVEMENT
3,332
S. F.
13 CURB & GUTTER (TYPE A-6)
1,448
L. F.
14 CURB & GUTTER (TYPE A-8)
26 L. F.
15 CONCRETE SIDEWALK
9,701
S. F.
16 REMOVE EXISTING ADA ACCESS CURB RAMP
1 EA
17 ADA ACCESS CURB RAMP WITH TRUNCATED DOMES
1 EA
18 MEDIAN STAMPED CONCRETE
3, 769
S. F.
19 MEDIAN CURB (TYPE D-8)
796
L. F.
20 MEDIAN CURB (TYPE D-6)
262
L. F.
21 MEDIAN ACCESS —SEWER MANHOLE
40 L.F.
22 V—DITCH
161
L. F.
23 RETAINING WALL
1,878
S. F.
24 R/PRAP (j TON)
800
C. Y.
25 CONDUIT, WIRING, PULLBOXES, PULL ROPES, AND METER SERVICES

PEDESTAL FOR STREET LIGHT
1 LS
26 STREETLIGHT
3 EA
27 RELOCATE TRAFFIC SIGNAL PULL BOX
5 EA
28 REMOVE AND SALVAGE PEDESTRIAN SIGNAL PEDESTAL
1 EA
29 INSTALL NEW PEDESTRIAN PUSH BOTTOM PEDESTAL
1 EA
30 REMOVE AND REPLACE TRAFFIC SIGNAL LOOP DETECTORS
33 EA
31 REMOVE EXISTING SIGN
1 LS
32 SIGNING AND STRIPING
1 LS
33 TIRE RUBBERIZED MODIFIED SLURRY SEAL (TRUSS) — TYPE Il 52,297
S.F.
34 REMOVE AND REPLACE PAVEMENT DELINEATION
1 LS
35 REMOVE TREES PER ARBORIST RECOMMENDATIONS
10 EA
36 TREE PRUNING PER ARBORIST RECOMMENDATIONS
1 EA
37 MIDWEST GUARDRAIL SYSTEM
300
L. F.
38 TUBULAR STEEL FENCE
1, 573
L. F.
39 ADJUST EXISTING MANHOLE TO GRADE (FRONTIER)
3 EA
40 ADJUST EXISTING VALVE TO GRADE (RCWD)
4 EA
41 TUBULAR STEEL DUAL SWING GATE
1 EA
42 DECOMPOSED GRANITE ACCESS ROAD
77 C. Y.
43 ADJUST EXISTING MANHOLE TO GRADE (EWMD)
3 EA
44 TREE REPLACEMENT/MITIGATION 6-48 INCH 2-48 INCH
8 EA
45 ADJUST EXISTING MANHOLE TO GRADE (SCE)
1 EA
CITY

O F TEMECULA DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS
YNEZ ROAD IMPROVEMENTS —PHASE / PROJECT PW23-02
YNEZ ROAD STA 1 0 1 +99.2 1 TO STA 1 1 7+6 1. 56

TI TLE SHEET, INDEX MAP AND NOTES
Drawing No.

T-1
SHEET 1 14
Q
T
m
E
a
00 I
Ln
N
0 N
N
0 Z
a)
0 0
a_

GRADING NOTES

1. STANDARDS. ALL CONSTRUCTION AND GRADING RELATED ACTIVITIES (I.E., STOCKPILING, LAND CLEARING, EROSION & SEDIMENT CONTROL, ETC) SHALL BE PERFORMED IN ACCORDANCE WITH CHAPTER 18 OF

THE CITY OF TEMECULA MUNICIPAL CODE, THE ENGINEERING AND CONSTRUCTION MANUAL, ALL

APPLICABLE STANDARDS, THE LATEST EDITION OF THE CALIFORNIA BUILDING CODE (APPENDIX J) AND,

IT'S APPLICABLE, THE STATE WATER RESOURCES CONTROL BOARD (SWRCB) NATIONAL POLLUTION DISCHARGE ELIMINATION SYSTEM (NPDES) GENERAL PERMIT FOR CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES.

2. PERMIT REQUIREMENTS. A GRADING PERMIT SHALL BE OBTAINED PRIOR TO COMMENCEMENT OF ANY WORK ON THE SITE.

J. NOTIFICATIONS. PUBLIC WORKS SHALL BE NOTIFIED VIA EMAIL AT LEAST TWO (2) DAYS IN ADVANCE OF BEGINNING ANY CONSTRUCTION/GRADING OPERATIONS.

4. SOILS. ALL CONSTRUCTION/GRADING ACTIVITIES SHALL BE DONE IN CONFORMANCE WITH

RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE PRELIMINARY SOILS INVESTIGATION BY LGC VALLEY, INC GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTING DATED 10/17/24 SAID REPORT SHALL BE CONSIDERED A PART OF THIS GRADING PLAN.

5. CUT FILL.

A. MAXIMUM CUT AND FILL SLOPES SHALL BE 2: 1; UNLESS OTHERWISE APPROVED BY THE CITY ENGINEER; AND SHALL COMPLY WITH THE RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE SOILS REPORT. FILL SLOPES SHALL NOT HAVE LESS THAN 907' RELATIVE COMPACTION OUT TO THE FINISH SURFACE.

B. FILL MATERIAL SHALL NOT BE PLACED ON EXISTING GROUND UNTIL THE GROUND HAS BEEN CLEARED OF WEEDS, DEBRIS, TOPSOIL, VEGETATION AND OTHER DELETERIOUS MATERIAL. IF THE SLOPE RATIO EXCEEDS 5:1 AND IS GREATER THAN FIVE FEET, THE TERRAIN MUST BE KEYED AND BENCHED INTO EITHER BEDROCK OR NATIVE SOIL, AS DIRECTED BY THE GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEER.

C. STABILITY CALCULATIONS WITH A FACTOR -OF -SAFETY OF AT LEAST ONE AND FIVE TENTHS (1.5)

SHALL BE SUBMITTED TO PUBLIC WORKS A REGISTERED CIVIL ENGINEER, SOILS ENGINEER OR GEOLOGIST FOR CUT AND FILL SLOPES OVER THIRTY FEET (30) IN VERTICAL HEIGHT.

D. ALL GRADING SHALL BE DONE UNDER THE SUPERVISION OF A REGISTERED CIVIL ENGINEER, SOILS

ENGINEER OR GEOLOGIST, WHO SHALL SUBMIT TWO SETS OF WRITTEN CERTIFICATION THAT ALL FILLS OVER ONE FOOT (1 ) IN DEPTH HAVE BEEN PROPERLY PLACED.

6. DRAINAGE.

A. AS APPLICABLE, PROVIDE CONCRETE BROW DITCHES TO CONVEY 100-YEAR STORM FLOWS OR

PROVIDE GRADED BERMS ALONG THE TOP OF ALL GRADED SLOPES OVER THREE FEET IN VERTICAL

HEIGHT OR THAT ARE ADJACENT TO GRADED AREAS, TO DIRECT SURFACE RUNOFF AWAY FROM THE TOP OF SLOPES. ALL DRAINAGE DEVICES SHALL BE CONSTRUCTED PER THE APPROVED PLANS.

B. EXISTING DRAINAGE COURSES SHALL CONTINUE TO FUNCTION AT ALL TIMES. NO OBSTRUCTION OF FLOOD PLAINS OR NATURAL WATER COURSES SHALL BE PERMITTED.

C. TEMPORARY DRAINAGE SHALL BE PROVIDED UNTIL PERMANENT DRAINAGE STRUCTURES ARE INSTALLED. PROTECTIVE MEASURES SHALL BE IMPLEMENTED TO PROTECT ADJOINING AND

DOWNSTREAM PROPERTIES FROM SILT DEPOSITION AND PONDING WATER DURING CONSTRUCTION/GRADING OPERATIONS.

D. APPROVED PROTECTIVE MEASURES AND TEMPORARY DRAINAGE PROVISIONS MUST BE USED TO PROTECT ADJOINING PROPERTIES DURING THE GRADING PROJECT.

E. DRAINAGE EASEMENTS SHALL BE KEPT CLEAR OF ALL OBSTRUCTIONS, NO BUILDING OR WALLS SHALL BE PLACED WITHIN THE LIMITS OF EASEMENTS.

F. THE MINIMUM GRADE FOR CONCRETE SURFACE DRAINAGE FACILITIES SHALL BE A ONE-HALF PERCENT (0.59).

7. PROTECT CORNERS. ALL PROPERTY CORNERS SHALL BE CLEARLY DELINEATED IN THE FIELD PRIOR TO COMMENCEMENT OF ANY CONSTRUCTION/GRADING ACTIVITY, AS DIRECTED BY THE CITY ENGINEER.

8. ROUGH GRADING INSPECTIONS PRIOR TO BUILDING PERMIT. INSPECTIONS SHALL BE REQUESTED VIA EMAIL TO THE PUBLIC WORKS AT LEAST TWO (2) BUSINESS DAYS IN ADVANCE (PLEASE INDLUDE YOUR PERMIT # IN THE SUBJECT LINE).

SUBMIT THE FOLLOWING:

A. ONE (1) PAD ELEVATION CERTIFICATION (I.E., ROUGH GRADE) TO INCLUDE A STATEMENT THAT THE PAD ELEVATION COMPLIES WITH THE APPROVED GRADING PLAN. CERTIFICATION SHALL BE TO LINE, GRADE, ELEVATION AND LOCATION OF CUT/FILL SLOPES.

B. ONE (1) PAD COMPACTION CERTIFICATION (LE, FINAL GEOTECHNICAL/SOILS REPORT) TO INCLUDE

A STATEMENT THAT THE GRADING COMPLIES WITH RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE PRELIMINARY SOILS REPORT.

9. FINAL INSPECTION PRIOR TO OCCUPANCY. REFER TO THE CITY'S ENGINEERING AND CONSTRUCTION MANUAL.

10. POST GRADING ACTIVITIES. POST GRADING ACTIVITIES SHALL INCLUDE, BUT NOT BE LIMITED TO, INSTALLING WHERE APPLICABLE: GROUNDCOVER, TREES, SHRUBS OR A COMBINATION THEREOF IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE TEMECULA MUNICIPAL CODE PRIOR TO FINAL INSPECTION. SLOPES OVER FOUR FEET (4) IN VERTICAL HEIGHT SHALL HAVE PERMANENT IRRIGATION SYSTEMS WITH BACKFLOW PREVENTION DEVICES. BACKFLOW PREVENTION DEVICES MUST COMPLY WITH THE UNIFORM PLUMBING CODE (U. P. C).

11. OTHER CONSTRUCTION NOTES. REFER TO SEPARATE NOTES FOR "PAVING," "GENERAL" AND "EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL" REQUIREMENTS.

TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES GRADING NOTES
TCR-8 THE FOLLOWING SHALL BE INCLUDED ON THE NOTES FOR THE GRADING PLAN:

NOTE 1: ARCHAEOLOGICAL MONITORING GRADING NOTE. A QUALIFIED ARCHAEOLOGICAL MONITOR WILL BE

PRESENT AND WILL HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO STOP AND REDIRECT GRADING ACTIVITIES, IN CONSULTATION

WITH THE PECHANGA BAND OF INDIANS AND THEIR DESIGNATED MONITORS, TO EVALUATE THE SIGNIFICANCE OF ANY ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES DISCOVERED ON THE PROPERTY AS REQUIRED BY NOTE 1.

TCR-9 THE FOLLOWING SHALL BE INCLUDED ON THE NOTES FOR THE GRADING PLAN:

NOTE 2: DISCOVERY OF CULTURAL RESOURCES GRADING NOTE /F AT ANY TIME DURING

EXCAVATION/CONSTRUCTION OF THE SITE, ARCHAEOLOGICAL/CULTURAL RESOURCES, OR ANY ARTIFACTS OR

OTHER OBJECTS WHICH REASONABLY APPEARS TO BE EVIDENCE OF CULTURAL OR ARCHAEOLOGICAL

RESOURCE ARE DISCOVERED BY THE TRIBAL OR ARCHAEOLOGICAL MONITOR, ALL WORK IN THE AREA OF

THE FIND SHALL CEASE, AND THE DISCOVERY OF CULTURAL RESOURCES MITIGATION MEASURE SHALL BE FOLLOWED. UPON DETERMINING THAT THE DISCOVERY IS A CULTURAL/TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCE, NO

FURTHER EXCAVATION OR DEVELOPMENT MAY TAKE PLACE UNTIL A MITIGATION PLAN OR OTHER CORRECTIVE MEASURES HAVE BEEN APPROVED BY THE PLANNING DIRECTOR.

TCR-10 THE FOLLOWING SHALL BE INCLUDED ON THE NOTES FOR THE GRADING PLAN.

NOTE J. RELINQUISHMENT OF CULTURAL RESOURCES GRADING NOTE: THE LANDOWNER AGREES TO

RELINQUISH OWNERSHIP OF ALL CULTURAL RESOURCES, INCLUDING ALL ARCHAEOLOGICAL ARTIFACTS THAT

ARE FOUND ON THE PROJECT AREA, TO THE PECHANGA TRIBE FOR PROPER TREATMENT AND DISPOSITION AS REQUIRED BY NOTE 1.

TCR-11 THE FOLLOWING SHALL BE INCLUDED ON THE NOTES FOR THE GRADING PLAN.

NOTE 4: HUMAN REMAINS GRADING NOTE /F HUMAN REMAINS ARE ENCOUNTERED ALL WORK /S TO CEASE WITHIN 50 FT OF THE DISCOVERY IN ACCORDANCE WITH NOTE 1 AND HEALTH AND SAFETY CODE SECTION 7050.5, AND CALIFORNIA PUBLIC RESOURCES CODE SECTION 5097.98(B) ARE TO BE FOLLOWED. unaergroun(
service Hieri

BASIS OF BEARINGS

BEARINGS ARE BASED ON THE CALIFORNIA STATE
PLANE COORDINATE SYSTEM (CCS8J), ZONE 6 BASED
CALL TOLL FREE LOCALLY ON N.G.S. CORS STATION 'ROSA,
1- 8 0 0 - 42 2 - 413 3 PID-DX3769. DISTANCE SHOWN HEREON ARE GROUND DISTANCES. TO OBTAIN GRID LEVEL DISTANCES,
MULTIPLY DISTANCES BY 1.00008466.

TWO WORKING DAYS BEFORE YOU DIG

CONSTRUCTION RECORD I DATE I BY
Contractor
Inspector
Date Completed
MVI I 1 -VI IIP1 1
APN 944-33 1-026
APN 944-334-028

CONSTRUCTION NOTES
UNIT

QUANITY
® REMOVE EXISTING AC BERM
FT
1,579
O SAWCUT AND REMOVE 1' WIDE (MIN.) OF EXISTING AC PAVEMENT AND COLD PLANE (2' MIN.) PER DETAIL ON SHEET 4
S.F.
3, 332
ORCWD TO EXTEND LATERAL AND RELOCATE FIRE HYDRANT. PROPOSED LOCATION TO BE EA.
1 STAKED BY CONTRACTOR
90 REMOVE EXISTING STREET SIGN
EA.
3 10 EXISTING TRAFFIC SIGNAL PULL BOX TO BE RELOCATED
EA.
4 �0 EXISTING FRONTIER MANHOLE TO BE ADJUSTED TO GRADE BY CONTRACTOR EA.
3 ® REMOVE AC PAVEMENT
S.F.
31,344
32 EXISTING PEDESTRIAN SIGNAL PEDESTAL TO BE REMOVED AND SAL VAGED EA.
1 40 RCWD TO EXTEND LATERAL AND REPLACE BLOW OFF WITH HYDRANT. PROPOSED LOCATION

TO BE STAKED BY CONTRACTOR,
EA.
1 41 REMOVE TREE PER ARBORIST REPORT
EA.
10 42 TREE PRUNING AND PROTECT IN PLACE PER TREE PROTECTION DETAIL ON SHEET 4 AND

REFER TO ARBORIST REPORT FOR PROTECTION SPECIFICATIONS
EA.
1 50 REMOVE EXISTING RAMP
EA.
1 51 EXISTING ABOVE GROUND TELECOMMUNICATIONS BOX TO BE RELOCATED BY CHARTER EA.
3 53 EXISTING CAN PULL BOX TO BE RELOCATED BY CHARTER
EA.
2 72 ADJUST RCWD VALVES TO GRADE BY CONTRACTOR
EA.
5 73 PROTECT EXISTING TREE /N PLACE PER TREE PROTECTION DETAIL ON SHEET 4 AND REFER EA.
7 TO ARBORIST REPORT FOR PROTECTION SPECIFICATIONS
76 ADJUST SCE MH TO GRADE
EA.
1 REVISIONS DATE APP'D BENCHMARK
RIVERSIDE COUNTY BENCH MARK T-32-81.

LOCATED IN THE NORTHERLY SIDEWALK OF
RANCHO CALIFORNIA ROAD 6" WEST OF THE

CURB RETURN, WEST OF JEFFERSON AVENUE,
20' f EAST OF THE BRIDGE OVER THE
MURRIETA CREEK. FOUND 2 1/2" BRASS DISK
STAMPED "T-32-81 R-6-JO-05 EL=
1006-84"
ELEVA TION: 1006.84'
SEAL:

SCALE

QQOF ESS
o
o

HORIZONTALCD

AS SHOWN
No. 45920
`sT C10- �P
qTF OF CALF

VERTICAL

AS SHOWN
LEGEND

COLD PLANE
REMOVE EX. AC PAVING

EXISTING STREET LIGHT

EXISTING TRAFFIC SIGNAL

PULL BOX

EXISTING EMWD SEWER MANHOLE
EXISTING RCWD F.H.

EXISTING RCWD AV/AR

EXISTING SIGN

EXISTING FRONTIER MANHOLE

EXISTING FRONTIER VAULT

PEC WEST PEC WEST PEC WEST
Plans Pr pared Under The Supervision Of
Ar-� Date: 11126125
R.C.E. No. 45920 Expires 12IJ1126
/i/- iv y44-303-U / U

I PARCEL BOUNDARY

EXISTING

STREET LIGHT
L/\IJ I11 \V

PEDESTRIAN SIGNAL
APN 944-352-0 15
L=
W_
-

EXISTING SCE TRANSFORMER
- ❑°

CAN PULL BOX
- Eg
- �
ilk

EXISTING TELECOMMUNICATIONS
-
T
-

EXISTING FRONTIER FIBER OPTIC
-
FO
_ o

EXISTING GAS
-
G

EXISTING EMWD SEWER
-
SS
- O SMH

EXISTING RCWD WATER
-
W
40' 0 40' 80' 120'

EXISTING SCE CONDUIT
-
E
SCALE: 1 "=40'
- -E=o

PROPOSED RCWD FIRE HYDRANT
-
- dS

EXISTING TREE
- o
- O FRT
_ °

PROACTI VE ENGINEERING
CONSUL TANTS WEST, INC.
27404 VIA INDUSTRIA
TEMECULA, CA 92590
951-200-6840
RECOMMENDED BY: DATE:

NINO ABAD, PRINCIPAL CIVIL ENGINEER
ACCEPTED BY: DATE:

RON MORENO

DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS / CITY ENGINEER
R.C.E. No. 69156
CITY
O F TEMECULA Drawing No.

DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS
YNEZ ROAD IMPROVEMENTS —PHASE I PROJECT PW23-02 C.1
YNEZ ROAD STA 101 +99.21 TO STA 117+61.56
DEMOLITION PLANAND NOTES SHEET 2 14
m
E
a
rM
Lq
00 I
Ln
N
0 N
N
0 Z
a)
0 a_

unaergroun(
1\IVI I I _VI rrn I
APN 944-33 1-026
service Hieri

BASIS OF BEARINGS

TWO WORKING DAYS BEFORE YOU DIG

CONSTRUCTION RECORD I DATE I BY
Contractor
Inspector
Date Completed
APN 944-334-028

CONSTRUCTION NOTES
UNIT

QUANITY
® ADJUST MH TO GRADE PER EMWD STD DETAIL SB-53 & SB-61 INCORPORATE FALSE BOTTOM EA.
3 CONSTRUCTION COORDINATION TABLE
AGENCY

IMPROVEMENT
DWG STD.

ESTIMATED DURATION

STATION

REMARKS
EMWD
ADJUST 3 EXISTING MANHOLES TO
SB-53 SB-61
-
101 +75 - 117+75
CONTRACTOR TO COMPLETE WORK. WORK TO BEGIN AFTER A.C.

GRADE
,
1st LIFT. WORK TO BE INSPECTED BY EMWD.

REVISIONS DATE APP'D BENCHMARK
RIVERSIDE COUNTY BENCH MARK T-32-81.

LOCATED IN THE NORTHERLY SIDEWALK OF
RANCHO CALIFORNIA ROAD 6" WEST OF THE

CURB RETURN, WEST OF JEFFERSON AVENUE,
20' f EAST OF THE BRIDGE OVER THE
MURRIETA CREEK. FOUND 2 1/2" BRASS DISK
STAMPED "T-32-81 R-6-JO-05 EL=
1006-84"
ELEVA TION: 1006.84'
SEAL:

S
SCALE
QRpFESS/�
PLAN �F

HORIZONTAL
'��` No. 45920

AS SHOWN
9� civic �Q

VERTICAL

OF CALF

AS SHOWN

PEC WEST PEC WEST PEC WEST
Plans Pr pared Under The Supervision Of
Date: 11126125
R.C.E. No. 45920 Expires 12IJ1126
LEGEND

COLD PLANE
REMOVE EX. AC PAVING

EXISTING STREET LIGHT

EXISTING TRAFFIC SIGNAL

PULL BOX

EXISTING EMWD SEWER MANHOLE
EXISTING RCWD F.H.

EXISTING RCWD AV/AR

EXISTING SIGN

EXISTING FRONTIER MANHOLE

EXISTING FRONTIER VAULT
I

I PARCEL BOUNDARY
I
I
L/\IJ / 111V

PEDESTRIAN SIGNAL
APN 944-352-0 15
-

EXISTING SCE TRANSFORMER
- ❑°

CAN PULL BOX
-
- �

EXISTING TELECOMMUNICATIONS
-
T
o-

EXISTING FRONTIER FIBER OPTIC
-
FO
Ilk-
_

EXISTING GAS
-
G

EXISTING EMWD SEWER
-
SS
- O SMH

EXISTING RCWD WATER
-
W

EXISTING SCE CONDUIT
-
E
40' 0 40' 80, 120'

PROPOSED RCWD FIRE HYDRANT
- 0S
SCALE: 1 "=40'

EXISTING TREE
- o
- O FRT
_ °

PROACTI VE ENGINEERING
CONSUL TANTS WEST, INC.
27404 VIA INDUSTRIA
TEMECULA, CA 92590
95I-200-6840
RECOMMENDED BY: DATE:

NINO ABAD, PRINCIPAL CIVIL ENGINEER
ACCEPTED BY: DATE:

RON MORENO

DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS / CITY ENGINEER
R.C.E. No. 69156

CITY OF TEMECULA

DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS
YNEZ ROAD IMPROVEMENTS —PHASE / PROJECT PW23-02
YNEZ ROAD STA 101 +99.21 TO STA 117+61.56

EMWD MANHOLE REL OCA TIONS
Drawing No.

C-2
SHEET 3 14
Q
m
E
a
Lq
I
N
0 N
N
0 Z
a)
0 a_

R/W
50' YNEZ ROAD 50'
SAWCUT
6' 6' 6' 12' 1 12' L 10' _I_ II' t 11'
EX. 16, -T _
SIDEWALK EX. AC�

PA VEMENT
R/W
50'
3'
MEDIAN

SECTION A
MODIFIED CITY STD. 101
STA:101 +91.84-103+33.89
N. T S.

YNEZ ROAD
EX. AC

PA VEMENT
5'1 11'
BIKE
LANE
R/W
7' 1
2 2%
2 Oq MAX.

PROPOSED

SL OPEC
R/W
13' +J7' + 16' +28' I
1 66' VARIES
I
6' 11' 11' 10' 11' 11' 6'
O 1JI6
BIKE LT STRIPED BIKE T2
LANE S01AN LANE 1 TO 2 2
EX. BERMJ02.0Z
MAX. 3
=rL------------- --
1----------------- —
EX. 6'

SIDEWALK PAVEMENT PROPOSED

SECTION B SLOPE
STA:107+26.00-117+26.47
N. T. S.

R/W
1 50'

YNEZ ROAD
i
50'
R/W
8' 0. C. NOM.

I "
I
1 %2 " �IOTj6Z,PZUS"' RA/L
(SEE CROSS- SECT/ON BELOW)
POST 2 Y2 '0 x 16GA
NOTE.•

POST SIZE DEPENDS ON FENCE HEIGHT
AND WIND LOADS. SEE ,W0,1V11CZPLUS'
SPECIFICATIONS FOR POST SIZING CHART.
3/ "0 17GA PICKET
0 FINISHED GROUND

PER PLAN

EXISTING
GROUND
W
III=1
I III-III-III-III-III=III
_

BRACKET OPTIONS
TYP
o

CONCRETE SHALL BE
MONTAGE PLUS iVA✓ESTIC' 2-RAIL
560-C-3250

BY AMERISTAR FENCE /N BLACK
12" DIA.
'°

PROFUSION WELDING PROCESS

NO EXPOSED WELDS, GOOD

NEIGHBOR PROF/LE - SAME

EXISTING
GROUND

LINE BOULEVARD UNIVERSAL BOULEVARD FLAT MOUNT

BRACKET BRACKET BRACKET
o
d ❑
or
APPEARANCE ON BOTH SIDES -\
BX114 BX112�117 BX111 v__ IVo TfIGZPLUS "'RAIL SPECIALLY

FORMED HIGH STRENGTH
ARCHITECTURAL SHAPE.

NOTE.

1. WHEN USING SWIVEL BRACKETS ON EITHER OR BOTH ENDS OF A PANEL INSTALLATION, CARE MUST

BE TAKEN TO ENSURE THE SPACING BETWEEN POST AND ADJOINING PICKETS MEETS APPLICABLE CODES. THIS MAY REQUIRE TRIMMING ONE OR BOTH ENDS OF THE PANEL AS NEEDED.

2. IN LOCATIONS SUBJECT TO FREEZING, WHERE POSTS ARE GROUTED INTO CORE —DRILLED HOLES, A %4 " DIAMETER HOLE SHOULD SE DRILLED IN THE POST APPROXIMATELY %2 '; SOVE ELEVATION TO ALLOW FOR DRAINAGE OF BUILT—UP GROUND WATER. THE DRILLED HOLE MUST BE WIPED CLEAN AND DRY AND SPRAYED WITH AMERISTAR ZINC RICH PRIMER AND AMERISTAR COLOR MATCH FINISH.

PANEL RACKING- DRAWING SHOWS FENCE PANEL AT LEVEL GROUND ELEVATION- FOR INSTALLATIONS

THAT MUST SE RACKED TO FOLLOW SLOPING GRADES, THE POST SPACING DIMENSION SHOWN MUST SE MEASURED ALONG THE GRADE.

TUBULAR STEEL FENCE DETAILS
3 lamir
plastic
ei
ai
Crown drip line or other limit of Tree Protection area. See tree preservation plan for fence alignment_
73 TREE PROTECTION DETAIL
Notes-
1- See specifications for additional tree
protection requirements.
2- If there is no existing irrioativnsee
luirements.
ned except
inside the
firing fence
)r any
Btectlon
'rotection
High density
iylene fencing
5" x 1.5"
Igs- Color -
Steel posts
�d at 8' o.c.
steel posts
roved equal_
k
If mulch.
in existing
with the tree
Jon fence
otherwise
ed on the
+ 15' 1 SAWCUT I
10' I TC ELEV
+96' 6' 12' 12' MEDIAN 11' 11' 6' 17' j PER PLAN
BIKE
LANE 24 25
2 12" 12"
TYPE "D-6" CURB
1 EX. AC 4 2 - - - - - - - ELEV PER CITY OF TEMECULA STD. 204A

2.0� EXISTING
PA VEMENT MAX. / PERR PLAN COLD PLANE EX. PAVEMENT SAWCUT AND REMOVE _
? GROUND TO 0.15 MIN. DEPTH 2' EXISTING AC PAVEMENT
- � - - - - - - - - III=1 0.15' M/N. THICKNESS VARIES 1 '-8' EX. 6' L - —_ —_ —_ —_ .:1-1 I 1-1 I I . , `-1 I I
SIDEWALK 1 3 -� REMOVE EXISTING
EX. AC-1 SECTION C Ac OVERLAY
PAVEMENT MODIFIED CITY STD. 10 1 PROPOSED 6 "x6 "- W 1.4xW 1.4 WW PROTECT EXISTING AC BERM SLOPE \�� 4" THICK CONCRETE AC PAVEMENT NEW AC PAVEMENT STA: 105+82.68-107+26. 00
CONS TRUC TION NOTES N. T. S. TYPE ITY O CURB
PER CITY OF TEMECULA STD. 204
O REMOVE AND REPLACE EXISTING ROADWAY SECTION 6 " A.C. OVER 15 " C.A.B. MIN. *.CONCRETE AV nDITCH 22 CURB TRANSITION DETAIL „ N.T.S. 6 CURB TO 8 CURB
0 CONSTRUCT TYPE A-6 CURB AND GUTTER PER CITY OF TEMECULA STD. 200 STA:104+D0.00-104+25.00 117 PA VING 0VERLA Y/JOIN DETAIL
0 CONSTRUCT 6' WIDE 4 " SIDEWALK PER CITY OF TEMECULA STD. 401 YNEZ ROAD 50'R1W N. T S. N. T S. ® REMOVE EXISTING AC BERM
O SAWCUT AND REMOVE 1' WIDE (MIN.) OF EXISTING AC PAVEMENT AND RWQCB COLD PLANE (2' MIN.) PER DETAIL ON SHEET 4 1
11 CONSTRUCT RAISED CONCRETE MEDIAN PER CITY OF TEMECULA STD. 112, MODIFIED 2 1 10' PER DETAIL ON SHEET 4. 0 3 USA CE 12' g 11, o o Oo
52 CONSTRUCT RETAINING WALL PER DETAILS ON SHEET 13 AND 14 5 LANE WIDTH LANE WIDTH 1 2 USACE 4.5' 4.5'
60 INSTALL STEEL POST AND BLOCK MIDWEST GUARDRAIL SYSTEM PER CALTRANS STD A77L2 - - 2 10" 10" (1' FROM FACE OF CURB TO FACE OF POST PER DETAIL ON SHEET 6) —I 1- 2.5' 2.5' OINSTALL 31 " MIDWEST GUARDRAIL SYSTEM TERMINAL MSKT SP-MGS8 BY ROAD SYSTEMS =1 I PI I =1 I =1 I =1 I =1 5' MIN. 61 —III—I 11=1 11=1 I I —III #3
INC. OR APPROVED EQUAL I- III-1I1=1I1=1I1=1I BUFFER REBAR I 3 62 INSTALL 6' TUBULAR STEEL FENCE PER DETAIL ON SHEET 4 -III- III -III -III -III = LANE 2q. 2% REBAR LANE IEl I =-I - - STRIPE I STRIPE
�, =1I1=III—I II —III 2% NOTES.•
64 INSTALL 1/2 TON RIPRAP � I —III —III —I I I=1 I 1=1 I I —III \ a • „ =1 1=1 1=1 1=1 4 I 11-IJ 11=1 11=1 11=1 11=1TI=iTi=1 -III ,• 1 STAMPED CONCRETE TO BE BOMAN/TE PATTERN RIVER ROCK OR APPROVED 1=1 I 1=1 I I-1 I I-1 I I- =1 I =1 I _ _ -� I I-1. • , O EQUAL. CURE W/TH L/THOCHROME COLOR HARDENER A-33 NATURAL GREY 65 CONSTRUCT 24 " V-DITCH PER DETAIL ON SHEET 4 l l l lil 1 1 1 lil 1 1 1 lil l l l l l l l l l l l 1= I I I=1 EXISTING -1 11=1 11=1 I I-1 11=1 •. I 11= 4" THK =1 I I( ) I (STAMPED CONC.)
III GROUND /VV -I .. I_ _- -1
Under round Service Alert _--_--___ 11� ,1I�If- 1� _,;,III- CENTER MEDIAil_►I Ili g BASIS OF BEARINGS EXISTING PER C. 0. T. STD. 6 " TO 8 " (2) FOR MEDIAN, USE 4" THICK STAMPED PATTERN CONCRETE WITH (2) p BARS NO. 204 CONTINUOUS.

TEMPORARY BACK CUT REMEDIAL CUT-OFF WALL FLOWL/NE TRANSITION o BEARINGS ARE BASED ON THE CALIFORNIA STATE GRADING REMOVALS, PLACEMENT PER DETAIL ON RAISED MEDIAN (CROWNED) PER PLAN PLANE COORDINATE SYSTEM (CCS8J4OSA,
ZONE 6 BASED OF RIPRAP & CUT-OFF WALL SHEETS 11-12
CALL TOLL FREE LOCALLY ON N.G.S. CORS STATION
1— 8 0 0 — 4 2 2 — 413 3 PID—DX3769. DISTANCE SHOWN HEREON ARE GROUND SEC TION D DISTANCES. TO OBTAIN GRID LEVEL DISTANCES, RAISED CONCRETE MEDIAN - MODIFIED PROACTIVE ENGINEERING MULTIPLY DISTANCES BY 1.00008466. RETAINING WALL TYPICAL SECTION CONSULTANTS WEST, INC.

STA:110+62.73-112+08.25 MODIFIED CITY STD. 112 27404 VIA INDUSTRIA N.T.S. TEMECULA, CA 92590
9 5 1 - 2 0 0 - 6 8 4 0

TWO WORKING DAYS BEFORE YOU DIG
CONSTRUCTION RECORD DATE BY REVISIONS DATE APP'D BENCHMARK SEAL: DESIGNED BY DRAWN BY CHECKED BY Drawing No.

SCALE Q�pFESS/ RECOMMENDED BY: DATE: CITY 0 F TEMECULA

THE DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS
RIVERSIDE COUNTY BENCH MARK T-32-81. O BAN PEC WEST PEC WEST PEC WEST LOCATED IN NORTHERLY SIDEWALK OF ��'�, P FN� F� NINO ABAD, PRINCIPAL CIVIL ENGINEER Contractor RANCHO CALIFORNIA ROAD 6" WEST THE HORIZONTAL Fs Plans Pr pared Under The Supervision Of CURB RETURN, WEST OF JEFFERSON AVENUE, " CD No. 45920 < rmn ACCEPTED BY: DATE: YNEZ ROAD IMPROVEMENTS —PHASE l PROJECT PW23-02 C-3 Inspector AS SHOWN � � � �
20' f EAST OF THE BRIDGE OVER THE Date: 11/26/25 RON MORENO � 9 MURRIETA CREEK. FOUND 2 112" BRASS DISK DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS CITY ENGINEER YNEZ ROAD STA 101 +99.21 TO STA 117+61. 65 STAMPED "T-32-81 R-6-30-05 EL= VERTICAL sT CIO -
Date tl F
Date Completed 1006-8ON: 1006.84' AS SHOWN qTF OF CA,0F R.C.E. No. 45920 Expires 12IJ1126 R.C.E. No. 69156 9'roNs ;989 p44°4�� TYP/CAL SECTIONS AND DETAILS NO SHEET 4 14 U
N
0 U
'a
0 U)
i
E
0 a
in
i
o,
3 0
0 i
0 0
0 a
x
w
0 0
N
0 0
0 4
0 CV
0 i
z
0 Q
m
E
a
00 Ln
N
0 N
N
0 Z
a)

CENTER LINE DATA TABLE

DELTA / BEARING
RADIUS
LENGTH
NOTE
1 N48' 15' 11 V
- -
135.27'

CENTERLINE
2 0123'04"
2000.00'

48.33'

CENTERLINE
3 N4652'07"W
--
200.10'

CENTERLINE
4 0123'02"
2000.00'

48.31 '

CENTERLINE
5 N48' 15'09 V
- -

95. 33'

CENTERLINE
6 N48' 15'09 V
- -
261.23'

CENTERLINE
40' 0
SCALE.- 1 "=40'
Undergroun
ervice Hier

CALL TOLL FREE
1- 800- 422- 4133
1050
1050
C.L.

TWO WORKING DAYS BEFORE YOU DIG

CONSTRUCTION RECORD DATE BY
Contractor
Inspector
Date Completed
100+00

RIGHT -OF- WA Y
APN 944-331-026
120'

BASIS OF BEARINGS

50.00 6„ C.F.

TO
8>,C.F $ TRANSIT10N —
ram, n , I
v O j
O W O�
OL.':00 O
W Z Z o oo0)
V n V vJ
�V m� 'z '6 oO
N ~ �Q,
N, 6.
co N i
O ��JOO 0 )
O Lj-
0 — �rn
O J N L6
�^ 00 O v
+ N O V O � +
O O O J Lcj O N
O ^ op O
J O O O ^ +
O V uj N � h o 0

O U O N O O O
o� NN oo �� (624%) (62
06 o - 3%) (6% NMEN
± o 0
(5.17%) GRpI�
(4.66%) EX�S�I
101+00
� � I
� I
l PARCEL BOUNDARY I I o
I II
IL z
'A I II

BEARINGS ARE BASED ON THE CALIFORNIA STATE
PLANE COORDINATE SYSTEM (CCS8J4OSA,
ZONE 6 BASE
LOCALLY ON N.G.S. CORS STATION
PID-DX3769. DISTANCE SHOWN HEREON ARE GROUND
DISTANCES. TO OBTAIN GRID LEVEL DISTANCES,
MULTIPLY DISTANCES BY 1.00008466.

REVISIONS
102+00 103+00
II
coNsrRucnonr NOTES
O
o~
o�
4—
Q)
��'
Lid
��z
o0
O'er
Nay
�+-c�o
00 m
O O
00 m �1�5�� Q) Q)
W
0)
Lo O 1\ W
KON'
LOM_
°oOOOO
ai
o�
+ "s
0 0
o
Ep 1G @
EF
�I
Q
h
O
N
Up J
won
r70 Q)N
�
N p
+o
O n
OJ
OJ
Opf�
Ij
o�o,00N
Q)
Q)
ENO
00 OHO
�^
OJT
cp
cfl
Lr)
O
�� O
c+o
O
000
Q)
211�
Q)
—
©.�
06 PRCPO J W o-Q
o 0 0 �o o Of J o
r
O U p +
-� o 0
o+ d'
O "� O 0 0
Oj
+ p O
n o
o O
o CL
(6 46%)
651 %)
(
(6 35%)
104 +00
REMOVE AND REPLACE EXISTING ROADWAY SECTION 6" A.C. OVER 15" C.A.B. MIN. O D
0 CONSTRUCT TYPE A-6 CURB AND GUTTER PER CITY OF
TEMECULA STD. 200
0 CONSTRUCT 6' WIDE 4 " SIDEWALK PER CITY OF TEMECULA STD. 401 © RUBBER POLYMER MODIFIED SLURRY SEAL (RPMS) - TYPE II
12 CONSTRUCT TYPE A-8 CURB AND GUTTER PER CITY OF
TEMECULA STD. 201
62 INSTALL 6' TUBULAR STEEL FENCE PER DETAIL ON SHEET 4 68 TRAFFIC SIGNAL PULL BOX RELOCATION
69 CATV PULL BOX RELOCATION BY CHARTER
DATE

APP'D BENCHMARK
SCALE
SEAL:

RIVERSIDE COUNTY BENCH MARK T-32-81.

LOCATED IN THE NORTHERLY SIDEWALK OF
RANCHO CALIFORNIA ROAD 6" WEST OF THE
oQ�OFESS/
�� PLAN cFN� F'G
Fs
o Z

HORIZONTAL

CURB RETURN, WEST OF JEFFERSON AVENUE,

AS SHOWN
` No. 45920
20' f EAST OF THE BRIDGE OVER THE
MURRIETA CREEK. FOUND 2 1/2" BRASS DISK
STAMPED "T--32-81 R-6-30-05 EL=
1006-84"
ELEVATION: 1006.84'

VERTICAL
qTF OF ICA1-\F

AS SHOWN
I
j
W
VC
OJ
320•p0
�"
o
pvl=10g1
0 26.47
oI�
c,
o� ~
0�
o^ N rnN �
+
pl STA_108
0o J
ooJ
NN
V� o"� Q)
^�
0 OIL Lj
OJ ~
d1
O+�
00�0
Q� 7
O�
OJT
� -,*-
+hO
.�©O
Q��
_..Cffi
�C,
LX)
J o 0 0 `ri o^ A o o ©'�•35' I I v oo ooLn+
V I J O N + of O
Lr)un r� O �'c:s + 00 0 0
N � o0 6.31% c, O o °' ao

O Q)J O N O
O O O O L6 O
,, oo 0� �� (502%)
31 %) O �, °O o0 0 " ( 30%) N(
(6' o �, N � 63%) 5 N
/ `° o o `' 6.2g%) (5. PLIG M
c, oo °' o o _o)(6.1 g%) ( 00Np
O O r.�
J O .� ) (6.10% G GR
N � z O 1%) (6�
o O Q,�, (6.6 E
Lai
o o o A (6.51 %)
(6 52%)
6 41 %)
105+00 106+00 107+00 108+00
CONTRACTORS NOTE:

CONTRACTOR TO POTHOLE AND VERIFY ALL EXISTING UTILITIES PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION. UTILITY LOCATIONS ARE APPROXIMATE AND REQUIRE FIELD VERIFICATION.

PEC WEST PEC WEST PEC WEST
Plans Pr pared Under The Supervision Of
Date: 11126125
-M R.C.E. No. 45920 Expires 12IJ1126

I PARCEL BOUNDARY
I

CURB DATA TABLE
V
- J LEFT
� V
J o 0 O rn W

J O V O O
O h rn O
Lrl
00 rn °jo 0 0
o (3.72%) (3 35%)
(3.8$%)
3 90%) (3.84%)
(4.51%) ( Qca
LIMIIJ
109+00
110+00

GRADING AND MAINTENANCE

EASEMENT PER INSTRUMENT
N0. h
APN 944-352-015

DELTA / BEARING
RADIUS
LENGTH
NOTE
7 N48'15'12V
--
133.22'
6" & 8" CURB & GUTTER
8 03'41'13"
220.00'

14.16'
6" CURB & GUTTER
9 N443359 V
- -
226. 51 '
6" CURB & GUTTER
(K—L-
26'01 "
220.00'

9.34'
6" CURB & GUTTER
1102
012327"
220.00'

47.74'
6" CURB & GUTTER
12 N48'15'09V
--

89.76'
6" CURB & GUTTER
13 N4739'01 V
--
104.93'
6" CURB & GUTTER
14 N48'02'24V
--
161.99'
6" CURB & GUTTER
RECOMMENDED BY: DATE:

NINO ABAD, PRINCIPAL CIVIL ENGINEER
ACCEPTED BY: DATE:

RON MORENO

DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS / CITY ENGINEER
R.C.E. No. 69156
C.L.

LEGEND

AC PAVING

PROFILE SCALE
HORIZONTAL: 1" = 40'
VERTICAL: 1" = 4'

I I I I

PROACTI VE ENGINEERING
CONSUL TANTS WEST, INC.
27404 VIA INDUSTRIA
TEMECULA, CA 92590
951-200-6840
CITY OF TEMECULA Drawing No.

DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS
YNEZ ROAD IMPROVEMENTS —PHASE / PROJECT PW23-02 C — 4
YNEZ ROAD STA 101 +99.21 TO STA 109+87.76
PLANAND PROFILES SHEET 5 14
3 N
I
Ln
0 c�
C
a)
>
L
a
E
3 0
0 c
0 0
Q
x
w
0 0
N
0 0
0 0
CV
0 i
z
0 Q
m
E
a
00 12
,b
I
Ln
N
0 N
N
>
0 Z
a)
P

CENTER LINE DA TA TABLE

DELTA / BEARING
RADIUS
LENGTH
NOTE
1 N48' 15'09 "W
--
863.95'

CENTERLINE

CURB DATA TABLE
109+00

DELTA / BEARING
RADIUS
LENGTH
NOTE
2 N48'0224 "W
--
738.58'
6" CURB & GUTTER
3 65'0853"

35.00 39.80'
6" CURB & GUTTER/CURB RAMP
4 N6332'101E
--

4. 00'

CURB RAMP
5 18 26' 10 "

35.00 11.26'
6" CURB & GUTTER/CURB RAMP

GUARDRAIL TO NOT

PROTRUDE BEYOND

PROPOSED CURB FACE
unaergroun(
I I
I_ J
60 GUARDRAIL DETAIL
N. T.S.
z:)ervlce /Alert

BASIS OF BEARINGS

BEARINGS ARE BASED ON THE CALIFORNIA STATE
PLANE COORDINATE SYSTEM (CCS8J4OSA,
ZONE 6 BASED
CALL TOLL FREE LOCALLY ON N.G.S. CORS STATION
1- 8 0 0 - 42 2 - 413 3 PID-DX3769. DISTANCE SHOWN HEREON ARE GROUND DISTANCES. TO OBTAIN GRID LEVEL DISTANCES,
MULTIPLY DISTANCES BY 1.00008466.

TWO WORKING DAYS BEFORE YOU DIG

CONSTRUCTION RECORD DATE BY
Contractor
Inspector
Date Completed
LEFT
I I I
C.L.
ol4 U OJ
Q) O J T N^
O
O
C�
' U
~3)
OJ�OI�U
UN^
~�o�
OJ
OJT
N^
O�
Noce
±O N N�
O
to OJ O
O0ap
�1
4 ^�
^N ter)
o
•� +oN +
oo^�oo�0i
^n_
©^
�
!\
p0 O
00 .�
.�
6Y
j
pI�U
OIL
Ql
O
U Q
OJ
N^
,
OOJ
OIL
U
QS
O+,J
Ld
N_�Lr)
OJ
OOIL
-
NOo��
p
kr) �QU
N
O
Cop
OIL
�
OO�J
U�
�i^
0o)
O
+
K
vi
No
Nr;
r)
NNE
��O
Qs
�p
©

2.79q
3 2 PROPOSED TC LEFT
J Q
U O
J o
'1 O
J O
U O
N
J
U p
'1 O
N Lo
+
Q
O
U O
'� N
o
O h
d r,
N +
O O+
N �_
N
O
o
(2.91 1010)
(2.70%)
(2 65%)

2.781o)

3.01 q
110+00
111+00
APN 944-352-015

CONSTRUCTION NOTES
@
J
J
U
p
U
p
J
p
U
QO
O
N
O
Mj
Q
.�
O
I�
+
N
+
N
O
N
A
(2%)
(Y.)(2.71 q)

2.71 (2.91 %)
(3.05q) (2.49q)
112+00
v o
0 (2.81 q)
113+00
200.00' VC
PV1=1112.00
PI
STA=115+15.00
III
lQ
OtiU
O J
OIL
O
U Q
pJOJ
Np OO^
OJ
�
OJ
OJ
�rj�
hN
N
+� O�
-AN
L
OOP
��
Lr)
�^N�
�oSNOO
rn hN
N
J Q
p U O
J
V p U O -� N N
N N E �
O U O U O N^CV% + h
v .� N
J o V OO to
U p p
-� oN �N (z.)op,• (3.31%)
o `� (3.13q) (3.03q)
313%) (3.13%)
�- 2 78Yo)
(3=

19.88r VC
PV1=1119.45
PI ST4=1 7+36. 41
OJ
O�Uh^ m
OJ�N�p��
N^ +
00 - �� cp
OI�� +oad ;NO
O J Oj
KO :� IN ZZ]

3.34%

55.06'
CURB RETURN 19.88' VC
94 V1=1121.33
TYP P/ ITA=117+56.29
U U U
~� ~��"Ll O
N N

1.82%
III4
- PROPOS
D TC @ LEFT
CJjO
U
J
p
J
U
O
O
U O
O
O
O
cp
V
O
U
O
O^
N
LO
54%) (
. 02
(3.30%) (3.
2 86q) (2'95%) ( �XISTING GROUND @ ALIGNMENT
2 59q) (2.90q)
(2.82%)
I
114+00
52 CONSTRUCT RETAINING WALL PER DETAILS ON SHEET 13 AND 14 O
REMOVE AND REPLACE EXISTING ROADWAY SECTION 6" A.C. OVER 15" C.A.B. M/N. 59 INSTALL MIDWEST GUARDRAIL SYSTEM END ANCHOR TYPE SFT PER CAL TRANS STD A77S 1 000NSTRUCT
TYPE A-6 CURB AND GUTTER PER CITY OF TEMECULA STD. 200
INSTALL STEEL POST AND BLOCK MIDWEST GUARDRAIL SYSTEM PER CALTRANS STD A77L2 0INST60
CONSTRUCT 6' WIDE 4" SIDEWALK PER CITY OF TEMECULA STD. 401 @(1
' FROM FACE OF CURB TO FACE OF POST PER DETAIL HEREON)
ALL 31 " MIDWEST GUARDRAIL SYSTEM TERMINAL MSKT-SP-MGS8 BY ROAD SYSTEMS ©
RUBBER POLYMER MODIFIED SLURRY SEAL TYPE ll
INC. OR APPROVED EQUAL
(RPMS) -
62 INSTALL 6' TUBULAR STEEL FENCE PER DETAIL ON SHEET 4 ®
CONSTRUCT ADA ACCESS RAMPS PER CITY OF TEMECULA STD. 402. SEE DETAIL ON SHEET 12 64 INSTALL 1/2 TON R/PRAP PER SECT/ON D ON SHEET 4
40 RCWD TO EXTEND LATERAL AND REPLACE BLOW OFF WITH HYDRANT. PROPOSED LOCATION TO BE STAKED BY CONTRACTOR.
65 CONSTRUCT 24" V-DITCH PER DETAIL ON SHEET 4

REVISIONS DATE APP'D BENCHMARK
RIVERSIDE COUNTY BENCH MARK T-32-81.

LOCATED IN THE NORTHERLY SIDEWALK OF
RANCHO CALIFORNIA ROAD 6" WEST OF THE

CURB RETURN, WEST OF JEFFERSON AVENUE,
20' f EAST OF THE BRIDGE OVER THE
MURRIETA CREEK. FOUND 2 1/2" BRASS DISK
STAMPED "T-32-81 R-6-30-05 EL=
1006-84"
ELEVA TION: 1006.84'
SEAL:

SCALE

QROFESS/
PLAN tF
NFL

HORIZONTAL
��
oz
'��` No. 45920

AS SHOWN
9� civic �Q

VERTICAL
bF CALF

AS SHOWN

PEC WEST PEC WEST PEC WEST
Plans Pr pared Under The Supervision Of
Date: 11126125
R.C.E. No. 45920 Expires 12/31/26
115+00
116+00
117+00
68 TRAFFIC SIGNAL PULL BOX RELOCATION
69 CAN PULL BOX RELOCATION BY CHARTER
70 TELECOMMUNICATIONS BOX RELOCATION BY CHARTER
71 INSTALL NEW PEDESTRIAN PUSH BUTTON PEDESTAL PER CITY OF TEMECULA TRAFFIC SIGNAL

STANDARDS
118+00
LEFT

PROFILE SCALE
HORIZONTAL: 1" = 40'
VERTICAL: 1" = 4'
74 INSTALL 4"

COMPACTED DECOMPOSED

GRANITE
�E NCOMPACTIACCESS ROAD OVER 3" C.A.B. ON A
75 INSTALL MONTAGE PLUS GENESIS 213-RAIL 16' DOUBLE GATE OPENING OR APPROVED EQUAL PROACTIVE ENGINEERING 40' 0 40' so' 120' CONSUL TANTS WEST, INC.
27404 VIA INDUSTRIA
TEMECULA, CA 92590
SCALE.- 1 "=40' 95I-200-6840
RECOMMENDED BY: DATE:

NINO ABAD, PRINCIPAL CIVIL ENGINEER
ACCEPTED BY: DATE:

RON MORENO

DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS / CITY ENGINEER
R.C.E. No. 69156

CITY OF TEMECULA DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS
YNEZ ROAD IMPROVEMENTS -PHASE / PROJECT PW23-02
YNEZ ROAD STA 109+87.76 TO STA 117+61.56

PLANAND PROFILES
Drawing No.

C-5
SHEET 6 14
Q

100+00
\ A\ -016
_ OHO
U d
00 h
O
+ N +
No
N
O 626%
O �n Q)Ln
+
N
.� .�
p C
"
0 5 g4%
9 11050 TC
LEFT MEDIAN 250.00' V.C.

PI STA=101 +20.34
Pl=(1046.99)
CJ
�i O � )
,i U o^
^o
1050
0 C.L.

U
ml
N O
^
°j
0000
0 5
1050 TC

RIGHT MEDIAN
101+00 102+00

PA CEL BOUNDARY II
CDFW
- x JURISDICTIONAL APN
LIMITS
'A
W. w w w-
�5
w T w 5 w T-
__W
100+�0= = S 101+00 �5.00'
( 101 +34.69 YNEZ o C

CL INTERSECTION
TIERq4VISTA ROAD
�'i►�► •
a•n
APN 944-331-026
0 0--" a�
° ° i-FER A °
V/S
R70A
w - '-.
tq
OJ.
10 +00 �
s �
101+92.84 3

8.00' R
Q)
� o
O
O
25' C. F.
m�
W�
o
6" C•F TO 8
o
Ld
��
po
o
TRANSItION
N
°p
O
O Ln a
cfl
C0oo�oo
O tl
o
00 642%
p
Ld
�Co�
�r,
�
�o
pw
`moo
o +
oar
�+�`;

6.56%
o
0o
614%
� ^
62%

PROPOSED
TC @ L EST
m J
U
O �
Cy)J
O O
p�
O
Q)
(
��
I ME
10 VIV'IQ
T
w w
110+00 111+00

CURIE / LINE DATA TABLE

PROFILE SCALE
HORIZONTAL: 1" = 40'
VERTICAL: 1" = 4'
112+00

DELTA / BEARING
RADIUS
LENGTH
NOTE
G>_
N48'15'11 "W
--
199.79'

CENTERLINE
B
0123'04"
2000.00'

48.33'

CENTERLINE
C
N46752'071E
--
200.10'

CENTERLINE
D
0123'02
2000.00'

48.31 '

CENTERLINE
E
N48' 15'09 "W
--
284.86'

CENTERLINE
F
179'58'44 "

1.50'

4.71 '
MEDIAN
G
N48' 15' 11 "W
--
140.98'
MEDIAN
H
04'04'35"
120.00'

11.44 MEDIAN
-C D
N52'1946V
--
100.29'
MEDIAN
K
05'2739"
120.00

11.44'
MEDIAN
L
N4652'07"W
--
129.19'
MEDIAN
tit
0123'02"
1995.00'

48.19'
MED/AN
N
N48' 15'09 "W
--

89.78'
MEDIAN
O
180'00'00"

1.00'

15.71 '
MED/AN
P
N48' 15'09 "W
--

89.78'
MEDIAN
Q
0123'02"
2005.00'

48.43'
MEDIAN
R
N4652'07"W
--

75.94'
MEDIAN
S
0123'04 "
1995.00'

48.2 1'
MEDIAN
T
N48' 15' 11 "W
- -
265.77'
MEDIAN
CONSMUC77ON NOTES

YNEZ ROAD
11 CONSTRUCT RAISED CONCRETE MEDIAN PER CITY OF TEMECULA STD. 112, MODIFIED PER DETAIL ON SHEET 4.
13 CONSTRUCT TYPE D-8 CURB PER CITY OF TEMECULA STD. 204 �2 CONSTRUCT 6" TO 8" CURB TRANSITION PER DETAIL ON SHEET 4 �3 CONSTRUCT TYPE D-6 CURB PER CITY OF TEMECULA STD. 204A Underground
Service Alert
CONTRA CTORS NO TE:
63 CONSTRUCT EXISTING SEWER MANHOLE MEDIAN INSTALLATION PER SHEET 12 MODIFIED EMWD

BASIS OF BEARINGS
STD. SB-183 CASE Ill, COT STD. NO. 202, 204 & 213

CONTRACTOR TO POTHOLE AND VERIFY ALL EXISTING UTILITIES o

BEARINGS ARE BASED ON THE CALIFORNIA STATE
PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION. UTILITY

LOCATIONS ARE APPROXIMATE
PLANE COORDINATE SYSTEM (CCS831, ZONE 6 BASED
AND REQUIRE FIELD VERIFICATION.

CALL TOLL FREE
LOCALLY ON N.G.S. CORS STATION 'ROSA,
1-
8 0 0 - 42 2 - 413 3
PID-DX3769. DISTANCE SHOWN HEREON ARE GROUND

PROACTIVE ENGINEERING
DISTANCES. TO OBTAIN GRID LEVEL DISTANCES,
40'
0 40' 80' 120'
MULTIPLY DISTANCES BY 1.00008466.
1 1
1 1 1 1 1
CONSULTANTS WEST, INC.
27404 VIA INDUSTRIA
SCALE.'
1" =40'
TEMECULA, CA 92590
95I-200-6840

TWO WORKING DAYS BEFORE YOU DIG

CONSTRUCTION
RECORD
DATE
BY

REVISIONS
DATE
APP'D

BENCHMARK
RIVERSIDE COUNTY BENCH MARK T-32-81.

SCALE
SEAL:

Q�pFESS/
O BAN

PEC WEST PEC WEST PEC WEST
RECOMMENDED BY: DATE:

NINO ABAD, PRINCIPAL CIVIL ENGINEER

CITY OF TEMECULA DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS
Drawing No.

Contractor

LOCATED IN THE NORTHERLY SIDEWALK OF
��, P FN� F�
Fs
Plans Pr pared Under The Supervision Of

HORIZONTAL
RANCHO CALIFORNIA ROAD 6" WEST THE

CURB RETURN, WEST OF JEFFERSON AVENUE,
" ; No. 45920 rmn
ACCEPTED BY: DATE:
of T YNEZ ROAD IMPROVEMENTS -PHASE l PROJECT PW23-02
(r _ 6

AS SHOWN
Inspector
20' f EAST OF THE BRIDGE OVER THE
Date: 11/26/25

RON MORENO
�~ 9
MURRIETA CREEK. FOUND 2 1/2" BRASS DISK
q

DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS / CITY ENGINEER
tl F YNEZ ROAD STA 10 % +9 /.84 TO STA 107+26.00
STAMPED "T-32-81 R-6-30-05 EL=

VERTICAL
�s� �Q
I

AS SHOWN
Date Completed
9TFOF CAI-\F
R.C.E. No. 45920 Expires 12IJ1126
R.C.E. No. 69156
9'TfoNs19NO p444�� MEDIAN PLAN AND PROFILE
7 14
ELEVATION: 1006.84'
SHEET
3 7
0 a�
I
r
0 /
N
N
0 L
a
/
3 0
0 0
Q_
x
w
0 0
N
N
C
}
0 0
0 C)
0 CV
0 z
0 Q
T
m
E
a
N
00 I
Ln
N
0 N
N
0 Z

72"

10.1 250' 01 1
\ \ - - PA CEL BOUNDARY TAPER 1 PARCEL BOUNDARY
\ AP.Af 44-330-01 APN 944-330-048 APN 944-290-016 I

PRO VIDE GREEN (V
BACKGROUND ��
72 MIN 4'Wx2O'H BIKE 1 BIKE O
o �o / LANE LANE '
/ R7.9A 9
W3.3 I R7-9A W
6 4 5 4 / RIGHT-OF-WAY 5 I PROPOSED CURB 9 W
- - - - �� - - - — _ & GUTTER i
72" -- ---- - Fo --- -- -- -- -- --
w W w w - 0' 6 L=1 1 6 Fo n
T A
00 00 P 9
- 8 6 3 L= 42' 3 ® L=1 510'
NOTE. w ww w 6= 5 3 6
5 4 w W Q % O r{� T
T T T �_ Ttin
V� �T W 8 N� ® W W

1. INSTALL "PRE -MARK" OR "OPTAMARK" -1 D -0 - - - - - - - 0011 0 �� 104f00 5 L=1,07_e Q 7 L=1,670' THERMOPLASTIC PAVEMENT MARKINGS �5 ss ss ss o _ _ -
(WHITE SYSMBOLS WITH GREEN BACKGROUND) 7 5 L=50' 6 9 w w w w �1w w 8 w w w 7 °' i

2. LEGEND SPACING PER CAMUTCD FIGURE 9C-3. N 12' — �5 - c 10 c - - _ o = W �EX. 6" WHITE LINE L=1,560'
�
DETAIL A _ _
E
_ -- - - - - - - E — ---- _ _ ---- - - -_ -- -- _ — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — E — — — E — — — — — — L— --
BICYCLIST AND ARROW BIKE LANE MARKING T, �� - N - - T� � � F _ - - - - - - - - - - - - - T �e r - v, o� — — 9 — — — — T — — i �T I— — — — — — — — —
�1
❑ ❑ RIGHT—OF—WAY
TIERRA 7 I 9
Q EXISTING 6" CURB i
® I AND GUTTER
(26 BIKE LANE PAVEMENT MARKING APN 944-331-026 VISTA R4-7 OM2-1H BIKE I N.TS. ROAD LANE APN 944-334-028 I PARCEL APN 944-352-015 RR4-7
BIKE
285MA ' BOUNDARY LANE
7�10 I
416' I RMA
1 OM2-1 H
24" I
�--1 YNEZ ROAD
R4-7
"KEEP RIGHT" SIGN

PLAN VIEW
'k OM2-1 H SIGN I I I ❑ i \ i ��
APN 944-290-016 I PARCEL BOUNDARY I \
APN 944-290-017 SPEED I � II �
� ® I I�

PANT MEDIAN NOSE
0o LIMIT FR

YELLOW WITH REFLECTIVE QO I BIKE
BEADS %% p0 I LANE 5 ❑ ��
w12
Q R7-9A
-- ---_
R2-1 R7-9A
LEFT TURN POCKETS I PROPOSED CURB 4 9 -- EXISTING 6" CURB

RIGHT OF -WAY & GUTTER AND GUTTER
27 R4-7AND OM2-1H SIGN ON SIGN POST --- --- _
Fo o
N. T.S. , —
7 T o T �w
NL= .- W W 8 w T W 1,��' 1 n W . W T W . W W TW W .W W W- W V W W 6 _ w W W -- - �� 5 I c0
CONTRACTORS NOTE.' Q 670, ss—�"�ss ss ss ss ss C> ss ss s 8 SS_SS ss s s 6 ss s ss " SS_SS 7 guess 6 — ss 8+0 _ _ __ _ __ _ _
CONTRACTOR TO REFRESH CROSSWALK STRIPING AS DEEMED — � - - - - - _ w_ --W 1 L=35 ' _ W 6 W NECESSARY BY THE FIELD INSPECTOR AT TIERRA VISTA ROAD W 1 0 - _ 7 - o - _ - - - 6 6 4 9

AND RANCHO VISTA ROAD INTERSECTIONS -
� L-1, 560' _ �C�J � � � TYP. of of � w
---------------- ----- - _______________-________--__________- EXISTING - -_ - - --- - - Fa -- -----� -- ----- -- - SIGNING AND STRIPING NOTES: �� E T a E DETECTOR Loops — _ ' — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
— rT T

1. STRIPING, SIGNING, OR PAVEMENT LEGENDS SHALL NOT BE INSTALLED PRIOR TO FIELD INSPECTION AND APPROVAL BY __';_ 120' I 5 4 APN 944-363-010 THE INSPECTOR. RIGHT—OF—WAY

2. ALL PAVEMENT MARKINGS AND SIGN LOCATIONS MUST BE INSPECTED AND APPROVED BEFORE STRIPING BEGINS. THE 9 BAY TAPER I PARCEL INSPECTOR SHALL DETERMINE THE EXACT LIMITS OF THE MATCH STRIPING. I EXISTING 6" CURB BOUNDARY CONTRACTORS STRIPING NOTE, J. ALL REGULATORY SIGNS AND WARNING SIGNS SHALL USE HI —INTENSITY DIAMOND GRADE REFLECTIVE SHEETING AND BE ® AND GUTTER A MINIMUM OF 30'X30': APN 944-352-015 I ® SEE YNEZ ROAD SIGNING AND STRIPING EXHIBIT FOR

4. UNLESS OTHERWISE STATED, ALL STRIPING SHALL BEGIN AND TERMINATE AT QUARTER DELTA OF THE CURB RETURN, OR BIKE BIKE 285' ADDITIONAL STRIPING WORK TO BE COMPLETED BY BACK OF THE CROSSWALK OR STOP BAR. LLAYNEZ ROAD LAN Ej CONTRACTOR

5. ALL R1 SIGNS WILL BE LOCATED 2 FEET BEHIND CURB AT THE B.C.R. OR AS SPECIFIED ON THE PLAN. RMA R7-9A

6. ALL STOP BARS WILL BE LOCATED AT THE PROLONGATION OF THE CENTER DELTA OF THE CURB RETURN OR BEHIND OPTAMARK, OPTATRAC OR THE WHEELCHAIR ACCESS RAMPS UNLESS OTHERWISE SPECIFIED ON THE PLAN. DETAIL 39A DETAIL 39 'u� � ENNIS FLINT PRE -MARK

7. THE STOP LEGEND SHALL BE 8 FEET BEHIND THE STOP BAR. IF REQUIRED, DIRECTIONAL ARROWS SHALL ALSO BE 8 PAVEMENT MARKINGS FEET BEHIND THE STOP BAR OR 8 FEET BEHIND THE STOP LEGENDS. —

9. STREET NAME SIGNS SHALL BE INSTALLED AT ALL INTERSECTIONS AND MAY BE INSTALLED ABOVE THE R 1 SIGN OR AS /+/1� /��/ //+�/�� / A /OS SPECIFIED ON THE PLAN. IiO�Y U O �Y

10. THE POST MATERIAL SHALL BE "TELESPAR QWIK-PUNCH" OR APPROVED EQUAL WITH RECEPTIVE 30-INCH OR 36-INCH ANCHOR ASSEMBLY. J4 INSTALL DETAIL 38, 8" CHANNELIZ/NG LINE PER CALTRANS STANDARD PLAN A20D 35 INSTALL W3-3 SIGN ON POST OR ON STREET LIGHT PER CA MUTCD STANDARDS

11. ALL PAVEMENT STRIPING AND LEGENDS SHALL BE INSTALLED PER SECTION 84-2 OF THE CALTRANS STANDARD 15 INSTALL DETAIL 12, 6" WHITE DASHED LANEL/NE PER CALTRANS STANDARD PLAN A20A 36 REMOVE DETAIL 38, 8" CHANNEL/ZING LINE PER CALTRANS STANDARD PLAN A20D DETAIL 39A DETAIL 39 SPECIFICATIONS.

12. ALL CONFLICTING PAVEMENT LEGENDS, STRIPING (INCLUDING RAISED PAVEMENT MARKERS), AND PAVEMENT MARKINGS 16 INSTALL TYPE /V TURN ARROW PER CALTRANS STANDARD PLAN A24A 37 REMOVE DETAIL 22, DOUBLE YELLOW LINE STRIPING 66 GREEN RECTANGULAR MARKINGS FOR BICYCLE LANE DETAILS SHALL BE REMOVED BY GRINDING METHOD, PRIOR TO GRIND AND OVERLAY, PER SECTION 84-9 OF THE CALTRANS STANDARD SPECIFICATION. 17 INSTALL DETAIL 29, DOUBLE YELLOW MEDIAN ISLAND PER CALTRANS STANDARD PLAN A20A 38 INSTALL DETAIL 39, BIKE LANE LINE PER CALTRANS RSP A20D N. T S.

13. ALL PAINTED STRIPING SHALL BE DOUBLE COATED IN NOT LESS THAN 7 DAYS, BUT NO MORE THAN 14 DAYS FROM LIMIT LINE ' DATE OF INITIAL INSTALLATION. 18 INSTALL DETAIL 25, LEFT EDGELINE PER CALTRANS STANDARD PLAN A20B 39 INSTALL LOOP DETECTOR TYPE F PER CALTRANS RSP ES-5B 44 CURB EDGE OF

14. ALL PAVEMENT MARKINGS, PAVEMENT LEGENDS, AND LINES 8" OR WIDER SHALL BE THERMOPLASTIC UNLESS OTHERWISE CROSSWALK 12 TYPE Q FACE GUTTER 19 REMOVE DETAIL 12, 6" WHITE DASHED LANELINE PER CALTRANS STANDARD PLAN A20A 43 INSTALL DETAIL 39A, LANE LINE EXTENSIONS PER CALTRANS RSP A20D (3'X6') APPROVED BY THE DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS.

15. ALL PAVEMENT STRIPING SHALL HAVE RAISED PAVEMENT MARKINGS (RPM) PER SECTION 81-3 OF THE CALTRANS 21 49 INSTALL R7-9A NO PARKING SIGN PER CA MUTCD STANDARDS ON POST REMOVE TYPE /V TURN ARROW PER CALTRANS STANDARD PLAN A24A STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS. O O OR ON STREET LIGHT PER PLAN - �� - - �� RIGHT LANE

16. A 6" SOLID WHITE LEAD LINE WITH TYPE 'G' RPM'S AT 25' SPACING SHOULD BE USED FOR EACH LANE LINE WHERE IT INSTALL LOOP DETECTORS PER DETAIL ON HEREON 54 INSTALL R2-1 "SPEED LIMIT" SIGN PER CA MUTCD, SPEED AS NOTED PER PLAN 4' - E ' �?- BIKE LANE BREAKS ACROSS AN INTERSECTION. 50 OF LEAD IN LINE ON THE APPROACH SIDE AND 50 ON THE LEAD OUT DEPARTURE SIDE. © INSTALL BIKE LANE PAVEMENT MARKING PER DETAIL HEREON 55 INSTALL 6" SOLID WHITE LINE WITH TYPE "G" RPM'S AT 25' O.C., 2" OFFSET FROM LINE THRU LANE Underground Service Alert �7 INSTALL R4-7 & OM2-1 H SIGN ON SIGN POST PER DETAIL ON HEREON 56 APPLY 12" WHITE LIMIT LINE PER CALTRANS STANDARD A24G {}� - v — - THRU LANE 40' 0 40' 80' 120' BASIS OF BEARINGS INSTALL 12" WIDE, WHITE CROSSWALK (THERMOPLASTIC) PER CALTRANS STANDARD A24F — o �9 57 REMOVE DETAIL 29, DOUBLE YELLOW MEDIAN ISLAND PER CALTRANS STANDARD PLAN A20A � �- � 10o - � LEFT LANE BEARINGS ARE BASED ON THE CALIFORNIA STATE CONTINENTAL STYLE (2' BAR, 3' GAP) 12 TYP PLANE COORDINATE SYSTEM (CCS831, ZONE 6 BASED 30 INSTALL 'AHEAD" PA VEMENT MARK/NG PER CAL TRANS STANDARD A240 58 INSTALL DETAIL 22, DOUBLE YELLOW LINE STRIPING PER CALTRANS STANDARD PLAN A20A SCALE.- 1 `40' CALL TOLL FREE LOCALLY ON N.G.S. CORS STATION 'ROSA, TYPE F ( 6' DIA.) 1— 8 0 0 — 42 2 — 413 3 DISTANCES. 69 TO DISTANCE

T ANCN SHOWNGRID LEVELR DON ARE DISTANCES,
31 INSTALL 'SIGNAL " PA VEMENT MARKING PER CAL TRANS STANDARD A24D 66 APPLY GREEN RECTANGULAR PAVEMENT MARKING FOR BIKE LANES PER DETAIL HEREON HYPE E (6' DIA.) PROA CTI VE ENGINEERING MULTIPLY DISTANCES BY 1.00008466. 33 INSTALL LOOP DETECTOR TYPE E PER CALTRANS RSP ES-5B DETAIL B CONSULTANTS WEST, INC. 0 25 LIMIT LINEAND LOOP INSTALLATION DETAIL 2'4°4 v'A 'CA 925 0 34 INSTALL SQUARE DETECTOR TYPE Q (3'X6) PER CALTRANS RSP ES-5B T 51 E c u_ A, c A 9 z 5 9 0 TWO WORKING DAYS BEFORE YOU DIG N.T.S. 95I-zoo-ba4o
CONSTRUCTION RECORD DATE BY REVISIONS DATE APP'D BENCHMARK SCALE SEAL: Q�OFESS/�DESIGNED BY DRAWN BY CHECKED BY CITY 0 F TEMEC ULA Drawing No. ,w RECOMMENDED BY: DATE: DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS
RIVERSIDE COUNTY BENCH MARK T-32-81. O cAN yl PEC WEST PEC WEST PEC WEST LOCATED IN THE NORTHERLY SIDEWALK OF �� P NINO ABAD, PRINCIPAL CIVIL ENGINEER Contractor RANCHO CALIFORNIA ROAD 6" WEST OF THE HORIZONTAL Fs Plans Pr pared Under The Supervision Of — CURB RETURN, WEST OF JEFFERSON AVENUE, 20No. 45920 < rmn ACCEPTED BY: DATE: �� of T YNEZ ROAD IMPROVEMENTS —PHASE l PROJECT PW23-02 (±—% Inspector AS SHOWN
' f EAST OF THE BRIDGE OVER THE Date: 11/26/25 RON MORENO � 9 MURRIETA CREEK. FOUND 2 1/2" BRASS DISK DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS / CITY ENGINEER YNEZ ROAD STA 101 +99.21 TO STA 117+61.65 STAMPED "T-32-81 R-6-30-05 EL= VERTICAL sT civic �P tl F Date Completed ELEVA�ON: 1006.84' AS SHOWN qTF OF CA��F R.C.E. No. 45920 Expires 12/31/26 R.C.E. No. 69156 9'roNs ;98 p44°4�� SIGNING AND STRIPING PLAN SHEET 8 14 o,
3 L
'a
i
Co
0 E
0 a
E
in
i
3 0
0 0
0 a
x
w
0 0
N
N
0 0
O
0 0
cV
O
i
z
0 Q
m
E
0 N
r
Ln
N
O
N
N
0 Z
a)
0 0

EROSION CONTROL NOTES:

1. FILTERED RUNOFF. ALL RUNOFF SHALL BE FILTERED PRIOR TO DISCHARGING FROM A SITE OR TO ANY TYPE OF PRIVATE OR

PUBLIC STORM WATER CONVEYANCE SYSTEM (NATURAL WATERCOURSES, STREETS, GUTTERS, CONCRETE -LINED V-DITCHES, STORM DRAINS, FLOW -LINES, INLETS, OUTLETS, ETC.). ALL NON -PERMITTED DISCHARGES ARE PROHIBITED FROM ENTERING ANY STORM WATER CONVEYANCE SYSTEM YEAR-ROUND.

2. BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES (BMP'SL YEAR-ROUND, POLLUTION PREVENTION MEASURES, ALSO KNOWN AS BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES (BMPS), MUST BE INSTALLED PRIOR TO ANY FIELD ACTIVITIES. BMP HANDBOOKS CAN BE DOWNLOADED AT HTTP: L/WWW. DOT. CA. GOV/HQ/CONSTRUC/STORMWATER/MANUALS. HTM. ADDITIONAL EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL (ESC) MEASURES MUST BE INSTALLED AND MAINTAINED PRIOR TO AND THROUGHOUT EACH RAINY SEASON. THE

DEVELOPER/CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE FOR ESC MEASURES THROUGHOUT THE DURATION OF THE PROJECT FOR ALL

CLEARING, DISKING, GRADING, EXCAVATING AND STOCKPILING ACTIVITIES, AND ON ALL EXPOSED SLOPES AND INACTIVE PADS THROUGHOUT THE ENTIRE SITE. THE DEVELOPER/CONTRACTOR IS ALSO RESPONSIBLE FOR ANY DISCHARGES FROM SUBCONTRACTORS.
a. STOCKPILING OF BMPS. ADDITIONAL ESC MATERIALS SHALL BE STOCKPILED AT VARIOUS LOCATIONS THROUGHOUT THE SITE FOR IMMEDIATE USE WITHIN SEVEN DAYS PRIOR TO ANY FORECAST RAIN. ON EMERGENCY SITUATIONS, THE DEVELOPER/CONTRACTOR SHALL IMMEDIATELY MAKE EQUIPMENT AND WORKERS AVAILABLE TO PROTECT THE SITE.

J. EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROLS. ALL ESC MEASURES SHALL BE INSPECTED, RESTORED, REPAIRED OR MODIFIED

YEAR-ROUND THROUGHOUT THE SITE TO PROTECT PERIMETERS, ADJACENT PROPERTIESLENVIRONMENTALLY SENSITIVE AREAS AND ALL PRIVATE/PUBLIC STORM WATER CONVEYANCE SYSTEMS. IF ANY EROSION OR SEDIMENT CONTROLS FAIL DURING ANY RAIN EVENT, MORE EFFECTIVE ONES WILL BE REQUIRED IN THEIR PLACE. o. EROSION CONTROL. EROSION CONTROLS SHALL INCLUDE, BUT ARE NOT LIMITED TO APPLYING AND ESTABLISHING: VEGETATIVE COVE, WOOD MULCH, STAPLED OR PINNED BLANKETS (STRAW, COCONUT OR OTHER), PLASTIC SHEETING (MINIMUM 10-MIL),

POLYPROPYLENE MATS, SPRAY -ON CONTROLS TO ALL DISTURBED AREAS OR OTHER MEASURES APPROVED BY THE CITY ENGINEER. JUTE NETTING SHALL NOT BE USED AS A STAND-ALONE EROSION CONTROL. FOR SLOPES GREATER THAN 4:1, PROVIDE FIBER ROLLS AND EITHER A BONDED FIBER MATRIX PRODUCT APPLIED TO A RATE OF J500 LB/ACRE OR A STABILIZED FIBER MATRIX PRODUCT APPLIED TO A RATE OF 10 GAL/ACRE. THE CITY ENGINEER MAY APPROVE DIFFERENT APPLICATION RATES FOR SLOPES LESS THAN 4:1.
b. SEDIMENT CONTROLS. SEDIMENT CONTROLS SHALL INCLUDE, BUT ARE NOT LIMITED TO: DESILTING BASINS, GRADED BERMS, FIBER ROLLS, SILT FENCES, GRAVEL BAG CHEVRONS (FILLED WITH MINIMUM J" GRAVEL), CHECK DAMS, DRAINAGE INLET PROTECTION, ETC. FIBER ROLLS SHALL BE INSTALLED IN 15-FOOT INCREMENTS MEASURED ALONG THE FACE OF THE SLOPE.

SILT FENCE SHALL BE INSTALLED ALONG INTERIOR STREETS AND COMBINED WITH GRAVEL -BAG OR SILT FENCE CHEVRONS INSIDE THE SIDEWALK RIGHT-OF-WAY OR BACK OF CURBS.

4. STATE CONSTRUCTION GENERAL PERMIT. IF THE PROJECT DISTURBS, EXPOSES OR STOCKPILES ONE ACRE OR MORE OF SOIL, THE SITE MUST MUST BE COVERED UNDER THE STATE CONSTRUCTION GENERAL PERMIT. A WASTE DISCHARGE IDENTIFICATION (WDID) NUMBER, A RISK LEVEL DETERMINATION NUMBER AND A QUALIFIED "STORM WATER POLLUTION PLAN" (SWPPP) DEVELOPER (QSD) SHALL BE PROVIDED TO THE CITY PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF A GRADING PERMIT. A SWPPP SHALL BE

IMPLEMENTED THROUGHOUT THE DURATION OF THE PROJECT AND SHALL BE READILY AVAILABLE TO CITY AND STATE INSPECTORS AND UPDATED TO REFLECT CURRENT SITE CONDITIONS DURING CONSTRUCTION. THE CONSTRUCTION PERMIT CAN BE DOWNLOADED AT:

WWW. WATERBOARDS. CA. GOV,/WATER ISSUES PROGRAMS/STORMWATER/CONSTRUCTION.

5. PERIMETER PROTECTION. PERIMETER PROTECTION MUST BE INSTALLED PRIOR TO ANY CLEARING ACTIVITIES. CLEARING SHALL BE LIMITED TO AREAS THAT WILL BE IMMEDIATELY GRADED OR DISTURBED. A COMBINATION OF ESC MEASURES SHALL BE IMPLEMENTED IN AREAS THAT HAVE BEEN CLEARED. AIL DISTURBED AREAS OF AN INACTIVE SITE, AS DESCRIBED IN THE ENGINEERING AND CONSTRUCTION MANUAL, SHALL ALSO BE PROTECTED.

6. CONSTRUCTION ACCESS POINTS. CONSTRUCTION ACCESS POINTS SHALL BE STABILIZED WITH A COMBINATION OF ROCK AND SHAKER PLATES YEAR-ROUND TO PREVENT TRACK -OUT. INTERIOR ACCESS POINTS (ALL PROPOSED DRIVEWAYS, MATERIAL STORAGE AND STAGING AREA ENTRANCES/EXITS, ETC.) SHALL ALSO BE PROTECTED WITH ROCK TO PREVENT TRACK -OUT ONTO INTERIOR STREETS. ROUTINE STREET SWEEPING SHALL BE PREFORMED ON ALL PAVED STREETS WHERE TRACKING IS OBSERVED.

VACUUM SWEEPERS SHALL BE USED WHEN STREET SWEEPING BECOMES INEFFECTIVE. CONTROLLED STREET WASHING SHALL

ONLY BE ALLOWED PRIOR TO THE APPLICATION OF ASPHALT SEAL COATS, AND ONLY WHEN ALL PERTINENT DRAINAGE INLETS ARE PROTECTED.

7. DESILTING BASINS. DESILTING BASINS SHALL BE DESIGNED ACCORDING TO THE GUIDANCE PROVIDED IN CASQA'S CONSTRUCTION BMP HANDBOOK. IMPOUNDED WATER SHALL BE SECURED FROM THE PUBLIC. SIGNAGE INDICATING "PONDED WATER -DO NOT ENTER", OR AN EQUIVALENT WARNING NOTICE, SHALL BE POSTED.

8. MATERIAL STORAGE. MATERIAL STORAGE AND STAGING AREAS SHALL BE ESTABLISHED. FUEL TANKS, PORTABLE TOILETS, LIQUIDS,

GELS, POWDERS, LANDSCAPE MATERIALS AND STOCKPILES OF SOIL SHALL BE STORED AWAY FROM ALL PRIVATE/PUBLIC STORM WATER CONVEYANCE SYSTEMS, SIDEWALKS, RIGHT-OF-WAYS AND FLOW -LINES AND SHALL HAVE SECONDARY CONTAINMENT.

INACTIVE STOCKPILES OF SOIL SHALL BE COVERED AT ALL TIMES. ACTIVE STOCKPILES SHALL BE COVERED PRIOR TO A FORECAST RAIN.

9. CONSTRUCTION WASTE. CONSTRUCTION WASTE AND MISCELLANEOUS DEBRIS SHALL BE PLACED IN WATER -TIGHT BINS. WIRE MESH RECEPTACLES SHALL NOT BE ALLOWED. WASH -OUT STATIONS SHALL BE PROVIDED FOR CONCRETE, PAINTS, STUCCO AND

OTHER LIQUID WASTE, AND SHALL BE LINED WITH PLASTIC AND LOCATED AWAY FROM PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAYS, FLOW LINES, ETC. PRIOR TO ANY FORECAST RAIN, BINS AND WASH -OUTS SHALL BE COVERED WITH LIDS OR PLASTIC TARPS.

10. SLOPE PROTECTION. STORM WATER RUNOFF SHALL NOT BE DIRECTED OVER SLOPES WITHOUT PERMANENT DOWN DRAINS INSTALLED. ESC MEASURES ARE REQUIRED ON ALL EXPOSED SLOPES UNTIL SUFFICIENT/PERMANENT LANDSCAPE IS ESTABLISHED. THERE SHALL BE 100% SLOPE PROTECTION IN PLACE PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY.

11. PORTABLE MIXERS. ALL PORTABLE MIXERS SHALL HAVE PLASTIC LINERS UNDERNEATH THEM WITH GRAVEL -BAGS PLACED ON THE DOWN -HILL SIDE OF TIE LINERS TO CONTAIN DISCHARGES.

12. MAINTENANCE. ALL ONSITE AND OFFSITE FLOW LINES (I.E., V- AND BROW -DITCHES, TERRACE DRAINS, RIBBON GUTTERS, CURB GUTTERS, ETC.), STORM WATER CONVEYANCE SYSTEMS, CHECK DAMS, CHEVRONS, SILT FENCES AND DESILTING BASINS SHALL

BE FREE OF SEDIMENT, CONSTRUCTION MATERIALS, WASTE, MISCELLANEOUS DEBRIS AND DETERIORATED ESC MEASURES YEAR-ROUND.

13. OBSTRUCTIONS. NO OBSTRUCTIONS, OTHER THAN BMPS, SHALL BE ALLOWED WITHIN ANY STORM WATER CONVEYANCE SYSTEM, UNLESS ALTERNATIVE DRAINAGE FACILITIES HAVE BEEN APPROVED BY THE CITY ENGINEER.

14. OTHER CONSTRUCTION NOTES. REFER TO SEPARATE NOTES FOR "GENERAL," "GRADING" AND "PAVING" REQUIREMENTS.

15. OTHER PERTINENT INFORMATION. REFER TO THE CITY OF TEMECULA MUNICIPAL CODE, TITLE 18, CHAPTER 18.18 "EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL"
Underground Service Alert

CALL TOLL FREE
1- 800- 422- 4133

TWO WORKING DAYS BEFORE YOU DIG

CONSTRUCTION RECORD IDATEI BY
Contractor
Inspector
Date Completed
SLOPE

TOE OF SLOPE

BASIS OF BEARINGS

BEARINGS ARE BASED ON THE CALIFORNIA STATE
PLANE COORDINATE SYSTEM (CCS83), ZONE 6 BASED
LOCALLY ON N.G.S. CORS STATION "ROSA,
PID-DX3769. DISTANCE SHOWN HEREON ARE GROUND
DISTANCES. TO OBTAIN GRID LEVEL DISTANCES,
MULTIPLY DISTANCES BY 1.00008466.

CITY OF TEMECULA

EROSION CONTROL PLAN
YNEZ ROAD IMPROVEMENTS PHASE l
i nnn� Kiev
------SETBACK LINE
- - R/W

CURB (OR RIG LINE)
1,-GRAVELBAGS (TYP.)

STREET GRADE
L
LESS THAN 4%
200'
4% TO 99
100'
> 9%
50'

CURB (OR RIG LINE)
-- -- R/W
------------SETBACK LINE
4 GRA VEL BA G VEL O Cl T Y RED UCER IN CHA NNEL
TT
N. T S.

SETB4CK VARIES
(SEE NOTE 4)
100' 0 100' 200' 300'
SCALE: 1 "= 100'

PROPOSED
PAD

GRAVEL BAGS
(AL T SIDES PER
TYP. DETAIL NO. 1)
W STAKE.

R/W
C.L.

VARIES
CONSTRUCTION NO TES:
44 INSTALL GRAVEL BAG VELOCITY REDUCER PER DETAIL ON SHEET 9 45 CONSTRUCT SILT FENCE PER DETAIL ON SHEET 9 AND CASQA BMP SE-5 46 INSTALL FIBER ROLLS PER DETAIL ON SHEET 9
47 INSTALL GRAVEL AND WIRE MESH FILTER FOR CURB INLET PER DETAIL ON SHEET 9 48 PROVIDE HYDRAULIC MULCH PER CASQA BMP EC-3 AND HYDROSEEDING PER CASQA BMP EC-4

NOTE BELOW
R/W
NOTE: PROVIDE 3" SPACING BETWEEN TOP ROW OF GRAVEL BAGS n�rTYPICAL GRAVEL BAG DETAIL
D
N. T. S.

ULTRATECH CURB STYLE

INLET GUARD OR

APPROVED EQUAL

FIL TERED WATER
n \\- CURB INLET
47 INLET PROTECT/ON DETAIL
N. T.S.

NOTES:

1. CONSTRUCT THE LENGTH OF EACH REACH SO THAT THE CHANGE IN BASE ELEVATION ALONG THE REACH DOES NOT EXCEED 1/3 THE

HEIGHT OF THE LINEAR BARRIER, IN NO CASE SHALL THE REACH LENGTH EXCEED 500'

2. THE LAST 8'-0" OF FENCE SHALL BE TURNED UP SLOPE.

J. STAKE DIMENSIONS ARE NOMINAL.

4. DIMENSION MAY VARY TO FIT FIELD CONDITION.

5. STAKES SHALL BE PLACED AT 8'-0" MAXIMUM AND SHALL BE POSITIONED ON DOWNSTREAM SIDE OF FENCE.

6. STAKES TO OVERLAP AND FENCE FABRIC TO FOLD AROUND EACH STAKE ONE FULL TURN. SECURE FABRIC TO STAKE WITH 4 STAPLES.

7. STAKES SHALL BE DRIVEN TIGHTLY TOGETHER TO PREVENT POTENTIAL FLOW -THROUGH OF SEDIMENT AT JOINT. THE TOPS OF THE STAKE SHALL BE SECURED WITH WIRE.

8. FOR END STAKE, FENCE FABRIC SHALL BE FOLDED AROUND TWO STAKES ONE FULL TURN AND SECURED WITH FOUR STAPLES.

9. MINIMUM FOUR STAPLES PER STAKE. DIMENSIONS SHOWN ARE TYPICAL.

10. CROSS BARRIERS SHALL BE A MINIMUM OF 1/3 AND A MAXIMUM OF 1/2 THE HEIGHT OF THE LINEAR BARRIER.

11. MAINTENANCE OPENINGS SHALL BE CONSTRUCTED IN A MANNER TO

ENSURE SEDIMENT BEHIND SILT
SECTION A A END STAKE DETAIL (TOP VIEW) 12. JOINING SECTIONS SHALLI NNOT BE PLACEDFATCSUMP LOCATIONS NOTE. FOR MORE INFORMATION SEE CASQA BMP SE-1 13. SANDBAG ROWS AND LAYERS SHALL BE OFFSET TO ELIMINATE GAPS. n SIL T FENCE DETAIL
T✓
N. T S.
6"

REVISIONS DATE APP'D BENCHMARK
RIVERSIDE COUNTY BENCH MARK T-32-81.

LOCATED IN THE NORTHERLY SIDEWALK OF
RANCHO CALIFORNIA ROAD 6" WEST OF THE

CURB RETURN, WEST OF JEFFERSON AVENUE,
20' f EAST OF THE BRIDGE OVER THE
MURRIETA CREEK. FOUND 2 1/2" BRASS DISK
STAMPED "T-32-81 R-6-30-05 EL=
1006-84"
ELEVA TION. 1006. 84'
2" X 2" WAD STAKE.
(SEE NOTES 3 & 5)
FABRIC
(SEE NO
SEAL:

SCALE
Q,OFESS/0�,�
��
o
PLAN t F
Fs \
y

HORIZONTAL

AS SHOWN
No. 45920
s�yT
FOF
CIVIL

VERTICAL

AS SHOWN
CA1-\F

DETAIL A
X 2" WOOD STAKE.

FNOTE3)

PEC WEST PEC WEST PEC WEST
Plans Pr pared Under The Supervision Of
Date: 11126125
-M 601%-
R.C.E. No. 45920 Expires 12IJ1126
i
�z
�LcnLJ
i

PROPOSED
PAD
LEGEND:
® - CONSTIFUCT/ON NOTE
H.P. - HIC'H POINT
1 1 90 - CONTOUR ELEVATION
- RETAINING WALL
- - - RIGHT OF WAY
SLOPE
(2: 1 UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED)
- SILT FENCE
- FIBER ROLL
- GRAVEL BAG VELOCITY REDUCER
- TRIBUTARY AREA
- FLOW ARROWS
- HYDROSEEDING ONLY
48 PER CASQA BMP EC-4
(SLOPES FROM 3 TO 10 VERTICAL FEET)
- - HYDRAULIC MULCH PER CASQA BMP
EC-3 AND HYDROSEEDING PER CASQA
BMP EC-4
(SLOPES GREATER THAN 10 VERTICAL FEET)
4INLET PROTECTION
ivvv vuuu

STRAW ROLLS MUST BE

SEDIMENT ORGANIC MATTER, PLACED ALONG SLOPE
AND N477VE SEEDS ARE CONTOURS
CAPTURED BEHIND THE 3'-4-L_�
ROLLS

ADJACENT ROLLS

SHALL OVERLAP
10' 20' '' (NOT ABUT)

SPACING DEPENDS ON SPACING
SOIL TYPE AND SLOPE l/

STEEPNESS
3", 5" 8" 10" DIA

RSER ROLL
0��
.75" X .75" X 24" MIN. STAKE

LINEAR SLOPE PLACEMENT
2:1
© 10' SPACING
J.1
© 15' SPACING
4:1
© 20' SPACING
NOTES:

1. ROUGHEN ALL SLOPES 3:1 OR STEEPER PER CASQA EC-15 (SHEEPS CLAW, TRACKING OR EQUIVALENT)

2. PLACEMENT AND SECURE STAKING OF THE ROLL IN A TRENCH, 3"-5" DEEP, DUG ON CONTOUR.

RUNOFF MUST NOT BE ALLOWED TO RUN UNDER OR AROUND ROLL
J. START PLACEMENT OF FIBER ROLLS AT BOTTOM OF SLOPE AND CONTINUE TO WORK UPWARDS

4. STAKE FIBER ROLLS AT EACH END AND 4' SPACING THROUGOUT

5. HYDROSEEDING IS NOT REQUIRED WHERE EXPOSED BANK STABILIZATION RIPRAP HAS BEEN

CONSTRUCTED

6. FOR REMOVAL OF FIBER ROLLS, SEE CASQA REMOVAL REQUIREMENTS (PERMANENT PLACEMENT

REQUIREMENTS OF BIODEGRADABLE ENCASEMENT) PROACTIVEENGINEERING FIBER ROLL (CASQA: SE-5) CONSULTANTS WESTING.
� 27404 VIA INDUSTRIA
TEMECULA, CA 92590
N.T.S. 951-200-6840
RECOMMENDED BY: DATE:

NINO ABAD, PRINCIPAL CIVIL ENGINEER
ACCEPTED BY: DATE:

RON MORENO

DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS / CITY ENGINEER
R.C.E. No. 69156

CITY OF TEMECULA DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS
YNEZ ROAD IMPROVEMENTS -PHASE / PROJECT PW23-02

TITLE SHEET INDEX MAP AND NOTES

EROSION CONTROL PLAN
Drawing No.
•
SHEET 9 OF 14
Q

unaergroun(
ervice Hier

BASIS OF BEARINGS

BEARINGS ARE BASED ON THE CALIFORNIA STATE
PLANE COORDINATE SYSTEM (CCS8J4OSA,
ZONE 6 BASED
CALL TOLL FREE LOCALLY ON N.G.S. CORS STATION
1- 8 0 0 - 42 2 - 413 3 PID—DXJ769. DISTANCE SHOWN HEREON ARE GROUND DISTANCES. TO OBTAIN GRID LEVEL DISTANCES,
MULTIPLY DISTANCES BY 1.00008466.

TWO WORKING DAYS BEFORE YOU DIG

CONSTRUCTION RECORD I DATE I BY
Contractor
Inspector
Date Completed

REVISIONS DATE APP'D BENCHMARK
RIVERSIDE COUNTY BENCH MARK T—J2-81.

LOCATED IN THE NORTHERLY SIDEWALK OF
RANCHO CALIFORNIA ROAD 6" WEST OF THE

CURB RETURN, WEST OF JEFFERSON AVENUE,
20' f EAST OF THE BRIDGE OVER THE
MURRIETA CREEK. FOUND 2 1/2" BRASS DISK
STAMPED "T-32-81 R-6-30-05 EL=
1006-84"
ELL VA TION: 1006.84'

YNEZ ROAD
CONSTRUCTION NOTES:
44 INSTALL GRAVEL BAG VELOCITY REDUCER PER DETAIL ON SHEET 9 45 CONSTRUCT SILT FENCE PER DETAIL ON SHEET 9 AND CASQA BMP SE-5 46 INSTALL FIBER ROLLS PER DETAIL ON SHEET 9
47 INSTALL GRAVEL AND WIRE MESH FILTER FOR CURB INLET PER DETAIL ON SHEET 9 48 PROVIDE HYDRAULIC MULCH PER CASQA BMP EC—J AND HYDROSEEDING PER CASQA BMP EC-4
SSEAL:

SCALE
QRpFESS/�
PLAN �F

HORIZONTAL
AS SHOWN '��` No. 45920
VERTICAL civn- �Q
AS SHOWN 9� bF CALF

PEC WEST PEC WEST
Plans Pr pared Under The Supervision Of
M_ Date:

CHECKED BY

PEC WEST
11126125
R.C.E. No. 45920 Expires 12IJ1126
RECOMMENDED BY: DATE:

NINO ABAD, PRINCIPAL CIVIL ENGINEER
ACCEPTED BY: DATE:

RON MORENO

DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS / CITY ENGINEER
R.C.E. No. 69156
I
�5
' 0
SCALE: 1 "=40'

CITY OF TEMECULA DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS
YNEZ ROAD IMPROVEMENTS —PHASE I PROJECT PW23-02
YNEZ ROAD STA 101 +99.21 TO STA 117+61.56

EROSION CONTROL PLAN
' 80' 120'

PROACTI VE ENGINEERING
CONSUL TANTS WEST, INC.
27404 VIA INDUSTRIA
TEMECULA, CA 92590
95I-200-6840
Drawing No.

C-9 I>
N
0 Z
SHEET 100V 14 12

Underground Service Alert

CALL TOLL FREE
1- 800- 422- 4133

TWO WORKING DAYS BEFORE YOU DIG

CONSTRUCTION RECORD I DATE I BY
Contractor
Inspector
Date Completed
I I
I
I i I �
APN 944-330-016
I rII�

RI GHT-OF-WAY
SRM
CDFW

JURISDICTIONAL
LIMITS
w
° 6 �
FOI IL
�5
W T W�4W W T W ® W T
D =101+00 �� 102+0 � s — 103 OG
101 +34.69 YNEZ —
CL INTERSECTION �, z
IERI�AISia ROAD G
-- — --- °
E
P� T-
7RIGHT-OF-WAY °
0 ❑
TIERRA
APN 944-331-026 VISTA
ROAD
A 944-2 -016
b I
W I`
� I
� 3 4 2 I
—FO FU—
F T
—w
Q �
03 SS— SS — SS SS�-1 5'
Uj

EXISTING SIGN
E T —
I

RIGHT -OF- WA Y
USACE

JURISDICTIONAL
LIMITS
ARIV 944-330-048
5 oI J 3 5
2 „ v,
o
Lr) —_ o
W T W-

LXISIING AC BERM
T
I

PARCEL BOUNDARY
i
i
I
I
I
APN 944-290-096 C�
FO
FO
_w__ W W w
0 104+00 ss G --
-w w w w w w w
EXISTING 6" CURB YNEZ ROAD
-=AND GUTTER —_____ --_=
E E -
--- -- T = — T7RIGHT-0—F--WAY
APN 944-334-028
T-OF-WAY OUNDARY � � R/GH _ PARCEL B \ I � � APN 944-363-010 EXISTING APN 944-352-015 `,I �I +� STREET LIGHT
I

I RIGHT-OF-WAY
G
T —
rn
UU s ss s SS_SS ss ss�TM s
w d- w w w w-0)

G STING
— — — —rS7—

REXISTING

LIGHT TQ)
�T------ E
I�
o� m
LL
2 0l
i
n — —_
w
s — ss oGY'SS— Q
w w— 0)
-- �—
J
E
1 APN 944-352-015

PARCEL BOUNDARY
I
I
I
1 3
^I W
w
-EXISTING

TRAFFIC SIGNAL
— W

STREET LIGHT CONSTRUCTION NOTES
O FURNISH AND INSTALL STREET LIGHT FIXTURE, AND GE LIGHTGRID NODE PER CITY OF CONTRACTORS NOTE." TEMECULA STANDARD DRAWING NO. 800, 801, AND CITY OF TEMECULA STREET AND CONTRACTOR TO POTHOLE AND VERIFY ALL EXISTING UTILITIES Ilk SAFETY LIGHTING GUIDELINES. PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION. UTILITY LOCATIONS ARE APPROXIMATE 20 FURNISH AND INSTALL #3 112 PULL BOX PER CALTRANS STANDARD PLANS ES-8. AND REQUIRE FIELD VERIFICATION.

O FURNISH AND INSTALL 2" PVC CONDUIT (SCHEDULE 80) WITH PULL ROPE PER CITY OF TEMECULA STREET AND SAFETY LIGHTING GUIDELINES.

T INSTALL 2-XHHW-218 AND 1-#10 (G) CONDUCTORS.

T INSTALL 4-XHHW-218 AND 2-110 (G) CONDUCTORS.
40' 0 40' 80' 120'
© FURNISH AND INSTALL 15E PULL BOX PER CALTRANS STANDARD PLAN ES-8.

T FURNISH AND INSTALL 2-2" PVC CONDUIT (SCHEDULE 80) WITH PULL ROPE PER SCALE: 1 "=40' BASIS OF BEARINGS CITY OF TEMECULA STREET AND SAFETY LIGHTING GUIDELINES.

BEARINGS ARE BASED ON THE CALIFORNIA STATE ® FURNISH AND INSTALL METER SERVICE PEDESTAL. PROVIDE 100A, 120/24OV, 1 PHASE, PLANE COORDINATE SYSTEM (CCS83), ZONE 6 BASED 3W PANEL PER UTILITY SERVICE ORDER. FOR CIRCUIT PANEL, MAIN BREAKER SHALL BE LOCALLY ON N.G.S. CORS STATION "ROSA, ON CIRCUIT 1,3. LIGHTING SHALL BE ON CIRCUITS 2,4 AND 5,6. PHOTOELECTRIC CONTROL PID-DX3769. DISTANCE SHOWN HEREON ARE GROUND SHALL BE ON CIRCUIT BREAKER 12. STREETLIGHTS TO BE CONTROLLED BY MASTER PHOTO DISTANCES. TO OBTAIN GRID LEVEL DISTANCES, PROACTIVE ENGINEERING MULTIPLY DISTANCES BY 1.00008466. CELL/CONTACTOR AT SERVICE ABD BY-PASS SWITCH INSIDE METER PEDESTAL. CONSULTANTS WEST, INC. 27404 VIA INDUSTRIA
TEMECULA, CA 92590
95I-200-6840

REVISIONS DATE APP'D BENCHMARK
RIVERSIDE COUNTY BENCH MARK T-32-81.

LOCATED IN THE NORTHERLY SIDEWALK OF
RANCHO CALIFORNIA ROAD 6" WEST OF THE

CURB RETURN, WEST OF JEFFERSON AVENUE,
20' f EAST OF THE BRIDGE OVER THE
MURRIETA CREEK. FOUND 2 1/2" BRASS DISK
STAMPED "T-32-81 R-6-JO-05 EL=
1006-84"
ELEVA TION: 1006.84'
SEAL:

SCALE
Q,OFESS/On,,,
��
o
PLAN 4Fy F
Fs \
� y

HORIZONTAL

AS SHOWN
No. 45920
yT
FOF
CIVIL

VERTICAL

AS SHOWN
CA1-\F

PEC WEST PEC WEST PEC WEST
Plans Pr pared Under The Supervision Of
-M Date: 11126125
R.C.E. No. 45920 Expires 12IJ1126
RECOMMENDED BY: DATE:

NINO ABAD, PRINCIPAL CIVIL ENGINEER
ACCEPTED BY: DATE:

RON MORENO

DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS / CITY ENGINEER
R.C.E. No. 69156
CITY OF TEMECULA Drawing No.

DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS
YNEZ ROAD IMPROVEMENTS —PHASE / PROJECT PW23-02 C-1 0
YNEZ ROAD STA 101 +99.21 TO STA 117+61.56
STREET LIGHT PLAN SHEET 1 1OF 14
rn
3 c
0 t
J
V)
i
U)
0 a
E
in
0 0
0 C
0 a
x
w
0 0
N
0 0
0 0
N
0 Z
0 Q
iD
00 E
a
Ln
N
0 N
N
0 z

P-7 //4'
W ey
Z�i
Q
z ROAD BE WIDTH TO THIS POINT Ad
m
W I
Z
6• P-9' i
IN
I' RADIUS 4 I' RADIUS
TOP OF CURB Z 3'
A 4' PAVING
/2% \O a .
/ 4
P-6"
NOTES:

I, CONCRETE SHALL BE CLASS 560-C-3250

2. TRANS/ T/ON TO TYPE A-6 CURB AND GUTTER AT ALL CURB RETURNS, EXCEPT WHERE SIDEWALK RAMPS ARE PROVIDED AND AT ALL CUL-DE-SACS WITH DRAINAGE STRUCTURES.

3. MINIMUM PERMISSIBLE GRADE SHALL BE 0.5%, UNLESS OTHERWISE APPROVED BY THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS PRIOR TO DESIGN.

4. SEE STANDARD NO. 206 FOR EXPANSION JOINT DETAILS

5. UPPER /2' OF NATIVE MATERIAL BELOW CURB 8 GUTTER
SHALL BE COMPACTED TO 95% COMPACTION.

APPROVED BY.- of TEnf'c�,
�� CITY OF TEMECULA
MARCH 30, 2020 DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS
PATRICK THOMAS`, DIRECTOR OF PUBL/C WORI fS/CITY ENGINEER DATE r R.C.E. NO. 44223 '
0 Z
-o
0 R g(d)
8(d) f
90° BEND BEND 180° BEND
48(d) * IN CONCRETE R= 3(d) FOR #3 THRU #8
52(d) MASONRY (U.N.O.) FOR #9 THRU #11
R= 5�d� FOR #14 THRU #18
* INCREASE LENGTH BY 30%
6' LAP SPLICE WIRE TIE END FOR TOP BARS (HORIZONTAL

BARS SO PLACED THAT MORE
THAN 12 INCHES OF FRESH
?' CONCRETE IS CAST IN THE
z z0 `MEEMBSE)R BELOW, EXCLUDE
:3U)
w uJ
0 0 3
O � OQ-
��J'Li� TIE OR HOOK
2 00 CROSSTIE
D
z
� O
D= 4(d) FOR #3 THRU #5
Z z co D= 6(d) FOR #6 THRU #8
Q w Xz
w O0 -2 NOTES:
o - PUT CROSSTIE W/ EACH
`0 STIRRUP ALT. 135° BENDS

STIRRUP O - ALL BENDS SHALL BE

MADE COLD
R)TYP. REINFORCING DETAILS D5124180117 1
CONTROL JOINT (g) 5 6 7D

AT TOP OF WALL
°

TYPICAL CONTROL JOINT

CONTROL JOINTS SHALL BE
SPACED @ 20'-0" MAX. U.N.O.

WALL ELEVATION
°
a
O
° °Q °
°Q
4(d) OR
2 1/2" MIN.
1/2" WALL JOINT
t

CAULKING DETAIL
to
5 6 1. CONCRETE WALL.

2. SEE DETAILS ABOVE.

3. CONTROL JOINT ASPHALT

IMPREGNATED FILLER
WITH SEALANT (TYP.) FROM

TOP OF THE WALL TO THE
7 3 1 TOP OF FOOTING PER

MANUFACTURER'S
SPECIFICATION.

4. CONCRETE FOOTING.
i
°

5. ADDITIONAL #6 VERTICAL BAR
°

ON EACH SIDE OF CONTROL
a
JOINT.

6. TERMINATE HORIZONTAL
°
REINFORCEMENT 2" FROM
°
4 CONTROL JOINT.

7. CONT. TOP BARS/CHORD
° _
a
BARS PER WALL SECTION.
° ° °

8. SEE CAULKING DETAIL.

9. BACKER ROD.
a
°
a

10. VERT. & HORZ. REINF. SEE
°
SECTION WALL.
a
°
TYP. CONCRETE WALL
n CONTROL JOINT DETAIL 7x 1 ;PR 2
Underground Service Alert

CALL TOLL FREE
1-800-422-4133

TWO WORKING DAYS BEFORE YOU DIG

CONSTRUCTION RECORD I DATE I BY
Contractor
Inspector
Date Completed
3 BASIS OF BEARINGS

SPECIAL INSPECTION BY A SPECIAL INSPECTOR FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF CMU STRUCTURES ARE REQUIRED AND SPECIFIED IN THE FOLLOWING TABLE:

SPECIAL INSPECTION TABLE FOR

CMU STRUCTURES

FREQUENCY

REFERENCE

INSPECTION TASK

FOR CRITERIA
Continuous
Periodically
TMS 402
TMS 602

1. As masonry construction begins,
verify that the following are in
Compliance:
a. Proportions of site prepared mortar.
✓
Art. 2.1, 2.6 A, &

2.6 C
b. Grade and size of prestressing
V
Art. 2.4 B &
tendons and anchorages

2.4 H
c. Grade, type and size of
reinforcement, connectors,
V
Art. 3.4 &
anchor bolts, and prestressing

3.6 A
tendons and anchorages
d. Prestressing technique
✓
Art. 3.6 B
e. Properties of thin -bed mortar
✓
for AAC masonry
Art. 2.1 CA
f. Sample panel construction
Art. 1.6 D

2. Prior to grouting, verify that the
following are in compliance:
a. Grout space.

V3.2
Art. 3.2 D &
F
b. Placement of prestressing tendons
✓
Sec. 10.8 &
Art. 2.4 &
and anchorages.

10.9 3.6
c. Placement reinforcement,
✓
Sec. 6.1, 6.3.1
Art. 3.2 E &
connectors, and anchor bolts.

6.3.6, & 6.3.7

3.4 d. Proportions of site -prepared
Art. 2.6 B &
grout and prestressing grout
�/

2.4 G.1.b
for bonded tendons.

3. Verify compliance of the
following during construction:
a. Materials and procedures
V
Art. 1.5
with the approved submittals.
b. Placement of masonry units
✓
and mortar joint construction.

Art. 3.3 B
c. Size and location of
✓
structural members.

Art. 3.3 F
d. Type, size and location of
anchors, including other
details of anchorage of
✓
Sec. 1.2.1(e)
masonry to structural

6.2.1 & 6.3.1
members, frames or other
construction.
e. Welding of reinforcement.
✓
Sec. 6.1.6.1.2
f. Preparation, construction, and
protection of masonry during
cold weather (temp. below
Art. 1.8 C &
40°F(4.4°C)) or hot weather

1.8 D
(temp. above 90°(32.2°C)).
g. Application and measurement
✓
of presstressing force
Art. 3.6 B
h. Placement of grout and
✓
Art. 3.5 &
prestressing grout for bonded

3.5 C
tendons is in compliance.
i. Placement of AAC masonry
✓
Art. 3.3 B.&
units and construction of

3.3 F. 1. b
thin -bed mortar joints.

Art. 1.4 B.2.a.3

4. Observe preparation of grout

1.4 B.2.b.3
specimens, mortar specimens,
✓

1.4 B.2.c.3
and/or prisms.

1.4 B.3, &

1.4 BA

5. Prior to construction, verification
V
of compliance submittals.

Art. 1.5

6. Prior to construction, verification
of fm and faac, except where
✓
Art. 1.4 B
specifically exempted by the
code.

7. During construction, verification
of Slump flow and Visual
Stability Index(VSI) when self-
Art. 1.5 &
consolidating grout is delivered

1.6.3 tothe project site.

For SI: °C = (°F-32) /1.8

REVISIONS DATE APP'D BENCHMARK
RIVERSIDE COUNTY BENCH MARK T-32-81.

LOCATED IN THE NORTHERLY SIDEWALK OF
RANCHO CALIFORNIA ROAD 6" WEST OF THE

CURB RETURN, WEST OF JEFFERSON AVENUE,
20' f EAST OF THE BRIDGE OVER THE
MURRIETA CREEK. FOUND 2 1/2" BRASS DISK
STAMPED "T-32-81 R-6-30-05 EL=
1006-84"
ELEVATION: 1006.84'
TYPE

CONTINUOUS

PERIODIC
Reference
IBC

SPECIAL

SPECIAL
Standard
Reference

INSPECTION

1. Inspect reinforcement, including prestressing
✓
ACI 318
Ch. 20,25.2,25.3,
1908.4
tendons, and verify placement

26.6.1-26.6.3

2. Reinforcing bar welding:
a. Verify weldability of reinforcing bars other than
✓
ASTM A 706;
AWS D1.4
CI 318: 26.6.
b. Inspect single -pass fillet welds, maximum
✓
5/16"; and
c. Inspect all other welds.

3. Inspect anchors post -installed in concrete.
�/
CI 318: 17.8.

4. Inspect anchors post -installed in hardened concrete members.
a. Adhesive anchors installed in horizontally
or upwardly inclined orientations to resist
V/
ACI 318: 17.8.2.
sustained tension loads.
b. Mechanical anchors and adhesive
✓
anchors not defined in 4.a .

CI 318: 17.8.

5. Verify use of required design mix.
✓
ACI : 19,

90.1,190

2.4.4 26.4.3,6
908.2,1908.

6. Prior to concrete placement, fabricate specimens
ASTM C 172
for strength tests, and determine the temperature
V
ASTM C 31
1908.10
of the concrete.

ACI 318: 26.5, 26.12

7. Inspect concrete and shotcrete placement for
✓
ACI 318: 26.5
1908.6,
1908.7,
proper application techniques.
1908.8

8. Verify maintenance of specified curing temperature
✓
ACI 318:
1908.9
and techniques.

26.5.3-26.5.5

9. Inspect prestressed concrete for:

ACI 318: 26.10
a. Application of prestressing forces; and
V
b. Grouting of bonded prestressing tendons.

10. Inspect erection of precast concrete
✓
ACI 318:26.9
members.

11. Verify in -situ concrete strength, prior to
stressing of tendons in post -tensioned
concrete and prior to removal of shores
✓
ACI 318: 26.11.2
and forms from beams and structural
slabs.

12. Inspect formwork for shape, location and
ACI 318:
dimensions of the concrete member being
✓

26.11.1.2(b)
formed.

SPECIAL INSPECTION BY A SPECIAL INSPECTOR FOR EXISTING SITE SOIL CONDITIONS,

FILL PLACEMENT & LOAD BEARING REQUIREMENTS SHALL BE PERFORMED PER THE FOLLOWING TABLE

SPECIAL INSPECTION TABLE FOR EXISTING SITE SOIL

CONDITIONS
TYPE
Continuous
Periodic
Special Inspection
Special Inspection

1. Verify materials below footings are
adequate to achieve the design bearing
✓
capacity per soils report.

2. Verify excavations are extended to proper
depth & have reached proper material
✓
per soils report.

3. Perform classification & testing of
compacted fill materials per soils report.
✓

4. Verify use of proper materials, densities &
lift thicknesses during placement &
compaction of compacted fill per soils
report.
✓
Exception:

Special inspection is not required during
placement of controlled fill having a total
depth of 12 inches or less.

5. Prior to placement of compacted fill,
inspect subgrade & verify that site has
been prepared properly per soils report.
✓
SCALE SEAL: DESIGNED BY DRAWN BY CHECKED BY
Qa�FES&O. PEC WEST PEC WEST PEC WEST
HORIZONTAL �c 2J* N�Y�tiy� Plans Prepared Under The Supervision Of m
s�2
AS SHOWN � m Date:
* Exp. 27
VERTICAL ��q Ctvt� 4�'�P
AS SHOWN FCP, VF R.C.E. No. Expires 121JI126

FOUNDATION
Soils Foundation engineering has been predicated on data and recommendations contained in soils report by LGC Valley, Inc.

SOILS REPORT NO. 174002-02, DATE: 5/11/2018 and 12/02/2019. This report is considered part of calculations and construction documents and is to be adhered to in all of its recommendations and requirements. Verify minimum foundation depth, width, reinforcing steel and additional expansive soil requirements with valid soils report and if they are any more restrictive, then they shall supersede the Gouvis Engineering minimums. Soil engineer should review and approve all retaining walls prior to construction.

DESIGN CRITERIA:

ACTIVE EFP (LEVEL) = 35 PCF SOILS DENSITY = 120 PCF
ACTIVE EFP (2:1) = 50 PCF BEARING CAPACITY= 150OPSF
PASSIVE EFP = xxx PCF �-l= 0.35
fc = 5400 PSI (see note #4 under reinforced concrete)

1. U.N.O. all cells containing reinforcing steel shall be grouted solid.

2. All portion of wall retaining shall be grouted solid.

3. All footing shall be poured on undisturbed ground or undisturbed engineered compacted fill. A field soil memo is required from a representative of the geotechnical consultant for soil inspection of the footing excavation to confirm that the footing is excavated into suitable bearing material.

4. Wall shall be laid true and plumb.

5. Provisions shall be made for adjoining construction.

6. All laps and splices shall be 48 bar diameter min.

7. All construction shall be done in accordance with applicable sections of the 2022 CALIFORNIA BUILDING CODE and ACI standard 318-19.

8. All bars shall be bent cold.

9. Contractor shall verify compatibility of design with existing conditions prior to placement of footing steel.

10. Backfill shall be per soils engineer's recommendations.

11. Subdrain shall be 4" perforated PVC schedule 40 pipe with 1 CF/LF of 3/4" crushed rock or equivalent wrapped in filter fabric. The filter must overlap 12" at ends of the filter. Outlet to riprap at end of wall.

12. Waterproof back of all the retaining walls w/2 coats of asphaltic emulsion per manufacturer's specifications.

13. Slab control joints shall be placed at all angle points and a maximum 12'-0" o.c.

14. Backfilling shall not be permitted until at least 7 days after the walls are built and fc has reached min. 2500 psi and grout has obtained min. 2000 psi compression strength.

15. Retaining walls are not designed for surcharge of paving equipment.

Equipment must be kept back from top of the wall minimum distance equal to wall height.

16. For curved portion of the walls, footing reinforcing shall be placed radially, and spacing measured along the centerline of the masonry wall.

17. Outlet of any surface drainage pipe into the subdrain system is absolutely prohibited.

18. Concrete cylinder tests from project pour, in accordance with the CBC shall be submitted for review and approval by the project soils engineer and the local jurisdictional authorities, prior to any backfilling.

19. Step footing shall be in even block increments.

20. Footings shall be poured continuously.

SPECIAL INSPECTION:

1. In addition to the regular inspection, the following items will also require special inspection in accordance with Sec. 1704 of the Building Code.

2. Soils compliance prior to the foundation inspection, pre -stress foundation, high strength steel and concrete.

3. All inspection and tests shall be performed by a qualified testing agency retained by the owner.

4. The special inspector shall be qualified and approved by the building department and acceptable to the architect.

5. The special inspector shall observe work assigned for conformance to the approved design drawings and specification.

6. The special inspector shall furnish inspection report to building department, engineer and architect of record. Copies of the report shall be available at the job site at all time.

7. Final reports for all inspections and testing must be provided by the special inspector. Final reports shall document completion of all inspection and correction of all noted discrepancies.

8. The duties of special inspector shall be in conformance with the requirements of section 1704 of the California Building Code.

9. Contractor shall be responsible for all expenses due to any premature notification of inspection which results in additional site visits.

10. Failure of notification by the contractor for inspection on a timely basis may result in complete removal and replacement of all work performed at contractors expenses.

Site visits by the structural engineer do not constitute an inspection.

Special inspection required for the following items:

SPECIAL INSPECTIONS AND VERIFICATIONS BY A SPECIAL INSPECTOR ARE

REQUIRED FOR CONCRETE CONSTRUCTION AND SPECIFIED IN THE FOLLOWING TABLE (ONLY APPLICABLE IF THE STRUCTURAL DESIGN OF FOOTING IS BASED ON fc > 2500psi) SEE NOTE #4 UNDER REINFORCED CONCRETE.

RECOMMENDED BY: DATE:

AVLIN ODVIAR, PRINCIPAL CIVIL ENGINEER
ACCEPTED BY: DATE:

RON MORENO

DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS / CITY ENGINEER
R.C.E. No. 69156

GENERAL REQUIREMENTS
All material and workmanship shall comply with the following:

1. These General Requirements unless otherwise noted on plans or specifications.

2. California Building Code, 2022.

3. All applicable Local, State and Federal Codes, Ordinances, Laws, Regulations and Protective Covenants governing the site of work.

4. Standard Specifications of ASTM as noted herein are required by the Building Code or CBC 2022.

5. In case of conflict, the more stringent requirement shall govern.

6. On site Verification of all dimensions and conditions shall be the responsibility of the contractor and sub -contractors. Noted dimensions take precedent over scale of drawings.

7. Engineer or architect of record is to be notified immediately by the contractor should any question arise pertaining the working drawings and/or specifications.

8. No deviations from these requirements and structural details shall be made without the written approval of Gouvis Engineering Consulting Group.

Approval by the inspector does not constitute authority to deviate from plans or specifications.

9. The design, adequacy, and safety of erection bracing, shoring, temporary supports, etc., is the sole responsibility of the contractor, and has not been considered by the architect or Engineer.

The contractor shall provide the necessary bracing to provide stability prior to the application of the aforementioned materials. Observation visits to the site by the architect or structural engineer shall not imply the assumption of any responsibility in this regard. The builder has requested, contracted with and is compensating Gouvis Engineering Consulting Group for the limited services of providing the minimum structural engineering drawings required, when combined with the other builders consultants drawings, to obtain a building permit for this project. These drawings are not intended to, nor do they, detail all conditions, identify all materials, or define or limit the scope of work required to complete the project. The builder has requested, accepts, and represents that he will select all materials and manufactures, qualify and select all subcontractors and installers, direct all ways and means of construction, and provide all additional information, above and beyond these drawings, required to complete the project in conformance with all governing agencies and the work will meet or exceed accepted industry standards.

10. Gouvis Engineering shall have no liability for waterproofing or moisture transmission issues, whether related to concret slabs, footings, foundations, or otherwise. Owner, Soils Engineer and Contractor shall be entirely responsible for such issues, and will defend and indemnify Gouvis Engineering against all such claims.

REINFORCED CONCRETE

GENERAL

1. All reinforced concrete materials and construction shall conform to chapter 19, CBC.

MATERIALS

2. Cement shall conform to CBC 1903 of CBC and shall correspond to that on which the selection of concrete proportions were based.

3. Concrete aggregates shall conform to CBC 1903.

4. Use type V cement for concrete in contact with soil containing sulfate. (min. fc =4500 psi, 28 days). Refer to section 1904 of Building Code for special exposure conditions as required by Soils Engineer & see Corrosion Engineer's recommendations for concrete exposed to corrosion.

5. Reinforcing steel shall conform to ASTM A615. Grade 40 for sizes #3 and Grade 60 for sizes #4 and larger.

6. Dowels shall be equal in size and spacing.

STRENGTH

7. Concrete shall be proportioned to provide a minimum compressive strength, fc, equal to 4500 psi (28 days), unless noted otherwise.

8. All reinforcing, dowels, holdowns, and other inserts shall be secured in position and approved by the local building official prior to the pouring of any concrete.

Min. concrete cover for reinforcing:
a. Concrete, placed against earth not formed - 3"
b. Concrete formed or troweled - 2"
c. Walls and curbs - 1 1/2"
d. Slab on grade - at center

CONCRETE MASONRY

GENERAL

1. All concrete masonry materials and construction shall be in accordance with Building Code, Chapter 21.

MATERIALS

2. All materials making up finished concrete masonry construction shall conform to standards required by Building Code Sec. 2103.

3. Mortar shall be type M or S as applicable and conforming with ASTM C270 and shall be proportioned per Article 2.1 &

2.6A of Specification for Masonry Structures (TMS 602-16).

4. Grout shall comply with Article 2.2 of TMS 602-16 and shall attain a minimum compression strength at 28 days of 2000 psi or the required compression, fm, whichever is greater. The compressive strength of grout shall be determined in accordance with ASTM C-1019.

5. Concrete masonry units shall conform to ASTM C90 for load bearing concrete masonry units. Concrete brick shall conform to ASTM C55, Specifications for Concrete Building Brick.

6. Grade N concrete bricks are for use as architectural veneer and facing, limited to in exterior walls.

7. Grade S concrete bricks are for general use where moderate strength and resistance to frost action and moisture penetration is required.

STRENGTH

8. The specified compressive strength of masonry, fm, shall be 2000 psi, unless noted otherwise.

If higher fm is noted, it shall be verified by prism tests as required in Article 1.4 Specification of Masonry Structures (TMS 602-16).

9. Reinforcing steel shall conform to ASTM A615. Grade 40 for sizes #3 and grade 60 for sizes #4 and larger.

SPECIAL INSPECTION

10. Special inspection for concrete masonry construction shall be carried out in accordance with Building Code Section 1704 and requirements in Special Inspection tables on sheet SN-1. Masonry compressive strength, fm shall be verified by Unit strength method or Prism test method prior to and during construction as described in Article 1.4 Specification for Masonry Structures (TMS 602-16).

PROACTIVE ENGINEERING
CONSULTANTS WEST, INC.
27404 VIA INDUSTRIA
TEMECULA, CA 92590
95I-200-6840
CITY OF 1 EMEC ULA DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS
�YIVEZ ROAD IMPROVEMENTS -PHASE / PROJECT, PW23-02
= RETAINING WALL PLAN
'i fa8e
0 Drawing No
SHEET12 OF 13
■

Underground
ervice Alert

BASIS OF BEARINGS

BEARINGS ARE BASED ON THE CALIFORNIA STATE
PLANE COORDINATE SYSTEM (CCS83), ZONE 6 BASED
CALL TOLL FREE LOCALLY ON N.G.S. COBS STATION "ROSA,
1- 8 0 0 - 42 2 - 413 3 PID—DX3769. DISTANCE SHOWN HEREON ARE GROUND DISTANCES. TO OBTAIN GRID LEVEL DISTANCES,
MULTIPLY DISTANCES BY 1.00008466.

TWO WORKING DAYS BEFORE YOU DIG

CONSTRUCTION RECORD IDATE I BY
Contractor
Inspector
Date Completed
REVISIONS DATE APP'D BENCHMARK SEAL:

SCALE
RIVERSIDE COUNTY BENCH MARK T-32-81. QROFESS�p�
LOCATED IN THE NORTHERLY SIDEWALK OF HORIZONTAL NG(j
RANCHO CALIFORNIA ROAD 6" WEST OF THE tJ �- 0
CURB RETURN, WEST OF JEFFERSON AVENUE, AS SHOWN 64238
20' f EAST OF THE BRIDGE OVER THE * EXP. 27
MURRIETA CREEK. FOUND 2 1/2" BRASS DISK
STAMPED`s'�y� Ctv%�
1006-84" "T-32-81 R-6-30-05 EL= VERTICAL F OF o
CA��F
ELEVATION: 1006.84' AS SHOWN

CHECKED BY

PEC WEST I PEC WEST I PEC WEST
Plans Prepared Under The Supervision Of
Date:

RECOMMENDED BY: DATE:

AVLIN ODVIAR, PRINCIPAL CIVIL ENGINEER
ACCEPTED BY: DATE:

RON MORENO

DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS / CITY ENGINEER
R.C.E. No. Expires 12/31126 R.C.E. No
69156
E
Q
C
c
EN
n
II
II
II
II
21 I I
II
II
NOTES:
- WATERPROOFING, EXTENT OF BACKFILL,

BACKFILL MATERIAL & DRAINAGE SYSTEM

TO BE APPROVED BY GEOTECHNICAL
ENGINEERING.
- EDGE DISTANCE TO REBAR INDICATED IS
CLEAR DIMENSION.

CONCRETE STRENGTH 4,500 PSI

RETAINING WALL
VDATION (Ft)
B C L43'
13'-0"26-
VT
Y3
Y4
#5@8"O.C.
#6@7"O.C.

JOUS
4LL , SEE TABLE
BELOW FOR THICKNESS.

3. Y1 - VERT. BARS PER SCHEDULE

DOWEL INTO FOOTING W/STD
HOOKAS SHOWN.

4. X1 HORIZ. BARS PER SCHEDULE.

5. Y2 - VERT. BARS PER SCHEDULE.

6. Y3 - VERT. BARS PER SCHEDULE.

7. X2 HORIZ. BARS PER SCHEDULE.

8. Y4 - BARS PER SCHEDULE.

9. X3 - BARS PER SCHEDULE.

10. X4 - BARS PER SCHEDULE.

11. #4 @ 12" O.C. T & B.

12. #4 @ 12" O.C.

13. ADD #6.

14. 2X10 CONT. SHEAR KEY.

15. 18" COMPACTED NATIVE BACK -FILL.

16. CARLISLE OR MIRADRAIN OR
TREMCO WATERPROOFING.

17. COMPACTED BACKFILL APPROVED
BY SOILS ENGINEER.

18. SUBDRAIN SHALL BE 4" PERFORATED PVC
SCHEDULE 40 PIPE WITH 1 CF/LF OF 3/4"

CRUSHED ROCK OR EQUIVALENT WRAPPED
IN FILTER FABRIC. THE FILTER MUST
OVERLAP 12" AT ENDS OF THE FILTER.

OUTLET TO RIPRAP AT END OF WALL.

19. NOT USE.

20. CONCRETE V DITCH PER DETAIL 65
ON SHEET 4 (C-3)

21. FENCE AND CONNECTION TO WALLS

THAT ARE NEEDED FOR THE CONTRACTO
TO CONSTRUCT.

22. 12'-0" DEEP CUT-OFF WALL.
i

PROACTIVE ENGINEERING
CONSULTANTS WEST, INC.
27404 VIA INDUSTRIA
TEMECULA, CA 92590
95I-200-6840
C I T Y O 1 E-I ME C ULA DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS
YIVEZ ROAD IMPROVEMENTS —PHASE / PROJECT, PW23-02

RETAINING WALL PLAN
Drawing No
SHEET 13 OF 13

EE M T Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
❑� CONSULTING Ynez Road Improvement -Phase I, PW23-02
Appendix I
Response to Comment

Appendix I Responses to Comments on Draft Initial Study / Mitigated Negative Declaration The City of Temecula (City), as CEQA Lead Agency, distributed the Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (Initial Study/MND) for the "Ynez Road Improvements Phase 1 Project (Between Rancho Vista Road and Tierra Vista Road)" for public review on December 10, 2025, initiating a 30-day public review period ending on January 9, 2026. The document was made available online, and at the City's office. A total of one letter was received before the close of the public comment period. Pursuant to California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines §15088(a), "the lead agency shall evaluate comments on environmental issues received from persons who reviewed the Draft EIR and shall prepare a written response." All comment letters received on the Draft MND, including any letters received after the close of the public comment period, were evaluated for environmental issues, and written responses to comments on environmental issues were prepared. A list of the comment letters received, including details on the agency, organization, or individual that submitted the letter and the date of the letter is provide in Table 1-1 - Comment Letters on the Draft Initial Study/MND for the Ynez Road Improvements Phase 1 Project (Between Rancho Vista Road and Tierra Vista Road). This appendix presents written responses to comments on environmental issues raised in these letters. The written responses describe the disposition of significant environmental issues raised, as required by CEQA Guidelines §15088(c).

Table J-1 - Comment Letters on the Draft Initial Study/MND for the Ynez Road Improvements Phase 1 Project (Between Rancho Vista Road and Tierra Vista Road)
Letter
Number Public Agency, Organization or Individual Date of Letter/Email A I California Department of Transportation I January 7, 2026 Where comments necessitated revisions to the Draft Initial Study/MND, as well as minor administrative technical edits to correct typographical errors, the added text is reflected in shaded underlined text (added text) and deletions are reflected in shaded strikeout text (d^'�ext). Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section15088.5, none of the comments received during the comment period involve any new significant impacts or "significant new information" that would require recirculation of the Initial Study/MND.

Appendix I — Initial Study Ynez Road Page 1 November 2025/Revised January 2026

Comment Letter A — California Dept of Transportation
California Department of Transportation
DISTRICT 8
464 WEST4TH STREET
SAN BERNARDINO CA, 92401
(909) 925-7520
www.dot.caaov
January 7, 2026
City of Temecula
Planning Division
Attn: Emalee Manning
41000 Main St,
Temecula, CA 92590
Response to Comment Letter A
Response A-1: Comment noted. Page 3, Section 1.3 has been revised to cite the City of Temecula's Multi -use Trails and Bikeways Master Plan Update.

Response A-2: The project incorporates Class II bike lanes within the Route & Postmile #: 1-15/ PM 4.678 project area and therefore fills the bike lane gaps within the project Cross Street: Ynez Rd & Rancho Vista Rd limits. The draft IS/MND was edited to cite the City of Temecula Multi- GTS ID:38808
SCH #:2025120517 Use Trails and Bikeways Master Plan Update on page 3 (PDF page 10), section 1.3
Subject: Caltrans LDR Branch Review of the Ynez Road Improvements Phase 1 Project (PW23-02) The California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) Local Development Review (LDR) Branch has completed its review of the Ynez Road Improvements Phase 1 Project Mitigated Negative Declaration (MIND). The project site is located in the City of Temecula on Ynez Road between Tierra Vista Road and Rancho Vista Road.

The City of Temecula proposes to widen about 1,763 feet of the east side of Ynez Road between Tierra Vista Road and Rancho Vista Road to match the existing four -lane roadway. The project includes new sidewalks, curb and gutter, streetlights, Class II bike lanes, raised medians with turn pockets, utility relocations, and grading to construct and maintain a retaining wall on adjacent private property. It will require permanent easements on portions of APNs 944-290-17 and 944- 290-16 and will include mitigation for impacts to a nearby drainage feature.

Based on the information available, we are submitting the following comments and recommendations for your consideration:

Active Transportation & Complete Streets
Per IS/ MIND document, please see the following comments:

Page 3 ends

o Should incorporate and cite the City of Temecula Multi -Use Trails and Bikeways A-1 Master Plan Update, given that it is a public document.

Given existing bike lane gaps and efforts to create continuity between existing bicycle facilities on Ynez Road, it would be helpful to the bicyclist and motorized scooter users (to be compliant with CVC 21235) to have bicycle lane gaps filled as much as possible, since bicycle lanes exist on both sides of Ynez Rd. south of Preece Ln. and north of Dlr Dr., but there are gaps between A-2 "Improving lives and communities through transportation" Appendix I — Initial Study Ynez Road Page 2 November 2025 /Revised January 2026

Comment Letter A — California Dept of Transportation
those cross streets north of the project location.

Equitable Access
If any Caltrans facilities are impacted by the project, they must comply with American Disabilities Act (ADA) Standards upon project completion. Additionally, the project must ensure the maintenance of bicycle and pedestrian access throughout the construction phase. These access considerations align with Caltrans' equity mission to provide a safe, sustainable, and equitable transportation network for all users.

Caltrans Encroachment Permit
Be advised that any permanent work or temporary traffic control that encroaches onto Caltrans' right-of-way requires a Caltrans-issued encroachment permit.

For information regarding the Encroachment Permit application and submittal requirements, contact:

Caltrans Office of Encroachment Permits
464 West 4th Street, Basement, MS 619
San Bernardino, CA 92401-1400
(909) 383-4526
[email protected]
https://dot.co.goy/programs/traffic-operations/ep
Important Note: All new permit applications must now be submitted through our new CEPS Online Portal at: httos://ceps.dot.ca.aov/ Please be advised that LDR's point of contact role will conclude upon the completion of the development entitlement process. Once project is entitled, the Encroachment Permit Office will serve as the primary point of contact moving forward.

Thank you again for including Caltrans in the review process. Should you have any questions regarding this letter, or for future notifications and requests for review of new projects, please email [email protected] or call 909-925-7520.

Sincerely,
9�--�I- /Odtd
Janld Pafel
Branch Chief - Local Development Review
Division of Transportation Planning
Caltrans District 8
"Improving lives and communities through transportation" Response to Comment Letter A
I A2
Response to Comment A-3: Comment noted. There are no Caltrans facilities impacted by the Project.

Regarding an encroachment permit, there are no Caltrans facilities that would be impacted by the Project, and no encroachment permit is required.

A-3
Appendix I — Initial Study Ynez Road Page 3 November 2025 /Revised January 2026

Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Ynez Road Improvement -Phase 1, PW23-02
November 2025 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program

MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires that when a public agency completes an environmental document which includes measures to mitigate or avoid significant environmental effects, the public agency must adopt a reporting or monitoring program. This requirement ensures that environmental impacts found to be significant will be mitigated. The reporting or monitoring program must be designed to ensure compliance during project implementation (Public Resources Code Section 21081.6). Specifically, Public Resources Code Section 21081.6 states:
(a) When making findings required by paragraph (1) of subdivision (a) of Section 21081 or when adopting a mitigated negative declaration pursuant to paragraph (2) of subdivision (c) of Section 21080, the following requirements shall apply:
(1) The public agency shall adopt a reporting or monitoring program for the changes made to the project or conditions of project approval, adopted in order to mitigate or avoid significant effects on the environment. The reporting or monitoring program shall be designed to ensure compliance during project implementation. For those changes which have been required or incorporated into the project at the request of a responsible agency or a public agency having jurisdiction by law over natural resources affected by the project, that agency shall, if so requested by the lead or responsible agency, prepare and submit a proposed reporting or monitoring program.
(2) The lead agency shall specify the location and custodian of the documents or other material which constitute the record of proceedings upon which its decision is based.

This Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) has been developed to provide the mechanism by which to monitor mitigation measures outlined in the Ynez Road Improvements — Phase 1 Project: PW23-02 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND).The Ynez Road Improvements — Phase 1 Project: PW23-02 MMRP has been prepared in conformance with Public Resources Code Section 21081.6 and City of Temecula (City) monitoring requirements.

State CEQA Guidelines Section 15097 provides clarification of mitigation monitoring and reporting requirements and guidance to local lead agencies on implementing strategies. The reporting or monitoring program must be designed to ensure compliance during project implementation. The City of Temecula is the Lead Agency for the Ynez Road Improvements — Phase 1 Project: PW23-02 and is therefore responsible for ensuring MMRP implementation. This MMRP has been drafted to meet Public Resources Code Section 21081.6 requirements as a fully enforceable monitoring program.

The MMRP Checklist is intended to provide verification that all applicable mitigation measures relative to significant environmental impacts are monitored and reported. Monitoring will include: 1) verification that each mitigation measure has been implemented; 2) recordation of the actions taken to implement each mitigation; and 3) retention of records in the Ynez Road Improvements — Phase 1 Project: PW23-02 Project file.

This MMRP delineates responsibilities for monitoring the Project, but also allows the City flexibility and discretion in determining how best to monitor implementation. Monitoring procedures will vary according to the type of

Page 1 ends

Initial5tudy/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Ynez Road Improvement -Phase I, PW23-02
November 2025 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program mitigation measure. Adequate monitoring consists of demonstrating that monitoring procedures took place and that mitigation measures were implemented. This includes the review of all monitoring reports, enforcement actions, and document disposition, unless otherwise noted in the MMRP Checklist. If an adopted mitigation measure is not being properly implemented, the designated monitoring personnel shall require corrective actions to ensure adequate implementation.

The numbering system in the following table corresponds with the IS/MND's numbering system. The MMRP table "Verification" column will be used by the parties responsible for documenting when the mitigation measure has been completed. The City of Temecula will complete ongoing documentation and mitigation compliance monitoring. The completed MMRP and supplemental documents will be kept on file at the City of Temecula Community Development Department.

Page 2 ends

If the qualified biologist determines that no active migratory bird or raptor nests occur, the activities shall be allowed to proceed without any further requirements. If the qualified biologist determines that an active migratory bird or raptor nest is present, no impacts within 300 feet (500 feet for raptors) of the active nest shall occur until the young have fledged the nest, and the nest is confirmed to no longer be active, or as determined by the qualified biologist. The biological monitor may modify the buffer as applicable for the specific bird species and type of work, or propose other recommendations to avoid indirect impacts to nesting birds.

Page 3 ends

Initial5tudy/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Ynez Road Improvement -Phase I, PW23-02
November 2025
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Checklist
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Mitigation Measures
Implementation
Timing
Monitoring /
Reporting
Methods
Responsible for
Approval /
Monitoring
Initials
Date
Remarks
BIO-2 Burrowing Owl: In compliance with the MSHCP, a pre- Prior to the
Pre -Construction
Public Works
construction survey shall be conducted on the study area within 30 issuance of
Burrowing Owl
Engineering
days prior to ground disturbance to determine presence of grading permit
Survey/ Prior to
burrowing owls. If the pre -construction survey is negative and or any ground
grading or ground
burrowing owl is confirmed absent, then ground -disturbing activities disturbing
disturbing
(i.e., earthwork, clearing, and grubbing) shall be allowed to activity
activities/ Prior to
commence and no further mitigation would be required. If BUOW is issuance of any
observed during the pre -construction survey, active burrows shall be grading permits
avoided by the project in accordance with the California Department of Fish and Wildlife's (CDFW) Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation (2012) or CDFW's most recent guidelines. The Project Proponent shall immediately inform the Western Riverside County Regional Conservation Authority (RCA) of BUOW observations. A BUOW Protection and Relocation Plan (plan) shall be prepared by a qualified biologist, which must be sent for approval by RCA prior to initiating ground disturbance. The RCA will coordinate directly with CDFW as needed to ensure that the plan is consistent with the MSHCP and CDFW guidelines. The plan shall detail avoidance measures that shall be implemented during construction and passive or active relocation methodology. Relocation shall only occur outside of the nesting season (September 1 through January 31). The RCA may require translocation sites to be created within the MSHCP Conservation Area for the establishment of new colonies. If required, the translocation sites must take into consideration unoccupied habitat areas, presence of burrowing mammals, existing colonies, and effects to other MSHCP Covered Species in order to successfully create suitable habitat for BUOW. The translocation sites must be developed in consultation with RCA. If required, translocation sites would also be described in the agency -approved plan.

Page 4 ends

Initial5tudy/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Ynez Road Improvement -Phase I, PW23-02
November 2025
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Checklist
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Mitigation Measures
Implementation
Timing
Monitoring /
Reporting
Methods
Responsible for
Approval /
Monitoring
Initials
Date
Remarks
13I0-3: The MSHCP requires that any impacts to riverine/riparian Prior to the
Obtain approval by
Community
habitat be approved by the CDFW and USFWS through approval of issuance of
CDFW and USFWS
Development
the DBESP, which the City has prepared (Appendix B-2). The DBESP grading permit
regarding the
Department
identifies that the City would mitigate impacts to 0.22 acre of or any ground
mitigation strategy
Director, or
riverine habitat through the management (removal of non-native disturbing
to off -set 0.22 acre
designee
plant species) of 0.66 acre of habitat within a City owned parcel activity
of impacts to
along Temecula Creek. The 0.66 acre of offsite mitigation area was Riverine/Riparain
established using a 3:1 mitigation ratio for permanent impacts to resources
riparian/riverine habitat along the bank of Drainage 1. The offsite mitigation site is located immediately adjacent to Temecula Creek in the City of Temecula to the southeast of the Project Site within Assessor Parcel Number (APN) 961-440-012. The 0.66 acre of riverine/riparian habitat offsite currently supports invasive plant species (i.e., tacolote mustard, prickly lettuce, etc.) that will be removed to enhance the riparian/riverine habitat. A conservation easement would be placed over the 0.66 acre of offsite
riparian/riverine habitat in favor of a qualified habitat maintenance organization (an approved third party that both CDFW and the USFWS must review and approve). The overall habitat functions and values provided by existing habitat areas within the offsite conservation area in Temecula Creek would be enhanced by removing invasive, non-native plant species. Additionally, the manufacture slopes will either be hydroseeded or seeded by hand broadcasting of native seeds to stabilize the slopes above Drainage

1. Pursuant to the MSHCP, the DBESP, including the impacts and proposed mitigation must be reviewed and approved by the CDFW and the USFWS. The mitigation that the City has proposed may be increased, decreased or the strategy revised during the CDFW and USFWS review process. However, pursuant to the MSHCP, the City would not begin Project construction until the CDFW and the USFWS have approved the DBESP and mitigation strategy.

Page 5 ends

Initial5tudy/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Ynez Road Improvement -Phase I, PW23-02
November 2025
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Checklist
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Implementation
Monitoring /
Responsible for
Mitigation Measures
Timing
Reporting
Approval /
Initials
Date
Remarks
Methods
Monitoring
CUL-1 At least 30 days prior to the start any ground -disturbing Prior to the
Develop
Public Works
activities, the City shall contact the Pechanga Tribe to develop an issuance of
monitoring
Engineering
Agreement ("Agreement"). This Agreement will address the grading permit
agreement with
treatment and disposition of cultural resources, the designation, or any ground
Pechanga Tribe
responsibilities, and participation of professional Pechanga Tribal disturbing
monitors during grading, excavation and ground disturbing activities; activity
project grading and development scheduling; terms of compensation for the monitors; and treatment and final disposition of any cultural resources, sacred sites, and human remains discovered onsite. The Tribal Monitor(s) shall have the authority to temporarily divert, redirect, or halt the ground -disturbance activities to allow recovery of cultural resources, in coordination with the Project Archaeologist.

Pechanga Tribal Monitors shall be allowed to monitor all grading, excavation and groundbreaking activities.

CUL-2 Prior to beginning project construction, the City of Temecula Prior to the
Provide agreement
Public Works
shall hire an archaeologist to monitor all ground disturbing activities issuance of
with archaeologist
Engineering
in an effort to identify any unknown archaeological resources. Any grading permit
for monitoring
newly discovered cultural resource deposits shall be subject to a or any ground
archaeological
cultural resource evaluation. The archaeological monitor shall have disturbing
resources
the authority to stop and redirect grading in consultation with the activity
Pechanga Band of Indians in order to evaluate the significance of any potential resources discovered on the property. The archaeological monitors shall be allowed to monitor all grading, excavation and groundbreaking activities.

CUL-3 A qualified archaeologist and Pechanga tribal monitor shall Prior to
Sign -in Sheet
Community
attend a pre -construction meeting with City staff, the contractor, groundbreaking
provided at pre-
Development
and appropriate subcontractors to discuss the monitoring program, activities
construction
Department
including protocols to be followed in the event that cultural material meeting
Director, or
is encountered.
designee and
Public Works
Engineering

Page 6 ends

Treatment of Tribal cultural resources inadvertently discovered during the project's ground -disturbing activities shall be subject to the consultation process required by state law and AB 52. i. All ground disturbance activities within 50 feet of the discovered cultural resources shall be halted until a meeting is convened between the City, the Project Archaeologist, the Pechanga Band of Indians, and the Planning Director to
discuss the significance of the find.
ii. Further ground disturbance, including but not limited to grading, trenching, vegetation clearing, etc., shall not resume within the area of the discovery until an agreement has been reached by all parties as to the appropriate
mitigation. Work shall be allowed to continue outside of the buffer area and will be monitored by additional Tribal and archaeological Monitors if needed.
iii. At the meeting, the significance of the discoveries shall be discussed and after consultation with the Tribal
Representative(s) and the Project Archaeologist, a decision shall be made, with the concurrence of the Planning
Director, as to the appropriate mitigation (documentation,

Page 7 ends

Notwithstanding any other rights available under the law, the decision of the Planning Director shall be appealable to the City Planning Commission and/or City Council.
vi. If the find is determined to be significant and avoidance of the site feasibly cannot be achieved, a Mitigation recovery plan shall be prepared by the Project Archeologist, in
consultation with the Pechanga Band of Indians, and shall be submitted to the City for their review and approval prior to implementation of the said plan.
vii. Evidence of compliance with this mitigation measure, if a significant Cultural or Tribal Cultural Resource is found, shall be provided to City of Temecula upon the completion of a

Page 8 ends

CUL-5 In the event that Tribal Cultural Resources are discovered During
Archaeologist and
Community
during the course of grading, the following procedures shall be Construction
Tribal Monitor field
Development
carried out for final disposition of the discoveries: One or more of reports
Department
the following treatments, in order of preference, shall be employed Director, or
in consultation with the Pechanga Band of Indians.
designee and
Public Works
i. Preservation -In -Place of the cultural resources, if feasible.

Engineering
Preservation in place means avoiding the resources, leaving them in the place where they were found with no
development affecting the integrity of the resources.
ii. Reburial of the resources on the Project property. The measures for reburial shall include, at least, the following:

Measures and provisions to protect the future reburial area from any future impacts in perpetuity. Reburial shall not occur until all legally required cataloging and basic
recordation have been completed, with an exception that sacred items, burial goods, and Native American human
remains are excluded. Any reburial process shall be
culturally appropriate. Listing of contents and location of the reburial shall be included in the confidential Phase IV report.

The Phase IV Report shall be filed with the City under a confidential cover and not subject to Public Records
Request.
iii. If preservation in place and/or reburial is not feasible then the resources shall be curated in a culturally appropriate manner at a Riverside County curation facility that meets State Resources Department Office of Historic Preservation Guidelines for the Curation of Archaeological Resources ensuring access and use pursuant to the Guidelines. The

Page 9 ends

There shall be no destructive or invasive testing on sacred items, burial goods, and Native American human remains. Results concerning finds of any inadvertent discoveries shall be included in the Phase IV monitoring report. Evidence of compliance with this mitigation measure, if a significant archaeological resource is found, shall be provided to the City of Temecula upon the completion of a treatment plan and final report detailing the significance and treatment finding.

CUL-7 If human remains are encountered, California Health and During
Field reports,
Community
Safety Code Section 7050.5 states that no further disturbance shall Construction
Construction
Development
occur until the Riverside County Coroner has made the necessary Supervisor
Department
findings as to origin. Further, pursuant to California Public Resources Director, or
Code Section 5097.98(b) remains shall be left in place and free from designee and
disturbance until a final decision as to the treatment and disposition Public Works
has been made. If the Riverside County Coroner determines the Engineering
remains to be Native American, the NAHC must be contacted within 24 hours. The NAHC must then immediately identify the most likely descendant(s) for purposes of receiving notification of discovery. The most likely descendant(s) shall then make recommendations within 48 hours of being granted access to the site and engage in consultation concerning the treatment of the remains as provided in Public Resources Code Section 5097.98 and the agreement described in mitigation measure CUL-1.

Page 10 ends

Initial5tudy/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Ynez Road Improvement -Phase I, PW23-02
November 2025
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Checklist
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Mitigation Measures
Implementation
Timing
Monitoring /
Reporting
Methods
Responsible for
Approval /
Monitoring
Initials
Date
Remarks
GEO-1 Paleontological Resource Management Plan. Prior to the Prior to the
Preparation of
Public Works
start of construction, a Paleontological Resources Management Plan issuance of
Paleontological
Engineering
(PRMP) shall be prepared by a qualified Paleontologist and include grading permit
Resource
the following procedures:
or any ground
Management Plan
• Any undocumented fill, desiccated documented older fill disturbing
soils, and the upper 5 feet of the young alluvial deposits are activity
considered unsuitable in their present state and will require removal and recompaction in areas of proposed street
improvements and design fills.
• Monitoring of mass grading and excavation activities in areas identified as likely to contain paleontological
resources shall be performed by a qualified paleontologist or paleontological monitor. Starting at the surface,
monitoring will be conducted full-time in areas of grading or excavation in undisturbed alluvial deposits.
• Development of an inadvertent discovery plan to
expediently address treatment of paleontological resources should any be encountered during development associated with the Project. If these resources are inadvertently
discovered during ground -disturbing activities, work must be halted within 50 feet of the find until it can be evaluated by a qualified paleontologist. Construction activities could continue in other areas. If the discovery proves to be
significant, additional work, such as fossil collection and curation, may be warranted and would be discussed in
consultation with the appropriate regulatory agency(ies).

HAZ-1 A hazardous spill prevention plan shall be prepared by the Prior to the
Construction
Public Works
Contractor and submitted to the City for approval prior to issuance of
contractor docs
Engineering
construction to minimize the likelihood of a spill. The plan shall state grading permit
the actions that would be required if a spill occurs to prevent or any ground
contamination of surface waters and provide for cleanup of the spill. disturbing
The plan shall follow Federal, state, and local safety guidelines and activity
standards to avoid increased exposure to these pollutants.

Page 11 ends

Initial5tudy/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Ynez Road Improvement -Phase I, PW23-02
November 2025
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Checklist
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Implementation
Monitoring /
Responsible for
Mitigation Measures
Timing
Reporting
Approval /
Initials
Date
Remarks
Methods
Monitoring
HAZ-2 All asphalt requiring removal from the Project alignment During
Construction
Public Works
shall be disposed of in accordance with current regulatory standards.

Construction
contractor docs
Engineering
TCR-1 A Pechanga Tribal monitor will be present and will have the During
Pechanga Tribal
Public Works
authority to stop and redirect grading activities, in consultation with Construction
Monitor field
Engineering
the project archaeologist, in consultation with the Pechanga Band of reports
Indians and their designated monitors, to evaluate the significance of any potential resources discovered on the property as required by the following:

A. At least 30 days prior to the start of any ground -disturbing activities, the City shall contact the Pechanga Tribe to develop an Agreement ("Agreement"). This Agreement will address the treatment and disposition of cultural
resources, the designation, responsibilities, and
participation of professional Pechanga Tribal monitors
during grading, excavation and ground disturbing activities; project grading and development scheduling; terms of
compensation for the monitors; and treatment and final
disposition of any cultural resources, sacred sites, and human remains discovered onsite. The Tribal Monitor(s)
shall have the authority to temporarily divert, redirect, or halt the ground -disturbance activities to allow recovery of cultural resources, in coordination with the Project
Archaeologist. Pechanga Tribal Monitors shall be allowed to monitor all grading, excavation and groundbreaking
activities.

TCR-2 Prior to beginning project construction, the City of Prior to ground
Archaeological
Public Works
Temecula shall hire an archaeologist to monitor all ground disturbing disturbing
monitor field
Engineering
activities in an effort to identify any unknown archaeological activity
reports
resources. Any newly discovered cultural resource deposits shall be subject to a cultural resource evaluation. The archaeological monitor shall have the authority to stop and redirect grading in consultation

Page 12 ends

Initial5tudy/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Ynez Road Improvement -Phase I, PW23-02
November 2025
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Checklist
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Implementation
Monitoring /
Responsible for
Mitigation Measures
Timing
Reporting
Approval /
Initials
Date
Remarks
Methods
Monitoring
with the Pechanga Band of Indians in order to evaluate the significance of any potential resources discovered on the property.

The archaeological monitors shall be allowed to monitor all grading, excavation and groundbreaking activities.

TCR-3 A qualified archaeologist and Pechanga tribal monitor shall Prior to ground
Archaeological
Public Works
attend a pre -construction meeting with City staff, the contractor, disturbing
monitor and
Engineering
and appropriate subcontractors to discuss the monitoring program, activity
Pechanga Tribal
including protocols to be followed in the event that cultural material Monitor
is encountered.

TCR-4 If, during ground disturbance activities, unique cultural During
Archaeological
Community
resources are discovered that were not assessed by the
Construction
monitor and
Development
archaeological report(s) and/or environmental assessment Pechanga Tribal
Department
conducted prior to Project approval, the following procedures shall Monitor
Director, or
be followed. Unique cultural resources are defined, for this designee and
Mitigation only, as being multiple artifacts in close association with Public Works
each other, but may include fewer artifacts if the area of the find is Engineering
determined to be of significance due to its sacred or cultural importance as determined in consultation with the Pechanga Band of Indians. Tribal cultural resources are excluded from the definition of unique cultural resources as those resources are defined by the tribal values ascribed to the them by their affiliated communities.

Page 13 ends

Initial5tudy/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Ynez Road Improvement -Phase I, PW23-02
November 2025
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Checklist
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Mitigation Measures
Implementation
Timing
Monitoring /
Reporting
Methods
Responsible for
Approval /
Monitoring
Initials
Date
Remarks
to grading, trenching, vegetation clearing, etc., shall not resume within the area of the discovery until an
agreement has been reached by all parties as to the
appropriate mitigation. Work shall be allowed to
continue outside of the buffer area and will be
monitored by additional Tribal and archaeological
Monitors if needed.
iii. At the meeting, the significance of the discoveries shall be discussed and after consultation with the Tribal
Representative(s) and the Project Archaeologist, a
decision shall be made, with the concurrence of the
Planning Director, as to the appropriate mitigation
(documentation, avoidance, recovery, etc.) for the
cultural resources.
iv. Treatment and avoidance of the newly discovered
resources shall be consistent with the Monitoring
Agreement entered into with the Pechanga Band of
Indians. This may include avoidance of the cultural
resources through project design, in -place
preservation of cultural resources located in native
soils and/or re -burial of the resources on the Project property so they are not subject to further disturbance in perpetuity as identified in CUL-4
V. Pursuant to Calif. Pub. Res. Code § 21083.2(b)
avoidance is the preferred method of preservation for
archaeological resources and cultural resources. If the Project Applicant and the Pechanga Band of Indians
cannot agree on the significance or the mitigation for
the cultural resources, these issues will be presented
to the Planning Director for decision. The Planning
Director shall make the determination based on the
provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act
with respect to Cultural and Tribal Cultural Resources,

Page 14 ends

Notwithstanding any other rights available under the
law, the decision of the Planning Director shall be
appealable to the City Planning Commission and/or
City Council.
vi. If the find is determined to be significant and
avoidance of the site feasibly cannot be achieved, a
Mitigation recovery plan shall be prepared by the
Project Archeologist, in consultation with the
Pechanga Band of Indians, and shall be submitted to
the City for their review and approval prior to
implementation of the said plan.
vii. Evidence of compliance with this mitigation measure, if a significant Cultural or Tribal Cultural Resource is found, shall be provided to City of Temecula upon the
completion of a treatment plan and include a final
report detailing the significance and treatment finding.

TCR-5 In the event that Tribal Cultural Resources are discovered During
Archaeological
Public Works
during the course of grading, the following procedures shall be Construction
monitor and
Engineering
carried out for final disposition of the discoveries: One or more of Pechanga Tribal
the following treatments, in order of preference, shall be employed Monitor
in consultation with the Pechanga Band of Indians.
i. Preservation -In -Place of the cultural resources, if feasible. Preservation in place means avoiding the
resources, leaving them in the place where they were
found with no development affecting the integrity of
the resources.
ii. Reburial of the resources on the Project property. The measures for reburial shall include, at least, the
following: Measures and provisions to protect the

Page 15 ends

Page 16 ends

Initial5tudy/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Ynez Road Improvement -Phase I, PW23-02
November 2025
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Checklist
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Implementation
Monitoring /
Responsible for
Mitigation Measures
Timing
Reporting
Approval /
Initials
Date
Remarks
Methods
Monitoring
TCR-6 The City shall relinquish ownership of all cultural resources, During
Archaeological
Public Works
including sacred items, burial goods, and all archaeological artifacts Construction
monitor and
Engineering
that are found within the Project area, for proper treatment and Pechanga Tribal
disposition pursuant to the Agreement required in mitigation Monitor
measure CUL-1 through CUL-5.

TCR-7 If human remains are encountered, California Health and During
Archaeological
Public Works
Safety Code Section 7050.5 states that no further disturbance shall Construction
monitor and
Engineering
occur until the Riverside County Coroner has made the necessary Pechanga Tribal
findings as to origin. Further, pursuant to California Public Resources Monitor
Code Section 5097.98(b) remains shall be left in place and free from disturbance until a final decision as to the treatment and disposition has been made. If the Riverside County Coroner determines the remains to be Native American, the NAHC must be contacted within 24 hours. The NAHC must then immediately identify the most likely descendant(s) for purposes of receiving notification of discovery. The most likely descendants) shall then make recommendations within 48 hours of being granted access to the site and engage in consultation concerning the treatment of the remains as provided in Public Resources Code Section 5097.98 and the agreement described in mitigation measure TCR-1.

TCR-8 The following shall be included on the notes for the grading Prior to
Grading Plans
Public Works
plan:
issuance of
Engineering
grading permits
Note 1: Archaeological Monitoring Grading Note: A
qualified archaeological monitor will be present and will have the authority to stop and redirect grading activities, in consultation with the Pechanga Band of Indians and their designated monitors, to evaluate the significance of any archaeological resources discovered on the property as
required by Note 1.

TCR-9 The following shall be included on the notes for the grading Prior to
Grading Plans
Public Works
plan:
issuance of
Engineering
grading permits

Page 17 ends

Initial5tudy/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Ynez Road Improvement -Phase I, PW23-02
November 2025
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Checklist
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Implementation
Monitoring /
Responsible for
Mitigation Measures
Timing
Reporting
Approval /
Initials
Date
Remarks
Methods
Monitoring
Note 2: Discovery of Cultural Resources Grading Note: If at any time during excavation/construction of the site,
archaeological/cultural resources, or any artifacts or other objects which reasonably appears to be evidence of cultural or archaeological resource are discovered by the Tribal or Archaeological monitor, all work in the area of the find shall cease, and the Discovery of Cultural Resources mitigation measure shall be followed. Upon determining that the
discovery is a cultural/Tribal Cultural resource, no further excavation or development may take place until a
mitigation plan or other corrective measures have been
approved by the Planning Director.

TCR-10 The following shall be included on the notes for the grading Prior to
Grading Plans
Public Works
plan:
issuance of
Engineering
grading permits
Note 3: Relinquishment of Cultural Resources Grading
Note: The landowner agrees to relinquish ownership of all cultural resources, including all archaeological artifacts that are found on the project area, to the Pechanga Tribe for proper treatment and disposition as required by Note 1.

TCR-11 The following shall be included on the notes for the grading Prior to
Grading Plans
Public Works
plan:
issuance of
Engineering
grading permits
Note 4: Human Remains Grading Note: If Human Remains
are encountered all work is to cease within 50 ft of the discovery in accordance with Note 1 and Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5, and California Public Resources Code Section 5097.98(b) are to be followed.

Page 18 ends

Attachment 3
City of Temecula
Community Development
41000 Main Street • Temecula, CA 92590
Phone (951) 694-6400 • Fax (951) 694-6477 • www.TemeculaCA.gov

VIA -ELECTRONIC SUBMITTAL
[email protected]
January 27, 2026
Supervising Legal Certification Clerk
County of Riverside
P.O. Box 751
Riverside, CA 92501-0751
SUBJECT: Mitigated Negative Declaration (SCH# 2025120517) for the Ynez Road Improvements — Phase I (PW23-02)
Dear Sir/Madam:

Enclosed is the Notice of Determination for the above referenced project. In addition, pursuant to Assembly Bill 3158 (Chapter 1706) please find a receipt in the amount of $3,043.75 for the County Administrative fee to enable the City to file the Notice of Determination for the Environmental Impact Report. The City of Temecula is paying the $50.00 filing fee under protest. It is the opinion of the City that the administrative fee has been increased in a manner inconsistent with the provisions of State Law. Under Public Resources Code Section 21152 and 14 California Code Regulations 1507, the County is entitled to receive a $25.00 filing fee.

Please email a stamped copy of the Notice of Determination within five working days after the 30 day posting to the email listed below.

Should you have any questions regarding this matter, please contact Assistant Engineer, Emalee Manning at email: [email protected]
Sincerely,
e Watson
Deputy City Manager
Attachments: Notice of Exemption Form
Electronic Payment - Filing Fee Receipt

City of Temecula
Community Development
Planning Division
Notice of Determination
TO: County Clerk and Recorders Office FROM: Planning Division County of Riverside City of Temecula
P.O. Box 751 41000 Main Street
Riverside, CA 92501-0751 Temecula, CA 92590
SUBJECT: Filing of a Notice of Determination in compliance with the provisions of Section 21152 of the Public Resources Code
State Clearinghouse No.: 2025120517
Project Title: Mitigated Negative Declaration (SCH#2025120517) for Ynez Road Improvements — Phase I (PW23-02)
Project Location: Ynez Road between Tierra Vista and Rancho Vista Project Description: Improve and widen 1,763 linear feet of the eastern half of Ynez Road between Tierra Vista Road to Rancho Vista Road in order to match the four -lane configuration and infrastructure that exists along Ynez Road north and south of this segment, and includes a sidewalk, curb and gutter, streetlights, a Class II bike lane, relocation of utilities, installation of medians with turn pockets as well as grading outside of the right-of-way, on private property, on the east side to facilitate the construction and maintenance of a retaining wall to provide road stability due to the steep grade that exists on the north side of the alignment. The Project will also provide mitigation for impacts to a drainage adjacent to the alignment.

Lead Agency: City of Temecula, County of Riverside
Contact Person: Emalee Manning, Assistant Engineer Telephone Number: (951) 506-5171 This is to advise you that the City Council of the City of Temecula has approved the above described project on January 27, 2026 and has made the following determinations regarding this project:

1. The project will not have a significant effect on the environment.

2. That a Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) was prepared for this project pursuant to the provisions of CEQA.

3. Mitigation measures were made a condition of the approval of the project.

4. A Mitigation Monitoring or Reporting Program/Measures was adopted for this project.

5. A Statement of Overriding Consideration was not adopted for this project.

6. Findings were made pursuant to the provisions of CEQA.

This is to certify that the Negative Declaration with comments, responses, and record of project approval is available to the General Public at the City of Temecula, 41000 Main Street, Temecula, California, 92590. i
Signature: Date: r ? t?2
I..uke Watson
Deputy City Manager
Date received for filing at the County Clerk and Recorders Office:

Notice of Determination
To:
❑ Office of Planning and Research
U. S. Mail: Street Address:

P.O. Box 3044 1400 Tenth St., Rm 113
Sacramento, CA 95812-3044 Sacramento, CA 95814
0 County Clerk
County of: Riverside
Address: 4080 Lemon Street
Riverside, CA 92501
Appendix D
From:

Public Agency: City of Temecula
Address: Community Development Dept
41000 Main Street, Temecula, CA 92590
Contact: Emalee Manning
Phone: (951) 506-5171
Lead Agency (if different from above):

Address
Contact:

Phone:

SUBJECT. Filing of Notice of Determination in compliance with Section 21108 or 21152 of the Public Resources Code.

State Clearinghouse Number (if submitted to State Clearinghouse): 2025120517 Project Title: Ynez Road Improvements — Phase 1 Project (Between Rancho Vista Road and Tierra Vista Road): PW-23-02 Project Applicant: _City of Temecula Community Development Department Project Location (include county): Riverside
Project Description:

The City of Temecula (City) is proposing to improve and widen 1,763 linear feet of the eastern half of Ynez Road between Tierra Vista Road to Rancho Vista Road in order to match the four -lane configuration and infrastructure that exists along Ynez Road north and south of this segment (proposed Project).

Improvements include widening the road and constructing a sidewalk, curb and gutter, streetlights, a Class II bike lane, relocation of utilities, installation of medians with turn pockets as well as grading outside of the right-of-way, on private property, on the east side to facilitate the construction and maintenance of a retaining wall to provide road stability due to the steep grade that exists on the east side of the alignment. Permanent right-of-way easements are required for a portion of APN 944-290-17 and 944-290-16 to facilitate the Project. The Project will also provide mitigation for impacts to a drainage adjacent to the alignment.

This is to advise that the City of Temecula has approved the above (❑• Lead Agency or ❑ Responsible Agency)
described project on and has made the following determinations regarding the above (date)
described project.

1. The project [❑ will [ will not] have a significant effect on the environment.

2. ❑ An Environmental Impact Report was prepared for this project pursuant to the provisions of CEQA. [ A Negative Declaration was prepared for this project pursuant to the provisions of CEQA.

3. Mitigation measures [[ were ❑ were not] made a condition of the approval of the project.

4. A mitigation reporting or monitoring plan [[j was ❑ was not] adopted for this project.

5. A statement of Overriding Considerations [❑ was ❑■ was not] adopted for this project.

6. Findings [[■7 were ❑ were not] made pursuant to the provisions of CEQA.

This is to certify that the final EIR with comments and responses and record of project approval, or the negative Declaration, is available to the General Public at:

City of Temecula Community Development Department, 41000 Main Street, Temecula, CA 92590 Signature (Public Agency): y� ff � Title: �� 1�M,(j1
Date: Uzej-z 6 Date Received for filing at OPR:

Authority cited: Sections 21083, Public Resources Code.

Reference Section 21000-21174, Public Resources Code. Revised 2011

RESOLUTION NO. 2026-

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY

OF TEMECULA APPROVING THE INITIAL STUDY AND
ADOPTING A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION;

ADOPTING A MITIGATION MONITORING AND
REPORTING PROGRAM; AND APPROVING PLANS AND

SPECIFICATIONS IN SUBSTANTIAL FORM, ALL FOR
THE YNEZ ROAD IMPROVEMENTS — PHASE I PROJECT,
PW23-02

THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:

Section 1. The City Council of the City of Temecula does hereby find, determine and declare that:

A. The Ynez Road Improvements — Phase I Project, PW23-02 ("Project"), is a circulation project that includes the design, environmental clearance, and construction for widening the east side of Ynez Road from Rancho Vista Road to Tierra Vista Road to two lanes.

The Project consists of full street improvements including asphalt concrete pavement, curb and gutter, sidewalks, retaining wall, and streetlights. The Project scope also includes completion of all required environmental studies, preparation of the appropriate environmental document and obtaining all necessary resource agency permits.

B. Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") (Cal. Pub. Res.

Code §21000 et seq.) and the State Guidelines (the "Guidelines") (14 Cal. Code Regs. § 15000 et seq. ), City staff caused to be prepared an Initial Study ("IS") of the potential environmental effects of the approval of the Project as described in the Initial Study. Based upon the findings contained in that Study, City staff determined that, with the incorporation of mitigation measures, there was no substantial evidence that the Project could have a significant effect on the environment, and a mitigated negative declaration ("MND") was prepared in full compliance with CEQA.

C. The IS identified no impact or a less than significant impact for the following environmental areas:

1. Aesthetics

2. Agriculture and Forestry Resources

3. Air Quality

4. Energy

5. Greenhouse Gas Emissions

6. Hydrology and Water Quality

7. Land Use and Planning

8. Mineral Resources

9. Noise

10. Population and Housing

11. Public Services

12. Recreation

13. Transportation

14. Utilities and Service Systems

15. Wildfire
D. The IS identified the following areas of potential concern that will be reduced to a less than significant impact with mitigation incorporated as summarized:

1. Biological Resources: A pre -construction nesting bird clearance survey is required prior to ground disturbance. In addition, a site survey shall be conducted prior to construction to further reduce potential impacts to a less - than -significant level. Mitigation is required and will be imposed for the

0.22-acre impact to riverine habitat includes management activities, such as the removal of non-native plant species within 0.66 acre of habitat located on a City -owned parcel (APN 961-440-012) along Temecula Creek.

2. Cultural Resources: A certified archaeologist shall monitor construction activities in coordination with the Pechanga Tribe. Mitigation measures include a pre -grading meeting with contractors, implementing grading monitoring at a frequency approved and coordinated with the Pechanga Tribe, and ensuring cultural resource protection, avoidance, and curation in the event of a resource discovery.

3. Geology and Soils: A Paleontological Resource Management Plan (PRMP) is required.

4. Hazards and Hazardous Materials: A Hazardous Spill Prevention Plan shall be prepared by the Contractor and submitted to the City for approval prior to construction. The plan shall identify measures to minimize the likelihood of a spill, outline response actions if a spill occurs to prevent contamination of surface waters and provide for cleanup procedures.

Additionally, all asphalt materials removed from the project alignment shall be disposed in accordance with applicable regulatory standards.

5. Tribal Cultural Resources: A Pechanga Tribal monitor shall be present during grading activities and shall have the authority, in consultation with the project archaeologist and the Pechanga Band of Indians and their designated monitors, to stop or redirect grading activities if tribal cultural resources are encountered. Mitigation also includes pre -grading coordination, construction monitoring, and implementation of protection, avoidance, and curation measures in the event of a discovery.

6. Mandatory Finding of Significance: Implement the mitigation measures as described in the IS MND, including BIO-1 through BIO-3, CUL-1 through CUL-7, TCR-1 through TCR-11, GEO-1, HAZ-1 and HAZ-2.

E. Under Public Resources Code section 21080(c)(2), the IS determined that an MND is appropriate for the Project. The MND includes mitigation measures to reduce potential impacts to a level of less than significant and a separate mitigation monitoring and reporting program ("MMRP") has been prepared pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21081.6(a)(1).

F. The Notice of Intent to Adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration was posted on December 10, 2025. The corresponding public review comment period also commenced on December 10, 2025, and concluded on January 9, 2026. Notification signage was placed on the Project site, and a notice was published in a local newspaper.

G. The City of Temecula received one written comment letter from the California Department of Transportation during the public review period and responded directly to the commenter to inform them that the City of Temecula Multi -Use Trails and Bikeways Master Plan Update was incorporated and cited on Page 3 of the IS/MND document. No other comments were received regarding the IS/MND or its analysis. The Final IS/MND was provided to the commenting agency.

H. The City Council has reviewed the IS/MND and the MMRP incorporated herein by this reference as though set forth in full and all comments received regarding the IS/MND and has reviewed the Project plans and specifications.

NOW, THEREFORE, based on the whole of the record before it, the City Council does hereby find and resolve as follows:

Section 1. CEQA Findings.

1.1 The IS/MND and the Mitigation Monitoring Program were prepared in compliance with CEQA.

1.2. There is not substantial evidence supporting a fair argument that the Project may actually produce any significant environmental impacts that cannot be mitigated to a less than significant level through implementation of those mitigation measures identified in the IS/MND.

Therefore, the City Council finds that the Project will not have a significant effect on the environment.

1.3. The IS/MND and the MMRP reflect the independent judgment and analysis of the City Council.

Section 2. Based on the findings set forth in this Resolution and the IS/MND, the City Council hereby adopts the IS/MND, including imposing all mitigation measures specified therein, and the MMRP for the Project.

Section 3. The Director of Public Works/City Engineer is authorized and directed to file a Notice of Determination in accordance with CEQA.

Section 4. The Project plans and specifications as presented are approved. The Director of Public Works/City Engineer is directed and authorized to make minor refinements or revisions as necessary.

Section 5. The custodian of the documents and material which constitute the record of proceedings upon which its decision is based is The Director of Public Works/City Engineer, and the documents are available at the Office of City Clerk.

PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Temecula this 27t" day of January, 2026.

Jessica Alexander, Mayor
ATTEST:

Randi Johl, City Clerk
[SEAL]

STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE ) ss

CITY OF TEMECULA )
I, Randi Johl, City Clerk of the City of Temecula, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution No. 2026- was duly and regularly adopted by the City Council of the City of Temecula at a meeting thereof held on the 27th day of January, 2026, by the following vote:

AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

ABSTAIN: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

Randi Johl, City Clerk

aft
_l
The I fear[ OF Sru[hern C Iifr..rnia
Wine Country

YNEZ ROAD IMPROVEMENTS - PHASE I
Circulation Project
Project Description: This project includes widening the easterly side of Ynez Road, from Rancho Vista Road north roughly 1600 feet, to two lanes in each direction, and the completion of missing segments of curb and gutter, sidewalk, and striped medians, in coordination with adjacent development.

Benefit: This project improves traffic circulation by widening an important arterial road in this part of the City.

Core Value: Transportation Mobility and Connectivity
Project Status: Construction is anticipated in FY 2025-26.

Department: Public Works - Account No. 210.265.999.5800.PW23-02 / 534 Level: II
City of Temecula
Fiscal Years 2026-30
Capital Improvement Program
Project Cost:

Prior Years
Actuals
2025-26
2024-25 Adopted 2026-27 2027-28 2028-29 2029-30
Adjusted Budget Projected Projected Projected Projected Total Project
Cost
5801-Administration
22,395
370,327
392,722
5804-Construction
2,280,000
2,280,000
5805-Construction Engineering
158,172
158,172
5802-Design & Environmental
322,455
722,823 25,000
1,070,278
5700-Land Acquisition
497,615
497,615
5806-MSHCP
120,000
120,000
Total Expenditures
344,850
3,651,322 522,615
4,518,787
Source of Funds:
4666-Developer Contribution
435,750
435,750
4242-DIF-Street Improvements
42,759
1,042,663 522,615
1,608,037
4025-Grants
2,475,000
2,475,000
Total Funding
478,509
3,517,663 522,615
4,518,787
Future Operating & Maintenance Costs:

Total Operating Costs
Notes :

1. Grants Funding Source reflects the 2023 RCTC Western Riverside County Regional call for projects using Measure A Regional Arterial (MARA) grant funds for $1,475,000 and the California State Assembly Bill (AB) 102 grant for $1,000,000.

2. Developer Contribution reflects fees paid by the Rancho Highlands Development for this project. 95 Project Location Map for Ynez Road Improvements - Phase I Project, PW23-02 752.3 0 376.17 752.3 Feet This map is a user generated static output from an Internet mapping site and is for reference only. Data layers that appear on this map may or may not be WGS 1984_Web_Mercator_Auxiliary_Sphere accurate, current, or otherwise reliable. © Latitude Geographics Group Ltd. THIS MAP IS NOT TO BE USED FOR NAVIGATION OF TEAtk
g �
1989
�oNS�NEW o�0
Legend
Parcels (September 2025)
City of Temecula Boundary
Street Names
Highways
. HWY
. INTERCHANGE

INTERSTATE

OFFRAMP
ONRAMP
USHWY
Creeks
Cities
Streets

PAVED

PROPOSED

UNPAVED
Notes

Item No. 9

CITY OF TEMECULA

AGENDA REPORT
TO: City Manager/City Council
FROM: Ron Moreno, Director of Public Works/City Engineer DATE: January 27, 2026
SUBJECT: Approve Third Amendment to Agreement with CHA Consulting, Inc., for Consultant Services for the I-I5/French Valley Parkway Improvements — Phase II, PW16-01
PREPARED BY: Hossein Ajideh, Principal Civil Engineer
Samantha Preciado, Associate Engineer I
RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council approve the Third Amendment to the agreement with CHA Consulting, Inc., in an amount not to exceed $300,000, to provide continued professional construction management services for the I- I5/French Valley Parkway Improvements — Phase II project, PW16-01.

BACKGROUND: On April 11, 2023, the City Council approved an agreement for consultant services with Falcon Engineering Services, Inc., for the I-15/French Valley Parkway Improvements — Phase II project on a "time -and -materials" (T&M) basis in the amount of $8,880,275.70. T&M is paid for the actual time spent working on a project and the cost of materials used. On June 2, 2025, the City Council approved the first amendment to extend the term of the agreement. On September 9, 2025, the City Council approved a second amendment to increase the agreement amount by $500,000 and to change the name of the Consultant to CHA Consulting, Inc. This third amendment provides continued construction management support services in an amount not to exceed $300,000, resulting in an amended total agreement amount not to exceed $9,680,275.70.

The majority of project improvements were completed by late April 2025, allowing the new collector/distributor (C/D) system and connectors to open for public use. The project eliminated merging and diverging by installing a concrete barrier and bridge overpass, which separated streams of traffic and channelized them based on ultimate destination. Since that time, traffic congestion on I-15 has been greatly reduced, which has also helped reduce congestion on City streets. Full completion of construction is projected to be in March 2026.

This project supports the City's core values in the Quality of Life Master Plan, i.e., Transportation Mobility & Connectivity.

FISCAL IMPACT: The I-15/French Valley Parkway Improvements — Phase II project is included in the City's Fiscal Year 2026-30 Capital Improvement Program and is supported by several funding sources. The subject agreement and proposed amendment are funded by Federal and State sources, including INFRA Grant, SAFETEA-LU, and STIP. Sufficient project funds are available to cover the $300,000 cost of the amendment.

ATTACHMENTS: 1. Third Amendment

2. CIP Budget Sheet

Docusign Envelope ID: 62DDABE5-F920-4A17-9A89-4900AA8EA4FD

THIRD AMENDMENT TO AGREEMENT FOR CONSULTANT SERVICES BETWEEN CITY OF TEMECULA AND FALCON ENGINEERING SERVICES, INC.

PW16-01 1-15/FRENCH VALLEY PARKWAY IMPROVEMENTS — PHASE II

ARTICLE I INTRODUCTION
A. This THIRD AMENDMENT is made and entered into as of January 27, 2026.

B. This THIRD AMENDMENT is made with respect to the following facts and purposes:

On April 11, 2023, the CITY and CONSULTANT entered into that certain AGREEMENT entitled "AGREEMENT FOR CONSULTANT SERVICES BETWEEN CITY OF TEMECULA AND FALCON ENGINEERING SERVICES, INC., PW16-01 1-15/FRENCH VALLEY PARKWAY IMPROVEMENTS — PHASE II" in the amount of Eight Million Eight Hundred Eighty Thousand Two Hundred Seventy -Five Dollars and Seventy Cents ($8,880,275.70).

2. On June 2, 2025, the CITY and CONSULTANT entered into that FIRST AMENDMENT to extend the term of the AGREEMENT to December 31, 2025.

3. On September 9, 2025, the CITY and CONSULTANT entered into that SECOND AMENDMENT, in the amount of $500,000.00, and change the name of the CONSULTANT to "CHA Consulting, Inc.".

The parties now desire to extend the term of the AGREEMENT to December 31, 2026, increase the total amount payable in the amount of Three Hundred Thousand Dollars and Zero Cents ($300,000.00) for continued CONSULTANT services, and amend the AGREEMENT as set forth in this THIRD AMENDMENT.

ARTICLE V ALLOWABLE COSTS AND PAYMENTS
A. ARTICLE V, Section A of the AGREEMENT is hereby amended to read as follows:
"This AGREEMENT shall go into effect on January 1, 2026, contingent upon approval by CITY, and CONSULTANT shall commence work after notification to proceed by CITY'S Contract Administrator. The AGREEMENT shall end on December 31, 2026, unless extended by AGREEMENT Amendment."
B. ARTICLE V, Section I. of the AGREEMENT is hereby amended to read as follows:
"This THIRD AMENDMENT amount shall not exceed Three Hundred Thousand Dollars and Zero Cents ($300,000.00) for additional time of services and associated costs payable by CITY including the fixed fee for a total AGREEMENT amount that shall not exceed Nine Million Six Hundred Eighty Thousand Two Hundred Seventy -Five Dollars and Seventy Cents ($9,680,275.70.)"
Except for the changes specifically set forth herein, all other terms and conditions of the AGREEMENT shall remain in full force and effect.

Docusign Envelope ID: 62DDABE5-F920-4A17-9A89-4900AA8EA4FD

THIRD AMENDMENT TO AGREEMENT FOR CONSULTANT SERVICES BETWEEN CITY OF TEMECULA AND FALCON ENGINEERING SERVICES, INC.

PW16-01 1-15/FRENCH VALLEY PARKWAY IMPROVEMENTS — PHASE II

ARTICLE XXXIV CONTRACT
The two parties to this THIRD AMENDMENT, who are the before named CONSULTANT and the before named CITY, hereby agree that this THIRD AMENDMENT constitutes the entire THIRD AMENDMENT which is made and concluded in duplicate between the two parties. Both of these parties for and in consideration of the payments to be made, conditions mentioned, and work to be performed; each agree to diligently perform in accordance with the terms and conditions of this THIRD AMENDMENT as evidenced by the signatures below.

ARTICLE XXXV SIGNATURES

CITY OF TEMECULA
Jessica Alexander, Mayor
Attest:

Randi Johl, City Clerk
Approved as to Form:

CSigned by:
c fc v At. 1h naw
C343357EB2E34B5...

Peter M. Thorson, City Attorney
CHA CONSULTING, INC.

Signed by:
dot �c� C Q.

BCA0177B3F9D46A...

Michael A. Platt
Secretary
Sign�edb�y:,,�, (�-pp-�
L1. 1/r�
B8C62000B5A14118...

Jonathan H. Bard
Assistant General Counsel

Docusign Envelope ID: 62DDABE5-F920-4A17-9A89-4900AA8EA4FD c:qq warnit

CORPORATE RESOLUTION
I, Thomas D. Titsworth, Assistant Secretary of CHA Consulting, Inc., a corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of New York, hereby certify that a resolution was duly adopted by the Board of Directors of said corporation, at a meeting duly held on the 9 h day of June, 2025, pursuant to which Michael Platt, Secretary and General Counsel, is authorized to negotiate, make, execute and approve on behalf of this corporation, and to bind the corporation with respect to, contracts, proposals and other business transactions, and amendments, statements, certifications and other documents required in connection with such contracts or transactions or otherwise related thereto.

AND I DO FURTHER CERTIFY that the resolution set forth above has not been in any way altered, amended, revoked, or repealed and is now in full force and effect.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I hereunto set my hand this 9r" day of June, 2025.

Thomas D. Titsworth, Assistant Secretary
CHA Consulting, Inc.

City of Temecula
Fiscal Years 2026-30
Capital Improvement Program
1-15 / FRENCH VALLEY PARKWAY IMPROVEMENTS - PHASE II
Circulation Project
Project Description: This project includes the design and construction of the two lane northbound collector/distributer road system beginning north of the Winchester Road Interchange on -ramps and ending just north of the 1-15/1-215 junction with connectors to 1-15 and 1-215.

Benefit: This project will address and improve traffic circulation in the City's northern area by providing the northbound collector/distributer road system.

Core Value: Transportation Mobility and Connectivity
Project Status: Construction May 2023 through June 2025.

Department: Public Works - Account No. 210.265.999.5800.PW16-01 / 726 Level: I
Project Cost:

Prior Years
Actuals
2025-26
2024-25 Adopted 2026-27 2027-28 2028-29 2029-30
Adjusted Budget Projected Projected Projected Projected Total Project
Cost
5801-Administration
3,451,937
292,397
3,744,334
5804-Construction
48,270,399
41,684,601 1,000,000
90,955,000
5805-Construction Engineering
5,804,189
5,096,811
10,901,000
5802-Design & Environmental
19,439,608
186,159
19,625,768
5700-Land Acquisition
13,796,241
727,010
14,523,251
5240-Utilities
1,993
1,993
Total Expenditures
1 90,764,367
47,986,979 1,000,000
139,751,346
Source of Funds:
4271-CFD 01-02 (Harveston)
1,005,840
1,005,840
4666-Developer Contribution
1,000,000
1,000,000
4242-DIF-Street Improvements
75,360
75,360
4001-General Fund
4,236,174
4,236,174
4668-1NFRA Grant
24,512,035
25,487,965
50,000,000
4170-Measure A
1,627,914
1,627,914
4002-Measure S
5,561,573
469,762
6,031,335
4438-Reimbursements
6,023,250
6,023,250
4465-SAFETEA-LU
1,602,360
1,602,360
4426-STIP-Surface Transportation
21,406,924
26,193,076
47,600,000
Improvement Program
4473-TUMF (CETAP/RCTC)
472,841
326,106
798,947
4474-TUMF (RCTC)
3,016,562
31016,562
4472-TUMF (WRCCG)
1 16,000,5831
733,021
1 16,733,604
Total Funding
83,939,056
54,812,290 1,000,000
139,751,346
71 City of Temecula
Fiscal Years 2026-30
Capital Improvement Program
1-15 / FRENCH VALLEY PARKWAY IMPROVEMENTS - PHASE II
Circulation Project
2025-26
Prior Years 2024-25 Adopted 2026-27 2027-28 2028-29 2029-30 Total Project Project Cost: Actuals Adjusted Budget Projected Projected Projected Projected Cost Future Operating & Maintenance Costs:

Total Operating Costs
Notes:

1. General Fund Includes Required Contribution match for TUMF (CETAP/RCTC) funds.

2. State Transportation Improvement Program-2014 RCTC Call for projects as approved by the Commission on November 13, 2013 ($10,000,000).

3. TUMF (RCTC)- Regional funding is pursuant to RCTC Agreement No. 06-72-048-00 for a total of $7,517,000 ($5,517,000-ROW; $2,000,000-PS&E). $200,000 City Match, Phase I expended $3,174,000-ROW; $2,000,000 PS&E; $200,000 City Match. Phase II expended $2,343,000 ROW.

4. TUMF (WRCOG) - TUMF Zone funding is pursuant to WRCOG Agreement No. 06-SW-TEM-1079 for a total of $11,575,000 reduced to $11,451,875 ($975,752-PA&ED; $8,801,875-PS&E; $1,674,248-ROW) for Phase I and Phase 11.

5. TUMF (WRCOG) - TUMF Zone funding is pursuant to WRCOG Agreement No. 05-SW-TEM-1064 for $4,078,000 reduced to $4,043,000 ($108,724 PA&ED;3,934,296 PS&E) for Phase I and Phase 11.

6. TUMF (WRCOG) - TUMF Zone Funding is pursuant to WRCOG Agreement No. 05-SW-TEM-1064 for $1,925,000-ROW. No expenditures for Phase I.

7. TUMF (CETAP/RCTC) - Funding is pursuant to the RCTC Agreement No. 17-73-007-00 in the amount of $1,472,509 ($673,562 ROW; $798,947 DESIGN; $106,603 City Match).

8. Developer Contribution reflects extraordinary benefit payments received from the Solana Winchester and Prado Developments. Solana Winchester in the amount of $395,000 and Prado in the amount of $605,000. 72 Item No. 10

ACTION MINUTES

TEMECULA COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT MEETING

COUNCIL CHAMBERS
41000 MAIN STREET

TEMECULA, CALIFORNIA
JANUARY 13, 2026
CALL TO ORDER at 4:15 PM: President James Stewart
ROLL CALL: Alexander, Kalfus, Rahn, Schwank, Stewart
PUBLIC COMMENTS — None

CSD CONSENT CALENDAR
Unless otherwise indicated below, the following pertains to all items on the Consent Calendar.

Approved the Staff Recommendation (5-0): Motion by Rahn, Second by Kalfus. The vote reflected unanimous approval.

16. Approve Action Minutes of December 9, 2025
Recommendation: That the Board of Directors approve the action minutes of December 9, 2025.

CSD DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY SERVICES REPORT

CSD GENERAL MANAGER REPORT

CSD BOARD OF DIRECTORS REPORTS

CSD ADJOURNMENT
At 4:17 PM, the Community Services District meeting was formally adjourned to Tuesday, January 27, 2026 at 2:00 PM for a Closed Session, with a regular session commencing at 3:00 PM, City Council Chambers, 41000 Main Street, Temecula, California.

James Stewart, President
ATTEST:

Randi Johl, Secretary
[SEAL]

Item No. 11

ACTION MINUTES

SUCCESSOR AGENCY TO THE TEMECULA REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY MEETING

COUNCIL CHAMBERS
41000 MAIN STREET

TEMECULA, CALIFORNIA
JANUARY 13, 2026
CALL TO ORDER at 4:17 PM: Chair Jessica Alexander
ROLL CALL: Alexander, Kalfus, Rahn, Schwank, Stewart
SARDA PUBLIC COMMENTS - None

SARDA CONSENT CALENDAR
Unless otherwise indicated below, the following pertains to all items on the Consent Calendar.

Approved the Staff Recommendation (5-0): Motion by Rahn, Second by Stewart. The vote reflected unanimous approval.

17. Approve Recognized Obligation Payment Schedule and Administrative Budget for the Period of July 1, 2026 Through June 30, 2027 (ROPS 26-27)
Recommendation: That the Board of Directors adopt the following resolutions entitled:

RESOLUTION NO. SARDA 2026-01

A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE

SUCCESSOR AGENCY TO THE TEMECULA REDEVELOPMENT

AGENCY APPROVING A RECOGNIZED OBLIGATION PAYMENT
SCHEDULE FOR THE PERIOD OF JULY 1, 2026 THROUGH JUNE
30, 2027 PURSUANT TO HEALTH AND SAFETY CODE SECTION
34177 AND TAKING CERTAIN ACTIONS IN CONNECTION

THEREWITH
RESOLUTION NO. SARDA 2026-02

A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE

SUCCESSOR AGENCY TO THE TEMECULA REDEVELOPMENT

AGENCY APPROVING THE PROPOSED ADMINISTRATIVE

BUDGET PURSUANT TO HEALTH AND SAFETY CODE SECTION
34177 AND TAKING CERTAIN ACTIONS IN CONNECTION

THEREWITH

SARDA EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR REPORT

SARDA BOARD OF DIRECTOR REPORTS

SARDA ADJOURNMENT
At 4:18 PM, the Successor Agency to the Temecula Redevelopment Agency meeting was formally adjourned to Tuesday, January 27, 2026, at 2:00 PM for a Closed Session, with a regular session commencing at 3:00 PM, City Council Chambers, 41000 Main Street, Temecula, California.

Jessica Alexander, Chair
ATTEST:

Randi Johl, Secretary
[SEAL]

Item No. 12

CITY OF TEMECULA

AGENDA REPORT
TO: City Manager/City Council
FROM: Matt Peters, Director of Community Development
DATE: January 27, 2026
SUBJECT: Introduce Animal Ordinance to Amend Title 6 of the Temecula Municipal Code (LR25-0382)
PREPARED BY: Mark Collins, Senior Planner
RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council introduce an ordinance entitled:

ORDINANCE NO.

AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
TEMECULA AMENDING TITLE 6 OF THE TEMECULA

MUNICIPAL CODE REGARDING ANIMAL KEEPING

SETBACK REQUIREMENTS AND MAKING A FINDING

THAT THIS ORDINANCE IS EXEMPT FROM THE

CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA)
PURSUANT TO CEQA GUIDELINES SECTION 15061 (b)(3)

SUMMARY OF
ORDINANCE: The proposed amendment to Title 6 (Animals) of the Temecula Municipal Code would reduce the required setback for accessory animal keeping (housing) structures from seventy-five (75) feet from the property line to twenty-five (25) feet from the property line, a reduction of fifty (50) feet. Additionally, this proposed Ordinance would add a note to Table 6.08.010 clarifying that existing, legally permitted animal keeping structures that do not meet this new standard before a certain date would be considered legal nonconforming and allowed to remain in place without change or action from homeowners.

BACKGROUND:

The City of Temecula comprehensively updated Title 6 (Animals) of the Temecula Municipal Code (Ordinance No. 2022-09) on June 14, 2022, to update and add definitions, implement current best practices, and codify a spay/neutering program. One of these changes amended the setback requirement for animal keeping (housing) structures for large animals, such as cattle and horses,

outdoor aviaries, poultry, and small animals, such as goats and pigs from seventy-five (75) feet from a neighboring residence to seventy-five (75) feet from the property line.

This standard was originally adopted to ensure that future animal keeping structures would not preclude or negatively impact future residential development (ADU's, redevelopment, etc.). While it accomplished that goal, it also had the unintended effect of making some smaller or uniquely shaped equestrian properties (-1/2 acre) unable to keep horses or similar animals. The proposed changes in this Ordinance will correct this issue by reducing the setback from seventy-five (75) feet from the property line to twenty-five (25) feet from the property line.

Additionally, the proposed Ordinance would codify that existing, legally permitted animal keeping structures constructed prior to June 14, 2022, that do not meet this new standard would be considered "legal nonconforming structures" pursuant to Temecula Municipal Code § 17.03.070 (Legal nonconformities), and the addition of a note to the Animal Keeping Standards Table is proposed for added clarity and ease of use.

This Ordinance was presented to the General Plan Update Subcommittee (Ad Hoc) consisting of Councilmember Kalfus and Mayor Pro Tern Rahn on October 14, 2025. The subcommittee was supportive of the proposed change.

FISCAL IMPACT: The Ordinance has no direct fiscal impact if adopted.

ATTACHMENTS: 1. Ordinance

2. Notice of Public Hearing

3. Notice of Exemption

ORDINANCE NO.2026-

AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF TEMECULA AMENDING TITLE 6 OF THE TEMECULA

MUNICIPAL CODE REGARDING ANIMAL KEEPING

SETBACK REQUIREMENTS AND MAKING A FINDING

THAT THIS ORDINANCE IS EXEMPT FROM THE

CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA)
PURSUANT TO CEQA GUIDELINES SECTION 15061 (b)(3)
WHEREAS, the City of Temecula ("City") previously adopted Ordinance 2022-09 on June 14, 2022, comprehensively updating Title 6 (Animals) of the Temecula Municipal Code to modernize definitions, implement best practices, and codify a spay/neuter program; and WHEREAS, as part of that update, the City amended the setback requirement for accessory animal -keeping structures for large animals, such as cattle and horses, outdoor aviaries, poultry, and small animals, such as goats and pigs, changing the required setback from seventy- five (75) feet from a neighboring residence to seventy-five (75) feet from a property line as to not preclude or negatively affect future residential development; and WHEREAS, although the Ordinance achieved its intended purpose, it also created an unintended consequence by rendering some smaller or uniquely shaped equestrian properties of approximately one-half acre unable to keep horses or similar animals; and WHEREAS, this Ordinance would reduce the required setback for accessory animal - keeping structures for large animals, outdoor aviaries, poultry, and small animals from seventy- five (75) feet from the property line to twenty-five (25) feet from the property line in order to correct this unintended effect; and
WHEREAS, this Ordinance would also codify that existing, legally permitted animal - keeping structures constructed prior to June 14, 2022, that do not meet the setback requirements are considered legal nonconforming structures pursuant to Temecula Municipal Code Section

17.03.070.

NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Temecula, California, does ordain as follows:

Section 1. Recitals Incorporated. The above recitals are true, correct, and incorporated herein.

Section 2. Table 6.08.010 (Animal Keeping Standards Table) of Chapter 6.08 (Animal Keeping Standards) of Title 6 (Animals) of the Temecula Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows (with deletions appearing in strikethrough text and additions appearing in underline text), with all other provisions of Table 6.08.010 remaining unchanged.

TABLE 6.08.030 ANIMAL KEEPING STANDARDS'' 2,3,4
Type of Animal or Use
Minimum Lot Size
Maximum Number' Zoning Setback/ Separation Requirements Additional Information

ANIMAL AND AGRICULTURAL USES/KEEPING PERMDTED BY RIGHT
Four hundred (400) foot minimum setback of all
All zonesexcept: Hillside
beehives, apiaries or boxes housing bees from any
Residential (HR), Hillsi de
publicstreets or highways, day care, educational
Asource of fresh water shall be
Apiaries or Beekeeping

0.5 acres
N/A
Residential -Santa Margarita
institution, park, property lineto a different
made continuously available
(HR-SM),and
ownership, or from any dwelling or placeofhuman
on siteforthebees
OpenSpace/Conservation
habitation otherthan thatoccupied bytheowner
(OS/OS-C)
or caretaker ofthe bees.

Cats and Dogs
y pa rcel of a ny zoni ng
designation with a permitted
N/A (for accessory structure requirements see TMC
Only animals over 4 months of
Single-family dwellings
N/A
Any combination of4 cats or dogs.
and occupied residential
Title 17)
ageare counted
structureon site.

Multiple -family dwellings
N/A
Any combination of4 cats or dogs.

All zones except: Low Medium
Residential(LM), Hillside
All animals shall be kepta minimum distanceof
Fi rst half (0.5) acre - 2 large animals
Residential(HR), Hills id e
. 22 feet from the property line of any adjacent

0.5 acres
Residential -Santa Margarita
residence, daycare, oreducational institution,
Only animals over 12 months
Each additional hge)acre-1 additional
(0.5)
(HR-SM), and
hospital or churchthatis located on adjacent
ofagearecounted
Large Ani mall
largeanimal
OpenSpace/Conservation
property.'
(Cattle, Horses and Mules)
(OS/OS-C)
Greaterthan 1.0 acre
50 Birds/acre
Al l zones except: Hi l I s 1 de
All animals shall be kept a minimum distance of
Re,idential(HR), Hillside
3525 feet from the property l i ne of any a dj a cent
Less than 0.5 acres
24 Birds
Residential-Sa nta Margarita
residence, day care, or educational institution,
Only animals over 3 months of
(HR-SM),and
hospital or church that is located on adjacent
ageare counted
Outdoor Aviary
OpenSpace/Conservation
(All birds must be confined)
(OS/OS-C)
property.'
Greater than 1.0 acres
50 poultry/acre
All zones except: High Density
Residential(H), Hillside
All animals shall be kepta minimum distanceof
Less than 1.0 acres
12 poultry
ResidentiM(HR), Hillside
752_5 feetfrom the property lineofany adjacent
Only animals over 3 months of
Residential -Santa Margarita
residence,daycare, or educational institution,
age are counted
(HR-SM), and
hospital or church that is located on adjacent
Poultry"LM
& M zoned property"'
4 poultry
OpenSpace/Conservation
property.'
(All poultryto be contained)
(OS/OS-C)
All zones except: Low Medium
Residential(LM), Hillside
All animals shall be kepta minimum distanceof
First half(0.5)acre -2 small animals
Residential(HR), Hillside
ib 25 feetfrom the property lineofany adjacent

0.5 acres
Residential-Sa nta Margarita
residence, daycare, or educational institution,
Only animals over6 months of
Small Animals
Each additional half(O.S)acre-3 additional
(HR-SM),and
hospital or churchthatis located on adjacent
agearecounted
(Burros,Goats, Pigs, Ponies,and
small animals
OpenSpace/Conservation
property.'
Sheep)
(OS/OS-C)

ANIMAL USES/KEEPING THAT REQUIRE

A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
Set by conditional use permit
In no case shall setback from property lines be
See a l so TMC 17.04.010:

Animal Shelter
N/A
Selby conditional use permit

CC, HT, SC, BP, LI
less the n that of the properti es zoni ng designati on Conditional use Permit
per TMC Titl a 17.

Commercial Kennels,
Set by conditional use permit
Commercial Catteries,or
N/A
Set by conditional use permit.

CC, SC, BP, LI
In no caseshall setbackfrom property lines be
Seealso TMC 17.04.010:

Cat/Dog Training Center
less tha n that of the properti es zoni ng designati on Conditional use Permit
perTMC Titl e 17.

Al zones except Hi l l side
Residential(HR), Hillside
Set by conditional use permit
Commercial Frog Farms
N/A
Set by conditional use permit.

Residential -Santa Margarita
In no caseshall setbackfrom property lines be
Seealso TMC 17.04.010:
(HR-SM),and
less than [hot of the properties zoning designation
Conditional use Permit
OpenSpace/Conservation
perTMCTitle17.
(OS/OS-C)
All zones except Hillside
The keeping ofexotic animal(s),
Residential(HR), Hillside
Set by conditional use permit
nlcudi ng keeping exotic
Minimum set by Conditional
Set by conditional use permit.

Residential -Santa Margarita
In no caseshall setbackfrom property lines be
Seealso TMC 17.04.010:
animals as pets or novelties.

Use Permit.
(HR-SM),and
less than that of the properties zoning designation
Conditional use Permit
OpenSpace/Conservation
per TMCTitle l7.
(OS/OS-C)
Thecommercial raisingof more
All zones except Hillside
than four chinchilla, nutria,
ResidentiM(HR), Hillside
Set by conditional use permit
hamsters, cavy,
N/A
Set by conditional use permit.

Residential -Santa Margarita
In no caseshall setbackfrom property lines be
Seealso TMC 17.04.010:
sipigs,
rabbits, anddsimimilarsmall
HR-SM,and
( )
less than thatofthe properties zoning designation
Conditional use Permit
OpenSpace/Conservation
perTMCTitle17.
animals.
(OS/OS-C)
Al: zones except Hillside
Residential(HR), Hillside
Set by conditional use permit
Commercial Worm Farms
N/A
Set by conditional use permit.

Residential -:a nta Margarita
In no case shall setbackfrom property lines be
See also TMC 17.04.010:
(HR-SM),and
less than that of the properties zoning designation
Conditional use Permit
OpenSpace/Conservation
per TMC Titlel7.
(OS/OS-C)
NOTES:

These standards only apply to properties located within a specific plan area, planned development overlay or similar over: ay zoning designation when said zoni ng document does not adequately address the subject or standards of a ni ma I keeping.
z :All uses found in this Table are found incompatible with the Hillside Residential (HR) and Open Space -Conservation (OS-C) Zoning designations and are not permitted.

In no event shall there be any limit to the permissible number of sheep which maybe grazed per acre, where such grazing operation is conducted on fields for the purposes of cleaning up unharvested crops, stubble, volunteer or wi d growth where such grazing operation is not conducted for more than four weeks in any six-month period.

Concentrated lot feeding and commercial poultry and/or rabbit raising are not permitted in any zoning designation within the City. s: The keeping of roosters or crowing fowl, of any species, is prohibited within the City. s: Properties with the zoning designation LM and M are allowed a maximum of4 poultry. 7: Ail calculations for the number of animals permitted on a lot shall round down to the nearest whole number. ': Ail legal Iv permitted strucutres constructed, for the purpose of animal keeping, prior to 14, June 2022 shall be considered legal non -conforming and can remain in accordance with TMC 417.03.070, as amended.

Section 3. Effective Date of Ordinance. This Ordinance shall take effect and be in full force and operation thirty (30) days after its second reading and adoption.

Section 4. California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Exemption. Pursuant to Section 15061, subdivision (b)(3) of Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations, the Ordinance is exempt from CEQA because the "activity is covered by the general rule that CEQA applies only to projects which have the potential for causing a significant effect on the environment. Where it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the activity in question may have a significant effect on the environment, the activity is not subject to CEQA." A Notice of Exemption has been prepared and will be filed in accordance with CEQA and the State CEQA Guidelines.

Section 5. Severability. If any section, subsection, subdivision, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this Ordinance is, for any reason, held to be invalid or unconstitutional by the decision of any court of competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this Ordinance. The City Council hereby declares that it would have adopted this Ordinance, and each section, subsection, subdivision, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion thereof, irrespective of the fact that any one or more sections, subsections, subdivisions, sentences, clauses, phrases, or portions thereof be declared invalid or unconstitutional.

Section 6. City Clerk Action. The City Clerk is authorized and directed to cause this Ordinance to be published within fifteen (15) days after its passage in a newspaper of general circulation and circulated within the City in accordance with Government Code Section 36933, subdivision (a) or, to cause this Ordinance to be published in the manner required by law using the alternative summary and posting procedure authorized under Government Code Section 36933, subdivision (c).

PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Temecula this day of ,
ATTEST:

Randi Johl, City Clerk
[SEAL]
3 Jessica Alexander, Mayor

STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE ) ss

CITY OF TEMECULA )
I, Randi Johl, City Clerk of the City of Temecula, do hereby certify that the foregoing Ordinance No. 2026- was duly introduced and placed upon its first reading at a meeting of the City Council of the City of Temecula on the 27th day of January, 2026, and that thereafter, said Ordinance was duly adopted by the City Council of the City of Temecula at a meeting thereof held on the day of , , by the following vote:

AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

ABSTAIN: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
4 Randi Johl, City Clerk

Notice of Public Hearing

THE CITY OF TEMECULA
41000 Main Street
Temecula, CA 92590
A PUBLIC HEARING has been scheduled before the CITY COUNCIL to consider the matter(s) described below.

Case No.: Long Range Project No. LR25-0382, Animal Ordinance Update Applicant: City of Temecula
Location: Citywide
Proposal: An Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Temecula Amending Title 6 of the Temecula Municipal Code to amend the animal keeping setback requirements.

Environmental Action: In accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA"), the proposed ordinance is exempt from further environmental review and a Notice of Exemption will be adopted in compliance with CEQA (Section 15061(b)(3)).

PLACE OF HEARING: 41000 Main St., Temecula, CA 92590
City of Temecula, Council Chambers
DATE OF HEARING: January 27, 2026
TIME OF HEARING: 3:00 PM
Any person may submit written comments to the City Council before the hearing or may appear and be heard in support of or opposition to the approval of the project at the time of hearing.

Any petition forjudicial review of a decision of the City Council shall be filed within the time required by, and controlled by, Sections 1094.5 and 1094.6 of the California Code of Civil Procedure. In any such action or proceeding seeking judicial review of, which attacks or seeks to set aside, or void any decision of the City Council, shall be limited to those issues raised at the hearing or in written correspondence delivered to the City Clerk at, or prior to, the public hearing described in this notice.

The proposed draft ordinance may be viewed at the public information counter, Temecula Civic Center, Community Services Department, 41000 Main Street, Monday through Fridayfrom 8:00 a.m. until 5:00 p.m. Questions concerning the project(s) may be addressed to Mark Collins, City of Temecula Community Development Department, (951) 506-5172.

City of Temecula
Community Development
41000 Main Street • Temecula, CA 92590
Phone (951 ) 694-6400 • TemeculaCA.gov

VIA -ELECTRONIC SUBMITTAL
CEQAProces sina(& asrclkrec. com
January 28, 2026
Supervising Legal Certification Clerk
County of Riverside
P.O. Box 751
Riverside, CA 92501-0751
SUBJECT: Filing of a Notice of Exemption for Long Range Project Number LR25-0382, an update to Title 6 of the Temecula Municipal Code
Dear Sir/Madam:

Enclosed is the Notice of Exemption for the above referenced project. In addition, pursuant to Assembly Bill 3158 (Chapter 1706) the City will pay for the County Administrative fee to enable the City to file the Notice of Exemption required under Public Resources Code Section 21152 and 14 California Code Regulations 1507. The payment of the $50.00 filing fee is under protest. It is the opinion of the City that the administrative fee has been increased in a manner inconsistent with the provisions of State Law. Under Public Resources Code Section 21152 and 14 California Code Regulations 1507, the County is entitled to receive a $25.00 filing fee.

Also, please email a stamped copy of the Notice of Exemption within five working days after the 30-day posting to the email listed below.

If you have any questions regarding this matter, please contact Mark Collins at email:

Mark. Co1hns(c-r�,TemeculaCA. gov.

Sincerely,
Matt Peters
Director of Community Development
Enclosures: Notice of Exemption Form

City of Temecula
Community Development
Planning Division
TO: County Clerk and Recorders Office
County of Riverside
P.O. Box 751
Riverside, CA 92501-0751
Notice of Exemption
FROM: Planning Division
City of Temecula
41000 Main Street
Temecula, CA 92590
Project Title: Long Range Project No. LR25-0382 Municipal Code Update Description of Project: An Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Temecula Amending Title 6, of the Temecula Municipal Code to amend the setback requirements for animal keeping structures.

Project Location: Citywide
ADDlicant/ProDonent: Citv of Temecula
The City Council approved the above -described project on January 27th, 2026, and found that the project is exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act, as amended.

Exempt Status: (check one)
❑ Ministerial (Section 21080(b)(1); Section 15268);
❑Declared Emergency (Section 21080(b)(3); Section
15269(a));
❑Emergency Project (Section 21080(b)(4); Section
15269(b)(c));
❑ Statutory Exemptions (Section Number: )
❑ Categorical Exemption: (Section 15061 (b)(3))
® Other: Section 15061 (b)(3)
Statement of Reasons Supporting the Finding that the Project is Exempt:

In accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the proposed ordinance has been deemed to be exempt from further environmental review as there is no possibility that the proposed ordinance would have a significant impact on the environment pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines Section 15061 (b)(3). The proposed ordinance amends the setback requirements for animal keeping structures. The proposed ordinance does not propose nor authorize any construction or physical changes to the environment.

Contact Person/Title: Mark Collins, Senior Planner Telephone Number (951) 506-5172 Signature:

Matt Peters, Director of Community Development
Date received for filing at the County Clerk and Recorders Office:

Date:

Item No. 13

CITY OF TEMECULA

AGENDA REPORT
TO: City Manager/City Council
FROM: Ron Moreno, Director of Public Works/City Engineer DATE: January 27, 2026
SUBJECT: Introduce Ordinance Amending Section 10.28.010(D) of the Temecula Municipal Code Regarding Prima Facie Speed Limits on Certain Streets PREPARED BY: Erick Escobedo, Associate Traffic Engineer Nick Minicilli, Principal Traffic Engineer
RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council introduce an ordinance entitled:

ORDINANCE NO.

AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
TEMECULA, AMENDING SECTION 10.28.010(D) OF THE

TEMECULA MUNICIPAL CODE REGARDING PRIMA FACIE

SPEED LIMITS ON CERTAIN STREETS
SUMMARY OF ORDINANCE: The Temecula Municipal Code is hereby amended as follows to modify the declared prima facie speed limits on the following streets:

Overland Drive to Solana Way
40 MPH
Solana Way to Moraga Road
40 MPH
Moraga Road to Avenida Barca
40 MPH
Avenida Barca to La Serena Way
40 MPH
La Serena Way to Rancho California Road
40 MPH
Rancho California Road to Rancho Vista Road
40 MPH
Rancho Vista Road to Pauba Road
40 MPH
Pauba Road to Santiago Road
40 MPH
Santiago Road to Pio Pico Road
40 MPH
Pio Pico Road to De Portola Road
40 MPH
De Portola Road to Temecula Parkway
40 MPH
Meadows Parkway
La Serena Way to Royal Oaks Drive
45 MPH
Royal Oaks Drive to Rancho California Road
45 MPH
Rancho California Road to Rancho Vista Road
45 MPH
Rancho Vista Road to Pauba Road
45 MPH
Pauba Road to De Portola Road
45 MPH
De Portola Road to Temecula Parkway
45 MPH
Rancho California Road
West City Limits to Diaz Road
45 MPH
Diaz Road to I-15 Southbound Rams
40 MPH
I-15 Southbound Ramps to Ynez Road
40 MPH
Ynez Road to Moraga Road
40 MPH
Moraga Road to Cosmic Road
45 MPH
Cosmic Road to Margarita Road
45 MPH
Margarita Road to Tee Drive
50 MPH
Tee Drive to Meadows Parkway
50 MPH
Meadows Parkway to Butterfield Stage Road
50 MPH
Redwood Road
Loma Linda Road to Wolf Creek Drive N
30 MPH
Sommers Bend
Butterfield Stage Road to Lupine Drive
30 MPH
Lupine Drive to Sorrel Lane
30 MPH
Sorrel Lane to Butterfield Stage Road
30 MPH
Temecula Parkway
Bedford Court to Pechanga Parkway
45 MPH
Pechanga Parkway to Avenida De Missiones
50 MPH
Avenida De Missiones to Margarita Road
50 MPH
Margarita Road to Butterfield Stage Road
50 MPH
Butterfield Stage Road to East City Limits
50 MPH
Via La Vida
Margarita Road to Solana Way
30 MPH
Wolf Creek Drive N
Pechanga Parkway to Wolf Valley Road
30 MPH
Wolf Valley Road
Pechanga Parkway to Redhawk Parkway
40 MPH
BACKGROUND: The California Vehicle Code (CVC) requires local authorities to review, reaffirm, or adjust speed limits within their jurisdiction every seven (7) years based on an Engineering and Traffic (E&T) Survey. The CVC also allows local authorities to extend an E&T Survey to fourteen (14) years, if a Registered Engineer determines that no significant changes in roadway or traffic conditions have occurred, including major changes to adjacent property or land use, roadway width, or traffic volumes. The E&T survey provides the mechanism for enforcing

the posted speed limit through legal means, utilizing radar or other electronic speed -measuring devices.

As defined in the California Vehicle Code, an E&T Survey is "a survey of highway and traffic conditions in accordance with methods determined by the Department of Transportation for use by state and local authorities." The survey shall include, but not be limited to, consideration of prevailing speeds as determined by traffic engineering measurements, accident statistics, and highway, traffic, and roadside conditions not readily apparent to the driver. These characteristics are all considered when determining a reasonable and prudent posted speed limit. It should be noted that establishing a speed limit, which is not consistent with the 85th percentile speed, constitutes a "speed trap" and is not enforceable by use of radar or any other electronic speed - measuring device.

Willdan Engineering conducted an E&T Survey on thirteen (13) roadways, which included fifty- two (52) segments. The survey indicates that many existing speed limits do not require a change, and the recommended speed limits are consistent with the existing posted speed limits. There are, however, thirteen (13) segments where a decrease to the posted speed limit is being recommended.

The segments are as follows:

Name of Street
Portion Affected
MPH Decrease
Margarita Road
Date Street to Rustic Glen Drive
45 MPH to 40 MPH
Rustic Glen Drive to Harveston Way
45 MPH to 40 MPH
Harveston Way to Winchester Road
45 MPH to 40 MPH
Solana Way to Moraga Road
45 MPH to 40 MPH
Moraga Road to Avenida Barca
45 MPH to 40 MPH
Pauba Road to Santiago Road
45 MPH to 40 MPH
Santiago Road to Pio Pico Road
45 MPH to 40 MPH
Pio Pico Road to De Portola Road
45 MPH to 40 MPH
Sommers Bend
Butterfield Stage Road to Lupine Drive
Not Posted to 30 MPH
Lupine Drive to Sorrel Lane
Not Posted to 30 MPH
Sorrel Lane to Butterfield Stage Road
Not Posted to 30 MPH
Temecula Parkway
Bedford Court to Pechanga Parkway
50 MPH to 45 MPH
Butterfield Stage Road to East City Limits
55 MPH to 50 MPH
The recommended posted speed limits conform to the requirements of the California Vehicle Code and the Caltrans MUTCD for establishing prudent posted speed limits that are consistent with roadway conditions, prevailing speeds, and, more importantly, enforceable.

This action supports the City core values in the Quality of Life Master Plan e.g., A Safe and Prepared City and Transportation, Mobility and Connectivity.

Staff recommends that the City Council adopt an Ordinance establishing the speed limits identified in Attachment 2, Summary of Recommended Speed Limits.

FISCAL IMPACT: Adequate funds are available in the Public Works Signs Account

No. 001.164.601.5244 and Measure A Striping and Stenciling Account No. 170.199.199.5410.

ATTACHMENTS: 1. Ordinance

2. Summary of Recommended Speed Limits

3. 2025 Engineering & Traffic Survey Report

ORDINANCE NO.2026-

AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF TEMECULA, AMENDING SECTION 10.28.010(D) OF

THE TEMECULA MUNICIPAL CODE REGARDING

PRIMA FACIE SPEED LIMITS ON CERTAIN STREETS

THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:

Section 1. Section 10.28.010(D) of the Temecula Municipal Code is hereby amended as follows to modify the described prima facie speed limits on the following streets:

Name of Street
Portion Affected
Declared
Prima Facie
Speed Limit
Anza Road
Peppercorn to Drymen Ave
35 MPH
Commerce Center Drive
Via Montezuma to Overland Drive
30 MPH
Overland Drive to Rider Way
30 MPH
Deer Hollow Way
Pechanga Parkway to Via La Colorada
35 MPH
Via La Colorada to Peppercorn Drive
35 MPH
La Serena Way
Margarita Road to Calle Pina Colada
40 MPH
Calle Pina Colada to Meadows Parkway
40 MPH
Meadows Parkway to Calle Medusa
40 MPH
Calle Medusa to Butterfield Stage Road
40 MPH
Margarita Road
Date Street to Rustic Glen Drive
40 MPH
Rustic Glen Drive to Harveston Way
40 MPH
Harveston Way to Winchester Road
40 MPH
Winchester Road to N General Kearny Road
40 MPH
N General Kearny Road to Overland Drive
40 MPH
Overland Drive to Solana Way
40 MPH
Solana Way to Mora a Road
40 MPH
Moraga Road to Avenida Barca
40 MPH
Avenida Barca to La Serena Way
40 MPH
La Serena Way to Rancho California Road
40 MPH
Rancho California Road to Rancho Vista Road
40 MPH
Rancho Vista Road to Pauba Road
40 MPH
Pauba Road to Santiago Road
40 MPH
Santiago Road to Pio Pico Road
40 MPH
Pio Pico Road to De Portola Road
40 MPH
De Portola Road to Temecula Parkway
40 MPH
Meadows Parkway
La Serena Way to Royal Oaks Drive
45 MPH
Royal Oaks Drive to Rancho California Road
45 MPH
Rancho California Road to Rancho Vista Road
45 MPH
Rancho Vista Road to Pauba Road
45 MPH

Pauba Road to De Portola Road
45 MPH
De Portola Road to Temecula Parkway
45 MPH
Rancho California Road
West City Limits to Diaz Road
45 MPH
Diaz Road to I-15 Southbound Ramps
40 MPH
I-15 Southbound Ramps to Ynez Road
40 MPH
Ynez Road to Moraga Road
40 MPH
Mora a Road to Cosmic Road
45 MPH
Cosmic Road to Margarita Road
45 MPH
Margarita Road to Tee Drive
50 MPH
Tee Drive to Meadows Parkway
50 MPH
Meadows Parkway to Butterfield Stage Road
50 MPH
Redwood Road
Loma Linda Road to Wolf Creek Drive N
30 MPH
Sommers Bend
Butterfield Stage Road to Lupine Drive
30 MPH
Lupin Drive to Sorrel Lane
30 MPH
Sorrel Lane to Butterfield Stage Road
30 MPH
Temecula Parkway
Bedford Court to Pechanga Parkway
45 MPH
Pechanga Parkway to Avenida De Missiones
50 MPH
Avenida De Missiones to Margarita Road
50 MPH
Margarita Road to Butterfield Stage Road
50 MPH
Butterfield Stage Road to East City Limits
50 MPH
Via La Vida
Margarita Road to Solana Way
30 MPH
Wolf Creek Drive N
Pechanga Parkway to Wolf Valley Road
30 MPH
Wolf Valley Road
Pechanga Parkway to Redhawk Parkway
40 MPH
Section 2. Severability. The Temecula City Council hereby declares that the provisions of this Ordinance are severable and if for any reason a court of competent jurisdiction shall hold any sentence, paragraph, or section of this Ordinance to be invalid, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining parts of this Ordinance.

PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Temecula this day of ,
Jessica Alexander, Mayor
ATTEST:

Randi Johl, City Clerk
[SEAL]

STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE ) ss

AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

ABSTAIN: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

Randi Johl, City Clerk

Table 1- Summary of Recommended Speed Limits
No.

Street From To
Dist.
(mi.)
ADT
Crash
Rate*
Exp. Act.

Posted
Speed
Limit
85%
Speed
10 mi.

Pace
% in
Pace
Rec.

Speed
Limit
Comments
1 Anza Rd Peppercorn Dr Drymen Ave

0.33 2,325

1.68 0.00
35 39
30-39
61 %
35 California MUTCD Option 2
2 Commerce Center Via Montezuma Overland Dr
Dr

0.41 3,313

1.68 2.02
30 34
25-34
66 %
30 California MUTCD Option 2
3 Commerce Center Overland Dr Rider Way
Dr

0.1 1,158

1.68 0.00
30 28
19-28
81 %
30 Closest to 85th Speed
4 Deer Hollow Way Pechanga Pkwy Via La Colorada

0.45 8,565

0.96 1.78
35**
43 34-43
72 %
35**
California MUTCD Option 2 &
Safety Corridor
5 Deer Hollow Way Via La Colorada Peppercorn Dr

0.27 9,496

0.96 0.00
35**
38 29-38
75 %
35**
California MUTCD Option 2
6 La Serena Way Margarita Rd Calle Pina Colada

0.49 9,549

1.68 0.59
40 38
29-38
81 %
40 Closest to 85th Speed
7 La Serena Way Calle Pina Colada Meadows Pkwy

0.65 9,489

1.68 0.22
40**
39 31-40
83 %
40**
Closest to 85th Speed
* Crash rate units: Fatal and Injury Collisions per One Million Vehicle Miles Act.: Actual Crash Rate
Exp.: Expected Crash Rate based on the Caltrans 2023 Crash Data on California State Highways Rate Rec.: Recommended Speed Limit
** 25 mph when children are present
Recommended Speed Limit Reduction
2025 Engineering and Traffic Survey Report 12

Table 1- Summary of Recommended Speed Limits
No.

Street From To
Dist.
(mi.)
ADT
Crash
Rate*
Exp. Act.

Posted
Speed
Limit
85%
Speed
10 mi.

Pace
% in
Pace
Rec.

Speed
Limit
Comments
8 La Serena Way Meadows Pkwy Calle Medusa

0.33 8,889

1.68 0.00
40**
40 31-40
73 %
40**
Closest to 85th Speed
9 La Serena Way Calle Medusa Butterfield Stage Rd

0.37 6,859

1.68 0.00
40 37
29-38
82 %
40 Maintain Uniformity with
Adjacent Segments
10 Margarita Rd Date Street Rustic Glen Dr

0.33 15,655

0.94 0.00
45 44
36-45
82 %
40 California MUTCD Option 2
11 Margarita Rd Rustic Glen Dr Harveston Way

0.36 15,299

0.94 0.25
45 42
33-42
77 %
40 Closest to 85th Speed
12 Margarita Rd Harveston Way Winchester Rd

0.39 23,911

0.94 1.76
45 42
34-43
81 %
40 Closest to 85th Speed
13 Margarita Rd Winchester Rd N General Kearny Rd

0.4 27,526

0.94 0.50
40 38
29-38
80 %
40 Closest to 85th Speed
14 Margarita Rd N General Overland Dr
Kearny Rd

0.37 27,519

0.94 0.13
40 40
31-40
85 %
40 Closest to 85th Speed
* Crash rate units: Fatal and Injury Collisions per One Million Vehicle Miles Act.: Actual Crash Rate
Exp.: Expected Crash Rate based on the Caltrans 2023 Crash Data on California State Highways Rate Rec.: Recommended Speed Limit
** 25 mph when children are present
Recommended Speed Limit Reduction
2025 Engineering and Traffic Survey Report 13

Table 1- Summary of Recommended Speed Limits
No.

Street From To
Dist.
(mi.)
ADT
Crash
Rate*
Exp. Act.

Posted
Speed
Limit
85%
Speed
10 mi.

Pace
% in
Pace
Rec.

Speed
Limit
Comments
15 Margarita Rd Overland Dr Solana Way

0.24 26,273

0.94 0.00
40 39
31-40
85 %
40 Closest to 85th Speed
16 Margarita Rd Solana Way Moraga Rd

0.65 25,559

0.96 0.25
45**
43 33-42
83 %
40**
California MUTCD Option 2
17 Margarita Rd Moraga Rd Avenida Barca

0.66 20,642

0.94 0.40
45 47
39-48
81 %
40 Maintain Uniformity with
Adjacent Segments
18 Margarita Rd Avenida Barca La Serena Way

0.43 21,564

0.96 0.44
40**
46 34-43
72 %
40**
Maintain Uniformity with
Adjacent Segments
19 Margarita Rd La Serena Way Rancho California Rd

0.38 24,482

0.94 0.44
40 44
35-44
85 %
40 California MUTCD Option 2
20 Margarita Rd Rancho Rancho Vista Rd
California Rd

0.49 31,516

0.96 0.53
40**
44 36-45
78 %
40**
California MUTCD Option 2
21 Margarita Rd Rancho Vista Rd Pauba Rd

0.35 30,949

0.96 0.51
40**
44 35-44
79 %
40**
California MUTCD Option 2
* Crash rate units: Fatal and Injury Collisions per One Million Vehicle Miles Act.: Actual Crash Rate
Exp.: Expected Crash Rate based on the Caltrans 2023 Crash Data on California State Highways Rate Rec.: Recommended Speed Limit
** 25 mph when children are present
Recommended Speed Limit Reduction
2025 Engineering and Traffic Survey Report 14

Table 1- Summary of Recommended Speed Limits
Crash
Posted
Rec.

Dist.

Rate*
Speed
85%
10 mi.
% in
Speed
No.

Street From To
(mi.)
ADT
Exp. Act.

Limit
Speed
Pace
Pace
Limit
Comments
22 Margarita Rd Pauba Rd Santiago Rd

0.36 33,047

0.96 0.81
45 44
36-45
83 %
40 California MUCTD Option 2
23 Margarita Rd Santiago Rd Pio Pico Rd

0.62 27,112

0.96 0.33
45 45
38-47
86 %
40 Maintain Uniformity with
Adjacent Segments
24 Margarita Rd Pio Pico Rd De Portola Rd

0.26 25,935

0.94 0.81
45**
44 36-45
81 %
40**
California MUTCD Option 2
25 Margarita Rd De Portola Rd Temecula Pkwy

0.25 31,841

0.94 0.69
40 39
31-40
84 %
40 Closest to 85th Speed
26 Meadows Pkwy La Serena Way Royal Oaks Dr

0.48 5,973

0.94 0.00
45**
40 32-41
84 %
45**
Maintain Uniformity with
Adjacent Segment, Lower than
Expected Crash Rate
27 Meadows Pkwy Royal Oaks Dr Rancho California Rd

0.44 5,668

0.94 0.00
45 43
31-40
66 %
45 Closest to 85th Speed
28 Meadows Pkwy Rancho Rancho Vista Rd

0.33 12,406

0.94 0.33
45 44
34-43
81 %
45 Closest to 85th Speed
California Rd
* Crash rate units: Fatal and Injury Collisions per One Million Vehicle Miles Act.: Actual Crash Rate
Exp.: Expected Crash Rate based on the Caltrans 2023 Crash Data on California State Highways Rate Rec.: Recommended Speed Limit
** 25 mph when children are present
Recommended Speed Limit Reduction
2025 Engineering and Traffic Survey Report 15

Table 1- Summary of Recommended Speed Limits
Crash
Posted
Rec.

Dist.

Rate*
Speed
85%
10 mi.
% in
Speed
No.

Street From To
(mi.)
ADT
Exp. Act.

Limit
Speed
Pace
Pace
Limit
Comments
29 Meadows Pkwy Rancho Vista Rd Pauba Rd

0.44 13,332

0.96 0.00
45 43
34-43
79 %
45 Closest to 85th Speed
30 Meadows Pkwy Pauba Rd De Portola Rd

1.29 12,802

0.94 0.50
45**
42 33-42
80 %
45**
Maintain Uniformity with
Adjacent Segment, Lower than
Expected Crash Rate
31 Meadows Pkwy De Portola Rd Temecula Pkwy

0.37 11,320

0.94 0.33
45 42
34-43
77 %
45 Maintain Uniformity with
Adjacent Segment, Lower than
Expected Crash Rate
32 Rancho California West City Limits Diaz Rd

0.97 7,389

1.24 0.57
45 45
36-45
83 %
45 Closest to 85th Speed
Rd
33 Rancho California Diaz Rd 1-15 Southband

0.32 22,628

0.94 0.19
40 38
29-38
77 %
40 Closest to 85th Speed
Rd Ramps
34 Rancho California 1-15 Southband Ynez Rd

0.25 73,755

1.23 0.52
40 39
29-38
76 %
40 Closest to 85th Speed
Rd Ramps
35 Rancho California Ynez Rd Moraga Rd

0.56 52,861

1.23 0.56
40 39
28-37
73 %
40 Closest to 85th Speed
Rd
* Crash rate units: Fatal and Injury Collisions per One Million Vehicle Miles Act.: Actual Crash Rate
Exp.: Expected Crash Rate based on the Caltrans 2023 Crash Data on California State Highways Rate Rec.: Recommended Speed Limit
** 25 mph when children are present
Recommended Speed Limit Reduction
2025 Engineering and Traffic Survey Report 16

Table 1- Summary of Recommended Speed Limits
Crash
Posted
Rec.

Dist.

Rate*
Speed
85%
10 mi.
% in
Speed
No.

Street From To
(mi.)
ADT
Exp. Act.

Limit
Speed
Pace
Pace
Limit
Comments
36 Rancho California Moraga Rd Cosmic Rd

0.41 41,848

0.94 1.28
45 43
33-42
71 %
45 Closest to 85th Speed
Rd
37 Rancho California Cosmic Dr Margarita Rd

0.46 33,633

0.94 1.06
45 44
32-41
66 %
45 Closest to 85th Speed
Rd
38 Rancho California Margarita Rd Tee Dr

0.76 36,152

0.96 0.45
50 50
41-50
72 %
50 Closest to 85th Speed
Rd
39 Rancho California Tee Dr Meadows Pkwy

0.47 30,747

0.96 0.00
50 51
40-49
71 %
50 Closest to 85th Speed
Rd
40 Rancho California Meadows Pkwy Butterfield Stage Rd

0.67 24,581

0.96 0.42
50 48
38-47
75 %
50 Closest to 85th Speed
Rd
41 Redwood Rd Loma Linda Rd Wolf Creek Dr N

0.28 1,024

1.68 0.00
30**
31 24-33
82 %
30**
Closest to 85th Speed
42 Sommers Bend Butterfield Lupine Dr

0.57 4,003

1.68 0.00
NP
32 23-32
90 %
30 Closest to 85th Speed
Stage Rd
* Crash rate units: Fatal and Injury Collisions per One Million Vehicle Miles Act.: Actual Crash Rate
Exp.: Expected Crash Rate based on the Caltrans 2023 Crash Data on California State Highways Rate Rec.: Recommended Speed Limit
** 25 mph when children are present
Recommended Speed Limit Reduction
2025 Engineering and Traffic Survey Report 17

Table 1- Summary of Recommended Speed Limits
Crash
Posted
Rec.

Dist.

Rate*
Speed
85%
10 mi.
% in
Speed
No.

Street From To
(mi.)
ADT
Exp. Act.

Limit
Speed
Pace
Pace
Limit
Comments
43 Sommers Bend Lupine Dr Sorrel Ln

0.76 1,693

1.68 0.00
NP
28 20-29
85 %
30 Closest to 85th Speed
44 Sommers Bend Sorrel Ln Butterfield Stage Rd

0.36 2,150

1.68 0.00
NP
29 22-31
92 %
30 Closest to 85th Speed
45 Temecula Pkwy Bedford Ct Pechanga Pkwy

0.55 52,859

1.23 1.41
50 45
35-44
75 %
45 Closest to 85th Speed
46 Temecula Pkwy Pechanga Pkwy Avenida De
1 44,783

1.23 0.61
50 48
39-48
78 %
50 Closest to 85th Speed
Missiones
47 Temecula Pkwy Avenida De Margarita Rd

0.6 41,385

1.23 0.55
50 46
35-44
69 %
50 Maintain Uniformity with
Missiones
Adjacent Segment, Lower than
Expected Crash Rate
48 Temecula Pkwy Margarita Rd Butterfield Stage Rd

1.37 24,453

1.23 1.19
50 47
34-43
65 %
50 Maintain Uniformity with
Adjacent Segment, Lower than
Expected Crash Rate
49 Temecula Pkwy Butterfield East City Limits

0.22 20,953

1.23 0.30
55 50
41-50
81 %
50 Closest to 85th Speed
Stage Rd
* Crash rate units: Fatal and Injury Collisions per One Million Vehicle Miles Act.: Actual Crash Rate
Exp.: Expected Crash Rate based on the Caltrans 2023 Crash Data on California State Highways Rate Rec.: Recommended Speed Limit
** 25 mph when children are present
Recommended Speed Limit Reduction
2025 Engineering and Traffic Survey Report 18

Table 1- Summary of Recommended Speed Limits
No.

Street From To
Dist.
(mi.)
ADT
Crash
Rate*
Exp. Act.

Posted
Speed
Limit
85%
Speed
10 mi.

Pace
% in
Pace
Rec.

Speed
Limit
Comments
50 Via La Vida Margarita Rd Solana Way

0.53 476

1.68 5.43
30 30
23-32
98 %
30 Closest to 85th Speed
51 Wolf Creek Dr N Pechanga Pkwy Wolf Valley Rd

0.7 3,160

1.68 0.62
30**
35 25-34
84 %
30**
Moderate Pedestrian Use &
Uncontrolled Crosswalk
52 Wolf Valley Rd Pechanga Pkwy Redhawk Pkwy

0.89 15,393

0.96 0.00
40 40
30-39
79 %
40 Closest to 85th Speed
* Crash rate units: Fatal and Injury Collisions per One Million Vehicle Miles Act.: Actual Crash Rate
Exp.: Expected Crash Rate based on the Caltrans 2023 Crash Data on California State Highways Rate Rec.: Recommended Speed Limit
** 25 mph when children are present
Recommended Speed Limit Reduction
2025 Engineering and Traffic Survey Report 19

2025 Engineering and
Traffic Survey Report
December 2025
Willdan Engineering
13191 Crossroads Pkwy N Suite 405
City of Industry, CA 91746
562.908.6200
�4oPtED
LIMIT
305
SPEED
LIMIT
�r
:r
1989
SPEED
LIMIT

December 31, 2025
Nick Minicilli, PE, TE
Senior Civil Engineer
41000 Main Street
Temecula, CA 92590
Subject: Engineering and Traffic Survey (E&TS) - 2025
Dear Mr. Minicilli:

O/WILLDAN
As requested, Willdan has completed an Engineering and Traffic Survey (E&TS) to justify and update the posted speed limits along 52 street segments in the City of Temecula. These segments were last surveyed in 2019 and require an update to comply with the 7-year limitation set forth in the California Vehicle Code (CVC).

We are pleased to submit the enclosed Report that describes the E&TS procedures and contains recommendations for posted speed limits on the City's arterial and collector street system. A summary of these recommendations is included in the Analysis. Supporting documentation for each speed zone recommendation is provided in the Appendices.

The Report was conducted in accordance with applicable provisions of the CVC, following procedures outlined in the California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices Revision 8 (California MUTCD) dated January 2024, and as required by Section 627 of the CVC. The Report is intended to satisfy the requirements of Section 40802 of the CVC to enable the continued use of radar for traffic speed enforcement.

We appreciate the opportunity to serve the City of Temecula and the assistance, cooperation, and guidance afforded to us during the course of this study.

Very truly yours,

WILLDAN
/ 111/1
"M
Nicolle Spann, P.E., T.E.

Traffic Engineer
Enclosure
/oQ�kofEs
* No. 91787

OF CALL
�o QgpFE551p�1�
w
15 * TR 2933
�qjF 'QA F F
OF CAL\��
562.908.6200 1 900.499.4494 1 fax:562.695.2120
13191 Crossroads Parkway North, Suite 405, Industry, California 91746-3443 1 www_wilidan.com 2025 Engineering and Traffic Survey Report 2

Table of Contents
Introduction........................................................................................................4 Elements Of the Engineering and Traffic Survey.......................................................................................5 SpeedSampling...................................................................................................................................... 5 CrashHistory.......................................................................................................................................... 7 Conditions Not Readily Apparent to Motorists...................................................................................... 7 SafetyCorridors — New from AB 43....................................................................................................... 7 SurveyConditions...............................................................................................8 SurveyLocations........................................................................................................................................8 DataCollection.......................................................................................................................................... 8 SpeedData............................................................................................................................................. 8 FieldReview Data.................................................................................................................................. 8 CrashData............................................................................................................................................. 9 Analysis............................................................................................................10 Speed Limit Recommendations.........................................................................11 RecommendationTables.........................................................................................................................11 Table 1 - Summary of Recommended Speed Limits.............................................................................12 Table 2 - Street Segments with Recommended Speed Changes.......................................................... 20 Segments with Special Conditions.....................................................................21

APPENDIX A
Street Segment Data

APPENDIX B
Radar Speed Distribution Forms

APPENDIX C
ADT Count Sheets

APPENDIX D
Survey Equipment

APPENDIX E
Legislative References
2025 Engineering and Traffic Survey Report 3

Introduction
This E&TS is intended to be the basis for the establishment, revision, and enforcement of speed limits for selected streets within the City of Temecula. This E&TS presents recommended speed limits for 52 street segments in the City of Temecula. E&T Surveys are required by the State of California to establish intermediate speed limits on local, major, secondary, collector, and arterial streets and to enforce those limits using radar or other speed measuring devices. Historically, these surveys must be updated every 7 to 14 years to ensure the speeds reflect current conditions, and can be enforced per CVC Section 40802.

E&T Surveys are prepared under the direction of CVC Sections 627,22350-22359, and 40801-40803. The CVC also requires that the surveys be conducted based on the methodology required by the California MUTCD Revision 8 (California MUTCD) dated January 2024.

Assembly Bill No. 43 (AB 43), signed in October 2021, has given local agencies more leeway in lowering and maintaining speed limits aimed at enhancing traffic safety. The California Vehicle Code was amended in 2022 and the California MUTCD was amended in March 2023 to implement laws and guidelines with the changes set forth in AB 43. There were three major changes to how speed limits can be recommended under AB 43 as follows:

1. An E&T Survey conducted more than 7 years ago may be extended to 14 years (previously to 10 years) if a traffic engineer certifies that no changes in roadway or traffic conditions have occurred [CVC 40802 (c)(2)(B)(i)(II)].

2. A local authority may establish and designate safety corridors throughout their jurisdiction. The local authority may recommend a speed limit with an additional five mile per hour reduction on segments designated as safety corridors. Local authorities may not lower a speed limit under this section until June 30, 2024, or until the Judicial Council has developed an online tool for adjudicating infraction violations statewide, whichever is sooner. Since the E&TS was completed in March 2025, this report reflects lowering speeds on these designating the roadway segments.

3. If a local authority, after completing an E&T Survey, finds that the speed limit is still reasonable or safe, the local authority may retain the current speed limit or restore the immediately prior speed limit if that speed limit was established with an E&T Survey and if a registered engineer has evaluated the section of highway and determined that no additional general purpose lanes have been added to the roadway since completion of the traffic survey that established the prior speed limit.

This E&TS was requested by the City for the proper posting of speed limits and to enable the Police Department to utilize radar or other electronic speed measuring devices for speed enforcement. CVC Sections 40801 and 40802 require E&T Surveys that verify the prima facie speed limit before enforcement by such a device is legal. The law further specifies that these surveys be conducted every 5 years. The surveys can be extended to 7 years provided the City's Police Department(s) have completed a 24-hour radar operator course [CVC 40802(c)(2)(13)(i)(1)].

Posted speed limits are primarily established to protect the public by mitigating the risks posed by reckless and unpredictable driving behavior. The posted speed limits provide law enforcement with a clearly understood method to identify and apprehend violators of the basic speed law (CVC Section 22350). This law states that "No person shall drive a vehicle on a highway at a speed greater than is reasonable or prudent having due regard for weather, visibility, the traffic on, and the surface and width 2025 Engineering and Traffic Survey Report 4

of the highway, and in no event at a speed which endangers the safety of persons or property." The posted speed limit gives motorists a clear warning of the maximum speed that is reasonable and prudent under typical driving conditions.

The basic fundamentals for establishing speed limits recognize that the majority of drivers behave in a safe and reasonable manner, and therefore, the normally careful and competent actions of a reasonable driver should be considered legal. Speed limits established on these fundamentals conform to the consensus that those who drive the highway determine what speed is reasonable and safe, not on the judgment of one or a few individuals. A radar speed study is usually conducted to record the prevailing speed of reasonable drivers.

Speed limits are also established to advise drivers of conditions which may not be readily apparent to a reasonable driver. For this reason, accident history, roadway conditions, traffic characteristics, and land use must also be analyzed before determining speed limits. Speed limit changes are usually made in coordination with physical changes in roadway conditions or roadside developments. Unusually short zones of less than one-half mile in length should be avoided to reduce driver confusion.

The E&T Surveys for the City were conducted in accordance with procedures outlined in the California MUTCD and as required by Section 627 of the CVC. The Code further describes three elements of an E&T Survey:

1. Measurement of prevailing speed based on the 85t" percentile rule

2. Accident history on the roadway

3. Roadway conditions and other relevant factors that are not readily apparent to the motorist.

Additionally, it is generally accepted that speed limits cannot be successfully enforced without voluntary compliance by a majority of drivers. Consequently, only the driver whose behavior is clearly out of line with the normal flow of traffic is usually targeted for enforcement.

Elements Of the Engineering and Traffic Survey
The California MUTCD specifies the methodology to be used for completing E&T Surveys. This methodology includes an evaluation of current vehicle speeds, accident history and conditions not readily apparent to motorists. The basic elements of the E&TS are discussed in more detail as follows:

Speed Sampling
Existing vehicle speeds are surveyed by a certified radar operator with a calibrated radar unit in an unmarked vehicle. Speed samples are taken for each segment representing a statistically significant sample of current traffic. This data is then evaluated to identify the distribution of speeds. A key element in the evaluation is the identification of the 85th percentile speed. The 85th percentile speed is the speed at or below which 85 percent of the traffic travels. This threshold represents what is historically found to be a safe and reasonable speed for most drivers based on common roadway conditions. A speed limit is established in the three options below.

Options:
■ Closest to 85th Percentile Speed — A speed limit is established at the nearest 5-mile per hour increment to the 85t" percentile speed.
2025 Engineering and Traffic Survey Report

■ California MUTCD Option 1 - Reduction using Segments with Special Conditions - For cases in which the nearest 5 mph increment of the 85th-percentile speed would require rounding down, the posted speed may be reduced by an additional 5 mph from the nearest 5 mph increment of the 85th-percentile speed, in compliance with CVC Section 627 and 22358.5.

California MUTCD Option 2 - For cases in which the nearest 5 mph increment of the 85th- percentile speed would require a rounding up, then the speed limit may be rounded down to the nearest 5 mph increment below the 85th percentile speed, if no further reduction is used. Refer to CVC Section 21400(b).

If the speed limit to be posted has had the 5 mph reduction applied, then an E&T Survey shall document in writing the conditions and justification for the lower speed limit. The reasons for the lower speed limit shall be in compliance with CVC Section 627 and 22358.5.

The following examples are provided to explain the application of these speed limit criteria:

If the 85th percentile speed in a speed survey for a location was 33 mph, the 3 options may be applied as follows:
■ Closest to 85th Percentile Speed - The 85th percentile speed would round up to the nearest 5- mph increment. The speed limit would be established at 35 mph since it is the closest 5 mph increment to the 33 mph speed.

California MUTCD Option 1 - Reduction using Segments with Special Conditions - The first step is to round up, then the speed limit would be established at 35 mph since it is the closest 5 mph increment to the 33 mph speed. As indicated by this option, this 35 mph established speed limit could be reduced by 5 mph to 30 mph if conditions and justification for using this lower speed limit are documented in the E&T Survey. However, it is best to apply MUTCD Option 2 in these scenarios as it will not require documentation of conditions and justification to lower the speed limit.
■ California MUTCD Option 2 - Instead of rounding up to 35 mph, the speed limit can be established at 30 mph, but no further reduction can be applied.

If the 85th percentile speed in a speed survey for a location was 37 mph, the 3 options may be applied as follows:
■ Closest to 85th Percentile Speed - The 85th percentile speed would round down to the nearest 5- mph increment. The speed limit would be established at 35 mph since it is the closest 5 mph increment to the 37 mph speed.
■ California MUTCD Option 1 - Reduction using Segments with Special Conditions - The first step is to round down, then the speed limit would be established at 35 mph since it is the closest 5 mph increment to the 37 mph speed. As indicated by this option, this 35 mph established speed limit could be reduced by 5 mph to 30 mph if conditions and justification for using this lower speed limit are documented in the E&T Survey.
■ California MUTCD Option 2 —This option is not applicable to 85th percentile speeds that already round down to the nearest 5-mph increment using the "Closest to 85th Percentile Speed" option. 2025 Engineering and Traffic Survey Report 6

Crash History
Reported crashes reviewed from California Highway Patrol's Statewide Integrated Traffic Records System (SWITRS) electronic crash database are reviewed for each street segment to determine if there is a higher than expected average rate of crashes. A segment that has an above -average crash rate typically suggests conditions that are not readily apparent to motorists.

Conditions Not Readily Apparent to Motorists
Each street segment is field inspected to identify roadway conditions that may not be readily apparent to motorists. A determination is made whether any conditions are significant and warrant the recommendation of the speed limit 5 mph below the basic speed limit.

The Legislature, in adopting Section 22358.5 of the CVC, has made it clear that physical conditions, such as width, curvature, grade and surface conditions, or any other condition readily apparent to a driver, in the absence of other factors, would not be the basis for special downward speed zoning.

Conditions not readily apparent to motorists include the considerations of crash history, poor visibility, and the safety of bicyclists and pedestrians.

Safety Corridors — New from AB 43
The provisions of CVC Section 22358.7, a new section added through AB 43, to additionally lower the speed limit by designating a safety corridor, shall not be applicable until actions required per CVC Section 22358.7 by Department of Transportation and Judicial Council are completed or June 30, 2024, whichever is sooner. Since the E&TS was completed in 2025 on these designated roadway segments, this report reflects lowering speeds using the application of safety corridors.

Data used to determine a safety corridor may be from the most recent E&T Survey performed. The crash data source may include, but is not limited to, California Highway Patrol's (CHP) Statewide Integrated Traffic Records System (SWITRS). The prioritized subset of safety corridors shall:

1. Identify specific locations with high crash occurrences.

2. Identify corridor -level segments with a pattern of crash reoccurrence.

3. Be able to be stratified by mode.

The total reduction in the speed limit using the nearest 5 mph increment, rounding up, rounding down and using 5 mph speed reduction, plus an additional 5 mph speed reduction for safety corridor designation, shall not exceed 12.4 mph from the 85-percentile speed. Refer to CVC Section 22358.6(e). 2025 Engineering and Traffic Survey Report 7

Survey Conditions
Survey Locations
The procedures described below describe the criteria and methods used to survey selected streets within the City of Temecula. The specific location of the radar speed survey for each street segment was selected after considering the following:

1. Minimum stop sign and traffic signal influence.

2. Minimum visibility restrictions.

3. Non -congested traffic flow away from intersections and driveways.

4. Minimum influence from curves or other roadway conditions that would affect the normal operation of a vehicle.

Data Collection
Data of existing conditions was obtained including prevailing speed of vehicles, traffic crashes, visibility restrictions, and roadway conditions within the community. ADT and field reviews were conducted at 52 locations during the months of May and June 2025.

Speed Data
Radar speed measurements were conducted at 52 locations during the months of June and July 2025.

The radar speed distribution forms are in Appendix B. All surveys were conducted in good weather conditions, during off-peak hours on weekdays. The radar unit was operated from an unmarked vehicle to minimize any influence on driver behavior. Typically, a minimum sample size of 100 vehicles or the total samples during a maximum period of 2 hours were obtained for each segment. Traffic speeds in both directions were recorded for individual segments.

Field Review Data
A field review was conducted for each of the selected street segments in the City with consideration for the following factors:

1. Street width and alignment;

2. Pedestrian activity and traffic flow characteristics;

3. Number of lanes and other channelization and striping patterns;

4. Frequency of intersections, driveways, and on -street parking; S. Location of stop signs and other regulatory traffic control devices;

6. Visibility obstructions;

7. Land use and proximity to schools;

8. Pedestrian and bicycle usage;
2025 Engineering and Traffic Survey Report 8

9. Uniformity with existing speed zones and those in adjacent jurisdictions; and

10. Any other unusual condition not readily apparent to the driver.

Crash Data
Crash data was obtained from the California Highway Patrol's Statewide Integrated Traffic Records System (SWITRS) electronic crash database. For this study, crash data was used from the latest 2 years of reported accidents from January 6, 2020 to June 9, 2025. The crash rates for the 52 segments are expressed in crashes per million vehicle miles (C/MVM). To calculate these rates, 24-hour traffic volumes were collected for each street segment. This information was then entered into the following formula to determine the crash rate:

WE
C x 1, 000, 000
t x 365 days x 1 x v
year
C = Number of midblock crashes overtime period
R = Crash Rate (crashes/million vehicle miles)
t = Time Period Covered (in years)
1 = Length of Segment (miles)
v = Traffic Volume (average daily traffic)
The segment crash rate was then compared to the average statewide crash rate of similar roadways.

The average statewide crash rates were obtained from 2023 Collision Data on California State Highways published by Caltrans.
2025 Engineering and Traffic Survey Report 9

Analysis
Survey data was compiled and analyzed to determine the recommended speed limit in accordance with several criteria contained in The California MUTCD. Some of the criteria used are:

A. The critical speed or 85th percentile speed is that speed at or below which 85 percent of the traffic is moving. This speed is the baseline value in determining what the majority of drivers believe is safe and reasonable. Speed limits set higher than the critical speed are not considered reasonable and safe. Speed limits set lower than the critical speed make a large number of reasonable drivers "unlawful," and do not facilitate the orderly flow of traffic. The "basic speed limit" is the nearest 5 mph increment to the 85th percentile speed.

B. The 10 mile per hour (mph) pace speed is the 10 mph increment that contains the highest percentage of vehicles. It is a measure of the dispersion of speeds across the range of the samples surveyed. An accepted practice is to keep the speed limit within the 10 mph pace while considering the critical speed and other factors that might require a speed lower than the critical speed.

C. The crash rate for each street segment is compared to average crash rates that can be reasonably expected to occur on streets and highways in other jurisdictions, in proportion to the volume of traffic per lane mile. These average crash rates have been developed by the State of California and are considered reasonable for use in the City of Temecula.

The Engineering and Traffic Survey Forms, presented in Appendix A, illustrate results of a thorough evaluation of available data and recommend a speed limit for each of the 52 street segments surveyed based on the guidelines for an Engineering and Traffic Survey set forth by the California MUTCD and the CVC. A complete summary of all 52 EUS recommendations is shown in Table 1. In each case, the recommended speed limit was consistent with the prevailing behavior as demonstrated by the radar speed measurements. Typically, a speed limit in the upper range of the 10-mile pace was selected unless a crash rate significantly higher than expected was discovered or roadway conditions not readily apparent to the driver were identified. Any segments with recommended speed limits 5 mph or more below the basic speed limit are fully explained later in the Segments with Special Conditions section of this report.

The California State Legislature, in adopting Section 22358.5 of the CVC, has made it clear that physical conditions, such as width, curvature, grade and surface conditions, or any other condition readily apparent to a driver, in the absence of other factors, would not be the basis for special downward speed zoning. In these cases, the basic speed law (CVC Section 22350) is sufficient to regulate such conditions. 2025 Engineering and Traffic Survey Report 10

■
Speed Limit Recommendations
The recommendations contained in this Report are intended to establish prima facie speed limits. They are not intended to be absolute for all prevailing conditions. All prima facie speed violations are actually violations of the basic speed law (CVC Section 22350). This statute states that a person shall not drive a vehicle at a speed greater than is safe having regard for traffic, roadway, and weather conditions. A prima facie limit is intended to establish a maximum safe speed under normal conditions.

Recommendation Tables
Table 1 summarizes the recommendations for all surveyed segments and Table 2 identifies the street segments with recommended changes in posted speed limits. 2025 Engineering and Traffic Survey Report 11

Segments with Special Conditions
This section is meant to further explain the use of special conditions to change the recommended speed limit from than the 851" Percentile speed. These special conditions include Conditions Not Readily Apparent to Motorists and Safety Corridors.

Segment 4 — Deer Hollow Street — Pechanga Parkway to Via La Colorada This segment is currently posted at 35 mph and has two through lanes in each direction with an ADT of 8,565 vehicles per day. The adjacent land is residential and a school zone along the 0.45-mile-long segment. The 85th percentile speed is 43 mph and would normally justify a 40 mph posted speed limit by rounding down using the California MUTCD Option 2. This segment has been identified as a safety corridor and an additional 5 mph reduction can be applied. It is recommended that the speed limit be posted at 35 mph for the above reason. This recommendation falls within the limitations requiring the recommendation be no more than 12mph under the 85th percentile speed.

Segment 9 — La Serena Way — Calle Medusa to Butterfield Stage Road This segment is currently posted at 40 mph and has two through lanes in each direction with a bike lane, with an ADT of 6,859 vehicles per day and extends approximately 0.37 miles. Adjacent land uses are primarily residential. The measured 85th percentile speed is 37 mph, which would typically support a posted speed limit of 35 mph. However, to maintain consistency with adjacent segments along La Serena Way and based on the existing roadway context, it is recommended that the speed limit remain posted at 40 mph.

Segment 17 — Margarita Road — Morgana Road to Avenida Barca This segment is currently posted at 45 mph and has two through lanes in each direction with a bike lane with an ADT of 20,642 vehicles per day along the 0.66-mile segment. The adjacent land use is residential. The 85th percentile speed is 47 mph, which would normally justify a 45 mph posted speed limit. However, to maintain consistency with adjacent segments along Margarita Road and based on the existing roadway context, it is recommended that the speed limit be posted at 40 mph.

Segment 18 — Margarita Road —Avenida Barca to La Serena Way This segment is currently posted at 40 mph and two through lanes in each direction with a bike lane, with an ADT of 21,564 vehicles per day along the 0.43-mile segment. The adjacent land use is residential with a school. The 85th percentile speed is 46 mph, which would normally justify a 45 mph posted speed limit. However, to maintain consistency with adjacent segments along Margarita Road and based on the existing roadway context, it is recommended that the speed limit be posted at 40 mph.

Segment 23 — Margarita Road — Santiago Road to Pio Pico Road This segment is currently posted at 40 mph and two through lanes in each direction with a bike lane, with an ADT of 27,112 vehicles per day along the 0.62-mile segment. The adjacent land use is residential. The 85th percentile speed is 45 mph, which would normally justify a 45 mph posted speed limit. However, to maintain consistency with adjacent segments along Margarita Road and based on the existing roadway context, it is recommended that the speed limit be posted at 40 mph. 2025 Engineering and Traffic Survey Report 21

Table 1- Summary of Recommended Speed Limits
No.

Street
From
To
Dist.
(mi.)
ADT
Crash
Rate*
Exp. Act.

Posted
Speed
Limit
85%
Speed
10 mi.

Pace
% in
Pace
Rec.

Speed
Limit
Comments
1 Anza Rd
Peppercorn Dr
Drymen Ave

0.33 2,325

1.68 0.00
35 39
30-39
61 %
35 California MUTCD Option 2
2 Commerce Center Via Montezuma
Dr
Overland Dr

0.41 3,313

1.68 2.02
30 34
25-34
66 %
30 California MUTCD Option 2
3 Commerce Center Overland Dr
Dr
Rider Way

0.1 1,158

1.68 0.00
30 28
19-28
81 %
30 Closest to 85th Speed
4 Deer Hollow Way
Pechanga Pkwy
Via La Colorada

0.45 8,565

0.96 1.78
35**
43 34-43
72 %
35**
California MUTCD Option 2 &
Safety Corridor
5 Deer Hollow Way
Via La Colorada
Peppercorn Dr

0.27 9,496

0.96 0.00
35**
38 29-38
75 %
35**
California MUTCD Option 2
6 La Serena Way
Margarita Rd
Calle Pina Colada

0.49 9,549

1.68 0.59
40 38
29-38
81 %
40 Closest to 85th Speed
7 La Serena Way
Calle Pina Colada Meadows Pkwy

0.65 9,489

Table 1- Summary of Recommended Speed Limits
No.

Street
From
To
Dist.
(mi.)
ADT
Crash
Rate*
Exp. Act.

Posted
Speed
Limit
85%
Speed
10 mi.

Pace
% in
Pace
Rec.

Speed
Limit
Comments
8 La Serena Way
Meadows Pkwy
Calle Medusa

0.33 8,889

1.68 0.00
40**
40 31-40
73 %
40**
Closest to 85th Speed
9 La Serena Way
Calle Medusa
Butterfield Stage Rd

0.37 6,859

1.68 0.00
40 37
29-38
82 %
40 Maintain Uniformity with
Adjacent Segments
10 Margarita Rd
Date Street
Rustic Glen Dr

0.33 15,655

0.94 0.00
45 44
36-45
82 %
40 California MUTCD Option 2
11 Margarita Rd
Rustic Glen Dr
Harveston Way

0.36 15,299

0.94 0.25
45 42
33-42
77 %
40 Closest to 85th Speed
12 Margarita Rd
Harveston Way
Winchester Rd

0.39 23,911

0.94 1.76
45 42
34-43
81 %
40 Closest to 85th Speed
13 Margarita Rd
Winchester Rd
N General Kearny Rd

0.4 27,526

0.94 0.50
40 38
29-38
80 %
40 Closest to 85th Speed
14 Margarita Rd
N General
Kearny Rd
Overland Dr

0.37 27,519

Table 1- Summary of Recommended Speed Limits
No.

Street
From
To
Dist.
(mi.)
ADT
Crash
Rate*
Exp. Act.

Posted
Speed
Limit
85%
Speed
10 mi.

Pace
% in
Pace
Rec.

Speed
Limit
Comments
15 Margarita Rd
Overland Dr
Solana Way

0.24 26,273

0.94 0.00
40 39
31-40
85 %
40 Closest to 85th Speed
16 Margarita Rd
Solana Way
Moraga Rd

0.65 25,559

0.96 0.25
45**
43 33-42
83 %
40**
California MUTCD Option 2
17 Margarita Rd
Moraga Rd
Avenida Barca

0.66 20,642

0.94 0.40
45 47
39-48
81 %
40 Maintain Uniformity with
Adjacent Segments
18 Margarita Rd
Avenida Barca
La Serena Way

0.43 21,564

0.96 0.44
40**
46 34-43
72 %
40**
Maintain Uniformity with
Adjacent Segments
19 Margarita Rd
La Serena Way
Rancho California Rd

0.38 24,482

0.94 0.44
40 44
35-44
85 %
40 California MUTCD Option 2
20 Margarita Rd
Rancho
California Rd
Rancho Vista Rd

0.49 31,516

0.96 0.53
40**
44 36-45
78 %
40**
California MUTCD Option 2
21 Margarita Rd
Rancho Vista Rd
Pauba Rd

0.35 30,949

Table 1- Summary of Recommended Speed Limits
Crash
Posted
Rec.

Dist.

Rate*
Speed
85%
10 mi.
% in
Speed
No.

Street
From
To
(mi.)
ADT
Exp.

Act.

Limit
Speed
Pace
Pace
Limit
Comments
22 Margarita Rd
Pauba Rd
Santiago Rd

0.36 33,047

0.96 0.81
45 44
36-45
83 %
40 California MUCTD Option 2
23 Margarita Rd
Santiago Rd
Pio Pico Rd

0.62 27,112

0.96 0.33
45 45
38-47
86 %
40 Maintain Uniformity with
Adjacent Segments
24 Margarita Rd
Pio Pico Rd
De Portola Rd

0.26 25,935

0.94 0.81
45**
44 36-45
81 %
40**
California MUTCD Option 2
25 Margarita Rd
De Portola Rd
Temecula Pkwy

0.25 31,841

0.94 0.69
40 39
31-40
84 %
40 Closest to 85th Speed
26 Meadows Pkwy
La Serena Way
Royal Oaks Dr

0.48 5,973

0.94 0.00
45**
40 32-41
84 %
45**
Maintain Uniformity with
Adjacent Segment, Lower than
Expected Crash Rate
27 Meadows Pkwy
Royal Oaks Dr
Rancho California Rd

0.44 5,668

0.94 0.00
45 43
31-40
66 %
45 Closest to 85th Speed
28 Meadows Pkwy
Rancho
Rancho Vista Rd

0.33 12,406

Table 1- Summary of Recommended Speed Limits
Crash
Posted
Rec.

Dist.

Rate*
Speed
85%
10 mi.
% in
Speed
No.

Street
From
To
(mi.)
ADT
Exp.

Act.

Limit
Speed
Pace
Pace
Limit
Comments
29 Meadows Pkwy
Rancho Vista Rd
Pauba Rd

0.44 13,332

0.96 0.00
45 43
34-43
79 %
45 Closest to 85th Speed
30 Meadows Pkwy
Pauba Rd
De Portola Rd

1.29 12,802

0.94 0.50
45**
42 33-42
80 %
45**
Maintain Uniformity with
Adjacent Segment, Lower than
Expected Crash Rate
31 Meadows Pkwy
De Portola Rd
Temecula Pkwy

0.37 11,320

0.94 0.33
45 42
34-43
77 %
45 Maintain Uniformity with
Adjacent Segment, Lower than
Expected Crash Rate
32 Rancho California
West City Limit
Diaz Rd

0.97 7,389

1.24 0.57
45 45
36-45
83 %
45 Closest to 85th Speed
Rd
33 Rancho California
Diaz Rd
1-15 Southband

0.32 22,628

0.94 0.19
40 38
29-38
77 %
40 Closest to 85th Speed
Rd
Ramps
34 Rancho California
1-15 Southband
Ynez Rd

0.25 73,755

1.23 0.52
40 39
29-38
76 %
40 Closest to 85th Speed
Rd
Ramps
35 Rancho California
Ynez Rd
Moraga Rd

0.56 52,861

Table 1- Summary of Recommended Speed Limits
Crash
posted
Rec.

Dist.

Rate*
Speed
85%
10 mi.
% in
Speed
No.

Street
From
To
(mi.)
ADT
Exp.

Act.

Limit
Speed
Pace
Pace
Limit
Comments
36 Rancho California
Moraga Rd
Cosmic Rd

0.41 41,848

0.94 1.28
45 43
33-42
71 %
45 Closest to 85th Speed
Rd
37 Rancho California
Cosmic Dr
Margarita Rd

0.46 33,633

0.94 1.06
45 44
32-41
66 %
45 Closest to 85th Speed
Rd
38 Rancho California
Margarita Rd
Tee Dr

0.76 36,152

0.96 0.45
50 50
41-50
72 %
50 Closest to 85th Speed
Rd
39 Rancho California
Tee Dr
Meadows Pkwy

0.47 30,747

0.96 0.00
50 51
40-49
71 %
50 Closest to 85th Speed
Rd
40 Rancho California
Meadows Pkwy
Butterfield Stage Rd

0.67 24,581

0.96 0.42
50 48
38-47
75 %
50 Closest to 85th Speed
Rd
41 Redwood Rd
Loma Linda Rd
Wolf Creek Dr N

0.28 1,024

1.68 0.00
30**
31 24-33
82 %
30**
Closest to 85th Speed
42 Sommers Bend
Butterfield
Lupine Dr

0.57 4,003

Table 1- Summary of Recommended Speed Limits
Crash
Posted
Rec.

Dist.

Rate*
Speed
85%
10 mi.
% in
Speed
No.

Street
From
To
(mi.)
ADT
Exp.

Act.

Limit
Speed
Pace
Pace
Limit
Comments
43 Sommers Bend
Lupine Dr
Sorrel Ln

0.76 1,693

1.68 0.00
NP
28 20-29
85 %
30 Closest to 85th Speed
44 Sommers Bend
Sorrel Ln
Butterfield Stage Rd

0.36 2,150

1.68 0.00
NP
29 22-31
92 %
30 Closest to 85th Speed
45 Temecula Pkwy
Bedford Ct
Pechanga Pkwy

0.55 52,859

1.23 1.41
50 45
35-44
75 %
45 Closest to 85th Speed
46 Temecula Pkwy
Pechanga Pkwy
Avenida De
1 44,783

1.23 0.61
50 48
39-48
78 %
50 Closest to 85th Speed
Missiones
47 Temecula Pkwy
Avenida De
Margarita Rd

0.6 41,385

1.23 0.55
50 46
35-44
69 %
50 Maintain Uniformity with
Missiones
Adjacent Segment, Lower than
Expected Crash Rate
48 Temecula Pkwy
Margarita Rd
Butterfield Stage Rd

1.37 24,453

1.23 1.19
50 47
34-43
65 %
50 Maintain Uniformity with
Adjacent Segment, Lower than
Expected Crash Rate
49 Temecula Pkwy
Butterfield
East City Limits

0.22 20,953

Table 1- Summary of Recommended Speed Limits
No.

Street
From
Dist.

To (mi.)
ADT
Crash
Rate*
Exp. Act.

Posted
Speed
Limit
85%
Speed
10 mi.

Pace
% in
Pace
Rec.

Speed
Limit
Comments
50 Via La Vida
Margarita Rd
Solana Way 0.53
476

1.68 5.43
30 30
23-32
98 %
30 Closest to 85th Speed
51 Wolf Creek Dr N
Pechanga Pkwy
Wolf Valley Rd 0.7
3,160

1.68 0.62
30**
35 25-34
84 %
30**
Moderate Pedestrian Use &
Uncontrolled Crosswalk
52 Wolf Valley Rd
Pechanga Pkwy
Redhawk Pkwy 0.89
15,393

■
No.

Street
Table 2 - Street Segments with Recommended Speed Changes From To Existing
New
Change
10 Margarita Rd
Date Street
Rustic Glen Dr
45 40
-5
11 Margarita Rd
Rustic Glen Dr
Harveston Way
45 40
-5
12 Margarita Rd
Harveston Way
Winchester Rd
45 1 40
-5
16 Margarita Rd
Solana Way
Moraga Rd
45 40
-5
17 Margarita Rd
Moraga Rd
Avenida Barca
45 40
-5
22 Margarita Rd
Pauba Rd
Santiago Rd
45 40
-5
23 Margarita Rd
Santiago Rd
Pio Pico Rd
45 40
-5
24 Margarita Rd
Pio Pico Rd
De Portola Rd
45 40
-5
42 Sommers Bend
Butterfield Stage Rd
Lupine Dr
NP
30 PL
43 Sommers Bend
Lupine Dr
Sorrel Ln
NP
30 PL
44 Sommers Bend
Sorrel Ln
Butterfield Stage Rd
NP
30 PL
45 Temecula Pkwy
Bedford Ct
Pechanga Pkwy
50 1 45
-5
r49
Temecula Pkwy
Butterfield Stage Rd
East City Limits
55 50
-5
NP= No Posted Speed Limit
PL= Post Speed Limit Sign 2025 Engineering and Traffic Survey Report 20

Segment 26 — Meadows Parkway — La Serena Way to Royal Oaks Drive This segment is currently posted at 45 mph and has two through lanes in each direction with a bike lane with an ADT of 5,973 vehicles per day. The adjacent land is residential along the 0.48-mile-long segment.

The 85th percentile speed is 40 mph and would normally justify a 40 mph posted speed limit. However, in order to maintain uniformity with adjacent segments on Meadows Parkway and a lower than expected crash rate, a higher speed limit is adequate. It is recommended that the speed limit remain posted at 45 mph for the above reason.

Segment 30 — Meadows Parkway — Pauba Road to De Portola Road This segment is currently posted at 45 mph and has two through lanes in each direction with an ADT of 12,802 vehicles per day. The adjacent land use is residential and school along the 1.29-mile-long segment. The 85th percentile speed is 42 mph and would normally justify a 40 mph posted speed limit.

However, in order to maintain uniformity with adjacent segments on Meadows Parkway and a lower than expected crash rate, a reduced speed limit is not recommended. It is recommended that the speed limit remain posted at 45 mph for the above reason.

Segment 31— Meadows Parkway — De Portola Road to Temecula Parkway This segment is currently posted at 45 mph and has two through lanes in each direction with an ADT of 11,320 vehicles per day. The adjacent land use is residential along the 0.37-mile-long segment. The 85th percentile speed is 42 mph and would normally justify a 40 mph posted speed limit. However, due to roadway conditions and the need to maintain consistency with adjacent segments and a lower than expected crash rate, a reduced speed limit is not recommended. It is recommended that the speed limit remain posted at 45 mph.

Segment 47 — Temecula Parkway — Avenida De Missiones to Margarita Road This segment is currently posted at 50 mph and has three through lanes in each direction with an ADT of 41,385 vehicles per day. The adjacent land use is commercial along the 0.60-mile-long segment. The 85th percentile speed is 46 mph and would normally justify a 45 mph posted speed limit. However, due to roadway conditions and the need to maintain consistency with adjacent segments and a lower than expected crash rate, a reduced speed limit is not recommended. It is recommended that the speed limit remain posted at 50 mph.

Segment 48 — Temecula Parkway — Margarita Road to Butterfield Stage Road This segment is currently posted at 50 mph and has three through lanes in each direction with an ADT of 24,453 vehicles per day. The adjacent land use is commercial along the 1.37-mile-long segment. The 85th percentile speed is 47 mph and would normally justify a 45 mph posted speed limit. However, due to roadway conditions and the need to maintain consistency with adjacent segments and a lower than expected crash rate, a reduced speed limit is not recommended. It is recommended that the speed limit remain posted at 50 mph.
2025 Engineering and Traffic Survey Report 22

Segment 51— Wolf Creek Drive North — Pechanga Parkway to Wolf Valley Road This segment is currently posted at 30 mph and has one through lane in each direction with an ADT of 3,160 vehicles per day. The adjacent land use is residential, school, and park along the 0.70-mile-long segment. The 85th percentile speed is 35 mph and would normally justify a 35 mph posted speed limit.

However, due to moderate pedestrian activity and the presence of uncontrolled crosswalks that may not be apparent to unfamiliar drivers, a lower speed limit is prudent. It is recommended that the speed limit remain posted at 30 mph. In addition, 25 mph school zones are recommended to remain in place per Section 22352 of the California Vehicle Code.
2025 Engineering and Traffic Survey Report 23

APPENDIX A
Street Segment Data
2025 Engineering and Traffic Survey Report

2025 ENGINEERING AND TRAFFIC SURVEY Segment 1
STREET Anza Rd CERTIFICATION DATE 12/31/2025
FROM Peppercorn Dr TO Drymen Ave

OPERATING CHARACTERISTICS
Date of Speed Survey
6/24/2025 85th Percentile Speed 39 mph
Time of Speed Survey
1:40 PM 50th Percentile Speed 33 mph
Number of Survey Samples
200 Posted Speed Limit 35 mph
10 mph Pace
30-39 mph
Percentage of Vehicles in Pace
61 Average Daily Traffic (ADT)
2,325
Date of ADT
5/28/2025

ROADWAY CHARACTERISTICS
Type of Traffic Control TS @ Peppercorn
Marked Uncontrolled X-Walks
None
Adjacent Land Use
Residential
Length of Segment

0.33 miles
Pedestrian Traffic
Light
Width
64 feet
Truck Traffic
Light
Sidewalks
Both Sides
Driveways
Few
On -Street Parking
None
Lighting
South Side Only
Vertical Curve
Yes
Visibility
Fair
Horizontal Curve
Yes
Roadway Conditions
Good
Number of Lanes
2 CRASH HISTORY AND SAFETY CORRIDOR
Date Range 1/6/2020-6/9/2025
Statewide Average Crash Rate 1.68 crashes/MVM
Fatal and Severe Inaury Crashes Total 0
Speed Related 0 During School Hours 0
Pedestrian and Bicycle 0 DUI 0

RECOMMENDATION
Speed Limit 35 mph
Justification California MUTCD Option 2
Total Crashes 0
Crash Rate 0.00 crashes/MVM
Disadvantaged Community
Vulnerable Populations NO
School Zone NO
Safety Factor per mile 0
Field Study By LA Checked By INS
CERTIFICATION: I, Nicolle Spann, do hereby certify that this Engineering and Traffic Survey within the City of Temecula was performed under my supervision and is accurate and complete. I am duly registered in the r-tate of California as a Professional Engineer (Traffic). 12/31/2025 TR 2933
Nicolle Span Date State Registration Number

2025 ENGINEERING AND TRAFFIC SURVEY Segment 2
STREET Commerce Center Dr CERTIFICATION DATE 12/31/2025 FROM Via Montezuma TO Overland Dr

OPERATING CHARACTERISTICS
Date of Speed Survey
6/25/2025 85th Percentile Speed 34 mph
Time of Speed Survey
10:53 AM 50th Percentile Speed 28 mph
Number of Survey Samples
200 Posted Speed Limit 30 mph
10 mph Pace
25-34 mph
Percentage of Vehicles in Pace
66 Average Daily Traffic (ADT)
3,313
Date of ADT
5/28/2025

ROADWAY CHARACTERISTICS
Type of Traffic Control Stop @ Via Montezuma; AWS @ Overland Marked Uncontrolled X-Walks
None
Adjacent Land Use
Commercial
Length of Segment

0.41 miles
Pedestrian Traffic
Light
Width
43 feet
Truck Traffic
Light
Sidewalks
Both Sides
Driveways
Both Sides
On -Street Parking
Both Sides
Lighting
None
Vertical Curve
No
Visibility
Good
Horizontal Curve
No
Roadway Conditions
Good
Number of Lanes
2 CRASH HISTORY AND SAFETY CORRIDOR
Date Range 1/6/2020-6/9/2025
Statewide Average Crash Rate 1.68 crashes/MVM
Fatal and Severe Inaury Crashes Total 0
Speed Related 0 During School Hours 0
Pedestrian and Bicycle 0 DUI 0

RECOMMENDATION
Speed Limit 30 mph
Justification California MUTCD Option 2
Total Crashes 2
Crash Rate 1.34 crashes/MVM
Disadvantaged Community
Vulnerable Populations NO
School Zone NO
Safety Factor per mile 0
Field Study By LA Checked By INS
CERTIFICATION: I, Nicolle Spann, do hereby certify that this Engineering and Traffic Survey within the City of Temecula was performed under my supervision and is accurate and complete. I am duly registered in the r-tate of California as a Professional Engineer (Traffic). 12/31/2025 TR 2933
Nicolle Span Date State Registration Number

2025 ENGINEERING AND TRAFFIC SURVEY Segment 3
STREET Commerce Center Dr
CERTIFICATION DATE 12/31/2025
FROM Overland Dr
TO Rider Way

OPERATING CHARACTERISTICS
Date of Speed Survey
6/25/2025 85th Percentile Speed
28 mph
Time of Speed Survey
11:43 AM 50th Percentile Speed
23 mph
Number of Survey Samples
122 Posted Speed Limit
30 mph
10 mph Pace
19-28 mph
Percentage of Vehicles in Pace
81 Average Daily Traffic (ADT)
1,158
Date of ADT
5/28/2025

ROADWAY CHARACTERISTICS
Type of Traffic Control
AWS @ Overland
Marked Uncontrolled X-Walks
None
Adjacent Land Use
Commercial, Industrial
Length of Segment

0.10 miles Pedestrian Traffic Moderate
Width
44 feet Truck Traffic Light
Sidewalks
Both Sides
Driveways
Both Sides
On -Street Parking
Both Sides
Lighting
None
Vertical Curve
No Visibility Good
Horizontal Curve
No Roadway Conditions Good
Number of Lanes
2 CRASH HISTORY AND SAFETY CORRIDOR
Date Range
1/6/2020-6/9/2025 Total Crashes 0
Statewide Average Crash Rate

1.68 crashes/MVM Crash Rate 0.00
crashes/MVM
Fatal and Severe Inaury Crashes
Total 0 Disadvantaged Community
Speed Related 0
During School Hours 0 Vulnerable Populations
NO
Pedestrian and Bicycle 0
DUI 0 School Zone
NO
Safety Factor per mile
0 RECOMMENDATION
Speed Limit
30 mph
Justification
Closest to 85th Speed
Field Study By LA Checked By INS
CERTIFICATION: I, Nicolle Spann, do hereby certify that this Engineering and Traffic Survey within the City of Temecula was performed under my supervision and is accurate and complete. I am duly registered in the r-tate of California as a Professional Engineer (Traffic). 12/31/2025 TR 2933
Nicolle Span Date State Registration Number

2025 ENGINEERING AND TRAFFIC SURVEY Segment 4
STREET Deer Hollow Way
CERTIFICATION DATE 12/31/2025
FROM Pechanga Pkwy
TO Via La Colorada

OPERATING CHARACTERISTICS
Date of Speed Survey
6/24/2025 85th Percentile Speed
43 mph
Time of Speed Survey
12:19 PM 50th Percentile Speed
38 mph
Number of Survey Samples
200 Posted Speed Limit
35 mph
10 mph Pace
34-43 mph
Percentage of Vehicles in Pace
72 Average Daily Traffic (ADT)
8,565
Date of ADT
5/28/2025

ROADWAY CHARACTERISTICS
Type of Traffic Control
TS @ Pechanga, Via La Colorada
Marked Uncontrolled X-Walks
None
Adjacent Land Use
Residential, School
Length of Segment

0.45 miles Pedestrian Traffic Moderate
Width
66 feet Truck Traffic Light
Sidewalks
Both Sides
Driveways
Both Sides
On -Street Parking
None
Lighting
Both Sides
Vertical Curve
Yes Visibility Good
Horizontal Curve
No Roadway Conditions Good
Number of Lanes
4 CRASH HISTORY AND SAFETY CORRIDOR
Date Range
1/6/2020-6/9/2025 Total Crashes 5
Statewide Average Crash Rate

0.96 crashes/MVM Crash Rate 1.18
crashes/MVM
Fatal and Severe Inaury Crashes
Total 0 Disadvantaged Community
Speed Related 0
During School Hours 0 Vulnerable Populations
NO
Pedestrian and Bicycle 0
DUI 0 School Zone
YES
This Segment is a Designated Safety Corridor Safety Factor per mile

1.086

RECOMMENDATION
Speed Limit
35 mph
Justification
California MUTCD Option 2 & Safety Corridor
Field Study By LA Checked By NS
CERTIFICATION: I, Nicolle Spann, do hereby certify that this Engineering and Traffic Survey within the City of Temecula was performed under my supervision and is accurate and complete. I am duly registered in the r-tate of California as a Professional Engineer (Traffic). 12/31/2025 TR 2933
Nicolle Span Date State Registration Number

2025 ENGINEERING AND TRAFFIC SURVEY Segment 5
STREET Deer Hollow Way CERTIFICATION DATE 12/31/2025
FROM Via La Colorada TO Peppercorn Dr

OPERATING CHARACTERISTICS
Date of Speed Survey
6/24/2025 85th Percentile Speed 38 mph
Time of Speed Survey
12:55 PM 50th Percentile Speed 34 mph
Number of Survey Samples
200 Posted Speed Limit 35 mph
10 mph Pace
29-38 mph
Percentage of Vehicles in Pace
75 Average Daily Traffic (ADT)
9,496
Date of ADT
5/28/2025

ROADWAY CHARACTERISTICS
Type of Traffic Control TS @ Via La Colorada, Peppercorn Marked Uncontrolled X-Walks
None
Adjacent Land Use
Residential
Length of Segment

0.27 miles
Pedestrian Traffic
Light
Width
64 feet
Truck Traffic
Light
Sidewalks
Both Sides
Driveways
Both Sides
On -Street Parking
None
Lighting
Both Sides
Vertical Curve
Yes
Visibility
Good
Horizontal Curve
Yes
Roadway Conditions
Good
Number of Lanes
4 CRASH HISTORY AND SAFETY CORRIDOR
Date Range 1/6/2020-6/9/2025
Statewide Average Crash Rate 0.96 crashes/MVM
Fatal and Severe Inaury Crashes Total 0
Speed Related 0 During School Hours 0
Pedestrian and Bicycle 0 DUI 0
This Segment is a Designated Safety Corridor

RECOMMENDATION
Speed Limit 35 mph
Justification California MUTCD Option 2
Total Crashes 0
Crash Rate 0.00 crashes/MVM
Disadvantaged Community
Vulnerable Populations NO
School Zone YES
Safety Factor per mile 1.851
Field Study By LA Checked By NS
CERTIFICATION: I, Nicolle Spann, do hereby certify that this Engineering and Traffic Survey within the City of Temecula was performed under my supervision and is accurate and complete. I am duly registered in the r-tate of California as a Professional Engineer (Traffic). 12/31/2025 TR 2933
Nicolle Span Date State Registration Number

2025 ENGINEERING AND TRAFFIC SURVEY Segment 6
STREET La Serena Way
CERTIFICATION DATE 12/31/2025
FROM Margarita Rd
TO Calle Pina Colada

OPERATING CHARACTERISTICS
Date of Speed Survey
7/8/2025 85th Percentile Speed
38 mph
Time of Speed Survey
12:27 PM 50th Percentile Speed
35 mph
Number of Survey Samples
166 Posted Speed Limit
40 mph
10 mph Pace
29-38 mph
Percentage of Vehicles in Pace
81 Average Daily Traffic (ADT)
9,549
Date of ADT
6/3/2025

ROADWAY CHARACTERISTICS
Type of Traffic Control
TS @ Margarita; AWS @ General Kearny
Marked Uncontrolled X-Walks
None
Adjacent Land Use
Residential
Length of Segment

0.49 miles Pedestrian Traffic Light
Width
64 feet Truck Traffic Light
Sidewalks
Both Sides
Driveways
Few
On -Street Parking
None
Lighting
Both Sides
Vertical Curve
Yes Visibility Fair
Horizontal Curve
Yes Roadway Conditions Good
Number of Lanes
2 + TWLTL + Bike Lane

CRASH HISTORY AND SAFETY CORRIDOR
Date Range
1/6/2020-6/9/2025 Total Crashes 2
Statewide Average Crash Rate

1.68 crashes/MVM Crash Rate 0.39
crashes/MVM
Fatal and Severe Inaury Crashes
Total 0 Disadvantaged Community
Speed Related 0
During School Hours 0 Vulnerable Populations
YES
Pedestrian and Bicycle 0
DUI 0 School Zone
NO
This Segment is a Designated Safety Corridor Safety Factor per mile

1.020

RECOMMENDATION
Speed Limit
40 mph
Justification
Closest to 85th Speed
Field Study By LA Checked By NS
CERTIFICATION: I, Nicolle Spann, do hereby certify that this Engineering and Traffic Survey within the City of Temecula was performed under my supervision and is accurate and complete. I am duly registered in the r-tate of California as a Professional Engineer (Traffic). 12/31/2025 TR 2933
Nicolle Span Date State Registration Number

2025 ENGINEERING AND TRAFFIC SURVEY
Segment 7
STREET La Serena Way
CERTIFICATION DATE 12/31/2025
FROM Calle Pina Colada
TO Meadows Pkwy

OPERATING CHARACTERISTICS
Date of Speed Survey
7/8/2025
85th Percentile Speed
39 mph
Time of Speed Survey
11:59 AM
50th Percentile Speed
35 mph
Number of Survey Samples
163
Posted Speed Limit
40 mph
10 mph Pace
31-40 mph
Percentage of Vehicles in Pace
83 Average Daily Traffic (ADT)
9,489
Date of ADT
6/3/2025

ROADWAY CHARACTERISTICS
Type of Traffic Control
TS @ Meadows
Marked Uncontrolled X-Walks
None
Adjacent Land Use
Residential
Length of Segment

0.65 miles
Pedestrian Traffic Light
Width
64 feet
Truck Traffic Light
Sidewalks
Both Sides
Driveways
Few
On -Street Parking
None
Lighting
Both Sides
Vertical Curve
Yes
Visibility Fair
Horizontal Curve
Yes
Roadway Conditions Good
Number of Lanes
2 + TWLTL + Bike Lane

CRASH HISTORY AND SAFETY CORRIDOR
Date Range
1/6/2020-6/9/2025 Total Crashes 1
Statewide Average Crash Rate

1.68 crashes/MVM Crash Rate 0.15
crashes/MVM
Fatal and Severe Inaury Crashes
Total
0 Disadvantaged Community
Speed Related 0
During School Hours
0 Vulnerable Populations
YES
Pedestrian and Bicycle 0
DUI
0 School Zone
YES
This Segment is a Designated Safety Corridor
Safety Factor per mile

1.562

RECOMMENDATION
Speed Limit
40 mph
Justification
Closest to 85th Speed
Field Study By LA Checked By INS
CERTIFICATION: I, Nicolle Spann, do hereby certify that this Engineering and Traffic Survey within the City of Temecula was performed under my supervision and is accurate and complete. I am duly registered in the r-tate of California as a Professional Engineer (Traffic). 12/31/2025 TR 2933
Nicolle Span Date State Registration Number

2025 ENGINEERING AND TRAFFIC SURVEY
Segment 8
STREET La Serena Way
CERTIFICATION DATE 12/31/2025
FROM Meadows Pkwy
TO Calle Medusa

OPERATING CHARACTERISTICS
Date of Speed Survey
7/8/2025
85th Percentile Speed
40 mph
Time of Speed Survey
11:30 AM
50th Percentile Speed
35 mph
Number of Survey Samples
188
Posted Speed Limit
40 mph
10 mph Pace
31-40 mph
Percentage of Vehicles in Pace
73 Average Daily Traffic (ADT)
8,889
Date of ADT
6/3/2025

ROADWAY CHARACTERISTICS
Type of Traffic Control
TS @ Meadows
Marked Uncontrolled X-Walks
None
Adjacent Land Use
Residential
Length of Segment

0.33 miles
Pedestrian Traffic Light
Width
64 feet
Truck Traffic Light
Sidewalks
Both Sides
Driveways
Few
On -Street Parking
None
Lighting
Both Sides
Vertical Curve
Yes
Visibility Fair
Horizontal Curve
Yes
Roadway Conditions Good
Number of Lanes
2 + TWLTL + Bike Lane

CRASH HISTORY AND SAFETY CORRIDOR
Date Range
1/6/2020-6/9/2025 Total Crashes 0
Statewide Average Crash Rate

1.68 crashes/MVM Crash Rate 0.00
crashes/MVM
Fatal and Severe Inaury Crashes
Total
0 Disadvantaged Community
Speed Related 0
During School Hours
0 Vulnerable Populations
YES
Pedestrian and Bicycle 0
DUI
0 School Zone
YES
This Segment is a Designated Safety Corridor
Safety Factor per mile

2.941

2025 ENGINEERING AND TRAFFIC SURVEY
Segment 9
STREET La Serena Way
CERTIFICATION DATE 12/31/2025
FROM Calle Medusa
TO Butterfield Stage Rd

OPERATING CHARACTERISTICS
Date of Speed Survey
7/8/2025
85th Percentile Speed
37 mph
Time of Speed Survey
10:55 AM
50th Percentile Speed
33 mph
Number of Survey Samples
146
Posted Speed Limit
40 mph
10 mph Pace
29-38 mph
Percentage of Vehicles in Pace
82 Average Daily Traffic (ADT)
6,859
Date of ADT
6/3/2025

ROADWAY CHARACTERISTICS
Type of Traffic Control
AWS @ Walcott; TS @ Butterfield Stage
Marked Uncontrolled X-Walks
None
Adjacent Land Use
Residential
Length of Segment

0.37 miles
Pedestrian Traffic Light
Width
64 feet
Truck Traffic Light
Sidewalks
Both Sides
Driveways
Few
On -Street Parking
None
Lighting
Both Sides
Vertical Curve
Yes
Visibility Fair
Horizontal Curve
Yes
Roadway Conditions Good
Number of Lanes
2 + TWLTL + Bike Lane

CRASH HISTORY AND SAFETY CORRIDOR
Date Range
1/6/2020-6/9/2025 Total Crashes 0
Statewide Average Crash Rate

1.68 crashes/MVM Crash Rate 0.00
crashes/MVM
Fatal and Severe Inaury Crashes
Total
0 Disadvantaged Community
Speed Related 0
During School Hours
0 Vulnerable Populations
YES
Pedestrian and Bicycle 0
DUI
0 School Zone
NO
This Segment is a Designated Safety Corridor
Safety Factor per mile

1.388

RECOMMENDATION
Speed Limit
40 mph
Justification
Maintain Uniformity with Adjacent Segments
Field Study By LA Checked By INS
CERTIFICATION: I, Nicolle Spann, do hereby certify that this Engineering and Traffic Survey within the City of Temecula was performed under my supervision and is accurate and complete. I am duly registered in the r-tate of California as a Professional Engineer (Traffic). 12/31/2025 TR 2933
Nicolle Span Date State Registration Number

2025 ENGINEERING AND TRAFFIC SURVEY Segment 10
STREET Margarita Rd
CERTIFICATION DATE 12/31/2025
FROM Date Street
TO Rustic Glen Dr

OPERATING CHARACTERISTICS
Date of Speed Survey
7/7/2025 85th Percentile Speed
44 mph
Time of Speed Survey
9:00 AM 50th Percentile Speed
40 mph
Number of Survey Samples
200 Posted Speed Limit
45 mph
10 mph Pace
36-45 mph
Percentage of Vehicles in Pace
82 Average Daily Traffic (ADT)
15,655
Date of ADT
6/3/2025

ROADWAY CHARACTERISTICS
Type of Traffic Control
TS @ Dale, Rustic Glen
Marked Uncontrolled X-Walks
None
Adjacent Land Use
Residential
Length of Segment

0.33 miles Pedestrian Traffic Light
Width
86 feet Truck Traffic Light
Sidewalks
Both Sides
Driveways
Few
On -Street Parking
None
Lighting
Both Sides
Vertical Curve
Yes Visibility Good
Horizontal Curve
Yes Roadway Conditions Fair
Number of Lanes
4 + Raised Median + Bike Lane

CRASH HISTORY AND SAFETY CORRIDOR
Date Range
1/6/2020-6/9/2025 Total Crashes 0
Statewide Average Crash Rate

0.94 crashes/MVM Crash Rate 0.00
crashes/MVM
Fatal and Severe Inaury Crashes
Total 0 Disadvantaged Community
Speed Related 0
During School Hours 0 Vulnerable Populations
NO
Pedestrian and Bicycle 0
DUI 0 School Zone
NO
Safety Factor per mile
0 RECOMMENDATION
Speed Limit
40 mph
Justification
California MUTCD Option 2
Field Study By LA Checked By NS
CERTIFICATION: I, Nicolle Spann, do hereby certify that this Engineering and Traffic Survey within the City of Temecula was performed under my supervision and is accurate and complete. I am duly registered in the r-tate of California as a Professional Engineer (Traffic). 12/31/2025 TR 2933
Nicolle Span Date State Registration Number

2025 ENGINEERING AND TRAFFIC SURVEY Segment 11
STREET Margarita Rd
CERTIFICATION DATE 12/31/2025
FROM Rustic Glen Dr
TO Harveston Way

OPERATING CHARACTERISTICS
Date of Speed Survey
7/7/2025 85th Percentile Speed
42 mph
Time of Speed Survey
9:27 AM 50th Percentile Speed
38 mph
Number of Survey Samples
200 Posted Speed Limit
45 mph
10 mph Pace
33-42 mph
Percentage of Vehicles in Pace
77 Average Daily Traffic (ADT)
15,299
Date of ADT
6/3/2025

ROADWAY CHARACTERISTICS
Type of Traffic Control
TS @ Rustic Glen, Harveston
Marked Uncontrolled X-Walks
None
Adjacent Land Use
Residential
Length of Segment

0.36 miles Pedestrian Traffic Light
Width
80 feet Truck Traffic Light
Sidewalks
Both Sides
Driveways
Few
On -Street Parking
None
Lighting
Both Sides
Vertical Curve
Yes Visibility Good
Horizontal Curve
Yes Roadway Conditions Poor
Number of Lanes
4 + Raised Median + Bike Lane

CRASH HISTORY AND SAFETY CORRIDOR
Date Range
1/6/2020-6/9/2025 Total Crashes 1
Statewide Average Crash Rate

0.94 crashes/MVM Crash Rate 0.17
crashes/MVM
Fatal and Severe Inaury Crashes
Total 0 Disadvantaged Community
Speed Related 0
During School Hours 0 Vulnerable Populations
NO
Pedestrian and Bicycle 0
DUI 0 School Zone
NO
Safety Factor per mile
0 RECOMMENDATION
Speed Limit
40 mph
Justification
Closest to 85th Speed
Field Study By LA Checked By INS
CERTIFICATION: I, Nicolle Spann, do hereby certify that this Engineering and Traffic Survey within the City of Temecula was performed under my supervision and is accurate and complete. I am duly registered in the r-tate of California as a Professional Engineer (Traffic). 12/31/2025 TR 2933
Nicolle Span Date State Registration Number

2025 ENGINEERING AND TRAFFIC SURVEY Segment 12
STREET Margarita Rd
CERTIFICATION DATE 12/31/2025
FROM Harveston Way
TO Winchester Rd

OPERATING CHARACTERISTICS
Date of Speed Survey
7/7/2025 85th Percentile Speed
42 mph
Time of Speed Survey
9:52 AM 50th Percentile Speed
38 mph
Number of Survey Samples
200 Posted Speed Limit
45 mph
10 mph Pace
34-43 mph
Percentage of Vehicles in Pace
81 Average Daily Traffic (ADT)
23,911
Date of ADT
6/3/2025

ROADWAY CHARACTERISTICS
Type of Traffic Control
TS @ Harveston, Parking Lot, Winchester
Marked Uncontrolled X-Walks
None
Adjacent Land Use
Residential, Commercial
Length of Segment

0.39 miles Pedestrian Traffic Light
Width
86 feet Truck Traffic Light
Sidewalks
Both Sides
Driveways
Few
On -Street Parking
None
Lighting
Both Sides
Vertical Curve
Yes Visibility Good
Horizontal Curve
Yes Roadway Conditions Poor
Number of Lanes
4 + Raised Median + Bike Lane

CRASH HISTORY AND SAFETY CORRIDOR
Date Range
1/6/2020-6/9/2025 Total Crashes 12
Statewide Average Crash Rate

0.94 crashes/MVM Crash Rate 1.18
crashes/MVM
Fatal and Severe Inaury Crashes
Total 0 Disadvantaged Community
Speed Related 0
During School Hours 0 Vulnerable Populations
NO
Pedestrian and Bicycle 0
DUI 0 School Zone
NO
Safety Factor per mile
0 RECOMMENDATION
Speed Limit
40 mph
Justification
Closest to 85th Speed
Field Study By LA Checked By INS
CERTIFICATION: I, Nicolle Spann, do hereby certify that this Engineering and Traffic Survey within the City of Temecula was performed under my supervision and is accurate and complete. I am duly registered in the r-tate of California as a Professional Engineer (Traffic). 12/31/2025 TR 2933
Nicolle Span Date State Registration Number

2025 ENGINEERING AND TRAFFIC SURVEY
Segment 13
STREET Margarita Rd
CERTIFICATION DATE 12/31/2025
FROM Winchester Rd
TO N General Kearny Rd

OPERATING CHARACTERISTICS
Date of Speed Survey
6/27/2025
85th Percentile Speed
38 mph
Time of Speed Survey
3:32 PM
50th Percentile Speed
33 mph
Number of Survey Samples
200
Posted Speed Limit
40 mph
10 mph Pace
29-38 mph
Percentage of Vehicles in Pace
80 Average Daily Traffic (ADT)
27,526
Date of ADT
6/3/2025

ROADWAY CHARACTERISTICS
Type of Traffic Control
TS @ Winchester,
Verdes, General Kearny
Marked Uncontrolled X-Walks
None
Adjacent Land Use
Commercial
Length of Segment

0.40 miles
Pedestrian Traffic Light
Width
86 feet
Truck Traffic Light
Sidewalks
Both Sides
Driveways
Few
On -Street Parking
None
Lighting
Both Sides
Vertical Curve
Yes
Visibility Good
Horizontal Curve
Yes
Roadway Conditions Poor
Number of Lanes
4 + Raised Median + Bike Lane

CRASH HISTORY AND SAFETY CORRIDOR
Date Range
1/6/2020-6/9/2025 Total Crashes 4
Statewide Average Crash Rate

0.94 crashes/MVM Crash Rate 0.33
crashes/MVM
Fatal and Severe Inaury Crashes
Total
0 Disadvantaged Community
Speed Related 0
During School Hours
0 Vulnerable Populations
NO
Pedestrian and Bicycle 0
DUI
0 School Zone
NO
Safety Factor per mile
0 RECOMMENDATION
Speed Limit
40 mph
Justification
Closest to 85th Speed
Field Study By LA Checked By NS
CERTIFICATION: I, Nicolle Spann, do hereby certify that this Engineering and Traffic Survey within the City of Temecula was performed under my supervision and is accurate and complete. I am duly registered in the r-tate of California as a Professional Engineer (Traffic). 12/31/2025 TR 2933
Nicolle Span Date State Registration Number

2025 ENGINEERING AND TRAFFIC SURVEY Segment 14
STREET Margarita Rd
CERTIFICATION DATE 12/31/2025
FROM N General Kearny Rd
TO Overland Dr

OPERATING CHARACTERISTICS
Date of Speed Survey
6/27/2025 85th Percentile Speed
40 mph
Time of Speed Survey
2:59 PM 50th Percentile Speed
36 mph
Number of Survey Samples
200 Posted Speed Limit
40 mph
10 mph Pace
31-40 mph
Percentage of Vehicles in Pace
85 Average Daily Traffic (ADT)
27,519
Date of ADT
6/3/2025

ROADWAY CHARACTERISTICS
Type of Traffic Control
TS @ General Kearny, Overland
Marked Uncontrolled X-Walks
None
Adjacent Land Use
Commercial
Length of Segment

0.37 miles Pedestrian Traffic Light
Width
86 feet Truck Traffic Light
Sidewalks
Both Sides
Driveways
Few
On -Street Parking
None
Lighting
Both Sides
Vertical Curve
Yes Visibility Good
Horizontal Curve
Yes Roadway Conditions Fair
Number of Lanes
4 + Raised Median + Bike Lane

CRASH HISTORY AND SAFETY CORRIDOR
Date Range
1/6/2020-6/9/2025 Total Crashes 1
Statewide Average Crash Rate

0.94 crashes/MVM Crash Rate 0.09
crashes/MVM
Fatal and Severe Inaury Crashes
Total 0 Disadvantaged Community
Speed Related 0
During School Hours 0 Vulnerable Populations
NO
Pedestrian and Bicycle 0
DUI 0 School Zone
NO
Safety Factor per mile
0 RECOMMENDATION
Speed Limit
40 mph
Justification
Closest to 85th Speed
Field Study By LA Checked By INS
CERTIFICATION: I, Nicolle Spann, do hereby certify that this Engineering and Traffic Survey within the City of Temecula was performed under my supervision and is accurate and complete. I am duly registered in the r-tate of California as a Professional Engineer (Traffic). 12/31/2025 TR 2933
Nicolle Span Date State Registration Number

2025 ENGINEERING AND TRAFFIC SURVEY Segment 15
STREET Margarita Rd
CERTIFICATION DATE 12/31/2025
FROM Overland Dr
TO Solana Way

OPERATING CHARACTERISTICS
Date of Speed Survey
6/27/2025 85th Percentile Speed
39 mph
Time of Speed Survey
2:15 PM 50th Percentile Speed
35 mph
Number of Survey Samples
200 Posted Speed Limit
40 mph
10 mph Pace
31-40 mph
Percentage of Vehicles in Pace
85 Average Daily Traffic (ADT)
26,273
Date of ADT
6/3/2025

ROADWAY CHARACTERISTICS
Type of Traffic Control
TS @ Overland, Solana Ridge, Solana Way
Marked Uncontrolled X-Walks
None
Adjacent Land Use
Residential, College
Length of Segment

0.24 miles Pedestrian Traffic Light
Width
86 feet Truck Traffic Light
Sidewalks
Both Sides
Driveways
Few
On -Street Parking
None
Lighting
Both Sides
Vertical Curve
Yes Visibility Good
Horizontal Curve
Yes Roadway Conditions Fair
Number of Lanes
4 + Raised Median + Bike Lane

CRASH HISTORY AND SAFETY CORRIDOR
Date Range
1/6/2020-6/9/2025 Total Crashes 0
Statewide Average Crash Rate

0.94 crashes/MVM Crash Rate 0.00
crashes/MVM
Fatal and Severe Inaury Crashes
Total 0 Disadvantaged Community
Speed Related 0
During School Hours 0 Vulnerable Populations
NO
Pedestrian and Bicycle 0
DUI 0 School Zone
NO
Safety Factor per mile
0 RECOMMENDATION
Speed Limit
40 mph
Justification
Closest to 85th Speed
Field Study By LA Checked By INS
CERTIFICATION: I, Nicolle Spann, do hereby certify that this Engineering and Traffic Survey within the City of Temecula was performed under my supervision and is accurate and complete. I am duly registered in the r-tate of California as a Professional Engineer (Traffic). 12/31/2025 TR 2933
Nicolle Span Date State Registration Number

2025 ENGINEERING AND TRAFFIC SURVEY Segment 16
STREET Margarita Rd CERTIFICATION DATE 12/31/2025
FROM Solana Way TO Moraga Rd

OPERATING CHARACTERISTICS
Date of Speed Survey
6/27/2025 85th Percentile Speed 43 mph
Time of Speed Survey
1:51 PM 50th Percentile Speed 39 mph
Number of Survey Samples
200 Posted Speed Limit 45 mph
10 mph Pace
33-42 mph
Percentage of Vehicles in Pace
83 Average Daily Traffic (ADT)
25,559
Date of ADT
6/3/2025

ROADWAY CHARACTERISTICS
Type of Traffic Control TS @ Solana, Stonewood, Moraga
Marked Uncontrolled X-Walks
None
Adjacent Land Use
Residential
Length of Segment

0.65 miles
Pedestrian Traffic
Light
Width
86 feet
Truck Traffic
Light
Sidewalks
Both Sides
Driveways
Both Sides
On -Street Parking
None
Lighting
Both Sides
Vertical Curve
Yes
Visibility
Good
Horizontal Curve
Yes
Roadway Conditions
Fair
Number of Lanes
4 + Bike Lane

CRASH HISTORY AND SAFETY CORRIDOR
Date Range 1/6/2020-6/9/2025
Statewide Average Crash Rate 0.96 crashes/MVM
Fatal and Severe Inaury Crashes Total 0
Speed Related 0 During School Hours 0
Pedestrian and Bicycle 0 DUI 0
This Segment is a Designated Safety Corridor

RECOMMENDATION
Speed Limit 40 mph
Justification California MUTCD Option 2
Total Crashes 3
Crash Rate 0.16 crashes/MVM
Disadvantaged Community
Vulnerable Populations NO
School Zone YES
Safety Factor per mile 1.111
Field Study By LA Checked By NS
CERTIFICATION: I, Nicolle Spann, do hereby certify that this Engineering and Traffic Survey within the City of Temecula was performed under my supervision and is accurate and complete. I am duly registered in the r-tate of California as a Professional Engineer (Traffic). 12/31/2025 TR 2933
Nicolle Span Date State Registration Number

2025 ENGINEERING AND TRAFFIC SURVEY
Segment 17
STREET Margarita Rd
CERTIFICATION DATE 12/31/2025
FROM Moraga Rd
TO Avenida Barca

OPERATING CHARACTERISTICS
Date of Speed Survey
6/27/2025
85th Percentile Speed
47 mph
Time of Speed Survey
1:25 PM
50th Percentile Speed
43 mph
Number of Survey Samples
200
Posted Speed Limit
45 mph
10 mph Pace
39-48 mph
Percentage of Vehicles in Pace
81 Average Daily Traffic (ADT)
20,642
Date of ADT
6/3/2025

ROADWAY CHARACTERISTICS
Type of Traffic Control
TS @ Moraga, Avenida
Marked Uncontrolled X-Walks
Adjacent Land Use
Length of Segment
Width
Sidewalks
Driveways
On -Street Parking
Lighting
Vertical Curve
Horizontal Curve
Number of Lanes
None
Residential

0.66 miles
Pedestrian Traffic
Light
86 feet
Truck Traffic
Light
Both Sides
None
None
Both Sides
Yes
Visibility
Good
Yes
Roadway Conditions
Good
4 + TWLTL + Raised
Median @ West Side + Bike
Lane

CRASH HISTORY AND SAFETY CORRIDOR
Date Range 1/6/2020-6/9/2025
Statewide Average Crash Rate 0.94 crashes/MVM
Fatal and Severe Inaury Crashes Total 0
Speed Related 0 During School Hours 0
Pedestrian and Bicycle 0 DUI 0

RECOMMENDATION
Speed Limit
Justification
Total Crashes 4
Crash Rate 0.27 crashes/MVM
Disadvantaged Community
Vulnerable Populations NO
School Zone NO
Safety Factor per mile 0
40 mph
Maintain Uniformity with Adjacent Segments
Field Study By LA Checked By INS
CERTIFICATION: I, Nicolle Spann, do hereby certify that this Engineering and Traffic Survey within the City of Temecula was performed under my supervision and is accurate and complete. I am duly registered in the r-tate of California as a Professional Engineer (Traffic). 12/31/2025 TR 2933
Nicolle Span Date State Registration Number

2025 ENGINEERING AND TRAFFIC SURVEY Segment 18
STREET Margarita Rd
CERTIFICATION DATE 12/31/2025
FROM Avenida Barca
TO La Serena Way

OPERATING CHARACTERISTICS
Date of Speed Survey
6/27/2025 85th Percentile Speed
46 mph
Time of Speed Survey
1:04 PM 50th Percentile Speed
40 mph
Number of Survey Samples
200 Posted Speed Limit
40 mph
10 mph Pace
34-43 mph
Percentage of Vehicles in Pace
72 Average Daily Traffic (ADT)
21,564
Date of ADT
6/3/2025

ROADWAY CHARACTERISTICS
Type of Traffic Control
TS @ Avenida, La Serena
Marked Uncontrolled X-Walks
None
Adjacent Land Use
Residential, School
Length of Segment

0.43 miles Pedestrian Traffic Light
Width
86 feet Truck Traffic Light
Sidewalks
Both Sides
Driveways
Few
On -Street Parking
None
Lighting
Both Sides
Vertical Curve
Yes Visibility Good
Horizontal Curve
Yes Roadway Conditions Good
Number of Lanes
4 + TWLTL + Bike Lane

CRASH HISTORY AND SAFETY CORRIDOR
Date Range
1/6/2020-6/9/2025 Total Crashes 3
Statewide Average Crash Rate

0.96 crashes/MVM Crash Rate 0.30
crashes/MVM
Fatal and Severe Inaury Crashes
Total 1 Disadvantaged Community
Speed Related 0
During School Hours 0 Vulnerable Populations
NO
Pedestrian and Bicycle 0
DUI 1 School Zone
YES
This Segment is a Designated Safety Corridor Safety Factor per mile

3.571

2025 ENGINEERING AND TRAFFIC SURVEY Segment 19
STREET Margarita Rd
CERTIFICATION DATE 12/31/2025
FROM La Serena Way
TO Rancho California Rd

OPERATING CHARACTERISTICS
Date of Speed Survey
7/7/2025 85th Percentile Speed
44 mph
Time of Speed Survey
12:15 PM 50th Percentile Speed
40 mph
Number of Survey Samples
200 Posted Speed Limit
40 mph
10 mph Pace
35-44 mph
Percentage of Vehicles in Pace
85 Average Daily Traffic (ADT)
24,482
Date of ADT
6/3/2025

ROADWAY CHARACTERISTICS
Type of Traffic Control
TS @ La Serena, Yukon -Honors, Rancho California
Marked Uncontrolled X-Walks
None
Adjacent Land Use
Residential, Commercial
Length of Segment

0.38 miles Pedestrian Traffic Light
Width
85 feet Truck Traffic Light
Sidewalks
Both Sides
Driveways
Few
On -Street Parking
None
Lighting
Both Sides
Vertical Curve
Yes Visibility Good
Horizontal Curve
Yes Roadway Conditions Good
Number of Lanes
4 + Raised Median @ South Side + Bike Lane

CRASH HISTORY AND SAFETY CORRIDOR
Date Range
1/6/2020-6/9/2025 Total Crashes 3
Statewide Average Crash Rate

0.94 crashes/MVM Crash Rate 0.29
crashes/MVM
Fatal and Severe Inaury Crashes
Total 0 Disadvantaged Community
Speed Related 0
During School Hours 0 Vulnerable Populations
YES
Pedestrian and Bicycle 0
DUI 0 School Zone
NO
This Segment is a Designated Safety Corridor Safety Factor per mile

1.315

RECOMMENDATION
Speed Limit
40 mph
Justification
California MUTCD Option 2
Field Study By LA Checked By NS
CERTIFICATION: I, Nicolle Spann, do hereby certify that this Engineering and Traffic Survey within the City of Temecula was performed under my supervision and is accurate and complete. I am duly registered in the r-tate of California as a Professional Engineer (Traffic). 12/31/2025 TR 2933
Nicolle Span Date State Registration Number

2025 ENGINEERING AND TRAFFIC SURVEY Segment 20
STREET Margarita Rd CERTIFICATION DATE 12/31/2025
FROM Rancho California Rd TO Rancho Vista Rd

OPERATING CHARACTERISTICS
Date of Speed Survey
7/7/2025 85th Percentile Speed 44 mph
Time of Speed Survey
12:37 PM 50th Percentile Speed 40 mph
Number of Survey Samples
200 Posted Speed Limit 40 mph
10 mph Pace
36-45 mph
Percentage of Vehicles in Pace
78 Average Daily Traffic (ADT)
31,516
Date of ADT
6/3/2025

ROADWAY CHARACTERISTICS
Type of Traffic Control TS @ Rancho California, Rancho Vista Marked Uncontrolled X-Walks
None
Adjacent Land Use
Residential
Length of Segment

0.49 miles
Pedestrian Traffic
Light
Width
85 feet
Truck Traffic
Light
Sidewalks
Both Sides
Driveways
Few
On -Street Parking
Both Sides
Lighting
Both Sides
Vertical Curve
Yes
Visibility
Good
Horizontal Curve
Yes
Roadway Conditions
Good
Number of Lanes
4 + Bike Lane

RECOMMENDATION
Speed Limit 40 mph
Justification California MUTCD Option 2
Total Crashes 6
Crash Rate 0.35 crashes/MVM
Disadvantaged Community
Vulnerable Populations YES
School Zone YES
Safety Factor per mile 2.040
Field Study By LA Checked By INS
CERTIFICATION: I, Nicolle Spann, do hereby certify that this Engineering and Traffic Survey within the City of Temecula was performed under my supervision and is accurate and complete. I am duly registered in the r-tate of California as a Professional Engineer (Traffic). 12/31/2025 TR 2933
Nicolle Span Date State Registration Number

2025 ENGINEERING AND TRAFFIC SURVEY Segment 21
STREET Margarita Rd
CERTIFICATION DATE 12/31/2025
FROM Rancho Vista Rd
TO Pauba Rd

OPERATING CHARACTERISTICS
Date of Speed Survey
7/7/2025 85th Percentile Speed
44 mph
Time of Speed Survey
1:06 PM 50th Percentile Speed
40 mph
Number of Survey Samples
200 Posted Speed Limit
40 mph
10 mph Pace
35-44 mph
Percentage of Vehicles in Pace
79 Average Daily Traffic (ADT)
30,949
Date of ADT
6/3/2025

ROADWAY CHARACTERISTICS
Type of Traffic Control
TS @ Rancho Vista, Pauba
Marked Uncontrolled X-Walks
None
Adjacent Land Use
Baseball fields, School
Length of Segment

0.35 miles Pedestrian Traffic Light
Width
85 feet Truck Traffic Light
Sidewalks
Both Sides
Driveways
Few
On -Street Parking
Both Sides
Lighting
Both Sides
Vertical Curve
Yes Visibility Good
Horizontal Curve
Yes Roadway Conditions Good
Number of Lanes
4 + Bike Lane

CRASH HISTORY AND SAFETY CORRIDOR
Date Range
1/6/2020-6/9/2025 Total Crashes 4
Statewide Average Crash Rate

0.96 crashes/MVM Crash Rate 0.34
crashes/MVM
Fatal and Severe Inaury Crashes
Total 0 Disadvantaged Community
Speed Related 0
During School Hours 0 Vulnerable Populations
YES
Pedestrian and Bicycle 0
DUI 0 School Zone
YES
This Segment is a Designated Safety Corridor Safety Factor per mile

2.857

RECOMMENDATION
Speed Limit
40 mph
Justification
California MUTCD Option 2
Field Study By LA Checked By INS
CERTIFICATION: I, Nicolle Spann, do hereby certify that this Engineering and Traffic Survey within the City of Temecula was performed under my supervision and is accurate and complete. I am duly registered in the r-tate of California as a Professional Engineer (Traffic). 12/31/2025 TR 2933
Nicolle Span Date State Registration Number

2025 ENGINEERING AND TRAFFIC SURVEY Segment 22
STREET Margarita Rd
CERTIFICATION DATE 12/31/2025
FROM Pauba Rd
TO Santiago Rd

OPERATING CHARACTERISTICS
Date of Speed Survey
7/7/2025 85th Percentile Speed
44 mph
Time of Speed Survey
1:34 PM 50th Percentile Speed
40 mph
Number of Survey Samples
200 Posted Speed Limit
45 mph
10 mph Pace
36-45 mph
Percentage of Vehicles in Pace
83 Average Daily Traffic (ADT)
33,047
Date of ADT
6/3/2025

ROADWAY CHARACTERISTICS
Type of Traffic Control
TS @ Pauba, Santiago
Marked Uncontrolled X-Walks
None
Adjacent Land Use
Commercial, Residential
Length of Segment

0.36 miles Pedestrian Traffic Light
Width
55 feet Truck Traffic Light
Sidewalks
East Side Only
Driveways
Few
On -Street Parking
None
Lighting
Both Sides
Vertical Curve
Yes Visibility Good
Horizontal Curve
Yes Roadway Conditions Good
Number of Lanes
4 + Bike Lane

CRASH HISTORY AND SAFETY CORRIDOR
Date Range
1/6/2020-6/9/2025 Total Crashes 7
Statewide Average Crash Rate

0.96 crashes/MVM Crash Rate 0.54
crashes/MVM
Fatal and Severe Inaury Crashes
Total 0 Disadvantaged Community
Speed Related 0
During School Hours 0 Vulnerable Populations
YES
Pedestrian and Bicycle 0
DUI 0 School Zone
NO
This Segment is a Designated Safety Corridor Safety Factor per mile

1.388

RECOMMENDATION
Speed Limit
40 mph
Justification
California MUCTD Option 2
Field Study By LA Checked By INS
CERTIFICATION: I, Nicolle Spann, do hereby certify that this Engineering and Traffic Survey within the City of Temecula was performed under my supervision and is accurate and complete. I am duly registered in the r-tate of California as a Professional Engineer (Traffic). 12/31/2025 TR 2933
Nicolle Span Date State Registration Number

2025 ENGINEERING AND TRAFFIC SURVEY Segment 23
STREET Margarita Rd
CERTIFICATION DATE 12/31/2025
FROM Santiago Rd
TO Pio Pico Rd

OPERATING CHARACTERISTICS
Date of Speed Survey
7/7/2025 85th Percentile Speed
45 mph
Time of Speed Survey
2:00 PM 50th Percentile Speed
42 mph
Number of Survey Samples
200 Posted Speed Limit
45 mph
10 mph Pace
38-47 mph
Percentage of Vehicles in Pace
86 Average Daily Traffic (ADT)
27,112
Date of ADT
6/3/2025

ROADWAY CHARACTERISTICS
Type of Traffic Control
TS @ Santiago, Pio Pico
Marked Uncontrolled X-Walks
None
Adjacent Land Use
Residential
Length of Segment

0.62 miles Pedestrian Traffic Light
Width
86 feet Truck Traffic Light
Sidewalks
East Side Only
Driveways
Few
On -Street Parking
None
Lighting
West Side Only
Vertical Curve
Yes Visibility Good
Horizontal Curve
Yes Roadway Conditions Good
Number of Lanes
4 + TWLTL + Bike Lane

CRASH HISTORY AND SAFETY CORRIDOR
Date Range
1/6/2020-6/9/2025 Total Crashes 4
Statewide Average Crash Rate

0.96 crashes/MVM Crash Rate 0.22
crashes/MVM
Fatal and Severe Inaury Crashes
Total 2 Disadvantaged Community
Speed Related 0
During School Hours 0 Vulnerable Populations
YES
Pedestrian and Bicycle 0
DUI 1 School Zone
NO
This Segment is a Designated Safety Corridor Safety Factor per mile

5.645

2025 ENGINEERING AND TRAFFIC SURVEY Segment 24
STREET Margarita Rd
CERTIFICATION DATE 12/31/2025
FROM Pio Pico Rd
TO De Portola Rd

OPERATING CHARACTERISTICS
Date of Speed Survey
7/7/2025 85th Percentile Speed
44 mph
Time of Speed Survey
2:26 PM 50th Percentile Speed
40 mph
Number of Survey Samples
200 Posted Speed Limit
45 mph
10 mph Pace
36-45 mph
Percentage of Vehicles in Pace
81 Average Daily Traffic (ADT)
25,935
Date of ADT
6/3/2025

ROADWAY CHARACTERISTICS
Type of Traffic Control
TS @ Pio Pico, De Portola
Marked Uncontrolled X-Walks
None
Adjacent Land Use
Residential, Commercial
Length of Segment

0.26 miles Pedestrian Traffic Light
Width
85 feet Truck Traffic Light
Sidewalks
Both Sides
Driveways
Few
On -Street Parking
None
Lighting
Both Sides
Vertical Curve
Yes Visibility Good
Horizontal Curve
Yes Roadway Conditions Good
Number of Lanes
4 + Raised Median + Bike Lane

CRASH HISTORY AND SAFETY CORRIDOR
Date Range
1/6/2020-6/9/2025 Total Crashes 4
Statewide Average Crash Rate

0.94 crashes/MVM Crash Rate 0.54
crashes/MVM
Fatal and Severe Inaury Crashes
Total 0 Disadvantaged Community
Speed Related 0
During School Hours 0 Vulnerable Populations
YES
Pedestrian and Bicycle 0
DUI 0 School Zone
YES
This Segment is a Designated Safety Corridor Safety Factor per mile 4 RECOMMENDATION
Speed Limit
40 mph
Justification
California MUTCD Option 2
Field Study By LA Checked By INS
CERTIFICATION: I, Nicolle Spann, do hereby certify that this Engineering and Traffic Survey within the City of Temecula was performed under my supervision and is accurate and complete. I am duly registered in the r-tate of California as a Professional Engineer (Traffic). 12/31/2025 TR 2933
Nicolle Span Date State Registration Number

2025 ENGINEERING AND TRAFFIC SURVEY Segment 25
STREET Margarita Rd
CERTIFICATION DATE 12/31/2025
FROM De Portola Rd
TO Temecula Pkwy

OPERATING CHARACTERISTICS
Date of Speed Survey
7/7/2025 85th Percentile Speed
39 mph
Time of Speed Survey
2:50 PM 50th Percentile Speed
36 mph
Number of Survey Samples
200 Posted Speed Limit
40 mph
10 mph Pace
31-40 mph
Percentage of Vehicles in Pace
84 Average Daily Traffic (ADT)
31,841
Date of ADT
6/3/2025

ROADWAY CHARACTERISTICS
Type of Traffic Control
TS @ De Portola, Dartolo, Temecula
Marked Uncontrolled X-Walks
None
Adjacent Land Use
Residential, Commercial
Length of Segment

0.25 miles Pedestrian Traffic Moderate
Width
85 feet Truck Traffic Light
Sidewalks
Both Sides
Driveways
Both Sides
On -Street Parking
None
Lighting
Both Sides
Vertical Curve
Yes Visibility Good
Horizontal Curve
No Roadway Conditions Good
Number of Lanes
4 + Raised Median + Bike Lane

CRASH HISTORY AND SAFETY CORRIDOR
Date Range
1/6/2020-6/9/2025 Total Crashes 4
Statewide Average Crash Rate

0.94 crashes/MVM Crash Rate 0.46
crashes/MVM
Fatal and Severe Inaury Crashes
Total 0 Disadvantaged Community
Speed Related 0
During School Hours 0 Vulnerable Populations
YES
Pedestrian and Bicycle 0
DUI 0 School Zone
NO
This Segment is a Designated Safety Corridor Safety Factor per mile 2 RECOMMENDATION
Speed Limit
40 mph
Justification
Closest to 85th Speed
Field Study By LA Checked By NS
CERTIFICATION: I, Nicolle Spann, do hereby certify that this Engineering and Traffic Survey within the City of Temecula was performed under my supervision and is accurate and complete. I am duly registered in the r-tate of California as a Professional Engineer (Traffic). 12/31/2025 TR 2933
Nicolle Span Date State Registration Number

2025 ENGINEERING AND TRAFFIC SURVEY
Segment 26
STREET Meadows Pkwy
CERTIFICATION DATE 12/31/2025
FROM La Serena Way
TO Royal Oaks Dr

OPERATING CHARACTERISTICS
Date of Speed Survey
6/27/2025
85th Percentile Speed
40 mph
Time of Speed Survey
9:39 AM
50th Percentile Speed
36 mph
Number of Survey Samples
200
Posted Speed Limit
45 mph
10 mph Pace
32-41 mph
Percentage of Vehicles in Pace
84 Average Daily Traffic (ADT)
5,973
Date of ADT
5/28/2025

ROADWAY CHARACTERISTICS
Type of Traffic Control
TS @ La Serena;
AWS @ Royal Oaks
Marked Uncontrolled X-Walks
None
Adjacent Land Use
Residential
Length of Segment

0.48 miles
Pedestrian Traffic Light
Width
76 feet
Truck Traffic Light
Sidewalks
Both Sides
Driveways
Few
On -Street Parking
None
Lighting
Both Sides
Vertical Curve
Yes
Visibility Good
Horizontal Curve
Yes
Roadway Conditions Good
Number of Lanes
4 + Raised Median + Bike Lane

CRASH HISTORY AND SAFETY CORRIDOR
Date Range
1/6/2020-6/9/2025 Total Crashes 0
Statewide Average Crash Rate

0.94 crashes/MVM Crash Rate 0.00
crashes/MVM
Fatal and Severe Inaury Crashes
Total
0 Disadvantaged Community
Speed Related 0
During School Hours
0 Vulnerable Populations
YES
Pedestrian and Bicycle 0
DUI
0 School Zone
YES
This Segment is a Designated Safety Corridor
Safety Factor per mile

2.083

RECOMMENDATION
Speed Limit
45 mph
Justification
Maintain Uniformity with Adjacent Segment, Lower than Expected Crash Rate
Field Study By LA Checked By INS
CERTIFICATION: I, Nicolle Spann, do hereby certify that this Engineering and Traffic Survey within the City of Temecula was performed under my supervision and is accurate and complete. I am duly registered in the r-tate of California as a Professional Engineer (Traffic). 12/31/2025 TR 2933
Nicolle Span Date State Registration Number

2025 ENGINEERING AND TRAFFIC SURVEY Segment 27
STREET Meadows Pkwy
CERTIFICATION DATE 12/31/2025
FROM Royal Oaks Dr
TO Rancho California Rd

OPERATING CHARACTERISTICS
Date of Speed Survey
6/27/2025 85th Percentile Speed
43 mph
Time of Speed Survey
10:24 AM 50th Percentile Speed
37 mph
Number of Survey Samples
200 Posted Speed Limit
45 mph
10 mph Pace
31-40 mph
Percentage of Vehicles in Pace
66 Average Daily Traffic (ADT)
5,668
Date of ADT
5/28/2025

ROADWAY CHARACTERISTICS
Type of Traffic Control
AWS @ Royal Oaks; TS @ Rancho California
Marked Uncontrolled X-Walks
None
Adjacent Land Use
Residential
Length of Segment

0.44 miles Pedestrian Traffic Light
Width
75 feet Truck Traffic Light
Sidewalks
Both Sides
Driveways
Few
On -Street Parking
None
Lighting
Both Sides
Vertical Curve
Yes Visibility Good
Horizontal Curve
Yes Roadway Conditions Good
Number of Lanes
4 + Raised Median + Bike Lane

CRASH HISTORY AND SAFETY CORRIDOR
Date Range
1/6/2020-6/9/2025 Total Crashes 0
Statewide Average Crash Rate

0.94 crashes/MVM Crash Rate 0.00
crashes/MVM
Fatal and Severe Inaury Crashes
Total 0 Disadvantaged Community
Speed Related 0
During School Hours 0 Vulnerable Populations
YES
Pedestrian and Bicycle 0
DUI 0 School Zone
NO
This Segment is a Designated Safety Corridor Safety Factor per mile

1.136

RECOMMENDATION
Speed Limit
45 mph
Justification
Closest to 85th Speed
Field Study By LA Checked By NS
CERTIFICATION: I, Nicolle Spann, do hereby certify that this Engineering and Traffic Survey within the City of Temecula was performed under my supervision and is accurate and complete. I am duly registered in the r-tate of California as a Professional Engineer (Traffic). 12/31/2025 TR 2933
Nicolle Span Date State Registration Number

2025 ENGINEERING AND TRAFFIC SURVEY Segment 28
STREET Meadows Pkwy
CERTIFICATION DATE 12/31/2025
FROM Rancho California Rd
TO Rancho Vista Rd

OPERATING CHARACTERISTICS
Date of Speed Survey
6/27/2025 85th Percentile Speed
44 mph
Time of Speed Survey
11:04 AM 50th Percentile Speed
39 mph
Number of Survey Samples
200 Posted Speed Limit
45 mph
10 mph Pace
34-43 mph
Percentage of Vehicles in Pace
81 Average Daily Traffic (ADT)
12,406
Date of ADT
5/28/2025

ROADWAY CHARACTERISTICS
Type of Traffic Control
TS @ Rancho California, Rancho Vista
Marked Uncontrolled X-Walks
None
Adjacent Land Use
Residential, Commercial
Length of Segment

0.33 miles Pedestrian Traffic Light
Width
76 feet Truck Traffic Light
Sidewalks
Both Sides
Driveways
Few
On -Street Parking
None
Lighting
Both Sides
Vertical Curve
Yes Visibility Good
Horizontal Curve
Yes Roadway Conditions Good
Number of Lanes
4 + Raised Median + Bike Lane

CRASH HISTORY AND SAFETY CORRIDOR
Date Range
1/6/2020-6/9/2025 Total Crashes 1
Statewide Average Crash Rate

0.94 crashes/MVM Crash Rate 0.22
crashes/MVM
Fatal and Severe Inaury Crashes
Total 0 Disadvantaged Community
Speed Related 0
During School Hours 0 Vulnerable Populations
YES
Pedestrian and Bicycle 0
DUI 0 School Zone
NO
This Segment is a Designated Safety Corridor Safety Factor per mile

1.562

RECOMMENDATION
Speed Limit
45 mph
Justification
Closest to 85th Speed
Field Study By LA Checked By INS
CERTIFICATION: I, Nicolle Spann, do hereby certify that this Engineering and Traffic Survey within the City of Temecula was performed under my supervision and is accurate and complete. I am duly registered in the r-tate of California as a Professional Engineer (Traffic). 12/31/2025 TR 2933
Nicolle Span Date State Registration Number

2025 ENGINEERING AND TRAFFIC SURVEY Segment 29
STREET Meadows Pkwy CERTIFICATION DATE 12/31/2025
FROM Rancho Vista Rd TO Pauba Rd

OPERATING CHARACTERISTICS
Date of Speed Survey
6/27/2025 85th Percentile Speed 43 mph
Time of Speed Survey
11:30 AM 50th Percentile Speed 38 mph
Number of Survey Samples
200 Posted Speed Limit 45 mph
10 mph Pace
34-43 mph
Percentage of Vehicles in Pace
79 Average Daily Traffic (ADT)
13,332
Date of ADT
5/28/2025

ROADWAY CHARACTERISTICS
Type of Traffic Control TS @ Rancho Vista, Pauba
Marked Uncontrolled X-Walks
None
Adjacent Land Use
Residential
Length of Segment

0.44 miles
Pedestrian Traffic
Light
Width
75 feet
Truck Traffic
Light
Sidewalks
Both Sides
Driveways
Few
On -Street Parking
None
Lighting
Both Sides
Vertical Curve
Yes
Visibility
Good
Horizontal Curve
Yes
Roadway Conditions
Good
Number of Lanes
4 + Bike Lane

RECOMMENDATION
Speed Limit
Justification
45 mph
Closest to 85th Speed
Total Crashes 0
Crash Rate 0.00 crashes/MVM
Disadvantaged Community
Vulnerable Populations YES
School Zone NO
Safety Factor per mile 1.162
Field Study By LA Checked By INS
CERTIFICATION: I, Nicolle Spann, do hereby certify that this Engineering and Traffic Survey within the City of Temecula was performed under my supervision and is accurate and complete. I am duly registered in the r-tate of California as a Professional Engineer (Traffic). 12/31/2025 TR 2933
Nicolle Span Date State Registration Number

2025 ENGINEERING AND TRAFFIC SURVEY Segment 30
STREET Meadows Pkwy
CERTIFICATION DATE 12/31/2025
FROM Pauba Rd
TO De Portola Rd

OPERATING CHARACTERISTICS
Date of Speed Survey
6/27/2025 85th Percentile Speed 42 mph
Time of Speed Survey
11:58 AM 50th Percentile Speed 38 mph
Number of Survey Samples
200 Posted Speed Limit 45 mph
10 mph Pace
33-42 mph
Percentage of Vehicles in Pace
80 Average Daily Traffic (ADT)
12,802
Date of ADT
5/28/2025

ROADWAY CHARACTERISTICS
Type of Traffic Control
TS @ Pauba, Sunny Meadows, Leena, De Portola
Marked Uncontrolled X-Walks
None
Adjacent Land Use
Residential, School
Length of Segment

1.29 miles Pedestrian Traffic Moderate
Width
75 feet Truck Traffic Light
Sidewalks
Both Sides
Driveways
Few
On -Street Parking
None
Lighting
Both Sides
Vertical Curve
Yes Visibility Good
Horizontal Curve
Yes Roadway Conditions Good
Number of Lanes
4 + Raised Median + Bike Lane

CRASH HISTORY AND SAFETY CORRIDOR
Date Range
1/6/2020-6/9/2025 Total Crashes 6
Statewide Average Crash Rate

2025 ENGINEERING AND TRAFFIC SURVEY
Segment 31
STREET Meadows Pkwy
CERTIFICATION DATE 12/31/2025
FROM De Portola Rd
TO Temecula Pkwy

OPERATING CHARACTERISTICS
Date of Speed Survey
6/27/2025
85th Percentile Speed 42 mph
Time of Speed Survey
12:24 PM
50th Percentile Speed 38 mph
Number of Survey Samples
200
Posted Speed Limit 45 mph
10 mph Pace
34-43 mph
Percentage of Vehicles in Pace
77 Average Daily Traffic (ADT)
11,320
Date of ADT
5/28/2025

ROADWAY CHARACTERISTICS
Type of Traffic Control
TS @ De Portola,
Campanula, Temecula
Marked Uncontrolled X-Walks
None
Adjacent Land Use
Residential
Length of Segment

0.37 miles
Pedestrian Traffic Moderate
Width
76 feet
Truck Traffic Light
Sidewalks
Both Sides
Driveways
Few
On -Street Parking
None
Lighting
Both Sides
Vertical Curve
Yes
Visibility Good
Horizontal Curve
Yes
Roadway Conditions Good
Number of Lanes
4 + Raised Median + Bike Lane

CRASH HISTORY AND SAFETY CORRIDOR
Date Range
1/6/2020-6/9/2025 Total Crashes 1
Statewide Average Crash Rate

0.94 crashes/MVM Crash Rate 0.22 crashes/MVM
Fatal and Severe Inaury Crashes
Total
0 Disadvantaged Community
Speed Related 0
During School Hours
0 Vulnerable Populations NO
Pedestrian and Bicycle 0
DUI
0 School Zone NO
Safety Factor per mile 0

RECOMMENDATION
Speed Limit
45 mph
Justification
Maintain Uniformity with Adjacent Segment, Lower than Expected Crash Rate
Field Study By LA Checked By NS
CERTIFICATION: I, Nicolle Spann, do hereby certify that this Engineering and Traffic Survey within the City of Temecula was performed under my supervision and is accurate and complete. I am duly registered in the r-tate of California as a Professional Engineer (Traffic). 12/31/2025 TR 2933
Nicolle Span Date State Registration Number

2025 ENGINEERING AND TRAFFIC SURVEY Segment 32
STREET Rancho California Rd
CERTIFICATION DATE 12/31/2025
FROM West City Limit
TO Diaz Rd

OPERATING CHARACTERISTICS
Date of Speed Survey
6/25/2025 85th Percentile Speed
45 mph
Time of Speed Survey
1:00 PM 50th Percentile Speed
41 mph
Number of Survey Samples
200 Posted Speed Limit
45 mph
10 mph Pace
36-45 mph
Percentage of Vehicles in Pace
83 Average Daily Traffic (ADT)
7,389
Date of ADT
5/28/2025

ROADWAY CHARACTERISTICS
Type of Traffic Control
TS @ Diaz, Business Park
Marked Uncontrolled X-Walks
None
Adjacent Land Use
Mountain, Commercial
Length of Segment

0.97 miles Pedestrian Traffic Light
Width
34/48 feet Truck Traffic Light
Sidewalks
None
Driveways
Few
On -Street Parking
None
Lighting
None
Vertical Curve
Yes Visibility Good
Horizontal Curve
Yes Roadway Conditions Good
Number of Lanes
2 CRASH HISTORY AND SAFETY CORRIDOR
Date Range
1/6/2020-6/9/2025 Total Crashes 3
Statewide Average Crash Rate

1.24 crashes/MVM Crash Rate 0.38
crashes/MVM
Fatal and Severe Inaury Crashes
Total 0 Disadvantaged Community
Speed Related 0
During School Hours 0 Vulnerable Populations
NO
Pedestrian and Bicycle 0
DUI 0 School Zone
NO
Safety Factor per mile
0 RECOMMENDATION
Speed Limit
45 mph
Justification
Closest to 85th Speed
Field Study By LA Checked By NS
CERTIFICATION: I, Nicolle Spann, do hereby certify that this Engineering and Traffic Survey within the City of Temecula was performed under my supervision and is accurate and complete. I am duly registered in the r-tate of California as a Professional Engineer (Traffic). 12/31/2025 TR 2933
Nicolle Span Date State Registration Number

2025 ENGINEERING AND TRAFFIC SURVEY Segment 33
STREET Rancho California Rd
CERTIFICATION DATE 12/31/2025
FROM Diaz Rd
TO 1-15 Southband Ramps

OPERATING CHARACTERISTICS
Date of Speed Survey
6/25/2025 85th Percentile Speed
38 mph
Time of Speed Survey
1:21 PM 50th Percentile Speed
34 mph
Number of Survey Samples
200 Posted Speed Limit
40 mph
10 mph Pace
29-38 mph
Percentage of Vehicles in Pace
77 Average Daily Traffic (ADT)
22,628
Date of ADT
5/28/2025

ROADWAY CHARACTERISTICS
Type of Traffic Control
TS @ Diaz, Jefferson, 1-15 SB Ramps
Marked Uncontrolled X-Walks
None
Adjacent Land Use
Commercial
Length of Segment

0.32 miles Pedestrian Traffic Light
Width
105 feet Truck Traffic Moderate
Sidewalks
Both Sides
Driveways
Few
On -Street Parking
None
Lighting
South Side Only
Vertical Curve
Yes Visibility Good
Horizontal Curve
Yes Roadway Conditions Good
Number of Lanes
4 + Raised Median

CRASH HISTORY AND SAFETY CORRIDOR
Date Range
1/6/2020-6/9/2025 Total Crashes 1
Statewide Average Crash Rate

0.94 crashes/MVM Crash Rate 0.13
crashes/MVM
Fatal and Severe Inaury Crashes
Total 0 Disadvantaged Community
Speed Related 0
During School Hours 0 Vulnerable Populations
NO
Pedestrian and Bicycle 0
DUI 0 School Zone
NO
Safety Factor per mile
0 RECOMMENDATION
Speed Limit
40 mph
Justification
Closest to 85th Speed
Field Study By LA Checked By INS
CERTIFICATION: I, Nicolle Spann, do hereby certify that this Engineering and Traffic Survey within the City of Temecula was performed under my supervision and is accurate and complete. I am duly registered in the r-tate of California as a Professional Engineer (Traffic). 12/31/2025 TR 2933
Nicolle Span Date State Registration Number

2025 ENGINEERING AND TRAFFIC SURVEY Segment 34
STREET Rancho California Rd CERTIFICATION DATE 12/31/2025 FROM 1-15 Southband Ramps TO Ynez Rd

OPERATING CHARACTERISTICS
Date of Speed Survey
6/25/2025 85th Percentile Speed 39 mph
Time of Speed Survey
2:01 PM 50th Percentile Speed 34 mph
Number of Survey Samples
200 Posted Speed Limit 40 mph
10 mph Pace
29-38 mph
Percentage of Vehicles in Pace
76 Average Daily Traffic (ADT)
73,755
Date of ADT
5/28/2025

ROADWAY CHARACTERISTICS
Type of Traffic Control TS @ 1-15 SB Ramps, Ynez
Marked Uncontrolled X-Walks
None
Adjacent Land Use
Commercial
Length of Segment

0.25 miles Pedestrian Traffic
Light
Width
109 feet Truck Traffic
Moderate
Sidewalks
Both Sides
Driveways
Few
On -Street Parking
None
Lighting
South Side Only
Vertical Curve
Yes Visibility
Good
Horizontal Curve
No Roadway Conditions
Good
Number of Lanes
6 + Raised Median

CRASH HISTORY AND SAFETY CORRIDOR
Date Range 1/6/2020-6/9/2025
Statewide Average Crash Rate 1.23 crashes/MVM
Fatal and Severe Inaury Crashes Total 1
Speed Related 0 During School Hours 0
Pedestrian and Bicycle 0 DUI 0
This Segment is a Designated Safety Corridor

RECOMMENDATION
Speed Limit
Justification
40 mph
Closest to 85th Speed
Total Crashes 7
Crash Rate 0.35 crashes/MVM
Disadvantaged Community
Vulnerable Populations NO
School Zone NO
Safety Factor per mile 8.333
Field Study By LA Checked By INS
CERTIFICATION: I, Nicolle Spann, do hereby certify that this Engineering and Traffic Survey within the City of Temecula was performed under my supervision and is accurate and complete. I am duly registered in the r-tate of California as a Professional Engineer (Traffic). 12/31/2025 TR 2933
Nicolle Span Date State Registration Number

2025 ENGINEERING AND TRAFFIC SURVEY Segment 35
STREET Rancho California Rd CERTIFICATION DATE 12/31/2025 FROM Ynez Rd TO Moraga Rd

OPERATING CHARACTERISTICS
Date of Speed Survey
6/25/2025 85th Percentile Speed 39 mph
Time of Speed Survey
2:31 PM 50th Percentile Speed 33 mph
Number of Survey Samples
200 Posted Speed Limit 40 mph
10 mph Pace
28-37 mph
Percentage of Vehicles in Pace
73 Average Daily Traffic (ADT)
52,861
Date of ADT
5/28/2025

ROADWAY CHARACTERISTICS
Type of Traffic Control TS @ Ynez, Parking Lot, Via Las Colinas, Lyndie, Moraga Marked Uncontrolled X-Walks
None
Adjacent Land Use
Commercial
Length of Segment

0.56 miles Pedestrian Traffic
Light
Width
86 feet Truck Traffic
Light
Sidewalks
Both Sides
Driveways
Both Sides
On -Street Parking
None
Lighting
Both Sides
Vertical Curve
Yes Visibility
Good
Horizontal Curve
Yes Roadway Conditions
Good
Number of Lanes
6 + Raised Median

CRASH HISTORY AND SAFETY CORRIDOR
Date Range 1/6/2020-6/9/2025
Statewide Average Crash Rate 1.23 crashes/MVM
Fatal and Severe Inaury Crashes Total 1
Speed Related 1 During School Hours 0
Pedestrian and Bicycle 0 DUI 0
This Segment is a Designated Safety Corridor

RECOMMENDATION
Speed Limit
Justification
40 mph
Closest to 85th Speed
Total Crashes 12
Crash Rate 0.37 crashes/MVM
Disadvantaged Community
Vulnerable Populations NO
School Zone NO
Safety Factor per mile 10.71
Field Study By LA Checked By INS
CERTIFICATION: I, Nicolle Spann, do hereby certify that this Engineering and Traffic Survey within the City of Temecula was performed under my supervision and is accurate and complete. I am duly registered in the r-tate of California as a Professional Engineer (Traffic). 12/31/2025 TR 2933
Nicolle Span Date State Registration Number

2025 ENGINEERING AND TRAFFIC SURVEY Segment 36
STREET Rancho California Rd
CERTIFICATION DATE 12/31/2025
FROM Moraga Rd
TO Cosmic Rd

OPERATING CHARACTERISTICS
Date of Speed Survey
6/25/2025 85th Percentile Speed
43 mph
Time of Speed Survey
2:54 PM 50th Percentile Speed
38 mph
Number of Survey Samples
200 Posted Speed Limit
45 mph
10 mph Pace
33-42 mph
Percentage of Vehicles in Pace
71 Average Daily Traffic (ADT)
41,848
Date of ADT
5/28/2025

ROADWAY CHARACTERISTICS
Type of Traffic Control
TS @ Moraga, Rendezvous, Cosmic
Marked Uncontrolled X-Walks
None
Adjacent Land Use
Residential
Length of Segment

0.41 miles Pedestrian Traffic Light
Width
86 feet Truck Traffic Light
Sidewalks
Both Sides
Driveways
Few
On -Street Parking
None
Lighting
Both Sides
Vertical Curve
Yes Visibility Good
Horizontal Curve
Yes Roadway Conditions Good
Number of Lanes
4 + Raised Median + Bike Lane

CRASH HISTORY AND SAFETY CORRIDOR
Date Range
1/6/2020-6/9/2025 Total Crashes 16
Statewide Average Crash Rate

0.94 crashes/MVM Crash Rate 0.85
crashes/MVM
Fatal and Severe Inaury Crashes
Total 0 Disadvantaged Community
Speed Related 0
During School Hours 0 Vulnerable Populations
NO
Pedestrian and Bicycle 0
DUI 0 School Zone
NO
Safety Factor per mile
0 RECOMMENDATION
Speed Limit
45 mph
Justification
Closest to 85th Speed
Field Study By LA Checked By INS
CERTIFICATION: I, Nicolle Spann, do hereby certify that this Engineering and Traffic Survey within the City of Temecula was performed under my supervision and is accurate and complete. I am duly registered in the r-tate of California as a Professional Engineer (Traffic). 12/31/2025 TR 2933
Nicolle Span Date State Registration Number

2025 ENGINEERING AND TRAFFIC SURVEY
Segment 37
STREET Rancho California Rd
CERTIFICATION DATE 12/31/2025
FROM Cosmic Dr
TO Margarita Rd

OPERATING CHARACTERISTICS
Date of Speed Survey
6/25/2025
85th Percentile Speed
44 mph
Time of Speed Survey
3:16 PM
50th Percentile Speed
37 mph
Number of Survey Samples
200
Posted Speed Limit
45 mph
10 mph Pace
32-41 mph
Percentage of Vehicles in Pace
66 Average Daily Traffic (ADT)
33,633
Date of ADT
5/28/2025

ROADWAY CHARACTERISTICS
Type of Traffic Control
TS @ Cosmic, Yukon, Margarita
Marked Uncontrolled X-Walks
Adjacent Land Use
Length of Segment
Width
Sidewalks
Driveways
On -Street Parking
Lighting
Vertical Curve
Horizontal Curve
Number of Lanes
None
Residential, Commercial

0.46 miles
Pedestrian Traffic
Light
86 feet
Truck Traffic
Light
Both Sides
Few
None
Both Sides
Yes
Visibility
Good
Yes
Roadway Conditions
Good
4 + TWLTL + Raised
Median @ East Side + Bike Lane

RECOMMENDATION
Speed Limit
Justification
45 mph
Closest to 85th Speed
Total Crashes 12
Crash Rate 0.71 crashes/MVM
Disadvantaged Community
Vulnerable Populations NO
School Zone NO
Safety Factor per mile 0
Field Study By LA Checked By INS
CERTIFICATION: I, Nicolle Spann, do hereby certify that this Engineering and Traffic Survey within the City of Temecula was performed under my supervision and is accurate and complete. I am duly registered in the r-tate of California as a Professional Engineer (Traffic). 12/31/2025 TR 2933
Nicolle Span Date State Registration Number

2025 ENGINEERING AND TRAFFIC SURVEY Segment 38
STREET Rancho California Rd
CERTIFICATION DATE 12/31/2025
FROM Margarita Rd
TO Tee Dr

OPERATING CHARACTERISTICS
Date of Speed Survey
6/25/2025 85th Percentile Speed
50 mph
Time of Speed Survey
3:38 PM 50th Percentile Speed
45 mph
Number of Survey Samples
200 Posted Speed Limit
50 mph
10 mph Pace
41-50 mph
Percentage of Vehicles in Pace
72 Average Daily Traffic (ADT)
36,152
Date of ADT
5/28/2025

ROADWAY CHARACTERISTICS
Type of Traffic Control
TS @ Margarita, Tee
Marked Uncontrolled X-Walks
None
Adjacent Land Use
Residential
Length of Segment

0.76 miles Pedestrian Traffic Light
Width
86 feet Truck Traffic Light
Sidewalks
Both Sides
Driveways
Few
On -Street Parking
None
Lighting
Both Sides
Vertical Curve
Yes Visibility Good
Horizontal Curve
Yes Roadway Conditions Good
Number of Lanes
4 + TWLTL + Bike Lane

CRASH HISTORY AND SAFETY CORRIDOR
Date Range
1/6/2020-6/9/2025 Total Crashes 9
Statewide Average Crash Rate

0.96 crashes/MVM Crash Rate 0.30
crashes/MVM
Fatal and Severe Inaury Crashes
Total 2 Disadvantaged Community
Speed Related 1
During School Hours 1 Vulnerable Populations
YES
Pedestrian and Bicycle 0
DUI 0 School Zone
NO
This Segment is a Designated Safety Corridor Safety Factor per mile

16.44 RECOMMENDATION
Speed Limit
50 mph
Justification
Closest to 85th Speed
Field Study By LA Checked By INS
CERTIFICATION: I, Nicolle Spann, do hereby certify that this Engineering and Traffic Survey within the City of Temecula was performed under my supervision and is accurate and complete. I am duly registered in the r-tate of California as a Professional Engineer (Traffic). 12/31/2025 TR 2933
Nicolle Span Date State Registration Number

2025 ENGINEERING AND TRAFFIC SURVEY Segment 39
STREET Rancho California Rd
CERTIFICATION DATE 12/31/2025
FROM Tee Dr
TO Meadows Pkwy

OPERATING CHARACTERISTICS
Date of Speed Survey
6/27/2025 85th Percentile Speed
51 mph
Time of Speed Survey
9:00 AM 50th Percentile Speed
45 mph
Number of Survey Samples
200 Posted Speed Limit
50 mph
10 mph Pace
40-49 mph
Percentage of Vehicles in Pace
71 Average Daily Traffic (ADT)
30,747
Date of ADT
5/28/2025

ROADWAY CHARACTERISTICS
Type of Traffic Control
TS @ Tee, Meadows
Marked Uncontrolled X-Walks
None
Adjacent Land Use
Residential
Length of Segment

0.47 miles Pedestrian Traffic Light
Width
86 feet Truck Traffic Light
Sidewalks
South Side Only
Driveways
None
On -Street Parking
None
Lighting
Both Sides
Vertical Curve
Yes Visibility Good
Horizontal Curve
Yes Roadway Conditions Good
Number of Lanes
4 + TWLTL + Bike Lane

CRASH HISTORY AND SAFETY CORRIDOR
Date Range
1/6/2020-6/9/2025 Total Crashes 0
Statewide Average Crash Rate

0.96 crashes/MVM Crash Rate 0.00
crashes/MVM
Fatal and Severe Inaury Crashes
Total 0 Disadvantaged Community
Speed Related 0
During School Hours 0 Vulnerable Populations
YES
Pedestrian and Bicycle 0
DUI 0 School Zone
NO
This Segment is a Designated Safety Corridor Safety Factor per mile

1.063

RECOMMENDATION
Speed Limit
50 mph
Justification
Closest to 85th Speed
Field Study By LA Checked By INS
CERTIFICATION: I, Nicolle Spann, do hereby certify that this Engineering and Traffic Survey within the City of Temecula was performed under my supervision and is accurate and complete. I am duly registered in the r-tate of California as a Professional Engineer (Traffic). 12/31/2025 TR 2933
Nicolle Span Date State Registration Number

2025 ENGINEERING AND TRAFFIC SURVEY Segment 40
STREET Rancho California Rd
CERTIFICATION DATE 12/31/2025
FROM Meadows Pkwy
TO Butterfield Stage Rd

OPERATING CHARACTERISTICS
Date of Speed Survey
6/27/2025 85th Percentile Speed
48 mph
Time of Speed Survey
9:18 AM 50th Percentile Speed
44 mph
Number of Survey Samples
200 Posted Speed Limit
50 mph
10 mph Pace
38-47 mph
Percentage of Vehicles in Pace
75 Average Daily Traffic (ADT)
24,581
Date of ADT
5/28/2025

ROADWAY CHARACTERISTICS
Type of Traffic Control
TS @ Meadows, Butterfield Stage
Marked Uncontrolled X-Walks
None
Adjacent Land Use
Residential
Length of Segment

0.67 miles Pedestrian Traffic Light
Width
86 feet Truck Traffic Light
Sidewalks
Both Sides
Driveways
Few
On -Street Parking
None
Lighting
Both Sides
Vertical Curve
Yes Visibility Good
Horizontal Curve
Yes Roadway Conditions Good
Number of Lanes
4 + TWLTL + Bike Lane

CRASH HISTORY AND SAFETY CORRIDOR
Date Range
1/6/2020-6/9/2025 Total Crashes 5
Statewide Average Crash Rate

0.96 crashes/MVM Crash Rate 0.28
crashes/MVM
Fatal and Severe Inaury Crashes
Total 1 Disadvantaged Community
Speed Related 1
During School Hours 0 Vulnerable Populations
YES
Pedestrian and Bicycle 1
DUI 0 School Zone
NO
This Segment is a Designated Safety Corridor Safety Factor per mile

13.97 RECOMMENDATION
Speed Limit
50 mph
Justification
Closest to 85th Speed
Field Study By LA Checked By INS
CERTIFICATION: I, Nicolle Spann, do hereby certify that this Engineering and Traffic Survey within the City of Temecula was performed under my supervision and is accurate and complete. I am duly registered in the r-tate of California as a Professional Engineer (Traffic). 12/31/2025 TR 2933
Nicolle Span Date State Registration Number

2025 ENGINEERING AND TRAFFIC SURVEY Segment 41
STREET Redwood Rd CERTIFICATION DATE 12/31/2025
FROM Loma Linda Rd TO Wolf Creek Dr N

OPERATING CHARACTERISTICS
Date of Speed Survey
6/25/2025 85th Percentile Speed 31 mph
Time of Speed Survey
9:00 AM 50th Percentile Speed 27 mph
Number of Survey Samples
51 Posted Speed Limit 30 mph
10 mph Pace
24-33 mph
Percentage of Vehicles in Pace
82 Average Daily Traffic (ADT)
1,024
Date of ADT
5/28/2025

ROADWAY CHARACTERISTICS
Type of Traffic Control Stop @ Loma Linda; AWS @ Wolf Creek Marked Uncontrolled X-Walks
None
Adjacent Land Use
Residential, Park
Length of Segment

0.28 miles
Pedestrian Traffic
Moderate
Width
56 feet
Truck Traffic
Light
Sidewalks
Both Sides
Driveways
Both Sides
On -Street Parking
None
Lighting
Both Sides
Vertical Curve
No
Visibility
Fair
Horizontal Curve
Yes
Roadway Conditions
Good
Number of Lanes
2 + Bike Lane

CRASH HISTORY AND SAFETY CORRIDOR
Date Range 1/6/2020-6/9/2025
Statewide Average Crash Rate 1.68 crashes/MVM
Fatal and Severe Inaury Crashes Total 0
Speed Related 0 During School Hours 0
Pedestrian and Bicycle 0 DUI 0
This Segment is a Designated Safety Corridor

RECOMMENDATION
Speed Limit
Justification
30 mph
Closest to 85th Speed
Total Crashes 0
Crash Rate 0.00 crashes/MVM
Disadvantaged Community
Vulnerable Populations NO
School Zone YES
Safety Factor per mile 1.785
Field Study By LA Checked By INS
CERTIFICATION: I, Nicolle Spann, do hereby certify that this Engineering and Traffic Survey within the City of Temecula was performed under my supervision and is accurate and complete. I am duly registered in the r-tate of California as a Professional Engineer (Traffic). 12/31/2025 TR 2933
Nicolle Span Date State Registration Number

2025 ENGINEERING AND TRAFFIC SURVEY
Segment 42
STREET Sommers Bend
CERTIFICATION DATE 12/31/2025
FROM Butterfield Stage Rd
TO Lupine Dr

OPERATING CHARACTERISTICS
Date of Speed Survey
6/24/2025
85th Percentile Speed
32 mph
Time of Speed Survey
9:00 AM
50th Percentile Speed
28 mph
Number of Survey Samples
200
Posted Speed Limit
NP mph
10 mph Pace
23-32 mph
Percentage of Vehicles in Pace
90 Average Daily Traffic (ADT)
4,003
Date of ADT
6/3/2025

ROADWAY CHARACTERISTICS
Type of Traffic Control
TS @ Butterfield
Stage
Marked Uncontrolled X-Walks
None
Adjacent Land Use
Residential
Length of Segment

0.57 miles
Pedestrian Traffic Light
Width
50 feet
Truck Traffic Light
Sidewalks
Both Sides
Driveways
Few
On -Street Parking
None
Lighting
Both Sides
Vertical Curve
Yes
Visibility Good
Horizontal Curve
Yes
Roadway Conditions Good
Number of Lanes
2 + Bike Lane

CRASH HISTORY AND SAFETY CORRIDOR
Date Range
1/6/2020-6/9/2025 Total Crashes 0
Statewide Average Crash Rate

1.68 crashes/MVM Crash Rate 0.00
crashes/MVM
Fatal and Severe Inaury Crashes
Total
0 Disadvantaged Community
Speed Related 0
During School Hours
0 Vulnerable Populations
NO
Pedestrian and Bicycle 0
DUI
0 School Zone
NO
Safety Factor per mile
0 RECOMMENDATION
Speed Limit
30 mph
Justification
Closest to 85th Speed
Field Study By LA Checked By INS
CERTIFICATION: I, Nicolle Spann, do hereby certify that this Engineering and Traffic Survey within the City of Temecula was performed under my supervision and is accurate and complete. I am duly registered in the r-tate of California as a Professional Engineer (Traffic). 12/31/2025 TR 2933
Nicolle Span Date State Registration Number

2025 ENGINEERING AND TRAFFIC SURVEY
Segment 43
STREET Sommers Bend
CERTIFICATION DATE 12/31/2025
FROM Lupine Dr
TO Sorrel Ln

OPERATING CHARACTERISTICS
Date of Speed Survey
6/24/2025
85th Percentile Speed
28 mph
Time of Speed Survey
10:07 AM
50th Percentile Speed
25 mph
Number of Survey Samples
174
Posted Speed Limit
NP mph
10 mph Pace
20-29 mph
Percentage of Vehicles in Pace
85 Average Daily Traffic (ADT)
1,693
Date of ADT
6/3/2025

ROADWAY CHARACTERISTICS
Type of Traffic Control
None
Marked Uncontrolled X-Walks
None
Adjacent Land Use
Residential
Length of Segment

0.76 miles
Pedestrian Traffic Light
Width
50 feet
Truck Traffic Light
Sidewalks
Both Sides
Driveways
Few
On -Street Parking
None
Lighting
Both Sides
Vertical Curve
Yes
Visibility Good
Horizontal Curve
Yes
Roadway Conditions Good
Number of Lanes
2 + TWLTL + Bike Lane

CRASH HISTORY AND SAFETY CORRIDOR
Date Range
1/6/2020-6/9/2025 Total Crashes 0
Statewide Average Crash Rate

0.714

RECOMMENDATION
Speed Limit
30 mph
Justification
Closest to 85th Speed
Field Study By LA Checked By NS
CERTIFICATION: I, Nicolle Spann, do hereby certify that this Engineering and Traffic Survey within the City of Temecula was performed under my supervision and is accurate and complete. I am duly registered in the r-tate of California as a Professional Engineer (Traffic). 12/31/2025 TR 2933
Nicolle Span Date State Registration Number

2025 ENGINEERING AND TRAFFIC SURVEY Segment 44
STREET Sommers Bend
CERTIFICATION DATE 12/31/2025
FROM Sorrel Ln
TO Butterfield Stage Rd

OPERATING CHARACTERISTICS
Date of Speed Survey
6/24/2025 85th Percentile Speed
29 mph
Time of Speed Survey
11:11 AM 50th Percentile Speed
26 mph
Number of Survey Samples
124 Posted Speed Limit
NP mph
10 mph Pace
22-31 mph
Percentage of Vehicles in Pace
92 Average Daily Traffic (ADT)
2,150
Date of ADT
6/3/2025

ROADWAY CHARACTERISTICS
Type of Traffic Control
TS @ Butterfield Stage
Marked Uncontrolled X-Walks
None
Adjacent Land Use
Residential
Length of Segment

0.36 miles Pedestrian Traffic Light
Width
50 feet Truck Traffic Light
Sidewalks
Both Sides
Driveways
Few
On -Street Parking
None
Lighting
Both Sides
Vertical Curve
Yes Visibility Good
Horizontal Curve
Yes Roadway Conditions Good
Number of Lanes
2 + TWLTL + Bike Lane

CRASH HISTORY AND SAFETY CORRIDOR
Date Range
1/6/2020-6/9/2025 Total Crashes 0
Statewide Average Crash Rate

2025 ENGINEERING AND TRAFFIC SURVEY
Segment 45
STREET Temecula Pkwy
CERTIFICATION DATE 12/31/2025
FROM Bedford Ct
TO Pechanga Pkwy

OPERATING CHARACTERISTICS
Date of Speed Survey
7/8/2025
85th Percentile Speed
45 mph
Time of Speed Survey
9:00 AM
50th Percentile Speed
40 mph
Number of Survey Samples
200
Posted Speed Limit
50 mph
10 mph Pace
35-44 mph
Percentage of Vehicles in Pace
75 Average Daily Traffic (ADT)
52,859
Date of ADT
5/28/2025

ROADWAY CHARACTERISTICS
Type of Traffic Control
TS @ Bedford, La Paz, Wabash, Pechanga
Marked Uncontrolled X-Walks
None
Adjacent Land Use
Commercial
Length of Segment

0.55 miles
Pedestrian Traffic Light
Width
109 feet
Truck Traffic Light
Sidewalks
Both Sides
Driveways
Both Sides
On -Street Parking
None
Lighting
Both Sides
Vertical Curve
Yes
Visibility Fair
Horizontal Curve
Yes
Roadway Conditions Good
Number of Lanes
6 + Raised Median + Bike Lane

CRASH HISTORY AND SAFETY CORRIDOR
Date Range
1/6/2020-6/9/2025 Total Crashes 30
Statewide Average Crash Rate

1.23 crashes/MVM Crash Rate 0.94
crashes/MVM
Fatal and Severe Inaury Crashes
Total
0 Disadvantaged Community
Speed Related 0
During School Hours
0 Vulnerable Populations
NO
Pedestrian and Bicycle 0
DUI
0 School Zone
NO
Safety Factor per mile
0 RECOMMENDATION
Speed Limit
45 mph
Justification
Closest to 85th Speed
Field Study By LA Checked By INS
CERTIFICATION: I, Nicolle Spann, do hereby certify that this Engineering and Traffic Survey within the City of Temecula was performed under my supervision and is accurate and complete. I am duly registered in the r-tate of California as a Professional Engineer (Traffic). 12/31/2025 TR 2933
Nicolle Span Date State Registration Number

2025 ENGINEERING AND TRAFFIC SURVEY Segment 46
STREET Temecula Pkwy
CERTIFICATION DATE 12/31/2025
FROM Pechanga Pkwy
TO Avenida De Missiones

OPERATING CHARACTERISTICS
Date of Speed Survey
7/8/2025 85th Percentile Speed
48 mph
Time of Speed Survey
9:27 AM 50th Percentile Speed
43 mph
Number of Survey Samples
200 Posted Speed Limit
50 mph
10 mph Pace
39-48 mph
Percentage of Vehicles in Pace
78 Average Daily Traffic (ADT)
44,783
Date of ADT
5/28/2025

ROADWAY CHARACTERISTICS
Type of Traffic Control
TS @ Pechanga, Jedediah Smith, Kevin, Avenida
Marked Uncontrolled X-Walks
None
Adjacent Land Use
Commercial
Length of Segment

1.00 miles Pedestrian Traffic Light
Width
110 feet Truck Traffic Light
Sidewalks
Both Sides
Driveways
Both Sides
On -Street Parking
None
Lighting
Both Sides
Vertical Curve
Yes Visibility Fair
Horizontal Curve
Yes Roadway Conditions Good
Number of Lanes
6 + Raised Median + Bike Lane

CRASH HISTORY AND SAFETY CORRIDOR
Date Range
1/6/2020-6/9/2025 Total Crashes 20
Statewide Average Crash Rate

1.23 crashes/MVM Crash Rate 0.41
crashes/MVM
Fatal and Severe Inaury Crashes
Total 0 Disadvantaged Community
Speed Related 0
During School Hours 0 Vulnerable Populations
NO
Pedestrian and Bicycle 0
DUI 0 School Zone
NO
Safety Factor per mile
0 RECOMMENDATION
Speed Limit
50 mph
Justification
Closest to 85th Speed
Field Study By LA Checked By INS
CERTIFICATION: I, Nicolle Spann, do hereby certify that this Engineering and Traffic Survey within the City of Temecula was performed under my supervision and is accurate and complete. I am duly registered in the r-tate of California as a Professional Engineer (Traffic). 12/31/2025 TR 2933
Nicolle Span Date State Registration Number

2025 ENGINEERING AND TRAFFIC SURVEY
Segment 47
STREET Temecula Fkwy
CERTIFICATION DATE 12/31/2025
FROM Avenida De Missiones
TO Margarita Rd

OPERATING CHARACTERISTICS
Date of Speed Survey
7/8/2025
85th Percentile Speed 46 mph
Time of Speed Survey
9:53 AM
50th Percentile Speed 40 mph
Number of Survey Samples
200
Posted Speed Limit 50 mph
10 mph Pace
35-44 mph
Percentage of Vehicles in Pace
69 Average Daily Traffic (ADT)
41,385
Date of ADT
5/28/2025

ROADWAY CHARACTERISTICS
Type of Traffic Control
TS @ Avenida, County
Glen, Margarita-Redhawk
Marked Uncontrolled X-Walks
None
Adjacent Land Use
Commercial
Length of Segment

0.60 miles
Pedestrian Traffic Moderate
Width
110 feet
Truck Traffic Light
Sidewalks
Both Sides
Driveways
Both Sides
On -Street Parking
None
Lighting
Both Sides
Vertical Curve
Yes
Visibility Fair
Horizontal Curve
Yes
Roadway Conditions Good
Number of Lanes
6 + Raised Median + Bike Lane

CRASH HISTORY AND SAFETY CORRIDOR
Date Range
1/6/2020-6/9/2025 Total Crashes 10
Statewide Average Crash Rate

1.23 crashes/MVM Crash Rate 0.37 crashes/MVM
Fatal and Severe Inaury Crashes
Total
0 Disadvantaged Community
Speed Related 0
During School Hours
0 Vulnerable Populations NO
Pedestrian and Bicycle 0
DUI
0 School Zone NO
Safety Factor per mile 0

RECOMMENDATION
Speed Limit
50 mph
Justification
Maintain Uniformity with Adjacent Segment, Lower than Expected Crash Rate
Field Study By LA Checked By INS
CERTIFICATION: I, Nicolle Spann, do hereby certify that this Engineering and Traffic Survey within the City of Temecula was performed under my supervision and is accurate and complete. I am duly registered in the r-tate of California as a Professional Engineer (Traffic). 12/31/2025 TR 2933
Nicolle Span Date State Registration Number

2025 ENGINEERING AND TRAFFIC SURVEY
Segment 48
STREET Temecula Pkwy
CERTIFICATION DATE 12/31/2025
FROM Margarita Rd
TO Butterfield Stage Rd

OPERATING CHARACTERISTICS
Date of Speed Survey
7/7/2025
85th Percentile Speed 47 mph
Time of Speed Survey
3:35 PM
50th Percentile Speed 39 mph
Number of Survey Samples
200
Posted Speed Limit 50 mph
10 mph Pace
34-43 mph
Percentage of Vehicles in Pace
65 Average Daily Traffic (ADT)
24,453
Date of ADT
5/28/2025

ROADWAY CHARACTERISTICS
Type of Traffic Control
TS @ Margarita-Redhawk, Parking Lot, Meadows, Mahlon Vail, Butterfield Stage
Marked Uncontrolled X-Walks
None
Adjacent Land Use
Commercial
Length of Segment

1.37 miles
Pedestrian Traffic Moderate
Width
110 feet
Truck Traffic Moderate
Sidewalks
Both Sides
Driveways
Both Sides
On -Street Parking
None
Lighting
South Side Only
Vertical Curve
No
Visibility Good
Horizontal Curve
No
Roadway Conditions Fair
Number of Lanes
6 + Raised Median + Bike Lane

CRASH HISTORY AND SAFETY CORRIDOR
Date Range
1/6/2020-6/9/2025
Total Crashes 29
Statewide Average Crash Rate

1.23 crashes/MVM Crash Rate 0.79 crashes/MVM
Fatal and Severe Inaury Crashes
Total
2 Disadvantaged Community
Speed Related 1
During School Hours
0 Vulnerable Populations YES
Pedestrian and Bicycle 0
DUI
1 School Zone NO
This Segment is a Designated Safety Corridor
Safety Factor per mile 13.88

RECOMMENDATION
Speed Limit
50 mph
Justification
Maintain Uniformity
with Adjacent Segment, Lower than Expected
Crash Rate
Field Study By LA Checked By INS
CERTIFICATION: I, Nicolle Spann, do hereby certify that this Engineering and Traffic Survey within the City of Temecula was performed under my supervision and is accurate and complete. I am duly registered in the r-tate of California as a Professional Engineer (Traffic). 12/31/2025 TR 2933
Nicolle Span Date State Registration Number

2025 ENGINEERING AND TRAFFIC SURVEY Segment 49
STREET Temecula Pkwy
CERTIFICATION DATE 12/31/2025
FROM Butterfield Stage Rd
TO East City Limits

OPERATING CHARACTERISTICS
Date of Speed Survey
7/8/2025 85th Percentile Speed
50 mph
Time of Speed Survey
10:27 AM 50th Percentile Speed
46 mph
Number of Survey Samples
200 Posted Speed Limit
55 mph
10 mph Pace
41-50 mph
Percentage of Vehicles in Pace
81 Average Daily Traffic (ADT)
20,953
Date of ADT
5/28/2025

ROADWAY CHARACTERISTICS
Type of Traffic Control
TS @ Butterfield Stage
Marked Uncontrolled X-Walks
None
Adjacent Land Use
Commercial, Residential
Length of Segment

0.22 miles Pedestrian Traffic Light
Width
110 feet Truck Traffic Moderate
Sidewalks
Both Sides
Driveways
Both Sides
On -Street Parking
None
Lighting
South Side Only
Vertical Curve
No Visibility Good
Horizontal Curve
No Roadway Conditions Fair
Number of Lanes
6 + Raised Median

CRASH HISTORY AND SAFETY CORRIDOR
Date Range
1/6/2020-6/9/2025 Total Crashes 1
Statewide Average Crash Rate

1.23 crashes/MVM Crash Rate 0.20
crashes/MVM
Fatal and Severe Inaury Crashes
Total 1 Disadvantaged Community
Speed Related 0
During School Hours 0 Vulnerable Populations
YES
Pedestrian and Bicycle 0
DUI 0 School Zone
NO
This Segment is a Designated Safety Corridor Safety Factor per mile

2.5 RECOMMENDATION
Speed Limit
50 mph
Justification
Closest to 85th Speed
Field Study By LA Checked By INS
CERTIFICATION: I, Nicolle Spann, do hereby certify that this Engineering and Traffic Survey within the City of Temecula was performed under my supervision and is accurate and complete. I am duly registered in the r-tate of California as a Professional Engineer (Traffic). 12/31/2025 TR 2933
Nicolle Span Date State Registration Number

2025 ENGINEERING AND TRAFFIC SURVEY Segment 50
STREET Via La Vida
CERTIFICATION DATE 12/31/2025
FROM Margarita Rd
TO Solana Way

OPERATING CHARACTERISTICS
Date of Speed Survey
7/7/2025 85th Percentile Speed
30 mph
Time of Speed Survey
10:18 AM 50th Percentile Speed
27 mph
Number of Survey Samples
53 Posted Speed Limit
30 mph
10 mph Pace
23-32 mph
Percentage of Vehicles in Pace
98 Average Daily Traffic (ADT)
476
Date of ADT
5/28/2025

ROADWAY CHARACTERISTICS
Type of Traffic Control
Stop @ Margarita; AWS @ Solana
Marked Uncontrolled X-Walks
None
Adjacent Land Use
Residential
Length of Segment

0.53 miles Pedestrian Traffic Light
Width
35-45 feet Truck Traffic Light
Sidewalks
Both Sides
Driveways
Many On Both Sides
On -Street Parking
Both Sides
Lighting
Both Sides
Vertical Curve
Yes Visibility Fair
Horizontal Curve
Yes Roadway Conditions Fair
Number of Lanes
2 CRASH HISTORY AND SAFETY CORRIDOR
Date Range
1/6/2020-6/9/2025 Total Crashes 1
Statewide Average Crash Rate

1.68 crashes/MVM Crash Rate 3.62
crashes/MVM
Fatal and Severe Inaury Crashes
Total 0 Disadvantaged Community
Speed Related 0
During School Hours 0 Vulnerable Populations
YES
Pedestrian and Bicycle 0
DUI 0 School Zone
NO
This Segment is a Designated Safety Corridor Safety Factor per mile

0.847

RECOMMENDATION
Speed Limit
30 mph
Justification
Closest to 85th Speed
Field Study By LA Checked By INS
CERTIFICATION: I, Nicolle Spann, do hereby certify that this Engineering and Traffic Survey within the City of Temecula was performed under my supervision and is accurate and complete. I am duly registered in the r-tate of California as a Professional Engineer (Traffic). 12/31/2025 TR 2933
Nicolle Span Date State Registration Number

2025 ENGINEERING AND TRAFFIC SURVEY
Segment 51
STREET Wolf Creek Dr N
CERTIFICATION DATE 12/31/2025
FROM Pechanga Pkwy
TO Wolf Valley Rd

OPERATING CHARACTERISTICS
Date of Speed Survey
6/24/2025
85th Percentile Speed
35 mph
Time of Speed Survey
3:15 PM
50th Percentile Speed
30 mph
Number of Survey Samples
118
Posted Speed Limit
30 mph
10 mph Pace
25-34 mph
Percentage of Vehicles in Pace
84 Average Daily Traffic (ADT)
3,160
Date of ADT
5/28/2025

ROADWAY CHARACTERISTICS
Type of Traffic Control
TS @ Pechanga,
Wolf Valley; AWS @ Redwood
Marked Uncontrolled X-Walks
@ Antelope
Adjacent Land Use
Residential
Length of Segment

0.70 miles
Pedestrian Traffic Moderate
Width
44 feet
Truck Traffic Light
Sidewalks
Both Sides
Driveways
Both Sides
On -Street Parking
None
Lighting
Both Sides
Vertical Curve
Yes
Visibility Fair
Horizontal Curve
Yes
Roadway Conditions Good
Number of Lanes
2 + TWLTL + Bike Lane

CRASH HISTORY AND SAFETY CORRIDOR
Date Range
1/6/2020-6/9/2025 Total Crashes 1
Statewide Average Crash Rate

1.68 crashes/MVM
Crash Rate 0.41
crashes/MVM
Fatal and Severe Inaury Crashes
Total
1 Disadvantaged Community
Speed Related 0
During School Hours
1 Vulnerable Populations
NO
Pedestrian and Bicycle 0
DUI
1 School Zone
YES
This Segment is a Designated Safety Corridor
Safety Factor per mile

3.649

RECOMMENDATION
Speed Limit
30 mph
Justification
Moderate Pedestrian Use & Uncontrolled Crosswalk
Field Study By LA Checked By NS
CERTIFICATION: I, Nicolle Spann, do hereby certify that this Engineering and Traffic Survey within the City of Temecula was performed under my supervision and is accurate and complete. I am duly registered in the r-tate of California as a Professional Engineer (Traffic). 12/31/2025 TR 2933
Nicolle Span Date State Registration Number

2025 ENGINEERING AND TRAFFIC SURVEY Segment 52
STREET Wolf Valley Rd
CERTIFICATION DATE 12/31/2025
FROM Pechanga Pkwy
TO Redhawk Pkwy

OPERATING CHARACTERISTICS
Date of Speed Survey
6/24/2025 85th Percentile Speed
40 mph
Time of Speed Survey
2:47 PM 50th Percentile Speed
35 mph
Number of Survey Samples
200 Posted Speed Limit
40 mph
10 mph Pace
30-39 mph
Percentage of Vehicles in Pace
79 Average Daily Traffic (ADT)
15,393
Date of ADT
5/28/2025

ROADWAY CHARACTERISTICS
Type of Traffic Control
TS @ Pechanga, Wolf Creek, Redhawk
Marked Uncontrolled X-Walks
None
Adjacent Land Use
Residential
Length of Segment

0.89 miles Pedestrian Traffic Light
Width
70/64 feet Truck Traffic Light
Sidewalks
Both Sides
Driveways
Both Sides
On -Street Parking
None
Lighting
Both Sides
Vertical Curve
Yes Visibility Fair
Horizontal Curve
Yes Roadway Conditions Good
Number of Lanes
4 + TWLTL + Bike Lane

CRASH HISTORY AND SAFETY CORRIDOR
Date Range
1/6/2020-6/9/2025 Total Crashes 0
Statewide Average Crash Rate

0.96 crashes/MVM Crash Rate 0.00
crashes/MVM
Fatal and Severe Inaury Crashes
Total 1 Disadvantaged Community
Speed Related 0
During School Hours 0 Vulnerable Populations
NO
Pedestrian and Bicycle 0
DUI 0 School Zone
NO
This Segment is a Designated Safety Corridor Safety Factor per mile

8.333

APPENDIX B
Radar Speed Distribution Forms
2025 Engineering and Traffic Survey Report

ICITY OF
. 1. . . PERIOD: •.-
•- ROADWAY: ROAD
TOTAL

VEHICLES

SURVEYED
(13TN): PEPPERCORN .- AND.-
OBSERVATION POINT: EAST OF SHARON ST
.: -.
... .-
... CONDITION:
... COLLECTION METHOD:RADAR
EASTBOUND+WESTBOUNDmmLIMITS
-
■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
o00
■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
o0000MMENTS:
■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
o00
■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
o00
■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
o00
WESTBOUND:. :. .
©©■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
oo©EASTBOUND
©©©©©©■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
©©©
©©©©©©©©■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
o00
.
©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
M©m
©©©©©©©©©■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
©©©
©©©©©©©©■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
M00
©©©©©©©©■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
o00
©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
Mom
©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©■■■■■■■■■■■■mom
©©©©©©©©■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
©©o
©©©©©■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
oo©
©©©©©©©©©©■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
©om
©©©©©©■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
M©©

ICITY OF
. 1. .AY: Wednesday TIME PE- .. 1 .11:40AM
•- ROADWAY: • DRIVE
TOTAL

VEHICLES

SURVEYED
(BTN): VIA MONTEZUMA AND OVERLAND DR
OBSERVATION POINT: 2764 COMMERCE CENTER DR
.: -.

WEATHER: SUNNY
... .-
... CONDITION:
... COLLECTION METHOD:RADAR
NORTHBOUND+SOUTHBOUNDmmLIMITS
■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
o00
■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
o0000MMENTS:
■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
o00
■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
o00
■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
o00
SOUTHBOUND:. :. .
©©■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
o©©NORTHBOUND
©■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
o00
a.
--.-.
©©■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
oo©
©©■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
oo©
©©©©©©©©©©■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
o©m
©©©©©©©©©©©©©©■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
omm
©©©©©©©©©©©■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
Mom
©©©©©©©■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
Moo
©©©©©©©■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
M©o
©©©©©■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
©©©
©©©■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■ova

ICITY OF
. 1. . Wednesday PERIOD: . 1-
•- ROADWAY: • DRIVE
TOTAL

VEHICLES

SURVEYED

OVERLAND DR AND RIDER
OBSERVATION POINT: 27475 COMMERCE CENTER DR
.: -.
... .-
... CONDITION:
... COLLECTION METHOD:RADAR
NORTHBOUND+SOUTHBOUNDmm
■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
omo
■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
o0000MMENTS:
■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
omo
■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
o00
■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
omo
SOUTHBOUND:. :. .
■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
o00NORTHBOUND
■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
omo
■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
omm
■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
omo
©©©©©©©©©©■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
omm
©©©©©©©©©©©©■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
Mom
©©©©©©©©©©©©©©■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
omm
'
®®

ICITY OF
. 1. . .PERIOD:

FOR ROADWAY: DEER HOLLOW
TOTAL

VEHICLES

SURVEYED
. •- .A
OBSERVATION POINT: PATRICIA BIRDSALL PARK ENTRANCE DRIVEWAY .: -.
... .-
... CONDITION:
... COLLECTION METHOD:RADAR
EASTBOUND+WESTBOUNDmm
•
-
■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
oom
■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
o0000MMENTS:
■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
oom
■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
o00
©©■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
©o©
©©©■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■ova
©©©©©©©■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
Moo
EASTBOUND WESTBOUND:. :. .
©©©©©©©©©©©©■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
Mom
©©©©©©©©©©©©■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
Mom
©©©©©©©©©©©©©■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
o©m
©©©©©©©©©©■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
©om
©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©■■■■■■■■■
Mo®
•.
©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©■■■■■■■
M®®
©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
oMm
©©©©©©©©©©©©©©■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
©©m
©©©©©©©©©©■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
o©m
©©©©©©©©©©©©■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
Mom
©©©©©©©©©■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
MM©
©©©©©©©©■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
M00
©©©■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
o©©
■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
oom
■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
oom

DATE: 06/24/25 DAY: Tuesday TIME PERIOD: 12:55PM TO 1:34PM •- ROADWAY: DEER HOLLOW
TOTAL

VEHICLES

SURVEYED
(13TN): VIA LA COLORADA AND - .- .-
OBSERVATION POINT: WEST OF VIA PERALES
.: -.

WEATHER: PARTLY SUNN
... .-
... CONDITION:
... COLLECTION METHOD:RADAR
EASTBOUND+WESTBOUNDmmLIMITS
-•
•
•
■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
000
■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
o00
■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
o0000MMENTS:
■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
o00
■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
o00
■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
o00
WESTBOUND:. :. .
©©©©©■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
oo©EASTBOUND
©©©©©©©©©■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
©©©
©©©©©©■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
©o©
0 ©©©©©©©©©©©©©■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
©am
©©©©©©©©©©©©©©■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
Mom
©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
©©m
©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©■■■■■■■■■■
mmm
©©©©©©©©©©©©©■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
Mom
©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©■■■■■■■■
mmm
©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©■■■■■■■■■
Mo®
©©©■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■ova

ICITY OF
.. ..PERIOD:

FOR ROADWAY:

TOTAL

VEHICLES

SURVEYED
-. AND CALLE PINA COLADA
OBSERVATION POINT: WEST OF WILLOW RUN RD
.: -.
... .-
... CONDITION:
... COLLECTION METHOD:RADAR
EASTBOUND+WESTBOUNDmm
-
■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
o00
■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
o0000MMENTS:
■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
o00
■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
o00
■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
o00
WESTBOUND:. :. .
©©■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
oo©EASTBOUND
©©©©©©©©©©■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
o©m
©©©©©©©■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
®oo
©©©©©©©©■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
Mo®
©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
m©m
©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
oom
©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©■■■■■■■
Mm
©©©©©©©©©©©©■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
Mom
©©©©©©©©©©©■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
o©m
©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©■■■■■■
M©m
©©©©©©©©©■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
©o©
©©©■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
o©©
©©©©■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
o©o

DATE: 07/08/25 DAY: Tuesday TIME PERIOD: 11:59AM TO 12:22PM FOR ROADWAY:

TOTAL

VEHICLES

SURVEYED
. .... . MEADOWS
OBSERVATION POINT:
.: -.
... .-
... CONDITION:
... COLLECTION METHOD:RADAR
EASTBOUND+WESTBOUND
mm
-
■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
MMo
■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
MMo
■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
o0000MMENTS:
■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
MMo
■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
o00
■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
MMo
WESTBOUND:. :. .
©©■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
oM©EASTBOUND
©©©©©©©©©©©■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
M©m
©©©©©©©©©■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
MMo
©©©©©©©©©©©©■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
Mom
©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
Mom
©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©■■■■■■■■■■■■■
M©m
©©©©©©©©©©©■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
MM
©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©■■■■■■■
MM®
©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
Mom
©©©©©©©©©■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
MM©

DATE: 07/08/25 DAY: Tuesday TIME PERIOD: 11:30AM TO 11:52AM FOR ROADWAY:

TOTAL

VEHICLES

SURVEYED
(13TN): MEADOWS
OBSERVATION POINT:
.: -.
... .-
... CONDITION:
... COLLECTION METHOD:RADAR
EASTBOUND+WESTBOUND
mmLIMITS
-
■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
000
■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
o00
■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
o0000MMENTS:
■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
o00
■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
o00
■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
o00
WESTBOUND:. :. .
©©©©■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■�
o00EASTBOUND
©©©©©©©■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
Moo
©©©©©©©©©©■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
o©m
©©©©©©©©©■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
©oo
:�.
©©©©©©■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
M®o
©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©■■■■■■■■■■■■
omm
©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©■■■■■■■■■■■
mom
©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©■■■■■■■■■■■■■
mom
©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
M®m
©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
Mom
©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
M©m

DATE: 07/08/25 DAY: Tuesday TIME PERIOD: 10:55AM TO 11:25AM FOR ROADWAY:

TOTAL

VEHICLES

SURVEYED
OBSERVATION • . OF POOLE CT
.: -.
... .-
... CONDITION:
... COLLECTION METHOD:RADAR
■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
000
■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
o00
■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
o0000MMENTS:
■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
o00
■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
o00
■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
o00
WESTBOUND:. :. .
■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
o00EASTBOUND
©©■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
©o©
.• -
©©©©©©©©■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
Mo®
©©©©©©©©©©©©©■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
MM®
©©©©©©©■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
©oo
©©©©©©©©©©©©©©■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
oM
©©©©©©©©©©©©■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
©o®
©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©■■■■■■■■■■■■■
Mom
©©©©©©©©©©©■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
Mom
©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
mom
©©©©©©©©■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
©©o
©©©©©©©■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
M©
©©©©■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
©oo

ICITY OF
. 1 . Monday PERIOD:•O.A
FOR ROADWAY: ROAD
TOTAL

VEHICLES

SURVEYED
(13TN): NORTH CITY LIMITS AND RUSTIC GLEN .-
OBSERVATION POINT:
.: -.
... .-
... CONDITION:
... COLLECTION METHOD:RADAR
NORTHBOUND+SOUTHBOUNDmmLIMITS
-
■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
000
■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
o00
■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
o0000MMENTS:
■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
o00
■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
o00
©■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
o00
©©©©©©©©©©©©■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
Mom
©©©©©©©©©■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
M©©
NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND:. :. .
©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
©om
©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
Mom
©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©■■■■■■■■■
©®®
©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©■■■■■■■■
mm®
©©©©©©©©©©©©©■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
o©m
50TH •
©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©■■■■■■■■
Mm®
©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
M©m
©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©■■■■■■■■■■■■
©©m
©©©©©©©©■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
©©®
©©©©©©©■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
©©o

DATE: 07/07/25 DAY: Monday TIME PERIOD: 9:27AM TO 9:47AM FOR ROADWAY: ROAD
TOTAL

VEHICLES

SURVEYED
-
. AND HARVESTON WAY
OBSERVATION •. MID BLOCK
.: -.
... .-
... CONDITION:
... COLLECTION METHOD:RADAR
NORTHBOUND+SOUTHBOUNDmm
-
■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
000
■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
o00
■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
o0000MMENTS:
©■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
o00
■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
o00
■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
o00
SOUTHBOUND:. :. .
©©©©©©■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■�
©o©NORTHBOUND
©©©©©©©©©©■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
Mom
©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©■■■■■■■■■■■■
omm
©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©■■■■■■■■■■■■
©©m
©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©■■■■■■■■■
©m®
:..
.. -
©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©■■■■■■■■■■■
M®®
©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
©o®
©©©©©©©©©■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
©o©
©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
M©
©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
M©m
©©©©©©©©©©©©■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
M©®
©©©©©©©©■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
M00
©©©■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■ova

DATE: 07/07/25 DAY: Monday TIME PERIOD: 9:52AM TO 10:12AM FOR ROADWAY: ROAD
TOTAL

VEHICLES

SURVEYED
OBSERVATION POINT: 40435 MARGARITA RD
.: -.
... .-
... CONDITION:
... COLLECTION METHOD:RADAR
-
■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
o00
■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
o0000MMENTS:
■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
o00
■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
o00
■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
o00
SOUTHBOUND:. :. .
©©©©©©©©©©■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
oomNORTHBOUND
©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©■■■■■■■■■
om®
©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©■■■■■■■■■■■
mom
©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
m©m
50TH •
©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
Mom
©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©■■■■■■■■■
mm®
©©©©©©©©©©©©■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
Mom
©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©■■■■■■■■■■■■■
mom

ICITY OF
. 1. . PERIOD:

FOR ROADWAY: ROAD
TOTAL

VEHICLES

SURVEYED
WINCHESTER -. AND NORTH
OBSERVATION POINT: 40440 MARGARITA RD
.: -.
... .-
... CONDITION:
... COLLECTION METHOD:RADAR
.-
:.
.
.
:.
.
mmLIMITS
-
■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
o00
■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
o0000MMENTS:
■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
o00
■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
o00
■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
o00
©©©©©©©■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
©oo
•
©©©©©©©©■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
©©®
©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©■■■■■■■■■■■■
M©m
©©©©©©©©©©©■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
©om
©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
oom
©©©©©©©©©©©■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
M©m
©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©■■■■■
mm®
©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©■■■■■■■■■■■■mom
©©©©©©©©©©©©©©■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
mmm

ICITY OF
. 1. . PERIOD:
•- ROADWAY: ROAD
TOTAL

VEHICLES

SURVEYED
(13TN): NORTH GENERAL KEARNY ANDOVERLAND .-
OBSERVATION POINT: NORTH OF GEORGETOWN LN
.: -.

ICITY OF
. 1. . PERIOD:

FOR ROADWAY: ROAD
TOTAL

VEHICLES

SURVEYED

OVERLAND D- AND SOLANA
OBSERVATION POINT:
.: -.
... .-
... CONDITION:
... COLLECTION METHOD:RADAR
NORTHBOUND+SOUTHBOUNDmm
-
■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
000
■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
o00
■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
o0000MMENTS:
■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
o00
■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
o00
■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
o00
SOUTHBOUND:. :. .
■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
o00NORTHBOUND
©©©©©©©©©©©■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
©©m
©©©©©©©©©©©©©©■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
oMm
©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
Mo®
©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©■■■■■■■■
M®®
©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©■■■■■■■■■■■■
oMm
©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©■■■■■■■■■
M®
©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©■■■■■■■■■■■■
mom
©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©■■■■■■■■■■
mom
©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©■■■■■■■■■■■■
MMm

ICITY OF
. 1. . PERIOD: .2:08PM
FOR ROADWAY: ROAD
TOTAL

VEHICLES

SURVEYED
(13TN): SOLANA WAY AND MORAGA-.

OBSERVATION •.INT: NORTH OF PASEO:-
.: -.
... .-
... CONDITION:
... COLLECTION METHOD:RADAR
NORTHBOUND+SOUTHBOUNDmmLIMITS
:,
.
•
•
-
•
•
•
•
.
■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■Moo
■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■Moo
■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■Moo
■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■Moo
■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■Moo
■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
o0000MMENTS:
■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■Moo
■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■Moo
■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■Moo
■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
o00
■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■Moo
©■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■Moo
©■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■Moo
©■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■Moo
©©©©©©©■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
M©o
NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND:. :. .
©©©©©©■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
M©©
©©©©©©©©©©©©©■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
Ma®
©©©©©©©©©©■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
©©m
©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©■■■■■■■■
mm®
©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©■■■■■
mm®
.
,
.. - ,•.
. -•
• ..-..
� � �.:
--.-. �.�
©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©■■■■■■■■
mom
©©©©©©©©©©©©©©■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
Mom
©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©■■■■■■■■■■
Mmm
©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©■■■■■■■■■
mm®
©©©©©©©©©©©■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
Mom
©©©©©©©■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
M©o
©■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
Moo
©■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
Moo
©■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
Moo
■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
Moo
■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
Moo
■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
Moo
■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
Moo
■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
Moo
■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
Moo
■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
Moo
■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
Moo
■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
Moo
■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
Moo

ICITY OF
. 1. . PERIOD:

FOR ROADWAY: MARGARITA ROAD
TOTAL

VEHICLES

SURVEYED
MORAGA -. • . AVENIDA BARCA
OBSERVATION POINT: NORTH OF AVENIDA SONOMA
.: -.
... .-
... CONDITION:
... COLLECTION METHOD:RADAR
.-
:.
.
.
:.
.
mmLIMITS
-
■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
o00
■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
o0000MMENTS:
■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
o00
©■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
o00
■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
o00
©©©©©©©©©■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
©M©
©©©©©©©©©©©©©©■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
oom
©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
M©m
©©©©©©©©©©©©©■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
MM®
©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©■■■■■■■■■■■■■
M©m
NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND:. :. .
©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©■■■■I
©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©■■■■■■■■
M®®
©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©■■■■■■■■■■■
©M®
©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©■■■■■■■■■■■■
omm
©©©©©©©©■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
o00
©©©©©©©©■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
©o®
©©©©■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
M00
©©©©©■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
oo©

DATE: 06/27/25 DAY: Friday TIME PERIOD: 1:04PM TO 1:21PM FOR ROADWAY: ROAD
TOTAL

VEHICLES

SURVEYED
.. BARCA AND LA SERENA WAY
OBSERVATION POINT: MARGARITA MIDDLE SCHOOL ENTRANCE DRIVEWAY POSTED SPEED LIMIT: 40 MPH OBSERVER: CARLOS
... .-
... CONDITION:
... COLLECTION METHOD:RADAR
NORTHBOUND+SOUTHBOUNDmm
-
■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
o0000MMENTS:
■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
o00
©■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
o00
©©■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
oo©
©©©©©©©©■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
MM0
©©©©©©■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
©Mo
©©©©©©©■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
M©o
©©©©©■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
©©©
NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND:. :. .
©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©■■■■■■■■■■1
mom
©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©■■■■■■■■■
MM®
©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
Mo®
©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©■■■■■■■
®m®
©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©■■■■■■■■■■
Mmm
,, •,
©©©©©©©©©©■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
©©m
©©©©©©©©©■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
M©©
©©©©©©©■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
M©o
©©©©©©©©©©■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
©om
©©©©©©©©■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
M©®
©©©■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
o©©

DATE: 07/07/25 DAY: Monday TIME PERIOD: 12:15PM TO 12:33PM FOR ROADWAY: ROAD
TOTAL

VEHICLES

SURVEYED
. RANCHO CALIFORNIA -.

OBSERVATION POINT: NORTH OF YUKON RD
.: -.
... .-
... CONDITION:
... COLLECTION METHOD:RADAR
NORTHBOUND+SOUTHBOUNDmm
-
■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
o00
■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
o0000MMENTS:
■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
o00
■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
o00
©■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
o00
©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
©mm
NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND:. :. .
©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
©om
©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©■■■■■■■
MM®
©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©■■■■■■■
©M®
©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©■■■■■■■■■■■
omm
©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©■■■■■■■■■
®M®
,, 41 40
©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©■■■■■■■■■■■■■
0'
mm
©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©■■■■■■■■■■■■■
mom
©©©©©©©©©©■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
o©m
©©©©©©©©■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
©©o
©©©©©©■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
Moo

DATE: 07/07/25 DAY: Monday TIME PERIOD: 12:37PM TO 12:59PM FOR ROADWAY: ROAD
TOTAL

VEHICLES

SURVEYED
• CALIFORNIA -. AND RANCHO VISTA -.

OBSERVATION POINT: NORTH OF SOUTHERN CROSS RD
.: -.
... .-
... CONDITION:
... COLLECTION METHOD:RADAR
NORTHBOUND+SOUTHBOUNDmm
-
■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
o00
■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
o0000MMENTS:
■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
o00
■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
o00
©■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
o00
©©©©©©©©©©©©©■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
MM®
©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©■■■■■■■■■■■
mom
NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND:. :. .
©©©©©©©©©©©■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
M©0
©©©©©©©©©©©©©©■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
oMm
©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©■■■■■■■■■■
MMm
©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©■■■■■■
®mm
©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©■■■■■■■■■■■■
mom
©©©©©©©©©©©©■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
Mo®
©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
MM®
©©©©©©©©©■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
Mo©
©©©©©©©©©©©©■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
©mm
©©©©©©©©■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
©o®
©©■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
0©©

ICITY OF
. 1 . Monday PERIOD: 06P
FOR ROADWAY: MARGARITA ROAD
TOTAL

VEHICLES

SURVEYED
• VISTA -. • . PAUBA -.

OBSERVATION POINT: 43000 MARGARITA RD
.: -.
... .-
... CONDITION:
... COLLECTION METHOD:RADAR
NORTHBOUND+SOUTHBOUNDmm
-
■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
o00
■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
o0000MMENTS:
■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
o00
■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
o00
■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
o00
©©©©©©©©■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
Mo®
©©©©©©©■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
©©o
©©©©©©©©©©©©©©■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
©©m
NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND:. :. .
©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©■■■■■■■■■■■■■
©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©■■■■■■■■■■■■■
mom
©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©■■■■■■■■■■■■■
omm
©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©■■■■■■■
o®®
©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©■■■■■■■■■■■
mom
,, 40
©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
MOm
©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
Mo®
©©©©©©©©©©©■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
Mom
©©©©©©©©©■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
o©o
©©©©©©■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
MMo

DATE: 07/07/25 DAY: Monday TIME PERIOD: 1:34PM TO 1:54PM FOR ROADWAY: MARGARITA ROAD
TOTAL

VEHICLES

SURVEYED
PAUBA -. • . SANTIAGO -.

OBSERVATION • . 43040 MARGARITA -.
.: -.
... .-
... CONDITION:
... COLLECTION METHOD:RADAR
. -
:.
.
.
:.
.
mmLIMITS
:,
•
•
•
-•
•
•
•
•
•
•
■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■omo
■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■omo
■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■omo
■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■omo
■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■omo
■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
o0000MMENTS:
■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■omo
■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■omo
■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■omo
■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
o00
©■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■omo
©■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■omo
©©©■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■ova
SOUTHBOUND:. :. .
©©©©©©©©©©©©©■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
©mmNORTHBOUND
©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©■■■■■■■■■■■■
mmm
©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©■■■■■■
mmm
©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©■■■
m®m
©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©■■■■■■■■■■
m®m
.
0 40 40
,
. -• �••
•� .,
• ..-..
� � . �.:
--.-. �.
©©©©©©©©©©©©©©■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
omm
©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©■■■■■■■■■
mm®
©©©©©©©©©©©©©■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
©mm
©©©©■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■omo
©■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
omo
■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
omo
■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
omo
■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
omo
■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
omo
■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
omo
■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
omo
■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
omo
■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
omo
■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
omo
■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
omo
■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
omo

DATE: 07/07/25 DAY: Monday TIME PERIOD: 2:OOPM TO 2:19PM FOR ROADWAY: ROAD
TOTAL

VEHICLES

SURVEYED
. -. AND -. PICO -.

OBSERVATION POINT: NORTH OF JEDEDIAH SMITH RD
.: -.
... .-
... CONDITION:
... COLLECTION METHOD:RADAR
.-
:.
.
.
:.
.
mmLIMITS
-
■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
o00
■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
o0000MMENTS:
■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
o00
■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
o00
■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
o00
©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©■■■■■■■■■
mm®
©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©■■■■■■■■
m®®
NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND:. :. .
©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©■■■■■■
©mm
©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©■■■■■■■
mm®
©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©■■■■■■■■■■■■■
mom
©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©■■■■■■
m©m
©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©■■■■■■■■■■■■■
oom
©©©©©©■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
©oo
©©©©©■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
©o©

DATE: 07/07/25 DAY: Monday TIME PERIOD: 2:26PM TO 2:45PM FOR ROADWAY: MARGARITA ROAD
TOTAL

VEHICLES

SURVEYED
• • PICO RD AND. •.- • • -.

OBSERVATION POINT: 43920 MARGARITA RD
.: -.
... .-
... CONDITION:

DATA COLLECTION METHOD: RADAR
NORTHBOUND+SOUTHBOUNDmm
•
-
■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
o00
■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
o0000MMENTS:
■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
o00
■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
o00
©©©■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■ova
©©©©©©©©©©©©©©■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
©mm
©©©©©©©©©©©©©■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
©o®
NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND:. :. .
©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©■■■■■■■■■■■■
©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©■■■■■■■■■■■■■
©mm
©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©■■■■■■■■■■■■■
©mm
©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©■■■■■■■■■■■■
mom
©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©■■■■■■■■■■■mom
50TH •
©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©■■■■■
®m®
©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
M©®
©©©©■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
M00
©©©©©©©©©©©©■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
M©
©©©©©©■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
M00

ICITY OF
. 1 . Monday PERIOD: .-
FOR ROADWAY: MARGARITA ROAD
TOTAL

VEHICLES

SURVEYED

PORTOLA -D AND
OBSERVATION POINT: 44025 MARGARITA RD
.: -.
... .-
... CONDITION:
... COLLECTION METHOD:RADAR
NORTHBOUND+SOUTHBOUNDmm
-
■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
o00
■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
o0000MMENTS:
■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
o00
■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
o00
■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
o00
SOUTHBOUND:. :. .
©©©■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
©o©NORTHBOUND
©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
©©m
©©©©©©©©©©©©©©■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
oom
©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©■■■■■■■■■■■■
oMm
©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©■■■■■■■■■■■■
mom
©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©■■■■■■
mmm
©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©
mmm
©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©■■■■■■■■■■
M®m
©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
M©m
©©©©©©©©©©■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
o©m
©©©©©©©■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
©©o

ICITY OF
. 1. . PERIOD:
•- ROADWAY: .•
TOTAL

VEHICLES

SURVEYED
(13TN): LA SERENA WAY . ROYAL OAKS .-
OBSERVATION POINT: SOUTH OF SPYGLASS HILL LN
.: -.

WEATHER: SUNNY
... .-
... CONDITION:
... COLLECTION METHOD:RADAR
.-
:.
.
.
:.
.
mmLIMITS
■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
000
■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
o00
■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
o0000MMENTS:
■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
o00
■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
o00
■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
o00
©©©©©©©©©©©©■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
oom
©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©■■■■■■■■■■■
omm
©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©■■■■■■■■■■■■
mom
©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©■■■■■■■■
mmm
©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©■■■■■■■■
mo
©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
mom
©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©■■■■■■■■■■■
m©m

ICITY OF
. 1. . .. 1
•- ROADWAY: .•
TOTAL

VEHICLES

SURVEYED
ROYAL OAKS .- AND RANCHO CALIFORNIA -.

OBSERVATION POINT: NORTH OF ROYAL BIRKDALE DR
.: -.

WEATHER: SUNNY
... .-
... CONDITION:
... COLLECTION METHOD:RADAR
NORTHBOUND+SOUTHBOUNDmm
■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
o00
■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
o0000MMENTS:
■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
o00
■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
o00
■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
o00
SOUTHBOUND:. :. .
©©©©©©©©©■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
©©oNORTHBOUND
©©©©©©©©©■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
oo©
©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
Mom
©©©©©©©©©■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
m©©
©©©©©©©©©©■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
o©m
©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
©om

DATE: 06/27/25 DAY: Friday TIME PERIOD: 11:04AM TO 11:26AM FOR ROADWAY: MEADOWS
TOTAL

VEHICLES

SURVEYED
• CALIFORNIA -. • . RANCHO VISTA -.

OBSERVATION POINT: SOUTH OF PASEO DE LAS CLAS
.: -.
... .-
... CONDITION:
... COLLECTION METHOD:RADAR
NORTHBOUND+SOUTHBOUNDmm
-
■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
oom
■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
o0000MMENTS:
■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
oom
■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
o00
■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
oom
©©©©©©©■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
M©o
©©©©©©©©©©©■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
M©m
©©©©©©©©©■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
MM©
NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND:. :. .
©©©©©©©©©©©©©©■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
M©m
©©©©©©©©©©©■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
oom
©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©■■■■■■■■■■■■
mom
©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
Mom
©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©■■■■■■■
MM®
©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©■■■■■■■■
MM®
©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©■■■■■■■■■■■■
omm
©©©©©©©©©©©©■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
oom
©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©■■■■■■■■■■■■
omm
©©©©©©©©©©■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
Mom

DATE: 06/27/25 DAY: Friday TIME PERIOD: 11:30AM TO 11:52AM FOR ROADWAY: MEADOWS
TOTAL

VEHICLES

SURVEYED
• VISTA -. AND PAUBA -.

OBSERVATION POINT: NORTH OF VIA REINA
.: -.
... .-
... CONDITION:
... COLLECTION METHOD:RADAR
NORTHBOUND+SOUTHBOUNDmm
•
-
•
■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■Moo
■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
MMo
■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■MooCOMMENTS:
■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
MMo
■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■Moo
■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
MMo
©©©©©©■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
®o©
©©©©■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
MMo
©©©©©©■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
MM©
©©©©©©©©■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
MMo
NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND:. :. .
©©©©©©©©©■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
©©©©©©©©©■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
MM®
©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
MM®
©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©■■■■■■■■
MM®
©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©■■■■■■■■■■■
MMm
©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
Mom
©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©■■■■■
MM®
©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©■■■■■■■■■■■■
MMm
©©©©©©©©©©©©©©■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
MMm
©©©©©©©©©©©■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
MMm
©©©©©©©■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
MMo
■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■Moo
■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■Moo

ICITY OF
. 1. . PERIOD:

FOR ROADWAY: MEADOWS
TOTAL

VEHICLES

SURVEYED
-. AND. PORTOLA -.

OBSERVATION POINT: SOUTH OF CORTE ILLORA
.: -.
... .-
... CONDITION:
... COLLECTION METHOD:RADAR
NORTHBOUND+SOUTHBOUNDmm
-
■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
MMo
■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
o0000MMENTS:
■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
MMo
■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
o00
■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
MMo
©©©©©©©©©■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
MM©
NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND:. :. .
©©©©©■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■I
©©©©©©©©©©©■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
MMm
©©©©©©©©©©©■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
MMm
©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
Mom
©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©■■■■■■■■■■■■■
m©m
:�•
©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©■■
Mmm
©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©■■■■■■■■■
MM®
©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©■■■■■■■■■
MM®
©©©©©©©©©©©©©©■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
©Mm
©©©©©©©©©©■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
Mom
©©©©©©©©©©©©■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
Mom
©©©©©©■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
©M©

ICITY OF
. 1. . PERIOD:

FOR ROADWAY: MEADOWS
TOTAL

VEHICLES

SURVEYED
PORTOLA -.

OBSERVATION POINT: NORTH OF EMPEZAR ST
.: -.
... .-
... CONDITION:
... COLLECTION METHOD:RADAR
NORTHBOUND+SOUTHBOUNDmm
-
■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
oom
■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
o0000MMENTS:
■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
oom
■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
o00
■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
oom
NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND:. :. .
©©©©©©©©©■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
oMo
©©©©©©©©©©©■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
Mom
©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
omm
©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
o©m
©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©■■■■■■■■■■■■1
oMm
©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©■■■■■■■■■■■■
Mom
©©©©©©©©©©©■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
oMm
©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©■■■■■■■
MM®
©©©©©©©©©©©©■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
oom
©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©■■■■■■■■■
Mo®
©©©©©©©©©■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
M©m
©©©©©©©©©©©■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
Mom

ICITY OF
. 1. .AY: Wednesday TIME PE- .. 1.-
FOR ROADWAY: RANCHO CALIFORNIA ROAD
TOTAL

VEHICLES

SURVEYED
AND . • -.

OBSERVATION POINT: 28400 RANCHO CALIFORNIA RD
POSTED SPEED LIMIT: 45 MPH OBSERVER: CARLOS
... .-
... CONDITION:

DATA COLLECTION METHOD: RADAR
EASTBOUND+WESTBOUNDmmLIMITS
-
■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
o0000MMENTS:
■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
o00
©■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
o00
©©©©©©■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
M©o
©©©©©©©©©©©©■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
©©m
©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
©©m
EASTBOUND WESTBOUND:. :. .
©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©■■■■■■■■■■■■■
oom
©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©■■■■■■■■■■■■
M®m
©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©■■■■■■■■■■
mmm
©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©■■■■■■■
®mm
©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
©om
50TH •
©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©■■■■■■■■
mom
©©©©©©©©©©©■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
Mom
©©©©©©©©©©©©■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
©©m
©©©©©©©©©©■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
M©
©©©■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
Maa

ICITY OF
. 1. .AY: Wednesday TIMEPE- .. . 1-
FOR ROADWAY: RANCHO CALIFORNIA ROAD
TOTAL

VEHICLES

SURVEYED
DIAZ RD AND 1-15 SOUTH BOUND RAMPS
OBSERVATION POINT: 28751 RANCHO CALIFORNIA RD
.: -.
... .-
... CONDITION:
... COLLECTION METHOD:RADAR
EASTBOUND+WESTBOUNDmm
-
■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
o00
■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
o0000MMENTS:
■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
o00
■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
o00
■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
o00
WESTBOUND:. :. .
©■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
o00EASTBOUND
©©©■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■ova
©©©©©©■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
M©©
©©©©©©©■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
©oo
©©©©©■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■I
©©©
©©©©©©©©©©©©©©■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
Mom
©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
©mm
©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©■■■■■■■■■■■■■
Mom
©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©■■■■■■■■■■■■mom
©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©■■■■■■■■■■■
omm
©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
Mom
©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©■■■■■■■■■
MM®
©■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
mm0

ICITY OF
. 1. . Wednesday - .. 1
FOR ROADWAY: RANCHO CALIFORNIA ROAD
TOTAL

VEHICLES

SURVEYED
SOUTH 1-15 BOUND RAMPS AND YNEZ -.

OBSERVATION •.INT: 29345 RANCHO CALIFORNIA RD
.: -.
... .-
... CONDITION:
... COLLECTION METHOD:RADAR
EASTBOUND+WESTBOUND
mmLIMITS
:,
.
•
•
-
•
•
.
■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■mom
■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■mom
■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■mom
■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■mom
■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■mom
■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
o0000MMENTS:
■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■mom
■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■mom
■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■mom
■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
o00
■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■mom
■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■mom
■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■mom
©■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■moo
■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■mom
©■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■moo
WESTBOUND:. :. .
©©©©■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
©©oEASTBOUND
©©©©©©©■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■moo
©©©©©©©©©■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■I
©©o
.• -
• ..-..
--.-. �. �.
©©©©©©©©©■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
m®m
©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
mom
©©©©©©©©©©■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
o©m
©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©■■■■■■■■■■■■■
©Om
©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©■■■■■■■■■■■■
mom
©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©■■■■■■■■
mm®
©©©©©©©©©©©©■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
mom
©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
mom
■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
mom
■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
mom
■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
mom
■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
mom
■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
mom
■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
mom
■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
mom
■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
mom

ICITY OF
. 1. . Wednesday - ..

FOR ROADWAY: RANCHO CALIFORNIA ROAD
TOTAL

VEHICLES

SURVEYED
-D AND MORAGA-.

OBSERVATION POINT: 29385 RANCHO CALIFORNIA RD
.: -.
... .-
... CONDITION:
... COLLECTION METHOD:RADAR
EASTBOUND+WESTBOUNDmm
■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
o00
■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
o0000MMENTS:
■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
o00
■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
o00
■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
o00
WESTBOUND:. :. .
■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■�
o00EASTBOUND
©©©©■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
©oo
©©©©©©©©■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
©©o
•
©©©©©©©©©■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
Mo®
©©©©©©©©■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
M00
©©©©©©©©©■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
M©©
©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©■■■■■■■■■■
mom
©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©■■■■■■■■■■■■■
MMm
©©©©©©©©©©©©©©■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
Mom
©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©■■■■■■■■■■
omm
©©©©©©©©©■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
MM©
©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
M©
©©©©©©©■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
©©o

ICITY OF
. 1. . Wednesday PERIOD:

FOR ROADWAY: RANCHO CALIFORNIA ROAD
TOTAL

VEHICLES

SURVEYED
(13TN): MORAGA RD AND COSMIC.-
OBSERVATION POINT: 42200 RANCHO CALIFORNIA RD
.: -.
... .-
... CONDITION:
... COLLECTION METHOD:RADAR
EASTBOUND+WESTBOUNDmmLIMITS
-
■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
MMo
■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
o0000MMENTS:
©■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
MMo
■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■�
o00
■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
MMo
©©©©©©©■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
©©o
EASTBOUND WESTBOUND:. :. .
©©©©©©©©©■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
©©©©©©©©©©©©■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
MMm
©©©©©©©©©■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
MM©
©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©■■■■■■■■■■
MMm
©©©©©©©©©©©©■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
oMm
.. -
©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©■■■■■■■■
MM®
©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
MMm
©©©©©©©©©©©©©■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
MMm
©©©©©©©©©©©©©©■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
mom
©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
Mom
©©©©©©©©©©■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
Mom
©©©©©©©©©©■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
©Mm
©©©©©©■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
Moo

ICITY OF
. 1. .AY: Wednesday TIME PE- .. : 3:16PM TO 3:33PM
FOR ROADWAY: RANCHO CALIFORNIA ROAD
TOTAL

VEHICLES

SURVEYED
COSMIC.- • . MARGARITA -.

OBSERVATION POINT: 30534 RANCHO CALIFORNIA RD
.: -.
... .-
... CONDITION:
... COLLECTION METHOD:RADAR
EASTBOUND+WESTBOUND
mmLIMITS
-
■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
o00
■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
o0000MMENTS:
■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
o00
■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
o00
■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
o00
©©©©©©■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
M®o
©©©©©©©©■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
©©o
©©©©©■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
oo©
EASTBOUND WESTBOUND:. :. .
©©©©©©■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
©©©©©©©©©©■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
Mom
©©©©©©©©©©■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
M©m
©©©©©©©©©■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
®©o
©©©©©©©©©©©©©©■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
Mam
©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©■■■■■■
MMm
©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©■■■■■■■
®m®
©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©■■■■■■■■■■
MM
©©©©©■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
©©©
©©©©©©©©©■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
MM©
©©©©©©©■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
M©o

ICITY OF
. 1. . Wednesday PERIOD:

FOR ROADWAY: RANCHO CALIFORNIA ROAD
TOTAL

VEHICLES

SURVEYED
-. AND .-
OBSERVATION POINT:
.: -.
... .-
... CONDITION:

DATA COLLECTION METHOD: RADAR
EASTBOUND+WESTBOUNDmm
-
■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
MMo
■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
MMo
■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
o0000MMENTS:
©■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
MMo
■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■�
o00
©©©©©©©■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
MMo
©©©©©©©■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
oMo
©©©©©©©©©©©©©■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
MMm
©©©©©©©©©©©©©■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
Mom
©©©©©©©©©©■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
MMm
©©©©©©©©©©©©©©■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
oMm
©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©■■■■■■■■■
MM®
©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©■■■■■■■■■■■
MMm
©©©©©©©©©©©©©■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
M©m
EASTBOUND WESTBOUND:. :. .
©©©©©©©©©■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
MMo
©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
Mom
©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
MMm
©©©©©©©©©©©©■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
Mom
©©©©©©■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
©M©
©©©©©©©©©■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
MM®
©©■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
M©©

ICITY OF
. 1. .PERIOD:•O.•
FOR ROADWAY: RANCHO CALIFORNIA ROAD
TOTAL

VEHICLES

SURVEYED
DR AND ..

OBSERVATION •. OF CALLE TAJO
POSTED SPEED LIMIT: 50 MPH OBSERVER: CARLOS
... .-
... CONDITION:

DATA COLLECTION METHOD: RADAR
EASTBOUND+WESTBOUNDmm
:,
•
-
•
•
•
•
•
.
■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■moo
■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■moo
©■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■moo
■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■moo
©■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
o0000MMENTS:
©■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■moo
©©©■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
©o©
©©©©©©■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
©o©
©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■mom
©©©©©©©©©©©■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■mom
©©©©©©©©©©©©■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■mom
©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
mam
©©©©©©©©©©©©©©■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
m©m
©©©©©©©©©■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
o©©
EASTBOUND WESTBOUND:. :. .
©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
®mm
©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©■■■■■■■■■
mm®
©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©■■■■■■■■■■■■■
mmm
©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
o©m
- � -� .�
.. -
. -•
• ..-..
- - . - . � � � � .
©©©©©■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
a©©
■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
moo
■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
moo
■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
moo
■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
moo
■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
moo
■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
moo
■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
moo
■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
moo
■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
moo
■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
moo
■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
moo
■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
moo
■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
moo
■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
moo
■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
moo
■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
moo

ICITY OF
. 1. . PERIOD:

FOR ROADWAY: RANCHO CALIFORNIA ROAD
TOTAL

VEHICLES

SURVEYED
(13TN): MEADOWS PKWY AND: -.

OBSERVATION POINT: EAST OF VINTAGE HILLS DR
.: -.
... .-
... CONDITION:

DATA COLLECTION METHOD: RADAR
EASTBOUND+WESTBOUNDmmLIMITS
-
■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
MMm
■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
o0000MMENTS:
©©■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
M©©
©©©©■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
©©o
©©©■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■ova
©©©©©©■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
Mo©
©©©■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■ova
©©©©©©©©©■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
MM©
©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©■■■■■■■■■■■
MMm
©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©■■■■■■■■■■
Mmm
©©©©©©©©©©■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
Mom
©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
MMm
EASTBOUND WESTBOUND:. :. .
©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©■■■■■■■■■■■■
MMm
©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©■■■■■■■■■■
MMm
©©©©©©©©©©©©©©■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
Mmm
©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
MMm
©©©©©©©©■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
©©o
©©©©©©©©©©■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
Mom
©©©©©■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
MM©
©©©©©■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
MM©

CITY OF TEMECULA
DATE: 06/25/25 DAY: Wednesday TIME PERIOD: 9:OOAM TO 10:38AM FOR ROADWAY: REDWOOD ROAD
SPEED
(MPH(
TOTAL

VEHICLES

SURVEYED
TOTAL

VEHICLES
LIMITS (BTN): LOMA LINDA RD AND WOLF CREEK DR N
OBSERVATION POINT: NORTH OF HAZEL WAY
POSTED SPEED LIMIT: 30 MPH OBSERVER: CARLOS
COMMENTS: WEATHER: CLOUDY
ROAD SURFACE: DRY
ROAD CONDITION: FAIR
DATA COLLECTION METHOD: RADAR
NORTHBOUND+SOUTHBOUND
NB
SB
65 64
63 62
61 60
59 58
57 56
55 54
53 52
51 50
49 48
47 46
45 44
43 42
41 40
39 38
37 36
35 34
33 32
31 30
29 28
27 26
25 24
23 22
21 20
19 18
17 16
15 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND NORTHBOUND+SOUTHBOUND
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
185TH %: 30 32 31 M.P.H.
0 0
0 P
A
C%
E
50TH %: 27 27 27 M.P.H.
15TH %: 22 25 24 M.P.H.
10 MPH PACE: 21 - 30 24 - 33 24 - 33 M.P.H.
% IN PACE: 86% 90% 82
OVER PACE: 14% 7% 6%
%UNDER PACE: 0% 3% 12%
ARITHMETIC MEAN: 27 28 28 M.P.H.

SAMPLE VARIANCE: 16 14 15
STANDARD DEVIATION: 4 4 4 M.P.H.

VARIANCE OF THE MEAN: 0.75 0.47 0.29
STD. ERROR OF THE MEAN: 0.87 0.69 0.54 M.P.H.
x
0 1
1 X
0 1
1 X
1 0
1 0
0 0
0 0
0 X X
0 2
2 X X
X.
2 1
3 XXX
0 3
3 x x
x
3 0
3 XXXXXXX
3 4
7 XXXX
1 3
4 X X
X X1
X1 X11
I
I
I
I 1
1 5
6 x x
x x
2 2
4 X X
X X
X X
2 4
6 X X
X X
1 3
4 X
1 11
1 1
11 11 1
1 0
1 x x
x x
3 1
4 X
1 0
1 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 21
30 51

ICITY OF
. 1 . Tuesday PERIOD: • 1.A
FOR ROADWAY:

TOTAL

VEHICLES

SURVEYED

BEDFORD CT AND -
OBSERVATION • . 11
.: -.
... .-
... CONDITION:

DATA COLLECTION METHOD: RADAR
EASTBOUND+WESTBOUND
mmLIMITS
-•
■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
000
■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
o00
■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
o0000MMENTS:
■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
o00
■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
o00
©©©©©©■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
©©©
©©©©©©■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
©©©
©©©©©©©©©■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
M©©
©©©©©©©©©■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
M©©
EASTBOUND WESTBOUND:. :. .
©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©■■■■■■■■■■■■■
©om
©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©■■■■■■■■■■■■■
M©m
©©©©©©©©©©©©©©■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
Mom
©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©■■■■■■■■■
M©®
©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
mom
©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©■■■■■■■■■■
mmm
©©©©©©©©©©©■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
M©m
©©©©©©©©©©©©■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
©©m
©©©©©©©©©©©©■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
oom
©©©©©©©■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
M00
©©©©©■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
Mo©
©©©©©©■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
M©©

ICITY OF
. 1 0• . Tuesday PERIOD:

FOR ROADWAY:

TOTAL

VEHICLES

SURVEYED
OBSERVATION POINT:
.: -.
... .-
... CONDITION:
... COLLECTION METHOD:RADAR
EASTBOUND+WESTBOUNDmm
-
■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
oom
■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
o00
■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
o0000MMENTS:
■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
o00
©■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
o00
■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
o00
E3E2E3E2E3E2E3E2E3E2MIMENESSEEMENESSEENO
M©m
©©©©©©©■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
Moo
©©©©©©©©©©©■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
mom
©©©©©©©©©■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
®©o
©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
M©m
©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©■■■■■■■■■■■
M©m
©©©©©©©©©©©©©©■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
Mom
EASTBOUND WESTBOUND:. :. .
©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©■
mmm
©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©■■■■■■■■■
o®m
©©©©©©©©©■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
©M©
©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©■■■■■■■■■■■
©mm
©©©©©©©©©©■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
©om
©©©©©■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
©©©
©©©©©©©©©©■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
©om
©©©©©■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
Mom

ICITY OF
. 1 0• . Tuesday PERIOD:

FOR ROADWAY:

TOTAL

VEHICLES

SURVEYED
OBSERVATION POINT:
.: -.
... .-
... CONDITION:
... COLLECTION METHOD:RADAR
:,
.
-•
•
•
.
■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■omo
■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■omo
■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■omo
■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■omo
■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■omo
■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
o0000MMENTS:
■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■omo
■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■omo
■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■omo
■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
o00
©■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■omo
■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■omo

EASTBOUND WESTBOUND EASTBOUND,WESTBOUND
©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©■■■■■■■■■■■■
mom
©©©©©©©©©©©©©©■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
mmm
©©©©©©©©©©©©©©■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
omm
©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©■■■■■■■■■■■■■mom
-
. -•
-, .,
• ..-..
--.-. �.: � � .
©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©■■■■■■■■■■■■■
Mmm
©©©©©©©©©©©■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
mo®
©©©©©©©©■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
M00
©©©©■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■omo
©■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
omo
■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
omo
■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
omo
■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
omo
■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
omo
■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
omo
■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
omo
■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
omo
■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
omo
■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
omo

DATE: 07/07/25 DAY: Monday TIME PERIOD: 3:35PM TO 4:02PM FOR ROADWAY:

TOTAL

VEHICLES

SURVEYED
OBSERVATION POINT:
.: -.
... .-
... CONDITION:
... COLLECTION METHOD:RADAR
:,
-
•
•
•
.
■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■moo
■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■moo
■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■moo
■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■moo
■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■moo
■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
o0000MMENTS:
■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■moo
■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■moo
©■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
o00
©©■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
oo©
©©©©©©©©©■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
Mo©
©©©©©■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
m©©
©©©©©©■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■�
©©©
©©©■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
m©a
©©©©©©©■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
mMo
©©©©©©©©©■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
Mo©
EASTBOUND WESTBOUND:. :. .
©©©©©©©©©©©■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
©©©©©©■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
M©o
©©©©©©©©©©©©■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
m©m
©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
mom
©©©©©©©©©©©©©©■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
®Mm
. -•
-� .� .,
• ..-..
� � � .
--.-. � : � . �.�
©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
m®m
©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©■■■■■■■■■■■mom
©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
m©m
©©©©©©©©©©■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
©©m
©©©©©©©©©©©©■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
M©m
©©©©©©©■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
moo
©©■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
mm©
■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
moo
■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
moo
■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
moo
■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
moo
■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
moo
■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
moo
■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
moo
■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
moo
■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
moo
■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
moo

DATE: 07/08/25 DAY: Tuesday TIME PERIOD: 10:27AM TO 10:41AM FOR ROADWAY:

TOTAL

VEHICLES

SURVEYED
-. AND EAST CITY LIMITS
OBSERVATION POINT:
.: -.
... .-
... CONDITION:
... COLLECTION METHOD:RADAR
EASTBOUND+WESTBOUNDmm
-
■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
000
■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
o00
©■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
o0000MMENTS:
©©©■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■ova
©©©■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
©o©
©©■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
oo©
©■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
o00
E3E2E3E2E3E2E3E2E3E2E3E2E3E2E3E2E3cmmmmmmmommon
mm®
©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©■■■■■■
mmm
©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
oom
©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©■■■■■■■■■■■■
mmm
©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©■■■■■■■■■■■
mm®
©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
mo®
©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
oom
EASTBOUND WESTBOUND:. :. .
©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
m©m
©©©©©©©©©©■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
mmm
©©©©©©©©■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
mm0
©©©©©©©©©©■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
©om
©©©©■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
o®o
©©■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
©o©

CITY OF TEMECULA
DATE: 07/07/25 DAY: Monday TIME PERIOD: 10:18AM TO 11:59AM FOR ROADWAY: VIA LA VIDA
SPEED
(MPH(
TOTAL

VEHICLES

SURVEYED
TOTAL

VEHICLES
LIMITS (BTN): MARGARITA RD AND SOLANA WAY
OBSERVATION POINT: WEST OF ST THOMAS CT
POSTED SPEED LIMIT: 30 MPH OBSERVER: CARLOS
COMMENTS: WEATHER: SUNNY
ROAD SURFACE: DRY
ROAD CONDITION: FAIR
DATA COLLECTION METHOD: RADAR
EASTBOUND+WESTBOUND
EB
WB
65 64
63 62
61 60
59 58
57 56
55 54
53 52
51 50
49 48
47 46
45 44
43 42
41 40
39 38
37 36
35 34
33 32
31 30
29 28
27 26
25 24
23 22
21 20
19 18
17 16
15 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 EASTBOUND WESTBOUND EASTBOUND+WESTBOUND
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
185TH %: 30 30 30 M.P.H.
0 0
0 P
A
C
E
50TH %: 27 28 27 M.P.H.
15TH %: 24 25 24 M.P.H.
10 MPH PACE: 23 - 32 23 - 32 23 - 32 M.P.H.
% IN PACE: 100 % 95 % 98
% OVER PACE: 0% 5% 2%
% UNDER PACE: 0% 0% 0%
ARITHMETIC MEAN: 27 28 27 M.P.H.

SAMPLE VARIANCE: 6 8 7
STANDARD DEVIATION: 2 3 3 M.P.H.

VARIANCE OF THE MEAN: 0.17 0.42 0.13
STD. ERROR OF THE MEAN: 0.41 0.65 0.36 M.P.H.
0 0
0 0
0 0
X
0 1
1 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
X
1 0
1 X X
1 1
2 xxxxxxx
4 3
7 XXXX
2 2
4 XXXXXXXX
4 4
8 X XIXIXIX
Xlxlxl
1 11 1
8 2
10 x x
x x
x x
3 3
6 XXXXX
3 2
5 X X
X X
X X
5 1
6 XXX
2 1
3 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 33
20 53

DATE: 06/24/25 DAY: Tuesday TIME PERIOD: 3:15PM TO 4:18PM FOR ROADWAY: WOLF CREEK DRIVE NORTH
TOTAL

VEHICLES

SURVEYED
. WOLF VALLEY -.

OBSERVATION POINT:
.: -.
... .-
... CONDITION:
... COLLECTION METHOD:RADAR
.-
:.
.
.
:.
.
mm
:,
.
•
•
•
•
-
•
•
•
.
■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■mmo
■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■mmo
■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■mmo
■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■mmo
■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■mmo
■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
o0000MMENTS:
■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■mmo
■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■mmo
■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■mmo
■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
o00
■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■mmo
■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■mmo
■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■mmo
■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■mmo
■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■mmo
■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■mmo
■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■mmo
■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■mmo
SOUTHBOUND:. :. .
■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
o00NORTHBOUND
■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■mmo
©©©■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
mo©
©©■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■mmo
• ..-..
� . � • � .
- - . - .
©©©■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■ova
©■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■moo
©©©©©©■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
Mmo
©©©©©©©©©■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
mm©
©©©©©©©■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■mmo
©©©©©©©©©©©©■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■mom
©©©©©©©©©■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
mm©
■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■mmo
■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
mmo
■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
mmo
■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
mmo
■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
mmo
■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
mmo
■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
mmo

ICITY OF
. 1. . . PERIOD: .3:06PM
•- ROADWAY: • ROAD
TOTAL

VEHICLES

SURVEYED
OBSERVATION •. OF DAVIANA
.: -.

WEATHER: PARTLY SUNN
... .-
... CONDITION:
... COLLECTION METHOD:RADAR
:,
•
•
•
•
-•
•
•
•
•
•
■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■moo
■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■moo
■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■moo
■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■moo
■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■moo
■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
o0000MMENTS:
■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■moo
■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■moo
■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■moo
■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
o00
■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■moo
■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■moo
■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■moo
©■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■moo
©■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■moo
■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■moo
©■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■moo
©©©©©©■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
mo©
WESTBOUND:. :. .
©©■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
oo©EASTBOUND
©■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■moo
©©©©©©©©©©■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
mom
©©©©©©©©©©■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
m©m
©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
m©m
:�•
•.
• ..-..
� � • �.•
--.-. � . �.-
©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©■■■■■■■■■■■■
mom
©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©■■■■■■■■■■■■
®©m
©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©■■■■■■■■■■■■■
mom
©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©■■■■■■■■■■■
©mm
©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©■■■■■■■■■■■■
mmm
©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
mom
©©©©©©©■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■moo
©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©■■■■■■■■■■■■■
mmm
■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
moo
©■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
moo
■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
moo
■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
moo
■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
moo
■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
moo
■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
moo
■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
moo
■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
moo

ICITY OF
. 1. .TuesdayPERIOD:•O.A. 0:0
FOR ROADWAY: SOMMERS BEND RD
TOTAL

VEHICLES

SURVEYED
OBSERVATION •. OF .
.: -.

CLOUDY
... .-
... CONDITION:
... COLLECTION METHOD:RADAR
•
■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
000
■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
o00
■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
o00
■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
o00
■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
o00
■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
o00
WESTBOUND:. :. .
■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
o00EASTBOUND
■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
o00
.,.
•
..
©■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
o00
■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
o00
©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
M®®
©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©■■■■■■■■
mm®
©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©■■■
mm®
©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
mom
©©■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
mm©

ICITY OF
. 1. . Tuesday PERIOD: 0
FOR ROADWAY: SOMMERS BEND RD
TOTAL

VEHICLES

SURVEYED
.- AND SORREL
OBSERVATION POINT: NORTH OF LUCINDA DR
.: -.

WEATHER: PARTLY CLOU
... .-
... CONDITION:
... COLLECTION METHOD:RADAR
NORTHBOUND+SOUTHBOUNDmm
■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
o00
■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
o0000MMENTS:
■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
o00
■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
o00
■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
o00
SOUTHBOUND:. :. .
■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
o00NORTHBOUND
■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
o00
• -•
■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
oom
■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
o00
©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
mom

FOR ROADWAY: SOMMERS BEND RD
TOTAL

VEHICLES

SURVEYED
(13TN): SORREL. BUTTERFIELD STAGE -.

OBSERVATION POINT: EAST OF YARROW DR
.: -.

WEATHER: PARTLY CLOU
... .-
... CONDITION:
... COLLECTION METHOD:RADAR
EASTBOUND+WESTBOUND
mmLIMITS
■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
o00
■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
o0000MMENTS:
■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
o00
■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
o00
■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
o00
WESTBOUND:. :. .
■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
o00EASTBOUND
■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
o00
■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
o00
■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
o00

APPENDIX C
ADT Count Sheets
2025 Engineering and Traffic Survey Report

CITY TRAFFIC COUNTERS
WWW.CTCOUNTE)MCOM

Page 1 ends

Temecula City CouncilJanuary 27, 2026

Temecula City Council
January 27, 2026