The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About04-118 CC Resolution I I I RESOLUTION NO. 04-118 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA ADOPTING A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM FOR THE RANCHO TEMECULA TOWN CENTER, GENERALLY LOCATED ON THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF WINCHESTER ROAD AND NICOLAS ROAD AND KNOWN AS ASSESSOR PARCEL NOS. 920-100-001 THROUGH 920-100-013 (PA02- 0360, 02-0363, 02-0364, 02-0365 AND 04-0540). THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOllOWS: Section 1. declare that: The City Council of the City of Temecula does hereby find, determine and A. Pacific Development Partners, LlC filed Planning Application Nos. PA02-0360, General Plan Amendment; PA02-0363, Specific Plan Amendment; PA02-0365, Tentative Parcel Map; PA02-0364, Development Plan; and PA04-0540, Conditional Use Permit, in a manner in accord with the City of Temecula General Plan and Development Code and an initial study was prepared in accordance with CEQA Guidelines; and, B. The applications for the Project were processed and an environmental review was conducted as required by the California Environmental Quality Act; and, C. The Planning Commission of the City of Temecula held a duly noticed public hearing on October 20, 2004 to consider the application of the Project and environmental review, at which time the City staff and interested persons has an opportunity to, and did testify either in support or opposition to this matter; and, D. Following consideration of the entire record of information received at the public hearings and due consideration of the proposed Project, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 2004-056, recommending the City Council approval of a Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring Program for the Project. E. On November 23, 2004, the City Council of the City of Temecula held a duly noticed public hearing on the Project at which time all persons interested in the Project had the opportunity and did address the City Council on these matters. F. On November 23, 2004, the City Council of the City of Temecula approved a Mitigated Negative Declaration and a Mitigation Monitoring Program for the Project when it adopted Resolution No. 04-118; Section 2. The City Council of the City of Temecula hereby makes the following findings: A. Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") and the City's local CEQA Guidelines, City staff prepared an initial study of the potential environmental effects of the proposed Project. Based upon the findings contained in that study, City staff determined that there was no substantial evidence that the project could have a significant effect on the R:/Resos 2004/Resos 04-118 I environment and a Mitigated Negative Declaration has been prepared. A copy of the Initial Study, Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring Program are attached hereto as Exhibit "A" and incorporated herein by reference. B. Thereafter, City staff provided public notice of the public comment period and of the intent to adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration as required by law and copies of the documents have been available for public review and inspection at the offices of the Planning Department, located at City Hall, 43200 Business Park Drive, Temecula, CA 92589. C. The City Council reviewed the Mitigated Negative Declaration and all comments received regarding the Mitigated Negative Declaration. The Project and the Mitigated Negative Declaration were discussed at a public hearing of the City Council held on November 23. 2004. D. The Mitigated Negative Declaration was prepared in compliance with CEQA. E. There is no substantial evidence that the Project, as conditioned, will have a significant effect on the environment. F. The Mitigated Negative Declaration reflects the independent judgment and analysis of the City Council. G. The Mitigation Monitoring Program set forth in the Mitigated Negative Declaration has been prepared in accordance with law. I Section 3. The City Council of the City of Temecula hereby approves the Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Project and approve the Mitigation Monitoring Program for the Project as set forth on Exhibit A, attached hereto, and incorporated herein by this reference together with any and all necessary conditions that may be deemed necessary. Section 4. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED on this 23rd day of November, 2004. " ATTEST: ; '~ .~ - ~ MiC~1 a gar, Mayor I R:/Resos 2004/Resos 04-118 2 I I I STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE CITY OF TEMECULA ) ) ss ) I, Susan W. Jones, CMC, City Clerk of the City of Temecula, California, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution No. 04-118 was duly adopted by the City Council of the City of Temecula at a regular meeting thereof, held on the 23rd day of November, 2004 by the following vote: AYES: 5 NOES: 0 ABSENT: 0 ABSTAIN: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: Comerchero, Roberts, Stone, Washington, Naggar COUNCILMEMBERS: None COUNCILMEMBERS: None COUNCILMEMBERS: None R:/Resos 20O4/Resos 04-118 I I I R:/Resos 2004/Resos 04-1 18 EXHIBIT A INITIAL STUDY NEGATIVE DECLARATION MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM 4 S TAT E OF CALI FOR N I A Governor's Office of Planning and Research State Clearinghouse and Planning Unit ~~ (~ .J ~~..~... I Arnold Schwmzenegger Governor October 20, 2004 ~Œ (G ~ f~~ \~ OCT 2 á ZOO4 W\\ _J By~-c~c,--:"" ... Ian Boel Acting Director Dan Long City of Temecula . 43200 Business Park Drive Temecula, CA 92590 Subject: Planning Application Nos. P A02-0362 a General Plan Amendment/Specific Plan Amendment and P A02-0364 is a Conditional Use Pernùt/Development Plan SCH#: 2004091110 . Dear Dan Long: The State Clearinghouse submitted the above,named Negative Declaration to selected state agencies for review. The review period closed on October 19, 2004, and no state agencies submitted conunents by that' date. TIris letter acknowledges that you have complied with the State Clearinghouse review requirements for draft environmental documents,.pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act. I Please call the State Clearinghouse at (916) 445-0613 if you have any questions regarding the environmental review process. If you have a question about the above-named project, please refer to the ten-digit State Clearinghouse number when contacting this office. .. , Sincerely, ~~ Terry Roberts Director, State Clearinghouse I 1400 TENTH STREET P.O. BOX 3044 SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA 95812-3044 TEL (916)445-0613 FAX (916) 323-3018 www.opr.ca.gcv City of Temecula Plannin~artment I SCH # 2004091110 Notice of Completion I Project Title: Planning Applications Nos. P A02-0360 a General Plan Amendmen1; P A02- Contact Person: Dan Long 0363, Specific Plan Amendment; PA02-0364 Development Plan, PA02-0365 Tentative Title: Associate Planner Parcel Map and P A04-0540 Condi1ional Use Permit Lead Agency: City of Temecula Phone: (951) 694-6400 Stree1 Address: 43200 Business Park Drive Citv: Temecula, CA Zin: 92590 Project Location Within 2 miles City of Temecula, Riverside County State Hwy #: Interstate 15, Highway 79 Cross Streets: Southeast comer of Highway Airports: French Valley 79 South (Winchester Road) and Nicolas Waterways: San1a Gertruidis Creek Road Railways: None Schools: Chaparral High School Assessor's Parcel No.: 920-100-001 through 13 Total Acres: 20.2 CEQA Document Type []NOP [X]Negative Declaration []Supplement EIR [ ]EIR (Prior SCH #) [ ]Earlv Consultation [ ]Draft EIR [ ]Subseouent EIR [ ]Other Local Action Type [ ]General Plan Update [X]Specific Plan [ ]Rezone [ ]Annexation [X]General Plan Amendment []Master Plan [ ]Prezone [ ]Redevelopment [ ]General Plan El~ment [ ]Planned Unit Development [X]Use Pernùts [ ]Coastal Pernùt [ ]Conununity Plan [X]Site Plan/Plot Plan [ ]Subdivision of Land [ ]City Development Project [ ]Other Development Type []Residential: Units- Acres- []Water Facilities: Type- MGD- []Office: Sq.ft.- Acres- Employees- []Transportation Type [X]Commercial: Sq.ft. 162.860 Acres 20.2 Employees- [ ]Mining: Mineral []Industrial: Sq.ft.- Acres- Employees- []Power: Type []Educational: [ ]Waste Treatment: Type [ ]Recreational: [ ]Hazardous Waste: Type []Other: Project Issues Discussed in Document [X]AestheticNisual [ ]Flood PlainJFlooding [ ]SchoolslUniversities [ ] Water Quality [ ]Agricultural Land [ ]Forest LandIFire Hazard [ ]Septic Systems [ ]Water supply/groundwater [X]Air Quality [X]Geologic/Seismic [ ]Sewer Capacity [ ]WetlandlRiparian [X]ArcheologicaUHistorical [ ]Minerals [ ]Soil Erosion/Compaction/Grad [ ]Wildlife [ ]Coastal Zone [X]Noise [ ]Solid Waste [ ]Growth Inducing [ ]Drainage/Absorption [ ]PopulationIHousing Balances[ )ToxiclHazardous [ ]Land Use [ ]Economic/Jobs [ ]Public Services/Facilities [X]Traffic/Circulation [ ]Cumulative Effects [ ]Fiscal [ ]RecreationlParks [ ]Ve~etation [ ]Other: Li~ht & Glare Present Land Use: Vacant Current Zoning: Neighborhood Commercial General Plan Use: Nei~hborhood Commercial Project Description: The proposed project includes a General Plan Amendment, Specific Plan Amendment (text and map); Tentative Parcel Map, Development Plan and Conditional Use Permit. The General Plan I R:ID 1'\2002\02-0364 Roripaugh Town CenterlNOTICE OF COMPLETION.doc Amendment is a request to amend the land use designation from Neighborhood Commercial (NC) to Community Commercial (CC). The Specific Plan Amendment is a request to amend the land use designation in Planning Area 9 of the Roripaugh Estates Specific Plan from Neighborhood Commercial (NC) to Community Commercial (CC). the Tentative Parcel Map is a request to subdivide 20.2 acres into 12 individual parcels. The conditional use permit and development plan application are a request to construct 162,860 square feet of commercial and retail space on 20.2 acres. Potential uses include an LA Fitness (45,000 square feet), Henry's Market (26,680 square feet) and a drug store (16,800 square feet) with a drive-up window for prescriptions. In addition, there are 7 pad buildings (3 with drive though windows), an outdoor food court and in-line retail shops. The CC Zone permits similar uses as the NC Zone; however the CC zone is not as restricted as the NC Zone in regard to floor area, size of lot and maximum square footage of anyone user. I Mail to, State Clearinghouse, 1400 Tenth Street. Sacramento. CA 95814 (916) 445-0613 I I R:\D 1'\2002\02-0364 Roripaugh Towo Ceuter\NOTICE OF COMPLETION.doc REVIEWING AGENCIES CHECKLIST Resources Agency BoatingIW aterways Coastal Commission Coastal Conservancy Colorado River Board Conservation Fish and Game Forestry Office of Historic Preservation Parks and Recreation Reclamation S.F. Bay Conservation & Development Commission Water Resources (DWR) Business, Transportation, & Housing Aeronautics California Highway Patrol Calttans District No. ...JL Department of Transportation Planning (Headquarters) Housing & Community Development Other I State & Consumer Services General Services ...I.. OLA(Schools) I ...I ...I.... ...L.. ...I.. KEY S=Document sent by lead agency X=Document sent by SCH T=Suggested distribution Environmental Affairs Air Resources Board ...I.... APCD/AQMD California Waste Management Board SWRCB: Clean Water Grants SWRCB: Delta Unit SWRCB: Water Quality SWRCB: Water Rights ...I.. Regional WQCB #~ ( Youth & Adult Corrections Corrections Independent Commissions & Offices Energy Commission Native American Heritage Commission Public Utilities Commission Santa Monica Mountains Conservancy State Land Commission Tahoe Regional Planning Agency Food & Agriculture Health & Welfare ...I.... Health Services ...I l Public Review Period (to be filled in by lead agency) Starting Date: September 20, 2004 Ending Date October 20, 2004 Signature Date September 17, 2004 Lead Agency (Complete if Applicable): For SCH Use Only: Date Received at SCH City of Temecula Date Review Starts 43200 Business Park Drive Date to Agencies Temecula, CA 92590 Date to SCH Contact: Dan Long Clearance Date Phone (951) 694-6400 Notes: Applicant Pacific Development Partners, LLS Address 30220 Rancho Viejo Rd. Suite B San Juan Capistrano, CA 92675 Phone (949) 481-0463 I RID 1'\2002\02-0364 Roripaogb Town CenæIINOTICE OF COMPlETiON.doc I I I City of Temecula Planning Department Notice of Intent to Adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration PROJECT: PAO2-0360 PA02-0363 PA02-0364 PA02-0365 PA04-0540 General Plan Amendment Specific Plan Amendment Development Plan Tentative Parcel Map Conditional Use Permit APPLICANT: Pacific Development Partners, LLC 30220 Rancho Viejo Rd., Ste. B, San Juan Capistrano, CA 92675 Southeast corner of Highway 79 North (Winchester Rd.) and Nicolas Rd., Assessor's Parcel Numbers 920-100-001-13. LOCATION: DESCRIPTION: PA02-0360 and PA02-0363 General Plan Amendment/Specific Plan Amendment: The General Plan Amendment is a proposal to change the General Plan designation from Neighborhood Commercial (NC) to Community Commercial (CC). The Specific Plan Amendment is a proposal to amend the Roripaugh Estates Specific Plan land use designation for Planning Area 9 from Neighborhood Commercial (NC) to Community Commercial. PA02-0364 and PA04-0540 proposes a conditional use permit and development plan to construct 162,860 square feet of commercial and retail space on 20.2 acres. Potential uses include an LA Fitness (45,000 square feet), Henry's Market (26,680 square feet), and a drug store (16,800 square feet) with a drive-up window for prescriptions. The project also proposes 7 pad shops (3 drive-throughs), a food court and additional in-line retail area. PA02-0365 parcels. Proposes a Tentative Parcel map to subdivide 20.2 acres into 12 The City of T emecula intends to adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration for the project described above. Based upon the information contained in the attached Initial Environmental Study and pursuant to the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA); it has been determined that this project as proposed, revised or mitigated will not have a significant impact upon the environment. As a result, the Planning Commission intends to recommend the City Council adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration for this project. The mitigation measures required to reduce or mitigate the impacts of this project on the environment are included in the project design, conditions of approval and/or the Mitigation Monitoring Program which is attached to this notice will be included as part of the Mitigated Negative Declaration for this project. The Comment Period for this proposed Negative Declaration is September 20,2004 to October 20,2004. Written comments and responses to this notice should be addressed to the contact person listed below at the following address: City of Temecula, P.O. Box 9033, Temecula, CA 92589-9033. City Hall is located at 43200 Business Park Drive. The public notice of the intent to adopt this Mitigated Negative Declaration is provided through: R:ID P\2002\02-O364 Roripaugh Town Center\Notice nflntent-Rancho Center,doc 1 I I I .x The Local Newspaper. .x Posting the Site. .x Notice to Adjacent Property Owners. If you need additional information or have any questions concerning this project, please contact (Name and Title) at (951) 694-6400. Prepared by: Dan Lone. Associate Planner. (Signature) (Name and Title) R:ID 1'12002\02-0364 Roripaugh Towo Ceutel'lNorice oflnteot-Raucho Ceuter.duc 2 Vicinity Map I. ChapaITaI High 1 inch equals 500 feet -. I R:ID P12002\02'{)364 Roripaugh Towo CeuterINotice of Intent-Rancho Ceuter.doc 3 I 1 I City of Temecula Planning Department Agency Distribution List PROJECT: Planning Application No. PA02-0364 Development Plan Planning Application No. P A02-0362 General Plan AmendmenVSpecific Plan Amendment DISTRIBUTION DATE: September 5, 2004 CASE PLANNER: Dan Long CITY OF TEMECULA: Building & Safety..................................... (X) Fire Department ...................................... (X) Police Department ........................."....... ( ) Parks & Recreation (TCSD) .................... (X) Planning, Advance .................................. ( ) Public Works...........................................(X) ........( ) STATE: Caltrans'................................................... (X) Fish & Game........................................... (X) Mines & Geology..................................... ( ) Regional Water Quality Control Bd ......... (X) State Clearinghouse ............................... (X) State Clearinghouse (15 Copies) ............ (X) Water Resources .................................... (X) ...... ( ) FEDERAL: Army Corps of Engineers........................ (X) Fish and Wildlife Service......................... (X) ........ ( ) ........( ) REGIONAL: Air Quality Management District.............. (X) R:ID P\2002\02-O364 Roripaugh Town CeotetINoûce of Intent-Rancho Center,doc 4 Western Riverside COG ..........................( ) .......( ) CITY OF MURRIETA: Planning...................................................( ) .......( ) RIVERSIDE COUNTY: Clerk and Recorder's Office.................... (X) Airport land Use Commission ................ (X) Engineer ..................................................( ) Flood Control.......................................... (X) Health Department ................................. (X) Parks and Recreation ..............................( ) Planning Department...............................( ) Habitat Conservation Agency (RCHCA) . (X) Riverside Transit Agency........................ (X) .......( ) UTILITY: Eastern Municipal Water District............. (X) Inland Valley Cablevision........................ (X) Rancho CA Water District, Will Serve.... (X) Southern California Gas ......................... (X) Southern California Edison..................... (X) Temecula Valley School District ............. (X) Metropolitan Water District ..................... (X) I I I OTHER: Pechanga Indian Reservation ................. (X) Eastern Information Center..................... (X) Local Agency Formation Comm.............. ( ) RCTC .....................................................( ) Homeowners' Association .......................... ( ) R:\D P\2002\02-O364 Roripaogh Town CenteI\Notice of Intent-Rancho Cooter.doc 5 1 City of Temecula P.O. Box 9033, Temecula, CA 92589-9033 EnvIronmental Checklist Proiect Title Rancho Temecula Town Center Lead Agency Name and Address City of Temecula P.O. Box 9033, Temecula, CA 92589-9033 Contact Person and Phone Number Dan LonQ, Associate Planner 1951) 694-6400 Project Location Southeast corner of Highway 79 North (Winchester Rd.) and Nicolas Rd. Project Sponsor's Name and Address Pacific Development Partners, LLC., 30220 Rancho Viejo Rd., Ste. B, San Juan Cacistrano, CA 92675 General Plan Designation Currently Neighborhood Commercial (NC) Procosed Community Commercial ICC) Zoning Roripaugh Estates Specific Plan, Planning Area 9: Currently Neighborhood Commercial (NC). Procosed Community Commercial ICC) Description of Project The proposed project includes a General Plan Amendment, Specific Plan Amendment (text and map), Tentative Parcel Map (Map 30719) Conditional Use Permit and a Development Plan. The General Plan Amendment is a request to amend the land use designation from Neighborhood Commercial (NC) to Community Commercial (CC). The Specific Plan Amendment is a request to amend the land use designation in Planning Area 9 of the Roripaugh Estates Specific Plan from Neighborhood Commercial (NC) to Community Commercial (CC). The Tentative Parcel Map is a request to subdivide 20.2 acres into 12 parcels. The conditional use permit and development plan application is a request to construct 162,860 square feet of commercial and retail space on 20.2 acres. Potential uses include an LA Fitness (45,000 square feet), Henry's Market (26,680 square feet) and a drug store (16,800 square feet) with a drive-up window for prescriptions. In addition, there are 7 pad buildings (3 with drive though windows), an outdoor food court and in-line retail shops. The CC Zone permits similar uses as the NC Zone, however the CC zone is not as restricted as the NC Zone in regard to floor area, size of lot and maximum square footage of any one user. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting Surrounding land uses include Santa Gertrudis Creek to the north, a self-storage facility and vacant land to the east, Nicolas Rd and a gas station (AM/PM) to the south, and Highway 79 North (Winchester Rd.) and a senior housing development to the west. In addition, there is a High School (Chaparral High School) located to the southwest. OtlW~ public agencies whose approval Other public agencies which may require approval and/or is required subsequent permits include: U.S Army Corps (USACE), Cal Trans, Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) and the County of Riverside Aircort Land Use Commission(ALUC). I I R:\D P\2O02\O2-()384 Roripaugh Town Center\1nitial Study Rancho Temecula Center-1.doc 1. 1 Environmental Factors Potentially Affected The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. X Aesthetics Mineral Resources Aariculture Resources X Noise X Air Quality Population and Housina Biological Resources Public Services X Cultural Resources Recreation X Geoloav and Soils X TransportationlTraffic Hazards and Hazardous Materials Utilities and Service Svstems Hydrology and Water Quality X Mandatorv Findinas of Significance Land Use and Planning None Determination On the basis of this initial evaluation: I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not X be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made by or agreed to by the Droiect proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. I find that the proposed project MAY have a "potentially significant impacf' or "potentially significant unless mitigated" impact on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is reauired, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed proiect, nothing further is required. 1 Signature Date Dan Lona. Associate Planner Printed name For I R:\D PI2O02lO2-Q364 Roripaugh Town Centerllnitial Study Rancho Temecula Center-1.doc 2 I 1. AESTHETICS. Would the project: , Potentially Potentially Significant Unless Less Than Issues and Sunoortlnn InloRnaticn Sources Significant Mifigation Signilicant I';'~~ct Imnact Incomnraled Imnact a. Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? X b. Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not X limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic hiahwav? c. Substantially degrade the existing visual character or X . QualitY of the site and its surroundinas? d. Create a new source of substantial light or glare which X would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? Comments: 1. a.-c: No Impact: The proposed project is not located on or near a scenic vista, therefore, there will not be an adverse impact on a scenic vista. The project site is not located on a scenic highway. The project site is currently vacant with no structures, trees or rock outcroppings on the site. Therefore, the proposed project would not substantially damage scenic resources, including trees, rock outcroppings or historic buildings. Due to the fact that the project site is vacant with no scenic vistas or resources, the project would not substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings. No impact is anticipated as a result of the proposed project. 11. d.: Less Than Significant Impact: The proposed project is currently vacant with no sources of light or glare. The proposed project will introduce new generators of light and glare typically associated with retail commercial development. The City of Temecula requires all new development to comply with the Riverside County Mount Palomar Ordinance 655. Ordinance 655 requires lighting to be shielded, directed down to avoid glare onto adjacent properties and emit low levels of glare into the sky. Decorative lighting is allowed, however it will be required to be shut-off by 11 :00 P.M. Mitigation Measures include the following: a. Comply with Riverside County Mount Palomar Ordinance 655. All lighting shall be fully shielded, directed down and parking lot lighting shall be low-pressure sodium. Decorative lighting shall be shut- off by 11:00 P.M. . b. Prior to issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall submit a photometric plan detailing the proposed light levels for the entire project site and onto adjacent project boundaries. c. The applicant shall comply with the City of Temecula Development Code and Design Guidelines for General Commercial lighting standards, which require minimum and maximum lighting levels in parking lot areas, loading areas, pedestrian circulation areas, primary building entries and lighting at project boundaries. I R:ID P\2O02\O2-Q364 Rortpaugh Town Center\lnitial Study Rancho Temecula Center-1.doc 3 I 2. AGRICULTURE RESOURCES. In determining whether Impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California Dept. of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing Impacts on agriculture and farmland. Would the project: . .' PotentiaJly <, Potentially Significant Unlass Less Than Significant MIJIgation Significant Im~~ct Issuee and Succo"lnc Infonnation Sources linnact IncorDorated Imoact a. Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland X of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-aQricultural use? b. Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a X Williamson Act contract? c. Involve other changes in the existing environment which, X due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non-aQricultural use? Comments: 2. a.-c.: No Impact: The project site is not currently in agricultural production and in the recent and historic past the site has not been used for agricultural purposes. The site is not under a Williamson Act contract nor is it zoned for agricultural uses. This property is not considered prime or unique farmland of statewide or local 1 importance as identified by the State Department of Conservation and the City of Temecula General Plan. In addition, the project will not involve changes in the existing environment, which would result in the conversion of farmland to non-agricultural uses. No impact is anticipated as a result of the proposed project I R:\D P\2002lO2-Q364 Roripaugh Town Center\lni1ial Study Rancho Temecula Center-1.doc 4 I 3. AIR QUALITY. Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations. Would the project: Potentially Potentially Significant Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Issues and Sun~rtlnn Information Sources Imnact lnoomorated Impact Imooct a. Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable X air Quality plan? b. Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially X to an existing or proiected air Quality violation? c. Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non- X attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed Quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? d. Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant X concentrations? e. Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number X of people? Comments: 13. a.: No Impact: The proposed project will not conflict with the applicable air quality plan. The project site is comprised of 20.2 acres and encompasses the entire area of Planning Area 9 in the Specific Plan. The City of Temecula Final EIR for the General Plan takes into consideration the entire project site as commercial use. The primary difference between the land use designations are the size of buildings and size of anyone particular user. No impact is anticipated as a result of the proposed project. 3. b.: No Impact: The proposed project will not violate an air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation. The proposed project will emit typical emissions and dust associated with commercial construction, however, the applicant will be required to comply with air emission standards as set forth below. No impact is anticipated as a result of the proposed project. 3. c.: Less Than Significant Impact: The proposed project will not result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard. The proposed project is not considered a significant pollutant generator; however the prevailing winds can produce considerable dust and emissions into the air. The applicant is required to comply with the mitigation measures outlined in the City of Temecula EIR and as specifically discussed below. 3. d.-e.: Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation Measures: The proposed project could potentially expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentration and could potentially create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people. The proposed project is located directly east of a future senior housing facility and an existing senior housing facility. Directly to the southwest is an existing four-year high school. Within a one-quarter of a mile to the southeast is a child day care. The following Mitigation Measures I shall apply: a. The applicant shall submit a final URBEMIS 2002 air quality study which identifies air pollution levels during construction activities. Said study shall be prepared in accordance with the South Coast Air Quality Management District. R:\D P\2002\D2-Q364 Roripaugh Town Center\lnltlal Study Rancho Temecula Center-1.doc 5 I b. The applicant shall construct bicycle lanes in the right-of-way as shown on the City's Master Trail plan and subject to the approval by the City of Temecula Community Services Department. c. The applicant shall provide a clear path with pedestrian signs to/from the San Gertrudis Creek trail to promote alternative transportation. d. The applicant shall coordinate with the Riverside Transit Agency (RTA) to determine if a bus turn- out or other mass transit services are feasible for the project site. Written authorization shall be submitted to the City of Temecula. e. The applicant shall submit a final landscape plan for the project site incorporating native drought- resistant vegetation, mature trees. If more than 100 days elapses from the time grading is complete and beginning of construction, the City of Temecula may require temporary landscaping to reduce the amount of dust and prevent dust and erosion. f. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the applicant shall verify that all earth moving and large equipment are properly tuned and maintained to reduce emissions. In addition, alternative clean- fueled vehicles shall be used where feasible. Construction equipment should be selected considering emission factors and energy efficiency. g. Electrical and/or diesel-powered equipment should be utilized in-lieu of gasoline-powered engines. I h. During construction and grading phases, the project site shall be watered down in the morning before grading and/or construction begins and in the evening once construction and/or grading is complete for the day. The project site shall be watered down no less than 3 times (not including the morning and evening water-down) during construction and/or grading activities to reduce dust. i. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, a watering program shall be submitted to the City of Temecula Planning Department for approval. Said program shall include control of wind-blown dust on site and on site access roadways. j. All fill being transported to and/or from the site shall be covered and the wheels and lower portion of transport trucks shall be sprayed with water to reduce/eliminate soil from the trucks before they leave the construction area. k. Prior to the issuance of a grading and building permit, the applicant shall submit verification that a ridesharing program for the construction crew has been encouraged and will be supported. I R:\D P\2002lO2-o364 Roripaugh Town Center\lnitial Study Rancho Temecula Center-1.doc 6 I 4. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the project? Potentially Potentially Slgnfficant Un/ass Less Than Si~~c.;:nt Mftlgation Significant No Issua. and SuoDOrtino Intormation Source. Inoo';;oratad Imoae! Imoae! a. Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or X through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? b. Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat X or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or US Fish and Wildlife Service? c. Have a substantial adverse effect of federally protected X wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruDtion, or other means? d. Interfere substantially with the movement of any native X resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or imDede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? e. Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting X biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? f. Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat X Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation Dlan? I Comments: 4. a.-f.: No Impact: The project site is void of any natural biological resources, including wetlands, riparian forests, vernal pools, and nursery sites. The project is not within a natural conservation plan or other local regional or state conservation plan, including area identified under the Multi-Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHGP). The project site has been grubbed and disturbed for many years in order to comply with the City's weed abatement ordinance (Ord 8.16). In addition, the project site has been used for various activities such as Christmas tree lots, carnivals, pumpkin patches, fruit stands and other similar events. There are some grasses on the project site, however they are not considered sensitive habitat, nor is the site a part of a wildlife corridor. The project site is adjacent to Santa Gertrudis Creek and a Section 404 permit may be required subject to the approval of the Department of the Army. The applicant shall submit verification from the US Army Corps. (USAGE) indicating if any permits are necessary. No impact is anticipated as a result of the proposed project. I R:\D P\2002\O2-Q384 Rorlpaugh Town Center\lnltial Study Rancho Temecula Center.1.doc 7 I 5. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the project: Potentially '< Potentially Significant Unless Lass Than S~~:nt I~~:~t~ Sl~s~nt. 'No < Issues snd Su"~rtln" Infonnatlon Sources ImMel a. Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of X a historical resource as defined in Section 15064.5? b. Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of X an archaeoloaical resource pursuant to Section 15064.5? c. Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological X resource or site or uniQue aeoloaic feature? d. Disturb any human remains, including those interred X outside of formal cemeteries? Comments: 5. a.: No Impact: A Phase I survey (Historical/archaeological resource survey report, Rancho Temecula Town Center, CRM Tech, November 24, 2003) has been prepared for the proposed project. The survey did not identify any historical resources as defined in Section 15064.5 on the project site. No impact is anticipated as a result of the proposed project 5. b.: Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation Measures: The above mentioned Phase I survey did not identify any archaeological resources nor did the historical records search identify the project site as a potential site for archaeological resources pursuant to Section 15064.5. However, the City of Temecula General Plan 1 (Figure 5-6) identifies the project site as a sensitive archaeological resource area. The phase I study did not recommend any mitigation measures, however, the lead agency is recommending archaeological monitors during all grading and earth moving activities due to the adjacent Santa Gertrudis Creek.. 5. c.: No Impact: The City of Temecula Final EIR does not identify the project site as a potential site for paleontological resources. No impact is anticipated as a result of the proposed project. 5. d.: No Impact: The phase I survey did not identify the project site as a potential site for historical resources, including human remains. No impacts are anticipated, however, mitigation monitoring, as required in 5.b. shall ,be required as part of the mitigation monitoring program. a. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the applicant must enter into an agreement with the Pechanga Band of Luiseno Indians that addresses the treatment and disposition of all cultural resources, human resources and human remains discovered on-site. b. The landowner agrees to relinquish ownership of all cultural resources, including archaeological artifacts found on the project site, to the Pechanga Band of Luiseno Indians for proper treatment and disposition. c. The applicant shall provide an on-site archaeological and paleontological monitoring during all phases of earthmoving activities. I d. If sacred sites are discovered during ground disturbing activities, they shall be avoided and preserved. R:\D P\2002\O2-Q364 Roripaugh Town Centet'llnfilal Study Rancho Temecula Center-1.doc 8 I 6. GEOLOGY AND SOILS. Would the project: Potentially Potentially Significant Unie.. Leas Than Significant Mitigation SignifICant , No issues end Sun~rtlnn information Sources Imcacl incomoreted iinDacl imDecl a. Expose people or structures to potential substantial X adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involvina: i. Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on X the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geoloav Special Publication 42. ii. Strona seismic around shakina? X iii. Seismic-related around failure includina liQuefaction? X iv. Landslides? X b. Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? X c. Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or X that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral sDreadina, subsidence, liQuefaction or coliaDse? d. Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B X of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or oroDertV? e. Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of X septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater? 1 Comments: 6. a. i-iv: Less Than Significant with Mitigation Measures: A Geotechnical Investigation has been prepared for the proposed project (Supplemental Geotechnical Investigation, Rancho Temecula Town Center, Winchester & Nicolas Roads, Temecula, CA, Geocon Inc., June 17,2003). The proposed project is located 3.1 miles from the Temecula segment of the Lake Elsinore Fault. The Lake Elsinore Fault is classified as an active fault and has the potential to produce large magnitude earthquakes (Geocon inc., June17, 2003). The project site has the potential for severe shaking in the event of a major earthquake on this or other nearby faults. The following mitigations measures shall be implemented: a. The applicant shall comply with all the recommendations within the Supplemental Geotechnical investigation, prepared by Geocon Inc., dated June 17, 2003. 6. b.: Less than Significant Impact: The project will not result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil. The project site is relatively flat will be developed in accordance with City standards, including National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) standards, which require the implementation of erosion control and best management practices (BMP's). The Final Environmental Impact Report for the City of Temecula General Plan has not identified any known landslides or mudslides located on the site or proximate to the site. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 16. c.: Less Than Significant Impact: The project is not located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse. A geotechnical investigation has been prepared for the R:\D P\2002\O2-o384 Rorlpaugh Town Center\inltiai StUdy Rancho Temecula Center-1.doc 9 proposed project (Geocon, Inc., June 17, 2003) and has not identified any geologic unit or unstable soils that would become unstable. The project is required to comply with the recommendations in the investigation 16. d.: No Impact: The project is not located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform ::~= :~::,':~::'~:œ:~::. ro ,~" "'~~ ~ geo~h,'~ "-gatOn ""."d ~ Geocon Inc., dated June 17, 2003 identifies the soils on the project site as "very low to low expansion potential as defined in the Uniform Building Code (UBC) Table No. 18-1-B. The project is required to comply with the recommendations in the investigation report prepared by Geocon Inc., dated June 17, 2003. 6. e.: No Impact: The project site will not utilize septic tanks. A public sewer system is available and approvals from the Department of Environmental Health for solid wastes and waste water will be required. The project will connect to the public sewer system. No impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. I I R:\D P\2002\O2-{)364 Roripaugh Town Center'lln,;ial Study Rancho Temecula Center-1.doc 10 I 7. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS. Would the project: Potentially' Potentially Signfficant Unless Less Then Signfficant Mffigetlon S~~~C: No Issues and SuDoortinD Inlonnalion Sources Imoad lnooroorated Imnad a. Create a significant hazard to the public or the X environment through the routine transportation, use, or discosal of hazardous materials? b. Create a significant hazard to the public or the X environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? c. Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or X acutely hazardous materials, substances, or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one- Quarter mile of an existina or proposed school? d. Be located on a site which is included on a list of X hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? e. For a project located within an airport land use plan or, X where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or workina in the project area? f. For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would X the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or workina in the Project area? g. Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an X adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation clan? h. Expose people or structures to a significant risk or loss, X injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? I Comments: 7. a.: No Impact: The project will not create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transportation, use, or disposal of hazardous materials. The proposed project consists of retail commercial uses and will not generate hazardous materials that would create a significant hazard. Typical transportation, use and disposal of wastes associated with commercial uses are anticipated, however these are not considered potentially significant. No impacts are anticipated as a result of the proposed project. 7. b.: No Impact: The proposed project will not create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment. The proposed project consists of general commercial uses. The releases of hazardous I materials into the environment are not anticipated as a result of the proposed project. No impact is anticipated as a result of the proposed project. R:\D P\2002\O2-Q384 Roripaugh Town Centerllnitial Study Rancho Temecula Cen1er-' .doc 11 7. c.: Less Than Significant Impact: The proposed project is located within one-quarter mile of an existing high school. However, the proposed project is not anticipated to emit substantial emissions, materials or wastes that would create a significant impact. The project is required to implement mitigation measures to I reduce air quality emissions as required in the Air Quality analysis. A less than significant impact is anticipated as a result of the proposed project. 7. d.: No Impact: The project site is not located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, would not result in a significant hazard to the public or the environment. No impact is anticipated as a result of the proposed project 7. e.: Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation Measures: The proposed project is located within the French Valley Airport Comprehensive Land Use Plan (CLUP). The Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC) has reviewed the proposed project. An approval letter dated July 22, 2004 has been submitted to the City and includes conditions of approval for the project. The applicant shall comply with the conditions of approval, which have been incorporated into the mitigation measures below. The applicant shall comply with the following mitigation measures: a. The applicant shall comply with the conditions of approval of the ALUC for file No FV-04-104, dated July 22, 2004. The following conditions of approval apply: 1. Provide avigation easements to the French Valley Airport prior to sale of any property to any entity exempt from the Subdivision Map Act, prior to recordation of any map, or issuance of any permit, whichever occurs first. 2. The notice, attached to the approval letter, dated July 22, 2004, shall be provided to each prospective buyer and/or tenant. I 3. No obstruction of the "FAR Part 77 Conical Surface" shall be permitted. 4. Install hooded or shielded outdoor lighting to prevent either the spillage of lumens or reflection into the night sky (lights must directed downward). 5. The following uses shall be prohibited: i. Any use which would direct a steady light or flashing light of red, white, green or amber colors associated with airport operations toward an aircraft engaged in an initial straight climb following take off or toward an aircraft engaged in a final approach toward a landing at an airport, other than an FAA-approved navigational signal light or. visual approach slope indicator. ii. Any use which would cause sunlight to be reflected towards an aircraft engaged in an initial straight climb following takeoff or towards an aircraft engaged in a straight final approach towards a landing at an airport iii. Any use which would generate smoke or water vapor or which would attract a large concentration of birds, or which may otherwise affect safe air navigation within the area. iv. Any use which would generate electrical interference that may be detrimental to any operation of aircraft and/or aircraft instrumentation. I 6. No above ground storage of flammable materials shall be allowed. R:\D P\2O02\O2-Q364 Roripaugh Town Center\lnltlal Study Rancho Temecula Center-1.doc 12 7. f.: No Impact: The proposed project is not within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would not result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area. No impact is anticipated as a result of the proposed project I 7. g.: No Impact: The proposed project is not located in an area and is not a portion of an emergency response or evacuation plan. Therefore the project would not impair the implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan. No impact is anticipated as a result of the proposed project. ' 7. h.: No Impact: The proposed project is not located in or near a wildland area that would be subject to fire hazards. The location of the proposed project would not expose people or structures to a significant risk or loss, injury or death involving wildland fires. No impact is anticipated as a result of this project. I I R:\D P\2002\O2-D384 Roripaugh Town Center\1nitial Study Rancho Tamecula Center-1.doc 13 I 8. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY. Would the project: Potentially , Potentially Significant Unless Le.. Than Significant MItigation Significant No Issues and Sun~rtlnn Infonnation Sources Imoact In<:Òmorated Imnact Imnact a. Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge X reQuirements? b. Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere X substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which nermits have been aranted\? c. Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site X or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site? d. Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site X or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in floodina on- or off-site? e. Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the X capacity of existing or planned storm water drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of Dolluted runoff? f. Otherwise substantiallv dearade wateraualitV? X g. Place housing within a 1 OO-year flood hazard area as X mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation maD? h. Place within a 1 OO-year flood hazard area structures X which would imDede or redirect flood flows? i. Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, X injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? 1. Inundation bV seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? X I Comments: 8. a.: Less Than Significant Impact: The proposed project would not violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements because the proposed project is required to comply with Best Management Practices (BMP's), Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) regulations as well as National Pollution Elimination Discharge Elimination System standards. An Army Corps of Engineers permit may be required if the project proposes the inclusion of discharge or dredged or fill material into, including any redeposit of dredged materials within "waters of the United States" and adjacent wetlands pursuant to Section 404 of the Clean Water Act of 1972. The applicant is required to consult with the Department of the Army to determine the appropriate permits required, if any. A less than significant impact is anticipated as a result of the proposed I project. 8. b.: No Impact: The proposed project would not substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering R:\D P\2O02\O2-Q384 Rorlpaugh Town Center\lnnial Study Rancho Temecula Center-1.doc 14 of the local groundwater table level. The proposed project is required to comply with local development standards, including lot coverage and landscaping requirements, which will allow percolation and ground water recharge. The nearest water wells are located along Margarita Road, north of the Santa Gertrudis and I Winchester Road and along Nicolas Road, east of Leon Road. No impact is anticipated as a result of the proposed project 8. c.: Less Than Significant Impact: The proposed project would not substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site. The proposed project will include an on-site drainage plan; however it will not alter off-site drainage patterns or alter the course of a stream or river, and will not result in substantial erosion or siltation on-or off-site. The project is also required to comply with Best Management Practices (BMP's), Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) regulations as well as National Pollution Elimination Discharge System (NPEDS) standards, which addresses drainage, siltation and erosion. A less than significant impact is anticipated as a result of the proposed project. 8. d.: Less Than Significant Impact: The proposed project would not substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off-site because the project will not alter the course of a stream or river. The project is located adjacent to the San Gertrudis creek, however it will not result in flooding. The City of Temecula Public Works Department reviews all drainage plans and determines adequate drainage facilities are in place capable of on-site drainage and that off-site drainage facilities can accommodate additional flow. A less than significant impact is anticipated as a result of the proposed project 8. e.: Less Than Significant Impact: The proposed project would not create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned storm water drainage systems or provide substantial I additional sources of polluted runoff. The project is required to comply with Best Management Practices (BMP's), Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) regulations as well as National Pollution Elimination Discharge Elimination System standards, which address drainage and polluted runoff. A less than significant impact is anticipated as a result of the proposed project. 8. f.: No Impact: The proposed project would not otherwise degrade water quality because the proposed project is not considered a significant pollutant generator and will not include excessive fertilizer application or other similar materials that could degrade water quality. No impact is anticipated as a result of the proposed project. 8. g.: No Impact: The proposed project is not a residential project and therefore will not place housing within a 1 OO-year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map. No impact is anticipated as a result of the proposed project 8. h.: Less Than Significant Impact: The proposed project is partially located within a 100 year flood boundary as shown in the Final EIR for the City of Temecula General Plan. The project will place structures within a 100-year flood hazard area, however they will be required comply with FEMA standards and will not impede or redirect flood flows. As a condition of approval a drainage plan is required; this plan will address flow and drainage facilities. A less than significant impact is anticipated as a result of the proposed project. 8. L: No Impact: The proposed project would not expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam. The proposed project is located in a Dam Inundation area for the Lake Skinner Dam. Said dam is a 43,800 acre-feet earthen dam located to the north east (approximately 15 miles) and a failure would result in the flooding of the Santa I Gertrudis creek. In the event of a massive dam failure, there is a potential for structure loss, however this is considered a remote potential. Minor dam failure would not result in significant loss of structures or loss of life, injury or death on the project site. No impact is anticipated as a result of the proposed project. R:\D P\2002\O2-D364 Rortpaugh Town Centar\lnlüal Study Rancho Tamacula Cantar-1.doc 15 8. j.: No Impact: The proposed project is not located near a coast line which would be subject to inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow. No impact is anticipated as a result of the proposed project. I I I R:ID P\2002\O2.Q364 Roripaugh Town Center\lnlUal Study Rancho Temecula Center-1.doc 18 I 9. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the project: Potentially Potentially Significant Unleas leas Than Issues and Sun~rtlnn Information Sources Significant Mitigation Significant Ño ¡",nect lnoomnrafed Imoact ImDact a. PhVsicaiiVdivide an established communitY? X b. Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or X regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? c. Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or X natural community conservation plan? Comments: 9. a.-c: No Impact: The proposed project is currently zoned commercial (Neighborhood Commercial, NC) and will not divide an established community or conflict with the applicable land use plan. The long term vision of the project is planned for commercial uses to provide services to the surrounding residential areas. The project is not subject to a habitat conservation plan or a natural community conservation plan. The Multi-Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP) does not identify the project site as a critical site subject to additional studies or review. No impact is anticipated as a result of the proposed project. I I R:\D PI2O02\O2-o384 Roripeugh Town Centel\ln~ial Study Rancho Tamecula Center-1.doc 17 I 10. MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the project: Potentially Potentially Significant Unlass Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Issues and SuDoortina Information Sources I;"nact IncornDraled Imnact Imnact a. Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral X resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state? b. Result in the loss of availability of a locally-important X mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local aeneral plan, specific plan or other land use plan? Comments: 10. a.-b.: No Impact: The proposed project is not located in an area that is known to include minerals that are considered of value to the region and/or the state. The proposed project will not result in the loss of a locally- important mineral resource because the project site is not identified as an important site known to maintain such resources as shown in the Final EIR for the City of Temecula General Plan. No impact is anticipated as a result of the proposed project. I I R:\D PI2O02\O2-D384 Rortpaugh Town Center'llnnial Study Rancho Temecula Center-1.doc 18 I 11. NOISE. Would the project result in: Poten~ally Potan~ally SignfficantUnless Leaa Than Significant MI~ga~on Slgnfficant No' Issues and Sun~rtlnn Informa~on Sources Imnact Incomorated Imnact Im~ct a. Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in X excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other aaencies? b. Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive X aroundborne vibration or around borne noise levels? c. A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels X in the project vicinity above levels existing without the Droiect? d. A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient X noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the Droiect? e. For a project located within an airport land use plan or, X where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? f. For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would X the project expose people residing or working in the croiect area to excessive noise levels? I Comments: 11. a.-c, e. 1..: Less Than Significant Impact: The proposed project consists of general retail uses such as restaurants and markets and is located on the northeast corner of Highway 79 South and Nicolas Road. The General Plan allows noise levels in commercial centers no greater than 70 CNEL. The City of Temecula General Plan and EIR have forecasted noise levels for this area to be within 70 CNEL. There may be temporary noise levels in excess of the maximum noise levels permitted in the General Plan during construction activities and during peak hour traffic periods. However this will be temporary in nature and is associated with typical commercial development. A final noise analysis is required in order to determine if special construction materials are required. Hours of operation for construction activities, consistent with the City's noise element in the General Plan will be enforced. The project is located near the French Valley Airport and is subject to the Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC). The ALUC has reviewed the proposed project and has determined it to be acceptable. A less than significant impact is associated due to noise levels from the airport. The French Valley Airport is a small scale airport and does not allow for large commercial jets. The airport is typically used as a small engine propeller recreation airport. There is not a private airstrip in the vicinity of the project that would potentially impact the project site. 11.d: Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation Measures: The General Plan noise element identifies the project site as an area that may include noise levels in excess of the maximum CNEL permitted in a commercial zone. A maximum noise level of 70 CNEL is permitted for commercial uses. The proposed project is located along Highway 79 North and may be subject to periodic noise levels that require noise attenuation measures. Buildings and outdoor dining areas along the highway may be subject to noise levels that require I mitigation measures. The project shall be subject to the following Mitigation Measures: a. A final noise analysis shall be prepared verifying the type of construction materials required for all buildings and exterior dining areas in order to comply with the minimum noise attainment levels. R:\D Pl2002\O2-o364 Roripaugh Town Center\lnitial Study Rancho Temecula Center-1.doc 19 Said study shall address noise levels for interior and exterior areas, including outdoor dining areas. I b. Signage shall be posted conspicuously at the entrance to the project that indicates the hours of construction, shown below, as allowed by the City of Temecula Ordinance No. 0-90-04, specifically Section G (1) of Riverside County Ordinance No. 457.73, for any site within one-quarter mile of an occupied residence. Monday-Friday 6:30 a.m. - 6:30 p.m. 7:00 a.m. - 6:30 p.m. Saturday No work is permitted on Sundays or Government Holidays I I R:\D Pl2002\O2-0364 Roripaugh Town Center\lnitial Study Rancho Temecula Center-1.doc 20 I 12. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the project: Potentially Potantially Significant Unla.s LaaaThan - Significant 'M~gation Signl1icant No Issuaa and SuDoortina information Sources imoact incorDorated imoact Imoact a. Induce substantial population growth in an area, either X directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? b. Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, X necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? c. Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the X construction of replacement housing elsewhere? Comments: 12. a.-c.: No Impact: The project will not induce substantial growth in the area either directly or indirectly. The project site is a commercial project and residential uses are not proposed. The project site is vacant and will not displace substantial numbers of people or existing housing, as the site is developed within a commercial zone. The project will neither displace housing nor people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing. No impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. I I R:\D P\2002\O2-o364 Roripaugh Town Center\1nitial Study Rancho Temecuia Center-1.doc 21 I 13. PUBLIC SERVICES. PO18ntially Potentially Significant Unle.. La.. Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Isaues and Suooortino Information Sources Imoact Incorøorated Imoact Imoact a. Would the project result in substantial adverse physical X impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services: Fire protection? X Police protection? X Schools? X Parks? X Other public facilities? X Comments: 13. a.: Less Than Significant Impact: The project will have a less than significant impact upon, or result in a need for new or altered fire, police, recreation or other public facilities. The project will incrementally increase the need for some services. However, the project will contribute its fair share through City Development I Impact Fees to be used to provide public facilities. The project will not have an impact upon, and will not result in a need for new or altered school facilities. The project will not cause significant numbers of people to relocate within or to the City. The project will have a less than significant impact upon the need for new or altered public facilities. The Rancho California Water District and the Riverside Department of Environmental Health have been made aware of this project. A condition of approval has been placed on this project that will require the proponent to obtain 'Will Serve" letters from all of the public utilities agencies. Service is currently provided for the surrounding residential and commercial development, so extending service to this site is possible, which would result in less than significant impacts as a result of the project. I R:\D P\2002\O2-Q364 Roripaugh Town Center\1nitial Study Rancho Temecula Center-1.doc 22 I 14. RECREATION. Potentially, potentie11y Significant Unless Less Then SIgnificant Mitigetion Significent 'No Issues and Su"oortinn Infonnetion Soureas Imoai:t Incomorated Imnai:t Imnact a. Would the project increase the use of existing X neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facilitY would occur or be accelerated? b. Does the project include recreational facilities or require X the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? Comments: 14. a.: No Impact: The project is a commercial project in a commercial zone. The project will not displace recreationally zoned lands or remove vacant lands that are used for recreational purposes. The anticipated need to increase the neighborhood or regional parks or other recreational facilities as a result of this project is not anticipated. No impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 14. b.: No Impact: The proposed project does not include an open space or recreational aspect to the project. Furthermore, the project will not require the construction or expansion of additional recreational facilities. No I impacts are anticipated as a result of the proposed project. I R:\D P\2002\02-D3S4 Roripaugh Town Centerllnitial Study Rancho Tameoula Center-1.doc 23 I 15. TRANSPORTATIONITRAFFIC. Would the project: Potentielly Potentially Significant Unless Less Than Sip;~~~nt Mitigation Si~::nt Im~ct Issues and Su^-rtIn" Information Sourœs Incomoratad a. Cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in X relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system (i.e., result in a substantial increase in either the number of vehicle trips, the volume to capacity ration on roads, or conaestion at intersections)? b. Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of X service standard established by the county congestion mananement anencv for desianated roads or hiahwavs? c. Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either X an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safetv risks? d. Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature X (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incomoatible uses le.a., farm eauioment\? e. Result in inadeauate emeraencv access? X f. Result in inadenuate narkina caoacitv? X g. Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs X supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicvcle racks'? I Comments: 15. a.-b: Less Than Significant with Mitigation Measures: A traffic analysis and two supplemental traffic analysis has been prepared for the proposed project; "Traffic Study for Rancho Temecula Town Center, Katz, Okitsu & Associates, July, 2003", "Alternative Analysis for Winchester Road at Nicolas Road, Katz, Okitsu & Associates, July 27,2004" and 'Winchester Road at Nicolas Road, Katz, Okitsu & Associates, September 15, 2004." The proposed project is located on the southeast corner of Nicolas Road and Winchester Road. Winchester Road is also known as Highway 79 North, which is subject to Caltrans jurisdiction. The traffic studies found that the intersection of Winchester Road at Nicolas Road would need to be improved, in order to maintain a Level of Service (LOS) of D or better, due to expected cumulative development in the area. It was recommended that near-term improvements could be achieved without widening of Nicolas Road. The City's Traffic Engineer has determined that at a minimum, additional dedication of right-of-way is required for the proposed project along with either: A. Improving the intersection at Winchester Road and Nicolas Road including a signal modification for the westbound Nicolas approach to provide I. two left turn lanes il. one through lane and ill. one right turn lane The City of Temecula City Engineer shall have the discretion to determine which improvement is required in I order to provide an adequate LOS for the intersection in question. With the above mentioned improvements, the LOS for the intersection will maintain a LOS of D or better at all times, including peak hours. R:\D P\2002\O2-Q384 Roripaugh Town Center\lnnial Study Rancho Temecula Center-1.doc 24 Table 1, below shows the delays and levels of service for the intersection for existing and near-term scenarios, assuming no mitigation. With no mitigation, the intersection would function at an LOS that is not acceptable under the City of Temecula General Plan. I Table 1 - Delay and Level of Service Intersection AM Peak Hour Delay Level of Service C Existing Conditions Future Without Project Traffic Future With Project Traffic 35.2 Note: Delay is in seconds per vehicle, average, 27.4 C D 33.6 PM Peak Hour Delay Level of Service D 23.2 38.4 75.7 D E The supplemental traffic study, dated September 15, 2004 identifies two potential scenarios that would mitigate the near term future impacts for the proposed project together with cumulative development impacts in the surrounding area. Table 2 shows the LOS that would be maintained if the mitigation included for split phase operation and included a left-turn land, an optional through-and-Ieft-turn lane, and a right-turn land for westbound Nicolas Road at Winchester Road. Table 2 - Delay and Level of Service With Split-Phase Signal Mitigation I Intersection AM Peak Hour Delay Level of Service PM Peak Hour Delay Level of Service Future With Project Traffic 37.4 Note: Delay is in seconds per vehicle, average, D 29.8 C Table 3 shows the LOS that would be maintained if the mitigation included two left turn lanes on Nicolas Road using conventional signal phasing by converting one of the through lanes into a left turn lane. Table 3 - Delay and Level of Service With Two Left Turn Lanes Intersection AM Peak Hour Delay Level of Service C Future With Project Traffic 28.2 Note: Delay is in seconds per vehicle, average, PM Peak Hour Delay Level of Service D 35.7 Table 2 and 3 both include improvements to the intersection that would mitigate the impacts to a LOS of D or better, which is consistent with the City of Temecula General Plan. In addition, the dedication of additional I right-of-way will provide the ultimate right-of-way for future road improvements that will serve development in the area (Roripaugh Ranch Specific Plan). These improvements along with the dedication would mitigate the traffic and circulation impacts to a less than significant level. R:\D P\2002\O2.Q384 Rorlpaugh Town Center\lnitlaJ StUdy Rancho Temacula Center-1.doc 25 In addition, the City of Temecula City Engineer may require a traffic signal to be installed along Nicolas Road, approximately 700 feet south of the Nicolas Road and Winchester Road intersection. This signal would be required in order to provide additional access into the project site, thus reducing the amount of vehicles I accessing the site directly from Winchester Road. A controlled intersection to and from the site allows for safer turning movements and reduces the potential for traffic backing onto public streets. The following Mitigation Measures are required for the proposed project: a. Install a traffic signal at the intersection of Nicolas Road, approximately 700 feet east of the centerline of Highway 79 North (Winchester Road) or as approved by the Director of Public Works, b. Dedicate adequate right-of-way along westbound Nicolas road to allow additional lanes for ultimate road width, c. Submit a final traffic analysis prior to recordation of Tract Map No. 30719, d. Improve the intersection at Winchester Road and Nicolas Road including a signal modification for the westbound Nicolas Road approach (from northbound Nicolas Road to westbound Winchester Road) to provide: i) ii) iii) two left turn lanes, one through lane, and one right turn lane. I The City of Temecula City Engineer shall have the final discretion to modify the mitigation measures mentioned above upon final review of the final traffic analysis. 15. c.: No Impact: The proposed project has been reviewed by the Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC) and it was determined that the proposed project will not have an impact on the air traffic patterns and will not result in a substantial safety risk. No impacts are anticipated as a result of the proposed project. 15. d.: Less Than Significant Impact: The proposed project does not include the extension, construction or modification of any traffic patterns that would create sharp curves, dangerous intersections or establish incompatible uses that create a potentially significant impact. The proposed project is required to dedicate additional right-of-way for future turning lanes, however the dedication would not create an unsafe intersection, curve or traffic pattern. The applicant is proposing a monument sign at the corner of the intersection, which will require additional dedication of right-of-way, however, conditions of approval are in place that require the monument sign to provide adequate and safe visual clearances. 15. e.: No Impact: The proposed project includes four access points and proposes a fifth access point (easement) from the parcel to the east. The fifth access point will be provided once the project to the east is constructed. The Fire and Police Departments have reviewed the proposed project and have determined that adequate emergency access has been provided. In addition, on-site circulation has been reviewed using the emergency vehicle turning radius templates and it has been determined that on-site circulation is adequate for emergency vehicles. 15. f.: No Impact: The proposed project requires a total of 729 parking spaces. A total of 976 parking spaces I are provided. No impact is anticipated as a result of the proposed project. 15. g.: No Impact: The Riverside County Transit Agency (RTA) has submitted a letter requesting a bus turn- out. The proposed project has provided a bus turn-out as requested by the RT A. The applicant shall comply with the standards as set forth by the RTA. No impact is anticipated as a result of the proposed project. R:\D P\2002\O2-o364 Roripaugh Town Centerllnitial Study Rancho Temecula Center.1.doc 26 I 16. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the project: " Potentially Potentially Significant Unless Less Than Slgnlllcent Mitigetion SI~~~t Im~~ct Issues end Suooortinoinfonnetion Sources imoect inoorDoreted a. Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the X aoolicable Reoional Water Quality Control Board? b. Require or result in the construction of new water or X wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? c. Require or result in the construction of new storm water X drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? d. Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the X project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? e. Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment X provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project's projected demand in addition to the provider's existing commitments? f. Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to X accommodate the Droiect's solid waste disDosal needs? g. Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and X reoulations related to solid waste? Comments: 16. a. b. e.: Less Than Significant Impact: The project will not exceed wastewater treatment requirements, require the construction of new treatment facilities, nor affect the capacity of treatment providers. The project will have an incremental effect upon existing systems. Since the project is consistent with the City's General Plan, less than significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 16. c.: Less Than Significant Impact: The project will require on-site storm drains to be constructed. The project may require various State and Federal Permits. The project will include the construction of underground storm drains and drainage swales in various locations within the project site. No off-site storm drains or expansion of existing facilities are required as a result of this project. Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District has reviewed the proposed plan and has determined that the proposed project would not be impacted by District Master Drainage Plan facilities. Less than significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 16. d.: No Impact: The project will not significantly impact existing water supplies nor require expanded water -- entitlements. The project will have an incremental effect upon existing systems. Whileiffiè project will have an incremental impact upon existing systems, the Rancho California Water District has provided "water available" letters to the City indicating water resources are available to serve to proposed project, provided the applicant I signs an Agency Agreement with the Water District. The proposed project is also consistent with the General Plan and the General Plan Final EIR in regard to use and policies. Since the project is consistent with the City's General Plan, no significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. R:\D P\2O02\O2-Q364 Roripaugh Town Center\1nltial Study Ranoho Temecula Center-1.doo 27 16. f. g.: Less Than Significant Impact: The project will not result in a need for new landfill capacity. Any potential impacts from solid waste created by this development can be mitigated through participation in I Source Reduction and Recycling Programs, which are implemented by the City. Less than significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. I I R:\D P\2002\O2-D384 Roripaugh Town Center\lnltial Study Rancho Temecula Center-1.doc 28 I 17. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE. Would the project: PolBntially Potantially Significant Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Issu.s and Sun~rtinn Information Sources Imoact Incomorated ImMct Imoact a. Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality X of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California historv or Drehistorv? b. Does the project have impacts that are individually X limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current Droiects, and the effects of Drobable future Droiects)? c. Does the project have environmental effects which will X cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directlv or indirectlv? Comments: 117. a.: Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation Measures: The project will not degrade the quality of the environment on site or in the vicinity of the project. The developer may be required to obtain various State and Federal Permits including, Clean Water Act Section 401 permit from the U.S. Army Corps. of Engineers and clearance from the State Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB). A traffic analysis has been completed and was reviewed by the City's Traffic Engineer to identify traffic calming devices and mitigation measures to maintain an acceptable level of service as required in the General Plan. 17. b.: Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation Measures: The individual effects from the project are less than significant with Mitigation Measures incorporated into the project. The project will not have a cumulative effect on the environment since the project site is a commercial area in an urban area, surrounded by development. All cumulative effects for the various land uses of the subject site as well as the surrounding developments were analyzed in the General Plan Environmental Impact Report. With the mitigation measures in place, the project will be consistent with the Specific Plan, General Plan and Development Code, the cumulative impacts related to the future development will not have a significant impact. 17. c.: Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation Measures: The project will not have environmental effects that would cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, directly or indirectly. The commercial project will be designed and developed consistent with the Specific Plan, Development Code, and the General Plan. Mitigation Measures are required in order to reduce impact to a less than significant level. I R:\D P\2002\02-D364 Rorlpaugh Town Center\lnitlaJ Study Rancho Temacula Canter-1.doc 29 18. EARLIER ANALYSES. Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering program EIR, I or other CEQA process, one or more effects have been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section 15063(c)(3)(D). In this case a discussion should identify the following on attached sheets. a. b. c. 2. 3. 4. 15. 6. 7. 8. 9. I Earlier anal ses used. Identi earlier anal ses and state where the are available for review. Impacts adequately addressed. Identify which affects from the above checklist were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed b miti ation measures based on the earlier anal sis. Mitigation measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated," describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which the address site-s ecific conditions for the ro'ect. SOURCES 1. City of Temecula General Plan. City of Temecula General Plan Final Environmental Impact Report. South Coast Air Quality Management District CEQA Air Quality Handbook. Traffic Study for Rancho Temecula Town Center in the City of Temecula, Katz, Okitsu & Associates, October, 2003, July 27, 2004 and September 15, 2004 Airport Land Use Commission Development Review, Riverside County, Conditions of Approval for file No. FV-04-104, July 22,2004 Historical/Archaeological Resources Survey Report, Rancho Temecula Town Center, CRM Tech, November 24, 2003. Supplemental Geotechnical Investigation, Rancho Temecula Town Center, Geocon Inc., June 17, 2003. Hydrology and Hydraulic Report for Roripaugh Town Center, SB&O, Inc., July 22,2004 Roripaugh Ranch Specific Plan Mitigation Monitoring Program and Development Agreement, November 26, 2002 R:\D P\2002\O2-Q364 Rorlpaugh Town Centerllnftial Study Rancho Temecu1a Center-1.doc 30 - - - A-1: Comply with Riverside County Mount Palomar Ordinance 655. All lighting shall be fully shielded, directed down and parking lot lighting shall be low-pressure sodium. Decorative lighting shall be shut-off by 11 :00 P.M. A-2: The applicant shall comply with the City of Temecula Development Code and Design Guidelines for General Commercial lighting standards, which require minimum and maximum lighting levels in parking lot areas, loading areas, pedestrian circulation areas, primary building entries and lighting at project boundaries. Initial Study I Submit photometric plans and Planning and lighting plan prior to issuance of Building building permit Departments Initial Study I Submit photometric plan, Planning and electrical plan and lighting plan Building prior to issuance of building Departments permit B-1: The applicant shall submit a final URBEMIS 2002 air quality study which identifies air pollution levels during construction activities. Said study shall be prepared in accordance with the South Coast Air Qualitv Manaaement District. - - - Mitigation Measure Source Implementation Schedule Responsible Party StatuslData Initials B-2: City of Prior to issuance of building Community Services The applicant shall construct bicycle lanes in the Temecula permit, submit street and Public Works right-of-way as shown on the City's Master Trail Master Trails improvements Plans and Departments plan and subject to the approval by the City of Plan construct bicycle lanes as Temecula Community Services Department. approved by the Community Services Department and Public Works Decartment. B-3: City of Prior to issuance of building Community Services The applicant shall provide a clear path with Temecula permit, submit plans showing and Planning pedestrian signs to/from the San Gertrudis Creek General Plan path(s) of travel, along with Department trail to promote alternative transportation. identification signs from the project site to Santa Gertrudis Creek, to be shown on the construction clans. B-4: City of Prior to issuance of grading RTA, Public Works The applicant shall coordinate with the Riverside Temecula permit, provide verification from and Planning Transit Agency (RT A) to determine if a bus turn- General Plan the RT A showing coordination Departments out or other mass transit services are feasible for for bus turn out. Final the project site. Written authorization shall be determination of services shall submitted to the City of Temecula be provided prior to issuance of buildina cermit. B-5: City of Prior to issuance of a grading Planning and Public The applicant shall submit a final landscape plan Temecula permit, the applicant shall submit Works Departments for the project site incorporating native drought- General Plan a Final landscape plan showing resistant vegetation, mature trees. If more than drought tolerant landscaping as 100 days elapses from the time grading is well as any temporary complete and beginning of construction, the City hydroseeding for areas not of Temecula may require temporary landscaping planned for construction within to reduce the amount of dust and prevent dust 100 days of the completion of and erosion grading activities. 2 - - - Mitigation Measure Source Implementation Schedule Responsible Party StatuslData Initials B-6: City of Prior to the issuance of a grading Planning and Public Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the Temecula permit, the applicant shall Works Department applicant shall verify that all earth moving and General Plan provide a note on the grading large equipment are properly tuned and plans that all earth moving maintained to reduce emissions. In addition, equipment are properly tuned alternative clean-fueled vehicles shall be used and maintained in a manner that where feasible. Construction equipment should reduces emissions to the be selected considering emission factors and greatest extent feasible. energy efficiency This measure shall remain in plans during all earthmoving activities. B-7: City of Ongoing during all earthmoving Electrical and/or diesel-powered equipment Temecula and construction activities should be utilized in-lieu of gasoline-powered General Plal'1 enaines B-8: City of Ongoing during all earthmoving Planning and Public During construction and grading phases, the Temecula and construction activities. A Works Departments project site shall be watered down in the morning General Plan note on the grading plan shall before grading and/or construction begins and in and Initial verify watering down of the the evening once construction and/or grading is Study project site will take place on a complete for the day. The project site shall be continuous basis. watered down no less than 3 times (not including the morning and evening water-down) during construction and/or grading activities to reduce dust. B-9: City of Prior to issuance of grading Planning and Public Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, a Temecula permit Works Department watering program shall be submitted to the City General Plan of Temecula Planning Department for approval. and Initial Said program shall include control of wind-blown Study dust on site and on site access roadwavs 3 - Mitigation Measure B-10: All fill being transported to and/or from the site shall be covered and the wheels and lower portion of transport trucks shall be sprayed with water to reduce/eliminate soil from the trucks before they leave the construction area. B-11: Prior to the issuance of a grading and building permit, the applicant shall submit verification that a ridesharing program for the construction crew has been encouraged and will be supported. Source City of Temecula General Plan and Initial Study City of Temecula General Plan and Initial Study - Implementation Schedule Ongoing during all earthmoving activities. A note on the grading plans shall verify the all trucks delivering fill to the site will comply with this measure. Prior to the issuance of a grading and building permit, the applicant shall provide verification that a ridesharing program has been encouraged for each contactor and sub-contractor and will be supported bveach companv. Responsible Party Planning and Public Works Departments Planning and Public Works Departments - StatuslData Initials C-1: Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the applicant must enter into an agreement with the Pechanga Band of Luiseno Indians that addresses the treatment and disposition of all cultural resources, human resources and human remains discovered on-site Prior to issuance of a grading permit, the applicant shall provide documentation to the City of Temecula verifying that an agreement has been signed by the land owner and Pechanga Band of Luiseno Indians pertaining to cultural resources and human remains discovered on-site. 4 - - - Mitigation Measure Source Implementation Schedule Responsible Party StatuslData Initials C-2: Initial Study Prior to issuance of a grading Planning The landowner agrees to relinquish permit, the applicant shall Department ownership of all cultural resources, including provide documentation to the archaeological artifacts found on the project City of Temecula verifying that site, to the Pechanga Band of Luiseno an agreement has been signed Indians for proper treatment and disposition. by the land owner and Pechanga Band of Luiseno Indians pertaining to cultural resources and human remains discovered on-site. C-3: Initial Study ON-going during all earthmoving Planning Department The applicant shall provide an on-site activities; or until the Pechanga archaeological and paleontological Band of Luiseno Indians and the monitoring durin~ all phases of earthmoving monitor both agree that activities. I monitoring is no longer necessary. A letter stating such shall be submitted to the City of Temecula. C-4: Initial Study On-going during all earthmoving Planning Department If sacred sites are discovered during ground activities. disturbing activities, they shall be avoided and preserved. 5 - - - D-1: The site development shall be constructed in accordance with the recommendations within the Supplemental Geotechnical investigation, prepared by Geocon Inc., dated June 17, 2003 D-2: The project shall comply with Best Management Practices (BMP's) as well as all applicable National Pollution Discharge Elimination Systems (NPDES) regulations i Geotechnical Investigation and Initial Study Initial Study Ongoing during all construction activities and upon issuance of grading and building permit Ongoing during all construction activities. Prior to issuance of a grading permit and building permit, the applicant shall obtain the necessary permits from Regional Water Quality Control Boards and provide verification that the project will comply with the appropriate standards 6 Building and Public Works Departments Public Works Department - - E-1: The applicant shall comply with the conditions of approval of the ALUC for file No FV-04-104, dated July 22, 2004. Airport Land Use Commission Conditions of Approval, dated July 22,2004 Shall be made as part of the project approval and incorporated into the CC&R's. Restrictions include providing avigation easements, shielding of lighting, shall not obstruct the FAR Part 77 Conical Surface, notification of future purchasers of the land, and prohibiting those uses as indicated in the Conditions of Approval, dated July 22, 2004 7 Responsible Party Planning Department - StatusJData Initials - - - F-1 : A final noise analysis shall be prepared verifying the type of construction materials required for all buildings and exterior dining areas in order to comply with the minimum noise attainment levels. Said study shall address noise levels for interior and exterior areas, including outdoor dining areas. F-2: Signage shall be posted conspicuously at the entrance to the project that indicates the hours of construction, shown below, as allowed by the City of Temecula Ordinance No. 0-90-04, specifically Section G (1) of Riverside County Ordinance No. 457.73, for any site within one- quarter mile of an occupied residence. Initial Study and General Plan Prior to issuance of a building I Planning Department permit, the applicant shall submit a final noise analysis. Municipal Code Ongoing during all construction and grading activities Building Department 8 - - - G-1: Improving the intersection at Winchester Road and Nicolas Road to provide a signal modification for the westbound Nicolas approach (From northbound Nicolas to westbound Winchester Road) to provide for two left turn lanes, one through lane and one right turn lane G-2: Dedicate adequate right-of-way along westbound Nicolas road to allow additional lanes for ultimate road width G-3: Install a Traffic Signal on Nicolas Road, approximately 700 feet east of the center-line of Highway 79 North (Winchester Road). Said signal shall serve traffic in all directions (four- way), Traffic Study and Initial Study General Plan and Initial Study Traffic Study and Initial Study Shall be completed prior to certificate of occupation for any structure on the project site. Upon recordation of Final Map and/or prior to issuance of building permit Shall be completed prior to certificate of occupation for any structure on the project site. Planning and Public Works Departments Public Works Departments Public Works Department G-4: Prior to the issuance of a Public Works Submit a final traffic anal sis buildin ermit De artment The City of Temecula Traffic Engineer shall have the final discretion to modify the traffic mitigation measures mentioned above upon final review of the final traffic analysis. 9