Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout17-86 CC Resolution RESOLUTION NO. 17-86 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA CERTIFYING THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT, ADOPTING FINDINGS PURSUANT TO THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT, ADOPTING A STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS, AND ADOPTING A MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM FOR THE ALTAIR PROJECT, CONSISTING OF APPROXIMATELY 270 ACRES, GENERALLY LOCATED SOUTH AND WEST OF THE INTERSECTION OF RIDGE PARK DRIVE AND VINCENT MORAGA; WEST OF PUJOL STREET AND MURRIETA CREEK; AND NORTH OF SANTA MARGARITA RIVER (APN 922-210-049, 940-310-013, 940- 310-015, 940-310-016, 940-310-044 THROUGH 940-310- 048, AND 940-320-001 THROUGH 940-320-007) THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Procedural Findings. The City Council of the City of Temecula does hereby find, determine and declare that: A. On November 24, 2014, Rob Honer, representing Ambient Communities, filed Planning Application Nos. PA14-0158, a General Plan Amendment; PA14-0159, a Specific Plan; PA14-0160, a Tentative Tract Map; and PA14-0161 a Development Agreement. These applications (collectively "proposed Project") were filed in a manner in accord with the City of Temecula General Plan and Development Code. B. The proposed Project consists of a change in the General Plan designation on the proposed Project site from Industrial Park (IP), Open Space (OS), Medium Density Residential (M), High Density Residential (H), and Hillside Residential (HR) to Specific Plan Implementation (SPI) for the Altair Specific Plan. The Altair Specific Plan is a series of standards and regulations that will govern all development on the property. These standards and regulations address land use standards, a form based code, setbacks, building height, and parking requirements. Together, these regulations and standards seek to ensure cohesiveness in the design and aesthetic appearance on the proposed Project site, and compatibility with the surrounding community. In addition to the proposed General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan, the proposed Project also includes a Tentative Tract Map and a Development Agreement. C. The proposed Project was processed, including but not limited to all public notices, in the time and manner prescribed by State and local law, including the California Environmental Quality Act, Public Resources Code § 21000, et seq. (CEQA) and the CEQA Guidelines, 14. Cal. Code Regs. § 15000 et seq. Resos 17-86 1 D. Pursuant to CEQA, the City is the lead agency for the proposed Project because it is the public agency with the authority and principal responsibility for reviewing, considering, and potentially approving the proposed Project. E. On November 5, 2014, in accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15082, the City published a Notice of Preparation (NOP) of a Draft Environmental Impact Report (Draft EIR) to all agencies and persons that might be interested in or affected by the proposed Project. The NOP was also distributed through the State Office of Planning and Research, State Clearinghouse (SCH # 2014111029). The NOP was circulated from November 14, 2014, through December 15, 2014, to receive comments and input from interested public agencies and private parties on issues to be addressed in the Environmental Impact Report ("EIR") for the proposed Project. On December 3, 2014 in accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15082(c)(1), the City held a public scoping meeting to obtain comments from interested parties on the scope of the Draft EIR. F. In response to the NOP, written comments were received from various individuals and organizations. These comment letters assisted the City in formulating the analysis in the Draft EIR. G. Thereafter, the City contracted for the independent preparation of a Draft EIR for the proposed Project, including preparation of review, as applicable, of all necessary technical studies and reports in support of the Draft EIR. In accordance with CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines, the City analyzed the proposed Project's potential impacts on the environment, potential mitigation, and potential alternatives to the proposed Project. H. Upon completion of the Draft EIR in April 2016, the City initiated a public comment period by filing a Notice of Completion with the State Office of Planning and Research on Friday, April 28, 2016. The City also published a Notice of Availability for the Draft EIR in the San Diego Union Tribune, a newspaper of general circulation within the City. I. The Draft EIR was circulated for public review from May 2, 2016 through June 17, 2016. Copies of the Draft EIR were sent to various public agencies, as well as to organizations and individuals requesting copies. In addition, copies of the documents have been available for public review and inspection at the offices of the Department of Community Development, located at City Hall, 41000 Main Street, Temecula, California 92590; the Ronald H. Roberts Temecula Public Library located at 30600 Pauba Road; Temecula Grace Mellman Community Library located 41000 County Center Drive; and the City of Temecula website. J. In response to the Draft EIR, 26 written comments were received from various agencies, individuals, and organizations. In compliance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15088, the City prepared written responses to all comments. None of the comments presented any new significant environmental impacts or otherwise constituted significant new information requiring recirculation of the Draft EIR pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5.. Resos 17-86 2 K. The"Final EIR"consists of the Draft EIR and all of its appendices, the Errata to the Draft EIR, the comments and responses to comments on the Draft EIR, Appendix A to the Final EIR, and the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program. The Final EIR was made available to the public and to all commenting agencies on November 3, 2017, which is at least 10 days prior to certification of the Final EIR, in compliance with Public Resources Code Section 21092.5(a). L. On November 15, 2017, the Planning Commission, at its regularly scheduled and duly noticed meeting, considered the proposed Project and the Final EIR, at which time the City staff presented its report and interested persons had an opportunity to be heard and to present evidence regarding the proposed Project and the Final EIR. M. Following consideration of the entire record of information received at the public hearing and due consideration of the proposed Project, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 17-43 recommending that the City Council certify the Final EIR prepared for the Altair Project, adopt Findings pursuant to the CEQA, adopt a Statement of Overriding Considerations, and adopt a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for the proposed Project. The Planning Commission also adopted Resolution Nos. 17-44 through 17-47, recommending that the City Council take various actions, including adoption of a General Plan Amendment, Specific Plan, Tentative Tract Map, and Development Agreement related to the approval of the proposed Project. N. Section 15091 of the CEQA Guidelines requires that the City, before approving a project for which an ER is required, make one or more of the following written finding(s) for each significant effect identified in the EIR accompanied by a brief explanation of the rationale for each finding: 1. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effects as identified in the Final EIR; or, 2. Such changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency and not the agency making the finding. Such changes have been adopted by such other agency or can and should be adopted by such other agency; or, 3. Specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, including provision of employment opportunities for highly trained workers, make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the final EIR. O. These required written findings are set forth in Exhibit A, attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference as if set forth in full. 1 Resos 17-86 3 1. Environmental impacts identified in the Final EIR as no impact or less than significant and do not require mitigation are described in Sections IV and V, respectively, of Exhibit A. 2. Environmental impacts, or certain aspects of impacts, identified in the Final EIR as potentially significant, but that can be reduced to less than significant levels with mitigation, are described in Exhibit A, Section VI. 3. Environmental impacts identified in the Final EIR as significant and unavoidable despite the imposition of all feasible mitigation measures are described in Exhibit A, Section VII. 4. Alternatives to the project that might eliminate or reduce significant environmental impacts are described in Section VII of Exhibit A of this Resolution. P. CEQA Section 21081.6 requires the City to prepare and adopt a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for any project for which mitigation measures have been imposed to ensure compliance with the adopted mitigation measures.The Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program is attached to this Resolution as Exhibit B, and is herein incorporated by reference as if set forth in full. Q. CEQA Guidelines Section 15093 requires that if a project will cause 111 significant unavoidable adverse impacts, the City must adopt a Statement of Overriding Considerations prior to approving the project. A Statement of Overriding Considerations states that any significant adverse project effects are acceptable if expected project benefits outweigh unavoidable adverse environmental impacts. The Statement of Overriding Considerations is attached hereto as Exhibit C, and is incorporated herein by reference as if set forth in full. R. Prior to taking action, the City Council has heard, been presented with, reviewed, and considered the information and data in the administrative record, including the Final EIR, the written and oral comments on the Draft EIR and Final EIR, responses to comments, staff reports and presentations, and all oral and written testimony presented during the public hearings on the proposed Project. S. Custodian of Records. The City Clerk of the City of Temecula is the custodian of records, and the documents and other materials that constitute the record of proceedings upon which this decision is based are located at the Office of the City Clerk, City of Temecula, 41000 Main Street, Temecula, California 92590. Section 2. Substantive Findings. The City Council of the City of Temecula, California does hereby: A. Declare that the above Procedural Findings are true and correct, and hereby incorporates them herein by this reference. Resos 17-86 4 B. Find that agencies and interested members of the public have been 111 afforded ample notice and opportunity to comment on the Final EIR and the proposed Project. C. Find and declare that the City Council has independently considered the administrative record before it, which is hereby incorporated by reference and which includes the Final EIR, the written and oral comments on the Draft EIR, staff reports and responses to comments incorporated into the Final EIR, and all testimony related to environmental issues regarding the proposed Project. D. Find and determine that the Final EIR fully analyzes and discloses the potential impacts of the proposed Project, and that those impacts have been mitigated or avoided to the extent feasible for the reasons set forth in the Findings attached as Exhibit A and incorporated herein by reference, with the exception of those impacts found to be significant and unmitigable as discussed therein. E. Find and declare that the Final EIR reflects the independent judgment of the City Council. The City Council further finds that the additional information provided in the staff reports, in comments on the Draft EIR, the responses to comments on the Draft EIR, and the evidence presented in written and oral testimony does not constitute new information requiring recirculation of the EIR under CEQA. None of the information presented has deprived the public of a meaningful opportunity to comment upon a substantial environmental impact of the proposed Project or a feasible mitigation measure or alternative that the City has declined to implement. F. Certify the Final EIR as being in compliance with CEQA. The City Council further adopts the Findings pursuant to CEQA as set forth in Exhibit A; adopts the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program attached as Exhibit B; and adopts the Statement of Overriding Considerations as set forth in Exhibit C. The City Council further determines that all of the findings made in this Resolution (including Exhibit A) are based upon the information and evidence set forth in the Final EIR and upon other substantial evidence that has been presented at the hearings before the Planning Commission and the City Council, and in the record of the proceedings. The City Council further finds that each of the overriding benefits stated in Exhibit C, by itself, would individually justify proceeding with the proposed Project despite any significant unavoidable impacts identified in the Final EIR or alleged in the record of proceedings. G. The City Council hereby imposes as a condition on the Altair Project each mitigation measure specified in Exhibit B, and directs City staff to implement and to monitor the mitigation measures as described in Exhibit B. 1 Resos 17-86 5 I PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Temecula this 12th day of December, 2017. S ar Maryann Edwards, Mayor ATTEST: Randi J 1, ty Clerk [SEAL] I I Resos 17-86 6 STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) 1 COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE ) ss CITY OF TEMECULA ) I, Randi Johl, City Clerk of the City of Temecula, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution No. 17-86 was duly and regularly adopted by the City Council of the City of Temecula at a meeting thereof held on the 12th day of December, 2017, by the following vote: AYES: 4 COUNCIL MEMBERS: Comerchero, Naggar, Rahn, Edwards NOES: 1 COUNCIL MEMBERS: Stewart ABSTAIN: 0 COUNCIL MEMBERS: None ABSENT: 0 COUNCIL MEMBERS: None .stcs:e.-- Randi Johl, City Clerk I I Resos 17-86 7 Altair Specific Plan EIR with South Parcel Nature Center Use Exhibit A FINDINGS AND FACTS IN SUPPORT OF FINDINGS I. Introduction The California Environmental Quality Act, Public Resources Code § 21000, et seq. ("CEQA") and the State CEQA Guidelines, 14 Cal. Code Regs. § 15000, et seq. ("Guidelines") provide that no public agency shall approve or carry out a project for which an Environmental Impact Report ("EIR") has been certified that identifies one or more significant effects on the environment caused by the project unless the public agency makes one or more of the following findings: 1. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project, which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effects identified in the EIR. 2. Such changes or alterations are within the responsibility of another public agency and not the agency making the finding. Such changes have been adopted by such other agency or can and should be adopted by such other agency. 3. Specific economic, social, or other considerations make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the EIR. Pursuant to the requirements of CEQA, the City Council of the City of Temecula ("Temecula" or "City") hereby makes the following environmental findings in connection with the proposed Altair Specific Plan project (the "project"). These findings are based upon written and oral evidence included in the record of these proceedings, comments on the EIR and the written responses thereto, the Final EIR, and reports presented to the Planning Commission and the City Council by City staff and the City's environmental consultants. II. Project Objectives As set forth in the EIR, objectives that the City seeks to achieve with this project (the "project Objectives") are as follows: A. Plan and implement a project that is consistent with the goals and policies of the City of Temecula General Plan [a General Plan Amendment to the Circulation Element is needed to achieve these goals and policies]. B. Balance the need for local infrastructure improvement and demand for new housing in and around Old Town while minimizing physical and visual impacts to the hillside escarpment, wildlife movement and conservation areas. C. Develop a high-quality residential component on the project site which focuses on providing diverse housing types and a wide range of densities that would A-1 serve a variety of age groups and household sizes, support the commercial enterprises of Old Town Temecula, help to fulfill the City's regional housing needs, and foster a unique community identity where each neighborhood is unique, vibrant, diverse, and inclusive. D. Create a project that reduces dependency on the automobile and encourages the use of an extensive multi-use trail system that would link neighborhood villages and community-wide uses within the project and to Old Town Temecula. E. Provide for limited/incidental neighborhood-oriented commercial uses to serve the needs of the project's residents such as coffee shop, ice cream store, or small restaurants. F. Promote design that minimizes water usage by utilizing a relatively drought tolerant landscape palette, clustered development and attractive community spaces rather than traditional water-intensive private lawns. G. Provide water quality management facilities that are incorporated within the landscape features and designed to create settings that mimic the natural hillside attributes. H. Establish an efficient, interconnected multi-modal transportation network that includes a Western Bypass Corridor and vehicular, transit/trolley, and pedestrian/bikeway circulation systems that would improve center-of-city traffic conditions. Provide public amenities close to Old Town Temecula that include a park in the center of the project, plazas, trails, a play field, and an elementary school accommodating 600-730 students, which further diversify and contribute to the Old Town's amenities. J. Provide for a civic site of adequate size that accommodates up to 450,000 building square feet for an educational, institutional, or other business use for the benefit of the public, and be integrated into the overall project design in a way that maximizes compatibility with other proposed land uses within the Specific Plan, and provides a strong visual connection and close access to Interstate 15. III. Project Description The proposed project would involve adoption of the Altair Specific Plan, which would allow for development of a primarily residential, mixed-use community on 270 acres in the southwesterly portion of the City of Temecula, located south of Ridge Park Drive and westerly of Pujol Street, and west of Old Town. As well, a Nature Center and associated facilities would be developed on the 55-acre site to the south of Temecula Parkway/Future Western Bypass. In addition to adoption of the Specific Plan, this project would require a General Plan Amendment, Tentative Tract Map, Development Agreement, and a certification of an environmental impact report. A-2 The 270—acre project site consists of two portions: 215 acres comprising the primary Specific Plan area that roughly spans the area between Ridge Park Drive on the north and Temecula Parkway on the south, and a non-contiguous 55-acre site to the south of Temecula Parkway/Future Western Bypass which would be designated for a civic use, specifically a Nature Center and associated facilities. A large portion of the project site is proposed as open space conservation along the western slope of the project. The predominant land use would be residential mixed-use, consisting of approximately 1,750 dwelling units, comprising both attached and detached housing types. Densities would range from 4 to 33 dwelling units per net acre, with the higher densities concentrated at the north end of the property. Building types could include: detached housing, multiplex, rowhouses, live/work, micro-unit, multifamily walk-up, multifamily podium, and mixed-use that could include limited neighborhood-serving commercial. The project also proposes development of a community center, and an approximate 5-acre site for an elementary school and playfield. The proposed project would also include a central publicly accessible park, plazas, and a soccer field. The Altair Specific Plan would consist of several neighborhood "villages," each centered on a node or focal point and separated by landscaped terrain. The open space between the villages is intended to mimic the existing ravines extending from the hillside above and is also intended to preserve the sculptural quality of the site. The village nodes would be linked by a main north-south road (Altair Vista) and by a network of pedestrian/bicycle paths, which is intended to provide cohesion to a very linear site while conserving much of the existing land forms, allowing similar drainage patterns and maintaining views to the hillside above. The core village (Village C) would occupy an existing promontory with views to and from Old Town. This area would be developed with a large park and would feature a community center at the high point, on axis with Main Street and Temecula City Hall. A pedestrian path would allow direct access to Main Street. This primary village would be higher in density and scale with buildings potentially up to five stories in height. The proposed Specific Plan would also include onsite and offsite improvements associated with the installation of required back-bone infrastructure, including a new storm drain system, water transmission mains, extension of the reclaiming water system, and new sewer lift stations and pipelines. South Parcel Nature Center Use Following circulation of the Draft EIR for public review, the Specific Plan land use plan has been revised based upon comments received on the Draft EIR and a City Council project workshop (February 14, 2017) to propose a Nature/Culture/Sustainability (NCS) Center, herein referred to as the "Nature Center," on the South Parcel in lieu of the A-3 previously proposed more intense civic/institutional use. The Nature Center use has been evaluated in an Environmental Assessment (refer to Appendix A of the Final EIR). The Nature Center would consist of one or more buildings up to a maximum of building area of 20,000 square feet and a maximum building height of two-stories. The Nature Center land use would provide a public benefit to the City by offering educational programs and/or exhibits related to culture, the natural environment, and sustainability of the region, as well as provide recreational trails and facilities within the preserved area of the site. The trail would provide access to the Santa Margarita River Canyon and the Santa Margarita Ecological Reserve, as well as provide a connection to Temecula Creek, east of 1-15. If more than one building is proposed, the buildings would be designed to be cohesive through orientation and architecture. The Nature Center buildings would also be designed to be similar to other Nature Centers in the region, including compatible materials and colors and would incorporate integrated indoor and outdoor spaces to connect the site to the surrounding natural setting. Further, the Nature Center land use would be designed to maintain and complement the visual character of the adjacent natural open space and the known Temeku Village cultural resource site to the south. One parking lot would be constructed to provide 120 parking spaces for employees and visitors to the Nature Center in accordance with the City of Temecula's Parking Standards. The buildings, parking lots and hardscape areas would have storm water treatment facilities designed to remove pollutants from storm water runoff. Trails and landscaping would be designed to minimize erosion and vegetation/habitat impacts. Operation of the Nature Center would be limited from dawn until two hours after dusk, and would have minimal night lighting. The expected monthly average number of visitors is 7,213. Special events could be held at the Nature Center that could draw larger than average crowds. Table 1-1 summarizes the land use details of the Nature Center on the South Parcel. ' A-4 • TABLE 1 SOUTH PARCEL NATURE CENTER LAND USE SUMMARY Component Area (acres) Natural Open Space Area Undisturbed Open Space 33.84 Camino Estdbo(unimproved) 1.40 Trails 0.58 Subtotal—Natural 08-n S.ace Area 37.24 Disturbed Area Fill Area(not including Nature Center Pad/Streets/Trails) 11.22 Nature Center Pad(including parking lot) 3.70 Trails 1.21 B8C Street 0.70 Drainage Improvements 0.85 Subtotal—Disturbed Area 17.68 Total 54.92 NOTES: 1. Fill Area:850 cubic yards(cy)cut/512.700 cy till 2. Fill area would be revegetated 3. Nature Center Parcel:16.17(includes disturbed area.1.68 acres of Natural Open Space Area) a. Open Space Parcel:38.75 5. Total Conserved Open Space(Project with South Parcel Nature Center):87.2 acres 6. Nature Center Building:12,000 square feet(sf1 footprint/20,000 maximum-2-story 7. Nature Center Parking:120 spaces 8. Final Natural Open Space Trails to be sited in consultation with Pechanga 9. 10 percent maximum trail grade SOURCE:Ambient,2017 The Nature Center use has been evaluated in an Environmental Assessment and is included in Appendix A of the FEIR. Based on the Environmental Assessment, the Specific Plan with the South Parcel Nature Center Use will result in reduced overall project impacts and mitigation requirements as the Specific Plan with the South Parcel civic use, and will specifically result in reduced overall impacts to aesthetics, air quality, biological resources GHG, noise, traffic, and public services/utilities. Reduced impacts and mitigation requirement associated with the South Parcel Nature Center are documented in these findings where applicable. IV. Effects Determined to Be Less than Significant/No Impact in the Initial Study/Notice of Preparation and EIR. The City of Temecula issued a Notice of Preparation ("NOP") and conducted an Initial Study to determine the potential environmental effects of the project. In the course of this evaluation, the project was found to have no impact in certain impact categories because a project of this type and scope or in this location would not create such impacts or because of the absence of project characteristics producing effects of this type. In the following categories of environmental impacts, the proposed project was found to have No Impact for the reasons set forth in the Initial Study and EIR. The impacts were not analyzed in the EIR because they required no additional analysis to determine whether the effects could be significant. ' A-5 • A. AGRICULTURAL AND FORESTRY RESOURCES The proposed project would have no impact on agricultural or forestry resources. According to Figure 0S-3 of the City of Temecula General Plan, the plan area is adjacent to Unique Farmland in unincorporated County of Riverside. However, the plan area does not contain existing agricultural uses nor does it contain any Forest Land, Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance. The project would not result in the conversion of any land zoned for agricultural uses or land that is under a Williamson Act contract. B. MINERAL RESOURCES The proposed project would have no impact on mineral resources. The plan area does not contain significant mineral resources nor is it located within a locally important mineral resource recovery site. The State Geologist has given the City of Temecula a classification of MRZ-3a. MRZ-3 areas contain sedimentary deposits that have the potential for supplying sand and gravel for concrete and crusted stone for aggregate. However, these areas are not considered to contain mineral resources of significant economic value. The project would not result in the loss of any known mineral resources or the loss of an available, locally important mineral resource recovery site. C. GEOLOGY AND SOILS 1. The plan area is located outside of any Alquist-Priolo Fault Rupture Hazard Zone (AP Zone). While fault rupture is not necessarily confined to the boundaries of the AP Zone, it is considered to have a very low probability to occur outside of these areas that have been delineated by the State Geologist in accordance with the Alquist- Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act. Fault rupture almost always follows along active faults because of the zone of weakness that has developed from past displacements (CGS 2015). Therefore, with the plan area located approximately 0.5 miles from the active fault trace and well outside of the Alquist-Priolo fault zone, there would be no impact related to fault rupture. 2. As proposed, development associated with the project would deliver wastewater to the Eastern Municipal Water District (EMWD) wastewater treatment plant in Temecula and would not have use for any septic tank or other alternative wastewater system. Therefore, this issue is not applicable to the project and no impact would occur. D. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS 1. The proposed project is not located within two miles of an airport or airstrips. The closest airport is the Billy Joe Airport, which is located approximately five miles east of the plan area, where construction and operational activities associated with the project would not interfere with airport operations. Therefore, impacts to airports or airstrips would not occur with implementation of the project. ' A-6 2. The project would result in an increased resident, employee and visitor population in the area. However, the project would not alter the existing street network, and it would comply with all emergency vehicle access requirements as a condition of construction. Overall, the project would not impede an established emergency access route or interfere with emergency response requirements and would not result in permanent road closures. Therefore, the project would have no impacts to emergency response or evacuation plans. E. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY 1. The project would not expose people to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving inundation by a seiche or tsunami because the project area is not located immediately near a coast or large body of water. The plan area is located over 20 miles from the Pacific Ocean, which is a large enough distance to avoid tsunami impacts and has no body of water in close proximity to the plan area. The portion of the plan area that would be subject to mudflow is identified in the Specific Plan to remain as open space. As a result, the proposed development areas (villages) would be protected by the open space areas in the event of a mudflow. In addition, the project would be subject to the City's Flood Damage Protection Ordinance which includes measures to protect against potential mudslides. Therefore, impacts related to inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow would not occur. F. LAND USE AND PLANNING 1. The plan area is currently undeveloped. The proposed project is intended to facilitate the development of up to 1,750 residential units into a cohesive community connected to Old Town. The proposed project would not involve the construction of roadways or other major structures within an established community that would result in division of an established community. No impact would occur. 2. The proposed project would not conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect, including Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) policies, Regional Housing Needs Assessments (RHNA), and the City's General Plan and Zoning Ordinance. No impact would occur. Discussion of the Project's consistency with a Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan is discussed in H1, below. G. NOISE AND VIBRATION 1. The plan area is not located within any airport land use plan nor is it located near any private airstrips. The nearest airport with an associated Comprehensive Land Use Plan is the French Valley Airport, which is located approximately six miles north of the plan area. Given this distance, no noise impacts are anticipated to occur at a public or private airport as a result of the project. ' A-7 H. POPULATION AND HOUSING 1. There are no existing residential units or homes located within the plan area; therefore, no displacement of existing housing would occur. In addition, the project would encourage mixed-use and residential projects and would result in additional housing opportunities. Therefore, the project would displace a substantial amount of existing housing or people and no impact would occur. I. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC 1. The nearest airport with an associated Comprehensive Land Use Plan is the French Valley Airport, which is located approximately six miles north of the plan area. The project is not within the French Valley Airport influence area;therefore, the project is not anticipated to result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks. No impacts are anticipated as a result of the project. 2. Since the project promotes the use of bicycles, pedestrians, and transit, and all development projects within the plan area would be required to be consistent with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks), no impacts are anticipated as a result of the project. V. Effects Determined to be Less Than Significant Without Mitigation in the ' EIR. The EIR found that the proposed project will have a less than significant impact without the incorporation of mitigation on a number of environmental topic areas listed below. A less than significant environmental impact determination was made for each of the following topic areas listed below, based on the more expansive discussions contained in the Final EIR. A. AESTHETICS 1. The project would not have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista. The site plan created for the Altair Specific Plan was developed with the intent of respecting and preserving natural landforms and features of the plan area, such as ridges and gullies. Development would be concentrated along the eastern edge of the parcel boundary in order to preserve hillsides. The route and lane configuration of the Western Bypass, which would incorporate split lanes (where southbound and northbound lanes would be at different elevations from each other), standard lanes (where all lanes would be at the same elevation), and landscaped medians throughout, would be designed to respect the existing landforms and minimize the visual impacts of this major roadway. While the proposed structures that would be developed as part of the project would obscure the individual features (ravines and ridges) of the landform of the plan area, the proposed site design would ensure that the majority of the hillside would still remain visible to viewers from outside the plan area. In addition, many of the landform features would ' still be visible to viewers using publicly accessible hiking and bicycle trails within the plan area after project implementation. Further, the Nature Center use would reduce the A-8 ' building footprint on the Civic site compared to the Civic/Institutional use. As with the Civic/Institutional use, the Nature Center would increase the intensity of uses on the site, introducing buildings where none currently exist which adds building height and mass in excess of the current undeveloped site. Therefore, impacts to scenic resources, including the hillsides and ridgelines of the Santa Rosa Plateau, would be less than significant with implementation of the project. 2. The project is not located within a designated scenic highway corridor. SR-74 and SR-243 are designated as State Scenic Highways in Riverside County. These highways are located east of the plan area, more than 20 miles away and are not visible from within the plan area or surrounding areas. The project site, including the Civic site, is located within the viewshed from 1-15, which is designated by Caltrans as an Eligible State Scenic Highway; however, it is not officially designated as a State Scenic Highway by Caltrans. Views of the project area, including the Civic site, are available from points along 1-15; however, the proposed project would be minimally visible from 1-15 and would blend into the urban environment of Old Town and the surrounding development. Views of the hillsides and ridgelines of the Santa Rosa Plateau from 1-15 would not be substantially affected by the proposed project, including the Nature Center. Therefore, the project would not substantially damage scenic resources within a state scenic highway and impacts would be less than significant. 3. Under the proposed project, the visual character of the project site would change substantially from undeveloped, open space to a high-density urbanized development. However, a change in visual character or visual quality does not, by itself, equate to a significant, adverse impact under CEQA. The evaluation should consider the degree of impact that may result from visual change. Per the City of Temecula General Plan, the City has planned for development at the project site and did not expect for it to remain as undeveloped, open space. The Altair Specific Plan includes design guidelines and development standards that are intended to achieve a community with a high aesthetic quality. The proposed project does not dictate the number or the styles of buildings to be developed in each village, but instead focuses on a variety of building forms in order to create distinct neighborhoods and encourage visual interest, vibrancy, and diversity. Design guidelines address features from building form (including how to create visually interesting facades, rooflines, building entrances, fenestration, siding materials, and colors), building placement on the lot, utility screening, retaining walls, and landscaping. Adherence to the design guidelines and development standards of the project would ensure that the proposed structures are developed to meet the goals of high aesthetic quality and visual interest. For the Civic site, the Nature Center's footprint would be relatively small and would retain a large amount of open space and preserve hillsides for visual resources. The proposed Nature Center use would adhere to the design guidelines and development standards of the project would ensure that the proposed structures are developed to meet the goals of high aesthetic quality and visual interest and would not result in adverse impacts related to the visual character of the project area. In addition, specific development proposals occurring under the Specific Plan would be reviewed by City staff to ensure that they meet the design guidelines and development standards established by the Specific Plan. Therefore, impacts to visual character would be less than significant. A-9 4. Among the cumulative projects within the viewshed of the proposed project, the 140-unit residential project would likely be the most visually prominent and would be occurring on undeveloped land. However, it would be built on flat land adjacent to existing urban uses and would not be located on any hillsides. In addition, like future development proposals that would occur in the City, any cumulative developments in the project vicinity would be subject to the City's Design Guidelines and would be required to undergo a development review process to ensure that the proposals meet the design standards. Temecula's City-wide Design Guidelines provide site planning, architectural design, and landscape design criteria for commercial, industrial, and residential development. The Guidelines also establish criteria for unique design characteristics found within specialized development types, such as specific commercial and public uses. The design standards and criteria contained within the Guidelines are the primary tool for implementing the policies contained within the Community Design Element. In addition, future development proposals in the vicinity of the project would also introduce new sources of light and glare in the area; and the project, in combination with these projects, could make a considerable contribution to light and glare. However, related projects would be required to adhere to the provisions of the Riverside County's Light Pollution Ordinance (No. 655), which reduces nighttime light pollution in the vicinity of the Palomar Observatory, and implement measures similar to those required of the project. As such, cumulative impacts from the project and related projects would be less than significant. The project would have a less than cumulatively considerable impact on aesthetics. B. AIR QUALITY 1. The proposed project is consistent with the intent of General Plan land use policies; the growth resulting from the project is anticipated to be consistent with SCAG's regional forecast projections, which, in turn, would also be consistent with the growth projections accounted for in the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD's) Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP). Therefore, the project would not conflict with, or obstruct, implementation of the AQMP and impacts would be less than significant. 2. As shown in Table 3.2-6 in Section 3.2, Air Quality (refer to the Draft EIR) and Tables 2.2-1 and 2.2-2 in Section 2.2, Air Quality of the Civic Site Nature Center Environmental Impact Analysis (refer to Appendix A of the FEIR), the maximum daily construction emissions generated by the project's worst-case construction scenario would not exceed SCAQMD's daily significance threshold for any criteria pollutants during any of the modeled construction phases. Therefore, construction phase emissions would have a less than significant impact related to regional air quality. 3. A total of 25 local intersections were analyzed as part of the TIA that was prepared for the proposed project (Fehr & Peers 2015) and analyzed a second time with the Nature Center use (Fehr & Peers 2017). The existing, existing plus project, cumulative, and cumulative plus project peak hour conditions were evaluated against the screening level threshold of 24,000 vehicles per hour. As none of the peak hour traffic at all of the intersections would come close to 24,000 vehicles per hour, CO emissions from these vehicles volumes would be less than significant. The Riverside County Congestion A-10 Management Program (CMP) requires that if an EIR was prepared, new developments analyze the project's potential impacts on CMP monitoring locations. The project's TIA (Fehr& Peers 2017) analyzed the project impacts on nearby CMP monitoring stations for arterial roadways. If a CMP monitoring segment falls into a Level of Service (LOS) of F, a deficiency plan would be required. As determined in the TIA for the project, there are no CMP arterials or roadway segments within the project study area. Therefore, the proposed project would not conflict with the CMP due to additional growth. Given that the project would not exceed the screening level intersection volumes, nor would it conflict with the local CMP, impacts related to CO hotspots would be less than significant. 4. During project operations, the daily amount of localized pollutant emissions generated onsite by the project would not be substantial. The proposed project's onsite operational emissions are shown in Table 3.2-12 in Section 3.2, Air Quality (refer to the Draft EIR) and Tables 2.2-1 and 2.2-2 in Section 2.2, Air Quality of the Civic Site Nature Center Environmental Impact Analysis (refer to Appendix A of the FEIR). As shown, the project's total operational-related emissions generated onsite would not exceed SCAQMD's screening operational localized significance thresholds (LSTs). Thus, no dispersion modeling was required for the project and localized air quality impacts during project operations would be less than significant. 5. Project construction would result in short-term emissions of diesel PM, which is a toxic air contaminant (TACs). Diesel PM poses a carcinogenic health risk that is measured using an exposure period of 70 years. The construction period for the proposed project would be much less than the 70-year period used for risk determination. Although project construction would occur over a 10-year period, construction activities would not occur across the entire plan area during the entire duration of this period but would occur in smaller areas over the course of construction. Project construction would not expose any existing nearby sensitive receptors or new onsite receptors to substantial emissions of TACs. Operation of the project would not include industrial manufacturing processes, automotive repair facilities, and dry cleaning facilities or be located within the buffer distance of any major TAC-emitting facilities. Project operation would not expose any existing nearby sensitive receptors or new onsite receptors to substantial emissions of TACs. Impacts would be less than significant. 6. The project would not create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people. Development of the proposed project would not result in exposure of sensitive receptors to substantial odorous emissions. Impacts associated with objectionable odors would be less than significant. 7. Based on SCAQMD's cumulative air quality impact methodology, SCAQMD recommends that if an individual project results in air emissions of criteria pollutants (ROG, CO, NOx, SOx, PM10, and PM2.5) that exceed the SCAQMD's recommended daily thresholds for project-specific impacts, then it would also result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of these criteria pollutants for which the project region is in non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard. As shown in Table 3.2-6 (refer to Draft EIR), the project's construction 111 emissions would not exceed SCAQMD's daily thresholds during construction. Thus, A-11 because the proposed project's construction-period impact would be less than significant, the proposed project would not result in a significant cumulative impact in that regard, when considered with other past, present and reasonably foreseeable projects. C. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES 1. The project would not have a substantial adverse effect on any special status plants, specifically the San Diego ambrosia and paniculate tarplant. The San Diego ambrosia and paniculate tarplant are considered adequately conserved by the Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP) and impacts are covered under the implementation structure of the MSHCP. Impacts to special status species would be less than significant. 2. The project would not conflict with the City of Temecula Heritage Tree Ordinance or the City of Temecula General Plan. D. GEOLOGY AND SOILS 1. The proposed project would not expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving strong seismic ground shaking, or seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction, lateral spreading, or landslides. Adherence to the requirements of the California Building Code would ensure that people, structures, and infrastructure are not adversely impacted 111 by seismic hazards. Impacts would be less than significant. 2. The proposed project would not result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil. Construction of the proposed project would require grading, excavating, and other ground-disturbing activities that would expose topsoil, resulting in soil erosion, but implementation of standard erosion control measures would ensure this impact is less than significant. 3. Development under the proposed project would be required to adhere to City building code requirements, which include the preparation of a design level geotechnical investigation by a state licensed geotechnical engineer. The required geotechnical report for any new development or redevelopment would determine the susceptibility of the subject site to settlement and prescribe appropriate engineering techniques for reducing its effects based on site specific data of subsurface soils. Prior to approval of a building permit, the final design level geotechnical report with recommendations for site preparation requirements, foundation specifications, and structural design would be required to be in accordance with the City building code requirements. Therefore, implementation of standard geotechnical engineering practices, which includes a geotechnical investigation containing recommendations that would be specific to future project sites within the plan area, and adherence to building code requirements would reduce potential impacts from unstable soils and other adverse soil properties to less than significant levels. ' A-12 4. The proposed project, in combination with existing, approved, proposed, and reasonably foreseeable development in Temecula and nearby areas of Riverside County, would not contribute to cumulative geologic and soils impacts. E. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS 1. The proposed project would not create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials. Implementation of the proposed project would involve limited transport, use, storage, and disposal of hazardous materials during construction and operation, but compliance with all applicable regulations would reduce impacts to less than significant. 2. The proposed project would 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. A Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) would be prepared and implemented during construction to minimize the potential for discharge of contaminants during construction. Any businesses that would store hazardous materials and/or waste at its business site would be required to submit a Hazardous Materials Management Plan in accordance with the County Hazardous Waste Management Plan. Further, the project site is located more than 25 miles, but less than 50 miles, from the San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station. The facility is currently being decommissioned and existing emergency procedures are in place in the rare event of an emergency. Thus, impacts associated with reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions would be less than significant. 3. The proposed project would not emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school. The project Site is not located within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school site. 4. The proposed project would not be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites and, as a result, would not create a significant hazard to the public or the environment. The project Site has not been listed as a hazardous material release site. 5. The proposed project is not located within an airport land use plan or within two miles of a public airport or public use airport. The project Site is located approximately 6.5 miles southwest of the French Valley Airport, which is the only public airport in the vicinity of the project. 6. The proposed project includes the option of constructing an elementary school site just beyond one-quarter mile of International Rectifier Corporation and other businesses located just east of Rancho California Road. These businesses may have the potential to generate hazardous emissions or contain acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste that could cause an impact to sensitive receptor sites such as the proposed school. In addition to mandatory adherence to City and County requirements, compliance with the requirements of CCR Title 5, Section 14010, A-13 Standards for School Site Construction, and the California Department of Education School Facilities Planning Division (as overseen by DISC) further ensures that hazardous materials impact on the proposed school would be less than significant. Further, all new development under the proposed project would be required to follow applicable regulations and guidelines regarding storage and handling of hazardous waste. Therefore, impacts related to hazardous emissions near schools would be less than significant. 7. According to the two different Phase I reports completed for the project area and vicinity, there are no reported incidents of releases of hazardous materials. In addition, review of available databases from the DTSC and SW RCB did not identify sites within the project area or immediate vicinity that would likely indicate the presence of contamination on the site or in subsurface materials. As a result, impacts are considered less than significant. 8. According to the City of Temecula General Plan and GIS Map Data, a portion of the project is adjacent to a High Fire Hazard Area. The Western Bypass will serve as a fire break between wildland areas and proposed development. In addition, a Fuel Modification Plan will be prepared as part of the project and incorporated into the Altair Specific Plan to identify appropriate structure setbacks and landscape requirements for the interior of the project to address this hazard. Further, adherence to existing Fire Code regulatory requirements for new construction, require the preparation and implementation of a Fuel Modification Plan. Thus, impacts related to wildfires would be less than significant. 9. Implementation of the proposed project, in combination with other existing, proposed, and reasonably foreseeable future development in the city, could cumulatively increase exposure of people, property, and the environment to hazardous materials and interference with emergency response. However, with compliance with all applicable regulations, the project would not contribute to the potential for hazards and hazardous materials impacts under cumulative conditions. Therefore, the proposed project's contribution to significant cumulative impacts to human health associated with hazards and hazardous materials or conditions is less than cumulatively considerable. F. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY 1. The proposed project would implement site-specific SWPPPs, including construction best management practices (BMPs), during construction in accordance with the Construction General Permit, which would reduce the potential for stormwater to come into contact with pollutants and integrate it into surface water, to the maximum extent practicable. As a result, construction activities would not result in runoff that would exceed the capacity of the adjacent existing drainage system capacity or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff. The proposed project would not substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area. The proposed storm drain system would provide sufficient volume to treat storm water for water quality purposes and is designed to properly convey the increased runoff attributable to site A14 development. Impacts to existing stormwater drainage facilities during construction would be less than significant. 2. The proposed project would implement site-specific SWPPPs during construction to address site-specific conditions related to construction; identify the sources of sediment and other pollutants that may affect the quality of storm water discharges during construction; and describe the implementation and maintenance of erosion control and sediment control BMPs to reduce or eliminate sediment, pollutants adhering to sediment, and other non-sediment pollutants in storm water, as well as non- storm water discharges. Once operational, runoff from the project site would be minimized by implementation of infiltration BMPs, such as directing roof downspouts and other paved areas to drain to natural drainages, using natural drainage swales to convey runoff from impervious surfaces, and landscape areas between sidewalk and curb, where feasible. Bioretention basins are proposed throughout the site to treat runoff from the proposed impervious areas (streets and sidewalks). Thus, implementation of the SWPPPs and BMPs during construction and operation of the project would minimize erosion or siltation on- or off-site. Impacts would be less than significant 3. The Water Supply Assessment (WSA) prepared for the project stated while groundwater supplies from the Murrieta-Temecula Groundwater Basin would be used during construction and operation, the Rancho California Water District (RCWD) would have sufficient water supplies to accommodate the project's water use during construction and operation. Therefore,the potential impact on local groundwater recharge and supplies from development of the proposed project would be less than significant. 4. While the proposed project is not located within the 100-year flood zone of Murrieta Creek, the flood damage prevention and floodplain management regulations of the City Development Code (Chapter 15.12 Floodplain Management) apply since the project area is within the western portion of Temecula, which has the potential for mud and debris flows. Before issuance of a building permit, the City would review development plans for future projects to ensure compliance with City and FEMA floodplain development requirements. Therefore, impacts related to flooding and mudflows would be less than significant. 5. A small portion of the project area closest to Murrieta Creek may be located in a dam inundation area (City of Temecula 1993) depending on location of proposed developments. All three dams within the vicinity of the project area—Lake Skinner, Vail Lake, and Diamond Valley Lake—could potentially cause flooding in the plan area should they fail. However, to address flood hazards, the City of Temecula has developed a Dam Inundation Evacuation Plan which is updated, as needed. This Plan would be put to use in the event of dam failure to ensure the safety of the public. Additionally, the City coordinates with the State Office of Emergency Services to ensure that dam safety plans reflect the level of development within the community. The rare likelihood of such an event in combination with applicable plan and program compliance would reduce any risks of death or loss involving flooding as a result of dam failure to less than significant. A-15 6. The proposed project's contribution to cumulative water quality, runoff, groundwater supplies, and flooding impacts would be less than cumulatively considerable. G. LAND USE AND PLANNING 1. Potential land use impacts, such as potential impacts related to consistency with plans and policies that are intended to avoid environmental effects, would be project-specific and require evaluation on a case-by-case basis. This is also true with regard to land use compatibility impacts, which are generally a function of the relationship between the interactive effects of a specific development site and those of its immediate environment. Therefore, cumulative impacts to land use would be less than significant. H. NOISE AND VIBRATION 1. Operation of the proposed project would not expose persons to or generate groundborne vibration levels in excess of the adopted guidelines and recommendations established by the Federal Transit Administration. Impacts associated with groundborne vibration levels during operation would be less than significant. 2. Operation of the proposed project would not generate traffic noise which would exceed the identified thresholds of significance for all studied roadway segments. Impacts associated with permanent increases in ambient noise related to traffic noise would be less than significant. 3. The proposed project's contribution to cumulative impacts associated with mobile source noise would be less than cumulatively considerable. I. POPULATION AND HOUSING 1. In general, the project would accommodate predicted growth, and would not result in a substantial increase in population. The project's residential units would help to meet housing demands from projected population growth in the City and the region. Therefore, the project would result in less than significant impacts related to population and housing. 2. Project development in combination with cumulative projects within the City would result in a cumulative increase in population. The proposed project would represent approximately 20 percent of the population increase that would be generated under cumulative conditions. This would exceed the projected 2035 population by Southern California Council of Governments (SCAG) by approximately 10,400 residents. However, growth would be within the population anticipated by the City's General Plan projected development capacity of 166,250 residents. Impacts related to thresholds established by resource agencies that rely on SCAG population projections, such as SCAQMD, are analyzed in the appropriate sections of the Draft ER. However, given that this growth has been anticipated by the City, the proposed project would not considerably A-16 contribute to population and housing impacts and cumulative impacts would be less than significant. J. PUBLIC SERVICES 1. The City's fire department would be able to accommodate the anticipated growth of the project and already owns the necessary equipment to accommodate the increase in building heights. Further, the proposed project would pay development impact fees to enable the expansion of fire protection facilities, the addition of fire protection personnel, and the acquisition of additional fire equipment, as needed to maintain performance standards. Therefore, impacts to fire protection services would be less than significant. 2. The proposed project would pay the appropriate development impact fees, which would allow the police department to add additional staff to provide services to accommodate the growth anticipated with the development of the project. Thus, impacts to police services would be less than significant. 3. The proposed project would pay the developer fees established by the Temecula Valley Unified School District (TVUSD), which are established at $3.36 per square foot of residential development and $0.54 per square foot or commercial or industrial development. Given the payment of developer fees, existing capacity at the schools in the project area, the construction of an elementary school as a part of the project, and TVUSD's proposed construction of five new schools, TVUSD would be able to accommodate the students generated by the project and would not require further expansion of facilities. Therefore, project impacts to schools are considered to be less than significant. 4. The project would add an estimated 4,603 residents which would increase demand for City-owned park and recreational facilities. New development is required to dedicated park land, pay a fee in-lieu, or a combination, thereof, to provide for the recreational needs of its residents (City of Temecula, Ord. 99-23). Based on the City's formula for park land dedication, and knowing the project could produce a range of dwelling units (870 to 1,750 units), the project, at buildout, would be required to dedicate an estimated 10 to 22 acres of park land, depending on the total number of dwelling units constructed. The required park land dedication, payment of in-lieu fees, or a combination thereof, would offset any adverse impacts associated with the construction of new or expansion of existing recreational facilities to meet the City's General Plan standard of five acres of park land for every 1,000 residents. With payment of the in-lieu fees, dedication of parkland, or a combination of both, the proposed project would result in less than significant impacts to parks. 5. While the project would increase the demand for library services over the buildout timeframe of 10 years, the population increase generated by the project (approximately 4,603 people max) is accounted for in the City's anticipated population growth forecast of 118,900 people by 2035. The project is anticipated to have minimal impacts on library services and would not affect the County's ability to provide library A-17 services or create the need to construct new library facilities or expand existing facilities. Therefore, the project would result in less than significant impacts to library services. 6. Given the capacity of the existing healthcare facilities, the population of 4,603 new residents (maximum) generated by the project would be adequately served by the existing facilities. Impacts related to the expansion or provision of additional healthcare facilities would be less than significant. 7. The proposed project would not have a cumulatively considerable contribution to impacts related to fire protection, police protection, schools, or other public facilities. K. TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION 1. ' All development within the Specific Plan area would be required to be designed consistent with City standards, including street design, emergency access, and compatibility of proposed uses. Thus, implementation of the proposed project would result in less than significant impacts related to hazardous design features or emergency access. L. UTITILIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS 1. The residential and commercial land uses proposed by the project would generally not discharge wastewater that contains harmful levels of toxins that are regulated by the San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board (SDRWQCB) (such as large quantities of pesticides, herbicides, oil, grease, and other chemicals that are more typical in agricultural and industrial uses) and all effluent would comply with the wastewater treatment standards of the SDRWQCB. The project would result in less than significant impacts related to the wastewater treatment requirements of the SDRWQCB. 2. The Santa Rosa Water Reclamation Plan would have sufficient capacity to process the additional average wastewater flow that would be generated by the project at build out. In addition, each project-specific development within in the Specific Plan would be required to pay a sewer service charge to RCWD to maintain and upgrade its system. Therefore, the proposed project would not require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects. 3. The construction of the future individual development within the Specific Plan would be required to comply with the development planning requirements of the SDRWQCB MS4 permit and the City of Temecula Stormwater Ordinance. Each future development project would be required to generate a project-specific Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP), as required by the City of Temecula Stormwater Ordinance and as specified in the City's Jurisdictional Runoff Management Plan,which would ensure that the project implements specific drainage features in order to meet the City's MS4 Permit and Stormwater Ordinance requirements. Therefore, impacts to the environment from the construction of new or expanded stormwater drainage facilities would be less than significant. A-18 4. The WSA identified a sufficient and reliable water supply for RCWD, now and into the future, including a sufficient water supply for the project (RWCD, 2015b). Therefore, sufficient water supplies would be available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources and new or expanded entitlements would not be required. 5. The proposed project would be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs during construction and operation. Solid waste disposed of during construction activities for the new residential and commercial development would represent 0.004 percent of the remaining capacity (in tons). Solid waste disposed of during operation activities for the new residential and commercial development would represent 0.07 percent of the daily disposal rate (in tons). The existing capacity of the El Sobrante Sanitary Landfill would be sufficient to accommodate solid waste generation from project implementation and impacts would be less than significant. 6. The proposed project would not have a cumulatively considerable contribution to impacts related to water supply or quality, wastewater, stormwater drainage, or solid waste. VI. Potentially Significant Environmental Impacts Determined to be Mitigated to a Less Than Significant Level. The EIR identified the potential for the project to cause significant environmental impacts in the areas of Aesthetics, Air Quality, Biological Resources, Cultural and Paleontological Resources, Greenhouse Gas (GHGs) Emissions, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, Hydrology and Water Quality, Land Use and Planning, Noise and Vibration, and Transportation and Traffic. Measures have been identified that would mitigate the specified impacts in each section to a less than significant level. The City Council finds that mitigation measures identified in the Final EIR would reduce the project's impacts to a less than significant level, with the exception of those unmitigable impacts discussed in Section VII. The City Council adopts all of the feasible mitigation measures for the project described in the Final EIR as conditions of approval of the project and incorporates those into the project, as discussed more fully in Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program. A. AESTHETICS 1. Create a new source of light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views. Impact AES-1: The project would create a new source of light and glare throughout the project area. a. Findings Changes or alterations have been required in or incorporated into the project which avoid or substantially lessen the potentially significant environmental effects related to new A-19 sources of light or glare. Specifically, the following measures have been included to ensure that the project's potential aesthetic impacts remain less than significant. Mitigation Measure MM-AES-1: The following light and glare standards shall be applied to all development within the project area: • Temporary nighttime construction lighting shall be shielded and directed downward such that no light spillage will occur on adjacent properties. • The applicant shall ensure that all outdoor lighting fixtures in public areas contain "sharp cut-off" fixtures, and shall be fitted with flat glass and internal and external shielding. • The applicant shall ensure that site lighting systems shall be grouped into control zones to allow for opening, closing, and night light/security lighting schemes. All control groups shall be controlled by an automatic lighting system utilizing a time clock, photocell, and low voltage relays. • The applicant shall ensure that design and layout of the development shall take advantage of landscaping, on-site architectural massing, and off—site architectural massing to block light sources and reflection from cars. • The use of highly reflective construction materials on exterior wall surfaces shall be prohibited. 111 • Prior to the issuance of construction permits for any phase of the project that includes outdoor lighting, the applicant shall submit an outdoor lighting plan and photometric plan to be reviewed and approved by the City of Temecula. The lighting plan shall be in compliance with Ordinance No. 655 as adopted by the Riverside County Board of Supervisors and shall include, but not be limited to, the following information and standards: o Light fixtures shall not exceed 4,050 lumens. o Light fixtures shall be fully shielded so that light rays emitted by the fixtures are projected below the horizontal plan passing through the lowest point of the shield. o A map showing all lamp locations, orientations, and intensities, including security, roadway, and task lighting. o Specification of each light fixture and each light shield. oTotal estimated outdoor lighting footprint, expressed as lumens per acre. o Specification of motion sensors and other controls to be used, especially for security lighting. ' A-20 • The City shall conduct a post-installation inspection to ensure that the development is in compliance with the design standards in Altair Specific Plan, Mitigation Measure MM-AES-1 and Riverside County Ordinance No. 655. b. Facts in Support of Findings The proposed project would introduce a new source of light and glare to the project site from lighting for residential and Nature Center, plazas, and streets as well as from cars traveling through the project site. Also, temporary nighttime construction lighting may be required near the intersection of Vincent Moraga and Rancho California Road (due to traffic on Rancho California Road). There are no sensitive receptors near this intersection; nonetheless, Mitigation Measure MM-AES-1 would ensure nighttime construction lighting is shielded and directed downward to avoid light spillage on adjacent properties. The proposed project is located approximately 20 miles from the Palomar Observatory. The project would be required to comply with the Palomar Observatory Light Pollution Ordinance (Riverside County's Light Pollution Ordinance No. 655), which requires a variety of measures, as outlined in Mitigation Measure MM-AES-1, including the preparation of an outdoor lighting plan and photometric plan, to reduce the effects of light pollution from nighttime light sources. However, given the proposed density and intensity of the project, new development would increase nighttime light sources. According to 111 Ordinance No. 655, the project site is located in Zone B (45-mile Radius Lighting Impact Zone). Ordinance No. 655 includes requirements for lessening "sky glow" from nighttime light sources and identifies specific measures for projects within Zone B, including lighting from parking lots and advertising displays being fully shielded to lessen light that is omitted within the vicinity of the Palomar Observatory. Additionally, application of the design guidelines outlined in Chapter 9, Design Guidelines, of the Specific Plan include variations in street materials and outdoor lighting controls. For example, light fixtures shall incorporate cut-offs and appropriate lenses to eliminate glare and light spillover to adjacent properties to reduce potential impacts associated with light and glare. Along with compliance with Ordinance No. 665, Mitigation Measure MM-AES-1 would ensure that new sources of light and glare would be designed and installed to minimize light pollution and to reduce effects of light pollution to sensitive receptors. B. AIR QUALITY 1. Exposure of Sensitive Receptors to Substantial Pollutant Concentrations During Construction. Impact AQ-2: Emissions of localized criteria pollutants from construction of the project could expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations. ' A-21 a. Findings Changes or alterations have been required in or incorporated into the project which avoid or substantially lessen the potentially significant environmental effects related to localized construction criteria air pollutants. Specifically, the following measures have been included to ensure that the project's potential air quality impacts remain less than significant. Mitigation Measure MM-AO-2: The site shall be watered four times per day during ground disturbance (grading) activities for all project development phases. During drought conditions, defined as Water Shortage Stages 4 or 5 as determined by the Rancho California Water District, use of reclaimed water or non-water chemical stabilizers shall be implemented such that fugitive emissions reductions are comparable. Permission to use potable water for dust control activities during drought conditions shall be granted by the City of Temecula Building Official if the General Contractor shows in writing that (1) Reclaimed water is not available in sufficient quality and quantity from recycled wastewater treatment facilities located within 10 miles of the construction site; and (2) Well water or groundwater is not available in sufficient quality and quantity from wells and groundwater sources located within 10 miles of the construction site. 111 b. Facts in Support of Findings Daily onsite construction emissions generated by the project were evaluated against SCAQMD's LSTs for a 3.5-acre site to determine whether the emissions would cause or • contribute to adverse localized air quality impacts.1 The nearest offsite sensitive receptors are the multi-family residential dwelling units located directly adjacent to the project site on the east. Additionally, the project itself would also introduce sensitive receptors (e.g., residential and school uses) once the individual development phases are completed. Daily unmitigated, localized onsite emissions anticipated to occur during the project's worst-case construction scenario were estimated and are shown in Table 3.2-10 (refer to the Draft EIR). As summarized in Table 2.2-2 in Section 2.2, Air Quality of the Civic Site Nature Center Environmental Impact Analysis (refer to Appendix A of the FEIR), daily unmitigated emissions generated onsite by the proposed project's worst-case construction scenario would exceed the applicable SCAQMD LST for PM2.5 for a 3.5-acre site in SRA 26, during the site preparation sub-phase. The emissions for the remaining pollutants of concern (NOx and PMio) would not exceed the applicable SCAQMD LSTs in any construction year. As the project's worst-case construction emissions would exceed SCAQMD's According to SCAQMD's LST methodology,LSTs are only applicable to the onsite construction emissions that are generated ' by a project and do not apply to emissions generated offsite such as mobile emissions on roadways from worker,vendor,and haul truck trips. A-22 111 applicable LST for PM2.5,the localized air quality impacts associated with PM2.5 would be potentially significant. Localized impacts for NOx and PM,o would be less-than significant. Implementation of Mitigation Measure MM-AQ-2 would require the use water or reclaimed water and/or non-water chemical stabilizers during drought conditions to reduce fugitive dust emissions during ground disturbance activities for all project development phases. The General Contractor shall obtain permission from the City of Temecula Building Official to use potable water if reclaimed water or well water/groundwater is not available for fugitive dust control activities during drought conditions. With implementation of Mitigation Measure MM-AQ-2, the total onsite emissions of PM2.5 generated during the site preparation sub-phase would be reduced to below the SCAQMD's applicable LST for a 3.5-acre site. The total mitigated PM2.s emissions that would result from implementation of Mitigation Measure MM-AQ-2 during project construction in 2016 are shown in Table 3.2-11 (refer to the Draft EIR). While only the reduction of PM2.5 for 2016 is shown, Mitigation Measure MM-AQ-2 would also reduce PMio and PM2.5 emissions from all site preparation and grading construction sub-phases. Therefore, Mitigation Measure MM- AQ-2 would ensure that localized air quality impacts associated with PM2.5 would be reduced to below the established LST. C. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES 1. Impacts to Migratory Birds and Special-Status Wildlife Impacts BIO-1: Activities associated with construction of the project could have a significant impact on special status avian wildlife and migratory birds including Cooper's hawk, northern harrier, white-tailed kite, and California horned lark. a. Findings Changes or alterations have been required in or incorporated into the project which avoid or substantially lessen the potentially significant environmental effects related to migratory birds and special status species. Specifically, the following measures have been included to ensure that the project's potential impacts are less than significant. Mitigation Measure MM-BIO-1: To the extent feasible, clearing and grubbing activities shall take place outside of the avian breeding season, which occurs from February 1 to September 15. If clearing and grubbing activities are necessary during the breeding season, a focused survey for active nests of raptors and migratory birds shall be conducted by a qualified biologist having demonstrated experience conducting breeding bird and nest surveys. The survey shall occur no more than 7 days prior to any clearing, grubbing, construction or ground-disturbing activities. If active nest(s) (with eggs or fledglings) are identified within the project area, the nest shall not be disturbed until the young have hatched and fledged (matured to a state that they can leave the nest on their own and are no longer relying on the nest for survival). A 500-foot construction setback from A-23 any active raptor nesting location (or a distance to be determined by the qualified biologist, based on species, construction activity, the birds' response/habituation to human presence, and/or topographic features that could limit construction activity disturbance to the nest) shall be adhered to in order to avoid disturbance of the nest until the young have fledged or the nest has failed, as determined by a qualified biologist. A 300-foot construction setback (or a distance to be determined by the qualified biologist, based on species, construction activity, and the birds' response/habituation to human presence, and/or topographic features that could limit construction activity disturbance to the nest) shall be established for all other migratory birds. If no active nests are identified, construction may commence. All construction setbacks shall be clearly demarcated in the field with appropriate material (flagging, staking, construction fencing, etc.) and verified by a qualified biologist. Such fencing shall be maintained and monitored until the nest is confirmed to be inactive. If an avoidance buffer is not feasible, as determined by a qualified biologist in consultation with the City, noise walls or other noise attenuation devices may be installed as needed to prevent disturbance to the nest. b. Facts in Support of Findings Activities associated with construction of the project may potentially impact special status wildlife and migratory birds including Cooper's hawk, northern harrier, white-tailed kite, California gnatcatcher, and California horned lark, which were observed or recorded on or near the Project. Direct and indirect impacts to nesting raptors and migratory birds could occur during construction through the removal of suitable habitat, including mature trees and shrubs if habitat clearing were to occur during breeding season. Potential direct impacts include the destruction of active nests; potential indirect impacts include interference with reproductive success due to noise, vibration, and/or visual disturbances. The MTBA and the CFGC (3503 and 3503.5) consider the loss of active nests (nests with eggs or young) of all native bird species unlawful. Consequently, the potential loss or abandonment of nests of bird species as a result of construction-related activities would be considered a significant impact. Mitigation Measure MM-BI0-1 would minimize clearing and grubbing activities within the avian breeding season (February 1 to September 15) to the extent feasible. If clearing and grubbing activities have to occur during the breeding season, Mitigation Measure MM-BIO-1 requires the retention of a qualified biologist and establishes the appropriate protocol for focused surveys of active nests as well as the various construction buffers required based on nests' conditions. While avoidance of the active nest during construction is the ideal condition, if avoidance is not feasible, Mitigation Measure MM- BIO-1 requires the installation of noise walls or other noise attenuation devices to prevent disturbance to any active nest during construction. Implementation of Mitigation Measure MM-BIO-1 would ensure that any potentially significant impacts to migratory birds or special-status species, specifically Cooper's hawk, northern harrier, white-tailed kite, and California horned lark, would be reduced to a less than significant level. A-24 2. Facts to Burrowing Owls Impact BIO-2: The project could have a significant impact on burrowing owl or suitable burrowing owl habitat during construction. a. Findings Changes or alterations have been required in or incorporated into the project which avoid or substantially lessen the potentially significant environmental effects to burrowing owls or suitable burrowing owl habitat during construction. Specifically, the following measures have been included to ensure that the project's potential impacts are reduced to less than significant. Mitigation Measure MM-BIO-2: Suitable burrowing owl habitat identified on the project site shall be surveyed by a qualified biologist using the methods described in the Burrowing Owl Survey Instructions for the Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan Area(EPD, 2006) no more than 30 days prior to initial ground disturbing activities to determine presence or absence of burrowing owl. If no burrowing owls are identified, no additional mitigation is necessary and activities may commence. If a burrowing owl is detected, the City of Temecula and the RCA will be notified. If burrowing owls are found on the project site, the applicant shall implement the following measure: • Take of active nests shall be avoided. Passive or active relocation (use of one way doors and collapse of burrows), as approved by the RCA, may occur when owls are present outside the nesting season (March 1 - August 31). If active relocation is selected, translocation sites for the burrowing owl shall be created in the MSHCP Conservation Area for the establishment of new colonies. Translocation sites will be identified, taking into consideration unoccupied habitat areas, presence of burrowing mammals, existing colonies and effects to other MSHCP covered species. Selected translocation sites shall be coordinated with California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) prior to translocation site development. b. Facts in Support of Findings The project falls within a Criteria Area Plant Species Survey Area (CASSA) per Sections 6.1.3 and 3.3.2 of the MSHCP for burrowing owl, thus a protocol-level survey was performed for burrowing owl. No burrowing owls were detected or observed during the focused surveys. However, suitable habitat occurs within the upland vegetation communities and disturbed habitat across the project site. Burrowing owls may colonize the project site between the completion of focused surveys and the start of construction. Individuals present during ground disturbing activities have the potential to be killed A-25 through burrow collapse from construction equipment or vehicles. MSHCP protocol within the CASSA for burrowing owl requires a pre-construction clearance survey if burrows or suitable habitat exist regardless of positive or negative finding. Mitigation Measure MM-BIO-2 requires that a qualified biologist conduct surveys of all suitable burrowing owl habitat identified on within the project area no more than 30 days prior to initial ground disturbing activities to determine the presence or absence of burrowing owls. If active nest are identified during surveys, take of active nest shall be avoided and passive or active relocation, as approved by the Regional Conservation Authority, may occur when owls are present outside the nesting season (March 1 -August 31). Coordination with CDFW and USFWS shall occur prior to translocation of burrowing owls. Implementation of Mitigation Measure MM-BIO-2 would ensure that any potentially significant impact to burrowing owls or suitable burrowing owl habitat would be minimized to the extent feasible and impacts would be reduced to a less than significant level. 3. Impacts to Mountain Lions Impact BIO-3: The urban/wildland interface associated with the construction and operation of the project could have a significant effect on mountain lions and other wildlife. a. Findings Changes or alterations have been required in or incorporated into the project which avoid or substantially lessen the potentially significant environmental effects to mountain lions. Specifically,the following measure as well as the mitigation measures established in other sections or for other issue topics (MM-AES-1, MM-BIO-6b, MM-BIO-7a, MM-BIO-7b, MM- BIO-7c, MM-N01-1a and MM-N01-1b) have been included to ensure that the project's potential impacts are reduced to less than significant. Mitigation Measure MM-BIO-3: The following Best Management Practices shall be adhered to: • Prior to the issuance of any clearing, grubbing, or grading permit for the project, a qualified biologist (Project Biologist) with a minimum of 3 years of experience in field supervision on construction sites, shall be retained by the applicant to oversee compliance with the protection and avoidance measures for biological issues associated with the project. The Project Biologist shall have the authority to halt construction activities in the event of non-compliance. • The Project Biologist shall be onsite during initial ground disturbing activities, including, but not limited to: vegetation removal, tree removal or trimming, grading, and restoration landscaping to ensure project activities remain in compliance with all applicable biological resource permits. A-26 • Intentional killing or unauthorized collection of plant and wildlife species shall be prohibited. • Workers shall be prohibited from bringing pets and firearms to the project site, and from feeding wildlife. • Proposed and existing MSHCP Conservation Areas shall be protected in place by the installation of orange silt fencing. Fencing shall be maintained in working order and inspected weekly. Fencing repair shall occur within 2 working days following inspection. • All trash and food items shall be contained in closed containers and trash removed daily to reduce the attractiveness to opportunistic predators such as common ravens and feral cats and dogs. • All fueling of construction vehicles shall be within designated areas beyond 100 feet of any drainage course, and be contained using appropriate protection measures. • Nighttime construction shall be prohibited in areas directly abutting or within 200 feet of existing or project-proposed MSHCP Conservation Areas. Nighttime construction which does occur outside these areas shall use directional lighting to minimize the impacts of increased artificial nighttime lighting. • All construction equipment and vehicles shall not idle for more than 45 minutes to minimize ambient noise produced by the project. b. Facts in Support of Findings The MSHCP promotes the conservation and recovery of biological resources in western Riverside County and provides coverage for Federal Endangered Species Act (FESA) and California Endangered Species Act (CESA) incidental take for listed species. Project impacts to the mountain lion and other wildlife are mitigated through the existing MSHCP under an existing incidental take permit. The project is subject to the Urban/Wildland Interface Guidelines in the MSHCP, Section 6.1.4. In addition to compliance with the MSHCP, Mitigation Measure MM-BIO-3 would require that the best management practices listed above are implemented to minimize impacts to mountain lions and other wildlife during construction. Consistency with the MSHCP Guidelines and implementation of the Mitigation Measure MM-BIO-3 would ensure that the project would result in less than significant impacts on mountain lions and other wildlife. ' A-27 • 4. Impacts to Riparian or Riverine Habitat Impact BIO-4: Implementation of the project could have a substantial adverse effect on riparian/riverine habitat and federally protected wetlands. a. Findings Changes or alterations have been required in or incorporated into the project which avoid or substantially lessen the potentially significant environmental effects to riparian/riverine habitat and federally protected wetlands. Specifically, the following measures have been included to ensure that the project's potential impacts are reduced to less than significant. Mitigation Measure MM-BIO-4a: Prior to the issuance of a grading permit for the project, the applicant shall obtain all necessary agency permits for impacts to jurisdictional waters, wetlands and riparian resources, including USACE, CDFW, and SDRWQCB. Impacts to riparian habitat shall be mitigated at a minimum of a 3:1 ratio. Impacts to unvegetated channel shall be mitigated at a minimum of a 1:1 ratio. Mitigation for both temporary and permanent impacts shall be accomplished by one or more of following options: on- or off-site habitat restoration; purchase of credits from an in- lieu fee program; and/or purchase of credits from a mitigation bank. If a Habitat Mitigation and Monitoring Plan is required by any of the respective U resource agencies (USAGE, SDRWQCB, and CDFW), it shall be prepared according to agency requirements and shall include, at a minimum, the following information: • Location and detailed maps of the mitigation and revegetation areas • An evaluation of the existing function and values, and a description of the function and values to be achieved through compensatory mitigation • Detailed plant and seed mix requirements • Detailed planting plan • Specific and measurable five-year success criteria • Five-year maintenance and monitoring requirements • Invasive species management • Irrigation requirements including the requirement to be off of irrigation for at least two years prior to final sign-off • Securing of a bond or line of credit to guarantee success of the compensatory mitigation Mitigation Measure MM-BIO-4b: Prior to the issuance of a grading permit for the project, a DBESP shall be approved by the RCA to address impacts to 1.24 acres of riparian/riverine habitat. The DBESP shall include the following information: ' A-28 • Definition of the project area • A written project description, demonstrating why an avoidance alternative is not possible • A written description of biological information available for the project site including the results of resource mapping • Quantification of unavoidable impacts to riparian/riverine areas and vernal pools associated with the project, including direct and indirect effects • A written description of project design features and mitigation measures that reduce indirect effects, such as edge treatments, landscaping, elevation difference, minimization and/or compensation through restoration or enhancement • A baseline biological assessment of the resources being impacted, used for comparison of biological equivalency • A written description of the proposed habitat mitigation, including habitat type, location, functional lift, and long-term stewardship responsibility • A finding demonstrating that although the proposed project would not avoid impacts, the habitat mitigation would be biologically equivalent or superior to that which is being impacted and would result in a net equivalent or superior ecological condition b. Facts in Support of Findings As outlined in Mitigation Measure MM-BIO-4a, the project is required to compensate for impacts to riparian habitat at a 3:1 ratio and impacts to unvegetated channel at a 1 :1 ratio. The mitigation ratio and method will ultimately be determined during the wetland permitting process through the USACE, SDRWQCB, and CDFW, as applicable. In addition, Mitigation Measure MM-BIO-4b requires a Determination of Biological Equivalent or Superior Preservation (DBESP) be prepared in accordance with the guidelines established above and approved by the RCA to address project impacts to 1.24 acres of riparian/riverine habitat. Thus, implementation of Mitigation Measure MM- BIO-4a and MM-BIO-4b would ensure project impacts to riparian/riverine and federally protected wetlands would be in compliance with state and federal regulatory agency requirements and would be adequately mitigated to a less than significant level. 5. Impacts to Sensitive Vegetation Communities and Habitat Impact BIO-6: Implementation of the proposed project could have a substantial adverse effect on sensitive natural communities identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations, or by CDFW or USFWS. 1 A-29 111 a. Findings Changes or alterations have been required in or incorporated into the project which avoid or substantially lessen the potentially significant environmental effects to sensitive vegetation communities and habitat. Specifically, the following measure and Mitigation Measures MM-BIO-4a, MM-BIO-4b, and MM-BIO-7c have been included to ensure that the project's potential impacts are reduced to less than significant. Mitigation Measure MM-BIO-6a: Prior to the issuance of a building permit for the project, or any phase thereof, the applicant shall pay Local Development Mitigation fees, as determined by the City of Temecula Municipal Code Chapter 15, to offset impacts to sensitive habitat and covered sensitive species. As provided for in the RCA's applicable fee ordinance and/or adopted resolutions, the applicant may request discretionary approval from the RCA fee credits for land conserved onsite that contributes toward the Reserve Assembly of the MSHCP. Any such request and approval shall not otherwise diminish or void the applicant's obligation to pay the required Local Development Mitigation fees. Mitigation Measure MM-BIO 6b: At the time of final map recordation for the project, or any phase thereof, lands identified to contribute to Linkage Areas and open space areas of the project (Conserved Lands) and included on the final map shall be conserved in perpetuity through the recordation of conservation easements in favor of the RCA or deed transfer of said parcels to the RCA. Conserved Lands shall include all areas identified for the continued preservation and functionality of Proposed Linkage 10 and Proposed Constrained Linkage 13. The project shall conserve onsite a minimum of 87.2 acres, which have been identified at a Criteria Cell level to include Cells 7077, 7161, 7078, 7164, 7258, 7264, 7355 and 7356. b. Facts in Support of Findings Mitigation Measures MM-BIO-6a and MM-BIO-6b require the payment of development mitigation fees and the conservation of lands in favor of the Western Riverside RCA, which would ensure that the project has adequately mitigated for impacts to sensitive habitat covered under the Western Riverside County MSHCP. 6. Impacts to Wildlife Corridors Impacts BIO-7 and BIO-8: The project could interfere with the movement of wildlife species, and with established migratory wildlife corridors. The project could have direct and indirect impacts to the movement of mountain lion and other wildlife in Proposed Linkage 10 and Proposed Constrained Linkage 13. A-30 a. Findings Changes or alterations have been required in or incorporated into the project which avoid or substantially lessen the potentially significant environmental effects to wildlife corridors, including Proposed Linkage 10 and Proposed Constrained Linkage 13. Specifically, the following measures and Mitigation Measures MM-AES-1, MM-BIO-3, MM-BIO-6b, MM- N01-1a, MM-N01-1b and MM-N01-3 have been included to ensure that the project's potential impacts are reduced to less than significant. Mitigation Measure MM-BIO-7a: The portion of Camino Estribo that lies between the South Parcel and the main development area within the project footprint shall remain as a dirt road to minimize vehicular speeds. Mitigation Measure MM-BIO-7b: The applicant shall install permanent fencing along the Western Bypass where the Bypass right-of-way is contiguous with existing or proposed MSHCP Conserved Lands, to keep animals within the wildlife corridor. Prior to the issuance of any construction permits for the project, the applicant shall prepare and submit a detailed fencing plan for review and approval by the City Community Development Department, RCA, CDFW, and USFWS. The fencing plan shall include, at a minimum, the fencing location, fencing specifications, plant list, and method and timing of installation. Mitigation Measure MM-BIO-7c: A Slope Revegetation Plan shall be prepared by the project applicant. The Plan shall be submitted for approval to the City Community Development Department prior to the construction of the Western Bypass. The Plan shall include, at a minimum: • The requirement to salvage and stockpile excavated topsoil up to the first six inches along selected portions of the ground disturbance area for use in spreading as the top layer of soil in restoring disturbed areas • Equipment and methods for planting • A planting plan, including the amount and species of seed necessary to revegetate the target habitat types • Success criteria for the revegetated areas over a five-year period following installation • Specific Best Management Practices for erosion control during and after revegetation • A requirement for five years of maintenance of the revegetated areas, including removal of invasive species and irrigation (if necessary) A-31 • A requirement for five years of monitoring to evaluate compliance with the success criteria and to adjust maintenance activities using an adaptive management approach • Identification of entity responsible for installation, maintenance, and monitoring b. Facts in Support of Findings Mitigation Measures MM-BIO-7a through MM-BIO-7c would reduce impacts to Linkage 10 by conserving approximately 83 acres of land onsite within Linkage 10; retaining Camino Estribo as a dirt road to slow any traffic; installing permanent fencing between Conserved Lands and the Western Bypass to reduce potential human/wildlife interaction; and revegetating graded slopes along the Western Bypass abutting existing or proposed MSHCP Conservation Areas within Proposed Linkage 10 to maximize the wildlife corridor width and functionality. The project would also be required to adhere to the Urban/Wildland Interface Guidelines in the Section 6.1.4 of the MSHCP. Application of project design features that include locating the proposed Western Bypass as far to the east as feasible, consistency with the Urban/Wildland Interface Guidelines as required in Section 6.1.4 of the MSHCP, and implementation of the Mitigation Measures MM-BIO-7a through MM-BIO-7c would ensure that the project would result in less than significant impacts to wildlife movement within Proposed Linkage 10. Project features that would buffer wildlife activity along Proposed Constrained Linkage 13 include dense plantings on top of an approximately 10-foot high berm on the southern side of the building area of the South Parcel, and the installation of 'living walls" (green walls or modular vegetated walls) on the south and west sides of buildings located on perimeter lots associated with the South Parcel. The project would also be required to adhere to the Urban/Wildland Interface Guidelines in the Section 6.1.4 of the MSHCP. Implementation of Mitigation Measures MM-AES-1, MM-BIO-3, MM-BIO-6b, MM-N01-1a, MM-N01-1b and MM-N01-3 would safeguard and minimize impacts to wildlife movement within Proposed Constrained Linkage 13. Application of project features, consistency with the Urban/Wildland Interface Guidelines as required in Section 6.1.4 of the MSHCP, and implementation of the above referenced mitigation measures would result in less than significant impacts to wildlife movement within Proposed Constrained Linkage 13. 7. Conflicts with Provisions of Local Policies and Conservation Plans Western Riverside County MSHCP Impact BIO-9: The project would have an onsite shortfall of conserved acres for impacts to riparian and grassland habitat. Impact BIO-10: Project impacts to riparian/riverine habitat could result in the project being inconsistent with the MSHCP. ' A-32 Impact BIO-11: Project impacts at urban/wildland interface areas could result in the project being inconsistent with the Urban/Wildland Interface Guidelines. Impact 13I0-12: The project could have a significant effect on Proposed Linkage 10 and Proposed Constrained Linkage 13, and, therefore, could be inconsistent with the MSHCP regarding wildlife corridors. Impact BIO-13: Project design and construction of the Western Bypass, a Covered Activity, could result in the project being inconsistent with the Planned Roadway Criteria of the MSHCP. a. Findings The project has a potential to conflict with the Western Riverside County MSHCP. Changes or alterations have been required in or incorporated into the project which avoid or substantially lessen the potentially significant environmental effects related to the potential conflicts stated above with the MSHCP. Specifically, implementation of Mitigation Measures MM-BIO-1, MM-BIO-2, MM-BIO-3, MM-BIO-4a, MM-BIO-4b, MM- BIO-6a through MM-BIO-7c, MM-N01-1a, MM-N01-1b, MM-N01-3, MM-HYD-1, MM- HYD-2, and MM-HYD-3 are imposed on the project to ensure that project impacts are less than significant. b. Facts in Support of Findings The MSHCP protects and preserves certain habitats and species in the region. The project falls within the jurisdiction of the Western Riverside County MSHCP. The project is consistent with the MSHCP reserve assembly goals as determined by the Area Plan Subregional analysis contained in the Draft EIR, in conjunction with the proposed Project Conservation Features. Implementation of the mitigation measures above would ensure that the project is consistent with the MSHCP as the project would be in Rough Step with the MSHCP reserve goals; implement mitigation for impacts to riparian and riverine habitat; and would be consistent with the Urban/Wildland Interface Guidelines (Impacts BIO 9-11). In regards to consistency with the MSHCP regarding wildlife corridors, Proposed Linkage 10 and Propose Constrained Linkage 13, application of project features and implementation of the above referenced mitigation measures would require the such things as light and glare standards for the development; permanent fencing between Proposed Linkage 10 and the proposed Western Bypass; conservation of land within Proposed Linkage 10 and Constrained Linkage 13; noise reduction measures and application of BMPs during construction; slope revegetation for manufactured slopes along the edge of Proposed Linkage 10 and the proposed Western Bypass; and adherence to operational exterior noise standards. Incorporation of the above referenced mitigation measures would align the project with the goals and requirements of the MSHCP regarding wildlife corridors (Impact BIO-12). ' A-33 With implementation of Mitigation Measures MM-BIO-1, MM-BIO-4a, MM-BIO-4b, MM- BIO-6b, MM-BIO-7c, the project would be consistent with the Planned Roadway Criteria, Section 7.5.1 of the MSHCP, as shown in the consistency analysis on page 3.3-65 and 3.3-66 in Section 3.3, Biological Resources (see Draft EIR). Therefore, implementation of the referenced above mitigation measures would allow for the redesign of the Western Bypass to be consistent with the Planned Roadway Criteria and impacts would be less than significant (Impact BIO-12). 8. Cumulative Biological Impacts a. Findings The proposed project, in combination with existing, approved, proposed, and reasonably foreseeable development within the jurisdiction of the MSHCP, could result in potentially significant cumulative impacts to biological resources, especially special status wildlife species, sensitive vegetation communities and wildlife corridors. Changes or alterations have been required in or incorporated into the project which avoid or substantially lessen the potentially significant environmental effects related to biological resources. Specifically, implementation of Mitigation Measures MM-BIO-1, MM-BIO-3, MM-BIO-4a, MM-BIO-4b, MM-BIO-6a, MM-BIO-6b, MM-BIO-7a, MM-BIO-7b, and MM-BIO-7c would reduce impacts to less than significant. b. Facts in Support of Findings Development of the proposed project would contribute to the urbanization of the City of Temecula. The City, along with other jurisdictions in western Riverside County, participates in the MSHCP. The MSHCP is designed to protect over 150 species and conserve over 500,000 acres in western Riverside County. Project compliance with the MSHCP fully mitigates for impacts on covered species and ensures large segments of natural communities in western Riverside County will be preserved. As such, participation in and compliance with the MSHCP ensures the project's contribution to cumulative impacts would be less than cumulatively considerable. D. CULTURAL RESOURCES 1. Historical and Archaeological Resources Impact CUL-1: The project area is considered moderately to highly sensitive for cultural resources. In addition, a portion of the project area is within the Origin Landscape Traditional Cultural Property (TCP), one of the most sacred areas for the Pechanga Tribe. The lack of identified intact subsurface archaeological materials reduces the likelihood of encountering buried archaeological resources during project implementation, but does not preclude the possibility that archaeological resources may be present in areas not subject to archaeological investigation. In the event that archaeological resources are inadvertently encountered during project implementation, disturbances to such resources could result in a substantial adverse change to historical resources as defined by CEQA. Disturbances A-34 to archaeological resources would require consideration of impacts to any archaeological resources individually and as contributors to the larger National Register-listed archaeological district (P-33-11443 — MCAA), as well as consideration as contributors to the National Register-listed Origin Landscape TCP. a. Findings The proposed project has a potential to cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of historical and archaeological resources. Changes or alterations have been required in or incorporated into the project which avoid or substantially lessen the potentially significant effects to historical and archaeological resources. The project applicant shall be responsible for the implementation of the required mitigation measures and the City shall ensure applicant compliance with the measures. Specifically, the following measures have been included to ensure that the project's impacts are less than significant. Mitigation Measure MM-CUL-la — Retention of a Qualified Archaeologist: Prior to issuance of a grading permit and prior to the start of any ground disturbing activity, the applicant shall retain a qualified archaeologist, defined as an archaeologist meeting the Secretary of the Interior's Professional Qualification Standards for archaeology (Department of the Interior, 2012), and as approved by the City of Temecula, to carry out all mitigation measures related to archaeological resources and to coordinate the archaeological program with the Pechanga Band of Luiseno Indians (Pechanga Tribe). The Project archaeologist will have the authority to stop and redirect grading in the immediate area of a find in order to evaluate the find and determine the appropriate next steps, in consultation with the Pechanga Tribal Monitor. Mitigation Measure MM-CUL-lb - Retention of a Professional Pechanga Tribal Monitor: At least 30 days prior to seeking a grading permit, the project Applicant shall contact the Pechanga Tribe to notify the Tribe of their intent to pull permits for the proposed grading and excavation, and to coordinate with the Tribe to develop a Cultural Resources Treatment and Monitoring Agreement. The Agreement shall address the treatment of known cultural resources, the designation, responsibilities, and participation of professional Pechanga Tribal Monitors during grading, excavation and ground disturbing activities; project grading and development scheduling; terms of compensation for the monitors, including overtime and weekend rates, in addition to mileage reimbursement; and treatment and final disposition of any cultural resource , sacred sites, and human remains discovered on the site. The Pechanga Tribal Monitor will have the authority to stop and redirect grading in the immediate area of a find in order to evaluate the find and determine the appropriate next steps, in consultation with the Project archaeologist. Such evaluation shall include culturally A-35 appropriate temporary and permanent treatment pursuant to the Agreement which may include avoidance of cultural resources, in-place preservation and/or re-burial on the project property in an area that will not be subject to future disturbances for preservation in perpetuity. Mitigation Measure MM-CUL-lc — Cultural Resources Sensitivity Training: The qualified archeologist or an archaeologist working under the direction of the qualified archaeologist, and a representative of the Pechanga Tribe shall conduct preconstruction cultural resources sensitivity training which will include a brief review of the cultural sensitivity of the project and the surrounding area to inform construction personnel of the types of cultural resources that may be encountered, and of the proper procedures to be enacted in the event of an inadvertent discovery of archaeological resources or human remains. The applicant shall ensure that construction personnel are made available for and attend the training and shall retain documentation demonstrating attendance. All new construction personnel that begin work on the Project following the initial training must take the cultural resources sensitivity training prior to beginning work and the project archaeologist and Pechanga Tribe shall make themselves available to provide the training on an as-needed basis. Mitigation Measure MM-CUL-1d — Archaeological and Native American Monitoring and Resurvey of the South Parcel: Prior to issuance of a grading permit and prior to the start of any vegetation removal or ground disturbing activity, a qualified archaeological monitor and Pechanga Tribal monitor shall be retained by the applicant to monitor ground disturbing activities including, but not limited to, brush clearance and grubbing, grading, trenching, excavation, and the construction of fencing and access roads as indicated in MM-CUL-la and lb. The archaeological and Pechanga Tribal monitors shall re-survey the South Parcel involving ground disturbance, after vegetation removal and grubbing and prior to other ground disturbing activities. This will ensure that previously undocumented resources obscured by thick brush can be identified and appropriate treatment measures for the resources can be developed. Archaeological monitoring shall be conducted by an archaeologist familiar with the types of historic and prehistoric resources that could be encountered within the project, and under direct supervision of the qualified archaeologist. If ground disturbing activities occur simultaneous in two or more locations located more than 500 feet apart, additional archaeological and Pechanga Tribal monitors may be required. The archaeological and Native American Pechanga Tribal monitors shall keep daily and/or weekly logs. After monitoring has been completed, the qualified archaeologist shall prepare a monitoring report that details the A-36 results of monitoring, which shall be submitted to the City, Pechanga, and to the Eastern Information Center at the University of California, Riverside. Mitigation Measure MM-CUL-le — Unanticipated Discovery: If cultural resources are encountered during the course of ground disturbing activities, the applicant shall cease any ground disturbing activities within 100 feet of the find until it can be evaluated by the qualified archaeologist, who shall inspect the find within 24 hours of discovery, during normal working hours. The qualified archaeologist, in consultation with the applicant and the Pechanga Tribe, shall assess the significance of discovered resources and shall take into account the religious beliefs, customs, and practices of the Pechanga Tribe. Avoidance shall be the preferred manner of mitigation pursuant to Calif. Pub. Res. Code § 21083.2(b). Preservation in place may be accomplished by, but is not limited to, complete avoidance, incorporating the resource into open space or deeding the site into a permanent conservation easement. In the event that preservation in place is demonstrated to be infeasible and data recovery through excavation is determined to be the only feasible mitigation option, a treatment plan shall be prepared and implemented by the qualified archaeologist, in consultation with the applicant and the Pechanga Tribe. The treatment plan shall provide for the adequate recovery of the scientifically consequential information contained in the archaeological resource. The Pechanga Tribe shall be consulted to ensure that cultural values ascribed to the resource, beyond that which is scientifically important, are considered and additional appropriate mitigation to address the cultural values is applied. The treatment plan shall also provide for the analysis, reporting, and curation/disposition of resources in accordance with the Treatment Agreement required in MM-CUL-lb. Mitigation Measure MM-CUL-If - Completed Avoidance of Impacts to the TCP: The City and the Project Applicant/Land Owner shall ensure that no impacts occur to the Traditional Cultural Property south of the proposed South Parcel Area. This includes, but is not limited to off-site improvements, staging activities, trenching, geotechnical work, Riverside County Flood Control improvements, Water Department impacts, Public Works projects, biological and fire control programs, and any other program or project that would affect the integrity of the TCP. Should any of these activities, or others as indicated, be proposed, the City and the Applicant/Land Owner shall contact the Pechanga Tribe for additional consultation and review. b. Facts in Support of Findings The project area was investigated by a professional archaeologist, who concluded that seven known cultural resources are located within the project area. Ground-disturbing , activities during construction and development of the project would have the potential to uncover previously unidentified archaeological resources within the project area. A-37 However, implementation of Mitigation Measures MM-CUL-1a through MM-CUL-1d requires the retention of a qualified archaeologist and a professional Pechanga Tribal monitor, completion of preconstruction cultural resources training, archaeological and Pechanga Tribal monitoring during ground-disturbing activities, and the resurvey of the South Parcel after vegetation removal and grubbing and prior to other ground disturbing activities. Also, Mitigation Measure MM-CUL-1e establishes the appropriate protocol in the event of an inadvertent discovery of buried cultural resource. If cultural resources are discovered, work must halt immediately within 100 feet of the discovery and avoidance or mitigation is required as appropriate based on a determination of the Tribe member and archaeologist. Specific to the Origin Landscape TCP, Mitigation Measure MM-CUL-1f mandates that the City and the Project Application shall ensure that no impacts occur to the Origin Landscape TCP south of the proposed Civic Nature Center area. If activities which could affect the integrity of the TCP should be proposed, the City and the Project Applicant/Land Owner shall contact the Pechanga Tribe for additional consultation. As such, this mitigation measure would ensure that any potential unanticipated impacts to historical and archaeological resources are reduced to less than significant. 2. Impacts to Paleontological Resources Impact CUL-2: The potential exists for unique paleontological resources to be located beneath the ground surface in the project area, specifically within the sandstone facies of the Pauba Formation 111 (Qp), which has high sensitivity for paleontological resources. Construction activities could result in the inadvertent discovery and damage of these paleontological resources, which would be a significant impact. a. Findings The proposed project has a potential to result in impacts to a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature. Changes or alterations have been required in or incorporated into the project which avoid or substantially lessen the potentially significant environmental effects to paleontological resources. Specifically, the following measures have been included to ensure that the project's potential cultural and paleontological resource impacts remain less than significant. Mitigation Measure MM-CUL-2a — Paleontological Resource Impact Mitigation Program (PRIMP): The applicant shall implement the paleontological mitigation program outlined in the PRIMP (Kennedy and Wirths, 2013) during project implementation. The PRIMP requires paleontological monitoring of mapped exposures of the sandstone facies of the Pauba Formation (Qp) as shown on Attachment 3a of the PRIMP. In addition, because the fanglomerate facies of the Pauba Formation is considered to have undetermined potential to yield significant paleontological resources, initial excavations into the unit shall be spot- checked by a qualified paleontologist (defined as a paleontologist meeting the Society for Vertebrate Paleontology Standards, 2010) to determine if A-38 the lithology of the geological unit is conducive to the preservation of unique paleontological resources. The qualified paleontologist shall also contribute to any construction worker cultural resources sensitivity training, either in person or via a module provided to the qualified archaeologist. Monitoring shall be conducted by a qualified paleontologist, or a monitor working under the direct supervision of a qualified paleontologist. Monitors shall have the authority to temporarily halt or divert work away from exposed fossils in order to recover the fossil specimens. The qualified paleontologist, based on observations of subsurface soil stratigraphy or other factors, may reduce or discontinue monitoring, as warranted, if the qualified paleontologist determines that the possibility of encountering fossiliferous deposits is low. Monitors shall prepare daily logs detailing the types of activities and soils observed, and any discoveries. Any fossils recovered shall be prepared to the point of identification and curated at an accredited facility. The qualified paleontologist shall prepare a final monitoring and mitigation report to be submitted to the City and filed with the local repository. Mitigation Measure MM-CUL-2b — Unanticipated Paleontological Resources Discoveries: If construction or other project personnel discover any potential fossils during construction, regardless of the depth of work, work at the discovery location shall cease until the qualified paleontologist has assessed the discovery and made recommendations as to the appropriate treatment. b. Facts in Support of Findings The project area is underlain by Jurassic to Cretaceous metavolcanic and metasedimentary rocks, Cretaceous granodiorites, and the Pauba Formation (both the fanglomerate and sandstone facies). Although the Jurassic to Cretaceous metavolcanic and metasedimentary rocks, Cretaceous granodiorite of Rainbow, and Pauba Formation fanglomerate have a low sensitivity for paleontological resources, the Pauba Formation sandstone facies is considered to have high sensitivity and the Pauba Formation fanglomerate is considered to have undetermined sensitivity per the Society for Vertebrate Paleontology (SVP) guidelines. The paleontological records search (see Kennedy and Wirths 2013) and the research conducted for this analysis indicate that fossil localities have been documented in the vicinity of the project area. In accordance with the City's General Plan (Implementation Program OS-26), Mitigation Measures MM-CUL-2a and MM-CUL-2b would require the preparation and implementation of a Paleontological Resource Impact Mitigation Program (PRIMP)during project implementation as well as establishes the appropriate protocol in the event of an inadvertent discovery of paleontological resources. As such, if project construction uncovers any unanticipated paleontological resources, these mitigation measures would ensure that impacts are reduced to less than significant. 111 A-39 3. Impacts to Human Remains Impact CUL-3: Because the proposed project would involve ground- disturbing activities, it is possible that such actions could unearth, expose, or disturb previously unknown human remains interred outside of a formal cemetery. a. Findings Construction of the proposed project has a potential to disturb human remains. Changes or alterations have been required in or incorporated into the project which avoid or substantially lessen the potentially significant environmental effects to human remains. Specifically,the following measure has been included to ensure that the project's potential impacts remain less than significant. Mitigation Measure MM-CUL-3— Human Remains: If human remains are uncovered during project construction, the applicant shall immediately halt work and follow the procedures and protocols set forth in Section 15064.5(e) of the CEQA Guidelines, which require compliance with Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 and Public Resources Code Section 5097.98 (as amended by AB 2641). The applicant shall immediately contact the Riverside County Coroner to evaluate the remains. If the County Coroner determines that the remains are Native American and not subject to his or her authority, the County Coroner shall notify the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) within 24 hours. The NAHC shall designate a Most Likely Descendant (MLD) for the remains, who shall have 48 hours from the time of being granted access to the site to provide recommendations to the landowner for the means of treating or disposing of, with appropriate dignity, the human remains and any associated grave goods. Until the landowner has discussed and conferred with the MLD, the landowner shall ensure that the immediate vicinity where the discovery occurred is not subject to further disturbances, is adequately protected according to generally accepted cultural and archaeological standards, and that further activities take into account the possibility of multiple burials. In the event that no MLD is identified, or if the MLD fails to make a recommendation for disposition, or if the landowner rejects the recommendation of the MLD and mediation with the NAHC fails to provide measures acceptable to the landowner, the landowner may reinter the remains and associated grave goods with appropriate dignity on the property in a location not subject to further disturbance. b. Facts in Support of Findings Although no human remains have been identified on the project Site, implementation of the proposed project would include ground-disturbing construction activities that could result in the inadvertent disturbance of currently undiscovered human remains. Procedures of conduct following the discovery of human remains on non-federal lands A-40 are mandated by Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5, by Public Resources Code Section 5097.98, and by CEQA in California Code of Regulations Section 15064.5(e). According to these provisions, should human remains be encountered, all work in the immediate vicinity of the burial must cease, and any necessary steps to ensure the integrity of the immediate area must be taken. The remains are required to be left in place and free from disturbance until a final decision as to the treatment and their disposition has been made. The Riverside County Coroner would be immediately notified, and the coroner would then determine whether the remains are Native American. Any discovery of human remains within the project Site would be subject to these procedural requirements. Mitigation Measure MM-CUL-3 expressly requires that construction work halt if human remains are identified. Compliance with these requirements and implementation of Mitigation Measure MM-CUL-3 would ensure impacts to human remains would be less than significant. 4. Cumulative Cultural Resources Impacts a. Findings The proposed project, in combination with existing, approved, proposed, and reasonably foreseeable development within the City of Temecula, could result in potentially significant cumulative impacts to cultural resources and buried human remains. Changes or alterations have been required in or incorporated into the project which avoid or substantially lessen the potentially significant environmental effects related to cultural resources. Specifically, implementation of Mitigation Measures MM-CUL-1 a through MM- CUL-1f, MM-CUL-2a, MM-CUL-2b, and MM-CUL-3 would reduce impacts to less than significant. b. Facts in Support of Findings Cumulative impacts to cultural resources in the City of Temecula could occur if the project and other cumulative projects had or would have impacts on cultural resources that,when considered together, would be cumulatively significant. The project vicinity contains a significant archaeological and historical record that, in many cases, has not been well documented or recorded. Thus, there is the potential for ongoing and future development projects in the vicinity to disturb known or unknown cultural resources, including archaeological sites, historic-period built resources, and resources of traditional and cultural significance to Native American tribes. However, implementation of Mitigation Measures MM-CUL-1 a through MM-CUL-1e would ensure that any potentially significant impacts to cultural resources would be reduced to a less than significant level by implementing the appropriate archaeological protocols and methods. Three of the identified cumulative projects (refer to Table 4-1 in the Draft EIR) are within the Origin Landscape TCP. The majority of the Origin Landscape TCP is located within the Santa Margarita Ecological Reserve, which is protected from significant development; therefore, most of the Origin Landscape TCP would not be impacted by past, present, or future development. The three cumulative projects within the Origin Landscape TCP A-41 would be expected to have similar impacts on the TCP, and would likely incorporate similar mitigation measures as the proposed project (Mitigation Measure MM-CUL-1f). The proposed project includes several mitigation measures that reduce potential impacts to the TCP to less than significant, at the project level. With implementation of these mitigation measures, the project's contribution to a cumulative impact would less than cumulatively considerable. Excavation activities associated with the project and cumulative projects could contribute to the progressive loss of fossil remains, at-yet unrecorded fossil sites, associated geological and geographic data, and fossil bearing strata. The project would have a less than significant impact to paleontological resources with incorporation of mitigation measures (MM-CUL-2a and MM-CUL-2b). With the implementation of these measures, the projects contribution to cumulative impacts on paleontological resources would be less than cumulatively considerable. Furthermore, implementation of Mitigation Measure MM-CUL-3 would mitigate the project's potential to disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries, and the project's contribution to a cumulative impact to human remains would less than cumulatively considerable. E. GREENHOUSE GAS (GHG) EMISSIONS 1. Consistency with GHG Emissions Reduction Plans or Policies Impact GHG-2: The project could potentially conflict with the goals of the City of Temecula's Sustainability Plan to reduce GHG emissions. a. Findings Implementation of the proposed project could potentially conflict with the California Air Resources Board (CARB) Scoping Plan and the Temecula Sustainability Plan. Changes or alterations have been required in or incorporated into the project which avoid or substantially lessen the potentially significant environmental effects related to consistency with a GHG Reduction Plan or Policy to less than significant. Specifically, the following measure as well as Mitigation Measures MM-AQ-1a through MM-AQ-1e have been included to ensure that the project's potential impacts remain less than significant. Mitigation Measure MM-GHG-1: Upon full entitlement of the project and prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy for the project, the project applicant shall submit an application for a Pre-Certified LEED-ND Plan through the U.S. Green Building Council. If the application meets the LEED- ND prerequisites, the project applicant shall continue with the certification, and the project shall receive a minimum base-level LEED-ND certification within two years of project build-out. If Pre-Certified LEED-ND Plan approval is denied, the project applicant shall nevertheless incorporate the following measures in the project design that are normally scored to achieve LEED A-42 111 standards and shall achieve a fifteen-percent (15%) reduction in energy use beyond 2016 Title 24 building standards by undertaking the following: 1) Provide parking associated with electrical charging stations; 2) Subsidize public transit and expand transit network (e.g., help fund Riverside Transportation Authority and City smart shuttle or bike share programs); 3) Provide an enhanced pedestrian network, including pedestrian connections to the local community; 4) Provide traffic calming measures and urban non-motorized zones; 5) Install bicycle parking and storage, as well as dedicated bike lanes or trails with connectivity to the local community and recreation areas; 6) Prohibit wood-burning fireplaces; 7) Where practicable, install or ensure facilities are compatible with renewable energy (e.g. solar photovoltaics); 8) Install energy efficient boilers and appliances, including programmable thermostat timers; 9) Install energy efficient street and area lighting, including LED traffic lights, motion detection lighting, and limited outdoor lighting for security and safety purposes; 10) Install electrical outlets compatible with electric yard equipment; 11) Provide for use of reclaimed water; 12) Install low-flow bathroom and kitchen fixtures (e.g., faucets, toilets, and showers); 13) Install water efficient irrigation systems; 14) Where practicable, reuse or recycle materials from operation and construction activities. b. Facts in Support of Findings Out of the Recommended Actions contained in CARB's Scoping Plan, the actions that are most applicable to the project would be Actions E-1 (increased Utility Energy efficiency programs including more stringent building and appliance standards), GB-1 1 (Green building), and W-1 (Increased water use efficiency). CARB Scoping Plan Action E-1, together with Action GB-1 (Green Building), aims to reduce electricity demand by A-43 111 increased efficiency of Utility Energy Programs and adoption of more stringent building and appliance standards, while Action W-1 aims to promote water use efficiency. The project would be designed to comply with the CALGreen Code to ensure that the new residential and non-residential uses would use resources (energy, water, etc.) efficiently and significantly reduce pollution and waste. Implementation of Mitigation Measure MM- AQ-1d would further require that buildings implement energy efficiency standards that exceed the 2016 Title 24 standards by 15 percent or include onsite renewable energy, such as the incorporation of solar panels into project development, such that 9 percent of the onsite energy consumption is offset, both of which are reflected in the emission inventory for the project presented in Table 3.6-2 (refer to the Draft EIR). Therefore, the project would be consistent with the Scoping Plan measures through incorporation of stricter building and appliance standards. The Sustainability Plan is designed as a blueprint by which the City of Temecula can address sustainability and climate change by setting targets for GHG reductions, energy and water use,growth planning, reducing waste and championing emerging technologies. The initiatives contained in the Sustainability Plan include a variety of goals aimed at reducing GHG emissions city-wide and advancing development that enhances the pedestrian and transit environment. The project, which would be subject to the building requirements of the CALGreen Code, would support the City's effort of reducing GHG emissions related to energy demand. Also, the Specific Plan includes many elements that would serve to promote alternatives to vehicle use or otherwise reduce operational GHG emissions consistent with the Sustainability Plan. Additionally, eliminating hearths will also reduce GHG emissions. Increasing energy efficiency over Title 24 or incorporating, renewable energy sources onsite, as identified in Mitigation Measure MM-AQ-1d, will also provide a reduction in GHG emissions. Implementation of Mitigation Measure MM-GHG- lwould require the Project Applicant to apply to obtain at minimum base-level LEED-ND certification within two years of project build-out; if the project is denied the LEED-ND certification, the Project Applicant shall nevertheless incorporate the measures stated in MM-GHG-1 into the project design that are normally scored to achieve LEED standards and shall achieve a fifteen-percent reduction in energy use beyond 2016 Title 24 building standards. With incorporation of the mentioned above mitigation measures, the project would include to the maximum extent feasible technologies and means to reduce GHG emissions and would be consistent with all applicable GHG emission reduction plans. F. Hazards and Hazardous Materials 1. Hazards associated with Wildfires Impact HAZ-1: The project site is near a high fire hazard area which could increase the threat of wildfire on human populations and property. a. Findings A-44 The project site is near a high fire hazard area, where development and residents could be at an increased risk of damage from wildfires. Changes or alterations have been required in or incorporated into the project which avoid or substantially lessen the potentially significant environmental effects from wildfires to less than significant. Specifically, the following measure has been included to ensure that development of the project would result in less than significant impacts related to wildfires. Measure MM-HAZ-1: Prior to the issuance of a building permit for the project, the applicant shall prepare and submit a Fire Modification Plan (FMP) for the project to the City Community Development and Fire Departments for review and approval. The FMP shall address areas within the project boundary that are adjacent to a proposed Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP) Conservation Area. The FMP shall include, without limitation, the following information and standards: • Environmental setting that describes the topography and geology, climate, flammable vegetation in and around the project site, water supply for fire protection, fire access roads, and fire protection systems and equipment • General description of fire behavior in the project area based on such factors as predominant fuel types, topography and climate • The establishment of a 100-foot wide fuel modification area located within the project boundary for land adjacent to a proposed MSHCP Conservation Area • A fuel modification area shall have two distinct fuel modification zones: Zone 1 and Zone 2 • A site plan identifying the location of the fuel modification area and zones • Zone 1 shall extend 30 feet from any habitable structure;Zone 2 shall extend 70 feet beyond Zone 1 • Zone 1 shall include the following minimum standards: o No habitable structures o New construction (i.e. fences, walls, gazebos) must be non- combustible and/or have a minimum 1-hour fire rating o Plants should be primarily low growing (less than 4 feet in height), low-fuel, and fire resistant ' A-45 ' o Regular Maintenance to include thinning and pruning of trees and plants • Zone 2 shall include the following minimum standards: o Regular maintenance to include selective thinning and pruning of native and nonnative plants to reduce fuel load • A list of plants not recommended to be used within the fuel modification zones • Identification of entity responsible for regular maintenance b. Facts in Support of Findings According to the City of Temecula General Plan and GIS Map Data, a portion of the project is near a High Fire Hazard Area. The Western Bypass will serve as a fire break between wildland areas and proposed development. In addition, mitigation measure HAZ- 1 requires that a Fuel Modification Plan be prepared as part of the project and incorporated into the Altair Specific Plan to identify appropriate structure setbacks and landscape requirements for the interior of the project to address this hazard. Also, the project would be required to adhere to all fire suppression requirements in accordance with the most recent Uniform Fire Code, which provides minimum fire safety measures that would be incorporated into all building designs. Specifically, the following measure has been included to ensure that the project's potential impacts remain less than significant. G. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY 1. Operational Impacts to Stormwater Runoff and Drainage System Capacity Impact HYD-1: Future development occurring under the proposed Specific Plan could result in impacts to hydrology. a. Findings Operation of the proposed project has a potential to affect stormwater runoff and drainage system capacity. Changes or alterations have been required in or incorporated into the project which avoid or substantially lessen the potentially significant environmental effects to hydrological impacts to less than significant. Specifically, the following measure has been included to ensure that the project's potential impacts remain less than significant. Mitigation Measure MM-HYD-1: Prior to issuance of a grading permit, a final drainage study shall be prepared by a registered civil engineer in accordance with the Riverside County Hydrology Manual and submitted to Public Works with the initial grading plan check in accordance with City, Riverside County, and engineering standards. The final study shall identify A-46 storm water runoff quantities from the development of this site, and shall identify all existing or proposed drainage facilities intended to discharge this runoff. Runoff shall be conveyed to an adequate outfall capable of receiving the storm water runoff without damage to public or private property or any substantial adverse change in receiving water quality or habitat values; the final study shall include a capacity analysis verifying the adequacy of all facilities and any features to include in the design to minimize or avoid runoff impacts. Features to be included in the site design shall conform with the City of Temecula MS4 permit and Stormwater Ordinance, and may include, for example: 1) Non-structural, structural, source control and treatment control BMPs; 2) Infiltration basins, detention basins, vegetated swales, and media filters; 3) Pervious concrete, storm drain stenciling or signage, protection of material and trash storage areas from rainfall; and 4) Other low impact development (LID) BMPs, including measures to reduce increases in runoff through hydromodification and infiltration protection. If the receiving facilities are determined to be under capacity, then onsite detention and/or alternative drainage facilities and outfalls shall be required as needed to avoid damage to public or private property and alterations in water quality or habitat values. b. Facts in Support of Findings The project proposes an onsite storm drainage system to collect and transfer storm flows through the site as required by the City of Temecula. The onsite storm drainage system would be a dual system that would minimize the potential comingling of runoff from the developed and non-developed areas of the project as urban stormwater would be required to be treated while runoff from non-developed areas would not. This secondary system would collect and carry storm flows from the natural open spaces west of the proposed Western Bypass, through the project site, and directly into Murrieta Creek. The other storm drain system would collect and treat surface runoff from the proposed development, before exiting the site. The presence of new development within the project area and changes in the extent of permeable or impermeable surfaces would alter the direction and volume of overland flows during both wet and dry periods. A preliminary drainage study has already been prepared for the site to determine the peak post-developed onsite 100-year flow rates for the site. Preliminary hydrologic analyses have been performed for Altair. The analyses determined since the majority of the project discharges directly into Murrieta Creek, detention should not be required. However, existing condition analyses have not been performed. Mitigation Measure MM-HYD-1 requires that a final drainage study be prepared by an engineer that will identify existing A-47 conditions and will verify the capacity of the existing receiving drainage facilities. If the receiving facilities are determined to under capacity, then detention would be considered. Further, overland flows and drainage at each development would be assessed and drainage facilities designed such that development project within the project site would be required to implement low impact design (LID) BMPs that are designed to retain onsite the pollutants contained in the volume of storm water runoff produced from a 24-hour, 85th percentile storm event; and post-project runoff conditions would not exceed pre- development runoff conditions by more than 10 percent. Implementation of Mitigation Measure MM-HYD-1 and adherence to the requirements found in the MS4 permit would ensure no substantial increases in stormwater runoff would occur and that the existing capacity of storm water drainage systems would not be exceeded. Impacts would be less than significant. 2. Construction Impacts to Water Quality and Water Quality Standards Impact HYD-2: Construction of future development occurring under the proposed Specific Plan could result in impacts to water quality. a. Findings Construction of the proposed project has a potential to violate water quality standards or otherwise substantially degrade water quality. Changes or alterations have been required in or incorporated into the project which avoid or substantially lessen the potentially significant environmental effects to water quality and water quality impacts to less than significant. Specifically, the following measure has been included to ensure that operation of the project would result in less than significant impacts to water quality. Mitigation Measure MM-HYD-2: The developer shall obtain coverage under the statewide NPDES Construction General Permit. When the anticipated total construction disturbance would be greater than one acre, the Construction General Permit requires the preparation and implementation of a SWPPP by a Qualified SWPPP Developer, which would examine existing site conditions, identify the sources of sediment and other pollutants that may affect the quality of storm water discharges during construction and would describe the implementation and maintenance of erosion control, sediment control, waste management and good housekeeping BMPs to reduce or eliminate the potential for sediment or other pollutants to mix with storm water runoff during construction. b. Facts in Support of Findings The project would be developed in three phases over an approximate 10-year time frame, with the phased construction of streets, utilities and other infrastructure, as needed, for each respective phase. Construction of each phase is estimated to take approximately three years to complete. Construction activities associated with new development would ' involve earthwork activities, including grading and stockpiling of soils. Disturbance of soils formerly protected with vegetation or covered by asphalt or concrete could become A-48 exposed to winds or water flows that could result in the discharge of sedimentation and/or pollutants which would degrade surface water quality. Furthermore, construction would require the use of heavy equipment and construction-related building materials and chemicals, such as concrete, asphalt, fuels, oils, antifreeze, transmission fluid, grease, solvents and paints. These potentially harmful materials could be accidentally spilled or improperly disposed of during construction and could wash into and pollute surface waters or groundwater, which would result in a significant impact to surface water quality. However, according to Mitigation Measure MM-HYD-2, when the anticipated total construction disturbance would be greater than one acre,the developer would be required to obtain coverage under the statewide NPDES Construction General Permit. The Construction General Permit requires the development to prepare and implement a SWPPP by a Qualified SWPPP Developer (QSD). The QSD prepared SWPPP would identify the sources of sediment and other pollutants that may affect the quality of stormwater discharges during construction and describe the implementation and maintenance various BMPs to reduce or eliminate the potential for sediment or pollutants to come into contact with stormwater runoff during construction. The common types of construction BMPs that would likely be included in the project-specific SWPPP include sediment, erosion, and waste management BMPs, as described further in Table 3.8-5 (refer to the Draft EIR). The QSD would ensure the SWPPP is designed such that the environment is protected to the maximum extent practicable throughout the entirety of construction. In addition, the Qualified SWPPP Practitioner (QSP) would ensure compliance with the SWPPP through regular monitoring and visual inspections during construction activities, as required by the Construction General Permit. The SWPPP would be amended and BMPs revised, as determined necessary through field inspections, to protect against substantial erosion or siltation on- or offsite. Developments disturbing less than one acre would not be required to comply with the Construction General Permit, but would be required to submit a facility construction BMP plan per SDWQCB MS4 Permit requirements at the time of construction. The construction BMP plan would detail seasonally appropriate and effective BMPs for construction of individual projects and would require approval from the City of Temecula. With implementation of Mitigation Measure MM-HYD-2 and compliance with the above referenced regulations, construction-related impacts to water quality from the project would be less than significant. 3. Operation Impacts to Water Quality and Water Quality Standards Impact HYD-3: Operation of future development occurring under the proposed Specific Plan could result in impacts to water quality. a. Findings Operation of the proposed project has a potential to violate water quality standards or otherwise substantially degrade water quality. Changes or alterations have been required in or incorporated into the project which avoid or substantially lessen the A-49 potentially significant environmental effects to water quality and water quality impacts to less than significant. Specifically, the following measure has been included to ensure that operation of the project would result in less than significant impacts to water quality. Mitigation Measure MM-HYD-3: As a condition of approval, each future development project will be required to generate a project-specific Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP), as required by the City of Temecula Stormwater Ordinance and as specified in the City's Jurisdictional Runoff Management Plan, which will ensure that the project implements specific water quality features to meet the City's MS4 Permit and Stormwater Ordinance requirements. Each project-specific WQMP shall be reviewed and approved by the City of Temecula prior to the issuance of a building or grading permit. b. Facts in Support of Findings The project would include a residential mixed-use development with a Nature Center and associated facilities and dedicated open space. The introduction of residential and commercial uses to an area previously containing open space uses would introduce the potential for new pollutants associated with residential and commercial uses to be generated in the area. These pollutants could potentially discharge into surface waters either directly or during storm water runoff events, resulting in degradation of surface 111 water quality. The waterbody near the project area (Murrieta Creek) is currently listed as impaired on the EPA's 303(d) list by point, nonpoint and urban runoff sources, including metals/metalloids, nutrients, pesticides and toxicity. Operation of the project could create new or exacerbate existing impairments within this waterbodies, which would result in a significant impact related to water quality. However, operation of future developments within the project site would be required to comply with the development planning requirements of the SDRWQCB MS4 permit in effect at the time of construction and the City of Temecula Stormwater Ordinance. These include implementation of non-structural, structural, and source control and treatment control BMPs during the planning process prior to project approval for development projects. A Preliminary Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) has been prepared that identifies the BMP5 for stormwater treatment facilities, source control, and site design (Appendix G of the Draft EIR). The Preliminary WQMP addresses the project-specific constraints of the site and proposed treatment and filtration of storm water runoff. The runoff from the proposed developed surfaces would be treated for water quality purposes. The proposed treatment train would incorporate a variety of biofiltration and bioretention facilities along with bioswales where feasible to reduce any potential water quality impacts on Murrieta Creek and the Santa Margarita River Watershed. In addition, Mitigation Measure MM-HYD-3 would require each future development proposed under the Specific Plan to prepare and implement a project-specific WQMP to ensure that the project implements specific water quality features to meet the City's MS4 Permit and Stormwater Ordinance requirements. Each future development proposal A-50 occurring under the proposed Specific Plan would be assessed individually to ensure compliance with applicable NPDES requirements. Implementation of site-specific source control and treatment control BMPs in accordance with the SDRWQCB MS4 permit in effect at the time of construction and the City of Temecula Stormwater Ordinance, per Mitigation Measure MM-HYD-3, would remove potential pollutants from runoff and would not contribute additional pollutant loads into receiving waters. The SDRWQCB MS4 permit and the City of Temecula Stormwater Ordinance require that each project-specific WQMP shall include a drainage hydrologic/hydraulic analysis that details the site's anticipated runoff calculations. With implementation of these requirements, the individual development projects that would be implemented by the proposed Specific Plan would not result in adverse impacts to water quality during project operation. Impacts would be less than significant. H. LAND USE AND PLANNING 1. Conflicts with Provisions of an HCP or NCCP Impact LU-1: The project could be inconsistent with the MSHCP goals and objectives governing the assembly of conservation lands, wildlife linkages, and riparian/riverine resources. The project's potential impacts to or conflicts with the Western Riverside County MSHCP are discussed in the Biological Resources section above to address the CEQA Guidelines, Appendix G standard of whether the project would conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan. Nonetheless, the EIR restates this standard of significance in its Land Use and Planning analysis without additional discussion. As such, the project's potential impacts to or conflicts with the Western Riverside County MSHCP are presented again here. a. Findings The project has a potential to be inconsistent with the MSHCP goals and objectives governing the assembly of conservation lands, wildlife linkages, and riparian/riverine resources. Changes or alterations have been required in or incorporated into the project which avoid or substantially lessen the potentially significant environmental effects related to conflicts with a habitat conservation plan. Specifically, Mitigation Measures MM-BIO- 1, MM-BIO-2, MM-BIO-3, MM-BIO-4a, MM-BIO-4b, MM-BIO-6a, MM-BIO-6b, MM-BIO- 7a, MM-BIO-7b, MM-BIO-7c, AES-1, NOI-1 a, NOI-1b, and NOI-31b, described in the Aesthetics, Biological Resources, and Noise and Vibration sections, would ensure that the project would be consistent with all applicable guidelines of the MSHCP and impacts would be less than significant. b. Facts in Support of Findings The MSHCP protects and preserves certain habitats and species in the region. The project falls within the jurisdiction of the Western Riverside County MSHCP. The project is consistent with the MSHCP reserve assembly goals as determined by the Area Plan A-51 Subregional analysis contained in the Draft EIR, in conjunction with the proposed Project Conservation Features. Implementation of the mitigation measures above would ensure that the project is consistent with the MSHCP as the project would be in Rough Step with the MSHCP reserve goals; implement mitigation for impacts to riparian and riverine habitat; and would be consistent with the Urban/Wildland Interface Guidelines. In regards to consistency with the MSHCP regarding wildlife corridors, Proposed Linkage 10 and Propose Constrained Linkage 13, application of project features and implementation of the above referenced mitigation measures would require the such things as light and glare standards for the development; permanent fencing between Proposed Linkage 10 and the proposed Western Bypass; conservation of land within Proposed Linkage 10 and Constrained Linkage 13; noise reduction measures and application of BMPs during construction; slope revegetation for manufactured slopes along the edge of Proposed Linkage 10 and the proposed Western Bypass; and adherence to operational exterior noise standards. Incorporation of the above referenced mitigation measures would align the project with the goals and requirements of the MSHCP regarding wildlife corridors. With implementation of Mitigation Measures MM-BIO-1, MM-BIO-4a, MM-BIO-4b, MM- BIO-6b, MM-BIO-7c, the project would be consistent with the Planned Roadway Criteria, Section 7.5.1 of the MSHCP, as shown in the consistency analysis on page 3.3-65 and 3.3-66 in Section 3.3, Biological Resources (see Draft EIR). Therefore, implementation of the referenced above mitigation measures would allow for the redesign of the Western • 111 Bypass to be consistent with the Planned Roadway Criteria and impacts would be less than significant. The project would be consistent with the MSHCP with implementation of the mitigation measures referenced above and would result in less than significant impacts associated with consistency with habitat conservation plans or natural community conservation plans. I. NOISE AND VIBRATION 1. Violation of City Exterior Noise Standards during Operation Impact NOI-3: New developments within the project area may introduce noise levels that could exceed the City's exterior noise standards at adjacent properties to and/or near the new development sites. a. Findings Operation of the proposed project has the potential to violate the City's exterior noise standards at the adjacent properties and/or near the new development sites. Changes or alterations have been required in or incorporated into the project which avoid or substantially lessen the potentially significant environmental effects from operational noise levels to less than significant. Specifically, the following measure has been included to ensure that operation of the project would result in less than significant impacts related to operational noise levels. ' A-52 Mitigation Measure MM-N01-3: Prior to the issuance of a building permit for future developments in the project, the applicant shall provide evidence to the City that operational noise levels generated by the proposed development would not exceed the City's permissible exterior noise standards that are applicable to adjacent properties. If City noise standards at the adjacent properties would be exceeded, design measures shall be taken to ensure that operational noise levels associated with the proposed development would be reduced to levels that comply with the permissible City noise standards. These measures may include, but are not limited to, the erection of noise walls, use of landscaping, and/or the design of adequate setback distances for the new developments. b. Facts in Support of Findings The City has established exterior noise standards that correlate with land use zoning classifications and represent the maximum acceptable exterior noise level, as measured at the property boundary (refer to Table 3.10-5 of the Draft EIR). Under the project, new land uses that would occur in the project area include residential, commercial, institutional, primary education, community recreation, open space/parks, roadways and mixed-use developments. The nearest offsite land uses that would be exposed to operational noise levels generated by the project's new land uses would be those that are 111 currently located along and immediately adjacent to the project site's eastern boundary. However, because open space areas are proposed to be located between the adjacent offsite land uses to the east and the new neighborhood villages within the project site, it is not anticipated that operational noise levels generated by the new onsite land uses would result in violations of the City's exterior noise standards at the existing offsite land uses. As development of new land uses gradually occur within the project area over the 10-year buildout period, operational noise levels could potentially exceed the City's exterior noise standards at an adjacent land use which has already been development within the project area. The determination of operational noise impacts associated with any violation of the City's exterior noise standards at the future properties within the project area would be too speculative at this point in the planning process, as the specific location of individual projects and their distances from each other is currently unknown. However, for the purpose of conducting a conservative analysis in the ER, it is anticipated that there would be scenarios in the future where the operation of a future individual development project within the project area would result in the violation of the City's exterior noise standards at an adjacent or nearby land use. These impacts are considered to be potentially significant. However, implementation of Mitigation Measure MM-N01-3 would require applicants of future developments in the project area to demonstrate compliance with the City's permissible exterior noise standards prior to the issuance of a building permit by the City. Where the City's exterior noise standards would be exceeded for a new development, A-53 adequate design measures would need to be incorporated into the new development (e.g., noise walls, landscaping, setbacks) such that the noise standards can be achieved. Implementation of Mitigation Measure MM-N01-3 would ensure that future development under the Specific Plan would not exceed the City's exterior noise standards and impacts related to operational noise impacts would be less than significant. 2. Permanent Increase in Ambient Noise Levels Impact NOI-4: New development within the project area could expose nearby sensitive receptors to noise levels exceeding 5 dBA over ambient levels due to operation of HVAC equipment; or to noise levels from the operation of mechanical equipment such that interior noise residential noise levels could exceed 45 dBA Ldn. a. Findings Implementation of the proposed project has the potential to permanently increase ambient noise levels due to operation of HVAC equipment or other mechanical equipment. Changes or alterations have been required in or incorporated into the project which avoid or substantially lessen the potentially significant environmental effects from an increase in ambient noise levels to less than significant. Specifically, the following measures have been included to ensure that operation of the project would result in less than significant impacts related to an increase in ambient noise levels due to operation of mechanical equipment. Mitigation Measure MM-N01-4a: The applicant of individual development projects within the project area shall minimize noise impacts from mechanical equipment, such as ventilation and air conditioning units, by locating equipment away from receptor areas, installing proper acoustical shielding for the equipment, and incorporating the use of parapets into building design to ensure that noise levels do not exceed the ambient noise level on the premises of existing development by more than five decibels. Mitigation Measure MM-N01-4b: Prior to City approval of a residential development project within the project area, the applicant shall provide documentation to the City that all exterior windows associated with a proposed residential development will be constructed to provide a sufficient amount of sound insulation to ensure that interior noise levels would be below an Ldn or CNEL of 45 dBA in any habitable room. b. Facts in Support of Findings The proposed project could introduce new noise sources that would result in a substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project. Typically, a permanent increase in ambient noise levels can result from the operation of a stationary noise source that generates constant noise levels. Upon A-54 completion and operation of the various new developments that would occur under the project, these stationary noise sources would consist predominantly of mechanical equipment such as heating, ventilating, and air conditioning (HVAC) units and exhaust fans. As an industry practice, the design of the onsite HVAC units and other noise- generating mechanical equipment associated with the new developments in the project area would typically be installed on the rooftops of residential, commercial, institutional, and mixed-use buildings and located either within an enclosure or behind other intervening structures that would provide a level of noise shielding for nearby noise- sensitive uses. With implementation of these standard design measures, the noise generated from the HVAC units at the new development sites would likely not be perceptible at adjacent or nearby uses. However, to ensure that nearby noise-sensitive uses to the project site would not be adversely affected by any HVAC equipment noise, Mitigation Measure MM-N01-4a would be implemented, which prohibits noise from HVAC equipment from exceeding the ambient noise level on the premises of other occupied properties by more than 5 dBA. Specifically, Mitigation Measure MM-N01-4a would require future development projects to locate their HVAC equipment away from receptor areas, install proper acoustical shielding for their HVAC equipment, and incorporate the use of parapets into their building design to ensure that noise levels generated from the HVAC equipment would not be audibly perceptible on the premises of other existing developments. Thus, although noise from HVAC equipment is exempt from the City's noise standards, implementation of Mitigation Measure MM-N01-4a would ensure that the potential for HVAC-related noise from new developments to be audibly perceptible at existing neighboring developments would minimized and impacts would be less than significant. In addition, the maximum of 1,750 multi-family dwelling units proposed in the project area are also sensitive receptors that could be affected by the operation of mechanical equipment on adjacent properties. In order to ensure that the future residents in the project area would not be adversely affected by operational noise associated with mechanical equipment from adjacent properties, Mitigation Measure MM-N01-4b would be implemented to ensure that all exterior windows associated with the proposed residential uses would be constructed such that sufficient sound insulation is provided to ensure that interior noise levels would be below a Ldn or CNEL of 45 dBA in any residential unit, which would comply with Title 24 standards of the California Building Code. With implementation of Mitigation Measure MM-N01-4b, the interior noise limit of 45 dBA Ldn or CNEL would be achieved at all proposed residential uses and any potential noise impacts on the future residential uses in the project area from mechanical equipment from adjacent properties would be less than significant. 3. Noise and Land Use Compatibility Impact NOI-5: With addition of the Western Bypass that would run along the western boundary of the project area, new development projects proposed in the project area adjacent to the Western Bypass may not meet A-55 111 the applicable noise/land use compatibility noise standards established by the City. a. Findings Development under the Specific Plan located along the western boundary of the project area may not meet the applicable noise/land compatibility noise standards established by the City with the addition of the Western Bypass. Changes or alterations have been required in or incorporated into the project which avoid or substantially lessen the potentially significant environmental effects from exceeding the noise/land use compatibility noise standards to less than significant. Specifically, the following measure has been included to ensure that operation of the project would result in less than significant impacts related to noise/land use compatibility. Mitigation Measure MM-N01-5: All future residential developments located adjacent to the proposed Western Bypass in the project area shall be set back a minimum of 45 feet from the centerline of the Western Bypass. If this minimum setback distance cannot be achieved, other measures shall be taken to ensure compliance with the City's noise/land use compatibility standard of 70 dBA Ldn, including, but not limited to, greater setback distances, the erection of noise walls or use of landscaping. b. Facts in Support of Findings 111 Based on the City's noise/land use compatibility matrix shown in Table 3.10-6 (refer to the Draft EIR), the City allows new residences to be constructed where the average noise environment in outdoor activity areas is up to 70 dBA Ldn, while new commercial and office buildings may be constructed in areas where the average outdoor noise level is up to 75 dBA Ldn. The project area currently consists of 270 acres of undeveloped open space, where the current noise environment is relatively low when compared to the offsite areas located adjacent to the project site's eastern boundary that are occupied by existing developments. Thus, the relatively quiet noise environment within the currently undeveloped project area would be compatible with the new land uses proposed (i.e., residential, commercial, school, etc.) as part of the project. In addition, development under the project would also entail construction of the Western Bypass, which is a proposed four-lane thoroughfare that would run along the western boundary of the project area, to link Temecula Parkway to Rancho California Road via Vincent Moraga Road. Traffic noise levels generated on the Western Bypass could be audible at the new land uses that are proposed along the western boundary of the project area. As shown in Table 3.10-12 (refer to Draft EIR), future traffic noise levels along the segment of the Western Bypass between A Street and Pujol Street would reach 66.5 dBA Ldn at 100 feet from its centerline. As shown, the 75 dBA Ldn noise contour for this segment of the Western Bypass, which runs along the entire western boundary of the project area, would be located within the roadway lanes, while the distance from the 60, A-56 65, and 70 dBA Ldn noise contours would be 442, 140, and 44 feet, respectively. As new commercial and office buildings may be constructed in areas where the average outdoor noise level is up to 75 dBA Ldn, and given that the 75 dBA Ldn noise contour for the Western Bypass would be located within the roadway lanes, all future commercial- and office-related developments that would be developed along the Western Bypass in the project area would meet the noise/land use compatibility guidelines as shown in Table 3.10-6. With respect to residential uses, the City allows new residences to be constructed where the average noise environment in outdoor activity areas is up to 70 dBA Ldn. As shown in Table 3.10-12, the distance from the 70 dBA Ldn noise contour for the Western Bypass would be 44 feet from the centerline. Because the exact locations of future residential developments located along the western boundary of the project area and their specific setback distances from roadways have not been determined at this time, the determination of noise/land use compatibility impacts for each individual residential development project, or a combination of these projects, would be too speculative at this point in the planning process. As such, for the purposes of conducting a conservative analysis, it is anticipated that there would be future residential developments proposed in the project area along the Western Bypass that would not meet the City's noise/land use compatibility standards. Therefore, this impact would be potentially significant. However, implementation of Mitigation Measure MM-N01-5 would require all future residential developments associated with the project to be set back at distances greater than 45 feet from the centerline of the Western Bypass or to implement other measures to ensure that the City's noise/land use compatibility standard of 70 dBA Ldn for residential uses would be achieved. The location of future residential developments beyond this distance would ensure that these new developments would be exposed to noise levels less of less than 70 dBA Ldn from the Western Bypass, which would meet the City's noise/land use compatibility guidelines for residential uses. Therefore, implementation Mitigation Measure MM-N01-5 would ensure the noise/land use consistency of future residential uses adjacent to the Western Bypass and would reduce this impact a less than significant level. 4. Cumulative Vibration Impacts a. Findings The proposed project, in combination with existing, approved, proposed, and reasonably foreseeable development within the vicinity of the project area could result in potentially significant cumulative impacts to groundborne vibration. Changes or alterations have been required in or incorporated into the project which avoid or substantially lessen the potentially significant cumulative impacts associated with groundborne vibration levels during construction. Specifically, implementation of Mitigation Measures MM-N01-2a and A-57 MM-N01-2b, described below, would ensure that cumulative vibration impacts would be less than significant. b. Facts in Support of Findings Cumulative development in the City may result in the exposure of people to or the generation of excessive groundborne vibration. The nearest related project to the proposed project is the proposed townhouse development located adjacent to the project site. Due to this distance, the proposed project and this cumulative project are in close enough proximity to each other such that vibration levels generated during construction could potentially affect the same sensitive receptors should construction occur simultaneously. The nearest sensitive receptors that would be affected by the concurrent construction are the existing single- and multi-family residential uses located along and adjacent to Pujol Street near the southern portion of the project area. Thus, this cumulative impact would be potentially significant. However, implementation of Mitigation Measures MM-N01-2a and MM-N01-2b would require specific buffer distances between construction equipment and sensitive receptors, which would reduce potentially significant cumulative impacts from construction-related groundborne vibration on these nearest offsite sensitive uses to a less than significant level. Thus, with implementation of these mitigation measures, the project would not contribute considerably to cumulative vibration impacts, even if concurrent construction occurs for the project and the related project. As such, cumulative impacts associated with groundborne vibration from construction activities would be less than significant. J. TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION 1. Traffic Impacts on Local Roadways in Existing (2015) plus Proiect Conditions Impacts TRA-1 through TRA-6: When considered the addition of project- generated traffic volumes to existing (2015) traffic conditions, the proposed project would degrade the level of service (LOS) at six intersections to unacceptable levels (LOS E or F). Impacts would be potentially significant in Existing plus Project conditions. a. Findings Traffic generated by the proposed project in Existing plus Project conditions would degrade the LOS at six intersections to unacceptable levels, which would result in potentially significant impacts. Changes or alterations have been incorporated into the project which avoid or substantially lessen traffic impacts to local roadways in Existing plus Project conditions. Specifically, the following mitigation measures have been included to ensure that traffic impacts in Existing plus Project conditions would be reduced to less than significant levels. Mitigation Measure MM-TRA-1: Prior to the issuance of the first building permit in Phase 3, the project proponent/developer shall install or provide A-58 funding for system-wide signal timing optimization (phase timings and cycle length) to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. Since Rancho California Road and Jefferson Avenue operate on an Adaptive Traffic Signal Timing Program, the developer shall be responsible for system-wide optimization along both corridors to mitigate impacts. Mitigation Measure MM-TRA-2: Prior to the completion of Phase 1 of the project, the project proponent/developer shall install or provide funding for system-wide signal timing optimization (phase timings and cycle length) to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. Since Ynez Road and Rancho California Road operate on an Adaptive Traffic Signal Timing Program, the developer shall be responsible for system-wide optimization along both corridors to mitigate impacts. Mitigation Measure MM-TRA-3: Prior to the first building permit in Phase 3, the project proponent/developer shall install or provide funding for signal timing optimization (phase timings and cycle length) at the intersection of I- 15 Northbound Ramps and Temecula Parkway to proportion more time to the heavier traffic volumes, to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. The project proponent/developer shall coordinate implementation of this improvement with Caltrans. Mitigation Measure MM-TRA-4: Prior to the issuance of the first building permit in Phase 3, the project proponent/developer shall install or provide funding for system-wide signal timing optimization (phase timings and cycle length) to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. Since Margarita Road and Temecula Parkway operate an Adaptive Traffic Signal Timing Program, the developer shall be responsible for system-wide optimization along both corridors to mitigate impacts. Mitigation Measure MM-TRA-5: Prior to the issuance of the first building permit in Phase 3, the project proponent/developer shall install stop signs on the Pujol Street approaches at the intersection of Pujol Street and First Street, converting the intersection from side-street stop-control to all-way stop control. Mitigation Measure MM-TRA-6: Prior to the issuance of the first building permit in Phase 2, the project proponent/developer shall install or provide funding for one additional exclusive eastbound left turn lane and signal timing optimization (phase timings and cycle length) at the intersection of Ynez Road and Santiago Road, to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. b. Facts in Support of Findings Intersection operations forecasted for Existing plus Project conditions are shown in Table 3.13-8 (refer to Draft EIR). Six study intersections are forecast to operate at a deficient A-59 level of service (LOS E or worse) under Existing plus Project conditions with the proposed project: • Int. 2 — Jefferson Avenue/Rancho California Road (PM peak hours only) • Int. 5 — Ynez Road/ Rancho California Road (PM peak hour only) • Int. 10— 1-15 Northbound Ramps/Temecula Parkway (PM peak hour only) • Int. 14— Margarita Road/Temecula Parkway (both AM and PM peak hours) • Int. 15 — Pujol Street/First Street (PM peak hours only) • Int. 17 —Ynez Road/Santiago Road (PM peak hours only) Implementation of Mitigation Measures MM-TRA-1 through MM-TRA-6 would be required to address and minimize impacts related to the specific roadway operating conditions at each identified intersection above under Existing plus Project conditions. Implementation of Mitigation Measures MM-TRA-1 through MM-TRA-6 would improve conditions to acceptable LOS levels at each of the above-referenced intersections as described more fully in the EIR and would ensure that project impacts to the six identified intersections would be less than significant. 2. Traffic Impacts to Local Roadways under Cumulative (2025) Conditions Impacts TRA-9: When considered existing, proposed, planned, and approved development in the region through 2025, the addition of project- generated traffic volumes to cumulative traffic conditions would degrade the LOS at one intersection to an unacceptable level (LOS E or F). A potentially significant impact in cumulative (2025) traffic conditions would occur. a. Findings Traffic generated by the proposed project in combination with traffic generated by other development within the region under Cumulative Traffic conditions would degrade the LOS at one intersection to unacceptable which would result in a potentially significant impact. Changes or alterations have been required in or incorporated into the project which avoid or substantially lessen cumulative traffic impacts to local roadways in 2025 conditions. Specifically, the following mitigation measure has been included to ensure that the impact remains less than cumulatively considerable. Mitigation Measure MM-TRA-9: Prior to the issuance of the first building permit in Phase 3, the project proponent/developer shall contribute 20 percent of the cost for the construction of a fourth through lane for eastbound and westbound Temecula Parkway at La Paz Road, for acquisition of right-of-way, and modification of existing traffic signal facilities at the intersection. A-60 b. Facts in Support of Findings Intersection operations forecasted for Cumulative (2025) Traffic conditions are shown in Table 2.13-3 in Section 2.13, Transportation, Traffic, Parking, and Circulation, of the Civic Site Nature Center Environmental Impact Analysis (refer to Appendix A of the FEIR). One study intersection is forecasted to operate at a deficient level of service (LOS E or worse) with the proposed project: • Int. 11 — La Paz Road/Temecula Parkway (both AM and PM peak hours) The addition of project-generated trips in combination with cumulative development within the region is forecasted to result in significant impacts at the above study intersection. Implementation of Mitigation Measure MM-TRA-9 would improve conditions to acceptable LOS levels at the above-referenced intersection as described more fully in the Civic Site Nature Center Environmental Impact Analysis (refer to Appendix A of the FEIR) and would ensure that all potentially significant impacts associated with implementation of the project under cumulative (2025) conditions would be reduce to less than significant levels. 3. Traffic Impacts to Local Roadways under Cumulative (2025) Conditions Impacts TRA-12 and TRA-13: When considered the addition of project- generated traffic volumes to General Plan Build Out (2035) traffic conditions, the proposed project would degrade the LOS at two intersections to unacceptable levels (LOS E or F). Impacts would be potentially significant in General Plan Build Out conditions. a. Findings Traffic generated by the proposed project in Existing plus Project conditions would degrade the LOS at two intersections to unacceptable levels, which would result in potentially significant impacts. Changes or alterations have been required in or incorporated into the project which avoid or substantially lessen traffic impacts to local roadways in General Plan Build Out (2035) conditions. Specifically, the following mitigation measures have been included to ensure that the impacts remain less than significant. Mitigation Measure MM-TRA-12: Prior to the issuance of the first building permit in Phase 3, the project proponent/developer shall contribute 43 percent of the cost to construct improvements at the west Ridge Park Drive leg to allow for right-in / right-out turn movements only at the intersection of Vincent Moraga Drive and Ridge Park Drive, to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. This improvement would prohibit vehicles from making northbound left and westbound left turning movements at the intersection. Mitigation Measure MM-TRA-13: Prior to the issuance of the first building permit in Phase 3, the project proponent/developer shall contribute 17 A-61 percent of the cost to install traffic signals at the intersection of Pujol Street and First Street. b. Facts in Support of Findings Intersection operations forecasted for General Plan Build Out (2035) traffic conditions are shown in Table 3.13-13 (refer to Draft EIR). Two study intersections are forecast to operate at a deficient level of service (LOS E or worse) with the proposed project: • Int. 6 — Vincent Moraga Drive/Ridge Park Drive (both AM and PM peak hours) • Int. 15 — Pujol Street/First Street (PM peak hour only) The addition of project-generated trips in combination with increased traffic volumes anticipated with General Plan Build Out conditions is forecasted to result in significant impacts at the above two study intersections. Implementation of Mitigation Measure MM- TRA-12 through MM-TRA-13 would improve conditions to acceptable LOS levels at each of the above-referenced intersections as described more fully in the EIR and would ensure that all potentially significant impacts associated with implementation of the project under General Plan Build Out (2035) conditions would be reduce to less than significant levels. 4. Conflicts with an Applicable Congestion Management Program Impact TRA-14: The proposed project may conflict with applicable plans and congestion management programs by resulting in temporary but prolonged adverse effects on intersection LOS during project construction. a. Findings Construction of the proposed project would generate a variety of truck and employee trips during site grading and construction of the proposed Specific Plan, which has the potential to cause a temporary but prolonged impact due to lane closures, need for temporary signals, traffic hazards to bikes/pedestrians, damage to roadbed, or truck traffic on roadways not designated as truck routes. Changes or alterations have been required in or incorporated into the project which avoid or substantially lessen impacts related to conflicts with an applicable congestion management programs. Specifically, the following mitigation measure has been included to ensure that impacts remain less than significant. Mitigation Measure MM-TRA-14: Prior to the issuance of any grading permit or any permit that authorizes construction activities within the Specific Plan area, or at offsite locations for improvements associated with the Specific Plan, the project applicant(s) shall prepare a Construction Traffic Mitigation Plan(s) for review and approval by the City of Temecula as part of the permit application. The Construction Traffic Mitigation Plan(s) shall include measures to minimize the construction traffic volumes entering the roadway system (including local roads) during AM and PM peak hours. A-62 At a minimum, the Construction Traffic Mitigation Plan(s) shall include the following implementation measures: • Construction truck routes shall be prepared to designate principal haul routes for trucks delivering materials to and from the construction site. • Should a temporary road and/or lane closure be necessary during construction, the project applicant shall provide traffic control activities and personnel, as necessary, to minimize traffic impacts. This may include detour signage, cones, construction area signage, flagmen, and other measures as required for safe traffic handling in the construction zone. • The project applicant shall keep a minimum of one lane in each direction free from encumbrances at all times on perimeter roads accessing the project site. In the event a full road closure is required, the contractor shall coordinate with the City of Temecula and other affected jurisdictions (i.e., Caltrans, and/or County of Riverside) to designate proper detour routes and signage to appropriate proper access routes. b. Facts in Support of Findings Construction of the proposed project would generate a variety of truck and employee trips during site grading and construction of the proposed Specific Plan. Since the magnitude of these trips during peak hours would be less than that of the proposed project, absolute impacts (in terms of delay and queuing) when compared to project operations would not be significant. However, construction staging and lane closures could cause adverse effects if not carefully planned. Thus, the proposed project could potentially cause a temporary but prolonged impact due to lane closures, need for temporary signals, traffic hazards to bikes/pedestrians, damage to roadbed, or truck traffic on roadways not designated as truck routes. However, implementation of mitigation measure MM-TRA-14 would require the preparation of Construction Traffic Mitigation Plan(s) to minimize the effects of construction traffic on the surrounding roadways as well as to incorporate the appropriate protocols for road closures, lane closures, or other typical construction activities which affect the local roadway network. Therefore, Mitigation Measure MM- TRA-14 would ensure that impacts associated with construction-generated traffic would not conflict with applicable congestion management programs or plans and impacts would be less than significant. A-63 111 VII. Environmental Effects that Remain Significant and Unavoidable After Mitigation In the environmental topical areas of Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas Emissions (GHGs), Noise, and Transportation and Circulation, there are instances where potential environmental impacts would remain significant and unavoidable, despite the inclusion of all feasible mitigation, as discussed below: A. AIR QUALITY 1. Violation of Air Quality Standards— Operation Impact AQ-1: Operational activities occurring after the buildout of the project would violate air quality standards or contribute substantially to existing or projected air quality violations. a. Findings Operation of the project would result in long-term regional emissions of ROG, NOx, and CO that would exceed the SCAQMD's applicable threshold, which would result in or substantially contribute to emissions concentrations that exceed the NAAQS and CAAQS. While Mitigation Measures MM-AQ-1a through MM-AQ-1e would help to reduce operational emissions, operational emissions generated under the proposed project would not be reduced to below SCAQMD's applicable regional thresholds. While several of the mitigation measures are unquantifiable, it is not likely that even with their full implementation all emissions would be reduced to below the SCAQMD thresholds, and there is no additional feasible mitigation that would reduce these impacts to less than significant. Therefore, the project's impacts related to regional operational emissions will be significant and unavoidable. Mitigation Measure MM-AQ-1 a: No wood burning fireplaces shall be included in the residential units. Mitigation Measure MM-AQ-1 b: The lease or purchase agreements for all non-residential units shall include the following: a) Required use of low VOC cleaning supplies in all buildings. b) Required use of low VOC architectural coatings. Architectural coatings shall be 150 grams per liter or less for both interior and exterior coatings applied as part of building maintenance and upkeep. c) Employers shall allow alternative work weeks, flextime, telecommuting, and/or work-at-home programs as appropriate to the business developed. (non-quantifiable) A-64 Mitigation Measure MM-AQ-1c: All residential and non-residential properties shall be equipped with exterior electrical outlets such that a minimum of 10 percent of landscape equipment can be electrically operated. Landscape contracts for all multi-family residential and non- residential buildings shall include a mandatory requirement stipulating that a minimum of 10 percent of all landscape equipment used onsite would be electrically operated. Mitigation Measure MM-AQ-1d: All residential and non-residential buildings shall be constructed such that they meet one of the following conditions: a) Buildings shall implement energy efficiency standards that exceed the 2016 Title 24 standards by 15 percent; or b) Project design shall include onsite renewable energy, for example the incorporation of solar panels into project development, such that 9 percent of the onsite energy consumption is offset. Mitigation Measure MM-AO-le: The lease or purchase agreements for all multi-family residential and non-residential units shall: a) Require that transit routes be posted in common areas of multi- family residential buildings and employee/student areas for non- residential buildings. Additionally, building management shall encourage a ride-share program within the specific plan area such that employees as well as residents have more access to car- pooling opportunities. (non-quantifiable) b) Shall encourage the use of alternative vehicles by providing incentives such as, but not limited to, special parking for alternative fueled vehicles and/or parking cost reduction for alternative fueled vehicles. (non-quantifiable) c) Require that 5 percent of all available off-street parking spaces (per multi-family and non-residential development) shall be equipped with charging stations to encourage the use of electric vehicles. (non-quantifiable) b. Facts in Support of Findings As shown in Table 3.2-7 (refer to Draft EIR) and Table 2.2-3 in Section 2.2, Air Quality of the Civic Site Nature Center Environmental Impact Analysis (refer to Appendix A of the FEIR), the maximum unmitigated daily operational emissions generated by the project would result in long-term regional emissions of ROG, NOx, and CO that would exceed the SCAQMD's applicable thresholds. The majority of the emissions are from either A-65 mobile sources or area sources related to hearth and consumer product usage. Implementation of Mitigation Measures MM-AQ-la through MM-AQ-1e will reduce the project's operational emissions of criteria pollutants (as shown in Table 3.2-8 of the Draft EIR). However, even with implementation of Mitigation Measures MM-AQ-1a through MM-AQ-le, operational emissions generated under the proposed project would not be reduced to below SCAQMD's applicable regional thresholds. While several of the mitigation measures are unquantifiable, it is not likely that even with their full implementation all emissions would be reduced to below the SCAQMD thresholds. Therefore, the project's impacts related to regional operational emissions would remain significant and unavoidable. In addition, as indicated in Table 3.2-1, applicable ozone standards have regularly been exceeded at the nearest (Lake Elsinore) monitoring station between 2011 and 2013 and the South Coast Air Basin (SCAB) is designated as a non-attainment region for ozone. The proposed project's ROG and NOx emission increases could contribute to additional air quality violations in the SCAB region by contributing to more days of ozone exceedance or result in air quality index levels that are unhealthy for sensitive groups and other populations. On unhealthy days, persons are recommended to avoid both prolonged outdoor activities and activities requiring heavy exertion outdoors. Short-term exposure to ozone can irritate the eyes and cause constriction of the airways. In addition to causing shortness of breath, ozone can aggravate existing respiratory diseases such as asthma, bronchitis, and emphysema. 2. Cumulative Air Quality Impacts - Operation a. Findings Operation of the proposed project would generate long-term emissions, which would exceed the SCAQMD's thresholds of significance for ROG and NOx, which would result in significant impacts to air quality. No feasible mitigation measures have been identified to reduce the project's potential operational impacts related to air quality because the proposed project could conflict with SCAQMD's air quality planning efforts for nonattainment pollutants and result in a cumulatively considerable net increase in nonattainment pollutants during operations. Cumulative impacts associated with operational emissions would be significant and unavoidable. b. Facts in Support of Findings The SCAB is currently classified as a state nonattainment area for ozone, PM10, and PM2.5, where cumulative development consisting of the project and cumulative projects could violate an air quality standard or contribute to an existing or projected air quality violation. Based on SCAQMD's cumulative air quality impact methodology, SCAQMD recommends that if an individual project results in air emissions of criteria pollutants (ROG, CO, NOx, SOx, PM10, and PM2.5) that exceed the SCAQMD's recommended A-66 daily thresholds for project-specific impacts, then it would also result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of these criteria pollutants for which the project region is in non- attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard. Operational emissions associated with the proposed project, as shown in Tables 3.2-7 and 3.2-8 (refer to Draft EIR), would exceed the SCAQMD's thresholds of significance for ROG and NOx. Even though the proposed project would be consistent with SCAQMD's Air Quality Management Plan, the proposed project could conflict with SCAQMD's air quality planning efforts for nonattainment pollutants, which would result in a cumulatively considerable net increase in nonattainment pollutants during operations, particularly ozone precursors ROG and NOx. Therefore, the project's contribution to cumulative impacts associated with operational emissions would be cumulatively considerable. B. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS 1. Generation of GHG Emissions Impact GHG-1: The project could generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment. a. Findings The proposed project would generate GHG emissions during construction and operation which would exceed the SCAQMD considered bright-line threshold of 3,000 MTCO2e per year maximum project emissions. Even with implementation of Mitigation Measures MM- AQ-la through MM-AQ-le and MM-GHG-land project design features aimed to reduce GHG emissions, the net increase in GHG emissions resulting from project implementation is considered to be significant and unavoidable. b. Facts in Support of Findings As shown in Table 3.6-2 (refer to Draft EIR) and Table 2.6-2 in Section 2.2, Air Quality of the Civic Site Nature Center Environmental Impact Analysis (refer to Appendix A of the FEIR), the project's total net annual GHG emissions after the incorporation of MM-AQ-la through MM-AQ-1e would be approximately 24,953 MTCO2e per year which would exceed the SCAQMD considered bright-line threshold of 3,000 MTCO2e per year maximum project emissions. This would result in a potentially significant impact. The proposed project incorporates many elements that would serve to promote alternatives to vehicle use or otherwise reduce operational GHG emissions and these elements are consistent with standards identified in the Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) for Neighborhood Development (LEED-ND). LEED-ND credits are awarded for access to transit, housing-jobs proximity and provision of bicycle facilities, to name a few. In addition, Mitigation Measure MM-GHG-1 requires the project sponsor to strive to achieve LEED-ND certification for the Altair Specific Plan. LEED-ND 111 certification requires a project to receive 40 points out of a total of 110 total possible A-67 points. If the LEED-ND certification is denied, the applicant is required to incorporate a list of measures in the project design that are normally scored to achieve LEED standards and shall achieve a fifteen-percent (15%) reduction in energy use beyond 2016 Title 24 building standards. This project is transit-oriented and incorporates a lengthy list of "smart growth" principles, all of which aim reduce vehicle miles travelled and the accompanying GHG emissions. The project incorporates a mixture of land uses, including homes, retail, and recreational opportunities, increasing walkability and reducing the need for transit in single-occupancy vehicles. The project design incorporates infrastructure for alternative transportation, including complete streets that equally accommodate pedestrians, bicycles, public transit, and vehicles. Despite the fact that the project incorporates all of the design elements described above, project-level emissions would still likely exceed the 3,000 MTECO2e per year threshold even with LEED-ND certification. Therefore, the net increase in GHG emissions resulting from project implementation is considered to be significant and unavoidable. 2. Cumulative GHG Emission Impacts a. Findings Construction and operation of the proposed project would generate GHG emissions that exceed the SCAQMD's considered bright-line threshold of 3,000 MTCO2e per year maximum project emissions. No mitigation measures are feasible to reduce cumulative impacts related to GHG emissions to a less than significant level. Implementation of the project would result in significant and unavoidable cumulative impacts related to GHG emissions. b. Facts in Support of Findings As discussed in Section 3.6, Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Climate Change, CEQA considers a project's impacts related to GHG emissions to be inherently cumulative. As concluded in Section 3.6, the project's total net annual GHG emissions after the incorporation of MM-AQ-1 a through MM-AQ-1e would be approximately 24,953 MTCO2e per year which would exceed the SCAQMD considered bright-line threshold of 3,000 MTCO2e per year maximum project emissions. This would result in a significant impact. While incorporation of the additional mitigation measure MM-GHG-1 would reduce the amount of GHG emissions generated, the level of GHG emissions would not be reduced below a level of significance. Therefore, the project's contribution to cumulative impacts associated with GHG emissions would be cumulatively considerable. C. NOISE AND VIBRATION 1. Construction Noise Impacts Impact NOI-1: Construction activities occurring at each individual development site in the project area would potentially expose their respective adjacent or nearby receptor(s) to substantial increases in ambient noise levels. A-68 a. Findings During construction, the proposed project would temporarily generate noise levels that may result in exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of applicable local standards and a substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project. Changes or alterations have been required in or incorporated into the project which would reduce impacts related to construction noise. Even with implementation of Mitigation Measures MM-NOI-1 a and MM-N01-1b, the nearest existing land uses to each of the proposed development sites in the project area would continue to experience a substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels during construction activities. Therefore, construction noise impacts would be significant and unavoidable. Mitigation Measure MM-N01-1a: Prior to the issuance any grading or building permits for a phase or sub phase (project-specific future development within a construction phase), the applicant shall provide evidence to the City that the development will not exceed the City's exterior noise standards for construction (see Table 3.10-5). If it is determined that City noise standards for construction activities would be exceeded, the applicant shall submit a construction-related exception request to the City Manager at least one week in advance of the project's scheduled construction activities, along with the appropriate inspection fee(s), to ensure that the project's construction noise levels would be granted an exception from the noise standards set forth in Section 9.20.040 of the City of Temecula Municipal Code. Factors the City shall consider when granting a noise exception include, but are not limited to, the consideration of the level of noise, duration of noise, constancy or intermittency of noise, time of day or night, place, proximity to sensitive receptors, nature and circumstances of the emission or transmission of any such loud noise. If a construction-related exception request is not approved by the City, design measures shall be taken to reduce the construction noise levels to the maximum extent feasible to achieve compliance with the City's construction noise standards. These measures may include, but are not limited to, the erection of noise barriers/curtains, use of advanced or state-of-the-art mufflers on construction equipment, and/or reduction in the amount of equipment that would operate concurrently at the development site. Mitigation Measure MM-N01-1b: The applicant shall comply with the following noise reduction measures during construction: • Ensure that noise and groundborne vibration construction activities whose specific location on a construction site may be flexible (e.g., operation of compressors and generators, cement mixing, general truck idling) shall be conducted as far as possible from the nearest noise- and vibration-sensitive land uses. • Ensure that the use of construction equipment or construction methods with the greatest peak noise generation potential will be A-69 minimized. Examples include the use of drills and jackhammers. When impact tools (e.g., jack hammers, pavement breakers, and caisson drills) are necessary, they shall be hydraulically or electrically powered wherever possible to avoid noise associated with compressed air exhaust from pneumatically powered tools. Where use of pneumatic tools is unavoidable, an exhaust muffler on the compressed air exhaust shall be used; this muffler can lower noise levels from the exhaust by up to about 10 dBA. External jackets on the tools themselves shall be used where feasible; this could achieve a reduction of 5 dBA. Quieter procedures, such as use of drills rather than impact tools, shall be used whenever feasible, as determined by the City of Temecula's Building Official based on the circumstances such as exposure to sensitive receptors, type and number of equipment used, and duration of noise. • Locate stationary construction noise sources away from adjacent receptors and muffled and enclosed within temporary sheds, incorporate insulation barriers, or other measures to the extent feasible, as determined by the City's Building Official based on the circumstances such as exposure to sensitive receptors, type and number of equipment used, and duration of noise. • Construction truck traffic shall be restricted to routes approved by the City of Temecula, and shall avoid residential areas and other ' sensitive receptors, to the extent feasible. • Designate a construction relations officer to serve as a liaison with surrounding residents and property owners who is responsible for responding to address any concerns regarding construction noise and vibration.The liaison's telephone number(s) shall be prominently displayed at construction locations. • Hold a preconstruction meeting with the City's job inspectors and the general contractor or onsite project manager to confirm that noise and vibration mitigation and practices (including construction hours, sound buffers, neighborhood notification, posted signs, etc.) are implemented. b. Facts in Support of Findings As shown in Table 3.10-1 (refer to Draft EIR), the existing daytime noise levels measured at locations surrounding the project site range from approximately 52 dBA to 65 dBA Leq. As construction noise levels associated with new developments in the project area could reach as high as 89 dBA Leq at a distance of 50 feet from a construction site, an increase in noise levels of 20 to 30 dBA could potentially occur at a neighboring receptor to a construction site. This increase in the ambient noise levels at a neighboring receptor would be considered to be substantial, since, for the purpose of providing perspective, a change in noise levels of 10 dBA is subjectively heard as doubling of the perceived ' loudness. Consequently, Mitigation Measure MM-N01-1b, which would require the A-70 implementation of noise reduction devices and techniques during construction activities for the new developments occurring under the project, would be implemented to reduce the construction-related noise levels at nearby receptors to the maximum extent feasible. Nonetheless, under circumstances where future construction sites within the project area are located immediately adjacent to other land uses, the noise impacts related to a substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels above levels existing without the proposed project would remain significant as the noise reduction devices and techniques prescribed under Mitigation Measure MM-N01-1b would not be able to fully attenuate construction noise levels. Although Mitigation Measure MM-NOI-ib would reduce the project's construction noise levels to the maximum extent feasible, there is no other feasible mitigation that would reduce these impacts to less than significant and it is anticipated that the nearest existing land uses to each of the proposed developments in the project area would continue to experience a substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels during construction activities. Therefore, the project's construction noise would be a temporary significant and unavoidable impact on the nearby existing land uses. 2. Construction Vibration Impacts Impact NOI-2: Construction activities in the project area may expose their respective onsite and/or offsite sensitive land uses to vibration levels that exceed applicable FTA vibration thresholds for building damage and human annoyance. a. Findings During construction, the proposed project would temporarily generate noise levels that may result in exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of applicable local standards and a substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project. Changes or alterations have been required in or incorporated into the project which would reduce impacts related to construction noise. Even with implementation of Mitigation Measures MM-N01-2a and MM-N01-2b, the nearest existing land uses to each of the proposed developments in the project area would continue to experience a substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels during construction activities. Therefore, impacts would be significant and unavoidable. Mitigation Measure MM-N01-2a: The operation of construction equipment that generates high levels of vibration, such as large bulldozers, loaded trucks, and caisson drills, shall be prohibited within 45 feet of residential structures and 35 feet of institutional structures during construction activities to the extent feasible. Small, rubber-tired construction equipment shall be used within this area during demolition and/or grading operations to reduce vibration effects, where feasible. A-71 Mitigation Measure MM-N01-2b: The operation of jackhammers shall be prohibited within 25 feet of existing residential structures and 20 feet of institutional structures during construction activities, to the extent feasible. b. Facts in Support of Findings As future project-specific developments would be spread over the designated neighborhood villages within the project area and construction events would be short- term in nature, it is anticipated that there would be an infrequent amount of vibration events per day at sensitive land use receptors resulting from the construction of individual development projects. However, depending on how close an actual receptor location is to a construction site and the type of building the receptor is (e.g., non-engineered timber and masonry building, historical building, etc.), the vibration levels at a receptor location could exceed the FTA's vibration thresholds for building damage and human annoyance. As such, vibration impacts during construction associated with the project could be potentially significant. Implementation of Mitigation Measures MM-N01-2a and MM-NOI- 2b would reduce the possibility of exposing sensitive land uses to excessive vibration level as they require setback distances for various types of construction equipment from adjacent structures. However, while implementation of MM-N01-2a and MM-N01-2b would reduce vibration levels, the type of residential development allowed under the Specific Plan may make it difficult to achieve the desired distance between these existing land uses and active construction. As such, Mitigation Measures MM-N01-2a and MM- NOI-2b cannot guarantee that construction vibration levels will be reduced below establish thresholds and there is no other feasible mitigation that would do so. Impacts would remain significant and unavoidable. 3. Cumulative Noise Impacts — Construction a. Findings Construction of the proposed project would generate substantial temporary or periodic increases in ambient noise levels at surrounding existing noise-sensitive land uses.While Mitigation Measures MM-N01-1a and MM-N01-1b would reduce impacts related to construction noise, these measures would not reduce these impacts to a less than significant level. Thus, implementation of the project would result in significant and unavoidable cumulative impacts related to construction noise. b. Facts in Support of Findings Development of the project in combination with other projects in the cumulative scenario would result in an increase in construction-related and traffic-related noise in the City. However, each of the cumulative projects would be subject to Section 9.20.040 of the City Municipal Code, which establishes the allowable interior and exterior noise standards for various types of land uses in the City. In addition, Section 9.20.070 (Exceptions) of the City Municipal Code allows for construction-related exceptions from the noise standards set forth in Section 9.20.040 of the Code to be requested from the City Manager. Furthermore, the construction activities associated with past, present, and reasonably A-72 foreseeable projects would also be subject to Section 9.20.060(D) of the City Municipal Code, which establishes the permitted hours for construction. Construction noise is localized in nature and decreases substantially with distance. Consequently, in order to achieve a substantial cumulative increase in construction noise levels, more than one source emitting high levels of construction noise would need to be in close proximity to the proposed project. The nearest anticipated project to the project site is the proposed townhomes development (#PA 13-0155), which is located adjacent to the southern portion of the project site in the vicinity of Pujol Street. Due to this distance, a substantial increase in the ambient noise levels of the existing single- and multi-family residential uses located along and adjacent to Pujol Street would occur should construction of this cumulative project occur at the same time as the proposed project. As such, the cumulative noise impact related to a substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels at these existing noise-sensitive land uses would be potentially significant. During construction of the proposed project, implementation of Mitigation Measures MM-N01-1a and MM-N01-1b would reduce construction noise levels for nearby offsite residents to the maximum extent feasible. However, due to the proximity of the proposed project to these existing offsite sensitive uses, it is anticipated that these offsite land uses would still experience a substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels during the project's construction activities. Therefore, the project's contribution to this construction-related noise impact would be cumulatively considerable and impacts would be significant and unavoidable. D. TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION 1. Traffic Impacts on Local Roadways in Existing (2015) plus Proiect Conditions Impact TRA-7: Development of the Specific Plan will cause the level of service at the existing 1-15 Southbound Ramps and Temecula Parkway (Intersection #25) to degrade from an acceptable LOS D or better to an unacceptable LOS F during the AM and PM peak hours. a. Findings As shown in Table 3.13-8 (refer to Draft EIR), implementation of the proposed project would generate traffic volumes which would degrade the LOS at the intersection of the existing 1-15 Southbound Ramps and Temecula Parkway under Existing plus Project conditions. There are no feasible mitigation measures which would reduce this potentially significant impact to a less than significant level. Therefore, impacts would remain significant and unavoidable. b. Facts in Support of Findings While the project would generate traffic which would degrade the LOS at the intersection of the existing 1-15 Southbound Ramps and Temecula Parkway, it is acknowledged under the Existing plus Project scenario that a Capital Improvement Project (CIP) by the City of A-73 Temecula, entitled "1-15 / SR 79 South (Temecula Parkway) Ultimate Interchange", has been permitted and fully funded. The CIP is scheduled to start construction, well ahead of the first building permit being issued for the project. The intersection is within Caltrans' jurisdiction and requires Caltrans approval. Scheduled improvements to this intersection will remove this intersection; replacing it with a reconfigured intersection of Old Town Front Street and Temecula Parkway to accommodate a southbound loop off-ramp and southbound on-ramp for 1-15. These improvements would reduce project impacts at this intersection to below a level of significance. However, the schedule for the improvements is outside the control of the City of Temecula, and it cannot be guaranteed that the improvements will be completed prior to the issuance of any certificate of occupancy for the project. Based on this information, and to exercise a conservative approach to impact assessment, it is possible that there could be a potentially significant impact at this intersection and there is no feasible mitigation to reduce this potential impact to less than significant. For these reasons, impacts to the intersection at the existing 1-15 Southbound Ramps and Temecula Parkway under Existing plus Project conditions would be significant and unavoidable. VIII. Project Alternatives The EIR considered and analyzed three alternatives to the proposed project: Alternative 1—No project/No Development; Alternative 2—No project/Existing Specific Plan; and Alternative 3—Relocate Civic Use. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6, the EIR analyzed and considered two "No Project" alternatives because there are two possible outcomes if the City does not approve the Project: either the "No Development" alternative or the "Existing Specific Plan" alternative. In addition, no alternative sites were considered in the Alternatives analysis as objectives of the project rely on proximity to Old Town for providing a residential community within walking distance and for development of the Western Bypass, which is intended to alleviate traffic congestion that currently exists within Old Town. Therefore, it would not be feasible to consider other site locations for this project, as further described in section 5.1.3 of the EIR. The three alternatives that were analyzed in the EIR are discussed below, including the basis for rejecting each alternative. In addition, comparison of the alternatives is available in Table 5-2 and Table 5-3 of the EIR. Each alternative's environmental impacts are considered and analyzed, along with an analysis of whether it achieves any of the project's objectives as shown below. • Plan and implement a project that is consistent with the goals and policies of the City of Temecula General Plan. (A General Plan Amendment to the Circulation Element is needed to achieve these goals and policies.) • Balance the need for local infrastructure improvement and demand for new housing in and around Old Town while minimizing physical and visual impacts to the hillside escarpment, wildlife movement, and conservation areas. A-74 ' • Develop a high-quality residential component on the project site that focuses on providing diverse housing types and a wide range of densities that would serve a variety of age groups and household sizes, support the commercial enterprises of Old Town Temecula, help to fulfill the city's regional housing needs, and foster a unique community identity where each neighborhood is unique, vibrant, diverse, and inclusive. • Create a project that reduces dependency on the automobile and encourages the use of an extensive multi-use trail system that would link neighborhood villages and community-wide uses within the project and to Old Town Temecula. • Provide for limited/incidental neighborhood-oriented commercial uses to serve the needs of the project's residents, such as coffee shop, ice cream store, or small restaurants. • Promote design that minimizes water usage by using a relatively drought-tolerant landscape palette, clustered development, and attractive community spaces rather than traditional water-intensive private lawns. • Provide water quality management facilities that are incorporated within the landscape features and designed to create settings that mimic the natural hillside attributes. • Establish an efficient, interconnected multi-modal transportation network that ' includes a Western Bypass Corridor and vehicular, transit/trolley, and pedestrian/bikeway circulation systems that would improve center-of-city traffic conditions. • Provide public amenities close to Old Town Temecula that include a park in the center of the project, plazas, trails, a play field, and an elementary school accommodating 600-730 students, which further diversify and contribute to the Old Town's amenities. • Provide for a civic site of adequate size that accommodates up to 450,000 building square feet for an educational, institutional, or other business use for the benefit of the public, and be integrated into the overall project design in a way that maximizes compatibility with other proposed land uses within the Specific Plan, and provides a strong visual connection and close access to Interstate 15. A. ALTERNATIVE ONE— NO PROJECT/NO DEVELOPMENT 1. Summary of Alternative Alternative 1 evaluates the environmental impacts if the project site were to remain in its current state as vacant land for the foreseeable future. The No Project/No Development Alternative assumes that the Altair Specific Plan would not be adopted and implemented. Instead, the planning area would be left in its current undeveloped and mostly undisturbed state. A-75 Under Alternative 1, no development would occur on the project Site for the foreseeable future and the Site would remain in its current graded and undeveloped condition. Although Alternative 1 could occur if the City does not approve the project, it is not what can most reasonably be expected to occur on the Site if the project is not approved because development is permitted on the Site as discussed and analyzed under Alternative 2. 2. Reason for Rejecting Alternative Alternative 1 is the "No Development" alternative in which no development would occur on the project site. The site would remain undeveloped and mostly undisturbed land. Environmental impacts in the Biological Resources, Cultural Resources, Geology and Soils, and Hydrology and Water Resources correlate primarily with the footprint of site development because they relate to the location of a project and the development of vacant land. The project's impacts in these categories are all less than significant or mitigated to less than significant. Nonetheless, Alternative 1 would result in reduced impacts in these impact categories (Biological Resources, Cultural Resources, Geology and Soils, and Hydrology and Water Resources) because the project site would remain undeveloped and undisturbed. For aesthetic impacts, Alternative 1 would also not impact views, scenic resources, or the visual character and quality of the site because no development would occur and the site would remain in its current condition. The project's aesthetics impacts are all less than significant without mitigation. Nonetheless, Alternative 1 would have no impacts to aesthetics and therefore would reduce impacts compared to the proposed project. Air quality impacts would be reduced under Alternative 1 as there would be no construction-related emissions (from construction activities, vehicles and equipment), and no operational emissions (associated with increased traffic and consumer usage) as is associated with the proposed project. The project would result in significant and unavoidable impacts related to air quality. Since Alternative 1 would result in no development, it would have no impacts to air quality and would therefore reduce impacts compared to the proposed project. Similar to air quality impacts, GHG emissions would similarly be reduced under Alternative 1. Because no development would occur on the site, it would not result in any stationary or mobile-source GHG emissions. The proposed project's GHG emissions are significant and unavoidable, primarily due to mobile-source emissions arising from vehicles to and from the project. Alternative 1 would reduce these impacts, as no development would occur at the site. No hazardous material or spill sites were identified on the project site. As compared to the proposed project, Alternative 1 would have a lower potential to release unknown and unanticipated hazardous materials as it includes no development and no storage of hazardous materials on-site. As such, Alternative 1 would have no impact to hazards and hazardous materials and impacts would be further reduced from the proposed project's A-76 less than significant impacts. Impacts related to airport and wildfire hazards would be similar because the project site remains the same. For land use impacts, under Alternative 1, no development would occur and the onsite open space would remain in its current state. As such, this alternative would not change existing land use or have an effect on land use plans and policies related to the project site. The proposed project would be consistent with the City of Temecula General Plan upon adoption of the General Plan Amendment. In addition, with implementation of mitigation measures that address urban/wildlands interface, noise, and conservation of land in Sections 3.3 and 3.10 of the EIR, the proposed project would be consistent with goals and objectives of the MSHCP. While the proposed project would result in less than significant impacts to land use with mitigation incorporated, Alternative 1would result in fewer effects on adopted land use plans and policies compared to the project. The proposed project would result in significant and unavoidable impacts from temporary construction activities occurring at each individual development site in the project area which could potentially expose their respective adjacent or nearby receptor(s) to substantial increases in ambient noise levels and vibration. Under Alternative 1, there would be no change to existing ambient noise levels or introduction of a new source of noise, or an increase in vibration. The significant construction noise and vibration under the proposed project would not occur. This alternative would result in fewer impacts from noise and vibration compared to the project. Population and housing impacts would not occur under Alternative 1 because no development of the site would occur. As such, Alternative 1 would not result in population growth. Neither the proposed project nor Alternative 1 would remove housing or displace persons, as there are no housing units on the project site. Alternative 1 would have no impact regarding population and housing and therefore would have less impact than the proposed project, which already has a less than significant impact. Impacts to public services and utilizes would be less under Alternative 1 due to the lack of development. Although the fire department and police department would respond to the site in case of a fire or a crime committed on the site, the demand for public services and utilities would be the same as it exists currently. Implementation of the proposed project would result in less than significant impacts to law enforcement, fire protection, schools, libraries, hospitals, and parks and recreation. Additionally, the proposed project would result in less than significant impacts to water, wastewater, stormwater drainage, and solid waste capacity and facilities. While none of the proposed project's impacts would require new or expanded facilities, the proposed project would increase the demand for all of the public services and utility facilities in the City. As such, Alternative 1 would have no impact to public services and utilities, compared to the less than significant impacts under the proposed project. Alternative 1 would result in no increases in traffic or demand for public transit or bicycle/pedestrian facilities. Alternative 1 would not result in additional pedestrian facilities or to existing roadways and would not increase the demand for public transportation. The 111 proposed project would result in the addition of sidewalks/walking paths that do not A-77 currently exist on the project Site and would not result in significant impacts to public transit or bicycle/pedestrian facilities. However, the proposed project would result in significant and unavoidable impacts to various intersections in the project area in the Cumulative (2025) Traffic and General Plan Build Out (2035) conditions. As such, Alternative 1 would have fewer impacts when compared to the proposed project regarding transportation and circulation. Overall, Alternative 1 would reduce environmental impacts compared to the proposed project. However, Alternative 1 does not satisfy any of the ten project objectives. Since Alternative 1 would not develop the site, it would fail to provide the following: diverse housing types and a wide range of densities that would serve a variety of age groups and household sizes; alternative transportation options and a network of trails; limited/incidental commercial uses to serve the project area; water quality management facilities that are incorporated within the landscape features and designed to create settings that mimic the natural hillside; an efficient, interconnected multi-modal transportation network that includes a Western Bypass Corridor and vehicular, transit/trolley, and pedestrian/bikeway circulation systems that would improve center-of- city traffic conditions; public amenities close to Old Town Temecula that include a central park, plazas, trails, a play field, and elementary school; and a civic site of adequate size to accommodate an educational, institutional, or other business use for the benefit of the public. Whereas the proposed project satisfies each project object, Alternative 1 fulfills none of the objectives. Thus,the City Council finds that Alternative 1 would not meet any of the project objectives. The City Council hereby finds that each of the reasons set forth above would be an independent ground for rejecting Alternative 1, and by itself, independent of any other reason, would justify rejection of Alternative 1. B. ALTERNATIVE 2 — NO PROJECT/ESTABLISHED SPECIFIC PLAN 1. Summary of Alternative Alternative 2 provides the comparison of the proposed project versus what can reasonably be expected to occur on the sites should the proposed project not be approved but future development occurs under the existing land use and zoning designations. This "No project/Established Specific Plan"alternative does not necessarily mean the site will remain undeveloped; as currently entitled per the existing zoning designation, the site could be developed with the approved Westside Villages Specific Plan (SP-8). The Westside Villages Specific Plan would involve development of a 154.1-acre area, which is a smaller area than the project site for the proposed project and would not include the 55-acre South Parcel that is located roughly to the south of Camino Estribo. Under this alternative, the project site would be bisected by the Western Bypass and divided into five separate planning areas (A through E), where each has a separate land use; however, it would not be developed with the "villages" concept that is proposed under the proposed project. Planning Area A is located in the center of the project site, closest to Old Town. This area would allow for a "Wild West," open-air arena and a hotel. Planning Area B, A-78 which is located at the intersection of First Street and the Western Bypass, and is designated for neighborhood commercial uses, would allow for local-serving retail uses, such as a small market or drug store. Planning Area C, which is located in the southern portion of the project site, would allow for high-density residential uses. The Mixed Use designation of Planning Area D, which is located in the northern section of the Specific Plan area, is intended to act as a transitional area between the special event uses of the Specific Plan and the existing office and business park uses located to the north of the Specific Plan area. As such, Planning Area D would allow for service commercial, office, and light industrial uses. Planning Area E, which would be west of the Western Bypass would be designated for 80 gross acres of open space and would remain undeveloped. The project would also provide for pedestrian connectivity between the various planning areas and Old Town. Table 5-1 (refer to Draft EIR) outlines the land uses and amount of development for each planning area under this alternative. Although this alternative would allow for more commercial development (120,000 square feet versus the maximum 22,000 square feet proposed as part of the project), overall, it would represent a reduced project alternative to the proposed project due to the significantly fewer residential units that would be developed, and the absence of the civic use and elementary school. Many environmental impacts analyzed in an EIR are related to the project's location, such as such as biological, cultural, geologic, and visual impacts. However, some environmental impacts are related to the type of project, such as traffic and traffic's effects on air quality, GHG emissions, and noise. This is because different uses produce different amounts of traffic. 2. Reason for Resecting Alternative For aesthetic impacts, under Alternative 2, a 120,000-square-foot entertainment and tourist retail shopping area would be developed as compared to the maximum 22,000 square feet of neighborhood commercial under the proposed project. This entertainment area would include retail commercial buildings, an open-air, tented arena, and a hotel. Development standards allow a maximum building height of 150 feet (approximately five stories). High density multi-family residential with active and passive open space would be located at the southeastern portion of the project, and mixed-use (commercial, office, business park) located at the northeastern portion of the project site. While Alternative 2 would have less building square footage than the proposed project, the height and mass of individual buildings could have similar visual impact on the landscape. Overall, aesthetic impacts of Alternative 2 would be similar to the proposed project. Air quality impacts would be significant and unavoidable with implementation of the proposed project as long-term regional emissions of criteria air pollutants and ozone precursors, primarily from mobile sources, would exceed applicable thresholds. According to the traffic study prepared for the project, development of the project would result in a net increase of 19,232 vehicle trips per day. Implementation of Alternative 2 would result in a conservative estimate of 7,446 vehicle trips per day. This reduction in A-79 vehicle trips and related mobile-source emissions would result in Alternative 2 having fewer impacts to air quality than the proposed project. In regards to biological resources, the project would result in permanent impacts to approximately 181 acres of upland habitat and approximately 1.2 acres of riparian/riverine habitat. With mitigation, the proposed project would have a less than significant impact on adjacent wildlife corridors. Under Alternative 2, the 55-acre South Parcel would not be developed as it would not be part of the project site. This would reduce impacts to wildlife corridors that occur under the proposed project, in particular Proposed Linkage 10 and Constrained Linkage 13. However, Alternative 2 maintains the original alignment for the Western Bypass. This alignment is located further west of the new alignment under the proposed project and would result in impacts to an additional 55 acres of sensitive habitat and greater reduction in corridor width along Proposed Linkage 10 compared to the project. As such, Alternative 2 would have similar impacts to biological resources compared to the proposed project. Related to cultural resources, construction of the proposed project would include soil excavation, which has the potential to encounter historical and paleontological resources. With mitigation, the proposed project's impact on these resources is less than significant. Under Alternative 2, the 55-acre South Parcel at the south end of the proposed project would not be developed, which would avoid the TCP and any potential cultural resources that could be encounter during soil excavation at that site. As such, Alternative 2 would have fewer impacts to cultural resource compared to the proposed project. Geology, soils, and seismicity impacts would be less than significant with implementation of the proposed project. Alternative 2 would have 1,449 fewer residential dwelling units at maximum buildout, and, therefore, would expose fewer people and structures to potential adverse effects of seismic ground shaking. However, development under Alternative 2 would be subject to the same building codes and regulations as the proposed project, which requires structural design that can accommodate ground accelerations expected from known active faults. As a result, Alternative 2 would have similar exposure to geologic hazards as the proposed project. Greenhouse gas emissions would be less under Alternative 2 and would also result in a cumulatively considerable and significant and unavoidable impact because Alternative 2 results in a larger development scenario. The proposed project's greenhouse gas emissions are also cumulatively considerable and significant and unavoidable, with no feasible mitigation available to reduce the impacts to less than significant. Approximately 80 percent of the proposed project's GHG emissions result from mobile source and this percentage would be similar under Alternative 2. Therefore, impacts related to GHG would also be significant and unavoidable under Alternative 2, but impacts would be reduced under the alternative scenario compared to the proposed project. Hazards and hazardous materials impacts would be less than significant with mitigation with implementation of the proposed project. Similar to the proposed project, Alternative 2 would be required to follow applicable regulations and guidelines regarding storage and A-80 ' handling of hazardous waste. As such, Alternative 2 would have similar impacts related to hazards and hazardous materials compared to the project. With mitigation incorporated, the proposed project would result in less than significant impacts to hydrology and water quality. Alternative 2 would have higher intensity commercial development (120,000 square feet versus 22,000 square feet) but lower intensity residential development (302 dwelling units versus 1,750 dwelling units) than the proposed project. Overall, it would represent a reduced project alternative to the proposed project due to the significantly fewer residential units that would be developed, and the absence of the civic use and elementary school. The reduced alternative would have less impervious surfaces than the proposed project. As such, Alternative 2 would have fewer effects on hydrology and water quality compared to the proposed project. In regards to land use, the proposed project would require a General Plan Amendment which would modify the City's existing General Plan Land Use Policy Map and sections in the Land Use and Circulation Elements to accommodate the proposed residential villages, institutional/civic uses, and the Western Bypass alignment. In addition, with implementation of mitigation measures that address urban/wildlands interface, noise, and conservation of land in Sections 3.3 and 3.10 of the Draft EIR, the proposed project would be consistent with goals and policies of the MSHCP. It is expected that development under Alternative 2 would be required to adhere to similar measures. Alternative 2 would result in a greater buffer between urban development and an area where three streams converge (Murrieta Creek, Temecula Creek, and Santa Margarita River) south of the project site. This would result in a greater degree of consistency with MSHCP goals and policies associated with wildlife corridors. Therefore, Alternative 2 would have fewer impacts to land use and planning compared to the proposed project. The proposed project would result in significant and unavoidable impacts from temporary construction activities occurring at each individual development site in the project area which could potentially expose their respective adjacent or nearby receptor(s) to substantial increases in ambient noise levels and vibration. Under Alternative 2, it is assumed that construction phasing would occur not unlike the proposed project and individual lots within the project site would be developed over the course of 10 years. As such, Alternative 2 would have similar effects on nearby receptors during construction compared to the proposed project. Population growth under Alternative 2 would be less than under the proposed project. Using an average household size of 2.63 persons per household, the proposed project could generate a new population of between 2,288 and 4,603 people. Using the same persons per household ratio, Alternative 2 is estimated to generate a new population of between 515 and 794 people. Therefore, Alternative 2 would have fewer impacts on population and housing compared to the proposed project. Alternative 2 would decrease demand for public services and utilities as compared to the proposed project because it would generate considerably fewer new residential units and would not develop the 55-acre parcel with nature center uses. As a result, there would be A-81 • less demand for public services and utility facilities and Alternative 2 would have fewer impacts on public services compared to the project. Traffic generation under Alternative 2 would be reduced because of the reduction of building potential and decreased population growth. The project would result in a significant cumulative impact on traffic due the unfeasibility of widening Temecula Parkway between La Paz Road and Wabash Lane. The project would result in a net increase of 19,232 vehicle trips per day. Implementation of Alternative 2 would result in a conservative estimate of 7,446 vehicle trips per day. The reduction in daily vehicle trips under Alternative 2 may avoid the significant cumulative impact along Temecula Parkway that would result from implementation of the proposed project. Overall, Alternative 2 would have reduced traffic impacts when compared to the proposed project. Overall, Alternative 2 would result in similar impacts to aesthetics, biological resources, geology, soils, and seismicity, and noise and vibration as compared to the proposed project. All other impacts would be reduced under Alternative 2 compared to the proposed project. However, Alternative 2 fails to satisfy four of the ten project objectives. It would not provide diverse housing types and a wide range of densities that would serve a variety of age groups and household sizes; provide water quality management facilities that are incorporated within the landscape features and designed to create settings that mimic the natural hillside; provide public amenities close to Old Town Temecula that include a central park, plazas, trails, a play field, and elementary school; and provide for a civic site of adequate size to accommodate an educational, institutional, or other business use for the benefit of the public. Thus, the City Council finds that Alternative 2 is the environmentally superior alternative but would not fully achieve the benefits of the project objectives, including the linkage with Old Town and the emphasis on pedestrian-focused development, and does not avoid significant environmental impacts. The City Council hereby finds that each of the reasons set forth above would be an independent ground for rejecting Alternative 2, and by itself, independent of any other reason, would justify rejection of Alternative 2. C. ALTERNATIVE 3 — RELOCATE CIVIC USE 1. Summary of Alternative Alternative 3 would maintain the majority of the project elements including the eight residential villages with the proposed residential densities, a small amount of neighborhood-serving commercial uses, the nature center use, and the extension of the Western Bypass along the proposed alignment. However, under this alternative, the proposed nature center use would be relocated from the South Parcel to the area of the proposed elementary school site (Village C); and the elementary school eliminated from ' the proposed project. The intent of this alternative is to reduce potential impacts to biological and cultural resources; namely, for biological resources, the restricted wildlife A-82 corridor widths associated with Proposed Linkage 10 and Constrained Linkage 13; and, for cultural resources, the National-register-listed Origin Landscape TCP and an archaeological site located on the South Parcel. 2. Reason for Rejecting Alternative For aesthetics, the proposed project would result in less than significant impacts with mitigation incorporated. Under Alternative 3, the nature center use would be relocated from the 55-acre South Parcel to the elementary site, and the elementary school eliminated from the development. The introduction of a nature center use with up to 20,000 square feet of building area and a maximum building height of two-stories would result in similar building height and mass compared with an elementary school. However, considering that residential structures up to five stories would occur at the perimeter of the civic use, the visual character of Alternative 3 as viewed from nearby public roadways would be similar to the proposed project. As such, Alternative 3 would have similar impacts on aesthetics as the proposed project. Air quality emissions are based on a project's size and the number of project-related daily vehicle trips. Operation of the proposed would have a significant and unavoidable impact on air quality. Under Alternative 3, daily vehicle trips would be reduced by an estimated 791 trips. This minor reduction in trips would be not result in a significant reduction in mobile-source emissions. As a result, Alternative 3 would have similar impacts to air quality compared to the project. The proposed project would incorporate mitigation measures to reduce impacts on adjacent wildlife corridors to less than significant. Under Alternative 3, the 55-acre South Parcel would not be developed and the site would be conserved as open space. This would provide greater wildlife corridor width at the southern end of the project where Proposed Linkage 10 and Proposed Constrained Linkage 13 converge, thereby reducing any potential effects on wildlife movement in this vicinity. As a result, Alternative 3 would have fewer impacts to biological resources compared to the proposed project. Similar to the proposed project, construction of Alternative 3 would include soil excavation which has the potential to encounter historical and paleontological resources. However, Alternative 3 would be required to incorporate similar mitigation for ground-disturbing activities to reduce these impacts to less than significant. In addition, the 55-acre South Parcel would not be developed under Alternative 3, which would result in the avoidance of a TCP and potential cultural resources that could be encounter during soil excavation at the 55-acre site. As such, Alternative 3 would have less potential to impact cultural resource compared to the proposed project. Alternative 3 would have a reduced development footprint with the elimination of the elementary school compared with the proposed project; and, therefore, would expose fewer people and structures to potential adverse effects of seismic ground shaking. However, development under Alternative 3 would be subject to the same building codes and regulations as the proposed project, which requires structural design that can A-83 accommodate ground accelerations expected from known active faults. As a result, Alternative 3 would have similar exposure to geologic hazards as the proposed project. Greenhouse gas emissions resulting from Alternative 3 would exceed applicable standards. Alternative 3, at buildout, would have an estimated 791 vehicular trips per day less than the proposed project. The resulting reduction in GHG emissions when compared with the project would be negligible. As a result, Alternative 3 would have similar impacts compared to the proposed project. No hazardous material or spill sites were identified on any of the project site. Similar to the proposed project, Alternative 3 would be required to follow applicable regulations and guidelines regarding storage and handling of hazardous waste. As such, Alternative 3 would have similar impacts related to hazards and hazardous materials compared to the proposed project. With mitigation, the proposed project would result in less-than-significant impacts to hydrology and water quality. Alternative 3 would relocate the nature center use to the elementary school site, eliminate the elementary school and leave the 55-acre South Parcel in its existing, undeveloped condition; resulting the development of fewer impervious surfaces compared to the project. As such, Alternative 3 would have fewer effects on hydrology and water quality compared to the proposed project. In regards to land use, the project would require a General Plan Amendment which would modify the City's existing General Plan Land Use Policy Map and sections in the Land Use and Circulation Elements to accommodate the proposed residential villages, institutional/civic uses, and the Western Bypass alignment. In addition, with implementation of mitigation measures that address urban/wildlands interface, noise, and conservation of land in Sections 3.3 and 3.10 of this EIR, the proposed project would be consistent with goals and policies of the MSHCP. It is expected that Alternative 3 would also involve a General Plan Amendment and be required to adhere to similar mitigation measures. Alternative 3 would have similar land uses (except for the elimination of the elementary school) compared to the project but under a reduced density scenario that would provide a greater buffer between urban development and an area where three streams converge (Murrieta Creek, Temecula Creek, and Santa Margarita River) at the southern end of the project site. This would result in a greater degree of consistency with MSHCP goals and policies associated with wildlife corridors and conserved lands. However, relocating the civic use to the proposed elementary school site would introduce a higher intensity land use that would be less compatible with the planned residential uses for that area, and would have an adverse effect on the internal street system. Therefore, Alternative 3 would have similar impacts to land use and planning compared to the proposed project. Similar to the proposed project, construction phasing would be similar to the proposed project and individual lots within the project site would be developed over the course of 10 years. Although the development of the 55-acre site would not occur, Alternative 3 would have similar effects from noise impacts on nearby receptors during construction compared to the proposed project. A-84 ' Population growth under Alternative 3 would be similar to the proposed project. Using an average household size of 2.63 persons per household, the proposed project could generate a new population of between 2,288 and 4,603 people. Alternative 3 would allow the same range of dwelling units as the project. Therefore, Alternative 3 would have similar impacts on population and housing as the proposed project. Demand for public services and utilities would be similar under Alternative 3 generate similar population as the project but would not have an elementary school and would provide additional recreation/open space with the nature center use. As such, there would be a similar demand for public services such as public parks and open space, police and fire protection, library services and hospital services as the proposed project. Overall, Alternative 3 would have similar impacts on public services compared to the proposed project. With mitigation, the proposed project would result a less-than-significant impact on traffic, except under the Cumulative (2025) Traffic and General Plan Build Out (2035) conditions The proposed project would result in a significant cumulative impact on traffic due the unfeasibility of widening Temecula Parkway between La Paz Road and Wabash Lane. The project would result in a net increase of 19,232 vehicle trips per day. Implementation of Alternative 3 would result in 791 less vehicle trips per day than the project, which would be a negligible decrease in vehicle trips compared to the project. However, relocating the nature center use to the elementary school site would shift additional trips to the north end of the project site and throughout the site's internal network, likely having an adverse impact on the internal street network as planned, requiring additional improvements to intersections along Rancho California Road and the Western Bypass; specifically at Rancho California Road and the Western Bypass, Vincent Moraga Drive and Park Ridge Drive, and A Street and the Western Bypass. As such, Alternative 3 would have similar impacts to traffic compared to the proposed project. The proposed project would result in a less than significant impact on utilities and water supply). Alternative 3 would eliminate the elementary school resulting in less demand on utilities such, as solid waste, and water supply compared to the project. As such, Alternative 3 would have fewer impacts on utilities and water supply. Alternative 3 will have many of the same impacts as the proposed project but would reduce impacts to biological resources, cultural resources, hydrology and water quality, and utilities. However, Alternative 3 fails to satisfy two of the ten the project objectives. Alternative 3 would fail to provide public amenities close to Old Town Temecula that include a central park, plazas, trails, a play field, and elementary school; and provide for a civic site of adequate size to accommodate an educational, institutional, or other business use for the benefit of the public. Thus, the City Council finds that Alternative 3 would not fully meet the project objectives; it is not the environmentally superior alternative; and does not avoid significant environmental impacts. A-85 ' The City Council hereby finds that each of the reasons set forth above would be an independent ground for rejecting Alternative 3, and by itself, independent of any other reason, would justify rejection of Alternative 3. ' A-86 I ATTACHMENT 5B MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM (NC) Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program DRAFT—NATURE CENTER MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM Responsible Action Verification of Compliance Enforcement Monitoring Indicating Mitigation Measures Monitoring Phase Agency Agency Compliance Initials Date Remarks Aesthetics Mitigation Measure MM-AES-1:The following light and glare Pre-Construction/ City of City of City of standards shall be applied to all future development within the Construction/ Temecula Temecula Temecula project area: Post-Construction Building Official project approval or other and field • The applicant shall ensure that all outdoor lighting fixtures Designee verification and in public areas contain"sham cutoff'fixtures,and shall be sign-off by City fitted with flat glass and internal and external shielding. of Temecula • The applicant shall ensure that site lighting systems shall be grouped into control zones to allow for opening, closing,and night light/security lighting schemes.All control groups shall be controlled by an automatic lighting system utilizing a time clock,photocell,and low voltage relays. • The applicant shall ensure that design and layout of the development shall take advantage of landscaping,onsite architectural massing,and off—site architectural massing to block fight sources and reflection from cars. • The use of highly reflective construction materials on exterior wall surfaces shall be prohibited. • Prior to the issuance of construction permits for any phase of the project that includes outdoor lighting,the applicant shall submit an outdoor lighting plan and photometric plan to be reviewed and approved by the City of Temecula. The lighting plan shall be in compliance with Ordinance No.655 as adopted by the Riverside County Board of Supervisors and shall include,but not be limited to,the following information and standards: o Light fixtures shall not exceed 4,050 lumens: o Light fixtures shall be fully shielded so that light rays emitted by the fixtures are projected below the Cypress Ridge Project 1 ESA/150642 MMRP July 2017 ! ! ! Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM(CONTINUED) Responsible Action Verification of Compliance Enforcement Monitoring Indicating Mitigation Measures Monitoring Phase Agency Agency Compliance initials Date Remarks horizontal plan passing through the lowest point of the shield; o A map showing all lamp locations,orientations,and intensities,including security,roadway,and task lighting; o Specification of each light fixture and each light shield; o Total estimated outdoor lighting footprint,expressed as lumens per acre;and o Specification of motion sensors and other controls to be used,especially for security lighting. • The City shall conduct a post-installation inspection to ensure that the development is in compliance with the design standards in Altair Specific Plan,Mitigation Measure MM-AES-1 and Riverside County Ordinance No. 655. Air Quality Pre-Construction City of City of City of Mitigation Measure MM-AQ-la:No fireplaces shall be included in Temecula Temecula Temecula the residential units. Building Official project approval or other • Designee Mitigation Measure MM-AQ-lb:The lease or purchase agreements Post-Construction City of City of Issuance of for all non-residential units shall include the following: Temecula Temecula Certificate of Building Official Occupancy by a) Required use of low VOC cleaning supplies in all or other City of buildings. Designee Temecula b) Required use of low VOC architectural coatings. Architectural coatings shall be 150 grams per liter or less for both interior and exterior coatings applied as part of building maintenance and upkeep. Cypress Ridge Project 2 ESA 1150642 MMRP July 2017 111111. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM(CONTINUED) Responsible Action Verification of Compliance Enforcement Monitoring indicating Mitigation Measures Monitoring Phase Agency Agency Compliance initials Date Remarks c) Employers shall allow alternative work weeks,flextime, telecommuting,and/or work-at-home programs as appropriate to the business developed.(non-quantifiable) Mitigation Measure MM-AQ-1c:All residential and non-residential Construction City of City of Field verification properties shall be equipped with exterior electrical outlets such that Temecula Temecula and sign-off by a minimum of 10 percent of landscape equipment can be electrically Building Official City of operated.Landscape contracts for all multi-family residential and or other Temecula non-residential buildings shall include a mandatory requirement Designee stipulating that a minimum of 10 percent of all landscape equipment used onsite would be electrically operated. • Mitigation Measure MM-AQ-1d:All residential and non-residential Pre-construction/ City of City of Issuance of buildings shall be constructed such that they meet one of the Construction Temecula Temecula Building Permit following conditions: Building Official and field a) Buildings shall implement energy efficiency standards that or other verification and exceed the 2013 Title 24 standards by 15 percent;or Designee sign-off by City b) Project design shall include onsite renewable energy,for of Temecula example the incorporation of solar panels into project development,such that 9 percent of the onsite energy consumption is offset. Mitigation Measure MM-AQ-le:The lease or purchase agreements Post-Construction City of City of Issuance of for all multi-family residential and non-residential units shall: Temecula Temecula Certificate of a) Require that transit routes be posted in common areas of Building Official Occupancy by multi-family residential buildings and employee/student or other City of areas for non-residential buildings.Additionally,building Designee Temecula management shall encourage a ride-share program within the specific plan area such that employees as well as residents have more access to car-pooling opportunities. (non-quantifiable) b) Shall encourage the use of alternative vehicles by providing incentives such as,but not limited to,special parking for alternative fueled vehicles and/or parking cost reduction for alternative fueled vehicles.(non-quantifiable) Require that 5 percent of all available off-street parking spaces(per multi-family and non-residential development)shall be equipped with charging stations to encourage the use of electric vehicles.(non- quantifiable) Mitigation Measure MM-AQ-2:The site shall be watered four times per day during ground disturbance(grading)activities for all project Cypress Ridge Project 3 ESA/150642 MMRP July 2011 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM(CONTINUED) Responsible Action Verification of Compliance Enforcement Monitoring Indicating Mitigation Measures Monitoring Phase Agency Agency Compliance Initials Date Remarks development phases.During drought conditions,defined as Water Shortage Stages 4 or 5 as determined by the Rancho California Water District,use of reclaimed water or non-water chemical stabilizers shall be implemented such that fugitive emissions reductions are comparable.Permission to use potable water for dust control activities during drought conditions shall be granted by the City of Temecula Building Official if the General Contractor shows in writing that (1)Reclaimed water is not available in sufficient quality and quantity from recycled wastewater treatment facilities located within 10 miles of the construction site:and (2)Well water or groundwater is not available in sufficient quality and quantity from wells and groundwater sources located within 10 miles of the construction site. Biological Resources Mitigation Measure MM-810-1:To the extent feasible,clearing and Pre-Construction/ City of City of Issuance of grubbing activities shall take place outside of the avian breeding Construction Temecula Temecula grading permit season,which occurs from February 1 to September 15.If clearing Qualified and sign-off by and grubbing activities are necessary during the breeding season,a Biologist City of focused survey for active nests of raptors and migratory birds shall Temecula be conducted by a qualified biologist having demonstrated experience conducting breeding bird and nest surveys.The survey shall occur no more than 7 days prior to any clearing,grubbing, construction or ground-disturbing activities.If active nest(s)(with eggs or fledglings)are identified within the project area,the nest shall not be disturbed until the young have hatched and fledged (matured to a state that they can leave the nest on their own and are no longer relying on the nest for survival).A 500-foot construction setback from any active raptor nesting location(or a distance to be determined by the qualified biologist,based on species,construction activity,the birds'response/habituation to human presence,and/or topographic features that could limit construction activity disturbance to the nest)shall be adhered to in order to avoid disturbance of the nest until the young have fledged or the nest has failed,as determined by a qualified biologist.A 300-foot construction setback (or a distance to be determined by the qualified biologist,based on species,construction activity,and the birds'response/habituation to human presence,and/or topographic features that could limit construction activity disturbance to the nest)shall be established for all other migratory birds.If no active nests are identified, construction may commence.All construction setbacks shall be clearly demarcated in the field with appropriate material(flagging, staking,construction fencing,etc.)and verified by a qualified Cypress Ridge Project 4 ESA/150642 MMRP July 2017 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM(CONTINUED) Responsible Action Verification of Compliance Enforcement Monitoring Indicating Mitigation Measures Monitoring Phase Agency Agency Compliance Initials Date Remarks biologist.Such fencing shall be maintained and monitored until the nest is confirmed to be inactive. If an avoidance buffer is not feasible,as determined by a qualified biologist in consultation with the City,noise walls or other noise attenuation devices may be installed as needed to prevent disturbance to the nest. Mitigation Measure MM-B10-2:Suitable burrowing owl habitat Pre-Construction City of City of Issuance of a identified on the project site shall be surveyed by a qualified biologist Temecula Temecula grading permit using the methods described in the Burrowing Owl Survey Qualified and signed off Instructions for the Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan Area Biologist by the City of (EPD,2006)no more than 30 days prior to initial ground disturbing Temecula activities to determine presence or absence of burrowing owl.If no burrowing owls are identified,no additional mitigation is necessary and activities may commence.If a burrowing owl is detected,the City of Temecula and the RCA will be notified. If burrowing owls are found on the project site,the applicant shall implement the following measure: Take of active nests shall be avoided.Passive or active relocation (use of one way doors and collapse of burrows),as approved by the RCA,may occur when owls are present outside the nesting season (March 1 -August 31).If active relocation is selected,translocation sites for the burrowing owl shall be created in the MSHCP Conservation Area for the establishment of new colonies. Translocation sites will be identified,taking into consideration unoccupied habitat areas,presence of burrowing mammals,existing colonies and effects to other MSHCP covered species.Selected translocation sites shall be coordinated with CDFW and USFWS prior to translocation site development. Mitigation Measure MM-0104:The following Best Management Construction City of City of Issuance of Practices shall be adhered to: Temecula Temecula Grading Permit • Prior to the issuance of any clearing,grubbing,or grading Qualified and signed off permit for the project,a qualified biologist(Project Biologist by the City of Biologist)with a minimum of 3 years of experience in field Temecula supervision on construction sites,shall be retained by the applicant to oversee compliance with the protection and avoidance measures for biological issues associated with the project.The Project Biologist shall have the authority Cypress Ridge Project 5 ESA 1150642 MMRP July 2017 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM(CONTINUED) Responsible Action Verification of Compliance Enforcement Monitoring indicating Mitigation Measures Monitoring Phase Agency Agency Compliance initials Date Remarks to halt construction activities in the event of non- compliance. • The Project Biologist shall be onsite during initial ground disturbing activities,including,but not limited to: vegetation removal,tree removal or trimming,grading, and restoration landscaping to ensure project activities remain in compliance with all applicable biological resource permits. • Intentional killing or unauthorized collection of plant and wildlife species shall be prohibited. • Workers shall be prohibited from bringing pets and firearms to the project site,and from feeding wildlife. • Proposed and existing Westem Riverside Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan(MSHCP)Conservation Areas shall be protected in place by the installation of orange silt fencing.Fencing shall be maintained in working order and inspected weekly.Fencing repair shall occur within 2 working days following inspection. • All trash and food items shall be contained in closed containers and trash removed daily to reduce the attractiveness to opportunistic predators such as common ravens and feral cats and dogs. • All fueling of construction vehicles shall be within designated areas beyond 100 feet of any drainage course, and be contained using appropriate protection measures. • Nighttime construction shall be prohibited in areas directly abutting or within 200 feet of existing or project-proposed MSHCP Conservation Areas.Nighttime construction which does occur outside these areas shall use directional lighting to minimize the impacts of increased artificial nighttime lighting. • All construction equipment and vehicles shall not idle for more than 45 minutes to minimize ambient noise produced by the project. • Cypress Ridge Project 6 ESA/150642 MMRP July 2017 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM(CONTINUED) Responsible Action Verification of Compliance Enforcement Monitoring Indicating Mitigation Measures Monitoring Phase Agency Agency Compliance Initials Date Remarks Mitigation Measure MM-BIO-4a:Prior to the issuance of a grading Pre-Construction City of City of Issuance of a permit for the project,the applicant shall obtain all necessary agency Temecula Temecula grading permit permits for impacts to jurisdictional waters,wetlands and riparian Building Official by the City of resources,including the U.S.Army Corps of Engineers(USACE), or other Temecula the California Department of Fish and Wildlife(CDFW),and the Designee Regional Water Quality Control Board(RWQCB).Impacts to riparian habitat shall be mitigated at a minimum of a 3:1 ratio.Impacts to unvegetated channel shall be mitigated at a minimum of a 1:1 ratio. Mitigation for both temporary and permanent impacts shall be accomplished by one or more of following options:on- or offsite habitat restoration;purchase of credits from an in-lieu fee program; and/or purchase of credits from a mitigation bank.If a Habitat Mitigation and Monitoring Plan is required by any of the respective resource agencies(USACE,RWQCB.and CDFW),it shall be prepared according to agency requirements and shall include,at a minimum,the following information: • Location and detailed maps of the mitigation and revegetation areas • An evaluation of the existing function and values,and a description of the function and values to be achieved through compensatory mitigation • Detailed plant and seed mix requirements • Detailed planting plan • Specific and measurable five-year success criteria • Five-year maintenance and monitoring requirements • Invasive species management • Irrigation requirements including the requirement to be off of irrigation for at least two years prior to final sign-off • Securing of a bond or line of credit to guarantee success of the compensatory mitigation Cypress Ridge Project 7 ESA 1150642 MMRP July 2017 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM(CONTINUED) Responsible Action Verification of Compliance Enforcement Monitoring Indicating Mitigation Measures Monitoring Phase Agency Agency Compliance Initials Date Remarks Mitigation Measure MM-6110.4b:Prior to the issuance of a grading Pre-construction City of City of Issuance of a permit for the project,a Determination of Biological Equivalent or Temecula Temecula grading permit Superior Preservation(DBESP)shall be approved by the Western Qualified by the City of Riverside County Regional Conservation Authority to address Biologist Temecula impacts to 1.24 acres of riparian/riverine habitat.The DBESP shall include the following information: • Definition of the project area • A written project description,demonstrating why an avoidance alternative is not possible • A written description of biological information available for the project site including the results of resource mapping • Quantification of unavoidable impacts to ripariaNriverine areas and vernal pools associated with the project, including direct and indirect effects • A written description of project design features and mitigation measures that reduce indirect effects,such as edge treatments,landscaping,elevation difference, minimization and/or compensation through restoration or enhancement • A baseline biological assessment of the resources being impacted,used for comparison of biological equivalency • A written description of the proposed habitat mitigation, including habitat type,location,functional lift,and long- term stewardship responsibility A finding demonstrating that although the proposed project would not avoid impacts,the habitat mitigation would be biologically equivalent or superior to that which is being impacted and would result in a net equivalent or superior ecological condition Mitigation Measure MM-BIO-Ga:Prior to the issuance of a building Construction City of City of Issuance of a permit for the project,or any phase thereof,the applicant shall pay Temecula Temecula building permit Local Development Mitigation fees,as determined by the City of Building Official by the City of or other Temecula Designee Cypress Ridge Project 8 ESA 1150642 MMRP July 2017 MIN Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM(CONTINUED) Responsible Action Verification of Compliance Enforcement Monitoring Indicating Mitigation Measures Monitoring Phase Agency Agency Compliance Initials Date Remarks Temecula Municipal Code Chapter 15,to offset impacts to sensitive habitat and covered sensitive species. Mitigation Measure MM-BIO Sb:At the time of final map Pre-construction City of City of Approval and recordation for the project,or any phase thereof,lands identified to Temecula Temecula Recordation of contribute to Linkage Areas and open space areas of the project Building Official final map by the (Conserved Lands)and included on the final map shall be or other City of conserved in perpetuity through the recordation of conservation Designee Temecula easements in favor of the Western Riverside County Regional Conservation Authority(RCA)or deed transfer of said parcels to the RCA.Conserved Lands shall include all areas identified for the continued preservation and functionality of Proposed Linkage 10 and Proposed Constrained Linkage 13.The project shall conserve onsite a minimum of 82.77 acres,which have been identified at a Criteria Cell level to include Cells 7077,7161,7078,7164,7258,7264,7355 and 7356. Mitigation Measure MM-B10-7a:The portion of Camino Estribo that Construction City of City of Issuance of a lies between the South Parcel and the main development area within Temecula Temecula grading permit the project footprint shall remain as a dirt road to minimize vehicular Engineering verified and speeds. Official or other signed off by the Designee City of Temecula Mitigation Measure MM-B10.7b:The applicant shall install Construction City of City of Issuance of permanent fencing along the Western Bypass where the Bypass Temecula Temecula Grading and right-of-way is contiguous with existing or proposed MSHCP Building Official Building Conserved Lands,to keep animals within the wildlife corridor.Prior or other Permits by the to the issuance of any construction permits for the project,the Designee City of applicant shall prepare and submit a detailed fencing plan for review Temecula by the City of Temecula and the wildlife agencies(CDFW and USFWS),and approval by the City.The fencing plan shall include,at a minimum,the fencing location,fencing specifications,plant list, and method and timing of installation.The fence shall be installed prior to the issuance of a building permit for the project. Cypress Ridge Project 9 ESA 1150642 MMRP July 2017 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM(CONTINUED) Responsible Action Verification of Compliance Enforcement Monitoring Indicating Mitigation Measures Monitoring Phase Agency Agency Compliance Initials Date Remarks Mitigation Measure MM-BIO-7c:A Slope Revegetation Plan shall Pre-Construction/onstruction/ City of City of Issuance of be prepared by the project applicant.The Plan shall be submitted for Construction Temecula Temecula grading and approval to the City prior to the construction of the Western Bypass. Building Official building permits The Plan shall include at a minimum: or other by the City of Designee Temecula • The requirement to salvage and stockpile excavated topsoil up to the first six inches along selected portions of the ground ' disturbance area for use in spreading as the top layer of soil in restoring disturbed areas • Equipment and methods for planting • A planting plan,including the amount and species of seed necessary to revegetate the target habitat types • Success criteria for the revegetated areas over a five-year period following installation • Specific BMPs for erosion control during and after revegetation • A requirement for five years of maintenance of the revegetated areas,including removal of invasive species and irrigation(if necessary) A requirement for five years of monitoring to evaluate compliance with the success criteria and to adjust maintenance activities using an adaptive management approach Cultural Resources Mitigation Measure MM-CUL-la—Retention of a Qualified Pre-construction City of City of Issuance of a Archaeologist:Prior to issuance of a grading permit and prior to the Temecula Temecularadio 9 9 permit start of any ground disturbing activity,the applicant shall retain a Qualified and project qualified archaeologist,defined as an archaeologist meeting the Archeologist approval by the Secretary of the Interior's Professional Qualification Standards for City of archaeology(Department of the Interior,2012),and as approved by Temecula the City of Temecula,to carry out all mitigation measures related to archaeological resources and to coordinate the archaeological program with the Pechanga Band of Luisefio Indians(Pechanga Tribe).The Project archaeologist will have the authority to slop and redirect grading in the immediate area of a find in order to evaluate Cypress Ridge Project 10 ESA/150642 MMRP July 2011 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM(CONTINUED) Responsible Action Verification of Compliance Enforcement Monitoring Indicating Mitigation Measures Monitoring Phase Agency Agency Compliance Initials Date Remarks the find and determine the appropriate next steps,in consultation with the Pechanga Tribal Monitor. Mitigation Measure MM-CUL-1 b-Retention of a Professional Pre-Construction/ City of City of City of Pechanga Tribal Monitor:At least 30 days prior to seeking a Construction Temecula Temecula Temecula grading permit,the project Applicant shall contact the Pechanga qualified Project Tribe to notify the Tribe of their intent to pull permits for the proposed Archaeologist Approval; grading and excavation,and to coordinate with the Tribe to develop and Pechanga verification by a Cultural Resources Treatment and Monitoring Agreement.The tribal City of Agreement shall address the treatment of known cultural resources, representatives Temecula in the designation,responsibilities,and participation of professional consultation with Pechanga Tribe Pechanga Tribal Monitors during grading,excavation and ground disturbing activities;project grading and development scheduling; terms of compensation for the monitors.including overtime and weekend rates,in addition to mileage reimbursement;and treatment and final disposition of any cultural resource,sacred sites,and human remains discovered on the site.The Pechanga Tribal Monitor will have the authority to stop and redirect grading in the immediate area of a find in order to evaluate the find and determine the appropriate next steps,in consultation with the Project archaeologist.Such evaluation shall include culturally appropriate temporary and permanent treatment pursuant to the Agreement which may include avoidance of cultural resources,in-place preservation and/or re-burial on the project property in an area that will not be subject to future disturbances for preservation in perpetuity. Mitigation Measure MM-CUL-lc—Cultural Resources Sensitivity Pre-Construction/ City of City of City of Training:The qualified archeologist,or an archaeologist working Construction Temecula Temecula Temecula under the direction of the qualified archaeologist,and a qualified Project representative of the Pechanga Tribe shall conduct preconstruction Archaeologist Approval; cultural resources sensitivity training which will include a brief review and Pechanga verification by of the cultural sensitivity of the project and the surrounding area to tribal City of in inform construction personnel of the types of cultural resources that representatives cemecalioT consultawith ti may be encountered,and of the proper procedures to be enacted in Pechanga Tribe the event of an inadvertent discovery of archaeological resources or human remains.The applicant shall ensure that construction Cypress Ridge Project 11 ESA/150642 MMRP July 2017 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM(CONTINUED) Responsible Action Verification of Compliance Enforcement Monitoring Indicating Mitigation Measures Monitoring Phase Agency Agency Compliance Initials Date Remarks • personnel are made available for and attend the training and shall • retain documentation demonstrating attendance.All new construction personnel that begin work on the Project following the initial Training must take the cultural resources sensitivity training prior to beginning work and the project archaeologist and Pechanga Tribe shall make themselves available to provide the training on an as-needed basis. Mitigation Measure MM-CUL-id —Archaeological and Native Pre-construction/ City of City of Issuance of a American Monitoring and Resurvey.cf the South Parcel:Prior:o Construction . Temecula Temecula grading permit • issuance of a grading permit and prior to the start of any vegetation - qualified and project removal or ground disturbing activity,a qualified archaeological Archaeologist approval by the monitor and Pechanga Tribal monitor shall be retained by the and Pechanga City of applicant to monitor ground disturbing activities including,but not tribal Temecula; limited to,brush clearance and grubbing,grading,trenching, representatives verification by excavation,and the construction of fencing and access roads as Ty of Temecula in indicated in MM-CUL-la and lb.The archaeological and Pechanga consultation with Tribal monitors shall re-survey the South Parcel involving ground Pechanga Tribe disturbance,after vegetation removal and grubbing and prior to other ground disturbing activities.This will ensure that previously undocumented resources obscured by thick brush can be identified and appropriate treatment measures for the resources can be developed.Archaeological monitoring shall be conducted by an archaeologist familiar with the types of historic and prehistoric resources that could be encountered within the project,and under direct supervision of the qualified archaeologist.If ground disturbing activities occur simultaneous in two or more locations located more than 500 feet apart,additional archaeological and Pechanga Tribal monitors may be required. The archaeological and Pechanga Tribal monitors shall keep daily and/or weekly logs.After monitoring has been completed,the qualified archaeologist shall prepare a monitoring report that details the results of monitoring,which shall be submitted to the City, Pechanga,and to the Eastern Information Center at the University of California,Riverside. Cypress Ridge Projecl 12 ESA 1150642 MMRP July 2017 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM(CONTINUED) Responsible Action Verification of Compliance Enforcement Monitoring Indicating Mitigation Measures Monitoring Phase Agency Agency Compliance Initials Date Remarks Mitigation Measure MM-CUL-1e—Unanticipated Discovery: If Pre-Construction/ City of City of City of cultural resources are encountered during the course of ground Construction Temecula Temecula Temecula disturbing activities,the applicant shall cease any ground disturbing qualified Project activities within 100 feet of the find until it can be evaluated by the Archaeologist Approval: qualified archaeologist,who shall inspect the find within 24 hours of and Pechanga verification by discovery,during normal working hours.The qualified archaeologist, tribal City of the archaeological monitor,and/or Native American monitor shall be representatives Temecula in empowered to halt or redirect ground disturbing activities away from consultation with the vicinity of the find until it has been assessed for significance.The Pechanga Tribe qualified archaeologist,in consultation with the applicant and the Pechanga Tribe,shall assess the significance of discovered resources and shall take into account the religious beliefs,customs, and practices of the Pechanga Tribe.Avoidance shall be the preferred manner of mitigation pursuant to Calif.Pub.Res.Code§ 21083.2(b).Preservation in place may be accomplished by,but is not limited to,complete avoidance,incorporating the resource into open space,or deeding the site into a permanent conservation easement.In the event that preservation in place is demonstrated to be infeasible and data recovery through excavation is determined to be the only feasible mitigation option,a treatment plan shall be prepared and implemented by the qualified archaeologist,in consultation with the applicant and the Pechanga Tribe.The treatment plan shall provide for the adequate recovery of the scientifically consequential information contained in the archaeological resource.The Pechanga Tribe shall be consulted to ensure that cultural values ascribed to the resource,beyond that which is scientifically important,are considered and additional appropriate mitigation to address the cultural values is applied.The treatment plan shall also provide for the analysis.reporting,and curation/disposition of resources in accordance with the Treatment Agreement required in MM-CUL-lb. Mitigation Measure MM-CUL-if—Completed Avoidance of Pre-construction/ City of City of Verification by Impacts to the TCP:The City and the Project Appiicant/Land Construction Temecula Temecula City of Owner shall ensure that no impacts occur to the Traditional Cultural Qualified Temecula in Property south of the proposed South Parcel Area.This includes, Archaeologist consultation with but is not limited to off-site improvements,staging activities, and Pechanga Pechanga Tribe trenching,geotechnical work, Riverside County Flood Control tribal improvements,Water Department impacts,Public Works projects, representatives biological and fire control programs,and any other program or project that would affect the integrity of the TCP.Should any of these activities,or others as indicated,be proposed,the City and the Cypress Ridge Project 13 ESA/150642 MMRP July 2017 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM(CONTINUED) Responsible Action Verification of Compliance Enforcement Monitoring indicating Mitigation Measures Monitoring Phase Agency Agency Compliance initials Date Remarks Applicant/Land Owner shall contact the Pechanga Tribe for additional consultation and review. Mitigation Measure MM-CUL-2a—Paleontological Resource Pre-Construction City of City of Verification by Impact Mitigation Program(PRIMP):The applicant shall Temecula Temecula City of implement the paleontological mitigation program outlined in the qualified Temecula in PRIMP(Kennedy and Wirths,2013)during project implementation. Paleontologist consultation with The PRIMP requires paleontological monitoring of mapped Pechanga Tribe exposures of the sandstone fades of the Pauba Formation(Qp)as shown on Attachment 3a of the PRIMP.in addition,because the fangiomerate facies of the Pauba Formation is considered to have undetermined potential to yield significant paleontological resources, initial excavations into the unit shall be spot-checked by a qualified paleontologist(defined as a paleontologist meeting the Society for Vertebrate Paleontology Standards,2010)to determine if the lithology of the geological unit is conducive to the preservation of unique paleontological resources.The qualified paleontologist shall also contribute to any construction worker cultural resources sensitivity training,either in person or via a module provided to the qualified archaeologist. Monitoring shall be conducted by a qualified paleontologist,or a monitor working under the direct supervision of a qualified paleontologist.Monitors shall have the authority to temporarily halt or divert work away from exposed fossils in order to recover the fossil specimens.The qualified paleontologist,based on observations of subsurface soil stratigraphy or other factors,may reduce or discontinue monitoring,as warranted,if the qualified paleontologist determines that the possibility of encountering fossiliferous deposits is low.Monitors shall prepare daily logs detailing the types of activities and soils observed,and any discoveries.Any fossils recovered shall be prepared to the point of identification and curated at an accredited facility.The qualified paleontologist shall prepare a final monitoring and mitigation report to be submitted to the City and filed with the local repository. Mitigation Measure MM-CUL-2b—Unanticipated Paleontological Construction City of City of Verification by Resources Discoveries:If construction or other project personnel Temecula Temecula City of discover any potential fossils during construction,regardless of the Cypress Ridge Project 14 ESA 1150642 MMRP July 2017 Ele Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM(CONTINUED) Responsible Action Verification of Compliance Enforcement Monitoring indicating Mitigation Measures Monitoring Phase Agency Agency Compliance Initials Date Remarks depth of work,work at the discovery location shall cease until the qualified Temecula in qualified paleontologist has assessed the discovery and made Paleontologist consultation with recommendations as to the appropriate treatment. Pechanga Tribe • Mitigation Measure MM-CUL-3—Human Remains:If human Pre-Construction/ City of City of Verification by remains are uncovered during project construction,the applicant Construction Temecula Temecula City of shall immediately halt work and follow the procedures and protocols qualified Temecula set forth in Section 15064.5(e)of the CEQA Guidelines,which Paleontologist require compliance with Health and Safety Code Section 7050,5 and Public Resources Code Section 5097.98(as amended by AB 2641). The applicant shall immediately contact the Riverside County Coroner to evaluate the remains.If the County Coroner determines that the remains are Native American and not subject to his or her authority,the County Coroner shall notify the Native American Heritage Commission(NAHC)within 24 hours.The NAHC shall designate a Most Likely Descendant(MLO)for the remains,who shall have 48 hours from the time of being granted access to the site to provide recommendations to the landowner for the means of treating or disposing of,with appropriate dignity,the human remains and any associated grave goods. Until the landowner has discussed and conferred with the MLD,the landowner shall ensure that the immediate vicinity where the discovery occurred is not subject to further disturbances,is adequately protected according to generally accepted cultural and archaeological standards,and that further activities take into account the possibility of multiple burials. In the event that no MLD is identified,or if the MLD fails to make a recommendation for disposition,or if the landowner rejects the recommendation of the MLD and mediation with the NAHC fails to provide measures acceptable to the landowner,the landowner may reinter the remains and associated grave goods with appropriate dignity on the property in a location not subject to further disturbance. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Climate Change Mitigation Measure MM-GHG-1:Upon full entitlement of the project Construction/Post- City of City of Issuance of and prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy for the project, construction Temecula Temecula Certificate of the project sponsor shall submit an application for a Pre-Certified Building Official Occupancy by LEED-ND Plan through the U.S.Green Building Council. If the or other the City of application meets the LEED-ND prerequisites,the project sponsor Designee Temecula shall continue with the certification,and the project shall receive a minimum base-level LEED-ND certification within two years of project build-out. If Pre-Certified LEER-ND Plan approval is denied, the project applicant shall nevertheless incorporate the following measures in the project design that are normally scored to achieve Cypress Ridge Project 15 ESA 1150642 MMRP July 2017 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM(CONTINUED) Responsible Action Verification of Compliance Enforcement Monitoring Indicating Mitigation Measures Monitoring Phase Agency Agency Compliance Initials Date Remarks LEE/standards and shall achieve a fifteen-percent(15%)reduction in energy use beyond 2016 Tile 24 building standards by undertaking the following: 1)Provide parking associated with electrical charging stations; 2)Subsidize public transit and expand transit network(e.g.,help fund Riverside Transportation Authority and City smart shuttle or bike share programs); 3)Provide an enhanced pedestrian network,including pedestrian connections to the local community; 4)Provide traffic calming measures and urban non-motorized zones; 5)Install bicycle parking and storage,as well as dedicated bike lanes or trails with connectivity to the local community and recreation areas; 6)Prohibit wood-burning fireplaces; 7)Where practicable,install or ensure facilities are compatible with renewable energy(e.g.solar photovoltaics); 8)Install energy efficient boilers and appliances,including programmable thermostat timers; 9)Install energy efficient street and area lighting,induding LED traffic lights,motion detection lighting,and limited outdoor lighting for security and safety purposes; 10)Install electrical outlets compatible with electric yard equipment; 11)Provide for use of reclaimed water; 12)Install low-flow bathroom and kitchen fixtures(e.g.,faucets, toilets,and showers); 13)Install water efficient irrigation systems; 14)Where practicable,reuse or recycle materials from operation and construction activities. Hydrology and Water Quality Mitigation Measure MM-HYD-1:Prior to issuance of a grading Pre-construction City of City of Issuance of permit,a final drainage study shall be prepared by a registered civil Temecula Temecula Grading Permit engineer in accordance with the Riverside County Hydrology Manual Building Official by the City of and submitted to Public Works with the initial grading plan check in or other Temecula accordance with City,Riverside County and engineering Designee standards.The final study shall identify storm water runoff quantities from the development of this site and upstream of the site,and shall • identify all existing or proposed drainage facilities intended to discharge this runoff.Runoff shall be conveyed to an adequate outfall capable of receiving the storm water runoff without damage to public or private property or any substantial adverse change in receiving water quality or habitat values;the final study shall include a capacity analysis verifying the adequacy of all facilities and any • Cypress Ridge Project 16 ESA 1150602 MMRP July 2017 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM(CONTINUED) Responsible Action Verification of Compliance Enforcement Monitoring Indicating Mitigation Measures Monitoring Phase Agency Agency Compliance Initials Date Remarks features to include in the design to minimize or avoid runoff impacts. Features to be included in the site design shall conform with the City of Temecula MS4 permit and Stormwater Ordinance,and may include,for example: 1)Non-structural,structural,source control and treatment control BMP5; 2)Infiltration basins,detention basins,vegetated swales,and media filters; 3)Pervious concrete,storm drain stenciling or signage,protection of material and trash storage areas from rainfall;and 4)Other low impact development(LID)BMPs,including measures to reduce increases in runoff through hydromodification and infiltration protection. If the receiving facilities are determined to be under capacity,then onsite detention and/or alternative drainage facilities and outfalls shall be required as needed to avoid damage to public or private property and alterations in water quality or habitat values. Mitigation Measure MM-HYD-3:As a condition of approval,each Pre-Construction/ City of City of Issuance of future development project will be required to generate a project- Construction/Post- Temecula Temecula Building Permit, specific Water Quality Management Plan(WQMP),as required by Construction Building Official review of plans, the City of Temecula Stormwater Ordinance and as specified in the or other field verification City's Jurisdictional Runoff Management Plan,which will ensure that Designee and sign-off by the project implements specific water quality features to meet the City of City's MS4 Permit and Stormwater Ordinance requirements.Each Temecula project-specific WQMP shall be reviewed and approved by the City of Temecula prior to the issuance of a building or grading permit. NOISE Mitigation Measure MM-N01-1a:Prior to the issuance any grading Construction City of City of Issuance of a or building permits for a phase or sub phase(project-specific future Temecula Temecula grading permit development within a construction phase),the applicant shall Building Official by the City of provide evidence to the City that the development will not exceed or other Temecula the City's exterior noise standards for construction(see Table 3.10- Designee 5).If it is determined that City noise standards for construction activities would be exceeded,the applicant shall submit a construction-related exception request to the City Manager at least one week in advance of the project's scheduled construction activities,along with the appropriate inspection fee(s),to ensure that the project's construction noise levels would be granted an Cypress Ridge Project 17 ESA 1150642 MMRP July 2011 MIN IM/ Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM(CONTINUED) Responsible Action Verification of Compliance Enforcement Monitoring Indicating Mitigation Measures Monitoring Phase Agency Agency Compliance Initials Date Remarks exception from the noise standards set forth in Section 9.20.040 of the City of Temecula Municipal Code.Factors the City shall consider when granting a noise exception include,but are not limited to,the consideration of the level of noise,duration of noise,constancy or intermittency of noise,time of day or night,place,proximity to sensitive receptors,nature and circumstances of the emission or transmission of any such loud noise.If a construction-related exception request is not approved by the City,design measures shall be taken to reduce the construction noise levels to the maximum extent feasible to achieve compliance with the City's construction noise standards.These measures may include,but are not limited to,the erection of noise baniers/curtains,use of advanced or state-of-the-art mufflers on construction equipment, and/or reduction in the amount of equipment that would operate concurrently at the development site. Mitigation Measure MM-N01-1b:The applicant shall comply with Construction City of City of Field verification the following noise reduction measures during construction: Temecula Temecula and sign-off by • Ensure that noise and groundbome vibration construction or other oung TeOfficial Tey of Temecula activities whose specific location on a construction site Designee may be flexible(e.g.,operation of compressors and generators,cement mixing,general truck idling)shall be conducted as far as possible from the nearest noise-and vibration-sensitive land uses. • Ensure that the use of construction equipment or construction methods with the greatest peak noise generation potential will be minimized.Examples include the use of drills and jackhammers.When impact tools (e.g.,jack hammers,pavement breakers,and caisson drills)are necessary,they shall be hydraulically or electrically powered wherever possible to avoid noise associated with compressed air exhaust from pneumatically powered tools.Where use of pneumatic tools is unavoidable,an exhaust muffler on the compressed air exhaust shall be used;this muffler can lower noise levels from the exhaust by up to about 10 Cypress Ridge Project 18 ESA/150642 MMRP July 2011 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM(CONTINUED) Responsible Action Verification of Compliance Enforcement Monitoring Indicating Mitigation Measures Monitoring Phase Agency Agency Compliance Initials Date Remarks dBA.External jackets on the tools themselves shall be used where feasible;this could achieve a reduction of 5 dBA.Quieter procedures,such as use of drills rather than impact tools,shall be used whenever feasible,as determined by the City of Temecula's Building Official based on the circumstances such as exposure to sensitive receptors,type and number of equipment used,and duration of noise. • Locate stationary construction noise sources away from adjacent receptors and muffled and enclosed within temporary sheds,incorporate insulation barriers,or other measures to the extent feasible,as determined by the City's Building Official based on the circumstances such as exposure to sensitive receptors,type and number of equipment used,and duration of noise. • Construction truck traffic shall be restricted to routes approved by the City of Temecula,and shall avoid residential areas and other sensitive receptors,to the extent feasible. • Designate a construction relations officer to serve as a liaison with surrounding residents and property owners who is responsible for responding to address any concerns regarding construction noise and vibration.The liaison's telephone number(s)shall be prominently displayed at construction locations. Hold a preconstruction meeting with the City's job inspectors and the general contractor or onsite project manager to confirm that noise and vibration mitigation and practices(including construction hours, sound buffers,neighborhood notification, posted signs,etc.)are implemented. Mitigation Measure MM-N01-2a:The operation of construction Construction City of City of Issuance of equipment that generates high levels of vibration,such as large Temecula Temecula Grading Permit bulldozers,loaded trucks,and caisson drills,shall be prohibited Building Official and field within 45 feet of residential structures and 35 feet of institutional or other verification and structures during construction activities to the extent feasible.Small, Designee sign-off by City rubber-tired construction equipment shall be used within this area of Temecula Cypress Ridge Project 19 ESA/l MMRP July alt 2011] Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM(CONTINUED) Responsible Action Verification of Compliance Enforcement Monitoring Indicating Mitigation Measures Monitoring Phase Agency Agency Compliance Initials Date Remarks during demolition and/or grading operations to reduce vibration effects,where feasible. Mitigation Measure MM-N01-2b:The operation of jackhammers Construction City of City of Field verification shall be prohibited within 25 feet of existing residential structures Temecula Temecula and sign-off by and 20 feet of institutional structures during construction activities,to Building Official City of the extent feasible. or other Temecula Designee Mitigation Measure MM-N014:Prior to the issuance of a building Construction City of City of Issuance of permit for future developments in the project,the applicant shall Temecula Temecula Building Permit provide evidence to the City that operational noise levels generated Building Official and field by the proposed development would not exceed the City's or other verification and permissible exterior noise standards that are applicable to adjacent Designee sign-off by City properties.If City noise standards at the adjacent properties would of Temecula be exceeded,design measures shall be taken to ensure that operational noise levels associated with the proposed development would be reduced to levels that comply with the permissible City noise standards.These measures may include,but are not limited to,the erection of noise walls,use of landscaping,and/or the design of adequate setback distances for the new developments. Mitigation Measure MM-N01-4a:The applicant of individual Construction City of City of Issuance of development projects within the project area shall minimize noise Temecula Temecula Grading Permit impacts from mechanical equipment,such as ventilation and air Building Official and field conditioning units,by locating equipment away from receptor areas, or other verification and installing proper acoustical shielding for the equipment,and Designee sign-off by City incorporating the use of parapets into building design to ensure that of Temecula noise levels do not exceed the ambient noise level on the premises of existing development by more than five decibels. Mitigation Measure MM-NO1-4b:Prior to City approval of a Construction City of City of City of residential development project within the project area,the applicant Temecula Temecula Temecula shall provide documentation to the City that all exterior windows Building Official project approval; associated with a proposed residential development will be or other and field constructed to provide a sufficient amount of sound Insulation to Designee verification and ensure that interior noise levels would be below an Le,or CNEL of sign-off by City 45 dBA in any habitable room. of Temecula Mitigation Measure MM-N01-5:All future residential developments Post-Construction City of City of Field verification located adjacent to the proposed Westem Bypass in the project area Temecula Temecula and sign-off by shall be set back a minimum of 45 feet from the centerline of the Building Official Cypress Ridge Project 20 ESA 1150642 MMRP July 2017 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM(CONTINUED) Responsible Action Verification of Compliance Enforcement Monitoring Indicating Mitigation Measures Monitoring Phase Agency Agency Compliance Initials Date Remarks Western Bypass.If this minimum setback distance cannot be or other City of achieved,other measures shall be taken to ensure compliance with Designee Temecula the City's noise/land use compatibility standard of 70 dBA La,, including,but not limited to,greater setback distances,the erection of noise walls or use of landscaping. Traffic and Circulation Mitigation Measure MM-TRA-1:Prior to the completion of Phase 1 Pre-Construction/ City of City of Issuance of of the project,the project proponent/developer shall install or provide Temecula Temecula Grading Permit funding for system-wide signal timing optimization(phase timings Construction Engineer or and Issuance of and cycle length)to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.Since other Designee a Certificate of Rancho Califomia Road and Jefferson Avenue operate on an Occupancy Adaptive Traffic Signal Timing Program,the developer shall be responsible for system-wide optimization along both corridors to mitigate impacts.. Mitigation Measure MM-TRA-2:Prior to the completion of Phase 1 Pre-Construction/ City of City of Issuance of of the project.the project proponent/developer shall install or provide Construction Temecula Temecula Grading Permit funding for system-wide signal timing optimization(phase timings Engineer or and Issuance of and cycle length)to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.Since Ynez other Designee a Certificate of Road and Rancho Califomia Road operate on an Adaptive Traffic Occupancy Signal Timing Program,the developer shall be responsible for system-wide optimization along both corridors to mitigate impacts. • Mitigation Measure MM-TRA-3:Prior to the completion of Phase 2 Pre-Construction/ City of City of Issuance of of the project,the project proponent/developer shall install or provide Construction Temecula Temecula Grading Permit funding for signal timing optimization(phase timings and cycle Engineer or and Issuance of length)at the intersection of 1-15 Northbound Ramps and Temecula other Designee a Certificate of Parkway to proportion more time to the heavier traffic volumes,to Occupancy the satisfaction of the City Engineer.The project proponent/developer shall coordinate implementation of this improvement with Caltrans. Mitigation Measure MM-TRA-5:Prior to the completion of Phase 1 Pre-Construction/ City of City of Issuance of of the project,the project proponent/developer shall install stop signs Construction Temecula Temecula Grading Permit on the Pujol Street approaches at the intersection of Pujol Street and Engineer or and Issuance of First Street,converting the intersection from side-street stop-control other Designee a Certificate of to all-way stop control. Occupancy Cypress Ridge Project 21 ESA/150642 MMRP July 2017 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM(CONTINUED) Responsible Action Verification of Compliance Enforcement Monitoring Indicating Mitigation Measures Monitoring Phase Agency Agency Compliance Initials Date Remarks Mitigation Measure MM-TRA-6:Prior to the completion of Phase 2 Pre-ConstructioN City of City of Issuance of of the project,the project proponent/developer shall install or provide Construction Temecula Temecula Grading Permit funding for one additional exclusive eastbound left turn lane and Engineer or and Issuance of signal timing optimization(phase timings and cycle length)at the other Designee a Certificate of intersection of Ynez Road and Santiago Road,to the satisfaction of Occupancy the City Engineer. Mitigation Measure MM-TRA-7:Prior to the issuance of a Pre-Construction/ City of City of Issuance of certificate of occupancy for Phase 1 of the project,the City shall Construction Temecula Temecula Grading Permit have completed the Capital Improvement Project entitled"1-151 Engineer or and Issuance of SR 79 South(Temecula Parkway)Ultimate Interchange". other Designee a Certificate of Occupancy Mitigation Measure MM-TRA-9:Prior to the completion of Phase 3 Pre-ConstructioN City of City of Issuance of of the project,the project proponent/developer shall contribute 20 Construction Temecula Temecula Grading Permit percent of the cost to construct a fourth through lane to both the Engineer or and Issuance of eastbound and westbound Temecula Parkway approaches to the other Designee a Certificate of intersection of La Paz Road and Temecula Parkway,toward the Occupancy acquisition of right-of-way,and modification of existing traffic signal facilities at the intersection Mitigation Measure MM-TRA-12:Prior to the completion of Phase Pre-Construction/ City of City of Issuance of 3 of the project,the project proponent/developer shall contribute 43 Construction Temecula Temecula Grading Permit percent of the cost to construct improvements at the west Ridge Engineer or and Issuance of Park Drive leg to allow for right-in/right-out turn movements only at other Designee a Certificate of the intersection of Vincent Moraga Drive and Ridge Park Drive,to Occupancy the satisfaction of the City Engineer. This improvement would prohibit vehicles from making northbound left and westbound left turning movements at the intersection. Mitigation Measure MM-TRA-13:Prior to the completion of Phase Construction City of City of Issuance of 3 of the project,the project proponent/developer shall contribute 17 Temecula Temecula Grading Permit percent of the cost to install traffic signals at the intersection of Pujol Engineer or and Issuance of Street and First Street. other Designee a Certificate of Occupancy Mitigation Measure MM-TRA-14:Prior to the issuance of any Pre-Construction City of City of Issuance of grading permit or any permit that authorizes construction activities Temecula Temecula Grading and within the Specific Plan area,or at offsite locations for improvements Engineer or Building Permits associated with the Specific Plan,the project applicant(s)shall other Designee Cypress Ridge Project 22 ESA 1150642 MMRP July 2017 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM(CONTINUED) Responsible Action Verification of Compliance Enforcement Monitoring Indicating Mitigation Measures Monitoring Phase Agency Agency Compliance Initials Date Remarks prepare a Construction Traffic Mitigation Plan(s)for review and approval by the City of Temecula as part of the permit application. The Construction Traffic Mitigation Plan(s)shall include measures to minimize the construction traffic volumes entering the roadway system(including local roads)during AM and PM peak hours. At a minimum,the Construction Traffic Mitigation Plan(s)shall include the following implementation measures: • Construction truck routes shall be prepared to designate principal haul routes for trucks delivering materials to and from the construction site. • Should a temporary road and/or lane closure be necessary during construction,the project applicant shall provide traffic control activities and personnel,as necessary,to minimize traffic impacts. This may include detour signage,cones,construction area signage, flagmen,and other measures as required for safe traffic handling in the construction zone. The project applicant shall keep a minimum of one lane in each direction free from encumbrances at all times on perimeter roads accessing the project site. In the event a full road closure is required,the contractor shall coordinate with the City of Temecula and other affected jurisdictions(i.e.,Caltrans,and/or County of Riverside)to designate proper detour routes and signage to appropriate proper access routes. Cypress Ridge Protect 23 ESA 1150642 MMRP July 2017 ATTACHMENT 5C STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS (NC) STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS— NATURE CENTER The following Statement of Overriding Considerations is made in connection with the proposed approval of the Altair Specific Plan (the "Project"). CEQA requires the decision-making agency to balance the economic, legal, social, technological or other benefits of a project against its unavoidable environmental risks when determining whether to approve a project. If the benefits of the project outweigh the unavoidable adverse effects, those effects may be considered acceptable. CEQA requires the agency to provide written findings supporting the specific reasons for considering a project acceptable when significant impacts are unavoidable. Such reasons must be based on substantial evidence in the EIR or elsewhere in the administrative record. The reasons for proceeding with this Project despite the adverse environmental impacts that may result are provided in this Statement of Overriding Considerations. The City Council finds that the economic, social and other benefits of the Project outweigh the significant and unavoidable impacts to: • Air quality at the project and cumulative level give that the City is in the South Coast Air Quality Management District, which is a non-attainment region for ozone; • Greenhouse gas emissions at the cumulative level for exceeding the conservative threshold of 3,000 MTCO2e per year even with incorporation of Smart Growth development standards, which promote walking and alternative transportation; • Noise and vibration impacts during construction; and • Traffic impacts to the 1-15 SB Ramps/Temecula Parkway intersection under Future Buildout(2035)Conditions(prior to completion of the Ultimate interchange improvements, which are under construction). Although the FEIR concludes there are significant and unavoidable impacts to the 1-15 SB Ramps/Temecula Parkway intersection under Future Buildout (2035) Conditions, it should be noted that this is a conservative approach as the ultimate intersection improvements are under construction and once complete, the improvements will reduce the project impacts below a level of significance. In making this Statement of Overriding Considerations, the City Council has balanced the benefits of the Project against its unavoidable impacts and has indicated its willingness to accept those adverse impacts. The City Council finds that each one of the following benefits of the Project, independent of the other benefits, would warrant approval of the Project notwithstanding the unavoidable environmental impacts of the Project. The City Council finds that all feasible mitigation measures have been imposed to either lessen Project impacts to less than significant or to the extent feasible, and furthermore, that alternatives to the Project are infeasible because they generally have similar impacts, or they do not provide the benefits of the Project, or are otherwise socially or economically infeasible as fully described in the Findings and Facts in Support of Findings. Furthermore,the following primary public benefits are required by Conditions of Approval, and in the Development Agreement: A. An estimated $28 million dollars of regional infrastructure (Western Bypass Corridor and Bridge over Murrieta Creek), and improved east-west connectivity in the City; The Western Bypass Corridor and Bridge are part of a regional facility, identified in the Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee (TUMF) program. The Regional System needs to be expanded to accommodate anticipated future growth in the City of Temecula and southwestern Riverside County; the Project provides critical infrastructure to assist the City in meeting this need. B. A 5-acre Central Park and "Grand Staircase" connection to Main Street in Old Town on the west side of 1-15 for public use; Currently, the City does not have a park of sufficient size for residents on the west side of I-15 to accommodate parks and recreation programs. Residents west of 1-15 have to travel to the east side sports parks. The Central Park will accommodate existing and future growth, and provide an important destination and gathering place for passive and active recreation in and around Old Town. C. An elementary school site to serve existing and future residents on the west side of 1-15; Similar to the City's current situation with a lack of parks and programming relative to population on the west side of 1-15, the elementary school site has the ability to provide a neighborhood school in walking distance for many that will help eliminate the need to rely exclusively on schools on the east side of I-15. D. Over eight miles of pathways and trails connecting to the City's bike lane and trail network; The Quality of Life Master Plan identifies six core values as identified by the community. Transportation Mobility and Connectivity figures prominently in the City's planning efforts. Altair is designed as a "Smart Growth" development which makes walking easy and promotes a healthy and active lifestyle. Furthermore, the proposed trails, pathways, and sidewalks connect to the surrounding network closing gaps and increasing opportunities for active transportation. E. Per the Development Agreement, the applicant will provide $150,000 dollars of"start-up" funding for a shuttle connecting to RTA transit stops and/or a bikeshare program; Again, Transportation Mobility and Connectivity figures prominently in the City's planning efforts. This funding will assist in promoting active transportation in an effort to relieve auto congestion in the City. F. A 55-acre Civic Site for a Nature Center/Culture/Sustainability Center and trails to provide environmental education and protection of natural resources at the confluence of the Santa Margarita River,which is southern California's last"free flowing"river and the center of the Pechanga Band of Luiseno Indians Sacred Place/Origin Area, a recognized Traditional Cultural Place (TCP) on the National Register of Historic Places; ' G. Per the Development Agreement, the applicant is committed to provide Project conservation features in excess of what is required as environmental mitigation, including the following: • 55-acre reduction in hillside escarpment/Multi Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP) impacts associated with the shortened Western Bypass alignment, as compared to the current alignment in the City's General Plan Circulation Element and the approved West Side Specific Plan and MSHCP; • Facilitation of the sale of an additional 8.97 acres of hillside escarpment adjacent to the project site to the Riverside County Regional Conservation Authority for conservation; • Additional funding for conservation efforts (up to $500,0000) to be used for a wildlife connectivity study, engineering feasibility,and/or land acquisition in the special linkage area south of the Project. H. The City Council finds that the foregoing benefits provided through approval of the Project outweigh the identified significant adverse environmental impacts. The City Council further finds that each of the Project benefits discussed above outweighs the unavoidable adverse environmental effects identified in the Final EIR and therefore finds those impacts to be acceptable. The City Council further finds that each of the benefits listed above, standing alone, is sufficient justification for the City Council to override these unavoidable environmental impacts.