The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutTemecula Old Town SP DEIR Program Environmental Impact Report SCH No. 2009071049 OLD TOWN SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT Draft Prepared for February 2010 The City of Temecula 9191 Towne Centre Drive Suite 340 San Diego, CA 92122 858.638.0900 www.esassoc.com Los Angeles Oakland Olympia Petaluma Portland Sacramento San Francisco Seattle Tampa Woodland Hills 209294 Program Environmental Impact Report SCH No. 2009071049 OLD TOWN SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT Draft Prepared for February 2010 The City of Temecula Old Town Specific Plan Amendment i ESA /D209294 Draft Environmental Impact Report February 2010 TABLE OF CONTENTS Old Town Specific Plan Draft Program Environmental Impact Report Page Executive Summary S-1 1. Introduction ............................................................................................................ 1-1 1.1 Purpose of the Draft Program EIR ................................................................... 1-1 1.2 Project Background .......................................................................................... 1-2 1.3 CEQA EIR Process .......................................................................................... 1-3 1.3.1 Notice of Preparation ................................................... ............................ 1-3 1.3.2 Draft Program EIR ................................................................................... 1-3 1.3.3 Public Review .................................. ........................................................ 1-4 1.3.4 1.3.4 Final Program EIR ................................................................................... 1-4 1.3.5 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan ................................................ 1-4 1.4 Approach to this Draft Program EIR ................................................................. 1-5 1.5 Organization of this Draft Program EIR ............................................................ 1-5 1.6 Cumulative Development ............................................................ ..................... 1-6 1.6.1 CEQA Analysis Requirements................................................................. 1-6 1.6.2 Geographic Scope ................................................ ................................... 1-7 1.6.3 Project Timing ......................................................................................... 1-8 1.6.4 Type of Projects Considered ................................................................... 1-8 2. Project Description ................................................................................................ 2-1 2.1 Background, Goals and Objectives .................................................................. 2-1 2.1.1 Project Background .............................................................. ................... 2-1 2.1.2 Project Goals and Recommendations ..................................................... 2-2 2.2 Project Objectives ...................................................... ...................................... 2-4 2.3 Project Location and Surrounding Area ............................................................ 2-5 2.3.1 Location .................................. ................................................................. 2-5 2.3.2 Surrounding Land Uses ........................................................................... 2-5 2.4 Project Description ........................................................................................... 2-5 2.4.1 Land Use Districts .......................................................... ......................... 2-8 2.4.2 Annexation and Removal of Old Town Specific Plan Areas .................. 2-11 2.4.3 Implementation through Changes to Standards and Guidelines ........... 2-11 2.5 Timeline ........................................................................................................... 2-16 2.6 Review and Approvals ........................................... .......................................... 2-16 Table of Contents Page Old Town Specific Plan Amendment ii ESA /D209294 Draft Environmental Impact Report February 2010 3. Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures .............................. ................. 3-1 3.1 Aesthetics ...................................................................................................... 3.1-1 3.2 Air Quality ..................................... ................................................................. 3.2-1 3.3 Global Warming/Climate Change .................................................................. 3.3-1 3.4 Cultural Resources ........................................................................................ 3.4-1 3.5 Hydrology and Water Quality ..................................................... ................... 3.5-1 3.6 Land Use and Planning ................................................................................. 3.6-1 3.7 Noise ................................................. ............................................................ 3.7-1 3.8 Utilities and Services ..................................................................................... 3.8-1 3.9 Traffic and Circulation ................................................................................... 3.9-1 4. Cumulative Impacts ........................................................... .................................... 4-1 4.1 Introduction ...................................................................................................... 4-1 4.2 Cumulative Projects ......................................................................................... 4-1 4.3 Description of Cumulative Effects ................................................................... . 4-5 5. Significant Irreversible Environmental Changes and Growth-Inducing Impacts ................................................................................. 5-1 5.1 Introduction ...................................................................................................... 5-1 1 5.2 Introduction to Growth Inducement Issues ............................................. .......... 5-1 5.3 Elimination of Obstacles to Growth .................................................................. 5-1 5.4 Economic Effects ..................................................... ........................................ 5-2 5.5 Growth-Inducing Effects of the Proposed Project Elimination of Obstacles to Growth ................................................................... ................. 5-2 5.6 Increased Demand on Secondary Markets ...................................................... 5-3 5.7 Significant Irreversible Environmental Effects ......................... ......................... 5-3 6. Alternatives Analysis 6-1 6.1 Introduction ...................................................................................................... 6-1 6.2 Project Alternatives .......................................................................................... 6-4 6.3 Environmentally Superior Alternative ...................................... ....................... 6-27 7. Acronyms, References and List of Preparers ..................................................... 7-1 7.1 Acronyms ..................................................... .................................................... 7-1 7.2 References ....................................................................................................... 7-8 7.3 List of Preparers ............................................................................................. 7-13 Appendices A. Initial Study ...................................................... .......................................................... A-1 B. Notice of Preparation of DEIR/Scoping Meeting Notice ............................................ B-1 C. Responses to Notice of Preparation/Scoping Meeting Sign-In Sheet ........................ C-1 D. Air Quality Analysis Worksheets ................................................................................ D-1 E. Cultural Resources Inventory ..................................................................................... E-1 F. Alternative Standards Noise Research Memo ............................ ................................ F-1 G. Traffic Impact Analysis Technical Report ................................................................... G-1 H. Utilities and Services .................... ............................................................................. H-1 Table of Contents Page Old Town Specific Plan Amendment iii ESA /D209294 Draft Environmental Impact Report February 2010 List of Figures 2-1 Regional Location Map .................................... ..................................................... 2-6 2-2 Project Location .................................................................................................... 2-7 2-3 Proposed Land Use Districts .............................................................................. 2-10 2-4 Specific Plan Amendment Boundary .............................................. .................... 2-12 3.4-1 Southern Emigrant Trail ..................................................................................... 3.4-8 3.5-1 Dam Inundation .............................. ................................................................. 3.5-12 3.6-1 Existing Land Use Districts and Photographic Survey Key ................................ 3.6-3 3.6-2 Downtown Core and Hotel Overlay Existing Land Uses .................................... 3.6-4 3.6-3 Civic District Existing Land Uses ....................................................................... 3.6-5 3.6-4 Residential/Limited Mixed Use Existing Land Use ............................................. 3.6-6 3.6-5 Neighborhood Residential and Open Space Existing Land Use ....................... . 3.6-7 3.7-1 Effects of Noise on People ................................................................................. 3.7-2 3.9-1 Location Map (Existing Conditions) ............................. ...................................... 3.9-4 3.9-2 Location Map (Future Conditions) ...................................................................... 3.9-5 3.9-3 Future Traffic Distribution ................................................................................. 3.9-11 3.9-4 Cumulative Projects ....................................................................... .................. 3.9-15 4-1 Cumulative Project Map ........................................................................................ 4-4 List of Tables S-1 Old Town Specific Plan Comparison Table .......................................................... S-4 S-2 Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures .................................................. S-38 2-1 Old Town Specific Plan Comparison Table ........................................................... 2-8 2-2 Anticipated Review and Approvals for Old Town Specific Plan Project .............. 2-17 3.2-1 Air Quality Data Summary (2004–2006) ............................................................ 3.2-3 3.2-2 State and National Criteria Air Pollutant Standards, Effects, and Sources ........ 3.2-6 3.2-3 Riverside County Attainment Status .................................................................. 3.2-7 3.2-4 Air Quality Significance Thresholds ................................................................. 3.2-11 3.2-5 Mitigated Emissions from Proposed Specific Plan Amendment ....................... 3.2-14 3.2-6 Mitigated Emissions from Existing Specific Plan .............................................. 3.2-14 3.2-7 Proposed Construction Emissions minus Existing Construction ...................... 3.2-15 3.2-8 Proposed Specific Plan Build-out Operational Emissions ................................ 3.2-18 3.2-9 Existing Specific Plan Build-out Operational Emissions ................................... 3.2-18 3.2-10 Proposed Specific plan Build-out Operational Emissions minus Existing Specific Plan Build-out Operational Emissions .............................. 3.2-18 3.2-11 Estimated Carbon Monoxide Concentrations ................................................... 3.2-20 3.3-1 List of Recommended Actions by Sector ........................................................... 3.3-4 3.4-1 Cultural Resources within the Project Area ........................................................ 3.4-9 3.4-2 Previously Identified Cultural Resources within the Project Area with NRHP Ratings between 1 and 5 ................................................................. 3.4-10 3.4-3 Previously Identified Cultural Resources within Project Area .................... ....... 3.4-11 3.4-4 Previously Recorded Historic Resources within Specific Plan Area not Reidentified in Field Survey ......................................................................... 3.4-12 3.5-1 Rancho California Water District Water Sources ............................................... 3.5-3 3.6-1 Existing Land Use Designations within the Project Boundary .................... ...... 3.6-13 3.6-2 Existing Zoning Districts within the Project Boundary ...................................... 3.6-15 3.6-3 Existing Old Town Specific Plan Land Use Districts ...................... .................. 3.6-16 3.6-4 City of Temecula General Plan Goals and Policies ......................................... 3.6-19 Table of Contents Page Old Town Specific Plan Amendment iv ESA /D209294 Draft Environmental Impact Report February 2010 List of Tables (cont.) 3.7-1 Temecula Land use /noise standards ............................................................... 3.7-7 3.7-2 Existing Noise Environments at Project Site ...................................................... 3.7-9 3.7-3 Measures of Substantial Increase for Noise Exposure .................................... 3.7-11 3.7-4 Typical Construction Noise Levels ............................................................... .... 3.7-12 3.7-5 Typical Noise Levels from Construction Equipment ......................................... 3.7-13 3.7-6 Vibration Velocities for Construction Equipment ............................. ................. 3.7-14 3.7-7 Existing and Future Peak-Hour Noise Levels along Selected Roadways ........ 3.7-16 3.7-8 Existing and Future Peak-Hour Noise Levels along Selected Roadways ........ 3.7-18 3.8-1 Parks and Recreational Facilities ....................................................................... 3.8-2 3.8-2 Private Recreational Facilities ........................... ................................................. 3.8-3 3.8-3 RCWD Water Supply Sources ........................................................................... 3.8-4 3.8-4 Type of RCWD Customer Accounts .................................................................. 3.8-5 3.8-5 Existing and Projected Average Water Demands in the RCWD ........................ 3.8-5 3.8-6 EMWD’s Wastewater Consumption by Residential Classification ..................... 3.8-6 3.8-7 EMWD’S Wastewater Consumption by Non-Residential Classification ............. 3.8-7 3.8-8 Estimated Current and Future Electricity Demand ............................................. 3.8-8 3.8-9 Estimated Current and Future Natural Gas Demand ................................. ........ 3.8-9 3.8-10 Estimated Current and Future Solid Waste Generation ................................... 3.8-10 3.8-11 Water System Unit Demand .................................................. .......................... 3.8-17 3.9-1 Level of Service Descriptions ............................................................................. 3.9-1 3.9-2 Intersection Level of Service Definitions ........................................................... 3.9-2 3.9-3 Existing Intersection Level of Service ................................................................ 3.9-6 3.9-4 Project Trip Generation Estimates ..................................................................... 3.9-9 3.9-5 Cumulative Projects Trip Generation ................................... ............................ 3.9-14 3.9-6 Existing plus Ambient Growth with Proposed Specific Plan ............................. 3.9-17 3.9-7 Existing plus Ambient Growth with Proposed Specific Plan ............................. 3.9-19 3.9-8 Parking Spaces Required ................................................................................ 3.9-21 3.9-9 Commercial Uses – Retail and Service............................................................ 3.9-22 4-1 Planned and Approved Projects in the Project Area ............................................. 4-3 6-1 Ability of Alternatives to Meet Project Objectives .................................................. 6-5 6-2 Summary Comparison of Project Alternative Impacts ............................... ............ 6-6 6-3 Build-Out Comparison of Alternative 1 and Proposed Project ............................ 6-11 6-4 Mitigated Emissions from Alternative 2 Construction ............................. ............. 6-13 6-5 Mitigated Emissions from Existing Specific Plan Construction ............................ 6-13 6-6 Proposed Construction Emissions minus Alternative 2 Construction Emissions .................................................................................. 6-14 6-7 Alternative 2 Operational Emissions ............................................................. ...... 6-14 6-8 Proposed Specific Plan Operational Emissions .................................................. 6-15 6-9 Proposed Specific Plan Operational Emissions minus Alternative 2 Operational Emissions ................................................................................... 6-15 6-10 Mitigated Emissions from Alternative 3 Construction ............................. ............. 6-21 6-11 Mitigated Emissions from Existing Specific Plan ................................................. 6-21 6-12 Proposed Construction Emissions minus Alternative 3 Construction Emissions .................................................................................. 6-22 6-13 Alternative 3 Operational Emissions ............................................. ...................... 6-22 6-14 Proposed Specific Plan Operational Emissions .................................................. 6-23 6-15 Proposed Specific Plan Operational Emissions minus Alternative 2 Operational Emissions ................................................................................... 6-23 Old Town Specific Plan Amendment S-1 ESA /D209294 Draft Environmental Impact Report February 2010 SUMMARY S.1 Introduction The City of Temecula (City) has prepared this Draft Program Environmental Impact Report (Draft Program EIR) to provide the public and responsible and trustee agencies information about the potential effects on the local and regional environment associated with adoption of the proposed Old Town Specific Plan (OTSP) Amendment (proposed project). This Draft Program EIR has been prepared pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Section 15168 of the CEQA Guidelines outlines the parameters of a Program EIR as follows: A Program EIR is an EIR which may be prepared on a series of actions that can be characterized as one large project and are related either: 1. Geographically, 2. A logical parts in the chain of contemplated actions, 3. In connection with issuance of rules, regulations, plans, or other general criteria to govern the conduct of a continuing program, or 4. As individual activities carried out under the same authorizing statutory or regulatory authority and having generally similar environmental effects which can be mitigated in similar ways. Use of a Program EIR can provide the following advantages: 1. Provide an occasion for a more exhaustive consideration of effects and alternatives than would be practical in an EIR on an individual action, 2. Ensure consideration of cumulative impacts that might be slighted in a case-bycase analysis, 3. Avoid duplicative reconsideration of basic policy considerations, 4. Allow the Lead Agency to consider broad policy alternatives and program-wide mitigation measures at an early time when the agency has greater flexibility to deal with basic problems or cumulative impacts, and 5. Allow reduction in paperwork. Summary Old Town Specific Plan Amendment S-2 ESA /D209294 Draft Environmental Impact Report February 2010 (c) Use with Later Activities. Subsequent activities in the program must be examined in the light of the Program EIR to determine whether an additional environmental document must be prepared. The OTSP meets the requirements for a Program EIR. Future specific projects submitted for City review and approval within the Specific Plan area will be required to prepare an Initial Study to determine the need for any additional required CEQA compliance documentation. This document serves as a Program EIR for the OTSP, which establishes development parameters but does not propose any specific development, as the exact development proposals for future projects are not yet known at this time. As such, the environmental baseline for the project varies with regards to the environmental impact area analyzed. This Draft Program EIR is being circulated to local, state and federal agencies, and to interested organizations and individuals who may wish to review and comment on the document. Publication of this Draft Program EIR marks the beginning of a 45-day public review period (public review period ends April 14, 2010) during which written comments may be directed to the City of Temecula at the address below. Comments on the project should be directed to: Stuart Fisk Senior Planner City of Temecula Planning Department 43200 Business Park Drive Temecula, CA 92589-9033 Stuart.Fisk@cityoftemecula.org (e-mail) 951.506.5159 (phone) 951.694.6477 (fax) S.2 Background Old Town History The approval of the Old Town Temecula Historic Preservation District by the Riverside Board of Supervisors in October 1979 marked the first recognition of Old Town Temecula as a unique place with a historic character worth preserving and enhancing. Since that initial recognition, additional steps have also been taken to help plan Old Town's future and preserve its historic buildings and character. The Temecula Community Plan Task Force (comprised of of members from the Old Town Temecula Museum Historical Committee, Old Town Temecula Merchants Association, Temecula Town Association, and Temecula Valley Chamber of Commerce) prepared and submitted a plan for Old Town's revitalization in October 1988. This plan provided a grass roots basis for existing concerns and future growth. A renewed focus on the issues facing Old Town was established with the preparation of the City's General Plan in early 1992. Throughout the various elements of the General Plan (including Land Use, Circulation, Open Space, and Community Design) needs were identified to preserve and revitalize Old Town. The primary policy recommendation that emerged from the General Plan Summary Old Town Specific Plan Amendment S-3 ESA /D209294 Draft Environmental Impact Report February 2010 program was the need to prepare a specific plan for Old Town. Acting on this recommendation, the Temecula City Council authorized preparation of the Old Town Temecula Specific Plan to provide a master plan for the Old Town area. Old Town Specific Plan Temecula was incorporated on December 1, 1989. On November 9, 1993, Temecula adopted the Land Use Element of the City’s General Plan. Since then, 13 specific plans have been adopted to govern defined geographic regions of the City. The OTSP was prepared in 1992 and 1993 with the assistance of Urban Design Studio and the council-appointed Old Town Steering Committee. The Steering Committee members represented a wide-range of local business and resident interests. The OTSP was approved by the City Council on February 8, 1994. The original purpose of the document was to provide a comprehensive plan for land use, development regulations, design guidelines, vehicular circulation, parking, development incentives and other related actions aimed at implementing the goals and objectives set forth in the document itself. The proposed project site has also been evaluated in previous planning documents including: • Old Town Specific Plan, Originally Adopted February 8, 1994 (Revised October 10, 2000; August 24, 2004; and June 13, 2006) • City of Temecula General Plan EIR, prepared by The Planning Center, updated 2005. S.3 Project Objectives The project objectives as defined by the City are as follows: • Update the current OTSP to provide enhanced desired services within the plan area to both City residents and visitors while being compatible with the nearby residential area; • Incorporate form-based code principles to more clearly define development regulations, to better facilitate pedestrian friendly development through building placement and streetscapes, and to encourage mixed-use development within Old Town; • Respect the history of the OTSP area while fitting with current economics, accommodating greater residential density, and encouraging a variety of architectural styles; • Implement significant new investment in the Old Town area to help promote rapid growth in Temecula Valley and develop a renewed interest in town centers and mixed-use development; • Enhance the quality of life of Temecula residents by balancing economic development objectives with protection of the environment and the health and safety of the community; and • Promote economic activity within the City to maintain a healthy economy, provide revenue for high-quality municipal services and infrastructure maintenance and improvements, and preserve the unique character of Temecula. Summary Old Town Specific Plan Amendment S-4 ESA /D209294 Draft Environmental Impact Report February 2010 S.4 Project Description The project involves an amendment to the OTSP. The primary goal for the Specific Plan Amendment is to incorporate form-based code principles to more clearly define development regulations, to better facilitate pedestrian friendly development through building placement and streetscapes, and to encourage mixed-use development within Old Town. The Specific Plan Amendment is intended to achieve these goals through changes to site planning standards and guidelines, streetscape standards and guidelines, land use district locations and titles, architectural standards and guidelines, parking lot guidelines, public art guidelines, paving material guidelines, outdoor dining/sidewalk furniture guidelines, sign regulations and guidelines, alley guidelines, and landscape guidelines within the Specific Plan. The proposed Specific Plan Amendment will also result in the annexation of approximately 2.4 acres into the Specific Plan at a location south of First Street, along the west side of Old Town Front Street, and the removal of approximately 2.3 acres from the Specific Plan at a location west of the intersection of 6th Street and Pujol Street. The mixed-use aspect of the Specific Plan Amendment is anticipated to result in a commercial building floor space reduction in Old town of approximately 1,405,285 square feet and the addition of approximately 749 residential units within the Specific Plan area. The reduction of building floor space can be anticipated because residential uses require more open areas for parking, courtyards, balconies, and other shared and private open spaces than commercial space would, particularly due to the fact that commercial space in Old Town is not required to provide parking, but residential uses are required to provide at least one parking space per residential unit. Table S-1 below compares what currently exists today within the OTSP area, what has been approved under the existing OTSP, what is proposed under the OTSP amendment, and the differences between the approved and proposed OTSP. TABLE S-1 OLD TOWN SPECIFIC PLAN COMPARISON TABLE Currently Exists in OTSP Approved OTSP Proposed OTSP Amendment Difference of Approved/Proposed OTSP Difference of Existing/Proposed OTSP Commercial 537,632 sf 3,641,275 sf 2,235,990 sf -1,405,285 sf +1,698,358 sf Residential 681,179 sf 1,575,892 sf 2,249,285 sf +673,393 sf +1,568,106 sf 538 du 1,659 du 2,408 du +749 du +1,870 du 1,184 residents 3,350 residents 5,298 residentsa +1,948 residents +4,114 residents Civic 143,525 sf 159,809 sf 159,809 sf 0 sf +16,284 sf Open Space 19.7 acres 19.7 acres 25.4 acres +5.7 acres +5.7 acres sf = square feet: du = dwelling units a Multi-family dwelling unit assumption of 2.2 persons/du. SOURCE: City of Temecula, 2010. Summary Old Town Specific Plan Amendment S-5 ESA /D209294 Draft Environmental Impact Report February 2010 Land Use Districts The OTSP area is composed of land use districts which establish permitted land uses and development standards intended to implement the goals, policies and objectives of this Specific Plan and the City’s General Plan. These land use regulations and development standards constitute the primary zoning provisions for the OTSP area. The Specific Plan Amendment is intended to achieve the previously defined goals and objectives through changes to land use district locations and titles within the Specific Plan. Downtown Core District and Hotel Overlay The Downtown Core District, located along the east edge of the Open Space corridor which contains Murrieta Creek, is intended to provide for uses that will support pedestrian-oriented and mixed-use development. This district is defined by multi-story urban buildings of up to four stories that are intended to accommodate art galleries, museums, restaurants and small-scale boutique retailers such as gift, specialty food, and antique shops, or similar retail uses. Service and office uses are permitted within this district, but are restricted to the second floor and higher for parcels along Old Town Front Street and Main Street. Residential uses are permitted in the Downtown Core, but are also restricted to the second floor and higher for parcels along Old Town Front Street and Main Street. All four-story buildings in the Downtown Core must contain at least one floor restricted to residential use. The Downtown Core/Hotel Overlay is intended to encourage the development of a hotel with conference facilities, restaurant and other guest services. This area is located in the southeast corner of the project area just west of the I-15 corridor. The Hotel Overlay permits a hotel with conference facilities to be constructed at a greater building height (up to eight stories) than other buildings in the underlying district. This will provide adequate visitor accommodations for Old Town and the surrounding area. Civic Districts The three Civic Districts are located immediately north and south of the Residential/Limited Mixed Use District (just west of the I-15 corridor) and on the west side of the Downtown Core District along the open space corridor. These areas are intended to provide for public and quasipublic uses such as parks, city offices, police/fire stations, senior citizen centers, community centers and other community assembly uses, museums, and similar facilities. Residential/Limited Mixed Uses The Residential/Limited Mixed Uses Districts are intended to provide for attached residential or mixed-use development of up to three stories. These districts accommodate a variety of housing types with opportunities for ground floor retail, restaurants, and offices serving residents. These uses are intended to provide convenience or services for the residents in the surrounding neighborhood such as corner markets, takeout/delivery restaurants, dry cleaners, beauty shops, florists, and similar uses. Appropriate building types include live/work, courtyard housing, Summary Old Town Specific Plan Amendment S-6 ESA /D209294 Draft Environmental Impact Report February 2010 rowhouses, condominiums, and apartments. These districts are located between the Civic Overlays just west of the I-15 corridor and at the northern boundary of the OTSP. Neighborhood Residential The Neighborhood Residential District is intended to provide for attached and detached threestory residential development at a density of up to 35 dwelling units per acre. Typical housing types in this area may include single-family detached, duplexes, triplexes, townhouses, condominiums, apartments, and live/work units. This land use district would be located along the western side of the project area just west of the Open Space corridor which contains Murrieta Creek. Open Space The Open Space corridor, which traverses through the central portion of the project area, includes both public and private areas of permanent open space along the floodways of Murrieta Creek. The zone is intended to provide for the preservation of biological and cultural resources, and to protect the public from flood hazards. Annexation and Removal of Old Town Specific Plan Areas As previously described, the proposed Specific Plan Amendment will result in the annexation of approximately 2.4 acres into the Specific Plan at a location south of First Street, along the west side of Old Town Front Street. The removal of approximately 2.3 acres from the Specific Plan, at a location west of the intersection of Sixth Street and Pujol Street, is also proposed. Implementation through Changes to Standards and Guidelines A form-based code regulates development projects by providing specific regulations for the physical form of a building to foster predictable built results and an active public realm. Formbased codes emphasize building form over land use and encourage mixed-use development in an urban environment. Form base codes also address the relationship between the building façade and the public realm to achieve a pedestrian friendly environment along the streets, sidewalks and alleys. Form-based code regulations are provided through what is known as a regulating plan. The regulating plan provides specific development regulations and standards presented in both words and diagrams to designate the appropriate building form, scale, massing and character of a building relative to the zoning district or geographic location of a lot or property within the Specific Plan area. More specifically, the regulating plan regulates the site planning for buildings which in turn defines the streetscape to achieve the human scale and walkability desired of the Old Town area. Summary Old Town Specific Plan Amendment S-7 ESA /D209294 Draft Environmental Impact Report February 2010 Site Planning The area comprising the core of Old Town Temecula is typical of many small town/rural main streets. The buildings are predominantly side by side, forming a fairly continuous street wall, and are placed on a build-to-line 10 feet behind the right-of-way. The pedestrian-friendly quality of this relationship is enhanced by arcades, mature trees, benches, and lack of emphasis on parking lots and parked cars. It is the intent of the urban standards to intensify the pedestrian activity which characterizes this area by requiring side parking, rear parking, or no on-site parking lots. Pedestrian passages to parking areas adjoining mid-block alleys are encouraged to facilitate the screening of parking lot areas. Streetscape Standards The purpose of streetscape improvements for Old Town is to promote a high-quality comfortable pedestrian environment that enhances the visual experience of the area for tourists and residents alike. The preservation of the pedestrian scale and the relationship of buildings to streets are important criteria in the Old Town area. Streetscape improvements along Old Town Front Street and Main Street will be modified as specified in the plan. The focus of the project area will be to provide pedestrians a network of simple, well-defined and well-proportioned outdoor spaces. In an effort to ensure a comfortable urban downtown experience, streetscapes that are simple and uncluttered will be emphasized. In addition, street trees will be a major component. Trees will be located closer to the streets to allow a more urban feel. Circulation Standards In the Old Town area, the project proposes to use an intersection Level of Service F (LOS F) as an acceptable LOS for intersections on Old Town Front Street from Second Street to Moreno Road North. In the past few years, several cities in California have, by using a variety of methods, made the decision to allow lower LOS for intersections located in core or downtown areas. These decisions are all linked to efforts to create the increased densities needed for mixed-use development that supports pedestrian and transit uses, as well as a sustainable living and work environments.1 Architectural Standards Development standards and requirements for all projects within the OTSP area are intended to ensure that proposed development within the Old Town area occurs in a manner that is consistent with the community’s vision for building form, massing, architectural character, and the building’s relationship to the street and public realm. The most prevalent architectural style in Old Town relates most commonly to the Gold Rush Style or Western Frontier Style. The architectural design guidelines for Old Town are organized 1 Case studies included the cities of Calistoga, Oakland, Roseville, San Diego, San Jose, and Walnut Creek. In San Jose, downtown development is exempt from LOS requirements and mitigation measures. Summary Old Town Specific Plan Amendment S-8 ESA /D209294 Draft Environmental Impact Report February 2010 into four topics: building form, frontage type, architectural style, and materials. While architectural principles are defined, variety and individual expression within this framework are encouraged. The community desires a character of architecture and streetscape reflecting Temecula Valley’s history, natural landscape and climate. The amended OTSP will help to provide a rich and varied character to the streetscapes in Old Town while acknowledging the variety of Old Town’s historical buildings. The amended Specific Plan will encourage new development to respect this old heritage, but still enable variety and individual expression through building form, architectural style and materials. Parking Lots The public view of open parking lots can detract from the Old Town area. This is especially important in retail areas. In an effort to minimize the amount of land committed to parking lots within the Old Town area, not all uses within the Specific Plan will be required to provide on-site parking. In most cases, the determination whether or not parking will be required will be based upon the land use district and the type of business. When on-site parking is required, the standards contained in Chapter 17.24 of the Temecula Municipal Code will normally be used to determine the number of required parking spaces. However, the Temecula Director of Planning may require assembly uses with high parking demands to provide additional off-street parking. In making this determination, the Temecula Director of Planning can consider the size and location of the proposed use, the hours of operation, the availability of nearby off-street parking, and its proximity to other assembly and restaurant uses. In the retail portions of the project area, locating parking lots between the front property line and any building will be prohibited. As needed, several additional parking strategies could be incorporated into the Old Town area in the long-term. These additional parking strategies could include time limits, informational programs, a Parking District, additional parking supply, and parking charges as determined by the City. More specifically, the City could establish time limits and parking charges once an area consistently surpasses 85 percent occupancy. The City could also develop an informational program or Parking District at any time; however, with the recent development of the Civic Center parking structure/lot, parking needs in the short-term have been met. Additionally, near-term parking would be supplied through a parking structure located at 2nd Street (behind the Stampede) and/or the City’s 6th Street surface lot. Public Art The placement of public art within the project area will be encouraged on both private and public property. Public art can be representative of the City’s culture and heritage in addition to promoting social gathering places and interaction. Wall murals, lighting displays, sculptures, mosaics, monuments and fountains will all be considered significant examples of artistic expression. Proposals for public art will be subject to review pursuant to the public art ordinance. Summary Old Town Specific Plan Amendment S-9 ESA /D209294 Draft Environmental Impact Report February 2010 Paving Material Enhanced paving materials are strongly encouraged in the Specific Plan area wherever possible. The textures of paving can guide activities and movement patterns; it can channel traffic or prevent it from encroaching on specific areas; it can speed movement or slow it down. Smooth surface materials encourage walking, while rough surfaces slow or inhibit walking. Paving materials therefore influence usability and comfort, as well as the perception of a historic time period. Outdoor Dining/Sidewalk Furniture Outdoor patio furniture and umbrellas for private restaurants and other commercial uses within the OTSP are considered an integral part of the street scene. Appropriate street-side furnishings would be meant for private use and occur between the property line and the build-to-line, outside of the right-of-way. Sign Regulations and Guidelines Signs in Old Town advertise a place of business or provide directions and information. The OTSP directs signs to be architecturally attractive and should contribute to the retention or restoration of the historic character of the area. The OTSP notes that signs should not compete with each other or dominate the setting via inconsistent height, size, shape, number, color, lighting, or movement. This revised Specific Plan has regulations to help control the size, location, and number of storefront signs. In addition, the revised Specific Plan contains design criteria to encourage and coordinate well-designed signs and provides guidelines intended to assure the local merchant that all other Old Town commercial establishments are similarly regulated. Alley Guidelines The primary purposes of the remaining alleys are either for vehicular access or pedestrian access. The primary goal of the vehicular access alleys is to provide service and rear area parking access to adjacent properties. The majority of these alleys are located between Old Town Front Street and Mercedes Street. The primary purpose of the pedestrian access alleys is to enhance the pedestrian connections between Old Town Front Street and Murrieta Creek. The following alleys between Old Town Front and Mercedes Streets will retain a primarily vehicular function: • Between First and Second Streets • Between Third and Main Streets • Between Fourth and Fifth Streets • Between Fifth and Sixth Streets The following alleys between Old Town Front Street and Murrieta Creek will retain a primary pedestrian function: Summary Old Town Specific Plan Amendment S-10 ESA /D209294 Draft Environmental Impact Report February 2010 • Between Fourth and Fifth Streets Landscape Guidelines Landscaping in the OTSP area is focused on achieving three main objectives: 1) To unify and establish a uniform urban streetscape in Old Town; 2) To soften mixed-use, commercial, civic, and residential development within Old Town’s urban context; and 3) Establish an environment in Old Town that is pleasant and comfortable for pedestrians, residents and visitors. These three areas of focus will be accomplished by a highly recognizable use of repeated planting treatments. Consistency and continuity within the street right-of-way and building setback areas will also be extremely important for development. Murrieta Creek Old Town has historically turned its back to Murrieta Creek, using land along the creek for backyards, storage and parking. The proposed flood control improvements provide the opportunity for Old Town to create a positive relationship relationship with the creek. The concept of the Murrieta Creek Walk includes the creation of a pedestrian walkway along both sides of the water course with buildings fronting portions of the creek. The improvements to the Murrieta Creek corridor will be aesthetically compatible with the vision for Old Town while also capitalizing on the improvements to add desirable pedestrian/equestrian trails along the creek’s edge. Improvement plans to the corridor area will be coordinated with other master plans adopted by the City. S.5 Summary of Impacts Table S-2, at the end of this chapter, presents a summary of the impacts and mitigation measures identified for the proposed project. The complete impact statements and mitigation measures are presented in Chapter 3, Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures. The level of significance for each impact was determined using significance criteria (thresholds) developed for each category of impacts; these criteria are presented in the appropriate sections of Chapter 3. Significant impacts are those adverse environmental impacts that meet or exceed the significance thresholds; less-than-significant impacts would not exceed the thresholds. Table S-2 indicates the measures that will be implemented to avoid, minimize, or otherwise reduce significant impacts to a less than significant level. The impacts associated with the proposed project would occur during the construction phase and the operational phase. Although most construction impacts would be short term, they can pose significant disruptions to nearby communities. Summary Old Town Specific Plan Amendment S-11 ESA /D209294 Draft Environmental Impact Report February 2010 Aesthetics Impacts and Mitigation Measures The proposed amendment to the OTSP would not significantly impact a scenic vista, damage a scenic resource and/or degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site. The project site is located in a mixed-use area that includes residential and commercial land uses. The project site is predominantly flat, and it has been previously graded and developed. State Highway 79 North (Winchester Road), part of the California Freeway and Expressway System, is located approximately two miles north of the project site and is eligible for the State Scenic Highway System. Due to road topography, however, the project site is not visible from Winchester Road. The proposed project is located adjacent to I-15, which is designated as an Eligible State Scenic Highway; however, it is not officially designated as a State Scenic Highway by the California Department of Transportation. Therefore, no eligible or officially designated scenic highways would be affected by the proposed project. Furthermore, the visual character of the Old Town area is anticipated to improve with the implementation of the OTSP standards and design guidelines. The Community Design Element of the City of Temecula’s General Plan identifies important scenic viewsheds to ensure that new public and private development projects will not obstruct the public views of scenic resources. According to the General Plan Community Design Plan, the project site has not been identified as a viewshed, nor is it located in the sightline of a nearby viewshed. Tall structures in the proposed Hotel Overlay zone have the potential to block views of the western escarpment when viewing west from I-15. However, the I-15 freeway is approximately 40 feet higher in elevation than the proposed location for the Hotel Overlay zone. Therefore, only about 60 feet of a 100-foot, eight-story building would be visible above grade when viewing from I-15. In addition, the western escarpment is approximately 1,000 feet higher than the proposed location for the Hotel Overlay zone. Since the plateau spans several miles along the horizon, eight-story buildings constructed in the Hotel Overlay zone would not be capable of substantially blocking views of the plateau. The proposed Hotel Overlay area would allow for hotels of up to eight stories. Though hotels would be required to architecturally integrate with the Old Town area, the potential building height and mass could degrade the existing visual character and quality of the Old Town area and its surroundings. As stated in the Community Design Element of the Temecula General Plan, “Effective community design and planning combines important spatial considerations of land use and circulation patterns to achieve community beautification, community pride, and quality of life.” Therefore, the siting of the Hotel Overlay zone may adversely affect the visual quality of the area should the surrounding land uses be incompatible with large-scale hotel land uses. An example of an incompatible land use in this case would include low-density residential uses. Therefore, to determine if an eight-story building permitted in the proposed Hotel Overlay zone would degrade the visual character of the site and its surroundings, the following discussion analyzes the land uses surrounding the Hotel Overlay zone for aesthetic compatibility. Summary Old Town Specific Plan Amendment S-12 ESA /D209294 Draft Environmental Impact Report February 2010 The proposed Hotel Overlay would be sited in an area that currently contains multi-story hotels, such as the Rodeway Inn,, and other mixed and commercial uses such as the 4-story Truax Building and the Civic Center parking structure. Thus, the site proposed for the Hotel Overlay zone already contains many of the uses that would be permitted in this zone under the proposed amendment to the Specific Plan. To the north of the Hotel Overlay zone, dense mixeduse/commercial and public institutional land uses exist. Examples of such uses include hotels, antique shops, restaurants and offices. Land uses to the south of the Hotel Overlay zone consist of service commercial uses, such as a U-Haul rental facility and a liquor store. To the west of the Hotel Overlay area is the I-15 freeway, and to the east is the Murrieta Creek open space corridor. There currently are no low-density residential land uses surrounding the proposed Hotel Overlay zone. Thus, the presence of larger scale hotels in this area would not degrade the aesthetic quality of the environment affecting people living in residential neighborhoods. Eight-story structures would be permitted in the Hotel Overlay zone to provide adequate visitor accommodations for Old Town and the surrounding area. Visitors who stay at the hotels constructed in this area would benefit from convenient pedestrian access to nearby restaurants, retail and public institutional land uses. Businesses surrounding the Hotel Overlay zone would benefit from the revenues associated with increased quasi-residency at the hotels. Thus, the construction of large hotels in this area would be compatible with the uses surrounding the Hotel Overlay zone. In addition, the area north of the proposed Hotel Overlay zone currently contains four-story, mixed-use structures, which would lessen the visual prominence of an eight-story hotel potentially constructed to the south. Therefore, notwithstanding architectural design, the visual character of the existing environment in this area would not differ substantially should larger hotel facilities be constructed. The OTSP Design Guidelines and supplemental standards establish architectural provisions for private development that would be applicable to the eight-story structures permitted in the proposed Hotel Overlay zone. The Design Guidelines and supplemental standards would ensure that the permitted large-scale hotels would be designed to architecturally integrate with the surrounding area. Therefore, allowing an eight-story hotel (twice as tall as other nearby buildings) within the proposed Hotel Overlay zone would not be out of character or substantially degrade the existing visual quality of the site and its surroundings. The OTSP Design Guidelines and supplemental standards establish architectural provisions for private development that would be applicable to the eight-story structures permitted in the proposed Hotel Overlay zone. The Design Guidelines and supplemental standards would ensure that the permitted large-scale hotels would be designed to architecturally integrate with the surrounding area. Therefore, allowing eight-story hotels within the proposed Hotel Overlay zone would not substantially degrade the existing visual quality of the site and its surroundings. The amendment to the OTSP could result in taller buildings and additional lighting needs beyond those associated with the existing Specific Plan. Though the City of Temecula requires that all new developments comply with the Palomar Lighting Ordinance (Ordinance 655), which requires that all lighting sources be shielded and directed downward to avoid glare on adjacent properties Summary Old Town Specific Plan Amendment S-13 ESA /D209294 Draft Environmental Impact Report February 2010 and to ensure low levels of glare in the sky, the potential for significantly taller hotel buildings, allowed by the proposed amendment to the Specific Plan at the south end of the project site, could result in a new source of substantial light or glare, which could adversely affect daytime or nighttime views of the area. This is because the use of exterior lighting for security and aesthetic illumination may contribute substantially to ambient nighttime lighting conditions. Reflective light (glare) would be caused by sunlight or artificial light reflecting from finished surfaces such as window glass, or other reflective materials. The proposed amendment to the specific plan does not explicitly prohibit the use of reflective surfaces for the Hotel Overlay zone. Therefore, tall buildings permitted in the proposed Hotel Overlay zone may substantially contribute to new sources of glare in the area. However, with implementation of mitigation measures in Section 3.1, potential light and glare impacts associated with the proposed project would be mitigated to a level of insignificance. With implementation of mitigation measures in Section 3.1, potential light and glare impacts associated with the proposed project would be less than significant. These generally accepted measures would be enforced by the City. Air Quality This is a Program EIR for a specific plan that establishes development parameters but does not propose any specific development. As the exact development proposals are not yet known at this time, the air quality impact analysis compares the amended OTSP at build-out to existing conditions. Although operational emissions and some construction emissions would be lower than the existing specific plan, the proposed project would remain significant and unavoidable with regards to impacts to air quality. Air Quality Plan The AQMP identifies construction activities as contributing factors to the overall emissions sources and provides source control measures to reduce this contribution, but does not conclude that individual projects would delay the attainment of air quality standards for the basin. Compliance with the rules established by the SCAQMD to reduce construction emissions, including fugitive dust control measures and vehicle maintenance measures, would ensure that the proposed project would not conflict with the current AQMP. The proposed project is consistent with growth assumptions included in the AQMP because it is consistent with the City General Plan and SCAG goals, which are consistent with the RTP. As such, the impact would be less-than-significant. Construction Construction-related emissions would occur intermittently for approximately 30 years. Project construction activities would include site preparation, earthmoving, and general construction. Site preparation includes activities such as general land clearing and grubbing. Earthmoving activities Summary Old Town Specific Plan Amendment S-14 ESA /D209294 Draft Environmental Impact Report February 2010 include cut-and-fill operations, trenching, soil compaction, and grading. General construction includes adding improvements such as roadway surfaces, structures, and facilities. In the absence of mitigation, construction activities may result in significant quantities of dust, and as a result, local visibility and PM10 concentrations may be adversely affected on a temporary and intermittent basis during construction. In addition, the fugitive dust generated by construction would include not only PM10, but also larger particles, which would fall out of the atmosphere within several hundred feet of the site and could result in nuisance-type impacts. NOx, ROG, PM10, PM2.5, CO, and CO2 construction emissions were estimated for a worst-case day based on default crew, truck trip, and equipment. Emissions are based on criteria pollutant emission factors from URBEMIS 2007. The results of this analysis are summarized in Section 3.2. As shown in Section 3.2, construction emissions of NOx, CO, PM10, and PM2.5 with construction under the Specific Plan Amendment would exceed SCAQMD thresholds of significance and would therefore be significant. The approved existing Specific Plan is shown in Section 3.2 to produce NOx, CO, PM10, and PM2.5 over the SCAQMD thresholds as well. Section 3.2 shows the difference in emissions levels from the proposed Specific Plan Amendment minus the existing Specific Plan. As shown in Section 3.2, emissions of ROG, PM10, and PM2.5 are lower in the proposed Specific Plan Amendment versus the existing Specific Plan. However, impacts under the proposed Specific Plan Amendment would remain significant and unavoidable. The proposed project would not result in a long-term (i.e., 70 years) substantial source of TAC emissions. In addition, there would be no residual emissions after construction and corresponding individual cancer risk. As such, project-related toxic emission impacts during construction would be less than significant. Operation Operational emissions for the proposed project would be generated primarily from on-road vehicular traffic, area sources (such as landscaping equipment), and indirectly by the energy consumption of the buildings proposed under the Specific Plan Amendment. Because power is provided to the City of Temecula over an integrated electricity grid, indirect emissions from the use of electricity could occur at any of the fossil-fueled power plants in California or neighboring states, or from hydroelectric or nuclear plants or renewable energy sources. For all power plants, it can be assumed that the emissions are reviewed as part of the permitting process before the power plant is built or expanded. The operational emissions with build-out of the existing Specific Plan would exceed all SCAQMD thresholds. When the proposed amendment to the OTSP at build-out is compared to build-out of the existing Specific Plan, as shown in Section 3.2, a major reduction of all emissions occurs. However, operational emissions would remain significant and unavoidable. Carbon Monoxide Summary Old Town Specific Plan Amendment S-15 ESA /D209294 Draft Environmental Impact Report February 2010 Traffic generated by the amendment to the OTSP would result in CO emissions based on the total volume of traffic and congestion along streets and intersections. CO emissions in future years are expected to decline due to reductions in the predicted CO emission factors resulting from a cleaner future mix of vehicles. However, as shown in Section 3.2, increases in CO emissions would exceed SCAQMD thresholds. The traffic study has found that the existing OTSP at build-out is projected to produce approximately 11,165 net vehicles during the PM peak hour. The proposed amendment to the OTSP at build-out is projected to generate approximately 7,357 net vehicles during the PM peak hour. Therefore the proposed amendment to the OTSP would generate considerably fewer trips and thus less CO emissions from traffic operations than the existing OTSP. As shown in Section 3.2, the estimated project-related CO operational emissions would be reduced in comparison to build-out of the existing OTSP. However, with development of the project, automobile and truck traffic would result in significant increases in localized CO concentrations over the existing Specific Plan and over existing conditions. Traffic generated by the proposed amendment to the OTSP was analyzed to determine its potential to affect CO concentrations in the project area. The modeling method included background CO concentration levels obtained from the Perris Monitoring Station, and traffic projections prepared for the project at the most affected intersection (Old Town Front Street and Main Street). Residents at specific intersections detailed in Section 3.2 would be the most affected by project-related traffic. It was assumed that if CO concentrations on roadway segments specified in Section 3.2 would not exceed the ambient air quality standards, the project’s contribution to impacts at other intersections affected by project traffic to a lesser extent would be less substantial. As shown in Section 3.2, the analysis demonstrated that no exceedances of the CO one-hour or eight-hour standard would occur. Furthermore, future years would have even lower background concentrations and vehicle emission factors. Thus, project-related traffic would have a less-than-significant impact on local CO concentrations. Global Warming/Climate Change The proposed project would contribute to global climate change as a result of emissions of GHGs, primarily CO2, emitted by construction and operational activities. GHG impacts are considered to be exclusively cumulative impacts; there are no non-cumulative greenhouse gas emission impacts from a climate change perspective (CAPCOA, 2008). Thus, the specific plan amendment analysis of GHG emissions is to determine whether the proposed project impact is cumulatively considerable. Four types of analyses are used to determine whether the project could be cumulatively considerable and potentially conflict with the state goals for reducing reducing GHG emissions. The analyses are as follows: A. Any potential conflicts with the CARB’s thirty-nine (39) recommended actions in California’s AB 32 Climate Change Scoping Plan. Summary Old Town Specific Plan Amendment S-16 ESA /D209294 Draft Environmental Impact Report February 2010 B. The relative size of the project. The project’s GHG emissions will be compared to the size of major facilities that are required to report GHG emissions (25,000 metric tons/year of CO2e)2 to the state. The project size will also be compared to the SCAQMD GHG threshold, as well as the California GHG emissions limit of 427 million metric tons per year of CO2e emissions by 2020. In reaching its goals the CARB will focus upon the largest emitters of GHG emissions. C. The basic energy efficiency parameters of a project to determine whether its design is inherently energy efficient. D. Any potential conflicts with applicable City of Temecula plans, policies, or regulations adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of GHGs. With regard to Item A, the proposed project does not pose any apparent conflict with the most recent list of the CARB early action strategies. With regard to Item B, proposed project construction GHG emissions would be approximately 12,004 metric tons of CO2e/yr. The existing Specific Plan construction greenhouse gas emissions would be approximately 11,848 metric tons of CO2E/yr. Therefore the proposed specific plan amendment would have a 1% increase in construction emissions compared to the existing specific plan. The proposed specific plan amendment build-out operational GHG emissions from vehicle trips and space heating would be approximately 240,415 metric tons of CO2e/yr, and indirect operation emissions from electricity generation would be approximately 14,454 metric tons of CO2e/yr, totaling 254,869 metric tons of CO2e/yr. The proposed project would be classified as a major source of greenhouse gas emissions (total emissions would exceed the lower reporting limit, which is 25,000 metric tons of CO2e/yr). Existing specific plan build-out operational emissions from vehicle trips and space heating account for 323,931 metric tons of CO2e/yr, and indirect operational emissions of of approximately17,791 metric tons of CO2e/yr totaling approximately 341,721 metric tons of CO2e/yr. Therefore the proposed specific plan would have a 25% reduction from the existing specific plan build-out emissions. When compared to the overall state emissions limit of approximately 427 million metric tons CO2e/yr, the proposed specific plan build-out (254,869 metric tons CO2e/yr) would be 0.06 percent of the state goal. However, since the project would result in GHG emissions that would exceed the major source threshold (25,000 metric tons CO2e/yr) and the SCAQMD GHG screening threshold (3,000 metric tons CO2e/yr), the project would potentially conflict with the state’s ability to meet the AB32 goals. With regard to Item C, the project would introduce high-density residential uses, thus creating a mixed-use environment in which residents would benefit from nearby shopping and employment opportunities, which would reduce the community’s reliance on automobiles. 2 As noted above the 25,000 metric ton annual limit identifies the large stationary point sources in California that make up approximately 94 percent of the stationary emissions. If the project’s total emissions are below this limit, its total emissions are equivalent in size to the smaller projects in California that as a group only make up 6 percent of all stationary emissions. It is assumed that the activities of these smaller projects generally would not conflict with State’s ability to reach AB 32 overall goals. Summary Old Town Specific Plan Amendment S-17 ESA /D209294 Draft Environmental Impact Report February 2010 With regard to Item D, The City of Temecula does not have any plans, policies, or regulations adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of GHGs, therefore the project would not pose a conflict. The review of Items A, B, C, and D indicate that the project would potentially conflict with the State goals in AB 32 and therefore this impact would be significant without mitigation. The State of California Attorney General’s office has compiled a list of GHG reduction measures that could be applied to a diverse range of projects (State of California Department of Justice, 2008), many of which are included in mitigation measures in Section 3.3. Even with implementation of all measures that are feasible from Mitigation Measure 3.3-1 as detailed in Section 3.3, the project would be considered a major source of greenhouse gases and would exceed the SCAQMD GHG screening threshold. Consequently, the increase in greenhouse gases by the project places the project in conflict with the goal of the state to reduce up to 169 million metric tons CO2e/year. This impact would remain significant. Cultural Resources Thirteen previously recorded historic resources in Old Town Temecula were reidentified during the field survey prepared for this Program EIR. The existing Old Town Historic Preservation Ordinance, and numerous implementation procedures within the City of Temecula General Plan, are designed to protect historic resources in Old Town Temecula. As no changes to these ordinances or protection procedures are planned as part of the Specific Plan Amendment, no significant direct or indirect impacts to those resources in particular are anticipated as a result of implementing the Specific Plan Amendment. The goals and recommendations intended to direct the City in its development of the OTSP area include the protection of designated historic buildings by delineating a historic core, protecting the historic grid of streets and alleys, and encouraging future development to maintain the historic setting and character of the plan area. The proposed amendment would include architectural standards intended to encourage new development to respect the historic setting and character of the project area and its historic structures by providing guidance and regulations concerning building form, frontage type, architectural style, and materials. For example, the City would provide landscape guidelines to soften the impact of commercial development and unify and establish the historical theme of the OTSP area, and strongly encourage enhanced paving materials that reflect the materials used in modern mission style buildings to be used in the Specific Plan area wherever possible. Improvements to areas such as the Murrieta Creek Walk corridor are intended to be aesthetically compatible with the vision for Old Town and the preservation of its historic character and setting. Implementation of these guidelines would result in a less-than-significant impact to historic resources within the OTSP area. Summary Old Town Specific Plan Amendment S-18 ESA /D209294 Draft Environmental Impact Report February 2010 The proposed Specific Plan Amendment would also result in the annexation of approximately 2.4 acres into the Specific Plan at a location south of First Street, along the west side of Old Town Front Street, and the removal of approximately 2.3 acres from the Specific Plan at a location west of the intersection of Sixth Street and Pujol Street. Neither the annexation nor the removal of land from the OTSP area would result in a significant impact to historic resources, as neither area includes any previously identified or potential resources. The 2.3 acres intended for removal from the OTSP area includes predominantly modern residential structures located along a private road. The Specific Plan area contains other buildings dating older than 50 years which have not been comprehensively surveyed and evaluated and may be eligible for the National or California Registers upon further review. If determined eligible, implementation of the Specific Plan Amendment could result in the demolition or alteration of these potential historic resources, which would be considered a significant impact. Implementation of Mitigation Measure 3.4-2a in Section 3.4 would minimize this impact to a less-than-significant level. The Pechanga Band of Luiseño Indians and Soboba Band of Luiseño Indians recognize the Specific Plan area as having cultural significance. Pechanga tribal cultural traditions including oral histories, songs, and creation accounts directly refer to the project area and its immediate environs. According to SB 18, the lead agency is required to consult with Native American tribes to identify any Native American sacred places or geographical areas within which sacred places may be located. SB 18 likewise requires the development of appropriate treatment or management plans to ensure the protection and preservation of such sacred places. The identification of sacred sites through appropriate consultation as required under SB 18, as well as through Phase I investigation in coordination with local Native American groups for individual projects as specified in Mitigation Measure 3.4-1a in Section 3.4, would ensure that no significant impacts would occur. There is no indication that any particular site in the Specific Plan area has been used for human burial purposes in the recent or distant past. In addition, General Plan Implementation Procedure OS-39: Tribal Cultural Resources, already protects previously unidentified human remains from accidental damage. However, in the unlikely event that human remains are discovered, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries, the human remains could be inadvertently damaged, which could be a significant impact. This impact could be further minimized by implementation of Mitigation Measure 3.4-4a in Section 3.4. The project area is underlain by the Pauba Formation and younger and older Quaternary Alluvium. The Pauba Formation and older Quaternary Alluvium have a high paleontological sensitivity, as they have a high potential to contain significant non-renewable paleontologic resources. These formations occur throughout a large percentage of the Specific Plan area. In addition, the Riverside County Planning Department’s Land Information System lists the paleontological sensitivity for most of the project area as “High”. Temecula’s General Plan (implementation measure OS-26) requires that a paleontologist be retained to observe grading activities in areas where the probable presence of paleontological resources is identified. However, significant paleontological resources can be uncovered even in Summary Old Town Specific Plan Amendment S-19 ESA /D209294 Draft Environmental Impact Report February 2010 areas of low sensitivity, and it is possible that ground-disturbing construction activities associated with implementation of the Specific Plan Amendment could result in the inadvertent discovery of paleontological resources, which could be a significant impact. The mitigation measures in Section 3.4 would further reduce this impact to a less-than-significant level. Hydrology Construction Any proposed development within the OTSP area larger than one acre would have to satisfy all applicable requirements of the NPDES Program and Chapter 8.24, Stormwater/Urban Runoff Management and Discharge Controls of the City of Temecula’s Municipal Code, to the satisfaction of the City of Temecula’s Public Works Department. Operation Development projects within the OTSP area would be required by the Stormwater/Urban Runoff Management and Discharge Controls of the City of Temecula’s Municipal Code to submit and implement a SWPPP using BMPs that would effectively reduce or prevent the discharge of pollutants into receiving waters. Mitigation measures in Section 3.5 would further reduce this impact to a less-than-significant level. The proposed Specific Plan Amendment is not anticipated to affect the quantity of groundwaters, either though direct additions or withdrawals, through interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations, or through substantial loss of groundwater recharge capability. Less-than-significant impacts are anticipated as a result of the proposed Specific Plan Amendment. The OTSP area is developed and served by existing stormwater collection and conveyance systems which empty into Murrieta Creek. Construction activities associated with development of the OTSP area could result in localized changes to drainage patterns. In particular, vacant lots that drain via sheet flow would be developed with collection and conveyance systems. These changes could increase the amount and rate of discharge into the storm storm drain system. Individual projects developed within the OTSP area would include project design features that would aid in the conveyance of stormwater to existing facilities. All runoff would continue to be conveyed via streets and gutters to storm drain locations within the Specific Plan area. Implementation of Mitigation Measure 3.5-1 would ensure that erosion or flooding remain less than significant. The majority of the Specific Plan area is developed. However, build-out of the Specific Plan area would decrease natural groundcover and increase impervious surfaces (such as paved areas and buildings). Surface water runoff volumes and rates generated from undeveloped, unpaved areas can increase significantly when a site is paved, the impervious surface area increased, and surface water infiltration reduced or eliminated. Increased runoff volume and peak discharge rates from development within the Old Town area over the course of 20 to 30 years could exacerbate downstream drainage problems, particularly particularly if the capacity of downstream infrastructure is inadequate. Increased detention basin capacity and improvements to the storm drainage network Summary Old Town Specific Plan Amendment S-20 ESA /D209294 Draft Environmental Impact Report February 2010 would be necessary to accommodate future storm flows, provide adequate drainage, and control flooding. Development under the proposed Specific Plan Amendment would involve residential and mixed uses, a downtown core, office, retail, entertainment, and hotel uses. Open space would include the creation of a pedestrian and equestrian walkways along both sides of the Murrieta Creek. Other open space areas would include landscaped buffers and small parks. Surface water runoff volumes and rates are anticipated to increase when the majority of the area is paved and developed. However, with implementation of Mitigation Measure 3.5-1, potential impacts related to increases in stormwater runoff rates and volume would be reduced to less than significant. Construction would typically require stripping of existing surface vegetation, additional site grading, and soil excavation. During construction, established groundcover that currently serves to stabilize site soils would be removed, potentially resulting in increased erosion and increased sediment load to existing or planned storm drainage facilities. Construction activities can also generate hazardous waste products such as adhesives, solvents, paints, and drilling and petroleum products that, if not managed appropriately, can adhere to soil particles, become mobilized by rain or runoff, and contribute to nonpoint-source pollution. In addition, during excavation and grading, contaminated soils may be exposed and/or disturbed; this could impact surface water quality through contact during storm events. Increased soil erosion and the accidental discharge of construction materials and/or contaminated soils from the project site could adversely affect water quality in downstream water bodies. However, all individual development projects within the Old Town project area will be required to prepare a Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) pursuant to the Municipal Separate Storm-Sewer permit (MS4 permit) issued by the San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board. Water quality control measures identified in the WQMP will be incorporated into project designs to eliminate potential adverse impacts to receiving waters. A less-than-significant impact is anticipated as a result of the proposed Specific Plan Amendment. Temecula contains several FEMA Special Flood Hazard Areas (SFHAs). These areas, corresponding to the 100-year floodplain, have the potential to become flooded when major rainstorms cause stream overflows. Murrieta Creek is the most flood-prone of the Temecula creeks. However, specific building standards, as described within the flood damage prevention and floodplain management regulations of the City Development Code, apply to flood-prone areas, including anchoring, use of flood–resistant building materials, use of adequate drainage paths, and elevating the structures to or above the base flood elevation. Furthermore, the City participates in the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP), which makes flood insurance available to affected property owners within the 100-year floodplain. The City would also review development plans for projects within the floodplain, to ensure compliance with City and FEMA floodplain development requirements. According to the Public Safety Element of the City’s General Plan, no development of any kind will be allowed in the floodway portion of the 100-year floodplain. Therefore, impacts are considered less than significant. Summary Old Town Specific Plan Amendment S-21 ESA /D209294 Draft Environmental Impact Report February 2010 According to the Public Safety Element of the City’s General Plan, three local bodies of water have the potential to impact the project site if such an event occurred: • Lake Skinner • Vail Lake • Diamond Valley Lake The City will maintain a Dam Inundation Evacuation Plan, will update the Multi-Hazard Functional Plan as needed to address flood hazards, and will coordinate with the State Office of Emergency Services to ensure that dam safety plans reflect the level of development within the community. Therefore, the rare likelihood of such an event and compliance with these plans would reduce any risks of death or loss to less than significant. The proposed project would not expose people to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving inundation by a seiche, tsunami, or mudflow because the project site is not located near a coast, large body of water, or steep enough slopes. The project site is located approximately 23 miles from the Pacific Ocean, which is a sufficient distance to avoid tsunami impacts. As mentioned above, there are three dams within the City of Temecula, and the nearest dam is Lake Skinner, located approximately 7.5 miles away from the project area. The lake is sufficiently far away to eliminate impacts associated with seiches in the Specific Plan area. The nearest foothills with exposed soils are located immediately adjacent to the west of the project site; however, due to the gently rolling slope, mudflows would not likely reach the project site. Therefore, no impact associated with mudflows is anticipated to occur. In summary, there would be no impact that would expose people or structures at the project site to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving inundation by a seiche, tsunami, or mudlow. Land Use and Planning The proposed Specific Plan Amendment strives to better facilitate pedestrian-friendly development through building placement and streetscapes, and to encourage mixed-use development within Old Town. The proposed project would implement many of the SCAG policies related to high-density, infill development that is pedestrian oriented. The project would also introduce high-density commercial uses that would create new jobs and regional shopping and entertainment destinations. In addition, the project would introduce high-density residential uses, thus creating a mixed-use environment in which residents would benefit from nearby shopping and employment opportunities, which would reduce the community’s reliance on automobiles. Thus, the project would be consistent with SCAG goals to reduce the prominence of the suburban development pattern that exists throughout the SCAG region. The project would have a less-than-significant impact with respect to consistency with SCAG goals and policies. The proposed project would alter the existing General Plan land uses designated for the project site. As such, a General Plan amendment is proposed. The primary goal for for the proposed project is to amend the existing Specific Plan to utilize form-based code principles to more clearly define development regulations, to better facilitate pedestrian-friendly development through building Summary Old Town Specific Plan Amendment S-22 ESA /D209294 Draft Environmental Impact Report February 2010 placement and streetscapes, and to encourage mixed-use development within the Old Town area. The proposed form-based code would serve as a zoning law for properties within the plan boundaries. Compared with traditional zoning, a form-based code doesn’t focus on specific uses. Rather, physical patterns, such as the design of buildings, streetscapes, and civic infrastructure, are the central issue. The project proposes to change the existing specific plan by altering the existing land use districts within the planning area. The City will create a new General Plan land use category called Specific Plan Implementation (SPI). As such, a General Plan amendment is proposed. In doing so, the City’s intent is to create a land use category that identifies the area as having a Specific Plan, and the Specific Plan’s land use map and land use narrative will describe the intended land uses and special provisions that govern the Specific Plan. This will allow for more flexibility in the City’s Specific Plan land use categories without resulting in inconsistencies with the General Plan. In essence, all existing General Plan land use designations within the proposed Specific Plan boundary will be replaced with one land use category [i.e., Specific Plan Implementation (SPI)] that will refer to the Specific Plan for the land use map and descriptions. Table 3.6-1 in Section 3.6 summarizes the permitted uses within the various General Plan land use designations. As shown, the uses permitted in the various land use districts are comparable to and would not conflict with the uses permitted in the existing General Plan land use designations. The majority of the project site is zoned SP-5. However, the project proposes to include or annex approximately 2.4 acres located south of First Street, currently zoned SC. Thus, the inclusion would require a zoning amendment to reflect the incorporation of the proposed 2.4 acres into the SP-SP-5 zone. Also, the project would result in the removal of approximately 2.3 acres from the Specific Plan area, at a location west of the intersection of Sixth Street and Pujol Street. This deannexation would also require a zoning amendment to reflect the exclusion of these lands from the SP-5 zone. The project proposes to amend the zoning code to reflect the proposed annexation and deannexation. The proposed zoning code amendment would ensure that the proposed project is consistent with the zoning code. Impacts related to zoning conformity would be less than significant. The existing OTSP states that the Specific Plan may be amended to further the systematic implementation of the General Plan. With respect to the existing Specific Plan, the proposed amendment would more effectively implement the applicable goals and policies established in the General Plan (see Table 3.6-4 in Section 3.6). In addition, all actions proposed under the project would be established through an amendment to the Specific Plan. Therefore, project implementation would not conflict with the adopted Specific Plan. The project would have a lessthan-significant impact with regard to consistency with the OTSP. Noise Construction Construction activity noise levels at and near the construction areas would fluctuate depending on the particular type, number, and duration of uses of various pieces of construction equipment. Summary Old Town Specific Plan Amendment S-23 ESA /D209294 Draft Environmental Impact Report February 2010 Construction-related material haul trips would raise ambient noise levels along haul routes, depending on the number of haul trips made and types of vehicles used. In addition, certain types of construction equipment generate impulsive noises (such as pile driving), which can be particularly annoying. Pile driving, however, is not proposed for project development. Table 3.7-4 in Section 3.7 shows typical noise levels during different construction stages. Table 3.7-5 in Section 3.7 shows typical noise levels produced by various types of construction equipment. Construction could occur adjacent to sensitive receptors. Table 3.7-4 in Section 3.4 states that excavation noise is 89 dBA at 50 feet; if sensitive receptors were located at this distance, construction noise at these levels would be substantially greater than existing noise levels at nearby sensitive receptor locations. These construction noise levels, especially if they were to occur during the nighttime hours when people are sleeping, would be potentially significant. Subsequent exposure to construction noise by individual sensitive receptors could be lessened over time due to attenuation of noise by project structures built in the interim. The City of Temecula noise ordinance states that, when the site is within one-quarter mile from an occupied residence, no person shall conduct construction activity between the hours of 6:30 PM and 6:30 AM Monday through Friday, and shall only conduct construction between the hours of 7:00 AM and 6:30 PM on Saturday. Further, no construction activity shall be undertaken on Sundays and nationally recognized holidays. Daytime construction is commonly exempt from noise ordinances because background noise is typically louder during the day than at night, and sleep disturbance is typically considered to be a nighttime impact. However, even daytime noise levels from construction can exceed daytime ambient levels and be a substantial annoyance to nearby residential units. It should be noted that exceptions may be requested from the standards set forth in the City’s Noise Ordinance. An application for a construction-related exception can be submitted in writing at least three working days (seventy-two hours) in advance of the scheduled and permitted activity (accompanied by the appropriate inspection fees), subject to approval by the City manager or designated representative. Although the mitigation measures in Section 3.7 would reduce the noise impact from construction, construction sites are noisy locations with heavy equipment that could substantially affect noise levels at nearby residences. Such impacts could last a substantial time before the noise complaint system would be used to reduce the impact. Therefore, construction noise could at times be a short-term significant and unavoidable impact of the proposed project. As shown in Table 3.7-6 in Section 3.7, use of a large bulldozer for project construction generates vibration levels of up to 0.089 PPV or 87 RMS at a distance of 25 feet. The nearest sensitive receptor or historic building to construction has yet to be determined. A large bulldozer would reach 80 RMS at 45 feet and 0.2 PPV at 15 feet from operation. This impact would be less than significant with implementation of the mitigation measures found in Section 3.7. Operation The heating, ventilating and air conditioning (HVAC) system for maintaining comfortable temperatures in buildings within the Specific Plan Amendment area would consist of packaged Summary Old Town Specific Plan Amendment S-24 ESA /D209294 Draft Environmental Impact Report February 2010 rooftop air conditioning systems. Such rooftop HVAC units typically generate noise levels of approximately 55 dB at a reference distance of 100 feet from the operating units during maximum heating or air conditioning operations. The noise level of the HVAC, if on the edge of the building nearest the sensitive receptors, could exceed the City of Temecula’s 65 dBA noise standard. Delivery trucks are expected to be used during on-site commercial operations. The number of delivery trucks will depend on the individual businesses. Mixed-use areas are intended and truck noise could potentially impact adjacent residents. An idling truck at 50 feet was found to produce noise levels of 72 dBA Leq, and a passing truck at 50 feet was found to produce noise levels of 68 dBA Leq. Cal-OSHA also requires backup beepers to be at least 5 dBA above ambient noise levels. These noise levels would potentially exceed Temecula’s daytime and nighttime noise standards if loading docks were to be located near residences. With implementation of the specified mitigation measures, the operational (non-transportation) noise impacts of the project would be reduced to less-than-significant levels. Most of the noise generated by the implementation of the project would result from increased traffic. The proposed amendment to the OTSP would contribute to an increase in local traffic volumes, resulting in higher noise levels along local roadways as compared to existing conditions. To assess the impact of project traffic on roadside noise levels, noise level projections were made using the Federal Highway Administration’s (FHWA) TNM Lookup model and the project traffic study provided by RK Engineering Group, Inc., for those road segments that pass by sensitive receptors. Traffic noise levels were analyzed for 10 roadway segments. The segments analyzed and results of the modeling are shown in Table 3.7-7 in Section 3.7. As depicted in Table 3.7-7 in Section 3.7, five of the 10 roadway segments would experience a significant increase in traffic noise (compared to existing conditions) resulting from the proposed amendment to the OTSP. Notably, the traffic study has found that the existing Specific Plan at build-out is projected to generate approximately 11,165 net vehicles during the PM peak hour. The proposed Specific Plan Amendment at build-out is projected to generate approximately 7,357 net vehicles during the PM peak hour. Therefore, the proposed amendment to the OTSP at build-out would generate considerably fewer trips and less noise from traffic operations than the currently approved Specific Plan at build-out. Residences in the project area would be subject to Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations, which requires an interior noise standard of DNL 45 dBA in any habitable room. Residences along affected roads exceeding 65 dBA would require sound-rated assemblies at the exterior facades of project buildings. Implementation of measures measures detailed in Section 3.7 would ensure that interior noise levels are reduced to 45 dB and are less than significant. However, as shown in Table 3.7-7 in Section 3.7, exterior noise levels from project traffic would exceed the standards for substantial noise increases along specified roadway segments. Exterior noise levels along these specified roadway segments would be substantially greater with the project than existing and would remain a significant and unavoidable impact. Summary Old Town Specific Plan Amendment S-25 ESA /D209294 Draft Environmental Impact Report February 2010 Utilities and Public Services The Specific Plan Amendment would not result in an increase in the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated. Overall, due to the improvements proposed by the Specific Plan Amendment (Open Space corridor, improved landscaping and walkways, etc.) and implementation of the mitigation measure listed in Section 3.8, impacts would be less than significant. The proposed Specific Plan Amendment would provide additional open space in the City and would therefore have a beneficial impact. Furthermore, all development projects must contribute their fair share to the maintenance or provision of public services through payment of the City’s Development Impact Fee. The construction and operation of uses associated with the proposed Specific Plan Amendment would not require the preparation of a water supply assessment in accordance with Section 15155 of the CEQA Guidelines. Currently, RCWD provides services to more than 120,000 people. If optimal development occurs, the project area can expect development of approximately 749 (Fisk, 2009) new residential units. However, the timing of the proposed project would be 20-30 years and there is no guarantee that a project resulting in optimal development would occur. As a result, the proposed Specific Plan Amendment would create a situation already within the boundary of what has been accounted for by RCWD. The proposed Specific Plan Amendment is anticipated to result in an increase in water demand annually compared to the existing conditions. The Specific Plan Amendment would intensify the land uses within the area (and expanded area proposed) such that it would increase water demand to 449,4003 gpd for residential uses. However, the Specific Plan Amendment would reduce the commercial uses by 1,405,285 square feet such that it would decrease water demand to 2,810,570,000 gpd for commercial uses. Thus, no new increase in water for commercial uses is anticipated. RCWD future water projections calculated the existing Specific Plan area in accordance with the land use designation and current zoning. Therefore, this additional water demand was incorporated into the RCWD’s future water projections and would not cause the water provider, RCWD, to significantly increase its water entitlements to supply the project area. Therefore, implementation of the proposed Specific Plan Amendment would not result in the need to expand water service facilities or construct new water facilities. Overall, impacts related to water supply would be less than significant and no mitigation measures are required. The Specific Plan area is part of the existing and 2030 projected water demand forecast for RCWD. These projections were formulated for normal weather conditions. In the event of a water shortage, RCWD’s program would take effect to provide provide water sustainability to the area. 3 There are 749 net new residential units proposed that fall into the category of high density (5-16 du/ac). The average daily demand factor for high density residential is 600 gpd/du. Thus, 749 units would equal 449,400 gpd of water consumption (749 units x 600 demand factor). Summary Old Town Specific Plan Amendment S-26 ESA /D209294 Draft Environmental Impact Report February 2010 According to the City of Temecula General Plan, no water supply shortage is expected in the near future (City of Temecula General Plan, 2005). Implementation of the proposed Specific Plan Amendment would not likely cause a substantial increase in the demand for wastewater treatment services, nor would it necessitate the alteration of existing facilities to meet treatment capacity expectations. The majority of land uses proposed would replace existing uses over 20 to 30 years (build-out). The EMWD treats approximately 46 mgd of wastewater, with a capacity of treating 56 mgd. To ensure that impacts remain less than significant, implementation of mitigation measures detailed in Section 3.8 would be required. Given the extended timeframe for build-out, the contribution of solid waste from the project area would be limited. The project area is required to have recycling collection and loading facilities in compliance with the California Integrated Waste Management Act of 1989 (AB 939), which requires cities to divert 50 percent of their solid waste through source reduction, recycling, and composting. The increased Specific Plan area (annexation of approximately 2.4 acres, reduction of area by approximately 2.5 acres) and the intensity of development anticipated by implementation of the project would result in an increased generation of solid waste. However, that increase would be minimal given that the overall commercial building floor space would be reduced in Old Town by approximately 1,405,285 square feet (even with the increase in residential units proposed). The City would be required to maintain the 50 percent diversion rate required by the state for all solid waste. The solid waste generated by the project would place a minimal burden on the City to maintain the required diversion rate. This increase would not require additional landfill capacity. Implementation of Mitigation Measure 3.8-6 in Section 3.8-6 would ensure that the proposed Specific Plan Amendment would comply with the required diversion rates, and impacts associated with solid waste would remain less than significant. The project will be in conformance with solid waste plans. Potential impacts to county landfills would be further reduced through compliance with all federal, state and local statutes and regulations regarding solid waste generation, transport and disposal. The Specific Plan Amendment is considered to have no impacts in terms of compliance with federal, state or local statutes or regulations related to solid waste. Future development in the Specific Plan area would use existing electricity service provided by SCE. Some extension of service may be necessary into undeveloped areas and would require assessment at the time of development review. Based on the current availability of electrical service in portions of the Specific Plan area, extensive infrastructure is not necessary, and the project would not significantly affect electrical services. The Specific Plan area is currently served by the Gas Company for natural gas service. Development in the Specific Plan area may require an extension of service into undeveloped areas and would require assessment at the time of development review. Future development in the project area would not affect the current service provider or natural gas services. Summary Old Town Specific Plan Amendment S-27 ESA /D209294 Draft Environmental Impact Report February 2010 Traffic and Transportation Old Town is envisioned to develop as a pedestrian-friendly, vibrant downtown. The activity that is expected to occur by those biking, walking and getting around the area requires that the entire right of way in Old Town be oriented toward the safety and comfort of the pedestrian, while concurrently encouraging the use of transit. These principles, as well as the anticipated increase in activity in the Old Town area, require that the streets become less automobile-oriented and more pedestrian and people oriented. As a result of the amendment to the OTSP, streets will no longer be considered for the fast-paced, high-volume movement of cars, trucks and other motorized vehicles; the concept of a “street” in the OTSP area will be expanded to include the safe, efficient movement of all pedestrians. Therefore, to facilitate this concept, the City will accept LOS E and F inside the Old Town Temecula area for intersections on Old Town Front Street from Second Street to Moreno Road North. The proposed Specific Plan Amendment is expected to increase traffic at build-out. However, the increase will be significantly lower than projected under the current Specific Plan. In the Existing Plus Ambient Growth Plus Proposed Specific Plan condition, nine (9) of the fourteen (14) intersections studied will operate at acceptable levels of service. The following intersections will not operate at an acceptable LOS: • Old Town Front Street/Rancho California Road (LOS F for PM Peak Hour) • Old Town Front Street/North Moreno Road (LOS E for PM Peak Hour) • Old Town Front Street/Sixth Street (LOS F for PM Peak Hour) • Old Town Front Street/Main Street (LOS F for PM Peak Hour) • Old Town Front Street/Second Street (LOS E for PM Peak Hour) The results of the intersection analysis are shown in Table 3.9-6 in Section 3.9. In order to maintain the unique “Main Street” character of the Old Town area, LOS E and F F will be deemed acceptable on Old Town Front Street from Second Street to Moreno Road North. In the General Plan Buildout Plus Proposed Specific Plan condition, eight (8) of the fourteen (14) intersections studied will operate at acceptable levels of service. The following intersections will not operate at an acceptable LOS: • Old Town Front Street/Rancho California Road (LOS F for PM Peak Hour) • Old Town Front Street/North Moreno Road (LOS F for PM Peak Hour) • Old Town Front Street/Sixth Street (LOS F for PM Peak Hour) • Old Town Front Street/Main Street (LOS F for PM Peak Hour) • Old Town Front Street/Second Street (LOS E for PM Peak Hour) • I-15 Southbound Ramps/Rancho California Road (LOS F for PM Peak Hour) The results of the intersection analysis are shown in Table 3.9-7 in Section 3.9. In order to maintain the unique “Main Street” character of the Old Town area, LOS E and F will be deemed acceptable on Old Town Front Street from Second Street to Moreno Road North. Summary Old Town Specific Plan Amendment S-28 ESA /D209294 Draft Environmental Impact Report February 2010 The existing OTSP is projected to generate approximately 106,092 net trip-ends per day, with 5,957 net vehicles per hour during the AM peak hour and 9,925 net vehicles per hour during the PM peak hour. The proposed amendment to the OTSP is projected to generate approximately 70,046 net trip-ends per day, with 4,263 net vehicles per hour during the AM peak hour and 6,539 net vehicles per hour during the PM peak. Under the proposed amendment, the OTSP will generate considerably fewer trips than the currently approved Specific Plan. Although the proposed Specific Plan Amendment would increase traffic to a lesser extent than the existing Specific Plan, overall traffic congestion in the Old Town area would be less than what is currently projected. Primary emergency access to the site would be provided from the fire station located at Mercedes Street and Sixth Street. Emergency vehicles would access Old Town Town Front Street from Moreno Road, Sixth Street, or Mercedes Street to reach project areas. Emergency vehicles would also be able to access the project site from Santiago Road and SR-79 to the south. The proposed project would not result in an impact related to vehicular and emergency access. Parking in the Old Town area will be based on its district and its use, but residential uses are required to provide at least one parking space per residential unit. The public view of open parking lots can detract from the Old Town area. This is especially important in retail areas. Currently, there is sufficient capacity to handle parking within the OTSP area. Additionally, an Old Town Parking Structure, located at the corner of Mercedes Street and 3rd Street, has been developed to address parking needs. The multiple-level parking structure would accommodate a maximum of 488 vehicles. The parking structure has been developed as part of the Old Town Temecula Civic Center. As needed, several additional parking strategies could be incorporated into the Old Town area in the long-term. These additional parking strategies could include time limits, informational programs, a Parking District, additional parking supply, and parking charges as determined by the City. More specifically, the City could establish time limits and parking charges once an area consistently surpassed 85 percent occupancy. The City could also develop an informational program or Parking District at any time; however, with the recent development of the Civic Center parking structure/lot, parking needs in the short-term have been met. Additionally, near-term parking would be supplied through a parking structure located at 2nd Street (behind the Stampede) and/or the City’s 6th Street surface lot. S.6 Cumulative Impacts The proposed Specific Plan Amendment project area is located in the southwestern portion of the City of Temecula (with 2.4 acres to be annexed into the OTSP area). Chapter 4, Cumulative Impacts, considers the potential cumulative effects of the Specific Plan Amendment in combination with other identified cumulative development projects. The potential for specific project-generated impacts to contribute to a significant cumulative impact would occur if the impacts are located within the same generalized geographic area. This geographic area varies depending upon the resource area being evaluated (water quality, noise, etc.) and the geographic extent of the potential impact. For example, the geographic area associated with construction noise impacts would be limited to areas directly affected by construction noise associated with the Summary Old Town Specific Plan Amendment S-29 ESA /D209294 Draft Environmental Impact Report February 2010 proposed project in conjunction with the identified cumulative projects. In contrast, the geographic area that could be affected by the proposed project and cumulative constructionrelated air emissions would include the entire air basin. Construction impacts associated with increased noise, dust, erosion, and access limitations tend to be localized and could be exacerbated if other development or improvement projects occur within proximal locations to the proposed Specific Plan Amendment area. The cumulative project area identified for traffic impacts was determined by the City of Temecula Public Works Department as noted in Table 3.9-5 and Table 4-1. At the time the traffic impact analysis was prepared, the SpringHill Suites hotel development (one of the projects included in the cumulative scenario calculations) was under construction and not operational. However, since completion of the traffic impact analysis and prior to circulation of the Program DEIR, the SpringHill Suites hotel development has opened and is currently in operation. As determined by the traffic impact analysis, the SpringHill Suites hotel was projected to have generated 1,160 daily trips at full occupancy. Therefore, the cumulative traffic impact calculations are based on a worst-case scenario comparison of the proposed project at build-out to existing conditions. Aesthetics Visual Character and Scenic Resources Within the vicinity of the proposed Specific Plan Amendment, surrounding areas contain mixed residential, business park uses and other commercial land uses. There are no eligible or officiallydesignated scenic highways affected by the proposed Specific Plan Amendment. No scenic vistas have been identified by the City’s General Plan and thus none would be adversely impacted from developing the proposed project. Furthermore, the aesthetics of Old Town are anticipated to improve with the implementation of the OTSP standards and design guidelines. The projects within the area of potential effect for aesthetics as related to the OTSP area are listed in Table 4-1 in Chapter 4 would include commercial and residential developments to the north and south of the project area. Like the proposed modifications to the Specific Plan area, these projects would represent an orderly, contiguous, and planned extension of the urban limit of the City of Temecula. Implementation of the proposed Specific Plan Amendment would occur in an area that has already been altered by existing developments. The intensification of use in the Specific Plan area would be aesthetically consistent with the character and uses in the surrounding area. Development was anticipated and detailed within the OTSP that was originally adopted in 1994. Implementation of the proposed Specific Plan Amendment would be a continuation of existing land use patterns; therefore, the project’s incremental cumulative aesthetic impact is not considered to be significant. In addition, individual aesthetics, visual, and light and glare impacts of the related projects, if any, would be addressed on an individual project basis. Each project would be subject to planning and zoning requirements, as well as design review by the City of Temecula, to ensure that project design is consistent with City standards. Where potential impacts Summary Old Town Specific Plan Amendment S-30 ESA /D209294 Draft Environmental Impact Report February 2010 could occur, the City would require appropriate environmental review and analysis and, if required, mitigate as appropriate. Therefore, the cumulative development would not result in significant impacts on scenic vistas or the visual character of the area. Light and Glare The existing Specific Plan area is partially developed and produces light within the local project vicinity. Development of the proposed Specific Plan Amendment in conjunction with other cumulative projects would gradually result in an increase in light in the City of Temecula and may increase ambient lighting in or adjacent to Riverside County. Proposed cumulative development would also incrementally contribute to cumulative night lighting and daytime glare and reflective impacts. However, the County has lighting regulations that preclude the use of excessive or unshielded lighting, or lighting that would spill into neighboring properties. Temecula adheres to Riverside County’s Light Pollution Ordinance, Ordinance No. 655, which restricts nighttime lighting for areas within a 15-mile radius and a 45-mile radius of Palomar Observatory. The proposed Specific Plan Amendment area is located within a 45-mile radius of the observatory (45-mile Radius Lighting Impact Zone) and is required to comply with Ordinance No. 655. All planned and approved projects listed in Table 4-1 fall within a 45-mile radius of the Palomar Observatory and are also required to comply with Ordinance No. 655. The 45-mile radius encompasses a large portion of Riverside County extending many miles beyond the Specific Plan area. Since regulations are in place and adherence to these policies is required, no significant cumulative impact related to lighting or glare is anticipated for the proposed Specific Plan Amendment. Air Quality SCAQMD has set forth methods and significance thresholds for the assessment of a project’s cumulative operational air quality impacts. The SCAQMD approach for assessing cumulative impacts is based on the SCAQMD’s AQMP forecasts of attainment of ambient air quality standards in accordance with the requirements of the federal and State Clean Air Acts. This forecast also takes into account SCAG’s forecasts of future regional growth. As such, the analysis of cumulative impacts focuses on determining whether the proposed project is consistent with forecast future regional growth. Therefore, if all cumulative projects are individually consistent with the growth assumptions upon which the SCAQMD’s AQMP is based, then future development would not impede the attainment of ambient air quality standards and a significant cumulative air quality impact would not occur. Project construction could violate air quality standards (short-term) during construction. Construction-related emissions would occur on and off for approximately 30 years. Constructionrelated fugitive dust emissions would vary from day to day, depending on the level and type of activity. The proposed Specific Plan Amendment would be significant and unavoidable on a project level for ROG, PM10, and PM2.5 emissions. Summary Old Town Specific Plan Amendment S-31 ESA /D209294 Draft Environmental Impact Report February 2010 Cumulative sources from projects throughout the basin would emit substantial amounts of TACS. While the total TAC emission from all projects in the region would be significant, the TAC emissions from the project are minimal for both construction and operations. Therefore, the project would have a less-than-significant cumulative impact with regard to TACs. Construction activity associated with other projects in the basin would generally involve the use of similar equipment and may overlap with the construction schedule of the proposed project. Though the project creates a significant and unavoidable impact, it is assumed that other project construction activity would comply with the SCAQMD required mitigation measures, which would reduce air quality impacts but not eliminate air pollutant emissions completely. This would be a significant cumulative impact. As such, the mass regional emissions that would occur as a result of developing the proposed project would be cumulatively considerable. Global Warming/Climate Change In 2005, the California governor signed Executive Order S-3-05 that sets forth a series of target dates for the reduction of statewide emissions of GHG. This order calls for the progressive reduction of GHGs so that by 2010, GHGs would be at year 2000 levels; by 2020, GHGs would be at year 1990 levels; and by 2050 GHSs would be 80 percent below year 1990 levels. Since the passage of Executive Order S-3-05, the California Assembly has passed the California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006, and CARB approved 37 strategies for GHG reduction and developed GHG mandatory reporting regulations. Even with implementation of Mitigation Measure 3.3-1 in Section 3.3, the proposed Specific Plan Amendment project would be considered a major source of greenhouse gases and would exceed the SCAQMD GHG screening threshold. Consequently, the increase in GHG by the project places the project in conflict with the goal of the state to reduce up to 169 million metric tons CO2e/year. This impact would remain significant and unavoidable. Cultural Resources The geographic scope of potential cumulative impacts (area of potential affect for cultural resources) related to cultural resources encompasses the proposed Specific Plan Amendment project area and immediate vicinity. As described in Section 3.4 Cultural Resources, construction of the proposed Specific Plan Amendment would include demolition activities and some earthmoving activities that could unearth previously unknown archaeological or paleontological resources. Cultural sites identified during construction would be recorded. Implementation of project-specific mitigation measures would minimize this impact to a less-than-significant level. Other development projects planned for the area could also encounter cultural resources. Each project would be responsible for recording new sites appropriately. Uncovering archaeological and paleontological resources generally adds to the regional understanding of the area’s history and would not result in a cumulatively considerable adverse impact to cultural resources. Summary Old Town Specific Plan Amendment S-32 ESA /D209294 Draft Environmental Impact Report February 2010 Hydrology and Water Quality As discussed in Section 3.5 Hydrology and Water Quality, the construction of the proposed Specific Plan Amendment would increase impervious surface and stormwater runoff (given the annexation of the 2.4 acres). With incorporation of project-specific mitigation measures, the Specific Plan’s impact on the local drainage system would not be significant. Cumulative projects could also contribute to increased runoff due to increases in impervious surfaces. Any proposed development within the OTSP area larger than one acre would have to satisfy all applicable requirements of the NPDES Program and Chapter 8.24, Stormwater/Urban Runoff Management and Discharge Controls of the City of Temecula’s Municipal Code, to the satisfaction of the City of Temecula’s Public Works Department. The related projects could have general construction-related impacts on water quality in the project area. Construction activities at other project sites could also increase erosion and subsequent sedimentation. As with the proposed project, all related projects are subject to the same federal regulations (Clean Water Act), state regulations (Porter Cologne Water Quality Control Act), and local regulations (SUSMP) that protect water quality and water resources. These regulations include NPDES permit requirements, stormwater pollution prevention plans, and post-development stormwater quality and quantity requirements. All of these regulations are designed to ensure that the incremental effects of individual projects do not cause a substantial cumulative impact. Therefore, despite the potential for the related projects to alter drainage patterns and runoff conditions, the adherence to the aforementioned requirements would ensure that they do not result in cumulatively considerable impacts related to sedimentation, flooding, water quality, drainage system capacity, flood hazard areas, failure of a levee or dam, seiche, tsunami, or mudflows. The proposed project with mitigation measures would have a less-than-significant impact. Therefore, because of these measures, when considered in combination with other developments similarly bound by the same regulations, the proposed project’s incremental contribution to water quality and quantity impacts, with proposed mitigation, would not be cumulatively considerable and is less than significant. Land Use and Planning The two other projects planned in the vicinity of the proposed Specific Plan Amendment are both hotel developments (Table 3.9-5 in Section 3.9). The modifications to the Specific Plan area are not out of context with the other proposed developments in the general area. Currently, the Specific Plan area contains a mix of uses, including commercial, residential, public facilities, and recreational uses. The proposed Specific Plan Amendment would replace most of the existing development with new development that would allow higher density residential and higher intensity commercial uses along with a limited residential/mixed-use zone. Build-out of the proposed Specific Plan area would replace existing residences with new multi-family residential structures and would result in new consolidated locations for commercial and retail uses. The Summary Old Town Specific Plan Amendment S-33 ESA /D209294 Draft Environmental Impact Report February 2010 proposed Specific Plan Amendment would be consistent on an individual level, and therefore on a cumulative level, with the applicable regulatory policies and plans. The contribution of the proposed Specific Plan Amendment and the two planned developments would not result in incompatible uses in an established community, the City or the City’s Sphere of Influence. Therefore, the proposed Specific Plan Amendment in conjunction with the other proposed developments would not have a cumulatively considerable impact. Cumulative impacts are therefore considered less than significant. Noise There are two development projects currently in the planning process located in the vicinity of the proposed Specific Plan Amendment area. When considered alone, the proposed modifications to the Specific Plan area would generate noise from construction over the estimated 20-to 30-year build-out, and from additional traffic traffic in the general area. Any project that would individually have a significant noise impact would also be considered to have a significant cumulative noise impact, as cumulative impacts can even result from individually minor but collectively significant projects taken place over a period of time. Noise impacts from cumulative development in the project area would primarily be the result of construction and increased vehicle traffic on the local roadway network. As discussed in Section 3.7 Noise, implementation of the proposed Specific Plan Amendment would result in construction that would generate noise levels in excess of standards. On a project level, this impact is considered significant and unavoidable after mitigation. When considered alone, the proposed project would generate noise mainly by adding more traffic to the area. The traffic associated with operation of the proposed Specific Plan Amendment would result in a significant increase in ambient noise levels on nearby roadways that would generate a significant and unavoidable impact after mitigation. The cumulative interior noise impacts of the project would be reduced to less-than-significant levels. Other anticipated projects would contribute to noise in the area due to increased traffic volumes. Therefore, the proposed project would result in cumulatively considerable exterior noise levels along various roadways which would remain a significant and unavoidable impact. While there is the potential for the proposed project to contribute to construction noise levels generated by the cumulative projects listed in Table 3.9-5, the actual schedule and timing of construction activities is uncertain. The proposed project would coordinate with the appropriate City departments to avoid conflicts with other projects to the extent possible. Given that the proposed project would have a significant and unavoidable project-specific impact, the proposed Specific Plan Amendment’s contribution to cumulative noise impacts would also result in significant and unavoidable impacts to noise. Traffic and Transportation The geographic scope of this impact area lies within the City of Temecula and the County of Riverside. The roadway network on which construction workers and construction vehicles Summary Old Town Specific Plan Amendment S-34 ESA /D209294 Draft Environmental Impact Report February 2010 (including trucks that would transport equipment and fill material to and from the worksite) would travel to access the site consists of regional highways and local roadways. A traffic analysis was conducted for the proposed Specific Plan Amendment project. The traffic analysis also analyzed future traffic conditions which took into account cumulative projects and regional growth. As discussed in Section 3.9 Traffic and Transportation, none of the intersections would operate at an unacceptable LOS after mitigation. Project impacts will be reduced to a less than significant level with implementation of proposed mitigation measures such as roundabouts, pedestrian facilities and accepting LOS E and F for intersections on Old Town Front Street from Second Street to Moreno Road North. The proposed project would increase traffic at a lesser rate than the current Specific Plan for the Old Town area. Cumulative conditions were determined by adding the traffic generated by other approved/pending projects. Traffic counts for these projects were estimated based on trip generation rates from ITE’s Trip Generation, 8th Edition. The proposed project would not contribute to cumulative traffic and circulation impacts when considered in combination with projects listed in Table 3.9-5. Impacts to intersections outside of the OTSP area would occur on a cumulative basis, as accounted for in the traffic impact analysis, but have already been addressed by the mitigation measures included as part of this project. Therefore, cumulative traffic impacts would not be significant. Utilities and Services Recreation Development of the proposed project in conjunction with other cumulative projects would gradually result in an increased intensity of land use and a corresponding increase in usage of park and recreational facilities. The proposed Specific Plan Amendment includes the development of an Open Space corridor which is approximately 25.4 acres (5.7 acres in addition to what is planned under the approved OTSP) and would offer additional recreational options in the City of Temecula and surrounding areas. The standard developer mitigation fees for parklands would be implemented as necessary for all related projects. The proposed Specific Plan Amendment would not have an individually significant impact on recreational services after mitigation, and would not have a cumulatively considerable contribution. Therefore, the proposed Specific Plan Amendment would not have a significant cumulative impact related to recreational services. Utilities The proposed Specific Plan Amendment is a continuation of planned urban development in an area with sufficient existing facilities to provide water, wastewater and solid waste services to the Specific Plan area and would not require the development of new facilities. The proposed Specific Plan Amendment along with cumulative projects would not result in a significant use of water as compared to the existing developed uses in the Specific Plan area. The Summary Old Town Specific Plan Amendment S-35 ESA /D209294 Draft Environmental Impact Report February 2010 proposed Specific Plan Amendment would redevelop many existing uses, and therefore future water demand would be a minimal increase over existing demand. Furthermore, as previously stated, the SpringHill Suites hotel development has opened and is currently in operation. The majority of the cumulative projects are on small parcels of land, with the exception of the proposed Pujol Apartments. Although water demand would increase as a result of the 168 room Crown Plaza Hotel, this increase would not be considered cumulatively significant; thus, cumulative impacts to water supply are not considered significant. In addition, there would be no cumulative impact on wastewater treatment infrastructure as a result of project implementation. The proposed Specific Plan Amendment is within the projected electric load growth for the general area. SCE’s ability to serve all customers’ loads within this area of the City is in accordance with SCE’s Design Standards, rules and tariffs, and would be adequate. SCE has a proposed substation planned for the near future (summer 2010) which would assist in continuing to meet future electrical demands. SCE completes all work in accordance with the rules and tariffs as authorized by the California Public Utilities Commission and other governing entities. Any cumulative impacts related to electric service would be addressed through this process. As stated in Section 3.8 Utilities and Services, the two landfills which service the project area and the City of Temecula have existing and substantial future capacity to accept solid waste. Implementation of the proposed Specific Plan Amendment in conjunction with the cumulative projects listed in Table 4-1 would not create demands for waste management services that exceed the capacities of the waste management system. Impacts to solid waste facilities associated with the proposed Specific Plan Amendment are less than significant. Development of the proposed Specific Plan Amendment would offset its limited contribution to the cumulative impact of area development on these services and utilities. Standard payment of established developer mitigation fees to address cumulative impacts would be required. S.7 Analysis of Alternatives Two alternatives are analyzed in Chapter 6 of this document. These two alternatives are summarized as follows: Alternative 1: No Project Alternative/Reasonably Foreseeable Development (Continuation of Existing Specific Plan) – Under Alternative 1, the OTSP Amendment would not be pursued and no associated components identified under the proposed project would be built. This alternative evaluates the environmental effects of build-out of the Specific Plan area according to the existing OTSP. Under Alternative 1, the impacts of the proposed project (Specific Plan Amendment) are compared to the impacts that would occur if the existing OTSP continued to be implemented in the OTSP area. Alternative 2: Increased Residential Residential and Reduced Commercial Alternative – With the proposed Specific Plan Amendment, the mixed-use aspect of the proposed project would result in an overall reduction in commercial building floor space in Old Town of approximately Summary Old Town Specific Plan Amendment S-36 ESA /D209294 Draft Environmental Impact Report February 2010 1,405,285 square feet as compared to the existing OTSP, and the addition of approximately 749 residential units as compared to the existing OTSP. The reduction of building floor space can be anticipated given that residential uses require more open areas for parking, courtyards, balconies, and other shared and private open spaces than commercial uses.4 In comparison, Alternative 2 would increase the amount of residential units by 1,100 residential units in comparison to the existing OTSP and reduce the building floor space for commercial use by 2,000,000 square feet in comparison to the existing OTSP. Alternative 2 would essentially increase residential development and decrease commercial development even further than the proposed project. As a result of the reduced amount of commercial building space under Alternative 2, there would be fewer trips generated per day and thus a reduction in noise and air quality impacts within the OTSP area. Alternative 2 would achieve some of the proposed project objectives by updating the current OTSP to provide enhanced desired services within the plan area to both City residents and visitors while being compatible with the nearby residential area; respecting the history of the OTSP area while fitting with current economics; accommodating greater density and encouraging a variety of architectural styles; and implementing significant new investment in the Old Town area to help promote rapid growth in Temecula Valley and develop a renewed interest in town centers and mixed-use development. However, Alternative 2 would be less focused on promoting economic activity within the City because residential development would be emphasized. Therefore, Alternative 2 would not fully achieve all of the project objectives. Alternative 3: Reduced Residential and Increased Commercial Alternative – Alternative 3 would reduce the commercial square footage by 1,000,000 square feet in comparison to the existing OTSP and reduce the number of residential units by 659 units in comparison to the existing OTSP. Therefore, Alternative 3 would result in an increase in 405,285 square feet of commercial space in comparison to the proposed project and 1,408 fewer residential units in comparison to the proposed project. Alternative 3 would result in fewer aesthetic impacts and a reduced amount of impacts to public services and utilities as compared to the proposed project. Alternative 3 would achieve some of the proposed project objectives by updating the current OTSP to provide enhanced desired services within the plan area to both City residents and visitors while being compatible with the nearby residential area and respecting the history of the OTSP area. Alternative 3 would also encourage a variety of architectural styles and implement significant new investment in the Old Town area to help promote rapid growth in Temecula Valley and develop a renewed interest in town centers and mixed-use development. Alternative 3 would be more focused on promoting economic activity within the City because residential development would not be emphasized. Alternative 3 would not, however, encourage development of an increased number of high-quality residential neighborhoods as compared to the existing OTSP and proposed project. Therefore, Alternative 3 would not fully achieve all of the project objectives. The CEQA Guidelines, Section 15126.6(e)(2), requires the identification of the environmentally superior alternative. Alternative 2 would be environmentally superior to the proposed project based on the minimization of environmental impacts; specifically, development under Alternative 4 Refer to previously discussed trip generation rates as determined by the Institute of Transportation Engineers. Trip Generation Manual, 8th Edition, 2008. Summary Old Town Specific Plan Amendment S-37 ESA /D209294 Draft Environmental Impact Report February 2010 2 would result in a reduction of traffic, air and noise impacts. However, Alternative 2 would be less focused on promoting economic activity within the City because residential development would be emphasized. Therefore, Alternative 2 would not fully achieve all of the project objectives. Summary Old Town Specific Plan Amendment S-38 ESA /D209294 Draft Environmental Impact Report February 2010 TABLE S-2 SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES Environmental Impact Mitigation Measures Significance after Mitigation Aesthetics Impact 3.1-1: The project’s development would not have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista or substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings from a State Scenic Highway. Mitigation: None required. Less than Significant Impact 3.1-2: The project’s development would not potentially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings. Mitigation: None required. Less than Significant Impact 3.1-3: Development of the proposed project could create a new source of light and glare, which may adversely affect nearby sensitive resources. Measure 3.1-3a: The applicant shall ensure that all lighting fixtures shall contain “sharp cut-off” fixtures, and shall be fitted with flat glass lenses and internal and external shielding. Measure 3.1-3b: The applicant shall ensure that all fixtures shall be parallel with the finished grade of the project site; no fixtures shall be tilted above a 90-degree angle. Measure 3.1-3c: The applicant shall ensure that site lighting systems shall be grouped into control zones to allow for open, 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. Measure 3.1-3d: The applicant shall ensure that design and layout of the site shall take advantage of landscaping, on-site architectural massing, and off–site architectural massing to block light sources and reflection from cars. Measure 3.1-3e: The applicant shall submit a lighting plan and photometric plan to be reviewed by the City of Temecula. The lighting plan shall include design features (such as those mentioned above) to minimize impacts of light and glare on the surrounding area. Measure 3.1-3f: The City shall complete a post-installation inspection to ensure that the site is not excessively illuminated (such that lighting is not creating excessive glare, unreasonably competing for the public’s attention or creating any roadway safety hazard) and that lighting sources are properly shielded. Measure 3.1-3g: In order to mitigate potential impacts to the Mount Palomar Observatory, all lighting plans shall be reviewed by the City to assure utilization of low pressure sodium vapor lamps; step-down lighting techniques; shielding to prevent upward and outward illumination; and compliance with the County Ordinance No. 655. Measure 3.1-3h: The proposed Specific Plan amendment shall prohibit the use of highly reflective construction materials on exterior wall surfaces. The exterior of permitted buildings shall be constructed of materials such as high performance tinted non-mirrored glass, painted metal panels and pre-cast concrete or fabricated wall surfaces. Less than Significant Summary TABLE S-1 (continued) SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES Old Town Specific Plan Amendment S-39 ESA /D209294 Draft Environmental Impact Report February 2010 Environmental Impact Mitigation Measures Significance after Mitigation Air Quality Impact 3.2-1: The project would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan. Mitigation: None required. Less than Significant Impact 3.2-2: Project construction could violate air quality standards or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation during the short-term duration of construction. Measure 3.2-2a: The applicant shall ensure that a fugitive dust control program is implemented pursuant to the provision of SCAQMD Rule 403. Measure 3.2-2b: Prior to grading and construction, the applicant shall be responsible for compliance with the following: A. During clearing, grading, earth moving, or excavation, maintain equipment engines in proper tune. B. After clearing, grading, earth moving, or excavation: 1. Wet the area down, sufficient enough to form a crust on the surface with repeated soakings, as necessary, to maintain the crust and prevent dust pick up by the wind. 2. Spread soil binders. 3. Implement street sweeping as necessary. C. During construction: 1. Use water trucks or sprinkler systems to keep all areas where vehicles move damp enough to prevent dust raised when leaving the site. 2. Wet down areas in the late morning and after work is completed for the day. 3. Use low sulfur fuel (0.05 percent by weight) for construction equipment. D. Discontinue construction during second stage smog alerts. Measure 3.2-2c: Prior to grading and construction, the applicant shall be responsible for compliance with the following. A. Require a phased schedule for construction activities to minimize daily emissions. B. Schedule activities to minimize the amount of exposed excavated soil during and after the end of work periods. C. Treat unattended construction areas with water (disturbed lands which have have been, or are expected to be, unused for four or more consecutive days). D. Require the planting of vegetative ground cover as soon as possible on construction sites. E. Install vehicle wheel-washers before the roadway entrance at construction sites. F. Wash off trucks leaving the site. G. Require all trucks hauling dirt, sand, soil, or other loose substances and building materials to be covered, or Significant and Unavoidable Summary TABLE S-2 (continued) SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES Old Town Specific Plan Amendment S-40 ESA /D209294 Draft Environmental Impact Report February 2010 Environmental Impact Mitigation Measures Significance after Mitigation to maintain a minimum freeboard of two feet between the top of the load and the top of the truck bed sides. H. Use vegetative stabilization, whenever possible, to control soil erosion from stormwater, especially on super pads. I. Require enclosures or chemical stabilization of open storage piles of sand, dirt, or other aggregate materials. J. Control off-road vehicle travel by posting driving speed limits on these roads, consistent with City standards. K. Use electricity from power poles rather than temporary diesel or gasoline power generators. Measure 3.2-2d: Prior to grading and construction, the applicant shall be responsible for the paving of all access aprons to the project site and the maintenance of the paving. Measure 3.2-2e: Prior to issuance of grading permits, the applicant shall be responsible for assuring that construction vehicles are equipped with proper emission control equipment to substantially reduce emissions. Measure 3.2-2f: Prior to issuance of grading permits, the applicant shall be responsible for the incorporation of measures to reduce construction related traffic congestion into the project grading permit. Measures, subject to the approval and verification by the Public Works Department, shall include, as appropriate: A. Provision of rideshare incentives. B. Provision of transit incentives for construction personnel. C. Configuration of construction parking to minimize traffic interference. D. Measures to minimize obstruction of through traffic lanes. E. Use of a flagman to guide traffic when deemed necessary. Measure 3.2-2g: Prior to the building/construction operations, applicant and individual contractors shall commit in writing to the following: A. Scheduling receipt of construction materials outside of the peak travel periods (i.e., 7:30 – 8:30 AM and 4:00 – 6:00 PM); B. Routing construction traffic through areas of least impact sensitivity; and C. Limiting lane closures and detours to off-peak travel periods. Impact 3.2-3: Project operation could violate air quality standards or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation during long-term operation. Measure 3.2-3a: Construct on-site or off-site bus turnouts, passenger benches, and shelters. Measure 3.2-3b: Provide shuttles to major rail transit centers of multi-modal stations. Measure 3.2-3c: Contribute to regional transit systems (e.g., right-of-way, capital improvements, etc.). Measure 3.2-3d: Synchronize traffic lights on streets impacted by development. Measure 3.2-3e: Set up resident worker training programs to improve job/housing balance. Though mitigation measures would reduce operational emissions, the impact would remain significant and unavoidable. Summary TABLE S-1 (continued) SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES Old Town Specific Plan Amendment S-41 ESA /D209294 Draft Environmental Impact Report February 2010 Environmental Impact Mitigation Measures Significance after Mitigation Impact 3.2-4: The project would not create objectionable odors affecting a substantial amount of people. Mitigation: None required. Less than Significant Impact 3.2-5: Increased localized carbon monoxide would be generated from vehicular traffic during operation. Mitigation: None required. Less than Significant Impact 3.2-6: Air pollutant emissions associated with the project would result in an adverse cumulative impact to air quality. No additional mitigation measures are available. Significant and Unavoidable Global Warming/Climate Change Impact 3.3-1: The project could conflict with implementation of state goals for reducing GHG emissions and thereby have a negative effect on Global Climate Change. Measure 3.3-1: The applicant shall require implementation of all feasible energy efficiency and GHG reduction measures, including but not limited to the following: Energy Efficiency • Design buildings to be energy efficient. • Install efficient lighting and lighting control systems. Use daylight as an integral part of lighting systems in buildings. • Use trees, landscaping and sun screens on west and south exterior building walls to reduce energy use. • Install light colored “cool” roofs, cool pavements. • Provide information on energy management services for large energy users. • Install energy efficient heating and cooling systems, appliances and equipment, and control systems. • Install light emitting diodes (LEDs) for traffic, street and other outdoor lighting. • Limit the hours of operation of outdoor lighting. • Provide education on energy efficiency. Renewable Energy • Install solar and wind power systems, solar and tankless hot water heaters, and energy-efficient heating ventilation and air conditioning. Educate consumers about existing incentives. • Install solar panels on carports and over parking areas. • Use combined heat and power in appropriate applications. Water Conservation and Efficiency • Create water-efficient landscapes. Even with implementation of all measures that are feasible from Mitigation Measure 3.3-1, the project would be considered a major source of greenhouse gases and would exceed the SCAQMD GHG screening threshold. Consequently, the increase in greenhouse gases by the project places the project in conflict with the goal of the state to reduce up to 169 million metric tons CO2e/year. This impact would remain significant and unavoidable. Summary TABLE S-2 (continued) SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES Old Town Specific Plan Amendment S-42 ESA /D209294 Draft Environmental Impact Report February 2010 Environmental Impact Mitigation Measures Significance after Mitigation • Install water-efficient irrigation systems and devices, such as soil moisture-based irrigation controls. • Use reclaimed water for landscape irrigation in new developments and on public property. Install the infrastructure to deliver and use reclaimed water. • Design buildings to be water-efficient. Install water-efficient fixtures and appliances. • Use graywater. (Graywater is untreated household waste water from bathtubs, showers, bathroom wash basins, and water from clothes washing machines.) For example, install dual plumbing in all new development allowing graywater to be used for landscape irrigation. • Restrict watering methods (e.g., prohibit systems that apply water to non-vegetated surfaces) and control runoff. • Restrict the use of water for cleaning outdoor surfaces and vehicles. • Implement low-impact development practices that maintain the existing hydrologic character of the site to manage storm water and protect the environment. (Retaining storm water runoff on-site can drastically reduce the need for energy-intensive imported water at the site.) • Devise a comprehensive water conservation strategy appropriate for the project and location. The strategy may include many of the specific items listed above, plus other innovative measures that are appropriate to the specific project. • Provide education about water conservation and available programs and incentives. Solid Waste Measures • Reuse and recycle construction and demolition waste (including, but not limited to, soil, vegetation, concrete, lumber, metal, and cardboard). • Provide interior and exterior storage areas for recyclables and green waste and adequate recycling containers located in public areas. • Provide education and publicity about reducing waste and available recycling services. Land Use Measures • Include mixed-use, infill, and higher density in development projects to support the reduction of vehicle trips, promote alternatives to individual vehicle travel, and promote efficient delivery of services and goods. • Educate the public about the benefits of well-designed, higher density development. • Incorporate public transit into project design. • Preserve and create open space and parks. Preserve existing trees, and plant replacement trees at a set ratio. • Develop “brownfields” and other underused or defunct properties near existing public transportation and jobs. Summary TABLE S-1 (continued) SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES Old Town Specific Plan Amendment S-43 ESA /D209294 Draft Environmental Impact Report February 2010 Environmental Impact Mitigation Measures Significance after Mitigation • Include pedestrian and bicycle-only streets and plazas within developments. Create travel routes that ensure that destinations may be reached conveniently by public transportation, bicycling or walking. Transportation and Motor Vehicles • Limit idling time for commercial vehicles, including delivery and construction vehicles. • Use low or zero-emission vehicles, including construction vehicles. (*The following goals, policies and/or suggestions are guiding principles that shall be required of the applicant as applicable.) *Transportation and Motor Vehicles • Promote ride sharing programs (e.g., by designating a certain percentage of parking spaces for ride sharing vehicles, designating adequate passenger loading and unloading and waiting areas for ride sharing vehicles, and providing a web site or message board for coordinating rides). • Create car sharing programs. Accommodations for such programs include providing parking spaces for the car share vehicles at convenient locations accessible by public transportation. • Provide the necessary facilities and infrastructure to encourage the use of low or zero-emission vehicles (e.g., electric vehicle charging facilities and conveniently located alternative fueling stations). • Institute a low-carbon fuel vehicle incentive program. • Provide public transit incentives such as free or low-cost monthly transit passes. • Promote “least polluting” ways to connect people and goods to their destinations. • Incorporate bicycle lanes and routes into street systems, new subdivisions, and large developments. • Incorporate bicycle-friendly intersections into street design. • For commercial projects, provide adequate bicycle parking near building entrances to promote cyclist safety, security, and convenience. For large employers, provide provide facilities that encourage bicycle commuting, including, e.g., locked bicycle storage or covered or indoor bicycle parking. • Create bicycle lanes and walking paths directed to the location of schools, parks and other destination points. • Work with the school district to restore or expand school bus services. • Institute a telecommute and/or flexible work hours program. Provide information, training, and incentives to encourage participation. Provide incentives for equipment purchases to allow high-quality teleconferences. • Provide information on all options for individuals and businesses to reduce transportation-related emissions. Provide education and information about public transportation. *Off-site Mitigation • Fund off-site mitigation projects (e.g., alternative energy projects, or energy or water audits for existing Summary TABLE S-2 (continued) SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES Old Town Specific Plan Amendment S-44 ESA /D209294 Draft Environmental Impact Report February 2010 Environmental Impact Mitigation Measures Significance after Mitigation projects) that will reduce carbon emissions, conduct an audit of its other existing operations and agree to retrofit, or purchase carbon “credits” from another entity that will undertake mitigation. Cultural Resources Impact 3.4-1: Ground-disturbing activities associatied with implementation of the Specific Plan Amendment could result in the substantial adverse change of previously unknown archaeological resources as defined by CEQA Section 15064.5. Mitigation Measure 3.4-1a: Consistent with the City of Temecula’s General Plan Goal 6 and Implementation Procedure OS-26 and OS-39, the Specific Plan Amendment shall include a new policy which requires that all areas slated for development or other ground-disturbing activities shall be subject to a Phase I survey (including including records search and archaeological survey) for archaeological resources on a project-specific basis prior to the City’s approval of project plans. The survey shall be carried out by a qualified archaeologist in consultation with local Native American groups. If potentially significant archaeological resources are encountered during the survey, the City shall require that the resources are evaluated for their eligibility for listing on the National Register or California Register, and that recommendations are made for treatment of these resources if found to be significant, in consultation with the appropriate Native American groups. Any identified resources shall be avoided if feasible. Ground-disturbing activity in areas determined to be sensitive for cultural resources shall be monitored by a qualified archaeologist and Native American representative. Mitigation Measure 3.4-1b: Consistent with the City of Temecula’s General Plan Goal 6 and Implementation Procedure OS-26 and OS-39, the Specific Plan Amendment shall include a new policy which states that during construction, should prehistoric or historic subsurface cultural resources be discovered, all activity in the vicinity of the find shall stop and a qualified archaeologist will be contacted to assess the significance of the find according to CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5. If any find is determined to be significant, the City and the archaeologist will determine, in consultation with local Native American groups, appropriate avoidance measures or other appropriate mitigation. All significant cultural materials recovered will be, as necessary and at the discretion of the consulting archaeologist and in consultation with local Native American groups, subject to scientific analysis, professional museum curation, and documentation according to current professional standards. Less than significant Impact 3.4-2: Implementation of the Specific Plan Amendment could result in a substantial adverse change to historic resources as defined by CEQA Section Section 15064.5. Mitigation Measure 3.4-2a: Consistent with the City of Temecula’s General Plan Goal 6 and Implementation Procedure OS-2, the Specific Plan Amendment shall include a new policy which states that all areas slated for development or other ground-disturbing activities in the Specific Plan Area which contain structures 50 years old or older be surveyed and evaluated for their potential historic significance prior to the City’s approval of project plans. The survey shall be carried out by a qualified historian or architectural historian meeting the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Architectural History. If potentially significant resources are encountered during the survey, demolition or substantial alteration of such resources identified shall be avoided. If avoidance of identified historic resources is deemed infeasible, the City shall prepare a treatment plan to include, but not limited to, photo-documentation and public interpretation of the resource. Less than significant Impact 3.4-3.4-3: Implementation of the Specific Plan Amendment could cause a substantial adverse change to areas of traditional cultural significance to local Native American individuals and groups. Mitigation: None required. Less than significant Summary TABLE S-1 (continued) SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES Old Town Specific Plan Amendment S-45 ESA /D209294 Draft Environmental Impact Report February 2010 Environmental Impact Mitigation Measures Significance after Mitigation Impact 3.4-4: Ground-disturbing construction associated with implementation of the Specific Plan Amendment could result in damage to previously unidentified human remains. Mitigation Measure 3.4-4a: Consistent with State law, CEQA Guidelines, and the City of Temecula’s General Plan Goal 6 and Implementation Procedure OS-26 and OS-39, the Specific Plan Amendment shall include a new policy which states that if human skeletal remains are uncovered during project construction, work in the vicinity of the find shall cease and the Riverside County coroner will be contacted to evaluate the remains, following the procedures and protocols set forth in Section 15064.5 (e)(1) of the CEQA Guidelines. If the County coroner determines that the remains are Native American, he or she will contact the Native American Heritage Commission, in accordance with Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5, subdivision (c), and Public Resources Code 5097.98 (as amended by AB 2641). The NAHC will then identify the person(s) thought to be the Most Likely Descendent of the deceased Native American, who will then help determine what course of action should be taken in dealing with the remains. Per Public Resources Code 5097.98, the landowner shall ensure that the immediate vicinity, according to generally accepted cultural or archaeological standards or practices, where the Native American human remains are located, is not damaged or disturbed by further development activity until the landowner has discussed and conferred, as prescribed in this section (PRC 5097.98), with the most likely descendents regarding their recommendations, if applicable, taking into account the possibility of multiple human remains. Less than significant Impact 3.4-5: Ground-disturbing construction activities associated with implementation of the Specific Plan Amendment could directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource, or site, or unique geologic feature. Mitigation Measure 3.4-5a: The Specific Plan Amendment shall include a new policy which states that in the event that paleontological resources are discovered, the project proponent will notify a qualified paleontologist. The paleontologist will document the discovery as needed, evaluate the potential resource, and assess the significance of the find under the criteria set forth in CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5. If fossil or fossil bearing deposits are discovered during construction, excavations within 50 feet of the find will be temporarily halted or diverted until the discovery is examined by a qualified paleontologist (in accordance with Society of Vertebrate Paleontology standards (Society of Vertebrate Paleontology, 1995)). The paleontologist will notify the appropriate agencies to determine procedures that would be followed before construction is allowed to resume at the location of the find. If the City determines that avoidance is not feasible, the paleontologist will prepare an excavation plan for mitigating the effect of the project on the qualities that make the resource important. The plan will be submitted to the City for review and approval prior to implementation. Less than significant Hydrology Impact 3.5-1: The proposed project would not violate water quality standards or waste discharge requirements. Mitigation Measure 3.5-1: Prior to the issuance of a grading or building permit for individual projects, the project developer shall file a NOI with California to comply with the requirements of the NPDES General Construction Permit (Municipal Code, Chapter Chapter 8.24). This would include the preparation of a SWPPP incorporating construction BMPs for control of erosion and sedimentation contained in stormwater runoff. Less than significant Summary TABLE S-2 (continued) SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES Old Town Specific Plan Amendment S-46 ESA /D209294 Draft Environmental Impact Report February 2010 Environmental Impact Mitigation Measures Significance after Mitigation Impact 3.5-2: The proposed project would not substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of preexisting nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted). Mitigation: None required. Less than significant Impact 3.5-3: The proposed project would not substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on-or off-site. Mitigation: None required. Less than significant Impact 3.5-4: The proposed project would not substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on-or off-site. Mitigation: None required. Less than significant Impact 3.5-5: The proposed project would not create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff. Mitigation: None required. Less than significant Impact 3.5-6: The project would not otherwise substantially degrade water quality. Mitigation: None required. Less than significant Summary TABLE S-1 (continued) SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES Old Town Specific Plan Amendment S-47 ESA /D209294 Draft Environmental Impact Report February 2010 Environmental Impact Mitigation Measures Significance after Mitigation Impact 3.5-7: The proposed project would not place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map. Mitigation: None required. Less than significant Impact 3.5-8: The proposed project would not place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures which would impede or redirect flood flows. Mitigation: None required. Less than significant Impact 3.5-9: The proposed project would not expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam. Mitigation: None required. Less than significant Impact 3.5-10: The proposed project would not be inundated by a seich, tsunami, or mudflow. Mitigation: None required. Less than significant Land Use and Planning Impact 3.6-1: Project implementation would not conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the General Plan, Specific Plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect. Mitigation: None required. Less than significant Summary TABLE S-2 (continued) SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES Old Town Specific Plan Amendment S-48 ESA /D209294 Draft Environmental Impact Report February 2010 Environmental Impact Mitigation Measures Significance after Mitigation Noise Impact 3.7-1: Project construction could expose persons to or generate noise levels in excess of standards. Measure 3.7-1a: The applicant shall ensure, as specified in City of Temecula Ordinance No. 94-25, that no construction may occur within one-quarter (1/4) of a mile of any occupied residence during the following hours: A. 6:30 PM to 6:30 AM, Monday through Friday. B. Before 7:00 AM or after 6:30 PM, Saturday. C. At any time on Sunday or any nationally recognized holiday. Measure 3.7-1b: The applicant shall ensure that all construction equipment will have properly operating mufflers. Measure 3.7-1c: The applicant shall ensure that all construction staging shall be performed as far as possible from occupied dwellings. Measure 3.7-1d: The applicant shall ensure ensure that signs shall be posted at the construction sites that include permitted construction days and hours, and a contact number for the job site. Although the above mitigation measures would reduce the noise impact from construction, construction sites are noisy locations with heavy equipment that could substantially affect noise levels at nearby residences. Such impacts could last a substantial time before the noise complaint system would be used to reduce the impact. Therefore, construction noise could at times be a short-term significant and unavoidable impact of the proposed project. Impact 3.7-2: Construction activities associated with the project could result in exposure of sensitive receptors to excessive levels of ground-borne vibration. (Potentially Significant) Measure 3.7-2a: The construction contractor will conduct crack surveys before construction activities that could cause architectural damage to nearby structures. The survey will include any historic buildings or buildings in poor condition within 15 feet of construction. The surveys will be done by photographs, video tape, or visual inventory, and will include inside as well as outside locations. All existing cracks in walls, floors, and driveways should be documented with sufficient detail for comparison after construction to determine whether actual vibration damage occurred. A post-construction survey should be conducted to document the condition of the surrounding buildings after the construction is complete. The construction contractor would be liable for construction vibration damage to adjacent structures. Less than significant Impact 3.7-3: Operation of the project could expose persons to or generate noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plans or noise ordinances, or applicable standards of other agencies. Measure 3.7-3a: Building equipment (e.g., HVAC units) shall be located away from nearby residences, on building rooftops, and properly shielded by either the rooftop parapet or within an enclosure that effectively blocks the line of sight of the source from the nearest receptors. The resultant HVAC noise level shall not exceed 45 dBA at the nearest receptors. Measure 3.7-3b: In order to avoid noise-sensitive hours, commercial and retail shall prohibit loading and unloading activities between the nighttime hours of 10:00 PM and 7:00 AM. Measure 3.7-3c: To further address the nuisance impact of loading dock/truck delivery noise, all loading areas for commercial and retail uses shall be located at the rear or sides of buildings within the commercial and mixeduse districts, where noise can be directed away from residential uses within the mixed use areas of the project. Less than significant Summary TABLE S-1 (continued) SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES Old Town Specific Plan Amendment S-49 ESA /D209294 Draft Environmental Impact Report February 2010 Environmental Impact Mitigation Measures Significance after Mitigation Impact 3.7-4: Traffic associated with operation of the project would result in a significant increase in ambient noise levels on nearby roadways. Measure 3.7-4: If necessary to comply with the interior noise requirements of the City of Temecula and achieve an acceptable interior noise level, noise reduction in the form of sound-rated assemblies (i.e., windows, exterior doors, and walls) shall be incorporated into project building design, based upon recommendations of a qualified acoustical engineer. Final recommendations for sound-rated assemblies will depend on the specific building designs and layout of buildings on the site and shall be determined during the design phase. With implementation of the above mitigation measure, the interior noise impact from project traffic would be reduced. However, exterior noise levels along roadways 2, 5, 6, and 7 would be substantially greater with the project than existing and would remain a significant and unavoidable impact. Impact 3.7-5: The project, together with anticipated future development could result in long-term traffic increases that could cumulatively increase noise levels. Mitigation: Implement Mitigation Measure 3.7-4 as described above. With implementation of Mitigation Measure 3.7-4, the cumulative interior noise impacts of the project would be reduced. However, the project would result in cumulatively considerable exterior noise levels along roadways 1, 2, and 4 through 8, which would remain a significant and unavoidable impact. Utilities and Services Impact 3.8-1: The project would not result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered parks and recreational facilities. Measure 3.8-1: The City shall continue to implement its local code that incorporates standards for parkland dedication and development. The City requires (1) the dedication of parkland or the payment of in-lieu fees and the development of recreation facilities for all new development; and (2) developers of residential projects greater than 200 units must dedicate land based on the park acre standard of five acres of usable parkland to 1,000 residents. Less than significant Impact 3.8-2: The project would not require or result in the construction of new water treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects Mitigation: None required. Less than significant Summary TABLE S-2 (continued) SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES Old Town Specific Plan Amendment S-50 ESA /D209294 Draft Environmental Impact Report February 2010 Environmental Impact Mitigation Measures Significance after Mitigation Impact 3.8-3: The project would not require or result in the construction of wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects (Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated). Measure 3.8-3a: Prior to construction in any undeveloped areas, EMWD shall review the plans for consistency with design criteria. Once approved by the EMWD engineer, the applicant shall pay the required connection fee to EMWD prior to construction of the sewer line. Measure 3.8-3b: Prior to construction, the project applicant and/or each subsequent project applicant will pay its fair share in mitigation fees to EMWD to upgrade the First Street and the Pujol Street sewer lines. Less than significant Impact 3.8-4: The project would not result in insufficient water supplies from existing entitlements or need new or expanded entitlements. Mitigation: None required. Less than significant Impact 3.8-5: The project would not result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has inadequate capacity to serve the project’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments. Mitigation: None required. (Please see discussion of Impact 3.8-3 above) Less than significant Impact 3.8-6: The project would not be served by a landfill with insufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project’s solid waste disposal needs Measure 3.8-6: All proposed development plans shall designate adequate and convenient space on the property to be used for collecting all recyclable materials generated on the premises. Less than significant Impact 3.8-7: The project would comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste. Mitigation: None required. Less than significant Impact 3.8-8: The proposed project would not require or result in the construction of new electrical and gas facilities or the expansion of existing facilities where the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects. Mitigation: None required. Less than significant Summary TABLE S-1 (continued) SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES Old Town Specific Plan Amendment S-51 ESA /D209294 Draft Environmental Impact Report February 2010 Environmental Impact Mitigation Measures Significance after Mitigation Traffic and Transportation Impact 3.9-1: The proposed project would result in impacts to study intersections in Existing Plus Ambient Growth with Proposed Specific Plan conditions. Measure 3.9-1: The project applicant shall incorporate the following features into the design of the Specific Plan area: • At the intersection of Old Town Front Street and Rancho California Road provide a northbound through/right-turn lane combination with a right-turn overlap. • Provide subsequent Traffic Impact Analyses, as development occurs, to determine thresholds for implementation of Roundabouts at the intersections of Old Town Front Street and First Street/Santiago Road/Mercedes Street and Old Town Front Street and Mercedes Street. • Provide pedestrian facilities from Old Town Front Street which connect the east and west neighborhood cores with the Old Town Core District. In order to maintain the unique “Main Street” character of the Old Town area, LOS E and F will be deemed acceptable on Old Town Front Street from Second Street to Moreno Road North. Less than significant Impact 3.9-2: The proposed project would result in impacts to study area intersections in General Plan Plus Proposed Specific Plan conditions. Measure 3.9-2: The project applicant shall incorporate the following features into the design of the Specific Plan area: • At the intersection of Old Town Front Street and Rancho California Road provide a westbound right-turn overlap. • Provide subsequent Traffic Impact Analyses, as development occurs, to determine thresholds for implementation of Roundabouts at the intersections of Old Town Front Street and First Street/Santiago Road/Mercedes Street and Old Town Front Street and Mercedes Street. • Provide pedestrian facilities from Old Town Front Street which connect the east and west neighborhood cores with the Old Town Core District. In order to maintain the unique “Main Street” character of the Old Town area, LOS E and F will be deemed acceptable on Old Town Front Street from Second Street to Moreno Road North. Less than significant Impact 3.9-3: Implementation of the proposed project would not result in inadequate vehicular and emergency access. Mitigation: None required. Less than significant Impact 3.9-4: Project implementation would not result in inadequate parking capacity. Mitigation: None required. Less than significant Old Town Specific Plan Amendment 1-1 ESA /D209294 Draft Environmental Impact Report February 2010 CHAPTER I Introduction 1.1 Purpose of the Draft Program EIR This Draft Program Environmental Impact Report (Draft Program EIR) has been prepared by the City of Temecula, pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), California Public Resources Code Sections 21000 et seq., and the State CEQA Guidelines in the Code of Regulations, Title 14, Section 15000 et seq. The City is the Lead Agency for this Draft Program EIR, which examines potential physical impacts to the environment that could occur as a result of the proposed amendment to the Old Town Specific Plan (OTSP) and proposed annexation area (project). This Draft Program EIR is intended to inform the City, responsible agencies and the public of the proposed project’s environmental effects. As the Lead Agency, the City has the principal responsibility for carrying out or approving a project which may have a significant effect upon the environment (CEQA Section 21067). The Draft Program EIR is therefore intended to publicly disclose those impacts that may be significant and adverse, identify measures that would mitigate or eliminate such impacts, and describe a range of alternatives to the proposed project that have the potential to avoid or substantially lessen impacts. Section 15168 of the CEQA Guidelines outlines the parameters of a Program EIR as follows: A Program EIR is an EIR which may be prepared on a series of actions that can be characterized as one large project and are related either: 1. Geographically, 2. A logical parts in the chain of contemplated actions, 3. In connection with issuance of rules, regulations, plans, or other general criteria to govern the conduct of a continuing program, or 4. As individual activities carried out under the same authorizing statutory or regulatory authority and having generally similar environmental effects which can be mitigated in similar ways. Use of a Program EIR can provide the following advantages: 1. Provide an occasion for a more exhaustive consideration of effects and alternatives than would be practical in an EIR on an individual action, I. Introduction Old Town Specific Plan Amendment 1-2 ESA /D209294 Draft Environmental Impact Report February 2010 2. Ensure consideration of cumulative impacts that might be slighted in a case-bycase analysis, 3. Avoid duplicative reconsideration of basic policy considerations, 4. Allow the Lead Agency to consider broad policy alternatives and program-wide mitigation measures at an early time when the agency has greater flexibility to deal with basic problems or cumulative impacts, and 5. Allow reduction in paperwork. (c) Use with Later Activities. Subsequent activities in the program must be examined in the light of the Program EIR to determine whether an additional environmental document must be prepared. The OTSP meets the requirements for a Program EIR. This document serves as a Program EIR for the OTSP, which establishes development parameters but does not propose any specific development, as the exact development proposals for future projects are not yet known at this time. Future specific projects submitted for City review and approval within the Specific Plan area will be required to prepare an Initial Study to determine the need for any additional required CEQA compliance documentation. 1.2 Project Background Temecula was incorporated on December 1, 1989. On November 9, 1993, Temecula adopted the Land Use Element of the City’s General Plan. Since then, 13 Specific Plans have been adopted to govern defined geographic regions of the City. The OTSP was prepared in 1992 and 1993 with the assistance of Urban Design Studio and the council-appointed Old Town Steering Committee. The Steering Committee members represented a wide range of local business and resident interests. The OTSP was approved by the City Council on February 8, 1994. The original purpose of the document was to provide a comprehensive plan for land use, development regulations, design guidelines, vehicular circulation, parking, development incentives, and other related actions aimed at implementing the goals and objectives set forth in the Specific Plan. On March 25, 2007, City Council authorized staff to proceed with an amendment to the OTSP to address the 10 goals and recommendations as noted in Section 2.1.2. The primary goal for the amendment to the Specific Plan is to incorporate form-based code principles in order to more clearly define development regulations, to better facilitate pedestrian-friendly development through building placement and streetscapes, and to encourage mixed-use development within the Old Town area. The proposed project would also seek to revitalize the Old Town area for the local community and outside visitors with enhanced specialty retail, restaurants, entertainment, multi-family, and civic uses. As compared to the previous OTSP, this first major update, or amendment, would result in a reduced intensity of development. I. Introduction Old Town Specific Plan Amendment 1-3 ESA /D209294 Draft Environmental Impact Report February 2010 1.3 CEQA EIR Process 1.3.1 Notice of Preparation On July 13, 2009, in accordance with Sections 15063 and 15082 of the CEQA Guidelines, the City published a Notice of Preparation (NOP) of a Draft Program EIR, and circulated it to governmental agencies, organizations, and persons who may be interested in this project, including nearby landowners, homeowners, and tenants. The NOP requested comments on the scope of the Draft Program EIR, and asked that those agencies with regulatory authority over any aspect of the project describe that authority. The comment period extended through August 11, 2009. The NOP provided a general description of the proposed action, a description of the primary project goals, methods to achieve these goals, description of the proposed project area, and a preliminary list of potential environmental impacts. The publicly-circulated July 13, 2009 NOP identified the addition addition of approximately 1,500 residential units within the Specific Plan area and the annexation of approximately 8.5 acres into the Specific Plan area at a location south of First Street, along the west side of Old Town Front Street. Since the public circulation of the July 13, 2009 NOP, the City continued to refine its end goals and build-out assumptions from what was previously noted in the NOP; as such, it was determined that the addition of approximately 749 residential units into the Specific Plan area would result. Initially, the City had included part of the Murrieta Creek channel as one of the properties being annexed into the OTSP area, totaling 8.5 acres. Once the City confirmed that Flood Control had purchased the flood channel portion of the property, the City scaled back the annexation area to only include the portion of the property out of the flood channel; this portion for the proposed annexation is now 2.4 acres. A copy of the NOP and responses to the NOP are included in this Draft Program EIR as Appendices B and C. On July 21, 2009, in accordance with CEQA Section 21083.9,1 the City sponsored a public scoping meeting to obtain comments from interested parties on the scope of the Draft Program EIR. Public notices were placed in local newspapers and on the City’s website informing agencies and the general public of the scoping meeting. A copy of the scoping meeting notice is included in Appendix B. The purpose of the meeting was to present the proposed project to the public through use of display maps, diagrams and a PowerPoint presentation describing the project components and potential environmental impacts. City staff and members of the local community attended the scoping meeting. A copy of the scoping meeting sign-in sheet is included in Appendix C. Attendees were provided an opportunity to voice comments or concerns regarding potential effects of the proposed project. The issues addressed by participants are summarized and included in this Draft Program EIR as part of Appendices B and C. 1.3.2 Draft Program EIR This Draft Program EIR provides a description of the proposed project, environmental setting, project impacts, and mitigation measures for impacts found to be significant as well as an analysis of project alternatives. Significance criteria have been developed for each environmental resource 1 CEQA Section 21083.9 requires that a lead agency call at least one scoping meeting for a project of statewide, regional, or area-wide significance. I. Introduction Old Town Specific Plan Amendment 1-4 ESA /D209294 Draft Environmental Impact Report February 2010 analyzed in this Draft Program EIR, and are defined for each impact analysis section. Impacts are categorized as follows: • Significant and unavoidable; • Potentially significant, but can be mitigated to a less-than-significant level; • Less than significant (mitigation is not required under CEQA, but may be recommended); or • No impact. CEQA requires that EIRs evaluate ways of avoiding or minimizing identified environmental effects where feasible through the application of mitigation measures or project alternatives. 1.3.3 Public Review This document is being circulated and made available to local, state and federal agencies, and to interested organizations and individuals who may wish to review and comment on the Draft Program EIR. The original OTSP (originally adopted February 8, 1994) and City of Temecula General Plan EIR are currently available for public review at the City Planning Department. Publication of this Draft Program EIR marks the beginning of a 45-day public review period. Written comments should be sent on or before April 14, 2010 by the close of business to: Stuart Fisk, Senior Planner City of Temecula Planning Department 43200 Business Park Drive Temecula, CA 92589-9033 Stuart.Fisk@cityoftemecula.org (e-mail) 951.506.5159 (phone) 951.694.6477 (fax) 1.3.4 Final Program EIR Written and oral comments received in response to the Draft Program EIR will be addressed in a Response to Comments document which, together with the Draft Program EIR, will constitute the Final Program EIR. The City will then consider Program EIR certification (CEQA Guidelines Section 15090). If the Program EIR is certified, the City may consider project approval. Prior to approving the project, the City must make written findings with respect to each significant and unavoidable environmental effect identified in the Program EIR in accordance with Section 15091 of the CEQA Guidelines. 1.3.5 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan CEQA requires lead agencies to adopt a reporting and mitigation monitoring program for the changes to the project which it has adopted or made a condition of project approval in order to mitigate or avoid significant effects on the environment (CEQA Section 21081.6, CEQA Guidelines Section 15097). The mitigation monitoring program will be available to the public at the same time as the Final Program EIR. I. Introduction Old Town Specific Plan Amendment 1-5 ESA /D209294 Draft Environmental Impact Report February 2010 1.4 Approach to this Draft Program EIR This Draft Program EIR evaluates impacts resulting from the existing OTSP compared to what is proposed under the Specific Plan Amendment. CEQA requires that before a decision can be made to approve a project with potentially significant environmental effects, an EIR must be prepared that fully describes the environmental effects of the project and identifies feasible mitigation for significant impacts. The EIR is a public information document for use by governmental agencies and the public to identify and evaluate potential environmental consequences of a proposed project, to recommend mitigation measures to lessen or eliminate adverse impacts, and to examine feasible alternatives to the project. The information contained in the EIR is reviewed and considered by the governing agency prior to the ultimate decision to approve, disapprove, or modify the proposed project. CEQA requires that a lead agency shall neither approve nor implement a project as proposed unless the significant environmental effects of that project have been reduced to a less-thansignificant level, essentially “eliminating, avoiding, or substantially lessening” the expected impact. As with the underlying environmental documents, if the lead agency approves the project despite residual significant adverse impacts that cannot be mitigated to a less-than-significant level, the agency must state the reasons for its action in writing. This “Statement of Overriding Considerations” must be included in the record of project approval. This Draft Program EIR identifies the following impacts as significant and unavoidable: • Construction air impacts. • Project operation air impacts. • Cumulative air impacts. • State goals for reducing greenhouse gas emissions. • Construction noise impacts. • Traffic noise impacts. • Cumulative noise impacts. Section 15093 of the CEQA Guidelines requires the lead agency agency to adopt a Statement of Overriding Considerations if the lead agency determines these impacts are significant and approves the project. As required by Section 15093 of the CEQA Guidelines, a Statement of Overriding Considerations shall be adopted by a lead agency if the agency finds that the benefits of a project outweigh several significant, unavoidable adverse impacts and decides to approve the project even though these impacts cannot be mitigated to less than significant. 1.5 Organization of this Draft Program EIR This Draft Program EIR has been organized into the following sections: S. Executive Summary. This chapter summarizes the contents of the Draft Program EIR. I. Introduction Old Town Specific Plan Amendment 1-6 ESA /D209294 Draft Environmental Impact Report February 2010 1. Introduction. This chapter discusses the CEQA process and the purpose of the Draft Program EIR. 2. Project Description and Site Characteristics. This chapter provides an overview of the proposed project, describes the need for and objectives of the proposed project, and provides details on the characteristics of the proposed project. 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation Measures. This chapter describes the environmental setting and identifies impacts of the proposed project for each of the following environmental resource areas: aesthetics; air quality; global warming/climate change; cultural resources; hydrology and water quality; land use planning; noise; public services; and traffic and circulation. Measures to mitigate the impacts of the proposed project are presented for each resource area. 4. Cumulative Impacts. This chapter describes the potential impacts of the proposed project when considered together with other related projects in the project area. 5. Significant Irreversible Environmental Changes and Growth-Inducing Impacts. This chapter presents an overview of the impacts of the project in the sense that it may foster economic or population growth, or additional housing, either indirectly or directly. This chapter also analyzes the extent to which the project's primary and secondary effects would commit resources to uses that future generations will probably be unable to reverse. 6. Alternatives Analysis. This chapter presents an overview of the alternatives development process and describes the alternatives to the proposed project that were considered. 7. Acronyms, References and List of Preparers. 1.6 Cumulative Development 1.6.1 CEQA Analysis Requirements A cumulative impact is created as a result of the combination of the project evaluated in an EIR together with other projects having the potential to cause related impacts. The CEQA Guidelines require that EIRs discuss the cumulative impacts of a project when the project’s incremental effect is “cumulatively considerable,” meaning that the project’s incremental effects are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past, current, and probable future projects.2 According to CEQA Guidelines Section 15130 (a) and (b), the purpose of this section is to provide a discussion of significant cumulative impacts which reflects the severity of the impacts and their likelihood of occurrence. The CEQA Guidelines indicate that the discussion of cumulative impacts should include: • Either: (A), a list of past, present, and probable future projects producing related or cumulative impacts; or (B), a summary of projections contained in an adopted general plan 2 CEQA Guidelines, Section 15130, 15065, as amended January 1, 2000. I. Introduction Old Town Specific Plan Amendment 1-7 ESA /D209294 Draft Environmental Impact Report February 2010 or similar document, or in an adopted or certified environmental document, which described or evaluated conditions contributing to a cumulative impact; • A discussion of the geographic scope of the area affected by the cumulative effect; • A summary of expected environmental effects to be produced by these projects; and, • Reasonable, feasible options for mitigating or avoiding the project’s contribution to any significant cumulative effects. The analysis of cumulative effects in Chapter 4 focuses on the effects of the proposed project in combination with other projects within the same vicinity and timeframe. These other projects that have the potential to cause related impacts, and possibly cumulative impacts, have been identified in a list of past, present, and probable future projects that vary based on geographic location and project schedule. This list of other projects used in the analysis analysis of cumulative effects is provided in Table 4-1 and shown in Figure 4-1. The project consists of the existing OTSP and proposed annexation area which are both surrounded to the east by Interstate 15, single-family residential, vacant property, and a hotel; to the north by retail and office commercial uses; to the west by light industrial uses, service commercial uses, and vacant property; and to the south by multi-family residential, retail, and service commercial uses. As compared to other potential service commercial projects allowed under the site’s zoning designation, the project would produce a relatively fewer number of vehicle trips; as such, this radius was determined to be sufficient for the purposes of the cumulative impact analysis. The County of Riverside and Cities of Temecula and Murrieta were contacted for past, present, and probable future projects in the area of the project site. 1.6.2 Geographic Scope The proposed Specific Plan Amendment project area is located in the southwestern portion of the City of Temecula (with 2.4 acres to be annexed into the OTSP area). Chapter 4, Cumulative Impacts, considers the potential cumulative effects of the Specific Plan Amendment in combination with other identified cumulative development projects. The potential for specific project-generated impacts to contribute to a significant cumulative impact would occur if the impacts are located within the same generalized geographic area. This geographic area varies depending upon the resource area being evaluated (water quality, noise, etc.) and the geographic extent of the potential impact. For example, the geographic area associated with construction noise impacts would be limited to areas directly affected by construction noise associated with the proposed project in conjunction with the identified cumulative projects. In contrast, the geographic area that could be affected by the proposed project and cumulative constructionrelated air emissions would include the entire air basin. Construction impacts associated with increased noise, dust, erosion, and access limitations tend to be localized and could be exacerbated if other development or improvement projects occur within proximal locations to the proposed Specific Plan Amendment area. The cumulative project area identified for traffic impacts was determined by the City of Temecula Public Works Department as noted in Table 3.9-5 and Table 4-1. At the time the traffic impact analysis was prepared, the SpringHill Suites hotel development (one of the projects included in I. Introduction Old Town Specific Plan Amendment 1-8 ESA /D209294 Draft Environmental Impact Report February 2010 the cumulative scenario calculations) was under construction and not operational. However, since completion of the traffic impact analysis and prior to circulation of the Draft Program EIR, the SpringHill Suites hotel development has opened and is currently in operation. As determined by the traffic impact analysis, the SpringHill Suites hotel was projected to have generated 1,160 daily trips at full occupancy. Therefore, the cumulative traffic impact calculations are based on a worst-case scenario comparison of the proposed project at build-out to existing conditions. The other cumulative projects identified in Figure 4-1 (Chapter 4), however, have not been accounted for in the cumulative traffic impact calculations because it is undetermined what specific traffic impacts each future development within the OTSP area will have at this time. Additionally, the Pujol Apartments complex was an existing use at the time the traffic impact analysis developed. The construction of any additional units from the Pujol Apartments would already be accounted for by the additional cumulative traffic projections for the SpringHill Suites hotel. These additional projects are included in the cumulative analysis for impacts air quality, GHG, hydrology, and utilities and services. 1.6.3 Project Timing Projects considered in this analysis include those that have recently been completed, are currently under construction, or are in the planning stages. Schedule is particularly relevant to the consideration of cumulative construction-related impacts, since construction impacts tend to be relatively short-term. However, for future projects, construction schedules are often broadly estimated and can be subject to change. Although the timing of the future projects is likely to fluctuate due to schedule changes or other unknown factors, this analysis assumes these individual projects would be developed for implementation through the course of the current planning horizon, and could be implemented concurrently with construction of the proposed project. The proposed Specific Plan Amendment is anticipated to reach full build-out in approximately 20 to 30 years. 1.6.4 Type of Projects Considered As described in Chapter 3 of this Draft Program EIR, the majority of impacts associated with implementation of the proposed Specific Plan Amendment are short-term and related to construction. Implementation and operation of the Specific Plan Amendment would not contribute to project-specific or cumulative traffic impacts (when combined with the other approved/pending projects considered in this analysis as listed in Table 4-1 in Chapter 4). As discussed in Chapter 3 and in Section 3.3, Global Warming and Climate Change, project-specific impacts associated with greenhouse gas emissions would be significant on the cumulative level. Therefore, the proposed Specific Plan Amendment would contribute to cumulative effects when considered in combination with impacts of other construction projects in the vicinity. Long-term cumulative impacts of the proposed Specific Plan Amendment in conjunction with the other projects in the area are assessed as well. Old Town Specific Plan Amendment 2-1 ESA /D209294 Draft Environmental Impact Report February 2010 CHAPTER 2 Project Description This chapter describes the proposed amendment to the OTSP and proposed annexation area. This chapter also includes a brief description of the existing physical setting of the project site; required discretionary actions; and the objectives of this project, as identified by the City. 2.1 Background, Goals, and Objectives 2.1.1 Project Background Old Town History The approval of the Old Town Temecula Historic Preservation District by the Riverside Board of Supervisors in October 1979, marked the first recognition of Old Town Temecula as a unique place with a historic character worth preserving and enhancing. Since that initial recognition, additional steps have been taken to help plan Old Town’s future and preserve its historic buildings and character. The Temecula Community Plan Task Force (composed of members from the Old Town Temecula Museum Historical Committee, Old Town Temecula Temecula Merchants Association, Temecula Town Association, and Temecula Valley Chamber of Commerce) prepared and submitted a plan for Old Town’s revitalization in October 1988. This plan provided a grassroots basis for existing concerns and future growth. A renewed focus on the issues facing Old Town was established with the preparation of the City’s General Plan in early 1992. The various elements of the General Plan (including Land Use, Circulation, Open Space, and Community Design) identified the need to preserve and revitalize Old Town. The primary policy recommendation that emerged from the General Plan program was the need to prepare a Specific Plan for Old Town. Acting on this recommendation, the Temecula City Council authorized preparation of the Old Town Temecula Specific Plan to provide a master plan for the Old Town area. Old Town Specific Plan Temecula was incorporated on December 1, 1989. On November 9, 1993, Temecula adopted the Land Use Element of the City’s General Plan. Since then, 13 Specific Plans have been adopted to govern defined geographic regions of the City. The OTSP was prepared in 1992 and 1993 with the assistance of Urban Design Studio and the council-appointed Old Town Steering Committee. The Steering Committee members represented a wide range of local business and resident interests. The OTSP was approved by the City Council on February 8, 1994. The original purpose 2. Project Description Old Town Specific Plan Amendment 2-2 ESA /D209294 Draft Environmental Impact Report February 2010 of the document was to provide a comprehensive plan for land use, development regulations, design guidelines, vehicular circulation, parking, development incentives, and other related actions to implement the plan’s goals and objectives. The project site has also been evaluated in previous planning documents including: • Old Town Specific Plan, Originally Adopted February 8, 1994 (revised October 10, 2000; August 24, 2004; and June 13, 2006); and • City of Temecula General Plan EIR, prepared by The Planning Center, updated 2005. 2.1.2 Project Goals and Recommendations Original Old Town Specific Plan Goals The overall goal for the OTSP was developed by the Old Town Steering Committee in 1992, supported by the Planning Commission, and approved by the City Council. The overall goal was what the community wanted Old Town Temecula to become and this goal provided the overall direction for this this area. The overall goal for Old Town was: To create a dynamic Old Town commercial and residential core that is attractive and of high quality, respectful of its historic buildings and unifying design theme and providing an economically viable setting for a mixture of local and tourist commercial uses, administrative/professional and residential uses with safe, efficient circulation and access. As stated in the original OTSP, protecting the cultural heritage and historical architectural resources found in Old Town and elsewhere in Temecula was part of the overall goal for the revitalization of Old Town and the protection of the community’s heritage. In addition, the original OTSP stated that it gave owners of eligible historic properties relief from the contemporary municipal codes, ordinances, taxes, and laws levied on newer contemporary structures. Revised Old Town Specific Plan Goals On March 25, 2007, the Temecula City Council authorized staff to proceed with an amendment to the OTSP to address the 10 goals and recommendations described below. The primary purpose for the amendment to the Specific Plan is to incorporate form-based code principles in order to more clearly define development regulations, to better facilitate pedestrian-friendly development through building placement and streetscapes, and to encourage mixed-use development within the Old Town area. The proposed project would also seek to revitalize the Old Town area for the local community and outside visitors with enhanced specialty retail, restaurants, entertainment, multi-family, and civic uses. Taken together, the following 10 goals and recommendations direct the City toward the creation of a traditional downtown, containing mixed-use development and a pedestrian-friendly environment. 2. Project Description Old Town Specific Plan Amendment 2-3 ESA /D209294 Draft Environmental Impact Report February 2010 1) Historic Core • Goal: Preserve and respect historic buildings. • Recommendation: Protect and preserve existing designated historic buildings. Delineate a historic core centered on the intersection of Front and Main Streets. New projects in this area should be required to pay special attention to the height and massing of the historic buildings. 2) Streets • Goal: Enhance historic character and pedestrian-friendly nature of the streets. Protect the historic grid of streets and alleys. • Recommendation: Future development should (a) orient building activity to the street, (b) create a clear street edge, and (c) preserve existing and reclaim vacated alleys where possible. 3) Building Heights • Goal: Permit up to four-story buildings. Allow taller structures with a Conditional Use Permit. • Recommendation: Amend Specific Plan to a “form-based” plan governing building heights and their placement on lots. Include detailed performance standards that respect the relationship with adjacent historic structures. 4) Architecture • Goal: Future buildings should respect historic architectural styles and contribute to a well-defined, lively and pedestrian-oriented streetscape. • Recommendation: Amend Specific Plan guidelines for building form, architectural style, street frontage design, materials, detailing and color to provide design flexibility while ensuring high-quality and well designed buildings. 5) Murrieta Creek Walk • Goal: Improve the visual and functional connection between Old Town and Murrieta Creek. • Recommendation: Orient buildings to proposed creek walk with entrances, courtyards and balconies facing creek. Meet flood control objectives while creating pedestrian and bicycle paths. Develop form-based guidelines for the massing and placement of buildings facing creek walk. 6) Infrastructure • Goal: Improve infrastructure for future development, including water, sewer, power, communications, trash, and deliveries. Maximize alley use to locate services and utilities off street. • Recommendation: Prepare a detailed analysis of existing and future infrastructure needs. Locate utilities in alleys to improve streetscape and building frontages. 2. Project Description Old Town Specific Plan Amendment 2-4 ESA /D209294 Draft Environmental Impact Report February 2010 7) Residential Neighborhoods • Goal: Encourage development of high-quality residential neighborhoods to support commercial and office core of Old Town. • Recommendation: Develop design guidelines and development standards to incorporate housing into the Specific Plan. Allow for residential-only in addition to mixed-use projects. 8) Parking • Goal: Retain existing Specific Plan parking standards both near and long term. • Recommendation: Resurvey Old Town parking to verify findings of February 2007 survey. Develop interim strategies to address special event parking needs. Develop a comprehensive strategy to increase parking supply in the long term. 9) Economic Development • Goal: Ensure that future growth in Old Town meets the needs of its businesses and residents, and that growth is economically sustainable. • Recommendation: Prepare economic development plan and marketing strategy to attract desired growth in terms of new development and commercial businesses. 10) Area of Old Town North of the Arch • Goal: Create greater visual and functional connection between Old Town core and area north of the arch. • Recommendation: Explore opportunities to extend street and alley grid to the north. Extend the form-based code standards envisioned for the Old Town core into this area. 2.2 Project Objectives The project objectives as defined by the City are as follows: • Update the current OTSP to provide enhanced desired services within the plan area to both City residents and visitors while being compatible with the nearby residential area; • Incorporate form-based code principles to more clearly define development regulations, to better facilitate pedestrian-friendly development through building placement and streetscapes, and to encourage mixed-use development within Old Town; • Respect the history of the OTSP area while fitting with current economics, accommodating greater residential density, and encouraging a variety of architectural styles; • Implement significant new investment in the Old Town area to help promote rapid growth in Temecula Valley and develop a renewed interest in town centers and mixed-use development; • Enhance the quality of life of Temecula residents by balancing economic development objectives with protection of the environment and the health and safety of the community; and 2. Project Description Old Town Specific Plan Amendment 2-5 ESA /D209294 Draft Environmental Impact Report February 2010 • Promote economic activity within the City to maintain a healthy economy, provide revenue for high-quality municipal services and infrastructure maintenance and improvements, and preserve the unique character of Temecula. 2.3 Project Location and Surrounding Area 2.3.1 Location Temecula is located in southwestern Riverside County approximately 85 miles southeast of Los Angeles, 60 miles northeast of San Diego, and 25 miles inland from the Pacific Ocean (shortest linear distance). The City is bordered by the unincorporated De Luz area to the west, the City of Murrieta to the north, unincorporated County of Riverside land to the east, and the Pechanga Indian Reservation, Bureau of Land Management (BLM) lands, and unincorporated portions of San Diego County to the south. Interstate 15 (I-15) bisects the western portion of Temecula from north to south. State Route 79 (SR-79) North (Winchester Road) provides regional access between Temecula and the Hemet/San Jacinto area. The two major east-west roadways are SR-79 South and Rancho California Road. Figure 2-1 shows the regional location. Specifically, the proposed project site is bounded to the north by Rancho California Road, to the east by I-15, to the south by First Street, and to the west from approximately 225 feet west of Pujol Street and an area outside of the existing Specific Plan boundary extending approximately 350 feet south of First Street, between the eastern edge of the Murrieta Creek channel and Old Town Front Street. Figure 2-2 shows the project location. 2.3.2 Surrounding Land Uses The OTSP and proposed annexation area are surrounded to the east by I-15, single-family residential, vacant property, and a hotel; to the north by retail and office commercial uses; to the west by light-industrial uses, service commercial uses, and vacant property; and to the south by multi-family residential, retail, and service commercial uses. Please refer to Section 3.6 for further details regarding surrounding land uses. 2.4 Project Description The project involves an amendment to the OTSP. This amendment represents the first major update of the Specific Plan since it was originally drafted. In general, the update will enhance design guidelines and encourage residential development within the Old Town area. This document serves as a Program EIR for the OTSP that establishes development parameters but does not propose any specific development, as the exact development proposals for future projects are not yet known at this time. The primary purpose for the Specific Plan Amendment is to incorporate form-based code principles to more clearly define development regulations, to better facilitate pedestrian-friendly development through building placement and streetscapes, and to encourage mixed-use development within Old Town. The Specific Plan Amendment is Riverside County San Diego CountyM u r r i e t a Te m e c u l a CLEVELAND NATIONAL FOREST Lake Skinner 79 Figure 2-1 Regional Location Map SOURCE: Street Map USA, 2007. 79 15 15 215 Old Town Specific Plan EIR . 209294 Project Location 0 2 Miles Ra n cho C ali fornia Old Town Specific Plan EIR . 209294 Figure 2-2 Project Location SOURCE: GlobeXplorer, 2008; City of Temecula, 2009. Mor e n o R d Six th Fi ft h Fourt h Mai n Old Town Fro n t Pu j o ls Thi rd Moreno Rd Sixth St Fifth St Fourth St Main St Front St Pujols St Third St Rancho California Rd Se co nd StSecond St Fi rst StFirst St 15 0 500 Feet 2. Project Description Old Town Specific Plan Amendment 2-8 ESA /D209294 Draft Environmental Impact Report February 2010 intended to achieve these goals through changes to site planning standards and guidelines, streetscape standards and guidelines, land use district locations and titles, architectural standards and guidelines, parking lot guidelines, public art guidelines, paving material guidelines, outdoor dining/sidewalk furniture guidelines, sign regulations and guidelines, alley guidelines, and landscape guidelines within the Specific Plan. The proposed Specific Plan Amendment will also result in the annexation of approximately 2.4 acres into the Specific Plan at a location south of First Street, along the west side of Old Town Front Street, and the removal of approximately 2.3 acres from the Specific Plan at a location west of the intersection of Sixth Street and Pujol Street. The mixed-use aspect of the Specific Plan Amendment is anticipated to result in a reduction in commercial building floor space in Old Town of 1,405,285 square feet, and the addition of approximately 749 residential units within the Specific Plan area. The reduction of building floor space can be anticipated because residential uses require more open areas for parking, courtyards, balconies, and other shared and private open spaces than commercial space. Commercial space in Old Town is not required to provide parking, but residential uses are required to provide at least one parking space per residential unit. Table 2-1 below compares what currently exists today within the OTSP area, what has been approved under the existing OTSP, what is proposed under the OTSP amendment, and the differences between the approved and proposed OTSP. TABLE 2-1 OLD TOWN SPECIFIC PLAN COMPARISON TABLE Currently Exists in OTSP Approved OTSP Proposed OTSP Amendment Difference of Approved/Proposed OTSP Difference of Existing/Proposed OTSP Commercial 537,632 sf 3,641,275 sf 2,235,990 sf -1,405,285 sf +1,698,358 sf Residential 681,179 sf 1,575,892 sf 2,249,285 sf +673,393 sf +1,568,106 sf 538 du 1,659 du 2,408 du +749 du +1,870 du 1,184 residents 3,350 residents 5,298 residentsa +1,948 residents +4,114 residents Civic 143,525 sf 159,809 sf 159,809 sf 0 sf +16,284 sf Open Space 19.7 acres 19.7 acres 25.4 acres +5.7 acres +5.7 acres sf = square feet: du = dwelling units a Multi-family dwelling unit assumption of 2.2 persons/du. SOURCE: City of Temecula, 2010. 2.4.1 Land Use Districts The OTSP area is composed of land use districts which establish permitted land uses and development standards intended to implement the goals, policies and objectives of this Specific Plan and the City’s General Plan. These land use regulations and development standards constitute the primary zoning provisions for the OTSP area. The Specific Plan Amendment is 2. Project Description Old Town Specific Plan Amendment 2-9 ESA /D209294 Draft Environmental Impact Report February 2010 intended to achieve the previously defined goals and objectives through changes to land use district locations and titles within the Specific Plan. Please refer to Figure 2-3 for the locations of the proposed land use districts described below. Downtown Core District The Downtown Core District, located along the east edge of the Open Space corridor, which contains Murrieta Creek, is intended to provide for uses that will support pedestrian-oriented and mixed-use development. This district is defined by multi-story urban buildings of up to four stories that are intended to accommodate art galleries, museums, restaurants and small-scale boutique retailers such as gift, specialty food, and antique shops, or similar retail uses. Service and office uses are permitted within this district, but are restricted to the second floor and higher for parcels along Old Town Front Street and Main Street. Street. Residential uses are permitted in the Downtown Core, but are also restricted to the second floor and higher for parcels along Old Town Front Street and Main Street. All four-story buildings in the Downtown Core must contain at least one floor restricted to residential use. Downtown Core/Hotel Overlay The Downtown Core/Hotel Overlay is intended to encourage the development of a hotel with conference facilities, restaurant and other guest services. This area is located in the southeast corner of the project area just west of the I-15 corridor. The Hotel Overlay permits a hotel with conference facilities to be constructed at a greater building height (up to eight stories) than other buildings in the underlying district. This will provide adequate visitor accommodations for Old Town and the surrounding area. Civic Districts The three Civic Districts are located immediately north and south of the Residential/Limited Mixed Use District (just west of the I-15 corridor) and on the west side of the Downtown Core District along the open space corridor. These areas are intended to provide for public and quasipublic uses such as parks, city offices, police/fire stations, senior citizen centers, community centers and other community assembly uses, museums, and similar facilities. Residential/Limited Mixed Uses The Residential/Limited Mixed Uses Districts are intended to provide for attached residential or mixed-use development of up to three stories. These districts accommodate a variety of housing types with opportunities for ground floor retail, restaurants, and offices serving residents. These uses are intended to provide convenience or services for the residents in the surrounding neighborhood such as corner markets, takeout/delivery restaurants, dry cleaners, beauty shops, florists, and similar uses. Appropriate building types include live/work, courtyard housing, rowhouses, condominiums, and apartments. These districts are located between the Civic Overlays just west of the I-15 corridor and at the northern boundary of the OTSP. Legend Civic (CV) Downtown Core – Hotel Overlay (DTC/HO) Downtown Core (DTC) Residential /Limited Mixed Use (R/LMU) Open Space (OS) Neighborhood Residential (NR) Old Town Specific Plan EIR . 209294 Figure 2-3 Proposed Land Use Districts SOURCE: GlobeXplorer, 2008; City of Temecula, 2009. Mor e n o R d Six th Fi ft h Fourt h Ma in Old Town Fro n t Pu j o ls Thi rd Moreno Rd Sixth St Fifth St Fourth St Main St Front St Pujols St Third St Se co nd StSecond St Fi rst StFirst St 15 0 500 Feet Ra n cho C ali fornia Rancho California Rd 2. Project Description Old Town Specific Plan Amendment 2-11 ESA /D209294 Draft Environmental Impact Report February 2010 Neighborhood Residential The Neighborhood Residential District is intended to provide for attached and detached threestory residential development at a density of up to 35 dwelling units per acre. Typical housing types in this area may include single-family detached, duplexes, triplexes, townhouses, condominiums, apartments, and live/work units. This land use district would be located along the western side of the project area just west of the Open Space corridor, which contains Murrieta Creek. Open Space The Open Space corridor, which traverses through the central portion of the project area, includes both public and private areas of permanent open space along the floodways of Murrieta Creek. The zone is intended to provide for the preservation of biological and cultural resources, and to protect the public from flood hazards. 2.4.2 Annexation and Removal of Old Town Specific Plan Areas Areas As previously described, the proposed Specific Plan Amendment will result in the annexation of approximately 2.4 acres into the Specific Plan at a location south of First Street, along the west side of Old Town Front Street. The removal of approximately 2.3 acres from the Specific Plan, at a location west of the intersection of Sixth Street and Pujol Street, is also proposed. Please refer to the Proposed and Existing OTSP Boundary Map (Figure 2-4). 2.4.3 Implementation through Changes to Standards and Guidelines A form-based code regulates development projects by providing specific regulations for the physical form of a building to foster predictable built results and an active public realm. Formbased codes emphasize building form over land use and encourage mixed-use development in an urban environment. Form-based codes also address the relationship between the building façade and the public realm to achieve a pedestrian-friendly environment along the streets, sidewalks and alleys. Form-based code regulations are provided through what is known as a regulating plan. The regulating plan provides specific development regulations and standards presented in both words and diagrams to designate the appropriate building form, scale, massing and character of a building relative to the zoning district or geographic location of a lot or property within the Specific Plan area. More specifically, the regulating plan regulates the site planning for buildings which in turn defines the streetscape to achieve the human scale and walkability desired for the Old Town area. Old Town Specific Plan EIR . 209294 Figure 2-4 Specific Plan Amendment Boundary SOURCE: GlobeXplorer, 2008; City of Temecula, 2009. Mor e n o R d Six th Fi ft h Fourt h Old Town Fro n t Pu j o ls Thi rd Moreno Rd Sixth St Fifth St Fourth St Main St Front St Pujols St Third St Se co nd StSecond St Fi rst StFirst St 15 Legend Existing Specific Plan Boundary Land to be removed from Specific Plan Annexation Area 0 500 Feet Ra n cho C ali fornia Rancho California Rd 2. Project Description Old Town Specific Plan Amendment 2-13 ESA /D209294 Draft Environmental Impact Report February 2010 Site Planning The area comprising the core of Old Town Temecula is typical of many small town/rural main streets. The buildings are predominantly side by side, forming a fairly continuous street wall, and are placed on a build-to-line 10 feet behind the right-of-way. The pedestrian-friendly quality of this relationship is enhanced by arcades, mature trees, benches, and lack of emphasis on parking lots and parked cars. It is the intent of the urban standards to intensify the pedestrian activity which characterizes this area by requiring side parking, rear parking, or no on-site parking lots. Pedestrian passages to parking areas adjoining mid-block alleys are encouraged to facilitate the screening of parking lot areas. Streetscape Standards The purpose of streetscape improvements for Old Town is to promote a high-quality comfortable pedestrian environment that enhances the visual experience of the area for tourists and residents alike. The preservation of the pedestrian scale and the relationship of buildings to streets are important criteria in the Old Town area. Streetscape improvements along Old Town Front Street and Main Street will be modified as specified in the amended OTSP. The focus of the project area will be to provide pedestrians a network of simple, well-defined and well-proportioned outdoor spaces. In an effort to ensure a comfortable urban downtown experience, streetscapes that are simple and uncluttered will be emphasized. In addition, street trees will be a major component. Trees will be located closer to the streets to allow a more urban feel. Circulation Standards In the Old Town area, the project proposes to use an intersection Level of Service F (LOS F) as an acceptable LOS for intersections on Old Town Front Street from Second Street to Moreno Road North. In the past few years, several cities in California have, by using a variety of methods, made the decision to allow lower LOS for intersections located in core or downtown areas. These decisions are all linked to efforts to create the increased densities needed for mixed-use development that supports pedestrian and transit uses as well as a sustainable living and work environments.1 Architectural Standards Development standards and requirements for all projects within the OTSP area are intended to ensure that proposed development within the Old Town area occurs in a manner that is consistent with the community’s vision for building form, massing, architectural character, and the building’s relationship to the street and public realm. The most prevalent architectural style in Old Town relates most commonly to the Gold Rush Style or Western Frontier Style. The architectural design guidelines for Old Town are organized 1 Case studies included the cities of Calistoga, Oakland, Roseville, San Diego, San Jose, and Walnut Creek. In San Jose, downtown development is exempt from LOS requirements and mitigation measures. 2. Project Description Old Town Specific Plan Amendment 2-14 ESA /D209294 Draft Environmental Impact Report February 2010 into four topics: building form, frontage type, architectural style, and materials. While architectural principles are defined, variety and individual expression within this framework are encouraged. The community desires a character of architecture and streetscape reflecting Temecula Valley’s history, natural landscape, and climate. The amended OTSP will help to provide a rich and varied character to the streetscapes in Old Town while acknowledging the variety of Old Town’s historical buildings. The amended Specific Plan will encourage new development to respect this old heritage, but still enable variety and individual expression through building form, architectural style, and materials Parking Lots The public view of open parking lots can detract from the Old Town area. This is especially important in retail areas. In an effort to minimize the amount of land committed to parking lots within the Old Town area, not all uses within the Specific Plan will be required to provide on-site parking. In most cases, the determination of whether or not parking will be required will be based upon the land use district and the type of business. When on-site parking is required, the standards contained in Chapter 17.24 of the Temecula Municipal Code will normally be used to determine the number of required parking spaces. However, the Temecula Director of Planning may require assembly uses with high parking demands to provide additional off-street parking. In making this determination, the Temecula Director of Planning can consider the size and location of the proposed use, the hours of operation, the availability of nearby off-street parking, and its proximity to other assembly and restaurant uses. In the retail portions of the project area, locating parking lots between the front property line and any building will be prohibited. As needed, several additional parking strategies could be incorporated into the Old Town area in the long term. These additional parking strategies could include time limits, informational programs, a Parking District, additional parking supply, and parking charges as determined by the City. More specifically, the City could establish time limits and parking charges once an area consistently surpasses 85 percent occupancy. The City could also develop an informational program or Parking District at any time; however, with the recent development of the Civic Center parking structure/lot, parking needs in the short-term have been met. Additionally, near-term parking would be supplied through a parking structure located at Second Street (behind the Stampede) and/or the City’s Sixth Street surface lot. Public Art The placement of public art within the project area will be encouraged on both private and public property. Public art can be representative of the City’s culture and heritage in addition to promoting social gathering places and interaction. Wall murals, lighting displays, sculptures, mosaics, monuments and fountains will all be considered significant examples of artistic expression. Proposals for public art will be subject to review pursuant to the public art ordinance. 2. Project Description Old Town Specific Plan Amendment 2-15 ESA /D209294 Draft Environmental Impact Report February 2010 Paving Material Enhanced paving materials are strongly encouraged in the Specific Plan area wherever possible. The textures of paving can guide activities and movement patterns; it can channel traffic or prevent it from encroaching on specific areas; it can speed movement or slow it down. Smooth surface materials encourage walking, while rough surfaces slow or inhibit walking. Paving materials therefore influence usability and comfort as well as the perception of a historic time period. Outdoor Dining/Sidewalk Furniture Outdoor patio furniture and umbrellas for private restaurants and other commercial uses within the OTSP are considered an integral part of the street scene. Appropriate street-side furnishings would be meant for private use and occur between the property line and the build-to-line, outside of the right-of-way. Sign Regulations and Guidelines Signs in Old Town advertise a place of business or provide directions and information. The OTSP directs signs to be architecturally attractive and should contribute to the retention or restoration of the historic character of the area. The OTSP notes that signs should not compete with each other or dominate the setting via inconsistent height, size, shape, number, color, lighting, or movement. This revised Specific Plan has regulations to help control the size, location, and number of storefront signs. In addition, the revised Specific Plan contains design criteria to encourage and coordinate well-designed signs and provides guidelines intended to assure the local merchant that all other Old Town commercial establishments are similarly regulated. Alley Guidelines The primary purposes of the remaining alleys are either for vehicular access or pedestrian access. The primary goal of the vehicular access alleys is to provide service and rear area parking access to adjacent properties. The majority of these alleys are located between Old Town Town Front Street and Mercedes Street. The primary purpose of the pedestrian access alleys is to enhance the pedestrian connections between Old Town Front Street and Murrieta Creek. The following alleys between Old Town Front and Mercedes Streets will retain a primarily vehicular function: • Between First and Second Streets • Between Third and Main Streets • Between Fourth and Fifth Streets • Between Fifth and Sixth Streets The following alleys between Old Town Front Street and Murrieta Creek will retain a primary pedestrian function: 2. Project Description Old Town Specific Plan Amendment 2-16 ESA /D209294 Draft Environmental Impact Report February 2010 • Between Fourth and Fifth Streets Landscape Guidelines Landscaping in the OTSP area is focused on achieving three main objectives: 1) To unify and establish a uniform urban streetscape in Old Town; 2) To soften mixed-use, commercial, civic, and residential development within Old Town’s urban context; and 3) To establish an environment in Old Town that is pleasant and comfortable for pedestrians, residents, and visitors. These three areas of focus will be accomplished by a highly recognizable use of repeated planting treatments. Consistency and continuity within the street right-of-way and building setback areas will also be extremely important for development. Murrieta Creek Old Town has historically turned its back to Murrieta Creek, using land along the creek for backyards, storage and parking. The proposed flood control improvements provide the opportunity for Old Town to create a positive relationship with the creek. The concept of the Murrieta Creek Walk includes the creation of a pedestrian walkway along both sides of the water course with buildings fronting portions of the creek. The improvements to the Murrieta Creek corridor will be aesthetically compatible with the vision for Old Town while also capitalizing on the improvements to add desirable pedestrian/equestrian trails along the creek’s edge. Improvement plans to the corridor area will be coordinated with other master plans adopted by the City. 2.5 Timeline Implementing the Specific Plan Amendment will occur through a series of future development projects as well as redevelopment of currently developed or underutilized sites. As such, implementation of the proposed project will be driven by development. A 20-to 30-year absorption rate is thus projected for build-out of the work associated with the amendment to the OTSP. 2.6 Review and Approvals The project is anticipated to require the following review and approvals shown in Table 2-2: 2. Project Description Old Town Specific Plan Amendment 2-17 ESA /D209294 Draft Environmental Impact Report February 2010 TABLE 2-2 ANTICIPATED REVIEW AND APPROVALS FOR OLD TOWN SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT Agency Action Regional Water Quality Control Board • Possible review and approval of stormwater permits City of Temecula Planning Commission • Consider a recommend that City of Temecula City Council certify the Final Environmental Impact Report and MMRP • Approval of a Development Plan Review • All City of Temecula Planning Commission actions are appealable to the City of Temecula City Council City of Temecula City Council • Certification of the Final Environmental Impact Report and MMRP • Adopt Specific Plan Amendment • Adopt General Plan Amendment Rancho California Water District • Possible review and approval of water service permits Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District • Possible review and approval of permits Riverside County Health Department • Possible review and approval of permits SOURCE: City of Temecula, 2010. Old Town Specific Plan Amendment 3.1-1 ESA /D209294 Draft Environmental Impact Report February 2010 CHAPTER 3 Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.1 Aesthetics 3.1.1 Introduction This section analyzes the potential aesthetics impacts that could occur with implementation of the project. This analysis identifies and evaluates key visual resources in the project area and determines the degree of visual impacts that could occur from proposed project implementation. The analysis also describes the potential aesthetic effects of the project on the existing landscape and built environment, focusing on the compatibility of the project conditions and the project’s effects on scenic resources. The environmental baseline in this chapter uses the current physical conditions of the OTSP area as they exist at the time the NOP was published as compared to build-out of the OTSP amendment. 3.1.2 Environmental Setting Physical Setting Regional Visual Characteristics Regional views within the City of Temecula are characterized by flat or gently rolling terrain with residential communities, industrial/commercial development and agricultural land. The western escarpment, located at the southern end of the Santa Ana Mountains, provides a prominent visual backdrop immediately west of the City. Distant views of Palomar Mountain and the Cleveland National Forest exist to the south. While the City itself contains large residential areas, surrounding areas are more rural and agricultural in nature. The many golf courses and wineries in the region contribute to the atmosphere of a resort community. Much of Temecula is composed of urbanized areas developed primarily with low-density residential development. Densities range from very low to low/medium, with low/medium densities making up the highest percentage of existing housing units (65 percent). Several pockets of apartments and townhouses are located near the center of the City. The Nicolas Valley and residential areas east of I-15 and south of Santiago Road consist of lower density residences on large lots. 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.1 Aesthetics Old Town Specific Plan Amendment 3.1-2 ESA /D209294 Draft Environmental Impact Report February 2010 Project Site The existing 145.2-acre OTSP area is designated Low Medium/Medium/High Residential, Community Commercial, Public Institutional Facility, and Open Space within the Temecula General Plan. In the 1880s, the railroad arrived and the post office moved to the present town’s location. Although new development surrounds the historic town site and many historical structures have been torn down or moved, others still remain. The site is bounded to the north by Rancho California Road, to the east by I-15, to the south by First Street, and to the west from approximately 225 feet west of Pujol Street and an area outside of the existing Specific Plan boundary extending approximately 350 feet south of First Street, between the eastern edge of the Murrieta Creek channel and Old Town Front Street. With a drainage area in excess of 220 square miles, Murrieta Creek traverses Temecula and Murrieta in the densely populated southwest region of Riverside County. Confluencing with Temecula Creek, it forms the Santa Margarita River, which flows through Camp Pendleton Marine Base and on to the Pacific Ocean. Specifically, the creek traverses Temecula through an open space corridor that divides the western Neighborhood Residential area from the eastern Downtown Core area. The slopes aligning the creek bed are covered with low trees, grasses and shrubs. The sandy creek bed is usually dry outside of the rainy season. The ecological resources of Murrieta Creek and its surroundings have been identified as a resource of high concern. Several resource agencies, including the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), have stipulated that Murrieta Creek is one of the last high-quality, minimally disturbed riverine environments in Southern California. As a result of repeated flood events, culminating with the catastrophic flood in 1993, the Army Corps of Engineers initiated a study on a 7.5-mile section of the creek, which led to the 2000 Congressional recognition of the four-phase Murrieta Creek Flood Control, Environmental Restoration and Recreation Project. The Restoration and Recreation Project will be constructed along Murrieta Creek in Murrieta and Temecula. This effort will improve flood control and stormwater retention in the creek; enhance water conservation and supply; and provide recreation-related opportunities along the Santa Margarita River and its tributaries. Surrounding Area The project site is bounded to the north by Rancho California Road, to the east by I-15, to the south by First Street, and to the west from approximately 225 feet west of Pujol Street and an area outside of the existing Specific Plan boundary extending approximately 350 feet south of First Street, between the eastern edge of the Murrieta Creek channel and Old Town Front Street. Please refer to photos of the existing setting as shown on the figures found in Section 3.6. The following further describes each land use surrounding the site: • North – Rancho California Road, an east/west four-lane road, traverses the northern perimeter of the project site. North of the project site is an area that is in transition from 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.1 Aesthetics Old Town Specific Plan Amendment 3.1-3 ESA /D209294 Draft Environmental Impact Report February 2010 residential to tourist service development that includes overnight accommodations. Views north of Rancho California Road include the 99-room Hampton Inn & Suites, the Murrieta Creek corridor, undeveloped lots, and business parks. • South – The project site is bordered on the south by First Street, a four-lane street. Views south of First Street predominantly consist of local businesses, undeveloped dirt parking lots and the Murrieta Creek corridor. • East – The project site is bordered on the east by the I-15 freeway corridor. I-15 is a major north-south freeway servicing the Temecula/Murrieta area, linking it to Riverside and the Los Angeles metropolitan area (via Corona) and to San Diego (via Escondido). The eastern perimeter, bordering the I-15 freeway, consists of an approximately 60-foot strip of land covered with grass, bare soil, soil, low-lying shrubs, and trees. At this point, the I-15 corridor sits at an elevation above that of the Old Town area. Further to the east are views of trees and slopes aligning the I-15 corridor, separating residential communities and commercial properties on the opposite side of the freeway. • West – The project site is bordered on the west by Pujol Street, a two-lane street. The areas west of Pujol Street predominantly consist of residences: single-family homes, multi-family residential buildings, undeveloped residential lots and apartment complexes. Foothills to the western escarpment are west of the properties fronting Pujol Street. The Temecula Valley is located below the eastern slope of the western escarpment. The western escarpment is located approximately 3,500 feet west of the project site. The western escarpment is a southeastern extension of the Santa Ana Mountains, and is bounded by the fast-growing Inland Empire cities of Murrieta to the northeast and Temecula to the southeast. Light and Glare The site is partially developed and produces light within the local project vicinity. The nighttime lighting environment surrounding the site mainly consists of passing vehicle headlights, scattered street lighting, lighting of the I-15 corridor, as well as lighting from surrounding commercial, recreational, and residential uses. Old Town Architecture The early buildings of Old Town reflect the architectural melting pot of American traditions and European ideas that were adapted to the conditions in southern California; pioneer origins include Swiss/German, Portuguese/Spanish, and French. The structures built in Old Town by 1930, established an important historical foundation of building forms, frontage types, architectural styles, and materials. Spanish Colonial, Mission and Monterey styles were introduced in Southern California first. Early settlers also introduced architectural traditions from the eastern U.S. and Europe such as American Mercantile, Neo-classical, and Victorian. By 1927, even modernist influences are evident. During 1884 through 1927, Temecula built a diverse mix of architectural styles that were common in towns across the West. In the design of future buildings in Old Town, these traditions are the most authentic and appropriate to use as references for architectural style. 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.1 Aesthetics Old Town Specific Plan Amendment 3.1-4 ESA /D209294 Draft Environmental Impact Report February 2010 Regulatory Setting State Scenic Highway Program The State Scenic Highway Program, created by the California Legislature in 1963, was established to preserve and protect scenic highway corridors from change that would diminish the aesthetic value of lands adjacent to highways. A highway is designated under this program when a local jurisdiction adopts a scenic corridor protection program, applies to the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) for scenic highway approval, and receives notification from Caltrans that the highway has been designated as a Scenic Highway. When a city or county nominates an eligible scenic highway for official designation, it defines the scenic corridor, which is land generally adjacent to and visible to a motorist on the highway. Based on the Riverside County Comprehensive General Plan and City of Temecula General Plan, State Highway 79 North (Winchester Road) is listed as a State Eligible Scenic Highway and is located approximately two miles north of the project site. Based on a site visit performed by ESA on July 8, 2009, the project site is not visible from State Highway 79 North. The proposed project is located adjacent to I-15, which is designated as an Eligible State Scenic Highway; however, it is not officially designated as a State Scenic Highway by the Caltrans. It should be noted that the design guidelines of the OTSP are intended to provide development that would enhance the visual character and improve the aesthetics of the Old Town area. City of Temecula General Plan According to the City’s General Plan Community Design Element, preserving the remaining hillsides and ridgelines in the City and surrounding areas is important to many residents and results in a more enjoyable and satisfying urban environment. There is a need for hillside development standards to encourage innovative site and and building design and to enhance the visual quality of development. Goal 1: Enhancement of the City’s image related to its regional and natural setting and its tourist orientation. Policy 1.2 Apply requirements of the OTSP to all new construction as well as to the rehabilitation of structures in the Old Town area. Policy 1.3 Develop design standards to enhance the visual character of commercial centers located adjacent to I-15. Policy 1.5 Maintain and incorporate natural amenities such as: rock outcroppings, indigenous vegetation, streams and watercourses within proposed development projects. In accordance with the General Plan, commercial and residential areas need strong design coordination, improved circulation links, open space links, outdoor pedestrian spaces and a greater emphasis on quality architecture and landscape design. 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.1 Aesthetics Old Town Specific Plan Amendment 3.1-5 ESA /D209294 Draft Environmental Impact Report February 2010 Goal 2: Design excellence in site planning, architecture, landscape architecture and signs. Policy 2.5 Limit light and glare pollution through design standards for outdoor lighting, the use of low intensity lights, and lighting that supports the continued use of the Mt. Palomar Observatory. Policy 2.6 Enhance the visual identity of commercial districts. The following General Plan policies for visual resources and aesthetics, which are found within the Open Space and Conservation Element, are relevant to the proposed project: Goal 5: Conservation of open space areas for a balance of recreation, scenic enjoyment, and protection of natural resources and features. Policy 5.1 Conserve the western escarpment and southern ridgelines, the Santa Margarita River, slopes in the Sphere of Influence, and other important landforms and historic landscape features through the development review process. Policy 5.2 Retain critical escarpment and major hillside areas to preserve open space areas on the west and south edges of the City. Based on site visits performed by ESA, the project site is located in an area that could alter views of the western escarpment and southern ridgelines, the Santa Margarita River, and slopes in the City’s Sphere of Influence (area that is subject to the influence of the City’s planning because it is destined to become annexed). However, the General Plan does not identify any scenic vistas within the project site, nor does the site contain any outstanding scenic vistas or resources that warrant preservation. Building Scale, Design and Height City-wide community design concepts relating to building scale, design and height are disclosed in the City’s General Plan Community Design Element. According to the Community Design Element, multi-story structures beyond two stories may be appropriate. By increasing the scale and height of of buildings, the ground floor area is then made available for open space, plazas and increased pedestrian uses. These increases would allow for more innovation in architectural and landscape design. Furthermore, increasing the height of buildings in the mixed-use overlay areas will allow for a potential increase in both commercial and residential development. The allowable height increases in the mixed-use areas should be designed to avoid adversely impacting surrounding low-density residential areas. If mixed use abuts a single-family area, new development should be stepped back and reduced in height to remain sensitive to the scale of the adjacent residential neighborhood. 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.1 Aesthetics Old Town Specific Plan Amendment 3.1-6 ESA /D209294 Draft Environmental Impact Report February 2010 Palomar Observatory Light Pollution Ordinance The City of Temecula is located close to the Palomar Observatory. Limited artificial light in the Temecula Valley is one of the reasons the California Institute of Technology chose in 1934 to locate the Palomar Observatory in the mountains south of Temecula. The dark skies around Palomar Mountain make it possible to observe distant galaxies without the interference of urban lights. To prevent “skyglow” and adverse impacts to the use of the telescope at the observatory, the observatory requires unique nighttime lighting restrictions. Generally, observatory sites need to be 30 to 40 miles from large lighted areas so that the nighttime sky will not be brightened. Temecula adheres to Riverside County’s Light Pollution Ordinance (No. 655), which restricts nighttime lighting for areas within a 15-mile radius (Zone A) and a 45-mile radius (Zone B) of Palomar Observatory. Zone A means the circular area 15 miles in radius centered on Palomar Observatory; Zone B means the circular ring area defined by two circles, one forty-five (45) miles in radius centered on Palomar Observatory, and the other the perimeter of Zone A. The project site is located within Zone B, a 45-mile radius of the observatory (45-mile Radius Lighting Impact Zone), and is required to comply with Ordinance No. 655. The requirements for lamp source and shielding of light emissions for outdoor light fixtures are less stringent under Zone B as compared to Zone A. For example, parking lot, walkway and security lamps above 4,050 lumens are allowed under Zone B if they are fully shielded. Also, low pressure sodium decorative lamps and other lamps 4,050 lumens and below are allowed under Zone B. It should be noted that when lighting is “allowed” by this ordinance, it must be fully shielded if feasible and partially shielded in all other cases, and must be focused to minimize spill light into the night sky and onto adjacent properties. In conformance with Riverside County’s Light Pollution Ordinance, Ordinance No. 655, all artificial outdoor light fixtures must be installed in conformance with the provisions of the ordinance, the Building Code, the Electrical Code, and lighting requirements specified in the Zoning Ordinance of the County of Riverside, along with any other related state and federal regulations such as California Title 24. Section 59.105 of Ordinance No. 655 sets forth specific requirements for lamp source and shielding of light emissions for outdoor light fixtures. Lighting for on-premises advertising displays must be shielded and focused to minimize light spill into the night sky or adjacent properties. 3.1.3 Impact Analysis Methodology and Assumptions The significance determination for the visual analysis is based on consideration of: (1) the extent of change related to project visibility from key public vantage points; (2) the the degree of visual contrast and compatibility in scale and character between project elements and the existing surroundings; and (3) project conformance with public policies regarding visual and urban design quality. 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.1 Aesthetics Old Town Specific Plan Amendment 3.1-7 ESA /D209294 Draft Environmental Impact Report February 2010 Characterizing aesthetics can be highly subjective; therefore, the evaluation of aesthetic resources in the landscape requires the application of a process that objectively identifies the visual features of the landscape and their importance, and the sensitivity of people who view them. Viewers of the project site are first identified and the relative importance of these views is determined. The project-related changes to the aesthetic character of the site and surrounding area are qualitatively evaluated based on the extent of proposed modification of the physical conditions and the estimated viewer sensitivity to this modification. A policy analysis will determine the project’s consistency with relevant planning regulations and General Plan goals, objectives, and policies. Viewer sensitivity is based, in part, on the visibility of resources in the landscape, the proximity of viewers to the visual resources, the vertical elevation of viewers relative to the visual resources, the frequency and duration of views, the number of viewers, and the types and expectations of the individuals and viewer groups. Generally, visual sensitivity increases with an increase in total number of viewers, the frequency of viewing, and the duration of views. However, visual sensitivity is generally higher for views seen by people who are driving for pleasure, engaging in recreational activities, or who are homeowners. Light and glare impacts are determined through a comparison of the existing light sources with anticipated light levels consistent with the proposed lighting plan. If the project has the potential to generate lighting that is dispersed onto adjacent properties occupied by sensitive viewers, or to produce glare at sensitive view sites in the vicinity, mitigation measures will be identified, as necessary, to reduce potential impacts. Significance Criteria The CEQA Guidelines Appendix G provides guidance for assessing the significance of potential environmental impacts. Relative to aesthetic resources, a project would normally have a significant effect on the environment if it would: • Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista; • Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings from a State Scenic Highway; • Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings; or • Create a new source of substantial light or glare, which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area. In addition, the project would have adverse impacts if it was in conflict with the goals and policies set forth in the City’s General Plan as previously detailed. Impacts and Mitigation Measures Impact 3.1-1: The project’s development would not have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista or substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings from a State Scenic Highway. 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.1 Aesthetics Old Town Specific Plan Amendment 3.1-8 ESA /D209294 Draft Environmental Impact Report February 2010 The proposed amendment to the OTSP would not significantly impact a scenic vista, damage a scenic resource and/or degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site. The project site is located in a mixed-use area that includes residential and commercial land uses. The project site is predominantly flat, and it has been previously graded and developed. State Highway 79 North (Winchester Road), part of the California Freeway and Expressway System, is located approximately two miles north of the project site and is eligible for the State Scenic Highway System. Due to road topography, however, the project site is not visible from Winchester Road. The proposed project is located adjacent to I-15, which is designated as an Eligible State Scenic Highway; however, it is not officially designated as a State Scenic Highway by Caltrans. Caltrans. The aesthetics of Old Town are anticipated to improve with the implementation of the OTSP standards and design guidelines; therefore, the proposed project would not adversely impact or decrease the potential for I-15 to be designated as a State Scenic Highway. No eligible or officially designated scenic highways would be affected by the proposed project. The Community Design Element of the City of Temecula’s General Plan identifies important scenic viewsheds to ensure that new public and private development projects will not obstruct the public views of scenic resources. According to the General Plan Community Design Plan (Exhibit on page CD-5), the project site has not been identified as a viewshed, nor is it located in the sightline of a nearby viewshed. Tall structures in the proposed Hotel Overlay zone have the potential to block views of the western escarpment when viewing west from I-15. However, the I-15 freeway is approximately 40 feet higher in elevation than the proposed location for the the Hotel Overlay zone. Therefore, only about 60 feet of a 100-foot, eight-story building would be visible above grade when viewing from I-15. In addition, the western escarpment is approximately 1,000 feet higher than the proposed location for the Hotel Overlay zone. Since the escarpment spans several miles along the horizon, eight-story buildings constructed in the Hotel Overlay zone would not be capable of substantially blocking views of the escarpment. Therefore, no viewsheds or scenic vistas are anticipated to be affected by the proposed amendment to the Specific Plan, and a less-than-significant impact is expected. Mitigation: None required. _________________________ Impact 3.1-2: The project’s development would not potentially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings. The proposed amendment to the OTSP is intended to address community concerns related to building height, building massing, and parking. The application of different architectural styles, building building heights, building massing, and building placement within Old Town has resulted in inconsistent development patterns. The existing Specific Plan lacks some of the language that could produce more predictable development patterns. The proposed amendments incorporate form-based code principles into the Specific Plan to more clearly define development regulations, 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.1 Aesthetics Old Town Specific Plan Amendment 3.1-9 ESA /D209294 Draft Environmental Impact Report February 2010 to better facilitate pedestrian-friendly development through building placement and streetscapes, and to encourage mixed-use development within Old Town. These changes are expected to enhance the visual characteristics of the Old Town area. Hotel Overlay Analysis As described previously in this document, the Downtown Core/Hotel Overlay is intended to encourage the development of a hotel with conference facilities, a restaurant and other guest services. This area is located in the southeast corner of the project area just west of the I-15 corridor. The Hotel Overlay permits a hotel with conference facilities to be constructed at a greater building height (up to eight stories) than other buildings in the underlying district. This will provide adequate visitor accommodations for Old Town and the surrounding area. Though hotels would be required to architecturally integrate with the Old Town area, the potential building height and mass could degrade the existing visual character and quality of the Old Town area and its surroundings. As stated in the Community Design Element of the Temecula General Plan, “Effective community design and planning combines important spatial considerations of land use and circulation patterns to achieve community beautification, community pride, and quality of life.” Therefore, the siting of the Hotel Overlay zone may adversely affect the visual quality of the area should the surrounding land uses be incompatible with large-scale hotel land uses. An example of an incompatible land use in this case would include low-density residential uses. Therefore, to determine if an eight-story building permitted in the proposed Hotel Overlay zone would degrade the visual character of the site and its surroundings, the following discussion analyzes the land uses surrounding the Hotel Overlay zone for aesthetic compatibility. The proposed Hotel Overlay would be sited in an area that currently contains multi-story hotels, such as the Rodeway Inn; conference facilities, and other mixed and commercial uses such as the four-story Truax Building and the Civic Center parking structure. Thus, the site proposed for the Hotel Overlay zone already contains many of the uses that would be permitted in this zone under the proposed amendment to the Specific Plan. To the north of the Hotel Overlay zone, dense mixed-use/commercial and public institutional land uses exist. Examples of such uses include hotels, antique shops, restaurants and offices (Figure 3.4-2 in Section 3.4, Land Use, shows photographs of the existing facilities). Land uses to the south of the Hotel Overlay zone consist of service commercial uses, such as a U-Haul rental facility and a liquor store. To the west of the Hotel Overlay area is the I-15 freeway, and to the east is the Murrieta Creek—an open space corridor. There are currently no low-density residential land uses surrounding the proposed Hotel Overlay zone. Thus, the presence of larger scale hotels in this area would not degrade the aesthetic quality of the environment and would not affect people living in residential neighborhoods. Eight-story structures would be permitted in the Hotel Overlay zone to provide adequate visitor accommodations for Old Town and the surrounding area. Visitors who stay at the hotels constructed in this area would benefit from convenient pedestrian access to nearby restaurants, retail and public institutional land uses. Businesses surrounding the Hotel Overlay zone would benefit from the revenues associated with increased quasi-residency at the hotels. Thus, the 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.1 Aesthetics Old Town Specific Plan Amendment 3.1-10 ESA /D209294 Draft Environmental Impact Report February 2010 construction of large hotels in this area would be compatible with the uses surrounding the Hotel Overlay zone. In addition, the area north of the proposed Hotel Overlay zone currently contains four-story, mixed-use structures, which would lessen the visual prominence of an eight-story hotel potentially constructed to the south. Therefore, notwithstanding architectural design, the visual character of the existing environment in this area would not differ substantially should larger hotel facilities be constructed. The OTSP Design Guidelines and supplemental standards establish architectural provisions for private development that would be applicable to the eight-story structures permitted in the proposed Hotel Overlay zone. The Design Guidelines and supplemental standards would ensure that the permitted large-scale hotels would be designed to architecturally integrate with the surrounding area. Therefore, allowing an eight-story hotel (twice as tall as other nearby buildings) within the proposed Hotel Overlay zone would not be out of character or substantially degrade the existing visual quality of the site and its surroundings. Other Land Use Districts Additional uses in the Downtown Core/Hotel Overlay would include conference facilities, restaurants and other services to guests in this area of the OTSP. These uses would be compatible with the immediate OTSP surrounding area because the Downtown Core is intended to accommodate a variety of residential and mixed-use land uses that will create a vibrant public realm. The proposed project would establish six new land use districts within the OTSP area. The Residential/Limited Mixed-Uses Districts would accommodate a variety of housing types and resident-serving ground floor retail, restaurants, and office spaces. The mixed-uses areas could also contain corner markets, takeout/delivery restaurants, dry cleaners, beauty shops, florist, and similar uses. As previously described, the proposed Specific Plan Amendment would implement form-based code principles in order to establish a set of detailed design guidelines with which future development within the Specific Plan area must comply. These guidelines would aim to: preserve the historic buildings and architecture currently established in the project area; enhance the pedestrian-friendly nature of the streets; regulate building heights, especially in proximity to historic buildings and residential structures; and create new architecture that respects the area’s existing historic architecture and contributes to a well-defined, lively and pedestrian-oriented streetscape. The proposed project would require all new development in the OTSP area to conform to the design guidelines and permitted land uses for the area, as established in the amendment to the Specific Plan. The design guidelines contained in the OTSP amendment are intended to provide clear recommendations for the design and aesthetic quality of all development within all land use districts in the OTSP area. These design guidelines highlight Old Town’s unique character and provide an implementation tool to protect and preserve Old Town’s historic core and improve the existing visual character of the project area. The overall result of project implementation is anticipated to bring forth an improvement to the existing aesthetics of the OTSP area. As such, the proposed project would not degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings. Mitigation: None required. _________________________ 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.1 Aesthetics Old Town Specific Plan Amendment 3.1-11 ESA /D209294 Draft Environmental Impact Report February 2010 Impact 3.1-3: Development of the proposed project could create a new source of light and glare, which may adversely affect nearby sensitive resources. The amendment to the OTSP could result in taller buildings and additional lighting needs beyond those associated with the existing Specific Plan. The City of Temecula requires that all new developments comply with the Palomar Lighting Ordinance (Ordinance 655), which requires that all lighting sources be shielded and directed downward to avoid glare on adjacent properties and to ensure low levels of glare in the sky. However, development of significantly taller hotel buildings that would be allowed at the south end of the project site by the proposed amendment could result in a new source of substantial light or glare, which could adversely affect daytime or nighttime views of the area. This is because the use of exterior lighting for security and aesthetic illumination may contribute substantially to ambient nighttime lighting conditions. Reflective light (glare) would be caused by sunlight or artificial light reflecting from finished surfaces such as window glass, or other reflective materials. The reflectivity of glass can vary widely. Generally, darker or mirrored glass would have a higher visible light reflectance factor than clear glass. Buildings constructed of highly reflective materials from which the sun reflects at a low angle commonly cause adverse glare. The proposed amendment to the specific plan does not explicitly prohibit the use of reflective surfaces for the Hotel Overlay zone. Therefore, tall buildings permitted in the proposed Hotel Overlay zone may substantially contribute to new sources of glare in the area. However, with implementation of Mitigation Measures 3.1-3a through 3.1-3h (below), potential light and glare impacts associated with the proposed project would be be mitigated to a level of insignificance. Mount Palomar Observatory Low-intensity lighting standards would avoid impacts to Mount Palomar Observatory operations. The City of Temecula requires all new development to comply with the Riverside County Mount Palomar Ordinance No. 655. This ordinance requires lighting to be shielded, directed down to avoid glare onto adjacent properties and emit low levels of glare into the sky. The City’s Municipal Code does not contain any specific lighting guidelines. However, generally accepted standards have been established by the Illuminating Engineering Society of North America (IESNA), a collection of engineers, architects, scientists and other professionals who aim to disseminate information for the improvement of the lighted environment.1 With implementation of Mitigation Measures 3.1-3a through 3.1-3h (below), potential light and glare impacts associated with the proposed project would be less than significant. These generally accepted measures would be enforced by the City. Mitigation Measures Measure 3.1-3a: The applicant shall ensure that all lighting fixtures shall contain “sharp cut-off” fixtures, and shall be fitted with flat glass lenses and internal and external shielding. 1 Illuminating Engineering Society of North America http://www.iesna.org/about/what_is_iesna.cfm, accessed online October 2, 2009. 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.1 Aesthetics Old Town Specific Plan Amendment 3.1-12 ESA /D209294 Draft Environmental Impact Report February 2010 Measure 3.1-3b: The applicant shall ensure that all fixtures shall be parallel with the finished grade of the project site; no fixtures shall be tilted above a 90-degree angle. Measure 3.1-3c: The applicant shall ensure that site lighting systems shall be grouped into control zones to allow for open, 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. Measure 3.1-3d: The applicant shall ensure that design and layout of the site shall take advantage of landscaping, on-site architectural massing, and off-site architectural massing to block light sources and reflection from cars. Measure 3.1-3e: The applicant shall submit a lighting plan and photometric plan to be reviewed by the City of Temecula. The lighting plan shall include design features (such as those mentioned above) to minimize impacts of light and glare on the surrounding area. Measure 3.1-3f: The City shall complete a post-installation inspection to ensure that the site is not excessively illuminated (such that lighting is not creating excessive glare, unreasonably competing for the public’s attention or creating any roadway safety hazard) and that lighting sources are properly shielded. Measure 3.1-3g: In order to mitigate potential impacts to the Mount Palomar Observatory, all lighting plans shall be reviewed by the City to assure utilization of low pressure sodium vapor lamps; step-down lighting techniques; shielding to prevent upward and outward illumination; and compliance with the County Ordinance No. 655. Measure 3.1-3h: The proposed Specific Plan amendment shall prohibit the use of highly reflective construction materials on exterior wall surfaces. The exterior of permitted buildings shall be constructed of materials such as high performance tinted non-mirrored glass, painted metal panels and pre-cast concrete or fabricated wall surfaces. Significance after Mitigation: Less than significant. _________________________ 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures Old Town Specific Plan Amendment 3.2-1 ESA /D209294 Draft Environmental Impact Report February 2010 3.2 Air Quality This section provides an overview of the existing air quality at the project site and surrounding region, the regulatory framework, an analysis of potential impacts to air quality that would result from implementation of the proposed project, and identification of mitigation measures. This is a Program EIR for a specific plan amendment that establishes development parameters but does not propose any specific development. As the exact development proposals are not yet known at this time, this analysis compares the amended OTSP at build-out to existing conditions as they exist at the time the NOP was published. Although operational emissions and some construction emissions would be lower than the existing specific plan, the proposed project would remain significant and unavoidable with regards to impacts to air quality. 3.2.1 Setting Regional Climate The climate around the project site, as with all of Southern California, is controlled largely by the strength and position of the subtropical high pressure cell over the Pacific Ocean. The climate is characterized by moderate temperatures and comfortable humidity. The Pacific high pressure zone dominates the local weather patterns and creates a repetitive pattern of frequent early morning cloudiness, hazy afternoon sunshine, daytime onshore breezes, and little temperature change throughout the year. This usually mild climatological pattern is interrupted infrequently by periods of extremely hot weather, winter storms, and Santa Ana winds. The Temecula area is an interior valley of the South Coast Air Basin (SCAB). Clouds and fog that form along the coast infrequently extend as far inland as the Temecula Valley, and usually burn off quickly after sunrise. The most important weather pattern is associated with the warm season airflow across the populated area of the Los Angeles Basin, which brings polluted air into western Riverside County late in the afternoon. This creates unhealthful air quality when the fringes of this polluted air flow into western Riverside County late in the afternoon, and when the fringes of this polluted air mass extend into the Temecula area during the summer months. Precipitation is limited to a few storms during the wet winter season. Temperatures are normally mild with occasional extremes above 100 degrees Fahrenheit or below freezing. The annual mean temperature of 62 degrees Fahrenheit has little seasonal variation. In addition, winds control the rate and direction of pollution dispersal. Southern California is notorious for strong temperature inversions that limit the vertical mixing of pollution. These inversions are characterized by seasonal differences. In summer, coastal areas are characterized by a sharp discontinuity between the cool marine air at the surface and the warm, sinking air aloft within the high pressure cell over the ocean to the west. This marine/subsidence inversion allows for good local mixing, but acts as a giant lid over the basin. Air starting onshore at the beach is relatively clean, but becomes progressively more polluted as sources continue to add pollution from below without any dilution from above. A second type of inversion forms on cold early winter mornings. These inversions are ground based inversions, sometimes referred to as 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.2 Air Quality Old Town Specific Plan Amendment 3.2-2 ESA /D209294 Draft Environmental Impact Report February 2010 radiation inversions. Under conditions of a ground based inversion, very little mixing or turbulence occurs and pollutants concentrate near their sources (i.e., roadways). Most of the air pollutants are confined to the air volume below the base of any inversion, or in a very shallow layer near the ground in the case of a surface inversion. Existing Air Quality in the Project Vicinity The South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) maintains monitoring stations within district boundaries that monitor air quality and compliance with associated ambient standards. The closest station to the project site is Perris Monitoring Station. The following pollutants are monitored at this station: ozone (O3), and particulate matter less than 10 microns (PM10). Particulate matter less than 2.5 microns (PM2.5) is measured at the Riverside Rubidoux Station. The most recent published data for these monitoring stations are presented in Table 3.2-1. In addition, air pollutants of interest to the regulatory agencies for their potential adverse impacts on sensitive receptors are described below. Criteria Air Pollutants Ozone Short-term exposure to ozone can irritate the eyes and cause constriction of the airways. Besides causing shortness of breath, ozone can aggravate existing respiratory diseases such as asthma, bronchitis, and emphysema. Ozone, the main component of photochemical smog, is primarily a summer and fall pollution problem. Ozone is not emitted directly into the air but is formed through a complex series of chemical reactions involving other compounds that are directly emitted. These directly emitted pollutants (also known as ozone precursors) include reactive organic gases (ROG) and nitrogen oxides (NOx). The time period required for ozone formation allows the reacting compounds to spread over a large area, producing a regional pollution problem. Ozone problems are the cumulative result of regional development patterns rather than a few significant emission sources. Once formed, ozone remains in the atmosphere for one or two days. Ozone is then eliminated through reaction with chemicals on the leaves of plants, attachment to water droplets as they fall to earth (“rainout”) and absorption by water molecules in clouds that later fall to earth with rain (“washout”). Carbon Monoxide Ambient carbon monoxide concentrations typically correspond closely to local vehicular traffic patterns. Wind speed and atmospheric mixing also influence carbon monoxide concentrations. Under inversion conditions, carbon monoxide concentrations may be distributed more uniformly over an area that may extend some distance from vehicular sources. When inhaled at high concentrations, carbon monoxide combines with hemoglobin in the blood and reduces the oxygen-carrying capacity of the blood. This results in reduced oxygen reaching the brain, heart, and other body tissues. This condition is especially critical for people with cardiovascular diseases, chronic lung disease, or anemia, as well as for fetuses. 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.2 Air Quality Old Town Specific Plan Amendment 3.2-3 ESA /D209294 Draft Environmental Impact Report February 2010 TABLE 3.2-1 AIR QUALITY DATA SUMMARY (2004–2006) Pollutant Monitoring Data by Year Standarda 2006 2007 2008 Ozone – Perris Highest 1 Hour Average (ppm)b 0.09 0.169 0.138 0.142 Days over State Standard 77 66 65 Highest 8 Hour Average (ppm)b 0.08 0.122 0.116 0.114 Days over National Standard 83 73 77 Particulate Matter (PM10) – Perris Highest 24 Hour Average (μg/m3)b 50 119 1155 87 Est. Days over State Standardc 18 25 8 Highest 24 Hour Average (μg/m3)b– National Measurement 150 125 1212 85 Est. Days over National Standardc 0 2 0 State Annual Average (μg/m3)b 20 NA NA NA Particulate Matter (PM2.5) – Riverside Rubidoux Highest 24 Hour Average (μg/m3)b 35 68.4 75.6 53.3 Days over National Standardd 32 33 7 State Annual Average (μg/m3)b 12 NA 19.8 NA a Generally, state standards and national standards are not to be exceeded more than once per year. b ppm = parts per million; μg/m3 = micrograms per cubic meter. c PM10 is not measured every day of the year. Number of estimated days over the standard is based on 365 days per year. d Days over National Standard for PM2.5 are based on the previous standard of 65 μg/m3 rather than the current standard of 35 μg/m3. NOTES: Values in bold are in excess of at least one applicable standard. NA = Not Available. SOURCE: California Air Resources Board, 2009a. Summaries of Air Quality Data, 2006, 2007, 2008; http://www.arb.ca.gov/adam Carbon monoxide concentrations have declined dramatically in California due to existing controls and programs. Carbon monoxide concentrations are expected to continue declining due to the ongoing retirement of older, more polluting vehicles from the mix of vehicles on the road network. Respirable Particulate Matter (PM10 and PM2.5) PM10 and PM2.5 consist of particulate matter that is 10 microns or less in diameter and 2.5 microns or less in diameter, respectively. A micron is one-millionth of a meter, or less than one-25,000th of an inch. For comparison, human hair is 50 microns or larger in diameter. PM10 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.2 Air Quality Old Town Specific Plan Amendment 3.2-4 ESA /D209294 Draft Environmental Impact Report February 2010 and PM2.5 are small enough to be inhaled into the air passages and the lungs and can cause adverse health effects. Particulate matter in the atmosphere results from many kinds of aerosolproducing industrial and agricultural operations, fuel combustion, and atmospheric photochemical reactions. Some sources of particulate matter, such as demolition and construction activities, are more local in nature, while others, such as vehicular traffic, have a more regional effect. Very small particles (PM2.5) of certain substances (e.g., sulfates and nitrates) can cause lung damage directly, or can contain absorbed gases (e.g., chlorides or ammonium) that may be injurious to health. Particulates can also damage materials and reduce visibility. Large dust particles (diameter greater than 10 microns) settle out rapidly and are easily filtered by human breathing passages. This large dust is of more concern as a soiling nuisance rather than a health hazard. The remaining fraction, PM10 and PM2.5, is a health concern particularly at levels above the federal and state ambient air quality standards. PM2.5 (including diesel exhaust particles) is thought to have greater effects on health because these particles are so small and able to penetrate to the deepest parts of the lungs. Scientific studies have suggested links between fine particulate matter and numerous health problems including asthma, bronchitis, acute and chronic respiratory symptoms such as shortness of breath, and painful breathing. Recent studies have shown an association between morbidity and mortality and daily concentrations of particulate matter in the air. Children are more susceptible to the health risks of PM10 and PM2.5 because their immune and respiratory systems are still developing. Mortality studies since the 1990s have shown a statistically significant direct association between mortality (premature deaths) and daily concentrations of particulate matter in the air. Despite important gaps in scientific knowledge and continued reasons for some skepticism, a comprehensive evaluation of the research findings provides persuasive evidence that exposure to fine particulate air pollution has adverse effects on cardiopulmonary health (Dockery and Pope, 2006). The California Air Resources Board (CARB) has estimated that achieving the ambient air quality standards for PM10 could reduce premature mortality rates by 6,500 cases per year (CARB, 2002). Nitrogen Dioxide Nitrogen dioxide (NO2) is a reddish brown gas that is a by-product of combustion processes. Automobiles and industrial operations are the main sources of NO2. Aside from its contribution to ozone formation, nitrogen dioxide can increase the risk of acute and chronic respiratory disease and reduce visibility. NO2 may be visible as a coloring component of a brown cloud on high pollution days, especially in conjunction with high ozone levels. Toxic Air Contaminants (TACs) TACs are airborne substances that are capable of causing short-term (acute) and/or long-term (chronic or carcinogenic, i.e., cancer causing) adverse human health effects (injury or illness). TACs include both organic and inorganic chemical substances. They may be emitted from a variety of common sources including gasoline stations, automobiles, dry cleaners, industrial 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.2 Air Quality Old Town Specific Plan Amendment 3.2-5 ESA /D209294 Draft Environmental Impact Report February 2010 operations, and painting operations. The current California list of TACs includes approximately 200 compounds, including particulate emissions from diesel-fueled engines. Diesel particulate matter (DPM) is the most complex of diesel emissions. Diesel particulates, as defined by most emission standards, are sampled from diluted and cooled exhaust gases. This definition includes both solids and liquid material that condenses during the dilution process. The basic fractions of DPM are elemental carbon, heavy hydrocarbons derived from the fuel and lubricating oil, and hydrated sulfuric acid derived from the fuel sulfur. DPM contains a large portion of the polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAH) found in diesel exhaust. Diesel particulates include small nuclei mode particles of diameters below 0.04 micrograms (μm) and their agglomerates of diameters up to 1μm. Ambient exposures to diesel particulates in California are significant fractions of total TAC levels in the State. Odorous Emissions Though offensive odors from stationary sources rarely cause any physical harm, they still remain unpleasant and can lead to public distress, generating citizen complaints to local governments. The occurrence and severity of odor impacts depend on the nature, frequency, and intensity of the source, wind speed and direction, and the sensitivity of receptors. 3.2.2 Regulatory Framework Federal Regulations The Federal Clean Air Act (FCAA) requires the USEPA to identify National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS or national standards) to protect public health and welfare. National standards have been established for ozone, carbon monoxide, nitrogen dioxide, sulfur dioxide, PM10, PM2.5, and lead. Table 3.2-2 shows current national and state ambient air quality standards and provides a brief discussion of the related health effects and principal sources for each each pollutant. Pursuant to the 1990 FCAA Amendments, the USEPA classifies air basins (or portions thereof) as “attainment” or “nonattainment” for each criteria air pollutant, based on whether or not the NAAQS had been achieved. Table 3.2-3 shows the current attainment status of the project area. The FCAA requires each state to prepare an air quality control plan referred to as the State Implementation Plan (SIP). The FCAA Amendments added requirements for states containing areas that violate the NAAQS to revise their SIPs to incorporate additional control measures to reduce air pollution. The SIP is periodically modified to reflect the latest emissions inventories, planning documents, and rules and regulations of air basins as reported by the agencies with jurisdiction over them. The USEPA has responsibility to review all state SIPs to determine if they conform to the mandates of the FCAA Amendments and will achieve air quality goals when implemented. If the USEPA determines a SIP to be inadequate, it may prepare a Federal Implementation Plan (FIP) for the nonattainment area and may impose additional control measures. Failure to submit an approvable SIP or to implement the plan within mandated 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.2 Air Quality Old Town Specific Plan Amendment 3.2-6 ESA /D209294 Draft Environmental Impact Report February 2010 TABLE 3.2-2 STATE AND NATIONAL CRITERIA AIR POLLUTANT STANDARDS, EFFECTS, AND SOURCES Pollutant Averaging Time State Standard National Standard Pollutant Health and Atmospheric Effects Major Pollutant Sources Ozone 1 hour 0.09 ppm ---High concentrations can directly affect lungs, causing irritation. Long-term exposure may cause damage to lung tissue. Formed when reactive organic gases (ROG) and nitrogen oxides (NOx) react in the presence of sunlight. Major sources include on-road motor vehicles, solvent evaporation, and commercial /industrial mobile equipment. 8 hours 0.07 ppma 0.075 ppm Carbon Monoxide 1 hour 20 ppm 35 ppm Classified as a chemical asphyxiant, carbon monoxide interferes with the transfer of fresh oxygen to the blood and deprives sensitive tissues of oxygen. Internal combustion engines, primarily gasoline-powered motor vehicles. 8 hours 9.0 ppm 9 ppm Nitrogen Dioxide 1 hour 0.18 ppm ---Irritating to eyes and respiratory tract. Colors atmosphere reddishbrown. Motor vehicles, petroleum refining operations, industrial sources, aircraft, Annual Avg. 0.030 ppm 0.053 ppm ships, and railroads. Sulfur Dioxide 1 hour 0.25 ppm ---Irritates upper respiratory tract; injurious to lung tissue. Can yellow the leaves of plants, destructive to marble, iron, and steel. Limits visibility and reduces sunlight. Fuel combustion, chemical plants, sulfur recovery plants, and metal 3 hours ---0.5 ppm processing. 24 hours 0.04 ppm 0.14 ppm Annual Avg. ---0.03 ppm Respirable Particulate Matter (PM10) 24 hours 50 μg/m3 150 μg/m3 May irritate eyes and respiratory tract, decreases in lung capacity, cancer and increased mortality. Produces haze and limits visibility. Dust and fume-producing industrial and agricultural operations, combustion, atmospheric photochemical reactions, and natural activities (e.g., wind-raised dust and ocean sprays). Annual Avg. 20 μg/m3 ---Fine Particulate Matter (PM2.5) 24 hours ---35 μg/m3 Increases respiratory disease, lung damage, cancer, and premature death. Reduces visibility and results in surface soiling. Fuel combustion in motor vehicles, equipment, and industrial sources; residential and agricultural burning; Also, formed from photochemical reactions of other pollutants, including NOx, sulfur oxides, and organics. Annual Avg. 12 μg/m3 15 μg/m3 Lead Monthly Ave. 1.5 μg/m3 ---Disturbs gastrointestinal system, and causes anemia, kidney disease, and neuromuscular and neurological dysfunction. Present source: lead smelters, battery manufacturing and recycling facilities. Past source: combustion of leaded Quarterly ---1.5 μg/m3 gasoline. Hydrogen Sulfide 1 hour 0.03 ppm No National Standard Geothermal Power Plants, Petroleum Production and refining Nuisance odor (rotten egg smell), headache and breathing difficulties (higher concentrations). Sulfates 24 hour 25 μg/m3 No National Standard Produced by the reaction in the air of of SO2. Breathing difficulties, aggravates asthma, reduced visibility. Visibility Reducing Particles 8 hour Extinction of 0.23/km; visibility of 10 miles or more No National Standard Reduces visibility, reduced airport safety, lower real estate value, and discourages tourism. See PM2.5. NOTE: ppm = parts per million; μg/m3 = micrograms per cubic meter. a This concentration was approved by the CARB on April 28, 2005, and became effective May 17, 2006. SOURCES: California Air Resources Board, 2007b. Ambient Air Quality Standards, available at http://www.arb.ca.gov/aqs/aaqs2.pdf, February 22, 2007; California Air Resources Board, 2001. ARB Fact Sheet: Air Pollution Sources, Effects and Control, http://www.arb.ca.gov /research/health/fs/fs2/fs2.htm, page last updated December 2005. 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.2 Air Quality Old Town Specific Plan Amendment 3.2-7 ESA /D209294 Draft Environmental Impact Report February 2010 TABLE 3.2-3 RIVERSIDE COUNTY ATTAINMENT STATUS Pollutant Designation/Classification Federal Standards State Standards Ozone – one hour No Federal Standarda Nonattainment Ozone – eight hour Serious Nonattainment Unclassified PM10 Serious Nonattainment Nonattainment PM2.5 Nonattainment Nonattainment CO Attainment Attainment Nitrogen Dioxide Unclassified/Attainment Attainment Sulfur Dioxide Attainment Attainment Lead No Designation Attainment Hydrogen Sulfide No Federal Standard Unclassified Sulfates No Federal Standard Attainment Visibility-Reducing Particles No Federal Standard Unclassified a Federal One Hour Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standard was revoked on June 15, 2005. SOURCES: California Air Resources Board, 2007c. Area Designation Maps, http://www.arb.ca.gov/desig/adm/adm.htm, page updated June 28, 2007; 8 Hour Ozone: http://www.epa.gov/air/oaqps/greenbk/gncs.html#CALIFORNIA; PM10: http://www.epa.gov/air/oaqps/greenbk/pncs.htm l#CALIFORNIA timeframes can result in sanctions being applied to transportation funding and stationary air pollution sources in the air basin. State Regulations The CARB manages air quality, regulates mobile emissions sources, and oversees the activities of county Air Pollution Control Districts and regional Air Quality Management Districts. CARB establishes state ambient air quality standards and vehicle emissions standards. California has adopted ambient standards that are more stringent than the federal standards for the criteria air pollutants. These are shown in Table 3.2-2. Under the California Clean Air Act (CCAA), patterned after the FCAA, areas have been designated as attainment or nonattainment with respect to the state standards. Table 3.2-3 summarizes the attainment status with California standards in the project area. California State law defines TACs as air pollutants having carcinogenic effects. The Air Toxics “Hot Spots” Information and Assessment Act of 1987 (AB 2588) seeks to identify and evaluate risk from air toxics sources but AB 2588 does not regulate air toxics emissions. Toxic air contaminant emissions from individual facilities are quantified and prioritized. Depending on the risk levels, emitting facilities are required to implement varying levels of risk reduction measures. The proposed project does not include developing facilities that may be categorized as “High-priority,” which are required to perform a health risk assessment. 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.2 Air Quality Old Town Specific Plan Amendment 3.2-8 ESA /D209294 Draft Environmental Impact Report February 2010 In August 1998, CARB identified particulate emissions from diesel-fueled engines (diesel particulate matter, or DPM) as TACs. CARB developed the Risk Reduction Plan to Reduce Particulate Matter Emissions from Diesel-Fueled Engines and Vehicles (CARB, 2000). The document represents a proposal to reduce diesel particulate emissions and the associated health risk by 75 percent in 2010 and by 85 percent in 2020. The program aims to require the use of state-ofthe-art catalyzed diesel particulate filters and ultra-low sulfur diesel fuel on diesel-fueled engines. CARB recently published the Air Quality and Land Use Handbook: A Community Health Perspective (CARB, 2005). The primary goal in developing the handbook was to provide information that will help keep California’s children and other vulnerable populations safe from nearby sources of air pollution. The handbook highlights recent studies that have shown that public exposure to air pollution can be substantially elevated near freeways and certain other facilities. However, the health risk is greatly reduced with distance. For that reason, CARB provided some general recommendations aimed at keeping appropriate distances between sources of air pollution and sensitive land uses, such as residences. Regional Regional Comprehensive Plan and Guide The Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) is the regional planning agency for Los Angeles, Orange, Ventura, Riverside, San Bernardino, and Imperial Counties. SCAG addresses regional issues relating to transportation, the economy, community development, and the environment. SCAG is the federally designated metropolitan planning organization (MPO) for the majority of Southern California and is the largest MPO in the nation. As the designated MPO, SCAG is mandated by the federal government to develop and implement regional plans that address address transportation, growth management, hazardous waste management, and air quality issues. With respect to air quality planning, SCAG has prepared the Regional Comprehensive Plan and Guide (RCPG) for the Riverside County region. The RCPG includes Growth Management and Regional Mobility chapters that form the basis for the land use and transportation components of the Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP) and are utilized in the preparation of air quality forecasts and the consistency analysis included in the AQMP. SCAQMD The SCAQMD has jurisdiction over an area of approximately 10,743 square miles. This area includes all of Orange County, all of Los Angeles County except for the Antelope Valley, the nondesert portion of western San Bernardino County, and the western and Coachella Valley portions of Riverside County. The SCAB (or Basin) is a subregion of the SCAQMD jurisdiction. While air quality in this area has improved, the Basin requires continued diligence to meet air quality standards. The SCAQMD has adopted a series of AQMPs to meet the CAAQS and NAAQS. These plans require control technology for existing sources, control programs for area sources and indirect 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.2 Air Quality Old Town Specific Plan Amendment 3.2-9 ESA /D209294 Draft Environmental Impact Report February 2010 sources, a SCAQMD permitting system designed to allow no net increase in emissions from any new or modified permitted emission sources, and transportation control measures. The SCAQMD adopted a comprehensive AQMP update, the 2007 AQMP for the Basin, on June 1, 2007. The 2007 AQMP outlines the air pollution control measures needed to meet federal health-based standards for ozone (8-hour standard) by 2024, and PM2.5 by 2015. This revision to the AQMP also addresses several state and federal planning requirements and incorporates significant new scientific data, primarily in the form of updated emissions inventories, ambient measurements, new meteorological episodes and new air quality modeling tools. The 2007 AQMP is consistent with and builds upon the approaches taken in the 2003 AQMP for the attainment of the federal ozone air quality standard, but highlights the significant amount of reductions needed and the urgent need to identify additional strategies, especially in the area of mobile sources, to meet all federal criteria pollutant standards within the timeframes allowed under FCAA (SCAQMD, 2007). The SCAQMD adopts rules and regulations to implement portions of the AQMP. Several of these rules would apply to construction or operation of the proposed project. For example, SCAQMD Rule 403 requires the implementation of best available fugitive dust control measures during active operations capable of generating fugitive dust emissions from on-site earth-moving activities, construction/demolition activities, and construction equipment travel on paved and unpaved roads. As another example, SCAQMD Regulation XIII ensures that the operation of new facilities does not interfere with progress in attainment of the NAAQS. The SCAQMD has published a CEQA Air Quality Handbook (SCAQMD, 1993) that is intended to provide local governments with guidance for analyzing and mitigating project-specific air quality impacts. This handbook provides standards, methodologies and procedures for conducting air quality analyses and was used in the preparation of this analysis. Local City of Temecula Municipal Code The following portion of the City of Temecula municipal code is relevant to the proposed project: 18.06.100 Dust prevention and control plan. Dust prevention and control procedures shall be employed while construction activity occurs to minimize wind borne particles. At minimum, all grading operations, land clearing, loading, stockpiling, landscaping, vehicular track-out and haul routes shall comply with South Coast Air Quality Management District (AQMD) Rule 403 (fugitive dust emissions) and the provisions of Subarticle 3.8 of the grading manual. (Ord. 04-04 § 4 (part)) 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.2 Air Quality Old Town Specific Plan Amendment 3.2-10 ESA /D209294 Draft Environmental Impact Report February 2010 3.2.3 Impacts and Mitigation Measures Sensitive Receptors Land uses such as schools, children’s daycare centers, hospitals, and convalescent homes are considered to be more sensitive than the general public to poor air quality because the population groups associated with these uses have increased susceptibility to respiratory distress. Persons engaged in strenuous work or exercise also have increased sensitivity to poor air quality. Residential areas are considered more sensitive to air quality conditions than commercial and industrial areas, because people generally spend longer periods of time at their residences, resulting in greater exposure to ambient air quality conditions. Sensitive receptors are spread throughout the project site. Significance Criteria According to CEQA Guidelines Appendix G, the project would have a significant effect on air quality if it would: • Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan; • Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation; • Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any nonattainment pollutant (including releasing emissions that exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors); • Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations; or • Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people. The City of Temecula has not developed specific air quality thresholds for air quality impacts. However, because of the SCAQMD’s regulatory role in the Basin, the significance thresholds and analysis methodologies in SCAQMD’s CEQA Air Quality Handbook are used in evaluating project impacts. Construction The proposed project would result in a significant construction air quality impact if emissions from the proposed project exceed the significance thresholds set forth in Table 3.2-4. Operations The proposed project would result in a significant operational air quality impact if either of the following occur: • Emissions exceed the significance thresholds set forth in Table 3.2-4. • The proposed project would not be compatible with SCAQMD air quality goals and policies. 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.2 Air Quality Old Town Specific Plan Amendment 3.2-11 ESA /D209294 Draft Environmental Impact Report February 2010 TABLE 3.2-4 AIR QUALITY SIGNIFICANCE THRESHOLDS Pollutant Construction Operation NOx 100 lbs/day 55 lbs/day VOC (ROG) 75 lbs/day 55 lbs/day PM10 150 lbs/day 150 lbs/day PM2.5 55 lbs/day 55 lbs/day CO 550 lbs/day 550 lbs/day SOURCE: SCAQMD, 1993. CEQA Air Quality Handbook. April 1993. Toxic Air Contaminants The proposed project would result in a significant operational air quality impact if any of the following occur: • On-site stationary sources emit carcinogenic or toxic air contaminants that individually or cumulatively exceed the maximum individual cancer risk of 10 in one million or an acute or chronic hazard index of 1.0. (SCAQMD, 2005a). • Hazardous materials associated with on-site stationary sources result in an accidental release of air toxic emissions or acutely hazardous materials posing a threat to public health and safety. Methodology Construction Impacts Daily construction emissions were forecast by using default values from the air quality emissions model URBEMIS 2007 version 9.7. URBEMIS 2007 output sheets are provided in Appendix AQ of this document. Operational Impacts URBEMIS 2007 was also used to estimate the operational emissions of the proposed project. The proposed project does not include any substantial stationary or area sources of TAC emissions. Impact 3.2-1: The project would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan. The SCAQMD has designated two key indicators of consistency with air quality policies. The first criterion requires that the proposed project not result in an increase in the frequency or severity of existing air quality violations, cause or contribute to new violations, or delay the timely attainment of air quality standards or the interim emission reductions specified in the AQMP. The second criterion requires that the proposed project not exceed the growth growth assumptions made in preparing the AQMP. 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.2 Air Quality Old Town Specific Plan Amendment 3.2-12 ESA /D209294 Draft Environmental Impact Report February 2010 With respect to the first criterion, SCAQMD methodologies require that an air quality analysis include forecasts of proposed project emissions in a regional context during construction and operation. As described below in Impact 3.2-3, operation of the proposed Specific Plan Amendment would result in less-than-significant emissions associated with vehicle traffic. As described below in Impact 3.2-2, with mitigation measures the proposed project would result in less-than-significant construction emissions. The AQMP identifies construction activities as contributing factors to the overall emissions sources and provides source control measures to reduce this contribution, but does not conclude that individual projects would delay the attainment of air quality standards for the basin. Compliance with the rules established by the SCAQMD to to reduce construction emissions, including fugitive dust control measures and vehicle maintenance measures, would ensure that the proposed project would not conflict with the current AQMP. The second consistency criterion requires that the project not exceed the assumptions in the AQMP. A project is consistent with the AQMP if it is consistent with the population, housing and employment assumptions which were used in the development of the AQMP. The 2007 AQMP, the most recent AQMP adopted by the SCAQMD, incorporates, in part, SCAG’s 2004 RTP socioeconomic forecast projections of regional population and employment growth. The 2004 RTP is based on growth assumptions through 2030 developed by each of the cities and counties in the SCAG region. The proposed project is consistent with growth assumptions included in the AQMP because it is consistent with the City General Plan and SCAG goals, which are consistent with the RTP. As such, the impact would be less-than-significant. Mitigation Measures Mitigation: None required. __________________________ Impact 3.2-2: Project construction could violate air quality standards or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation during the short-term duration of construction. Criteria Air Pollutants Construction-related emissions would occur intermittently for approximately 30 years. Project construction activities would include site preparation, earthmoving, and general construction. Site preparation includes activities such as general land clearing and grubbing. Earthmoving activities include cut-and-fill operations, trenching, soil compaction, and grading. General construction includes adding improvements such as roadway surfaces, structures, and facilities. The emissions generated from these construction activities include: • Dust (including PM10 and PM2.5) primarily from “fugitive” sources (i.e., emissions released through means other than through a stack or tailpipe) such as soil disturbance; • Combustion emissions of criteria air pollutants ((ROG, NOx, carbon monoxide, carbon dioxide, PM10, and PM2.5) primarily from operation of heavy off-road construction 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.2 Air Quality Old Town Specific Plan Amendment 3.2-13 ESA /D209294 Draft Environmental Impact Report February 2010 equipment (primarily diesel-operated), portable auxiliary equipment, and construction worker automobile trips (primarily gasoline-operated); and • Evaporative emissions (ROG) from asphalt paving and architectural coatings. Construction-related fugitive dust emissions would vary from day to day, depending on the level and type of activity, silt content of the soil, and the weather. In the absence of mitigation, construction activities may result in significant quantities of dust, and as a result, local visibility and PM10 concentrations may be adversely affected on a temporary and intermittent basis during construction. In addition, the fugitive dust generated by construction would include not only PM10, but also larger particles, which would fall out of the atmosphere within several hundred feet of the site and could result in nuisance-type impacts. It is mandatory for all construction projects in the Basin to comply with SCAQMD Rule 403 for fugitive dust (SCAQMD, 2005b). Specific Rule 403 control requirements include, but are not limited to, applying water in sufficient quantities to prevent the generation of visible dust plumes, applying soil binders to uncovered areas, reestablishing ground cover as quickly as possible, utilizing a wheel washing system to remove bulk material from tires and vehicle undercarriages before vehicles exit the proposed project site, and maintaining effective cover over exposed areas. NOx, ROG, PM10, PM2.5, CO, and CO2 construction emissions were estimated with each phase of construction occurring concurrently for 30 years. Urbemis 2007 default amounts were used for crews, truck trips, and equipment numbers, see Appendix D for more details. Emissions are based on criteria pollutant emission factors from URBEMIS 2007. The results of this analysis are summarized in Table 3.2-5 through Table 3.2-7. As shown in Table 3.2-5, construction emissions of NOx, CO, PM10, and PM2.5 with construction under the Specific Plan Amendment would exceed SCAQMD thresholds of significance and would therefore be significant. The approved existing Specific Plan is shown in Table 3.2-6 to produce NOx, CO, PM10, and PM2.5 over the SCAQMD thresholds as well. Table 3.2-7 shows the difference in emissions levels from the proposed Specific Plan Amendment minus the existing Specific Plan. As shown in Table 3.2-7, emissions of ROG, PM10, and PM2.5 are lower in the proposed Specific Plan Amendment versus the existing Specific Plan. However, impacts under the proposed Specific Plan Amendment would remain significant and unavoidable. Toxic Air Contaminants The greatest potential for TAC emissions would be related to diesel particulate emissions associated with heavy equipment operations during grading and excavation. According to SCAQMD methodology, health effects from carcinogenic air toxics are usually described in terms of individual cancer risk. “Individual cancer risk” is the likelihood that a person exposed to concentrations of TACs over a 70-year lifetime will contract cancer based on the use of standard risk-assessment methodology. The proposed project would not result in a long-term (i.e., 70 years) substantial source of TAC emissions. In addition, there would be no residual emissions after construction and corresponding individual cancer risk. As such, project-related toxic emission impacts during construction would be less than significant. 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.2 Air Quality Old Town Specific Plan Amendment 3.2-14 ESA /D209294 Draft Environmental Impact Report February 2010 TABLE 3.2-5 MITIGATED EMISSIONS FROM PROPOSED SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT CONSTRUCTION (pounds per day)a Project Data ROG NOx CO PM10 PM2.5b CO2 2010 63 391 565 418 102 83,799 2015 47 251 409 412 96 83,773 2020 35 166 309 407 91 83,762 2025 33 154 253 407 91 83,762 2030 32 150 223 406 91 83,765 2035 31 147 205 407 91 83,768 2040 31 147 194 407 91 83,770 SCAQMD Thresholds of Significance 75 100 550 150 55 NA Significant (Yes or No)? No Yes Yes Yes Yes NA a Project construction emissions estimates for off-road equipment were made using URBEMIS2007, version 9.2. See Appendix AQ for more details. b PM10 and PM2.5 emission estimates are based on compliance with SCAQMD Rule 403 requirements for fugitive dust suppression, which require that no visible dust be present beyond the site boundaries. NOTE: Values in bold are in excess of the applicable SCAQMD significance threshold. NA = Not Available SOURCE: ESA, 2010. TABLE 3.2-6 MITIGATED EMISSIONS FROM EXISTING SPECIFIC PLAN CONSTRUCTION (pounds per day)a Project Data ROG NOx CO PM10 PM2.5b CO2 2010 66 386 599 517 122 87,170 2015 50 258 434 510 166 87,141 2020 39 164 326 505 112 87,128 2025 36 153 266 505 111 87,127 2030 35 149 233 505 111 87,130 2035 34 147 213 505 111 87,134 2040 34 156 201 505 111 87,136 SCAQMD Thresholds of Significance 75 100 550 150 55 NA Significant (Yes or No)? No Yes Yes Yes Yes NA a Project construction emissions estimates for off-road equipment were made using URBEMIS2007, version 9.2. See Appendix AQ for more details. b PM10 and PM2.5 emission estimates are based on compliance with SCAQMD Rule 403 requirements for fugitive dust suppression, which require that no visible dust be present beyond the site boundaries. NOTE: Values in bold are in excess of the applicable SCAQMD significance threshold. NA = Not Available SOURCE: ESA, 2010. 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.2 Air Quality Old Town Specific Plan Amendment 3.2-15 ESA /D209294 Draft Environmental Impact Report February 2010 TABLE 3.2-7 PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION EMISSIONS MINUS EXISTING CONSTRUCTION EMISSIONS (pounds per day)a Project Data ROG NOx CO PM10 PM2.5b CO2 2010 -3 5 -34 -99 -20 -3371 2015 -3 -7 -25 -98 -20 -3368 2020 -4 2 -17 -98 -21 -3366 2025 -3 1 -13 -98 -20 -3365 2030 -3 1 -10 -99 -20 -3365 2035 -3 0 -8 -98 -20 -3366 2040 -3 -9 -7 -98 -20 -3366 SCAQMD Thresholds of Significance 75 100 550 150 55 NA Significant (Yes or No)? No No No No No NA a Project construction emissions estimates for off-road equipment were made using URBEMIS2007, version 9.2. See Appendix AQ for more details. b PM10 and PM2.5 emission estimates are based on compliance with SCAQMD Rule 403 requirements for fugitive dust suppression, which require that no visible dust be present beyond the site boundaries. NOTE: Values in bold are in excess of the applicable SCAQMD significance threshold. NA = Not Available SOURCE: ESA, 2010. Mitigation Measures Measure 3.2-2a: The applicant shall ensure that a fugitive dust control program is implemented pursuant to the provision of SCAQMD Rule 403. Measure 3.2-2b: Prior to grading and construction, the applicant shall be responsible for compliance with the following: A. During clearing, grading, earth moving, or excavation, maintain equipment engines in proper tune. B. After clearing, grading, earth moving, or excavation: 1. Wet the area down, sufficient enough to form a crust on the surface with repeated soakings, as necessary, to maintain the crust and prevent dust pick up by the wind. 2. Spread soil binders. 3. Implement street sweeping as necessary. C. During construction: 1. Use water trucks or sprinkler systems to keep all areas where vehicles move damp enough to prevent dust raised when leaving the site. 2. Wet down areas in the late morning and after work is completed for the day. 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.2 Air Quality Old Town Specific Plan Amendment 3.2-16 ESA /D209294 Draft Environmental Impact Report February 2010 3. Use low sulfur fuel (0.05 percent by weight) for construction equipment. D. Discontinue construction during second stage smog alerts. Measure 3.2-2c: Prior to grading and construction, the applicant shall be responsible for compliance with the following. A. Require a phased schedule for construction activities to minimize daily emissions. B. Schedule activities to minimize the amount of exposed excavated soil during and after the end of work periods. C. Treat unattended construction areas with water (disturbed lands which have been, or are expected to be, unused for four or more consecutive days). D. Require the planting of vegetative ground cover as soon as possible on construction sites. E. Install vehicle wheel-washers before the roadway entrance at construction sites. F. Wash off trucks leaving the site. G. Require all trucks hauling dirt, sand, soil, or other loose substances and building materials to be covered, or to maintain a minimum freeboard of two feet between the top of the load and the top of the truck bed sides. H. Use vegetative stabilization, whenever possible, to control soil erosion from stormwater, especially on super pads. I. Require enclosures or chemical stabilization of open storage piles of sand, dirt, or other aggregate materials. J. Control off-road vehicle travel by posting driving speed limits on these roads, consistent with City standards. K. Use electricity from power poles rather than temporary diesel or gasoline power generators. Measure 3.2-2d: Prior to grading and construction, the applicant shall be responsible for the paving of all access aprons to the project site and the maintenance of the paving. Measure 3.2-2e: Prior to issuance of grading permits, the applicant shall be responsible for assuring that construction vehicles are equipped with proper emission control equipment to substantially reduce emissions. Measure 3.2-2f: Prior to issuance of grading permits, the applicant shall be responsible for the incorporation of measures to reduce construction-related traffic congestion into the project grading permit. Measures, subject to the approval and verification by the Public Works Department, shall include, as appropriate: A. Provision of rideshare incentives. 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.2 Air Quality Old Town Specific Plan Amendment 3.2-17 ESA /D209294 Draft Environmental Impact Report February 2010 B. Provision of transit incentives for construction personnel. C. Configuration of construction parking to minimize traffic interference. D. Measures to minimize obstruction of through traffic lanes. E. Use of a flagman to guide traffic when deemed necessary. Measure 3.2-2g: Prior to the building/construction operations, applicant and individual contractors shall commit in writing to the following: A. Scheduling receipt of construction materials outside of the peak travel period hours (i.e., 7:30 – 8:30 AM and 4:00 – 6:00 PM); B. Routing construction traffic through areas of least impact sensitivity; and C. Limiting lane closures and detours to off-peak travel periods. Significance after Mitigation: Significant and unavoidable. __________________________ Impact 3.2-3: Project operation could violate air quality standards or contribute contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation during long-term operation. Operational emissions for the proposed project would be generated primarily from on-road vehicular traffic, area sources (such as landscaping equipment), and indirectly by the energy consumption of the buildings proposed under the Specific Plan Amendment. Because power is provided to the City of Temecula over an integrated electricity grid, indirect emissions from the use of electricity could occur at any of the fossil-fueled power plants in California or neighboring states, or from hydroelectric or nuclear plants or renewable energy sources. For all power plants, it can be assumed that the emissions are reviewed as part of the permitting process before the power plant is built or expanded. Operational emissions for mobile and area sources are based on criteria pollutant emission factors from URBEMIS 2007. The results of this analysis are summarized in Table 3.2-8 through Table 3.2-10. As shown in Table 3.2-8, build-out of the proposed Specific Plan Amendment would exceed all SCAQMD thresholds of significance and would, therefore, be significant. As shown in Table 3.2-9, the operational emissions with build-out of the existing Specific Plan would also exceed all SCAQMD thresholds. When the proposed project is compared to the buildout of the existing Specific Plan, as shown in Table 3.2-10, a major reduction of all emissions occurs. However, operational emissions would remain significant and unavoidable. 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.2 Air Quality Old Town Specific Plan Amendment 3.2-18 ESA /D209294 Draft Environmental Impact Report February 2010 TABLE 3.2-8 PROPOSED SPECIFIC PLAN BUILD-OUT OPERATIONAL EMISSIONS (pounds per day)a Project Data ROG NOx CO PM10 PM2.5 CO2 Area Sources 145 46 34 <1 <1 57,363 Mobile Sources 763 1,106 9,825 1,802 351 1,072,376 Total 908 1,152 9,869 1,802 351 1,129,739 SCAQMD Thresholds of Significance 55 55 550 150 55 NA Significant (Yes or No)? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes NA Difference between Existing and Proposed 319 535 4642 860 167 517,784 Significant (Yes or No)? No No No No No No a Project emissions estimates were made using URBEMIS2007, version 9.2. See Appendix AQ for more details. NOTE: Values in bold are in excess of the applicable SCAQMD significance threshold. NA = Not Available SOURCE: ESA, 2010. TABLE 3.2-9 EXISTING SPECIFIC PLAN BUILD-OUT OPERATIONAL EMISSIONS (pounds per day)a Project Data ROG NOx CO PM10 PM2.5 CO2 Area Sources 114 53 42 <1 <<1 64,290 Mobile Sources 1,113 1,634 14,489 2,662 518 1,583,234 Total 1,227 1,687 14,511 2,662 518 1,647,523 SCAQMD Thresholds of Significance 55 55 550 150 55 NA Significant (Yes or No)? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes NA a Project emissions estimates were made using URBEMIS2007, version 9.2. See Appendix AQ for more details. NOTE: Values in bold are in excess of the applicable SCAQMD significance threshold. NA = Not Available SOURCE: ESA, 2010. TABLE 3.2-10 PROPOSED SPECIFIC PLAN BUILD-OUT OPERATIONAL EMISSIONS MINUS EXISTING SPECIFIC PLAN BUILD-OUT OPERATIONAL EMISSIONS (pounds per day)a Project Data ROG NOx CO PM10 PM2.5 CO2 Difference between Total Existing SP Build-out Emissions and Proposed SP Build-out Emissions -319 -535 -4642 -860 -167 -517,784 SCAQMD Thresholds of Significance 55 55 550 150 55 NA Significant (Yes or No)? No No No No No No a Project emissions estimates were made using URBEMIS2007, version 9.2. See Appendix AQ for more details. NOTE: Values in bold are in excess of the applicable SCAQMD significance threshold. NA = Not Available SOURCE: ESA, 2010. 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.2 Air Quality Old Town Specific Plan Amendment 3.2-19 ESA /D209294 Draft Environmental Impact Report February 2010 Mitigation Measures Measure 3.2-3a: Construct on-site or off-site bus turnouts, passenger benches, and shelters. Measure 3.2-3b: Provide shuttles to major rail transit centers of multi-modal stations. Measure 3.2-3c: Contribute to regional transit systems (e.g., right-of-way, capital improvements, etc.). Measure 3.2-3d: Synchronize traffic lights on streets impacted by development. Measure 3.2-3e: Set up resident worker training programs to improve job/housing balance. Significance after Mitigation: Though mitigation measures would reduce operational emissions, the impact would remain significant and unavoidable. __________________________ Impact 3.2-4: The project would not create objectionable odors affecting a substantial amount of people. According to the SCAQMD CEQA Air Quality Handbook, land uses associated with odor complaints typically include agricultural uses, wastewater treatment plants, food processing plants, chemical plants, composting, refineries, landfills, dairies, and fiberglass molding. The proposed project does not include any uses identified by the SCAQMD as being associated with odors. During the short-term impact from construction, exhaust from equipment and paint could be odiferous, but would not affect a substantial number of people. Therefore, potential odor impacts would be less than significant. Mitigation Measures Mitigation: None required. __________________________ Impact 3.2-5: Increased localized carbon monoxide would be generated from vehicular traffic during operation. Traffic generated by the project would result in CO emissions based on the total volume of traffic and congestion along streets and intersections. CO emissions in future years are expected to decline due to reductions in the predicted CO emission factors resulting from a cleaner future mix of vehicles. However, as shown in Table 3.2-8, increases in CO emissions would exceed SCAQMD thresholds. 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.2 Air Quality Old Town Specific Plan Amendment 3.2-20 ESA /D209294 Draft Environmental Impact Report February 2010 The traffic study has found that the existing Specific Plan is projected to produce approximately 11,165 net vehicles during the PM peak hour. The proposed Specific Plan Amendment is projected to generate approximately 7,357 net vehicles during the PM peak hour. Therefore, the proposed Specific Plan Amendment would generate considerably fewer trips and thus less CO emissions from traffic operations than the currently approved Specific Plan. As shown in Table 3.2-10, the estimated project-related CO operational emissions would be reduced in comparison to the approved existing Specific Plan at build-out. However, with development of the project, automobile and truck trips would still result in significant increases in localized CO concentrations. Traffic generated by the project was analyzed to determine its potential to affect CO concentrations in the project area. The modeling method included background CO concentration levels obtained from the Perris Monitoring Station, and traffic projections prepared for the project at the most affected intersection (Old Town Front Street and Main Street). Residents on the intersections detailed below would be the most affected by project-related traffic. It was assumed that if CO concentrations on these roadway segments would not exceed the ambient air quality standards, the project’s contribution to impacts at other intersections affected by project traffic to a lesser extent would be less substantial. As shown in Table 3.2-11, the analysis demonstrated that no exceedances of the CO one-hour or eight-hour standard would occur. Furthermore, future years would have even lower background concentrations and vehicle emission factors. Thus, project-related traffic would have a less-thansignificant impact on local CO concentrations. TABLE 3.2-11 ESTIMATED CARBON MONOXIDE CONCENTRATIONS Concentrations (ppm)a Receptor location Averaging Time (hrs.) State Standard Existing Existing plus project 35 feet 1 20 0.3 0.5 NW of intersection 8 9 0.18 0.3 35 feet 1 20 0.1 0.2 NE of intersection 8 9 0.06 0.12 35 feet 1 20 0.3 0.5 SW of intersection 8 9 0.18 0.3 35 feet 1 20 0.1 0.2 SE of intersection 8 9 0.06 0.12 a The carbon monoxide analysis focuses on the average daily traffic. Carbon monoxide estimates shown above include background concentrations of 0.142. NOTE: More information can be found in the Appendix AQ. SOURCE: ESA, 2009. 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.2 Air Quality Old Town Specific Plan Amendment 3.2-21 ESA /D209294 Draft Environmental Impact Report February 2010 Mitigation Measures Mitigation: None required. __________________________ Impact 3.2-6: Air pollutant emissions associated with the project would result in an adverse cumulative impact to air quality. A cumulative impact arises when two or more individual effects which, when considered together, are considerable or which compound or increase other environmental impacts. Cumulative impacts can result from individually minor but collectively significant impacts, meaning that the project’s incremental effects must be viewed in connection with the effects of past, current, and probable future projects. Construction Construction activity associated with other projects in the Basin (see Chapter 4) would generally involve the use of similar equipment and may overlap with the construction schedule of the project. Though the project creates a significant and unavoidable impact, it is assumed that other project construction activity would comply with the SCAQMD required mitigation measures, which would reduce air quality impacts but not eliminate air pollutant emissions completely. This would be a significant cumulative impact. Operation The SCAQMD’s approach for assessing cumulative operational impacts is based on the SCAQMD’s AQMP forecasts of attainment of ambient air quality standards in accordance with the requirements of the FCAA and CCAA. This forecast also takes into account SCAG’s forecasted future regional growth. As such, the analysis of cumulative impacts (see Chapter 4) focuses on determining whether the project is consistent with forecasted future regional growth. As presented in Impact 3.2-1, the project would be consistent with AQMP forecasts and would result in a less-than-significant cumulative impact. As discussed in Impact 3.2-2, project TAC emissions would not substantially have a significant impact on community health. However, cumulative sources from projects throughout the Basin would emit substantial amounts of TACS. The estimated carcinogenic risk in the Basin is currently about 1,400 per million people (SCAQMD, 2005a). The impact of TACS to community health within the Basin is a regional concern that has been addressed by the SCAQMD. The SCAQMD has published an Air Toxics Control Plan designed to limit TAC emissions in an equitable and cost-effective manner (SCAQMD, 2000b). In addition, the SCAQMD addressed health risk in the Basin and TAC emissions reduction measures in the 2007 AQMP. While the total TAC emissions from all projects in the region would be significant, the TAC emissions from the project are minimal for both construction and operations and would not be a 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.2 Air Quality Old Town Specific Plan Amendment 3.2-22 ESA /D209294 Draft Environmental Impact Report February 2010 cumulatively considerable contribution to the overall cumulative impact. Therefore, the project would have a less-than-significant cumulative impact with regard to TACs. Mitigation Measures Mitigation Measures: No additional mitigation measures are available. Significance after Mitigation: Significant and unavoidable. __________________________ 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures Old Town Specific Plan Amendment 3.3-1 ESA /D209294 Draft Environmental Impact Report February 2010 3.3 Global Warming/Climate Change This section provides an overview of global warming and climate change, the regulatory framework, an analysis of potential impacts from greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions that would result from implementation of the proposed project, and identification of mitigation measures. The environmental baseline in this chapter is comparing full build-out of the OTSP amendment with the following factors: • Potential conflicts with the CARB’s thirty-nine (39) recommended actions in California’s AB 32 Climate Change Scoping Plan; • The relative size of the project. The project’s GHG emissions will be compared to the size of major facilities that are required to report GHG emissions (25,000 metric tons/year of CO2e)1 to the state. The project size will also be compared to the SCAQMD GHG threshold, as well as the California GHG emissions limit of 427 million metric tons per year of CO2e emissions by 2020. In reaching its goals the CARB will focus upon the largest emitters of GHG emissions; • Basic energy efficiency parameters of a project to determine whether its design is inherently energy efficient; and • Any potential conflicts with applicable City of Temecula plans, policies, or regulations adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of GHGs. 3.3.1 Setting Gases that trap heat in the atmosphere are called greenhouse gases (GHGs). The major concern is that increases in GHGs are causing Global Climate Change. Global Climate Change is a change in the average weather on earth that can be measured by wind patterns, storms, precipitation and temperature. Although there is disagreement as to the speed of global warming and the extent of the impacts attributable to human activities, most agree that there is a direct link between the increased emission of so-called GHGs and long-term global temperature. What GHGs have in common is that they allow sunlight to enter the atmosphere, but trap a portion of the outwardbound infrared radiation and warm up the air. The process is similar to the effect greenhouses have in raising the internal temperature, hence the name greenhouse gases. Both natural processes and human activities emit GHGs. The accumulation of GHGs in the atmosphere regulates the earth’s temperature; however, emissions from human activities such as electricity production and motor vehicles have elevated the concentration of GHGs in the atmosphere. This accumulation of GHGs has contributed to an increase in the temperature of the earth’s atmosphere and contributed to Global Climate Change. The principal GHGs are carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), sulfur hexafluoride (SF6), perfluorocarbons (PFCs), hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), and water vapor (H2O). Carbon dioxide is the reference gas for climate change because it gets the most 1 As noted above the 25,000 metric ton annual limit identifies the large stationary point sources in California that make up approximately 94 percent of the stationary emissions. If the project’s total emissions are below this limit, its total emissions are equivalent in size to the smaller projects in California that as a group only make up 6 percent of all stationary emissions. It is assumed that the activities of these smaller projects generally would not conflict with State’s ability to reach AB 32 overall goals. 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.3 Global Warming /Climate Change Old Town Specific Plan Amendment 3.3-2 ESA /D209294 Draft Environmental Impact Report February 2010 attention and is considered the most important GHG. To account for the warming potential of GHGs, emissions are often quantified and reported as CO2 equivalents (CO2e). Large emission sources are reported in million metric tons of CO2e (MMTCO2e). 3.3.2 Regulatory Framework In 2005, in recognition of California’s vulnerability to the effects of climate change, Governor Schwarzenegger signed Executive Order S-3-05, which sets forth a series of target dates by which statewide emissions of GHGs would be progressively reduced, as follows: • By 2010, reduce GHG emissions to 2000 levels; • By 2020, reduce GHG emissions to 1990 levels; and • By 2050, reduce GHG emissions to 80 percent below 1990 levels. Assembly Bill 32 (AB 32) In 2006, California passed the California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 (Assembly Bill No. 32; California Health and Safety Code Division 25.5, Sections 38500, et seq., or AB 32), which requires the CARB to design and implement emission limits, regulations, and other measures, such that statewide GHG emissions will be reduced to 1990 levels by 2020. In December 2007, CARB approved the 2020 emission limit of 427 million metric tons of CO2 equivalents of GHGs. The 2020 target of 427 million metric tons of CO2e requires the reduction of 169 million metric tons of CO2e, or approximately 30 percent, from the state’s projected 2020 emissions of 596 million metric tons of CO2e (business-as-usual). Also in December 2007, CARB adopted mandatory reporting and verification regulations pursuant to AB 32. The regulations became effective January 1, 2009, with the first reports completed by June 1, 2009. The mandatory reporting regulations require reporting for certain types of facilities that make up the bulk of the stationary source emissions in California. Currently, the draft regulation language identifies major facilities as those that generate more than 25,000 metric tons/year of CO2e. Cement plants, oil refineries, electric-generating facilities/providers, cogeneration facilities, and hydrogen plants and other stationary combustion sources that emit more than 25,000 metric tons/year CO2e, make up 94 percent of the point source CO2e emissions in California. In June, 2008, CARB published its Climate Change Draft Scoping Plan (CARB, 2008a). The Climate Change Draft Scoping Plan reported that CARB met the first milestones set by AB 32 in 2007: developing a list of early actions to begin sharply reducing greenhouse gas emissions; assembling an inventory of historic emissions; and establishing the 2020 emissions limit. After consideration of public comment and further analysis, CARB released the Climate Change Proposed Scoping Plan in October, 2008 (CARB, 2008b). The Proposed Scoping Plan proposes a set of actions designed to reduce overall carbon emissions in California. Key elements of the Proposed Scoping Plan Plan include: 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.3 Global Warming /Climate Change Old Town Specific Plan Amendment 3.3-3 ESA /D209294 Draft Environmental Impact Report February 2010 • Expanding and strengthening existing energy efficiency programs as well as building and appliance standards; • Achieving a statewide renewables energy mix of 33 percent; • Developing a California cap-and-trade program that links with other Western Climate Initiative partner programs to create a regional market system; • Establishing targets for transportation-related greenhouse gas emissions for regions throughout California, and pursuing policies and incentives to achieve those targets; • Adopting and implementing measures pursuant to existing state laws and policies, including California’s clean car standards, goods movement measures, and the Low Carbon Fuel Standard; and • Creating targeted fees, including a public goods charge on water use, fees on high global warming potential gases, and a fee to fund the administrative costs of the state’s long-term commitment to AB 32 implementation (CARB, 2008b). The Climate Change Proposed Scoping Plan notes that “[a]fter Board approval of this plan, the measures in it will be developed and adopted through the normal rulemaking process, with public input” (CARB, 2008b). The Climate Change Proposed Scoping Plan states that local governments are “essential partners” in the effort to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and that they have “broad influence and, in some cases, exclusive jurisdiction” over activities that contribute to greenhouse gas emissions. The plan acknowledges that local governments have broad influence and, in some cases, exclusive authority over activities that contribute to significant direct and indirect greenhouse gas emissions through their planning and permitting processes, local ordinances, outreach and education efforts, and municipal operations. Many of the proposed measures to reduce greenhouse gas emissions rely on local government actions. The plan encourages local governments to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by approximately 15 percent from current levels by 2020 (CARB, 2008b). The Climate Change Proposed Scoping Plan also included recommended measures that were developed to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from key sources and activities while improving public health, promoting a cleaner environment, preserving our natural resources, and ensuring that the impacts of the reductions are equitable and do not disproportionately impact low-income and minority communities. These measures, shown below in Table 3.3-1 by sector, also put the state on a path to meet the long-term 2050 goal of reducing California’s greenhouse gas emissions to 80 percent below 1990 levels. These measures were presented to and approved by the CARB on December 11, 2008. The measures in the Scoping Plan approved by the Board will be developed over the next two years and be in place by 2012. 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.3 Global Warming /Climate Change Old Town Specific Plan Amendment 3.3-4 ESA /D209294 Draft Environmental Impact Report February 2010 TABLE 3.3-1 LIST OF RECOMMENDED ACTIONS BY SECTOR Measure No. Measure Description GHG Reductions (Million Metric Tons per year of CO2e) Transportation T-1 Pavley I and II – Light Duty Vehicle Greenhouse Gas Standards 31.7 T-2 Low Carbon Fuel Standard (Discrete Early Action) 15 T-3a Regional Transportation-Related Greenhouse Gas Targets 5 T-4 Vehicle Efficiency Measures 4.5 T-5 Ship Electrification at Ports (Discrete Early Action) 0.2 T-6 Goods Movement Efficiency Measures. • Ship Electrification at Ports • System-Wide Efficiency Improvements 3.5 T-7 Heavy-Duty Vehicle Greenhouse Gas Emission Reduction Measure – Aerodynamic Efficiency (Discrete Early Action) 0.93 T-8 Medium-and Heavy-Duty Vehicle Hybridization 0.5 T-9 High Speed Rail 1 Electricity and Natural Gas E-1 Energy Efficiency (32,000 GWh of Reduced Demand) • Increased Utility Energy Efficiency Programs • More Stringent Building & Appliance Standards Additional Efficiency and Conservation Programs 15.2 E-2 Increase Combined Heat and Power Use by 30,000 GWh (Net reductions include avoided transmission line loss) 6.7 E-3 Renewables Portfolio Standard (33% by 2020) 21.3 E-4 Million Solar Roofs (including California Solar Initiative, New Solar Homes Partnership and solar programs of publicly owned utilities) • Target of 3000 MW Total Installation by 2020 2.1 CR-1 Energy Efficiency (800 Million Therms Reduced Consumptions) • Utility Energy Efficiency Programs • Building and Appliance Standards • Additional Efficiency and Conservation Programs 4.3 CR-2 Solar Water Heating (AB 1470 goal) 0.1 Green Buildings GB-1 Green Buildings 26 Water W-1 Water Use Efficiency 1.4b W-2 Water Recycling 0.3b W-3 Water System Energy Efficiency 2.0b W-4 Reuse Urban Runoff 0.2b W-5 Increase Renewable Energy Production 0.9b W-6 Public Goods Charge (Water) TBDb Industry I-1 Energy Efficiency and Co-Benefits Audits for Large Industrial Sources TBD I-2 Oil and Gas Extraction GHG Emission Reduction 0.2 I-3 GHG Leak Reduction from Oil and Gas Transmission 0.9 I-4 Refinery Flare Recovery Process Improvements 0.3 I-5 Removal of Methane Exemption from Existing Refinery Regulations 0.01 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.3 Global Warming /Climate Change Old Town Specific Plan Amendment 3.3-5 ESA /D209294 Draft Environmental Impact Report February 2010 TABLE 3.3-1 LIST OF RECOMMENDED ACTIONS BY SECTOR Measure No. Measure Description GHG Reductions (Million Metric Tons per year of CO2e) Recycling and Water Management RW-1 Landfill Methane Control (Discrete Early Action) 1 RW-2 Additional Reductions in Landfill Methane • Increase the Efficiency of Landfill Methane Capture TBDb RW-3 High Recycling/Zero Water • Commercial Recycling • Increase Production and Markets for Compost • Anaerobic Digestion • Extended Producer Responsibility • Environmentally Preferable Purchasing 9b Forests F-1 Sustainable Forest Target 5 High Global Warming Potential (GWP) Gases H-1 Motor Vehicle Air Conditioning Systems: Reduction of Refrigerant Emissions from Non-Professional Servicing (Discrete Early Action) 0.26 H-2 SF6 Limits in Non-Utility and Non-Semiconductor Applications (Discrete Early Action) 0.3 H-3 Reduction of Perfuorocarbons in Semiconductor Manufacturing (Discrete Early Action) 0.15 H-4 Limit High GWP Use in Consumer Products Discrete Early Action (Adopted June 2008) 0.25 H-5 High GWP Reductions from Mobile Sources • Low GWP Refrigerants for New Motor Vehicle Air Conditioning Systems • Air Conditioner Refrigerant Leak Test During Vehicle Smog Check • Refrigerant Recovery from Decommissioned Refrigerated Shipping Containers • Enforcement of Federal Ban on Refrigerant Release during Servicing or Dismantling of Motor Vehicle Air Conditioning Systems 3.3 H-6 High GWP Reductions from Stationary Sources • High GWP Stationary Equipment Refrigerant Management Program: o Refrigerant Tracking/Reporting/Repair Deposit Program o Specifications for Commercial and Industrial Refrigeration Systems • Foam Recovery and Destruction Program • SF6 Leak Reduction and Recycling in Electrical Applications • Alternative Suppressants in Fire Protection Systems • Residential Refrigeration Early Retirement Retirement Program 10.9 H-7 Mitigation Fee on High GWP Gases 5 Agriculture A-1 Methane Capture at Large Dairies 1.0b a This is not the SB 375 regional target. CARB will establish regional targets for each MPO region following the input of the regional targets advisory committee and a consultation process with MPOs and other stakeholders per SB 375. b GHG emission reduction estimates are not included in calculating the total reductions needed to meet the 2020 target. SOURCE: CARB, 2008b. 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.3 Global Warming /Climate Change Old Town Specific Plan Amendment 3.3-6 ESA /D209294 Draft Environmental Impact Report February 2010 Senate Bill 97 The provisions of Senate Bill 97, enacted in August 2007 as part of the State Budget negotiations, direct the Office of Planning and Research (OPR) to propose CEQA guidelines “for the mitigation of greenhouse gas emissions or the effects of greenhouse gas emissions.” SB 97 directs OPR to develop such guidelines by July 2009, and directs the State Resources Agency, the agency charged with adopting the CEQA Guidelines, to certify and adopt such guidelines by January 2010. Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (OPR) On June 19, 2008, OPR published a technical advisory on CEQA and climate change. The advisory provides OPR’s perspective on the emerging role of CEQA in addressing climate change and greenhouse gas emissions, while recognizing that approaches and methodologies for calculating greenhouse gas emissions and addressing environmental impacts through CEQA review are rapidly evolving. The advisory recognizes that OPR will develop, and the Resources Agency will adopt, amendments to the CEQA Guidelines pursuant to SB 97. In the interim, the technical advisory “offers informal guidance regarding the steps lead agencies should take to address climate change in their CEQA documents” (OPR, 2008). The technical advisory points out that neither CEQA nor the CEQA Guidelines prescribe thresholds of significance or particular methodologies for performing an impact analysis. “This is left to lead agency judgment and discretion, based upon factual data and guidance from regulatory agencies and other sources where available and applicable” (OPR, 2008). OPR recommends that “the global nature of climate change warrants investigation of a statewide threshold of significance for GHG emissions” (OPR, 2008). Until such a standard is established, OPR advises that each lead agency should develop its own approach to performing an analysis for projects that generate greenhouse gas emissions (OPR, 2008). Agencies should then assess whether the emissions are “cumulatively considerable” even though a project’s greenhouse gas emissions may be individually limited. OPR states: “Although climate change is ultimately a cumulative impact, not every individual project that emits GHGs must necessarily be found to contribute to a significant cumulative impact on the environment” (OPR, 2008). Individual lead agencies may undertake a project-by-project analysis, consistent with available guidance and current CEQA practice (OPR, 2008). Finally, if the lead agency determines emissions are a cumulatively considerable contribution to a significant cumulative impact, the lead agency must investigate and implement ways to mitigate the emissions (OPR, 2008). OPR states: “Mitigation measures will vary with the type of project being contemplated, but may include alternative project designs or locations that conserve energy and water, measures that reduce vehicle miles traveled (VMT) by fossil-fueled vehicles, measures that contribute to established regional or programmatic mitigation strategies, and measures that sequester carbon to offset the emissions from the project” (OPR, 2008). OPR concludes that, “A lead agency is not responsible for wholly eliminating all GHG emissions from a project; the CEQA standard is to mitigate to a level that is “less than significant” (OPR, 2008). The technical advisory includes a list of mitigation measures that can be applied on a project-by-project basis. 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.3 Global Warming /Climate Change Old Town Specific Plan Amendment 3.3-7 ESA /D209294 Draft Environmental Impact Report February 2010 OPR Proposed Amendments to the CEQA Guidelines On April 13, 2009, OPR submitted to the Secretary for Natural Resources its proposed amendments to the state CEQA Guidelines for GHG emissions, as required by Public Resources Code section 21083.05 (Senate Bill 97) (OPR, 2009). These proposed CEQA Guideline amendments would provide guidance to public agencies regarding the analysis and mitigation of the effects of GHG emissions in draft CEQA documents. The Natural Resources Agency adopted the CEQA Guidelines Amendments with minor, non-substantial changes on December 31, 2009, and transmitted the Adopted Amendments and the entire rulemaking file to the Office of Administrative Law (OAL). OAL has 30 working days to review the Adopted Amendments and the Natural Resources Agency's rulemaking file. The Adopted Amendments will will become effective 30 days after OAL completes its review and submits them to the Secretary of State for inclusion in the California Code of Regulations. The proposed amendments suggest relatively modest changes to various portions of the existing CEQA Guidelines. Modifications address those issues where analysis of GHG emissions may differ in some respects from more traditional CEQA analysis. Proposed amendments include a new section (15064.4) to assist lead agencies in determining the significance of the GHG impacts. This section urges lead agencies to quantify, where possible, the GHG emissions of projects. In addition to quantification, this section recommends consideration of several other qualitative factors that may be used in determination of significance including: (1) the extent to which the project may increase or reduce GHG emissions as compared to the existing environmental setting; (2) whether the GHG emissions exceed a threshold of significance that the lead agency determines applies to the project; and (3) the extent to which the project complies with regulations or requirements adopted to implement a statewide, regional, or local plan for the reduction or mitigation of GHG emissions. The proposed amendments include a new subdivision 15064.7(c) to clarify that in developing thresholds of significance, a lead agency may appropriately review thresholds developed by other public agencies, including the CARB’s recommended CEQA Thresholds, or suggested by other experts, such as the California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA), so long as any threshold chosen is supported by substantial evidence. The proposed amendments also include a new subdivision 15130(f) to emphasize that the effects of GHG emissions are cumulative, and should be analyzed when the incremental contribution of those emission may be cumulatively considerable. In addition, the proposed amendments add a new set of environmental checklist questions (VII. Greenhouse Gas Emissions) to the CEQA Guidelines Appendix G. G. The new set includes the following two questions (would the project): a) Generate GHG emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment? b) Conflict with any applicable plan, policy or regulation of an agency adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of GHG? 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.3 Global Warming /Climate Change Old Town Specific Plan Amendment 3.3-8 ESA /D209294 Draft Environmental Impact Report February 2010 California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA) In January 2008, the CAPCOA issued a “white paper” on evaluating and addressing GHGs under CEQA (CAPCOA, 2008). This resource guide was prepared to support local governments as they develop their programs and policies around climate change issues. The paper is not a guidance document. It is not intended to dictate or direct how any agency chooses to address GHG emissions. Rather, it is intended to provide a common platform of information about key elements of CEQA as they pertain to GHG, including an analysis of different approaches to setting significance thresholds. The paper notes that for a variety of reasons local agencies may decide not to have a CEQA threshold. Local agencies may also decide to assess projects on a case-by-case basis when the projects come forward. The paper also discussed a range of GHG emission thresholds that could be used. The range of thresholds discussed includes a GHG threshold of zero and several nonzero thresholds. Non-zero thresholds include percentage reductions for new projects that would allow the state to meet its goals for GHG emissions reductions by 2020 and perhaps 2050. These would be determined by a comparison of new emissions versus business as usual emissions and the reductions required would be approximately 30 percent to achieve 2020 goals and 90 percent (effectively immediately) to achieve the more aggressive 2050 goals. These goals could be varied to apply differently to new projects, by economic sector, or by region in the State. Other non-zero thresholds discussed in the paper include: • 900 metric tons/year CO2e (a market capture approach); • 10,000 metric tons/year CO2e (potential CARB mandatory reporting level with Cap and Trade); • 25,000 metric tons/year CO2e (the CARB mandatory reporting level for the statewide emissions inventory); • 40,000 to 50,000 metric tons/year CO2e (regulated emissions inventory capture – using percentages equivalent to those used in air districts for criteria air pollutants), • Projects of statewide importance (9,000 metric tons/year CO2e for residential, 13,000 metric tons/year CO2e for office project, and 41,000 metric tons/year CO2e for retail projects), and • Unit-based thresholds and efficiency-based thresholds that were not quantified in the report. CARB Draft GHG Significance Thresholds On October 24, 2008, CARB released its Preliminary Draft Staff Proposal on Recommended Approaches for Setting Interim Significance Thresholds for Greenhouse Gases under the California Environmental Quality Act for review and public comment (CARB, 2008c). The Proposal identifies benchmarks or standards that assist lead agencies in the significance determination for industrial, residential, and commercial projects. The Proposal currently focuses on two sectors for which local agencies are typically the CEQA lead agency: industrial projects; and residential and commercial projects. Future proposals will focus on transportation projects, large dairies and power plant projects. 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.3 Global Warming /Climate Change Old Town Specific Plan Amendment 3.3-9 ESA /D209294 Draft Environmental Impact Report February 2010 In summary, the Proposal recommends: • In general, categorical exemptions will continue to apply. • If GHGs are adequately addressed at the programmatic level (i.e., consistent with regional GHG budgets), the impact of certain individual projects can be found to be insignificant. • Industrial projects below the operational emissions level (7,000 metric tons/year CO2e) that also meet performance standards for construction can be found to be less than significant. • Residential and commercial projects below the operational emissions level (unspecified as of December 2008) that also meet performance standards for construction, energy, water, waste and transportation can be found to be less than significant. • If a project cannot meet the above requirements, it should be presumed to have significant impacts related to climate change and all feasible GHG mitigation measures (i.e., carbon offsets) should be implemented. For residential and commercial projects, CARB staff's objective is to develop a threshold of performance standards that will substantially reduce the GHG emissions from new projects and streamline the permitting of carbon-efficient projects. Performance standards will address the five major emission sub-sources for the sector: energy use, transportation, water use, waste, and construction. Projects may alternatively incorporate mitigation equivalent to these performance standards, such as measures from green building rating systems. SCAQMD Draft GHG Significance Threshold On December 5, 2008, the SCAQMD Governing Board adopted the staff proposal for an interim GHG significance threshold for projects where the SCAQMD is lead agency. The interim threshold consists of five tiers of standards that could result in a finding of less than significant impact. The tiers include CEQA exemptions, consistency with regional GHG budgets, less than significant screening levels for industrial projects (10,000 metric tons/year CO2e) and commercial/residential projects (3,000 metric tons/year CO2e), performance standards (i.e., 30 percent less than Business As Usual [BAU]), and carbon offsets (SCAQMD, 2008). 3.3.3 Impacts and Mitigation Measures Significance Criteria According to Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, a project would have a significant effect on global climate change if it would: • Conflict with the state goal of reducing greenhouse gas emissions in California to 1990 levels by 2020, as set forth by the timetable established in AB 32, California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006. A project could conflict with the state reduction goal if it would: – Generate GHG emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment. – Conflict with any applicable plan, policy or regulation of an agency adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of GHG. 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.3 Global Warming /Climate Change Old Town Specific Plan Amendment 3.3-10 ESA /D209294 Draft Environmental Impact Report February 2010 By adopting Assembly Bill (AB) 32 (2006) and Senate Bill (SB) 97 (2007), the State of California has established GHG reduction targets and has determined that GHG emissions, as they relate to global climate change, are a source of adverse environmental impacts in California that should be addressed under CEQA. CEQA requires that lead agencies consider the reasonably foreseeable adverse environmental effects of projects they are considering for approval. GHGs have the potential to adversely affect the environment because such emissions contribute, on a cumulative basis, to global climate change. In turn, global climate change has the potential to result in rising sea levels, which can inundate low-lying areas; to reduce snowpack, leading to less overall water storage in the Sierra Nevada; to affect rainfall, leading to changes in water supply, increased frequency and severity of droughts, and increased wildfire risk; and to affect habitat and agricultural land, leading to adverse affects on biological and agricultural resources. Cumulative impacts are the collective impacts of one or more past, present, and future projects that, when combined, result in adverse changes to the environment. When the adverse change is substantial and the project’s contribution to the impact is considerable, the cumulative impact would be significant. The cumulative project list for this issue (global climate change) comprises anthropogenic (i.e., human-made) GHG emission sources across the entire planet. No project alone would contribute to a noticeable incremental change to the global climate. However, legislation and executive orders on the subject of climate change in California have established a statewide context for GHG emissions, and an enforceable statewide cap on GHG emissions. Given the nature of environmental consequences from GHGs and global climate change, CEQA requires that the cumulative impacts of GHGs, even additions that are relatively small on a global basis, need to be considered. Because of the cumulative nature of the climate change problem, even relatively small contributions may be potentially considerable and, therefore, significant. At this time no statewide government has adopted anything beyond a case-by-case significance criterion for evaluating a project’s contribution to climate change. The OPR has asked the CARB to “recommend a method for setting thresholds of significance to encourage consistency and uniformity in the CEQA analysis of GHG emissions” throughout the state because OPR has recognized that “the global nature of climate change warrants investigation of a statewide threshold for GHG emissions” (OPR, 2008). CARB began the public process of addressing significance thresholds in October 2008, but many decisions need to be made before the criteria are final (CARB, 2008c). The informal guidelines in OPR’s OPR’s technical advisory and CARB’s proposed thresholds provide a general basis for determining a proposed project’s contribution of greenhouse gas emissions and the project’s contribution to global climate change. In the absence of adopted statewide thresholds, OPR recommends the following approach for analyzing greenhouse gas emissions: 1. Identify and quantify the project’s greenhouse gas emissions; 2. Assess the significance of the impact on climate change; and 3. If the impact is found to be significant, identify alternatives and/or mitigation measures that would reduce the impact to less-than-significant levels. 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.3 Global Warming /Climate Change Old Town Specific Plan Amendment 3.3-11 ESA /D209294 Draft Environmental Impact Report February 2010 OPR’s technical advisory states that “the most common GHG’s that results from human activity is carbon dioxide, followed by methane and nitrous oxide.” The calculation presented below includes annual CO2e GHG emissions from off-road equipment, vehicular traffic, and energy consumption. As discussed above, at this time there are no adopted statewide guidelines for greenhouse gas emission impacts, but this is being be addressed through the provisions of Senate Bill 97 (SB 97). Proposed amendments and additions to the CEQA Guidelines were forwarded by OPR in April 2009; and the State Resources Agency has until January 1, 2010, to certify and adopt the regulations. In the interim local agencies must analyze the impact of GHGs. For the Specific Plan Amendment, the project would be considered to have a significant impact if the project would be in conflict with the AB 32 State goals for reducing greenhouse gas emissions. We assume that AB 32 will be successful in reducing GHG emissions and reducing the cumulative GHG emissions statewide by 2020. It is important that the State has taken these measures, because no project individually could have a major impact (either positively or negatively) on the global concentration of GHG. The project will be reviewed to make sure it does not conflict with the goals of AB 32. Impact 3.3-1: The project could conflict with implementation of state goals for reducing GHG emissions and thereby have a negative effect on Global Climate Change. The proposed project would contribute to global climate change as a result of emissions of GHGs, primarily CO2, emitted by construction and operational activities. GHG impacts are considered to be exclusively cumulative impacts; there are no non-cumulative greenhouse gas emission impacts from a climate change perspective (CAPCOA, 2008). Thus, the Specific Specific Plan Amendment analysis of GHG emissions is to determine whether the proposed project impact is cumulatively considerable. Four types of analyses are used to determine whether the project could be cumulatively considerable and potentially conflict with the state goals for reducing GHG emissions. The analyses are as follows: A. Any potential conflicts with the CARB’s thirty-nine (39) recommended actions in California’s AB 32 Climate Change Scoping Plan. B. The relative size of the project. The project’s GHG emissions will be compared to the size of major facilities that are required to report GHG emissions (25,000 metric tons/year of CO2e)2 to the state. The project size will also be compared to the SCAQMD GHG threshold, as well as the California GHG emissions limit of 427 million metric tons per year of CO2e emissions by 2020. In reaching its goals the CARB will focus upon the largest emitters of GHG emissions. 2 As noted above, the 25,000 metric ton annual limit identifies the large stationary point sources in California that make up approximately 94 percent of the stationary emissions. If the project’s total emissions are below this limit, its total emissions are equivalent in size to the smaller projects in California that as a group only make up 6 percent of all stationary emissions. It is assumed that the activities of these smaller projects would generally not conflict with State’s ability to reach AB 32 overall goals. 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.3 Global Warming /Climate Change Old Town Specific Plan Amendment 3.3-12 ESA /D209294 Draft Environmental Impact Report February 2010 C. The basic energy efficiency parameters of a project to determine whether its design is inherently energy efficient. D. Any potential conflicts with applicable City of Temecula plans, policies, or regulations adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of GHGs. With regard to Item A, the proposed project does not pose any apparent conflict with the most recent list of the CARB early action strategies (see Table 3.3-1 above). With regard to Item B, proposed project construction GHG emissions would be approximately 9,955 metric tons of CO2e/yr. The existing Specific Plan construction greenhouse gas emissions would be approximately 10,317 metric tons of CO2E/yr. Therefore, the proposed Specific Plan Amendment would have a 4 percent reduction of construction emissions compared to the existing Specific Plan. The proposed Specific Plan Amendment build-out operational GHG emissions from vehicle trips and space heating would be approximately 181,717 metric tons of CO2e/yr, and indirect operation emissions from electricity generation would be approximately 10,939 metric tons of CO2e/yr, totaling 192,657 metric tons of CO2e/yr. The proposed project would be classified as a major source of greenhouse gas emissions (total emissions would exceed the lower reporting limit, which is 25,000 metric tons of CO2e/yr). Existing Specific Plan build-out operational emissions from vehicle trips and space heating account for 264,680 metric tons of CO2e/yr, and indirect operational emissions of approximately14,472 metric tons of CO2e/yr totaling approximately 279,152 metric tons of CO2e/yr. Therefore, the proposed Specific Plan Amendment emissions would have a 32 percent reduction compared to the existing Specific Plan build-out emissions. The impact is focused on whether emissions would be below thresholds; the existing specific plan build-out has been given to show additional information. When compared to the overall State emissions limit of approximately 427 million metric tons CO2e/yr, the proposed Specific Plan Amendment build-out (192,657 metric tons CO2e/yr) would be 0.06 percent of the State goal. However, since the project would result in GHG emissions that would exceed the major source threshold (25,000 metric tons CO2e/yr) and the SCAQMD GHG screening threshold (3,000 metric tons CO2e/yr), the project would potentially conflict with the state’s ability to meet the AB 32 goals. For GHG calculations see Appendix D. With regard to Item C, the project would introduce high-density residential uses, thus creating a mixed-use environment in which residents would benefit from nearby shopping and employment opportunities, which would reduce the community’s reliance on automobiles. With regard to Item D, the City of Temecula does not have any plans, policies, or regulations adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of GHGs, therefore the project would not pose a conflict. The review of Items A, B, C, and D indicate that the project would potentially conflict with the State goals in AB 32 and, therefore, this impact would be significant without mitigation. 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.3 Global Warming /Climate Change Old Town Specific Plan Amendment 3.3-13 ESA /D209294 Draft Environmental Impact Report February 2010 The State of California Attorney General’s office has compiled a list of GHG reduction measures that could be applied to a diverse range of projects (State of California Department of Justice, 2008), many of which are included in Mitigation Measure 3.3-1 below. Mitigation Measures: Measure 3.3-1: The applicant shall require implementation of all feasible energy efficiency and GHG reduction measures, including but not limited to the following: Energy Efficiency • Design buildings to be energy efficient. • Install efficient lighting and lighting control systems. Use daylight as an integral part of lighting systems in buildings. • Use trees, landscaping and sun screens on west and south exterior building walls to reduce energy use. • Install light colored “cool” roofs, cool pavements. • Provide information on energy management services for large energy users. • Install energy efficient heating and cooling systems, appliances and equipment, and control systems. • Install light emitting diodes (LEDs) for traffic, street and other outdoor lighting. • Limit the hours of operation of outdoor lighting. • Provide education on energy efficiency. Renewable Energy • Install solar and wind power systems, solar and tankless hot water heaters, and energy-efficient heating ventilation and air conditioning. Educate consumers about existing incentives. • Install solar panels on carports and over parking areas. • Use combined heat and power in appropriate applications. Water Conservation and Efficiency • Create water-efficient landscapes. • Install water-efficient irrigation systems and devices, such as soil moisture-based irrigation controls. • Use reclaimed water for landscape irrigation in new developments and on public property. Install the infrastructure to deliver and use reclaimed water. • Design buildings to be water-efficient. Install water-efficient fixtures and appliances. • Use graywater. (Graywater is untreated household waste water from bathtubs, showers, bathroom wash basins, and water from clothes washing machines.) For example, install dual plumbing in all new development allowing graywater to be used for landscape irrigation. 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.3 Global Warming /Climate Change Old Town Specific Plan Amendment 3.3-14 ESA /D209294 Draft Environmental Impact Report February 2010 • Restrict watering methods (e.g., prohibit systems that apply water to non-vegetated surfaces) and control runoff. • Restrict the use of water for cleaning outdoor surfaces and vehicles. • Implement low-impact development practices that maintain the existing hydrologic character of the site to manage storm water and protect the environment. (Retaining storm water runoff on-site can drastically reduce the need for energy-intensive imported water at the site.) • Devise a comprehensive water conservation strategy appropriate for the project and location. The strategy may include many of the specific items listed above, plus other innovative measures that are appropriate to the specific project. • Provide education about water conservation and available programs and incentives. Solid Waste Measures • Reuse and recycle construction and demolition waste (including, but not limited to, soil, vegetation, concrete, lumber, metal, and cardboard). • Provide interior and exterior storage areas for recyclables and green waste and adequate recycling containers located in public areas. • Provide education and publicity about reducing waste and available recycling services. Land Use Measures • Include mixed-use, infill, and higher density in development projects to support the reduction of vehicle trips, promote alternatives to individual vehicle travel, and promote efficient delivery of services and goods. • Educate the public about the benefits of well-designed, higher density development. • Incorporate public transit into project design. • Preserve and create open space and parks. Preserve existing trees, and plant replacement trees at a set ratio. • Develop “brownfields” and other underused or defunct properties near existing public transportation and jobs. • Include pedestrian and bicycle-only streets and plazas within developments. Create travel routes that ensure that destinations may be reached conveniently by public transportation, bicycling or walking. Transportation and Motor Vehicles • Limit idling time for commercial vehicles, including delivery and construction vehicles. • Use low or zero-emission vehicles, including construction vehicles. (*The following goals, policies and/or suggestions are guiding principles that shall be required of the applicant as applicable.) 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.3 Global Warming /Climate Change Old Town Specific Plan Amendment 3.3-15 ESA /D209294 Draft Environmental Impact Report February 2010 *Transportation and Motor Vehicles • Promote ride sharing programs (e.g., by designating a certain percentage of parking spaces for ride sharing vehicles, designating adequate passenger loading and unloading and waiting areas for ride sharing vehicles, and providing a web site or message board for coordinating rides). • Create car sharing programs. Accommodations for such programs include providing parking spaces for the car share vehicles at convenient locations accessible by public transportation. • Provide the necessary facilities and infrastructure to encourage the use of low or zero-emission vehicles (e.g., electric vehicle charging facilities and conveniently located alternative fueling stations). • Institute a low-carbon fuel vehicle incentive program. • Provide public transit incentives such as free or low-cost monthly transit passes. • Promote “least polluting” ways to connect people and goods to their destinations. • Incorporate bicycle lanes and routes into street systems, new subdivisions, and large developments. • Incorporate bicycle-friendly intersections into street design. • For commercial projects, provide adequate bicycle parking near building entrances to promote cyclist safety, security, and convenience. For large employers, provide facilities that encourage bicycle commuting, including, e.g., locked bicycle storage or covered or indoor bicycle parking. • Create bicycle lanes and walking paths directed to the location of schools, parks and other destination points. • Work with the school district to restore or expand school bus services. • Institute a telecommute and/or flexible work hours program. Provide information, training, and incentives to encourage participation. Provide incentives for equipment purchases to allow high-quality teleconferences. • Provide information on all options for individuals and businesses to reduce transportation-related emissions. Provide education and information about public transportation. *Off-site Mitigation • Fund off-site mitigation projects (e.g., alternative energy projects, or energy or water audits for existing projects) that will reduce carbon emissions, conduct an audit of its other existing operations and agree to retrofit, or purchase carbon “credits” from another entity that will undertake mitigation. Significance after Mitigation: Even with implementation of all measures that are feasible from Mitigation Measure 3.3-1, the project would be considered a major source of greenhouse gases and would exceed the SCAQMD GHG screening threshold. Consequently, the increase in greenhouse gases by the project places the project in conflict with the goal of the state to reduce up to 169 million metric tons CO2e/year. This impact would remain significant. 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures Old Town Specific Plan Amendment 3.4-1 ESA /D209294 Draft Environmental Impact Report February 2010 3.4 Cultural Resources 3.4.1 Introduction This section describes the cultural resources present or potentially present in the City of Temecula OTSP area. Cultural resources are defined as prehistoric and historic sites, structures, and districts, or any other physical evidence associated with human activity considered important to a culture, a subculture, or a community for scientific, traditional, religious or any other reason. For analysis purposes, cultural resources may be categorized into four groups: archaeological resources, historic resources, contemporary Native American resources, and paleontological resources. Archaeological resources are places where human activity has measurably altered the earth or left deposits of physical remains. Archaeological resources may be either prehistoric-era (before the introduction of writing in a particular particular area) or historic-era (after the introduction of writing). The majority of such places in California are associated with either Native American or Euro-American occupation of the area. The most frequently encountered prehistoric or historic Native American archaeological sites are village settlements with residential areas and sometimes cemeteries; temporary camps where food and raw materials were collected; smaller, briefly occupied sites where tools were manufactured or repaired; and special-use areas like caves, rock shelters, and sites of rock art. Historic-era archeological sites may include foundations or features such as privies, corrals, and trash dumps. Historic resources are standing structures of historic or aesthetic significance that are generally 50 years of age or older (i.e., anything built in the year 1959 or before). In California, historic resources considered for protection tend to focus on architectural sites dating from the Spanish Period (1529-1822) through the early years of the Depression (1929-1930), although there has been recent attention paid to WWII and Cold War-era facilities. Earlier historic resources are often associated with archaeological deposits of the same age. Contemporary Native American resources, also called ethnographic resources, can include archaeological resources, rock art, and the prominent topographical areas, features, habitats, plants, animals, and minerals that contemporary Native Americans value and consider essential for the preservation of their traditional values. These locations are sometimes hard to define and traditional culture often prohibits Native Americans from sharing these locations with the public. Paleontology is a branch of geology that studies the life forms of the past, especially prehistoric life forms, through the study of plant and animal fossils. Paleontological resources represent a limited, non-renewable, and impact-sensitive scientific and educational resource. As defined in this section, paleontological resources are the the fossilized remains or traces of multi-cellular invertebrate and vertebrate animals and multi-cellular plants, including their imprints, from a previous geologic period. Fossil remains such as bones, teeth, shells, and leaves are found in the geologic deposits (rock formations) where they were originally buried. Paleontological resources 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures Cultural Resources Old Town Specific Plan Amendment 3.4-2 ESA /D209294 Draft Environmental Impact Report February 2010 include not only the actual fossil remains, but also the collecting localities, and the geologic formations containing those localities. 3.4.2 Setting Prehistoric Setting The following prehistoric chronology is derived from Horne and McDougall’s (2003) chronology for western Riverside County, which was based on Warren’s (1984) and Wallace’s (1955) regional syntheses. While it is not certain when humans first came to California, their presence in Southern California by about 11,000 Before Present (B.P.) has been well-documented. At Daisy Cove, on San Miguel Island, cultural remains have been radiocarbon dated to between 11,100 and 10,950 years B.P. (Byrd and Raab, 2007). On the mainland, radiocarbon evidence confirms occupation of the Orange County and San Diego County coast by about 10,000 B.P. During the Paleo-Indian and Early Archaic periods (11,000–7000 B.P.) the climate of Southern California became warmer and more arid and the human population, residing mainly in coastal or inland desert areas, began exploiting a wider range of plant and animal resources (Horne and McDougall, 2003). Major Archaic Period complexes in coastal Southern California include the San Dieguito and La Jolla Complexes, and the inland Pauma Complex. The people of the Early Archaic San Dieguito (10,000–8000 B.P.) Complex inhabited the chaparral zones of southwestern California, exploiting the plant and animal resources of these ecological zones (Moratto, 1984). The Middle Archaic La Jolla (8000–4000 B.P.) Complex is essentially a continuation of the San Dieguito Complex. La Jolla groups lived in chaparral zones or along the coast, often migrating between the two. Coastal settlement focused around the bays and estuaries of coastal Orange and San Diego Counties. La Jolla peoples produced large, coarse stone tools, but also produced well-made projectile points, and milling slabs. The La Jolla Complex represents a period of population growth and increasing social complexity, and it was also during this time period that the first evidence of the exploitation of marine resources and the grinding of seeds for flour, as indicated by the abundance of millingstones in the archaeological record, appears (Horne and McDougall, 2003). Contemporary with the La Jolla Complex, the Pauma Complex is found at inland sites in San Diego and Riverside Counties. The Pauma Complex is similar in technology to the La Jolla Complex; however, evidence of coastal subsistence is absent from Pauma Complex sites (Mason, 1999). The Pauma and La Jolla Complexes may either be indicative of separate inland and coastal groups with similar subsistence and technological adaptations, or, alternatively, may represent inland and coastal phases of one group’s seasonal rounds. The latter hypothesis is supported by the lack of hidden and deeply buried artifacts at Pauma sites, indicating that these sites may may have been temporary camps for resource gathering and processing (Mason, 1999). During the Late Period, there is evidence for the processing of acorns for food and for the increased importance of hunting (Horne and McDougall, 2003). Around 1,000 B.P., an episode of sustained drought, known as the Medieval Warm Period, occurred. While this climatic event did not appear to 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures Cultural Resources Old Town Specific Plan Amendment 3.4-3 ESA /D209294 Draft Environmental Impact Report February 2010 reduce the human population, it did lead to a change in subsistence strategies in order to deal with the substantial stress on resources. The processing of plant foods, particularly acorns, increased, a wider variety of animals were hunted, and trade with neighboring regions intensified (Horn and McDougall, 2003). Major technological changes appeared as well, particularly with the advent of the bow and arrow, which largely replaced the use of the dart and atlatl. At the time of the first Spanish presence in California, native populations of Southern California were becoming less mobile and small sedentary villages formed. Although the intensity of trade had already been increasing, it now reached its zenith, with asphaltum (tar), seashells and steatite being traded from Southern California to the Great Basin. The San Luis Rey culture (divided into San Luis Rey I [AD 1400 to 1750] and San Luis Rey II [AD 1750 to 1850]) represented the Late Period in southwestern Riverside County and northern San Diego County. San Luis Rey I village sites contain manos, metates, bedrock mortars, shell artifacts, and triangular arrow points (Mason, 1999). In addition to these features, San Luis Rey II sites are characterized by the presence of pottery, pictographs, and the cremation of the dead. San Luis Rey settlement patterns in the upper San Luis Rey River drainage are typified by lowland villages in proximity to water sources and highland villages occupied in the late summer and fall for acorn collection (Mason, 1999). However, settlement patterns within southwestern Riverside County are less well known. The available information, stemming primarily from survey data, indicates that four primary site types existed within the region during the Late Period: field camps, resource procurement locations, residential bases, and villages. Resource procurement procurement locations and field camps, the most common site types, contain a limited assemblage of artifacts and subsistence remains, primarily lithic debitage, some tools, fire affected rock, and small amounts of animal bones and charred seeds and nuts. This indicates that these types of sites were used primarily for focused activities and short-term occupancy. Villages and residential bases, on the other hand, provide evidence of long-term occupation by large groups of people. Villages were occupied year-round, while residential bases were occupied seasonally. Artifacts and features found at both village and residential bases, including large amounts of faunal and botanical remains, numerous high-quality tools, fire-affected rock, and anthrosols, indicate a wide range of activities (Mason, 1999). Bedrock mortars point to the processing of seeds and acorns, and ceremonial activities are evidenced by the presence of pictographs, petroglyphs, and cupules within village sites. The area immediately surrounding surrounding Old Town Temecula has a significant recorded prehistoric presence. The Murrieta Creek Archaeological District, which is listed on the National Register, is located less than a mile south of Old Town, at the confluence of Temecula Creek and Murrieta Creek. The district consists of a trio of residential sites, which perhaps once comprised a single large village, that were continuously occupied from prehistory to the 19th century. This was probably one of the major village sites of the Temecula Valley. Evidence of seed-processing, grinding, cooking, and other activities associated with sedentary village life is present, with bedrock mortars, middens, residences, and burials (King, 1972). 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures Cultural Resources Old Town Specific Plan Amendment 3.4-4 ESA /D209294 Draft Environmental Impact Report February 2010 Ethnographic Background Native Americans living in the project area at the time of Spanish contact are now known as the Luiseño, after the Mission San Luis Rey to which many of them were relocated. The language of the Luiseño people has been identified as part of the larger Uto-Aztecan language family (Bean and Shipek, 1978). Luiseño territory comprised approximately 1,500 square miles along the coast of Southern California, bordered by Agua Hedionda Creek on the south and Aliso Creek on the northwest, and encompassing most of the drainage of the San Luis Rey River and the Santa Margarita River (Bean and Shipek, 1978) and extending east to include Palomar Mountain. Today this area is located within northern San Diego, southern Orange, and Riverside Counties. The Luiseño subsided on small game, coastal marine resources, and plant foods such as grass seeds and acorns. Luiseño houses were conical thatched reed, brush, or bark structures. Little is known of the Luiseño political structure, but it appears that villages were centered on clans, and that each village was headed by a chief (Bean and Shipek, 1978). Due to the presence of reliable water sources and a fertile valley floor, the Temecula area has always been a desirable place to live. The Pechanga Band of Luiseño Indians (Pechanga Tribe) has called the Temecula Valley home for more than 10,000 years. Pursuant to Pechanga Tribe tradition, life on earth began in the Temecula Valley, which they call ‘éxva Teméeku (the place of the union of Sky-Father and Earth-Mother). The word “Temecula” comes from the Luiseño word “Temecunga”, meaning “place of the sun”. One of the principal Luiseno villages in the area, known as Temeku, was located just south of the current Old Town Temecula. Historical Context The Riverside County area received its first European visitors during the early and mid-1770s, shortly after the beginning of Spanish colonization of Alta California in 1769. The first known European to set foot in this area was a Franciscan padre, Father Juan Norberto de Santiago, who traveled into the Temecula Valley in October 1797. Santiago was on an expedition out of Mission San Juan Capistrano seeking a site for a new mission. With his party of seven soldiers, he came upon what is now Lake Elsinore, and then traveled southward through the Temecula Valley and on to the Pacific Ocean. In 1798, he founded the Mission of San Luis Rey de Francia, forever altering Luiseño tribal life. The Temecula Valley became the principal grain producer for Mission San Luis Rey. Nearer to the project area, the smaller Mission San Antonio de Pala, about 10 miles southeast of Temecula, was founded in 1816. In 1831; a party of American trappers, including Ewing Young, Isaac Galbraith, and John Turner, wandered into the valley. Following the conclusion of the Mexican-American War (1846-1848), the process of making land grants available to individuals began. Rancho Temecula, which included the project area, was granted to Felix Valdez. A series of prehistoric trails had criss-crossed the Temecula area, and were later used by Spanish and American-period travelers. The major trail through Temecula was the Southern Immigrant Trail, whch ran roughly along the route of present-day I-15 directly through what later became known as Old Town Temecula. The Southern Immigrant Trail was used by the Mormon Battalion in 1847, and later the Butterfield Overland Mail from 1858-1861 (Miller, 2009). 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures Cultural Resources Old Town Specific Plan Amendment 3.4-5 ESA /D209294 Draft Environmental Impact Report February 2010 In 1848, gold was discovered in California, leading to a huge influx of people from other parts of North America, and in 1850, California became part of the United States of America. The opening of the Butterfield Overland Stage route in 1858, and later the California Southern Railroad line in 1882, greatly increased the number of people coming to Southern California (City of Temecula, 2009). As more and more settlers arrived, the United States government began to establish reservations for the displaced Indians. In 1875, the Temecula Indians (primarily composed of Luiseño Indians) were evicted from their traditional lands near Old Town Temecula and moved to the Pechanga Indian Reservation, five miles to the southeast. In 1893, following a period of conflict and discontent between the Cities of Riverside and San Bernardino, portions portions of the Temecula and San Jacinto Valleys, which were then in San Diego County, joined with the City of Riverside in the formation of the new Riverside County (Horne and McDougall, 2003). By the turn of the 20th century, Temecula had become an important shipping hub for grain and cattle. Until the 1960s, the Temecula Valley was part of the Vail Ranch and was used primarily for cattle ranching and agriculture. The last years of the 1960s and early 1970s witnessed the beginnings of dramatic change in the Temecula Valley as the area began to experience its growth as an urban area. This urban growth continued through the area’s incorporation as the City in December 1989 into the present time. Wine production in Temecula began in the late 20th century as well. The first vineyards were planted in the late 1960s and today several dozen wineries can be found throughout the area. The approval of the Old Town Temecula Historic Preservation District by the Riverside Board of Supervisors in October 1979 marked the first recognition of Old Town Temecula as a unique place with a historic character worth preserving and enhancing. The City adopted the OTSP in 1994 to protect the remaining historic structures and maintain the area’s historic character. The early buildings of Old Town reflect the architectural melting pot of American traditions and European ideas that were adapted to the conditions in Southern California. The structures built in Old Town by 1930 established an important historical foundation of building forms, frontage types, architectural styles, and materials. Spanish Colonial, Mission and Monterey styles were introduced in Southern California first. Early settlers also introduced architectural traditions from the eastern U.S. and Europe such as American Mercantile, Neo-classical, and Victorian. By 1927, even modernist influences are evident. During 1884 through 1927, Temecula built a diverse mix of architectural styles that were common in towns across the West. This range of styles include American Mercantile, Craftsman/Bungalow, Modernism, Monterey, Neo-Classical, Spanish and Mediterranean, Victorian /Queen Anne, and Western Frontier (City of Temecula, 2009). Paleontological Setting The Specific Plan area is within the southern portion of the Perris Block structural unit of the Peninsular Range, which is described as “a relatively stable area located between the Elsinore and San Jacinto Fault zones” (Morton et al., 2003). This area, called the Elsinore Trough, has been filled with Pliocene and early Pleistocene sediments, which in turn have been covered by late 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures Cultural Resources Old Town Specific Plan Amendment 3.4-6 ESA /D209294 Draft Environmental Impact Report February 2010 Pleistocene sediments. Within the Temecula Valley region, several paleontologically sensitive rock units are present. Younger Quaternary alluvium occurs along Murrieta Creek. Recent alluvium does not have the potential to contain paleontologic resources; however, it often covers older Pleistocene sediments of paleontologic significance. Older Quarternary alluvium occurs in a large portion of the Specific Plan area. Previous resource assessments conducted near the city indicate a wide range of vertebrate fauna from the Rancholabrean North American Land Mammal Age, including horse, bison, and mammoth (Reynolds, 2007). The Pauba Formation, which dates from the early to late Pleistocene, or 300,000 years before present, is present along the outer eastern and western edges of the Specific Plan area. The Pauba Formation, a Pleistocene-age age sedimentary unit, is known to contain vertebrate fossils of late Irvingtonian and early Rancholabrean ages. Early-to Mid-Pleistocene age vertebrate fossil specimens such as fish, amphibians, rodents, camel, horse, deer, and mastodon have been recovered from the Pauba Formation in excavations near Temecula and Murrieta (Reynolds et al, 1991). The Pauba Formation and older Quaternary Alluvium have a high paleontological sensitivity, as they have a high potential to contain significant non-renewable paleontologic resources. These formations occur throughout a large percentage of the Specific Plan area. In addition, the Riverside County Planning Department’s Land Information System lists the paleontological sensitivity for most of the area as “High”. 3.4.3 Methodology Archival Record Search A cultural resources records search was performed by the Eastern Information Center (EIC) located at the University of California, Riverside, on August 12, 2009 (EIC File No. RIV-ST-523). Sources referenced by this record search include site records, previous cultural resource assessment reports, historical maps, as well as the National Register of Historic Places, the California Register of Historical Resources, and the Office of Historic Preservation (OHP) Archaeological Determinations of Eligibility and Directory of Properties in the Historic Property Data file. Among maps consulted for this study were the U.S. General Land Office (GLO) land survey maps and the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) topographic maps. Native American Consultation Senate Bill 18 (SB 18) requires local agencies to consult with tribes prior to making certain planning decisions and to provide notice to tribes at certain key points in the planning process, thereby providing tribes an opportunity to participate in local land use decisions at an early planning stage. Pursuant to the provisions of SB 18, in July 2009, the City invited local tribes 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures Cultural Resources Old Town Specific Plan Amendment 3.4-7 ESA /D209294 Draft Environmental Impact Report February 2010 from a list provided by the California Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) to participate in consultation regarding the proposed project. 3.4.4 Results Archival Record Search Results Cultural Resources near the Specific Plan Area The records search indicated that 63 cultural resource studies have been conducted within a onemile radius of the project area. The EIC determined that five of these studies covered approximately 30 percent of the Specific Plan area, primarily around Murrieta Creek. The remaining approximately 70 percent of the Specific Plan area has not been the subject of cultural resource studies. Twelve archaeological resources and 29 historic-architectural resources have been recorded within one mile of the Specific Plan area. The 29 historic-architectural resources are located within the Specific Plan area. One One property, archaeological site CA-RIV-270, is listed on the National Register and California Register as part of the Murrieta Creek Archaeological District. No archaeological sites have been recorded within the Specific Plan area; however, a historic-era trail, the Southern Immigrant Trail, is known to have run through the Specific Plan area (Figure 3.4-1). This resource has not been formally recorded at the EIC, however. A listing of recorded archaeological resources is provided below, followed by a listing of recorded historicarchitectural resources. Archaeological Resources Types of archaeological sites common within the area surrounding Temecula are bedrock milling sites, lithic scatters, and prehistoric village sites with midden and many types of artifacts. Historic-period sites can date back to the early 19th century and include ranches, trails, stage coach stops, and trash dumps (City of Temecula, 2004). Occasionally, archaeological sites will contain artifacts from multiple time periods. Table 3.4-1 details the archaeological resources that have been recorded within one mile of the Specific Plan area. These include the Murrieta Creek Archaeological District, five prehistoric sites, two historic sites, one historic trail, three prehistoric isolates, and one site of undetermined age. Historic-Architectural Resources Of the 29 historic buildings within the project area, 26 have been evaluated for eligibility for listing in both the California Register of Historic Resources and the National Register of Historic Places, including those evaluated in 1994 as part of a survey of Old Town Temecula (City of Temecula Old Town Specific Plan, 1994). All 26 were determined to possess National Register of Historic Places survey ratings of 1 through 5, which indicates that they would be considered historic resources for CEQA purposes.1 These resources are described in Table 3.4-2 and shown on Figure 3.4-1. 1 1 = listed in the National Register, 5 = determined eligible for local listing only through a survey evaluati on. PROJECT SITE Old Front St Town 15 Old Town Specific Plan EIR . 209294 Figure 3.4-1 Southern Emigrant Trail SOURCE: GlobeXplorer, 2008; City of Temecula, 2009. Legend Approximate Location of the Southern Emigrant Trail 0 800 Feet Cal ifornia Rancho California Rd 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures Cultural Resources Old Town Specific Plan Amendment 3.4-9 ESA /D209294 Draft Environmental Impact Report February 2010 TABLE 3.4-1 CULTURAL RESOURCES WITHIN THE PROJECT AREA Primary Number (P-33-) Trinomial (CA-RIV-) Description National Register/California Register status Relative Location 11443 -Murrieta Creek Archaeological District. Comprised of 3 prehistoric sites (CA-RIV-523, -270, and -365) Listed on National Register (NR #73000424) Less than 1 mile from SPA2 000270 270 Prehistoric Occupation site with bedrock mortars, groundstone artifacts Listed on National Register as part of Murrieta Creek Archaeological District Less than 1 mile from SPA 000644 644 Large prehistoric occupation site with ground stone, lithic artifacts, pottery, and possible burials. Not evaluated Less than 1 mile from SPA 001382 1382 Historic gravesite Not evaluated Less than 1 mile from SPA 001384 1384 Prehistoric bedrock milling site Not evaluated Less than 1 mile from SPA 002134 2134 Prehistoric lithic scatter Not evaluated Less than ¼ mile from SPA 004949 4949H Historic remains of a slaughterhouse Not evaluated Less than 1 mile from SPA 011222 -Prehistoric rock art Not evaluated Less than 1 mile from SPA 013511 -Prehistoric isolate: mano (grinding stone) Not evaluated Less than 1 mile from SPA 013686 -Prehistoric isolate: chert lithic tool Not Evaluated Less than 1 mile from SPA 013712 -Prehistoric isolate: mano and hammerstone Not evaluated Immediately adjacent to SPA 013726 -Circle of large rocks, date unknown Not Evaluated Less than 1 mile from SPA n/a n/a Southern Immigrant Trail Not Evaluated Within SPA SOURCE: Eastern Information Center – Cultural Resources Records Search, August, 2009 2 Specific Plan Area 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures Cultural Resources Old Town Specific Plan Amendment 3.4-10 ESA /D209294 Draft Environmental Impact Report February 2010 TABLE 3.4-2 PREVIOUSLY IDENTIFIED CULTURAL RESOURCES WITHIN THE PROJECT AREA WITH NRHP RATINGS BETWEEN 1 AND 5 EIC Primary Number Address Historic Name Construction Date NRHP Rating 33-7769 28673 Pujol St (formerly at 41915 4th Street) Arviso House 1920 5S2 33-7770 2871 Santiago Rd (formerly at 41935 4th Street) Pujol School 1872 3S 33-7771 41970 4th Street Pete Maureen House 1890 5S2 33-7772 28450 6th Street French House 5S2 33-7773 42251 6th Street Escallier House 1928 3S 33-7774 42291 6th Street Bill Friedman House 1922 3S 33-7737 28522 Front Street Palomar Hotel 1915 3S 33-7741 28545 Front Street Knott’s Garage 1910 5S2 33-7738 28645 Front Street First National Bank of Temecula 1914 3S 33-7739 28656 Front Street Machado Store 1910 3S 33-7740 28676 Front Street Clogstone Restaurant 1932 5S2 33-7751 28922 Pujol St (formerly at 41852 Main Street) Alec Escallier House 1927 3S 33-7752 42050 Main Street Friedman Meat Market 1901 5S2 33-7750 42100 Main Street Welty Hotel 1891 3S 33-7754 42120 Main Street Immigrant Office 1891 3S 33-7755 28443 Mercedes Street Saint Catherine’s Church 1920 3S 33-7765 28535 Pujol Street Harry Walters House 1930 5S2 33-7756 28565 Pujol Street Al Burnham House 5S2 33-7757 28575 Pujol Street 1936 5S2 33-7758 28585 Pujol Street McConville House 1890 3S 33-7759 28649 Pujol Street Albert Nienke House 1920 3S 33-7760 28653 Pujol Street GA Burnham House 1883 3S 33-7761 28717 Pujol Street Al Otto House 1882 5S2 33-7762 28725 Pujol Street Fred Ramirez House 1920 5S2 33-7763 28731 Pujol Street Angel Ramirez House 1926 5S2 33-7764 28735 Pujol Street 1910 5S2 SOURCE: OHP 2009 3S = appears eligible for NR as an individual property through a survey evaluation. 5S2 = Individual property that is eligible for local listing or designation. There are no historic-architectural resources listed in either the California or National Registers within one mile of the project area. The closest California Historic Landmark to the Specific Plan area is the Santa Rosa Rancho (CHL 1005), considered a prime example of various historical 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures Cultural Resources Old Town Specific Plan Amendment 3.4-11 ESA /D209294 Draft Environmental Impact Report February 2010 phases of cattle ranching in Southern California. Located at 22115 Tenaja Road in Murrieta, the site is approximately 6.5 miles northwest from the project area. The closest site to the Specific Plan area listed on the National Register of Historic Places is the Garbani Homestead, located at 33555 Holland Road in the town of Winchester, approximately 12.3 miles northeast. Field Survey Results A reconnaissance level pedestrian field survey was conducted by ESA historian Kathy Anderson on August 26, 2009; to locate previously recorded historic architectural resources within the project area. Of the 26 previously recorded historic buildings that had been determined eligible for the NRHP, CRHR, or local listing, 12 were re-identified during the field survey (see Table 3.4-3). TABLE 3.4-3 PREVIOUSLY IDENTIFIED CULTURAL RESOURCES WITHIN PROJECT AREA Primary Number Address Historic Name NRS Rating 33-7737 28522 Front Street Palomar Hotel 3S 33-7757 28575 Pujol Street -5S2 33-7758 28585 Pujol Street McConville House 3S 33-7738 28645 Front Street First National Bank of Temecula 3S 33-7759 28649 Pujol Street Albert Nienke House 3S 33-7760 28653 Pujol Street GA Burnham House 3S 33-7739 28656 Front Street Machado Store 3S 33-7740 28676 Front Street Clogstone Restaurant 5S2 33-7761 28717 Pujol Street Al Otto House 5S2 33-7752 42050 Main Street Friedman Meat Market 5S2 33-7750 42100 Main Street Welty Hotel 3S 33-7773 42251 6th Street Escallier House 3S SOURCE: Old Town Specific Area Plan; ESA 2009 3S = appears eligible for NR as an individual property through a survey evaluation. 5S2 = Individual property that is eligible for local listing or designation. The remaining 14 buildings that were not reidentified have either been relocated to another site, demolished since their original evaluation, or could not be reidentified in the field survey and may no longer exist. These buildings are identified and described below in Table 3.4-4. 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures Cultural Resources Old Town Specific Plan Amendment 3.4-12 ESA /D209294 Draft Environmental Impact Report February 2010 TABLE 3.4-4 PREVIOUSLY RECORDED HISTORIC RESOURCES WITHIN SPECIFIC PLAN AREA NOT REIDENTIFIED IN FIELD SURVEY Primary Number Address Historic Name Relocated /Demolished /Unable to Reidentify 33-7769 28673 Pujol St (formerly at 41915 4th Street) Arviso House Unable to re-identify. Relocated in 2007. 33-7770 2871 Santiago Rd (formerly at 41935 4th Street) Pujol School Relocated in 2006 33-7771 41970 4th Street Pete Maureen House Unable to re-identify. May no longer exist 33-7772 28450 6th Street French House Unable to re-identify. May no longer exist 33-7774 42291 6th Street Bill Friedman House Relocated on the same site in 2003 33-7741 28545 Front Street Knott’s Garage Demolished 2000 33-7751 28922 Pujol St (formerly at 41852 Main Street) Alec Escallier House Unable to re-identify. Relocated in 2008.t 33-7754 42120 Main Street Immigrant Office Unable to re-identify. May no longer exist 33-7755 28443 Mercedes Street Saint Catherine’s Church Relocated to Sam Hicks Monument Park in 1992 33-7765 28535 Pujol Street Harry Walters House Demolished 1996 33-7756 28565 Pujol Street Al Burnham House Unable to re-identify. May no longer exist 33-7762 28725 Pujol Street Fred Ramirez House Demolished 2002 33-7763 28731 Pujol Street Angel Ramirez House Demolished 2002 33-7764 28735 Pujol Street -Demolished 1999 SOURCE: ESA 2009 The most prevalent architectural style in Old Town relates most commonly to the Gold Rush Style or Western Frontier Style. A number of other buildings which are located outside of the Old Town area but within the Specific Plan area which appear to be 50 years old or older were observed during the field survey. As these structures have not been comprehensively surveyed and evaluated, it is possible that they may be eligible as historic resources if other criteria apply, such as significant associations with important events, people, or high architectural merit. Native American Consultation Results The Pala Band of Mission Indians, Soboba Band of Luiseño Indians, and Pechanga Band of Luiseño Indians responded to the City’s letter of invitation to consultation. The Soboba and Pechanga formally requested consultation under SB 18, stating that the project area was within their traditional territories. The Pechanga stated that tribal cultural traditions, including oral histories, songs, and creation accounts, directly refer to the Specific Plan area and its immediate surroundings. The Soboba also stated that the project area is in close proximity to known village locations and was within an area used for trade between the Luiseño and Cahuilla Tribes, and is therefore, considered to be a culturally sensitive area. 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures Cultural Resources Old Town Specific Plan Amendment 3.4-13 ESA /D209294 Draft Environmental Impact Report February 2010 3.4.5 Regulatory Framework Cultural Resources Numerous laws and regulations require federal, state, and local agencies to consider the effects a project may have on cultural resources. These laws and regulations stipulate a process for compliance, define the responsibilities of the various agencies proposing the action, and prescribe the relationship among other involved agencies (e.g., State Historic Preservation Office and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation). The National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) of 1966, as amended; the California Register of Historical Resources, Public Resources Code (PRC) 5024; and CEQA are the primary federal and state laws governing and affecting preservation of cultural resources of national, state, regional, and local significance. The applicable regulations are discussed below. Federal Federal Level Section 106 of the NHPA Archaeological resources are protected through the NHPA of 1966, as amended (16 USC 470f), and its implementing regulation, Protection of Historic Properties (36 CFR Part 800), the Archaeological and Historic Preservation Act of 1974, and the Archaeological Resources Protection Act of 1979. Prior to implementing an “undertaking” (e.g., issuing a federal permit), Section 106 of the NHPA requires federal agencies to consider the effects of the undertaking on historic properties and to afford the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation and the State Historic Preservation Officer a reasonable opportunity to comment on any undertaking that would adversely affect properties eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places. As indicated in Section 101(d)(6)(A) of the NHPA, properties of traditional religious and cultural importance to a tribe are eligible for inclusion in the National Register. Under the NHPA, a find is considered significant if it meets the National Register listing criteria at 36 CFR 60.4. The National Register criteria are explained in further detail below. National Register of Historic Places First authorized by the Historic Sites Act of 1935, the National Register of Historic Places (National Register) was established by the NHPA of 1966, as “an authoritative guide to be used by federal, State, and local governments, private groups and citizens to identify the Nation’s historic resources and to indicate what properties should be considered for protection from destruction or impairment” (Code of Federal Regulations [CFR] 36 Section 60.2). The National Register recognizes both historical-period and prehistoric archaeological properties that are significant at the national, state, and local levels. To be eligible for listing in the National Register, a resource must be significant in American history, architecture, archaeology, engineering, or culture. Districts, sites, buildings, structures, and objects of potential significance must meet one one or more of the following four established criteria: A. Are associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of our history; 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures Cultural Resources Old Town Specific Plan Amendment 3.4-14 ESA /D209294 Draft Environmental Impact Report February 2010 B. Are associated with the lives of persons significant in our past; C. Embody the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction or that represent the work of a master, or that possess high artistic values, or that represent a significant and distinguishable entity whose components may lack individual distinction; or D. Have yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history. Unless the property possesses exceptional significance, it must be at least 50 years old to be eligible for National Register listing (U.S. Department of the Interior 1995). In addition to meeting the criteria of significance, a property must have integrity. Integrity is defined as “the ability of a property to convey its significance” (U.S. Department of the Interior 1995). The National Register recognizes seven qualities that, in various combinations, define integrity. To retain historic integrity a property must possess several, and usually most, of these seven aspects. Thus, the retention of the specific aspects of integrity is paramount for a property to convey its significance. The seven factors that define integrity are location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association. Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act The Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA) is a federal law passed in 1990 that provides a process for museums and federal agencies to return certain Native American cultural items, such as human remains, funerary objects, sacred objects, or objects of cultural patrimony, to lineal descendants and culturally affiliated Indian tribes. State Level California Public Resources Code 5097.9.-5097.998 provides protection to Native American historical and cultural resources and sacred sites, prohibits interfering with Native American religion, and identifies the powers and duties of the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC). It makes the destruction, looting, or vandalizing of archaeological sites on public land a misdemeanor. It also requires notification of discoveries of Native American human remains to the NAHC and provides for treatment and disposition of human remains and associated grave goods. The state implements the NHPA through its statewide comprehensive cultural resources surveys and preservation programs. The California Office of Historic Preservation (OHP), as an office of the California Department of Parks and Recreation, implements the policies of the NHPA on a statewide level. The OHP also maintains the California Historic Resources Inventory. The State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) is an appointed official who implements historic preservation programs within the state’s jurisdictions. California Register of Historical Resources The California Register of Historical Resources (California Register) is “an authoritative listing and guide to be used by State and local agencies, private groups, and citizens in identifying the existing historical resources of the State and to indicate which resources deserve to be protected, 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures Cultural Resources Old Town Specific Plan Amendment 3.4-15 ESA /D209294 Draft Environmental Impact Report February 2010 to the extent prudent and feasible, from substantial adverse change” (California Public Resources Code § 5024.1[a]). The criteria for eligibility for the California Register are based upon National Register criteria (California Public Resources Code § 5024.1[b]). Certain resources are determined by the statute to be automatically included in the California Register, including California properties formally determined eligible for, or listed in, the National Register of Historic Places. To be eligible for the California Register, a prehistoric or historical-period property must be significant at the local, state, and/or federal level under one or more of the following criteria: 1. Is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of California’s history and cultural heritage; 2. Is associated with the lives of persons important in our past; 3. Embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region, or method of construction, or represents the work of an important creative individual, or possesses high artistic values; or 4. Has yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history. A resource eligible for the California Register must meet one of the criteria of significance described above, and retain enough of its historic character or appearance (integrity) to be recognizable as a historical resource and to convey the reason for its significance. It is possible that a historic resource may not retain sufficient integrity to meet the criteria for listing in the National Register, but it may still be eligible for listing in the California Register. Additionally, the California Register consists of resources that are listed automatically and those that must be nominated through an application and public hearing process. The California Register automatically automatically includes the following: • California properties listed on the National Register of Historic Places and those formally Determined Eligible for the National Register of Historic Places. • California Registered Historical Landmarks from No. 770 onward. • Those California Points of Historical Interest that have been evaluated by the OHP and have been recommended to the State Historical Commission for inclusion on the California Register. Other resources that may be nominated to the California Register include: • Historical resources with a significance rating of Category 3 through 5 (those properties identified as eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places, the California Register of Historical Resources, and/or a local jurisdiction register). • Individual historical resources. • Historical resources contributing to historic districts. • Historical resources designated or listed as local landmarks, or designated under any local ordinance, such as an historic preservation overlay zone. 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures Cultural Resources Old Town Specific Plan Amendment 3.4-16 ESA /D209294 Draft Environmental Impact Report February 2010 California Environmental Quality Act CEQA is the principal statute governing environmental review of projects in the state. CEQA requires lead agencies to determine if a proposed project would have a significant effect on archaeological resources. CEQA is codified at Public Resources Code sec 21000 et seq. As defined in Section 21083.2 of CEQA, a “unique” archaeological resource is an archaeological artifact, object, or site, about which it can be clearly demonstrated that without merely adding to the current body of knowledge, there is a high probability that it meets any of the following criteria: • Contains information needed to answer important scientific research questions and there is a demonstrable public interest in that information. • Has a special and particular quality such as being the oldest of its type or the best available example of its type. • Is directly associated with a scientifically recognized important prehistoric or historic event or person. In addition, the State CEQA Guidelines recognize that certain historical resources may also have significance. The CEQA Guidelines recognize that a historical resource includes: (1) a resource in the California Register of Historical Resources; (2) a resource included in a local register of historical resources, as defined in PRC Section 5020.1(k) or identified as significant in a historical resource survey meeting the requirements of PRC Section 5024.1(g); and (3) any object, building, structure, site, area, place, record, or manuscript which a lead agency determines to be historically significant or significant in the architectural, engineering, scientific, economic, agricultural, educational, social, political, military, or cultural annals of California by the lead agency, provided the lead agency’s determination is supported by substantial evidence in light of the whole whole record. If a lead agency determines that an archaeological site is a historical resource, the provisions of Section 21084.1 of CEQA and Section 15064.5 of the State CEQA Guidelines apply. If an archaeological site does not meet the criteria for a historical resource contained in the State CEQA Guidelines, then the site is to be treated in accordance with the provisions of CEQA Section 21083, which is a unique archaeological resource. The State CEQA Guidelines note that if an archaeological resource is neither a unique archaeological nor a historical resource, the effects of the project on those resources shall not be considered a significant effect on the environment (State CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5(c)(4)). Senate Bill 18 Senate Bill 18 (SB 18), which went into effect January 1, 2005, requires local governments (city and county) to consult with Native American tribes before making certain planning decisions and to provide notice to tribes at certain key points in the planning process. The intent intent is to “provide California Native American tribes an opportunity to participate in local land use decisions at an early planning stage, for the purpose of protecting, or mitigating impacts to, cultural places” (Governor’s Office of Planning and Research, 2005). 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures Cultural Resources Old Town Specific Plan Amendment 3.4-17 ESA /D209294 Draft Environmental Impact Report February 2010 The purpose of involving tribes at these early planning stages is to allow consideration of cultural places in the context of broad local land use policy, before individual site-specific, project-level, land use designations are made by a local government. The consultation requirements of SB 18 apply to General Plan or Specific Plan processes proposed on or after March 1, 2005. According to the Tribal Consultation Guidelines: Supplement to General Plan Guidelines (2005), the following are the contact and notification responsibilities of local governments: • Prior to the adoption or any amendment of a General Plan or Specific Plan, a local government must notify the appropriate tribes (on the contact list maintained by the NAHC) of the opportunity to conduct consultations for the purpose of preserving, or mitigating impacts to, cultural places located on land within the local government’s jurisdiction that is affected by the proposed plan adoption or amendment. Tribes have 90 days from the date on which they receive notification to request consultation, unless a shorter timeframe has been agreed to by the tribe (Government Code §65352.3). • Prior to the adoption or substantial amendment of a General Plan or Specific Plan, a local government must refer the proposed action to those tribes that are on the NAHC contact list and have traditional lands located within the city or county’s jurisdiction. The referral must allow a 45-day comment period (Government Code §65352). Notice must be sent regardless of whether prior consultation has taken place. Such notice does not initiate a new consultation process. • Local government must send a notice of a public hearing, at least 10 days prior to the hearing, to tribes who have filed a written request for such notice (Government Code §65092). Local Level Temecula General Plan The Open Space Element of the City of Temecula’s General Plan contains the following relevant goals and policies concerning cultural resources: Goal 6: Preservation of significant historical and cultural resources. Policy 6.1: Maintain an inventory of areas with archaeological/paleontological sensitivity, and historic sites in the Planning Area. Policy 6.2: Work to preserve or salvage potential archeological and paleontological resources on sites proposed for future development through the development review and mitigation monitoring processes. Policy 6.3: Preserve and reuse historical buildings in accordance with the OTSP. Policy 6.4: Assist property owners in seeking State and/or federal registration and appropriate zoning for historic sites and assets. 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures Cultural Resources Old Town Specific Plan Amendment 3.4-18 ESA /D209294 Draft Environmental Impact Report February 2010 Policy 6.5: Pursue the acquisition and preservation of historical buildings for public facilities in accordance with the Old Town Specific Plan when appropriate. Policy 6.6: Ensure compatibility between land uses and building designs in the Old Town Specific Plan Area and areas adjacent to Old Town. Policy 6.7: Encourage use of California's Historic Building Code when preserving/rehabilitati ng historic structures. Policy 6.8: Support an integrated approach to historic preservation in coordination with other affected jurisdictions, agencies, and organizations for areas within the Planning Area and surrounding region that seeks to establish linkages between historic sites or buildings with other historic features such as roads, trails, ridges, and seasonal waterways. Policy 6.9: Encourage the preservation and re-use of historic structures, landscape features, roads, landmark trees, and trails. Policy 6.10: Work with the Pechanga Band of Luiseño Indians to identify and appropriately address cultural resources and tribal sacred sites through the development review process. Policy 6.11: Encourage voluntary landowner efforts to protect cultural resource and tribal sacred sites consistent with State requirements. Implemetation Procedures The following implementation procedures from the Open Space Element of the City of Temecula General Plan are also relevant to the protection of cultural resources: OS-26: Development Review Process Use the development and environmental review processes to: • Ensure that appropriate archaeological and paleontological surveying and documentation of findings is provided prior to project approval. • Require effective mitigation where development may affect archaeological or paleontological resources. • Require that an archaeologist or paleontologist be retained to observe grading activities in areas where the probable presence of archaeological or paleontological resources is identified. • Enforce CEQA provisions regarding preservation or salvage of significant archaeological and paleontological sites discovered during construction activities. • Require monitoring of new developments and reporting to the City on completion of mitigation and resource protection measures. 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures Cultural Resources Old Town Specific Plan Amendment 3.4-19 ESA /D209294 Draft Environmental Impact Report February 2010 OS-27: Historic Preservation Program Continue to implement a historic preservation ordinance in the Old Town area to protect historically significant buildings, sites, road/trails, and other landscape elements, and to encourage their reuse, where appropriate. Consider adopting an ordinance to address preservation of other historic resources. Encourage owners of local sites to apply for recognition in the State Historic Resources Inventory, as Riverside County Landmarks, as State Points of Historic Interest, as State Landmarks, and as sites on the National Register of Historic Places, as deemed necessary. OS-37: Archaeological Reviews Enter into a Memorandum of Agreement with the Eastern Information Center of the University of California, Riverside to establish procedures for reviewing the archaeological sensitivity of sites proposed for development. OS-39: Tribal Cultural Resources Development projects proposed on previously undeveloped property which involve earthdisturbing activities or which are located in areas with previously identified cultural resources need to comply with the following requirements to appropriately address tribal cultural resources: • All projects shall be evaluated by a qualified archeologist by conducting a site records search, and if feasible, a Phase I walkover survey, and if necessary, a Phase II survey prior to project approval to identify the potential for the presence of significant cultural resources. • If significant resources are located on the project site, or a high probability for cultural resources exists, the Pechanga Band of Luiseño Indians shall be consulted in the identification of mitigation measures to address impacts consistent with State requirements, including provisions to address inadvertent discoveries. • During on-site grading activities in areas with cultural resources, or with a high potential for cultural resources, a qualified archeologist and tribal monitors shall be on-site to monitor grading operations. • In the event of the discovery of a burial site, human bone or suspected human bone, grading in the immediate area shall be immediately halted, the site protected, and the County Coroner and representatives from Pechanga Band of Luiseño Indians notified. Old Town Historic Preservation Ordinance As described in section Section V.C of the Specific Plan, the Old Town Historic Preservation District Ordinance requires that within the boundaries of the Old Town Historic Preservation District no person shall demolish, remove, relocate, or cause to be relocated, alter, or cause to be altered, construct, or cause to be constructed or modify any designated historic building or structure, except in strict compliance with the plans approved in conjunction with a Finding of Historic Appropriateness. 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures Cultural Resources Old Town Specific Plan Amendment 3.4-20 ESA /D209294 Draft Environmental Impact Report February 2010 The list of Designated Historic Buildings and Structures within the Old Town Historic Preservation District, as originally determined in 1994, is provided below. • Saint Catherine's Church, 1920 28314 Mercedes Street • Welty Building, 1897 28659 Old Town Front Street • Machado Store, 1910 28656 Old Town Front Street • Clogstone Restaurant, 1932 28676 Old Town Front Street • First National Bank, 1914 28645 Old Town Front Street • Palomar Hotel, 1915 28522 Old Town Front Street • Alec Escallier House, 1927-28 41852 Main Street • Burnham Store, 1902 42051 Main Street • Friedeman Meat Market, 1901 42050 Main Street • Welty Hotel, 1891 42100 Main Street • J.D. Welty, 1936 42081 3rd Street • Arviso House, 1920 41915 4th Street • Unnamed residence, 1928 42251 6th Street • Bill Friedeman House, 1922 42291 6th Street • Nienke House, 1936 28575 Pujol Street • McConville House, early 1890s 28585 Pujol Street • Albert Nienke House, early 1920s 28649 Pujol Street • G.A. Burnham House, early 1880s 28653 Pujol Street • Al Otto House, 1882 28717 Pujol Street Paleontological Resources Federal Level A variety of federal statutes specifically address paleontological resources. They are generally applicable to a project if that project includes federally owned or managed lands or involves a federal agency license, permit, approval, or funding. Federal legislative protection for paleontological resources stems from the Antiquities Act of 1906 (PL 59-209; 16 United States Code 431 et seq.; 34 Stat. 225), which calls for protection of historic landmarks, historic and prehistoric structures, and other objects of historic or scientific interest on federal lands. State Level Paleontological resources are also afforded protection by environmental legislation set forth under CEQA. Appendix G (Part V) of the CEQA Guidelines states that a project will normally result in a significant impact on the environment if it will “…disrupt or adversely affect a paleontologic resource or site or unique geologic feature, except as part of a scientific study.” Section 5097.5 of the Public Resources Code specifies that any unauthorized removal of paleontological remains is a misdemeanor. Further, the California Penal Code Section 622.5 sets the penalties for the damage or removal of paleontological resources. Local Level The City of Temecula General Plan contains several policies concerning paleontological resources; these are detailed above. 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures Cultural Resources Old Town Specific Plan Amendment 3.4-21 ESA /D209294 Draft Environmental Impact Report February 2010 Professional Standards The Society of Vertebrate Paleontology (SVP) has established standard guidelines that outline acceptable professional practices in the conduct of paleontological resource assessments and surveys, monitoring and mitigation, data and fossil recovery, sampling procedures, and specimen preparation, identification, analysis, and curation. Most practicing professional paleontologists in the nation adhere closely to the SVP’s assessment, mitigation, and monitoring requirements as specifically provided in its standard guidelines. Most California state regulatory agencies accept the SVP standard guidelines as a measure of professional practice. 3.4.6 Impacts and Mitigation Significance Criteria For the purposes of this EIR and consistent with Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, the proposed project is considered to have a significant impact if it would result in any of the following: • A substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource that is either listed or eligible for listing in the National Register, the California Register, or a local register of historic resources; • A substantial adverse change in the significance of a unique archaeological resource; • Disturbance or destruction of a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature; or • Disturbance of any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries. CEQA provides that a project may cause a significant environmental effect where the project could result in a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource (Public Resources Code, Section 21084.1). CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5 defines a “substantial adverse change” in the significance of a historical resource to mean physical demolition, destruction, relocation, or alteration of the resource or its immediate surroundings such that the significance of a historical resource would be “materially impaired” (CEQA Guidelines, Section 15064.5[b][1]). CEQA Guidelines, Section 15064.5(b)(2), defines “materially impaired” for purposes of the definition of “substantial adverse change” as follows: The significance of a historical resource is materially impaired when a project: • Demolishes or materially alters in an adverse manner those physical characteristics of an historical resource that convey its historical significance and that justify its inclusion in, or eligibility for, inclusion in the California Register; or • Demolishes or materially alters in an adverse manner those physical characteristics that account for its inclusion in a local register of historical resources pursuant to Section 5020.1(k) of the Public Resources Code or its identification in an historical resources survey meeting the requirements of Section 5024.1(g) of the Public Resources Code, unless the public agency reviewing the effects of the project establishes by a preponderance of evidence that the resource is not historically or culturally significant; or 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures Cultural Resources Old Town Specific Plan Amendment 3.4-22 ESA /D209294 Draft Environmental Impact Report February 2010 • Demolishes or materially alters in an adverse manner those physical characteristics of a historical resource that convey its historical significance and that justify its eligibility for inclusion in the California Register as determined by a lead agency for purposes of CEQA. In accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5(b)(3), a project that follows the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties with Guidelines for Preserving, Rehabilitating, Restoring, and Reconstructing Historic Buildings or Standards for Rehabilitation and Guidelines for Rehabilitating Historic Buildings is considered to have mitigated impacts to historic resources to a less-than-significant level. Historic resources are usually 50 years old or older and must meet at least one of the criteria for listing in the California Register (such as association with historical events, important people, or architectural significance), in addition to maintaining a sufficient level of physical integrity (CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5[a][3]). Impact Analysis Based on archival research and communications with Native Americans, there is a high possibility of uncovering and identifying previously unrecorded archaeological deposits in the Specific Plan area. The large number of both prehistoric and historic archaeological sites, as well as Old Town’s historic structures, indicate that the Specific Plan area has been occupied throughout both prehistoric and historic time periods and should be considered very sensitive for cultural resources. In addition, unrecorded paleontological deposits may also be located in the Specific Plan area. Finally, a number of older buildings located outside of Old Town but within the Specific Plan area may be considered historic resources upon further review and evaluation. The proposed Specific Plan Amendment would encourage mixed-use and residential development within Old Town and could result in the addition of 749 residential units. New development has the potential to disrupt undiscovered archaeological or paleontological resources during project construction, and may directly or indirectly impact sites of historic architectural importance through demolition or substantial alteration. Specific projects would require supplemental environmental analysis prior to implementation to comply with CEQA requirements. Existing national, state and local laws as well as implementation of three additional proposed mitigation measures (below) would reduce these potential impacts on cultural resources to a less-than-significant level. Impact 3.4-1: Ground-disturbing activities associatied with implementation of the Specific Plan Amendment could result in the substantial adverse change of previously unknown archaeological resources as defined by CEQA Section 15064.5. The Temecula General Plan Open Space Element calls for the City to work to preserve or salvage potential archeological resources on sites proposed for future development through the development review and mitigation monitoring processes, as well as maintain an inventory of areas with archaeological sensitivity, and historic sites in the Specific Plan area. However, 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures Cultural Resources Old Town Specific Plan Amendment 3.4-23 ESA /D209294 Draft Environmental Impact Report February 2010 previously unknown and unrecorded archaeological resources could exist anywhere within the Specific Plan area, and may be unearthed during excavation and grading activities for individual projects. This can occur even in already developed areas, as older buildings are known to have often been built on top of or within archaeological deposits. If previously undiscovered artifacts or remains are uncovered during excavation or construction, significant impacts could occur. Implementation of Mitigation Measures 3.4-1a and 3.4-1b would minimize this impact to a less than significant level Mitigation Measures Mitigation Measure 3.4-1a: Consistent with the City of Temecula’s General Plan Goal 6 and Implementation Procedure OS-26 and OS-39, the Specific Plan Amendment shall include a new policy which requires that all areas slated for development or other grounddisturbing activities shall be subject to a Phase I survey (including records search and archaeological survey) for archaeological resources on a project-specific basis prior to the City’s approval of project plans. The survey shall be carried out by a qualified archaeologist in consultation with local Native American groups. If potentially significant archaeological resources are encountered during the survey, the City shall require that the resources are evaluated for their eligibility for listing on the National Register or California Register, and that recommendations are made for treatment of these resources if found to be significant, in consultation with the appropriate Native American groups. Any identified resources shall be avoided if feasible. Ground-disturbing activity in areas determined to be sensitive for cultural resources shall be monitored by a qualified archaeologist and Native American representative. Mitigation Measure 3.4-1b: Consistent with the City of Temecula’s Temecula’s General Plan Goal 6 and Implementation Procedure OS-26 and OS-39, the Specific Plan Amendment shall include a new policy which states that during construction, should prehistoric or historic subsurface cultural resources be discovered, all activity in the vicinity of the find shall stop and a qualified archaeologist will be contacted to assess the significance of the find according to CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5. If any find is determined to be significant, the City and the archaeologist will determine, in consultation with local Native American groups, appropriate avoidance measures or other appropriate mitigation. All significant cultural materials recovered will be, as necessary and at the discretion of the consulting archaeologist and in consultation with local Native American groups, subject to scientific analysis, professional museum curation, and documentation according to current professional standards. Significance after Mitigation: Less than significant. Impact 3.4-2: Implementation Implementation of the Specific Plan Amendment could result in a substantial adverse change to historic resources as defined by CEQA Section 15064.5. Twelve previously recorded historic resources in Old Town Temecula were reidentified during the field survey prepared for this Program EIR. The existing Old Town Historic Preservation Ordinance, and numerous implementation procedures within the City of Temecula General Plan, are designed to protect historic resources in Old Town Temecula. As no changes to these ordinances or protection procedures are planned as part of the Specific Plan Amendment, no 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures Cultural Resources Old Town Specific Plan Amendment 3.4-24 ESA /D209294 Draft Environmental Impact Report February 2010 significant direct or indirect impacts to those resources in particular are anticipated as a result of implementing the Specific Plan Amendment. The primary goal for the Specific Plan Amendment is to incorporate form-based code principles to more clearly define development regulations, to better facilitate pedestrian-friendly development through building placement and streetscapes, and to encourage mixed-use development within Old Town. The goals and recommendations intended to direct the City in its development of the OTSP area include the protection of designated historic buildings by delineating a historic core, protecting the historic grid of streets and alleys, and encouraging future development to maintain the historic setting and character of the plan area. The proposed amendment would include architectural standards intended to encourage new development to respect the historic setting and character of the project area and its historic structures, by providing guidance and regulations concerning building form, frontage type, architectural style, and materials. For example, the City would provide landscape guidelines to soften the impact of commercial development and unify and establish the historical theme of the OTSP area, and strongly encourage paving materials that reflect the historic materials used in the 19th century to be used in the Specific Plan area wherever possible. Improvements to areas such as the Murrieta Creek Walk corridor are intended to be aesthetically compatible with the vision for Old Town and the preservation of its historic character and setting. Implementation of these guidelines would result in a less-than-significant impact to historic resources within the OTSP area. The proposed Specific Plan Amendment would also result in the annexation of approximately 2.4 acres into the Specific Plan at a location location south of First Street, along the west side of Old Town Front Street, and the removal of approximately 2.3 acres from the Specific Plan at a location west of the intersection of Sixth Street and Pujol Street. Neither the annexation nor the removal of land from the OTSP area would result in a significant impact to historic resources, as neither area includes any previously identified or potential resources. The 2.3 acres intended for removal from the OTSP area includes predominantly modern residential structures located along a private road. However, the Specific Plan area contains other buildings dating older than 50 years. As these structures have not been comprehensively surveyed and evaluated, it is possible that they may be eligible as historic resources if other criteria apply, such as significant associations with important events, people, or have high architectural merit. Mitigation Measure 3.4-2a would require that structures 50 years old or older be evaluated for significance prior to the implementation of specific projects and would minimize this impact to a less-than-significant level. Mitigation Measures Mitigation Measure 3.4-2a: Consistent with the City of Temecula’s General Plan Goal 6 and Implementation Procedure OS-2, the Specific Plan Amendment shall include a new policy which states that all areas slated for development or other ground-disturbing activities in the Specific Plan Area which contain structures 50 years old or older be surveyed and evaluated for their potential historic significance prior to the City’s approval of project plans. The survey shall be carried out by a qualified historian or architectural 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures Cultural Resources Old Town Specific Plan Amendment 3.4-25 ESA /D209294 Draft Environmental Impact Report February 2010 historian meeting the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Architectural History. If potentially significant resources are encountered during the survey, demolition or substantial alteration of such resources identified shall be avoided. If avoidance of identified historic resources is deemed infeasible, the City shall prepare a treatment plan to include, but not limited to, photo-documentation and public interpretation of the resource. Significance after Mitigation: Less than significant. Impact 3.4-3: Implementation of the Specific Plan Amendment could cause a substantial adverse change to areas of traditional cultural significance to local Native American individuals and groups. The Pechanga Band of Luiseño Indians and Soboba Band of Luiseño Indians recognize the Specific Plan area as having cultural significance. Pechanga tribal cultural traditions including oral histories, songs, and creation accounts directly refer to the project area and its immediate environs. According to SB 18, the lead agency is required to consult with Native American tribes to identify any Native American sacred places or geographical areas within which sacred places may be located. SB 18 likewise requires the development of appropriate treatment or management plans to ensure the protection and preservation of such sacred places. The identification of sacred sites through appropriate consultation as required under SB 18, as well as through Phase I investigation in coordination with local Native American groups for individual projects as specified in Mitigation Measure 3.4-1a above, would ensure that no significant impacts would occur. Mitigation: None required. Impact 3.4-4: Ground-disturbing construction associated with implementation of the Specific Plan Amendment could result in damage to previously unidentified human remains. There is no indication that any particular site in the Specific Plan area has been used for human burial purposes in the recent or distant past. In addition, General Plan Implementation Procedure OS-39: Tribal Cultural Resources, already protects previously unidentified human remains from accidental damage. However, in the unlikely event that human remains are discovered, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries, the human remains could be inadvertently damaged, which could be a significant impact. This impact could be further minimized by implementation of Mitigation Measure 3.4-4a. Mitigation Measures Mitigation Measure 3.4-4a: Consistent with State law, CEQA Guidelines, and the City of Temecula’s General Plan Goal 6 and Implementation Procedure OS-26 and OS-39, the Specific Plan Amendment shall include a new policy which states that if human skeletal remains are uncovered during project construction, work in the vicinity of the find shall 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures Cultural Resources Old Town Specific Plan Amendment 3.4-26 ESA /D209294 Draft Environmental Impact Report February 2010 cease and the Riverside County coroner will be contacted to evaluate the remains, following the procedures and protocols set forth in Section 15064.5 (e)(1) of the CEQA Guidelines. If the County coroner determines that the remains are Native American, he or she will contact the Native American Heritage Commission, in accordance with Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5, subdivision (c), and Public Resources Code 5097.98 (as amended by AB 2641). The NAHC will then identify the person(s) thought to be the Most Likely Descendent of the deceased Native American, who will then help determine what course of action should be taken in dealing with the remains. Per Public Resources Code 5097.98, the landowner shall ensure that the immediate vicinity, according to generally accepted cultural or archaeological standards or practices, where the Native American human remains are located, is not damaged or disturbed by further development activity until the landowner has discussed and conferred, as prescribed in this section (PRC 5097.98), with the most likely descendents regarding their recommendations, if applicable, taking into account the possibility of multiple human remains. Significance after Mitigation: Less than significant. Impact 3.4-5: Ground-disturbing construction activities associated with implementation of the Specific Plan Amendment could directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource, or site, or unique geologic feature. The project area is underlain by the Pauba Formation and younger and older Quaternary Alluvium. The Pauba Formation and older Quaternary Alluvium have a high paleontological sensitivity, as they have a high potential to contain significant non-renewable paleontologic resources. These formations occur throughout a large percentage of the Specific Plan area. In addition, the Riverside County Planning Department’s Land Information System lists the paleontological sensitivity for most of the project area as “High”. Temecula’s General Plan (implementation measure OS-26) requires that a paleontologist be retained to observe grading activities in areas where the probable presence of paleontological resources is identified. However, significant paleontological resources can be uncovered even in areas of low sensitivity, and it is possible that ground-disturbing construction activities associated with implementation of the Specific Plan Amendment could result in the inadvertent discovery of paleontological resources, which could be a significant impact. The following mitigation measures would further reduce this impact to a less-than-signific ant level. Mitigation Measures Mitigation Measure 3.4-5a: The Specific Plan Amendment shall include a new policy which states that in the event that paleontological resources are discovered, the project proponent will notify a qualified paleontologist. The paleontologist will document the discovery as needed, evaluate the potential resource, and assess the significance of the find under the criteria set forth in CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5. If fossil or fossil bearing deposits are discovered during construction, excavations within 50 feet of the find will be temporarily halted or diverted until the discovery is examined by a qualified paleontologist 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures Cultural Resources Old Town Specific Plan Amendment 3.4-27 ESA /D209294 Draft Environmental Impact Report February 2010 (in accordance with Society of Vertebrate Paleontology standards (Society of Vertebrate Paleontology, 1995)). The paleontologist will notify the appropriate agencies to determine procedures that would be followed before construction is allowed to resume at the location of the find. If the City determines that avoidance is not feasible, the paleontologist will prepare an excavation plan for mitigating the effect of the project on the qualities that make the resource important. The plan will be submitted to the City for review and approval prior to implementation. Significance after Mitigation: Less than significant. 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures Old Town Specific Plan Amendment 3.5-1 ESA /D209294 Draft Environmental Impact Report February 2010 3.5 Hydrology and Water Quality 3.5.1 Introduction The proposed project’s potential to impact hydrology and water quality was evaluated in the NOP. The NOP determined that the proposed project will have no impact or a less-thansignificant impact upon water quality, drainage and flooding, embankment failure, groundwater depletion, and seiche, tsunami, or mudflow. The following section describes the findings of the NOP. The environmental baseline in this chapter uses the current physical condition of the OTSP area as compared to build-out of the OTSP amendment. 3.5.2 Setting Climate The project site is located within the southern end of the Temecula Valley of Southern California. The climate is considered mild Mediterranean with annual precipitation averages of approximately 14 inches. Over 50 percent of the annual rainfall occurs between January and March with scattered shower activity during the other nine months. Summers are dry with low humidity and are very warm, with most days in July and August above 90 degrees Fahrenheit. Environmental Setting The project area lies within the Temecula Valley, in the Peninsular Ranges Geomorphic Province, which extends from Baja California to the San Gabriel Mountains. The Santa Ana Mountains and the Santa Rosa Plateau are located directly to the west, the Santa Margarita and Agua Tibia Ranges are to the south, and the San Jacinto Ranges lie approximately 35 miles to the east. The elevation at the project site is approximately 1,005 feet. Both the City of Temecula and the sphere of influence area lie within the inland portion of the Santa Margarita River basin, which encompasses an area of approximately 750 square miles. The major tributary within the study area is Murrieta Creek, which runs north to south through the project site. Murrieta Creek currently lacks the capacity to safely convey 100-year storm flows through the City. Currently, the Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District is proposing to improve 11 miles of Murrieta Creek from Rancho California Road in Temecula to upstream of Clinton Keith Road north of the Murrieta City limits, to provide 100-year flood protection to existing development. According to the Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District, these improvements would include a natural riverine system which would require the excavation of 912,000 cubic yards of material that would be disposed of offsite. The excavated area would be graded to a slope of 1000:1.5, with a higher grade at Warm Springs, and a lower one at the outlet into Murrieta Creek. Initial contouring would create two low flow channels, one on Murrieta Creek and one on Warm Springs Creek. Average width of the channels would range between 10 and 15 feet, with an average depth of 3 feet. Flows above those contained within the low-flow channels would have the opportunity to flood back channels and ponded areas. Nine acres of freshwater ponds would be created which would receive flows and 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures Hydrology and Water Quality Old Town Specific Plan Amendment 3.5-2 ESA /D209294 Draft Environmental Impact Report February 2010 more frequent intervals which will significantly increase infiltration as compared to the existing condition. The Murrieta-Temecula Basin is the major groundwater basin in the project area, extending approximately 60,000 acres. It is the largest groundwater basin in the area drained by the Santa Margarita River. Murrieta, Temecula, Pauba, Long, and Lancaster Valleys are the largest of the valleys overlying the basin. The basin is bounded by nonwater-bearing crystalline rocks of the Peninsular Ranges. The overlying valleys are drained mainly by Wilson, Temecula, Murrieta, Warm Springs, and Pechanga Creeks to the Santa Margarita River, which flows west out of the Temecula Valley. The Pechanga Indian Reservation covers a portion of the southwestern part of the basin. The basin has an estimated storage capacity of 1.2 million acre-feet. It underlies the entire Murrieta Creek channel, which is an important source of recharge water for the underlying groundwater basin. Water flows out of the basin toward the Lake Elsinore area in the northwest and rises to the Santa Margarita River in the southwest. Surface water quality within Murrieta Creek is generally good with the exception of occasionally high levels of nitrate and phosphate, and increased total suspended solids (TDS) during low flows. Groundwater quality varies within the Murrieta-Temecula Basin. Water extracted at higher elevation and deeper unconfined aquifers is generally of higher quality. Regional Hydrogeology Quaternary Alluvium, which is estimated to reach more than 2,500 feet thick, is the water-bearing material of this basin. Well yields generally range to 300 gallons per minute (gpm) in the northwestern part of the basin, but reach 1,750 gpm for wells in Pauba Valley. Groundwater is generally unconfined, but is confined in the Pauba Valley and near some faults that cross the basin. Holocene alluvial deposits consist of unconsolidated gravels, sand, silt, and clay that are generally about 100 to 125 feet thick, but reach 200 feet thick. The Pleistocene age Temecula Arkose, an alluvial deposit composed of arkosic sand with some marl, tugg, and silt, is at least 1,400 feet thick. Groundwater is also extracted from residuum and from fractured rocks beneath the basin. The Lancaster, Aguanga, and Agua Caliente faults and several strands of the Elsinore fault zone cross the basin and may affect groundwater movement. The Wildomar fault is a groundwater barrier that produces differences in water level and pressure in the northwestern part of the basin. Murrieta Hot Springs lie along an unnamed fault, indicating that the fault affects subsurface flow. Natural recharge of the alluvium is from direct precipitation and percolation in the Warm Springs, Tucalota, Santa Gertrudis, Murrieta, and Pechanga Creeks and the Temecula River. Groundwater Quality Groundwater in this basin is largely suitable for domestic and irrigation uses. The groundwater is largely sodium bicarbonate in character. Sodium-calcium bicarbonate, sodium-calcium sulfate, calcium bicarbonate, and sodium chloride waters are also present in the basin. The concentrations 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures Hydrology and Water Quality Old Town Specific Plan Amendment 3.5-3 ESA /D209294 Draft Environmental Impact Report February 2010 of solids (TDS) ranged from 220 to 984 milligrams per liter (mg/L) in 1956; however, water from 50 public supply wells ranges from 240 to 1,500 mg/L, and averages 476 mg/L. Water quality is a regional issue regulated at the county, state, and federal levels. The Rancho California Water District (RCWD) supplies most of the domestic and commercial water to Temecula, paid for by user fees. Water supply to the City is drawn from the Murrieta-Temecula groundwater basin and supplemented with imported water from the Metropolitan Water District (MWD). Other sources include reclaimed water and untreated MWD water used for groundwater recharge. The current and future projected distributions of water sources are provided in Table 3.5-1. The local water agency expects that there will not be a shortage of water supplies in the future. TABLE 3.5-1 RANCHO CALIFORNIA WATER DISTRICT WATER SOURCES Sources Present Future/Build-out Local Groundwater 35% 26% MWD Water 37% 55% Reclaimed Water 3% 9% Groundwater Recharge 24% 10% SOURCE: Temecula General Plan Open Space/Conservation Element. 3.5.3 Regulatory Framework Federal Clean Water Act The purpose of the Clean Water Act (CWA) is to protect and maintain the quality and integrity of the nation’s waters by requiring states to develop and implement state water plans and policies. Section 303 of the CWA requires states to establish water quality standards consisting of designated beneficial uses of water bodies and water quality standards to protect those uses for all Waters of the United States. Total Maximum Daily Load Under Section 303(d) of the CWA, states, territories and authorized tribes are required to develop lists of impaired waters. Impaired waters are the waters that do not meet water quality standards, even after point sources of pollution have installed the minimum required levels of pollution control technology. The law requires that these jurisdictions establish priority rankings for water bodies on the lists and develop action plans to improve water quality. This process includes development of Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDL) that set discharge limits for nonpointsource pollutants. The TMDL is the quantity of a pollutant that can be safely assimilated by a water body without violating water quality standards. Listing of a water body as impaired does 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures Hydrology and Water Quality Old Town Specific Plan Amendment 3.5-4 ESA /D209294 Draft Environmental Impact Report February 2010 not necessarily suggest that the pollutants are at levels considered hazardous to humans or aquatic life or that the water body segment cannot support the beneficial uses. The intent of the 303(d) list is to identify the water body as requiring future development of a TMDL to maintain water quality and reduce the potential for continued water quality degradation. The recently passed Ducheny Bill (AB 1740) requires the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) and its nine Regional Water Quality Control Boards to post this list and to provide an estimated completion date for each TMDL (SWRCB, 2003). The list is administered by the Regional Boards, in this case, San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board. National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Under the CWA, discharges into navigable waters are prohibited except in compliance with specified requirements and authorizations. Municipal and industrial facilities are required to obtain a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit that specifies allowable limits, based on available wastewater treatment technologies, for pollutant levels in their effluent. In California, the EPA has delegated the implementation of this program to the State Board and to the Regional Boards. Stormwater discharges are regulated somewhat differently. Stormwater runoff from construction areas of one acre or more require either an individual permit or coverage under the statewide General Construction Stormwater Permit. In addition, specific industries, including wastewater treatment plants, that have direct stormwater discharges to navigable waters are required to obtain either an individual permit issued by the Regional Board, or obtain coverage under the statewide General Industrial Stormwater Permit. State California Toxics Rule The EPA is responsible for implementing federal laws designed to protect air, water, and land. EPA has developed national water quality standards in accordance with the CWA and these standards are used to determine the amount and the conditions under which pollutants can be discharged. The EPA published the California Toxics Rule (CTR) in the Federal Register (FR) establishing water quality standards for toxic pollutants for California waters (FR 31681). On April 28, 2000, the Office of Administrative Law approved the Policy for Implementation of Toxics Standards for Inland Surface Waters, Enclosed Bays, and Estuaries of California (State Implementation Plan [SIP]). The State Water Resources Control Board adopted the policy in March 2000. The SIP establishes the implementation policy for all toxic pollutants. State Water Resources Control Board The State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB), located in Sacramento, is the agency with jurisdiction over water quality issues in the State of California. The SWRCB is governed by the Porter-Cologne Water Quality Act (Division 7 of the California Water Code), which establishes the legal framework for water quality control activities by the SWRCB. The intent of the Porter 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures Hydrology and Water Quality Old Town Specific Plan Amendment 3.5-5 ESA /D209294 Draft Environmental Impact Report February 2010 Cologne Act is to regulate factors which may affect the quality of Waters of the State to attain the highest quality which is reasonable, considering a full range of demands and values. Much of the implementation of the SWRCB’s responsibilities is delegated to its nine Regional Boards. The project site is located within the San Diego Region. The San Diego Water Quality Control Board uses planning, permitting, and enforcement authorities to meet this responsibility. Construction Activity Permitting The Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) administers the NPDES stormwater permitting program in the Central Valley region. Construction activities on one acre or more are subject to the permitting requirements of the NPDES General Permit for Discharges of Stormwater Runoff Associated with Construction Activity (General Construction Permit). The General Construction Permit requires the preparation and implementation of a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP). The SWPPP is prepared before construction begins. The plan includes specifications for Best Management Practices (BMPs) that would be implemented during project construction to control degradation of surface water by preventing the potential erosion of sediments or discharge of pollutants from the construction area. The General Construction Permit program was established by the RWQCB for the specific purpose of reducing impacts to surface waters that may occur due to construction activities. BMPs established by the RWQCB in the California Storm Water Best Management Practice Handbook (2003) are recognized as effectively reducing degradation of surface waters to an acceptable level. Additionally, the SWPPP would describe measures to prevent or control runoff degradation after construction is complete, and identify a plan to inspect and maintain these facilities or project elements Waste Discharge Requirements Article 4 of the Porter-Cologne Act (California Water Code § 13260-13274) states that persons discharging or proposing to discharge waste that could affect the quality of Waters of the State (other than into a community sewer system) shall file a Report of Waste Discharge (ROWD) with the applicable RWQCB. For discharges to surface water, an NPDES permit is required, which is issued under both state and federal law. For other types of discharges, such as waste discharges to land (e.g., wastewater or spoils disposal), waste discharge requirements (WDRs) are required and are issued exclusively under state law. Local The City of Temecula’s General Plan includes elements to protect the groundwater and surface water resources of the City through various goals and policies. The following policies would apply to the proposed Specific Plan Amendment: • Identify and protect groundwater resources from depletion and sources of pollution in cooperation with the Rancho California Water District and the San Diego Water Quality Control Board. 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures Hydrology and Water Quality Old Town Specific Plan Amendment 3.5-6 ESA /D209294 Draft Environmental Impact Report February 2010 • Conserve potable water by requiring water conservation techniques in all new development. • Ensure that approved projects have filed a Notice of Intent and Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan in accordance with the federal Clean Water Act, prior to issuance of grading permits. • Work with appropriate agencies to encourage groundwater recharge facilities along flood control channels and creeks. • Regulate and manage lands adjacent to or affecting watercourses as stipulated by the Regional Water Resources Control Board. The City of Temecula’s General Plan contains several policies regarding the risks associated with flooding in the Public Safety Element. Specifically, the Public Safety Element provides assessment of natural and manmade hazards associated with flooding and dam inundation, and provides a framework and guiding policies to guide future development and strengthen existing regulations within the City. 3.5.5 Impacts and Mitigation Significance Criteria The City has not established local CEQA significance thresholds as described in Section 15064.7 of the CEQA Guidelines. However, Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines indicates that impacts on hydrology and water quality may be considered potentially significant if the proposed project would: • Violate any water quality or waste discharge requirements. • Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of pre-existing wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted). • Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on-or off-site. • Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on-or off-site. • Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff. • Otherwise substantially degrade water quality. • Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map. • Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures which would impede or redirect flows. 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures Hydrology and Water Quality Old Town Specific Plan Amendment 3.5-7 ESA /D209294 Draft Environmental Impact Report February 2010 • Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of a failure of levee or dam. • Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow. Impact Analysis Impact 3.5-1: The proposed project would not violate water quality standards or waste discharge requirements. Construction Construction of individual projects within Old Town, associated with the Specific Plan Amendment, would include grading and other earth moving activities, which would expose soils to erosion. This in turn could lead to an increase in suspended solids from site runoff, as unprotected disturbed soil is susceptible to high rates of erosion from wind and rain, as well as from such activities as washing down the project site. Additionally, construction activities of individual projects over the course of 20 to 30 years could lead to exposure of contaminated materials/soils which could impact surface water quality during storm events. However, any proposed development within the OTSP area larger than one acre would have to satisfy all applicable requirements of the NPDES Program and Chapter 8.24, Stormwater/Urban Runoff Management and Discharge Controls of the City of Temecula’s Municipal Code, to the satisfaction of the City of Temecula’s Public Works Department. These requirements include the preparation of a Standard Urban Stormwater Mitigation Plan, containing structural treatment and source control measures applicable to the individual project. Compliance with these requirements would ensure that construction impacts to water quality and waste discharge would be less than significant. Operation The incremental increase of development over the span of 20 to 30 years is likely to contribute to nonpoint sources of pollution such as motor oil, possible fertilizers and pesticides, human littering, littering, animal waste, and other pollutants which are typical of developed areas. These pollutants are washed from streets and parking lots during rainfall events that create sufficient runoff to carry the waste materials. These pollutants may also be washed away when a street, walkway or parking surface is cleaned. These pollutants have the potential to degrade water quality and may result in significant impacts. However, development projects have a responsibility under the NPDES Municipal Permit No. CAS004001 to ensure pollutant loads from the projects do not exceed the TMDL for downstream receiving waters. Development projects within the OTSP area would be required by the Stormwater/Urban Runoff Management and Discharge Controls of the City of Temecula’s Municipal Code to submit and implement a SWPPP using BMPs that would effectively reduce or prevent the discharge of pollutants into receiving waters. 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures Hydrology and Water Quality Old Town Specific Plan Amendment 3.5-8 ESA /D209294 Draft Environmental Impact Report February 2010 The following mitigation measures shall be implemented, as required by applicable local, state, or federal law or regulations: Mitigation Measure 3.5-1: Prior to the issuance of a grading or building permit for individual projects, the project developer shall file a NOI with California to comply with the requirements of the NPDES General Construction Permit (Municipal Code, Chapter Chapter 8.24). This would include the preparation of a SWPPP incorporating construction BMPs for control of erosion and sedimentation contained in stormwater runoff. Significance after Mitigation: Less than significant. Impact 3.5-2: The proposed project would not substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted). The proposed Specific Plan Amendment is not anticipated to affect the quantity of groundwaters, either though direct additions or withdrawals, through interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations, or through substantial loss of groundwater recharge capability. Less-than-significant impacts are anticipated as a result of the proposed Specific Plan Amendment. Mitigation: None required. Impact 3.5-3: The proposed project would not substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on-or off-site. Impact 3.5-4: The proposed project would not substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on-or off-site. The OTSP area is developed and served by existing stormwater collection and conveyance systems which empty into Murrieta Creek. Construction activities associated with development of the OTSP area could result in localized changes to drainage patterns. In particular, vacant lots that drain via sheet flow would be developed with collection and conveyance systems. These changes could increase the amount and rate of discharge into the storm drain system. Individual projects developed within the OTSP area would include project design features that would aid in the conveyance of stormwater to existing facilities. All runoff would continue to be conveyed via streets and gutters to storm drain locations within the Specific Plan area. Implementation of Mitigation Measure 3.5-1 would ensure that erosion or flooding remain less than significant. 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures Hydrology and Water Quality Old Town Specific Plan Amendment 3.5-9 ESA /D209294 Draft Environmental Impact Report February 2010 Mitigation: None required. Impact 3.5-5: The proposed project would not create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff. The majority of the Specific Plan area is developed. However, build-out of the Specific Plan area would decrease natural groundcover and increase impervious surfaces (such as paved areas and buildings). Surface water runoff volumes and rates generated from undeveloped, unpaved areas can increase significantly when a site is paved, the impervious surface area increased, and surface water infiltration reduced or eliminated. Increased runoff volume and peak discharge rates from development within the Old Town area over the course of 20 to 30 years could exacerbate downstream drainage problems, particularly if the capacity of downstream infrastructure is inadequate. Increased detention basin capacity and improvements to the storm drainage network would be necessary to accommodate future storm flows, provide adequate drainage, and control flooding. Development under the proposed Specific Plan Amendment would involve residential and mixed uses, a downtown core, office, retail, entertainment, and hotel uses. Open space would include the creation of pedestrian and equestrian walkways along both sides of the Murrieta Creek and in the creek bottom. Other open space areas would include landscaped buffers and small parks. Surface water runoff volumes and rates are anticipated to increase when the majority of the area is paved and developed. However, with implementation of Mitigation Measure 3.5-1, potential impacts related to increases in stormwater runoff rates and volume would be reduced to less than significant. Mitigation: None required. Impact 3.5-6: The project would not otherwise substantially degrade water quality. Construction would typically require stripping of existing surface vegetation, additional site grading, and soil excavation. During construction, established groundcover that currently serves to stabilize site soils would be removed, potentially resulting in increased erosion and increased sediment load to existing or planned storm drainage facilities. Construction activities can also generate hazardous waste products such as adhesives, solvents, paints, and drilling and petroleum products that, if not managed appropriately, can adhere to soil particles, become mobilized by rain or runoff, and contribute to nonpoint-source pollution. In addition, during excavation and grading, contaminated soils may be exposed and/or disturbed; this could impact surface water quality through contact during storm events. Increased soil erosion and the accidental discharge of construction materials and/or contaminated soils from the project site could adversely affect water quality in downstream downstream water bodies. 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures Hydrology and Water Quality Old Town Specific Plan Amendment 3.5-10 ESA /D209294 Draft Environmental Impact Report February 2010 However, all individual development projects within the Old Town project area will be required to prepare a Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) pursuant to the Municipal Separate Storm-Sewer permit (MS4 permit) issued by the San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board. Water quality control measures identified in the WQMP will be incorporated into project designs to eliminate potential adverse impacts to receiving waters. A less-than-significant impact is anticipated as a result of the proposed Specific Plan Amendment. Mitigation: None required. Impact 3.5-7: The proposed project would not place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map. Impact 3.5-8: The proposed project would not place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures which would impede or redirect flood flows. Temecula contains several FEMA Special Flood Hazard Areas (SFHAs). These areas, corresponding to the 100-year floodplain, have the potential to become flooded when major rainstorms cause stream overflows. Murrieta Creek is the most flood-prone of the Temecula creeks. However, specific building standards, as described within the flood damage prevention and floodplain management regulations of the City Development Code, apply to flood-prone areas, including anchoring, use of flood–resistant building materials, use of adequate drainage paths, and elevating the structures to or above the base flood elevation. Furthermore, the City participates in the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP), which makes flood insurance available to affected property owners within the 100-year floodplain. The City would also review development plans for projects within the floodplain, to ensure compliance with City and FEMA floodplain development requirements. According to the Public Safety Element of the City’s General Plan, no development of any kind will be allowed in the floodway portion of the 100-year floodplain. Therefore, impacts are considered less than significant. Mitigation: None required. Impact 3.5-9: The proposed project would not expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam. Flooding from dam failure can result from natural and human causes including earthquakes, erosion, improper siting and/or design, and rapidly rising floodwater during heavy storms. The type of failure, ranging from instantaneous to gradual, is dependent on the building material of 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures Hydrology and Water Quality Old Town Specific Plan Amendment 3.5-11 ESA /D209294 Draft Environmental Impact Report February 2010 the dam. Dam failure can potentially cause loss of life and property damage. Other effects include displacement of persons residing in the inundation path and damage to infrastructure. According to the Public Safety Element of the City’s General Plan, three local bodies of water have the potential to impact the project site if such an event occurred (please refer to Figure 3.5-1): • Lake Skinner has a volume of 43,800 acre-feet located behind an earthen dam northeast of Temecula. Failure of the Lake Skinner Dam would result in flooding along Tucalota Creek and Benton Road. Areas along I-15 and Murrieta Creek could also be substantially affected. • Vail Lake is located to the east of Temecula. Dam failure of this 51,000-acre-foot facility would cause flooding in the Pauba and Temecula Valleys. Interstate 15 and an adjacent three-mile area would also flood. • Diamond Valley Lake, impounded by two earthen dams, is the largest reservoir in Southern California and is located north of Temecula. Failure of the western dam would result in flooding in the northern parts of Temecula. Areas along I-15 and Murrieta Creek could also be substantially affected. The City will maintain a Dam Inundation Evacuation Plan, will update the Multi-Hazard Functional Plan as needed to address flood hazards, and will coordinate with the State Office of Emergency Services to ensure that dam safety plans reflect the level of development within the community. Therefore, the rare likelihood of such an event and compliance with these plans would reduce any risks of death or loss to less than significant. Mitigation: None required. Impact 3.5-10: The proposed project would not be inundated by a seiche, tsunami, or mudflow. Tsunamis are large sea waves generated by submarine earthquakes or similar large-scale, shortduration phenomena, such as volcanic eruptions, than can cause considerable damage to lowlying coastal areas. Seiches are waves, also caused by large-scale, short-duration phenomena, that result from the oscillation of confined bodies of water (such as reservoirs or lakes) that also may damage low-lying adjacent areas. The proposed project would not expose people to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving inundation by a seiche, tsunami, or mudflow because the project site is not located near a coast, large body of water, or steep enough slopes. The project site is located approximately 23 miles from the Pacific Ocean, which is a sufficient distance to avoid tsunami impacts. As mentioned above, there are three dams within the City of Temecula, and the nearest dam is Lake Skinner, located approximately 7.5 miles away from the project area. The lake is sufficiently far away to eliminate impacts associated with seiches in the Specific Plan area. Old Town Specific Plan EIR . 209294 Figure 3.5-1 Dam Inundation SOURCE: GlobeXplorer, 2008; City of Temecula, 2009. 0 1000 Feet Legend Diamond Valley Lake Lake Skinner Vail Lake 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures Hydrology and Water Quality Old Town Specific Plan Amendment 3.5-13 ESA /D209294 Draft Environmental Impact Report February 2010 The nearest foothills with exposed soils are located immediately adjacent to the west of the project site; however, due to the gently rolling slope, mudflows would not likely reach the project site. Therefore, no impact associated with mudflows is anticipated to occur. In summary, there would be no impact that would expose people or structures at the project site to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving inundation by a seiche, tsunami, or mudlow. Mitigation: None required. 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures Old Town Specific Plan Amendment 3.6-1 ESA /D209294 Draft Environmental Impact Report February 2010 3.6 Land Use and Planning 3.6.1 Introduction Impacts related to the potential to disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an established community were found to be less than significant in the NOP prepared for this project. The focus of the following discussion is the potential impacts related to possible conflicts with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including but not limited to the General Plan, Specific Plan, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect. 3.6.2 Setting The project site is located in the City of Temecula and is bounded to the north by Rancho California Road, to the east by I-15, to the south by First Street, and to the west from approximately 225 feet west of Pujol Street and an area outside of the existing Specific Plan boundary extending approximately 350 feet south of First Street, between the eastern edge of the Murrieta Creek channel and Old Town Front Street. The project proposes to create land use districts that will establish permitted land uses and development standards intended to implement the goals, policies and objectives of the Specific Plan and the City's General Plan. The existing land uses in each proposed district are described below. Figure 3.6-1 shows the location of each of the existing land uses. Downtown Core District and Hotel Overlay The Downtown Core land use district would be located between Mercedes Street and the Murrieta Creek Open Space corridor. The existing land uses in this area are characterized by multi-story buildings that accommodate art galleries, museums, restaurants and small-scale boutique retailers such as gift, specialty food, and antique shops, or similar retail uses. Residential, service and office uses are also present within this district. The Hotel Overlay would be located south of Second Street between the I-15 freeway and the Murrieta Creek Open Space corridor. This area contains hotels, such as the Roadway Inn, and conference facilities. Figure 3.6-2 shows examples of existing structures in the Downtown Core and Hotel Overlay districts that characterize the land uses in these areas (see Figure 3.6-1 for photographic survey key). Civic District Civic Districts are proposed in three locations. One is bounded by Moreno Road, Mercedes Street, Sixth Street and the I-15 freeway. This area’s land uses are characterized by Sam Hicks Monument Park, a chapel, a museum, a fire station and Mary Phillips Senior Center. Another Civic District is located south of Fourth Street, north of Second Street and between Mercedes Street and the I-15 freeway. This area is currently under construction and will include a small park and other public/quasi-public uses such as city offices. A third Civic District area is located in the area east of the Murietta Creek Open Space corridor, north of of Main Street and south of Fourth Street. This area is characterized by quasi-public uses such as museums and community assembly uses. Figure 3.6-3 shows examples of structures in the Civic District areas that characterize the existing land uses (see Figure 3.6-1 for photographic survey key). 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.6 Land Use and Planning Old Town Specific Plan Amendment 3.6-2 ESA /D209294 Draft Environmental Impact Report February 2010 Residential/Limited Mixed Uses Two Residential/Limited Mixed Uses Districts are proposed within the OTSP boundary. One is located in the northeast corner of the Specific Plan area and is characterized by motels, a gas station, takeout/delivery restaurants, the U.S. Postal Service office, and other commercial/convenience commercial and industrial land uses. The other Residential/Limited Mixed Uses District is located in the area east of Mercedes Street, south of Sixth Street, and west of the I-15 freeway. This area consists mainly of single-family homes and commercial uses. Figure 3.6-4 shows examples of structures located within the Residential/Limited Mixed Uses Districts (see Figure 3.6-1 for photographic survey key). Neighborhood Residential The Neighborhood Residential District is proposed along the western side of the project area, west of the Murrieta Creek Open Space corridor. Typical land uses in this area consist of residential land uses including single family (detached homes), duplexes, triplexes, townhouses, condominiums, and apartments. Figure 3.6-5 shows examples of existing structures that characterize the Neighborhood Residential District (see Figure 3.6-1 for photographic survey key). Open Space The Open Space corridor, which traverses through the central portion of the project area, includes both public and private areas of permanent open space along the floodways of Murrieta Creek. The zone includes Murrieta Creek and associated riparian vegetation. Figure 3.6-5 shows portions of the proposed Open Space corridor (see Figure 3.6-1 for photographic survey key). Mor e n o R d Six th Fi ft h Fourt h Old Town Fro n t Pu j o ls Thi rd Moreno Rd Sixth St Fifth St Fourth St Main St Front St Pujols St Third St Photo Location & View Direction Old Town Specific Plan EIR . 209294 Figure 3.6-1 Existing General Plan Land Use Districts and Photographic Survey Key SOURCE: GlobeXplorer, 2008; City of Temecula, 2009. 15 Sec o nd StSecond StFi rst StFirst St 0 500 Feet Land Use Description Community Commercial High Residential Highway Tourist Commercial Low Medium Residential Medium Residential Open Space Public Facilities Service Commercial Ra n cho C ali fornia Rancho California Rd RM-2 RM-3 RM-4 RM-6 RM-5 RM-7 RM-9 RM-8 DT-6 DT-5 C-2 C-1 C-4 C-3 C-5 RM-1 DT-7 DT-9 NR-5 DT-3 DT-4 DT-2 OS-3 OS-2 OS-1 DT-1 NR-4 NR-3 NR-2 NR-1 NR-6 DT-8 NR-5 C-6 Figure 3.6-2 Downtown Core and Hotel Overlay Existing Land Uses SOURCE: ESA, 2009. DT-1. Mixed Use DT-2. Mixed Use DT-3. Retail DT-4. Mixed Use DT-5. Mixed Use DT-6. Hotel -Mixed Use DT-7. Retail DT-8. Hotel DT-9. Conference Facility Old Town Specific Plan EIR . 209294 Figure 3.6-3 Civic District Existing Land Uses SOURCE: ESA, 2009. Old Town Specific Plan EIR . 209294 C-1. Sam Hicks Memorial Park C-2. Chapel C-3. Fire Station C-4. Museum C-5. Existing Construction C-6. Threater Figure 3.6-4 Residential /Limited Mixed Use Existing Land Use SOURCE: ESA, 2009. RM-1. Motel RM-2. Motel RM-3. Restaurant RM-4. Car Wash RM-5. Gas Station RM-6. Utility RM-7. Massage Service RM-8. Office RM-9. Single Family Dwelling Old Town Specific Plan EIR . 209294 Figure 3.6-5 Neighborhood Residential and Open Space Existing Land Use SOURCE: ESA, 2009. NR-1. Multi Family Dwelling NR-2. Single Family Dwelling NR-3. Single Family Dwelling NR-4. Single Family Dwelling NR-5. Single Family Dwelling NR-6. Multi Family Dwelling OS-1. Riparian Vegetation OS-2. Murrieta Creek OS-3. Creek Bank Old Town Specific Plan EIR . 209294 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.6 Land Use and Planning Old Town Specific Plan Amendment 3.6-8 ESA /D209294 Draft Environmental Impact Report February 2010 3.6.3. Regulatory Framework Regional Southern California Association of Governments The Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) is the designated Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) for six counties: Los Angeles, Orange, San Bernardino, Riverside, Ventura, and Imperial. As the designated MPO for the region, SCAG is mandated by the federal government to research and create plans for transportation, growth management, hazardous waste management, and air. • Maintenance of a continuous, comprehensive, and coordinated planning process resulting in a Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) and a Regional Transportation Improvement Program (RTIP). • Development of demographic projections plus the integrated land use, housing, employment, transportation programs, measures, and strategies portions of the South Coast Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP), as well as serving as co-lead agency for air quality planning for the Central Coast and Southeast Desert air basin districts. • Responsibility under the federal Clean Air Act (CAA) for determining whether projects, plans, and programs conform to the CAA. • To function as the authorized regional agency for intergovernmental review of programs proposed for federal financial assistance and direct development activities. • Review of environmental impact reports for projects having regional significance for consistency with regional plans. • To function as the authorized area-wide waste treatment management planning agency pursuant to federal water pollution control statutes. • Responsibility under state law for preparation of the Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA). SCAG, along with the San Diego Association of Governments and the Santa Barbara County/Cities Area Planning Council, is also responsible for preparing the Southern California Hazardous Waste Management Plan pursuant to the California Health and Safety Code. Because the proposed project is a project with regional significance, per CEQA Guidelines Sections 15125(d) and 15206, SCAG is responsible for ensuring that the project is consistent with regional plans, which, in this case, include the Regional Comprehensive Plan and Guide (RCPG), the RTP, and the Compass Blueprint Growth Vision. In addition, this Program EIR uses the most recently adopted SCAG population, housing and job forecasts as the basis for applicable analyses throughout this Program EIR. Regional Comprehensive Plan and Guide The 2008 Draft RCPG is an advisory plan that establishes a strategy for defining and solving the region’s interrelated housing, traffic, water, air quality and other regional challenges. The RCPG ties together SCAG’s role in transportation, land use, and air quality planning as well as recommending key roles and responsibilities for public and private sector stakeholders and inviting them to help implement the policies of the RCPG. The areas covered in the RCPG are land use and housing, solid and hazardous waste, 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.6 Land Use and Planning Old Town Specific Plan Amendment 3.6-9 ESA /D209294 Draft Environmental Impact Report February 2010 energy, air quality, open space and habitat, economy and education, water, transportation, security and emergency preparedness, and finance. The Growth Management Chapter (GMC) contains policies that are particularly applicable to the proposed project. These policies are outlined below. GMC policies related to improving the regional standard of living: SCAG has developed the following goals that are aimed toward developing urban forms that enable individuals to spend less income on housing costs, that minimize public and private development costs, that enable firms to be more competitive, and that strengthen the regional strategic goal to stimulate the regional economy. 3.01 The population, housing and jobs forecasts, which are adopted by SCAG’s Regional Council and that reflect local plans and policies shall be used by SCAG in all phases of implementation and review. 3.02 In areas with large seasonal population fluctuations, such as resort areas, forecast permanent populations. However, appropriate infrastructure systems should be sized to serve high-season population totals. 3.03 The timing, financing, and location of public facilities, utilities systems, and transportation systems shall be used by SCAG to implement the region’s growth policies. 3.04 Encourage local jurisdictions’ efforts to achieve a balance between the types of jobs they seek to attract and housing prices. 3.05 Encourage patterns of urban development and land use which reduce costs on infrastructure construction and make better use of existing facilities. 3.06 Support public education efforts regarding the costs of various alternative types of growth and development. 3.07 Support subregional policies that recognize agriculture as an industry, support the economic vitality of agricultural activities, preserve agricultural land, and provide compensation for property owners holding lands in greenbelt areas. 3.08 Encourage subregions to define an economic strategy to maintain the economic vitality of the subregion, including the development and use of marketing programs, and other economic incentives, which support attainment of subregional goals and policies. 3.09 Support local jurisdictions’ efforts to minimize the cost of infrastructure and public service delivery, and efforts to seek new sources of funding for development and the provision of services. 3.10 Support local jurisdictions’ actions to minimize red tape and expedite the permitting process to maintain economic vitality and competitiveness. GMC polices related to regional quality of life: The following growth management goals aim to attain mobility and clean air goals and to develop urban forms that enhance the quality of life, that accommodate a diversity of lifestyles, that preserve open space and natural resources, that are aesthetically pleasing and preserve the character of communities, and that enhance the regional strategic goal of maintaining the regional quality of life. 3.11 Support provisions and incentives created by local jurisdictions to attract housing growth in job rich subregions and job growth in housing rich subregions. 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.6 Land Use and Planning Old Town Specific Plan Amendment 3.6-10 ESA /D209294 Draft Environmental Impact Report February 2010 3.12 Encourage existing or proposed local jurisdictions’ programs aimed at designing land uses which encourage the use of transit and thus reduce the need for roadway expansion, reduce the number of auto trips and vehicle miles traveled, and create opportunities for residents to walk and bike. 3.13 Encourage local jurisdictions’ plans that maximize the use of existing urbanized area accessible to transit through infill and redevelopment. 3.14 Support local plans to increase density of future development located at strategic points along the regional commuter rail, transit systems, and activity centers. 3.15 Support local jurisdictions’ strategies to establish mixed-use clusters and other transit-oriented developments around transit stations and along transit corridors. 3.16 Encourage development in and around activity centers, transportation corridors, underutilized infrastructure systems, and areas needing recycling and redevelopment. 3.17 Support and encourage settlement patterns which contain a range of urban densities. 3.18 Encourage planned developments in locations least likely to cause adverse environmental impacts. 3.19 National Forests shall remain permanently preserved and used as open space. SCAG shall support policies and actions that preserve open space areas identified in local, state, and federal plans. 3.20 Support the protection of vital resources such as wetlands, groundwater recharge areas, woodlands, production lands, and land containing unique and endangered plants and animals. 3.21 Encourage the implementation of measures aimed at the preservation and protection of recorded and unrecorded cultural resources and archaeological sites. 3.22 Discourage development, or encourage the use of special design requirements, in areas with steep slopes, high fire, flood, and seismic hazards. 3.23 Encourage mitigation measures that reduce noise in certain locations, measures aimed at preservation of biological and ecological resources, measures that would reduce exposure to seismic hazards, minimize earthquake damage, and to develop emergency response and recovery plans. Open Space and Conservation Chapter goals: 9.1 Provide adequate land resources to meet the outdoor recreation needs of the present and future residents in the region and to promote tourism in the region. 9.2 Increase the accessibility to open space lands for outdoor recreation. 9.3 Promote self-sustaining regional recreation resources and facilities. 9.4 Maintain open space for adequate protection to lives and properties against natural and manmade hazards. 9.5 Minimize potentially hazardous developments in hillsides, canyons, areas susceptible to flooding, earthquakes, wildfire and other known hazards, and areas with limited access for emergency equipments. 9.6 Minimize public expenditure for infrastructure and facilities to support urban type uses in areas where public health and safety could not be guaranteed. 9.7 Maintain adequate viable resource production lands, particularly lands devoted to commercial agriculture and mining operations. 9.8 Develop well-managed viable ecosystems or known habitats of rare, threatened and endangered species, including wetlands. 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.6 Land Use and Planning Old Town Specific Plan Amendment 3.6-11 ESA /D209294 Draft Environmental Impact Report February 2010 Regional Housing Needs Assessment The Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) is a key tool for SCAG and its member governments to plan for growth in the region. The RHNA, which was adopted in July 2007, quantifies the need for housing within each jurisdiction between 2006 and 2014. Communities then plan, consider, and decide how they will address this need through the process of completing the Housing Elements of their General Plans. The RHNA does not necessarily encourage or promote growth, but it helps communities to anticipate growth so that they can guide the growth in such a way as to enhance the quality of life, improve access to jobs, transportation and housing, and not adversely impact the environment. The RHNA consists of two measurements of housing need: (1) existing need and (2) future need. The existing needs assessment is based on data from the most recent U.S. Census to measure ways in which the housing market is not meeting the needs of the current residents. These variables include the number of low-income households paying more than 30 percent of their income for housing as well as severe overcrowding. The future need for housing is determined primarily by the forecasted growth in households in a community (based on historical growth patterns), job creation, household formation rates, and other factors to estimate how many households will be added to each community over the projection period. The housing need for new households is then adjusted to account for an ideal vacancy rate needed to promote housing choice, maintain price competition, and encourage acceptable levels of housing upkeep and repair. The RHNA also accounts for units expected to be lost due to demolition, natural disaster, or conversion to non-housing uses. The sum of these factors—household growth, vacancy need and replacement need—form the the “construction need” assigned to each community. Destination 2030: 2004 Regional Transportation Plan Destination 2030 is SCAG’s 2004 RTP for its member counties. The RTP focuses on improving the balance between land use, and current and future transportation systems. SCAG develops, maintains, and updates the RTP on a three-year cycle. This RTP links its goal of sustaining mobility with its goals for fostering economic development; enhancing the environment; reducing energy consumption; promoting transportation-friendly development patterns; and encouraging fair and equitable access to residents affected by socioeconomic, geographic and commercial limitations. In summary, the RTP supports transit-and pedestrian-oriented development. Among the relevant goals and policies of the RTP are the following: RTP G1 Maximize mobility and accessibility for all people and goods in the region. RTP G2 Ensure travel safety and reliability for all people and goods in the region. RTP G3 Preserve and ensure a sustainable regional transportation system. RTP G4 Maximize the productivity of our transportation system. RTP G5 Protect the environment, improve air quality, and promote energy efficiency. RTP G6 Encourage land use and growth patterns that complement our transportation investments. Compass Blueprint Growth Vision and 2% Strategy SCAG has also implemented the Compass Blueprint Growth Vision and 2% Strategy. The overarching goals are to increase mobility, enhance the livability, enable prosperity, and promote sustainability within 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.6 Land Use and Planning Old Town Specific Plan Amendment 3.6-12 ESA /D209294 Draft Environmental Impact Report February 2010 the region. The Compass Blueprint encourages cities and counties to work collaboratively with SCAG to achieve sustainable development plans. It calls for modest changes to current land use and transportation trends on only 2 percent of the land area of the region: the 2% Strategy Opportunity Areas, which were identified through public participation and land use and transportation modeling and analysis. The 2% Strategy Opportunity Areas are composed primarily of regional centers; city centers; airports, ports, and industrial centers; priority residential in-fill areas; rail transit stops; and bus rapid transit corridors. The Strategy Area is approximately two miles in diameter, centered at the Metrolink station. The following principles from the Compass Blueprint Growth Vision and 2% Strategy pertain to the proposed project: Principle 1: Improve mobility for all residents. GV P1.1 Encourage transportation investments and land use decisions that are mutually supportive. GV P1.2 Locate new housing near existing jobs and new jobs near existing housing. GV P1.3 Encourage transit-oriented development. GV P1.4 Promote a variety of travel choices. Principle 2: Foster livability in all communities. GV P2.1 Promote infill development and redevelopment to revitalize existing communities. GV P2.2 Promote developments, which provide a mix of uses. GV P2.3 Promote “people scaled,” walkable communities. GV P2.4 Support the preservation of stable, single-family neighborhoods. Principle 3: Enable prosperity for all people. GV P3.1 Provide, in each community, a variety of housing types to meet the housing needs of all income levels. GV P3.2 Support educational opportunities that promote balanced growth. GV P3.3 Ensure environmental justice regardless of race, ethnicity, or income class. GV P3.4 Support local and state fiscal policies that encourage balanced growth. GV P3.5 Encourage civic engagement. Principle 4: Promote sustainability for future generations. GV P4.1 Preserve rural, agricultural, recreational, and environmentally sensitive areas. GV P4.2 Focus development in urban centers and existing cities. GV P4.3 Develop strategies to accommodate growth that use resources efficiently, eliminate pollution, and significantly reduce waste. GV P4.4 Utilize “green” development techniques. City of Temecula Regulations General Plan Temecula’s General Plan was initially adopted in 1993 and was updated in 2005. Considered a blueprint for development in the City, the General Plan provides long-term policy guidance for the community’s physical, economic, social and environmental changes. The General Plan includes a Land Use Element 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.6 Land Use and Planning Old Town Specific Plan Amendment 3.6-13 ESA /D209294 Draft Environmental Impact Report February 2010 that provides land use policies and a land use map to guide future development within the City. It also designates permitted land uses for all parcels within the Temecula Planning Area, which includes the project site. Table 3.6-1 lists all General Plan land use designations that are currently present within the project boundary and summarizes the permitted land uses associated with each designation. Table 3.6-4 lists all General Plan goals and policies that are applicable to the proposed project (see Section 3.6.4). TABLE 3.6-1 EXISTING LAND USE DESIGNATIONS WITHIN THE PROJECT BOUNDARY Land Use Designation Summary of Permitted Uses CC-Community Commercial The Community Commercial designation includes retail, professional office, and service-oriented business activities serving the entire community. Community commercial areas typically include larger retail uses such as supermarkets, department stores, theaters, restaurants, professional and medical offices, and specialty retail stores. Community Commercial uses usually occupy 10 to 50 acres of land, and include in excess of 100,000 square feet of floor area. SC-Service Commercial The Service Commercial designation provides for commercial uses typically requiring extensive floor area. Typical uses include home improvement stores, discount retail stores, furniture stores, auto dealerships and light automotive service. Warehousing and manufacturing may be incidental uses within a business that is otherwise consistent with the Service Commercial designation. HT-Highway Tourist Commercial The Highway/Tourist Commercial designation provides for uses located adjacent to major transportation routes oriented to the needs of tourists. Highway/Tourist Commercial development should be appropriately located and developed as clusters of commercial development rather than as shallow commercial frontage along major streets. Typical uses may include tourist accommodations and lodging facilities, automobile service stations, restaurants, convenience stores, gift shops, and entertainment centers. Facilities should be well landscaped, providing an attractive visual image. PI-Public Institutional Facilities The public and institutional facilities designation provides for a wide range of public and private uses including schools, transportation facilities, government offices, public utilities, libraries, museums, public art galleries, hospitals, and cultural facilities. To the extent possible, public and institutional facilities should be clustered in activity centers to reinforce other uses and benefit from access to alternative modes of transportation. Additional public and institutional uses, including churches and day care facilities, may be developed in other residential or nonresidential land use designations under procedures established in the City Development Code. LM-Residential Low Medium (3-3-6 dwellings per acre) The Low-Medium Density designation provides for typical singlefamily neighborhoods. The range of housing types includes single-family detached, single-family zero lot line, patio homes and duplexes. Congregate care facilities could be approved as a conditional use in accordance with provisions of the City Development Code. M-Residential Medium (7-12 dwellings per acre) The Medium Density Residential designation provides for development of attached and detached residential units. Typical housing types may include single-family zero lot line, patio homes, duplexes, townhouses, and multi-family apartments. Congregate care facilities could be approved as a conditional use in accordance with provisions of the City Development Code. 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.6 Land Use and Planning Old Town Specific Plan Amendment 3.6-14 ESA /D209294 Draft Environmental Impact Report February 2010 TABLE 3.6-1 EXISTING LAND USE DESIGNATIONS WITHIN THE PROJECT BOUNDARY Land Use Designation Summary of Permitted Uses H-Residential High (13-20 dwellings per acre) The High Density designation provides for the development of attached residential developments. Typical housing types include multi-family apartments. Congregate care facilities could be approved as a conditional use in accordance with the provisions of the City Development Code. Increases in the density for congregate care may be allowed under special provisions of the Development Code. OS-Open Space The Open Space/Recreation designation accommodates both public and private areas of permanent open space for such uses as parks, golf courses, recreation facilities, natural open spaces, recreation trails, greenbelts, lakes, utility easements, active fault zones, and and undevelopable portions of floodplains along waterways. This designation is intended to include: • lands acquired by easement, fee and other methods sanctioned by state and federal law for parkland, • preservation of biological and cultural resources, and • protecting the public from flood, seismic and other hazards. Only accessory buildings or structures related to parks and recreation facilities are intended within the Open Space designation. These areas may also accommodate certain commercial outdoor recreation uses as a conditional use in accordance with the City Development Code. SOURCE: City of Temecula General Plan, 2005 Building Scale, Design and Height City-wide community design concepts relating to building scale, design and height are disclosed in the City’s General Plan Community Design Element. According to the Community Design Element, multistory structures beyond two stories may be appropriate. By increasing the scale and height of buildings, the ground floor area is then made available for open space, plazas and increased pedestrian uses. These increases would allow for more innovation in architectural and landscape design. Furthermore, increasing the height of buildings in the mixed-use overlay areas will allow for potential increases in both commercial and residential development. The allowable height increases in the mixed-use areas should be designed to not adversely impact surrounding low-density residential areas. If mixed use abuts a singlefamily area, new development should be stepped back and reduced in height to remain sensitive to the scale of the adjacent residential neighborhood. All Community Design Element Goals and Policies that are applicable to the proposed project are listed in Table 3.6-4 (see Section 3.6.4). Zoning Code The City of Temecula Zoning Code (Title 17 of the Municipal Code) implements the Land Use Element of the General Plan and provides specific development and land use standards for the City. Section 17.01.030 of the Zoning Code states that the purpose of the Zoning Code is: A. To implement the goals, and policies and programs of the Temecula general plan, and to manage future growth and change in accordance with that plan; 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.6 Land Use and Planning Old Town Specific Plan Amendment 3.6-15 ESA /D209294 Draft Environmental Impact Report February 2010 B. To promote health, safety, welfare and general prosperity with the aim of preserving a wholesome, serviceable and attractive community in accordance with the general plan for the city; C. To attain the physical, social and economic advantages resulting from comprehensive and orderly land use and resource planning; D. To encourage, classify, designate, regulate, restrict and segregate the most compatible and beneficial location and use of buildings, structures and land; E. To limit the height, number of stories, and size of buildings and other structures hereafter designed, erected or altered; F. To regulate and determine the setbacks and other open spaces; G. To regulate and limit the density of population; H. To facilitate adequate provisions for community facilities, such as transportation, water, sewage, and parks. Currently, the project site is zoned Specific Plan 5 (SP-5) with the exception of three parcels located south of First Street, which are proposed to be annexed into the OTSP area. These parcels are zoned Service Commercial (SC). The land uses permitted in the zoning districts located within the project site are described in Table 3.6-2. TABLE 3.6-2 EXISTING ZONING DISTRICTS WITHIN THE PROJECT BOUNDARY Zoning District Summary Description SP-5-Specific Plan 5 The Specific Plan 5 District denotes the OTSP area. The existing OTSP is comprised of eight land use districts. Each district establishes permitted land uses and development standards, which are intended to implement the goals, policies and objectives of the Specific Plan, as contained in Section II, and the City's General Plan. These land use regulations and development standards constitute the primary zoning provisions for the OTSP area. SC-Service Commercial The service commercial designation is intended to provide for intensive commercial uses and selected light manufacturing uses that typically require extensive floor area. Typical uses include home improvement stores, discount retail stores, furniture stores, auto dealerships and auto service and repair. Warehousing and light manufacturing may be permitted as supporting uses for a business that is consistent with the service commercial designation. SOURCE: City of Temecula Zoning Code, 2008 Existing Old Town Specific Plan The existing OTSP is a regulatory plan which serves as zoning law for properties within the plan boundaries. All proposed development plans or agreements, tract or parcel maps, and any other development approvals must be consistent with the Specific Plan and with the General Plan. The Specific Plan may be amended to further the systematic implementation of the General Plan. The existing Specific Plan includes a Land Use Plan that covers the permitted land uses, general provisions, site development 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.6 Land Use and Planning Old Town Specific Plan Amendment 3.6-16 ESA /D209294 Draft Environmental Impact Report February 2010 standards, and sign controls. The Land Use Plan geographically divides the planning area into land use districts. The existing land use districts are described in Table 3.6-3. TABLE 3.6-3 EXISTING OLD TOWN SPECIFIC PLAN LAND USE DISTRICTS Land Use District Description HT-Highway Tourist Commercial The Highway Tourist Commercial designation is intended to provide for those uses that are located adjacent to major transportation routes and may be oriented to the needs of tourists and recreation enthusiasts. Highway Tourist Commercial development should be located at appropriate locations, and developed as clusters of commercial development rather than as shallow commercial frontage along major streets. Typical uses may include tourist accommodations and lodging facilities, automobile service stations, restaurants, convenience stores, and gift shops. The facilities should be well landscaped and provide an attractive visual image. OTC-Old Town Civic The Old Town Civic designation is intended to provide for public and quasi-public uses such as parks, city offices, police/fire stations, public day care centers, senior citizen centers, community centers, museums, and similar facilities. TRC-Tourist Retail Core The Tourist Retail Core designation is intended to provide for those uses that support and compliment the pedestrianoriented core. The designation typically includes small scale, boutique-type retail businesses. Service and office uses are generally allowed on either the second floor or on non-Old Town Front and non-Main Street parcels. Residential uses are allowed as ancillary uses when located above the ground floor or in the rear of the lot. Tourist retail uses are generally small businesses occupying no more than 5,000 square feet. Typical uses may include gift shops, restaurants, small hotels, bed and breakfasts, mixed use, antique shops, small hardware/decorator stores, museums, art galleries, flower shops, jewelry shops, clothing shops, custom furniture items, and similar retail uses. CC-Community Commercial The Community Commercial designation includes retail, professional office, and service-oriented businesses that serve the entire community. Community commercial areas typically include neighborhood commercial uses, as well as, larger retail uses including department stores, theaters, restaurants, professional and medical offices, and specialty retail stores. TSR-Tourist Serving Residential The Tourist Serving Residential designation is intended to provide for the wide range of tourist serving overnight accommodations which include senior housing, bed & breakfasts, hotels, motels, motor courts, rental cottages, and hostels. Eating places would be allowed as accessory uses. Camping and R.V. parks would not be allowed. MDR-Medium Density Residential The Medium Density Residential designation (7 to 12 dwelling units per acre) acre) is intended to provide for the development of attached and detached residential development. Typical housing types may include singlefamily detached, single-family zero lot line, patio homes, duplexes, townhouses, condominiums, garden apartments and conventional apartments. 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.6 Land Use and Planning Old Town Specific Plan Amendment 3.6-17 ESA /D209294 Draft Environmental Impact Report February 2010 TABLE 3.6-3 EXISTING OLD TOWN SPECIFIC PLAN LAND USE DISTRICTS Land Use District Description HDR-High Density Residential The High Density Residential designation (13 to 20 dwelling units per acre) is intended to provide for the development of attached residential developments. Typical housing types may include townhouses, condominiums, garden apartments, and conventional apartments. OS-Open Space The Open Space designation includes both public and private areas of permanent open space along the floodways of Murrieta Creek. This designation is intended to include lands acquired by exaction, easement, fee, and other methods sanctioned by State and Federal law for parkland, for preservation of biological and cultural resources, and for protecting public safety from flood hazards. SOURCE: Temecula Old Town Specific Plan, 2006. 3.6.4. Impacts and Mitigation Significance Criteria The City has not established local CEQA significance thresholds as described in Section 15064.7 of the state CEQA Guidelines. However, Appendix G of the state CEQA Guidelines indicates that impacts related to land use and planning issues may be considered potentially significant if the proposed project would: • Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the General Plan, Specific Plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect. Impact Analysis Impact 3.6-1: Project implementation would not conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the General Plan, Specific Plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect. SCAG Analysis SCAG policies focus largely on achieving job and housing balance within individual communities throughout the region, encouraging development patterns and densities that reduce infrastructure costs and reliance on automobiles and promote public transit use, minimizing environmental impacts through the use of “green” building techniques and landscaping practices, providing affordable housing, and minimizing new development in open space areas and areas with limited emergency access. The proposed Specific Plan Amendment strives to better facilitate pedestrian-friendly development through building placement and streetscapes, and to encourage mixed-use development within Old Town. The proposed project would implement many of the SCAG policies related to high-density, infill 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.6 Land Use and Planning Old Town Specific Plan Amendment 3.6-18 ESA /D209294 Draft Environmental Impact Report February 2010 development that is pedestrian oriented. The project would also introduce high-density commercial uses that would create new jobs and regional shopping and entertainment destinations. In addition, the project would introduce high-density residential uses, thus creating a mixed-use environment in which residents would benefit from nearby shopping and employment opportunities, which would reduce the community’s reliance on automobiles. Thus, the project would be consistent with SCAG goals to reduce the prominence of the suburban development pattern that exists throughout the SCAG region. The project would have a less-than-significant impact with respect to consistency with SCAG goals and policies. General Plan Analysis The City will create a new General Plan land use category called Specific Plan Implementation (SPI). As such, such, a General Plan amendment is proposed. In doing so, the City’s intent is to create a land use category that identifies the area as having a Specific Plan and the Specific Plan’s land use map and land use narrative will describe the intended land uses and special provisions that govern the Specific Plan. This will allow for more flexibility in the City’s Specific Plan land use categories without resulting in inconsistencies with the General Plan. In essence, all existing General Plan land use designations within the proposed Specific Plan boundary will be replaced with one land use category [i.e., Specific Plan Implementation (SPI)] that will refer to the Specific Plan for the land use map and descriptions. The following discussion analyzes each proposed land use district against the existing land uses designated in the General Plan. The consistency of the proposed project with the policies of the Temecula General Plan is described in Table 3.6-4. The proposed project would be consistent with all relevant policies of the City’s existing General Plan, including those identified in the Community Design Element. With the creation of the new General Plan land use category ‘SPI’, the proposed project land use districts would also be internally consistent with the General Plan. Policies deemed not relevant to the project, based on proposed land uses, are not included in Table 3.6-4. Proposed Land Use District General Plan Compatibility Analysis Downtown Core and Hotel Overlay: The areas that lie within the proposed Downtown Core and Hotel Overlay are currently designated as either CC, PI or SC in the General. The proposed Downtown Core is defined by multi-story urban buildings of up to four stories that are intended to accommodate art galleries, museums, restaurants and small-scale boutique retailers such as gift, specialty food, and antique shops, or similar retail uses. Service and office uses would be permitted within the district, but would be restricted to the second floor and higher for parcels along Old Town Front Street and Main Street. Residential uses would be permitted in the Downtown Core but would be restricted to the second floor and higher for parcels along Old Town Front Street and Main Street. All four-story buildings in the Downtown Core District would be required to contain at least one floor restricted to residential use. The Hotel Overlay permits hotels with conference facilities to be constructed at a greater building height (up to eight stories) than other buildings in the underlying district. This will provide adequate visitor accommodations for Old Town and the surrounding area. Table 3.6-1 summarizes the permitted uses within the CC, PI and SC General Plan land use designations. As shown, the uses permitted in the proposed Downtown Core and Hotel Overlay Districts are comparable to and would not conflict with the uses permitted in the existing CC, PI and SC General Plan land use designations. 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures Old Town Specific Plan Amendment 3.6-19 ESA /D209294 Draft Environmental Impact Report February 2010 TABLE 3.6-4 CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN GOALS AND POLICIES General Plan Policies Relationship of the Project to the Policy Land Use Element Goal 1: A diverse and integrated mix of residential, commercial, industrial, recreational, public and open space land uses. Policy 1.1 Review all proposed development plans for consistency with community goals, policies and implementation programs of this General Plan, and consider potential impacts on surrounding land uses and infrastructure. The proposed Specific Plan Amendment would implement form-based code principles in order to establish a set of detailed design guidelines by which future development within the Specific Plan area must comply. The original OTSP, certified in 1992 by the City Council, was found to adhere to all applicable goals of the City of Temecula General Plan. As a Specific Plan Amendment, the proposed project is designed to clarify the goals and policies of the original OTSP. The land use designations from the City of Temecula General Plan would continue to govern the Specific Plan area. The proposed project would require a General Plan Amendment. Therefore, the proposed project would not conflict with this policy as all existing General Plan land use designations within the proposed Specific Plan boundary will be replaced with one land use category SPI that will refer to the Specific Plan for the land use map and descriptions resulting in consistency between the Specific Plan and General Plan. Policy 1.2 Promote the use of innovative site planning techniques that contribute to development of a variety of residential product styles and designs, including housing suitable for the community's labor force. The Specific Plan Amendment would address planning guidelines, streetscape standards and guidelines, land use district locations and titles, architectural standards and guidelines, and landscape guidelines. The Specific Plan Amendment is anticipated to result in the addition of approximately 749 residential units within the Specific Plan area and would include the development of new residential product styles and designs. The proposed project would not conflict with this policy. Policy 1.3 Require development of unified or clustered community-level and neighborhood-level commercial centers and discourage development of strip commercial uses. The proposed Specific Plan Amendment would establish a historical core that also contains mixed-use development and a pedestrian-friendly environment. Development within the new land use districts established by the Specific Plan Amendment would employ the use of clustered community-level and neighborhood level commercial centers, and would be discouraged from the development of strip commercial uses in order to attain the goal of creating a pedestrian-friendly and mixed-use downtown. The proposed project would not conflict with this policy. Policy 1.5 Require the preparation of specific plans as designated on the Specific Plan Areas map to achieve the comprehensive planning and phasing of development and infrastructure. The proposed Specific Plan Amendment would utilize form-based code principles in order to create clearly defined development regulations for future development within Old Town. The proposed project is designed to establish the design guidelines intended for the Specific Plan area and would compliment the goals and policies established in the original Specific Plan. The new land use districts would govern all future development within the Specific Plan area, in accordance with the original Specific Plan. Therefore, the proposed project would not conflict with this policy. 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.6 Land Use and Planning Old Town Specific Plan Amendment 3.6-20 ESA /D209294 Draft Environmental Impact Report February 2010 TABLE 3.6-4 CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN GOALS AND POLICIES General Plan Policies Relationship of the Project to the Policy Policy 1.6 Encourage flexible zoning techniques in appropriate locations to encourage mixed-use development, preserve natural features, achieve innovative site design, achieve a range of transition of densities, provide open space and recreation facilities, and/or provide necessary amenities and facilities. The proposed Specific Plan Amendment would utilize form-based code principles in order to clearly define development standards within the project area. The proposed project would not require a General Plan Amendment. The proposed project would encourage mixed-use development, encourage the preservation of open space areas, and would achieve a range of transition of densities in both residential and commercial development. The Specific Plan Amendment would also outline the appropriate design guidelines in order to ensure structural consistency and innovative site design for developments within each of the six new land use districts. The proposed project would not conflict with this policy. Policy 1.7 Pursue opportunities to locate higher density housing with supporting commercial and public uses west of I-15. The Specific Plan area is located directly west of I-15 and provides for both Neighborhood Residential and Residential/Limited Mixed-Uses Districts. The proposed project would provide for both attached and detached three-story residential development, some at a density of up to 35 dwelling units per acre, and could include such typical housing types as single-family detached, duplexes, triplexes, townhouses, condominiums, apartments, and live/work units. Therefore, the proposed project would encourage the development of higher density housing with supporting commercial and public uses west of the I-I-15, and would not conflict with this policy. Policy 1.9 Establish paseos, greenbelts, linear parks and trails within buffer areas between developments and at the City’s edge. The Specific Plan Amendment would orient building activity to the street, create a clear street edge, and preserve existing and reclaim vacated alleys for pedestrian activity where possible. The proposed project would also establish the Murrieta Creek Walk through the dedication of the Open Space corridor, which would include both public and private areas of permanent open space along Murrieta Creek and throughout the central portion of the project area. The Downtown Core District would also provide for land uses that will support pedestrian-oriented and mixed-use development. Therefore, the proposed project would not conflict with this policy. Policy 1.10 Distribute high-density housing throughout the community around transit nodes. As mentioned in the discussion of Policy 1.7 above, the Specific Plan area is located directly west of I-15, a major transit corridor. Through the establishment of Neighborhood Residential and Residential/Limited Mixed-Uses Districts, the proposed project would provide for attached and detached three-story residential development, some at a density of up to 35 dwelling units per acre. The proposed project is intended to encourage the development of higher density and mixed-use housing throughout the community. The project would not conflict with this policy. Goal 2: Successful, high-quality mixed-use development projects containing a mix of residential, commercial/office, and civic land uses, supported by alternative modes of transportation. Policy 2.1 Encourage development of mixed-use projects to revitalize older commercial and industrial areas or to create village centers, provided that adequate capacity is available on the roadway system to support such projects. The Specific Plan Amendment would encourage mixed-use development within the Old Town area. The Residential/Limited Mixed-Uses District are intended to provide for attached residential and mixed-use development that would accommodate a variety of housing types and resident-serving ground floor retail, restaurants, and office spaces. The Specific Plan Amendment would promote the use of mixed-use development within the Specific Plan area and would address resulting impacts to roadway capacity and circulation. The proposed project would not conflict with this policy. 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.6 Land Use and Planning Old Town Specific Plan Amendment 3.6-21 ESA /D209294 Draft Environmental Impact Report February 2010 TABLE 3.6-4 CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN GOALS AND POLICIES General Plan Policies Relationship of the Project to the Policy Policy 2.2 Require mixed-use projects proposed within Mixed Use Overlay Areas to include a residential component, to contain a mixture of compatible uses, and to provide necessary supporting public and community facilities. The proposed Specific Plan Amendment would establish six new land use districts within the Specific Plan area. The Residential/Limited Mixed-Used District would accommodate a variety of housing types and resident-serving ground floor retail, restaurants, and office spaces. The mixed-use areas could also contain corner markets, takeout/delivery restaurants, dry cleaners, beauty shops, florist, and similar uses. The Specific Plan Amendment would analyze the capacity of all necessary supporting public and community facilities in order to ensure there is adequate capacity to serve the planning area. The proposed project would not conflict with this policy. Policy 2.3 Require preparation of a detailed plan and a traffic study for all proposed mixed-use projects within Mixed Use Overlay Areas. The potential incremental traffic impacts of the proposed project are evaluated in Section 3.9, Transportation and Traffic, of this Program EIR. Policy 2.4 Link mixed-use projects and village centers with trails and potential transit systems, including RTA bus, shuttles and commuter/high speed rail. The purpose of the original OTSP was to provide a comprehensive plan for land use, development regulations, design guidelines, vehicular circulation, parking, development incentives and other related actions located within the Specific Plan area. The Specific Plan Amendment is intended to establish form-based code principles in order to clarify and establish design guidelines for development within the Specific Plan. The proposed project would encourage the development of mixed-use areas and village centers and would ultimately be serviced by a network of pedestrian-friendly paseos, open space trails including the Murrieta Creek Walk, and by several modes of public transportation including RTA buses. The proposed project would not conflict with this policy. Policy 2.5 Ensure that the architecture, landscape design, and site planning of mixed-use projects is of the highest quality, emphasizing a pedestrian scale and safe and convenient access between uses. The proposed Specific Plan Amendment would implement form-based code principles in order to establish a set of detailed design guidelines by which future development within the Specific Plan area must comply. These guidelines would aim to: preserve the historic buildings and architecture currently established in the project area; enhance the pedestrian-friendly nature of the streets; regulate building heights, especially is proximity to historic buildings and and residential structures; and create new architecture that respects the area’s existing historic architecture and contributes to a well-defined, lively and pedestrian-oriented streetscape. The proposed project would require all new development in the Specific Plan area to conform to the design guidelines and permitted land uses for the area, as established in the Specific Plan Amendment. The proposed project would not conflict with this policy. Policy 2.6 Ensure adequate public gathering areas or plazas are incorporated within mixed-use projects to allow for social interaction and community activities. The Civic District areas proposed by the Specific Plan Amendment are intended to provide for public and quasi-public uses such as city offices, senior citizen centers, community centers and other community assembly uses, museums, and similar facilities. In addition, the placement of public art within the project area will be encouraged on both private and public property as public art gives a community an identity that can be representative of the City’s culture and heritage in addition to promoting social gathering places and interaction. Wall murals, lighting displays, sculptures, mosaics, monuments and fountains will all be considered significant examples of artistic expression. The proposed project would not conflict with this policy. 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.6 Land Use and Planning Old Town Specific Plan Amendment 3.6-22 ESA /D209294 Draft Environmental Impact Report February 2010 TABLE 3.6-4 CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN GOALS AND POLICIES General Plan Policies Relationship of the Project to the Policy Goal 3: A City of diversified development character, where rural and historical areas are protected and co-exist with newer urban development. Policy 3.1 Provide physical and visual buffer areas to create a transition between rural residential and agricultural areas and commercial, industrial and other higher density residential development. The proposed project would establish an Open Space corridor around the Murrieta Creek, which would traverse the length of the Specific Plan area. This open space area would buffer the primarily non-residential Civic and Downtown Core Districts located to the east of the buffer from the Neighborhood Residential District located to the west of the buffer. The proposed project would include a wide variety of housing types and densities, which would be developed in a manner that would increase land use compatibility and preserve the aesthetic quality of the site. The Specific Plan does not contain any industrial or agricultural areas. The proposed project would not conflict with this policy. Policy 3.3 Limit the number and size of additional structures on large lots to preserve the character of low-density areas. The proposed project is the redevelopment of the OTSP area with the intent of fitting with current economics, implementing significant new investment in the area to help promote rapid growth, developing a renewed interest in town centers and mixed-use development, and accommodating greater density within the Specific Plan area. The Specific Plan Amendment would be consistent with the City’s intent to create a high-density mixed-use downtown area that incorporates areas of open space and a network of pedestrianfriendly trails and streets. The proposed project would not conflict with this policy. Policy 3.4 Define the rural and historical areas of the community to be conserved, and establish a procedure for adding areas or altering boundaries as necessary. The Specific Plan Amendment is intended to preserve and protect the historic buildings and unique architecture of the OTSP area through the delineation of a historic core centered on the intersection of Front and Main Streets. New projects in this area would be required to pay special attention to the height and massing of the historic buildings so as to maintain compatibility with the historic character of the area’s architecture. The Specific Plan Amendment would also include detailed performance standards that respect the relationship with adjacent historic structures. The proposed project would not conflict with this policy. Goal 5: A land use pattern that protects and enhances residential neighborhoods. Policy 5.1 Consider the compatibility of proposed project on surrounding uses in terms of the size and configuration of buildings, use of materials and landscaping, preservation of existing vegetation and landform, the location of access routes, noise impacts, traffic impacts, and other environmental conditions. The proposed Specific Plan Amendment would implement form-based code principles in order to establish a set of detailed design guidelines by which future development within the Specific Plan area must comply. The proposed project would include guidelines related to building configuration, building height, building materials, landscaping, vegetation preservation, and historic building preservation. In addition, the proposed project would also establish regulations and policies related to noise and traffic impacts. The proposed project would not conflict with this policy. Policy 5.2 Require parcels developed for commercial or industrial uses to incorporate buffers that minimize the impacts of noise, light, visibility of activity and vehicular traffic on surrounding residential uses. The proposed Specific Plan Plan Amendment would implement form-based code principles in order to establish a set of detailed design guidelines by which future development within the Specific Plan area must comply. The proposed project’s design guidelines would assist in the implementation of required buffers that minimize the impacts of noise, light, visibility of activity and vehicular traffic on surrounding residential uses, in compliance with established City policy. The proposed project would not conflict with this policy. 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.6 Land Use and Planning Old Town Specific Plan Amendment 3.6-23 ESA /D209294 Draft Environmental Impact Report February 2010 TABLE 3.6-4 CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN GOALS AND POLICIES General Plan Policies Relationship of the Project to the Policy Policy 5.3 Require proposed development to evaluate the incremental traffic impacts on local roads throughout the proposed project phasing in order to ensure that any adverse impacts to local roads in residential areas are avoided or adequately mitigated. A Traffic Impact Analysis was completed for the proposed Specific Plan Amendment. As discussed in Section 3.9, Transportation and Traffic, of this Program EIR, the proposed project is required to mitigate all identified adverse impacts to the greatest extent feasible. The proposed project would not conflict with this policy. Goal 6: A development pattern that preserves aesthetics and enhances the environmental resources of the Planning Area. Policy 6.1 Preserve the natural aesthetic quality of hillsides and reduce hazards associated with hillside development within the Planning Area. The Specific Plan area is relatively flat and does not contain any area of hillsides or significant relief. The proposed project would assist in the preservation and enhancement of the aesthetic quality of the project area through the establishment of an Open Space corridor, which would traverse the length of the Specific Plan area. Therefore, the proposed project would not conflict with this policy. Policy 6.2 Whenever possible, use alternative flood control techniques to reduce capital and maintenance costs and provide recreational and open space opportunities. The proposed project’s Open Space corridor includes both public and private areas of permanent open space along the floodways of Murrieta Creek. The zone is intended to provide for the preservation of biological and cultural resources, to protect the public from flood hazards, and to establish the Murrieta Creek Walk. Therefore, the proposed project would not conflict with this policy. Policy 6.3 Conserve the natural resources of area watercourses, including Santa Gertrudis, Temecula and Murrieta Creeks, through appropriate development densities, managing stormwater runoff, and conservation site planning. As stated above, the proposed project’s Open Space corridor includes both public and private areas of permanent open space along the floodways of Murrieta Creek. The zone is intended to provide for the preservation of biological and cultural resources, to protect the public from flood hazards, and to establish the Murrieta Creek Walk. The proposed project would not conflict with this policy. Policy 6.4 Protect and enhance significant ecological and biological resources within and surrounding Temecula. The proposed project’s Open Space corridor includes both public and private areas of permanent open space along the floodways of Murrieta Creek. The zone is intended to provide for the preservation of biological and cultural resources, to protect the public from flood hazards, and to establish the Murrieta Creek Walk. The proposed project would not conflict with this policy. Goal 7: A viable, high-quality Old Town Temecula area that enhances the City economically, preserves historic structures, and provides civic, cultural, shopping, and meeting and gathering places for tourists and residents. Policy 7.1 Encourage revitalization of Old Town through implementation of the OTSP. The proposed Specific Plan Amendment would implement form-based code principles in order to establish a set of detailed design guidelines by which future development within the Specific Plan area must comply. The proposed project serves to enhance the existing OTSP in an attempt to revitalize the Specific Plan area. The proposed project would not conflict with this policy. 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.6 Land Use and Planning Old Town Specific Plan Amendment 3.6-24 ESA /D209294 Draft Environmental Impact Report February 2010 TABLE 3.6-4 CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN GOALS AND POLICIES General Plan Policies Relationship of the Project to the Policy Policy 7.2 Require preservation and reuse of historic buildings in and around the Old Town area. One of the goals of the proposed project is to protect and preserve existing historic buildings within the Specific Plan area through the establishment of a historic core centered on the intersection of Front and Main Streets. New projects in this area would be required to pay special attention to the height and massing of the historic buildings. Future buildings would also be required to respect historic architectural styles and contribute to a well-defined, lively and pedestrian-oriented streetscape through regulation on building form, architectural style, street frontage design, and materials. The proposed project would not conflict with this policy. Policy 7.3 Consider locating additional civic, public and cultural facilities in and around the Old Town area. The proposed project’s Civic District areas are intended to provide for public and quasipublic uses such as parks, city offices, police/fire stations, senior citizen centers, community centers and other community assembly uses, museums, and similar facilities. Furthermore, the placement of public art within the project area will be encouraged on both private and public property and could include wall murals, lighting displays, sculptures, mosaics, monuments and fountains. The proposed project would not conflict with this policy. Policy 7.4 Provide infill residential development incentives throughout Old Town. The Specific Plan Amendment is anticipated to result in a reduction in commercial building floor space of approximately 1,405,285 square feet and the addition of approximately 749 residential units within the Specific Plan area. The proposed project would provide infill residential development incentives throughout the Old Town’s Residential/Limited Mixed-Uses and Downtown Core, and Neighborhood Residential Districts. The proposed project would not conflict with this policy. Goal 8: A City compatible and coordinated with regional land use and transportation patterns. Policy 8.1 Provide a pattern of land uses that maintains and enhances the viability of neighboring communities including the City of Murrieta, and the counties of Riverside and San Diego, through compatible uses and links. The Specific Plan Amendment would address planning guidelines, streetscape standards and guidelines, land use district locations and titles, architectural standards and guidelines, and landscape guidelines within the Specific Plan, in order to establish a more unified and efficient use of land within the Specific Plan area as compared to existing conditions. By enhancing the Specific Plan area, the proposed project would also assist in enhancing the viability of region region as a whole. The proposed project would have no adverse impacts to any neighboring communities or jurisdictions. The proposed project would not conflict with this policy. Policy 8.2 Expand the City system of open space and coordinate with regional open space uses to comprehensively address the management of conservation resources. The proposed project’s Open Space corridor includes both public and private areas of permanent open space along the floodways of Murrieta Creek. The zone is intended to provide for the preservation of biological and cultural resources, to protect the public from flood hazards, and to establish the Murrieta Creek Walk. Therefore, the proposed project would not conflict with this policy. Policy 8.3 Ensure development projects within the French Valley Airport area of influence comply with the Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (ALUCP) for the Airport, and refer all land use actions identified within the ALUCP to the Airport Land Use Commission for mandatory review. The Specific Plan area is not located within the French Valley Airport area of influence. The proposed project would not conflict with this policy. 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.6 Land Use and Planning Old Town Specific Plan Amendment 3.6-25 ESA /D209294 Draft Environmental Impact Report February 2010 TABLE 3.6-4 CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN GOALS AND POLICIES General Plan Policies Relationship of the Project to the Policy Policy 8.4 Ensure that development proposals within the French Valley Airport area of influence fully comply with the permit procedures specific in Federal and State law, with the referral requirements of the Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC), and with the conditions of approval imposed or recommended by the Federal Aviation Administration and ALUC. This requirement is in addition to all other City development review requirements. The Specific Plan area is not located within the French Valley Airport area of influence. The proposed project would not conflict with this policy. Open Space and Conservation Element Goal 1: A high quality parks and recreation system that meets the diverse recreation needs of residents. Policy 1.1 Ensure sufficient parkland and recreation facilities to support new development through acquisition and/or dedication that meets the requirement for 5 acres of useable park land per 1,000 population. The proposed project would establish an Open Space District that would include a network of trails, including the Murrieta Creek Walk. The proposed project’s Open Space corridor includes both public and private areas of permanent open space along the floodways of Murrieta Creek. The zone is intended to provide for the preservation of biological and cultural resources, and to protect the public from flood hazards. The proposed project would not conflict with this policy. Please also refer to response to Impact 3.8-1. Policy 1.2 Pursue the joint use of public lands available and suitable for recreation purposes, including lands under the jurisdiction of the Riverside County Flood Control District, Southern California Edison, water districts, school districts, and other public agencies. Refer to the discussion of Policy 1.1 above. The proposed project would not conflict with this policy. Policy 1.3 Encourage the enhancement and preservation of historic structures and landscape, and significant natural features, such as riparian areas, rock outcroppings, sensitive habitat areas, and viewpoints through park design and site development. One goal of the proposed project is to protect and preserve existing designated historic buildings within the Specific Plan area through the establishment of a historic core. New projects in this area would be required to pay special attention to the height and massing of the historic buildings, as well as to site planning guidelines, streetscape standards and guidelines, land use district locations and titles, architectural standards and guidelines, and landscape guidelines. The proposed project would also expand an Open Space corridor, located through the center of the Specific Plan area. Therefore, the proposed project would not conflict with this policy. Policy 1.4 Encourage public safety and compatibility with adjacent uses in park design and development, including location of buildings, activity areas, lighting, and parking. The Specific Plan Amendment would utilize form-based code principles in order to more clearly define development regulations, site planning guidelines, streetscape standards and guidelines, land use district locations and titles, architectural standards and guidelines, and landscape guidelines within the Specific Plan. The proposed project would result in more compatible land uses within the Specific Plan area as compared to existing conditions. The proposed project would not conflict with this policy. Policy 1.6 Encourage the establishment of natural habitat spaces for recreational hiking and nature education. The proposed project’s Open Space corridor includes both public and private areas of permanent open space along the floodways of Murrieta Creek. The zone is intended to provide for the preservation of biological and cultural resources, to protect the public from flood hazards, and to develop the Murrieta Creek Walk. Therefore, the proposed project would not conflict with this policy. 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.6 Land Use and Planning Old Town Specific Plan Amendment 3.6-26 ESA /D209294 Draft Environmental Impact Report February 2010 TABLE 3.6-4 CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN GOALS AND POLICIES General Plan Policies Relationship of the Project to the Policy Goal 2 Conservation and protection of surface water, groundwater and imported water resources. Policy 2.1 Coordinate with the Riverside County Flood Control District to design flood control improvements that preserve, to the maximum extent feasible, important natural features and resources of the local creeks and riparian forest of the Santa Margarita River. The proposed project’s Open Space corridor includes both public and private areas of permanent open space along the floodways of Murrieta Creek. The zone is intended to provide for the preservation of biological and cultural resources, to protect the public from flood hazards, and to develop the Murrieta Creek Walk. Therefore, the proposed project would not conflict with this policy. Policy 2.2 Identify and protect groundwater resources from depletion and sources of pollution in cooperation with the Rancho California Water District and the San Diego Water Quality Control Board. The proposed project will protect groundwater resources from depletion through the creation of the Open Space corridor and the preservation of Murrieta Creek. Development within the remainder of the Specific Plan area would be required to comply with established regulatory requirements to prevent pollution of groundwater resources. The proposed project would not conflict with this policy. Policy 2.3 Conserve potable water by requiring water conservation techniques in all new development. The Specific Plan Amendment would ensure that all new development in the Specific Plan would be required to adhere to all applicable water conservation techniques imposed by the City, including Title 24 standards. The proposed project would not conflict with this policy. Policy 2.5 Require the use of soil management techniques to reduce erosion, eliminate off-site sedimentation, and prevent other soil-related problems that may adversely affect waterways in the community. The Specific Plan Amendment would require that development within the project area comply with standard City regulations regarding soil-related problems. The proposed project would not conflict with this policy. Policy 2.6 Regulate and manage lands adjacent to or affecting watercourses as stipulated by the RWCD. The proposed project’s Open Space corridor includes both public and private areas of permanent open space along the floodways of Murrieta Creek. The zone is intended to provide for the preservation of biological and cultural resources, to protect the public from flood hazards, and to develop the Murrieta Creek Walk. Therefore, the proposed project would not conflict with this policy. Policy 2.7 Ensure that approved projects have filed a Notice of Intent and Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan in accordance with the Federal CWA, prior to issuance of grading permits. The Specific Plan Amendment would require that development within the project area comply with standard regulations related to the Federal CWA. The proposed project would not conflict with this policy. Policy 2.8 Ensure adequate inspection and enforcement of the requirements of general construction permits, particularly related to erosion control during grading and construction. Development within the project area will comply with standard City regulations including inspections and enforcement of the requirements of general construction permits. The proposed project would not conflict with this policy. Policy 2.9 Participate in regional planning for the Santa Margarita River Watershed in conjunction with federal, State, regional and local agencies, and non-profit organizations. The Specific Plan Amendment will comply with this policy by providing the City with direct decision-making capability regarding development of the Specific Plan area, including the annexation area, and thus a more direct role in regional planning for the Santa Margarita River Watershed. The proposed project would not conflict with this policy. 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.6 Land Use and Planning Old Town Specific Plan Amendment 3.6-27 ESA /D209294 Draft Environmental Impact Report February 2010 TABLE 3.6-4 CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN GOALS AND POLICIES General Plan Policies Relationship of the Project to the Policy Goal 3 Conservation of important biological habitats and protection of plant and animal species of concern, wildlife movement corridors, and general biodiversity. Policy 3.1 Require development proposals to identify significant biological resources and provide mitigation, including the use of adequate buffering and sensitive site planning techniques, selective preservation, provision of replacement habitats; and other appropriate measures. Development within the Specific Plan area will be required, through compliance with the City’s standard development review procedures, to identify significant biological resources that will be affected by each development and provide mitigation. The proposed Specific Specific Plan Amendment would not interfere with regulations related to biological resources. Therefore, the proposed project would not conflict with this policy. Policy 3.2 Work with State, regional and non-profit agencies and organizations to preserve and enhance significant biological resources. The proposed project’s Open Space corridor includes both public and private areas of permanent open space along the floodways of Murrieta Creek. The zone is intended to provide for the preservation of biological and cultural resources, to protect the public from flood hazards, and to develop the Murrieta Creek Walk. Therefore, the proposed project would not conflict with this policy. Policy 3.4 Encourage developers to incorporate native drought resistant vegetation, mature trees, and other significant vegetation into site and landscape designs for proposed projects. The primary goal for the Specific Plan Amendment is to incorporate form-based code principles to more clearly define development regulations, site planning guidelines, streetscape standards and guidelines, land use district locations and titles, architectural standards and guidelines, and landscape guidelines within the Specific Plan. Permitted landscape vegetation would be established in the Specific Plan Amendment, and would include native drought resistant vegetation typical of the surrounding area. New development associated with the proposed project would also be required to adhere to all applicable water conservation techniques imposed by the City, including Title 24 standards. The proposed project would not conflict with this policy. Policy 3.5 Maintain an inventory of existing natural resources in the City. The proposed project’s Open Space corridor includes both public and private areas of permanent open space along the floodways of Murrieta Creek. This district will be added to the City’s inventory of existing natural resources, in accordance with this policy. Policy 3.6 Limit recreational use of designated open space areas where there are sensitive biological resources as needed protect these resources. The proposed project’s Open Space corridor includes both public and private areas of permanent open space along the floodways of Murrieta Creek. The zone is intended to provide for the preservation of biological and cultural resources, to protect the public from flood hazards, and to develop the Murrieta Creek Walk. Therefore, the proposed project would not conflict with this policy. Policy 3.7 Maintain and enhance the resources of Temecula Creek, Pechanga Creek, Murrieta Creek, Santa Gertrudis Creek, Santa Margarita River, and other waterways to ensure the long-term viability of the habitat, wildlife, and wildlife movement corridors. See the discussion under Policy 3.6 above. The proposed project would not conflict with this policy. Goal 5 Conservation of open space areas for a balance of recreation, scenic enjoyment, and protection of natural resources and features. Policy 5.1 Conserve the western escarpment and southern ridgelines, the Santa Margarita River, slopes in the Sphere of Influence, and other important landforms and historic landscape features through the development review process. The proposed project’s Open Space corridor includes both public and private areas of permanent open space along the floodways of Murrieta Creek. The density of development within the remaining Specific Plan area would allow for the siting of houses and other structures in a manner that will facilitate the conservation of sensitive areas located in the surrounding vicinity. The proposed project would not conflict with this policy. 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.6 Land Use and Planning Old Town Specific Plan Amendment 3.6-28 ESA /D209294 Draft Environmental Impact Report February 2010 TABLE 3.6-4 CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN GOALS AND POLICIES General Plan Policies Relationship of the Project to the Policy Policy 5.2 Identify significant viewsheds to proposed projects that may be preserved through the dedication of open space or the use of sensitive grading, site design, and building techniques. The proposed project’s Open Space corridor, which traverses through the central portion of the project area, will facilitate the city’s preservation of identified viewsheds. The proposed project would not conflict with this policy. Policy 5.3 Encourage the use of clustered development and other site planning techniques to maximize the preservation of permanent open spaces. One of the goals of the proposed project is to create a pedestrian-friendly, mixed-use environment within the OTSP area. Implementation of form-base code principles through the proposed Specific Plan Amendment would encourage the use of clustered development and other site planning techniques that would maximize density and thus the preservation of open space. The proposed project would not conflict with this policy. Policy 5.4 Retain and improve the quality of landscaping in parkways, public slopes, rights-of-way, parks, civic facilities, and other public open areas. The Specific Plan Amendment would utilize form-based code principles to more clearly define development regulations, site planning guidelines, streetscape standards and guidelines, land use district locations and titles, architectural standards and guidelines, and landscape guidelines within the Specific Plan. The enhanced design guidelines associated with the Specific Plan Amendment would help to retain and improve the quality of landscaping in parkways, public slopes, rights-of-way, parks, civic facilities, and other public open. The proposed project would not conflict with this policy. Policy 5.7 Require adequate open space in new development for both passive and active recreation. The proposed project’s Open Space corridor includes both public and private areas of permanent open space along the floodways of Murrieta Creek. The zone is intended to provide for the preservation of biological and cultural resources, to protect the public from flood hazards, and to develop the Murrieta Creek Walk. Therefore, the proposed project would not conflict with this policy. Policy 5.8 Require re-vegetation of graded slopes concurrent with project development to minimize erosion and maintain the scenic character of the community. Through the introduction of form-based code principles, the proposed project would create clearly define development regulations, site planning guidelines, streetscape standards and guidelines, land use district locations and titles, architectural standards and guidelines, and landscape guidelines within the Specific Plan. These guidelines would require re-vegetation of graded slopes in order to minimize erosion and maintain the scenic character of the community. The proposed project would not conflict with this policy. Policy 5.11 Encourage the use of native vegetation where re-vegetation and landscaping is to occur The Specific Plan Amendment would establish form-based code principles to more clearly define development regulations, site planning guidelines, streetscape standards and guidelines, land use district locations and titles, architectural standards and guidelines, and landscape guidelines within the Specific Plan. Permitted landscape vegetation would be established in the Specific Plan Amendment, and would include native drought resistant vegetation typical of the surrounding area. New development associated with the proposed project would also be required to adhere to all applicable water conservation techniques imposed by the City, including Title 24 standards. The proposed project would not conflict with this policy. Policy 5.12 Identify and develop natural habitat areas for low impact hiking and nature education. The proposed project’s Open Space corridor includes both public and private areas of permanent open space along the floodways of Murrieta Creek. The zone would include the Murrieta Creek Walk, which would include areas for low impact hiking and nature education. Therefore, the proposed project would not conflict with this policy. 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.6 Land Use and Planning Old Town Specific Plan Amendment 3.6-29 ESA /D209294 Draft Environmental Impact Report February 2010 TABLE 3.6-4 CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN GOALS AND POLICIES General Plan Policies Relationship of the Project to the Policy Policy 5.13 Utilize natural, undeveloped greenbelts as buffers between developments and on outskirts of the City to preserve the rural and unique character of Temecula. The proposed project’s Open Space corridor includes both public and private areas of permanent open space along the floodways of Murrieta Creek. The zone provides a buffer between the Neighborhood Residential land use district and the Civic/Downtown Core land use districts, and will help to preserve the rural and unique character of Temecula. The proposed project would not conflict with this policy. Goal 6 Preservation of significant historical and cultural resources. Policy 6.1 Maintain an inventory of areas with archaeological/paleontological sensitivity, and historic sites in the Planning Area. The EIC was contacted for an inventory of known archaeological and historic sites within the project area. The results of the records search are summarized in Section 3.4, Cultural Resources, of this Program EIR. In accordance with this policy, the results of the records search will be added to the city’s inventory of areas with archaeological/paleontological sensitivity and historic sites. Policy 6.2 Work to preserve or salvage potential archeological and paleontological resources on sites proposed for future development through the development review and mitigation monitoring processes. Refer to the above analysis for Policy 6.1. Compliance with the statutory requirements, as summarized in Section 3.4, Cultural Resources, of this Program EIR will assure compliance with this policy. Policy 6.3 Preserve and reuse historical buildings in accordance with the OTSP. The Specific Plan Amendment would help to protect and preserve existing designated historic buildings within the OTSP area through the establishment of a historic core centered on the intersection of Front and Main Streets. New projects in this area would be required to pay special attention to the height and massing of the historic buildings. Future buildings would also be required to respect historic architectural styles and contribute to a well-defined, lively and pedestrian-oriented streetscape through regulation on building form, architectural style, street frontage design, and materials. The proposed project would not conflict with this policy. Policy 6.5 Pursue the acquisition and preservation of historical buildings for public facilities in accordance with the OTSP when appropriate. Refer to the above analysis for Policy 6.3. The proposed project consists of a Specific Plan Amendment with the goal of acquiring historic buildings and preserving the historic nature of Old Town. The proposed project would not conflict with this policy. Policy 6.6 Ensure compatibility between land uses and building designs in the OTSP Area and areas adjacent to Old Town. The Specific Plan Amendment would utilize form-based code principles in order to create clearly define development regulations, site planning guidelines, streetscape standards and guidelines, land use district locations and titles, architectural standards and guidelines, and landscape guidelines within the Specific Plan area. These guidelines would help to ensure compatibility between land uses and building designs within the OTSP area and areas adjacent to Old Town. The proposed project would not conflict with this policy. 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.6 Land Use and Planning Old Town Specific Plan Amendment 3.6-30 ESA /D209294 Draft Environmental Impact Report February 2010 TABLE 3.6-4 CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN GOALS AND POLICIES General Plan Policies Relationship of the Project to the Policy Policy 6.9 Encourage the preservation and re-use of historic structures, landscape features, roads, landmark trees, and trails. One goal of the proposed project is to protect and preserve existing designated historic buildings within the Specific Plan area through the establishment of a historic core. New projects in this area would be required to pay special attention to the height and massing of the historic buildings, as well as to site planning guidelines, streetscape standards and guidelines, land use district locations and titles, architectural standards and guidelines, and landscape guidelines. The proposed project would also establish an Open Space corridor located in the center of the Specific Specific Plan area, which would ultimately accommodate the Murrieta Creek Walk. Therefore, the proposed project would not conflict with this policy. Goal 8 Development of a trail system that serves both recreational and transportation needs. Policy 8.1 Provide a citywide recreation system that connects to the County's regional trail system which provides for bicycling, equestrian, hiking and jogging trails with appropriate support facilities. The proposed project’s Open Space corridor includes both public and private areas of permanent open space along the floodways of Murrieta Creek. The zone would add to the citywide recreation system in accordance with this policy. Goal 9 Protection of dark skies from intrusive light sources which may impact the Palomar Observatory. Policy 9.1 Coordinate with the County of Riverside and California Institute of Technology to ensure preservation procedures for dark skies are implemented within the City development review process. The Specific Plan Amendment recognizes the procedures for dark skies and will apply the necessary restrictions on development within the project area to assure that this policy is met. Policy 9.2 Participate in Palomar Observatory's dark sky conservation requirements. See the above analysis for Policy 9.1. The proposed project would not conflict with this policy. Growth Management/Public Facilities Element Goal 1 Cooperative management of growth among local governments within Riverside County. Policy 1.3 Achieve economic growth and prosperity while preserving natural beauty and the social quality of life in southwestern Riverside County. The Specific Plan Amendment would implement significant new investment in the Old Town area to help promote rapid growth in Temecula Valley and develop a renewed interest in town centers and mixed-use development. The project intends to enhance the quality of life of Temecula residents by balancing economic development objectives with protection of the environment, health, and safety of the community. Through the incorporation of form-based code principles, the proposed project would assist the City in preserving the natural beauty of the Specific Plan area. The proposed project would not conflict with this policy. Policy 1.4 Encourage and assist in the establishment of natural reserves for the preservation of sensitive and endangered species, and to provide open space for residents The proposed project’s Open Space corridor includes both public and private areas of permanent open space along the floodways of Murrieta Creek. The zone is intended to provide for the preservation of biological and cultural resources, to protect the public from flood hazards, and to develop the Murrieta Creek Walk. Therefore, the proposed project would not conflict with this policy. 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.6 Land Use and Planning Old Town Specific Plan Amendment 3.6-31 ESA /D209294 Draft Environmental Impact Report February 2010 TABLE 3.6-4 CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN GOALS AND POLICIES General Plan Policies Relationship of the Project to the Policy Noise Element Goal 1 Separate significant noise generators from sensitive receptors. Policy 1.1 Discourage noise sensitive land uses in noisy exterior environments unless measures can be implemented to reduce exterior and interior noise to acceptable levels. Alternatively, encourage less sensitive uses in areas adjacent to major noise generators but require sound-appropriate interior working environments. Development within the project area will comply with standard City regulations regarding acceptable exterior and interior noise levels. The incorporation of form-based code principles into the Specific Plan Amendment would ensure future development within the Specific Plan area is compatible with surrounding land uses and discourages noise sensitive land uses in noisy exterior environments. The proposed project would not conflict with this policy. Goal 2 Minimize transfer of noise impacts between adjacent land uses. Policy 2.3 Require that mixed-use structures and areas be designed to prevent transfer of noise and vibration from commercial areas to residential areas. The Specific Plan Amendment would utilize form-based code principles to more clearly define development regulations, site planning guidelines, streetscape standards and guidelines, land use district locations and titles, architectural standards and guidelines, and landscape guidelines within the Specific Plan. These regulations would require that mixed-use structures be designed to prevent transfer of noise and vibration from commercial areas to residential areas, in compliance with the City’s noise policies. The proposed project would not conflict with this policy. Goal 3 Minimize the impact of noise levels throughout the community through land use planning. Policy 3.1 Enforce and maintain acceptable noise limit standards. The proposed Specific Plan Amendment would enforce and maintain all City-imposed noise limit standards. The proposed project would not conflict with this policy. Policy 3.4 Evaluate potential noise conflicts for individual sites ad projects, and require mitigation of all significant noise impacts as a condition of project approval. Development within the project area will comply with standard City regulations regarding noise. The proposed project would not conflict with this policy. Air Quality Element Goal 2 Improve air quality through effective land use planning in Temecula. Policy 2.1 Encourage new development that provides employment opportunities for Temecula residents to improve the balance of jobs relative to housing. The proposed project includes the development of commercial and residential land uses that would provide both employment and housing opportunities to the residents of Temecula. Implementation of the proposed project would occur over a 20 to 30 year period and would be developer-driven. Ultimately, the proposed project would be designed to address the City’s needs and therefore development would be adjusted to consider to the most current jobs/housing balance. Therefore, the proposed project would not conflict with the policy. Policy 2.2 Encourage infill development near activity centers, within Mixed Use Overlay Areas, and along transportation corridors. The proposed project is designed to implement significant new investment in the Old Town area to help promote rapid growth, greater density, and develop a renewed interest in town centers and mixed-use development. The Specific Plan area is located directly west of I-15. As such, the proposed project would encourage infill development within the Specific Plan area and along transit corridors, thus improving air quality though effective land use planning. The proposed project would not conflict with the policy. 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.6 Land Use and Planning Old Town Specific Plan Amendment 3.6-32 ESA /D209294 Draft Environmental Impact Report February 2010 TABLE 3.6-4 CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN GOALS AND POLICIES General Plan Policies Relationship of the Project to the Policy Policy 2.3 Minimize land use conflicts between emission sources and sensitive receptors. The Specific Plan Amendment would utilize form-based code principles to more clearly define development regulations and site planning guidelines within the Specific Plan area. The residences associated with the proposed project would be considered to be sensitive receptors, and some of the commercial establishments could emit point and mobile source emission sources within their vicinity. However, the project would minimize land use conflict between emission sources and sensitive receptors through better planning principles and land use techniques, as well as building design and orientation. The potential impacts of these emissions are addressed in Section 3.2, Air Quality, of this Program EIR. The proposed project would not conflict with the policy. Policy 2.4 Mitigate air quality impacts associated with development projects to the greatest extent feasible. The potential impacts of project-related air emissions are addressed in Section 3.2, Air Quality, of this Program EIR. Appropriate mitigation measures are set forth in that section. Community Design Element Goal 1 Enhancement of the City’s image related to its regional and natural setting and its tourist orientation. Policy 1.5 Maintain and incorporate natural amenities such as: rock outcroppings, indigenous vegetation, streams and watercourses within proposed development projects. The proposed project’s Open Space corridor includes both public and private areas of permanent open space along the floodways of Murrieta Creek. The zone is intended to provide for the preservation of biological, cultural, and other natural resources, to protect the public from flood hazards, and to develop the Murrieta Creek Walk. Therefore, the proposed project would not conflict with this policy. Goal 2 Design excellence in site planning, architecture, landscape architecture and signs. Policy 2.2 Require preparation of Specific Plans to promote cohesive and integrated patterns of development for large undeveloped areas. The proposed Specific Plan Amendment is intended to integrate form-based code principles into the Specific Plan in order to more clearly define the design guidelines applicable to future development within the OTSP area. The proposed project serves to enhance the existing OTSP in an attempt to encourage cohesive and integrated patterns of development within the Specific Plan area. The proposed project would not conflict with this policy. Goal 3 Preservation and enhancement of the positive qualities of individual districts or neighborhoods. Policy 3.1 Improve the appearance of neighborhood areas and neighborhood edges through landscaping, location of open space buffers, and special landscape features. The Specific Plan Amendment would create clearly define development regulations, site planning guidelines, streetscape standards and guidelines, land use district locations and titles, architectural standards and guidelines, and landscape guidelines within the Specific Plan area. The proposed project would also include the Open Space corridor, which would help the City to integrate the Murrieta Creek into the design of the Specific Plan. The Specific Plan Amendment would help to improve the appearance of neighborhood areas and neighborhood edges through the establishment of landscaping regulations and the incorporation of open space buffers. The proposed project would not conflict with this policy. 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.6 Land Use and Planning Old Town Specific Plan Amendment 3.6-33 ESA /D209294 Draft Environmental Impact Report February 2010 TABLE 3.6-4 CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN GOALS AND POLICIES General Plan Policies Relationship of the Project to the Policy Goal 7 Community gathering areas which provide for the social, civic, cultural and recreational needs of the community. Policy 7.1 Encourage public spaces and plazas within commercial developments that can accommodate cultural and social events and function as community gathering areas. The Civic Districts proposed by the Specific Plan Amendment are intended to provide for public and quasi-public uses such as city offices, senior citizen centers, community centers and other community assembly uses, museums, and similar facilities. In addition, the placement of public art within the project area will be encouraged on both private and public property as public art gives a community an identity that can be representative of the City’s culture and heritage in addition to promoting social gathering places and interaction. Wall murals, lighting displays, sculptures, mosaics, monuments and fountains will all considered significant examples of artistic expression. The proposed project would not conflict with this policy. SOURCE: City of Temecula General Plan, 2005. 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures Land Use and Planning Old Town Specific Plan Amendment 3.6-34 ESA /D209294 Draft Environmental Impact Report February 2010 Civic Districts: The areas that lie within the proposed Civic Districts are currently designated as either CC or PI in the General Plan. The proposed Civic Districts areas would permit public and quasi-public uses such as parks, city offices, police/fire stations, senior citizen centers, community centers and other community assembly uses, museums, and similar facilities. As shown in Table 3.6-1, these uses are comparable to and would not conflict with the uses permitted in the existing CC and PI General Plan land use designations.Residential/Limited Mixed Uses: The areas that lie within the proposed Residential/Limited Mixed Uses Districts are currently designated as either HT, PI or LM in the General Plan. The Residential/Limited Mixed Uses Districts would provide for attached residential or mixed-use development of up to three stories to accommodate a variety of housing types with some opportunities for ground floor retail, restaurants, and offices to serve residents. These uses are intended to provide convenience or services for the residents in the surrounding neighborhood such as corner markets, takeout/delivery restaurants, dry cleaners, beauty shops, florists, and similar uses. Appropriate building types include live/work, courtyard housing, rowhouses, condominiums, and apartments. As shown in Table 3.6-1, these uses are comparable to and would not conflict with the uses permitted in the existing HT, CC, PI and LM General Plan land use designations. Neighborhood Residential: The areas that lie within the proposed Neighborhood Residential District are currently designated as either M or H in the General Plan. The Neighborhood Residential District would provide for attached and detached three-story residential development at a density of up to 35 dwelling units per acre. Typical housing types in this area would include single-single-family detached, duplexes, triplexes, townhouses, condominiums, apartments, and live/work units. As shown in Table 3.6-1, these uses are comparable to and would not conflict with the uses permitted in the existing M and H General Plan land use designations. Open Space: The areas that lie within the proposed Open Space zone are currently designated as OS in the General Plan. The Open Space zone is intended to provide for the preservation of biological and cultural resources, and to protect the public from flood hazards. As shown in Table 3.6-1, these uses would not conflict with the uses permitted in the existing OS land use designation. Zoning Analysis The majority of the project site is zoned SP-5. However, the project proposes to include or annex approximately 2.4 acres located south of First Street, currently zoned SC. Thus, the inclusion would require a zoning amendment to reflect the incorporation of the proposed 2.4 acres into the SP-5 zone. Also, the project would result in the removal of approximately 2.3 acres from the Specific Plan area, at a location west of the intersection of Sixth Street and Pujol Street. This deannexation would also require a zoning amendment to reflect the exclusion of these lands from the SP-5 zone. The project proposes to amend the zoning code to reflect the proposed annexation and deannexation. The proposed zoning code amendment would ensure that the proposed project is consistent with the zoning code. Impacts related to zoning conformity would be less than significant. 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures Land Use and Planning Old Town Specific Plan Amendment 3.6-35 ESA /D209294 Draft Environmental Impact Report February 2010 Existing Old Town Specific Plan Analysis The primary goal for the Specific Plan Amendment is to incorporate form-based code principles to more clearly define development regulations, to better facilitate pedestrian-friendly development through building placement and streetscapes, and to encourage mixed-use development within Old Town. The Specific Plan Amendment is intended to achieve these goals through changes to site planning guidelines, streetscape standards and guidelines, land use district locations and titles, architectural standards and guidelines, parking lot guidelines, public art guidelines, paving material guidelines, outdoor dining/sidewalk furniture guidelines, sign regulations and guidelines, alley guidelines, and landscape guidelines within the Specific Plan. The existing OTSP states that the Specific Plan may be be amended to further the systematic implementation of the General Plan. With respect to the existing Specific Plan, the proposed amendment would more effectively implement the applicable goals and policies established in the General Plan (see Table 3.6-4). In addition, all actions proposed under the project would be established through an amendment to the Specific Plan. Therefore, project implementation would not conflict with the adopted Specific Plan. The project would have a less-than-significant impact with regard to consistency with the OTSP. Mitigation: None required. 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures Old Town Specific Plan 3.7-1 ESA /D209294 Draft Environmental Impact Report February 2010 3.7 Noise This section provides an overview of the existing noise environment at the proposed project site and surrounding area, the regulatory framework, an analysis of potential noise impacts that would result from implementation of the proposed project, and mitigation measures where appropriate. Noise impacts are assessed based on a comparative analysis of the noise levels resulting from the proposed amendment to the OTSP to the noise levels under existing conditions. As the existing OTSP area has not yet been fully constructed, the existing conditions will be used as the baseline in this noise in this noise analysis. 3.7.1 Setting Noise Principles and Descriptors Noise is defined as unwanted sound. Sound, traveling in the form of waves from a source, exerts a sound pressure level (referred to as sound level) which is measured in decibels (dB), with zero dB corresponding roughly to the threshold of human hearing, and 120 to 140 dB corresponding to the threshold of pain. Pressure waves traveling through air exert a force registered by the human ear as sound. Sound pressure fluctuations can be measured in units of hertz (Hz), which correspond to the frequency of a particular sound. Typically, sound does not consist of a single frequency, but rather a broad band of frequencies varying in levels of magnitude (sound power). When all the audible frequencies of a sound are measured, a sound spectrum is plotted consisting of a range of frequency spanning 20 to 20,000 Hz. The sound pressure level, therefore, constitutes the additive force exerted by a sound corresponding to the sound frequency/sound power level spectrum. The typical human ear is not equally sensitive to all frequencies of the audible sound spectrum. As a consequence, when assessing potential noise impacts, sound is measured using an electronic filter that deemphasizes the frequencies below 1,000 Hz and above 5,000 Hz in a manner corresponding to the human ear’s decreased sensitivity to extremely low and extremely high frequencies. This method of frequency weighting is referred to as A-weighting and is expressed in units of A-weighted decibels (dBA). Frequency A-weighting follows an international standard methodology of frequency deemphasis and is typically applied to community noise measurements. Some representative noise sources and their corresponding A-weighted noise levels are shown in Figure 3.7-1. Noise Exposure and Community Noise An individual’s noise exposure is a measure of noise over a period of time. A noise level is a measure of noise at a given instant in time. The noise levels presented in Figure 3.7-1 are representative of measured noise at a given instant in time; however, they rarely persist consistently over a long period of time. Rather, community noise varies continuously over a period of time with respect to the contributing sound sources of the community noise environment. Community noise is primarily the product of many distant noise sources, which constitute a relatively stable background noise exposure, with the individual contributors unidentifiable. The background noise level changes throughout a typical day, but does so gradually, corresponding with the addition and subtraction 110 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 Rock Band Inside Subway Train (New York) Food Blender at 3 Ft. Garbage Disposal at 3 Ft. Shouting at 3 Ft. Vacuum Cleaner at 10 Ft. Quiet Rural Nighttime LETTERS OF PROTEST COMPLAINTS LIKELY COMPLAINTS POSSIBLE COMPLAINTS RARE ACCEPTANCE 4 Times As Loud Twice As Loud REFERENCE 1/2 As Loud 1/4 As Loud LOCAL COMMITTEE ACTIVITY WITH INFLUENTIAL OR LEGAL ACTION Concert Hall (Background) Broadcast and Recording Studio Threshold of Hearing Jet Flyover at 1000 Ft. Gas Lawn Mower at 3 Ft. Diesel Truck at 50 Ft. Noisy Urban Daytime Gas Lawn Mower at 100 Ft. Commercial Area Heavy Traffic at 300 Ft. Quiet Urban Daytime Quiet Suburban Nighttime Conference Room (Background) Dishwasher Next Room Large Business Office Small Theater, Large Library Quiet Urban Nighttime PUBLIC REACTION NOISE LEVEL (dBA, L ) COMMON INDOOR NOISE LEVELS COMMON OUTDOOR NOISE LEVELS eq Figure 3.7-1 Effects of Noise on People SOURCE: ESA, 2010. Old Town Specific Plan EIR . 209294 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.7 Noise Old Town Specific Plan 3.7-3 ESA /D209294 Draft Environmental Impact Report February 2010 of distant noise sources such as traffic. What makes community noise variable throughout a day, besides the slowly changing background noise, is the addition of short–duration, single event noise sources (e.g., aircraft flyovers, motor vehicles, sirens), which are readily identifiable to the individual. These successive additions of sound to the community noise environment change the community noise level from instant to instant, requiring the measurement of noise exposure over a period of time to legitimately characterize a community noise environment and evaluate cumulative noise impacts. This time-varying characteristic of environmental noise is described using statistical noise descriptors. The most frequently used noise descriptors are summarized below: Leq: The equivalent sound level is used to describe noise over a specified period of time, typically one hour, in terms of a single numerical value. The Leq is the constant sound level which would contain the same acoustic energy as the varying sound level, during the same time period (i.e., the average noise exposure level for the given time period). Lmax: The instantaneous maximum noise level for a specified period of time. L50: The noise level that is equaled or exceeded 50 percent of the specified time period. The L50 represents the median sound level. Limits for the L50 parameter are specified in the County General Plan Noise Element. Ldn: Also termed the DNL, the Ldn is the 24-hour day and night A-weighted noise exposure level which accounts for the greater sensitivity of most people to nighttime noise by weighting noise levels at night (“penalizing” nighttime noises). Noise between 10:00 PM and 7:00 AM is weighted (penalized) by adding 10 dBA to take into account the greater annoyance caused by nighttime noises. CNEL: Similar to the Ldn, the Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL) adds a 5-dBA dBA “penalty” for the evening hours between 7:00 PM and 10:00 PM in addition to a 10-dBA penalty between the hours of 10:00 PM and 7:00 AM. As a general rule, in areas where the noise environment is dominated by traffic, the Leq during the peak-hour is generally equivalent to the Ldn at that location (within +/-2 dBA) (Caltrans, 1998). Effects of Noise on People The effects of noise on people can be placed into three categories: • subjective effects of annoyance, nuisance, dissatisfaction; • interference with activities such as speech, sleep, learning; and • physiological effects such as hearing loss or sudden startling. Environmental noise typically produces effects in the first two categories. Workers in industrial plants can experience noise in the last category. There is no completely satisfactory way to measure the subjective effects of noise, or the corresponding reactions of annoyance and dissatisfaction. A wide variation in individual thresholds of annoyance exists, and different tolerances to noise noise tend to develop based on an individual’s past experiences with noise. 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.7 Noise Old Town Specific Plan 3.7-4 ESA /D209294 Draft Environmental Impact Report February 2010 Thus, an important way of predicting a human reaction to a new noise environment is the way it compares to the existing environment to which one has adapted: the so called “ambient noise” level. In general, the more a new noise exceeds the previously existing ambient noise level, the less acceptable the new noise will be judged by those hearing it. With regard to increases in A-weighted noise level, the following relationships occur: • except in carefully controlled laboratory experiments, a change of 1 dBA cannot be perceived; • outside of the laboratory, a 3-dBA change is considered a just-perceivable difference; • a change in level of at least 5-dBA is required before any noticeable change in human response would be expected; and • a 10-dBA change is subjectively heard as approximately a doubling in loudness, and can cause adverse response. These relationships occur in part because of the logarithmic nature of sound and the decibel system. The human ear perceives sound in a non-linear fashion, hence the decibel scale was developed. Because the decibel scale is based on logarithms, two noise sources do not combine in a simple additive fashion, rather logarithmically. For example, if two identical noise sources produce noise levels of 50 dBA, the combined sound level would be 53 dBA, not 100 dBA. Noise Attenuation Stationary point sources of noise, including stationary mobile sources such as idling vehicles, attenuate (lessen) at a rate between 6 dBA for hard sites and 7.5 dBA for soft sites for each doubling of distance from the reference measurement. Hard sites are those with a reflective surface between the source and the receiver, such as parking lots or smooth bodies of water. No excess ground attenuation is assumed for hard sites and the changes in noise levels with distance (drop-off rate) is simply the geometric spreading of the noise from the source. Soft sites have an absorptive ground surface such as soft dirt, grass or scattered bushes and trees. In addition to geometric spreading, an excess ground attenuation value of 1.5 dBA (per doubling distance) is normally assumed for soft sites. Line sources (such at traffic noise from vehicles) attenuate at a rate between 3 dBA for hard sites and 4.5 dBA for soft sites for each doubling of distance from the reference measurement (Caltrans, 1998). Fundamentals of Vibration As described in the Federal Transit Administration’s Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment (FTA, 2006), ground-borne vibration can be a serious concern for nearby neighbors of a transit system route or maintenance facility, causing buildings to shake and rumbling sounds to be heard. In contrast to airborne noise, ground-borne vibration is not a common environmental problem. It is unusual for vibration from sources such as buses and trucks to be perceptible, even in locations close to major roads. Some common sources of ground-borne vibration are trains, buses on rough roads, and construction activities such as blasting, pile-driving and operating heavy earth-moving equipment. Several different methods are used to quantify vibration. The peak particle velocity (PPV) is defined as the maximum instantaneous peak of the vibration signal. The PPV is most frequently used to describe vibration impacts to buildings. The root mean square (RMS) amplitude is most 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.7 Noise Old Town Specific Plan 3.7-5 ESA /D209294 Draft Environmental Impact Report February 2010 frequently used to describe the effect of vibration on the human body. The RMS amplitude is defined as the average of the squared amplitude of the signal. Decibel notation (Vdb) is commonly used to measure RMS. The decibel notation acts to compress the range of numbers required to describe vibration. Typically, ground-borne vibration generated by man-made activities attenuates rapidly with distance from the source of the vibration. Sensitive receptors for vibration include structures (especially older masonry structures), people (especially residents, the elderly and sick), and vibration-sensitive equipment. The effects of ground-borne vibration include movement of the building floors, rattling of windows, shaking of items on shelves or hanging on walls, and rumbling sounds. In extreme cases, the vibration can cause damage to buildings. Building damage is not a factor for most projects, with the occasional exception of blasting and pile-driving during construction. Annoyance from vibration often occurs when the vibration exceeds the threshold of perception by only a small margin. A vibration level that causes annoyance will be well below the damage threshold for normal buildings. The FTA measure of the threshold of architectural damage for conventional sensitive structures is 0.2 in/sec PPV and the FTA threshold of human annoyance to ground-borne vibration is 80 RMS (FTA, 2006). 3.7.2 Regulatory Framework Federal Federal regulations establish noise limits for medium and heavy trucks (more than 4.5 tons, gross vehicle weight rating) under 40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), Part 205, Subpart B. The federal truck pass-by noise standard is 80 dBA at 15 meters from the vehicle pathway centerline. These controls are implemented through regulatory controls on truck manufacturers. State The State of California establishes noise limits for vehicles licensed to to operate on public roads. For heavy trucks, the state pass-by standard is consistent with the federal limit of 80 dB. The state pass-by standard for light trucks and passenger cars (less than 4.5 tons, gross vehicle rating) is also 80 dBA at 15 meters from the centerline. These standards are implemented through controls on vehicle manufacturers and by legal sanction of vehicle operators by state and local law enforcement officials. The state has also established noise insulation standards for new multi-family residential units, hotels, and motels that would be subject to relatively high levels of transportation-related noise. These requirements are collectively known as the California Noise Insulation Standards (Title 24, California Code of Regulations). The noise insulation standards set forth an interior standard of DNL 45 dBA in any habitable room. They require an acoustical analysis demonstrating how dwelling units have been designed to meet this interior standard where such units are proposed in areas subject to noise levels greater than DNL 60 dBA. Title 24 standards are typically enforced by local jurisdictions through the building permit application process. 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.7 Noise Old Town Specific Plan 3.7-6 ESA /D209294 Draft Environmental Impact Report February 2010 Local City of Temecula General Plan Noise The following sections of the Temecula General Plan are relevant to the proposed project: Goal 1: Separate significant noise generators from sensitive receptors. Policy 1.1: Discourage noise sensitive land uses in noisy exterior environments unless measures can be implemented to reduce exterior and interior noise to acceptable levels. Alternatively, encourage less sensitive uses in areas adjacent to major noise generators but require sound –appropriate interior working environment. Policy 1.2: Limit the hours of construction activity next to residential areas to reduce noise intrusion in the early morning, late evening, weekends and holidays. Policy 1.3: Use information from the noise contour map in the General Plan in the development review process to prevent location of sensitive land uses near major stationary noise sources. Goal 2: Minimize transfer of noise impacts between adjacent land uses. Policy 2.1: Limit the maximum permitted noise levels crossing property lines and impacting adjacent land uses. Policy 2.2: Establish criteria for placement and operation of stationary outdoor equipment. Policy 2.3: Require that mixed use structures and areas be designed to prevent transfer of noise and vibration from commercial areas to residential areas. Goal 3: Minimize the impact of noise levels throughout the community through land use planning. Policy 3.1: Enforce and maintain acceptable noise limit standards. Policy 3.2: Work with the County of Riverside and the City of Murrieta to minimize or avoid land use/noise conflicts prior to project approvals. Policy 3.3: Encourage the creative use of site and building design techniques as a means to minimize noise impacts. Policy 3.7: Evaluate potential noise conflicts for individual sites and projects, and require mitigation of all significant noise impacts as a condition of project approval. Goal 4: Minimize impacts from transportation noise sources. 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.7 Noise Old Town Specific Plan 3.7-7 ESA /D209294 Draft Environmental Impact Report February 2010 Policy 4.1: Minimize noise conflicts between land uses and the circulation network, and mitigate sound levels where necessary or feasible to ensure the peace and quiet of the community. Policy 4.2: Ensure the effective enforcement of City, State and Federal noise impacts from vehicles, particularly in residential areas. Policy 4.3: Enforce the speed limit on arterials and local roads to reduce noise impacts from vehicles, particularly in residential areas. Policy 4.4: Coordinate with Caltrans to ensure the inclusion of noise mitigation measures in the design of new highways or improvement projects in the Planning Area. Policy 4.5: Participate in the planning and impact assessment activities of the County Airport Land Use Commission and other regional or State agencies relative to any proposed expansion of the airport or change in flight patterns. City City of Temecula Municipal Code The following sections of the Temecula Municipal Code are relevant to the proposed project: 9.20.040 General Sound Level Standards No person shall create any sound, or allow the creation of any sound, on any property that causes the exterior sound level on any other occupied property to exceed the sound level standards set fourth in Table 3.7-1. TABLE 3.7-1 TEMECULA LAND USE /NOISE STANDARDS Property Receiving Noise Maximum Noise Level (Ldn or CNEL, dBA) Type of Use Land Use Designation Interior Exterior Residential Medium 45 65/70a High 45 70a Commercial and Office Neighborhood, Service, etc --70 Professional Office 50 70 Light Industrial Industrial Park 55 75 Public/Industrial Schools 50 65 All others 50 70 Open Space Vineyards/Agriculture --70 Open Space --70/65b a Maximum exterior noise level up to 70 dB CNEL are allowed for Multiple-Family Housing. b Where quiet is a basis required for the land use c Regarding aircraft-related noise, the maximum acceptable exposure for new residential development is 60 dB CNEL SOURCE: City of Temecula, October 2007. 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.7 Noise Old Town Specific Plan 3.7-8 ESA /D209294 Draft Environmental Impact Report February 2010 9.20.060 Special Sound Sources Standards No person shall engage in or conduct construction activity, when the construction site is within one-quarter mile of an occupied residence, between the hours of 6:30 PM and 6:30 AM, Monday through Friday, and shall only engage in or conduct construction activity between the hours of 7:00 AM and 6:30 PM on Saturday. Further, no construction activity shall be undertaken on Sunday and nationally recognized holidays. The City Council may, by formal action, exempt projects from the provisions of this chapter. 9.20.030 Exemptions Sound emanating from motor vehicles, other than off-highway vehicles, is exempt from the provisions of Chapter 9.20 Noise of the municipal code. Old Town Specific Plan and Design Guidelines The previous OTSP identified limitations and requirements to prevent potentially significant noise impacts from development: • Roof mounted equipment shall be screened in accordance with the requirements of the Development Code. Special consideration shall be given to the location and screening of noise generating equipment such as refrigeration units, air conditioning, and exhaust fans. Noise reducing screens and insulation may be required where such equipment has the potential to impact residential uses. • Loading and unloading facilities shall be visually screened from access streets and adjacent properties and constructed in a manner to reasonably contain and restrict emission of noises typically attributed to such function. When screening of loading and unloading facilities is physically not possible, the facilities shall be architecturally integrated into the overall design of the building. Loading and unloading areas in or adjacent to the alleys do not require additional visual screening. 3.7.3 Existing Noise Environment The noise environment surrounding the project site is influenced primarily by traffic on I-15 and local roadways. Noise levels away from these noise sources can be quite low depending on the amount of nearby human activity. A Metrosonics Model db3080 sound level meter was used to measure the existing ambient noise levels at various locations on the project site. The meter was calibrated to ensure the accuracy of the measurements. Short-term noise level measurements were taken at 10 locations around the project site. The noise measurement results are presented below in Table 3.7-2. 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.7 Noise Old Town Specific Plan 3.7-9 ESA /D209294 Draft Environmental Impact Report February 2010 TABLE 3.7-2 EXISTING NOISE ENVIRONMENTS AT PROJECT SITE Location Time Period Leq (dBA) Noise Sources (dBA) Temecula Exterior Standards Significant (Yes/No) Short-term Measurement 1: Southeast corner of Moreno and Old Town Front Street 08/20/09 5:20 – 5:25 PM 5-minute Leq 73 Traffic Motorcycle: 93 70 Yes Short-term Measurement 2: On landscape island 50 ft north of Denny’s entrance on Rancho California Rd. 08/20/09 5:34 – 5:39 PM 5-minute Leq 75 Traffic Fire Truck Siren: 91 70 Yes Short-term Measurement 3: Northwest corner of Mercedes and 5th 08/20/09 5:45 – 5:50 PM 5-minute Leq 59 Traffic Traffic on I-15 Car: 63 70 No Short-term Measurement 4: End of 5th along Chain link fence (a berm is located between 5th and I-15) 08/20/09 5:55 – 6:00 PM 5-minute Leq 60 Traffic on I-15: 70 70 Yes Short-term Measurement 5: Southeast corner of Main Street and Old Town Town Front Street 08/20/09 6:06 – 6:11 PM 5-minute Leq 67 Traffic Truck: 70 Motorcycle: 84 70 No Short-term Measurement 6: Northwest corner of 1st Street (Santiago ends at this intersection) and Old Town Front Street 08/20/09 6:18 – 6:23 PM 5-minute Leq 72 Traffic Truck: 66 Motorcycle: 84 70 Yes Short-term Measurement 7: Northeast Corner of 1st (Santiago turns into 1st) and Pujol 08/20/09 6:29 – 6:34 PM 5-minute Leq 61 Traffic Skateboard: 71 Truck: 68 70 No Short-term Measurement 8: Southeast Corner of Main Street and Pujol 08/20/09 6:40 – 6:45 PM 5-minute Leq 68 Traffic Children: 63 Truck: 83 70 No Short-term Measurement 9: Northwest Corner or 6th and Pujol 08/20/09 6:48 – 6:23 PM 5-minute Leq 58 Traffic Children: 75 70 No Short-term Measurement 10: Along Specific Plan boundary on east side of Felix Valdez Street 08/20/09 6:57 – 7:02 PM 5-minute Leq 60 Traffic Truck: 71 70 No SOURCE: ESA, 2009. Sensitive Receptors Some land uses are considered more sensitive to ambient noise levels than others because of the amount of noise exposure (in terms of both exposure duration and insulation from noise) and the types of activities typically involved. Residences, hotels, schools, rest homes, and hospitals are 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.7 Noise Old Town Specific Plan 3.7-10 ESA /D209294 Draft Environmental Impact Report February 2010 generally more sensitive to noise than commercial and industrial land uses. Sensitive receptors are located throughout the proposed Specific Plan area. 3.7.4 Impacts and Mitigation Measures Methodology Noise impacts are assessed by comparing the noise levels resulting from the proposed amendment to the OTSP to the noise levels under existing conditions. As the existing OTSP has not yet been fully constructed, the existing conditions will be used as the baseline in this noise analysis. The analysis of temporary construction noise effects is based on typical construction phases, typical equipment noise levels and attenuation of those noise levels over distance, and barriers between the construction activity and sensitive receptors. The Federal Highway Administration’s Highway Traffic Noise Prediction Model (FHWA-RD-77-108) was used to find how much noise the proposed project would contribute to the area due to an increase in traffic volumes along local roadways. Significance Criteria Based on the CEQA Guidelines, a project may be deemed to have a significant effect on the environment with respect to noise and/or ground-borne vibration if it would result in: • Exposure of persons to, or generation of, noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies; • A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project; • A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project; • Exposure of people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels (for a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport); • Exposure of people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels (for a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip); or • Exposure of persons to, or generation of, excessive ground-borne vibration or ground-borne noise levels. The following analysis discusses the first three criteria; the fourth and fifth are not discussed because the site lies outside a two-mile radius of a public airport or private airstrip. Some guidance as to the significance of changes in ambient noise levels is provided by the 1992 findings of the Federal Interagency Committee on Noise (FICON), which assessed the annoyance effects of changes in ambient noise levels resulting from aircraft operations. The recommendations are based upon studies that relate aircraft noise levels to the percentage of persons highly annoyed by the noise. “Annoyance” is a summary measure of the general adverse 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.7 Noise Old Town Specific Plan 3.7-11 ESA /D209294 Draft Environmental Impact Report February 2010 reaction of people to noise that generates speech interference, sleep disturbance, or interference with the desire for a tranquil environment. Although the FICON recommendations were specifically developed to assess aircraft noise impacts, it has been asserted that they are applicable to all sources of noise described in terms of cumulative noise exposure metrics such as the Ldn, as shown in Table 3.7-3. TABLE 3.7-3 MEASURES OF SUBSTANTIAL INCREASE FOR NOISE EXPOSURE Ambient Noise Level without Project (Ldn) Significant Impact Assumed to Occur if the Project Increases Ambient Noise Levels By: <60 dB + 5.0 dB or more 60-65 dB + 3.0 dB or more >65 dB + 1.5 dB or more SOURCE: Federal Interagency Committee on Noise (FICON), 1992. The rationale for the Table 3.7-3 criteria is that, as ambient noise levels increase, a small increase in decibel levels is sufficient to cause significant annoyance. The quieter the ambient noise level is, the more the noise can increase (in decibels) before it causes significant annoyance. Construction Noise Noise impacts from short-term construction activities could exceed noise thresholds and could result in a significant construction impact if short-term construction activity occurred outside of the daytime hours permitted by the City’s noise ordinance. However, project construction would be temporary in duration and only occur in short intervals (as long as the particular piece of construction machinery is running). Stationary Noise A stationary noise source is a non-transportation source that operates from one location, such as heating, ventilating, and air conditioning (HVAC) equipment noise. If a stationary noise source causes the noise level at residences to exceed an exterior maximum of 65 dBA CNEL or an interior maximum of 45 dBA CNEL, this is considered a significant noise impact. Traffic Noise As described in Table 3.7-3 above, the proposed project would result in a significant traffic noise impact if mobile noise would result in increased noise levels of: • 1.5 dBA Ldn or more in an ambient noise environment greater than 65 dBA Ldn; or • increased noise of 3 dBA Ldn or more in an ambient noise environment between 60 and 65 dBA Ldn; or • increased noise of 5 dBA Ldn or more in an ambient environment of less than 60 dBA Ldn. The FICON thresholds are representative of noise increases that could adversely affect sensitive receptors along the roadway. Although an increase in noise may be significant based on the 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.7 Noise Old Town Specific Plan 3.7-12 ESA /D209294 Draft Environmental Impact Report February 2010 thresholds, if there are no sensitive receptors along the roadway and thus no receptors that would be adversely impacted, then the noise would be deemed less than significant. Vibration Noise The project would result in a significant vibration impact if buildings would be exposed to the FTA building damage ground-borne vibration threshold level of 0.2 PPV or if sensitive individuals would be exposed to the FTA human annoyance response ground-borne vibration threshold level of 80 RMS. 3.7.5 Impacts and Mitigation Measures Impact 3.7-1: Project construction could expose persons to or generate noise levels in excess of standards. Construction activity noise levels at and near the construction areas would fluctuate depending on the particular type, number, and duration of uses of various pieces of construction equipment. Construction-related material haul trips would raise ambient noise levels along haul routes, depending on the number of haul trips made and types of vehicles used. In addition, certain types of construction equipment generate impulsive noises (such as pile driving), which can be particularly annoying. Pile driving, however, is not proposed for project development. Table 3.7-4 shows typical noise levels during different construction stages. Table 3.7-5 shows typical noise levels produced by various types of construction equipment. TABLE 3.7-4 TYPICAL CONSTRUCTION NOISE LEVELS Construction Phase Noise Level (dBA, Leq)a Ground Clearing Excavation Foundations Erection Finishing 84 89 78 85 89 a Average noise levels correspond to a distance of 50 feet from the noisiest piece of equipment associated with a given phase of construction and 200 feet from the rest of the equipment associated with that phase. SOURCE: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Noise from Construction Equipment and Operations, Building Equipment, and Home Appliances, 1971. Noise from construction activities generally attenuates at a rate of 6 to 7.5 dBA per doubling of distance. Based on the project site layout and terrain, an attenuation of 6 dBA will be assumed. Construction could occur adjacent to sensitive receptors. Table 3.7-4 states that excavation noise is 89 dBA at 50 feet; if sensitive receptors were located at this distance, construction noise at these levels would be substantially greater than existing noise levels at nearby sensitive receptor locations. These construction noise levels, especially if they were to occur during the nighttime 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.7 Noise Old Town Specific Plan 3.7-13 ESA /D209294 Draft Environmental Impact Report February 2010 TABLE 3.7-5 TYPICAL NOISE LEVELS FROM CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT Construction Equipment Noise Level (dBA, Leq at 50 feet ) Dump Truck Portable Air Compressor Concrete Mixer (Truck) Scraper Jack Hammer Dozer Paver Generator Pile Driver Backhoe 88 81 85 88 88 87 89 76 101 85 SOURCE: Cunniff, Environmental Noise Pollution, 1977. hours when people are sleeping, would be potentially significant. Subsequent exposure to construction noise by individual sensitive receptors could be lessened over time due to attenuation of noise by project structures built in the interim. The City of Temecula noise ordinance states that, when the site is within one-quarter mile from an occupied residence, no person shall conduct construction activity between the hours of 6:30 PM and 6:30 AM Monday through Friday, and shall only conduct construction between the hours of 7:00 AM and 6:30 PM on Saturday. Further, no construction activity shall be undertaken on Sundays and nationally recognized holidays. Daytime construction is commonly exempt from noise ordinances because background noise is typically louder during the day than at night, and sleep disturbance is typically considered to be a nighttime impact. However, even daytime noise levels from construction can exceed daytime ambient levels and be a substantial annoyance to nearby residential units. It should be noted that exceptions may be requested from the standards set forth in the City’s Noise Ordinance. An application for a construction-related exception can be submitted in writing at least three working days (seventy-two hours) in advance of the scheduled and permitted activity (accompanied by the appropriate inspection fees), subject to approval by the City Manager or designated representative. The following mitigation measures would reduce nighttime and daytime construction noise levels. Mitigation Measures Measure 3.7-1a: The applicant shall ensure, as specified in City of Temecula Ordinance No. 94-25, that no construction may occur within one-quarter (1/4) of a mile of any occupied residence during the following hours: A. 6:30 PM to 6:30 AM, Monday through Friday. B. Before 7:00 AM or after 6:30 PM, Saturday. C. At any time on Sunday or any nationally recognized holiday. 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.7 Noise Old Town Specific Plan 3.7-14 ESA /D209294 Draft Environmental Impact Report February 2010 Measure 3.7-1b: The applicant shall ensure that all construction equipment will have properly operating mufflers. Measure 3.7-1c: The applicant shall ensure that all construction staging shall be performed as far as possible from occupied dwellings. Measure 3.7-1d: The applicant shall ensure that signs shall be posted at the construction sites that include permitted construction days and hours, and a contact number for the job site. Significance after Mitigation: Although the above mitigation measures would reduce the noise impact from construction, construction sites are noisy locations with heavy equipment that could substantially affect noise levels at nearby residences. Such impacts could last a substantial time before the noise complaint system would be used to reduce the impact. Therefore, construction noise could at times be a short-term significant and unavoidable impact of the proposed project. Impact 3.7-2: Construction activities associated with the project could result in exposure of sensitive receptors to excessive levels of ground-borne vibration. As shown in Table 3.7-6, use of a large bulldozer for project construction generates vibration levels of up to 0.089 PPV or 87 RMS at a distance of 25 feet. The nearest sensitive receptor or historic building to construction has yet to be determined. Because the location of potential sensitive receptors is unknown, mitigations measures have been included to lessen noise impacts no matter where the sensitive receptors are placed. A large bulldozer would reach 80 RMS at 45 feet and 0.2 PPV at 15 feet from operation. This impact would be less than significant with implementation of Mitigation Measures 3.7-1a through 3.7-1d above and 3.7-2 below. TABLE 3.7-6 VIBRATION VELOCITIES FOR CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT Equipment/Activity PPV at 25 ft (inches/second)a RMS at 25 ft (Vdb)b Large Bulldozer 0.089 87 Loaded Trucks 0.076 86 Jackhammer 0.035 79 a Buildings can be exposed to ground-borne vibration levels of 0.2 PPV without experiencing structural damage. b The human annoyance response level is 80 RMS. SOURCE: Federal Transit Administration, Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment, May 2006. Mitigation Measure Measure 3.7-2a: The construction contractor will conduct crack surveys before construction activities that could cause architectural damage to nearby structures. The survey will include any historic buildings or buildings in poor condition within 15 feet of construction. The surveys will be done by photographs, video tape, or visual inventory, and will include inside as well as outside locations. All existing cracks in walls, floors, and driveways should be documented with sufficient detail for comparison after construction to determine whether actual vibration damage occurred. A post-construction survey should be conducted to document the condition of the surrounding buildings after the construction is 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.7 Noise Old Town Specific Plan 3.7-15 ESA /D209294 Draft Environmental Impact Report February 2010 complete. The construction contractor would be liable for construction vibration damage to adjacent structures. Significance after Mitigation: The above mitigation measures would ensure vibration impacts would be less than significant. Impact 3.7-3: Operation of the project could expose persons to or generate noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plans or noise ordinances, or applicable standards of other agencies. Heating, Ventilating, and Air Conditioning (HVAC) Equipment Noise The HVAC system for maintaining comfortable temperatures in buildings within the Specific Plan Amendment area would consist of packaged rooftop air conditioning systems. Such rooftop HVAC units typically generate noise levels of approximately 55 dB at a reference distance of 100 feet from the operating units during maximum heating or air conditioning operations. The noise level of the HVAC, if on the edge of the building nearest the sensitive receptors, could exceed the City of Temecula’s 65 dBA noise standard. Loading Dock/Truck Delivery Noise Delivery trucks are expected to be used during on-site commercial operations. The number of delivery trucks will depend on the individual businesses. Mixed-use areas are intended and truck noise could potentially impact adjacent residents. Noise measurements of passing and idling delivery trucks were taken by ESA in 2009. An idling truck at 50 feet was found to produce noise levels of 72 dBA Leq, and a passing truck at 50 feet was found to produce noise levels of 68 dBA Leq. Cal-OSHA also requires backup beepers to be at least 5 dBA above ambient noise levels. These noise levels would potentially exceed Temecula’s daytime and nighttime noise standards if loading docks were to be located near residences. Mitigation Measures Measure 3.7-3a: Building equipment (e.g., HVAC units) shall be located away from nearby residences, on building rooftops, and properly shielded by either the rooftop parapet or within an enclosure that effectively blocks the line of sight of the source from the nearest receptors. The resultant HVAC noise level shall not exceed 45 dBA at the nearest receptors. Measure 3.7-3b: In order to avoid noise-sensitive hours, commercial and retail shall prohibit loading and unloading activities between the nighttime hours of 10:00 PM and 7:00 AM. Measure 3.7-3c: To further address the nuisance impact of loading dock/truck delivery noise, all loading areas for commercial and retail uses shall be located at the rear or sides of buildings within the commercial and mixed-use districts, where noise can be directed away from residential uses within the mixed use areas of the project. 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.7 Noise Old Town Specific Plan 3.7-16 ESA /D209294 Draft Environmental Impact Report February 2010 Significance after Mitigation: With implementation of the above mitigation measures, the operational (non-transportation) noise impacts of the project would be reduced to less-thansignificant levels. Impact 3.7-4: Traffic associated with operation of the project would result in a significant increase in ambient noise levels on nearby roadways. Most of the noise generated by the implementation of the project would result from increased traffic. The proposed amendment to the OTSP would contribute to an increase in local traffic volumes, resulting in higher noise levels along local roadways as compared to existing conditions. To assess the impact of project traffic on roadside noise levels, noise level projections were made using the Federal Highway Administration’s (FHWA) TNM Lookup model and the project traffic study provided by RK Engineering Group, Inc., for those road segments that pass by sensitive receptors. Traffic noise levels were analyzed for 10 roadway segments. The segments analyzed and results of the modeling are shown in Table 3.7-7. TABLE 3.7-7 EXISTING AND FUTURE PEAK-HOUR NOISE LEVELS ALONG SELECTED ROADWAYS Modeled Roadway Segment Peak Hour Noise Levels (Leq)a Existing (A) Existing + Project (B) Incremental Increase (B – A) Significant (Yes/No)b Cumulative 2035 + Project (C) Incremental Increase (C – A) Cumulatively Considerable? 1. Old Town Front St north of Rancho California Rd 70 71 1 No 71 2 Yes 2. Old Town Front St south of Rancho California Rd 68 70 2 Yes 70 2 Yes 3. Rancho California Rd east of Old Town Front St 73 74 1 No 74 1 No 4. Old Town Front St south of Main St 66 67 1 No 67 2 Yes 5. Main St east of Old Town Front St 50 58 8 Yes 58 8 Yes 6. Main St West of Old Town Front St 52 59 7 Yes 59 7 Yes 7. Old Town Front St north of Santiago 66 68 3 Yes 69 4 Yes 8. Mercedes St. South of Moreno Rd. 56 60 4 No 61 5 Yes 9. 3rd St west of Mercedes 52 52 0 No 52 1 No 10. Moreno road east of Mercedes St 52 55 4 No 56 4 No a Noise levels are estimated at a distance of 50 feet from roadway centerline. Data based on PM Peak Hour. Ldn is approximately equal to the peak-hour Leq under normal traffic conditions (Caltrans, 1998). b Considered significant if the incremental increase in noise (Ldn) is greater than 5 dBA in a noise environment of 60 dBA or less, an increase of 3 dBA in a noise environment greater than 60 dBA and less than 65 dBA, or an increase of 1.5 dBA in a noise environment greater than 65 dBA, as described in Table 3.7-3. SOURCE: RK Engineering Group Inc. 2009, ESA 2009. 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.7 Noise Old Town Specific Plan 3.7-17 ESA /D209294 Draft Environmental Impact Report February 2010 As depicted in Table 3.7-7, four of the 10 roadway segments would experience a significant increase in traffic noise (compared to existing conditions) resulting from the proposed amendment to the OTSP. Notably, the traffic study has found that the existing Specific Plan at build-out is projected to generate approximately 11,165 net vehicles during the PM peak hour. The proposed Specific Plan Amendment at build-out is projected to generate approximately 7,357 net vehicles during the PM peak hour. Therefore, the proposed amendment to the OTSP at build-out would generate considerably fewer trips and less noise from traffic operations than the currently approved Specific Plan at build-out. Residences in the project area would be subject to Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations, which requires an interior noise standard of DNL 45 dBA in any habitable room. Residences along affected roads exceeding 65 dBA would require sound-rated assemblies at the exterior facades of project buildings. The project shall implement the following mitigation measure to reduce indoor noise exposure to within City of Temecula and State standards. Implementation would ensure that interior noise levels are reduced to 45 dB and are less than significant. However, as shown in Table 3.7-7, exterior noise levels from project traffic would exceed the standards for substantial noise increases along roadway segments 2, 5, 6, and 7. Mitigation Measures Measure 3.7-4: If necessary to comply with the interior noise requirements of the City of Temecula and achieve an acceptable interior noise level, noise reduction in the form of sound-rated assemblies (i.e., windows, exterior doors, and walls) shall be incorporated into project building design, based upon recommendations of a qualified acoustical engineer. Final recommendations for sound-rated assemblies will depend on the specific building designs and layout of buildings on the site and shall be determined during the design phase. Significance after Mitigation: With implementation of the above mitigation measure, the interior noise impact from project traffic would be reduced. However, exterior noise levels along roadways 2, 5, 6, and 7 would be substantially greater with the project than existing and would remain a significant and unavoidable impact. Cumulative Impacts Impact 3.7-5: The project, together with anticipated future development could result in long-term traffic increases that could cumulatively increase noise levels. (Significant and Unavoidable) A cumulative impact arises when two or more individual projects, when considered together, are considerable or which compound or increase other environmental impacts. Cumulative impacts can result from individually minor but collectively significant impacts, meaning that the project incremental effects must be viewed in connection with the effects of past, current, and probable future projects. 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.7 Noise Old Town Specific Plan 3.7-18 ESA /D209294 Draft Environmental Impact Report February 2010 When considered alone, the proposed project would generate noise mainly by adding more traffic to the area. Other anticipated projects would contribute to noise in the area due to increased traffic volumes. Table 3.7-8 shows the future cumulative traffic with the project and existing traffic and the difference between the two. As depicted in Table 3.7-8, seven out of 10 roadway segments would experience a significant increase in traffic noise from the proposed project. TABLE 3.7-8 EXISTING AND FUTURE PEAK-HOUR NOISE LEVELS ALONG SELECTED ROADWAYS Modeled Roadway Segment Peak Hour Noise Levels (Leq)a Existing (A) Existing + Project (B) Incremental Increase (B – A) Significant (Yes/No)b Cumulative 2035 + Project (C) Incremental Increase (C – A) Cumulatively Considerable? 1. Old Town Front St north of Rancho California Rd 70 71 1 No 71 2 Yes 2. Old Town Town Front St south of Rancho California Rd 68 70 2 Yes 70 2 Yes 3. Rancho California Rd east of Old Town Front St 73 74 1 No 74 1 No 4. Old Town Front St south of Main St 66 67 1 No 67 2 Yes 5. Main St east of Old Town Front St 50 58 8 Yes 58 8 Yes 6. Main St West of Old Town Front St 52 59 7 Yes 59 7 Yes 7. Old Town Front St north of Santiago 66 68 3 Yes 69 4 Yes 8. Mercedes St. South of Moreno Rd. 56 60 4 No 61 5 Yes 9. 3rd St west of Mercedes 52 52 0 No 52 1 No 10. Moreno road east of Mercedes St 52 55 4 No 56 4 No a Noise levels are estimated at a distance of 50 feet from roadway centerline. Data based on PM Peak Hour. Ldn is approximately equal to the peak-hour Leq under normal traffic conditions (Caltrans, 1998). b Considered significant if the incremental increase in noise (Ldn) is greater than 5 dBA in a noise environment of 60 dBA or less, an increase of 3 dBA in a noise environment greater than 60 dBA and less than 65 dBA, or an increase of 1.5 dBA in a noise environment greater than 65 dBA, as described in Table 3.7-3. SOURCE: RK Engineering Group Inc. 2009, ESA 2009. Mitigation Measures Mitigation: Implement Mitigation Measure 3.7-4 as described above. Significance after Mitigation: With implementation of Mitigation Measure 3.7-4, the cumulative interior noise impacts of the project would be reduced. However, the project would result in cumulatively considerable exterior noise levels along roadways 1, 2, and 4 through 8, which would remain a significant and unavoidable impact. 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures Old Town Specific Plan 3.8-1 ESA /D209294 Draft Environmental Impact Report February 2010 3.8 Utilities and Services 3.8.1 Introduction The purpose of this section is to analyze potential impacts to utilities in the City of Temecula that could occur with implementation of the Specific Plan Amendment. The analysis identifies and evaluates key utilities and service systems within the City of Temecula and determines the degree of impacts that could occur from the Specific Plan Amendment implementation. For each of the utilities included in this section, existing infrastructure and levels of service are described, as well as improvements required to accommodate the projected demand for additional services where necessary. This section therefore describes current capacity, as appropriate, for construction and operation of the project. Services for the area are assessed in terms of location of the services, existing and projected service ratios, and other other service objectives as applicable. Where impacts on services are determined to be potentially significant, mitigation measures are recommended to ensure adequate delivery of services and utilities to the Specific Plan area. 3.8.2 Environmental Setting Public Services Parks The City of Temecula owns and maintains 38 parks (approximately 302 acres of parkland), including a skate park and roller hockey arena. As of 2008, the City had 23 neighborhood parks, two specialty parks, seven sports parks, and six recreational facilities. Neighborhood parks are intended to serve the immediate area; they are generally three to 10 acres including open space and play areas; and they should be easily accessed by pedestrians. Specialty parks generally serve one or two purposes. The two specialty parks within Temecula are a duck pond and a skate park. Sports parks offer athletic facilities such as soccer fields, baseball fields, basketball courts, and/or tennis courts. Parks are an important resource in Temecula as they provide community gathering areas and recreational facilities for residents and visitors. The closest parks, those located within a 1.5-mile radius of the proposed Specific Plan area, are listed in Table 3.8-1 (City of Temecula, Parks and Recreational Facilities, 2009a and 2009b). The City of Temecula also has a joint-use agreement with the Temecula Valley Unified School District which allows the City to utilize school facilities (City of Temecula General Plan EIR, 2005). These facilities are generally open to the public during non-school hours and are considered adjuncts to the citywide park system. The following sites are presently joint-use facilities: • Temecula Middle School (illuminated baseball and soccer fields). • Temecula Elementary School (pool). • Temecula Valley High (illuminated tennis courts). • Chaparral High School (pool) (City of Temecula General Plan EIR, 2005). • Vail Ranch Middle School Basketball Courts • James L. Day Middle School Fields 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.8 Utilities and Services Old Town Specific Plan 3.8-2 ESA /D209294 Draft Environmental Impact Report February 2010 TABLE 3.8-1 PARKS AND RECREATIONAL FACILITIES Name Location Amenities Approximate Distance from Specific Plan area Sam Hicks Memorial Park 41970 Moreno Road • Children's play area • Picnic tables • Restrooms • Handicap accessible • 1.8 acres Within Specific Plan Boundaries Temecula Duck Pond & Veteran's Memorial 28250 Rancho California Rd • Pond with paved walking area around water • Wheelchair access ramp • Memorial “Paths of Honor” • 7.51 acres Approximately 0.25 miles from north eastern edge of project site Rotary Park 28816 Pujol Street • BBQ • Picnic tables • Handicap accessible • 1.09 acres Adjacent to the south of the Specific Plan area Margarita Community Park 29119 Margarita Road • 2 lit ballfields • 1 lit football /soccer field • Tennis • Roller hockey rink • Restrooms • Handicap accessible • 12.16 acres Within one mile north of the Specific Plan area Ronald Reagan Sports Park (formally Rancho California Sports Park) 30875 Rancho Vista Road • Community recreation center • 63 acres • Five unlit ballfields • Five lit ballfields • Two lit football/soccer fields • Children's play area • Picnic shelter • BBQs • Picnic tables • Restrooms 1.2 miles east of the Specific Plan area Temecula Skate Park (located at Ronald Reagan Sports Park) 42569 Margarita Road • Skateboarding and in-line skating • A competition 60-foot-diameter bowl with ramp entry • A 10-foot-wide apron connects the upper bowl with a street plaza skate area • Street plaza has a pyramid, fun box, curbs, ramps, stairs and a 20-foot hand rail • 1 acre 1.5 miles east of the Specific Plan area Mary Phillips Senior Center 41845 Sixth Street • 3 pool tables • Library • Classrooms • Computers with internet access • Auditorium with a stage Within Specific Plan Boundaries Civic Center Plaza Area where the fountain is located, just west of the Civic Center • Grassy plaza area that that can be used for summer concerts, winter ice skating rink, etc. Within Specific Plan Boundaries SOURCE: City of Temecula, 2009; ESA, 2009. 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.8 Utilities and Services Old Town Specific Plan 3.8-3 ESA /D209294 Draft Environmental Impact Report February 2010 Other recreational opportunities in the City of Temecula include facilities such as a community center and a children’s museum. In addition to the City-owned and operated parks and recreation facilities, there are many private recreational facilities throughout Temecula. There are also three private golf courses within the City. The proposed Specific Plan Amendment area is located within 1.5 miles of two of these courses (Table 3.8-2). TABLE 3.8-2 PRIVATE RECREATIONAL FACILITIES Name Location Amenities Approximate Distance from Specific Plan area Temecula Creek Inn and Golf Course 44501 Rainbow Canyon Road Golf Course (and Inn) 1.3 miles from the south of the OTSP area Temeku Hills Golf Course 41687 Temeku Drive Golf Course 1.5 miles northeast of the OTSP area SOURCE: ESA, 2009. The City of Temecula is in proximity to the Lake Skinner Skinner Regional Park. The 600-acre park offers overnight camping, fishing, swimming, sailing, picnicking, and other activities. The Cleveland National Forest is accessible to the residents of Temecula and the surrounding area. The City of Temecula has a parkland standard of five acres of City-owned parkland per 1,000 residents (City of Temecula General Plan EIR, 2005). In 2000, the City had an estimated population of approximately 57,716 (City of Temecula General Plan EIR, 2005). In 2005, however, the City population was estimated to be approximately 72,715 (City of Temecula General Plan EIR, 2005). Thus, the City should have had 363.5 acres of parkland but was operating a deficit of approximately 61.5 acres of parkland. Utilities Water Service Water Suppliers There are two major water suppliers for the City of Temecula: the Rancho California Water District (RCWD) and Eastern Municipal Water District (EMWD). The EMWD is a wholesaler and distributes water to the surrounding areas including portions of Beaumont, San Jacinto, Perris, Murrieta, portions of Temecula, Hemet and Moreno Valley along with portions of unincorporated Riverside County. The population within the current 555-square-mile service area is about 687,000 (as of June 2009) (Eastern Municipal Water District, 2009). The EMWD is a retail water agency and receives water directly from a connection to Metropolitan Water District (MWD). EMWD depends on its own wells for approximately 25 to 30 percent of its water supply, with the remainder imported through the MWD from the Colorado River and from northern California. The EMWD provides service through 2,382 miles of pipeline, 81 water storage tanks, 18 wells, two groundwater desalters (brackish groundwater 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.8 Utilities and Services Old Town Specific Plan 3.8-4 ESA /D209294 Draft Environmental Impact Report February 2010 desalination program), 82 pumping plants and two freshwater filtration plants (Eastern Municipal Water District, 2005). EMWD retails water to more than 82,000 homes and businesses. In 2000, EMWD customers’ water usage totaled approximately 84,608 acre-feet (af), of which 63,463 af were consumed by domestic users (Eastern Municipal Water District, 2005). In 2000, water consumption was estimated to be 129 gallons per day (gpd) per person (Eastern Municipal Water District , 2000). The RCWD supplies most of the domestic and commercial water to the City of Temecula. The RCWD’s service area encompasses approximately 100,000 acres (City of Temecula General Plan EIR, 2005) including the City of Temecula, portions of the City of Murrieta, and unincorporated areas of southwestern Riverside County. The service area is bounded on the southwest by by the Santa Ana Mountains, and on the northeast by Gavilan Hills. The RCWD is a local, independent “special district.” A special district is defined by state law as “any agency of the state for the local performance of governmental or proprietary functions within limited boundaries” (City of Temecula General Plan EIR 2005). To provide supplemental imported water, the RCWD was annexed in 1966 to the EMWD and the MWD (City of Temecula General Plan EIR 2005). The RCWD has approximately 940 miles of water mains, 36 storage reservoirs, one surface reservoir (Lake Vail), 47 groundwater wells, and 40,000 service connections with service to approximately 120,000 people (Rancho California Water District, 2009). The RCWD’s natural sources of water include precipitation, surface stream flows, and regional groundwater (aquifers). The RCWD estimates that its groundwater basins hold over two million acre-feet of water, with the annual safe yield of these basins approximately 30,000 acre-feet per year (Rancho California Water District, 2009). This amount of groundwater is estimated to meet approximately half of the RCWD’s needs. Additionally, the RCWD purchases approximately 65 percent of its water from MWD of Southern California. The RCWD receives its imported water (treated and untreated) directly through six MWD water turnouts (Rancho California Water District, 2005). Table 3.8-3 summarizes the RCWD current water supply (2005). TABLE 3.8-3 RCWD WATER SUPPLY SOURCES (acre-feet per year) Water Supply Sources 2005 Imported Water (MWD) Treated 33,000 Untreated 18,000 Local Groundwater Pumping 38,000 Recycled Water 6,700 Total 95,700 SOURCE: RCWD Regional Integrated Resources Plan (CDM, 2005). 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.8 Utilities and Services Old Town Specific Plan 3.8-5 ESA /D209294 Draft Environmental Impact Report February 2010 Water Demand In 2005, the approximate consumptive water demand for the RCWD was 76,100 acre-feet per year (AFY). The largest accounts for water come from the domestic sector. Table 3.8-4 displays a list of the RCWD customer accounts by land use classification for the year 2000 and 2005. TABLE 3.8-4 TYPE OF RCWD CUSTOMER ACCOUNTS (UNITS) Customer Class 2000 2005 Agricultural and Agricultural/Domestic Areas 1,310 1,699 Domestic 23,320 33,378 Multiple Dwelling 160 178 Commercial 827 1,280 Landscape 674 1,059 Schools, Etc 51 65 SOURCE: RCWD Update of the Urban Water Management Plan, 2005 The domestic water demands have steadily increased in the RCWD service area (Rancho California Water District, 2005). Table 3.8-5 illustrates the average past and planned water supplies for the RCWD. By 2030, the RCWD projects that consumptive water demand would be 112,700 AFY. The largest increase in water demand would occur in the single-family domestic sub-group, which is expected to more than double its water demand between 2000 and 2030. However, according to the City of Temecula General Plan, no water supply shortage is expected in the near future (City of Temecula General Plan EIR, 2005). TABLE 3.8-5 EXISTING AND PROJECTED AVERAGE WATER DEMANDS IN THE RCWD (AFY) Year 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 Agriculture/Ag Domestic Demands 33,900 35,900 38,000 40,000 41,000 44,000 46,000 Single-Family Domestic 21,700 25,500 29,300 33,000 36,800 40,600 44,300 Multi-Family Domestic 1,400 1,900 2,300 2,800 3,200 3,700 4,200 Commercial/Institutional 3,500 4,100 4,800 5,400 6,100 6,700 7,400 Landscape/Golf Course 8,300 8,700 9,100 9,500 9,900 10,300 10,800 Total 68,800 76,100 83,500 90,700 97,000 105,300 112,700 SOURCE: RCWD, 2005. The projections shown in Table 3.8-5 were formulated using normal weather conditions. Total annual average water demands are projected to increase from the current 76,100 AFY to 112,700 AFY in 2030, an increase of 36,600 acre-feet. The largest growth is expected to occur in the single-family domestic sector, increasing from 25,500 AFY in 2005 to 44,300 AFY in 2030 (Rancho California Water District, 2005). 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.8 Utilities and Services Old Town Specific Plan 3.8-6 ESA /D209294 Draft Environmental Impact Report February 2010 Wastewater The EMWD is the nearest service provider for wastewater collection and treatment for the project area. EMWD has five regional water reclamation facilities (RWRF): Hemet-San Jacinto, Moreno Valley, Sun City, Temecula Valley and Perris Valley. The EMWD treats approximately 46 million gallons per day (mgd) of wastewater and is capable of treating 56 mgd. EMWD regional treatment plants serve approximately 180,000 connections, with a network of pipelines that extends for approximately 1,600 miles, supported by 45 lift (pumping) stations (Eastern Municipal Water District , 2009). EMWD’s regional water reclamation facilities have the capacity to treat 56 mgd of wastewater; however, the volume of wastewater is expected to grow to 64 mgd by 2013 (Eastern Municipal Water District , 2007). The EMWD produces two grades of recycled water: Secondary Secondary treatment employs biological oxidation to remove nearly all suspended solids and other impurities. This water can be used on pastures for fiber, feed and seed crops not eaten directly by humans. Tertiary Tertiary treatment removes bacteria, viruses and virtually all suspended solids. At this level, recycled water can be used for almost any purpose except direct consumption (Eastern Municipal Water District , 2009). Approximately 60 percent of the treated wastewater currently generated is sold to agricultural and irrigation users (Eastern Municipal Water District, 2007). Recycled water is currently used on approximately 22,350 acres, which includes a number of public facilities such as golf courses and several schools (Eastern Municipal Water District , 2007). Table 3.8-6 illustrates EMWD’s wastewater consumption by residential classifications. TABLE 3.8-6 EMWD’S WASTEWATER CONSUMPTION BY RESIDENTIAL CLASSIFICATION Residential EDUs/Acrea Typical Range Population/EDU GPD/Capita GPD/Acreb Acreb Low Density (LDR) 2.5 0 to 2.9 4 105 1,050 Medium Density (MDR) 4.5 3 to 11 3.5 100 1,575 High Density (HDR) 12 12 to 16 2.5 80 2,400 Very High Density (VHDR) 17 17+ 2.2 80 2,922 Mobile Homes (MH) 6 Varies 2 80 960 Age Restrict Comm. varies varies 2 80 960 a For calculation of actual flow, the Equivalent Dwelling Units (EDU) per Gross Acre are used. b Applies to Typical EDUs/Acre only. SOURCE: EMWD, Sanitary Sewer System Planning and Design, February 1993. 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.8 Utilities and Services Old Town Specific Plan 3.8-7 ESA /D209294 Draft Environmental Impact Report February 2010 Table 3.8-7 illustrates EMWD’s wastewater consumption by non-residential classifications. TABLE 3.8-7 EMWD’S WASTEWATER CONSUMPTION BY NON-RESIDENTIAL CLASSIFICATION Non-Residential EDUs/Acre Commercial 1,700 GPD/Acre Industrial 1,700 GPD/Acre Institutional 1,000 GPD/Acre Hospital 250 GPD/Bed Schools 20 GPD/Student SOURCE: EMWD, Sanitary Sewer System Planning and Design, September 2006. The Temecula Valley RWRF would provide wastewater services to the project area. The Temecula Valley plant is a 95-acre facility and is the smallest of EMWD’s five reclamation plants. Located in the central commercial area of Temecula, this plant maintains only 25 million gallon (mg) of temporary on-site storage (Eastern Municipal Water District, 2009b). When additional storage is required, the Temecula plant pumps reclaimed water north 10 miles to the 450 mg storage ponds in Winchester (Eastern Municipal Water District, 2009b). The facility has the capacity to treat 13.2 mgd of wastewater; however, EMWD plans to expand the facility from 13.2 mgd to 19.8 mgd (City of Temecula General Plan EIR, 2005). The next expansion of the facility is anticipated to occur around 2014 and will provide approximately 24 mgd of capacity (City of Temecula General Plan EIR, 2005). Electricity Southern California Edison (SCE) supplies the Specific Plan area and the City of Temecula with power and electricity from underground and overhead lines. SCE’s main substation is located on Mira Loma Drive in Temecula. SCE is a public utility and therefore functions on demand. SCE’s Auld-Moraga No. 2 Sub-transmission Line Project installed new double-circuit lines that connect to the Moraga Substation. The completed project serves current and projected demand for electricity in Temecula and Murrieta and nearby areas of unincorporated Riverside County. However, due to the rapid growth in Riverside County and the City of Temecula, SCE’s current forecast shows the increased demand for electrical service would exceed the designed operating limits of the existing distribution facilities serving this area as early as the summer of 2010, creating a need for increased load (Southern California Edison, 2009). Table 3.8-8 provides SCE’s 2005 estimated and future electrical demand. SCE is proposing to build a new substation that would maintain electrical system reliability and serve the projected increase in demand in Temecula and Murrieta as well as other new developments in adjacent unincorporated Riverside County. This substation, the Triton Substation, would include a 115/12-kilovolt substation and a 12-kilovolt sub-transmission line segment 0.25 mile long. 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.8 Utilities and Services Old Town Specific Plan 3.8-8 ESA /D209294 Draft Environmental Impact Report February 2010 TABLE 3.8-8 ESTIMATED CURRENT AND FUTURE ELECTRICITY DEMAND Land Use Usage Factor (kwh/month/du or ksf) Existing (du/ksf) Estimated Existing Usage (mwh/month) Proposed (du/ksf) Estimated Usage at Buildout (mwh/month) Change (mwh/month) Single-Family Residential 5,700/du 2,008 du 11.45 3,259 du 18.58 7.13 Multi-Family Residential 3,940/du 27,260 du 107.40 49,445 du 194.81 87.41 Commercial 20/ksf 11,837 ksf 0.24 18,553 ksf 0.37 0.13 Light Industrial and Office 17/ksf 13,431 ksf 0.23 38,313 ksf 0.65 0.42 Community Facilities 8/ksf 11,083 ksf 0.09 16,344 ksf 0.13 0.04 Mixed Use 3,940/du 20/ksf N/A 0.00 1,760 du 2,245 ksf 6.93 0.04 6.97 TOTAL 29,268 du 36,351 ksf 119.41 54,464 du 75,455 ksf 221.51 102.10 kwh = kilowatt hours; mwh = megawatt hours; du = dwelling units; sf = square feet; ksf = thousand square feet. SOURCE: City of Temecula General Plan Update EIR, 2005. Natural Gas Natural gas is provided by the Southern California Gas Company (Gas Company). Plastic and steel underground lines are located throughout the City. A small number of residents utilize bottled propane or butane fuel (City of Temecula General Plan EIR, 2005). Natural gas is currently provided to the OTSP area through existing facilities. Availability is based on present conditions of gas supplies and regulatory policies. New developments would be required to comply with the current energy performance standards of the California Energy Code, Part 6 of the California Building Standards Code (Title 24). Table 3.8-9 provides the Gas Company’s 2005 estimated and future natural gas demand. The demand for natural gas is anticipated to increase by approximately 104.49 million cubic feet (mcf) per month (City of Temecula General Plan EIR, 2005). The Gas Company coordinates with new developments that are proposed to construct additional natural gas infrastructure as necessary to meet demand. Solid Waste CR&R Incorporated (CR&R) is a privately operated company under contract with the City of Temecula and provides solid waste collection and disposal services. CR&R has the option of hauling residential waste to any permitted waste facility in Riverside County (i.e., transfer station or landfill). Transfer stations can process waste prior to disposal at landfills. 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.8 Utilities and Services Old Town Specific Plan 3.8-9 ESA /D209294 Draft Environmental Impact Report February 2010 TABLE 3.8-9 ESTIMATED CURRENT AND FUTURE NATURAL GAS DEMAND Land Use Usage Factor (cf/month/du or ksf) Existing (du/ksf) Estimated Existing Usage (mcf/month) Proposed (du/ksf) Estimated Usage at Buildout (mcf/month) Change (mcf/month) Single-Family Residential 6,665.0/du 2,008 du 13.38 3,259 du 21.72 8.34 Multi-Family Residential 4,011.5/du 27,260 du 109.35 49,445 du 198.35 89.00 Commercial 2.9/ksf 11,837 ksf 0.03 18,553 ksf 0.05 0.02 Light Industrial and Office 2.0/ksf 13,431 ksf 0.03 38,313 ksf 0.08 0.05 Community Facilities 2.0/ksf 11,083 ksf 0.02 16,344 ksf 0.03 0.01 Mixed Use 4,011.5/du 2.9/ksf N/A 0.00 1,760 du 2,245 ksf 7.06 0.007 7.07 TOTAL 29,268 du 36,351 ksf 122.81 54,464 du 75,455 ksf 227.30 104.49 cf = cubic feet; du = dwelling unit; sf = square feet; mcf = million cubic feet; ksf = thousand square feet. NOTE: This table does not include open space land use designations. SOURCE: City of Temecula General Plan Update EIR, 2005. The City of Temecula provides curbside recycling services. Recyclables are transported to a center in Stanton, while general waste is hauled to the El Sobrante and Badlands Landfills in Riverside County. The El Sobrante Landfill, a Riverside County regional municipal solid waste landfill, is located east of I-15 and Temescal Canyon Road at 10910 Dawson Canyon Road. The landfill is owned and operated by USA Waste of California, a subsidiary of Waste Management, Inc. The El Sobrante Landfill is permitted to receive 10,000 tons of waste per day (tpd) and a maximum permitted capacity of 184,930,000 tons (California Integrated Waste Management Board, 2009a). The remaining capacity in 2007 was 118,573,540 tons, with an estimated cease operation date of January 2030 (California Integrated Waste Management Board , 2009a). The Badlands Landfill is located northeast of the City of Moreno Valley at 31125 Ironwood Avenue. The Badlands Landfill is owned and operated by Riverside County Waste Management Department. The landfill is currently permitted to receive 4,000 tpd and has a permitted capacity of 30,386,322 cubic yards (California Integrated Waste Management Board , 2009b). The remaining capacity as of 2005 was 21,866,092 cubic yards with an estimated cease operations date of January 2016 (California Integrated Waste Management Board, 2009b). Table 3.8-10 displays the current (2005) and future solid waste generation for the City of Temecula. 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.8 Utilities and Services Old Town Specific Plan 3.8-10 ESA /D209294 Draft Environmental Impact Report February 2010 TABLE 3.8-10 ESTIMATED CURRENT AND FUTURE SOLID WASTE GENERATION Land Use Generation Factor (lbs/du or ksf) Existing (du/ksf) Exiting Solid Waste Generation (lbs/day) Future du/ksf Net Increase (du/ksf) Increase in Solid Waste Generation (lbs/day) Single-Family Residential 10/du 2,008 du 20,080 3,259 du 1,251 du 12,510 Multi-Family Residential 7/du 27,260 du 190,820 49,445 du 22,185 du 155,295 Commercial, Light Industrial and Office 6/ksf 25,268 ksf 151,608 56,866 ksf 31,598 ksf 189,588 Public Institutional Facilities 8/ksf 11,083 ksf 88,664 16,344 ksf 5,261 ksf 42,088 Overlay Designation 7 du/6 ksf N/A N/A 1,760 du 2,245 ksf 1,760 du 2,245 ksf 12,320 13,470 TOTAL 29,268 du 36,351 ksf 451,172 54,464 du 75,455 ksf 25,196 du 39,104 ksf 425,271 du = dwelling unit, ksf = thousand square feet NOTE: Table does not include solid waste calculations for Vineyards/Agriculture, Open Space, and Tribal Trust Lands. SOURCE: City of Temecula General Plan EIR Update, 2005. A portion of Temecula’s waste is also sent to the Commerce Refuse-to-Energy Facility in Los Angeles County, which is operated by the County of Los Angeles Sanitation Districts. The facility has a capacity of 1,000 pounds per day (City of Temecula General Plan EIR, 2005). 3.8.3 Regulatory Setting Quimby Act The Quimby Act (State Subdivision Map, Section 66477) allows the legislative body of a City or County, by ordinance, to require the dedication of land, the payment of fees in-lieu, or a combination of both, for park and recreational purposes as a condition of approval for a final tract map or parcel map. The Quimby Act requires that developers set aside land, donate conservation easements, or pay fees for park improvements. The goal of the Quimby Act is to require developers to help mitigate the impacts of property improvements. California Integrated Waste Management Act of 1989 (AB 939) The California Integrated Waste Management Act of 1989 (AB 939) redefined solid waste management in terms of both objectives and planning responsibilities for local jurisdictions and the State. The Act was adopted in an effort to reduce the volume and toxicity of solid waste that is landfilled and incinerated by requiring local governments to prepare and implement plans to improve the management of waste resources. AB 939 required each of the cities and unincorporated portions of the counties to divert a minimum of 25 percent of the solid waste sent to landfills by 1995 and 50 percent by the year 2000. To attain goals for reductions in disposal, 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.8 Utilities and Services Old Town Specific Plan 3.8-11 ESA /D209294 Draft Environmental Impact Report February 2010 AB 939 established a planning hierarchy utilizing new integrated solid waste management practices. These practices include source reduction, recycling and composting, and environmentally safe landfill disposal and transformation. Other state statutes pertaining to solid waste include compliance with the California Solid Waste Reuse and Recycling Act of 1991 (AB 1327), which requires adequate areas for collecting and loading recyclable materials within a project site. California Administrative Code The California Administrative Code (CAC) establishes efficiency standards for reducing water usage in new water fixtures. Title 24 CAC, Section 25352, addresses pipe insulation requirements, which reduce the amount of hot water used before reaching equipment and fixtures. Title 20 CAC, Section 1604, provides efficiency standards for water fixtures including lavatory faucets, showerheads, and sink faucets. California Urban Water Management Planning Act Section 10610 of the California Water Code establishes the Urban Water Management Planning Act. The act states that every urban water service provider that serves 3,000 or more customers or that supplies over 3,000 acre-feet of water annually should prepare an Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP) every five years. The goal of an UWMP is to ensure the appropriate level of reliability in water service sufficient to meet the needs of customers during normal, dry, and multiple dry years. Section 15155 of the CEQA Guidelines Water Supply Assessment Section 15155 of the CEQA Guidelines was updated on July 27, 2007 to include the requirement to develop a water supply assessment. The assessment is required when a residential development of more than 500 dwelling units is proposed. If the development is part of an existing public water system that has fewer than 5,000 service connections, an assessment is required when the proposed residential development will account for an increase of 10 percent or more in the number of the public water system’s existing service connections. City of Temecula Regulations City of Temecula General Plan Open Space/Conservation Element The Open Space/Conservation Element contains goals and policies concerned with managing open space areas, including undeveloped wilderness lands and outdoor recreation uses. The Open Space/Conservation Element states that open space should be preserved for: • Preservation of natural resources; • Managed production of resources; • Recreation; and • Public health and safety. 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.8 Utilities and Services Old Town Specific Plan 3.8-12 ESA /D209294 Draft Environmental Impact Report February 2010 City of Temecula Parks and Recreation Master Plan The City’s Parks and Recreation Master Plan addresses the long-term park and recreation needs of residents. The Master Plan contains: current and projected recreational needs; park development and design standards; a park and trails classification system; parks, trails and recreation facilities improvements; target locations for acquisition of future parkland; future trail connections to the regional trail system; a Citywide bicycle route and recreation trails system; timing and phasing of parks, recreation facilities and trails; and cost estimates for park acquisition and development. The Master Plan will support implementation of the goals and policies in the Open Space/Conservation Element. Goals and policies of the Open Space/Conservation Element are to provide a quality parks and and recreation system as a high priority for Temecula residents. Implementation of a Parks and Recreation Master Plan is critical to achieving this goal. The Master Plan strives to attain a balance between quantitative and qualitative levels of service. This balance involves providing an acceptable amount of useable parkland, in close proximity to residents, as well as the appropriate type and number of facilities to meet the recreation needs and desires of residents. The City’s parks and recreation facilities are supplemented by other local and regional facilities, which may be influenced and fostered through intergovernmental cooperation. Goal 1 A high quality parks and recreation system that meets the diverse recreation needs of residents. Policy 1.1 Ensure sufficient parkland and recreation facilities to support new development through acquisition and/or dedication that meets the requirement for five acres of useable park land per 1,000 population. Policy 1.2 Pursue the joint use of public lands available and suitable for recreation purposes, including lands under the jurisdiction of the Riverside County Flood Control District, Southern California Edison, water districts, school districts, and other public agencies. Policy 1.3 Encourage the enhancement and preservation of historic structures and landscape, and significant natural features, such as riparian areas, rock outcroppings, sensitive habitat areas, and viewpoints through park design and site development. Goal 5 Conservation of open space areas for a balance of recreation, scenic enjoyment, and protection of natural resources and features. Policy 5.1 Conserve the western escarpment and southern ridgelines, the Santa Margarita River, slopes in the Sphere of Influence, and other important landforms and historic landscape features through the development review process. Policy 5.3 Encourage the use of clustered development and other site planning techniques to maximize the preservation of permanent open spaces. 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.8 Utilities and Services Old Town Specific Plan 3.8-13 ESA /D209294 Draft Environmental Impact Report February 2010 Policy 5.5 Coordinate with Homeowners’ Associations to maintain landscaping along slopes adjacent to public right-of-ways. Policy 5.6 Require the dedication and improvement of parkland. Policy 5.7 Require adequate open space in new development for both passive and active recreation. Policy 5.9 Require connection between open space /recreation areas and adjacent developments or publicly owned recreation areas where appropriate. Policy 5.10 Incorporate seismic hazard safety zones into valley-wide open space and park systems where appropriate. Policy 5.13 Utilize natural, undeveloped greenbelts as buffers between developments and on outskirts of the City to preserve the rural and unique character of Temecula. Growth Management/Public Facilities Element The City of Temecula General Plan establishes goals and policies related to public services and utilities for areas within the City. The following General Plan goals and policies for public services and utilities are relevant to the proposed project: Goal 6 A water and wastewater infrastructure system that supports development in the planning area. Policy 6.1 Require landowners to demonstrate that an available water supply and sewer treatment capacity exists or will be provided to serve proposed development, prior to issuance of building permits. Policy 6.2 Require landowners, prior to issuance of building permits, to demonstrate that adequate wastewater capacity exists to serve proposed development. Goal 8 A solid waste management system providing safe and efficient collection, transportation, recovery, and disposal of waste. Goal 9 Adequate electrical, natural gas, and telecommunication systems to meet development demand. Development Impact Fees The City adopted Resolution No. 03-63 and subsequent amendments establishing Developer Impact Fees (DIF) to mitigate the cost of providing or expanding public facilities (parks, open space and trails, and corporate facilities) needed to serve new development in the community. The DIF collected is based on the type of development proposed and the land use designations established for the project area. 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.8 Utilities and Services Old Town Specific Plan 3.8-14 ESA /D209294 Draft Environmental Impact Report February 2010 3.8.4 Impact Analysis Significance Criteria The significance criteria for the public services analysis have been developed in part from criteria presented in Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines.1 For this analysis, the proposed project would result in significant impacts if it would: • Result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, the need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times, or other performance objectives for any of the public services (specifically parks); • 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; • Have insufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or need new or expanded entitlements; • Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has inadequate capacity to serve the project’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments; • Be served by a landfill with insufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project’s solid waste disposal needs; or • Not comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste. Methodology and Assumptions The proposed Specific Plan Amendment has been evaluated for conformity with the goals, objectives, and policies of the City’s General Plan and regulation documents related to recreation. The potential for adverse impacts on recreational services has been evaluated based on information concerning current recreational service and the ability of the recreational facility to accommodate the demand created by the proposed project. This analysis considered existing General Plan policies, goals, and applicable regulations, as well as existing and proposed parks, open space, and recreation facilities within the general area. The project team contacted the agencies and utilities that have jurisdiction or provide services to the Specific Plan Amendment area. Correspondence included requesting current information about service ratios, performance objectives, number of apparatus devoted to the project vicinity, etc., and reviewing web-based information about these agencies. These agencies were contacted as part of the Notice of Preparation to determine available service levels and anticipated service needs caused by the proposed Specific Plan Amendment’s development. Additionally, federal, state, and local regulations were reviewed for applicability. 1 Several criteria deemed less than significant will not be discussed in this section. Please refer to the Initial Study Checklist (see Appendix A) for the criteria that were considered to be less than significant. 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.8 Utilities and Services Old Town Specific Plan 3.8-15 ESA /D209294 Draft Environmental Impact Report February 2010 Summary of Impacts An Initial Study analyzed potential impacts to public services, utilities, and service systems from implementation of this project based on criteria established by Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines. It was determined that there would be no impacts or less-than-significant impacts to all public services, with the exception of parks and limited impacts to utilities and service systems (see Appendix A). Pursuant to City development standards, policies, and standard conditions of approval, development in the Specific Plan area would be properly designed. Where necessary, infrastructure would be installed to ensure health and public safety of persons and property. These measures would be addressed case by case as development occurs. Impacts and Mitigation Measures Impact 3.8-1: The project would not result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered parks and recreational facilities. The Specific Plan Amendment would be implemented over approximately 20 to 30 years. Buildout of the proposed Specific Plan area would replace existing residences with new multi-family residential structures, and would result in new consolidated locations for commercial and retail uses. The Specific Plan Amendment would result in an increase in residential population of approximately 4,114 new residents2 compared to existing conditions. In order to maintain the ratio of five acres of parkland per 1,000 residents, the proposed Specific Plan area would need to contribute 205.7 acres of parkland/open space to the City’s inventory of park space. There are 538 existing (on ground) residential units in the existing Specific Plan Area that would require approximately 2.69 acres of parkland/open space. Taken together, the total amount of parkland/open space for existing and proposed development would be approximately 208.39 acres (205.7 acres for proposed residential and 2.69 acres existing residential). There are 26 single-family units along the freeway that would be removed and replaced with mixed-use development. Thus, the actual open space/parkland needed would be less. Measures 3.8-1 through 3.8-2 below would mitigate this impact below the significance level. As stated in the City’s General Plan, the basic park acreage standard for the City of Temecula is 5.0 acres of usable City-owned parkland per 1,000 residents. This standard does not include special use facilities, natural open space, or trails; as such, although the open space corridor associated with the proposed project would be increased by 5.7 acres, this area would not contribute towards the parks and recreational facilities requirement. Within the OTSP area, the Sam Hicks Memorial Park would provide 2 acres of parkland and the Civic Center Plaza would contribute .45 acres of recreational facilities towards this requirement. However, there would still be a need for the contribution of 7.29 acres of parks and recreational facilities into the City’s inventory of park space as a result of the proposed project. Although the additional open space provided by the amended Specific Plan would not contribute towards the parks and recreational facilities requirement, this additional open space area would still have a beneficial affect on the 2 Multi-family dwelling unit assumption of 2.2 persons/du. 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.8 Utilities and Services Old Town Specific Plan 3.8-16 ESA /D209294 Draft Environmental Impact Report February 2010 City an OTSP area. Overall, due to the improvements proposed by the Specific Plan Amendment (improved landscaping and walkways, etc.) and implementation of the Mitigation Measures 3.8-1 through 3.8-3 listed below, impacts would be less than significant. Furthermore, all development projects must contribute their fair share to the maintenance or provision of public services through payment of the City’s Development Impact Fee. Mitigation Measures Measure 3.8-1: The City shall continue to implement its local code that incorporates standards for parkland dedication and development. The City requires (1) the dedication of parkland or the payment of in-lieu fees and the development of recreation facilities for all new development; and (2) developers of residential projects greater than 200 units must dedicate land based on the park acre standard of five acres of usable parkland to 1,000 residents. Measure 3.8-2: The City will identify potential sites for additional park land, monitor demand for park land and facilities concurrent with development approvals, and prioritize potential parkland acquisitions, expansions, and improvements within the five year Capital Improvement Program, consistent with the adopted Parks and Recreation Master Plan. Measure 3.8-3: The City shall 1) implement policies and standards of the Parks and Recreation and Multi-Use Trails and Bikeways Master Plans, including trail classifications, design standards, implementation mechanisms, and capital improvement programming; and 2) ensure that bike routes are provided or reserved concurrent with new development. Significance after Mitigation: Less than Significant. Impact 3.8-2: The project would not require or result in the construction of new water treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects. The construction and operation of uses associated with the proposed Specific Plan Amendment would not require the preparation of a water supply assessment in accordance with Section 15155 of the CEQA Guidelines. Section 15155 of the CEQA Guidelines states a water supply assessment is required if: • the project would result in the construction of more than 500 residential units and/or require a water demand equivalent to a 500 dwelling unit project; • the project would include a commercial component that would employ more than 1,000 persons or having more than 250,000 square feet of floor space; • the project would include a hotel or motel, or both, having more than 500 rooms; and/or • the water district serves less than 5,000 people. Currently, RCWD provides services to more than 120,000 people. If optimal development occurs, the project area can expect development of approximately 749 (Fisk, 2009) new residential units. 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.8 Utilities and Services Old Town Specific Plan 3.8-17 ESA /D209294 Draft Environmental Impact Report February 2010 However, the timing of the proposed project would be 20-30 years and there is no guarantee that a project resulting in optimal development would occur. As a result, the proposed Specific Plan Amendment would create a situation already within the boundary of what has been accounted for by RCWD. The proposed Specific Plan Amendment is anticipated to result in an increase in water demand annually compared to the existing conditions. Table 3.8-11 illustrates the RCWD’s average daily unit demand for land uses. TABLE 3.8-11 WATER SYSTEM UNIT DEMAND Land Use Average Day Unit Demand Factors Very Low Density/Low Density (1DU/AC) 1,500 GPD/DU Medium Low Density (2-4 DU/AC) 1,000 GPD/DU Medium Density/Medium High Density/High Density (5-16 DU/AC) 600 GPD/DU Commercial 2,000 GPD/AC Business Park/Industrial 2,500 GPD/AC Vineyard 2.0 AF/AC/YR Park/Park/Golf Course 4.0 AF/AC/YR Wildlife/Reserve 0 Resort Commercial 4.0 AF/AC/YR Open Space 1.5 AF/AC/YR Agriculture (Avocado, Citrus, Horse Ranch) 3.5 AF/AC/YR SOURCE: Rancho California Water District Water System Facility Requirement and Design Guidelines, December 2007. See Appendix H. The Specific Plan Amendment would intensify the land uses within the area (and expanded area proposed) such that it would increase water demand to 449,4003 gpd for residential uses. However, the Specific Plan Amendment would reduce the commercial uses by approximately 1,405,285 square feet such that it would decrease water demand to 2,810,570,000 gpd for commercial uses. Thus, no new increase in water for commercial uses is anticipated. Provisions have been made by RCWD and MWD in the event of a water shortage. RCWD developed a water shortage contingency plan in accordance with the Urban Water Management Planning Act. As stated above, RCWD purchases a substantial portion of its water from MWD. If a water shortage were to occur, MWD “will be able to meet municipal and industrial (M&I) demands with management of existing water supplies with no negative impact to the end user”. Rancho California Water District, 2005). Severe and extreme shortages would require MWD to implement some or all of the following water shortage actions: • Draw on storage in the Diamond Valley Lake. • Draw on out-of-region storage in Semitropic and Arvin-Edison. 3 There are 749 net new residential units proposed that fall into the category of high density (up to 35 du/ac). The average daily demand factor for high density residential is 600 gpd/du. Thus, 749 units would equal 449,400 gpd of water consumption (749 units x 600 demand factor). See Appendix H. 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.8 Utilities and Services Old Town Specific Plan 3.8-18 ESA /D209294 Draft Environmental Impact Report February 2010 • Reduce/suspend long-term seasonal and groundwater replenishment deliveries. • Draw on contractual groundwater storage programs in the region. • Draw on SWP terminal reservoir storage (per Monterey Agreement). • Call for extraordinary drought conservation and public education. • Reduce IAWP (agricultural) deliveries. • Call on water transfer options contracts. • Purchase transfers on the spot market. • Allocate MWD’s firm imported supplies to its member agencies (Rancho California Water District , 2005). If a water shortage were to occur, the RCWD has a four-level policy program in place (Stage I: Normal Conditions, Stage II: Water Alert, Stage III: Water Warning, Stage IV: Water Emergency). The restrictions during a water emergency can reduce agricultural water use by 80 percent and total RCWD water use by 29 percent (Rancho California Water District , 2005). RCWD future water projections calculated the existing Specific Plan area in accordance with the land use designation and current zoning. Therefore, this additional water demand was incorporated into the RCWD’s future water projections and would not cause the water provider, RCWD, to significantly increase its water entitlements to supply the project area. Furthermore, with future implementation of recycled water (used for irrigation of common landscaped areas and the Open Space corridor), the water demand from the proposed amendment would not require any existing facility to expand water service to the project area. Therefore, implementation of the proposed Specific Plan Amendment would not result in the need to expand water service facilities or construct new water facilities. Overall, impacts related to water supply would be less than significant and no mitigation measures are required. The Specific Plan area is part of the existing and 2030 projected water demand forecast for RCWD. These projections were formulated for normal weather conditions. In the event of a water shortage, RCWD’s program would take effect to provide water sustainability to the area. According to the City of Temecula General Plan, no water supply shortage is expected in the near future (City of Temecula General Plan, 2005). Mitigation Measures Mitigation: No mitigation required. Impact 3.8-3: The project would not require or result in the construction of wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects. Implementation of the proposed Specific Plan Amendment would not likely cause a substantial increase in the demand for wastewater treatment services, nor would it necessitate the alteration of existing facilities to meet treatment capacity expectations. As stated above, the majority of land 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.8 Utilities and Services Old Town Specific Plan 3.8-19 ESA /D209294 Draft Environmental Impact Report February 2010 uses proposed would replace existing uses over 20 to 30 years (build-out). The EMWD treats approximately 46 mgd of wastewater, with a capacity of treating 56 mgd. As indicated above, EMWD’s Temecula Valley RWRF would serve as the wastewater reclamation facility for the area. The facility has capacity to treat 13.2 mgd of wastewater; however, EMWD plans to expand the facility from 13.2 mgd to 19.8 mgd (City of Temecula General Plan EIR, 2005). The next expansion of the facility is anticipated to occur around 2014 and will provide approximately 24 mgd of capacity (City of Temecula General Plan EIR, 2005). All water effluent at the Temecula Valley RWRF is treated to the tertiary standards of Title 22 CAC, Chapter 4. Treated water is primarily distributed for irrigation purposes. As a direct result of the Temecula Valley RWRF’s ability to accommodate the additional wastewater effluent, the replacement uses proposed by the Specific Plan Amendment, and the timeframe of the Specific Plan Amendment implementation (20 to 30 years for full build-out), there would be no substantial impacts to wastewater treatment services. There are various existing sewer lines within the Specific Plan area boundary. Two of these sewer lines, the First Street and the Pujol Street lines, are anticipated to be nearing capacity. The First Street sewer line is a 10-inch pipe and the Pujol Street sewer line is an 8-inch pipe. Both of these sewer lines may require upgrades to accommodate full project build-out. To ensure that impacts remain less than significant, implementation of Mitigation Measures 3.8-3a and 3.8-3b would be required. Mitigation Measures Measure 3.8-3a: Prior to construction in any undeveloped areas, EMWD shall review the plans for consistency with design criteria. Once approved by the EMWD engineer, the applicant shall pay the required connection fee fee to EMWD prior to construction of the sewer line. Measure 3.8-3b: Prior to construction, the project applicant and/or each subsequent project applicant will pay its fair share in mitigation fees to EMWD to upgrade the First Street and the Pujol Street sewer lines. Significance after Mitigation: Less than Significant. Impact 3.8-4: The project would not result in insufficient water supplies from existing entitlements or need new or expanded entitlements. As described for Impact 3.8-2 above, water is presently available in the Specific Plan area to serve existing development. The additional demand for water on-site would result from the proposed changes in land uses (i.e., kitchens, sinks, bathrooms, open space areas, public facilities and landscaping). This type of water demand would not cause the RCWD to exceed its projected capacity for water usage. 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.8 Utilities and Services Old Town Specific Plan 3.8-20 ESA /D209294 Draft Environmental Impact Report February 2010 As indicated above, provisions have been made by RCWD and MWD in the event of a water shortage within western Riverside County. RCWD developed a water shortage contingency plan in accordance with the Urban Water Management Planning Act. If a water shortage were to occur, the RCWD has a four-level policy program in place (Stage I: Normal Conditions, Stage II: Water Alert, Stage III: Water Warning, Stage IV: Water Emergency). The restrictions during a water emergency can reduce agricultural water use by 80 percent and total RCWD water use by 29 percent (Rancho California Water District, 2005). The Specific Plan area is part of the existing and 2030 projected water demand forecast for RCWD (Table 3.8-5). These projections were formulated for normal weather conditions. In the event of a water shortage, RCWD’s program would take effect to to provide water sustainability to the area. According to the City of Temecula General Plan, no water supply shortage is expected in the near future (City of Temecula General Plan, 2005). Therefore, the Specific Plan Amendment would have a less-than-significant impact on water supply. Mitigation Measures Mitigation: None required. Impact 3.8-5: The project would not result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has inadequate capacity to serve the project’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments. Please see discussion of Impact 3.8-3 above. Mitigation Measures Mitigation: None required. Impact 3.8-6: The project would not be served by a landfill with insufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project’s solid waste disposal needs. During construction, solid waste may include a variety of building materials that can be recycled. Construction activities would require the removal of asphalt and concrete, stucco, wood, and other building materials from redeveloped areas. New construction would also generate solid waste consisting of cardboard and other paper products, metals, plastics and other building materials. The Specific Plan Amendment would be implemented over an approximate 20-to 30-year timeframe. Given the extended timeframe for build-out, the contribution of solid waste from the project area would be limited. The project area is required to have recycling collection and loading facilities in compliance with the California Integrated Waste Management Act of 1989 (AB 939), which requires cities to divert 50 percent of their solid waste through source reduction, recycling, and composting. The 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.8 Utilities and Services Old Town Specific Plan 3.8-21 ESA /D209294 Draft Environmental Impact Report February 2010 increased Specific Plan area (annexation of approximately 2.4 acres, reduction of area by approximately 2.5 acres) and the intensity of development anticipated by implementation of the project would result in an increased generation of solid waste. However, that increase would be minimal given that the commercial building floor space would be reduced in Old Town by approximately 1,405,285 square feet (even with the increase in 749 residential units proposed). The City would be required to maintain the 50 percent diversion rate required by the State for all solid waste. The solid waste generated by the project would place a minimal burden on the City to maintain the required diversion rate. This increase would not require additional landfill capacity. Implementation of Mitigation Measure 3.8-6 would ensure that the proposed Specific Plan Amendment would comply with the required diversion rates, and impacts associated with solid waste would remain less than significant. Mitigation Measures Measure 3.8-6: All proposed development plans shall designate adequate and convenient space on the property to be used for collecting all recyclable materials generated on the premises. Significance after Mitigation: Less than Significant. Impact 3.8-7: The project would comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste. The Riverside County Solid Waste Management Plan serves as the general guideline for waste management in the County. The City prepared a local plan to reduce solid waste by 25 percent by 1995 and 50 percent by the year 2000 through source reduction, recycling and composting strategies. In October 1991, the City began implementation of a curbside residential waste separation program. Recyclable and compostable materials are separated from household trash. Household waste is transported to a processing center in Stanton, and commercial/industrial waste is transported to a processing center in Perris. The project will be in conformance with solid waste plans. Potential impacts to county landfills would be further reduced through compliance with all federal, state and local statutes and regulations regarding solid waste generation, transport and disposal. The Specific Plan Amendment is considered to have no impacts in terms of compliance with federal, state or local statutes or regulations related to solid waste. Mitigation Measures Mitigation: None required. 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.8 Utilities and Services Old Town Specific Plan 3.8-22 ESA /D209294 Draft Environmental Impact Report February 2010 Impact 3.8-8: The proposed project would not require or result in the construction of new electrical and gas facilities or the expansion of existing facilities where the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects (Less than Significant). Electricity Future development in the Specific Plan area would use existing electricity service provided by SCE. Some extension of service may be necessary into undeveloped areas and would require assessment at the time of development review. Based on the current availability of electrical service in portions of the Specific Plan area, extensive infrastructure is not necessary, and the project would not significantly affect electrical services. Natural Gas The Specific Plan area is currently served by the Gas Company for natural gas service. Development in the Specific Plan area may require an extension of service into undeveloped areas and would require assessment at the time of development review. Future development in the project area would not affect the current service provider or natural gas services. Mitigation Measures Mitigation: None required. 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures Old Town Specific Plan Amendment 3.9-1 ESA /D209294 Draft Environmental Impact Report February 2010 3.9 Traffic and Circulation 3.9.1 Introduction This section addresses the potential traffic and circulation impacts associated with implementation of the proposed project. The traffic and circulation analysis includes a description of existing traffic conditions (e.g., level of congestion on roadways and at intersections in the project site vicinity), an evaluation of potential impacts associated with implementation of the proposed project, an evaluation of cumulative traffic impacts, and mitigation measures to reduce potentially adverse significant impacts to less-than-significant levels. A discussion of applicable state, local, and regional plans and/or programs is also included. Information in this section is based on the traffic study prepared by RK Engineering Group, Inc., included as Appendix G of this Program EIR. 3.9.2 Environmental Setting Level of Service Standards Level of Service (LOS) is a professional industry standard by which the operating conditions of a given roadway segment are measured. LOS is defined on a scale of A to F; where LOS A represents the best operating conditions and LOS F represents the worst operating conditions. LOS F facilities are characterized as having forced flow with many stoppages and low operating speeds. Table 3.9-1 gives a description of each LOS. TABLE 3.9-1 LEVEL OF SERVICE DESCRIPTIONS LOS Description A No approach phase is fully utilized by traffic, and no vehicle waits longer than one red indication. Typically, the approach appears quite open, turns are made easily, and nearly all drivers find freedom of operation. B This service level represents stable operation, where an occasional approach phase is fully utilized and a substantial number are nearing full use. Many drivers begin to feel restricted within platoons of vehicles. C This level still represents stable operating conditions. Occasionally drivers may have to wait through more than one red signal indication, and backups may develop behind turning vehicles. Most drivers feel somewhat restricted, but not objectionably so. D This level encompasses a zone of increasing restriction approaching instability at the intersection. Delays to approaching vehicles may be substantial during short peaks within the peak period; however, enough cycles with lower demand occur to permit periodic clearance of developing queues, thus preventing excessive backups. E Capacity occurs at the upper end of this service level. It represents the most vehicles that any particular intersection approach can accommodate. Full utilization of every signal cycle is seldom attained no matter how great the demand. F This level describes forced flow operations at low speeds, where volumes exceed capacity. These conditions usually result from queues of vehicles backing up from a restriction downstream. Speeds are reduced substantially, and stoppages may occur for short or long periods of time due to the congestion. In the extreme case, both speed and volume can drop to zero. SOURCE: Highway Capacity Manual, Transportation Research Board, Special Report No. 209, Washington, D.C., 2000. 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.9 Traffic and Circulation Old Town Specific Plan Amendment 3.9-2 ESA /D209294 Draft Environmental Impact Report February 2010 The City of Temecula accepts LOS D at signalized intersections as adequate. The City has no specific LOS criteria for unsignalized intersections. However, for the purpose of this Program EIR, LOS D has been assumed as the minimum acceptable LOS for unsignalized intersections. If the LOS decreases from LOS D to LOS E or F as a result of a proposed project, mitigation measures must be identified to improve the LOS at the intersection to LOS D or better. In addition, if the project would increase the intersection delay two seconds or more at intersections operating at LOS E or F, the project applicant must identify mitigation measures to improve the delay at the intersection. Should an unsignalized intersection be found to be operating at LOS E or LOS F, a traffic signal warrant would be prepared to determine whether signalization of the intersection is needed. Table 3.9-2 summarizes the LOS definitions for intersections. TABLE 3.9-2 INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE DEFINITIONS LOS Unsignalized Intersection Delay per Vehicle (in seconds) Signalized Intersection Delay per Vehicle (in seconds) A ≤ 10 ≤ 10 B > 10 – 15 > 10 – 20 C > 15 – 25 > 20 – 35 D > 25 – 35 > 35 – 55 E > 35 – 50 > 55 – 80 F > 50 > 80 SOURCE: Highway Capacity Manual, Transportation Research Board, Special Report No. 209, Washington, D.C., 2000. As previously described in this document, Old Town is envisioned to develop as a pedestrianfriendly, vibrant downtown. The activity that is expected to occur by those biking, walking and getting around the area requires that the entire right of way in Old Town be oriented toward the safety and comfort of the pedestrian, while concurrently encouraging the use of transit. These principles, as well as the anticipated increase in activity in the Old Town area require that the streets become less automobile-oriented and more pedestrian and people oriented. As a result of the amendment to the OTSP, streets will no longer be considered for the fast-paced, high-volume movement of cars, trucks and other motorized vehicles; the concept of a “street” in the OTSP area will be expanded to include the safe, efficient movement of all pedestrians. Therefore, to facilitate this concept, the City will accept LOS E and F inside the Old Town Temecula area for intersections on Old Town Front Street from Second Street to Moreno Road North as a result of development of the proposed project in order to maintain the unique “Main Street” character of the OTSP area. Existing Roadway Network The project site is served by a network of regional and local roadways. I-15 is the major northsouth roadway in the project site vicinity, connecting with the City of Murrieta to the north and unincorporated Riverside County to the south. I-15 is an eight-lane freeway in the project 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures Old Town Specific Plan Amendment 3.9-3 ESA /D209294 Draft Environmental Impact Report February 2010 vicinity. Old Town Front Street is another major north-south roadway within the project site. Old Town Front Street is a two-lane undivided roadway. Key east-west roadways in the project vicinity include Rancho California Road, First Street/Santiago Road, and State Route 79 (SR-79)/Temecula Parkway. The following is a brief description of the existing roadways and freeways in the study area (see Figures 3.9-1 and 3.9-2). Interstate 15 (I-15) is an eight-lane (four lanes in each direction) north-south freeway that extends through San Bernardino County to the north, and San Diego County to the south. Access to the project site is provided via interchanges at Rancho California Road and SR-79/Temecula Parkway. The posted speed limit is 65 miles per hour (mph). Rancho California Road is an east-west arterial located north of the project site. This roadway will provide access to the project site via Old Town Front Street. Rancho California Road is a sixlane (three lanes in each direction) divided roadway to the west of Old Town Front Street, and an eight-lane (four lanes in each direction) divided roadway to the east of Old Town Front Street. Old Town Front Street is a north-south collector that is the major thoroughfare within the project site and would provide direct access to the project site via First Street to the south and Rancho California to the north. Old Town Front Street is a two-lane (one lane in each direction) undivided roadway. First Street/Santiago Road is an east-west arterial located south of the project site and would provide direct access to the project site via Old Town Front Street. First Street/Santiago Road is currently a four-lane (two lanes in each direction) undivided roadway. SR-79/Temecula Parkway is an east-west state highway located south of the project site and would provide access to Old Town Front Street from I-15. SR-79/Temecula Parkway is currently a six-lane divided highway. Existing Traffic Volumes and Levels of Service Traffic volumes in the project area were calculated based on traffic counts taken by RK Engineering, Inc. in 2006 during AM and PM peak hours. Existing LOS for the project area roadways are given in Table 3.9-3. LOS D is the minimum acceptable service level for the City of Temecula. Based on peak-hour volume, existing traffic volumes exceed the acceptable LOS for the City of Temecula at the following intersections: • Old Town Front Street/Rancho California Road (LOS E during PM peak hour) • I-15 Northbound (NB) Ramps/SR-79 (LOS F during PM peak hour) 1 9 10 2 3 4 5 14 15 6 7 13 Old Town Specific Plan EIR . 209294 Figure 3.9-1 Location Map (Existing Conditions) SOURCE: RK Engineering Group, Inc., 2010. Legend Study Area Intersections N 1 2 3 4 5 13 14 6 7 8 11 12 Old Town Specific Plan EIR . 209294 Figure 3.9-2 Location Map (Future Conditions) SOURCE: RK Engineering Group, Inc., 2010. Legend Study Area Intersections Future Planned Roadway N 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.9 Traffic and Circulation Old Town Specific Plan Amendment 3.9-6 ESA /D209294 Draft Environmental Impact Report February 2010 TABLE 3.9-3 EXISTING INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE Intersection Controla AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Delayb (sec/veh) LOS Delay (sec/veh) LOS 1. Old Town Front Street/Rancho California Road TS 26.1 C 63.8 E 2. Old Town Front Street/North Moreno Road CSS 11.4 B 16.3 C 3. Old Town Front Street/South Moreno Road CSS 14.1 B 19.2 C 4. Old Town Front Street/6th Street AWS 12.0 B 19.9 C 5. Old Town Front Street/Main Street AWS 14.2 B 13.9 B 6. Old Town Front Street/2nd Street CSS 21.3 C 17.9 C 7. Old Town Front Street/1st Street/Santiago Road TS 21.8 C 23.8 C 8. Old Town Front Street/SR-79 TS 17.4 B 17.7 B 9. I-15 SB Ramps/Rancho California Road TS 20.8 C 19.9 B 10. I-15 NB Ramps/Rancho California Road TS 8.8 A 12.4 B 11. I-15 SB Ramps/SR-79 TS 25.7 C 29.7 C 12. I-15 NB Ramps/SR-79 TS 11.6 B 153.0 F 13. Mercedes Street/Moreno Road CSS 10.0 A 10.7 B 14. Mercedes Street/Main Street CSS 11.3 B 9.3 A 15. Mercedes Street/3rd Street CSS 9.2 A 9.7 A a TS = Traffic Signal, CSS = Cross Street Stop, AWS = All-Way Stop b Analysis Software: Traffix, Version 8.0. Per the 2000 Highway Capacity Manual, overall average intersection delay and level of service are shown for intersections with traffic signal or all-way stop control. For intersections with cross-street stop control, the delay and level of service for the worst individual movement (or movements sharing a signal lane) are shown. SOURCE: RK Engineers, Inc., 2009 Regulatory Setting Congestion Management Program Compliance The purpose of the state-mandated Congestion Management Program (CMP) is to monitor roadway congestion and assess the overall performance of the region’s transportation system. Based upon this assessment, the CMP contains specific strategies and improvements to reduce traffic congestion and improve the performance of a multi-modal transportation system. Examples of strategies include increased emphasis on public transportation and rideshare programs, mitigating the impacts of new development, and better coordinating land use and transportation planning decisions. Based on the approval of Proposition 111 in 1990, regulations require the preparation, implementation, and annual updating of a CMP in each of California’s urbanized counties. One required element of the CMP is a process to evaluate the transportation and traffic impacts of large projects on the regional transportation system. That process is undertaken by local agencies, 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures Old Town Specific Plan Amendment 3.9-7 ESA /D209294 Draft Environmental Impact Report February 2010 project applicants, and traffic consultants through a transportation impact report usually conducted as part of the CEQA project review process. Authority for local land use decisions including project approvals and any required mitigation remains the responsibility of local jurisdictions. The criteria for which a project is subject to the regulations set forth in the CMP are determined by the trip generation potential for the project. Currently, the average daily traffic (ADT) threshold is 2,400 vehicles or 200 peak hour trips. The proposed project would generate approximately 78,801 ADT, 4,797 AM peak hour trips, and 7,357 PM peak hour trips. The trip generation for the proposed project would exceed the CMP threshold, and is therefore subject to CMP guidelines for traffic impact studies. Making the Connections: 2008 Regional Transportation Plan Making the Connections is SCAG’s Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) for its member counties. The RTP focuses on improving the balance between land use and current as well as future transportation systems. SCAG develops, maintains and updates the RTP on a three-year cycle. According to the 2008 RTP, I-15 in Riverside County is slated for high occupancy vehicle (HOV) and Mixed Flow projects. City of Temecula General Plan Circulation Element The City of Temecula General Plan defines traffic congestion using the same LOS system described above. The minimum LOS deemed acceptable by the City of Temecula is LOS D. Goals, policies, and an implementation program in the Circulation Element section of the General Plan that pertain to this project include the following: Goal 1: Strive to maintain a Level of Service “D” or better at intersections within the City during peak hours and Level of Service “C” or better during non-peak hours. Policy 1.1: Use the Circulation Element Roadway Plan to guide detailed planning and implementation of the City’s roadway system, including appropriate road width and median transitions when a roadway classification changes. Policy 1.2: Pursue trip reductions and transportation systems management measures to reduce and limit congestion at intersections and along streets within the City. Policy 1.5: Require additional right-of-way and impose additional parking restrictions for approaches to all Principal Intersections to allow for future intersection improvements and turning movements. Implementation Program 6: Implement the following procedures and requirements to minimize the impacts of proposed development projects on the City’s circulation system, and to encourage increased use of alternative transportation. • Evaluate development proposals for potential impacts to the transportation and infrastructure systems. 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.9 Traffic and Circulation Old Town Specific Plan Amendment 3.9-8 ESA /D209294 Draft Environmental Impact Report February 2010 • Require mitigation in the form of physical improvements and/or impact fees for significant impacts prior to or concurrent with project development. • Require dedication of adequate right-of-way along new roadways to permit pedestrian and bicycle facilities. • Require new development to incorporate design features which facilitate transit service and encourage transit ridership, such as bus pullout areas, covered bus stop facilities, efficient trail systems through projects to transit stops, installation of bike lanes, bikeways, and bicycle parking, and incorporation of pedestrian walkways that pass through subdivision boundary walls, as appropriate. 3.9.2 Impact Analysis Significance Criteria Based on the CEQA Guidelines Appendix G, implementation of the proposed project would have a significant adverse traffic impact if it would: • Cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system (i.e., result in a substantial increase in either the number of vehicle trips, or the volume to capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at intersections); • Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a Level of Service standard established by the city or county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways. • 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 risk; • Substantially increase hazards due to design features (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment); • Result in inadequate emergency access; • Result in inadequate parking capacity; or • Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks). According to the City of Temecula’s General Plan, the minimum Level of Service standard for signalized intersections has been established at LOS D. The City of Temecula has not established or adopted specific thresholds for significant impacts at intersections. Based on traffic engineering industry standards, as well as thresholds established by adjacent jurisdictions (i.e., County of Riverside), the following significance thresholds have been established: • Intersections increasing from LOS D to LOS E or LOS F as a result of the proposed project are considered a significant project impact. • Intersections operating at LOS E or F, where the proposed project increases the vehicle delay by two seconds or more, are considered a significant project impact. • A cumulative impact is identified if the intersection is operating at LOS E or F and the proposed project increases the intersection delay by two seconds or more. As previously described in this document, Old Town is envisioned to develop as a pedestrianfriendly, vibrant downtown. The activity that is expected to occur by those biking, walking and 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures Old Town Specific Plan Amendment 3.9-9 ESA /D209294 Draft Environmental Impact Report February 2010 getting around the area requires that the entire right of way in Old Town be oriented toward the safety and comfort of the pedestrian, while concurrently encouraging the use of transit. These principles, as well as the anticipated increase in activity in the Old Town area require that the streets become less automobile-oriented and more pedestrian and people oriented. As a result of the amendment to the OTSP, streets will no longer be considered for the fast-paced, high-volume movement of cars, trucks and other motorized vehicles; the concept of a “street” in the OTSP area will be expanded to include the safe, efficient movement of all pedestrians. Therefore, to facilitate this concept, the City will accept LOS E and F inside the Old Town Temecula area for intersections on Old Town Front Street from Second Street to Moreno Road North as a result of development of the proposed project in order to maintain the unique “Main Street” character of the OTSP area. Methodology and Assumptions Project Trip Generation Traffic generation for the proposed project was calculated using trip rates provided by the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) publication Trip Generation, 8th Edition. The land use codes for commercial, hotel, residential (apartment), residential (single-family housing), civic, and office uses were used to determine traffic generation for this project. Table 3.9-4 summarizes the trip generation estimates. With credit for capture and pedestrian/transit use, the project would generate approximately 70,046 ADT; 4,263 AM peak hour trips; and 6,540 PM peak hour trips on a typical weekday. Capture refers to trips that are generated within and stay within the Specific Plan area and do not have an impact on nearby roadways. TABLE 3.9-4 PROJECT TRIP GENERATION ESTIMATESa AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Land Use Quantity Unitsb Daily In Out Total In Out Total Commercial 1,043,928 TSF 53,846 1,213 957 2,170 2,419 2,268 4,687 Hotel 499 RM 4,077 169 109 278 155 140 295 Residential (Apartment) 2,377 DU 15,819 239 976 1,215 951 522 1,473 Residential (Single-Family Housing) 31 DU 296 6 17 23 20 11 31 Civic 159,809 TSF 4,320 311 38 349 135 310 445 Office 835,494 TSF 9,199 1,136 158 1,294 209 1,034 1243 Total 87,557 3,074 2,255 5,329 3,889 4,285 8,174 Less 10 Percent Capture Credit -8,756 -307 -226 -533 -389 -429 -817 Less 10 Percent Pedestrian/Transit Credit -8,756 -307 -226 -533 -389 -429 -817 Net Total 70,046 2,459 1,804 4,263 3,111 3,428 6,540 a Trip Rates referenced from the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Manual (2008). b TSF = Thousand Square Feet, RM = Room, DU = Dwelling Unit. SOURCE: RK Engineering, Inc., 2009. 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.9 Traffic and Circulation Old Town Specific Plan Amendment 3.9-10 ESA /D209294 Draft Environmental Impact Report February 2010 The proposed project would increase traffic at a lesser rate than the current Specific Plan for the Old Town area. The existing Specific Plan for the Old Town area would increase traffic by 106,092 ADT, with 5,957 AM peak hour trips and 9,925 PM peak hour trips (see Appendix G for the trip generation rates for the existing Specific Plan). Project Trip Distribution and Assignment Project trip generation was based on many factors including, among others, the following: • The location of housing and jobs within the City of Temecula and adjacent cities (Perris, Murrieta, and Hemet); • The location of housing and jobs within the County of Riverside and adjacent counties (San Bernardino, and San Diego); and • Transportation facility characteristics that impact travel demand (i.e., location of urban arterials, freeways, and interchanges). The expansion of Pujol Street and an interchange along I-15 SB Ramps at SR-79 were assumed to be complete for the Existing Plus Ambient Growth with Proposed Specific Plan Conditions and the General Plan (Year 2035) Plus Ambient Growth with Proposed Specific Plan Conditions scenarios, which are the near-term and long-term scenarios considered in the impact analysis, below. As a result of the Pujol Street expansion that would connect this street to SR-79, 30 percent of the current and future traffic traveling on Old Town Front Street would be redistributed to Pujol Street. Trips generated from the proposed project would most likely be from the City of Temecula and the surrounding areas. It is unlikely that the project would draw a lot of people from outside of the immediate region. Figure 3.9-3 displays the likely trip distribution patterns for the proposed project. Roundabout Analysis Roundabouts are a form of intersection control commonly used throughout the world and are gaining increasing momentum throughout the United States. They are circular intersections with specific design and traffic control features that include yield control of all entering traffic, channelized approaches, and appropriate geometric curvature to ensure that travel speeds on the circulatory roadway are typically less than 30 mph. Along with speed reduction and traffic calming elements of the roundabout, the appeal of the roundabout lies in the safety principles it employs. A typical two-way intersection has 32 vehicle-to-vehicle conflict points and 24 vehicle-to-pedestrian conflict points. A modern twoway roundabout has eight vehicle-to-vehicle conflict points and eight vehicle-to-pedestrian conflict points. Fewer conflict points reduce traffic accidents. In conjunction with the efforts to decrease cut-through traffic on Old Town Front Street and allow for a more even traffic distribution, the City of Temecula has also engaged in efforts to expand Mercedes Street to reach Old Town Front Street on the north end, and the intersection of Old Town Front Street at First Street/Santiago Road on the south end. This would allow Mercedes Street to act as another option for northbound and southbound traveling vehicles throughout Old Old Town Specific Plan EIR . 209294 Figure 3.9-3 Future Traffic Distribution SOURCE: RK Engineering Group, Inc., 2010. Legend -10% = Percentage subtracted from the existing counts +10% = Percentage added to the existing counts N 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.9 Traffic and Circulation Old Town Specific Plan Amendment 3.9-12 ESA /D209294 Draft Environmental Impact Report February 2010 This page left intentionally blank 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures Old Town Specific Plan Amendment 3.9-13 ESA /D209294 Draft Environmental Impact Report February 2010 Town. Two proposed roundabouts were analyzed for future conditions at the following intersections1: • Old Town Front Street at Mercedes Street (Future Extension) • Old Town Front Street at First Street/Santiago Road/Mercedes Street The analysis of the two roundabouts listed above was aimed only at obtaining LOS from a traffic volume perspective, given the designs provided by the City of Temecula staff at the time the traffic study was prepared. The designs, layouts, angles of approach, directional orientation, conflict points, internal and external radii measurements, proper signage, pedestrian facilities and any additional operational characteristics of these proposed roundabouts should be carefully calculated by a roundabout expert prior to implementation. The analysis shows that they are feasible and could operate at an acceptable LOS. As shown in in Appendix H of the traffic study (RK Engineering, Inc., Old Town Temecula Specific Plan Traffic Impact Study, December 16, 2009). Mercedes Street would be extended northbound to intersect Old Town Front Street. As a result, the existing intersection of Old Town Front Street at South Moreno Road would be reconfigured. A roundabout would be utilized to control this future intersection. Also shown in Appendix H of the traffic study is a proposed five-leg roundabout to connect Mercedes Street to the existing intersection of Old Town Front Street at First Street/Santiago Road. This would result in a five-leg intersection controlled by a roundabout. As shown in Tables 3.9-6 and 3.9-7, the two proposed roundabouts listed above are projected to operate at an acceptable LOS, when taking into account the average delay at each intersection. The proposed roundabouts can be successfully implemented as traffic control devices at the locations shown in Appendix H in the traffic study. Appendices C and D in the traffic study also include the LOS worksheets for each of the roundabouts (RK Engineering, Inc., 2009). Pedestrian Activity As part of the proposed Specific Plan, the City of Temecula will encourage an increase in pedestrian activity through Old Town in order to reduce vehicle trips and establish a typical downtown atmosphere. The primary methods by which the City will encourage pedestrian activity throughout Old Town are as follows: • Build an additional pedestrian bridge at 3rd Street over Murrieta Creek that will connect the Neighborhood Residential District to the Downtown Core and Civic Districts. • Build a pedestrian bridge across the I-15 freeway at Sixth Street that will connect the Downtown Core District to the residential neighborhood east of the I-15 freeway. 1 RK Engineering Group utilized the SIDRA Intersection Version 4.0 analysis software to study the proposed roundabout. SIDRA Intersection Version 4.0 is a software analysis program that can effectively produce a LOS analysis for roundabouts using the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) methodologies. 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.9 Traffic and Circulation Old Town Specific Plan Amendment 3.9-14 ESA /D209294 Draft Environmental Impact Report February 2010 • Expand Sixth Street, Main Street and First Street southwest of Old Town Front Street to reach Pujol Street and the future Western Bypass. This will allow for an increase in pedestrian facilities and a denser pedestrian network to connect the land use districts inside of Old Town. • Facilitate a comprehensive Specific Plan that will increase the availability of mixed-use establishments to cater to pedestrians. • Improve sidewalk facilities inside of Old Town. Developing a pedestrian network throughout Old Town will reduce vehicular travel and vehicle cut-through traffic with the expansion of the existing street network. Facilitating a comprehensive Land Use Element will make it more appealing and safer for pedestrians. By having a wide mix of land use types, pedestrian travel can be encouraged and vehicle trips reduced. Existing Plus Ambient Growth with Proposed Specific Plan Conditions This scenario provides the basis for determining project-specific impacts, mitigation, and conditions of approval. This scenario adds project traffic to existing traffic conditions plus a 3 percent ambient growth rate. Traffic from cumulative projects in the area has been added to this scenario as well. Table 3.9-5 gives the estimated traffic from cumulative projects in the vicinity of the proposed project. Figure 3.9-4 shows the location of the cumulative projects. Cumulative conditions were determined by adding the traffic generated by other approved/pending projects, as identified by the City of Temecula Public Works Department. Traffic counts for these projects were estimated based on trip generation rates from ITE’s Trip Generation, 8th Edition. Besides the extension of Pujol Street to SR-79, no improvements to the existing intersection traffic controls and geometrics were assumed or used to determine LOS estimates. TABLE 3.9-5 CUMULATIVE PROJECTS TRIP GENERATION Zone Land Use ITE Code Quantity Unitsa Peak Hour AM PM Daily In Out In Out 1 SpringHill Suites 310 142 RM 48 31 44 40 1,160 2 Crown Plaza 310 168 RM 56 37 51 46 1,356 Total (All Zones) 104 68 95 86 2,516 a RM = Rooms SOURCE: Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE), Trip Generation, 8th Edition, 2008. The cumulative project area identified for traffic impacts was determined by the City of Temecula Public Works Department as noted in Table 3.9-5 below. At the time the traffic impact analysis was prepared, the SpringHill Suites hotel development (one of the projects included in the cumulative scenario calculations) was under construction and not operational. However, since Old Town Specific Plan EIR . 209294 Figure 3.9-4 Cumulative Projects SOURCE: RK Engineering Group, Inc., 2010. Legend SpringHill Suites Crown Plaza N 12 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.9 Traffic and Circulation Old Town Specific Plan Amendment 3.9-16 ESA /D209294 Draft Environmental Impact Report February 2010 completion of the traffic impact analysis and prior to circulation of the Program DEIR, the SpringHill Suites hotel development, has opened and is currently in operation. As determined by the traffic impact analysis, the SpringHill Suites hotel was projected to have generated 1,160 daily trips at full occupancy. Therefore, the cumulative traffic impact calculations are based on a worst-case scenario comparison of the proposed project at build-out to existing conditions. General Plan (Year 2035) with Proposed Specific Plan Conditions This scenario adds project traffic to existing traffic conditions plus a 29 percent ambient growth rate, plus any other traffic accounted for by the General Plan. Traffic from cumulative projects in the area has been added to this scenario as well. Besides the extension of Pujol Street to SR-79, no improvements to the existing intersection traffic controls and geometrics were assumed or used to determine LOS estimates. Impacts and Mitigation Measures Impact 3.9-1: The proposed project would result in impacts to study intersections in Existing Plus Ambient Growth with Proposed Specific Plan conditions. In the Existing Plus, Ambient Growth, Plus Proposed Specific Plan condition, nine (9) of the fourteen (14) intersections studied will operate at acceptable levels of service. The following intersections will not operate at an acceptable LOS: • Old Town Front Street/Rancho California Road (LOS F for PM Peak Hour) • Old Town Front Street/North Moreno Road (LOS E for PM Peak Hour) • Old Town Front Street/Sixth Street (LOS F for PM Peak Hour) • Old Town Front Street/Main Street (LOS F for PM Peak Hour) • Old Town Front Street/Second Street (LOS E for PM Peak Hour) Table 3.9-6 presents the results of the Existing Plus Ambient Growth with Proposed Specific Plan conditions intersection analysis. In order to to maintain the unique “Main Street” character of the Old Town area, LOS E and F will be deemed acceptable on Old Town Front Street from Second Street to Moreno Road North. As mentioned earlier, the proposed Specific Plan Amendment would increase traffic to a lesser extent than the existing Specific Plan. Thus, overall traffic congestion in the Old Town area would be less than what is currently projected. 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures Old Town Specific Plan Amendment 3.9-17 ESA /D209294 Draft Environmental Impact Report February 2010 TABLE 3.9-6 EXISTING PLUS AMBIENT GROWTH WITH PROPOSED SPECIFIC PLAN INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE Intersection Controla AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Delayb (sec/veh) LOS Delay (sec/veh) LOS 1. Old Town Front Street/Rancho California Road TS 36.9 D 126.5 F • With Improvements TS 51.2 D 27.1 C 2. Old Town Front Street/North Moreno Road CSS 12.8 C 37.4 E • With All-Way-Stop Control AWS 17.0 C 83.7 F • Traffic signal not feasible due to this intersection’s close proximity to Old Town Front Street at Rancho California Road. 3. Old Town Front Street/Mercedes Street RD 7.8 A 21.0 C 4. Old Town Front Street/6th Street AWS 18.3 C 138.0 F • With Traffic Signal TS 5.3 A 10.4 B 5. Old Town Front Street/Main Street AWS 21.5 C 71.2 F • With Traffic Signal TS 11.4 B 13.0 B 6. Old Town Front Street/2nd Street CSS 22.1 C 43.0 E • With Traffic Signal AWS 13.4 B 25.2 D 7. Old Town Front Street/1st Street/Santiago Road/Mercedes Street RD 16.7 B 25.0 C • See Appendix H in traffic study for design details. 8. Old Town Front Street/SR-79/I-15 SB Ramps TS 32.0 C 25.8 C 9. I-15 SB Ramps/Rancho California Road TS 28.2 C 32.0 C 10. I-15 NB Ramps/Rancho California Road TS 9.2 A 13.1 B 11. I-15 NB Ramps/SR-79 TS 11.5 B 30.9 C 12. Mercedes Street/Moreno Road CSS 10.6 B 13.7 B 13. Mercedes Street/Main Street CSS 17.6 C 19.4 C 14. Mercedes Street/3rd Street CSS 12.3 B 12.4 B a TS = Traffic Signal, CSS = Cross Street Stop, AWS = All-Way Stop b Analysis Software: Traffix, Version 8.0. Per the 2000 Highway Capacity Manual, overall average intersection delay and level of service are shown for intersections with traffic signal or all-way stop control. For intersections with cross-street stop control, the delay and level of service for the worst individual movement (or movements sharing a signal lane) are shown. SOURCE: RK Engineers, Inc., 2009 Mitigation Measure: Measure 3.9-1: The project applicant shall incorporate the following features into the design of the Specific Plan area: • At the intersection of Old Town Front Street and Rancho California Road provide a northbound through/right-turn lane combination with a right-turn overlap. 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.9 Traffic and Circulation Old Town Specific Plan Amendment 3.9-18 ESA /D209294 Draft Environmental Impact Report February 2010 • Provide subsequent Traffic Impact Analyses, as development occurs, to determine thresholds for implementation of Roundabouts at the intersections of Old Town Front Street and First Street/Santiago Road/Mercedes Street and Old Town Front Street and Mercedes Street. • Provide pedestrian facilities from Old Town Front Street which connect the east and west neighborhood cores with the Old Town Core District. In order to maintain the unique “Main Street” character of the Old Town area, LOS E and F will be deemed acceptable on Old Town Front Street from Second Street to Moreno Road North. Significance after Mitigation: Less than significant. Impact 3.9-2: The proposed project would result in impacts to study area intersections in General Plan Plus Proposed Specific Plan conditions. In the General Plan Buildout, Plus Proposed Specific Plan condition, eight (8) of the fourteen (14) intersections studied will operate at acceptable levels of service. The following intersections will not operate at an acceptable LOS: • Old Town Front Street/Rancho California Road (LOS F for PM Peak Hour) • Old Town Front Street/North Moreno Road (LOS F for PM Peak Hour) • Old Town Front Street/Sixth Street (LOS F for PM Peak Hour) • Old Town Front Street/Main Street (LOS F for PM Peak Hour) • Old Town Front Street/Second Street (LOS E for PM Peak Hour) • I-15 Southbound Ramps/Rancho California Road (LOS F for PM Peak Hour) Table 3.9-7 presents the results of the General Plan Plus Proposed Specific Plan conditions intersection analysis. In order to maintain the unique “Main Street” character of the Old Town area, LOS “E” and “F” will be deemed acceptable on Old Town Front Street from Second Street to Moreno Road North. The proposed Specific Plan Amendment is expected to increase traffic at build-out. However, the increase will be significantly lower than projected under the current Specific Plan. 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures Old Town Specific Plan Amendment 3.9-19 ESA /D209294 Draft Environmental Impact Report February 2010 TABLE 3.9-7 EXISTING PLUS AMBIENT GROWTH WITH PROPOSED SPECIFIC PLAN INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE Intersection Controla AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Delayb (sec/veh) LOS Delay (sec/veh) LOS 1. Old Town Front Street/Rancho California Road TS 46.0 D 155.8 F • With Improvements TS 28.8 C 45.5 D 2. Old Town Front Street/North Moreno Road CSS 13.3 B 46.1 F • With All-Way-Stop-Control AWS 17.7 C 91.6 F • Traffic signal not feasible due to this intersection’s close proximity to Old Town Front Street at Rancho California Road. 3. Old Town Front Street/Mercedes Street RD 7.4 A 20.6 C 4. Old Town Front Street/6th Street AWS 19.4 C 147.8 F • With Traffic Signal TS 5.4 A 10.3 B 5. Old Town Front Street/Main Street AWS 25.8 D 74.1 F • With Traffic Signal TS 11.8 B 13.0 B 6. Old Town Front Street/2nd Street CSS 24.0 C 44.8 E • With All-Way Stop Control AWS 14.0 B 26.0 D 7. Old Town Front Street/1st Street/Santiago Road/Mercedes Street RD 23.2 C 50.4 D • See Appendix H in traffic study for design details. 8. Old Town Front Street/SR-79/I-15 SB Ramps TS 44.9 D 28.6 C 9. I-15 SB Ramps/Rancho California Road TS 43.4 D 56.0 F • With Improvements 34.6 C 31.5 C 10. I-15 NB Ramps/Rancho California Road TS 9.7 A 16.0 B 11. I-15 NB Ramps/SR-79 TS 11.9 B 51.0 D 12. Mercedes Street/Moreno Road CSS 12.8 B 19.1 C 13. Mercedes Street/Main Street CSS 19.1 C 18.9 C 14. Mercedes Street/3rd Street CSS 12.7 B 12.5 B a TS = Traffic Signal, CSS = Cross Street Stop, AWS = All-Way Stop b Analysis Software: Traffix, Version 8.0. Per the 2000 Highway Capacity Manual, overall average intersection delay and level of service are shown for intersections with traffic signal or all-way stop control. For intersections with cross-street stop control, the delay and level of service for the worst individual movement (or movements sharing a signal lane) are shown. SOURCE: RK Engineers, Inc., 2009 Mitigation Measures Measure 3.9-2: The project applicant shall incorporate the following features into the design of the Specific Plan area: • At the intersection of Old Town Front Street and Rancho California Road provide a westbound right-turn overlap. 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.9 Traffic and Circulation Old Town Specific Plan Amendment 3.9-20 ESA /D209294 Draft Environmental Impact Report February 2010 • Provide subsequent Traffic Impact Analyses, as development occurs, to determine thresholds for implementation of Roundabouts at the intersections of Old Town Front Street and First Street/Santiago Road/Mercedes Street and Old Town Front Street and Mercedes Street. • Provide pedestrian facilities from Old Town Front Street which connect the east and west neighborhood cores with the Old Town Core District. In order to maintain the unique “Main Street” character of the Old Town area, LOS E and F will be deemed acceptable on Old Town Front Street from Second Street to Moreno Road North. Significance after Mitigation: Less than significant. Impact 3.9-3: Implementation of the proposed project would not result in inadequate vehicular and emergency access. Primary emergency access to the site would be provided from the fire station located at Mercedes Street and Sixth Street. Emergency vehicles would access Old Town Front Street from Moreno Road, Sixth Street, or Mercedes Street to reach project areas. Emergency vehicles would also be able to access the project site from Santiago Road and SR-79 to the south. The proposed project would not result in an impact related to vehicular and emergency access. Mitigation: None required. Impact 3.9-4: Project implementation would not result in inadequate parking capacity. Parking in the Old Town area will be based on its district and its use, but residential uses are required to provide at least one parking space per residential unit. The public view of open parking lots can detract from the Old Town area. This is especially important in retail areas. Currently, there is sufficient capacity to handle parking within the OTSP area. Additionally, an Old Town Parking Structure, located at the corner of Mercedes Street and 3rd Street, has been developed to address parking needs. The multiple-level parking structure would accommodate a maximum of 488 vehicles. The parking structure has been developed as part of the Old Town Temecula Civic Center. As needed, several additional parking strategies could be incorporated into the Old Town area in the long-term. These additional parking strategies could include time limits, informational programs, a Parking District, additional parking supply, and parking charges as determined by the City. More specifically, the City could establish time limits and parking charges once an area consistently surpassed 85 percent occupancy. The City could also develop an informational program or Parking District at any time; however, with the recent development of the Civic Center parking structure/lot, parking needs in the short-term have been met. Additionally, near-term parking would be supplied through a parking structure located at 2nd Street (behind the Stampede) and/or the City’s 6th Street surface lot. Additional parking by 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures Old Town Specific Plan Amendment 3.9-21 ESA /D209294 Draft Environmental Impact Report February 2010 residences and hotels will be required according to parking ratios, which will vary by zoning district and use, as follows: Downtown Core and Downtown Core /Hotel Overlay District (DTC/HO) Residential requires 1 parking space per unit; Hotel requires 1 space per room/suite plus ancillary conference facilities, meeting rooms, ballrooms within the hotel require 1 space per 300 square feet of gross floor area. General commercial uses (except hotels as stated previously) do not require parking. Residential /Limited Mixed Use (R/LMU) Residential is parked per the Development Code: TABLE 3.9-8 PARKING SPACES REQUIRED Description of Use Required Number of Spaces Residential Uses Single-family residence 2 enclosed spaces Duplex, triplexes 2 covered spaces/unit, plus 1 guest space/4 units Multiple-family residential—3 or fewer bedrooms (12 or less units) 2—5 units: 2 covered spaces/unit, plus 2 guest spaces 6—12 units: 2 covered spaces/unit plus 3 guest spaces Multiple-family residential—13 or more units 1 covered parking space plus 0.5 uncovered parking space for 1 bedroom (or less) units 1 covered parking space plus 1 uncovered parking space for 2 bedroom units 2 covered parking spaces and 0.5 uncovered parking space for three bedroom (or more) units plus 1 guest space/6 units, with a minimum of 4 guest spaces SOURCE: City of Temecula, 2010. Hotels in the R/LMU District are parked at the same rate as the DTC/HO as stated above. Additionally, in the R/LMU district parking is required for all commercial uses and will be parked according to the Development Code. Neighborhood Residential District (NR) Zone Residential uses are required to be parked per the Development Code. Hotels are not permitted in the NR zone, however Bed and Breakfast establishments are allowed and are required to be parked at 1 space per room. Mitigation: None required. 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.9 Traffic and Circulation Old Town Specific Plan Amendment 3.9-22 ESA /D209294 Draft Environmental Impact Report February 2010 TABLE 3.9-9 COMMERCIAL USES – RETAIL AND SERVICE Description of Use Required Number of Spaces Furniture stores, bulk goods, floor covering, home improvement 1 space/500 SF of GFA General retail with less than 25,000 SF-GFA 1 space/300 SF-GFA General retail with 25,000 SF or greater See shopping center Hotels and motels 1 space/guest room plus 1 space/10 rooms for guests and 2 spaces for resident manager Full service hotel 1 space/guest room or suite (ancillary conference rooms, meeting rooms and ballrooms within the hotel shall be parked separately at 1 space/300 SF GFA) Laundromat 1 space/3 washing machines Plant nurseries 1 space/500 SF indoor GFA, plus 1 space/1,000 SF gross outdoor retail area Outdoor sales, including lumberyards, car sales, salvage yards 1 space/1,000 SF gross outdoor sales area, plus 1 space/300 SF of indoor sales area Restaurants Dine-in 1 space/100 SF-GFA, with a minimum of 10 spaces in all cases Fast food 1 space/75 SF-GFA, with a minimum of 10 spaces in all cases Shopping center (25,000 SF-GFA or greater) 1 space/300 SF-GFA with the following additions: Cinemas in shopping centers 1 space/5 seats Restaurant areas occupying greater than 15 percent of total shopping area GFA 1 space/100 GFA Medical and dental offices 1 space/200 SF-GFA Veterinary office 1 space/300 SF-GFA SOURCE: City of Temecula, 2010 Old Town Specific Plan Amendment 4-1 ESA /D209294 Draft Environmental Impact Report February 2010 CHAPTER 4 Cumulative Impacts 4.1 Introduction Section 15130 of the CEQA Guidelines requires that an EIR address cumulative impacts of a project when the project’s incremental effect would be cumulatively considerable. “Cumulatively considerable” means that “the incremental effects of an individual project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects as defined in Section 15130” (Section 15065(c)). A cumulative effect is not deemed considerable if the effect would be essentially the same whether the proposed project is implemented or not. Section 15355 of the CEQA Guidelines states that “cumulative impacts can result from individually minor but collectively significant projects taking place over a period of time.” A cumulative impact is not considered significant if the impact can be mitigated to below the level of significance through mitigation, including providing improvements and/or contributing funds through fee-payment programs. The EIR must examine “reasonable options for mitigating or avoiding any significant cumulative effects of a proposed project” (CEQA Guidelines Sections 15130(a)(3) and 15130(b)(5)). According to Section 15130 of the CEQA Guidelines, the discussion of cumulative effects “... need not provide as great a detail as is provided of the effects attributable to the project alone. The discussion should be guided by the standards of practicality and reasonableness.” The evaluation of cumulative impacts is required by Section 15130 to be based on either: (A) a list of past, present, and probable future projects producing related or cumulative impacts, including, if necessary, those projects outside the control of the agency, or (B) a summary of projections contained in an adopted general plan or related planning document, or in a prior environmental document which has been adopted or certified, which described or evaluated regional or area-wide conditions contributing to the cumulative effect. Any such planning document shall be referenced and made available to the public at a location specified by the Lead Agency. 4.2 Cumulative Projects This analysis considers the impacts of the proposed Specific Plan Amendment (proposed project) in combination with the potential environmental effects of other projects in the general area. 4. Cumulative Impacts Old Town Specific Plan Amendment 4-2 ESA /D209294 Draft Environmental Impact Report February 2010 “Other projects,” also referred to as “cumulative projects,” include recently completed projects, projects currently under construction, and future projects currently in development. The potential for projects to have a cumulative impact depends on both geographic location as well as project schedule. 4.2.1 Geographic Scope The proposed Specific Plan Amendment project area is located in the southwestern portion of the City of Temecula (with 2.4 acres to be annexed into the OTSP area). Chapter 4, Cumulative Impacts, considers the potential cumulative effects of the Specific Plan Amendment in combination with other identified cumulative development projects. The potential for specific project-generated impacts to contribute to a significant cumulative impact would occur if the impacts are located within the same generalized geographic area. This geographic area varies depending upon the resource area being evaluated (water quality, noise, etc.) and the geographic extent of the potential impact. For example, the geographic area associated with construction noise impacts would be limited to areas directly affected by construction noise associated with the proposed project in conjunction with the identified cumulative projects. In contrast, the geographic area that could be affected by the proposed project and cumulative constructionrelated air emissions would include the entire air basin. Construction impacts associated with increased noise, dust, erosion, and access limitations tend to be localized and could be exacerbated if other development or improvement projects occur within proximal locations to the proposed Specific Plan Amendment area. The cumulative project area identified for traffic impacts was determined by the City of Temecula Public Works Department as noted in Table 3.9-5 and Table 4-1. At the time the traffic impact analysis was prepared, the SpringHill Suites hotel development (one of the projects included in the cumulative scenario calculations) was under construction and not operational. However, since completion of the traffic impact analysis and prior to circulation of the Program DEIR, the SpringHill Suites hotel development has opened and is currently in operation. As determined by the traffic impact analysis, the SpringHill Suites hotel was projected to have generated 1,160 daily trips at full occupancy. Therefore, the cumulative traffic impact calculations are based on a worst-case scenario comparison of the proposed project at build-out to existing conditions. The other cumulative projects identified in Figure 4-1 (Chapter 4), however, have not been accounted for in the cumulative traffic impact calculations because it is undetermined what specific traffic impacts each future development within the OTSP area will have at this time. Additionally, the Pujol Apartments complex was an existing use at the time the traffic impact analysis developed and impacts have been evaluated as part of existing conditions. 4.2.2 Project Timing In addition to the geographic scope, cumulative impacts are determined by the timing of the other projects relative to the proposed project. As noted above, projects considered in this analysis include those that have recently been completed, are currently under construction, or are in the planning stages. Schedule is particularly relevant to the consideration of cumulative constructionrelated impacts, since construction impacts tend to be relatively short-term. However, for future 4. Cumulative Impacts Old Town Specific Plan Amendment 4-3 ESA /D209294 Draft Environmental Impact Report February 2010 projects, construction schedules are often broadly estimated and can be subject to change. Although the timing of the future projects is likely to fluctuate due to schedule changes or other unknown factors, this analysis assumes these individual projects would be developed for implementation through the course of the current planning horizon and could be implemented concurrently with construction of the proposed project. The proposed Specific Plan Amendment is anticipated to reach full build-out in approximately 20 to 30 years. 4.2.3 Type of Projects Considered As described in Chapter 3 of this Draft EIR, the majority of impacts associated with implementation of the proposed Specific Plan Amendment are short-term and related to construction. Implementation and operation of the Specific Plan Amendment would not contribute to project-specific or cumulative traffic impacts (when combined with with the other approved/pending projects considered in this analysis as listed in Table 4-1). As discussed in various EIR sections in Chapter 3, project-specific impacts associated with greenhouse gas emissions would be significant on the cumulative level. TABLE 4-1 PLANNED AND APPROVED PROJECTS IN THE PROJECT AREA Reference Number Figure Reference Number Planning Jurisdiction Type of Development Project Title/Name Description 1 Figure 3.9-4 City of Temecula Hotel Springhill Suites Springhill Suites (PA06-0316). Development is approximately 77,408 sf consisting of 142 rooms. 2 Figure 3.9-4 City of Temecula Hotel Crown Plaza Crown Plaza (PA08-0176). Development is approximately 128,810 sf consisting of 168 rooms. SOURCE: RK Engineering Group, Inc., December 2009. Therefore, the proposed Specific Plan Amendment would contribute to cumulative effects when considered in combination with impacts of other construction projects in the vicinity. Long-term cumulative impacts of the proposed Specific Plan Amendment in conjunction with the other projects in the area are assessed as well. Table 4-1 lists current and proposed projects that could potentially contribute to cumulative impacts within the project area. The other cumulative projects identified in Figure 4-1, however, have not been accounted for in the cumulative traffic impact calculations because it is undetermined what specific traffic impacts each future development within the OTSP area will have at this time. It should be noted that the Pujol Apartments complex was an existing use at the time the traffic impact analysis was developed and impacts have been evaluated as part of existing conditions. PROJECT SITE Old Front St Town 15 Old Town Specific Plan EIR . 209294 Figure 4-1 Cumulative Project Map SOURCE: GlobeXplorer, 2008; City of Temecula, 2009. 0 800 Feet 1 Legend 1. SpringHill Suites 3. Pujol Apartments 2. Crown Plaza 4. Star World Center 2 3 4 Ra n c h o Ca lifo rni a Rancho California Rd 4. Cumulative Impacts Old Town Specific Plan Amendment 4-5 ESA /D209294 Draft Environmental Impact Report February 2010 4.3 Description of Cumulative Effects Aesthetics Visual Character and Scenic Resources Within the vicinity of the proposed Specific Plan Amendment, surrounding areas contain mixed residential, business park uses and other commercial land uses. There are no eligible or officiallydesignated scenic highways affected by the proposed Specific Plan Amendment. No scenic vistas have been identified by the City’s General Plan and thus none would be adversely impacted from developing the proposed project. Furthermore, the aesthetics of Old Town are anticipated to improve with the implementation of the OTSP standards and design guidelines. The projects within the area of potential effect for aesthetics as related to the OTSP area are listed in Table 4-1 would include commercial and residential developments to the north and south of the project area. Like the proposed modifications to the Specific Plan area, these projects would represent an orderly, contiguous, and planned extension of the urban limit of the City of Temecula. Implementation of the proposed Specific Plan Amendment would occur in an area that has already been altered by existing developments. The intensification of use in the Specific Plan area would be aesthetically consistent with the character and uses in the surrounding area. Development was anticipated and detailed within the OTSP that was originally adopted in 1994. Implementation of the proposed Specific Plan Amendment would be a continuation of existing land use patterns; therefore, the project’s incremental cumulative aesthetic impact is not considered to be significant. In addition, individual aesthetics, visual, and light and glare impacts of the related projects, if any, would be addressed on an individual project basis. Each project would be subject to planning and zoning requirements, as well as design review by the City of Temecula, to ensure that project design is consistent with City standards. Where potential impacts could occur, the City would require appropriate environmental review and analysis and, if required, mitigate as appropriate. Therefore, the cumulative development would not result in significant impacts on scenic vistas or the visual character of the area. Light and Glare The existing Specific Plan area is partially developed and produces light within the local project vicinity. Development of the proposed Specific Plan Amendment in conjunction with other cumulative projects would gradually result in an increase in light in the City of Temecula and may increase ambient lighting in or adjacent to Riverside County. Proposed cumulative development would also incrementally contribute to cumulative night lighting and daytime glare and reflective impacts. However, the County has lighting regulations that preclude the use of excessive or unshielded lighting, or lighting that would spill into neighboring properties. Temecula adheres to Riverside County’s Light Pollution Ordinance, Ordinance No. 655, which restricts nighttime lighting for areas within a 15-mile radius and a 45-mile radius of Palomar Observatory. The proposed Specific Plan Amendment area is located within a 45-mile radius of the observatory (45-mile Radius Lighting Impact Zone) and is required to comply with Ordinance 4. Cumulative Impacts Old Town Specific Plan Amendment 4-6 ESA /D209294 Draft Environmental Impact Report February 2010 No. 655. All planned and approved projects listed in Table 4-1 fall within a 45-mile radius of the Palomar Observatory and are also required to comply with Ordinance No. 655. The 45-mile radius encompasses a large portion of Riverside County extending many miles beyond the Specific Plan area. Since regulations are in place and adherence to these policies is required, no significant cumulative impact related to lighting or glare is anticipated for the proposed Specific Plan Amendment. Air Quality SCAQMD has set forth methods and significance thresholds for the assessment of a project’s cumulative operational air quality impacts. The SCAQMD approach for assessing cumulative impacts is based on the SCAQMD’s AQMP forecasts of attainment of ambient air quality standards in accordance with the requirements of the federal and state Clean Air Acts. This forecast also takes into account SCAG’s forecasts of future regional growth. As such, the analysis of cumulative impacts focuses on determining whether the proposed project is consistent with forecasted future regional growth. Therefore, if all cumulative projects are individually consistent with the growth assumptions upon which the SCAQMD’s AQMP is based, then future development would not impede the attainment of ambient air quality standards and a significant cumulative air quality impact would not occur. Project construction could violate air quality standards (short-term) during construction. Construction-related emissions would occur on and off for approximately 30 years. Constructionrelated fugitive dust emissions would vary from day to day, depending on the level and type of activity. The proposed Specific Plan Amendment would be significant and unavoidable on a project level for ROG, PM10, and PM2.5 emissions. Cumulative sources from projects throughout the basin would emit substantial amounts of TACS. While the total TAC emission from all projects in the region would be significant, the TAC emissions from the project are minimal for both construction and operations. Therefore, the project would have a less-than-significant cumulative impact with regard to TACs. Construction activity associated with other projects in the basin would generally involve the use of similar equipment and may overlap with the construction schedule of the proposed project. Though the project creates a significant and unavoidable impact, it is assumed that other project construction activity would comply with the SCAQMD required mitigation measures, which would reduce air quality impacts but not eliminate air pollutant emissions completely. This would be a significant cumulative impact. As such, the mass regional emissions that would occur as a result of developing the proposed project would be cumulatively considerable. Global Warming/Climate Change In 2005, the California governor signed Executive Order S-3-05 that sets forth a series of target dates for the reduction reduction of statewide emissions of GHG. This order calls for the progressive reduction of GHGs so that by 2010, GHGs would be at year 2000 levels; by 2020, GHGs would be at year 1990 levels; and by 2050 GHSs would be 80 percent below year 1990 levels. Since the 4. Cumulative Impacts Old Town Specific Plan Amendment 4-7 ESA /D209294 Draft Environmental Impact Report February 2010 passage of Executive Order S-3-05, the California Assembly has passed the California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006, and CARB approved 37 strategies for GHG reduction and developed GHG mandatory reporting regulations. Even with implementation of Mitigation Measure 3.3-1 in Section 3.3, the proposed Specific Plan Amendment project would be considered a major source of greenhouse gases and would exceed the SCAQMD GHG screening threshold. Consequently, the increase in GHG by the project places the project in conflict with the goal of the state to reduce up to 169 million metric tons CO2e/year. This impact would remain significant and unavoidable. Cultural Resources The geographic scope of potential cumulative impacts (area of potential affect for cultural resources) related to cultural resources encompasses the proposed Specific Plan Amendment project area and immediate vicinity. As described in Section 3.4 Cultural Resources, construction of the proposed Specific Plan Amendment would include demolition activities and some earthmoving activities that could unearth previously unknown archaeological or paleontological resources. Cultural sites identified during construction would be recorded. Implementation of project-specific mitigation measures would minimize this impact to a less-than-significant level. Other development projects planned for the area could also encounter cultural resources. Each project would be responsible for recording new sites appropriately. Uncovering archaeological and paleontological resources generally adds to the regional understanding of the area’s history and would not result in a cumulatively considerable adverse impact to cultural resources. Hydrology and Water Quality As discussed in Section 3.5 Hydrology and Water Quality, the construction of the proposed Specific Plan Amendment would increase impervious surface and stormwater runoff (given the annexation of the 2.4 acres). With incorporation of project-specific mitigation measures, the Specific Plan’s impact on the local drainage system would not be significant. Cumulative projects could also contribute to increased runoff due to increases in impervious surfaces. Any proposed development within the OTSP area larger than one acre would have to satisfy all applicable requirements of the NPDES Program and Chapter 8.24, Stormwater/Urban Runoff Management and Discharge Controls of the City of Temecula’s Municipal Code, to the satisfaction of the City of Temecula’s Public Works Department. The related projects could have general construction-related impacts on water quality in the project area. Construction activities at other project sites could also increase erosion and subsequent sedimentation. As with the proposed project, all related projects are subject to the same federal regulations (Clean Water Act), state regulations (Porter Cologne Water Quality Control Act), and local regulations (SUSMP) that protect water quality and water resources. These regulations include NPDES permit requirements, stormwater pollution prevention plans, and post-development stormwater quality and quantity requirements. All of these regulations are designed to ensure that the incremental effects of individual projects do not cause a substantial cumulative impact. 4. Cumulative Impacts Old Town Specific Plan Amendment 4-8 ESA /D209294 Draft Environmental Impact Report February 2010 Therefore, despite the potential for the related projects to alter drainage patterns and runoff conditions, the adherence to the aforementioned requirements would ensure that they do not result in cumulatively considerable impacts related to sedimentation, flooding, water quality, drainage system capacity, flood hazard areas, failure of a levee or dam, seiche, tsunami, or mudflows. The proposed project with mitigation measures would have a less-than-significant impact. Therefore, because of these measures, when considered in combination with other developments similarly bound by the same regulations, the proposed project’s incremental contribution to water quality and quantity impacts, with proposed mitigation, would not be cumulatively considerable and is less than significant. Land Use and Planning The two other projects planned in the vicinity of the proposed Specific Plan Amendment are are both hotel developments (Table 3.9-5 in Section 3.9). The modifications to the Specific Plan area are not out of context with the other proposed developments in the general area. Currently, the Specific Plan area contains a mix of uses, including commercial, residential, public facilities, and recreational uses. The proposed Specific Plan Amendment would replace most of the existing development with new development that would allow higher density residential and higher intensity commercial uses along with a limited residential/mixed-use zone. Build-out of the proposed Specific Plan area would replace existing residences with new multi-family residential structures and would result in new consolidated locations for commercial and retail uses. The proposed Specific Plan Amendment would be consistent on an individual level, and therefore on a cumulative level, with the applicable regulatory policies and plans. The contribution of the proposed Specific Plan Amendment and the two planned developments would not result in incompatible uses in an established community, the City or the City’s Sphere of Influence. Therefore, the proposed Specific Plan Amendment in conjunction with the other proposed developments would not have a cumulatively considerable impact. Cumulative impacts are therefore considered less than significant. Noise There are two development projects currently in the planning process located in the vicinity of the proposed Specific Plan Amendment area. When considered alone, the proposed modifications to the Specific Plan area would generate noise from construction over the estimated 20-to 30-year build-out, and from additional traffic in the general area. Noise impacts from cumulative development in the project area would primarily be the result of construction and increased vehicle traffic on the local roadway network. As discussed in Section 3.7 Noise, implementation of the proposed Specific Plan Amendment would result in construction that would generate noise levels in excess of standards. On a a project level, this impact is considered significant and unavoidable after mitigation. When considered alone, the proposed project would generate noise mainly by adding more traffic to the area. The traffic associated with operation of the proposed Specific Plan Amendment would result in a significant increase in ambient noise levels on nearby roadways that would generate a significant and unavoidable impact after mitigation. The cumulative interior noise impacts of the project 4. Cumulative Impacts Old Town Specific Plan Amendment 4-9 ESA /D209294 Draft Environmental Impact Report February 2010 would be reduced to less-than-significant levels. Other anticipated projects would contribute to noise in the area due to increased traffic volumes. Therefore, the proposed project would result in cumulatively considerable exterior noise levels along various roadways which would remain a significant and unavoidable impact. While there is the potential for the proposed project to contribute to construction noise levels generated by the cumulative projects listed in Table 3.9-5, the actual schedule and timing of construction activities is uncertain. The proposed project would coordinate with the appropriate City departments to avoid conflicts with other projects to the extent possible. Given that the proposed project would have a significant and unavoidable project-specific impact, the proposed Specific Plan Amendment’s contribution to cumulative noise impacts would also result in significant and unavoidable impacts to noise. Traffic and Transportation The geographic scope of this impact area lies within the City of Temecula and the County of Riverside. The roadway network on which construction workers and construction vehicles (including trucks that would transport equipment and fill material to and from the worksite) would travel to access the site consists of regional highways and local roadways. A traffic analysis was conducted for the proposed Specific Plan Amendment project. The traffic analysis also analyzed future traffic conditions which took into account cumulative projects and regional growth. As discussed in Section 3.9 Traffic and Transportation, none of the intersections would operate at an unacceptable LOS after mitigation. Project impacts will be reduced to a less than significant level with implementation of proposed mitigation measures such as roundabouts, pedestrian facilities and accepting LOS E and F for intersections on Old Town Front Street from Second Street to Moreno Road North. The proposed project would increase traffic at a lesser rate than the current Specific Plan for the Old Town area. Cumulative conditions were determined by adding the traffic generated by other approved/pending projects. Traffic counts for these projects were estimated based on trip generation rates from ITE’s Trip Generation, 8th Edition. The proposed project would not contribute to cumulative traffic and circulation impacts when considered in combination with projects listed in Table 3.9-5. Impacts to intersections outside of the OTSP area would occur on a cumulative basis, as accounted for in the traffic impact analysis, but have already been addressed by the mitigation measures included as part of this project. Therefore, cumulative traffic impacts would not be significant. Utilities and Services Recreation Development of the proposed project in conjunction with other cumulative projects would gradually result in an increased intensity of land use and a corresponding increase in usage of 4. Cumulative Impacts Old Town Specific Plan Amendment 4-10 ESA /D209294 Draft Environmental Impact Report February 2010 park and recreational facilities. The proposed Specific Plan Amendment includes the development of an Open Space corridor which is approximately 25.4 acres (5.7 acres in addition to what is planned under the approved OTSP) and would offer additional recreational options in the City of Temecula and surrounding areas. The standard developer mitigation fees for parklands would be implemented as necessary for all related projects. The proposed Specific Plan Amendment would not have an individually significant impact on recreational services after mitigation, and would not have a cumulatively considerable contribution. Therefore, the proposed Specific Plan Amendment would not have a significant cumulative impact related to recreational services. Utilities The proposed Specific Plan Amendment is a continuation of planned urban development in an area with sufficient existing facilities to provide water, wastewater and solid waste services to the Specific Plan area and would not require the development of new facilities. The proposed Specific Plan Amendment along with cumulative projects would not result in a significant use of water as compared to the existing developed uses in the Specific Plan area. The proposed Specific Plan Amendment would redevelop many existing uses, and therefore future water demand would be a minimal increase over existing demand. Furthermore, as previously stated, the SpringHill Suites hotel development has opened and is currently in operation. The majority of the cumulative projects are on small parcels of land with the exception of the proposed Pujol Apartments. Although water demand would increase as a result of the 168 room Crown Plaza Hotel, this increase of this specific type of use would not be considered cumulatively significant; thus, cumulative impacts to water supply are not considered significant. In addition, there would be no cumulative impact on wastewater treatment infrastructure as a result of project implementation. The proposed Specific Plan Amendment is within the projected electric load growth for the general area. SCE’s ability to serve all customers’ loads within this area of the City is in accordance with SCE’s Design Standards, rules and tariffs, and would be adequate. SCE has a proposed substation planned for the near future (summer 2010) which would assist in continuing to meet future electrical demands. SCE completes all work in accordance with the rules and tariffs as authorized by the California Public Utilities Commission and other governing entities. Any cumulative impacts related to electric service would be addressed through this process. As stated in Section 3.8 Utilities and Services, the two landfills which service the project area and the City of Temecula have existing and substantial future capacity to accept solid waste. Implementation of the proposed Specific Plan Amendment in conjunction with the cumulative projects listed in Table 4-1 would not create demands for waste management services that exceed the capacities of the waste management system. Impacts to solid waste facilities associated with the proposed Specific Plan Amendment are less than significant. 4. Cumulative Impacts Old Town Specific Plan Amendment 4-11 ESA /D209294 Draft Environmental Impact Report February 2010 Development of the proposed Specific Plan Amendment would offset its limited contribution to the cumulative impact of area development on these services and utilities. Standard payment of established developer mitigation fees to address cumulative impacts would be required. Old Town Specific Plan Amendment 5-1 ESA /D209294 Draft Environmental Impact Report February 2010 CHAPTER 5 Significant Irreversible Environmental Changes and Growth-Inducing Impacts 5.1 Introduction According to CEQA Guidelines (Section 15126.2 [d]), a project may foster economic or population growth, or additional housing, either indirectly or directly, in a geographical area if it meets any one of the following criteria below: • A project would remove obstacles to population growth. • Increases in the population resulting from a project may tax existing community service facilities, causing significant environmental effects. • A project would encourage and facilitate other activities that could significantly affect the environment. 5.2 Introduction to Growth Inducement Issues Growth can be induced in different ways: through the elimination of obstacles to growth, or through the stimulation of economic activity within the region. The discussion of the removal of obstacles to growth relates directly to the the removal of infrastructure limitations (typically through the provision of additional capacity or supply) or the reduction or elimination of regulatory constraints on growth that could result in growth unforeseen at the time of project approval. 5.3 Elimination of Obstacles to Growth The elimination of either physical or regulatory obstacles to growth is considered to be a growthinducing effect. A physical obstacle to growth typically involves the lack of public service infrastructure. The extension of public service infrastructure, including roadways, water mains, and sewer lines, into areas that are not currently provided with these services would be expected to support new development. Similarly, the elimination or change to a regulatory obstacle, including existing growth and development policies, could result in new growth. In the case of the OTSP amendment, all utilities extended or constructed as part of the project would be designed to serve only the Old Town area and any expansions of existing utilities would be only for the pro-rata incremental need of the project. 5. Significant Irreversible Environmental Changes and Growth-Inducing Impacts Old Town Specific Plan Amendment 5-2 ESA /D209294 Draft Environmental Impact Report February 2010 5.4 Economic Effects Increased demand on secondary markets development (residential or employment generating uses) typically generates a secondary or indirect demand for other goods and services. The secondary or economic change can be quantified by an economic multiplier, which is an economic term used to describe interrelationships among various sectors of the economy. One aspect of the multiplier effect is the potential catalytic force a project can have on satellite or follow-up development because it creates a demand or market to be served (e.g., neighborhood commercial development around residential development). Increased pressure on land use intensification and unforeseen future development can be spurred by the construction of certain projects that have the effect of creating unique and currently unmet market demands, or by creating economic incentive for future projects by substantially increasing surrounding property values. These types of impacts are most often identified for projects developed in areas that are currently lacking a full spectrum of economic activity. For example, newly developing office areas may be lacking in a full range of support commercial uses; this support commercial demand can cause increased pressure for rezones or general plan amendments aimed at providing adequate land to accommodate businesses seeking to serve the unmet demand. 5.5 Growth-Inducing Effects of the Proposed Project -Elimination of Obstacles to Growth Build-out under the OTSP amendment would eliminate some existing obstacles to growth. The standard scenario for eliminating an obstacle to growth involves the extension or provision of utility or service to an area that was not previously served. RCWD future water projections calculated the existing Specific Plan area in accordance with the land use designation and current zoning. Therefore, this additional water demand was incorporated into the RCWD’s future water projections and would not cause the water provider, RCWD, to significantly increase its water commitments to supply the project area. Furthermore, with future implementation of recycled water (used for irrigation of common landscaped areas and the Open Space corridor), the water demand from the proposed amendment would not require any existing facility to expand water service to the project area. Therefore, implementation of the proposed Specific Plan Amendment would not result in the need to expand water service facilities or construct new water facilities. Limited utilities distribution and collection infrastructure currently exists in the OTSP area. Implementation of the proposed project would include the extension of new and/or additional water, electrical and natural gas distribution infrastructure, and wastewater and storm drainage collection infrastructure. Future development in the Specific Plan area would use existing electricity service provided by SCE. Some extension of service may be necessary into undeveloped areas and would require assessment at the time of development review. Based on the current availability of electrical service in portions of the Specific Plan area, extensive infrastructure is not necessary, and the project would not significantly affect electrical services. The Specific Plan area is currently served by the Gas Company for natural gas service. 5. Significant Irreversible Environmental Changes and Growth-Inducing Impacts Old Town Specific Plan Amendment 5-3 ESA /D209294 Draft Environmental Impact Report February 2010 Development in the Specific Plan area may require an extension of service into undeveloped areas and would require assessment at the time of development review. Future development in the project area would not affect the current service provider or natural gas services. 5.6 Increased Demand on Secondary Markets The proposed project would bring new mixed-use residential, business village, commercial and recreational uses to the City of Temecula. These uses would bring residents and employees to the area and could create an economic incentive for future projects by substantially increasing surrounding property values. In general, an additional dollar spent in the County for these goods and services is re-spent on additional goods and services (due to the "multiplier" effect). Therefore, the anticipated increase in spending on secondary and support services could increase growth pressures in the region. 5.7 Significant Irreversible Environmental Effects Under CEQA, an EIR must analyze the extent to which a project's primary and secondary effects would commit resources to uses that future generations will probably be unable to reverse [CEQA Guidelines section 15126.2(c); 15127]. Implementation of the proposed project would result in the long-term commitment of resources of the project site to urban land use. The proposed project would likely result in or contribute to the following irreversible environmental changes: • Conversion of existing undeveloped land to urban land uses, thus precluding other alternate land uses in the future. • Increased ambient noise. • Irreversible commitment of municipal resources to the provision of services and operations of infrastructure for future urban and suburban development. • Irreversible consumption of goods and services associated with the future population. • Increased traffic volumes on existing roadways. • Degradation of air quality. • Irreversible consumption of energy and natural resources associated with the future population. • Possible demand for and use of goods, services, and resources for this project to the exclusion of projects in other locations. Old Town Specific Plan Amendment 6-1 ESA /D209294 Draft Environmental Impact Report February 2010 CHAPTER 6 Alternatives Analysis 6.1 Introduction 6.1.1 CEQA Requirements According to the CEQA Guidelines, an EIR must describe a reasonable range of alternatives to a proposed project that could feasibly attain most of the basic project objectives, and would avoid or substantially lessen the proposed project’s significant environmental effects. This alternatives analysis summarizes the alternatives screening process conducted to identify feasible alternatives that meet project objectives. As required by CEQA, this analysis first considers which alternatives can meet most of the basic project objectives, and then to what extent those remaining alternatives can avoid or reduce the environmental impacts associated with the proposed project. Information used to select an “environmentally superior alternative,” which may be the proposed project, is also provided in this chapter. Section 15126.6(f) of the CEQA Guidelines provides direction on the required alternatives analysis: The range of alternatives required in an EIR is governed by a “rule of reason” that requires the EIR to set forth only those alternatives necessary to permit a reasoned choice. The alternatives shall be limited to ones that would avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant effects of the project. Of those alternatives, the EIR need examine in detail only the ones that the Lead Agency determines could feasibly attain most of the basic objectives of the project. The range of feasible alternatives shall be selected and discussed in a manner to foster meaningful public participation and informed decision making. The alternatives may include a different type of project, modification of the proposed project, or suitable alternative project sites. An EIR need not consider every conceivable alternative to a project. Rather, the alternatives must be limited to ones that meet the project objectives, are feasible, and would avoid or substantially lessen at least one of the significant environmental effects of the project. “Feasible” means capable of being accomplished in a successful manner within a reasonable period of time, taking into account economic, environmental, legal, social, and technological factors. Section 15126.6(b) of the CEQA Guidelines states that an EIR: ...must identify ways to mitigate or avoid the significant effects that a project may have on the environment, the discussion of alternatives shall focus on alternatives to the project or its location which are capable of avoiding or substantially lessening any significant effects of the project, even if these alternatives would impede to some degree the attainment of the project objectives, or could be more costly. 5. Alternatives Old Town Specific Plan Amendment 6-2 ESA /D209294 Draft Environmental Impact Report February 2010 Section 15126.6(d) of the CEQA Guidelines provides further guidance on the extent of alternatives analysis required: The EIR shall include sufficient information about each alternative to allow meaningful evaluation, analysis, and comparison with the proposed project. A matrix displaying the major characteristics and significant environmental effects of each alternative may be used to summarize the comparison. If an alternative would cause one or more significant effects in addition to those that would be caused by the project as proposed, the significant effects of the alternative shall be discussed, but in less detail than the significant effects of the project as proposed. The EIR must briefly describe the rationale for selection and rejection of alternatives and the information the Lead Agency relied on when making the selection. It also should identify any alternatives considered but rejected as infeasible by the Lead Agency during the scoping process and briefly explain the reasons for the exclusion. Alternatives may be eliminated from detailed consideration in the EIR if they fail to meet most of the project objectives, are infeasible, or do not avoid any significant environmental effects. Section 15126.6(e)(1) of the CEQA Guidelines also requires that the No Project Alternative must be addressed in this analysis. The purpose of evaluating the No Project Alternative is to allow decision-makers to compare the potential consequences of the proposed project with the consequences that would occur without implementation of the proposed project. Finally, an EIR must identify the environmentally superior alternative. The No Project Alternative may be the environmentally superior alternative to the proposed project based on the minimization or avoidance of physical environmental impacts. However, the No Project Alternative must also achieve the project objectives in order to be selected as the environmentally superior alternative. CEQA Guidelines (Section 15126.6(e)(2)) require that if the environmentally superior alternative is the No Project Alternative, the EIR shall identify an environmentally superior alternative among other alternatives. As identified in Section 2.2 of Chapter 2 (Project Objectives), the objectives of the proposed project are as follows: • Update the current OTSP to provide enhanced desired services within the plan area to both City residents and visitors while being compatible with the nearby residential area; • Respect the history of the OTSP area while fitting with current economics, accommodating greater density, and encouraging a variety of architectural styles; • Implement significant new investment in the Old Town area to help promote rapid growth in Temecula Valley and develop a renewed interest in town centers and mixed-use development; • Enhance the quality of life of Temecula residents by balancing economic development objectives with protection of the environment and the health and safety of the community; and • Promote economic activity within the City to maintain a healthy economy, provide revenue for high-quality municipal services and infrastructure maintenance and improvements, and preserve the unique character of Temecula. 6. Alternatives Old Town Specific Plan Amendment 6-3 ESA /D209294 Draft Environmental Impact Report February 2010 6.1.2 Review of Significant and Unavoidable Environmental Impacts Based on the CEQA Guidelines, several factors need to be considered in determining the range of alternatives to be analyzed in an EIR and the level of analytical detail that should be provided for each alternative. These factors include (1) the nature of the significant impacts of the proposed project; (2) the ability of alternatives to avoid or lessen the significant impacts associated with the project; (3) the ability of the alternatives to meet the objectives of the project; and (4) the feasibility of the alternatives. The analysis in this EIR indicates that the project would result in significant and unavoidable impacts with respect to the following: • Construction air impacts. • Cumulative air impacts. • Project operation air impacts • State goals for reducing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. • Construction noise impacts. • Traffic noise impacts. • Cumulative noise impacts. The alternatives examined in this chapter would substantially lessen at least some of the significant aesthetic, air quality/GHG, cultural resources, hydrology and water quality, land use and planning, noise, traffic and circulation, public services and utilities, and cumulative impacts associated with implementation of the proposed project, while still meeting the project objectives. As the Lead Agency, the City of Temecula will decide whether to proceed with the proposed project or whether to accept or reject any of the alternatives identified in this chapter. As required by the CEQA Guidelines, if the City ultimately rejects an alternative, the rationale for the rejection will be presented in the findings that are required to be made before the City certifies the EIR and takes action on the project. 6.1.3 Alternatives Not Evaluated in this EIR An alternative to the OTSP amendment that would result in an overall increase of commercial building floor space in in Old Town and a reduction in residential units will not be analyzed. An increase in commercial building floor space within the project area would result in a reduction of shared and private open spaces (open areas for parking, courtyards, and balconies). In addition, trip generation rates, as indicated in the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Guidelines (Trip Generation, 8th Edition)1, are typically greater for commercial building space uses as compared to residential uses. For example, a strip mall development would typically produce approximately 42.94 trips per day (TPD)/1,000 square feet. In contrast, a single-family residence typically generates approximately 9.56 TPD/dwelling unit (DU); a condominium/townhouse typically generates 6.84 TPD/DU; and a high-rise apartment typically 1 Institute of Transportation Engineers. Trip Generation Manual, 8th Edition, 2008. 5. Alternatives Old Town Specific Plan Amendment 6-4 ESA /D209294 Draft Environmental Impact Report February 2010 produces about 5.48 TPD/DU. Therefore, an alternative that would increase commercial building floor space in the OTSP area would also result in an increase in trips generated per day and an increase in associated noise and air quality impacts. As previously stated, alternatives may be eliminated from detailed consideration in the EIR if they fail to meet most of the project objectives, are infeasible, or do not avoid any significant environmental effects. Because increasing the commercial building floor space would ultimately increase traffic, noise and air quality impacts, and would not reduce or avoid any significant environmental effects compared to the proposed project, this alternative has been eliminated from further consideration. As the OTSP is designed to guide the development of the downtown area, an alternative site would not be appropriate. Finally, this EIR does not analyze a No Project Alternative with a “freezing of conditions” (i.e., no development). The No Project Alternative that is discussed below assumes development with continuation of existing land use plans into the future, as specified under CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(a) for analysis of proposed land use plans. Analysis of a “no development” alternative is more appropriate for specific development projects rather than land use plans. 6.2 Project Alternatives Two alternative scenarios, representing a range of reasonable alternatives to the proposed project, were selected for detailed analysis. The goal for evaluating any of these alternatives is to identify ways to avoid or lessen the significant environmental effects resulting from implementation of the proposed project, while attaining most of the project objectives. The following sections provide a general description of each alternative, its ability to meet the project objectives, and a qualitative discussion of its comparative environmental impacts. As provided in Section 15126.6(d) of the CEQA Guidelines, the significant effects of these alternatives are identified in less detail than the analysis of the proposed project in Chapter 3 of this EIR. Table 6-1 compares the ability of the alternatives to meet the project objectives. Table 6-2 compares the environmental impacts of the alternatives relative to the proposed project. Alternative 1: No Project Alternative/Reasonably Foreseeable Development (Continuation of Existing Specific Plan) – Under Alternative 1, the OTSP Amendment would not be pursued and no associated components identified under the proposed project would be built. This alternative evaluates the environmental effects of build-out of the Specific Plan area according to the existing OTSP. Under Alternative 1, the impacts of the proposed project (Specific Plan Amendment) are compared to the impacts that would occur if the existing OTSP continued to be implemented in the OTSP area. 6. Alternatives Old Town Specific Plan Amendment 6-5 ESA /D209294 Draft Environmental Impact Report February 2010 TABLE 6-1 ABILITY OF ALTERNATIVES TO MEET PROJECT OBJECTIVES Project Objectives Alt. 1: No Project Alternative Alt. 2: Increased Residential and Reduced Commercial Alternative Alt.3: Reduced Residential and Increased Commercial Alternative Update the current OTSP to provide enhanced desired services within the plan area to both City residents and visitors while being compatible with the nearby residential area. No Yes Yes Respect the history of the OTSP area while fitting with current economics, accommodating greater density and encouraging a variety of architectural styles. No Yes Yes Implement significant new investment in the Old Town area to help promote rapid growth in Temecula Valley and develop a renewed interest in town centers and mixed-use development. No Yes No Enhance the quality of life of Temecula residents by balancing economic development objectives with protection of the environment and the health and safety of the community. No Yes Yes Promote economic activity within the City to maintain a healthy economy, provide revenue for high-quality municipal services and infrastructure maintenance and improvements, and preserve the unique character of Temecula. No No Yes SOURCE: Environmental Science Associates, 2010. Alternative 2: Increased Residential and Reduced Commercial Alternative – With the proposed Specific Plan Amendment, the mixed-use aspect of the proposed project would result in an overall reduction in commercial building floor space in Old Town of approximately 1,405,285 square feet as compared to the existing OTSP, and the addition of approximately 749 residential units as compared to the existing OTSP. The reduction of building floor space can be anticipated given that residential uses require more open areas for parking, courtyards, balconies, and other shared and private open spaces than commercial uses.2 In comparison, Alternative 2 would increase the amount of residential units by 1,100 residential units in comparison to the existing OTSP and reduce the building floor space for commercial use by 2,000,000 square feet in comparison to the existing OTSP. Alternative 2 would essentially increase residential development and decrease commercial development even further than the proposed project. As a result of the reduced amount of commercial building space under Alternative 2, there would be fewer trips generated per day and thus a reduction in noise and air quality impacts within the OTSP area. Alternative 2 would achieve some of the proposed project objectives by updating the 2 Refer to previously discussed trip generation rates as determined by the Institute of Transportation Engineers. Trip Generation Manual, 8th Edition, 2008. 5. Alternatives Old Town Specific Plan Amendment 6-6 ESA /D209294 Draft Environmental Impact Report February 2010 TABLE 6-2 SUMMARY COMPARISON OF PROJECT ALTERNATIVE IMPACTSa Potential Project Impacts Alt. 1: No Project Alternative Alt. 2: Increased Residential and Reduced Commercial Alternative Alt.3: Reduced Residential and Increased Commercial Alternative Aesthetics Increased Reduced Reduced Air Quality Increased Reduced Increased Global Warming/Climate Change Increased Reduced Increased Cultural Resources Similar Similar Similar Hydrology and Water Quality Similar Similar Similar Land Use and Planning Similar Similar Similar Noise Increased Reduced Increased Traffic Increased Reduced Increased Public Services and Utilities Increased Reduced Reduced a Definitions: • Increased = impacts of alternative greater than proposed projects impacts • Similar = impacts of alternative similar to proposed projects impacts • Reduced = impacts of alternative less than proposed projects impacts SOURCE: Environmental Science Associates, 2010. current OTSP to provide enhanced desired services within the plan area to both City residents and visitors while being compatible with the nearby residential area; respecting the history of the OTSP area while fitting with current economics; accommodating greater density and encouraging a variety of architectural styles; and implementing significant new investment in the Old Town area to help promote rapid growth in Temecula Valley and develop a renewed interest in town centers and mixed-use development. However, Alternative 2 would be less focused on promoting economic activity within the City because residential development would be emphasized. Therefore, Alternative 2 would not fully achieve all of the project objectives. Alternative 3: Reduced Residential and Increased Commercial Alternative – Alternative 3 would reduce the commercial square footage by 1,000,000 square feet in comparison to the existing OTSP and reduce the number of residential units by 659 units in comparison to the existing OTSP. Therefore, Alternative 3 would result in an increase in 405,285 square feet of commercial space in comparison to the proposed project and 1,408 less residential units in comparison to the proposed project. Alternative 3 would achieve some of the proposed project objectives by updating the current OTSP to provide enhanced desired services within the plan area to both City residents and visitors while being compatible with the nearby residential area and respecting the history of the OTSP area. Alternative 3 would also encourage a variety of architectural styles and implement significant new investment in the Old Town area to help promote rapid growth in Temecula Valley and develop a renewed interest in town centers and mixed-use development. Alternative 3 would be more focused on promoting economic activity within the City because residential development would not be emphasized. Alternative 3 would not, however, encourage development of an increased number of high-quality residential 6. Alternatives Old Town Specific Plan Amendment 6-7 ESA /D209294 Draft Environmental Impact Report February 2010 neighborhoods as compared to the existing OTSP and proposed project. Therefore, Alternative 3 would not fully achieve all of the project objectives. Alternative 1: No Project Alternative The following discusses the impacts associated with the No Project Alternative, Alternative 1, in comparison to the impacts of the proposed Specific Plan Amendment: Aesthetics The proposed amendment to the OTSP is intended to address community concerns related to building height, building massing, and parking. The application of architectural styles, building heights, building massing, and building placement within Old Town has resulted in inconsistent development patterns. The existing Specific Plan lacks some of the language that could produce more predictable development patterns. The proposed amendments incorporate form-based code principles into the Specific Plan to more clearly define development regulations, to better facilitate pedestrian-friendly development through building placement and streetscapes, and to encourage mixed-use development within Old Town. These changes are expected to enhance the visual characteristics of the Old Town area. Under the No Project Alternative, development would continue under the existing OTSP. Inconsistent development patterns would continue. The architectural styles, building heights, building massing, and building placement within the Old Town area would lack aesthetic consistency. Alternative 1 would not include a Hotel Overlay area that would allow for hotels of up to eight stories. Therefore, Alternative 1 would not have the potential for future development of a hotel that could adversely degrade the visual character of the site and its surroundings. The potential for significantly taller hotel buildings, allowed by the proposed amendment to the Specific Plan at the south end of the project site, would not exist under development of the existing Specific Plan (Alternative 1). As such, Alternative 1 would be less likely to create a new source of substantial light or glare, which could adversely affect daytime or nighttime views of the area. Air Quality The proposed Specific Plan Amendment would generate considerably fewer trips than development under Alternative 1 and thus lower CO emissions from traffic operations. Thus, the No Project Alternative (Alternative 1) would have greater air quality impacts compared to the proposed project. However, with development of the proposed project, automobile and truck trips would still result in significant increases in localized CO concentrations. Global Warming/Climate Change Similar to the proposed project, Alternative 1 would contribute to global climate change as a result of emissions of GHGs, primarily CO2, emitted by construction and operational activities. The proposed Specific Plan Amendment would have an approximate 1 percent increase in 5. Alternatives Old Town Specific Plan Amendment 6-8 ESA /D209294 Draft Environmental Impact Report February 2010 construction emissions compared to Alternative 1, and a 25 percent reduction from the Alternative 1 build-out emissions. Development under Alternative 1 would not introduce a mixed-use environment in which residents would benefit from nearby shopping and employment opportunities. Therefore, development under Alternative 1 would not reduce the community’s reliance on automobiles, resulting in greater GHG emissions compared to the Specific Plan Amendment. Cultural Resources Previously unknown and unrecorded archaeological resources could exist anywhere within the Specific Plan area, and may be unearthed during excavation and grading activities for individual projects. This can occur even in already developed areas, as older buildings are known to have often been built on top of or within archaeological deposits. As development and redevelopment would occur under both Alternative 1 and the proposed proposed project, previously undiscovered artifacts or remains could be uncovered during excavation or construction under both scenarios and significant impacts could occur. But impacts to cultural resources under both scenarios could be mitigated to less than significant levels with mitigation. Hydrology and Water Quality Construction of individual projects associated with Alternative 1 and the Specific Plan Amendment would include grading and other earth moving activities, which would expose onsite soils to erosion. Any proposed development within the OTSP area larger than 1 acre would have to satisfy all applicable requirements of the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Program and Chapter 8.24, Stormwater/Urban Runoff Management and Discharge Controls of the City of Temecula’s Municipal Code, to the satisfaction of the City of Temecula’s Public Works Department. These requirements include the preparation of a Standard Urban Storm Water Mitigation Plan (SWPPP), containing structural treatment and source control measures. Compliance with these requirements would ensure that construction-related impacts to water quality and waste discharge requirements would be less than significant under both development scenarios. The incremental increase of development under Alternative 1 as well as the proposed project is likely to contribute to non-point sources of pollution such as motor oil, fertilizers and pesticides, human littering, animal waste, and other pollutants typical of developed areas. However, development projects under both development scenarios would have a responsibility under NPDES Municipal Permit No. CAS004001 to ensure pollutant loads from the projects do not exceed total maximum daily loads for downstream receiving waters. Although build-out of the Old Town area under both Alternative 1 and the proposed project would incrementally increase, these two scenarios are not anticipated to result in a substantial depletion of groundwater supplies or substantial interference with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table. Neither development scenario is anticipated to affect the quantity of groundwater, either though direct additions or withdrawals, through interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations, or through substantial loss of groundwater recharge capability. 6. Alternatives Old Town Specific Plan Amendment 6-9 ESA /D209294 Draft Environmental Impact Report February 2010 The OTSP area is developed and served by existing stormwater collection and conveyance systems which empty into Murrieta Creek. Construction activities associated with development of Alternative 1 and the proposed project could result in localized changes to drainage patterns. These changes could increase the amount and rate of discharge into the storm drain system. Individual projects developed within the OTSP area would include project design features that would aid in the conveyance of stormwater to existing facilities. All runoff would continue to be conveyed via streets and gutters to storm drain locations within the Specific Plan area. Impacts associated with erosion or flooding would be similar under both scenarios. The majority of the project area has been previously developed. However, build-out of both Alternative 1 and the proposed project would decrease natural ground cover and increase impervious surfaces (such as paved areas and buildings). Increased runoff volume and peak discharge rates could exacerbate downstream drainage problems under both scenarios, particularly if the capacity of downstream infrastructure is inadequate. Increased detention basin capacity and improvements and expansion of the storm drainage network would be necessary to accommodate future storm flows, provide adequate drainage, and control flooding under both scenarios. Surface water runoff volumes and rates are anticipated to increase when the majority of the area is paved and developed under both scenarios. There would be no increased risk or exposure of people to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving inundation by a seiche, tsunami, or mudflow under Alternative 1 because the project site is not located near a coastal area, large body of water, or steep slopes. The project site is located approximately 23 miles from the Pacific Ocean, which is a sufficient distance to avoid tsunami impacts under either scenario. Land Use and Planning The majority of the project site is zoned SP-5. Unlike the proposed project, Alternative 1 would not include approximately 2.4 acres located south of First Street, an area currently zoned SC, and would not remove approximately 2.3 acres from the Specific Plan area. Thus, Alternative 1 would not require a zoning amendment and would be consistent with the zoning code. Under Alternative 1, there would be no changes to site planning guidelines, streetscape standards and guidelines, land use district locations and land use district titles, architectural standards and guidelines, parking lot guidelines, public art guidelines, paving material guidelines, outdoor dining/sidewalk furniture guidelines, sign regulations and guidelines, alley guidelines, and landscape guidelines within the Specific Plan. Unlike the proposed project, Alternative 1 would not amend the Specific Plan to more effectively implement the applicable goals and policies established in the General Plan. However, Alternative 1 implementation would not conflict with the adopted Specific Plan. Noise Under both Alternative 1 and the proposed project, noise levels at and near the construction areas would fluctuate depending on the particular type, number, and duration of uses of various pieces of construction equipment. Construction-related material haul trips would raise ambient noise levels 5. Alternatives Old Town Specific Plan Amendment 6-10 ESA /D209294 Draft Environmental Impact Report February 2010 along haul routes, depending on the number of haul trips made and types of vehicles used. Construction could also occur adjacent to sensitive receptors under both scenarios. Although construction noise levels under either scenario could be mitigated to reduce impacts, construction sites are noisy locations with heavy equipment that could substantially affect noise levels for nearby residents. Therefore, construction noise could at times be a short-term significant and unavoidable impact of both the proposed project and Alternative 1. Mixed-use areas are intended under the proposed project and Alternative 1. Noise impacts under both scenarios would be expected as delivery trucks would be used during on-site commercial operations and could potentially impact adjacent residents. However, the number of delivery trucks would depend on the individual businesses. Under both scenarios, most of the noise would primarily be generated from traffic. Both scenarios would contribute to an increase in local traffic volumes, resulting in higher noise levels along local roadways. However, build-out of the proposed Specific Plan Amendment would generate considerably fewer trips and less noise from traffic operations than build-out of the currently approved Specific Plan under Alternative 1. Traffic Development under Alternative 1 (build-out of the existing Specific Plan) would generate substantially more vehicle trips than the proposed project. The proposed project would increase traffic at a lesser rate than development under Alternative 1. Specifically, development under Alternative 1 would increase traffic by 106,092 ADT, with 5,957 AM peak hour trips and 9,925 PM peak hour trips as compared to the proposed project. Which would generate in comparison to the proposed project, development under Alternative 1 would not place a major emphasis upon additional pedestrian circulation in the area; therefore, Alternative Alternative 1 would not further reduce the vehicle trips in the area in comparison to the proposed project. Unlike development of the existing OTSP under Alternative 1, the proposed project would implement efforts to reduce cut-through traffic on Old Town Front Street and allow for a more even traffic distribution. Under the proposed project, the City of Temecula would expand Mercedes Street to reach Old Town Front Street on the north end and the intersection of Old Town Front Street at First Street/Santiago Road on the south end. In contrast to development under Alternative 1, the proposed project would propose roundabouts as traffic control devices within the Old Town area. Public Services and Utilities Build-out of the proposed project would replace existing residences with new multi-family residential structures, and would result in new consolidated locations for commercial and retail uses. In comparison to build-out of the existing Specific Plan under Alternative 1, the proposed project would result in in an increase in residential population (approximately 1,948 new residents3). 3 749 proposed residential units, multiplied by the City’s average persons per unit of 2.2, totals approximately 1,948 new residents. 6. Alternatives Old Town Specific Plan Amendment 6-11 ESA /D209294 Draft Environmental Impact Report February 2010 Therefore, Alternative 1 would require a contribution of fewer acres of parkland/open space to the City’s inventory of park space as compared to the proposed project. The projected residential square footage at build-out of Alternative 1 is 1,575,892 and the projected number of units is 1,659.4 Compared to the proposed project residential square footage of approximately 2,249,285 at build-out and the proposed project number of units at build-out of approximately 2,408, this is a difference of 673,393 additional square feet of residential and up to 749 additional units.5 Please refer to Table 6-3 below. TABLE 6-3 BUILD-OUT COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVE 1 AND PROPOSED PROJECT Proposed Project Alt. 1: No Project Alternative Residential Square Footage (Build-out) 2,249,285 1,575,892 Project Residential Units 2,408 1,659 SOURCE: Environmental Science Associates, 2010. The proposed project would intensify the land uses within the area (and expanded area proposed), increasing the demand for water and solid waste services for residential uses. However, the proposed project would reduce the commercial uses by approximately 700,000 square feet. No new increase in water for commercial uses is anticipated under the proposed project as compared to build-out under Alternative 1. Ability to Meet Project Objectives The No Project Alternative would not meet any of the project objectives (Table 6-1) and would maintain current conditions, as development would take place under the existing Specific Plan. Fulfillment of the City’s update to the current OTSP would not occur. Alternative 2: Increased Residential and Reduced Commercial Alternative The following discusses the impacts associated with Alternative 2 in comparison to the impacts of the proposed Specific Plan Amendment: Aesthetics Implementation of Alternative 2 would further increase residential development over the proposed project by 25 residential units and by by 1,100 residential units above what was contemplated in the existing OTSP. Alternative 2 would also decrease commercial development even further than the proposed project by 594,715 square feet and by 2,000,000 square feet from what was approved in the existing OTSP. This would increase the visual presence of attached 4 Written Communication, City of Temecula, Stuart Fisk, September 3, 2009. 5 Written Communication, City of Temecula, Stuart Fisk, September 3, 2009. 5. Alternatives Old Town Specific Plan Amendment 6-12 ESA /D209294 Draft Environmental Impact Report February 2010 residential or mixed-use development of up to three stories in the project area. This district would be located between the Civic Overlay just west of the I-15 corridor. In addition, there would be an increase in the allowed ratio of attached and detached three-story residential developments at a density of up to 35 dwelling units per acre. Typical housing types in this area may include singlefamily detached, duplexes, triplexes, townhouses, condominiums, apartments, and live/work units. This land use district would be located along the western side of the project area just west of the Open Space corridor which contains Murrieta Creek. Alternative 2 would also reduce commercial building floor space within the Downtown Core/Hotel Overlay area. This decrease in building floor space would occur along the east edge of the Open Space corridor which contains Murrieta Creek. This area is defined by multi-story urban buildings of up to four stories that are intended to accommodate art galleries, museums, restaurants and small-scale boutique retailers such as gift, specialty food, and antique shops, or similar retail uses. The residential uses in this area would increase under Alternative 2 and would not be restricted to the second floor and higher for parcels along Old Town Front Street and Main Street. Under Alternate 2, the four-story buildings within the Downtown Core, would contain multiple floors, at a minimum, restricted to residential use. However, visual impacts related to Alternative 2 would not be greater compared to the proposed project. The building sizing and placement would be identical regardless of commercial versus residential use. Air Quality Alternative 2 Construction Emissions NOx, ROG, PM10, PM2.5, CO, and CO2 construction emissions were estimated for based on default crew, truck trip, and equipment. Emissions are based on criteria pollutant emission factors from URBEMIS 2007. The results of this analysis are summarized in Table 6-4 through Table 6-6. As shown in Table 6-4, construction emissions of NOx, CO, PM10, and PM2.5 with construction under Alternative 2 would exceed SCAQMD thresholds of significance and would therefore be significant. The Proposed Specific Plan is shown in Table 6-5 to produce NOx, CO, PM10, and PM2.5 over the SCAQMD thresholds as well. Table 6-6 shows the difference in emissions levels from the proposed Specific Plan Amendment minus Alternative 2. As shown in Table 6-6, emissions of ROG, PM10, and PM2.5 are lower in Alternative 2 versus the Proposed Specific Plan. However, impacts under Alternative 2 would remain significant and unavoidable even with implementation of Mitigation Measures 3.2-2a through 3.2-2g as detailed in Section 3.2. Alternative 2 Operational Emissions As a result of the reduced amount of commercial building space under Alternative 2, there would be fewer trips generated per day and thus a reduction in air quality impacts within the OTSP area. Operational emissions under Alternative 2 would be lower in comparison to the proposed project, but remain significant and unavoidable as a result of long-term air quality impacts. The proposed Specific Plan Amendment would generate more vehicle trips than development under Alternative 2 and thus increased CO emissions from traffic operations. 6. Alternatives Old Town Specific Plan Amendment 6-13 ESA /D209294 Draft Environmental Impact Report February 2010 TABLE 6-4 MITIGATED EMISSIONS FROM ALTERNATIVE 2 CONSTRUCTION (pounds per day)a Project Data ROG NOx CO PM10 PM2.5b CO2 2010 59 383 522 358 89 78184 2015 44 256 379 351 82 78162 2020 33 163 188 346 78 78151 2025 31 152 238 346 78 78151 2030 30 148 211 346 78 78154 2035 29 146 195 346 78 78157 2040 29 145 185 346 78 78158 SCAQMD Thresholds of Significance 75 100 550 150 55 NA Significant (Yes or No)? No Yes Yes Yes Yes NA a Project construction emissions estimates for off-road equipment were made using URBEMIS2007, version 9.2. See Appendix AQ for more details. b PM10 and PM2.5 emission estimates are based on compliance with SCAQMD Rule 403 requirements for fugitive dust suppression, which require that no visible dust be present beyond the site boundaries. NOTE: Values in bold are in excess of the applicable SCAQMD significance threshold. NA = Not Available SOURCE: ESA, 2010. TABLE 6-5 MITIGATED MITIGATED EMISSIONS FROM EXISTING SPECIFIC PLAN CONSTRUCTION (pounds per day)a Project Data ROG NOx CO PM10 PM2.5b CO2 2010 66 386 599 517 122 87170 2015 50 258 434 510 116 87141 2020 39 164 326 505 112 87128 2025 36 153 266 505 111 87127 2030 35 149 233 505 111 87130 2035 34 147 213 505 111 87134 2040 34 156 201 505 111 87136 SCAQMD Thresholds of Significance 75 100 550 150 55 NA Significant (Yes or No)? No Yes Yes Yes Yes NA a Project construction emissions estimates for off-road equipment were made using URBEMIS2007, version 9.2. See Appendix AQ for more details. b PM10 and PM2.5 emission estimates are based on compliance with SCAQMD Rule 403 requirements for fugitive dust suppression, which require that no visible dust be present beyond the site boundaries. NOTE: Values in bold are in excess of the applicable SCAQMD significance threshold. NA = Not Available SOURCE: ESA, 2010. 5. Alternatives Old Town Specific Plan Amendment 6-14 ESA /D209294 Draft Environmental Impact Report February 2010 TABLE 6-6 PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION EMISSIONS MINUS ALTERNATIVE 2 CONSTRUCTION EMISSIONS (pounds per day)a Project Data ROG NOx CO PM10 PM2.5b CO2 2010 7 3 77 159 33 8986 2015 6 2 55 159 34 8979 2020 6 1 138 159 34 8977 2025 5 1 28 159 33 8976 2030 5 1 22 159 33 8976 2035 5 1 18 159 33 8977 2040 5 11 16 159 33 8978 SCAQMD Thresholds of Significance 75 100 550 150 55 NA Significant (Yes or No)? No No No Yes No NA a Project construction emissions estimates for off-road equipment were made using URBEMIS2007, version 9.2. See Appendix AQ for more details. b PM10 and PM2.5 emission estimates are based on compliance with SCAQMD Rule 403 requirements for fugitive dust suppression, which require that no visible dust be present beyond the site boundaries. NOTE: Values in bold are in excess of the applicable SCAQMD significance threshold. NA = Not Available SOURCE: ESA, 2010. Operational emissions for mobile mobile and area sources are based on criteria pollutant emission factors from URBEMIS 2007. The results of this analysis are summarized in Table 6-7 through Table 6-9. As shown in Table 6-7, build-out of the Alternative 2 would exceed all SCAQMD thresholds of significance and would therefore be significant. As shown in Table 6-8, the operational emissions with build-out of the existing Specific Plan would also exceed all SCAQMD thresholds. When the Alternative 2 is compared to the proposed project, as shown in Table 6-9, a major reduction of all emissions occurs. Though Mitigation Measures 3.2-3a through 3.2-3d would reduce operational emissions, the impact would remain significant and unavoidable. TABLE 6-7 ALTERNATIVE 2 OPERATIONAL EMISSIONS (pounds per day)a Project Data ROG NOx CO PM10 PM2.5 CO2 Area Sources 143 41 29 <1 <1 50,777 Mobile Sources 600 865 7,693 1,408 274 838,577 Total 743 906 7,722 1,409 274 889,354 SCAQMD Thresholds of Significance 55 55 550 150 55 NA Significant (Yes or No)? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes NA a Project emissions estimates were made using URBEMIS2007, version 9.2. See Appendix AQ for more details. NOTE: Values in bold are in excess of the applicable SCAQMD significance threshold. NA = Not Available SOURCE: ESA, 2010. 6. Alternatives Old Town Specific Plan Amendment 6-15 ESA /D209294 Draft Environmental Impact Report February 2010 TABLE 6-8 PROPOSED SPECIFIC PLAN OPERATIONAL EMISSIONS (pounds per day)a Project Data ROG NOx CO PM10 PM2.5 CO2 Area Sources 146 46 34 <1 <1 57,363 Mobile Sources 763 1,106 9825 1,802 351 1,072,376 Total 908 1,153 9,859 1,802 351 1,129,739 SCAQMD Thresholds of Significance 55 55 550 150 55 NA Significant (Yes or No)? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes NA a Project emissions estimates were made using URBEMIS2007, version 9.2. See Appendix AQ for more details. NOTE: Values in bold are in excess of the applicable SCAQMD significance threshold. NA = Not Available SOURCE: ESA, 2010. TABLE 6-9 PROPOSED SPECIFIC PLAN OPERATIONAL EMISSIONS MINUS ALTERNATIVE 2 OPERATIONAL EMISSIONS (pounds per day)a Project Data ROG NOx CO PM10 PM2.5 CO2 Difference between Total Proposed SP Emissions and Alternative 2 Emissions 165 247 2,137 393 77 240,385 SCAQMD Thresholds of Significance 55 55 550 150 55 NA Significant (Yes or No)? No No No No No No a Project emissions estimates were made using URBEMIS2007, version 9.2. See Appendix AQ for more details. NOTE: Values in bold are in excess of the applicable SCAQMD significance threshold. NA = Not Available SOURCE: ESA, 2010. Global Warming/Climate Change Implementation of Alternative 2 would involve an increase in residential uses within the OTSP area and a corresponding reduction in daily traffic trips. Similar to the proposed project, Alternative 2 would contribute to global climate change as a result of emissions of GHGs, primarily CO2, emitted by construction and operational activities. However, the proposed Specific Plan Amendment would have a greater increase in build-out emissions than Alternative 2. Development under Alternative 2 would introduce a higher density of residential uses as compared to the proposed project, which would still create a mixed-use environment in which residents would benefit from nearby shopping and employment opportunities. This increase in residential uses would correspond to fewer vehicle trips traveled on a daily basis and thus a reduction in the community’s reliance on automobiles in comparison to the proposed project, resulting in fewer GHG emissions. Proposed project construction GHG emissions would be approximately 9,955 metric tons of CO2e/yr. The Alternative 2 construction greenhouse gas emissions would be approximately 9,254 metric tons of CO2E/yr. Therefore Alternative 2 would have a 7 percent reduction of construction emissions compared to the proposed Specific Plan Amendment. 5. Alternatives Old Town Specific Plan Amendment 6-16 ESA /D209294 Draft Environmental Impact Report February 2010 Alternative 2 operational GHG emissions from vehicle trips and space heating would be approximately 143,145 metric tons of CO2e/yr, and indirect operation emissions from electricity generation would be approximately 3,760 metric tons of CO2e/yr, totaling 146,905 metric tons of CO2e/yr. Alternative 2 would be classified as a major source of greenhouse gas emissions (total emissions would exceed the lower reporting limit, which is 25,000 metric tons of CO2e/yr). The proposed Specific Plan Amendment build-out operational GHG emissions from vehicle trips and space heating would be approximately 181,717 metric tons of CO2e/yr, and indirect operation emissions from electricity generation would be approximately 10,939 metric tons of CO2e/yr, totaling 192,657 metric tons of CO2e/yr. Therefore Alternative 2 emissions would have a 24 percent reduction compared to the proposed Specific Plan emissions. When compared to the overall state emissions limit of approximately 427 million metric tons CO2e/yr, the proposed Specific Plan build-out (146,905 metric tons CO2e/yr) would be 0.08 percent of the state goal. However, since the project would result in GHG emissions that would exceed the major source threshold (25,000 metric tons CO2e/yr) and the SCAQMD GHG screening threshold (3,000 metric tons CO2e/yr), the project would potentially conflict with the state’s ability to meet the AB32 goals. Please refer to Mitigation Measure 3.3-1 in Section 3.3; however, impacts would remain significant and unavoidable. For GHG calculations see Appendix D. Cultural Resources Previously unknown and unrecorded archaeological resources could exist anywhere within the Specific Plan area, and may be unearthed during excavation and grading activities for individual projects. This can occur even in already developed areas, as older buildings are known to have often been built on top of or within archaeological deposits. Previously undiscovered artifacts or remains could still be uncovered during excavation or construction under both scenarios and significant impacts could occur. But impacts to cultural resources under both scenarios could be mitigated to less than significant levels with mitigation. Hydrology and Water Quality Construction of individual projects associated with Alternative 2 and the Specific Plan Amendment would include grading and other earth moving activities, which would expose onsite soils to erosion. Any proposed development within the OTSP area larger than 1 acre would have to satisfy all applicable requirements of the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Program and Chapter 8.24, Stormwater/Urban Runoff Management and Discharge Controls of the City of Temecula’s Municipal Code, to the satisfaction of the City of Temecula’s Public Works Department. These requirements include the preparation of a Standard Urban Storm Water Mitigation Plan (SWPPP), containing structural treatment and source control measures applicable to the individual project. Compliance with these requirements would ensure that construction-related impacts to water quality and waste discharge requirements would be less than significant under both development scenarios. The incremental increase of development under Alternative 2 and the proposed project is likely to contribute to non-point sources of pollution such as motor oil, fertilizers and pesticides, human 6. Alternatives Old Town Specific Plan Amendment 6-17 ESA /D209294 Draft Environmental Impact Report February 2010 littering, animal waste, and other pollutants typical of developed areas. However, development projects under both development scenarios would have a responsibility under NPDES Municipal Permit No. CAS004001 to ensure pollutant loads from the projects do not exceed total maximum daily loads for downstream receiving waters. Although project build-out under Alternative 2 and the proposed project would incrementally increase, neither of these scenarios are anticipated to result in a substantial depletion of groundwater supplies or substantial interference with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table. Neither development scenario is anticipated to affect the quantity of groundwater either though direct additions or withdrawals, interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations, or substantial loss of groundwater recharge capability. The OTSP area is developed and served by existing stormwater collection and conveyance systems which empty into Murrieta Creek. Construction activities associated with development of Alternative 2 and the proposed project could result in localized changes to drainage patterns. These changes could increase the amount and rate of discharge into the storm drain system. Individual projects developed within the OTSP area would include project design features that would aid in the conveyance of stormwater to existing facilities. All runoff would continue to be conveyed via streets and gutters to storm drain locations within the Specific Plan area. Impacts associated with erosion or flooding would remain similar under both scenarios. The majority of the planning area is developed. However, build-out of both Alternative 2 and the Specific Plan Amendment would decrease natural ground cover and increase impervious surfaces (such as paved areas and buildings). Increased runoff volume and peak discharge discharge rates could exacerbate downstream drainage problems under both scenarios, particularly if the capacity of downstream infrastructure is inadequate. Increased detention basin capacity and improvements and expansion of the storm drainage network would be necessary to accommodate future storm flows, provide adequate drainage, and control flooding under both scenarios. Surface water runoff volumes and rates are anticipated to increase when the majority of the area is paved and developed under both scenarios. There would be no increased risk or exposure of people to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving inundation by a seiche, tsunami, or mudflow under Alternative 2 because the project site is not located near a coastal area, large body of water, or steep slopes. The project site is located approximately 23 miles from the Pacific Ocean, which is a sufficient distance to avoid tsunami impacts. Land Use and Planning Similar to the proposed Specific Plan Amendment, Alternative 2 would also also strive to better facilitate pedestrian-friendly development through building placement and streetscapes, and to encourage mixed-use development within Old Town. Alternative 2 would implement many of the SCAG policies related to high-density, infill development that is pedestrian oriented and introduce high-density residential uses. This would create a mixed-use environment in which residents would benefit from nearby shopping and employment opportunities, reducing the 5. Alternatives Old Town Specific Plan Amendment 6-18 ESA /D209294 Draft Environmental Impact Report February 2010 community’s reliance on automobiles. Increasing residential uses under Alternative 2 would not be inconsistent with the existing General Plan land uses designated for the project site. Alternative 2 would be consistent with all relevant policies of the City’s General Plan, including those identified in the Community Design Element. Similar to the proposed project, the inclusion or annexation of approximately 2.4 acres into the OTSP are located south of First Street, currently zoned SC, would still be part of Alternative 2. Thus, the inclusion would require a zoning amendment to reflect the incorporation of the proposed 2.4 acres into SP-5 zone. Also, Alternative 2 would result in the removal of approximately 2.3 acres from the Specific Plan, at a location west of the intersection of Sixth Street and Pujol Street. This would also require a zoning amendment to reflect the exclusion of these lands lands from the SP-5 zone. Similar to the proposed project, Alternative 2 would incorporate form-based code principles to more clearly define development regulations, to better facilitate pedestrian-friendly development through building placement and streetscapes, and to encourage mixed-use development within Old Town. Noise Most of the noise generated by the implementation of Alternative 2 and the proposed Specific Plan Amendment would primarily be traffic-generated noise. Trip generation rates are typically greater for commercial building space uses than residential uses. Alternative 2 would involve increasing the amount of residential units and reducing the overall building floor space for commercial use in comparison to the proposed project. As a result of the reduced amount of commercial building space under Alternative 2, there would be fewer trips generated per day and a reduction in associated noise impacts within the OTSP area compared to the proposed project. Traffic Trip generation rates are typically greater for commercial building space uses as compared to residential uses (see example in Section 6.1.3). Alternative 2 would increase the number of residential units and reduce the overall building floor space for commercial use in comparison to the proposed project. As a result of the reduced amount of commercial building space under Alternative 2, there would be fewer trips generated per day. Public Services and Utilities Alternative 2 would increase demand for water and solid waste services for residential uses in the Specific Plan area. Build-out of Alternative 2 would replace existing residences with new multifamily residential structures, and would result in new consolidated locations for commercial and retail uses. Alternative 2 would result in an increase in residential population (approximately 2,003 new residents6). In order to maintain the ratio of five acres of parkland per 1,000 residents, the proposed Specific Plan area, under Alternative 2, would need to contribute 10.02 acres of parkland/open space to the City’s inventory of park space. There are 538 existing (on ground) 6 Multi-family dwelling unit assumption of 2.2 persons/du. 6. Alternatives Old Town Specific Plan Amendment 6-19 ESA /D209294 Draft Environmental Impact Report February 2010 residential units in the existing Specific Plan Area that would require approximately 2.69 acres of parkland/open space. Taken together, the total amount of parkland/open space for existing and Alternative 2 development would be approximately 12.89 acres (10.2 acres for Alternative 2 residential and 2.69 acres existing residential). There are 26 single-family units along the freeway that would be removed and replaced with mixed-use development under Alternative 2. Thus, the actual open space/parkland needed would be less. As stated in the City’s General Plan, the basic park acreage standard for the City of Temecula is 5.0 acres of usable City-owned parkland per 1,000 residents. This standard does not include special use facilities, natural open space, or trails; as such, although the open space corridor associated with Alternative 2 would be increased by 5.7 acres, this area would not contribute towards the parks and recreational facilities requirement. Within the OTSP area, the Sam Hicks Memorial Park would provide 2 acres of parkland and the Civic Center Plaza would contribute .45 acres of recreational facilities towards this requirement. However, there would still be a need for the contribution of 7.29 acres of parks and recreational facilities into the City’s inventory of park space as a result of Alternative 2. Although the additional open space provided by Alternative 2 would not contribute towards the parks and recreational facilities requirement, this additional open space area would still have a beneficial affect on the City an OTSP area. Overall, due to the improvements proposed by Alternative 2 (improved landscaping and walkways, etc.) and implementation of the Mitigation Measures 3.8-1 through 3.8-3 listed in Section 3.8, impacts would be less than significant. Furthermore, all development projects must contribute their fair share to the maintenance or provision of public services through payment of the City’s Development Impact Fee. Ability to Meet Project Objectives Alternative 2 would achieve some of the proposed project objectives by updating the current OTSP to provide enhanced desired services within the plan area to both City residents and visitors while being compatible with the nearby residential area; respecting the history of the OTSP area while fitting with current economics, accommodating greater density and encouraging a variety of architectural styles; and implementing significant new investment in the Old Town area to help promote rapid growth in Temecula Valley and develop a renewed interest in town centers and mixed-use development. However, Alternative 2 would be less focused on promoting economic activity within the City to maintain a healthy economy, as residential development would be emphasized. Therefore, Alternative 2 would not fully achieve all of the project objectives (see Table 6-1). Alternative 3: Reduced Residential and Increased Commercial Alternative The following discusses the impacts associated with Alternative 3 in comparison to the impacts of the proposed Specific Plan Amendment: 5. Alternatives Old Town Specific Plan Amendment 6-20 ESA /D209294 Draft Environmental Impact Report February 2010 Aesthetics Implementation of Alternative 3 would decrease the residential living space within the Residential/Limited Mixed Uses Districts and Neighborhood Residential District and increase commercial building space located on the southern portion of the OTSP area and throughout the eastern side of the open space corridor. This would decrease the visual presence of attached residential or mixed-use development of up to three stories in the project area and increase the visual presence of retail, office, and service-type commercial uses. There would be a decrease in the allowed ratio of attached and detached three-story residential developments at a density of up to 35 dwelling units per acre. The visual presence of residential uses that are permitted in the Downtown Core District that are restricted to the second floor and higher for parcels along Old Town Front Steet and Main Street would be reduced under Alternative 3. In addition, the visual presence of residential uses within the Residential/Limited Mixed Use District that would occur above the first floor (first floor would accommodate commercial uses) would be reduced as well. Alternative 3 would increase building floor space within the Downtown Core/Hotel Overlay area. This increase in building floor space would occur along the east edge of the Open Space corridor which contains Murrieta Creek. This area is defined by multi-story urban buildings of up to four stories that are intended to accommodate art galleries, museums, restaurants and small-scale boutique retailers such as gift, specialty food, and antique shops, or similar retail uses. As stated under Alternative 2, the visual impacts (as they relate to Alternative 3) would not be greater compared to the proposed project. The building sizing and placement would be identical regardless of commercial versus residential use. Air Quality Alternative 3 Construction Emissions NOx, ROG, PM10, PM10, PM2.5, CO, and CO2 construction emissions were estimated for based on default crew, truck trip, and equipment. Emissions are based on criteria pollutant emission factors from URBEMIS 2007. The results of this analysis are summarized in Table 6-10 through Table 6-12. As shown in Table 6-10, construction emissions of NOx, CO, PM10, and PM2.5 with construction under Alternative 2 would exceed SCAQMD thresholds of significance and would therefore be significant. The Proposed Specific Plan is shown in Table 6-11 to produce NOx, CO, PM10, and PM2.5 over the SCAQMD thresholds as well. Table 6-12 shows the difference in emissions levels from the proposed Specific Plan Amendment minus Alternative 2. As shown in Table 6-12, emissions of ROG, PM10, and PM2.5 are lower in Alternative 3 versus the Proposed Specific Plan. However, impacts under Alternative 3 would remain significant and unavoidable even with implementation of Mitigation Measures 3.2-2a through 3.2-2g found in Section 3.2. Alternative 3 Operational Emissions As a result of the increased amount of commercial building space under Alternative 2, there would be more trips generated per day and thus an increase in air quality impacts within the OTSP area. Operational emissions under Alternative 3 would be higher in comparison to the proposed project, and would be significant and unavoidable as a result of long term air quality impacts. Alternative 2 would generate more vehicle trips than development under the proposed Specific Plan Amendment and thus increased CO emissions from traffic operations. 6. Alternatives Old Town Specific Plan Amendment 6-21 ESA /D209294 Draft Environmental Impact Report February 2010 TABLE 6-10 MITIGATED EMISSIONS FROM ALTERNATIVE 3 CONSTRUCTION (pounds per day)a Project Data ROG NOx CO PM10 PM2.5b CO2 2010 57 355 461 374 91 68620 2015 43 241 338 369 86 68600 2020 33 154 259 364 82 68591 2025 31 146 217 364 81 68590 2030 30 143 194 364 81 68592 2035 30 141 180 364 81 68595 2040 30 141 172 357 81 68596 SCAQMD Thresholds of Significance 75 100 550 150 55 NA Significant (Yes or No)? No Yes Yes Yes Yes NA a Project construction emissions estimates for off-road equipment were made using URBEMIS2007, version 9.2. See Appendix AQ for more details. b PM10 and PM2.5 emission estimates are based on compliance with SCAQMD Rule 403 requirements for fugitive dust suppression, which require that no visible dust be present beyond the site boundaries. NOTE: Values in bold are in excess of the applicable SCAQMD significance threshold. NA = Not Available SOURCE: ESA, 2010. TABLE 6-11 MITIGATED EMISSIONS FROM EXISTING SPECIFIC PLAN CONSTRUCTION (pounds per day)a Project Data ROG NOx CO PM10 PM2.5b CO2 2010 66 386 599 517 122 87170 2015 50 258 434 510 116 87141 2020 39 164 326 505 112 87128 2025 36 153 266 505 111 87127 2030 35 149 233 505 111 87130 2035 34 147 213 505 111 87134 2040 34 156 201 505 111 87136 SCAQMD Thresholds of Significance 75 100 550 150 55 NA Significant (Yes or No)? No Yes Yes Yes Yes NA a Project construction emissions estimates for off-road equipment were made using URBEMIS2007, version 9.2. See Appendix AQ for more details. b PM10 and PM2.5 emission estimates are based on compliance with SCAQMD Rule 403 requirements for fugitive dust suppression, which require that no visible dust be present beyond the site boundaries. NOTE: Values in bold are in excess of the applicable SCAQMD significance threshold. NA = Not Available SOURCE: ESA, 2010. 5. Alternatives Old Town Specific Plan Amendment 6-22 ESA /D209294 Draft Environmental Impact Report February 2010 TABLE 6-12 PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION EMISSIONS MINUS ALTERNATIVE 3 CONSTRUCTION EMISSIONS (pounds per day)a Project Data ROG NOx CO PM10 PM2.5b CO2 2010 9 31 138 143 31 18550 2015 7 17 96 141 30 18541 2020 6 10 67 141 30 18537 2025 5 7 49 141 30 18537 2030 5 6 39 141 30 18538 2035 4 6 33 141 30 18539 2040 4 15 29 148 30 18540 SCAQMD Thresholds of Significance 75 100 550 150 55 NA Significant (Yes or No)? No No No Yes No NA a Project construction emissions estimates for off-road equipment were made using URBEMIS2007, version 9.2. See Appendix AQ for more details. b PM10 and PM2.5 emission estimates are based on compliance with SCAQMD Rule 403 requirements for fugitive dust suppression, which require that no visible dust be present beyond the site boundaries. NOTE: Values in bold are in excess of the applicable SCAQMD significance threshold. NA = Not Available SOURCE: ESA, 2010. Operational emissions emissions for mobile and area sources are based on criteria pollutant emission factors from URBEMIS 2007. The results of this analysis are summarized in Table 6-13 through Table 6-15. As shown in Table 6-13, build-out of the Alternative 3 would exceed all SCAQMD thresholds of significance and would therefore be significant and unavoidable. As shown in Table 6-14, the operational emissions with build-out of the existing Specific Plan would also exceed all SCAQMD thresholds. When the Alternative 3 is compared to the proposed project, as shown in Table 6-15, the proposed project would produce less operational emissions. Though Mitigation Measures 3.2-3a through 3.2-3d would reduce operational emissions, the impact would remain significant and unavoidable. TABLE 6-13 ALTERNATIVE 3 OPERATIONAL EMISSIONS (pounds per day)a Project Data ROG NOx CO PM10 PM2.5 CO2 Area Sources 72 36 31 <1 <1 44,442 Mobile Sources 806 1,185 10,487 1,930 376 1,147,840 Total 878 1,222 10,518 1,930 376 1,192,282 SCAQMD Thresholds of Significance 55 55 550 150 55 NA Significant (Yes or No)? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes NA a Project emissions estimates were made using URBEMIS2007, version 9.2. See Appendix AQ for more details. NOTE: Values in bold are in excess of the applicable SCAQMD significance threshold. NA = Not Available SOURCE: ESA, 2010. 6. Alternatives Old Town Specific Plan Amendment 6-23 ESA /D209294 Draft Environmental Impact Report February 2010 TABLE 6-14 PROPOSED SPECIFIC PLAN OPERATIONAL EMISSIONS (pounds per day)a Project Data ROG NOx CO PM10 PM2.5 CO2 Area Sources 146 46 34 <1 <1 57,363 Mobile Sources 763 1,106 9825 1,802 351 1,072,376 Total 908 1,153 9,859 1,802 351 1,129,739 SCAQMD Thresholds of Significance 55 55 550 150 55 NA Significant (Yes or No)? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes NA a Project emissions estimates were made using URBEMIS2007, version 9.2. See Appendix AQ for more details. NOTE: Values in bold are in excess of the applicable SCAQMD significance threshold. NA = Not Available SOURCE: ESA, 2010. TABLE 6-15 PROPOSED SPECIFIC PLAN OPERATIONAL EMISSIONS MINUS ALTERNATIVE 2 OPERATIONAL EMISSIONS (pounds per day)a Project Data ROG NOx CO PM10 PM2.5 CO2 Difference between Total Proposed SP Emissions and Alternative 2 Emissions 30 -69 -659 -128 -25 -62,543 SCAQMD Thresholds of Significance 55 55 550 150 55 NA Significant (Yes or No)? No No No No No No a Project emissions estimates were made using URBEMIS2007, version 9.2. See Appendix AQ for more details. NOTE: Values in bold are in excess of the applicable SCAQMD significance threshold. NA = Not Available SOURCE: ESA, 2010. Global Warming/Climate Change Implementation of Alternative 3 would involve a decrease in residential uses and an increase of commercial development within the OTSP area and a corresponding increase in daily traffic trips. Similar to the proposed project, Alternative 3 would contribute to global climate change as a result of emissions of GHGs, primarily CO2, emitted by construction and operational activities. However, the proposed Specific Plan Amendment would have a smaller increase in build-out emissions than Alternative 3. Development under Alternative 3 would introduce a higher density of residential uses as compared to the proposed project, which would still create a mixed-use environment in which residents would benefit from nearby shopping and employment opportunities. This increase in residential uses would correspond to fewer vehicle trips traveled on a daily basis and thus a reduction in the community’s reliance on automobiles in comparison to the proposed project, resulting in fewer GHG emissions. Proposed project construction GHG emissions would be approximately 9,955 metric tons of CO2e/yr. The Alternative 3 construction greenhouse gas emissions would be approximately 8,154 5. Alternatives Old Town Specific Plan Amendment 6-24 ESA /D209294 Draft Environmental Impact Report February 2010 metric tons of CO2E/yr. Therefore Alternative 3 would have an 18 percent reduction of construction emissions compared to the proposed Specific Plan Amendment. Alternative 3 operational GHG emissions from vehicle trips and space heating would be approximately 191,509 metric tons of CO2e/yr, and indirect operation emissions from electricity generation would be approximately 1,842 metric tons of CO2e/yr, totaling 193,351 metric tons of CO2e/yr. Alternative 3 would be classified as a major source of greenhouse gas emissions (total emissions would exceed the lower reporting limit, which is 25,000 metric tons of CO2e/yr). The proposed Specific Plan Amendment build-out operational GHG emissions from vehicle trips and space heating would be approximately 181,717 metric tons of CO2e/yr, and indirect operation emissions from electricity generation would be approximately 10,939 metric tons of CO2e/yr, totaling 192,657 metric tons of CO2e/yr. Therefore Alternative 2 emissions would have a 4% percent increase compared to the proposed Specific Plan emissions. When compared to the overall state emissions limit of approximately 427 million metric tons CO2e/yr, the proposed Specific Plan build-out (146,905 metric tons CO2e/yr) would be 0.1 percent of the state goal. However, since the project would result in GHG emissions that would exceed the major source threshold (25,000 metric tons CO2e/yr) and the SCAQMD GHG screening threshold (3,000 metric tons CO2e/yr), the project would potentially conflict with the state’s ability to meet the AB32 goals. Please refer to Mitigation Measure 3.3-1 in Section 3.3; however, impacts would remain significant and unavoidable. For GHG calculations see Appendix D. Cultural Resources Previously unknown and unrecorded archaeological resources could exist anywhere within the Specific Plan area, and may be unearthed during excavation and grading activities for individual projects. This can occur even in already developed areas, as older buildings are known to have often been built on top of or within archaeological deposits. Previously undiscovered artifacts or remains could still be uncovered during excavation or construction under both scenarios and significant impacts could occur. But impacts to cultural resources under both scenarios could be mitigated to less than significant levels with mitigation. Hydrology and Water Quality Construction of individual projects associated with Alternative 3 and the Specific Plan Amendment would include grading and other earth moving activities, which would expose onsite soils to erosion. Any proposed development within the OTSP area larger than 1 acre would have to satisfy all applicable requirements of the NPDES Program and Chapter 8.34, Stormwater/Urban Runoff Management and Discharge Controls of the City of Temecula’s Municipal Code, to the satisfaction of the City of Temecula’s Public Works Department. These requirements include the preparation preparation of a SWPPP, containing structural treatment and source control measures applicable to the individual project. Compliance with these requirements would ensure that construction-related impacts to water quality and waste discharge requirements would be less than significant under both development scenarios. 6. Alternatives Old Town Specific Plan Amendment 6-25 ESA /D209294 Draft Environmental Impact Report February 2010 The incremental increase of commercial and residential development under Alternative 3 and the proposed project is likely to contribute to non-point sources of pollution such as motor oil, fertilizers and pesticides, human littering, animal waste, and other pollutants typical of developed areas. However, development projects under both development scenarios would have a responsibility under NPDES Municipal Permit No. CAS004001 to ensure pollutant loads from the projects do not exceed total maximum daily loads for downstream receiving waters. Although project build-out under Alternative 3 and the proposed project would incrementally increase, neither of these scenarios are anticipated to result in a substantial depletion of groundwater supplies or substantial interference with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table. Neither development scenario is anticipated to affect the quantity of groundwater either though direct additions or withdrawals, interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations, or substantial loss of groundwater recharge capability. The OTSP area is developed and served by existing stormwater collection and conveyance systems which empty into Murrieta Creek. Construction activities associated with development of Alternative 3 and the proposed project could result in localized changes to drainage patterns. These changes could increase the amount and rate of discharge into the storm drain system. Individual projects developed within the OTSP area would include project design features that would aid in the conveyance of stormwater to existing facilities. All runoff would continue to be conveyed via streets and gutters to storm drain locations within the Specific Plan area. Impacts associated with erosion or flooding would remain similar under both scenarios. The majority of the planning area is developed. However, build-out of both Alternative 3 and the Specific Plan Amendment would decrease natural ground cover and increase impervious surfaces (such as paved areas and buildings). Increased runoff volume and peak discharge rates could exacerbate downstream drainage problems under both scenarios, particularly if the capacity of downstream infrastructure is inadequate. Increased detention basin capacity and improvements and expansion of the storm drainage network would be necessary to accommodate future storm flows, provide adequate drainage, and control flooding under both scenarios. Surface water runoff volumes and rates are anticipated to increase when the majority of the area is paved and developed under both scenarios. There would be no increased risk or exposure of people to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving inundation by a seiche, tsunami, or mudflow under Alternative 3 because the project site is not located near a coastal area, large body of water, or steep slopes. The project site is located approximately 33 miles from the Pacific Ocean, which is a sufficient distance to avoid tsunami impacts. Land Use and Planning Similar to the proposed Specific Plan Amendment, Alternative 3 would also strive to better facilitate pedestrian-friendly development through building placement and streetscapes, and to encourage mixed-use development within Old Town. Alternative 3 would implement many of the SCAG policies related to high-density, infill development that is pedestrian oriented and 5. Alternatives Old Town Specific Plan Amendment 6-26 ESA /D209294 Draft Environmental Impact Report February 2010 introduce high-density residential uses. This would create a mixed-use environment in which residents would benefit from nearby shopping and employment opportunities, reducing the community’s reliance on automobiles. Decreasing residential uses under Alternative 3 would not be inconsistent with the existing General Plan land uses designated for the project site. Alternative 3 would be consistent with all relevant policies of the City’s General Plan, including those identified in the Community Design Element. Similar to the proposed project, the inclusion or annexation of approximately 2.4 acres into the OTSP are located south of First Street, currently zoned SC, would still be part of Alternative 3. Thus, the inclusion would require a zoning amendment to reflect the incorporation of the proposed 3.4 acres into SP-5 zone. Also, Alternative 3 would result in the removal of approximately 2.3 acres acres from the Specific Plan, at a location west of the intersection of Sixth Street and Pujol Street. This would also require a zoning amendment to reflect the exclusion of these lands from the SP-5 zone. Similar to the proposed project, Alternative 3 would incorporate form-based code principles to more clearly define development regulations, to better facilitate pedestrian-friendly development through building placement and streetscapes, and to encourage mixed-use development within Old Town. Noise Most of the noise generated by the implementation of Alternative 3 and the proposed Specific Plan Amendment would primarily be traffic-generated noise. Trip generation rates are typically greater for commercial building space uses than residential uses. Alternative 3 would involve decreasing the amount of residential units and increasing the building floor space for commercial use in comparison to the proposed project. As a result of the increased amount of commercial building space under Alternative 3, there would be increased trips generated per day and an increase in associated noise impacts within the OTSP area compared to the proposed project. Traffic Trip generation rates are typically greater for commercial building space uses as compared to residential uses (see example in Section 6.1.3). Alternative 3 would decrease the number of residential units and increase the building floor space for commercial use in comparison to the proposed project. As a result of the increased amount of commercial building space under Alternative 3, there would be increased trips generated per day. Public Services and Utilities Alternative 3 would increase the demand for water and solid waste services for commercial uses in the Specific Plan area. Build-out of Alternative 3 would replace existing residences with new multi-family residential structures, and would result in new consolidated locations for commercial and retail uses. Alternative 3 would result in a decrease in residential population compared to the proposed project and approved OTSP. Therefore, in comparison, Alternative 3 would not increase 6. Alternatives Old Town Specific Plan Amendment 6-27 ESA /D209294 Draft Environmental Impact Report February 2010 the need for the contribution of parks and recreational facilities into the City’s inventory of park space as fewer residences in the area would place a demand of recreational park uses. Ability to Meet Project Objectives Alternative 3 would achieve some of the proposed project objectives by updating the current OTSP to provide enhanced desired services within the plan area to both City residents and visitors while being compatible with the nearby residential area and respecting the history of the OTSP area. Alternative 3 would also encourage a variety of architectural styles and implement significant new investment in the Old Town area to help promote rapid growth in Temecula Valley and develop a renewed interest in town centers and mixed-use development. Alternative 3 would be more focused on promoting economic activity within the City because residential development would not be emphasized. Alternative 3 would not, however, encourage development of an increased number of high-quality residential neighborhoods as compared to the existing OTSP and proposed project. Therefore, Alternative 3 would not fully achieve all of the project objectives. 6.3 Environmentally Superior Alternative The CEQA Guidelines, Section 15126.6(e)(2), requires the identification of the environmentally superior alternative. Alternative 2 would be environmentally superior to the proposed project based on the minimization of environmental impacts; specifically, development under Alternative 2 would result in a reduction of traffic, air and noise impacts. However, Alternative 2 would be less focused on promoting economic activity within the City because residential development would be emphasized. Therefore, Alternative 2 would not fully achieve all of the project objectives. Old Town Specific Plan Amendment 7-1 ESA /D209294 Draft Environmental Impact Report February 2010 CHAPTER 7 Acronyms, References and List of Preparers 7.1 Acronyms AB Assembly Bill AB 1740 Ducheny Bill AC Acres ADT Average Daily Traffic AF Acre-feet AMSL above mean sea level AQMP Air Quality Management Plan BMPs Best Management Practices CAAQS California Ambient Air Quality Standards Caltrans California Department of Transportation CAPCOA California Air Pollution Control Officers Association CARB California Air Resources Board CCAA California Clean Air Act CCR California Code of Regulations CDPH California Department of Public Health CEQA California Environmental Quality Act CETAP Community Environment Transportation Acceptability Process CFCs chlorofluorocarbons 7.0 Acronyms, References and List of Preparers Old Town Specific Plan Amendment 7-2 ESA /D209294 Draft Environmental Impact Report February 2010 CFR Code of Federal Regulations CH4 methane CHP California Highway Patrol City City of Temecula CMP Congestion Management Program CNEL Community Noise Equivalent Level CO carbon monoxide CO2 carbon dioxide CO2/yr tons of carbon dioxide per year CO2E carbon dioxide equivalent CTR California Toxics rule CUP Conditional Use Permit CWA Clean Water Act DAMP Drainage Area Management Plan dB Decibels dBA A-Weighted Decibels DIF Developer Impact Fees DNL 24-hour Day and Night A-weighted Noise Exposure Level DPM diesel particulate matter DWR Department of Water Resources EDU Equivalent Dwelling Units EIR Environmental Impact Report EMWD Eastern Municipal Water District EPA Environmental Protection Agency 7.0 Acronyms, References and List of Preparers Old Town Specific Plan Amendment 7-3 ESA /D209294 Draft Environmental Impact Report February 2010 FCAA Federal Clean Air Act FCAAA Federal Clean Air Act Amendments FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency FHWA Federal Highway Administration FICON Federal Interagency Committee on Noise FIP Federal Implementation Plan FONSI Finding of No Significant Impact ft feet FTA Federal Transit Administration GPD Gallons Per Day GPM Gallons Per Minute GCP General Construction Permit GHG Greenhouse Gases GISP General Industrial Storm Water Permit HAP hazardous air pollutant HCM2000 Highway Capacity Manual HFCs hydrofluorocarbons HDR High Density HOV High Occupancy Vehicle HVAC heating, ventilation, and air conditioning Hz Hertz I-15 Interstate 15 I-215 Interstate 215 IESNA Illumination Engineering Society of North America 7.0 Acronyms, References and List of Preparers Old Town Specific Plan Amendment 7-4 ESA /D209294 Draft Environmental Impact Report February 2010 ITE Institute of Transportation Engineers L50 median sound level L90 noise level that is equaled or exceeded 90 percent of the specified time period LEED Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design LCP Local Coastal Program LCFS Low Carbon Fuel Standard Ldn ambient noise level without project LDR Low Density Leq equivalent sound level LF linear feet Lmax Instantaneous maximum noise level LOS Level of Service MDR Medium Density MG Million Gallon MG/L Milligrams per liter MH Mobile Homes MMRP Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program MMTCO2E million metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent MPH miles per hour MPO Metropolitan Planning Organization MS4 Permit Municipal Separate Storm-Sewer permit MT metric tons MWD Metropolitan Water District N2O nitrous oxide 7.0 Acronyms, References and List of Preparers Old Town Specific Plan Amendment 7-5 ESA /D209294 Draft Environmental Impact Report February 2010 NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality Statements NFIP National Flood Insurance Program NB northbound NEPA National Environmental Protection Act NOI Notice of Intent NOP Notice of Preparation NO2 nitrogen dioxide NOx nitrogen oxides NPDES National Pollution Discharge Elimination System NPS nonpoint source O3 ozone Ordinance 655 Palomar Lighting Ordinance OTSP Old Town Specific Plan PAH polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons Pb lead PFCs perflourocarbons PM particulate matter ppm parts per million PPV peak particle velocity RAQS Regional Air Quality Strategies RCIP Riverside County Integrated Plan RCPG Regional Comprehensive Plan and Guide RCRA Resource Conservation and Recovery Act RCWD Rancho California Water District 7.0 Acronyms, References and List of Preparers Old Town Specific Plan Amendment 7-6 ESA /D209294 Draft Environmental Impact Report February 2010 RMS root mean square ROC reactive organic compounds ROG reactive organic gases ROWD Report of Waste Discharge RTP Regional Transportation Plan RWQCB Regional Water Quality Control Board SB Southbound SCAB South Coast Air Basin SCADA Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition SCAG Southern California Association of Governments SCAQMD South Coast Air Quality Management District SCH State Clearinghouse SCE Southern California Edison SCIC South Coastal Information Center SDAB San Diego Air Basin SDAG San Diego Association of Governments SDAPCD San Diego Air Pollution Control District SF6 sulfur hexafluoride sf square feet SFHA Special Flood Hazard Areas SIP State Implementation Plan SR-79 State Route 79 SWMP Storm Water Management Plan SWPPP Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan 7.0 Acronyms, References and List of Preparers Old Town Specific Plan Amendment 7-7 ESA /D209294 Draft Environmental Impact Report February 2010 SWRCB State Water Resources Control Board Title 24 California Standards Code TAC toxic air contaminants TIA Traffic Impact Analysis TLMA Transportation and Land Management Agency TMDL Total Maximum Daily Loads TPO Traffic Phasing Ordinance TSCA Toxic Substances Control Act TSF total square footage TTM Tentative Tract Map TUMF Traffic Uniform Mitigation Fee UBC Uniform Building Code μg/m3 micrograms per cubic meter USDOT U.S. Department of Transportation USEPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency USFWS United States Fish and Wildlife Service V/C Volume-to-Capacity Ratio VHDR Very High Density WDR Waste Discharge Requirement WQMP Water Quality Management Plan WRCOG Western Riverside Council of Governments yr per year 7.0 Acronyms, References and List of Preparers Old Town Specific Plan Amendment 7-8 ESA /D209294 Draft Environmental Impact Report February 2010 7.2 References Bean, Lowell John, and Florence C. Shipek, “Luiseño”, In California, edited by Robert F. Heizer, pp. 550-563, Handbook of North American Indians, Vol. 8, W. C. Sturtevant, general editor, Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C. 1978. Byrd, Brian F., and L. Mark Raab, “Prehistory of the Southern Bight: Models for a New Millennium”, in California Prehistory: Colonization, Culture, and Complexity, edited by Terry L. Jones and Kathryn A. Klar, pp 215-227, 2007. California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA), 2008. CEQA and Climate Change: Evaluating and Addressing Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Projects Subject to the California Environmental Quality Act. California Air Resources Board (CARB), 2000. Risk Reduction Plan for Diesel-Fueled Engines and Vehicles, September 2000. California Air Resources Board (CARB), 2001. ARB Fact Sheet: Air Air Pollution Sources, Effects and Control, http://www.arb.ca.gov/research/health/fs/fs2/fs2.htm. Updated December 2005. California Air Resources Board (CARB), 2002. Public Hearing to Consider Amendments to the Ambient Air Quality Standards for Particulate Matter and Sulfates. May 3, 2002. California Air Resources Board (CARB), 2005. Air Quality and Land Use Handbook: A Community Health Perspective, April 2005. California Air Resources Board (CARB), 2007b. Ambient Air Quality Standards, available at http://www.arb.ca.gov/aqs/aaqs2.pdf, February 22, 2007. California Air Resources Board (CARB), 2007c. Area Designation Maps, available at http://www.arb.ca.gov/des ig/adm/adm.htm, page updated June 28, 2007. California Air Resources Board, December 6, 2007. Mandatory Reporting of California greenhouse gas Emissions, Presentation in El Monte, California. California Air Resources Board, June 2008a. Climate Change Draft Scoping Plan, a framework for change. California Air Resources Board, October 2008b. Climate Change Draft Scoping Plan, a framework for change. California Air Resources Board, October 2008c. Preliminary Draft Staff Proposal on Recommended Approaches for setting Interim Significance Thresholds for Greenhouse Gases under the California Environmental Quality Act. California Department of Finance, http://www.dof.ca.gov/budget, accessed on September 7, 2009. California Department of Housing and Community Development, Redevelopment Law Contained in California Health and Safety Code, http://www.hcd.ca.gov/hpd/rda/rdalaw.html, accessed September 7, 2009. 7.0 Acronyms, References and List of Preparers Old Town Specific Plan Amendment 7-9 ESA /D209294 Draft Environmental Impact Report February 2010 California Governor’s Office of Planning and Research, Planning Zoning and Development Laws, The Planning and Zoning Law, http://ceres.ca.gov/planning/pzd/2000/pzd2000_web/pzd2000_plan4.html#anchor752866, accessed September 7, 2009. California Integrated Waste Management Board (2009a), Facility Site Summary: El Sobrante Landfill, accessed at http://www.ciwmb.ca.gov/SWIS/33-AA-0217/Detail/, on September 2, 2009. California Integrated Waste Management Board (2009b), Facility Site Summary: Badland Sanitary Landfill, accessed at http://www.ciwmb.ca.gov/SWIS/33-AA-0006/Detail/, on September 2, 2009. Caltrans, Technical Noise Supplement, 1998. City of Temecula (2005), Temecula General Plan, April 2005. (Available at the City of Temecula Planning Department) accessed at www.cityoftemecula .org/Temecula/Government/CommDev/Zoning/generalplan.htm City of Temecula Draft General Plan EIR, December 2004. City of Temecula General Plan Update EIR, 2005. City of Temecula Internet Site. (Available on the Internet on January 10, 2008 at http://www.cityoftemecula.org) City of Temecula, Development Impact Fees, available on-line at http://www.cityoftemecula.org/NR/rdonlyres/D617E 197-5006-4C57-A7B6-CD73ADF01436/0/200708DIFfees.pdf City of Temecula, Municipal Code, October 2007. City of Temecula, Municipal Code, October 2007. City of Temecula, Old Town Specific Plan, Design Guidelines (Draft) June 4, 2009. City of Temecula, Parks and Recreational Facilities (2009a), accessed at http://www.cityoftemecula.org/Temecula/Residents/Parks_and_Facilities/SkatePark. htm , on September 1, 2009. City of Temecula, Parks and Recreational Facilities (2009b), accessed at http://www.cityoftemecula.org/Temecula/Residents/Parks_and_Facilities/PalaCommunityP ark.htm , on September 1, 2009. City of Temecula, Temecula General Plan Land Use Map, Adopted April 12, 2005, Map Prepared February 1, 2007. (Available at at the City of Temecula Planning Department, 43200 Business Park Dr., Temecula, CA 92590, or on the Internet September 7, 2009 at www.cityoftemecula.org/Temecula/Government/CommDev/Zoning/generalplan.htm) City of Temecula, Temecula General Plan Land Use Map, Adopted April 12, 2005, Map Prepared February 1, 2007. (Available at the City of Temecula Planning Department) accessed at www.cityoftemecula.org/Temecula/Governme nt/CommDev/Zoning/generalplan.htm 7.0 Acronyms, References and List of Preparers Old Town Specific Plan Amendment 7-10 ESA /D209294 Draft Environmental Impact Report February 2010 City of Temecula, Temecula General Plan, April 2005. (Available at the City of Temecula Planning Department, 43200 Business Park Dr., Temecula, CA 92590, or on the Internet on January 10, 2008 at www.cityoftemecula.org/Temecula/Government/C ommDev/Zoning/generalplan.htm) City of Temecula, Temecula General Plan, April 2005. (Available at the City of Temecula Planning Department, 43200 Business Park Dr., Temecula, CA 92590, or on the Internet on September 7, 2009 at www.cityoftemecula.org/Temecula/Government/CommDev/Zoning/generalplan.htm) City of Temecula, Temecula General Plan. Available for review at the City of Temecula Planning Department, 43200 Business Park Dr. Temecula, CA 92590 or on the Internet at www.cityoftemecula.org/Temecula/Government/CommDev/Zoning/generalplan.htm., 2008. City of Temecula, Temecula Southwest California at a Glance (2006), accessed online at www.cityoftemecula.org. City of Temecula, The History of Temecula. Available for review on the City of Temecula Internet site at www.cityoftemecula.org/temecula/visitors/about/history. Accessed on February 8, 2009. City of Temecula, Zoning Code, http://www.cityoftemecula.org/Temecula/Gover nment/CommDev/Zoning/zoningclassifications.htm, accessed online, September 7, 2009. Cunniff, Patrick, Environmental Noise Pollution, 1977. Department of Water Resources Internet Site. (Available on the internet on September 21, 2009 at http://www.water.ca.gov) Dockery and Pope, Health Effects of Fine Particulate Air Pollution: Lines that Connect, 2006 Eastern Information Center California Historical Resources Information System, Cultural Resources Records Search for the Temecula Old Town Specific Plan Amendment, RS# EIC-RIV-ST-523. (The results of this records search are considered to be confidential by the Eastern Information Center and are on file at the City of Temecula Planning Department. They are only available for review by qualified archaeologists.) Eastern Municipal Water District (2000). EMWD 2000 Urban Water Management Plan. December 31, 2000. Eastern Municipal Water District (2005), 2005 Urban Water Management Plan. Eastern Municipal Water District (2006), Sanitary Sewer System Planning & Design Principle Guidelines Criteria, Updated February 9, 1993, Revised September 1, 2006. Eastern Municipal Water District (2007), Strategic Plan, 2007 Eastern Municipal Water District (2009a), History, accessed at http://www.emwd.org/emwd/history.html on August 19, 2009. Eastern Municipal Water District (2009b), Regional Water Reclamation Facilities, accessed at http://www.emwd.org/news/Insights/insights_temecula.pdf, on September 1, 2009. 7.0 Acronyms, References and List of Preparers Old Town Specific Plan Amendment 7-11 ESA /D209294 Draft Environmental Impact Report February 2010 Federal Transit Administration, Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment, 2006. Governors Office of Planning and Research, January 8, 2009. Preliminary Draft CEQA Guideline Amendments for Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Public Workshop Announcement. Governors Office of Planning and Research, June 19, 2008. Technical Advisory, CEQA and Climate Change: Addressing Climate Change through California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Review. Horne, Melinda C., and Dennis P. McDougall, Cultural Resources study for the City of Riverside General Plan 2025 Update Program EIR, Prepared for Cotton Bridges and Associates Urban and Environmental Consultants, on behalf of the City of Riverside Planning Department, Prepared by Applied Earthworks, Inc., 2003 Illuminating Engineering Society of North America. http://www.iesna.org/about/what_is_iesna.cfm, accessed online February 20, 2008 and October 2, 2009. Institute of Transportation Engineers. Trip Generation Manual, 8th Edition, 2008. King, Thomas, National Register of Historic Places Nomination Form for Murreita Creek Archaeological Area, on file at the Eastern Information Center, University of California, Riverside, 1972. Mason, Roger D., Results of Archaeological Test Programs at CA-RIV-1022, CA-RIV-3331, and CA-RIV-3332H, Cottonwood Hills Project Area, City of Lake Elsinore, Riverside County, CA, Prepared by Chambers Group, 1999. Moratto, Michael, California Archaeology, Coyote Press, Salinas, California, 1984. Rancho California Water District (2005a), 2005 Update of the Urban Water Management Plan, December 2005. Rancho California Water District (2005b), About Us, https://www.ranchowater.com/about.aspx accessed on August 19, 2009. Rancho California Water District (2007), Water System Facility Requirements and Design Guidelines, 2007. Rancho California Water District, Frequently Asked Questions, https://www.ranchowater.com/faq.aspx, accessed on August 19, 2009. Reynolds, Robert E. Paleontological Resources Assessment, South Coast Winery, Rancho California, Riverside County, California, LSA Associates, Inc., 2007. Reynolds, Robert, R.L. Reynolds, and A.F. Pajak III. Blancan, Irvingtonian, and Rancholabrean Land Mammal Age Faunas from Western Riverside County, California. San Bernardino County Museum Association Quarterly 39(3):37-40. 1991. Riverside County Flood Control & Water Conservation District Internet Site. (Available on the internet on September 25, 2009 at http://www.floodcontrol .co.riverside.ca.us) RK Engineering, Inc., Old Town Temecula Specific Plan Traffic Impact Study, December 16, 2009. 7.0 Acronyms, References and List of Preparers Old Town Specific Plan Amendment 7-12 ESA /D209294 Draft Environmental Impact Report February 2010 South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD), 1993. CEQA Air Quality Handbook, April 1993. South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD), 2005a. Risk Assessment Procedures for Rules 1401 and 212, revised July 2005. South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD), 2005b. Rule 403 – Fugitive Dust, June 3, 2005. South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD), December 2008. Interim CEQA GHG Significance Threshold for Stationary Sources, Rules and Plans. Southern California Association of Governments, 2004 Regional Transportation Plan: Destination 2030, April 2004. Southern California Association of Governments, Compass Blueprint, http://www.compassblueprint.org, accessed September 7, 2009 Southern California Association of Governments, Draft Regional Comprehensive Plan and Guide, 2008. Southern California Edison (2009), Current Projects-Triton Substation Project, accessed at http://www.sce.com/PowerandEnvironment/Transmission/CurrentProjects/Triton/, on September 2, 2009 State of California, Department of Justice, 2008. The California Environmental Quality Act: Addressing Global Warming Impacts at the Local Agency Level. Available at: http://ag.ca.gov/globalwarming/pdf/GW_mitigation_measures.pdf. Updated December 9, 2008 and accessed September 30, 2009. Stuart Fisk (2009), City of Temecula Written Communication, September 3, 2009. Transportation Research Board. Highway Capacity Manual, Special Report No. 209, Washington DC, 2000. U.S. Census Bureau, American Fact Finder, accessed at http://www.factfinder.cen sus.gov accessed on September 1, 2009 and October 5, 2009. U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service. 1995. National Register Bulletin 15: How to Apply the National Register Criteria for Evaluation. Washington, DC: National Park Service. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Noise from Construction Equipment and Operations, Building Equipment, and Home Appliances, 1971. Wallace, W. J., “A Suggested Chronology for Southern California Coastal Archaeology”, Southwestern Journal of Anthropology 11:214–230, 1955 Warren C. N. 2004. “The Desert Region” in California Archaeology. By M. J. Moratto. Coyote Press: Salinas, California. Reprinted from 1984, Academic Press, Orlando, Florida. 7.0 Acronyms, References and List of Preparers Old Town Specific Plan Amendment 7-13 ESA /D209294 Draft Environmental Impact Report February 2010 7.3 List of Preparers Lead Agency – City of Temecula Bob Johnson, Assistant City Manager Dan York, Deputy Director of Public Works Patrick Richardson, Director of Planning and Redevelopment Stuart Fisk, Senior Planner Consultants to the Lead Agency RK Engineering Group, Inc. (Traffic Engineers) Robert Kahn, Principal Rogier Goedecke, Vice President-Operations Sorin Boer, Senior Engineer Environmental Science Associates (EIR Preparers) Eric Ruby, Project Director Christopher Knopp, Project Manager Paul Miller, Project Manager Christa Hudson, Senior Associate Donald Ambroziak, Associate Rebecca Skaggs, Associate Cristiana Piraino, Associate Gus JaFolla, Publishing Coordination