HomeMy WebLinkAbout10-036 CC Resolution RESOLUTION NO. 10 -36
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF TEMECULA CERTIFYING THE PROGRAM
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT PREPARED FOR
THE OLD TOWN SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT,
ADOPTING FINDINGS PURSUANT TO THE CALIFORNIA
ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT, ADOPTING A
STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS, AND
ADOPTING A MITIGATION MONITORING AND
REPORTING PROGRAM IN CONNECTION THEREWITH
FOR THE OLD TOWN SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT
PROJECT, CONSISTING OF APPROXIMATELY 153
ACRES, GENERALLY LOCATED BETWEEN RANCHO
CALIFORNIA ROAD AND 700 FEET SOUTH OF FIRST
STREET, AND BETWEEN INTERSTATE 15 AND THE
WEST SIDE OF PUJOL STREET (LR10- 0011).
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES HEREBY RESOLVE
AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. Procedural Findings. The City Council of the City of Temecula
does hereby find, determine and declare that:
A. On February 9, 1994, the City Council of the City of Temecula approved
the Old Town Specific Plan and on February 22, 1994 the City Council of the City of
Temecula adopted the Old Town Specific Plan.
B. Various amendments to the Old Town Specific Plan were adopted by the
City Council of the City of Temecula since February 22, 1994.
C. The proposed amendment to the Old Town Specific Plan is a
comprehensive amendment to replace all sections of the Old Town Specific Plan with
new and updated information. In addition, an amendment to the City's Zoning Map,
General Plan Land Use Policy Map and Specific Plan Area Map modifies the boundary
of the Old Town Specific Plan to incorporate into the Old Told Specific Plan area an
additional 2.4 acres located south of First Street along the west side of Old Town Front
Street and to exclude from the Old Town Specific Plan area 2.3 acres located west of
the intersection of Sixth Street and Pujol Street. An amendment to the General Plan
Land Use Policy Map includes a new land use designation of "Specific Plan
Implementation (SPI)" applied to all properties within the Old Town Specific Plan area
consisting of approximately 153 acres generally located between Rancho California
Road and 700 feet south of First Street, and between Interstate 15 and the west side of
Pujol Street. An amendment to the Land Use Element of the City's General Plan
defines the land use designation Specific Plan Implementation (SPI) to ensure
properties within that designation are regulated by the provisions of the Specific Plan.
An amendment to the Circulation Element of the City's General Plan adds a provision
R: /Resos 2010 /Resos 10 -36 1
allowing for intersection level of service as identified in a Specific Plan. All of these
revisions are collectively referred to as the "Project."
D. The Project was processed, including but not limited to all public notices,
in the time and manner prescribed by State and local law, including the California
Environmental Quality Act, Public Resources Code § 21000, et seq. and the California
Environmental Quality Act Guidelines, 14. Cal. Code Regs. § 15000 et seq. (collectively
referred to as "CEQA ")
E. Pursuant to CEQA, the City is the lead agency for the Project because it is
the public agency with the authority and principal responsibility for approving the
Project.
F. On July 10, 2009, in accordance with CEQA Guideline Section 15082, the
City published a Notice of Preparation (NOP) of a Draft Environmental Impact Report
(Draft EIR) and circulated it to governmental agencies, organizations, and persons that
may be interested in the Project, including land owners, tenants, and business owners
within the boundaries of the Old Town Specific Plan, and land owners and tenants
located within 600 feet of the Specific Plan boundaries. The NOP requested that
comments on the topics to be analyzed in the Draft EIR for the Project be submitted to
the City by August 12, 2009. On July 21, 2009, in accordance with CEQA Guidelines
Section 15082(c)(1), the City sponsored a public scoping meeting to obtain comments
from interested parties on the scope of the Draft EIR,
G. In response to the NOP, written comments were received from various
individuals and organizations. These comment letters assisted the City in formulating
the analysis in the Draft EIR.
H. The City's EIR consultants thereafter prepared, in accordance with CEQA,
a Draft Program EIR for the Project (State Clearinghouse Number 2009071049).
I. Upon completion of the Draft Program EIR in February 2010, the City
initiated a public comment period by filing a Notice of Completion with the State Office
of Planning and Research on March 1, 2010. The City also published a Notice of
Availability for the Draft Program EIR in The Californian, a newspaper of general
circulation within the City.
J. The Draft Program EIR was circulated for public review from March 1,
2010 through and including April 14 2010. Copies of the Draft Program EIR were sent
to various public agencies, as well as to organizations and individuals requesting
copies. In addition, the City placed copies of the Draft Program EIR at the City's library
and made copies available for review at the City offices and on the City's website.
K. In response to the Draft Program EIR, written comments were received
from various agencies, individuals, and organizations. The City responded to all written
comments. Those comments and the responses thereto are included as part of the
Final Program Environmental Impact Report/Response to Comments document (Final
Program EIR). The Final Program EIR consists of the DPEIR, Comments and
R: /Resos 2010 /Resos 10 -36 2
Responses to Comments, the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, and the
Errata listing changes made to the Draft Program EIR in response to comments.
L. Pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21092.5, not later than May
1, 2010, the City prepared and provided to all commenting public agencies its
responses to all written comments.
M. The Planning Commission, at its regularly scheduled meeting on April 21,
2010, considered the Project and environmental review at a duly noticed public hearing
as prescribed by law, at which time the City staff presented its report and interested
persons had an opportunity to be heard and to present evidence regarding the Project
and the Draft Program EIR.
N. Following consideration of the entire record of information received at the
public hearing and due consideration of the proposed Project, the Planning Commission
adopted Resolution No. 10 -06 recommending that the City Council certify the Final
Program EIR prepared for the Old Town Specific Plan Amendment, adopt Findings
pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act, adopt a Statement of Overriding
Considerations, and adopt a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for the
Project. The Planning Commission also adopted Resolution No. 10 -07, thereby
recommending that the City Council take various actions, including adoption of a
General Plan Amendment, Zone Change and Specific Plan Amendment related to the
approval of the Project.
O. Section 15091 of the State CEQA Guidelines requires that the City, before
approving a project for which an environmental impact report is required, make one or
more of the following written finding(s) for each significant effect identified in the EIR
accompanied by a brief explanation of the rationale for each finding:
1. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the
project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental
effects as identified in the Final EIR; or,
2. Such changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of
another public agency and not the agency making the finding. Such
changes have been adopted by such other agency or can and should be
adopted by such other agency; or,
3. Specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations,
including provision of employment opportunities for highly trained workers,
make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified
in the final EIR.
P. Section 15093 of the State CEQA Guidelines requires that if a project will
cause significant unavoidable adverse impacts, the City. must adopt a Statement of
Overriding Considerations prior to approving the project. A Statement of Overriding
Considerations states that any significant adverse project effects are acceptable if
expected project benefits outweigh unavoidable adverse environmental impacts.
R: /Resos 2010 /Resos 10 -36 3
Q. Environmental impacts identified in the Final Program EIR that are found
to be less than significant and do not require mitigation are described in Section IV of
Exhibit A to this Resolution. Exhibit A, Findings and Facts in Support of Findings, is
hereby incorporated by reference as if set forth in full herein.
R. Environmental impacts identified in the Final Program EIR that are found
to be less than significant through the imposition of mitigation are described in Section V
of Exhibit A to this Resolution.
S. Environmental impacts identified in the Final Program EIR as potentially
significant but which cannot be fully mitigated to a less than significant level despite the
imposition of all feasible mitigation measures are described in Section VI of Exhibit A to
this Resolution.
T. Alternatives to the Project that might eliminate or reduce significant
environmental impacts are described in Section VII of Exhibit A of this Resolution.
U. A discussion of the project benefits identified by City staff and a Statement
of Overriding Considerations for the environmental impacts that cannot be fully
mitigated to a less than significant level are set forth in Exhibit B to this Resolution,
which is hereby incorporated by reference as if set forth in full herein.
V. Public Resources Code section 21081.6 requires the City to prepare and
adopt a mitigation monitoring and reporting program for any project for which mitigation
measures have been imposed to ensure compliance with the adopted mitigation
measures. The Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program is attached to this
Resolution as Exhibit C, and is hereby incorporated by reference as if set forth in full
herein.
W. Prior to taking action the City Council has heard, been presented with,
reviewed, and considered the information and data in the administrative record, as well
as oral and written testimony presented to it during meetings and hearings. No
comments or any additional information submitted to the City have produced any
substantial new information requiring additional environmental review or re- circulation of
the EIR under CEQA because no new significant environmental impacts were identified,
nor was any substantial increase in the severity of any previously disclosed
environmental impacts identified.
X. Custodian of Records. The City Clerk of the City of Temecula is the
custodian of records, and the documents and other materials that constitute the record
of proceedings upon which this decision is based are located at the Office of the City
Clerk, City of Temecula, 43200 Business Park Dr., Temecula, California 92590.
Section 2. Substantive Findings. The City Council of the City of Temecula,
California does hereby:
A. .Declare that the City Council has independently considered the
administrative record before it, which is hereby incorporated by reference and which
R: /Resos 2010 /Resos 10 -36 4
includes the Final Program Environmental Impact Report, the written and oral
comments on the Draft Program EIR, staff reports and responses to comments
incorporated into the Final Program EIR, and all testimony related to environmental
issues.
B. Determine that the Final Program EIR fully analyzes and discloses the
potential impacts of the Project, and that those impacts have been mitigated or avoided
to the extent feasible for the reasons set forth in the Findings attached hereto as Exhibit
A, with the exception of those impacts found to be significant and unmitigable as
discussed therein.
C. Declare that the Final Program EIR reflects the independent judgment of
the City. The City Council further finds that the additional information provided in the
staff reports, in comments on the Draft Program EIR, the responses to comments on the
Draft Program EIR, and the evidence presented in written and oral testimony does not
constitute new information requiring recirculation of the EIR under CEQA. None of the
information presented has deprived the public of a meaningful opportunity to comment
upon a substantial environmental impact of the Project or a feasible mitigation measure
or alternative that the City has declined to implement.
D. Certify the Final Program EIR as being in compliance with CEQA. The
City Council further adopts the findings pursuant to the California Environmental Quality
Act as set forth in Exhibit A attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference;
adopts the Statement of Overriding Considerations as set forth in Exhibit B attached
hereto and incorporated herein by reference; and adopts the Mitigation Monitoring and
Reporting Program attached hereto as Exhibit C and incorporated herein by reference.
The City Council further determines that all of the findings made in this Resolution
(including Exhibit A) are based upon the information and evidence set forth in the Final
Program EIR and upon other substantial evidence that has been presented at the
hearings before the Planning Commission and the City Council, and in the record of the
proceedings. The City Council further finds that each of the overriding benefits stated in
Exhibit B, by itself, would justify proceeding with the Project despite any significant
unavoidable impacts identified in the Final Program EIR or alleged to be significant in
the record of proceedings.
E. The City Council hereby imposes as a condition on the Amendment to the
Old Town Specific Plan Project each mitigation measure specified in Exhibit C, and
directs City staff to implement and to monitor the mitigation measures as described in
Exhibit C.
R: /Resos 2010 /Resos 10 -36 5
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of
Temecula this 11 day of May, 2010.
�_— - a
Jeff Comerchero, Mayor
ATTEST:
Susan . Jo es, MMC
City CI k
[SEAL]
R: /Resos 2010 /Resos10 -36 6
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE ) ss
CITY OF TEMECULA )
I, Susan W. Jones, MMC, City Clerk of the City of Temecula, do hereby certify that
the foregoing Resolution No. 10 -36 was duly and regularly adopted by the City Council of
the City of Temecula at a meeting thereof held on the 11 day of May, 2010, by the
following vote:
AYES: 5 COUNCIL MEMBERS: Edwards, Naggar, Roberts, Washington,
Comerchero
NOES: 0 COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
ABSENT: 0 COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
ABSTAIN: 0 COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
Susan W. Jones, MMC
City Clerk
R: /Resos 2010 /Resos 10 -36 7
EXHIBIT A
Findings and Facts in Support of Findings
1. Introduction.
The California Environmental Quality Act, Public Resources Code § 21000, et
seq. ( " CEQA ") and the State CEQA Guidelines, 14 Cal. Code Regs. § 15000, et seq.
(the "Guidelines ") provide that no public agency shall approve or carry out a project for
which an environmental impact report has been certified that identifies one or more
significant effects on the environment caused by the project unless the public agency
makes one or more of the following findings:
A. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the
project, which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effects
identified in the Program EIR.
B. Such changes or alterations are within the responsibility of another public
agency and not the agency making the finding. Such changes have been adopted by
such other agency or. can and should be adopted by such other agency.
C. Specific economic, social, or other considerations make infeasible the
mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the Program EIR.
Pursuant to the requirements of CEQA, the City Council of the City of Temecula
hereby makes the following environmental findings in connection with the proposed
Amendment to the Old Town Specific Plan (the "Project"), as more fully described in
the Final Program EIR. These findings are based upon written and oral evidence
included in the record of these proceedings, comments on the Draft Program EIR and
the written responses thereto, and reports presented to the Planning Commission and
the City Council by City staff and the City's environmental consultants.
II. Proiect Objectives.
As set forth in the Program EIR, objectives that the City of Temecula seeks to
achieve with this Project (the "Project Objectives ") are as follows:
A. 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;
Cal. Pub. Res. Code § 21081; 14 Cal. Code Regs. § 15091.
A -1
B. 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;
C. Respect the history of the OTSP area while fitting with current
economics, accommodating greater residential density, and encouraging a variety of
architectural styles;
D. 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;
E. 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
F. 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.
III. Effects Determined to be Less Than Significant/No Impact in the Initial
Study
The City of Temecula conducted an Initial Study in June 2009 to determine
significant effects of the Project. In the course of this evaluation certain impacts were
found to be less than significant due to the inability of a project of this scope to create
such impacts or the absence of project characteristics producing effects of this type.
The following issue areas were determined not to be significant for the reasons set
forth in the Initial Study and were not analyzed in the EIR: (A) Agriculture Resources;
(B) Biological Resources; (C) Cultural Resources with the exception of those areas
studied in the February 2010 Program EIR; (D) Geology and Soils; (E) Hazards and
Hazardous Materials; (F) Mineral Resources; (G) Population and Housing; (H) Public
Services; and (1) Recreation. Impacts related to the following issue areas were found
to be potentially significant and were studied in the Program EIR: (A) Aesthetics; (B)
Air Quality; (C) Global Warming /Climate Change (D) Cultural Resources; (E)
Hydrology and Water Quality; (F) Land Use and Planning; (G) Noise; (H) Utilities and
Services; (1) Traffic and Circulation.
A. In July 10, 2009, in accordance with CEQA Guideline Section 15082, the
City published a Notice of Preparation (NOP) of a Draft Environmental Impact Report
(Draft EIR) and circulated it to governmental agencies, organizations, and persons that
may be interested in the Project, including land owners, tenants, and business owners
within the boundaries of the Old Town Specific Plan, and land owners and tenants
located within 600 feet of the Specific Plan boundaries. The NOP requested
comments by August 12, 2009, On July 21, 2009, in accordance with CEQA Section
15082(c)(1) of the State CEQA Guidelines, the City sponsored a public scoping
A -2
meeting to obtain comments from interested parties on the scope of the Draft EIR. No
comments were received on areas other than those found to be potentially significant
in the Initial Study.
IV. Effects Determined to be Less Than Significant Without Mitigation in the
Program EIR
The Draft Program EIR completed in February 2010 found that the proposed
Project would have a less than significant impact without the imposition of mitigation
on a number of environmental topic areas. The less than significant environmental
impact determination was made for each of the following topic areas listed below,
based on the more expansive discussions contained in the Program EIR.
A. Aesthetics
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.
2. The project's development would not potentially degrade the
existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings.
B. Air Quality
1. The project would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of
the applicable air quality plan.
2. The project would not create objectionable odors affecting a
substantial amount of people.
3. Increased localized carbon monoxide would not be generated
from vehicular traffic during operation.
C. Cultural Resources
1. Implementation of the Specific Plan Amendment would not cause
a substantial adverse change to areas of traditional cultural significance to local Native
American individuals and groups.
D. Hydrology
1. 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).
A -3
2. 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.
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, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a
manner which would result in flooding on- or off -site.
4. 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.
5. The project would not otherwise substantially degrade water
quality.
6. 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.
7. The proposed project would not place within a 100 -year flood
hazard area structures which would impede or redirect flood flows.
8. 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.
9. The proposed project would not be inundated by a seiche,
tsunami, or mudflow.
E. Land Use and Planning
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, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the
purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect.
F. Utilities and Services
1. 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.
2. The project would not result in insufficient water supplies from
existing entitlements or need new or expanded entitlements.
A -4
3. 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.
4. The project would comply with federal, state, and local statutes
and regulations related to solid waste.
5. 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.
G. Traffic and Transportation
1. Implementation of the proposed project would not result in
inadequate vehicular and emergency access.
2. Project implementation would not result in inadequate parking
capacity.
V. Potentially Significant Environmental Impacts Determined to be Mitigated
to a Less Than Significant Level
The Draft Program EIR identified the potential for the Project to cause
significant environmental impacts in the areas of aesthetics, air quality, global
warming /climate change, cultural resources, hydrology, land use and planning, noise,
utilities and services, and transportation and traffic. With the exception of specific
impacts to air quality, global warming /climate change, and noise discussed in Section
VI below, measures have been identified that would mitigate all of the impacts in this
section to a less than significant level.
The City Council finds that the feasible mitigation measures for the Project
identified in the Final Program EIR would reduce the Project's impacts to a less than
significant level, with the exception of those unmitigable impacts discussed in Section
VI below. The City Council adopts all of the feasible mitigation measures for the
Project described in the Final Program EIR as conditions of approval of the Project
and incorporates those into the Project, as discussed more fully in Exhibit C.
A. Aesthetics
1. New Source of Light and Glare
The Project could result in taller buildings and additional lighting needs
which could adversely affect daytime or nighttime views of the area. The use of
exterior lighting for security and aesthetic illumination may contribute to ambient
nighttime lighting conditions. Reflective light could be caused by sunlight or artificial
light reflecting from finished surfaces such as window glass, or other reflective
A -5
materials. As described below, these impacts can be mitigated to less than significant
levels.
(a) Findings
Changes or alterations have been required in or incorporated into
the Project which avoid or substantially lessen the potentially significant environmental
effects of light and glare. Specifically, the following measures have been included to
ensure that the Project's potential light and glare impacts remain less than significant.
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 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
A -6
non - mirrored glass, painted metal panels and pre -cast concrete or fabricated wall
surfaces.
(b) Facts in Support of Findings
The Project will be required to comply with existing Riverside
County Mount Palomar Ordinance No. 655 requiring lighting to be shielded, directed
down to avoid glare onto adjacent properties and emit low levels of glare into the sky.
In additional, generally accepted standards have been established by the Illuminating
Engineering Society of North America, a collection of engineers, architects, scientists
and other professionals who aim to disseminate information for the improvement of the
lighted environment. With the implementation of Mitigation Measures 3.1 -3a through
3.1 -3h (above), potential light and glare impacts associated with the project will be less
than significant.
B. Cultural Resources
1. Impacts to Unknown Cultural Resources
The proposed Project has the potential to impact unknown cultural resources on
the portions within the Old Town Specific Plan area.
(a) Findings
Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into
the Project that avoid or substantially lessen the potential significant environmental
effect to unknown cultural resources. Specifically, the following mitigation measures
will ensure that no significant impacts occur to unknown cultural resources.
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
survey (including a 1 -mile radius records search and intensive archaeological survey)
for archaeological resources on a project - specific basis prior to the City's approval of
site - specific project plans. The survey shall be carried out by a Riverside County
qualified archaeologist in consultation with the Pechanga Band of Luiseno Mission
Indians (Pechanga Tribe). The Pechanga Tribe shall be allowed to accompany the
Project Archaeologist on the Phase I walkover survey, and shall be given the
opportunity to comment on the archaeological report which results from the evaluation.
If 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 by a Riverside County qualified archaeologist and the Pechanga
Tribe, and that recommendations are made for treatment of these resources, in
consultation with the Pechanga Tribe. If Phase 11 archeological evaluations are
recommended, the Pechanga Tribe shall consult on all proposed test plans and
participate with the Project Archaeologist during testing and evaluation. All such
A -7
surveys with recommendations shall be completed prior to Project approval. Any
identified resources shall be avoided if feasible. Ground - disturbing activity in areas
which were previously undisturbed, or have been determined, by a qualified
archaeologist in consultation with the Pechanga Tribe, to be sensitive for cultural
resources shall be monitored by a Riverside County qualified archaeologist and
Pechanga tribal representative(s).
Mitigation Measure 3.4 -1 b: 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 Riverside County
qualified archaeologist, in consultation with the Pechanga Tribe, 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 the Pechanga Tribe, appropriate avoidance measures or other
appropriate mitigation. All cultural materials recovered will be, as necessary and in
consultation with the Pechanga Tribe, subject to scientific analysis and documentation
according to current professional standards. Sacred and ceremonial items shall not be
subject to any scientific analysis. Upon completion of the archaeological study, but no
later than 45 days after completion of earthmoving activities, the landowner shall
relinquish ownership of all cultural resources, including sacred items, burial goods and
all archaeological artifacts that are found on the project area to the Pechanga Tribe for
proper treatment and disposition.
Mitigation Measure 3.4 -1c: 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 for projects
in areas which were previously undisturbed, or have been determined, by a qualified
archaeologist in consultation with the Pechanga Tribe, pursuant to MM 3.4 -1 a, to be
sensitive for cultural resources, at least 30 days prior to seeking a grading permit, the
Project Applicant shall contact the Pechanga Tribe to notify the Tribe of grading,
excavation and the monitoring program, and to coordinate with the City of Temecula
and the Tribe to develop and enter into a Cultural Resources Treatment and
Monitoring Agreement. The Agreement shall address the treatment of known cultural
resources; appropriate treatment and procedure for inadvertent discoveries; the
designation, responsibilities, and participation of Native American Tribal monitors
during grading, excavation and ground disturbing activities; project grading and
development scheduling; terms of compensation for the monitors; and treatment and
final disposition of any cultural resources, sacred sites, and human remains
discovered on the site.
Mitigation Measure 3.4 -1 d: 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 if
inadvertent discoveries of subsurface cultural resources are discovered during
A -8
grading, the Project Applicant, the Project Archaeologist, and the Pechanga Tribe shall
assess the significance of such resources and shall meet and confer regarding the
mitigation for such resources. If the project applicant and the Pechanga Tribe cannot
agree on the significance or the mitigation for such resources, these issues will be
presented to the Planning Director for decision. The Planning Director shall make the
determination based on the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act with
respect to archaeological resources and shall take into account the religious beliefs,
customs, and practices of the Pechanga Tribe. Notwithstanding any other rights
available under the law, the decision of the Planning Director shall be appealable to
the City of Temecula City Council.
Mitigation Measure 3.4 -1e: 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 all sacred sites,
should they be encountered within the project area, shall be avoided and preserved as
preferred mitigation, if feasible.
(b) Facts in Support of Findings
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. Therefore, any future development within the overall
project area not previously assessed for cultural resources could result in the adverse
impact to unknown cultural resources. Implementation of Mitigation Measures 3.4 -1a
and 3.4 -1e would minimize this impact to a less than significant level.
2. Impacts to Historic Resources
The proposed Project could adversely affect known cultural resources, including
unique archaeological resources and historic resources in Specific Plan areas
containing buildings older than 50 years.
(a) Findings
Changes or alterations have been required in or incorporated into
the Project that avoid or substantially lessen the potential significant environmental
effect to known cultural resources. Specifically, the following mitigation measure will
ensure a less than significant impact.
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
A -9
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 area.
(b) Facts in Support of Findings
Structures that are fifty years or older may not have been
comprehensively surveyed and evaluated and it is possible they may be eligible as
historic resources if other criteria apply, such as significant associations with important
events, people, or have high architectural merit. Implementation of 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 in order to minimize this impact to a
less than significant level.
3. Impacts to unidentified Human Remains
The proposed Project has the potential to cause an impact to human remains in
the event human remains are discovered.
(a) Findings
Changes or alterations have been required in or incorporated into
the Project that avoid or substantially lessen the potentially significant impact on any
potential discovery of human remains. Specifically, mitigation measure 3.44a will
ensure a less than significant impact.
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. 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.
A -10
(b) Facts in Support of Findings
There is no indication that any particular site in the Project area
has been used for human burial purposes in the recent or distant past. Therefore, it is
unlikely that human remains would be encountered as a result of the proposed Project.
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. However, this impact would be
minimized by implementation of Mitigation Measure 3.4 -4a, as set forth above.
4. Paleontological Resources
The proposed Project is underlain by the Pauba Formation and younger and
older Quaternary Alluvium. The Pauba Formation and older Quaternary Alluvium have
a high paleontological sensitivity and therefore the potential to cause a significant
impact on paleontological resources.
(a) Findings
Changes or alterations have been required in or incorporated into
the Project that avoid or substantially lessen the potential significant environmental
effect on paleontological resources. Specifically, mitigation measure 3.4 -5a will
ensure a less than significant impact.
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.
(b) Facts in Support of Findings
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
A -11
of the Specific Plan Amendment could result in the inadvertent discovery of
paleontological resources, which could be a significant impact. Therefore, mitigation
measure 3.4 -5a will be implemented to ensure any potential impacts to paleontological
resources are minimized to be less than significant.
C. Hydrology
1. Impacts to water quality or waste discharge
The proposed Project has the potential to cause an impact on water
quality or waste discharge upon construction and operation of developments within the
project area. Construction could include grading and other earth moving activities
exposing soils to erosion, which could lead to erosion and runoff. In addition, the
incremental increase of development over the span of 20 -30 years is likely to
contribute to pollution such as motor oil or fertilizers being washed away during rainfall
or when a street, walkway, or parkway surface is being cleaned.
(a) Findings
Changes or alterations have been required in or incorporated into
the Project that reduce the impacts to less than significant. Specifically, mitigation
measure 3.5 -1 shall be implemented, as required by applicable local, state or federal
law or regulations, to comply with NPDES 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 Notice of Intent
(NOI) with California to comply with the requirements of the National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System ( NPDES) General Construction Permit (Municipal
Code, Chapter Chapter 8.24). This would include the preparation of a Storm Water
Pollution Prevention Plan ( SWPPP) incorporating construction Best Management
Practices (BMPs) for control of erosion and sedimentation contained in stormwater
runoff. The project developer shall be required by the Stormwater /Urban Runoff
Management and Discharge Controls of the City of Temecula's Municipal Code to
submit and implement a SWPP using BMPs that would effectively reduce or prevent
discharge of pollutants into receiving waters.
(b) Facts in Support of Findings
Development projects within the Amended Old Town Specific Plan will
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. The Mitigation Measure also requires preparation of plans that will
control the effects of stormwater runoff, and therefore will reduce potential impacts to
less than significant.
D. Noise
A -12
1. Construction activities could result in exposure of sensitive
receptors to excessive levels of ground -borne vibration.
The potential 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, which exceeds
the human annoyance response level of 80 RMS. The location of construction relative
to the nearest sensitive receptor or historic building has yet to be determined, and will
depend on the specific location of the individual project proposed within the Old Town
Specific Plan area.
(a) Findings
Changes or alterations have been required in or incorporated into the
Project that would lessen the significant ground borne vibration impacts associated
with construction activities. Specifically, measures have been included to reduce
noise impacts from construction activities associated with the project that would result
in exposure of sensitive receptors to excessive levels of ground -borne vibration within
the Project area to less than significant with implementation of Mitigation Measures
3.7 -1 a through 3.7 -d and 3.7 -2.
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:
6:30 PM to 6:30 AM, Monday through Friday.
Before 7:00 AM or after 6:30 PM, Saturday.
At any time on Sunday or any nationally recognized holiday.
Measure 3.7 -1 b: 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.
Mitigation 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
A -13
Ensuring that building equipment (e.g., HVAC units) is 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 would result in reduced HVAC noise levels not to exceed
any applicable standard. Furthermore, prohibiting loading and unloading activities
between the nighttime hours of 10:00 PM and 7:00 AM and locating all loading areas
for commercial and retail uses at the rear or sides of buildings within the commercial
and mixed -use districts will direct noise away from residential uses within the mixed
use areas of the project and effectively will reduce any noise impacts so that they are
less than significant.
E. Utilities and Service
1. Adverse physical impacts associated with new or physically
altered parks and recreational facilities.
The proposed Project has the potential to allow for an increase in
residential population of approximately 4,114 new residents. In order to maintain the
City's 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.
(a) Findings
Changes or alterations have been required in or incorporated into
the Project that reduce the parkland impacts so that all development contributes its fair
share to the maintenance or provision of public services, and therefore impacts will be
less than significant.
Measure 3.8 -1a: 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 -1 b: 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 -1c: 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.
A -15
(b) Facts in Support of Findings
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
City and 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 above, 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.
2. Impacts from construction of wastewater treatment facilities or
expansion of existing facilities.
Implementation of the proposed Specific Plan would cause a
substantial increase in the demand for wastewater conveyance services, and
necessitate the alternation of existing facilities to meet treatment capacity
expectations.
(a) Findings
Changes or alterations have been required in or incorporated into
the Project that reduce the impacts from construction of wastewater treatment facilities
or expansion of existing facilities to less than significant.
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.
(b) Facts in Support of Findings
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 currently at capacity. The First Street sewer is a 10 -inch pipe and the Pujol Street
sewer line is an 8 -inch pipe. Both of these sewer lines will require upgrades to
accommodate full project build -out. To ensure that the impacts remain less than
significant, Mitigation Measures 3.9 -3a and 3.8 -3b will be implemented to guarantee
capacity of the sewer lines and to reduce the impacts to below the level of
significance.
3. Insufficient landfill capacity impacts
A -16
of the surrounding buildings after the construction is complete. The construction
contractor would be liable for construction vibration damage to adjacent structures.
(a) Facts in Support of Findings
Development projects within the Amended Old Town Specific Plan will
be required to conduct crack surveys before and after construction activities that could
cause damage to historic buildings or buildings in poor conditions within 15 feet of
construction. Further, Mitigation Measures are provided that monitor construction
hours within % mile of any occupied residence and that all construction equipment
have properly operating mufflers. These mitigation measures combined with the City
Noise ordinance will address construction noise issues to ensure that vibration impacts
would be less than significant.
2. Noise levels in excess of allowable Noise Standards
The proposed Project has the potential to 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. Examples include heating,
ventilating, air conditioning equipment noise, and loading dock /truck delivery truck
noises.
(a) Findings
Changes or alterations have been required in or incorporated into
the Project that reduce the noise level impacts so that operational noise levels do not
exceed applicable noise standards and the impact would therefore be less than
significant.
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.
(b) Facts in Support of Findings
A -14
UCVCIUP[ UI IC1rICia LIViI IdGIIILICJ IV[ Call IICVV UCVCIVPIIIUII%: — �G� LaCVGIGF7C1'J — VI —"
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 -1 b: 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 -1c: 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.
A -15
Implementation of the proposed Specific Plan would cause a
substantial increase in the demand for wastewater conveyance services, and
necessitate the alternation of existing facilities to meet treatment capacity
expectations.
(a) Findings
Changes or alterations have been required in or incorporated into
the Project that reduce the impacts from construction of wastewater treatment facilities
or expansion of existing facilities to less than significant.
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.
(b) Facts in Support of Findings
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 currently at capacity. The First Street sewer is a 10 -inch pipe and the Pujol Street
sewer line is an 8 -inch pipe. Both of these sewer lines will require upgrades to
accommodate full project build -out. To ensure that the impacts remain less than
significant, Mitigation Measures 3.9 -3a and 3.8 -3b will be implemented to guarantee
capacity.of the sewer lines and to reduce the impacts to below the level of
significance.
3. Insufficient landfill capacity impacts
A -16
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 increased
Specific Plan area (annexation of approximately 2.4 acres, reduction of area by
approximately 2.3 acres) and the intensity of development anticipated by
implementation of the Project would result in an increased generation of solid waste.
(a) Findings
Changes or alterations have been required in or incorporated into
the Project that reduce the potential impacts related to landfill capacity to less than
significant.
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.
(b) Facts in Support of Findings
Projects under 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. While there will be 0.10 of an acre net
increase in the Specific Plan area and an intensity of development anticipated by
implementation of the project that potentially could increase generation of solid waste,
the 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). Furthermore, 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. Finally, 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.
F. Traffic
1. Adverse impacts to intersections in existing plus ambient growth
conditions.
A -17
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)
(a) Findings
Changes or alterations have been required in or incorporated into
the Project that reduce traffic impacts related to these intersections to less than
significant.
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 need and timing for implementation of enhancements to the
intersection of Old Town Front Street/Second Street and the northern Mercedes Street
connection to Old Town Front Street and /or implementation of Roundabouts in the
vicinity of Old Town Front Street and First Street/Santiago Road and Old Town. Front
Street and Mercedes Street in the vicinity of the Moreno Road south loop.
-Provide pedestrian facilities from Old Town Front Street which
connect the east and west neighborhood cores with the Old Town Core District.
(b) Facts in Support of Findings
In order to maintain the unique "Main Street' character of the Old
Town area, which is geared towards a pedestrian experience, LOS E and F will be
deemed acceptable on Old Town Front Street from Second Street to Moreno Road
North. Proposed impacts will be reduced to a less than significant level with
implementation of the proposed mitigation measures such as enhancements to the
intersection of Old Town Front Street/Second Street and the northern Mercedes Street
connection to Old Town Front Street and /or roundabouts, pedestrian facilities and
accepting LOS E and F from Second Street to Sixth Street. Furthermore, any increase
in traffic at the build out of the Amended Old Town Specific Plan will be significantly
A -18
lower than projected under the current Specific Plan and therefore impacts would be
less than significant.
2. Adverse impact to intersections in General Plan plus Proposed
Specific Plan conditions.
In the "General Plan Build out 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)
•1 -15 Southbound Ramps /Rancho California Road (LOS F for PM Peak Hour)
(a) Findings
Changes or alterations have been required in or incorporated into
the Project that reduce traffic impacts related to these intersections to less than
significant.
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 need and timing for implementation of enhancements to the
intersection of Old Town Front Street/Second Street and the northern Mercedes
Street/Moreno Road connection to Old Town Front Street and /or implementation of
Roundabouts at the north and south entries to Old Town.
- Provide pedestrian facilities from Old Town Front Street which
connect the east and west neighborhood cores with the Old Town Core District.
(b) Facts in Support of Findings
In order to maintain the unique "Main Street" character of the Old
Town area, which is geared towards a pedestrian experience, LOS E and F will be
deemed acceptable on Old Town Front Street from Second Street to Moreno Road
A -19
North. Also, the General Plan policies and standards, as amended, including the
Circulation Element, for the Old Town Specific Plan area are specifically guided by the
standards of the Old Town Specific Plan which allow for traffic impacts at the specified
intersections. Proposed impacts will be reduced to a less than significant level with
implementation of the proposed mitigation measures such as enhancements to the
intersection of Old Town Front Street/Second Street and the northern Mercedes Street
connection to Old Town Front Street and /or roundabouts, pedestrian facilities and
accepting LOS E and F from Second Street to Sixth Street. Furthermore, any increase
in traffic at the build out of the amended Old Town Specific Plan will be significantly
lower than projected under the current Specific Plan and therefore impacts would be
less than significant.
VI. Environmental Effects that Remain Significant and Unavoidable After
Mitigation
In the environmental areas of air quality, global warming /climate change, and
noise, there are instances where potential environmental impacts would remain
significant and unavoidable, as discussed below.
A. Air Quality
1. Short Term Construction Impacts
Short term construction could violate air quality standards or contribute
substantially to existing or projected air quality violations during the short duration of
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 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 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.
A -20
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 PM 10, 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.
(a) Findings
Specific economic, social, or other considerations make infeasible
the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the Program EIR. Changes
or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into the Project that avoid or
substantially lessen the potential significant environmental effect as identified in the
Program EIR. Although the following Mitigation Measures will be implemented to
lessen the short term air quality impacts, none were identified that could reduce the
impacts to below the level of significance and therefore impacts still will remain
potentially significant.
Measure 3.2 -2a: The applicant shall ensure that a fugitive dust
control program is implemented pursuant to the provisions 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.
A -21
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.
A -22
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.
(b) Facts in Support of Findings
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 EIR Appendix D for more details. Emissions are based on criteria
pollutant emission factors from URBEMIS 2007. The results of this analysis are
summarized in EIR Table 3.2 -5 through Table 3.2 -7. As shown in EIR Table 3.2 -5,
A -23
construction emissions of NOx, CO, PM 10, 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 EIR 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 EIR Table 3.2 -7, emissions
of ROG, PM 10, 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.
2. Long Term Operational Impacts
Project operations could violate air quality standards or contribute
substantially to existing or projected air quality violations during the long term.
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 EIR Table 3.2 -8 through EIR Table 3.2 -10. As shown in EIR Table 3.2-
8, build -out of the proposed Specific Plan Amendment would exceed all SCAQMD
thresholds of significance and would, therefore, be significant.
(a) Findings
Specific economic, social, or other considerations make infeasible
the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the Program EIR. Changes
or alterations have been required in or incorporated into the Project that avoid or
substantially lessen the potential significant environmental effects as identified in the
Program EIR. The following Mitigation Measures listed below will be implemented to
lessen the long term operational air quality impacts, none were identified that could
reduce the impacts to below the level of significance, and therefore impacts will remain
potentially significant.
Measure 3.2 -3a: Construct on -site or off -site bus turnouts,
passenger benches, and shelters.
A -24
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.
(b) Facts in Support of Findings
As shown in EIR Table 3.2 -9 (also provided below), 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 build -out of the existing
Specific Plan, as shown in EIR Table 3.2 -10 (also provided below), a major reduction
of all emissions occurs. However, operational emissions would remain significant and
unavoidable.
TABLE 3.2-8
PROPOSED SPECIFIC PLAN BUILD -OUT OPERATIONAL EMISSIONS
(pounds per day)a
Project Data ROG NOx CO PM10 PM2.5 CO
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 c0
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
A -25
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 CO
Difference between Total Existing SP Build -out -319 -535 4642 -860 -167 - 517,784
Emissions and Proposed SP Build -out
Emissions
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. Cumulative Impacts to Air Quality
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 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 general area
would typically 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.
(a) Findings
Specific economic, social, or other considerations make infeasible
the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the Program EIR. Although
mitigation measures were evaluated for their ability to eliminate the potential significant
adverse impacts upon cumulative air quality impacts, none were identified that could
reduce the impacts to below the level of significance.
(b) Facts in Support of Findings
Mitigation Measures related to future construction and operations
within the Old Town Specific Area will be implemented to reduce air quality impacts.
A -26
However, the mitigation measures were evaluated and determined not to eliminate the
cumulative potential significant adverse impacts upon air quality. No feasible
measures were identified that could reduce the impacts from associated with the
project that would result in an adverse cumulative impact to air quality.
B. Global Warming /Climate Change
1. Conflicts with implementation of state goals for reducing GHG
emissions and thereby negatively impacts global climate change.
The project could conflict with implementation of State goals for reducing
GHG emissions and could 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 Plan Amendment analysis of GHG emissions is
to determine whether the proposed project impact is cumulatively considerable.
(a) Findings
Specific economic, social, or other considerations make infeasible
the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the Program EIR.
Specifically, although mitigation measures were evaluated for their ability to eliminate
the potential significant adverse impacts upon Global Warming, none were identified
that could reduce the impacts to below the level of significance.
Measure 3.3 -1: The City shall require implementation of all
feasible energy efficiency and GHG reduction measures, including but not limited to
the following:
Energy Efciency
• 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.
A -27
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.
• 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.
A -28
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 site specific 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.
A -29
• 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.
(b) Facts in Support of Findings
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 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) 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 CARIB early action strategies.
A -30
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.
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. 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.
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 above. Even with implementation of Mitigation Measure 3.3 -1, the
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.
A -31
C. Noise
1. Project Construction
Project construction has the potential to expose persons to or generate
noise levels in excess of the applicable City of Temecula Noise Standards.
(a) Findings
Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into
the Project that avoid or substantially lessen the potentially significant construction
n impacts. Specifically, Mitigation Measure 3.7 -1a through 3.7 -1d will be imposed
W alleviate this impact. No other feasible mitigation measures exist to further reduce
this potentially significant impact.
Measure 3.7 -1a: The applicant shall ensure, as specified in City of
Ve—fiecula Ordinance No. 94 -25, that no construction may occur within one - quarter
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 on Saturdays.
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
shali be performed as far as possible from occupied dwellings.
Measure 3.7 -1d: The applicant shall ensure that signs shall be posted at
Free construction sites that include permitted construction days and hours, and a
�contac::t number for the job site. 9) Reports of the results of the blast monitoring shall
be provided to the City, the local fire department, and owners of any buried utilities on
or adjacent to the site within 24 hours following blasting. Reports documenting
3 wmage, excessive vibrations, etc. shall be provided to the City and impacted property
owners.
(b) Facts in Support of Findings
Construction activity noise levels at and near the construction areas will
fluctuate depending on the particular type, number, and duration of uses of various
pieces of construction equipment. Construction - related material haul trips will 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.
A -32
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 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.
2. Traffic Noise
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.
(a) Findings
Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into
the Project that avoid or substantially lessen the potentially significant traffic noise
impact. Specifically, Mitigation Measure 3.7-4 will be imposed to alleviate this impact.
No other feasible mitigation measures exist to further reduce this potentially significant
impact.
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.
(b) Facts in Support of Findings
A -33
With implementation of Mitigation Measure 3.7-4, 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.
To assess the impact of project traffic on roadside noise levels, noise
level projections were created 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 EIR Table 3.7 -7 (also provided below for reference).
TABLE 3.7 -7
EXISTING AND FUTURE PEAK -HOUR NOISE LEVELS ALONG SELECTED ROADWAYS
Peak Hour Noise Levels (Leq)a
Existing + Incremental Cumulative Incremental
Existing Project Increase 2035 + Project Increase
Modeled Roadway Significant Cumulatively
Segment (A) (B) (B —A) (Yes /No) (C) (C — A) Considerable?
1. Old Town 70 71 11 No 71 2 Yes
Front St north of Rancho
California Rd
2. Old Town 68 70 2 Yes 70 2 Yes
Front St south of Rancho
California Rd
3. Rancho 73 74 1 No 74 1 No
California Rd east of Old
Town Front St
4. Old Town 66 67 1 No 67 2 Yes
Front St south of Main St
5. Main St east of 50 58 8 Yes 58 8 Yes
Old Town Front St
6. Main St West 52 59 7 Yes 59 7 Yes
of Old Town Front St
7. Old Town 66 68 3 Yes 69 4 Yes
Front St north of Santiago
8. Mercedes St. 56 60 4 No 61 5 Yes
A -34
Peak Hour Noise Levels (Leq)
Existing + Incremental Cumulative Incremental
Existing Project Increase 2035 + Project Increase
Modeled Roadway Significant Cumulatively
Segment (A) (B) (B — A) (Yes /No)" (C) (C — A) Considerable?
South of Moreno Rd.
9. 3rd St west of 52 52 0 No 52 1 No
Mercedes
10. Moreno road 52 55 4 No 56 4 No
east of Mercedes St
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.
As depicted in EIR 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 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.
3. Cumulative long term traffic increasing noise levels.
The project, together with anticipated future development, could result in
long -term traffic increases that could cumulatively increase noise levels. 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's incremental effects must be viewed in connection with the effects of
past, current, and probable future projects. 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.
(a) Findings
A -35
Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into
the Project that avoid or substantially lessen the potentially significant traffic noise
impact. Specifically, Mitigation Measure 3.7-4 will be imposed to alleviate this impact.
No other feasible mitigation measures exist to further reduce this potentially significant
impact.
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.
(b) Facts in Support of Findings
EIR Table 3.7 -8 (provided below) 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
Peak Hour Noise Levels (Leq)a
Existing + Incremental Cumulative Incremental
Existing Project Increase 2035 +Project Increase
Modeled Roadway Significant Cumulatively
Segment (A) (B) (B — A) (Yes/No)" (C) (C — A) Considerable?
1. Old Town
Front St north of Rancho 70 71 1 No 71 2 Yes
California Rd
2. Old Town
Front St south of Rancho 68 70 2 Yes 70 2 Yes
California Rd
3. Rancho
California Rd east of Old 73 74 1 No 74 1 No
Town Front St
4. Old Town
Front St south of Main St 66 67 1 No 67 2 Yes
5. Main St east of 50 58 8 Yes 58 8 Yes
A -36
Peak Hour Noise Levels (Leq)a
Existing + Incremental Cumulative Incremental
Existing Project Increase 2035 + Project Increase
Modeled Roadway Significant Cumulatively
Segment (A) (B) (B — A) (Yes /No) (C) (C — A) Considerable?
Old Town Front St
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.
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.
VII. Project Alternatives
A. Alternatives Considered But Rejected in the Program EIR
The City considered a reasonable range of alternatives as discussed below. In
determining what alternatives to analyze, the City considered, but rejected, an
alternative that would result in an overall increase of commercial building floor space in
Old Town and a reduction in residential units. 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), and likely would result in
an increase in vehicle trips per day and a resulting increase in associated air quality
and noise impacts. Accordingly, this alternative was rejected.
A -37
The Program EIR analyzed three other project alternatives. These three
alternatives were considered but ultimately found not to meet the project's objectives
as for the various reasons stated below.
B. Alternatives Considered in the Program EIR
1. Alternative One — No Project/Reasonably Foreseeable
Development (Continuation of Existing Specific Plan) Alternative
(a) Summary of Alternative
Under this alternative, the current project 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.
(b) Reasons for Rejecting Alternative
The No Project/Reasonably Foreseeable Development Alternative
would result in greater air quality, noise, and traffic impacts than the current project
due to the number of vehicle trips associated with the substantial commercial
development allowed under the No Project/Reasonably Foreseeable Development
Alternative. In addition, this Alternative would not emphasize the mixed use
development promoted by the proposed Project, and therefore would not reduce
dependence on vehicles. Consequently, this Alternative would result in greater
climate change /global warming impacts than the proposed project. Finally, this
Alternative would not meet the project's primary objective of updating the existing Old
Town Specific Plan. For all of these reasons, the City Council rejects this alternative
as infeasible.
2. Alternative Two — Increased Residential /Decreased Commercial
Alternative
(a) Summary of Alternative
With the proposed Specific Plan Amendment, the mixed -use .
aspect of the project results in an overall reduction in commercial building floor space
in Old Town of approximately 1,405,285 square feet compared to the existing Specific
Plan, and the addition of approximately 749 residential units over the existing Specific
Plan. The reduction in building floor space is attributable to the fact that residential
uses require more open areas for parking, courtyards, balconies, and other shared
and private open spaces than commercial uses do. 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. This Alternative would essentially increase
residential development and decrease commercial development even further than the
proposed project.
A -38
(b) Reasons for Rejecting Alternative
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 over commercial
development. Therefore, Alternative 2 would not fully achieve all of the project
objectives. For this reason, the City Council rejects this alternative as infeasible.
3. Alternative Three — Reduced Residential /Increased Commercial
Alternative
(a) Summary of Alternative
Alternative 3 would reduce the commercial square footage by
1,000,000 square feet compared to the existing Specific Plan and would reduce the
number of residential units by 659 units compared to the existing Specific Plan.
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.
(b) Reasons for Rejecting Alternative
Due to the increased commercial development (as compared to
the proposed Project) and the increased vehicle trips associated therewith, Alternative
3 would result in increased adverse air quality, noise, and traffic impacts. In addition,
this Alternative would not emphasize a mixed -use environment in which residents
would benefit from nearby shopping and employment opportunities nearly as much as
the proposed project, and therefore this Alternative would result in greater climate
change /global warming impacts than the proposed project.
This Alternative 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 also
would be more focused on promoting economic activity within the City because
A -39
commercial development would be emphasized over residential development.
Alternative 3 would not, however, encourage development of an increased number of
high - quality residential neighborhoods compared to either the existing OTSP or the
proposed project. Therefore, Alternative 3 would not fully achieve all of the project
objectives and would have greater adverse impacts. Because adverse impacts will
increase under this Alternative and this Alternative will fail to meet all of the Project
objectives, the City Council rejects this Alternative as infeasible.
C. 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 significantly over commercial development. Therefore, Alternative 2 would
not fully achieve all of the project objectives. Due to this Alternative's inability to meet
all of the project objectives and, specifically, the objective focusing on stimulating
economic activity, the City Council finds that Alternative 2 is not the preferred
Alternative and is not superior to the proposed Project.
D. The Project As Proposed
1. Summary of Project
The Project is described in detail in the Program EIR.
2. Reasons for Selecting Project as Proposed
The City Council has carefully reviewed the attributes and environmental
impacts of all the alternatives analyzed in the Final Program EIR and has compared
them with those of the proposed Project. The City Council finds that each of the
alternatives is infeasible for various environmental, economic, technical, social, or
other reasons set forth above. The City Council further finds that the Project as
proposed is the best combination of features to serve the interest of the public and
achieve the project goals.
More specifically, the Project as proposed strikes a proper balance
between commercial development that focuses on economic activity, and high - quality
residential development that emphasizes a mixed -use environment in which residents
benefit from nearby shopping and employment opportunities. This proposed Old Town
Specific Plan Amendment recognizes the need for economic activity and growth in the
City but also promotes sound environmental policies due to the reduced reliance on
vehicle trips (stemming from mixed use development) and proximity to public
transportation. For all of these reasons, the City Council selects the Project as
proposed.
A -40
EXHIBIT B
Statement of Overriding Considerations
The following Statement of Overriding Considerations is made in connection
with the proposed approval of the Amendment to the Old Town Specific Plan (the
"Project ").
CEQA requires the decision - making agency to balance the economic, legal,
social, technological or other benefits of a project against its unavoidable
environmental risks when determining whether to approve a project. If the benefits of
the project outweigh the unavoidable adverse effects, those effects may be considered
acceptable. CEQA requires the agency to provide written findings supporting the
specific reasons for considering a project acceptable when significant impacts are
unavoidable. Such reasons must be based on substantial evidence in the Program
EIR or elsewhere in the administrative record. The reasons for proceeding with this
Project despite the adverse environmental impacts that may result are provided in this
Statement of Overriding Considerations.
The City Council finds that the economic, social and other benefits of the
Project outweigh the significant and unavoidable impacts to air quality, climate
change /global warming, and noise. In making this finding, the City Council has
balanced the benefits of the Project against its unavoidable impacts and has indicated
its willingness to accept those adverse impacts. The City Council finds that each one
of the following benefits of the Project, independent of the other benefits, would
warrant approval of the Project notwithstanding the unavoidable environmental
impacts of the Project.
A. The City. Council finds that all feasible mitigation measures have been
imposed to either lessen Project impacts to less than significant or to the extent
feasible, and furthermore, that alternatives to the Project are infeasible because they
generally have similar or greater impacts, or. they do not provide the benefits of the
Project, or are otherwise socially or economically infeasible as fully described in the
Statement of Facts and Findings.
B. The proposed Project strikes a proper balance between commercial
development that focuses on economic activity, and high - quality residential
development that emphasizes a mixed -use environment in which residents benefit
from nearby shopping and employment opportunities.
C. The proposed Project will reduce potential adverse environmental
impacts compared with build -out under the currently- existing Old Town Specific Plan
due to its emphasis on mixed -use development and the benefits that such
development provides, including reduced vehicle trips as a result of proximity to
shopping, entertainment, and employment opportunities.
B -1
D. The proposed Project will create additional housing units beyond what
currently exists in the Old Town Specific Plan area or what currently could be
developed in that area and thus will add to the available housing stock in the City.
E. The proposed Project will augment the City's economic base by
providing additional tax revenues resulting from the commercial component of the
proposed allowable development.
The City Council finds that the foregoing benefits provided through approval of
the Old Town Specific Plan Amendment Project outweigh the identified significant
adverse environmental impacts. The City Council further finds that each of the
individual Old Town Specific Plan Amendment Project benefits discussed above
outweighs the unavoidable adverse environmental effects identified in the Final
Program EIR and therefore finds those impacts to be acceptable. The City Council
further finds that each of the benefits listed above, standing alone, is sufficient
justification for the City Council to override these unavoidable environmental impacts.
B -2
EXHIBIT C
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
C -1
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
OLD TOWN SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
Responsible Action Verification of Compliance
Monitoring Enforcement Monitoring Indicating
Mitigation Measures Phase Agency Agency Compliance Initials Date Remarks
Aesthetics
_..._.. ..- __.._.._..._._- __._.__... -._ ._---..__.._—___._.._---------°--.__._.___..---------.---.------.._...___..------_____-_----•--------.----__-._..___---..._._.___..-----------.._ ------- ....-__...-.-.._._....---_.-_.._-_ --- ----- ._.......... ........ _......_.._..._.__.-.___. .._.------------
.- --- ---- -_ -.._
Measure 3.1 -3a: The applicant shall ensure that all lighting fixtures Pre - Construction City of City of Issuance of
shall contain "sharp cut -off' fixtures, and shall be fitted with flat glass / Construction Temecula Temecula Building Permit,
lenses and internal and external shielding. Building Official review of plans,
Measure 3.1 -3b: The applicant shall ensure that all fixtures shall be or other field verification
parallel with the finished grade of the project site; no fixtures shall Designee and sign -off by
be tilted above a 90- degree angle. City of
Measure 3.1 -3c: The applicant shall ensure that site lighting Temecula
systems shall be grouped into control zones to allow for open,
closing, and night lighttsecurity 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.
Old Town Specific Plan Amendment ESA / 0209294
MMRP
April 2010
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
OLD TOWN SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT MITIGATION MONITOR AND REPORT PROGRAM
� nwwpvmmme Action Verification c*Compliance
monm,nno Enforcement Monitoring Indicating
Mitigation Measures Phase Agency Ae*n'Y Compliance muim» oa»p Remarks
Air Quality
__--__--____-----'___—_—___
Measure w.o-2a: The applicant shall ensure that mm Pre-Construct acAomo City of Issuance of
oomm/ program ix implemented pursuant m the provision vf /ovnotmmivn Temecula Grading Permit
ucAoMo Rule 400. Building Official and field
Measure ».o'ou: Prior tu grading and construction, the applicant or other verification and
shall un responsible for compliance with the following: Designee sign-off by City
• During clearing, grading, earth moving, o,oxcuvat maintain of Temecula
equipment engines in proper tune.
• After clearing, grading, earth moving, v,excavation:
~
Wet the area down, sufficient enough tv form a crust vn
the surface with repeated soakings, oo necessary, m
maintain the crust and prevent dust pick upuy the wind.
^
Spread soil binders.
^
Implement street sweeping ovnecessary.
• During construction:
°
Use water trucks o, sprinkler systems m keep all areas
where vehicles move damp enough m prevent dust
raised when leaving the site.
°
Wet down areas m the late morning and after work io
completed for the day.
^
Use low sulfur fuel (o.on percent hy weight) for
construction equipment.
°
Discontinue construction during second stage smog
alerts.
Measure u.2-ov: Prior m grading and construction, the applicant
shall uo responsible for compliance with the following.
^ Require phased ochouu|om,vunotructmnom/vmemtv
minimize daily emissions.
" Schedule activities m minimize the amount m exposed
excavated soil during and after the end m work periods.
^ Treat unattended construction areas with water (disturbed
lands which have been, o, are expected m be, unused for four
v, more consecutive uoyn).
^
Require the planting vf vegetative ground cover uu soon u,
possible on construction sites.
�`��`���--`�����������������������---------- ------- �`����--��������������������������`���`�������������������
Old Town Specific Plan Amendrnent 2 ESA D209294
MMRP April 2010
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
OLD TOWN SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
Responsible Action Verification of Compliance
Monitoring Enforcement Monitoring Indicating
Mitigation Measures Phase Agency Agency Compliance Initials Date Remarks
• Install vehicle wheel- washers before the roadway entrance at
construction sites.
• Wash off trucks leaving the site.
• 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.
• Use vegetative stabilization, whenever possible, to control soil
erosion from stormwater, especially on super pads.
• Require enclosures or chemical stabilization of open storage
piles of sand, dirt, or other aggregate materials.
• Control off -road vehicle travel by posting driving speed limits on
these roads, consistent with City standards.
• Use electricity from pourer 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 -2a: 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:
• Provision of rideshare incentives.
• Provision of transit incentives for construction personnel.
• Configuration of construction parking to minimize traffic
interference.
• Measures to minimize obstruction of through traffic lanes.
• Use of a flagman to guide traffic when deemed necessary.
Old Town Specific Plan Amendment 3 ESA / 0209294
MMRP
April 2010
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
OLD TOWN SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
Responsible Action Verification of Compliance
Monitoring Enforcement Monitoring Indicating
Mitigation Measures Phase Agency Agency Compliance initials Date Remarks
Measure 3.2 -2g: Prior to the building /construction operations,
applicant and individual contractors shall commit in writing to the
following:
• Scheduling receipt of construction materials to peak travel
periods (i.e., 7:30 — 8:30 AM and 4:00 — 6:00 PM);
• Routing construction traffic through areas of least impact
sensitivity; and
• Limiting lane closures and detours to off -peak travel periods.
_....___._.. _ ......_.- _...._. .- ..._...._...__.._..__._.,. _........_ ............... ........ ............ .._...__. .
Measure 3.2 -3a: Construct on -site or off -site bus turnouts, Pre - Construction SCAQMD City of Issuance of
passenger benches, and shelters. / Construction Temecula Grading Permit
Measure 3.2 -3b: Provide shuttles to major rail transit centers of Building Official and field
multi -modal stations. or other verification and
Designee sign -off by City
Measure 3.2 -3c: Contribute to regional transit systems (e.g., right- of Temecula
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.
------------- .__.------- ..... ._ ....... __....__--- ----- __- .- .. - - -_.
Global Warming /Climate Change
............. .._................... ._._._.......... _..._ __ ...........
Measure 3.3 -1: The applicant shall require implementation of all Pre- Construction SCAQMD City of Issuance of
feasible energy efficiency and GHG reduction measures, including / Construction Temecula Grading Permit
but not limited to the following: Building Official and field
Enemy Efficiency or other verification and
• Design buildings to be energy efficient. Designee sign -off by City
of Temecula
• 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.
Old Town Specific Plan Amendment 4 ESA / 0209294
MMRP April 2010
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
OLD TOWN SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
Responsible Action Verification of Compliance
Monitoring Enforcement Monitoring Indicating
Mitigation Measures Phase Agency Agency Compliance Initials Date Remarks
• Provide education on energy efficiency.
Renewable Enerpv
• 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 Efffclencv
• 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.
• 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.
Old Town Specific Plan Amendment 5 ESA / 0209294
MMRP
April 2010
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
OLD TOWN SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
Responsible Action Verification of Compliance
Monitoring Enforcement Monitoring Indicating
Mitigation Measures Phase Agency Agency Compliance Initials Date Remarks
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.)
'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
Old Town Specific Plan Amendment 6 ESA I D209294
MMRP
April 2010
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
OLD TOWN SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
Responsible Action Verification of Compliance
Monitoring Enforcement Monitoring Indicating
Mitigation Measures Phase Agency Agency Compliance initials Date Remarks
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. _
Old Town Specific Plan Amendment 7 ESA / 0209294
MMRP
April 2010
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
OLD TOWN SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
Responsible Action Verification of Compliance
Monitoring Enforcement Monitoring Indicating
Mitigation Measures Phase Agency Agency Compliance Initials Date Remarks
Cultural Resources
-- -- - -_.. _ — - -- -- - - - - - -- - - - - -- - - - - - -- — - ---- .— ..... _-- ------
Mitigation Measure 3.41a: Consistent with the City of Temecula's Pre- Construction Riverside Riverside City of
General Plan Goal 6 and Implementation Procedure OS -26 and OS- County County Temecula
39, the Specific Plan Amendment shall include a new policy which qualified qualified Project
requires that all areas slated for development or other ground- archaeologist archaeologist Approval
disturbing activities shall be subject to a Phase I survey (including a and Pechanga and Pechanga
1 -mile radius records search and Intensive archaeological survey) tribal tribal
for archaeological resources on a project - specific basis prior to the representative( representative(
City's approval of project plans. The survey shall be carried out by a s) s)
qualified archaeologist in consultation with the Pechanga Band of
Luiseho Mission Indians (Pechanga Tribe).1 The Pechanga Tribe
shall be allowed to accompany the project archaeologist on the
Phase I walkover survey, and shall be given the opportunity to
comment on the archaeological report which results from the
evaluation. If 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 by a Riverside County qualified archaeologist and the
Pechanga Tribe, and that recommendations are made for treatment
of these resources, in consultation with the Pechanga Tribe. If .
Phase 11 archeological evaluations are recommended, the
Pechanga Tribe shall consult on all proposed test plans and
participate with the project archeologist during testing and
evaluation. All such surveys with recommendations shall be
completed prior to project approval. Any identified resources shall
be avoided if feasible. Ground - disturbing activity in areas which
were previously undisturbed, or have been determined by a
qualified archaeologist in consultation with the Pechanga Tribe, to
be sensitive for cultural resources shall be monitored by a Riverside
County qualified archaeologist and Pechanga tribal
representative(s)_ .... _ .... .......... ._.- -- -_- -. _... _ _...._ .. .... ..._........
Mitigation Measure 3.41 b: Consistent with the City of Temecula's Construction City of City of Verification by
General Plan Goal 6 and Implementation Procedure OS -26 and OS- Temecula in Temecula in City of
39, the Specific Plan Amendment shall include a new policy which consultation consultation Temecula in
states that during construction, should prehistoric or historic with Pechanga with Pechanga consultation
subsurface cultural resources be discovered, all activity in the Tribe Tribe with Pechanga
vicinity of the find shall stop and a Riverside County qualified Tribe
archaeologist, in consultation with the Pechanga Tribe will be
contacted to assess the significance of the find according to CEQA
I Pursuant to the City's General Plan Policy 6.10 and OS -39, the Pechanga Band of Luiseno Mission Indians is specifically identified as the consulting Tribe and therefore the mitigation
measures and conditions of approval should also specifically identify the Pechanga Tribe.
Old Town Specific Plan Amendment 8 ESA / 0209294
MMRP
April 2010
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
OLD TOWN SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
Responsible Action Verification of Compliance
Monitoring Enforcement Monitoring Indicating
Mitigation Measures Phase Agency Agency Compliance Initials Date Remarks
Guidelines Section 15064.5. If any find is determined to be
significant, the City and the archaeologist will determine, in
consultation with the Pechanga Tribe, appropriate avoidance
measures or other appropriate mitigation. All cultural materials
recovered will be, as necessary and in consultation with the
Pechanga Tribe, subject to scientific analysis, and documentation
according to current professional standards. Sacred and ceremonial
items shall not be subject to any scientific analysis. Upon
completion of earthmoving activities, the landowner shall relinquish
ownership of all cultural resources, Including sacred items, burial
goods and all archaeological artifacts that are found on the project
area to the Pechanga Tribe for prope treatm and diskosition_
- - - - - -... -------- ----- - - ---- ----- . _. ...........
Mitigation Measure 3.4 -1c: Consistent with the City of Temecula's Construction City of City of Verification by
General Plan Goal 6 and Implementation Procedure OS -26 and OS- Temecula in Temecula in City of
39, the Specific Plan Amendment shall include a new policy which consultation consultation Temecula in
states that for projects in areas which were previously undisturbed, with Pechanga with Pechanga consultation
or have been determined by a qualified archaeologist in consultation Tribe Tribe with Pechanga
with the Pechanga Tribe pursuant to MM 3.4 -1 a to be sensitive for Tribe
cultural resources, at least 30 days prior to seeking a grading
permit, the Project Applicant shall contact the Pechanga Tribe to
notify the Tribe of grading, excavation and the monitoring program,
and to coordinate with the City of Temecula and the Tribe to
develop and enter into a Cultural Resources Treatment and
Monitoring Agreement. The Agreement shall address the treatment
of known cultural resources; appropriate treatment and procedure
for inadvertent discoveries; the designation, responsibilities, and
participation of Native American Tribal monitors during grading,
excavation and ground disturbing activities; project grading and
development scheduling; terms of compensation for the monitors;
and treatment and final disposition of any cultural resources, sacred
sites, and hum remains di on the site.
Mitigation Measure 3.4 -1d: Consistent with the City of Temecula's Construction City of City of Verification by
General Plan Goal 6 and Implementation Procedure OS -26 and OS- Temecula in Temecula in City of
39, the Specific Plan Amendment shall include a new policy which consultation consultation Temecula in
states that if inadvertent discoveries of subsurface cultural with Pechanga with Pechanga consultation
resources are discovered during grading, the Project Applicant, the Tribe Tribe with Pechanga
Project Archaeologist, and the Pechanga Tribe shall assess the Tribe
significance of such resources and shall meet and confer regarding
the mitigation for such resources. If the project applicant and the
Pechanga Tribe cannot agree on the significance or the mitigation
for such resources, these issues will be presented to the Planning
Director for decision. The Planning Director shall make the
determination based on the provisions of the California
Environmental Quality Act with respect to archaeological resources
Old Town Specific Plan Amendment 9 ESA! D209294
MMRP
April 2010
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
OLD TOWN SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
Responsible Action Verification of Compliance
Monitoring Enforcement Monitoring Indicating
Mitigation Measures Phase Agency Agency Compliance initials Date Remarks
and shall take into account the religious beliefs, customs, and
practices of the Pechanga Tribe. Notwithstanding any other rights
available under the law, the decision of the Planning Director shall
_,be appealable to the City Temecula Cit Council.
- - -- - -- - -- -- -- ...- - - - - - - - -- - - - - - -- - - - -- ----- -._....._......_ - - -- - ... -.. _ - ._.- ........ - ..
Mitigation Measure 3.4 -1e: Consistent with the City of Temecula's Construction City of City of Verification by
General Plan Goal 6 and Implementation Procedure OS -26 and OS- Temecula in Temecula in City of
39, the Specific Plan Amendment shall include a new policy which consultation consultation Temecula in
states all sacred sites, should they be encountered within the with Pechanga with Pechanga consultation
project area, shall be avoided and preserved as preferred Tribe Tribe with Pechanga
mitigation, if feasible. Tribe
- -- _ �_�-- - _— -- - -_ - -- -- -- - - -- -. -... -- - -- ._..... _ ........ _.... - - -- --------- -- _------------- - - - ----- --- -_ -._ - - - - - ---
Mitigation Measure 3.4 -2a: Consistent with the City of Temecula's Pre - Construction City of City of Verification by
General Plan Goal 6 and Implementation Procedure OS -2, the Temecula Temecula City of
Specific Plan Amendment shall include a new policy which states Temecula
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.
_.__..._-_..__...._..___.._.---- ----- -._.......... ... ..._...._-.-......._.__ ...............____._.---....__.....__.....---.._._......_._._._.._..............----__.-._._--.,_.....__._........__.___......___..,................._.__ ..... .. .....
......._.._..._..._._.
Mitigation Measure 3.4 -4a: Consistent with State law, CEQA Construction City of City of Verification by
Guidelines, and the City of Temecula's General Plan Goal 6 and Temecula in Temecula in City of
Implementation Procedure OS -26 and OS -39, the Specific Plan consultation consultation Temecula in
Amendment shall include a new policy which states that if human with Riverside with Riverside consultation
skeletal remains are uncovered during project construction, work in County County Coroner with Riverside
the vicinity of the find shall cease and the Riverside County coroner Coroner and and Native County Coroner
will be contacted to evaluate the remains If the County coroner Native American and Native
determines that the remains are Native American, he or she will American Heritage American
contact the Native American Heritage Commission, in accordance Heritage Commission Heritage
with Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5, subdivision (c), and Commission Commission
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 archaeol standards orp ractices, where the Native -
Old Town Specific Plan Amendment 1 ESA / 0209294
MMRP
April 2010
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
OLD TOWN SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
Responsible Action Verification of Compliance
Monitoring Enforcement Monitoring Indicating
Mitigation Measures Phase Agency Agency Compliance Initials Date Remarks
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.
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
rema ins.
Mitigation Measure 3.4 -5a: The Specific Plan Amendment shall Construction City of City of Verification by
include a new policy which states that in the event that Temecula Temecula City of
paleontological resources are discovered, the project proponent will Temecula
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.
_...._._..._._. ._...__.___._..__._-------- ... - -- _ .. _ ..._ .__ - .__._.__..._.___.....__.____. _.._........ _... _ _ __- ..._......_... ._ _._.. __..
Hydrology
Mitigation Measure 3.5-1: Prior to the issuance of a grading or of
building permit for individual projects, the project developer shall file Pre- Construction City u City u Issuance
p 1 p j p /Construction/ Temecula Temecula Building Permit,
a NOI with California to comply with the requirements of the NPDES Post- Building Official review of plans,
General Construction Permit (Municipal Code, Chapter Chapter Construction or other field verification
8.24). This would include the preparation of a SWPPP incorporating Designee and sign -off by
construction BMPs for control of erosion'and sedimentation City of
Old Town Specific Plan Amendment 11 ESA / D209294
MMRP
- April 2010
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
OLD TOWN SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
Responsible Action . Verification of Compliance
Monitoring Enforcement Monitoring Indicating
Mitigation Measures Phase Agency Agency Compliance Initials Date Remarks
contained in stormwater runoff. The project developer shall be Temecula
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.
Noise
_.._...........__ .............._...._.....__......_..._....._......................................................._....__......._............................................... ........................._._... _ ................. .. ........... .....................,......... ..... . .....
_ .......,._ .............,.._..._
Measure 3.7 -1a: The applicant shall ensure, as specified in City of Pre - Construction City of City of Issuance of
Temecula Ordinance No. 94 -25, that no construction may occur / Construction Temecula Temecula Grading Permit
within one - quarter (1/4) of a mile of any occupied residence during Building Official and field
the following hours: or other verification and
• 6:30 PM to 6:30 AM, Monday through Friday. Designee sign -off by City
of Temecula
• Before 7:00 AM or after 6:30 PM, Saturday.
• 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 that signs shall be
posted at the construction sites that include permitted construction
days and hours, and a contac n for the job site.
_.___...._._--------.._---__....__......_..__ __._...._......_.__._....__..._ —._.---- .---- --- -- ..________..___._ - - - -__ _..___._ - . - --._-----
Measure 3.7 -2a: The construction contractor will conduct crack Pre.-Construction City of City of Issuance of
surveys before construction activities that could cause architectural / Construction Temecula Temecula Grading Permit
damage to nearby structures. The survey will Include any historic Building Official and field
buildings or buildings in poor condition within 15 feet of construction. or other verification and
The surveys will be done by photographs, video tape, or visual Designee sign -off by City
inventory, and will include inside as well as outside locations. All of Temecula
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.
Old Town Specific Plan Amendment 12 ESA / 0209294
MMRP
April 2010
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
OLD TOWN SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
Responsible Action Verification of Compliance
Monitoring Enforcement Monitoring Indicating
Mitigation Measures Phase Agency Agency Compliance Initials Date Remarks
Measure 3.7 -3a: Building equipment (e.g., HVAC units) shall be Pre - Construction City of City of Issuance of
located away from nearby residences, on building rooftops, and / Construction / Temecula Temecula Grading Permit
properly shielded by either the rooftop parapet or within an Post- Building Official and field
enclosure that effectively blocks the line of sight of the source from Construction or other verification and
the nearest receptors. The resultant HVAC noise level shall not Designee sign -off by City
exceed 45 dBA at the nearest receptors. of Temecula
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.
.--- ------ _.._.__..._.__-._....__-.__..________..____.__-__—____._._._._-_-___.._________________.__... __._._--- ...----- ---- -___....._
Measure 3.7-4: If necessary to comply with the interior noise Pre - Construction City of City of Issuance of a
requirements of the City of Temecula and achieve an acceptable / Construction / Temecula Temecula Certificate of
interior noise level, noise reduction in the form of sound -rated Post- Building Official Occupancy
assemblies (i.e., windows, exterior doors, and walls) shall be Construction or other
incorporated into project building design, based upon Designee
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.
-------- ..._....-....._....._.._...._. ...- .......... _ ......... ._ ..... ..._..-- .... _ .............._. . __..,................__.. ............. __.. -..__. ....... - -. -.
Utilities and Services
._..-- ----------- ..._. _.._ .. , . _. -- _.._ .
Measure 3.8 -1a: The City shall continue to Implement its local code Pre - Construction City of City of Issuance of
that incorporates standards for parkland dedication and Temecula Temecula Building Permit,
development. The City requires (1) the dedication of parkland or the Building Official and sign -off by
payment of in -lieu fees and the development of recreation facilities or other City of
for all new development; and (2) developers of residential projects Designee Temecula
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 -1b: 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.
Old Town Specific Plan Amendment 13 ESA / 0209294
MMRP
April 2010
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
OLD TOWN SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
Responsible Action Verification of Compliance
Monitoring Enforcement Monitoring Indicating
Mitigation Measures Phase Agency Agency Compliance Initials Date Remarks
Measure 3.8 -1c: 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.
. ........... _...._-- .......... .-_ --------- __......... .... ... .......... .._ ........... ..._.....__..... ._....... .._..._................. ......................
Measure 3.8 -3a: Prior to construction in any undeveloped areas, Pre - Construction City of City of Issuance of
EMWD shall review the plans for consistency with design criteria. Temecula Temecula Building Permit,
Once approved by the EMWD engineer, the applicant shall pay the Building Official and sign -off by
required connection fee to EMWD prior to construction of the sewer or other City of
line. Designee Temecula
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 Pujoi Street
sewer lines.
Measure 3.8 -6: All proposed development plans shall designate Pre - Construction City of City of Issuance of
adequate and convenient space on the property to be used for Temecula Temecula Building Permit,
collecting all recyclable materials generated on the premises. Building Official review of plans,
or other field verification
Designee and sign -off by
City of
Temecula
...._........... _......._ _ ...... ,.,.....
Traffic and Transportation
----..._..__----------------_-._.._-_.---_-__.------_ c-..------,-- --- ---- --- ,--- _...-- ___.._... .... -- -... - --------- __ -----
....._........_.
Measure 3.9 -1: The project applicant shall incorporate the following Pre- Construction City of City of Issuance of a
features into the design of the Specific Plan area: Temecula Temecula Certificate of
• At the Intersection of Old Town Front Street and Engineer or Occupancy
Rancho California Road provide a northbound other Designee
through /right -turn lane combination with a right -
turn overlap.
• Provide subsequent Traffic Impact Analyses, as
development occurs, to determine need and
timing for implementation of enhancements to the
intersection of Old Town Front Street/Second
Street and the northern Mercedes Street
connection to Old Town Front Street and /or
implementation of Roundabouts in the vicinity of
.. .. Old_Town Front Street and First Street/Santiago
Old Town Specific Plan Amendment 14 ESA / D209294
MMRP
April 2010
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
OLD TOWN SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
Responsible Action Verification of Compliance
Monitoring Enforcement Monitoring Indicating
Mitigation Measures Phase Agency Agency Compliance Initials Date Remarks
Road and Old Town Front Street and Mercedes
Street in the vicinity of the Moreno Road south
loop.
o 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.._
_ __. _ _ ..... ...... ..
Measure 3.9 -2: The project applicant shall incorporate the following Pre- Construction City of City of Issuance of a
features into the design of the Specific Plan area: Temecula Temecula Certificate of
At the Intersection of Old Town Front Street and Engineer or Occupancy
• Rancho California Road provide a westbound other Designee
right -turn overlap.
• Provide subsequent Traffic Impact Analyses, as
development occurs, to determine need and
timing for implementation of enhancements to the
intersection of Old Town Front Street/Second
Street and the northern Mercedes Street/Moreno
Road connection to Old Town Front Street and /or
implementation of Roundabouts at the north and
south entries to Old Town.
• 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.
Old Town Specific Plan Amendment 15 ESA I D209294
MMRP
April 2010