HomeMy WebLinkAbout95-049 CC ResolutionRESOLUTION NO. 9.5-49
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
TEMECULA CERTIFYING PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 95--0031
(FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT) ADOPTING FINDINGS
OF FACT AND STATEMENTS OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATION AND
APPROVING THE MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM ON
PROPERTY GENERALLY LOCATED WEST OF INTERSTATE 15, EAST
OF THE CITY'S WESTERN BORDER, SOUTH OF RANCHO
CALIFORNIA ROAD AND NORTH OF THE SANTA MARGARITA
WHEREAS, Tom Dodson and Associates completed Planning Application No. 95-0031
(Final Environmental Impact Report) under City's direction and in accordance with the City and
State CEQA Guidelines;
WHEREAS, said EIR application was processed in the time and manner prescribed by
State and local law;
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission considered said Final Environmental Impact
Report (FEIR) which includes the Draft EIR, the Technical Appendices, the Response to
Comments, the Mitigation Monitoring Program, Findings of Fact and Statements of Overriding
Considerations on May 15, 1995, at which time interested persons had an opportunity to testify
either in support or opposition;
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission continued this item at their May 5, 1995 meeting
to June 5, 1995;
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission considered said Final Environmental Impact
Report (FEIR) which includes the Draft EIR, the Technical Appendices, the Response to
Comments, the Mitigation Monitoring Program, Findings of Fact and Statements of Overriding
Considerations on June 5, 1995;
WHEREAS, at the conclusion of the Planning Commission hearing, the Planning
Commission recommended Certification of the said FEIR, Adopted the Findings of Fact and
Statements of Overriding Consideration and Approved the Mitigation Monitoring Program;
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY OF TEMECULA CITY COUNCIL DOES
RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. Findings. That the City of Temecula City Council in Certifying the FEIR,
makes the following Findings of Fact and Statements of Overriding Considerations set forth on
Exhibit A, attached hereto and incorporated herein as set forth in full, to wit:
R¢sos\95-49 I
Section 2. Conditions. That the City of Temecula City Council hereby certifies
Planning Application No. 95-0031 (FEIR), adopts Findings of Fact and Statements of Overriding
Consideration and approves the Mitigation Monitoring Program (Exhibit B) for the Old Town
Entertainment Project which includes the Master Conditional Use Permit, the Westside Specific
Plan, and subsequent development proposals within these areas including but not limited to
Development Agreement No. DV95-0001.
Section 3. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOFrED this 13th day of June, 1995.
ATTEST:
, Mayor
J[~nEeAS~, CMC, Cit~
STATE OF CALIFORNIA)
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE) SS
CITY OF TEMECULA)
I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing Resolution was duly adopted by the City
Council of the City of Temecula at a regular meeting thereof, held on the 13th day of June,
1995 by the following vote of the Council:
4 COUNCILMEMBERS: Lindemans, Mufioz, Parks, Roberts
NOES:
0 C OUNCILMEMBERS: None
ABSENT:
0 COUNCILMEMBERS: None
ABSTAINED: 1
COUNCILMEMBERS: Stone
Reaos\95-49 2
CANDIDATE FACTS, FININGS AND STATEMIOFF OF
OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS REGARDING THE
ENVIRONMV~NTAL ~,~'~.,-~ FROM
IMF~.~NTING TnW OLD TOWN I~2nEVELOPMENT PRO.IECT
IN THE C1TY OF ~
A. INTRODUCTION
The City of Temecula, in approving Master Conditional User Permit (Planning Application No.
9~X)61), the Westside Specific Plan (Planning Application No. 95-0003), Tentative Tract Map
No. 28011 (Planning Application No 95-0004) and Development Agreement No. DV95-0001)
(the "proposed project'), which will allow the City of Temecula and The Zev Buffman Group
to develop entertainment facilities, a hotel, commercial and residential uses, makes the findings
of fact described below and adopts the statement of overriding considerations presented at the
end of this document. Hereafter, the following documents (Initial Study, Notice of Preparation,
Draft EIR, Technical Appendices, Response to Comments and Appendices) will be referred to
collectively as 'the EIR' for the proposed project.
B. PROJECT SUMMARY
B.1 PROJECT LOCATION
The proposed project encompasses two development areas, Old Town Temecula and the
Westside Specific Plan area. The Old Town Specific Plan area in Old Town Temecula consists
of the area between Rancho California Road and Santiago Road/First Street on the north and
south, respectively, and the 1-15 Freeway on the east, and essentially, Pujol Street on the West.
The Westside Specific Plan area encompasses approximately 153.1 acres south and west of Pujol
Street in the City of Temecula. The mapped location of the proposed project areas can be found
on the Murrieta and Temeeula 7.5' topographic maps published by the U.S. Geological Survey,
at Latitude 33° 28' North and Longitude 1170 09' West.
B.2 PROJECT CHARACTERISTICS
The proposed project envisions the phased construction of twelve entertainment structures,
activity areas, parking areas and circulation system modifications, and a hotel. Phase 1 is
proposed to be completed within two years of permit issuance by the City. Phase 2 will be
implemented some time after two years when demand for facilities is suffieiem to justify
construction. The proposed project also includes new land use designations over the 153.1 acre
Westside Specific Plan area. Within the Westside Specific Plan area, only the Wild West Arena
and hotel are forecast to be consreacted during Phase 1. The remainder of the land within the
Westside Specific Plan area will be developed at some undefined point in the future.
An estimated total of twelve new occupiable structures are proposed for construction as part of
the proposed project, and a single parking structure may be constructed in the Old Town area.
The entertainment structures are designed to implement the central entertainment concept of the
EXHIBIT A
FINDINGS OF FACT AND STATEMENTS OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS
R:\FORMS~STAFFRPToCC 6/'7/~5 Idb 9
Old Town Specific Plan (OTSP). As previously noted, two of the sn'uctures (the Wild West
Arena and the hotel) are located west and south Old Town within the Westside Specific Plan
OvsP).
B.2.1 Old Town Core nevelopm,,nt Prgjec~
The Phase 1 Old Town facilities and improvements are proposed to be developed within the next
two years. Phase 2 facilities and improvements will be developed as needed or when
economically justifiable. No specific locatious have yet been finalized for any of the following
facilities located within the OTSP area. Several alternative plans have been identified that show
facilities on different parcels within the OTSP. The proposed project consists of a conceptual
description of the facilities and their proposed activity patterns. The FIR, Chapter 3, contains
the detailed descriptious of the proposed facilities and activities.
C~t~ret Th~__*~t~: Two cabaret theaters are proposed to be located in ~ ~P ~ ~. ~ ~t
~~~~d~~lof~pm~ ~~~mco~~
27,~~ ~(~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~P~ m ~ ~m 45,~ ~.
~ ~ ~ ~ m ~ a m-~ of ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ly.
~ ~w ~ ~ m ~ ~ ~~ly ~ ~ ~ it ~ ~y ~~ ~ ~e ~ ~
hold 13 ~ ~ ~
Western Saloons: Two saloons a~ proposed to be located in the OTSP core area. Both saloons would
be conazmct~ during Phase I of the project and each saloon is proposed to contain alTproximat¢i_y 10,000
f~ in a one-two story structure. Each saloon will be desi~:! to entertain approximately 350 persore, 250
at tables and about 100 at or adjacent to the bar. A stoa!! stage will be provided for typical bar
entertainment, such as dancing girls. Staged bar fights, shootouts and other entertainment will be provided.
The saloons will operate every day of the week.
Ooera House: An opera house is proposed to be located in the OTSP. It would be constructed during
Phase 1 of the project. The opera house is proposed to be a two story stoa:rare with the pmscenima
approximately 50 feet high. The opera house is expected to encompass 85,000 f~ of space with a building
footprint of approximately 75,000 fla. Esrlm~t~l ?arlng capatfity will be 1,400 persons on the firSt floor
and 800 seats in the balcony. A television and radio studio will occupy approximately 2,500 fta within or
adjacent to the opera house. It is anticipated that the open house will have 13 per~nnances per week.
Showboat: A westc~.n showboat filcility with a showroom is proposed to be lc~,~ in the OTSP core at'ca.
This facility would be implemented during Phase 2 of the project ~ adequate d~nd for additional
entertaimnent space justifies its constracon. The showboat will be a two-stotT su'ucmre, with the
smokea-mcim approximately 30 feet high. It is pwposed to be appro~imamly 21,000 fta ,v~i it Would have
the capacity to ~ an estimated 600 pe~ons per event, seven days per week.
o
Wild West Arena' A 4,800 seat tent designed wild west arena that will be similar to Buffalo BiH's touring
western tent show is ptolx)sed to be 1oc-~_~__t~_ just west of OTSP cote area within the Westside Specific Plan
area. It would be consm~ted during Phase 1 of the project This is an outdoorfmdoor facility that will
operate all year but have a 16 week .~*mmcr "high' season. The atmla will encompass appmxima~ly
175,000 square/oct and the tent poles will raise the height of the facility to approximately 85-90 feet above
the ground surface. During the 36 week regular season two shows per week ate expected to be perfozmed,
primarily on the weekends. During the arena high season it is estlmn,ed that several shows will be
performed per day, pmnarily on Friday, Saturday and Sunday.
2
Vi~.'l ReaJitv Pavilion($): Thee vim2al ln~lity ~ with two ~ in ~ ~ proposed for
development withintl~ ~. On~imvilionwith t~o tismn~swiil be con~or.4~aspatt ofPhase 1 of
tbe propo~ pmjec~ TI~ ot~r two lmiliom will be impi .... ,,,,~J ~s pm of Fire: 2 wi~ sut~em
is ~sfi.e*v~l m be ~ 200 persore. Each pavilion will c~-c~.q)~e~ ~xmt 19,000 f~ for a mini of~7,000
each day.
'O,,ick Draw' Co, ql}etition ,~,~a: In the Old Town corn area a plaza or town squa~ will be constmct~
which is irareposed to contain a quick dzaw coraltuition area. Tnis facitity will be consm,cted as pan of
Phase I andispmpomltoeuccnupa~approxima~y 8,000 ft~omdomsinoradjaceutm the plaza. This
will be a wmnmmfized "police academy" type of facility where an individual will walk titrough an outdoor
maze of re'gets. Ten people can participate in ea~ five mim~ trip and scoi~ will be posted on n large
electronic boa~.
o
Hotel: One major houri is proposed for constraCon in the vicinity of'the wild west arem within the
Westside Specific Plan. The initial configureion of the hotel is pmlx~ m be four stories in height and
provide a total of 350 morns. It is p~opos~ to be con~a~.d din'in{ Phase 1 of the pmjecu A 5.7 acre
pad will be provided for this f~cility and it is ~ m comain at~mx~tely 300,000 ~ of building
space. The hotel my be expanded with 150 addifioml rooms during Phase 2 if s-~ci~ ~ justifim
such an expansion. The hotel is proposed to incl, _~_ approximately 50,000 f~ of minted ~ space when
constructed in Phase 1 and the ,n~ of retail uses ineh_,,t,.S res~urnms, service commevzial uses, and retail
commercial uses. An additional 50,000 ~ of ~ space may be constructed during Phase 2 if d~nand
for the coulmexcial capacity is sufficient.
Retail Commercial: The City anticipates 50,000 to 100,000 ~ of the ~ c~ ....... etci~i area idemuified in
the OTSP will ultimately be developed in Old Town to support the entm'minment hcilifies/activities. It is
esmmmted ttmt 30,000 ft= will be developed dtuing Phase 1 ~ a component of this project. No specific
locations have been selected for these ~ activities.
10.
Visitors Center/Ticket Office: One or more visitors centers/ticimt office facilities will be located in the
downtown area for ticket purchases and to provide inforotation. This f~.-ility/fiu:ilities may encompass up
to 5,500 ~ of an~. It will be open during normal business hours and during evenings when events are
scheduled at the entc-~inm~t complex.
11.
Administrative Suace: An additional 20,000 squa~ f~t of space for adminisuntive offices and back-of-
house at~s may be constructed to supporto the project. Some of this space may be 1o~ _t~d within the opeza
house imcOiv/and others on the second floor of other s'mu:uu~ or within independ~t strucutres.
The Phase 1 entertainment and support facilities are anticipated to be constructed and opened
concurrently in 1996 if approved by the City. It is also anticipated that the first phase of the
hotel will be opened in 1996. Phase 2 facilities will be implemented when sufficient demand
exists for them to be funded and placed in operations. The entertainment facilities are being
designed to operate at a 50% annual utilization rate relative to the capacities identified above,
with occasional individual performances being fully booked.
B.2.2 Westside $1~:ific Plan Develovment Area
In order for the hotel and Wild West Arena to be constructed as part of Phase 1, the City must
adopt the Westside Specific Plan and amend the General Plan. The proposed Westside Specific
Plan development area encompasses approximate 153.1 acres located south and west of Pujol
Street.
The following is a summary 'of land uses that are envisioned to be included in the Westside
Specific Plan if it is approved by the City.
A~a A: This area e~-o,,~p--se.~ 47.7 acres and the Plan designates it f~r Special Event Commexcial (SEC).
The SEC designation is designed to be an extm~sion of the CRISP and it ~ allow for tourist and hotel
commetchl us~. Allowable uses include wild w~st type facilities, ~how~, and support uses, including a
variety of public assembly activities. Hotel and supportipg retail activities, such as testatuan~, service
AraB: ~ B comprises 5.4 ac~s of land that is designat~l Co....~imlty C~/~ottrJ~t SHpport
(CCTS). The CCTS d~ignation is designed to n~t the n~l for ~ f~cilities to support SEC uses
within the Westside Specific Plan.
AreaC: Area C contains 18.1 acres of land at is designat~ High Density Residemfial (HDR). The HDR
desigmtiom provide multiple ~mily housing to meet the needs of fhnt~ employees of the proposed Noject.
According to the City, the HDR designation would allow a range of 13 to 20 units per ac~ in the Westside
Specific Plan. As~nnln_o 15.1 net acres (excluding mad rights-of-way), the m~mber of t~sidential units that
can be constructed as.9~mln~ 16 units per acre is 241.
Area ]3: Area D contains I2.7 acres ofhnd that is designated High Density Residential (HDR). The HDR
designations pwvide multiple f~mily housing to meet the needs of future employees of the proposed project.
A range of 13 w 20 units per ac~ is allowed. Asstuning 11.8 net acres (excluding mad rights-of-way),
16 residential traits per acre a total of 188 units can be consuucted.
Area E: Arm E consists of 2.8 acres that is designated Mixed Use (M'U). This use provides office,
comm~'ial, light iI!dllRtial =ntt OVerflow parking that will ~ the local ~dents and the commexcial
uses a.~odated with the Arena and hotel.
Area F: ~ F encompasses approxlm~-.ly 67.4 ac~s of lurid that is demigrated Open Space (OS). This
ar~a includes the steeper hili_~ides to the west of the W~tern By-Pass which dill not be developed. The
intent is to preserve thh a~a as potential habitat mitigation and visual open space. About 57.7 ac~ are
forecast to renuin undi~ with the remainder being affect~ by the footprint of the Westem. By-Pas.s.
With the exception of the Wild West Arena, hotel and supporting uses in the Special Event
Commercial portion of the Specific Plan, the remainder of the land within the Plan is not
forecast to undergo development until Phase 2.
B.2.3 Circulation System ln~rovements
In order to accommodate the traffic generated by the entertainment, food and beverage,
commercial office, and hotel facilities oufiined above, the City has identified a range of
circulation and parking system improvements m enhance waft'u= flow within the OTSP area and
the Westside Specific Plan area to the southwest, wher~ the arena and hotel will be located.
These improvements are outlined below.
First Sugec In accordance with the Roadway ~ and Build-out l~ommem4'tions of the ~
Plan and Old Town Specific Plan (OTSP), Santiago Rond ('F'ttst S~"~) will be g~co~ from at
Front Stzeet vmst and south to the West~n By-Pass Road in an 88-f~et fight-of-way. This will include
construction of a bridge over Munieta Creek. This mad impmvemn~ will be needed during Phase 1 of
the project in ot~-r to f~cilimte traffic flow in the OTSP and Westside Specific Plan areas.
Sixth Sty"t: Sixth Steer may be improved in accordance with the OTSP seco ...... ~mt~tlons. It would be
extmsded south to the Pujol Sram/Felix Valdez Sheet im,,r~ectlon A ~-w bridge would be ~ to
to justify its construction.
F~li~ Vnlde~ Sub"t: FeUx Valdez Stx~t wffi be ~ttessd~d from ~ Califo~ ~ to P~jol St~t,
including su~ightening the nli!~ument to allow better not~-sonth traffic-flow in accordance with the OTSP
mcomme~dmtions. The intmsection of Diaz Road/Ram:~ California Road and Netix Valdez Stn~t would
Western Bvpnss: The Western Bypass Ro~d is identified in the Gemn~ Plan and will be co~ ft~n
its intersection with State Highway 79/lntetsta~ 15 ~ within a right-of-way d~igned for a four-
lane divided madway. The By-Pass would be consmict~ not~ along the ~ Plan alir, ument until it
intersects with an extension of Vincent Mot=a~a Drive. Vincent Mota~t Drive would be exte,ut~ to ttz
southwest fwm its pt~ent texminus in the consu'ucted industx~ pads throngh to the We~-rn By-Pass which
is located just west of these pad~. This mute would requixe construction of another bridge across Murrieta
Creek. Because this road ks essential to access the Wild West Arena and hotel, it will be consm~cted
during Phase 1.
Puiol Street: Pujol Street will be extended south to ~ with the Western By-Pass. This impwvement
will be constructed during Phase 1.
Main Steer: Main Strut will be modified to better rapport pedestrian and local wansit circuintion from
the Old Town co~ axm to the A~na site. The bridge wiU also be evenmn!ly t~-placed in accordance with
the OTSP. It has not yet been determined whether this facility will be improved during Phase 1 or Phase
2.
Sidewalk/Curb lm~rovemeuts: Minor improvements, such as sidewalks and curbs will be in.smiled along
Front St~et, south of Firs~ Su~t. These improvements will be con,sm~cted during Phase I.
o
Rancho California Road/I-15 Inte~hnn~ Improvements: The north bound on-ramp on the 1-15 at Rancho
California Road will be t~.onstmcted to impwve traffic flow through this ~e. This impwvemcnt
is scheduled for implementation, but may not be completed dining Phase 1 because it is also dependent
upon Calwam and Federal Highway ,a, rimi,i~wation approvals.
Traffic Manalement Otxion~: Within the centt~ ponion of Old Town, one or two of the east-west ~
(Fourth Street, Main Steer, or ~ Sm~et) may be dosed to vehicular traffic and become pan of the town
location of the town squa~ may vary depending upon the City's conclusion t~gaxding the best altermrlve
location for the squa~.
5
10.
Festivn~ Events: Dining major festival events the project would inch~ · variety of meet ememimnent
activities. Some form of people mover sysunn will be installed along Main Sueet ftmn Front Strut to the
Atom. This could incinde a th~me mla~d shu~e system, funicul~ uamit symmn, horse dmwu cam, or
a pedesuian people mover. Such events ate forec~ to be schezhded dmin~ Phase 1 of the project.
The circulation system improvements that are essential to adequately access the proposed
facilities are anticipated to be constructed and placed in operation during Phase 1 (1996), if the
project is approved by the City. It is anticipated that the Phase 2 circulation system
improvements can be completed in support of the OTSP as they are appropriate. The streetscape
in the Old Town area will be constructed to meet the design guidelines contained in the OTSP.
This can include rolled curbs, wooden boardwalk, street amenities (such as benches);. and
covered arcades.
3.2.4 Psrkj_'np Favillties
After careful evaluation the City has preliminarily concluded that centralized parking on the
periphery of the Old Town will best serve the land use concept contained in the OTSP and
proposed in the Westside Specific Plan. The following facilities ar~ proposed.
Front Street Parldm, Area: Between 450 and 1,000 parking spaces will be provided along the west side
of Yront Street. At 32~ ~ ~ space, approximnt,.ty 3.5 acres will be devoted to parking.
Sixth Strut Par!drip Area: A paxking lot is proposed north of Sixth Street. It is anticipated that
appr0~imnt~.ly 440 parking spac~ will be provided on grade at this 1ocatiolL but a parking strucm~ could
be constructed if deemed economically feasible. An a~a of approximately one to two act~ will be devoted
to this parking aiwa. It will be constructed during Phase 1.
Arena/Hotel Parkine Area: Parld%v spaces and/or a parking mucm~ will be provided adjacent to the
Arena and the hotel. h is anticipated that 1,700 parking spaces will be pwvided for the Arena on
appmxim~t. ly 12.7 acr~ of I~nd. An e~aimnt~'l 510 parking ~ will be provided in support of Old Town
entertainment f~ilifies on approximan,ly 4.5 acre site. This parking facility will be co~ during
Phase 1.
Overflow Parkini: H requited, overflow parking a~ns may be ~ eith~ adjacevt to Pujol $m~
near its proposed 'intrusion with the Western By-Pass or to the north along Vincent Moraga Road.
Sufficient acreage, initial estimate is 7.65 acres, is available for - 1,025 parking spaces. These areas could
be implemented during Phase 1 if r~luiV~.
It is expected that a total of 3,200 permanent parking stalls will be provided to support the
project and development within the OTSP. The overflow parking areas are envisioned to
provide an additional 1,025 parking spaces for a total of 4,225 spaces. The actual number of
parking stalls required will be determined prior to approval of the project and each phase will
be conditioned upon acuual City parking requirements.
6
C. ~.IgV1RO~AL REVieW
The entire adminisu'afiv¢ record, (including the Draft FIR, Technical Appendices and
attachments, public comments and City Staff reports, and these facts, timings and statement of
overriding considerations) serve as the basis for the City's environmental determination. The
detailed environmental impacts and proposed mitigation measures for the Old Town
Redevelopment Project are presented in Chapter 4 of the FIR and in the responses to comments
which are part of the FIR. Alternatives to the proposed project are discussed in Chapter 5 of
the FIR. Evaluation of growth inducement and irrevers~le commitment of resources is provided
in Chapter 6 of the FIR. The following findings conlain a summary of the facts used in making
determinations for each environmental issue addressed in the FIR and Initial Study.
The City of Temecula and The Zev Buffman Group initiated.the proposed project in early 1994.
To assist with processing the CEQA environmental documentation, the City retained Tom
Dodson & Associates w support the independent review of the project. The City retained
qualified experts to prepare technical evaluations of major environmental issues for use in
performing its independent review of the project. The following list summarizes the project
CEQA review milestones.
The Initial Study was completed by the City on June 23, 1994.
The Notice of Preparation for the project was issued on July 8, 1994 for 30 day public
review.
A public scoping meeting was held for the project by the City on June 23, 1994.
The Draft EIR was released for public review on December ?, 1994.
The public comment period began on December 7, 1994 and extended to January 25,
1995.
The Final FIR was released to Responsibl~ and Truste~ Agencies that commented on the
Draft EIR on April 5, 1995.
The City Planning Commission reviewed and recommended approval of the proposed
project, including certification of the Final EIR and adoption of Smmments of Overriding
Consideration, on May 15, 1995.
The City Council reviewed and approved the project, including certification of the Final
FIR and adoption of Statements of Overriding Consideration, on ?..~.?, 1995.
D. FINDINGS
Presented below are the environmental findings made by the Temecula City Council after its
review of the documents referenced above and consideration of written and oral comments on
the Old Town Redevelopment Project (proposed project) submitted to the Planning Commission
and City Council at a public hearing, including all other information provided during the
decision-making process. These findings provide a summary of the information contained in the
FIR, related technical documents, and the public hearing record that have been referenced by
the City Council in making its decision to approve the Master Conditional Use Permit, Westside
7
Specific Plan, Tentative Tract Map, Development Agreement, and other actions, required to
implement the proposed project.
The EIR prepared for the project evalual~ seven (7) major environmental issue categories for
potential significant adverse impacts. These major environmental issue categories are: air
quality, biologic:tl resources (plant and animal life), noise, land use, transportation/circulation,
aesthetics and visual resources, and cultural r~ources. When cumulative impacts were included,
the EIR reached a total of 14 findings on environmental issues. Short- and long-term impacts
and project specific and cumulative impacts were evaluated for each phase of the proposed
project. Some of the issue categories contained several subissues which are summarized below.
Of these 5 major environmental categories, the City Council concurs with the findings in the EIR
that the issues and subissue~ discussed below can be m'ctigated below a significant impact
threshold, or for those issues which cannot be m'nigated below a level of significance, that
overriding considerations exist which make those impacts acceptable.
In addition to the 7 major environmental issue categories addressed in the EIR, twelve (12) other
major environmental issue categories (earth resources, water resources, light and glare, natural
resources, risk of upset, population, housing, public services, energy, utilities, human health,
and recreation) were found to be nonsignificant in the Initial Study prepared for the proposed
project. The City Council concurs with the findings on these environmental issue categories as
outlined in the Initial Study (Appendix 8.1 of the EIR).
Those environmental issue categories identified in the Initial Study as having no potential for
significant adverse impact, with or without mitigation, are described below in Section D. 1. The
descriptions in Section D. 1 include substantiation from the Initial Study. Each of the potentially
significant, but mitigable, effects of the proposed project identified in the EIR are described
below (Section D.2.), including substantiation from the EIR, associated documents and/or the
hearing record. Unavoidable (unmitigable) significant adverse impacts of the project are
described in Section E of this document. An analysis and comparison of the alternatives to the
project are described in Section F of this document. Project benefits are described in Section
G. The balancing of benefits and impacts and the statement of overriding considerations are
described and evaluated in Section H of this document.
All mitigation measures identified in the EIR and Initial Study are addressed in the Mitigation
Monitoring/Reporting Program which is included as part of the decision-making record for this
project. Implementation of the monitoring program will ensure that the measures identified in
the EIR will be implemented in accordance with discussion in the EIR and as required by Public
Resources Code Section 21081.6. These measures are within the jurisdiction of the City to
implement, but some measures may require other agencies to participate in the monitoring
program.
D.1. Non*SL, mificant Impacts laentified in the lniti2l Study
The following issues were identified in the Initial Study as having no potential to cause
significant impact and were not carried forward into the EIR for derailed evaluation.
In the following presentation each resource issue is identified; it is followed by a description of
the potential significant adverse environmental effect (Potential Significant Impact); a discussion
of the finding in the administrative record, which is predominantly the Initial Study, Notice of
Preparation and responses, technical appendices, and referenced documents; any mitigation
measures that will be implemented to achieve a non-significant impact are 'identified; and finally,
a discussion of the facts supporting the finding are summarize. .
The City of Temecula City Council hereby finds that all mitigation measures identified in the
Initial Study that will be implemented to mitigate the impacts of this project have been
incorporated into, or required of, the proposed project to avoid or substantially lessen the
following potentially significant environmental impacts to a level. of insignificance.
Public Resources Code Section 21081 states that no public agency shall approve or carry out a
project for which an environmental impact report has been completed which identifies one or
more significant effects unless the public agency makes one, or more, of the following findings:
ChnageS or alterations have been mquin~ in, or incot~r*_ _~_ into the project xd~h mitigate or avoid the
significant environmental effects thereof as identified in the completed envi~oume. ntal impact t~porc
Such ¢hnn~s or alterations are w~thin the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency and such
changes have been adopted by such agency or can and should be adopted by such other agemy; and/or
Specific economic, social or other cons/deradons m=~ id~:~ibl¢ tl~ mitigation ~ or project
aiter~dves identified in the envirom~*mal imp/ct t~orc
The Temecula City Council hereby finds, pursuant to Public Resources Section 21081, that the
following issues are non-significant because they have no potential to cause a significant impact
or because mitigation measures will be implemented as outlined below. The City Council
further finds that no additional mitigation measures or project changes are required to reduce the
potential impacts discussed below to a level of nonsignificance and that no additional project
changes have been made during the public review of the proposed project. These issues and the
measures adopted to mitigate them to a level of insignificance are as follows:
i. Earth Resources: Unstable Earth Conditions
Potential Significant hnp~ct:
Unstable earth conditions could cause significant pote~n~ exposm'c to
futtttc stn~'unes and hmnans with/n the project axm.
Finding:
The unstable earth issues a~ discussed in the Initial Study, Chapter 8, Section 8.1 of the EIR.
The ~-~ysis of earth instability ismms !rosented in the initial Study concluded that the potential
for significant impacts can be ~luced or controlled if the project is developed as proposed and
with implementation of specific mitigation measutm as Outlin,,.d below. The mitigation mea.s'~r~
9
geolog~ ~h ~he ~ goal of p~ the eretalon of uns't~le ~lopes. This ~
and approval shall be complexed prior to any grad/rig at the project site. Grading of ~he
~ ~hall be ~ ~ ghe engineering geologixt by conducting in-grading inspemor~
and 0~ pom~n~ for $lope failure gr nord ~ problem ~ be corrected w control the
2. The maximum inclination of all cut slapes shall be 2: J (horizontal to vertical). Exceptions
may be granted where a slope evaluation by a p~ enginetr or registered
engineering geologist demonstrm~ that the geologic formations may be able to sustmn
geologic in-grading inspections.
Facts in Support of the F'mdin_~
The unstable earth ~ discussion in the sub~,,*ion section of th~ Initial Study (Pa~ 9, imm 1.a and a geologic
study by Leighton and Associates, 1988) indicates that underlying geologic matcxials at both the Westside Specific
Plan site and the Old Town core atto are stable and do not pose any poteatial for significant advcx~ ~mpact to
future facilities ct~ to unstable conditions. No cumtfiativ~ unstable earth impacts w~e idainitial w~,hl, the project
axca to which the proposed project cotfid comxibute additional advcxsc '?acta. TI~ proposed mitigation m~asut~
will control any potential tim,re slope instability and Inm'm~ damage to the Western Bypass Road and associated
facilities. Thus, the project is not forecast to comxibute m direct o£ cuw,aatlv¢ unstable earth conditions or be
exposed to significant unstable earth conditions. Based on timsc fac~, the City conchutes that adequate mcasm~
are avaihbl¢ to reduce unslabl¢ earth impacts fxom implemonin~o the proposed project to a nonsig~ificam level.
These changes in the project are the responsibility of the City to monitor and they will be implemented by the City
as part of its review and approval authority whcn the proposed project is being developed.
2. Earth Resources: Disturb Exi~ng Soil Resources
Potential Significant Impact:
Disturbance of soils during grading may expose them to significant
eros/on hn,:ard$.
F'mdin~:
The soil di~ issues (disru~on, displacemint, compaction or over cov~ing) are discus~
in the Initial Study, Chapter 8, Section 8.1 of the EIR. The ~n~1ysis of soil disturbance issues
presented in the Initial Study concluded that the potential for significant erosion impacts can be
reduced or controlled if the project is developed as proposed and with implementation of the
specific mitigation measure as outlined below. The mitigation measure identified in t~e Initial
Study will change the project by con.oiling pot~ei~l croton and sedimentation that may be
caused by grading the Weanside Specific Plan area. The following measure is teqnimt to be
implemeated:
The applicant shall prepare and submit a detailed erosion control plan that identifies
specific erosion control nt, nn~.s to control on.rite and affxite erosion from the time the
site is disturbed until the disturbed areas are fully developed and landscaped. This
erosion control plan shall include the following measures at a minimunn'
10
ao
go
ho
jo
to
The natural vegetation ~hall be retained to the txrmt foa~le on all armr that
~lt not be ditmrbzt for pmtin$ (the az~ion i~ arem tnat mutt clmr~ and
revegetated a~ part of a fuel modification program to protea reridmces from
wiidlond fres).
All ~lopes thtu will be greater than ttn foet high $hall be evaluated rodef me the
optimum length and __~ to 'mming~ Jiow velocity and erosion potential.
Lateral drainage collection systtms shall be incorporateel at the base of slopes
to transport flows in a conm~lled, non.erodible channel. .'
Measures in man.made chonnelr to minimize runoff velocities shall be identified
and implenumted.
Disturbed areas shall be protected through 1) physical stabilization (such as
geottrtiles, mats, or other materials (where _ne_ e4_,~i); 2) vegettmve stabilization;
andS) ,nu mg.
Ertablish sediment traps, silt fences, and related support features (such as rock
filters) on the property to control the release of sedirn~t from disturbed areas.
The design and location of such traps shall be idtntified in the plan.
The channel designed to transport flows to the nearest regional flood control
facility shall be dtscribed and the adequacy of the channel shall be demonstrated
with a detailed drainage analysis.
An inspection and maintenance program shall be included to ensure that any
erosion which does occur either on- or aftrite will be corrected through a
rernediation or restoration program within a specified time frame.
All disturbed areas shall ultimately either be covered with impervious mmerial
or revegetated with native and/or.fire and drought rerirtant vegetatiotr
The developer shall idtntify a bond amount for implemtnting the erosion control
program and provide the City with a bond for this amount.
Install permanent erosion control and runoff facilities that are sufficitnt to ensure
that surface runoff will not cause long-term erosion on- or off rite.
The erosion control plan that incorportu~ the above vu,nntres shall be implenumted by the
de~loper in accordance with the 'California Storm Wa~er Best Managemtnt Practice Handbooks'
(Stormwater Quality Task Force, 1993).
11
Fac~s l~ Suitoft of the Fmdi~
The soil ~ issue discussion in lie s~bs~mi,,rloa secdoa of rbe Iaidal Study (Pag~ I0 and 11, item 1.b)
indicates that uadedyiag soils within I~e Old Towa core area aze highly ,tlm,rbed and mladv~ly flat and Ilv. mfmc
comml on- and off-sire amsion =,,a sea~mema6oa. A po~i*~ for cumulative comzibudoas to emsioa was ideadried
mitigation measures will control any potential funne project specific -~ cumulative erosion impacts and preyera
d,,,,%~d to the property ,na dowmu~m areas. It will do this by ~Ol~olli~ the amou~ of ranoff, the leagth of
areas exposed to surface runoff, and the coilg~xion of any ._~,alme~ gn~a~d o~ tl~ proim~ by imple,,,,-,,dng the
mi~igaxion measure. Thus, the project is not forecast to conuibme to dim:t or cumulative ct~ion impacts: Based
on these facts, the City conci~ ~,~s_ that ~,t,~ ~=~, measures are available to zedu~ erosion impa~ farm impleme~rlnl
the p~ project to a nomignificam level ~-aeae c. hang~ in the pmjgc~ ate the ~gspomibility of the City to
monitor aad they will be implememmt by the City ~ntl the Rcgiomi Water Quality Comml ~ (General
Comtm~ou Stormwa~er Penai0 as part of its review and approval am:hority when the proposed project is being
developed.
3. Earth Resources: Grading and Slope ModO~cation
Potential Significant Im.nltt:
Grading activity on =__?~_~ dopes (15% or grimier) in the Westside
Specific Plan area could came significant po~cafial for slope failure,
erosion, and change in the visual seuing during or foUowing completion
of grading. ..
Finding:
The grading and slope modification issue~ are discusaed in the Initial Study, Chapter 8, Section
8.1 of the E~R. The *nalysis of grading and slope modification issues pre~emed in the Initial
Study concluded that the slope slability and erosion i.~uea arc reduced to a nonsignificant level by
measurca implemented for issues 1 and 2 above. The only a~a with potential significant impact
due grading would be th~ modified topography caused by in, railing the Wg~terll Bypa~ RDad with
the fot~ast cuts slop~. This potential for sigaificam ch,,,~e erosion impacts can bc reduced or
comxoUed if the project is developed as proposed and with implementation of the specific
mitigation mcasurc as outlined J~iOW. ~ midgadoa mcasuzc idcndficd in tbc Initial Study will
change tbc project by rapidly blenai,,~ the cut slopes into the surrounding landscape. The
foUowing measure is required to bc implemented:
A landscape plan shall be completed for review and approval by the City. This plan shall
provide for full revegetation of the road cut slopes utilizing native/ornamental plants
which will serve as a fire buffer area. On the conrtructed building pads the landscape
plan shall include the planting of large trees (mira'mum 4' diameter)immediately after
comon of the pads ir completed. The effect of the revegetation plan will be to bltnd
the slopes into the natural coastal sage scrub and chamisal chaparrnl communities weft
of the Western By-Pass Road. The revegetation goal for the padr will be to visually
screen and soften the effect of the flat, graded and paved pads. A bond or equivalent
commit, as provided by City ordinance, shall be provided by the developer to enmre
that the 3itc can be reveggtated after grading.
Facts in Support of the Fmdln!
The grading and siopcmodific~uion issue discussion in the substamiadon secdon of the Initial Study (Pages 11 and
12, item 1.c) indicates that siopc modifications in all areas ¢xccpt along the Western Bypass Road alignment wiU
12
be ,,,i,,i,,,,~ and pose no potemial erosion or slope mbility iraira:rs ~ on impl,~.,~ the mitigation ram.sums
idmtifi~ for issues 1 ~ 2, above. The ~oder~ slopes within tl~ Westside $1m:if~ Plan a~n along the Wesm-n
adverse impacts. The p,opose, d mifi~ion roeatom ~ conn~l any pmmuial fumm project specific slope
moditic~tion impacts. It will do this by controlling the visu~ contrast of cut slopes by implem,.,~ng the mitigation
mcasu~. Thus, the project is not fom:ast to contribute to ~ or camrelative slope modifi~tlon impacts. Based
implem,-~ri~g the proposed project to a nonsignificant level. This change in the project is ~ tn~sponsibility of the
City to monitor and it will be implemented by the City as part of its review and approval amhority ~nen the
proposed project is bethS developed.
4. Modification of any Unique Geologic or Physical Feature. v
Potential Significant Impact:
Modification o~ 1o~ of unique geologic or physical featm~ would
nxiuce the divcn~y of ti~se f~ann~ in t~ region.
Fmding:
The unique geologic and physical frourns issues am m~,~-d in the initial Study, Clmptcr 8,
Section 8.1 of the ENt. The -,~ysis of unique $~olos, ic and physical finnm:s issues prosehind
if the project is developed as proposed____. No mitigation is te~luh'ed because no such t~sources exist
on this totally disuubed si~e.
Facts in Support of the F'mding
The unique geologic and physical feautres discussion in the envimnmemal evaluation section of the Initial Study
('Page 12, item 1.cl and Leighton & Associates' geologic study) indicates that the Old Town core a~a has been
u 'ulized as an urban developed location since the iate-1800s and no unique geologic or ~ physical fuautres exist
at the sit~ based on field obsetwafion. The atua contain~ within the Westside Specifc Plan was evaluat~t in the
Leighton & Associates' geologic study and no unique geologic or physical fuattu~ wure identified by this site
specific investigation. No cumulative impacts to such f~mm~s were identified to which the proposed project could
contribute additional adverse impacts. Based on these f~ts, the City concludes that potential impacts to unique
geologic or physical featur~ from implemcn6ng the proposed project will be nonsignificant without any midgntion
or other change~ to the project.
5. Geologic Hazards: High Wind/Water Erosion Potential
Potential Significant Impact:
ff tt~ s~t~ experiences high wind and/or water erosion potential,
signific3nt d3mag¢ to the site or downstream properties could occur.
Fmding:
The wind and water erosion poten6ni issues ~ di.~,~.d in the Initi~ Stm:iy, Clmpter 8, Section
8.1 of the EIR. The *nnlysis of ~ and ~mter erosion issues pt~ented in the ].niti~ Study
concluded that the potential for significant wind erosion impacts (fugitive dust Serumion) will
exist for the project and this issue is n_dd~ aS part of the EIR. Poten6a!ly significant water
ewsion impacts can be r~h_,__~_ or contra!led if the project is developed as proposed and with
implcmcm~6on of the specific mitigation mea.s-u~ as outilw.d under issue ~r2 above. The
mitigation mea.mm idendfied in the Initial Study will change the project by
erosion and =_~dlmcntatiou that may be caused by grading the Westside Specific Plan azca. No
additional mitigation is ~luhcd beyond measure//3 to control water erosion.
13
Facts in Support of the Finding
The potential wa~ eausion discussion in the envhu,~mtai evaluation section of the Initial Study (Past 12. i*,~
1.c) 'mditatcs that the potm3fial fo~ water efttalon will be mvbstn*wi,,I]y ina'eas~ when the Westside Specific Plan
City concb,~ that adequa~ n~asm~s a~ avai~l¢ to ~ exmion impa~ fzntn implem~d~g the pmpos~
project to a nonsignificant level. No additioml mi~ption is requital beyond impleme~t4~g mitigation mcasuxe ~
to control water erosion on the project site.
6. Geologic Hazards: Changes in siltation, deposition or erosion
Potential Sisnificant Italy:t:
disturbance can increase siltatio~ deposition and erosion with
po,-mlally sig~ifi~nr damage to the sit~ or downsuzam propemea.
Finding:
The siltation, deposition and erosion potc'ntial issues a~ alno,,u~ed in the Initial Study, Chapter 8,
Section 8.1 of the EIR. The analysis of the~ issu~ ptmented in the Initial Study concluded that
the poten6,~ for significant siltation, deposition or erosion impac~ can be minced or controlled
if the project is dm, el~ as proposed and with implem,-mtlon of the specific mitigation measure
as ~ trade* ~ g2 above. Th~ mitigation m~astige identified in the Initial Study will
,-h..~ tbe project by controlling pota~ntial axeion anti Z, di~tlon that nay be cauzxl by
grading the We~zsicl~ Specific Plan at~a. No additional mitigation is required beyond measure #3
identified above.
Facts in Support of the E'mding
The potential siltation, deposition nnd erosion discussion in the envimmneatal evaluation section of the Initial Study
(Page 12, item 1.f) indi_e~t_~ ~ th~ pot~minl for th~ imp~l~ tO O~ttr will be slll~nntlnlly ~ when the
Wesmide Specific Plan area is developed. Wa~r erosion pommtial, with rela~d siltafion and deposition, 1~ been
adcir~s.xed under issue g2 above and ha.ned on th~se facts, the City conclude~ that adeq,,-r_e m~sm~ are available
to reduce siltation, deposition and erosion impacts from impl~nenting the proposed project to a nonsignificant level.
No addi~onal mitigation is reqttixed beyond implemenfng mitigation mcasuze #3 to conn'ol these impacts on the
project sit~.
7. Modo~cation of a Channel, Creek or River
Potential Sign~ennt ]xnpact: The proposed project could cause significant alteration to the Mttrrieta
Creek ctmnn~l.
Finding:
The Murriem C~k etm.~-I modification isst~ ate discussed in the Initial Study, .Ctmpter 8,
Section 8. I, of the EIR. The n,miysis of Chn-~"! modification ~ pt~-nted in the Initial Study
concluded that th~ i .rapacts from channel modifications associated with bridge installation are
reduced to a nonsign/ficant level by mitigation measut~ implemented to control inn'HsiOI1 into the
channel. This po~6.~ for significant t'ham~-i modification impact can be t~luced or conn~oned
if the project is developed as p~ nnd with impl~"-m,'nm6on of the specific mitigation me~sm~s
as outlin~ below. The mitigation meastu~s idc~ttified in the Initial Study will e~-ge the project
by controHi%o intrusion into the channel and ensuring con~i~m~c'y with the final flood consol
design for the facility. The following mc~u~s ~,~ ~ to be implemented:
The bridges shall be in, tailed in a manner that will not adversely impact the ability of
Murr~eta Cree~ to carry the design flows established by the Corps of Engineers and the
14
Rivff$ide Cotolty Flood ~1 trod Wattr Cont~ 'Digff~. Ptrrtlits or waivers
from ~ ~ ~r ~~ ~ ~ b~ga ~ ~ ~ ~m ~ ~s ~
6.
~he bridges shall be conttmc~ during the dry, or low flow season to the wctent ftm'ible.
During construction of the bridgts $pe~c erosion trod sediment control m,neures shall
Measures w accomplish this inc~de diverting any surfrice water around the project xite,
measures to rtduce the ramsport of stdimmt from the coavtmmon area during
construction area shall be returned to a fun~onal status following construction consistent
Facts in Support of the Finding
Th~ chan~l modification issue discu~ou in the ~b~mi..6on action of ~ ~ S~y ~ 12 ~ 13, i~
1.g) ~ ~ ~m of ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ cs~a ~ ~~~ of
~e m~fi~ ~ ~ e~ on ~ M~ C~ ~ ~ ~ ~ m a ~fi~ l~el ~ on
co~b~om m ~ m~fi~om ~ i~fi~ ~ ~ ~ ~ m ~ ~ ~ pm~ m~d
co.bum ~fio~ ~ve~ ~. ~e ~ ~fi~ ~ ~ m~l ~ ~ ~ ~
~e~ for &e e~!. ~, ~e pmj~ ~ ~t ~ m ~~ m ~ or ~ve ~~t
c~l m~fi~fi~ ~. B~ on &~ ~, ~e Ci~ ~lu~ ~ ~ ~ ~ a~le m
~ ~e pmj~ ~ ~ ~b~ of &e Ci~ m mo~m~ ~ it ~ ~ ~1~ by ~e Ci~ ~ ~ of im
~ew ~ ~m~ ~ofi~ when ~e pm~ pm~ ~ ~ ~1~.
8. Geologic Hazards: Exposure to Geologic Hazards
Pot,.mlal Signifi~m Impact:
The proposed project may expose stzuctures or persons to impacts
associated with geologic ixazatds.
Finding:
The geologic ha-arcl issues are diso,ssed in the Initial Study, Chapter 8, Section 8.1, of the EIR.
The analysis of geologic hazard issues presented in the Initial Study concluded that the potential
impact~ fzn~n geologic ha-aniS at both the Old Town cot~ at~a and Westside Specific Plan area
at~ reduced to a nonsignificant level by mitigation measm~ o,mi~ below. The midgation
m~ identified in the Initial Study will change the project by ensuring that on.site and regional
geologic hn~nls axe contxolled or addressed by s'tmcauml design n~quizement. The following
7.
All new structures installed in conjunction with this project shall be designed to comply
with the most recent Uniform Building Code seismic design standards. lf the Engineering
Geologist/Registered Engineer idtn~es more stringent s~te specific design xtandards, the
developer shall implement such starelards for buildings constructed under approvals for
this project.
15
The developer shall have a tire ~pecific geoteamiml emtu~on prepared by a qualified
and actmad Engineering GeologLtt and/or Regintrad Profe~onal Engineer. This report
potmt~ an~ ~nidmce (at appropriate .for tach ~te) and provide de~i~n
humans occupying the ~ntcntret in the future. The City shall require the developer to
implemau thee design requitemme.
If ~visting xtrucrurt~ are utilized, the ~tnuma~l integrity shall be' rem,,diate w meet the
deign requiremt~ of the Engineetotg Geologist and/or Registered Professional
Facts in Support of the F~ndi~
The geologic hazard issue discussion in the ~bs*anrl,tlon sec6on of the Initial Study (Pages 13 and 14, item 1.h
and Leighton & Associams Study) indi~t~ that no geologic hazards are known to affect the Old Town corn axca
or the Westside Specific Plan area other than regional ground shakin~ and stability issues. The project site stability
issues have been addteased under iron #1 above and no ~ evaluation or f~din~s ate mluited. The v~gional
be t~tuce this impact to a nonsignificaut level based on im?l,-*n,n~ng the initiation measuxes identificd above.
Smtcat~ designs at~ ~ to comply with design tcquitcmet~ of the m~t curtain Unified Building Code or
Professional Geolo~=ngineer ~ons. No pots,! for cumulative contributions to seismic h,,~nts
wcrc identified withi, the project atca to which tlac proposed project could contribute additional advea~e impacts.
The proposed mitigation measures will control any potential futm~ adverse sei-~mic impacts by incorporating design
components to protcc~ the facilities fxom significant sei_emi¢ damage. Thns, the project is not forecast to contribute
to dixcct or cumu~ive significant seismic impacts. Based on these fares, the City concludes that adequate mcasm~
are available to reduce seinmlc impacts fxcnn impleme,tlng the proposed project to a nonsignificant level. The
changes in the project arc the responsibility of the City to monitor and it will be implemented by the City as part
of its xcview and approval authority when the proposed project is being developed.
9. Geologic Hazards: Seismic Hazards/Alquist-Priolo Special Studies Zone
Potential Significant Impact:
On sit~ gro,md rupn~ ba~nis could endanger propen-y or htmau lives
at the project site.
The Alquist-Priolo Zone h~ar4 issues are discussed in the Initial Study, Chapter 8, Section 8.1
of the EIR. The nnnlysis of sc4nmic ~ iss't~s pn:sented in the lnirinl Study concluded tt~t no
proposed. No mitigation is t'~luired because the project site is not located within an Alquist-Priolo
Facts in Support of F'mding
The seismic h~,~rd/Alqnist-Priolo Special Studies Zone di.%-'uzsion in the envimnmet~ eval-a6on section of the
Initial Study (Page 14, item 1.i) indicatez that project sit~ iz not within any Alqu~t-Priolo Special Studies Zoo.
Based on these facts, the City concludes that potential ground mptu~ b.~i impacts fwm /mplememlug the
proposed project will be nonsignificant without any mitigation or other changes to the project.
16
I0. Air Quality: Alteration of Local or Regional Climate V~les
Pote~lsi g~uific~ Imp~:
Facts in Support of Funding
The potential climatic variable alteration discussion in me cnviw...,~_,.m evaluation section of the Initial Suuty (Page
15, i~em 2.c) i~i,~n.~ that the size of the proposed project site mo small ~o affect climatic variables such ~s winds,
temperau~ and inecipimio~ No cumulative climam alnn~ion impacts are fon~mst to occur in the project ~
to which the proposed project could connibnte additional ~ impacts. Basedon d~ese fa~s, the City concludes
that po~lfial for c~ in climatic variables fi*om imple,vsn~ng the p,~.d pmjec~ will be nonsignificant without
any mitis~ion or od~r chanSes m the projec~
I1. Changes in Currents or the Course or Direction of Water Movements
Potential Significant Impact:
The proposed___ project could ~,~e signi6~--m erosion or flood haza_nl
dama_oe due to altering the direction of water movement.
F'mding:
The ci~zuges in direction of water movement issues at~ discussed in the Initial Study, q~mpu:r 8,
Section 8.1, of the EIR. The analysis of changes in direction of water movement issues presented
in the Initial Study concluded that the impacts from changes in flow am very limited in scope and
can be reduced to a nonsignificant level by the mitigation mensure implemented to conuol the
flows in their revised course to Mutrieta Creek. This potential for significant impacts from
changing the direction of war~ flow o,u be reduced or controlled if the project is developed as
proposed and with implementation of the specific mitigafon m~asure as o,,lin,.~ below. The
following measur~ is requi~ to be implemented:
10.
The surface runoff drainage system incorporated into the We.~tem By-pass road and the
hotel and Arena engineered development pad(s) shall be dez'igned to me~ the following
requirernent~ :
The drainage system shall be designed to transport the expected I O0-year rimaft
from upstream areas or the pad(s) to Murffeta Creek without damage to adjacent
property or to the Creek channel; and
~e points where surface runoff is intercepted along the road shall be dtrigned
to ensure that headward (upstream) erosion is not initiated and that erosion and
sediment generation do not exceed m,,,,ral rates of erosion and sedimemm~on for
the project area. l?w dtmnage s'ystem from the pad(s) W Murrieta Creek shall
also be designed w prevent increased erosion along the drainage system
improvements and at the point where the ~urface runoff from the pad(s) enters
the Creek channel.
17
Facts in Suppon of the Finding
T!~ change in wa~r'fiow dim~on issue dismssion in the substantiation stolon of the Initial Study (Pagm 17 and
18, item 3.a) ipai"'~" that none of Ihe e~azainnzaz facilities in ti~ Old Town corn aim will modify th~
symm. The corot, action of the Wesam Byp~ Rind and dmdopmmt of the W~stside Specific Plan will ait~r the
curtain ~on of surhae m~ff to confrere to surh~ dmimge ~ of the City to the point that i~ ~m~rs
Mutrieta Ctzek. The suda~ flow modifications and thdr effect on ti~ Munie~ Creek ~ ~ be teducezl to
a nonsignificant level bas~ on impk.,. ,d;ng the mitigation mmsu~ idmtifi~d above. No potmaial [or cumulative
contributions to mdam flow modifications w~e identified ~ithin the project a~a to which the proposed project
could connibu~ addidoml adv~ ~. This is because devdopnamt is not proposed upm~am of the Westside
Specific Plan atza. The proposed mitigation measu~ will control any Innmfial futu~ mrh~ flow
channel. Thus, tl~ project is not fom:a.~ to conm'bute to dim:t or cumulative significant surfam flow modification
impacts. Based on these fares, the City comlud~s that adeZlUa~ measmzs am available to mdum surfam flow
r~li_r~xion impacxs fttnn implememlng ti~ proposed project to a non.significant level. The changes in the project
ate the responsibility of the City to toorotor and it will be implemented by the City as pan of its review and
12. Water Resources: Increase in Impervious Surface
Potential Significant Impact:
An increase in impervious surfam can tedurn futuze pen:olation and
increase ruz~ff and do~ ezosion potmaial to a significant
The impetuous surfam issues ar~ discussed in the Initial Study, Chapt~ 8, ,Section 8.1, of the
EIR. The ,nalysi~ of ~ tnm~_ ff issuez ptesemed in the Initial Study coucluded thaf the
impac~ faxnn changes in flow are very ~imlm/ia scope and can be reduced to a nonsignificant
level by implementing one of two mitigation mea.nm~ to control the volume of surface rimoff in
their revised coux~e to Yurrieta Creek. This potential for significant impac~ from iacteasing the
volume of surface flow can be t~duced or controlled if the project is developed as proposed and
with implementation one of mitigation measut~ as outlined below. One of the following measux~
11.
When the developtntnt pads are tngineered and constructed within the Westside Specific
Plan Area, the surface runoff above the volume presently gow~ued shall be detained on
the project ~ite and released appro~mately 24-hours after peak flows within Muraleta
"Credo have passed through the project area.
12.
The project shall install all drainage improvements within the Murrieta Creek channel that
are required to handle z~orm runaff from those areas improved as part of the proposed
project. The project shall also contribute its fair share to any channel improvemous that
must be completed to ensure that cumulative runoff increases do not cause downstream
flood hazards or significant damage from surface runoff in Murrieta Eretic and the &anta
Margarita River.
Facts in Support of F'mding
The increase runoff hsue discu.~ion in the substantiation section of the Initial Study (Pagez 18 and 19, item 3.b)
indicates that the volume in the Old Towu core area will r~main the same or incur only limited ~ in volume
because this area is already 100% developed and the runoff coefficient is already .95 to 1. The construction of the
Western Bypass Road and development of the Westside Specific Plan will alter the current runoff coefficient fxom
18
13. Water Resources: Altering Flood Flow~
Potential Significant Impact:
lrmding:
Almaion of the flow of flood ~ ~ came ~/~ifica~ d~mag¢
dow~n~m from ti~ pmj~x
The flood flow al~emion ~ ar~ ~i~c-~ed in the I~idal Study,
EIR. The arelyre of zlm~iom m flood flow ~ pr~.d in
~o po~d~t for ~ignificam aimsion or ~ in ~ m~off era:ms 11 a~d 12 above) will
occur if ~he projea is developed ~ proposal. No addidoml mifig~ion is required.
Facts in Suppor~ of Finding
The discussion of potential alteration in flood runoff and potential flood hazels is provided in the envimmnenml
evaluation section of the Initial Study (Page 19, item 3.c). The analysis 'indicates with controls on the ~ of
volum~ of flows and dix~ion that no significant alteration in flood flows will occur due to implementation of the
proposed project. Thus, the project cannot contribute additional adverse flood hazant or erosion impacts. B~ed
on these facts, the City concludes thnt potential alterations of flood flows and flood h=~rds fzom implementing the
proposed pwject will be nonsignificant without any nddifional mitigation or other e_h=nges to the pwject, beyond
measu~ 10, ll, and 12 outlined above.
14. Water Resources: Change in the Volume of Surface Water
Potential Si_onificant Impact:
Ctmnges in the volume of surfiu:e water downsucam from the site thnt
could ~'~,,? additional flooding or dam~e to the water body.
Finding:
The ~ waxer volume is.sues ax~ dir~l i~ ~1~ ~il~i $tlldy, Chapter 8, Section 8. I, of the
EIR. The analysis of alterations to surface water volume ismms pn:semted in the initial Study
concluded that no potential for significant change (~ or ~) in surface water volume
(items ll and 12 above) will occur if the project is developed as proposed. Although the volume
contributed to Murriet~ Creek will ~, it will not be n?_d,,d during a period whe~ inc~ases
in volume could cause siguifi~t adverse im!.,act. No addi~ioml mitigation is required.
Fa~ts in Support of Fmding
The discussion of potential ch,-gcs in surface wa~r in a wa~r body ~ potential flood hazards or erosion impacts
is provided in the environmental evaluation section of the Initial Study (Page 19, item 3.d). The a~tysis intlimt~
with controls on the inctense of volume of flows and direction that no significant aimration in flood hazazds or
erosion will occur due to implementation of the proposed project. Thus, the project camtot contribute additional
adverse flood b,v-~rd or erosion impacts. Based on these facts, the City concludes ttmt potential altcmions of
19
surf~ ~ volume in MinTira Cs~: from It~ p~ol~d pmj~ czmm ~ si~,ifi,~m flood o~ ~osion I~m~ls.
No ~ddilioml initiation or offmr ~ to ~c project ~ ~ 10, I1. ~d 12 o,,fii,,~ ~ ~,~
Water Resources: Surface Water ~uality Degradation
Surface tunoff anm the pmpo~ proj~t may ~ watex quality to
Fmdin_~:
TI~ surfat e water quality c~go~ion ~ are di.~-,m~l in ~ ~ S~y, ~ 8, S~on
8.1, ~~ ~~of~~~~~p~~.~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ m a ~fi~ 1~ by ~1~ ~ ~~ ~ m
~1 ~ ~ of~~ ~ ~ ~ of ~~ m ~ ~ff ~ ~ ~ ~.
~~ ~r fi~fi~'~ ~~of~ ~ff~~or
~ ~ ~1~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ve. ~ ~~ m~ ~ ~ to
13.
14.
The landscaped areas $hall be irrigated ~n a manner that does not result in overland flos~
to Mumeta ¢reeic ~ landscape dexign. v and im'gaxion xyxtenu shag be reviewed by
the City to v~ runoff controls are adequate to prevent inadvertent surface runoff.
The project owners shall prepare and implement a sweeping plan approved by the City
w sweep paved areas and graded parlong arem one time per wed: at a minimur~ and
at lea. vt six rirnts during the month of October prior w the omet of the winter storm
$t~lSOtL
15.
The project owner shall imp~ ~tary home4ce__e~nmg procedure~ that minimize the
potential for surface water pot!urnnts w be incorporated into surface water dizcharges
from the project site. These procedures shall be incorporated into a m itten procedure
that must be approved by the City Planning Departmere and the Regional Wazer Quality
Control Board.
16.
.Any surface water generated from the stable area shall either be retained, treated and
reused on the proj~cz site, or tremed to standards required to protect the receiving water
quality stan~ln,'ds for Murrieta Creek before bring reltzzsed from the project site. The
proce,~;_,~e selected shall be reviewed and approved by the CL, y Engineer and the Regional
Water Quality Control Board.
Facts in Support of F'mdin~
The surface wamr degradation discussion in the substantiation section of fla¢ Initial Study (Pages 19 and 20, item
3.e) ladicarus that the discharges in the Old Town cot~ ar~a will tinhain t!~ san~ or imaxr only ilmimd iam~.se in
poih,~n~ during coasmu~on from exmion volume because this area is already 100% din'eloped. Mitigation
mcasu~//3 for erosion will conuol potzm6~ sm-fac. e water degradation from tlais area to a nomignifi~ant level. The
construction of the Western Bypass Road and development and operation of t!~ Westside Specific Plan will altar
during construction and operation can be reduced to a nonsignificant level based on implementing the mitigation
mcasur~ i~atifi~d above. No pomatial for cumulative contributions to surface runoff clegtada~on we~ icL-ntified
2O
condudcs tim adequate reinsures a~ available to reduce potc~ial wal~r degradation Julpacts from hnple,m.mi~q~
the proposed project Io a nomig~ific-,nt level. The changms in Ibe project ate the responsibility of the City and the
Regional Bomxl to monitor and it will be impleme~ni by the City and the Re,real Boa~ as pan of their review
16.
Water Re. sources: Altering the Direction and Rate of Groundwater Flow
Changes in the dim:sion sad me of ~rc,,~-r flow could cause
sig~iti~m eff~as on local aquifus ami local waeer w~11s.
Fmding:
The pote,,,i.I altcmion in di_,cction .,.t mz of ~mmstwm~ flow issues ate discussed in the Initial
Study, Chapter 8, Section 8.1, of the HIR. Ti~ analysis of allmmiom to ~,,,vtwamr flow issues
presented in the Initial Study concluded that no poumfial for sig~i~c~ alterations in gwundwa~r
flow direction and rate will occur if the project is developed as propreed because the project will
not ~t the gxxmndwnxer table and will not extract any local ~m,,ntiwat~r ~ consuuction
or operations. No mi,lsation is minimi.
Facts in Support of F'mdln_a
The dLsotssion of potential alterations in dixection and rate of groundwater flow impacts is provided in the
environmental evaluation section of the Initial Study (Page 20, item 3.f). 'l'me analysis indi_~,~ that the proposed
project doe~ not pose any activities with a poumtiai to cause any alteration in the rate of groundwater flow or
direction. Thus, the project cannot contribute any adverse groundwater impact to groundwater flow or dixection-
Based on th~se f~ts, the City concludes that potential alterations to groundwater flow and direction cannot occur
as a result of implementing the proposed ptojecc No mi6~6on ot other ,-h~%o~S tO the project ate requited.
17. Water R~ources: Groundwater Effects
Potmtial Significant Impact:
Gwundwat~r t~sources could be significantly ov~ by ~
pmposed pmj~.
Finding:
The groundwater quantity issues a~ discrased in the Initial Study, Cbap~ 8. Section 8.1, of the
EIR. The analysis of alterations in groundwater quantity piescreed in the Initial Study coacluded
that no pote-~i~l for significant impact to gxxnmdwa~ tzsouzces will occ~ if the project is
developed as pwposed because the project does not con-in activities that will utilize or consume
groundwater z~sources. No mitigation is required.
Facts in Support of the lqnding
The discussion of po~i-~ groumdwaxer resource impa~ i~ lm~vided in the emvim~ ewl--elon section of the
Initial Study (Pages 20 and 21, item 3.g). The ,~ysis indicau~ that the project will not immx:ept the underlying
groundwater aquifer or alter the q~nrity of gwundwater available for use. Tires, the project will not cause adverse
groundwater impacts. Based on these facts, the City concludes tl~ po~niai gmuadwa~ e~tects from impleme~6ng
the proposed project will be nonsignificant without nny mlrigafion or other chartgin m the projec~
21
18. Water Resource. v: Reduction in Water Resources Available for Water Supply
The wat~ supply msoux~ issues ~x~ diemeel in I~ Initial Study, Cha!~ 8, Section 8.1, of the
E~ The analysis of al~atious in wa~ ~sourc~ availability prosmeal in 0~e Initial Study
concluded tl~ no pol~ntinl for significant impn~ to wa~r supply t~soux~s will occur if the
Fn,*~ in Support of the Fmding
The discussion of poteulial wat~ supply resontce ~ is pmvid~l in Ihe e~vimmn*-a;-I evilration section of the
Initial Study (Page 21, i~m 3.h). The ~n~ym indicates that the project wffi not have · ~ific~nt adves~ impact
on waU:r t~sou.~es became adequate wa~r supply t~souzces hav~ been idemi6ed for full buildout of rig City at a
greater water demund rate that full buildout with the project. Thus, the project-will not cause significant adverse
wazer supply z~souxce italy. ~ on the~ bols, tl~ City cm~clud~ tim potential ~ supply t~uxce effects
19. Water Resources: Flood Hazards
Potential Si~dfica~ Impact:
The project could be ~ to flood hazards that could damage
zmcuttes and/or cause loss of hutnan lif~.
The flood hazard issues ate di~otgsed in the Initial Study, C~aapter 8, Section 8.1, of the EIR.
The nnn~ysis of flood hazard issues pze~ented in the Initial Study concl~d__w~_ th~ a pOl~lfia] for
significant flood hn~,~rfis will occHr if the project is developed as proposed. The potential flood
hazard impacts f:mm project miami suucmt~ at~ very iimil~d in ~ nm4 ~ be ~ tO a
nonsignificant level by implementing the mitigation measuze to conuol the location of stmctut~
and the extent of expostu~ of stmcuu~ to flood bazar. ~ potential got significant impacu
f~nn flood h~-~,xls can be tec!~__~_ or controlled if the project is developed as propo~d and with
implementation the mitigation measure as outlined below. The following meastu~ is requited to
17.
Bridges and entertainment structures and infrastmaure shall be installed in a manner that protects them
from significant damage from a 100-year flood along Murrieta Cred~ The structure and bridge designs
shall integrate the proposed facilities into the ultimate design solution for Murrieta Cre~ being prepared
by the Corps of Engineers and County Flood Control without causing significant constraints in managing
design flood flows. The projecz owners shall participate in the dam inundation evacuation plant for any
facilities not protected from the potfinial collapse of the Vail Lake dam.
Facts in Support of Finding
The di~'u~on of potential flood hn~nl impacts is piovided in the environmental evaluation section of the Initial
Study (Page 21, item 3.i). The n~iysis indicates that some project facilities may be 1oca~ within the 100-y~r
flood plain, including strucm~ thnt may pray/de ente~n'ninm~Bt ~tig'atio!l measu~ #17 for flood hazaxds will
¢onn'ol potential flood h,-.~rds to future facilities to a nonsignificant level. No potemial fvr cumulative contribufiom
to flood bn-~rdS wer~ identified within the pwject axea to which the proposed project could conuibute additional
adverse impacta. This is because no other known development is proposed within the flood plain. The pmposad
tim project a~ ti~ tespondbility of the City to monitor and it will be impl~ by tbe City as palm of its review
20. Plant Life: Intnnfitcffon of New Species or Barrier to Normal Species Replenishment
F'!Ddin_~:
T!~ introduation of new spgg:ies or creation of a ban'let to normal
species tz, ple,6~..-'m could came si~ificam advise eff~ to area
biological
~ introduction of m-,v species and barriers to t~mleai.~,,ae,,t issues ate ai~-,,ssed in th~ Initial
Study, Chatat~ 8, Section 8.1, of the EIR. Tim project will not introduce any new species into
all al~ of rotire vegetation .~a no ~ will be ~ tO t~nAe~i.~h~,- ~ of native species
wit~,, the project ~ The ~na~ysis of these biological msoun~ issues p~e~ntcd in the Initial
Study concluded that no potential for significant tzsontce impacts will occur if the project is
developed as proposed. No mid~fion is ~luh'ed. "
Facts in Support of the Finding
The discussion of the non~tlve species introduction and barriers to normal t~plenis~mm i~ provided in the
environmental evaluation section of the Initial Study (Page 23, it~n 4.c). The analysis indicates that the project does
not propose to introduce nonnative species into agas of native vegetation and no barriers to species l~[~ni.e, hmt-Bt
will be created by the proposed project. The Old Town corn a~a i~ already really ~ and the Westside
Specific Plan ar~ lies at the edge of the native plant coremrarity that is a partially disturbed area. Thus, the project
cannot contribute additional damage to cumulative biological resources within the City. Based on these fa~ts, the
City concludes that potential species intwdu~fion and barrier eff~ from implememing the p~ project ~
be nonsignificant without any mitigation or other changes to the pmj~'t.
21. Plant Life: Reduction in Agricultural Acreage
Potential Signifie~tt Impact:
The propos~! project could cause or comfibut~ to significam loss of
agricultural
F'mding:
The agricultural actrage issues at~ aisc,,ssed in the initial Study, Ch~pl~r 8, Section 8.1, of the
EIR. The *nnlysis of agricultm'al acre:age issues pr~e~l in the Initial Stu~ concluded that no
pommial for significant agricultural ac~age impa~ will occur if the project is developed as
proposed. No mitigation is requimt.
Facts in Support of the Fmdin~
The discussion of the agficuluu-al acmtg¢ impacts is provided in the envimnmenul evalnation section of the Initial
Study (Page 23, item 4.d). The analysis indicates timt the project sit~ does not contain any agricuhuze acreage
because the site has eitlmr been totally altered as a result of past a~tivifies (Old Town corn area) or ternaim in native
vegetation (Westside Specific Plan axe). Thus, the trroject cannot contritnae additional loss of cumulative
agficuRural a~xeage within the City or ~gion. Based on the~ fai~s, the City concludes that pote~*l agric~ltuzal
acreage effects from implementing the proposed project will be nonsignificant without any mitigation or other
chn-ges to the project.
23
22. Animal Life: Introduction of New Species
The intmdocfion of amy species issum a~ ,41~-,,nned in tbe Initial Study, Chapter 8, Section 8.1,
of tbe EIR. Tne project will not inlxodm:e any n~w species into the local habitat withln tbe project
area. 'I~ analysis of these biological zesontee ~ p~t.:,ent~d in the Initial Study concluded that
No migration is requited.
Facts in Support of the ~'mding_
The discussion of the nonnative animal speci~ intmduciion is provided in ttg envhoam~ evaluation section of
the Initial Study (Page 24, item 5.c). The analysis indicams ~ the project does not triopose to intmdoce normatire
~nim:,m species into aztas of native ha_hint. The Old Town cot~ area is already totally distufted and the Westside
Specific Plan ~ lies at th~ edge of the native pinto com~m, nity that is a partially distmtg~ ~ No nonnative
~,,imam~ will be 'unliz~! by tim project that could be teleased into this native habitat. Thus, the project cannot
conuibute additional damage to _,.,,,,,,iatlve biological tesomces withi,, tl~ City. Based on these facts, th~ City
any mitigation or other changes to the project.
23. Animal LO~e: Barrier to Normal Species Replenishment
Potential Significant Impact: The c-tea_ fion of a barrier to normal species t~plenishmem could cause
significant adverse effects to area biological resoran:es.
Finding: The barriers to repleni_~nent issues ate di.~.~,~.sed in the Initial Study, Chapmr 8, Section 8.1, of
the EIR. The project will not czeag any barriers to tg"plt~ninhm~nt of Bafiv¢ animal Slggies within
the project area, except fxoui ixl.s'tall~on of bridges alollg MtilTieta Creek. The analysis of the~
biological tesotttce issu~ presented in the Initial Study conolud~! that no portal for sigllJfirant
t'~OtiZ~ im.n~t~ ~ OC~Rf if tl~ project is developed as pt-oposed and ti~ one mitigation measuxe
witl be implemented to prevent inidges fx~n becomin~ animal migration bamex~. The following
18.
Bridge designs selected for bridges construcw. d in support of this project shall not create
any permanent barners to the movement of animals along the Murrieta Creek riparian
corridor.
Facts in Support of the F'mdln_o
The discussion of barriers to normal rcpleni.~nent of animal populations i.e provided in the envimnm~ral evaluation
section of the Initial Study ('Page 24, item 5.d). The analysis indit'at~ that the pwject does not ~ to czpa,,-
any barnera to species t~-pleni-~nent, except for potential bridge bamers in Mumeta Czw. k. Mitigation m~asute
#18 for disruption of the migration corndot in Mumeta Creek will couttol pottnwial barrier impacts to thi~ corridor.
No pomntial for cum-lative contributions m hamer effects we~ i,l,,~ified within the plx}je~t ~ to which the
proposed project could contribum additional adverse impacts. This is because no other known developm~ is
pmposad within th~ Mlim~ta Ct~lr thanre.!. The ptoposod mifig~tioa ~ will colltl~}l ally pOtSIriS! C:t~ation
of significant barrim by t~luiring bridge designs to protect migration corridor values in the channel. Thus, the
project is not forecast to contribute to direct or cum-{nrlve significant barrim to naimn{ species t~-plenislunent.
Based on these f~ts. the City convhlde~ that adeq~mt~ meaxiLr~ al~ available to r~11~ potential andrei migration
24
bamets ~u implementing the proposed project to a nonsignificant level. The changes in the project a~e the
r~sponsibility of the City to monitor and it will be im?lcmemed by the City as pan of its review and approval
24. Noise: Exposure to Severe Vibrations
The ptoposod project could cause si~nificam advcrse vibration eff~
that could af~ct ~ and b*--she.
Finding:
The vibration issues ate dlso,~td in the Inifal Study, Chapter 8, Section 8.1, of the EIR. The
project will nm iauuducc any new activities that will genesate vibrations. The snalysis of the
vibration issues ln~sented in the Initial Study conclud~ that no potmnial for significam vasource
Facts in Support of the Fmdin~
The discussion of the vibration tssu~ is provided in the cnvimnmemal evaluation.section of the Initial Study (Page
26, imm 6.c). The analysis indicates that the project does not propose to introduce any activities with vibnuion~
into the local area. Thus, the project cannot contribut~ additional vibmfiom m tl~ cmnulative vibration
environment. Based on these facts, the City concludes that poumtial viination from implem,,mlug the proposed
project will be nonsignificant without any mitigation or other ~ha-~eS tO the project.
25. Light and Glare: Creation of Light Pollun'on
Potential Significant Impact:
The use of night lighting associated with the ~ project could
cause light pollution that would adversely impact Palomar Observatory.
F'mding:
The light and glaxo issues are discussed in the Initial Study, Chanter 8, Section 8.1, of the EIR.
The project has a po~ntial to create light and glare effe~s that could contribution to significant
cum-la~v¢ degr~dnh_'on at Palomar Obsctyato. ry. The nnnlysis of these light ~ntl glaze issues
pr~-nted in the Initial Study concluded that a potential for cumulative significant impacts to
Palomar Observatory can occur if the project is developed as proposed anti the on~ mitigation
mcasu~ will be implemented to pttwent light and glare from becomln_o an advex~ impact to the
Observatory. The following measure is ~ to be hnpl~n~"med-
19.
A lighting plan shall be submitted to the City Planning D~rrnentfor review and approvalforfacilities
developed by this project. This plan shall include pr~or consul~on with the California Institute of
Technology for all proposed outdoor lighting designs and shall demonstrate compliance with quantitative
lighting requiretntnts contained in County of San Diego Ordinance 117155 and County of Riverside
Ordinance 11655.
Fact~ in Support of the Fmdia~
The discussion of light and glare issues is provided in ~hc cnvimmnenml evaluation section of the Initial Study
(Pages 26 and 27, iunm 7). The ~-alysis indicates rant the project will genre'ate an ,mt??,~ri6ahle amount of light
and glar~ from the entertainment facilities. Mitigation measu~ 1119 gor fight gen~on will control pomaiai light
po!lmion effects on Palomar Obsenmmry. The poten6~l for significant cumulative connibmions W light pollution
wer~ identified within the pmjec~ area to which the proposed project could contribute additional advene impacts.
This ia becau.~ existing light pollution and fun~ development can cause significant advene impacts to Palomar
Observatory operaions. The proposed mitigation ureasum will control any potential contribution by co~uplying with
existing lighting controls, County of Riverside Ordinance #655. Thus, the project is not forecast to contribute to
level. Tim changes in the project axe the responsibility of the City m monitor and it will be impl.,~,-m,,d by ~e
City as patx of its t~iew and approval authority sdgn ~ F,opost. d project is being dgveloped.
26. Natural Resources: Limiting Access/Consumption~amage to Natural Resource Values
F'mding: The natuxal resorates issugs a~ di.,~-d in the Initial Study, Chapmr 8, Section 8.1, of the EIR.
The proposed project is not fatmast to ii~i~ access to natural resources, consume signiticant
natural msoun:es, or damage ~ msmu~ values. The analysis of the natural ~ ~
if the project is developed as proposed. No mitigation is required.
Facts in Support of the F'mding
The discussion of the natural resorals is~gs is provided in the mwitouu~mal evaluation section of the Initial Study
(Pages 29 amt 30, item 9.a-b). The analysis 'rodicarus that the project is not forecast to damage any agricultural
resource values; that no mineral resomce values of significance are 1ocattd within the project area to which acce~
could be iimi~!; and adequate ~ resorates are coremcattily available to meet project th-~and. The pmpo~
project is not fort~:ast w cause a significant impact to the natural t~sources of concern for this project. Thus,: the
project cannot contribute additional significant natural resourc~ impacts ~o the cumulative value or demalgl for such
r~sources because they do not occur within the project a~a or ad~luate resotto:es are available. Based on these
facts, the City conelude~ that potential ~nann'al resources impa6~ fi'om il~lqrnenfi~g the pKIposed project will be
nonsignificant without any mitigation or other changes m the project.
27.
Risk of Upset: Potential Release of Hazardous MateHals/Interference with Emergency
Response Plans
Pote~ial Significant Impact:
The proposed project could cause significam adverse ef~'ts to the
environment or to humam by creating the risk of an explosion,
acciclemal release of h~dous mam~is, or ~ wi~h existing
emergency ~-ponse plans.
The risk of upset issues are discussed in the Initial Study, Chapmr 8, Section 8.1, of the EIR.
The proposed projec~ is not for~ast to catma significant potenri,~ for explosions, for accidemal
releases of b-~nlous materials, or for ~ with any identified emergency n~'ponse plan.
By contributing to the early installation of the Western Bypass Road, the proposed project will be
~g an importam emergency response mute. The ~,,~ysis of the risk of upset issues
in the Initial Sttldy coll~l~d__~!_ t]~t existing programs are in pla~ in the City of T~ll~'ula for
managing impacts related to risks of upset and tbe project has no potential for significant inchrased
risk impacts to occur if the project is developed as proposed. No mitigation is requix~.
Facts in Support of the F'mdin~
The discussion of the risk of upset issues is provided in the envimment~! evaluation section of the Initial Study
(Pages 30 and 31, item 10.a-c). The ~nalysis indicates that the project is not for, toast to ct~_~e a significam ~
in potemiai risk for release of ha~rdotls mateFials and explosion, or to inmrfe~ with any emergency response plan.
26
a project. be~fit. Tnus, t!~ project is not fot~a~ to comxibul~ additional sigpifi,--m pot~ma~ for risk of upset
impacts to the cumulative poemtial for saab risks because it does am have any i~ified major risks ~oci~n,d with
its implem~r~on, Based on these facts, the City concludes tim pou.~i,~ risk of upset impacts from implememlug
28. Population: Alteration of Future Population Characteristics of the Area
Potential Si~nifi~ Impam
The p,opos~ project oo~kl cause si~ifiC'~'m adv'etse effects by
modifyi~ timat population ~ ,'h-,,,.c~i~ic~ for the azea.
];=mding:
The population issues ate dismissed in tim Initial Study; Chapmr 8, Section 8.1, of the EIR. The
proposed project is not foreca.st to cause a significant aimration in f~m_.~ population distribution,
d~m'ity, or growth tam. By contributing to a positive jobs/housing balance, the ptopo~d project
will be suppomng major ~-gionai air quality planning goals. 11g -,,,~ysis of the popul~ion ~
pt~elg~d in the Initial StMdy COll~Uded that the proje~ wi~ ~ ~ jobs than ~ within
the developtnem area and the project has no po~ntial for ~igpific-n, alterations in pol~,hrion of
the region if the project is developed as ptopc~__d_. No mitigation is V~luired.
Facts in Support of the lrmdin~
The discussion of the population iasu~ is pmvid~l in the envitoraatalal evaluation section of tbe Initial Study ('Pages
31 and 32, imm 11). The n~nlysis indicat~ that th~ p~ pmjec~ will cream a pot~tiai 3,100 pote~ial job~
while adding a total of 983 ~ t~'idents to the project area for a 3.2:1 jobs/h~ ratio. Thc total population
increase to the t~gion is appmxlman. ly equivalent to one year of growth, but since it will occur over a several year
period, the mm of g~wth is not forecast to be significant. Thus, the project is not forecast to contribute additional
significant potential for adverse population ~ to the cum,,!~tive potential for population growth. The
jobs/housing ratio of the proposed project is forecast W 'be beneficial and con4._qent with regional ah' quatity
planning goa~. Based on these facts, the City concludes that potent~ popni~tion impacts ~tom implem~"nting the
propo~i project wRl be nonsign/ficant without any m/tigation or other chnnges to the project.
29. Housing: Affect Existing Housing or Demand for Housing
Potential Significant Impact:
The proposed project could cause significant adverse effec~ by
modifying fum~ availability of housing or demand for housing.
~n~ng:
The housing issues are discussed in the Initinl Study, Chapmr 8, Section 8.1, of the EIR. The
proposed project is not forecast to cause a significant altezation in existing or futttte housing
detl~B~ T~ nnnlysis of the housing issues pmsentexl in tbe Initial Study concluded that the
project will ct~te provide approximately the same number of ho, t~ing units as the existing land
use designations, anti mtai d~na~d for future boq in the area may be ~d~_meO_ by the project.
Therefore, no potemial for significant alterations in housing demand for the region is fom:ast to
occur if the project is developed as proposed. No mitigation is tequix~!.
Facts in Support of the Finding
The discussion of the housing issues is provided in the envimmnennl evaluation section of the Initial Study (Pages
32 and 33, item 12 and in the EIRI And Use discussion). The analysis indicams that the proposed project will allow
27
q~toximamiy the sane manbet of ho-~-i%o ,mits to be ca~aed as would ~ cm~ent land me design~tiom (429
compared to 460, respecdvely). liecame many of flag jobs can be filled from am local population, ~a~ amm
of 983 new residems to the project atca (demand for housing) over several 7mrs can madUy be me~ based on
e:r~:i~ ~ of comW_L,~n~ appmzi,na,~iy 574 ~-w hous~ units pet yeiz.
the project is ~ot ~ Io comxibulg lddifio~-I si~acal~ polelldal for adverse ~ impacts go the
impl~,~,'~ me p,opesul projca will be ~si~fi~nt wi~ ~ mid?i~a or otaer cbanS~ to rue project.
30. Transportation/Circulation: Waterborne, Rail and Air Transportation System Effects
The project could mle~ ~ w'ae~one, ~ md air a-affic ~
m the dea'ime~ of ~ sTsee~s.
The pomuial for aiming wam4x~mc, rail md air ~ sysumxs is atncunsed ia the Initial
Study, Chapter 8, Section 8.1, of the fliP,. The amlysis of the project in relation to these existing
transpotation ~ is eV~--~d in the Initial Study ami it cm~uded that ~o potemil for
significant ale'radon of the exianing s3rru~ will occur if ~ae project is developed as proposed.
None of these systems will be dimly aff~aed by the proposed pmj~t. No mitigation is
Facts in Support of the Fiadiag
The discuasion of the ~on msoux~ impa~ is provided in ~ envimm~..~ evaluation section of ~e
Initial Study (Page 35, it~n 13.e). The :,~iysis i~lic:ar~ that no wam~nne, rail or air nansport systems occur
in ~¢ project a~a and no potential t~ ~t ~ ~ h~t ~ i~ufifi~l f~r ~e pmpo~l pmjec~ Thus, the
project ¢~nnot contribute m cumulative ~v~e alteradorn in tlgse tramporation sysmms. Bas~ on these f~ts,
the City concludes ti~t potential wamrbome, rail and air transportation system eff~s from implementing the
proposed project will be nonsignificant without any mitigation or other cimages to the project.
31. Transportation/Circulation: Increased Safety Hazards
Potential Signific~t Impae*:
The project may cruse a sisaificaat ~ by ~ saf~ imams
to ped~u'iaus amt bicycle ~affac
Finding:
The potenri~ for the project to increase traffic safety ha~rds is di,e~,St'd in the Initial Study,
Chapter 8, Section 8.1, of the EIR. The project bas a potendal to ct~- signiticam traffic bazards
during consmicfion ac~vities along adjace~ roads and at locations where waffic impmv~m~s
being in.staUed in accordance with fin~i.~ in the Traffic Subchapter of the EIR (Section 4.6).
The analysis of these tra~c safety ismae~ pte~ented in the Initial Study com:luded
for significant impairs can occur if the project is d~eloped as proposed and four mitigation
measu~s will be implcmcnmd to pmv~lt waffle safety ~ fi'om becoming sig~ifi~m. The
following measured at~ ~ to be impl~mm~l:
20.
During cottaruction that affects the local roads, the project owner shall provide adequate
traffic control resources (signing, protective devices, croxring devices, detours,
flagpersons, etc. ) to mao, mln safe traffic flow. If con. rtru~on within a road right. of-way
is not completed by the end of the day's work, the contractor or agtncy shall ensure that
an adequate traffic access route ~ to all areas where access txists at the time of
consmw~on.
28
21.
Tnlgic hazanir that may ~ vehic~, bity~, pela,. iam. or hone~ ratch as ;peed
bumps, tr~:hes, or unevm ~ ) shall be Mtmified and acc~ controiled by dte project
2.
No opm trmctm or trqOfc ~afety hazardr thall be l~ in road rilhu-of. way during
periods ~ trt~c controls and marm~m penonnel are not pretmt. Such hazard. v
shall be '~ or an alternative rotat provided without hv. at~ before employees
leave a working area at or aiWacent ro a road.
All ro~ shall be adequmety repaired afttr ~on is compltted in an area to msure
that tra~c can move in the same manner as before consmarion without damage or
discon~fon to vehicles and parrregen.
Fac{s in Support of t!~ Fm4~
32. Public Services: Fire and Police
Potential Signifi~ Impact:
The project may cause an increase in demand for fire ,rid police
services which could ~c__~d the capacity of the sysmms in place.
F'mding:
The potmia for adv~ely impacting fire and police service systems is dino,~,~l in the Initial
Study, Chapt~ 8, Section 8.1, of the FIR. The pmj~t has a potcmial to czeatc significant
incremental, cumulative, demand on these two services. The a,~ly~is of the f~e and police
service ~ preptired in th~ Initial Sixlily co!!chldod th~t a potemi~! for significant im~.~ can
occur if tt~ project is developed as proposed and tluee mitigation mgasur~ will be implenmmcd
m pmvc~ ~csc service impac~ from becnmi-~ sigaificam. The following m~.su~s ~ m:luim:l
m be implcmcn~d:
The City and developers shall co~fer with the RCWD during the engineering of the
Western By.pass w ensure that the water distribution/transmission line, (f deemed
necessary for fire protection purposes, is installed when the road is constructed.
26.
Along the w~t and east side~ of the Wtrtern By-pass Road a fire and vegetation
manageretro plan shall be prepared and submitted to the City, RCFD, and CDF for
review and approval. This plan shall provide a $u~icimt buffer offire retardant plamings
29
tnc/~r~g re/a~ gra~c mrureL
Fac~s in Support of the Finding
The discuss/on of the tim and police service system impacts is provided in the environmental evaluation section of
the Initial Study (Pages 37-39, itmns 14.a-b). The analysis 'mdicat~ that th~ p.oposcd, pmjec~ will ct,~t_e a wildland
rite hazazd that could incrinse d,~,,,~t for fue sayice and a demand for as many as 80 private security personnel
and 12 officers dining enm~ainme~t activities. The analysis indicates that the project will. Mitigation n~asm~
/r25-26 for wildland rite hazazds created by the pwject will conm)l rite safety hazaz~Ls to the point of ~tucing or
e~imlnnting these potential haznnis. The agreement to provide funding for police m- .m)ow~r during en~rtninment
events will e~imi~u- any adverse impact to police service. Thus, the project is not forecast to congobrae to dix~t
or cumulative significant ftm and police set, ice impacts because of the measm~ ~ will be implemented. Based
on these facts, the City concl,_,d_~ ~ adequat~ measures aze avnilnhle tO reduce fire and police service impacts
from implementing the proposed project to a nonsignificant level. The ~-hnnges in the project are the responsibility
of the City to monitor and it will be implemented by the City as pan of its review and approval authority when the
proposed project is being developed.
$$. Public Services:
Potenthi Significant In,tact.:
Schools, Maintenance, Medical, and Library Services
The ~ project could cause an increase in demand for public
services which could ex__~ed__ the capacity of the vazious systems in
place.
Finding:
The potential to adversely impact the four public service systems is discuss~ in the Initial Study,
Chapter 8, Section 8.1, of the EIR. The ~nalysis of the project in t~lation to the existing service
systems and fun~ project cieraand issues concluded that no potc-nrla~ for a significant incx~x~ ia
public service demand will be generated if the project is developed as proposed. No mitigation
Faci~ in Support of the Finalrig
The discus.sion of these p/iblic service system ~ is provided in the environmental evaluation section of the Initial
Study (Pages 39 and 40, items c-f). The ~nn~ysis indicates ~hat the proposed project will not place any di~ct
demand on the schools, infrastmcna~ nmmemnce, medical and libtar,/services. Mitigation fees for 'mdix~ effects
on schools, infi=asmacture mnint. L~aZlCe, and librariG ellsure that the project cannot cause an indirect signifi .c~t effect
on these service systems. Medical services az~ provided fimaugh private timds and will be provided on a pay-as-
you-go basis. Because this service is provided through private systems, it can expand to meet any incrinsed
d~nnnd. Thus, the project i~ IlOt forecast to contribute addirloml significant potential for adverse public service
impacts to the cum-}=~ve po~endal for such dem=nd, Based on these fa~, the City concludes that po~mi~! public
service hnpacts from implementing the proposed project will be nonsi~mificant without any mitigation or other
cJaange~ to the project.
3O
Demand and Consumption
F'mding:
The poteu~ai to advexsely '?act energy msouge systems is di~,~ed in the Initial Study,
Chapt~ 8, Section 8.1, of the EIR. The analysis of the project in i~iation to the ~n~
co~'iud~ that no potential for a significant increase in enm'gy consumption is forem~ m occu~
occur if the project is developed as p,opc~cd. No mitigation is zequized.
Facts in Support of the ~'mdlng
The discussion of these public service system issues is provided in the onvi~o .... ~a~,t evaluation section of the Initial
Study (Pages 40 and 41, items 15.a-b). The analysis indicates that the ptopo9~! project will not consume large
~. Data available in California Ene~ Co,,m,i_,t~4on publications 'indicates that adequau~ cu.-..,e-cc~ energy
t, esonrces are available to meet future f~recast growth in ~ California and the p,x~ms~! project is not fore~ast
sysr~u.s, as long as adequate x~ouz~s ate available as foreca~ the systmns can expand to me~ auy ~
d~nand. Thus, the project is not fot~:a~ to contribute significant potm~tial for adverse energy msouxm impacts
or to the cumulative potential for such d,-m,nd. Based on these f~ts. the City concludes that potential energy
resource impacts from implemen6,~g the proposed project will be nonsignificant without any mitigation or other
changes to the project.
3§. Utilities: Adequacy of Capacity and Service Pattern
Potential $ilp~ficant Impact:
The project may. cause an increase in dn~md for utility services which
could ex__-,~__ the capacity of the utility system in place.
The potential for adversely impacting utility syst~ns and th~ existing sc~ce pattern is discussed
in the Initial Study, Chapmr 8, Section 8.1, of the EIR. Ti~ annOysis of the project in relation
to the existing utility sysmms and futtu~ project demand issues concluded that no potm~ for a
significant increa.~ in utility demand will be generated if the project is developed as proposed.
No mitigation is t~quir~d.
Facts in Support of the F'mding
The discussion of the utility syst~n impacts is provided in the environmental evaluation section of ti~ Initial Study
(Pages 42 and 43, itnns 16.a-g). The amlysis indicat~ that the proposed project demands for ench utility system
(power and nana~ ga~; communications; water; sanitary sewer;, storm water drainage; solid waste disposal) falls
within the projected capacity of these systems for the City of T~aecula. 13~mand for ,,~i~ity capacity is fm~ast to
incma~ withl. the overall project area. but not beyond existing system capacities. No unusual incxm~ in udlity
~_~-~.d or disjointed utility pun_,~ms will be cr~,~ because the existing utilities at~ generally in place and adequate
capabilities of the utility service providers. Thus, the project is not fot~st to contribute to direct or cumulative
demand for significant utility sysmn resotu-c~. Based on these f~ts, the City concl-d_~ that potential milky syst~n
and utility distribution pa-em effects from implementing the proposed project will be nonsignificant without any
mitigation or other changes to the project.
31
36. Health Risk: Creation or F_.~po$#re to Health Hazards
'I'he potmial to aeate or e~xae immm m !mauls ~m aiz-,,esed in tl~ Initial Study, Chap~ 8,
Section 8.1, of the EIR. The amlysis of fi~ health hazant issues ptzs~ntod in lt~ initial Study
the uses on the project site if the project is devedoped as propose____. No mitigation is mtuh~.
Fm/s in Suppan of the Finding
The discussion of the h~alth hazaul impacts is lm~ded in the envi~o~mt.~l evaluation ~_~?_'on of the Initial $tndy
(Page 44, imns l?.a-b). The analysis imlimms that the ptoposexi proje~ use~ have ~o po~l to cr~ any Impith
b~rds or to expose people to health hn=nnts through activities, inel~4ing accidental telease of hazardous or toxic
mazerials. Thus, the project is not fom:ast to conm'bute to direct or cunmlafive signifit~nt health risk impacts.
Based on these hcts, the City concludes that pomndal health risk impacts from implementing the proposed project
will be nonsignificant without any mitigation or other changes to the ptojecu
37. Recreation: Elimina~on of Recreazion Resources
Potential Significant Impnet:
The proposed project may elimiv,,te existing nm-nmtional resources that
at~ considered important to the community.
F'mdin~:
The potential to · 'inninate existing recreational resources is di.~,,~ed in the Initial Study, Chapmr
8, Section 8.1, of the EIR. The ~r~iysis of the existing t~tional t~outce issues presented in
the initial Study concluded that no potential for significant impact to existing t~-re~tio~l t~som~es
can OCCUr because I1o such resources ~ lO~_~__t~YJ within tl~ project arm if the project is developed
as proposed. No mitigation is required.
Facts in Support of the Finding
The discussion of the t~'~ationn~ resource ~ is provided in the environmental evaluation section of the Initial
Study (Page 46, items 19). The n,~lysis indicates runt the proposed project impact ax~as do not comain any existing
r~'mational r~sources and the pwject doe~ not have any potential to affect existing recreational resources. Thus.
the project is not fom:ast to. contribute to ~ or cumtttative significant t~'m~tionni resource impacts. Based on
these facts, the City concludes that potential rectmtio~ msontr, e itnpacts from implememing the propo~ project
will be nonsignificant without any mitigation or other changes to the project
D.2. Non-Sitmificant Impacts Idmtified in the EIR Aher Mitieafion
The following issues w~re identified in fine Initial Study as having potential to cause significant impact and
carried forward into the EIR for detailed evaluation. These issues then were fo~md to be nonsignificant based on
detailed technical an~ supporting a conclusion that no significant impact could occur or that mitigation mm,stu~s
identified in the EIR will be implememed which would reduce the impacts w below a level of signific~,v-e. In the
following presentation ~ch resotmm issue is identified; it is followed by a description of the potential significant
adverse environmental effect (Potential Significant Impact); a discussion of the findings in the enti~
mitigation measm~ that will be implemented to achieve a non-significant impact a~ identified; and finally, a
discussion of the facts supporting the finding at~ ~ ...... ~ri._~4. The mitigation measures ate prosereed below with
32
The City Camoil of the City of Tememla (C..ity Com:il) hereby finds tint ttl mitisation measures that ~ be
imple,n~n*ed to mitig~e the impacts of this project have been inoot~otat/.d into, or nsp~ed of. the project m avoid
or subs~e~*"y lessen the fe!lowin~ potentially*i~S~ envi,o--.~,~-~ impam m ~level ofinsi~i~-,,-e. Public
Resoutcm Code Section 21081 sta~s that no public a~ncy shall appm~ or cany out a project for which an
agency makes one, or more, of the following findings:
Changes or alterations have been required in, o~ iacoq~ouaed into the project which m'ti 'gate or
avoid the significant environmental
bo
agency; and/or
Spedtic economic, social or other co~de~o~ ma~ inf~am'ble ~he miti~mion measm~s or
project alternatives identified in the envirouu..nl,tl impact
The City Council hereby finds, pursuant to Public Resotto:es Section 21081, that the following ismms a~e non-
significant based on implementation of the mitigation measmes outlined below and that no add/tional initiation
measures or project ehn-~es at~ requited to t~luce these imp~ts below a sigPifiC'~nt level. These ~ alld the
measut~ adopted to midgate them to a level of in~i~lifil~l!~e al~ a~ follows:
i. Air Resources: Consn, uction Emissions
Potential Sil~!ifiennt Impact:
Construction .emissions from grading, pav/ng and con,stmcfion activities
could exceed_ regional thze~oids and contribute to co,~im,~d significant
The co~on air quality issues axe discussed in ~ in Ch~ter 4 of the EIR. The
resources evaluation indicated that project construction enfissiom for carbon monoxici~ (CO),
reactive orsanic compounds (ROC), sulfuz oxides (SO0 and particula= man~ CPM~) ~ found
to be below the thisholds of significance established by the South Coast A/r Quality Yamgmnent
District (SCAQMD) without spedtic mifisation- Nitrogen oxide ~mi_~x-ions hav~ been analyzed
separately under Section E below. The oaly impact with pot~tial s/gnificance is nuisance fugitive
dust that may be generated when construction activities occur on high wind days. The potential
conmuction emission impacts are not considered significant for the above potl-~,-t~ after
implementing the following mitigation measure. Nine mitigation measux~s have been id~uified
in the EIR that e_h=.ge the project so that emissions fall below significance thresholds. Th~se
measures are:
4.2.3.1
Prior to Lvsuance of a grading permit, the project pwponentt shall demonstrine to the City
Engineer the actions that will be taken to comply with $CAQMD Rule 402, which requires
that there be no dust intpacts aff~ite ~fficient to cause a nuisance, and SCAt2MD Rule
moistthing soil prior to grading. daily watering of expased xtwface~ or treating with soil
conditioner to stabilize the soiL' washing truck tires and covering loads of dirt transported
33
paving, coating or z,,~i~ ~ arm; az ~ mz~i~z~ poz.~i~ ~m~ ~ soil
4.2.$.2 A//~ equ/pnmu w~llbema/ma/n~/n/n~o/m'at/ng cond/a'on soasto reduce
openmomz/engmms.
4.2.3.3 Equiprntnt shall use ~ diesel fuel.
4.2.3.4 £1ecrric equipment will be used to the maritmon octmt f~ible.'
4.2.3.5 Trucks and construction equipmort will limit idling. Tru~ and equipment that may be
te~ to idle for more than 15 minmm ~ be shta dowm
4.2.3.6
To the maximum txt~u fmrible, conm~_~on activit~ that aftms tra~c flow will be
restricted to aft-peak hours (i.e., benveen 7.~O p.m. and 6.~0 a.m. and bemetn 10.~0
a.m. and 3.~O p.m.).
4.2.3.7 Cottvtruction employers shallbeprovided withwamitiqformarionand the contracer shall
submit and imp/tmtnt an apprmed r/de :hare program for constmc~on emp/oyets.
4.2.3.8 Pre-coattd and pre.colored materia~ will be reed in constnt~on to the octent femible.
4.2.3.9
Prior to issuing a building permit, the City will require ~ from the applicara
that proper precau~ons have been taken so that workers are not mgn~setl w unsafe levels
of hazardous air pollution.
Facts in Support of F'mding
The discussion in the text of the EIR aud support documents indicates that the project will emit less CO, ROC. SO,
and PMm ti~. the thresholds of significance established by SCAQMD for a project in the South Coast Air Basin.
Table's 4.2-3 and 4.2-6 in the Final EIR list the forecast emin~iom avA none of the above emissions appmaclaes the
SCAQMD significance thzeaholds. The EIR concigars that the project and cum-lndve impa~t of these air L'rni~ions
ate forecast to be nonsignificam, but mitigation is provided to comml total emi__e_~ons and potential for maixam~ from
fugitive dust. Based on these t~ata, the City concludes that the potential construction ~ni~'ion impacts from CO,
ROC, SO,, and PMm can be mairuaimx! at a IIOIl~igilifi~allt level or can be t~zluced below a significant level in
accorda,~e with implementing the mitigation m~asures propose____ for this issue. The tecomm,-,,~! changes in the
project ate the zespon6bility of the City and the~e measuz~ will be implememed by the City as part of its zeview
and approval authority and during mitigation monitofiag.
2. Air Resources: Operation Emissions (Phase I)
Potential Significant Impact:
Operation en~siom from enteminment fa~lity operaions and
transportation ~mi_~'iom of pain,ns acce~ug the entertainment facilities
could ex__~e~__ regional thxesholds and comfibum to continued significant
air quality degrath~on.
~'mdin~o:
The operational air quality issues are discussed in detail in Chapter 4 of the EIR. The air
resources evaluation indicated timt project operatin~ ..-ieaons for parrio,h,- matter (PM~) at the
end of Phase I were founa to be below the threshold of significance established by the SCAQMD
withou~ specific mitigation. The potential operating emission impacts are not considered
34
4.2.3.10
4.2.3.11
the City to provide on site transit service.
4.2.3.12
4.2.3.13
The applicants shall provide at leart one day-care fadlity for employees working
for the hotel and entertzrinmtnt complex facilitie. v. This facility can be provided
on site or arrangonom can be made with an aftrite prof~ day-care
provider(s) to meet the day. c~e needs of up to 2,400 e, nployee~.
4.2.3.14
Hotel and mtemmmtmt fadlity employees shall be provided with transit
information and the applicant shall submit and implement an approved ride share
program for permon~ employees.
4.2.3.15
The applicant or City shall purchase clean fuel trams for transporting people
from parking areas to the entertainment fadlities.
4.2.3.16
Provide preferential parking for car and van pools for employees.
Facts in Support of F'mding
The discussion in the text of the EIR and support documents indicates that the project will emit less PM~o thnn the
thresholds of significance estab~i~ed by SCAQlVlD for a project in the South Coast Air Basin after Phase I is
implemented. Tables 4.2-8 nnd 4.2-8 in the Final EIR list the rotecast emissions and the particulate manet
emissions do not approach the SCAQMD s/gnificance threshold. The ElY, concludes thnt the pwject and cunnfiative
impact on particulate matter pollution ate forecast to be nonsignificant afar completion of Phase I, but mitigation
is pwvided to control total emi~.~ions. Based on these d~ta gae City concludes that the poteatial opemional
emission impacts fixan PM~o can be m~int~in~l at a non-sigllificant level or can be r~!uced below a si~ level
in accordance with implementing the mitigation measures proposed for this issue. The recommended changes in
the project ate the responsibility of the City and these measures will be implemented by the City as part of its
review and appwval authority and during mitigation monitoring.
3. Air Resources: Operation Emissions (Phase
Potentlrd SigniBe~* Impact:
Openfion ~--,i-~'ions from entmaimmu facility operations and
tz-ansportafion emissions of patwin acce~-ing the entertainment facilities
could exceed teSional ttm~olds and contribute to confinu~ significant
35
g'mding:
end of Pttase rl wet~ found m be below the ~ld of ~ig~flc~,~e established by die SCAQM.D
wid~u sp~ific mitis~ion. ~ ~ op~mlnS emission ~ am no~ comidm~d
~i~e,,~ f~r PMm afmr ~!,..~ ~,~ ~e followi~ mididon mmsu~s. Sevin mid~fioa
emissioas f~l below sig~fi~:e ~m~holds.
4.2.$.J0
4.2.3.11
Project design will incorporate energy-sating features throughout the project,
including low, eng~on water bem_,~, central water heating systems, andbuilt-in
The project will install bu~ transit $htlter~ and benches in Old Town and within
the Wemide Specific Pian arm in cnordination with the local transit agency and
the City to provide on girt tram'it ~ervice.
4.2.3.12
Provide incentives for tour buses and once tour. buses have dropped off patrons,
these buses shall not be allowed to idle more than five minutes before they are
shut down.
4.2.3.~
The applicants shall provide at least one day-care facility for emplayees working
for the hotel and entertainment complex fm~'lities. This fadlity can be provided
on site or arrangenm~ can be made with an aftsite professional day-care
provider(s) w mett the day-rare needs of up w 2,400 employees.
4.2.3.14
Hotel and entertaintn~ facility employees shall be provided with transit
information and the applicant shall submit and implement an approved tide share
program for permanent employees.
4.2.3.15
The applicant or City $hall purchase clean fuel trams for transporting people
from parking areas to the entenmnmem facilities.
4.2.3.16
Facts in Support of F'mdin_o
The discussion in the text Of the EIR and support documcats indicates fi~ the projec~ will emit less PM~0 than the
Ru~holds of sigaificance emblished by SCAQMD for a projec~ in the Sotuh Co~ Air Basin aflrr Phase II is
implememed. Tables 4.2-5 and 4.2-9 in the Final EIR list the fottr. a~ emissions and the paxficulate mauet
emi.~ions do not appwach the SCAQMD significance tkt~aold. The EIR conelude~ that the project anti cumula6ve
impact on particulate matter pollution at~ forecast to be nonsignificant, but mitigation is provided w con/wl wtal
emissiom. Ba.~d on these data, the City conclude~ that the potential operational emission impacts from PM~o can
be maintained at a non-s/gnificant level or can be reduced below a s/gn/ficant level after completion of Phase II in
accordance with implementing the midgat/on meastmm proposed for this issue. The recommended changes in the
project ate the respons/bifity of the City and the~e measttr~ will be im?iemented by the City as paxt of its t~-v/ew
and appwvai authority and dtmng mitigation monitoring.
4. Air Resources: Carbon Monoxide 'Hot Spots
36
Potential Significant Impact:
Ope~fion mfissions from uaff~ tela~ to uavd to the ~mmainment
could _~ the CO mbie~ air quality standard and
contribut~ to locally si~ficant ~ quality d~adatio~
Fmdlng:
Facts in Support of F'mding
The disat_~ion in the text of the EIR and support docmnents indicates that the project ~ cause or contribute to
CO concentrations that wexe detprmin,-d to be well Iglow th~ ~mbi~lt air quafity standa~ used to ptx)t~ct health.
Appendix 8.2 in the Final FAR pwvides the comparative CO forecast emissions and none of the modeled ambient
COllOidS appro~ th~ sigBifi~ tht~lds. The En~ conelH/~ that th~ ptoje~'t and cHmninfive i~ on
CO "hot spots' axe forecast m be nonsignificant and no mitigation is t'equit~d. ~ on these d_=~. the City
conclude~ that the potmtial openuioml emission impacts to CO amb/ent air qualit~ can be m-intni~-d at a non-
sign/ficant level without implementing m/dgation measu~.
5. Air Resources: Toxics
Potential Significant Impact:
~mi-~ons of toxic materials from lYmject operaflora could exceed ri~
~olds and conuibute m significant local air quality degradation
(toxic hotspots).
Finding:
The toxic air pollutant issues are discussed in detail in Chapter 4 of the EIR and At~ndlx 1 of
Volume 2, Technical Appendices. The evaluation of potential toxic cmiss/ons foam~ on
emissions from emmminment. hotel, commercial and t~sidential uses that the proposed project
would allow to be implemented if approved. The.project does not contain any uses identified as
potential soutees of significant amounts of toxic cmimiom and exis~g toxic emi.%'ion tegulatiom
ensure that wxic emissions will not cause a locally significant adver~ air quality i _~m!~'t. Thus,
toxic emi-n~ions are not comidct~ signific~t for the proposed projeer. No miti~o-afon or changes
to the project ar~ r~uir~.
Facts in Support of F'mding
The discussion in the text of the EIR and support document~ indicates that the project does not propose any uses
that ate large potential soutc~ of toxic emissions that could cause significnnt local d_e~dntlon of air qmfity or
public health risk. The EIR ¢onclude~ that r. bc project and cumulative impact of these air emi.~'ions has no potential
to be significant, and no mitigation or ch,~ in the project ate requi~d to achieve this nonsignificant impact.
Ba~ed on the~ d,t,. the City concludes thor the potendal toxic emissions impacts from future project uses and
a~rivides c~n be mainmin,n'J at a non-significant level without any midgation or chan~ in th~ plopo$~ project-
6. Air Resources: Odors
Potential Significnnt Impact:
Operation e, ni~'iom from entertahnnent facility operaflora at the W'fid
West Arena could generate odors from animal compounds that could
adversely impact nearby rcs/dences.
37
F'mding:
pm.~ m ensure ant t~ t~mia odor ~i,~ons fan beaow si~iO,-..,-e ~oids. 'ntis
4.2.8.17
Animal ttable arms av!iacmt to the ~ We~t Arma shatl be cleaned daily and
no accumulation of odor generating warte ~hall be permitted to remain within
the stable area for longer than one day. An odor complaint number ~hall be
ertabltrited at the City to addre~ any complaints regarding animal wame-'odors
fromtomt 'mums.
Facts in Support of Finding
The discussion in the t=tt of tl~ EIR ,,,tl supl0on documents indicates that the pm'z-~t has the poto,6al to emit odors
that may significantly aff~c~ nexfl~y tea/death. The F. IR conaind~s tl~ ~ project and cumulative impam on odors
~ fom:m m be nonsiimifica~ becmse m'figadoa is provided ~o comml odor eraism'ohs a~ fl~e source. Based on
these da~, the City concludes ~ the po~'mial odor emission impac~ subling anim~ in rapport of the W'dd Weis
A_rena ~hows Call be m~inraim.d at a Ilou6gllifi~allt level or can be reduced below a significant level in accotxlance
with implem~ring ehe mitigation ~ propos~ for fhi_n i.~ue. Ti~ ~ ...... ~ ~ in the pt~jl~ in the
responsibility of the City and this measure will be implmneau~l by the City as part of im ~-view and approval
awhority and during miagafion monitoring.
7. Air Resources: Cumulative Operation Emissions
Potential Significant Impact:
Cumulative long-term emissions from operafin~ ememim~ent fadtifi~
and trips w these facilifie~ could ex__~_ regional thisholds and
coatribum to continued s/gni~cant a/x quality degratia6on.
Finding:
The 1ong-tm'm operational air quality issues ate diso,~ned in de. tail in Chapter 4 of the FIR. The
air resouxc~ evaluation indicated that projec~ operating _~mi~ions combined with othex ~ni~ions
within ~ South Coast A~ ~ will not contribute to significant air quality degradation because
the SCAQMD Air Quality Managemere Plan (AQMP) will cornel ~-mi~ions by the year 2010 to
be in compliance with ambient air quality standards. The potenrla! long-term Ol~n'a6,,~ emission
impacts are not considered cumulatively significant because of the implementation of the AQMP
by the District. No additional mitigation measures axe requhcd of the project to achieve this level
of nonsignificant impact.
Facts in Support of F'mdin~
The discussion in the text of the EIR ~ suppon documents indicates that the project will, and other pmjccis will
also, be subject to the gradual reduction in air ,~mln-~ons subject to AQMP commls and that the AQMP mcasm~
have be~ identified as adequate to mrhi~-.-~ air qunlity thnt does not exceed roblent aix quality standards in the South
Coast Air Basin. The discussion on pa~ 4=28 in the Final ~ de~rib~ ~is a/marion and concludez that the
project and cumulative impact on the Bas/n aix resources over the 1ong-~-nn axe forecast to be nons/gnifi~m. Based
on these data, the City conci-a,~ that the poma/al ope~onal em/~ion imp,~,~ from the pmj~t caa be
below a sign/ficam level in at:cordance with implemendn~ the AQMP. The change~ in regional emiss/om ate the
~espomibility of the Dim/m, Air Resource Board, and City and theae measut~ will be implemeami by
agencies as pan of their review and appwval authority over emi~.4om soutce~ and activities.
38
8. Biolo$ical Resources: Com~:~oa A~ivifies
pomaial Sigma Impre:
coveting phm or dimoly from uawrsuoiled ~ s:tiviti~, or
my ~iversely sffgat ~om~ iio~ mig~mion duri~ bridge
~on.
F'mding:
The biological resources issues ~x~ &.~,~ed in ~ in Chalet 4 of the EIR. The biological
~soutccs evaluation indicated thtt project would gem=ate fugitive dust during con.muction that
could ~y impact plant habim. Since the time period of this impact is short-term and is
significam loss of ripati~ I~bim or v~l=~a,. This imp~'t caa be fully mitiga~! to a
nomignificant level by in. nlling batfi~ to em-a~ ,ccide~l 1o~ of habitat do~s not occur during
conmuctiou. The pow,,,i=t for mo,...~.i,~ lion mismion ~ ~ very low, tnn mifis~ion is
provided to emm'e tt~ migration activities can ~ withore ~icts [,ore consmenion ~nivides
for the Wc~em Bypass Road bridge over Murriem C. mek. Three 'muigation measures have been
4.3.3.1
During all constraCon periods within and/or adjacem to smsitive ~ldlife habitat
(Cha~e Chapar~ Comml ~age ,.~rub, or l~parian/Waland), the applicant shall
provide temporary.ftnt~g at the botoldary betwe~ areas to be disall'bed/graded and
areas to remain undi.rmybed. In areas where fzncing i~ not pas. rible, the applicant shall
survey and mark construction area boundahe~ and shall rttain a qualified biologist with
authority w stop consmwtion activity whtn it cormruction trttnds beyond these
boundaries. Any di.vturbances outride of designated areas of disturbance shallbe restored
to comparable habitat quality of the adjactnt undisturbed habitat.
4.3.3.2
Consmwtion ac~vitie~ at the Wtstern Bypass crossing over Murritta C. re~ Shall be
limited to daylight hours until the bridge is completed, ~rcept in an emergency as deftned
4.3.3.3 Consrrucvion staging areas and access mutes shall avoid sensitive wildlife areas.
Fac~s in Support of Fmdiug
The discussion in the text of the EIR and support docum~t~ (Volrune H, Technical Appeudiccs I.A through I.C,
of the EIR) indicates that the project will emit leas PM~o thnn the thresholds of significance established by SCAQMD
for a project in the South Coast Air Basra. Some 1os~ of plant proth,efivity fixnn fugitive dust deposition t~sult fi-om
such depositio~ but this impat:t will be short-term anc[ is l~xlrally eliminao~Cl after the fi~t rainfall following
completion of construction. No significant 1os~ of plant habitat is foz~zt m occur fixnn implementation of the
project as pwposed. Grading activities in the Western SIndfic Plan area could cause additional 1oas of significant
habitat (wetlands), but this can be coremlied by im~lling temporary fm~ing in active commsmon areas as ~
by meastue 4.3.3.1. The potential to affect moumain lion migmioa along Temecula Creek could be significau~,
but is fully miti.t,ated by limiting construction on the West~n Bypass bridge to daylight hou~s as ~qu/red by
mea.su~ 4.3.3.2. The EIR concludes ~ the pwject and cumul=five impact due to shon-tem~ comtm~ion as:tivities
is forecast to be nonsignificant. Based on these dam, the City concludes tim the potemial consmu:don imps:rs on
biological resources can be m~im~ir~-d a~ a non~igaific~t level or can be reduced below a significam level in
accordance with implementing the mitigation measm~ proposed for this ismse. The recommended e~%oes in the
39
Biological R~ources: La~..t~m ~ of l~l~im
F'mding:
The biological t~soutces issues ate di,~,.~l in ~ in ~ 4 of the EIR anti in Volume II,
~- I of the HIR. The biological ~,~so~,~..s e~ralumion int~ieannl ~ project will Oimirm~
habitat that is known to sugq~ort the Cafifomia gn-u--~-r, a limed bird species. Approxima~ly
proposed bridges aa~ss Munim Cmela In addition, m~au az~vities will be placed dixectly
ad. jat:e~ to habitat that ~.tppot~ ~ ~ ~:i~. Two mifiptiOn llaea..nul~ have beml identified
in the E~R that chanse project to ensure that the above impacts will not become significant. These
4.3.3.4
and/or onsite training, will addre~ xtwh iszues as wildlife harassment, trespass, and
protocols to d,n~t with wildlife encountered during conrtruction.
4.3.3.5 All conrtmction debris, such as food ~, will be rtmoved from the site each day..All
refuse receptacles shall have tight-fit~ng ~ to prevent wildlife access.
4.3.3.6
To prevent the loss of any Southwestern Pond Turtles during construction, the applicant
shall retain a qualified biologist to collect any turtles within the Western Bypass bridge
crossing construction area. The biologirt shall alto oversee inrtallation of barriers to
prevent turtles from occupying the consrntction area during active construction in the
channel. The applicant shall fund maintenance of the turtles, if required, until they can
be rexumed to Murrieta Creek following conrtruction~
4.3.3. 7 To offset the loss of 64.6 acres of occupied Gnatcatcher habitat in the Chamise Chaparral
and Coastal Sage Scrub plant communities within the project arm the applicant shall
implement one ofthe following measures: a) Acquire 97acres ofhigh quality Gnaw. atchtr
habitat (1.5:1 ratio based on discussions with U.S. Fish and l~ldlife Sta~ and tranrfer
ownership of ~he land or open space easeme~ (which prevent any fm,,e are other than
otnm space) and managemtnt respon. vibiliry for the property to the River~ie County Pari~
Departrntnt or other agent acceptable to the U. $. Jqsh and l~ldlife Service and
D~ of Fish and Game. This habitat shall be purchased within the Santa Rosa
Plateau/&mta Margarita River Potential Reserve area as identified within the Riverride
County 'Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan', or at a location acceptable to the
U.S. Fish and Wildh~fe Service and D~ of lqsh and Game. An endown~nt of
$50,000 shall be provided for are by the designreed managemtnt agency to enhance
wildlife carrying capacity of the 97 acres set aside as mitigation for ~ project: or b) pay
fees as dt~errnined through negotiations with the U. $. Fish and Wildlt~fe ,~ervice and State
Departmtnt of Fish and Game to an agent authorized by these two agen~es for purchase
of land-banked compensation habitat.
40
4.3.3.8
acceptable to the U. $. !rtsh and Wddlife ~n~ce antl ~ of J~h and Cnune. The
rt~uiremetm of this meamre can be mpent~ by any alttmatiw mitigation or
co~ d~ thtm~h ~lu~m of a Corps 404 Permit or Department of J~h
and Game 1501/1603 Agreem~m Y'ne plans for the two acres of Riparian/Wetland
tnhancemmt ~be ~ and appmved by the City, U. $. Fish and l~ldlffe ~trvice,
and Department of Fish and Game prior to implemtntmion.
4.3.3.9 A ~ilt f~we or alttrnative acceptable to the City and &m Diego Regional Water Quality
Control Board shall be initoiled downttream of cmtm,ut~ion activities in Murrieto Cretk
for thit meamre $hall be ~t~citm control to pferret downrtrtmn xiltmion that can cause
~g,'atata,n of the aqnaac/n~ nabu~
4.3.3.10
~ applicant shall inrtall fences or other m~arures to control human access
from the Western Bypa~ to the weft, traept in Area D of the We~xide Specific
4.3.3.11
The City will impose a amdition of approval restricting ownership of donu~c
dogs and cats when approvals are granted for future rexidmtml de~optn~u
within Areas C and D of the We~tide Specific Plan. The restriction shall appty
m ~d domestic dogs and cats and shall allow ownership of such anima!~ only
4.3.3.12
The applicant shall pay any additional SKR fets, if required, for developing the
property within the fee area.
Facts in Support of F'mding
The discussion in the u:xt of the EIR and support docum=ms (Volume H, Technical Appeadic~ I.A through I.C,
of the EIR) indicates ttmt the project has the pom~ial m e'~ significam habitat resomx~s and pose 1ong-~'nn
incompatibility betw~-n urban uses and adjaea'm habitat. Appro~im~t,.ly 49.3 ac~s of coastal sage scrub, 1S.3 az~s
of chamise ~, and 1 acre of tiparian habitat will be eliminated if the project is implemenmd as proposed.
The sage scrub aud chaparral habitats support a known population of California gnv~c~tCherS. Extensive mitigation
is proposed to comicmate for the !ore of this Imbimt. Urban incoml~ty is pmnarily due to innx~hu~ion of pets
that frigh~n or kill native wildlife, and mi6gafion is ~ to elirain, re the po~e,~iat for this type of
incompatibility. The EIR concludes that the project and cumulative biological t~source impacts due to project
implementation ar~ formrest to be nonsignificant after implemenfin8 proposed mitigation. Based on these ~v~. the
City concludes that the pomntial project impacts on biological resources can be reduced below a significant level
the project ar~ the mapomibility of the City and these measures will be implemented by the City as part of its
review and approval authority and dining mitigation monimting.
10. Noise: Traffic Noise
Potential Si~fifin~ Imp~:
Traffic noise fixma vehicles .ccensing ~n~-rtainm~ fazilities could
cause noine levela m ex__~__ City significan~ thteahoids a~ adjacem
41
Fredlug:
Bypass Road. M~dgation is provided m mdm~ ~i-, pommi~ noise impac~ to a nomignifu:a~ level
4.4.4.8 The City shall require that an mrth berm or sound attmuation wall and land. vcaping be
inrtalled on the ridge above the homes on Pujol &feet to minimize noise levels at the
Facts in Support of F'mding
The discussion in the nntt of the EIR and sulRxm doo,mm~ 'indicates that the project will nmult in traffic noise
levels at adjacent residences to nmmin below the 65 dB CNEL noise threshold (see Table 4.4-4). One street
segment will incur a t,ha%ee in noise level of + 3.7 dB which could be consider/d significant, but it is developed
~n comm~ci~ tlS~S nnd DO si~ifi~ ~ ~ tr'&t~:~¢ !!OiS~ is fOl'g~'t to ~ i/1 199~. The CU~lnlnfv~
noise impact for ImUdout conditions, yea~ 2010 (Table 4.4-5) indicates that cumulative u'af~c, not the project, will
equal the significant tht'eshold for change in noise level (1.5 dB). T'nis is considercd sufScient a cban~ in the noise
environn~nt to be a significant impact The inmlladon of a noise wall, or comparable buffs, will reduce the
increase in noise by 1-$ dB which is suflidcnt to t'e~TLu~ tl~ impam below a significant level along the Western
Bypass Road. The ~ comb~_~ that the ~ traf~c !!oise i/llpacts Call be m~int~in~d below the compatibilit~
threshold at the nearest residences or reduced to such levels with identified mitigation. Based on these data~"me
City concludes that the potential project impacts due to waffic noise can be reduced below a significant level in
accordance with implementing the mitigation measures proposed for this issue. The recommended eha,,gcs in the
project axc the responsibility of the City and thesc mcasur~ will be implemented by the City as pan of its ~-view
and approval authority and during mldgation monitoring.
11. Noise: Facility Operation Noise
Potential Significant Impact:
Facility operation noise fixnn emcrtaimncm act/v/des could cause noise
levels to cx__~:ed__ City significance thresholds at adjacent residences.
F'mding:
The facility operation noise issues arc discussed in detail in Chapter 4 of the EIR. The noise
ev/ation i~di,~,,~ ~ f~ili~y operation activities ate forecast to ~,_,~ the threshold for
addressed outdoor patron noise, entcrtninment noise in the Old Town core arm, and noise from
the W'dd West Axgna in the Westside Spec/fic Plan area. lvfidgation is provided to rcduce these
pomatial noise impacts to a nonsignificant level for semifive tecepm~. Six midgation measures
bav~ been idemified in the EIR that change the projec~ to ensmc that the above impac~ will not
becomc significant. These mcasm~ are:
4.4.4..5 The City shall grtablish a noise complaint program when constr~_crd_'on of mttnainn~
facilities in Old Town begins. This program shall include a point of contact, a log of all
complaints. and a log of how en,'h complaint is resolved.
42
4.4.4.6
4.4.4.7
Kuerior sound te~els during lnuformanoes at Old Town entertainmeat fucilin'es strait not
exceed 65 d~ L,~ at 50 fees from the building. At no time shalt noise levels exceed 55 dB
Ln at the ~ ~ noise receptor.
4.4.4.9
reduced to a Cfifl~ of 62. T dB at #te nmrm~t residence. The noise xtudy may incorporate
some or all of the following rr~n~ ntres whit~ have ~ idmt~ed to reduce Arena noise
to the 62.7dB ~ at res'idmc~ along l~ol &reet.
The Arma should be oriented so that any stage faces away from the nearest
residential areas. The r~ar of the stage house should be no closer than 500ft.
to these sensitive !and uses. This along should redu~ concen noise levels at the
rear of tho ar~na to 60 dB according to WJIt~.
The Arena should ~ a full stage house On~'ttlble or pertrotator) with
enclosed wings for flyint and su~ang of touring sound systems.
The tinuse sound system should be designed to minimize mvironmental noise.
A '&nxOnaed loadspeaker approach for s~r seating areas should be utilized
0~ req~red.
The rear side of and 'bleacher style' $e. zlting should be enclosed w provide a
barrier around the facility W help control noise.
Mixing console noise levels during concerts must be restricted w 100-105 dB
4.4.4.10
The City shall require any fam,e residential uses adjacent w the Western Bypass
Road that place rexldmces within the 65 Db cArEL noise contour w install sound
art~utatwn barriers or walls sufficient w reduce noise w a level below this
significance threshold.
4.4.4.1]
When noise levels along the Western Bypass Road near existing residences
exceeds the Qty threshold of significance for residential areas (65 dB CArEL),
the City shall install a sound attmuadon wall w noise levels from ¢xce. eding th~
Facts in Support of F'mdin~
The discussion in the text of the EIR and support documents indicatm that the project will result in facility opea'a6on
noise levels at adjacent residences to ex__~-d__ noise significance th.,er, holds. Noise of patrons outside of f~ilifies my
exceed 65 dB I.~ and mi~gadon is reqtm~ to conn'ol sound levels w this level at 50 feet from the facility.
Entertainment noise levels ate forecast to exceed the threshold outside of stxucm~ with normal smmumtl
43
12. Land Use: Continued Compatibility after General Plan Amendment
Potential S'~nlficant
The project could cma~ a s~bst--tl.i c~nlct with existing and
Fmdin~:
The land use issues ate discussed in detail in Chal~er 4 of the I~R. The evaluation of the land
use eha-geS caused by the proposed project indlc~,ni that project would not cause any significant
land use conflicts with proposed mitigation for othe~ envim~n~! issues, but could cause
significant impact by elimi,.~tlng a futm~ ~aeation faa~ty near the latin'section of Pujol SIx~et
impl,.m,-n6ng tbe following mitigation mmsu~. One mi~gation n~asme has been identified in
the EIR that ~ha..oes project so that potemial loss of the ~onal siu~ is ptvvenmt ftxnn
4.5.3.1
The City shaft rexluire a modOication in the ttxt of the West~ide Specific Plan (W~P) that
requires the inclusion of a ndghborhood parkffrtcreatwnal facility in the high density
residtntial de. rignat~ land at the future inter~ection of Pujol Street and the Western
Bypass Road. Z~e WSP t~xt modbfir_n_~on shall require the dexign of the park/facility to
be reviewed and approved by ttte City.
Facts in Support of F'mding
The discussion in the text of the En~ and support documents indira_t_,.s that the project will t'-hange land u.Sea within
the Westside Specific Plan ~ but is wholly consistera with the uses in the Old Town co~ at~a. The proposed
land u.s~s designations (SEC, CCTS, HDR, MU and OS) ~ comparable with the existing land use designations
(RH, BP, OS, MDR, and HDR) and may have less impact on adjacent uses than the proposed project. The
proposed Spedtic Plan would eliminate_ an existing r~creation site, but mitigation requires that this site be ranstated
as pan of the Weanside Specific Plan or as pan of the HDR uses ,,intex the Plan. The EIR concludes thnt the project
will re~xtlt in significant Irma use impact without implementing the mitigation measure. With mitigation the potential
land use impact can be t~ducecl to a nonsignificant level. Based on tbe~ dar~, the City concludes that the pot~l~tini
land use impacts can be reduced below a significant level in accordance with implemenfng the mitigation n~asur~
proposed for this issue. The recommended change in the project is the responsibility of the City and this measure
will be implemented by the City as part of its t~-vicw and approval authority and during mitigation monitoring.
13. Traffic: Phase I Operations
Potential Significant Impact:
Additional tra~c generated by the entenaimnent facility operations
could cause siinificant deterioration of traffic flow on the affected
circulation system.
Facts in Support of Finding
The discussion in the u~ of the EIR and suppo~ ~ .....,.r~ 'mdia~ fire ~e ~ ~ a ~ m ~
3 of~ ~ ~T~le 4.~ ~ ~ i~~ ~~~ n ~ hT~ 4.~, ~ ~
~~~ ~S ~ ~ ~ ~i~~~~E-~ F~ ~ ~y~
ho~ ~ ~y ~'Y ~ ~ ~ m ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ T~ S~ ~ ~ 4 of ~ ~.
~ m ~~ ~fi~ ~~on (~ T~ie 4.~. ~ on ~ ~ ~ Ci~ ~~ ~ ~e
~on mommy.
14. Tra~c: Build Out With-Projea
Potmtial $i~mifieant Impact: Additional ~nf~ ~ by the _~'~nm~n~ fiU~t~ opezmions and
build out ~affic ~ coukl cause sig~ic~ dm~-rior~on of traffic
flow on the aftmini cinmlafon sysmn.
F'mdln~:
The project and build out traffic ~ ismms axe di~v,~.d in detail in C!~pter 4 of the EIR and
the Tra~c Study con~in~-d in Volrune 2, Teclmiul Appendic~, of the EIR. The ~on of
~he ~ traffic from the emmnaimnem facility ope~lions -,~ build out uaffic g~owth
iadicazed tl~ the combined uaffic could cause .~i6t~,e demionzion of uaffic flow a~ 'four
inm~c~ions. The pown~i~ uaf~c flow impa~ a~ time inum~oas can be mitipa~d by
implementing specific civzulation system improvemeres befo~ t~ build out of the project is
completed. Three mitigation meastu~ have been identified in the EIR thst change the project
so that potential traffic flow impacts are reduced to a nonsig~ific--t level. These me~stu~ ate:
4.6.4.5
The Qty shall require fair. share funding ar described in the Congestion
Management Plan TraJ~c Impact Analy~i~ for the s~ improvement at the
Rancho California Road/l-15 Southbound ramps. This funding can be provided
sdum annual ~c surveys i~iicate a need for the road impro~tn~. There
impac~ at the. re ramps. They are: widen the Rancho California Road brid~e on
the south side to accommodate an additional eartimund through lane,' contrina
a southbound loop on-ramp in the nom'twe~ quadrant of the interchange;
construct a new ~outhbound off-nunp at &mtingo Pared.
4.6.4.6
~ City shall require fair-share funding a.v described in the Congestion
Management Plan TraJ~c Impact Analyxis for the s_,__tec~__ ed improvement at the at
$R 79 South and the I-1.~ Northbound ramps. Titis ftmding can be provided
when annual traJ~c surveys indicate a n__,~l_ for the road improvements. The
proposed Assessment District 159 impro~mems rhall be modified to include
provisions for a double left rum configunrion at the off. ramp approach to SR 79
South. It was also rgco~ed that rtte ultitnate interchange improvement
plans include a provixion for three eastbound through ~ at the intersection.
4.6.4.7
The City shall require fair.share funding as dacribed in the Congestion
Management Plan Traffic Impact Analyxis for the seleaed improvemtnt at SR 79
46
F'mdtng:
'I'ae proj~"t waff~ impact ~ ax~ di~s~d ia ~ in ~ 4 of ~ae EIR and the Traffic
Study contained ia Volum~ 2, Tw. hnical Appgadi~a, of the EIR. 'r~ ~scu~ion of lt~ ~
uaffic fanta tha olmation of ~am'miumm~t facilities iudicam:l ~ ~ ~ ~d ~
~~ ~~ of ~ flow ~ ~ ~~ ~- ~ ~. ~ ~
~c flow ~ ~ ~ ;,~,~;o~ ~ ~ ~14~ ~ ~i~ ~ ~on
~'~ ~ ~ I of~~ ~ ~i~.
4.6.4.1
4.6.4.2
4.6.4.3
4.6.4.4
To mitigate 1996 with-project circulation sy~etn impacts at the Rancho
California Roadll-15 North Rampt, the following steps rnu~ be taken: On the
westbound ~~ app~ widen an~or renripe Rancho California Road
to provide one through lane aligned with the (eventual) separate !eft4urn lane
at the 1-15 &ruth on-ramp, one through lane, one optional througMright-turn
lane, and one right-turn lane. In order to accommodate two lanes of right-
turning tra~c onto the 1-11 North on.ramp, said on-ramp will rtquire widening
lane, lunvever, prior to intersect~g t~e mainline of l-J5 North. (Note: The need
for these tugU right-turn tan~ an~ the widened 1-15 Nor~ on-ramp will be
~und Rancho California Road-to-northbound 1-15 trtrffic ul~mately is
provided.)
To mitigate 1996 with-projec~ circ,,L-~on system imlnu~ at the Front
Strew/Western Bypass Road intersection, the following steps must be taken: On
the southbound intersection approach, Front Street shall contain one left-turn
lane and one optional left-turn/right-turn lane. (Note: Because Front Street will
extend north of the Western Bypass Road to Santiago Road as a five-lane focility
(two through lanes per d~rection plus a two-way-left-turn lane according to tht
City), th~ southbound approach (intersecting the Western Bypass Road) could
alt ernati ve i s implemented, the inters ecti on ' $ L O S would b e even better than that
cited in Table 4.6-6.
Banon As chtnan ' s traffic study identifies several nddl ri onal road desi gn tm,_ o ntres
that are recommended to reduce overall traJffc impoca. These are reproduced
in Appendix 4. These reconunt~dmions litall be imp~ as part of the
proposed project at a time determined by the City to prevent deterioration af
tra~c flow below LOS D. ~ status of tht circulation system components
addressed in the recomme~d~n~_'ons shall be assessed as part of the City '$ annual
tra~c survey and evahtation.
Ihe City shall require installation of transit facilities at centralized locations
within Old Town and the hotel/arena comph~x. The Cx'y shall work with
regional transit agencies to provide service to these loauions in the future whtn
such transit service becomes available.
45
Facts in Support of Fmdin~
The discussion in the text of the EIR and support ~memn 'mdiaa~ that the project and build out txaffi¢ have a
potential m ~-~- aignifi~ant demioration of four imm~om from combined project u-affic and fiae build out traffic
fom:a~ Volum~ 2 of fi~ ~ and Table 4.6.8 'md~a~ fiaat all but four in,~.~tc~om evalua~! for 2010 will
opera~ a~ an acceptable LOS with ~ project and build om uaffic grow~ These four imaxaec6om will openue
at LOS E and F with standard ~ coMigmatiom acco~i~ m the dam provided in fiae Traffic Study and Chapter
impacts without implem~m~ug ~ae measm~ ~ above. W'nh mi6~atioa ~ proje~ uaffic impat~ can be reduced
so no traffic flow is fot~ast to expefiem:e significant delmi~on (see Table 4.6~8). Based on these ~ the City
concludes that the potential project uaffic impacts for build om condifioas can be reduced below a significam level
the project are the rmpomibility of I~e City sad these me.a.mr~ will be implemeau~l by ~he City as part of i~
review and approval amhority and during mi6gafion moaiuning.
I5. Aesthetic/~tsual Resources: Oranges w the Visual Setting
Potential Signifiean~ Impact:
The project could ea,~ a significant adverse change in ~he visual
setting.
F'mdin~:
The aesthetic/visual ~sottrce issues ar~ tli.no,~-xl in detail in Chapter 4 of the EIR and Volume
2, Appendix II of the EIR. The evaluation of the a~thetic/visuai tesoun:e change~ cau.~d by the
propazed project indicat~i that project Iaaa a pote~ial to cau~ aignificant chan~e~ in the visual
seffing within the Westside Specific Plan av~ This pommiai a~sthetic impact is nat collsidet~l
significant after implemcndng mitigation measures tba~ comxol ahort-l~tm gracting impams and
other intrusive feana~. Five mitigation measures have been iclexuifie~ in the EIR m,~ ehan~¢
project so that potential visual ahangCS in the site a~ corm'oiled to a less than significant level.
4.7.5.1
Slope grading techniques on the slope facing Pujol ~treet shall aim w bi~nd with the
~ing nature of the topography. Grading techniques shall ernp~ slope contouring
including contour undulation and variable slopes. In addition, wps and toes of slopes
shall be rounded. Hard edges and angles are to be avoided. Slopes shall be designed
to smoothly bl~nd with remaining ~isting topography.
4. Z5.2
Grading on the slope edge facing Pujol Street shall be reveg~te.d or landrcaped
immediately upon completion of grading activities, commrr~ with project development.
Landscaping shall be natural in appearance and linear arrangonmts of landscaping are
to be avoided.
4. 7.5.3 Irtrible retaining walls over eight feet in height shall be avoided unless visually integrated
into building deign.
4.7.5.4 f. ltiliti~ shall be located
4.7.5.5 ~ anti tanUscaping shalt be emptoy~ to conctat and so/tin vimat impam of
~ arms.
~y exists below this area. Using two evalualivc medmdologi~s, the ~ condud~l that the scale of the
smsam~ and t!~ !iakag¢ with tttc _~i~i~5 urbaa iands~ did not cr~a~ a significant visual di.~_~ty or visual
impact after development. The F..IR conel,,d _,~ that tl~ project can result in significaat visual impa~ over the short-
term due to gxadin8 without i,,?l,-m,~in8 t!~ mitigation nmasu~s. With midiion the ~*t aem,~c/visual
resource impact can be n~a~l m anonsignificant level Based onthese data, the City concludes that the potential
aesthctic/~ resmtt~ impacts can be reduced below a significant level in accordance with implementing the
mitigation measures proposed for this issue. The t~comm,~-4ed change in the project is the responsibility of the
City and this measu~ will be implem,.~ted by the City as pan of its review and approval authority nnd during
mitigation monitoring. ."
16. Cultural Resources: Archaeological Resources
Potential Significant Italy:t:
Construction and dmeeiopmc~ activities have a potm~tial to expose and
damage or cleatroy buried archaeological tesouzces which could ~--~e
the loss of significant historic or p~ric ~esottrces beneath the Old
Town ~ ~ '
The ateha,,ological l~soutce issues at~ di~,~ ~ ~ ~ C~mr 4 of ~e ~ ~ ~
d~. ~c ~ ~r~ ~ ~~ ~1~ ~ ~, ~ ~ or ~n
pl~ ov~ ~e pmj~ ~m, ~vely, but ~fion ~ d~el~m ~fi~ ~
id~fi~ ~ ~ ~e ~n~ ~r ~g b~ ~ of ~m~y ~fi~ ~.
~e c~ ~ ~on ~ ~ ~ ~ co~d ~ ~fi~ ~e or
~1~ ~ ~Ho~ red.on m~. ~ red.on m~ ~ ~ i~fi~ ~
· e ~ ~ c~ng~ ~c pmj~ ~ that ~ of ~ b~ ~ ~ p~ ~
~in~ a ~fi~ ~ ~S m~ ~:
4.8.3.1. No further archaeologwal inve. srfgation is recornmtnd~for thisproject. However, should
any known or suspecxed archaeological matetfals be t~:ountered during project
deveioprnera, a qualified hiswrical archaeologist should be contacted. Work should be
suspended in any area where archaeological remains are found until they can be properly
evo2uate. d and salvaged if found significant.
Facts in Support of Fmding
The discu,~on in the text of the El~ and support documcnt~ ind/catcs that project construction n.,4 development
activities have a potential to cause damage or loss of significant buried cultm-al resom~cs tim may exist beneath the
ax~as scheduled for development by the proposed project. The potenri~ buried resource impacts ate fo,ecast to be
primarily hiswr/c in chamc~ and a mitigation m~sut~ is provided m control the damage or loss of such resorals
that could be affected by constmctiou activities. The FIR concludes rant the project and cumulative impact to tnaied
resources are fot~.ast to be low, but a pote,,,i,~ for significant impact exists without implementing the mitigation
measure. With mitigation the conm'uction activity impacts to buried cultural resouxcc~ can be ~iuced so little or
48
no loss of such t~ar~s ocam which is w~ · no~i~t%-~ impam. ~ on ~__,? a,n_. the City
conclud~ thax the po~adal buffed atchaeologi~ resout~ impa~ can be ~ below a signifi/ant l~vd. in
project ax~ ~ae t~poadbility of the City *~ this measu~ will b~ i?i-,~nn~i by tbe City as !~n of thor tin, Jew
17. Cultural Resourcn: Historical Resources
Fmdin~:
4.8.3.2
Potential project inttx~ to historic buildings, including those that are not formally
recognized, will be mitigated below a level of xignificance through implementation of the
provisions already contao~ within the OTSP Old Town Historic Preservation Distact
Ordinance. Those provisions allow for conditions of approval for Cerri,fi~ of Historic
Appropriateness. It is recommended that conditions of approval for demolition or
alteration of any historic building include appropriate historical and architecatml
documentaxion prior w modification of the building.
4.8.3.3
In order to di~nguish recognized historic buildings from new construction which uses
historic architectural elemeno, it is reconvnmded that historic buildings in cononerc~al
areas be ~ with small plaques containing their historic names and dates of
construction, and thatpromotional/interpretive literature forthe project clearly distinguish
between historic buildings and recent construction.
Facts in $uppon of Fuuling
The discussion in the text of the EIR and support documents indicates that project construction and development
activities at six of the possible entertainment facility locations in the Old Town cote atea have a potential to
damage or loss of significant historic building resouzcea. The potential historic building resource impacts axe
forecast to be mltigable by implemenfin~ the City's 'Old Town Historic Preservation District Otdimn~'
mitigation measux~ ate provided to conrail the damage or loss of such tzsonn:~ that could be affected by project
activities. It may be possible to tOtally avoid historic buildings ~ the specific locations of entm'taimnent facilitie~
is still being detenllined. The EIR conclude~ that the project and cumttiative ~ to historic buildi%o
a~ forecast to be significant without imple~,'~ing the mitigation meaning. With mitigation the project impacts
tO historic building tesontc~ can be ted~__,-ed_ so little oi no loss of such resources occu~ which is considmed a
nonsigBifieant ~ ~ on th~ datg, the City coi!~litd~ that th~ potg~ial historic blli]din_.o t~out~ ~
can be reduced below a significant level in accordann. with implementing the mitigation measures proposed for this
49
issue. The m:ommencled change~ in the pwje~t ate fi~e t~3nsibility of th~ City and these mensuz~ will be
impi~n~l by the City as pan of the/r t~-view and approval amhofity and dining miti~/on monitoring.
This complems the discussion of those imp~t~ that are either non-significant without mitigation
or that can be reduced to a nonsignificant level with implementation of recommended mitigation
measures in the EIR.
E. SIGNIFICANT UNAVO1DABI,F. ADVF, R,ql;', IMPAC'I~ OF TUF, PROJECT
Despite incorporating changes and alterations int~ the Old Town Redevelopment Project
(proposed projec0, two environmental categories were found to have unavoidable, significant
adverse environmental effects. The following environmental issues ad~ in the FIR were
forecast to experience significant impacts: Air Quality and Noise. The potential impacts for the
above issues were concluded to be significant because the impacts could not be reduced below
thresholds of significance by the proposed project changes and mitigation measures (i.e., the
impacts are unavoidable). Thus, the potential for significant effects to occur for these issues
would continue to exist (at least for the short-term) regardless of whether or not the City or
other agencies implement the project changes and mitigation measures outlined in the EIR.
These two environmental issue categories, the impacts they will incur, and the mitigation
measures (project changes) designed to minimize them to the degree feas~le are summarized in
the following discussion.
I. Air Quality: Consrruaion Emissions
Significant Unavoidable Impact:
Short-term NO, coastruction emissions/ram m-~ forecast to
exc__,ed ~egioml thresholds and connibute to continued
signifiram air quality degtadatiom
Finding:
The construction air q,,~iity issues ax~ discussed in detail in Chapter ~ of the EIR ~gl suitporting
documem~. The ~r r~om'~s evalu~ion indlt~t~d tl~ pwj~-'t c. ongtru~on ~mi~ions ~ ~g~
o~ ~O~ ~ fo~ w ~ ~ve ~e ~oid of ~fi~ ~~ by ~e ~ C~
~ ~ Ma~ D~ (SCAQ~) ~~ of ~fi~om ~, ~
~o~ of NO, ~ ~~on ~fi~ ~t ~ ~ ~ow a ~fi~ 1~1. ~e
~ ~ ~ a 1~ ~o~on of &e N~ ~bi~ ~ q~ ~ h wt ~ ~; N0, ~
a p~r ~ ow~ ~ ~ m~on ~fi~ ~ ~~ w ~,~ ~fi~
~oi~om of &e ~ ~ over ~e ~on~. ~e ~ i~fi~ ~fig~on m~ ~e
~ ~ NO, ~ix~o~, but ~e vol~e of ~ ~ig~o~ (~ ~cfion ~m~) ~
'~ ~%m (~ ~lo~ ~) ~ m~ ~u~ ~r ~ pwj~ ~t &e
~t ~ ~ ~low ~e SCAQ~ ~old of ~fi~. ~e ~ ~fi~ m~
4.2.3.2 All con.rmtction equ~pm~ will be ~ in peak operating condition so as to reduce
opertmonal ern~sions.
4.2.3.3 Equiprntnt shall use low. sulfur diesel fuel.
4.2.3.4 Electric equipment will be used to the maximum ~tott ft~zvible.
5O
~.2.$.6
4.2.$.7 Constmct~nemploy~s sbaHbeprovMed~h~informa~onandthecontractorshall
subnSt and impleme~ an appro~d ride share program for co~ employees.
Facts in Support of the F~,.ai.~_
The dis:mission in ~e taxi of the EIR '~ gmat the Somh Coast Air B~u (SCAB) ~dences violatious of the
Coast .air Basin. Table's 4.2-3 through 4.2-6 in the Final E]~ list the forecast emissions and in each case the NO,
emissions su~,,,~,ily ex__,-~__ the SCAQIVlD significance ti~old~. Ti~ ~ conclu~ ~ the project and
cmnuhtive air enfissious during consuuctiou are forecast to be sig~{fi,.,m. Oiveu tbe emi~-,~ air quality standard
violations for ozone and pm~iculate miner and the non~wim~m rams of the SCAB for these pollmants, the City
The miu'gation n~asu~s for the proposed project im:o~ those f~sible n~asu~s identified by the I~R ,rid
contained wi,hin the SCAQMD Air Quality ~,~i,,me~ Plan and the District's "CEQA Handbook'. No additional
mitigation measut~ w~re identified in the responses um cummen~s that aced ~o be conside~i at this time .,.4 all of
the ctmuges to the project that are proposed m ~educe air emi.~-ions are considered feasible. Therefore, the City
finds that the available mitigation measures ate insufficient to reduce NO, air emi_~ion impacts from project
coustructiou activities below a siguificam level. Based on these facts, the City concludes that all feasible mkigalion
mcasun:s have been identified nmt these measures will be implemented by the City and SCAQMD as part of its
condir/ons of approval and mhigadon mommfinS program. The City concludes ~hat the pwposed project has the
potenri,I to cause a siguificam: adverse ¢ff~'t on the $¢AB'$ air quality; that project air emissions have been
sMb.~tantinily lec~el~d to the degree feasible; and that the project specific air quality impacts zem-iniug after
implementing mitigation measut~ axe unavoidable and acceptable due to overridin.e considerations as oufiined at
the end of this docmnent.
2. Air Quality: Operation Emissions
Unavoidable Impact:
Long-term NO, operation emissions from the proposed pmjea
could exceed__ t~gional thtw, holds and contribute to continued
F'mdln~:
The operational air quality issues ar~ discussed in dexail in Chaptax 4 of the EIR and supporting
documents. The air resources evai,,-rlon indicat~ that project operational erni.~ions in 1996 nnd
in 2010 (build out) for caxtmn monoxide (CO), reactive organic compounds (ROC), and nitrogen
oxides (NO,) ~ fo,,nd to be above tt~ tht'g~old of sig~ific-,~'e establi~ed by the $CAQMD
regardless of mitigation Themufo~, direct emi~om of the poU,,e,,,,~ timram operatioual activities
cannot be reducnd beiow a sigaificanz level The dam indicate th,,, a vioiaziou of the CO ,,,d NC~
ambient air quality standards is not at issue. ROC and NO, atu in, cursors for ozone taxi the
opemional activities will contribute to cominued significant viomions of the ozone standard until
AQMP programs tedme ambient ozone concetatalions below air quality standards, srhed..ied to
occur before the year 2010. The EIR identifies mitigation meastttes that can redme project
emi~,,-ions, but the volume of emissions (primarily Gum traffic) axe substantial enough for this
51
project ~ the ,-~i~.ions cannot be reduced below the tlrmsboM of sigp~e. The seven
mitigation mensur~ designed m mlnimi,,- operadoral -~i~ons m the de~ee f~asible a~:
4.2.$.11
The project w~ll inttall bm tnm~ she2ter$ and benche~ in Old Town and within
the Weftride Specific Plan area in coordination with the local transit ag~wy and
the City to provide on ~ tranrit seneca.
4.2.3.12
Provide incentives for tour bme~ and once tour braes have dropped off patrons,
these buse~ titall not be allowed to idle more than.five mimaes before they are
shut down.
4.2.3.13
The applican~ shall provide a~ least one day-care facility for employees working
for the hotel and entertainmint complex faci 'lug. ~ facility can be provided
on site or arnmgernmts can be made w~th 'an offxite professional day-care
provider(s) m mea the day-care needs of up to 2,400 employee.~.
4.2.3.14
4.2.3.15
Hotel and mterminment facility tmployee~ shall be proved with transit
inforn~on and the applicant titall ~ubn~t and implement an approved ride share
progrant for permanent tmployegs.
The applimm or City shall purchase clean fuel tratns for transporting people
from parking areas to the mtenainment focaities.
4.2.3.16
Provide preferential parking for car and van pools for employees.
Facts in Support of the Finding
The discussion in the mxt of the EIR indica~s that the South Coast Air Basin (SCAB) experiences violations of the
federal and state Ozone standards and in the CO standard in the Los Angele~ ~ The discussion in the mxt of
the EIR and support documen~ iodlr-~t~-~ that ~ pl'oject will emit more CO, ROC and NO~ than the thxgsholds of
significance established by SCAQIVlD for a project in the SCAB. Table 4.2-8 and 4.2-9 in the Final EIR lists the
forecast c-rain. ions and the CO, ROC and NO, entissions subsmuiaUy exceed the SCAQMD sig~ifica~e ttgeshoids.
The EIR concludes that the project operational air emis~'ons ax~ fon~cast to be significant. Given the existing
quality standard violations for ozone and CO and the noc-a~ai~-nt status of the SCAB for the~e poli,_,~m% the
Cit~ concurs that the operational emissions should be considered an unavoidable signifi_~n~ adverse impact.
The mitigation measu~s for the proposed project incorporate those feasible measut~ identified by the EIR and
contained within the SCAQMD Air Quality Attainment Plan and the Dimict's 'CEQA Handbook'. No additional
mitigation measures we~ idcmified in the responses to comments that need to bc considered at this time and aU of
the changes tO the project that axe propo~! to reduc~ aix ~mlssions ate considcn~ fiutsible. Tbc~fo~, the City
finds that the available mitigation mcasut~ ate insufficient to reduce CO, ROC and NO, air emission impacts fxom
project OlX:mtional activities below a significant level. Based on these facts, the City conch,0,~ that all f~tsiblc
mitigation measures have been identified and these measures will be implmmued by the City and SCAQMD as part
of its conditions of approval and mitigation monitoring program. The City concludes that the proposed project bas
the potential to cause a significant adversc effect on the SCAB's air quality; that project air emissions have been
substatmaUy lcsscned to the degn~e feasible; and that the project specific air quality impacts tx-m~iniag after
52
implem~nrln~ mitigation mmnn~ are urnvoidable and acceptable due ~o ovexMding considerations as outlined at
the end of this
~. Noi~e: Conima~on Aaiviry
could ~use mine levels to e=__~__ City
F'mding:
The comma:doe noise issues ate dint.,,~i in ~ in Chap~ 4 of the EIR. The nnise
ev/u~io~ i,/i,-~t tat project cor,~a~.ion ~ciivifies in gae Old Town cote area l
Westside Specific PI~n m~ could ~ th~ City's noise thresholds for noise sensitive us~, such
considm~d significant in the Old Town cote mm bec~se it will ex__~__ the 1.f dB noise inam.sc
threshold for an arm with noise levels alzeady ,.nceedi~g 65 dB CNEL. The potential consu'uc~on
noi~ impacts ate considen~! significant in the Westsid~ Specific Plan area because it will raise
the bac. k~nd sound level above tl~ 65 dB CNtR. values. Although the~ noise levels will occur
a~a over the short-tenn. It is not possible m mtuce the forecast noise levels below the significant
levds identified becnnse equipment is omsi~ and no known mitigation ie available to t~duce noise
levels below t!~ City's signi~ic.~"e om-~ol~. T!~ EIR identifies min'~tion measm~ that can
r~luce project noise levels, but the volmn~ of noise is s~bs~ntlnl enough for this project thnt the
impacts cannot be n~'uced below the threshold of significance. The five mifi~afion measu~s
desired to minlmi?. co!lstr~'tioll !1oise ~ to the degree rinsible ale:
4.4.4.1
4.4.4.2
4.4.4.3
4.4.4.4
4.4.4.5
The City shall require all cottaruction equipment that generates more than 50 dB to have
sound atttnuation devices (natfilers, etc.) that meet currt~t standards and that are fully
functional at ntl times the equipment is being operated at the cotum~on ~gte.
Except during an emergtncy as determined by the City, con~_,_~_'on activities shall be
limited to the hours between 7 a. rta and 7 p.~ ~ the City is presented with evidtnce
that the noise gentrated by conxtmcaon will be lear than ta~ting batg. ground or ambient
If noise complaints are. received during cotutrucrion and noise levels txceed acceptable
City thresholds, the City shall conxider i~all~on of temporary noise attmua~n walls
or sound buffering mattrials tn~etn the noise source and impacted ~ite.
Proprietors of individual ~atrt~'nment faciliti~ shall control crowd noise at their facility
$o that it does not exceed 65 dB at a dinance of 50 feet. Routine or periodic noise
monitoring shall be conduc~ by the owntr at ltast one time per month and the City may
request additional noise moniwring at any time.
The City shall establish a noise comp~t program when construction of entertainment
fadlities in Old Town begins. This program shall include a point of contact, a log of all
cOmplaitttS, and a log of how each complaint ~ resolved.
53
Facts in Support of F'mding
atet This isns. mcie.,clm~inthebnckgmundnoise envhon,,,t. ntmbeasignificantimpacc 'I'ne noiselevels
in the Westside Specific Plan axc~ ~'c ~ to be incensed from a ~ of approximately 57 dB CNEL
No additional mitigation measures were identified in the ~,..!~onscs to corem,mrs tbat need to be considered at this
time. The City finds that all of the chan~ to the project that are proposed to reduce consauction noise impacts
are considensl feasible. 'l'tan~fon:, the City finds that O~e available mitigation measures ate insufficient to t~educe
noise impacts fi-mn project construction activities below ~ significant level All f~asible mitigation meannes have
been identified and these measures will be implemcmcd by the City as pan of its conditions of approval and
mitigation moniuning ptos,.u,. Basal ~m these facts, the City concludes that the proposed project ins the potcntial
to cause a significant short-term adverse eff~ on the local noise enviromnent; that project noise levels hove been
lessenot to the degree fx:asible by contlolllng ~on activity; and that the project specific noise impacts
t'emaining ate unavoidable and accep~ie due to OVerriding COilSimons n~ oofiilled at the elid of this docutnent.
This concludes the discussion of all potential adverse impacts auributable to the implementation
and operation of the Old Town Redevelopment Project.
F. ALTERNATIVF. S TO TFW. PROPOSED ACTION
The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires discussion of reasonable project
alternatives that could feasibly attain the project's objectives (14 CCR § 15126(d)). CEQA
requires that an EIR evaluate a reasonable range of alternatives to the project, or to the location
of the project that: (l) offers substantial environmental advantages over the proposed project,
and (2) may be feasibly accomplished in a successful manner and within a reasonable period of
time considering the economic, environmental, legal, social, and technological factors involved.
The basic objectives of the proposed project include the following: development of western
oriented entertainment facilities to implement the Old Town Specific Plan concept; creation of
an entertainment complex that will provide jobs, fulfill a regional need for high quality western-
oriented entertainment; and enhance the vitality of Temecula's Old Town core area by bringing
large number of tourists, including the generation of increased tax revenue. The central purpose
of the proposed project is to initiate implementation of the Old Town Specific Plan around an
entertainment complex that will attract large numbers of people to the area on a continuous basis
while providing high quality recreation and entertainment value to local and regional residents.
The EIR considered a total of five alternatives to the proposed action. These alternatives were
defined based on mandatory requirements and alternatives designed to reduce the identified
significant impacts of the project: air quality and noise. Four of these alternatives were
considered to be technically feasible and were carried forward as possible reasonable alternatives
54
to the proposed project in the FIR. One of the alternatives was. reje~ed from further
consideration because it does not meet project objectives, the no project alternative.
The five alternatives ~ were subjea to evaluation in the FIR with the proposed action are:
No Project/No Development
Current General Plan Alternative
Modified Westside Specific Plan
Redevelopment Project without Hotel/Arena
Relocation of Hotel/Arena to Adjacent Undeveloped Industrial Site
The purpose in analyzing alternatives to a proposed project is to determine if an alternative ~
capable of eliminating or reducing potential sigm'ficant adverse environmental effects, 'even if
these alternatives would impede to some degree the ~tt.ainment of the project objectives, or
would be more costly' (State CEQA Guidelines, Section 15126{d)(3)). The following discussion
provides the City's evaluation of each of the alternatives to the proposed project in determining
whether they are feasible alternatives to the proposed action (State CEQA Guidelines, Sect/on
15126(d)) and whether an alternative can eliminate or substantially lessen significant impacts
described in this document for the proposed action.
1. No Projec~
The no-action altersfive would c 'hmin,uc any implemcnmion of the Old Town Redevelopment Pmjec~ and the
applicant would not consuuct and operate the en~ facilities, hotel. commercial uses and t~sidenfial uses.
The adverse impacts of the proposed action identified in the L~R would be elimi~l ami the existing envittmmen~!
conditiolLs would petit. Air q~lio] impacts would be elimln~ed ~ ~ $igtlifica~t coll.~xxlgtioa !!oise impac~
would also be e~imi~ted. This almmative would not e'lunin~ the existing significant traffic impact at the
intersections identified in the EIR. This impact would occur whether the proposed project is implemented or not
The EIR concluded that the no-action alterretire is environmentally super/or m the proposed project and would
c~imi~e the potentially significant ak qu~1i~ and noise impacts. It is not superior relative to traffu: which would
~main significam for an *mk~OWn arnourn of time without the proposed project. The no project aimm=tlve is not
capable of feasibly ~m,lnin~ the bas/c objectives of the project which w~e outlined above. The goal of ~
activ/v/in Old Town and implementing the Old Town Specific Plan would ~ ua/ulffiled. Therefore, the City
Council conam with the conclusion in the EIR that the no project altemmive for the pwposed project was pzopefiy
eliminated ~ flitdiet detailed collsideration becallse it is not capable of accompli-~hing the identified pmjea
objectives.
2. Current General Plan Alternative
An evaluation of the development of the site under the curt~mt General plan land use designations was pergormed
to determiae whether environmental impacts could be reduced by impleme~iug other alm-~rive uses when
compared with the proposed project. Using the Geseral Plan and Development Code as ~,uides it was de~-zmined
that impacts in the Old Town core area would t~-m~in approximau,ty the same ~md,r an alternative developmere
scheme coosisera with the Old Town Specific Plan. Uncle: the curteat General Plan the - 70 acre open space area
could be developed with a maximum of seven homes. This would result in greater visual intrusion and loss of
important habitat on the steeper ponions of the ridge leading to the Santa Rosa plateau.
55
A total of 460 residential units would be f,,.mdtt~ compared m the 429 ~ un~ ~ ptOlmsr. d project. The
impacts of both alternatives a~ co,n~ble for this portion of the curmat Genmal Plan
The developmm~ of the Business Park uses could inat~ase employera from 1,456 for the hotel/atom complex to
as many as 6,$34 employees. This would tinmir in an inmase in ,,,-zlm,,m number of nips per day by about
10,000. Significant inct~..=ses in air pollution would occur t~Jativ~ m the proposed project. Traffic noise would be
si~pifie'antly i~ am{ ql~lld potg~l:i~!ly {~ lli~i~ {~d {lllmiti~lbk~. Co!!~oIl 11o~q~ {{{d ~ qll~lity
Based on these facts, the City Council rejects as iaf~asible the development of the propcaw undex the curvznt
Gene~ Plan land use designation as an aim'native to the laUimse. d pmjecu This altamative does not meet all of
project's identified objecmivm and it would be more envim.*...,a~]ly damaging than the proposed project in all issue
cununt Getreal Plan develolnnm~ almmative was properly efimi,,-~-d from futth~ d~tailed comidm'afion because
titis almmative ~,,,~t fmtsibly meet the objectives establisb~i for the ptoposr. d project and cames greater adverse
impact ,~.- the p,o~.d project.
3. Modified Westside Specific Plan
This alternative was spedficaily forrauland to elimi~,~- som~ of ~ ~olo~ m~ ~, m ~ ~c
flow ~ ~ ~e y~ ~10 n~ m ~ ~on- ,~ 1o~ ~ ~W ~~. By elimi~ng 12.7
of ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ p~ ~~, a m~ of ~ ~d~,~ ~ ~d ~ ~.
~ ~i~6om ~d ~ ~ ~ ~d ~ m~ m bio~ ~. ~ ~ ~d ~i. ~vely
pmj~ obj~ ~ ~d ~ow ~ ~i~ ~j~v~ of ~e ~j~ m ~
Basexl on these facts, the City Couacil com'uxs tha~ this is a feasible aitenmive that is environmemaUy superior to
the proposed project. This alternative does meet the project objectives ~md it x~duces, but does not elimiru~m
significant impacts of the proposed project. Therefore, the Council concurs with the conclusion in the EI~ that the
modified Westside Specific Plan be retained ~s a fimsiblc ai~a~ive to the proposed project.
4. Redevelopment Project Without Hotel/Arena
This alternative would delete the hotel and W'fid West Atrna which the applicant has identified as being ~ to
the success of the project _be~,,~- of the overall role flaese two facilities play in the enm'taimnent complex, The
A~na is the k~*y factor becau~ it provides the ability to hold large w~st~n events, such as wild ~ shows nrut
rodeos. It also pwvides essential paricin~ resom-c~ for the facilities in the Old Town co~ azea and provides hotel
capacity to serve the visitors to the entertainment radiities.
This alternative will e 'hmim~ the loss of the important wildlife habitat located al the hot~llAR~ sim. F,,,n,m
development would occur in accordance with the existing Genex~ Plan which has bee~t shown to have a potential
to be environmentally inferior to the proposed project. This alternative would efimin~ the need for the Wesu:rn
Bypass Road aad the F'ust Strut improvements. All traffic :red patklng would be xestric~ed to Old Town hcilities
which would ~ pollution aad traffic impacts w a possible sig~i~cant level. The c, onstm~on air quality
impa~ would remain significant; the operational air quality ~ v~uld be reduced, but is foxec~ to remain
significant. Short-ram ~oise impacts in Old Town would xem~in si~ific~m~ umt~r this ~ltenmive.
On balance this alternative ellrain. res some impacts deterrain d to be nonsignificant that mquix~ extensive mitigation
(biological ~sotu-ces), but it will not e '~ the significant impacts f~r air quality and for conmruction noise
impacts in Old Towu. It is only marginally superior to the proposed project for enviromnenml purposes. and it may
cause significant traffic impacts and significant local CO problems.
56
project is consid~x~d, at I~ margimlly mvim .... -,,,*.y supexior m the p-o!~ project. It is not con~
rinsible ~l~ermsive I~ it does not n~ the proj~ ~v~. Tngrgfm~. ~bg City Council concu~ with the
conclusion in the ~ that this ~!tm~dve is px~opgdy e~i~iv-w,d fxom funtex derailed co,~der~don because
aim*native camrot f~sibly meet tie objectives esmbU.d~ed for the p.opo~gd project
5. Hotel/Arena Relocated to the Adjacent Vacant Indra'trial Pads
~ alternative would cond~ of r~locating the ~ f~cilities ~o Ibe vaunt ~ pads ;..~...,-dlnt~ly to the north
of the Westside Specific Plan area. This alternative could t'educe gzadin8 ~.d si~ificam constraCon emi~iom of
NO,. It would also elimi,,,te the loss of the biological t,..,~c~ on the existing site. It would not meet the
important project objective of provide a pedem4~ and visual link along Main Street ~ Old Town nn,4
Westside Specific Plan arm. Short-term noise h~. e~ and opemional air quality impa/:ts would also not be
elimir~ed by ~ alternative. Circulation impac~ would be ~ Mong the Rancho California conidol, and
mitigation to a nonsignifc~nt level of impact might no longer be feasible along this corddot.
On baiaace this nit~q~alive also ¢iimim~ some ~ d~-nni~-d m be no~~ that requi~ extensive
mitigation Coiologic~l t~soutces). but it will not elimi~e the significant impacts for alt quality and for consauction
noi~ impacts. It is only marginally sure,or to the p,opo~d project f~r envi~ou~,.a~l puq~e.s. and it n~y cause
significant u'afl~c impacts and significant local CO problems.
This alternative is considered only marginally feasible because it would not m~ the objective of c~ating a ilnk
between Old Town amt the hotel/Ax~-m. On balance, the trade-off of ~ ~m~ short-t~m impm~ compared
to the long-term potential uaflic impacts along the Rancho California Road corridor does not produce an
environmentally superior project ~elafive to me proposed project
Ba.~.d on the~e facts, the City Council conci~d_~ that th~ alternative project is considensi le~ environme~!ly
sound thnn the proposed project. It is considered a marginally feasible aim'native _be~_~.it does meet most of the
basic project objectives, but not all of the project objectives. Therefore, the City Council concuxs with the
conclusion in the EIR that th~ alternative is properly elimipa~,xl f~ fmx!~r derailed considgx~tion i~ tiffs
alternative is not eavimnmcntally superior to the proposed project.
This concludes the discussion of project alternatives to the Old Town Redevelopment Project.
G. PROTECT BENE~
The benefits from approving the Old Town Redevelopment Project are related to the immediate
implementation of the Old Town Specific Plan; the economic benefits that the project can
provide to the merchants in Old Town, the City, and the region over the long-term; the jobs
provided that will meet the needs of local residents; enhancement of the area jobs/housing
balance in relation to regional air quality plan implementation; and the infrastrucu~e
improvements that will be provided at an earlier date than originally envisioned in the General
Plan. The benefits of a project are those positive values and new facilities that would not be
made available to the community without the project's development, As a technical basis for
the economic benefits of the project, the City commissioned an economic study by Price
Waterhouse and a copy is already a part of the project record and incorporated herein by
reference.
57
The project benefits outlined below were considered by the City Cotmail in perfoming the
balancing test with those unavoidable significant adverse impacts presented earlier in this
document.
1. Benefits
The project represents the significant achievement of community economic development,
open space and conservation, and revitali~tion goals.
The k~y ideas of the City's Vision Stnt,~em. which provided a basis for the Genexal Plan, ate as follows:
·
·
·
·
·
·
A balance of residential, co,a~.~.'ial and industrial oppot~6es;
The concentration of mail and basinms devel~ wi~hl,, Village
A convenient and effective uansponmion system that includes vehicular, transit., bicycle and
pedesuian modes of travel;
A community dedi~fed to preserving family values, n~ighboenood consarvation and public safety;
Additional activities and oppommities for a ~ army of inanesta, a~a, and lifestyles;
The preservation and enh-n,'pmf~r of historic and cultural
A~rrnm'es that adequate public services ate piovided con~u,r.~tly with development; and
Capitalizing on the co.,-.unity's gtmest asset. its people, by encouraging co,,~.-,,,,ity involvement
and community responsibility.
The project accomplices many of these gmls and is a major oppor-mlty for the City to sustain a healthy
economy by providing additional jobs, by permanently protecting open space and nantral a~as ~t the urban
edge, pwviding needed public in/rastmcntte, and by providing a catalyst for e~haneing and tev/tnli~in.v an
impoflair h~toric ~ Within the commsallity.
b. Fulfills the primary goal and purpose of the Old Town Specific Plan
According to the Overall (primary) Goal of the Old Town Spedtic Plan, the puq~se of the Plan is to
'cteate a dynamic Old Town commercial anti r~idential cote that is attractive and of high quality,
respectful of its historic buildings and unifying design theme and providing an economically viable sett/ng
for a mixnu~ of local and tourist serving co_ mmel'cial tl~, ~dminlsi,~live/pmfessional and tesideafial uses
with safe, efficient circulation and access.'
The additional entermigent, tetait, and t~mu'ant businesses proposed for the cote of Old Town will help
create an attractive and dynaxmc Old Town cote; the project will t~luite all new buildings to comply with
the design guidelines in the Old Town Specific Plan and complement the existing historic bu/! .dings; and
rurally, the proposed project will crmte an economically viable local and tourist oriented commercial arm
that will address the blight in Old Town and tever~e the I~nd wwards deterioration of the Old Town area.
This project is the type of tevitalization ~ralyst envisioned for Old Town when the Specific Plan was
developed.
c. Cream additional employment opportunities within the Temecula Valley
The vaxious project components axe fon~ast m create approxima~y 2,500 additional full-time equivalent
jobs. These additional jobs will consist of a range of professional, skilled, and marginally-skilled positions.
The average salary is projected to be $19,600 per yeax. According to the adopted General Platt, the City
and Valley need additional jobs to entumce the existing low jobs/housing ratio. The project is expected to
58
eo
fo
crea~ a j0bs/ho,.~n~ ratio of 3.4:1 because it will attract a majmity of nuployees from the existing labor
pool wi,~;n the Temecuh Valley. 'me positive contribution m jobs/homi~ hatm~ provides _.~,,.~.t
Generate additional economic activity by accessing the regional tourism market
The ~ ven~s and minted project ctmqxm:~s are forecast to generate an additional 1.0 to 1.5
million 'v~ito~ to ti~ Temecula Valley per year. Most of these 'vuim~s will be from other areas in the
t~gion and oth~ ragions of the counn~/. These 'v~ito~ viii infuse additional funds ~', the local and a~a
addition, the project will t~sult in additional ent~taimnent doRais to be spent locally tathm: ,h~n in other
parts of southern California. Current economic and mari~ f~sibility studies es~nau~ timat the project will
gcn~'d~ app~oxJ, usately $86,000,000 in 1997. ~ multiplier eff~ of this additional local sps~4i%v will
Generate significant positive economic impact because of capital investment in labor and
materials needed for construction of the project ...
The constraction of entmxaimnent f~cilities, infam~ualm~ and other fimun~ of ~ project is forecast to
have a sisnificant positive economic imp~t on the cc~-~ty. Ac~,iC,~ to the Price Windmuse Pepon
some of these positive short-mnn economic benefits axe is follows: salgs volume = $99,600,000 n~
tusident income = $31,100,000. (Conm-actiou esnpl~ ,- 1,000 x average earnln?/employce.,
$31,100.
Provide a means to finance many of the needed public improvements that support the Old
Town Specific Plan
The General Plan, Old Town Specific Plan, and Capital Imlcn'ove~t iSmgram initially ~omained runny
-,__,.ed_ed public improvements in the southwestern quadrant of the City. The proposed project will enable
many of these improvements to be stm'ted nnalor completed sooner than initially ~mlcipated. Examples
of these early infrastructu~ improvemc-nts i~lude:
·
·
·
·
·
·
The extension of First Sm~et and the malignmerit of the int~'tion with First and Front Sm~ets
and Santiago Road:
Completion of the ~st phase of the Western Bypass Road and bridge;
Improvements to the f~*way ramps at l~-,,~ho Cafifumia Road and lm;,.~-~sic 15;
lmpwvemems to the freeway romps at Sine Roum 79 (south) aml ~ 15;
Rcpl~_o-~_,mt aml expansion of Eastern Municipal Wat~ Distfict's lift sinion at Fxtst Su'~-t;
Tim com'mL~on of a town square or plaza in the co~e of Old Town;
Ptovidin~ !lgg~gd parking facilities ~rolugl the Old Town al'g~.
Generate new sources of public revenue to support necessary community services
The project provides ciixcct and 'tndix~t positive economic benefiu to the community by incumxing pmper~
values and by gertcuring additional sales and tt-dnsient occupancy uxe~. Local redevelopment ~.
~ as a zesult of this proposed project. Tbe direct artmini begsfits expect~l to x~ult from the project,
according to the Price Wamrbouse Repo~ in 1997 am as follows: Tmmiem Occupmgy Tax -- $200,000;
Sales Tax ~ $5.50,000; and Property Tax - $500,000.
59
H. OV~'RRmlNG CONSmk'~ATIONS
This section of the document addresses the requirements in Section 1509'3 of the California
Environmental Quality Act Guideline. Section 15093 requires the lead agency to bnlnnce the
benefits of a proposed project against its unavoidable significant adverse impacts, and m
determine whether the project related significant impacts can be acceptably overridden by the
project benefits when the two are compared and bnlnn_ee~J. Ks outlined in Section E above, the
Old Town Redevelopment Project would produce unavoidable significant impacts in two
environmental categories: air quality and noise.
The Temecula City Council finds that the previously stated benefits of the Old Town
Redevelopment Project, contained in the proposed action and as conditioned by the City,
outweigh the unavoidable significant adverse environmental effects to air quality and noise that
have been outlined above. In a State where unemployment hovers near 8%; where the ability
to attract new business and jobs has been harmed by a prolonged recession and limited industrial
growth; and where urban blight has diminished the City's ability to atwact new uses to the Old
Town core area; the City Council finds that the proposed project's contributions to jobs, to the
local economy, and to the City's ability to atwact additional job growth outweigh the effects of
air emissions which will not directly impact the local population; and outweigh the limited,
short-term noise exposure to areas that already experience moderate to high background noise
because of the proximity of residential uses to Interstate 15 and other major thoroughfares ....
The City Council's findings set forth in the preceding sections have identified all of the adverse
environmental impacts and the feasible mitigation measures which can reduce impacts to
insignificant levels where feasible, or to the lowest achievable levels where significant
unavoidable impacts remain. The findings have also analyzed five alternatives to determine
whether they are reasonable or feasible alternatives to the proposed action or whether they might
reduce or eliminate the two significant impacts of the proposed action. The EIR presents
evidence that implementing the Old Town Redevelopment Project will cause significant adverse
impacts which cannot be substantially mitigated to insignificant levels. These significant impacts
have been outlined above and the City Council finds that all feasible alternatives and mitigation
measures have been adopted or identified for implementation by the City or other Responsible
Agencies.
The City Council finds that the project's benefits are substantial as outlined in Section G of this
document and summarized above and that these benefits justify overriding the unavoidable
significant adverse impacts associated with the proposed project. This finding is supported by
the fact that many of the benefits listed above result in the project initiating a major
tourist/recreational activity in the Temecula area which is forecast to contribute to a significantly
greater vitality for and potential for success of Old Town and the vision established in the Old
Town Specific Plan. Other major infrasu'ueture improvements will benefit the community
surrounding Old Town, including enhanced flood control facilities and road improvements
affecting an area of the community already experiencing access constraints. The City Council
further finds that these benefits, when balanced against the two unavoidable significant adverse
impacts, outweigh the impacts because of the social and economic values which accrue to the
City of Temecula as outlined in Section G of this document.
As the CEQA Lead Agency for the proposed action, the Temecuia City Council has reviewed
the project definition in the EIR and Section A of this document, and fully understands the
project proposed by the Old Town Redevelopment Project. Further, the City Council finds that
all potential adverse environmental impacts and all feasible mitigation measures to reduce these
impacts have been identified in the EIR, public comment, and public testimony. These impacts
and mitigation measures are discussed in Sections D. 1, D.2 and £ and the Council concurs with
the facts and findings contained in those sections. The City Council also finds that a reasonable
range of alternatives was considered in the EIR ar~xi this document (Section F) and that one
feasible alternative which can substantially lessen project impacts is available for adoption.
The City Council concurs with the seven identified economic and social benefits which will
result from implementing the proposed project. The Council has balanced these substantial
social and economic benefits against the unavoidable significant adverse effects of the proposed
project. Given the substantial social and economic benefits that will accrue to the City from
developing and operating the Old Town Redevelopment Project, the City Council finds that the
benefits identified herein outweigh the unavoidable significant adverse impacts, and hereby
override these unavoid:~hle environmental effects to obtain the economic and social benefits listed
in Section G.
61
EXHIBIT B
MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM
R:\FORMS\STAFFRPT.CC 6/7/95 Idb 10
CITY OF TEMECULA
MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM
FOR THE
OLD TOWN REDEVEIX)PMENT PROJECT
Introduction
This mitigation monitoring program has been prepared for use by the City of Temecula as it
implements mitigation measures for the Old Town Redevelopment Project. This program has
been prepared in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the
State and City CEQA Guidelines.
Assembly Bill 3180, effective January 1, 1989, required adoption of a reporting or monitoring
program for those measures or conditions imposed on a project to mitigate or avoid adverse
effects on the environment. The law states that the monitoring or reporting program shall be
designed to ensure compliance during project implementation.
The monitoring program contains the following elements:
1)
All mitigation measures a~c recorded. This Miti~tion Monitoring Program (MIvIP) is divided into two
sections. The fi.,s't section of the MMP lists the mitigation measures contained within the initial Study for
issues tim v~re not carried forward imo the Em4rouu~m~! lm!~'t Report (EIR) for evaluation. The
second section lists the mitigation measures identified in the EIR. The MMP establishes the actions and
procedures n~cessary to ensure compliance for all mitigation measures as outlined below.
2)
A procedure for compliance and vefific~ttion has been outiine~ for each mitigation me~tsu~. In the attached
MMP shee~, the first column identifies the "C.~ieral Impact.' The second cob~mn ~ the 'lvfitigation
Measure.' Next, the 'Specific Process' for monitoring is listed. It is followed in the MMP table by
identification of the 'Mitigation Milestone' for the mitigation measure and the 'Responsible Monitoring
Party.' Any 'Prerequisite Action For' the me~s is identified nn,~ a signature block is provided for
'Verification' that the measure ha~ been imple~nent~.
The program contains a separate mitigation monitoring record for each mitigation measu~ in the format
outlined above. Copies of the MMP and supportms data records will bc retained by the City of Temecula
as part of its project files.
4)
The MMP has been designed to be flexible. As monitoring progresses, changes to compliance procedttres
may be necessary based upon rccommcnOtions by those responsible for implementing the Program. If
changes axe made. new monitoring compliance proceriums and r~.ords will be developed nnd_ incorporated
into the Program. The total Program. includin.n any modification.s, will be trained by the Agency as part
of the project files.
The individual measures and the accompanying monitoring/reporting actions follow. They are
numbered in the same sequence as presented in the Initial Study and the EIR.
B. Miti~,ation MeLqures Identified in the Initial ,gt~,dy
General Impaq1
1. Grading for roads and building pads may create unstable slopes with potential for slope
failures.
Mitigation
1II.l.a.1 The f'mal grading plan for the site sh~!! be reviewed and ~pproved .-by ~n
engineering geologist with the specific goal of preventing the creation of
unstable slopes. This review and approval shall be completed prior to any
grorllng at the project site. C,r~&in~ of the site shall he evaluated by the
engineerin~ geologist by conducting in-grading inspections and if potential for
slope failure is noted this problem shall be corrected to control the potential
for slope failure.
Specific Process
Review and approval of the building construction plans by the City after the engineering
geologist has reviewed the plans and determined that grading will not create a potential for stope
failure or that measures have been incorporazed to minimize slope failure.
On-si~e construction inspection of the cut slopes by the engineering geologist.
Mitigation Mileston~
Prior co issuance of grading permit(s).
During construction for the on-site inspection.
Responsible Monitorin£
Licensed Engineering Geologist, and City of Temecula Public Works Department
Prerequisite Action(s) ]:or
Review of the grading plan by the engineering geologist prior to submiual w the City.
Submittal of grading plan to the Civ/for review and approval.
Initiating construction.
City Verification
2
C-ener~l lnlp~ct
1. Grading for roads and building pads may create unstable slopes with potential for slope
failures.
Mitigation M~ur~
lTl.l.a.2 The maximum inclination of all cut slopes shall be 2:1 (horizontal to vertical).
l~xceptions may be granted where a slope evaluation by a professional
enaineer or re~fiste~ engineeri~ aeoloaist demonstrees that the geologic
formations may be able to sustain steeper slopes, but the stability of any such
proposed slopes shall be verified during geologic in-~rorllng illSpeSo!Is.
Specific Process
Review and approval of the building construction plans by the City after the professional
engineer and/or engineering geologist has reviewed the plans and determined that grading will
not create a potential for slope failure or that measures have been incorporated to minimize slope
failure.
Engineer or geologist shall provide written field verification of the slope stability to the City,
or provide alternative design requirements during consauction.
Mitigation Milestone
Prior to issuance of grading permit(s).
Prior to completion of consauction for written field verification.
Responsible Monitoring Party
Licensed Engineering Geologist and City of Temecula Public Works Department
Prerequisite Actionf s) For
Review of the grading plan by the engineering geologist prior to submittal to the City.
Submittal of grading plan to the City for review and approval.
Initiating field review during construction.
City Verification
General
Grading and ground disturbance creates a potential for erosion and sedimentation, on-
and off-si~.
Mitigation M~-.n~:ure
lXI.l.b.3
The applicant shall prepare and submit a detailed erosion control plan that
identifies specific erosion control measures to control onsite and offsite
erosion from the time the site is disturbed until the disturbed arens are. fully
developed and landscaped. This erosion control plan shall include the
following measures at a minimum:
Specify the timing of grading and construction to minimiTe soil
exposure to winter rain period experienced in southern California.
The natural vegetation shall be retained to the extent feasible on nil
arens that will not be disturbed for grading (the exception is areas that
must cleared and revegetnted as part of a fuel modification program
to protect residences from wildland f'wes).
All slopes that will be greater tlum ten feet high shall be evaluated to
derme the optimnm length and steepness to minimiTe flow velocity and
erosion potential. Lateral drainage collection systems shall be
incorporated at the base of slopes to transport flows in a controlled,
non-erodlble channel.
de
The plan shah indicate where flows on the site can be diverted from
denuded areas and carried in the natural channels on the site.
Measm'~ in man-made channels to minimi-e runoff velocities shaft be
identified and implemented.
f.
Disturbed areas shall be protected through 1) physical stabili,ntion
(such as geotextiles, mats, or other materials (where needed); 2)
vegetative stabili,ntion; and 3) mulching.
Estabi~h sediment traps, silt fences, and related support features
(such as rock rdters) on the property to control the release of sediment
from disturbed areas. The design and location of such traps shall be
identified in the plan.
h®
je
ke
The channel designed to trlnsport flows to the'nearest Fegional flood
control facility shall be described and the adequacy of the channel
shall be dano~ with a detailed drainage analysis.
An inspection and maintenonce pFogram shall be included to ensure
that any erosion which does occur either on- or offsite will be
co~ tbFough a rpmediotJon or Festorafion program within a
All disturbed aFeas shall ,,tfimotely either be covered with impervious
material or Fevegetated with native and/or fife and drought resistant
vegetation.
The developer shall identify a bond mount for implementing the
erosion control program and provide the City with a bond for thiq
arnolint.
Install permanent erosion control and runoff facilities that are
sufficient to ensure that surface runoff will not cause !ong-te~
erosion on* or offsite.
Specific Process
Review and approval of the Erosion Control Plan by the City.
Monitor the plan implementation during consu'u~ion and operation of the facilities.
Require
erosion/sedimentation remediation where erosion control measures fail and erosion occurs until
on- and off-site erosion is eliminated.
Mitigation Milestone
Prior to issuance of grading permit(s).
During construction and when operations are initiated.
Responsible Monitoring Party
City of Temecula Public Works Department
Prerequisite Actionf s) For
Review and approval of the erosion control plan prior to initiating the grading plan by the City.
Initiating field review during construction.
5
City ¥¢rifioation
6
G-~neral Irn~t
~rou~ disturbance on th~ hillside can muse short-term visual impams due to ~xpos~ ~rad~
Mitigation M~.~ure
1TI.I.c.4
A landscape plan shall be completed for review and approval by the City.
This plan shall provide for full reve~,etat~on of the ro~d cut slopes utili~in~
native/ornamental plants which will serve as a fire buffer area. On the
constructed buiidin~ p~ds the landscape plan shall include the plantin~ of
large trees (minimum 4*' dialneter)hnmediately after construction of the pads
is completed. The effect of the reve~euttion plan will be to blend the slopes
into the natural coast~ sage scrub and chamisal ch. aparral commtmities west
of the Western By-Pass Road. The revegeUttion goal for the pads will be to
visually screen and soften the effect of the fiat, ~raded and paved pads. A
bond or equivalent commitment, aS provided by City ordinance, shall be
provided by the developer to ensure that the site can be reveget~ted after
Specific Process
The City shall review and approve the landscape plan to determine that the landscaping goals
identified in this measure are fully addressed.
The City shall monitor the plan implementation during construction and operation of the facilities
to ensure it meets the goals identified in this measure.
Mitigation Milestone
The plan shall be approved prior to initiating any construction on the Westside Specific Plan
facilities. This shall include the bond or equivalent commitment to ensure adequate funds are
available to revegetate disturbed areas.
Monitoring shall occur by inspections during construction and facility operation.
Responsible Monitoring Party
City of Temecula Planning Department
Prerequisite Action(s) For
Review and approval of the landscaping plan prior to initiating ground disturbance on Westside
Specific Plan facilities.
Initiating construction and operation.
City Verification
General Impact
Disturbance of Murrieta Creek Channel.
Mitigation Mes-~ure
Ul.l.g.8
The bridges shall be installed in a manner that will not adversely impact the
ab'dity of Murrietn Creek to carry the design flows established by the Corps
of Engineers nnd the Riverside County Flood Control and Water
Conservation District. Permits or waivers from such permits for instailntion
of the bridges shail be obtained from the Corp~ of Engineers, the County
Flood Control and Water Conservation District, the State Department of Ftsh
and Game, and the Caiifornia Re~fional Water Quality Control Board. The
developer shall implement the conditions of these..permits.
Specific Process
Permits or waivers from such permits for installation of the bridges shall be obtained from the
Corps of Engineers, the County Flood Control and Water Conservation District, the State
Department of Fish and Game, and the California Regional Water Quality Control Board. The
developer shall implement the conditions of these permits.Bridge designs and engineering
drawings shall be reviewed and approved by the agencies listed above to be consistent with
channel requirements established by the regulatory agencies.
Conditions contained in permits or waivers from permits shall be monitored during construction
for compliance.
Mitigation Milestone
Approvals for bridge design and engineering shall be obtained prior to initiating construction on
any of the bridge segments.
Permit conditions shall be monitoring during consu'uction of the bridges.
Responsible Monitoring Party
City of Temecula Public Works Department.
Regulatory agencies issuing permits.
Prerequisite Action(s) For
Review and approval of bridge designs by regulatory agencies.
9
Construction of the bridges.
City Verification
10
General Impact
Disturbance of Murriem Cr~k Charnel.
Mitigation M~*a~ure
Ill.l.g.6
The bridges shall be constructed durin~ the dry, or low flow season to the
extent feasible. During construction of the bridges specific erosion and
sealline!It colltrol measures shall be implemented to mlnimi~e movement of
sedimem from active construction areas. Measures to accomplish this include
diverting any surface water around the project site, installation of silt fences,
sediment traps/basius, rock filters, and other comparable measures to reduce
the transport of sediment from the construction area during construction.
Post construction sediment control shall also be implemented and the
construction area shall be returned to a functional status following
construction consistent with the ultimate design of the Murrieta Creek
channel.
Specific Process
Review and approval of the bridge construction schedules and the channel erosion control plan.
Monitoring the plan during construction and following installation of the bridges. Require
erosiordsedimentation remediation where erosion control measures fail and erosion occurs within
the channel during or after bridge construction.
Mitigation Milestone
Approvals for bridge consumction schedules and channel erosion control plan shall be obtained
prior to initiating construction on any of the bridge segments.
Plan measures and effectiveness shall be monitoring during construction of the bridges and
following bridge completion until one winter has passed.
Responsible Monitoring Party
City of Temecula Public Works Department.
Prerequisite Actionf s) For
Review and approval of the schedule and plan prior to initiating bridge construction.
Review of erosion following a winter with normal flows in Murrieta Creek.
11
City Verification
12
General Inlpact
Bxposure of people or property to geolo2ic
Mitii, ation M~.~ure
m.l.h.7
All new structures installed in conjunction with this project shall be designed
to comply with the most recent Uniform Building Code seismic design
standards. If the Engineering Geologist/Registered Engineer identifies more
stringent site specific design standards, the developer shall implement such
standards for buildings constructed under approvals for this project.
Specific Process
Review and approval of the sumcmral seismic design requirements."
Monitoring during construction to verify consu'uaion proceeds as identified on building plans.
Mitigation Milestone
Approvals for seismic design for structures shall be obtained prior to initiating construction on
any specific structure.
Conformance with building plans shall be monitoring during construction of the structures.
Responsible Monitoring Party
City of' Temecula Building and Safety. Department.
Prerequisite Actionts) For
Submittal of the building plans.
Initiating construction of buildings.
Ciw Verification
13
Genes! Impact
Exposure of people or property to geologic hs~rcls.
Mitigation M*'s~ure
m.l.h.8 The developer. shall have a site specific geo~hnieml evaluatioll prepared by
a qualified and licensed Engineering Geologist and/or Registered Professional
]~Dgineer. This report shall addres~ but is not limited to, ground shaking
b~.m'ds, slope stability, Uquef~ction potential, ~nd subsidence (~s ~ppropriate
for e~ch site) ~nd provide design recommendations that will ensure the
strumu-~ integrity of new structures to protect bumaris occupying the
structures in the future. The City shall require the developer to implement
these design requirements.
Specific Process
The City shall review and approval of the site specific gcotechnical evaluation(s) and determine
that structural design implements the design requirements of the evaluation(s).
Monitoring during construction to verify construction proceeds as identified on building plans.
Mitigation Milestone
^pprovals for the geotechnical evaluation(s) shall be obtained prior to initiating consu'uction on
any specific structure or site.
Conformance with building plans shall be monitoring during consu'uction of the su'uctures.
Responsible Monitoring Party
Ci~ of Temccula Public Works Deparunent.
Prerequisite ^ction(s~ For
Submittal of the gcotechnicai evaluations and building plans.
Initiating consu'uction of buildings.
City Verification
14
General Impact
Exposure of people or property to geologic hazards.
Mitigation M~asure
IIl.l.h.9 If eYic,ing structures are ufi!~,;_~, the strumnnd intear~ shall be r~.mediated
to meet the design requirements of the Engineering Geologist and/or
Registered Professional Engineer.
Specific Process
The City shall review and approval of the specific design requirements for reuse of existing
structures and determine that structural design implements the .design requirements of the
engineering geologist/professional engineer.
Monitoring during construction to verify construction proceeds as identified on building plans.
Mitigation Milestone
Approvals for the structural design requirements for reused sn'uctures shall be obtained prio{ to
initiating consauction on any specific structure being reused.
Conformance with building plans shall be monitoring during construction of the structures.
Responsible Monitoring P:~nv
City of Temecula Public Works Department.
Prerequisite Action(s) For
Submittal of the design requi~'ements and building plans.
Initiating consauction of buildings.
Ci~ Verification
15
General Imvna
Coilcacti surface runoff delivered ~o Murrim Creek from the Wesm'n By-pass road, ho~el and
arena could cause damage u) ~he channel fiu'ough erosion and/or sedimentation.
Mitigation M~'~ttre
1II.3.a.10
The surface runoff clrninage system incorporated into the Western By-pass
road and the hotel and Arena engineered development pad(s) shall be
designed to meet the following requirement~
The drainage system shall be designed to transport the expected 100-
year runoff from upstream areas or the pad(s) to Murrieta Creek
without damage to adjacent property or to. the Creek chnnnel; and
be
The points where surface runoff is intercepted along the road shall be
designed to ensure that headward (upstream) erosion is not initiated
and that erosion and sediment generation do not exceed natural rates
of erosion and sedimentation for the project area. The drainage
system from the pad(s) to Murrieta'Creek shall also be designed .to
preyera increased erosion along the drainage system improvements and
at the point where the surface runoff from the pad(s) enters the Creek
channel.
Specific Process
The City shall review and approve the surface drainage system design from these facilities to
Murrieta Creek and determine that redirected flows will not cause erosion or sedimentation
damage based on standard flood design requiremenu.
Monitoring during construction to verify construction proceeds as identified on drainage system
plans.
Mit~ation Milestone
Approvals for the surface drainage system from the Westside Specific Plan area shall be obtained
prior to initiating construction on any facilities west of Murrieta Creek.
Conformance with building plans shall be monitoring during consu'uction of the structures.
Responsible Monitoring Party
City of Temecula Public Works Department.
16
Prerequisite Actionfs~ For
Submittal of the drainage system design and building plans for facilities west of Murrieta Creek.
Initiating construction of facilities.
CiU' Verification
17
General Impact
The volume of runoff from increased impervious areas could increase downstream flood bnmrds.
Mitignfion M~.n.~urc
1TI.3.b.ll When the development pads are edr,~:zred and constructed within the
Westside Specific Pi~ Are~, the surface runoff ~bove the volume presently
generated shall be detained on the project site and released appro:rim~t. ely
hotIFS after peak flows within MulTieta. Creek have passed through the
project area.
Specific Process
The City shall review and approve the surface drainage system design from these pads, including
the detention facilities and the information upon which they are designed.
Monitoring during consu'uction to veri~ construction proceeds as identified on drainage system
plans.
Mitigation Milestone
Approvals for the surface drainage system from the pads shall be obtained prior to initiating
construction of any development pads west of Murrieta Creek.
Conformance with building plato shall be monitoring during consu'uction of the pads.
Responsible Monitoring Party
Civ/of Temecula Public Works Deparuncnt.
Prerequisite Action(s) For
$ubmiual of the drainage system design, and grading and building plans for facilities west of
Murriem Creek.
Initiating consu'uction of facilities.
City Verification
18
General In,pact
The volume of runoff from increased impervious areas could increase downstream flood hazards.
Mitigation Measure
HI.3.b.l~ The project shall install all drainage improvements w/thin the Murrietn Creek
el~nnnel that are required to handle storm runoff from those areas improved
as part of the proposed project. The project shall also contribute its fair
share to any channel improvements that must be completed to ensure that
c**mulafive runoff increases do slot cause downstream flood hazards or
significant damage from surface runoff in Murrieta Creek and the Santa
Margarita River.
Specific Process
The City shall review and approve the surface drainage improvements for new surface flows
entering Murriem Creek. The applicant shall submit data to the City identifying any fair share
costs for the main channel and the City shall review and approve this data and ensure fair share
funds are provided to the agency constructing these improvements.
Monitoring during construction to verify construcxion proceeds as identified on drainage
improvement plans.
!viitigation Milestone
Dar~ submitxals and approvals for the surface drainage improvements entering Murrieta C~reek
shall be obtained prior to initiating consu'uction of any development pads west of ]Vlurrieta
(~reek.
(~onformance with building plans shall be monitoring during construction of the pads.
Respor~ib!¢ Monitoring Party
City of Teme~ula ?ublic Works Depactment and Riverside County Flood Control.
Prerequisite ^ctionfs) For
$ubmiual of the drainage system improvements for facilities west of Murrieta Creek.
Initiating construction of facilities.
(~ity Verification
19
Genera] Impnet
The dev~iopm~n~ of the facilities wes~ of Murri~m Creek could cause adverse water quality
impacts due to urban pollutants.
Mi~ii, ation M~ure
HI.3.e.13 The landscaped areas shnii be irrigated in a manner thnt does not result in
overtand flows of surface water and the di~-horge of fertilizer and pesticide
com-mln~ted surface runoff to Murrieta Creek. The landscape designs and
irrigation systems shall be reviewed by the City to verify runoff controls are
adequate to prevent inadvertent surface runoff.
Specific Process .
The City shall review and approve the landscape designs and irrigation system with specific
evaluation of minimizing inadvertent surface runoff.
Monitoring during construction to verify construction proceeds as identified on the irrigation
system, including verification that inadvertent flows a~e not created during irrigation.
Mitigation Milestone
Approval of landscape designs and irrigation plans shall be obtained prior to initiating
construction of any facilities west of Murrieta Creek.
Conformance with building plans shall be monitoring during construction of the pads.
Responsible Monitoring Party
City of Temecula Planning Department.
Prerequisite Action(s) For
Submittal of the landscape design and irrigation system plans for facilities west of Murrieta
Creek.
Initiating construction of facilities.
City Verification
20
General Impact
The development of the facilities west of Murrieta Creek could cause adverse water quality
impacts due to urban pollutants.
Mitigation M~'a-~ure
fft.3.e. 14
Specific Process
The project owners shall prepare and implement a sweeping plan approved
by the City to sweep paved nreas and graded parking areas one time per
week at a minimum, and at least six times during the month of October prior
to the onset of the winter storm season.
The City shall review and approve the sweeping plan.
Monitoring during operations to verify sweeping is implemented in accordance with the plan.
Mitigation Milestone
Approval of the sweeping plan shall be obtained prior to initiating operations at any paved or
parking areas.
Random inspections of the sweeping at least two times per year once operations begin.
Responsible Monitoring Partv
City of Temecula Community Services and/or Public Works Departments
Prerequisite Actionts) For
Submittal of the sweeping plan for City review.
Initiating use of or operation of paved and/or parking areas.
City Verification
21
Gencrnl Irr~act
The runoff from the animal stable area of the Wild West Arena west of lviurriem Creek could
cause adverse water quality impacts.
Miti~tion M~ure
lII.3.e.15 The project owner shall implement sanitary house-keeping procedures that
minimiTe the potential for surface water pollutants to be incorporated into
surface water discharges from the project site. These procedures shall be
incorporated into a written procedure that must be approved by the City
Pinnnlttg Department and the Regional Water Quality Control Board.
Specific Process
The City and Regional Board shall review and approve the stable area house keeping plan.
Monitoring during operations to verify plan is implemented.
Miti~,ation Milestone
Approval of the housekeeping plan shall be obtained prior to initiating operations at the arena.
Random inspections of housekeeping operations at ica~t one time per month after operations
begin.
Responsible Monitorin~ Par~y
City of Temecula Building and Safety Department
Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board
Prerequisite Action(s~ For
Submit~l of the housekeeping plan for City and Regional Board review.
Initiating use of or operation of the arena.
City ¥erification
22
C~neral Impact
The runoff from the animal stable ar~ of the Wild West Arena west of Murrieta Creek could
cause adverse water quality impact.
Mitigation M~'~ure
rrI.3.e.16 Any surfaee runoff ~enerated from the stable ~r~ sh~ii either be ~ed,
weated and reused on the project site, or tremed to standards required to
protect the receiving water quality standards for Murrieta Creek before being
released from the project site. The procedure selected shall be reviewed and
approved by the City Engineer and the Regional Water Quality Control
Board.
Specific Process
The CitT and Regional Board shall review and approve the stable area surface water runoff
management plan.
Monitoring during operations to verify plan is implemem~l.
Mitigation Milestone
^pproval of the surface water runoff management plan shall be obtained prior u) initiating
operations at the arena.
Random inspections of management methodology implemented at the stable area at least one time
per month after operations begin.
Responsible Monitoring Parry
City of Temecula Public Worl~ Deparunent
$:~nm ^rta Regional Water Qualit~ Control l~oard
?rerequisite Action(s~ For
Submittal of the surface water management plan for City and Regional Board review and
approval.
Initiating arena operations.
(~itv Verification
General lmp~r.t
Exposure of structures or people to flood hazards in Old Town.
Mitigation M~'~qure
rrI.3.i.17 Brid~es and entertainment stroaures and infrastnlcture shall be installed in
a manner that protecU them from siptificant damage from a 100-year flood
alo~ Murrieta CFeek. The structu~ and brid~e designs shall integrate the
proposed facilities into the ultimate design solution for Murrieta Creek :being
prepm'ed by the Corps of Engineers and County Flood Control without
causing sip~ficant consW~i-ts in m~ design flood flows. The project
owner3 shall participate in the dam inundation evacuation plans for any
facilities not protected from the potential collapse of the Vail Lake dam.
Specific Process
The applicant shall demonstrate to the City how the bridges and structures will be protected from
significant damage due to the 100-year flood by submitting a flood b27ard report for review and
approval.
Monitoring during construction to verify consu'uction proceeds as identified in the flood
protection report.
Evacuation plans that will be implemented if upstream dams fail shall be submitn~ to the City
for review and approval.
Mitigation Mileswne
Approval of the flood h:a7ard report and evacuation plan shall be obtained prior to constructing
any of the facilities within baTard areas within Old Town.
Conformance with building plans shall be monitoring during construction of the pads.
Re!ponsible Monitoring Party
City. of Temecula Public Works Department
Prerequisite Action{'s) For
Submittal of the flood hazard report and evacuation plan for City review and approval.
Initiating construction of facilities.
24
City Verification
25
General Impnc~
Bridg~ could b~ome barriers m migration ~ m~emen~ of ~i~.
Mi~ion M~s~ure
~.S.d.18 B~e d~ ~ for b~ ~~ ~ ~ppo~ of ~ p~j~ sh~
n~ ~ ~y ~~em b~ ~ ~ mov~em of ~nim~[~ ~ong ~e
M~m C~ ~p~ ~dor.
~ridge d~ig~ sh~! be includ~ in submits ~ ~e ~o~s of E~in~rs ~d ~p~ent of
~d ~e to veri~ ~t no b~iers to ~i~ movement ~ ~.~
Mitigation Mil~ston~
~e ~o~s ~ ~d ~ 1~1 ~i~ment s~l ~ obmin~ prior ~ injuring ~ction
on ~y bridges.
~o~s of ~n~in~/~. ~. ~h ~d ~ildlife ~e~i~ ~d D~p~ent of ~h ~d
Prerequisite A~cion(s~ ~or
Frcp~ation of bridge desig~ ~a~ do noc pose a b~ier ~ ~im~ movement.
~u~mi~l of ~pli~tio~ ~ ~e ~o~s an~
Ci~ Vcri~tion
26
.4, ii_~hfiu~ plan shall be submitted to the City plonnln_~ Department for
review and approval for fac/]ilies developed by this project. This plan shah
include prior comultafion with the California Trial/tyre of Technology for ~11
proposed outdoor li~htln~ desi&ms and shall alemonte comp]hnce with
qvonti*~tlve !i_~hfiug requirements contained in County of Riverside
Ordinance
Specific Process
The lighting pl,n shah be l~,iewed and approved by the City.
Monitoring during construction to vedfy construction proceeds as identified in the lighting plan.
Mitigation Milestone
The plan .chn]] be approved prior to construction of any facilities with extefi~ lighting.
Conformance with building plans shall be monitoring during construction of the exterior lighting
at facilities.
Responsible Monitorinl Party
City of Tcmecula Building and Safety Depamnent
Prerequisite Action(s) For
Submittal of the lighting plan for review and approval.
Initiating construction of facilities.
Cit~ Verification
27
General Impact
Increased ~affic h~rds during construction.
Mitigation M,~.~ure
m.13.f~20 Durieg construction that affects the local roads, the project owner shall
provide adequate traffic comrol resources (signing, protective devices,
crossing devices, detours, fla~aersons, etc.) to mahltain safe traffic flow. If
COIlStruction w~thin a road right-of-way is not completed by the end of the
day's work, the contractor or agency shall ensure that an adequate traffic
access route exists to all areas where access exists at the time of construction.
Specific Process ...
A u~affic safety plan for consmacring facilities sh~11 be reviewed and approved by the City.
Monitoring during construction to verify that traffic control resources are provided ~s identified
in the n-affic safety plan.
Mitigation Milestone
The plan shall be approved prior to consu'uction of any facilities.
During building inspections traffic safety equipment shall be reviewed and conformance with the
safe~ plan verified.
Responsible Monitoring Party
City of Temecula Public Works Depm~nent
Prerequisite Action(s) For
Submittal of the umffic safe~ plan for review and approval.
Initiating construction of facilities.
City Verification
28
General Impnet
Increased traffic hazards during consu-uction.
Mitii, ation Measure
rr!.13.f.2! Traffic lumu'ds that m~y ~fect v~hlcles, bicycles, ped~, or horses (such
as speed bumps, trenches, or uneven paths) shall be identified and access
controlled by the project owner.
Specific Process
A traffic safety plan for constructing facilities shall be reviewed and approved by the City.
Monitoring during construction to verify that traffic control resources are provided, as identified
in the traffic safety plan, including controlled access to construction areas.
Mitigation Milestone
The plan shall be approved prior to consu-action of any facilities.
During building inspections traffic safety equipment and access shall be reviewed and
conformance with the safety plan verified.
Responsible Monitoring Party
City of Temccula Public Wor~ Department
Prerequisite Action(s) For
Submittal of the traffic safety plan for review and approval.
Initiating construction of facilities.
City Verification
29
General Impact
Increased uaffic bar~rds during construction.
Mititration M,'a~ure
m.13.f.22 No open trenches or traffic safety bn-~rds shall be left in road rights-of-way
during periods when traffic controls and construction personnel are not
present. Such hazards shnll be elimin~eti or an alternative route provided
without hazards befor~ employees leave a working area at or adjacent to a
road.
Specific Process.
A traffic safety plan for constructing facilities shall be reviewed and approved by the City.
Monitoring during construction to verify that n~ffic control resources are provided, as identified
in the traffic safety plan, including controls after construction ends for the day or weekend.
Mitigation Milestone
The plan shall be approved prior to construction of any facilities.
During building inspections traffic safety equipment shall be reviewed and conformance with the
safety plan verified.
Responsible Monitoring Party
Ci~ of Temecula Public Works Department
Prerequisite Action(s) For
Submittal of the traffic safety plan for review and approval.
Initiating const~'uction of facilities.
City Verification
30
General ]refract
Increased traffic hazards during construction.
Miti~,ation M,'~ure
ff!.13.f.23 All roads shall be adequately repaired after construction is completed in nn
nren to ensure thnt traffic can move in the same manner as before
construction withotlt damage or di~'omfort to vehicks and passengers.
Sp~ific Process
A circulation system repair plan shall be reviewed and approved by the City.
Monitoring during comn'uction to verify that repairs are provided as'identified in the repair plan.
Mitigation Milestone
The plan shall be approved prior to consn'uction of any facilities.
Prior to ac~.epting road repairs ~ complete, the City shall verify that repairs have been
complet~l ~ identified in the circulation system repair plan.
R¢spomible Monitoring Part~
City of Tem~ula Public Worl~ Department
Prerequisite Action(s) For
Submittal of the circulation system repair plan for review and approval.
Completing construction of facilities and repair of circulation system facilities.
City Verification
31
,Adequacy of watea' supply W meet fife protection t~luimmcttts for Westside Specific Plan Area
facilities.
lVl~a~on Measure
ITL14.a.25 The developer'shall mnfer with the Rancho California Water District
(RCWD) during the engineering of the Western By-pass to emure that the
water distribufion]tr~n~mi.,~'ion line, ff d2emed necessary for fire protection
purposes, is installed when the road is constructed.
Specific Process
The applicant sial1 submit a letter vexifying that the RCWD and tim pmtec~on agency have been
consulted and the size of water line that will be in.~,~[ed in the Western By-pass Road, if any.
This letter shall contain signatures of xepmseW-t~ves from the two agencies.
Engineering drawings of the Westera By-pass Road shall down the size and 1oc=_ t~on of all utility
infrastructure, including the water line.
Monitoring during construction to verify that the water line is installed as proposed in the
drawings.
Mitigation Milestone
The letter and plans shall be approved prior to consu~ction of the Westera By-pass Road.
During construction inspections the installation of the line in conformnnce with the engineering
drawings shall be verified.
Responsible Monitorir~, Party
City of Temecula Public Works and Riverside County\City of Temecula Fire Department
Prerequisite Actiones) For
Submittal of the letter and drawings for review and approval.
Initiating construction.
City Verification
C~ncral In'~ct
Wila~.~a fi~ ha2a.nis may affect facilities proposed by the Westside Specifi~ Plan~
Mitit~ation M~re
m~14.~.26 Alon~ the west and east side~ of the Western By-pass Road ~ fire and
veaeUfion munqene~ plan shall be prepared and submitted to the City and
RCFD for review and approval. This plan shall provide a sufficient buffer
of f'n~ retardant p!onfi~q to emure that structm~ on the east side of the
road are not exposed to wildland fire hazards from a f'n~ in the chaparral on
the west side of the road.
Specific Process
The applicant shall submit a fire and vegetation management plan to"the City, RCFD and CFD
for review and approval.
Monitoring during construction to verify that the plan is implemented as Ixroposed.
Mitigation Milestone
The fire and vegetation management plan shall be approved prior to construction of any facilities
west of Murricta Creek.
During construction inspections the installation of the fire protection and vegetation components
in conformance with the plan shall be verified.
Responsible Monitoring p:,r~
City of Temccula p!nnning Departlnent and Riverside County/City of Temecula Fire Dclxtmnent
Prerequisite Action(sl For
Submittal of the plan for review and approval.
Initiating construction.
City Verification
33
General Irn~
Th~ project may cream a significant demand for limited law enforcement resources.
Miti~tion M~'~ur~
III. 14.b.~7
The facility owner/operator shall negotiate an agreement with law
enforcement officials to provide adequate htw enforcement personnel for all
entertainment facility operations, including related traffic control.
Specific Process
A copy of the agreement shall be provided to the City.
Mitigation Milestone
The agreement shall be filed with the City prior to initiating operations of any facility.
Responsible Monitoring Party
City of Temecula City Manager's Office and Police Department
Prerequisite Action(s) For
Submittal of the agreement for retention in the project file prior to operating any of the facilities.
Ci~ Verification
C. Mititation Mensures Identified in the F. nvironm~ntnl ln~i~t ReDoFt
C~n~r~! Im~a~
The project may cau~ significant air pollutant emissions during construction.
Mitigation M,'aqure
4.2.3.1 Prior to issuance of a gr~dln_~ permit, the project proponents shall
demonstrate to the City Engineer the actions that will be taken to comply
with SCAQMD Rule 402, which requires that there be no dust impacts offshe
sufficient to cause a nuisance, and SCAQMD Rule 403, which restricts visible
emissions from construction. Specific measures will include moi~enir~ soil
prior to grading, daily watering of exposed surfaces or treating with soil
conditioner to stabilize the soil; washin~ truck tires and covering loads of dirt
transported offsite; cessation of grading during periods of high winds over 2S
miles per hour, and paving, coating or se~-iir~f~ graded areas at the earliest
possible time after soil disturbance.
Specific ~rc~ess
The appli~am shall submit a fugitive dust conu'ol plan to the City for re¥iew anci approval.
Monitoring during ~ns~uction to verify that the plan is implemented as prol~secl.
Mitigation Milestone
The plan shall be filed with the City prior t~ initiating any corotruction a~tivities in support of
During ~onsu'u¢fion .inspectior~ disturb~ arca~ shall verify that the fugitive ciust measures
~nmin~ in the plan are being implemenr~t.
City of Temecula Public Works Department
Prerequisite Actionts) For
Submittal of the plan to the City for review and approval.
Initiating consu'uction of the project.
City Verification
General In~ac~
The project may cause significant air pollutant emissions during consuuction.
Mitigation M~-aaure
4.2.3.2 All construction equipment will be maintained ill !)ealk operati!lg condition so
as to reduce operational nni~'~'ions.
Specific Process
The applicant shall submit a copy of the grading contram with this requirement identified in the
conu'act and the method of compliance by the contractor identified, such as engine rune-ups
within three months prior to initiating construction or during the consu'uction effort.
Monitoring during construction to verify that the plan is implemented as proposed.
Miti!~ation Milestone
The copy of the contract shall be flied with the City prior to initiating any construction activities
in support of the project.
During construction inspections equipment operating data shall be available to verify compliance
with this requirement.
Responsible Monitoring Party
City of Temecula Public Works Department
Prerequisite Action(s} For
Submittal of the contract to the City for review and retention.
Initiating construction of the project.
Ci~ Verification
36
Oeneral Impact
The project may cause significant air pollutant emissions during construction.
Mitigation
4.2.3.3 Equipment shall use low-sulfur dksei fual.
Specific Process
The applicant shall submit a copy of the grading contram with this r~uircmcnt identified in the
contract and the method of compliance by the contractor identified, such as fuel purchase
contracts or invoices.
Monitoring during construction to verify that the plan is implemented as proposed.
Mitigation Milestone
The copy of the contract shall be filed with the City prior to initiating any construction activities
in support of the project.
During construction inspections fuel purchase data shall be available to verify compliance with
this requirement.
Responsible Monitoring Partw
City of Temecula Planning Department
Prerequisite Action(s} For
Submittal of the contract to the City for review and retention.
Initiating construction of the project.
City Verification
37
C~ncral Impact
The project may cause significant air pollutant emissions during consu~uction.
Miti~tion M*a.~urc
4.2.3.4 Electric equipment will be used to the maximum extent feasible.
Specific Process
The applicant shall submit a list of all electric equipmere that is capable of being used at the siu~;
electrical equipment that will be utilized at the construction site; and if some available electrical
equipment will not be used, why it will not be used.
Monitoring during construction to verify that the electrical equipment identified for use is
actually used at the construction sites.
Mitigation Milestone
The copy of the list shall be filed with the City prior to initiating any construction activities in
support of the project.
During construction inspections shall verify the presence of electrical equipment listed.
Responsible Monitorin3 Party
City of Temecula Building and Safety Department
Prerequisite Action/s) For
Submittal of the list to the City for review and retention.
Initiating construction of the project.
City Verification
38
General Impact
The project may cause significant air pollutant emissions during construction.
Mitigation M,'~-~ure
4.2.3.5 Trucks and construction equipment will !imk idli~. Trucks and equipment
that may be left to idle for more than 15 minutes shnll be shut dow!l.
Specific Process
The applicant shall submit a copy of the grading contract with this requirement identified in the
contract and the method of compliance by the conwactor identified.
Monitoring during construction to verify that idling equipment does not idle for more than 15
minutes.
Mitigation Milestone
The copy of the contract shall be filed with the City prior to initiating any construction activities
in support of the project.
During construction inspections shall verify equipment does not idle more than 15 minutes.
Responsible Monitoring Party
City of Temecula Planning and/or Building and Safety Departments
Prerequisite Actionf s) For
Submittal of the contract to the City for. review and retention.
Initiating conswuction of the project.
City Verification
General lnxvact
The projea may cause significant air poiluram emissions during consu'uaion.
Mitigation M~'~ure
4.2.3.6 To the maximum extent feasible, construction activities that affect traffic flow
will be restricted to off-peak hours fi.e., between 7:00 p.m. and 6:00 a.m.
and between 10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m.).
Specific Process
The applicant shall submit a copy of the grading contra~t with this requirement identified in the
contra~t and the method of compliance by the contractor identified.
Monitoring during consu'uction to verify that consu-uction equipment and rnau~rials are not
delivered during morning (6 a.m. and 10 a.m.) and afarnoon (B p.m. and ? p.m.) commute
periods.
Mitigation Milestone
The copy of the contract shall be filed with the City prior to initiating any construction activities
in support of the project.
During consmiction inspections shall verify equipment is not delivered during commuting hours.
Responsible Monitoring Panx,
City of Temecula Public Works Department
Prerequisite Action(~;) For
Submittal of the conu'act to the City for review and retention.
Initiating construction of the project.
City Verification
4O
General Impact
The project may cause significant air pollutant emissions during consauction.
Mitination M~-anure
4.2.3.7 Construction employees shall be provided with transit information and the
contractor shall submit and implement an approved ride share program for
construction employees.
Spexific Proems
The applicant shall submit a copy of the grading contract with this requirement identified in the
contract and the method of compliance by the contractor identified.
A copy of the transit information and ride share program information shall be supplied to the
City. The Average Vehicle Ridership (AVR) target shall be identified in this information
package submitted to the City.
Monitoring during construction to verify that AVR is being fulfilled shall be conducted by the
City.
Mitigation Milestone
The copy of the contract shall be filed with the City prior to initiating any construction activities
in support of the project.
During construction inspections shall verify the AVR at least one time per month during
construction.
Responsible Monitoring Party
City of Temecula Planning Department
Prerequisite Actionf s) For
Submittal of the contract to the City for review and retention.
Initiating construction of the project.
City Verification
41
General Impact
The project may cause significant air pollutant emissions during consffuction.
Miti~,ation M,~.~ure
4.:2.3.8 Pm-conted and pre-colored materials will be used in construction to the
extent feasible.
Specific Process
The applicant shall submit a short report identifying those facilities for which pre-coated and pre-
colored materials can and will be used.
Monitoring during construction to verify that these marerials are being used where identified in
the report.
Mitigation Milestone
The copy of the report shall be filed with the City prior to initiating any consauction activities
in support of the project.
During construction inspections shall verify the use of these materials by conducting random
inspections during delivery and use of such materials.
Responsible Monitoring Party -,
City of Temecula Building and Safety Department
Prerequisite Action(s) For
Submittal of the report to the City for review and retention.
Initiating consauction of the project.
City Verification
42
General Impact
The project may cause significant air pollunnt emissions during construction.
Miti~tion M~-~sure
4.2.3.9 Prior to issuing a budding permit, the City will require doc,,mentafion from
the applicant that proper precautions have been taken so that workers are
not exposed to tinsafe levels of hazardous air pollution.
Specific Process
The applicant shall submit a short report identifying those hazardous rr~terials that will be used
in construction and those facilities where such materials will be used.
Monitoring during construction to verify that these materials ~re being used in the manner
required where identified in the report.
Mitigation Milestone
The copy of the report shall be filed with the City prior to initiating any consu'uction ~ctivities
in support of the project.
During construction inspections shall verify the use of these materials in conformance with
requirements by conducting random inspections during use of such materials.
Responsible Monitoring Party
City of Temecula Building and Safety Department
Prerequisite Action/s) For
Submittal of the report to the City for review and retention.
Initiating construction of the project.
City Verification
General Impnet
The project may cause significant air pollutant emissions during operations.
Miti~tion M~-~ure
4.2.3.10
Project design will incorporme energy-saving features throughout the project,
including iow~mle~ion water heaters, central water heating systems, and
built-in energy efficient appliances.
Specific Process
The applicant shall submit a short report identifying all energy-saving features used in the
facilities and compiling a summary of total energy savings for each facility.
Monitoring during construction to verify that these features have been installed as identified in
the report.
Mitigation Milestone
The copy of the report shall be filed with the City prior to initiating construction of any facilities
containing energy using equipment.
During construction inspections shall verify the use of these features in structures.
Responsible Monitoring Party
City of Temecula Building and Safety Department
Prerequisite Action(s) For
Submittal of the report to the City for review and retention.
Initiating construction of the project.
City Verification
General In, pact
The project may cause significant air poilulant emissions during operations.
Mitigation Meanure
4.2.3.11 The project ~ install bus transit shelters and benches in Old Town and
within the Westside Specific plan area in coordination with the local transit
agency and the City to provide on site transit service.
Specific Process
The applicant shall submit transit implementation plan identifying all transit facilities that will
be installed in support of the project for City review and approval..
Monitoring during construction to verify that the transit features have been installed as identified
in the plan.
Mitigation Milestone
The copy of the plan shall be filed with the City prior to initiating construction of any facilities.
During consu'uction inspections shall verify the installation of these features in accordance with
the plan.
Responsible Monitorir~g Party
City of Temecula Public Works Department
Prerequisite Action(s) For
Submit,al of the plan to the City for review and approval.
Initiating consu'uction of the project.
Cit3' Verification
45
General Impact
The project may cause significant air pollutant emissions during operations.
Mitigation M,~ure
4.2.3.12 Provide incentives for tour buses, and once tour buses have dropped off
patrons, these buses shall not be allowed to idle more than five minutes
before they are shut down.
Specific Process
The applicant shall a list of incentives that will be used to areact bus tours.
When buses enter
mandatory parking areas they shall be notified of the requirement to shutdown within 5 minutes
or face revocation of the privilege of serving the facilities.
Monitoring during operations to verify that the bus shutdown requirement has been implemented
as identified in the plan.
Mitigation Milestone
The copy of the list shall be filed with the City prior to initiating operation of any facilities.
Random inspections by the City at least one time per week shall verify the 5 minute shutdown
requirement is being met by tour buses.
Responsible Monitoring Party
City of Temecula Planning Deparunent
Prerequisite Actionf s) For
Submittal of the list and notification to the City for review and approval.
Initiating project operations for tour buses.
City Verification
46
General lmpac~
The project may cause significant air pollutant emissions during operations.
Mitioation M~.~-~ure
4.2.3.13 The applicants shall provide at least one day-care facility for employees
working for the hotel and entertainment complex facilities. This facility can
be provided on site or arrangements can be made with an offsite professional
day-care provider(s) to meet the day-care needs of up to 2,400 ~mployees.
Specific Process
The applicant shall a identify in writing the location nnd verify the availability of the day-care
facility to the City. The availnbility of day--care facilities shall be Verified at least one time per
year by the owncr~ of the facilities.
Mitigation Milestone
The copy of the written identification shall be filed with the City prior to initiating operation of
any facilities.
Random inspections by the City at lcast one time per year shall verify the availability of this
facility to facility employees.
Responsible Monitorir~ Pnrty.
City of Temecula Planning Department
Prerequisite Actionis~ For
Submittal of the identification and notification to the City for review and retention.
Initiating facility operations.
City Verification
47
Gcncr~! Impact
The pro~-~ m~y cause significant ~ ~!iu~t cm~io~ d~in~ o~io~.
Mit~ation
4.2.3.14 H~ ~d
~o~fion ~d ~e appS~ ~ mb~ ~d ~pl~t ~ approv~ fide
sh~ pm~ for ~m~t ~ploy~.
Sp~ific ~ss
~e ~pli~t s~l submit a ~py of ~ ~it info~fion ~ rid~ s~ pro~ m ~e Ci~
for review
info~tion p~e submi~ m ~e Cid. ·
Monitoring d~ing operation
faciliw opemm~ ~d inde~ndenfly verifi~ by ~e Cid.
Mitigation Milestone
~e ~py of ~e infomation ~d pro~ p~e s~l ~ fil~ wi~ ~e CiW prior ~ initting
any operating aetiviti~ in support of ~e proj~t.
During operatiom ~e facili~ operators s~11 submit AVR vefifimtion at i~t one time ~r
qu~r ~d Ciw i~tiom sh~l independency veri~ ~e AVR at l~t one time per y~.
Respomible Monitoring P~
Ci~ of Tem~ula Pl~ing Dep~ment
Prerequisite Actionts)' For
Submi~i of ~e information ~d pro~ pac~ge m ~e Ci~ for review ~d ~pro~l.
Initiating ~cili~ ~emtiom.
Ciw Verifi~tio~
48
General Impact
The project may cause significant air pollutant emissions during operations.
Mitif, ation M~'~-~ure
4.2.3.15 The applicant or City shall purchase clean fuel trams for transporting people
from parking arens to the entertainment facilities.
Specific Process
The applicant shall identify the trams that will be used for transporting people and verify that
these vehicles qualify as low emission or no emission (electric) vehicles.
Mitigation Milestone "
The copy of the tram information shall be filed with the City prior to initiating any operating
activities in support of the proj~t.
Respon-~ible Monitoring Party
City of Temecula Planning Department
Prerequisite Actionts) For
Submittal of the warn information to the City for review and retention.
Initiating facility operations.
City Verification
49
General Impact
The project may cause significant air pollutant emissions during operations.
Mitigation
4.2.3.16 Provide preferential parking for car and van pools for employees.
Specific Process
The applicant shall identify the io~tion of preferred parking ~'e~s for employee car and van
pools in a submittal to the City.
Monitoring during operation to verify that preferred p~rking area is retained for use by employee
car and van pools. "
Mitigation Milestone
The copy of the preferred parking information shall be filed with the City prior to initiating any
operating activities in support of the project.
Monitoring shall be conducted one time per year.
Responsible Monitoring Pm'ty
City of Temecula Planning Department
Prerequisite Actionf s) For
Submittal of the preferred parking information to the City for review and retention.
Initiating facility operations.
Ci~ Verification
50
General Impact
Loss of signific.nt biological habitat that suppore listed or sensitive sp~i~s.
Mitigation M~ure
4.3.3.1
Duriag all co!lstnit.flon l~-iods within and/or adjacent to s~nsitive
wildlife habitat (Chami~ Chapanal, Coastal S~ge Scrub, or
Riparian/Wetland), the appik3nt shMI provide t_,,mporm-y fencing at
the boundary between areas to be disturbed/~d~ and areas to
remain undOturbO. In areas where feneln~ is not possible, the
appUcant shall survey and mark construction area boundaries and
shall retain a qualified biologist with authority to stop construction
activity when it construction extends beyond these boundaries. Any
disturbances outside of deviLre*ted areas* of disturbance shall be
restored to comparable habitat quality of the adjacem undisturbed
habitat.
Specific Process
The applicant shall identify the location of temporary fencing on grading plans submitted to whe
City for review and approval.
Qualified biological monitor shall be identified to the City for onsite monitoring in areas where
fencing cannot be iratailed to minimize habitat disturbance.
As built grading plan submitted to City to verify that habitat is not unnecessarily destroyed and
to identify areas that will require restoration, if any.
Mitigation Milestone
The grading plan shall be submitted to the City for review and approval prior to disturbing any
native habitat.
City notified of qualified biological monitor that will be used for the project, if necessary, prior
to disturbing any native habitat.
As build grading plan submitted to the City which shall include identification of any areas
requiring restoration and the method of restoration, prior to initiating operations and release of
bonds.
Responsible Monitoring Party
City of Temecula Public Works and/or Building and Safety Departments
51
Prerequisite Action¢s} For
Submittal of the grading plan to the City for review and approval.
Submittal of the as built plan to the City for review and approval.
City Verification
General Impact
Loss of significant biological habitat that supports listed or sensitive species.
Mitigation Measure
4.3.3.2
Construction activities at the Western B~q~ass crossing over Murrieta
Creek shall be limited tO daylight hours until the bridge is completed,
except in an emergency as def'med by the City.
Specific Process
This requirement shall be included in the contract with the.bridge builder which shall include
a work schedule demonstrating the bridge can be constructed using daylight hours only. The
builder shall be required to report any deviations from the schedule to the City.
The City shall monitor construction activity at the Western By-pass bridge and verify compliance
with this requirement
Mitigation Milestone
Submittal of the bridge contract for review and retention prior to initiating construction.
Monitoring shall occur during routine inspections during construction of the bridge.
Responsible Monitorine Parrv
City of Temecula Public Works Deparunent
Prerequisite Action(s) For
Submittal of the contract to the City for review and retention.
Initiating consumction of the bridge.
City Verification
53
Loss of si~ biologic~ habiux tl~ ~xnu ~ or m~tive specie.
l~d~ation Mmsur~
4.~.~.~
Construction st~jn! arms and access rumes shall avoid sensitive
wildlife arms
Specific Proc~s
All ~mdin§ and co~ction drawings sl~l id~c~ construction ~n~ ~ and ~cce~s mutes
that avoid sensitive wildlife areas. Such areas~routes may be located in areas where construction
will elimirmte sel~itive wildlife ~ for which lnitigatioi~compelksalion has been provided.
The City sb~11 monitor construction activity w verify that construction staging areas and access
routes are installed as shown on the drawings.
Mitigation MileSone
Submittal of the drawings for review and approval prior to initi=*ing construction.
MoniWring shall occur during routine inspections of the ongoing construction activity.
Responsible Monitorint Par~y
City of Tcmecuh l~h~nning and Public Works Departments
Prerequisite Action(sl For
Submittal of the drawings to the City for review and approval.
Initiating construction activity.
City Verification
54
General Impact
Loss of significant biological habitat that supports listed or sens'nive apecid.
Mitigation Measure
4.3.3.4
Construction personnel will be educated by a qualified biologi~
regarding proper behavior when working nenr wildlife areas.
Information, in the form of reading materhal and/or onsite training,
will address such issues as wildlife harassment, trespass, and protocols
to deal with wildlife encountered during construction.
Specific Process
A corotruction personnel education program will be submitted .to the City for review and
approvE. This shall include the name of the qualified biologist and any written materials made
available to construction personnel.
After receiving any instruction and reviewing information provided, each consn'uction employee
shall sign a statement indicating he/she has participated in the program. A copy of signed
statements shall be provided to the City along with a list of construction personnel.
Mitigation Milestone
Submittal of the education program for review and approval prior to initiating consu'uction.
Submittal of the list of employees and signed statements as they are generated by the contractor.
Responsible Monitorirlg Party
City of Temecula Planning and/or Public Works Departments
Prerequisite Action(s) For
Submittal of the education program to the City for review and approval.
Initiating construction activity.
City Verification
55
General Impact
Loss of significant biological habitat that supports listed or sensitive specie.
Mitii, ation M~a,;ur¢
4.3.3.5
All construction debris, such as food litter, will be collected and
placed in wildlife-proof containers each day. All..refuse receptacles
shall have tight-t'~in~ lids to prevent wildlife access.
Specific Process
This measure refers to trash generated by consauction employees. The contractor shall identify
the type of refuse receptacles and where they will be located at the construction site in a
submittal to the City. The City shall approve they type of refuse receptacle.
The City shall monitor consauction activity to verify that refuse is collected and stored in
appropriate refuse receptacles.
Miti~,ation Milestone
Submiual of the information for review and approve prior to initiating construction.
Monitoring shall occur during routine inspections of the ongoing construction activity.
Responsible Monitoring Parry
City of Temecula Public Works and/or Building and Safety Departments
Prerequisite Actionis) For
Submittal of the information to the City for review and approval.
Initiating construction activity.
City Verification
56
C, encral Impac~
Loss of si~ifican~ biological hbi~ eua nqlmns ~ or semite speciea.
Miligafion M~.sure
4.3.3.6 To prevent the loss of any Southwestern Pond Turtles during construction,
the applicant shall retain a qua]HuM biologist to collect any turtles within the
Western Byptss bridge crossing construction area. The biologist shall also
oversee in.,~'-41pfion of barriers to prevent turtles from occupying. the
construction area durin~ active construction in the channel. The applicant
shall fund m~,intensmce of the turtles, if Fequtred, until they can be returned
to Murrieta Creek following construction.
Specific Process ..
The applicant shall submit a turtle collemon, ~ creation and mnlnt~.m~nce plan, including
the qualified biologist that will implement the plan.
The City shall monitor construction activity to verify that the plan has been implemented by the
Mi~igadon Milestone
Submittal of the plan for review and approval prior to initiating construction of the Western By-
pass bridge.
Monitoring shall occur during routine inspections of the ongoing construction activity.
Responsible Monitoriqg Par~
City of Temecula Planning and Public Works Departments
Pr~r~uisite Actionf s) For
Submittal of the plan to the City for review and approval.
Initiating construction activity.
City Verification
57
General Impa~
Loss of significant biological habitat that supports listed or sensitive species.
Mitigation M~.~ure
4.3.3.7
To offset the loss of 64.6 acres of occupied Gnatcatcher habitat in the
Chamise Chaparral and Coastal Sage Scrub plant e. ornmnnifies within the
project area the applicant shall implement one of the following measures: a)
Acquire 97 acres of high quality Gn~_~)cher habitat (1.5:1 ratio based on
discussions with U.S. Fish and Wildlife Staff) and trander ownership of the
land or open space easements (which prevent any future use other than open
space) and management responsibility for the property to the Riverside
County Pnrks Department or other agent acceptable to the U. S. Fish nnd
Wildlife Service and Department of F't~h and Game. This habitat shah be
purchased within the Snntn Rosa Plateau/Santa Margnrita River Potential
Reserve area ns identified within the Rivel'side Colmty "Multiple Species
Habitat Conservntion Plan", or at a location ac~ptable to the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service and Department of Fish and Game. An endowment of
:L~0,000 shah be provided for use by the designnted management ngency .to
enhnnce wildlife carrying cnpacity of the 97 acres set aside ns mitigation for
this project; or b) pay fees ns determined through negotiations with the U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service and State Department of Fish and Game to an
ngent authorized by these two agencies for purchase of iand-bnnked
compensation habitat.
Specific Process
The applicant shall submit verification from the Department of Fish and Game or the U. S. Fish
and Wildlife Service that it has implemented mitigation acceptable to these agencies for the loss
of the 64.6 acres of .occupied Gnatcatcher habitat prior to breaking ground for the Westside
Specific Plan development.
Mitigation Milestone
Submittal of the verification prior to disturbing the 64.6 acres of habitat.
Respon.~ible Monitoring Parry
City of Temecula Planning Department
58
Prerequisite Actionf s) For
Completion of negotiations with the wildlife regulatory agencies prior to submitting verification
to the City.
Ci~ Verification
59
General lm~act
Loss of significant biological habitat that supports listed or sensitive species.
Mitigation M,-~nure
4.3.3.8
To offset the loss of up to one acre of Riparian/Wetland habitat in Murrieta
Creek, the applicant shall develop two acres of Riparian/Wetland habitat or
habitat improvements in the immediate area of the Western Bypass bridge
crossing, or at an alternative location ~_r~e__ptable to the U.S. l~tsh and
Wildlife Service and Department of Fish and Game. The requirements of
this measure can be superseded by any alternative mitigation or compensation
developed through acquisition of a Corps 404 Permit or Department of F'tqh
and Game 1601/1603 Agreement. The plans for the two acres of
Riparian/Wetland enhancement shall be reviewed and approved by the City,
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and Depamnent of Fish and Game prior to
implementation.
Sp~ific Process
The requirements of this measure can be superseded by any alternative mitigation or
compensation developed through acquisition of a Corps 404 Permit or Department of Fish and
Game 1601/1603 Agreement. The plans for the two acres of Riparian/Wetland enhancement
shall be reviewed and approved by the City, U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and Department
of Fish and Game prior to implementation. The applicant shall submit verification from the
Department of Fish and Game or the Corps of Engineers that it has implemented mitigation
acceptable to these agencies for the loss of the one acres of wetland habitat in Mumeta Creek
prior to disturbing the wetland habitat.
Mitigation Milestone
Submittal of the verification prior to disturbing the - I acre of habitat.
Responsible Monitoring Part'v
City of Temecula Public Works and/or Planning Departments
Prerequisite Action(s) For
Completion of negotiations with the stream channel alteration regulatory agencies prior to
submitting verification to the City.
City Verification
General Impact
Loss of significant biological habitat that suppore list~i or gasRive species.
Mitigation M~'~-~ure
~1.3.3.9
A silt fenee or altenmtive acceptable to the City and San Diego Regional
Water Quality Control Board shall be installed downstream of construction
activities in Murrieta Creek to control siltation downstream of the
construction site. The performance standard used for this measure shall be
sufficient control to prevent downstream siltation that can cause degradation
of the aquatiedriparian/wetland habitat.
Specific Process
The applicant shall submit a plan for controlling siltation downstream of construction activiites
in Murrieta Creek to the City and Regional Board for review and approval.
The City shall monitor construction activity to verify that the plan has been implemented by the
conwactor.
Mitigation Milestone
Submittal of the plan prior to disturbing the Mumeta Creek channel for review and approval.
Monitoring shall occur during routine inspections of the ongoing construction activity.
Responsible Monitoring Parrv
City of Temecula Public Works Departments
Prerequisite Actionts) For
Submittal of the siltation plan to the City and Regional Board for review and approval.
Initiating construction activities.
City Verification
61
General Impact
Loss of significant biological habitat that supports listed or sensitive species.
Mitigation
4.3.3.10 The applicant shall install fences or other measures to control human access
from the Western Bypass to the west, except in Area D' of the Westside
Specific Plan. The City will require access controls around the boundary of
Area D and the adjacent wildlife habitat when this area develops.
Specific Process
The applicant shall submit a plan for controlling access west of the Western By-pass Road andf
west of Area D of the Specific Plan to the City for review and approval.
The City shall verify the access controls have been insmllexi by conducting a field inspection
a~r installation.
Mitigation Milestone
Submi~l of the plan prior to disturbing ~he Western By-pass Road alignment for review and
approval.
Monitoring shall occur prior to authorizing access along the We. stem By-pass road to the public.
Responsible Monitoring Pnrtv
City of Temecula Public Works Department
Prerequisite Action(s) For
Submi~l of the access control plan to the Ci~ for review and approval.
Completing construction of the road.
Ci~v Verification
Los~ of '~,aif-a:am biological habi~ tha~ suppore listed or sensi~e species.
4.3.3.11 The City will impose a condition of approval restricting ownership of
domestic dogs and cats when approvMs are granted for future residential
development within Areas C and D of the Westside Specific Plan. The
restrlcfion shall apply to all domestic dogs and cats and shall allow ownership
of such ~nlm-k only when they can be fully managed within the individual
Specific Process
The City will include a condition that requires all future rent and lease agreements in Areas C
and D to restrict the ownership of domestic cats and dogs.
A copy of the conditions of approval shall be placed in the project file for retention.
l~fitigation l~!¢stone
Development of the condition prior to a hearing to approve development in Areas C and D.
Copy of the conditions of approval placed in project file when a land use entitlement is granted
for Areas C and D by the City.
l~sponsible Monitoring Party
City of Tcmecula pl~n~ng Department
Prerequisite Action(s) For
Submittal of an application to develop Areas C and D.
Approval of a development in Areas C and D.
City Verification
General Impact
Loss of significant biological habitat that supports listed or sensitive species.
Mitigation M,,anure
4.3.3.~
The applicant shall pay any additional SKIt fees, if required, for
developing the property ~thln the fee area.
Specific Process
The City will include written verification from the County that fees have been paid, if necessary.
Mitigation Milestone
The fees shall be paid prior to disturbing any ground within the SKR fee area.
Responsible Monitoring Partw
City of Tcmecula Planning Department
Prerequisite Action(s) For
Determination that a fee is required and payment of the fee.
CiD' Verification
General Inlyact
Significant consl~uction noise levels may affect sensitive residential areas east of the Westside
Specific Plan Area.
Mitigation Measure
4.4.4.1 The City shall require all construction equipment that generates more than
50 dB to have sound attenuation devices (mufflers, etc.) that meet current
standards and that are fully functional at all times the equipment E'being
operated at the construction site.
Specific Process
The applicant shall submit a copy of all construction contracts with'~ this requirement identified
in the contract and the method of compliance by the contractor identified.
Monitoring during construction to verify that construction equipment noise attenuation devices
are in place and functioning properly.
Mitigation Milestone
^ copy of the contract shall he provided to the City. prior to initiating any construction.
During consu'u¢fion inspection~ equipment noise operating data shall be provided to the City at
lca~t one time per month to verify compliance with this requirement.
Respor~ible Monitorin.o ?arty
City of Temecula ?ubli¢ Wor~ and/or Building and Safety Departmen.rs
Prerequisite Action(s) For
Approval of construction plarts for specific projects.
Initiating consu'uction activities.
City Verification
General Impact
Significant cons~xuction noise lev¢is may affect sensitive residential area~ east of the Westside
Specific Plan Area.
Mitii, ation M~.a~:ure
4.4.4.2
Except during an emergency as d_~_e_,'mlned by the City, construction
activities shall be limited to the hours between 7 a.m. and 7 p.m, ~mles$ the
City is presented with evidence that the noise generated by construction will
be less than existing background or ambient noise levels.
Specific Process
The applicant shall submit a copy of all construction contracts with' this requirement identified
in the contract and the method of compliance by the conu'actor identified.
Monitoring during construction to verify that consauction equipment is operated only between
? a.m. and ? p.m., unless otherwise shown not to be required.
Mitigation Milestone
A copy of the contract shall be provided to the City prior to initiating any consauction.
During construction inspections the City shall monitor work periods to verify compliance with
this requirement.
Responsible Monitoring Parry
City of' Temecula Building and $~ety Departmere
Prerequisite Action(s) For
Approval of consauction plans for specific projecm.
Initiating consauction activities.
City Verification
66
General Irr act
Significant consn'uction noise levels may affect sensitive residential areas east of the Westside
Specific Plan Area.
Miti~tion M~'~ure
4.4.4.3 If noise comptalnts nre received during construction nnd noise levels exceed
a_,~e__ptable City thresholds, the City shall consider instnllation of temporary
noise nttenuation walls or sound buffering nmterinls between the noise source
and impacted site.
Specific Process
The City shall respond to noise complaints by requiring measurement of noise levels from the
complainant location. If noise levels exceed City thresholds, the application shall submit a noise
attenuation plan prepared by a qualified noise consultant to the City. This plan sinil require
implementation of the noise attenuation features, including tempornry sound walls, unless
a~nuation below thresholds is not feasible.
Monitoring during consumction to verify that any noise attenuation requirements are ins~ied and
achieve the requisite noise reduction.
Mitigation Milestone
City. receives complaint and verifies that it is legitimate.
Noise attenuation plan is submit-~ to the City for review and approval, before construction
activities are allowed to proceed with noise levels exceeding the threshold.
During construction inspections the City shall monitor noise levels after attenuation to verify
compliance with this requirement.
Responsible Monitoring Party
City of Temecula Building and Safety Department
Prerequisite Action(s) For
Notification of the public of a noise complaint phone number.
Noise attenuation plan submitted for City review and approval.
Initiating construction activities.
67
City Verification
68
General Impact
Significant operating noise levels may affect sensitive noise receptors.
Mitigation M~'~ure
4.4.4.4 Proprietors of individual entertainment facilities shall control crowd noise at
their facility so that it does not exceed 65 (lB at a distance of 50 feet, Routine
or periodic noise monitoring shall be conducted by the owner nt least one
time per month and the City may request additional noise monitoring at an.v
tinle.
Specific Process
Noise monitoring data is submined to the City following the noise 'monitoring event for review
and action.
Mitigation Milestone
City receives noise monitoring data within one week of noise measurements.
Noise attenuation plan is submitted to the City for review and approval when noise levels exceed
65 dB at distance of 50 feet on an ongoing basis.
Responsible Monitoring Partw
City of Temecula Police and/or Building and Safety Departments
Prerequisite Action(s} For
Noise monitoring is conducted by the property owner.
Noise attenuation plan submitted for City review and approval.
City Verification
69
General ln~:~et
Significant oldrating noiae !~v¢!$ may affect aemitiv¢ nora rec.~tora.
Mitigation
4.4.4.~ The City shall establish a noise complaint program when construction of
entertainment radiities in Old Town begins. ~ program shall include a
point of contact, a log of all complaints, and a log of how each complaint is
resolved.
Specific Process
Noise complaint program will be prepared by the applicant for the City and placed in operation.
Mitigation Milestone
The noi~e complaint program shall be prepared and approved by the City prior to initiating
corotruction.
Noise complaints shall be retained by the City and made available to the public upon re. quest.
Responsible Monitoring Parry
City. of Temecula Planning Department
Prerequisite ^etlon(s) For
Noise complaint program is submitted to the City for review and approval.
Noise complaints retained over the life of the project.
City Verification
7O
General Inlpact
Significant operating noise levels may affect sensitive noise receptors.
Mitigation Meaaure
4.4.4.6 The City shall reqt!Lr~ sp~._ ini noise attenuation measures, such as temporary.
or permanent sound wnlis or modificatiom in operations, to control exterior
crowd noise to 65 dB at 50 feet in from of entertninment facilities permitted
by project.
Specific Process
Noise attenuation plan is submitted to the City for review and approval when noise levels exceed
(~5 dB at distance of 50 feet on an ongoing basis.
Mitigation Milestone
The noise attenuation plan shall be prepared and approved by the City within two weeks
following notification that noise thresholds are being exceeded.
City will monitor the installation of noise attenuation features required by the plan and verify
the attenuation is sufficient to meet the threshold.
Responsible Monitoring Party
City of Temecula Building and Safety Department
Prerequisite Action(s) For
Noise data indicates that an entertainment facility exceeds this threshold.
Plan completed for City review and approval.
City verifies attenuation meets threshold.
Citv Verification
71
General Impact
Significant operating noise levels n~y affect sensitive noise receptors.
Mitil, ation Measure
4.4.4.? Exterior sound levels duri~ perfonnnnees at Old Town entertainment
facilities shall not exeeed 65 dB L~ at .50 feet from the building. At no time
shall noise levels exceed 55 dB L~ at the ne~-'est sensitive noise receptor.
Specific Process
Noise levels outside of entertainment facilities
shall be monitored during at least two
performances by a qualified noise consultant or acoustician to determine exterior noise levels.
If noise levels exceed the threshold, additional noise attenuation shall be installed in accordance
with a noise attenuation plan until the threshold is no longer exceeded.
Mitigation Milestone
Noise levels during performances shall be monitored within one month of opening 'an
entertainment facility and submitted to the City for review and approval.
The noise atmnuation plan shall be prepared and approved by the City within two weeks
following notification that noise thresholds are being exceeded.
City will monitor the installation of noise attenuation features required by the plan and verify
the attenuation is sufficient to meet the threshold.
Responsible Monitoring Party
City of Temecuta Building and Safety Department
Prerequisite Action(s) For
Entertainment facility begins performances.
Noise data indicates that an entertainment facility exceeds this threshold.
Plan completed for City review and approval.
City verifies attenuation meets threshold.
City Verification
72
General Impact
Significant operating noise levels may affect sensitive noise rcccptors.
Mitigation M,.~.~ure
4.4.4.8 The City shall require that an earth berm or sound attenuation wall and
landscaping be installed on the ridge above the houses on Pujol Street to
minimiTe noise levels at the nearest residences.
Specific Process
The sound attenuation feature shall be shown on the grading/construction plans. for the
hotel/arena area and documentation of the level of a~nuation shall be provided by a qualified
noise consultant or acoustician to the City for review and approval'~'
Once construction is completed City inspectors verify that the attenuation features have been
installed and attenuation achieved meets the forecast.
Mitigation Milestone
Plans and documentation submitted to the City prior to initiating construction of the hotel and
arena area.
The inspection data, including noise measurements, shall be placed in the project file within one
week of verifying the feature's effectiveness.
Responsible Monitoring Party
City of Temecula Building and Safety Departmere
Prerequisite Action(s) For
Plan/documentation submitted to the City for review and approval.
City verifies attenuation meets threshold.
City Verification
73
General Irrtpact
Significant operating noise lcvels may affect sensitive noise receptors.
Mitigation M,-*~ure
4.4.4.9
When the final design of the Arena/hotel/parking complex is completed, the
applicant shall submit a noise study demonstratin~ that noise levels from the
complex can be reduced to a CNEL of 62.7 dB at the nearest residence. The
noise study my incorporate some or all of the foBowing measures which have
been identified to reduce Arena noise to the 62.7 dB level at residences along
Pujol Street.
The Arena shotfid be oriented so that any stage faces away from the nearest
residential areas. The rear of the stage house should be no closer than 500
ft. to these sensitive land uses. This along shotfid reduce concert noise levels
at the rear of the Arena to 60 dB according to WJHW.
The Arena shotfid contain a full stage house (portable or permanent) with
enclosed wings for flying and stacking of touring sound systems.
The house sound system shotfid be designed to minimi,e environmental noise.
A distributed loudspeaker approach for spectator seating areas should be
utilized if required.
The Arena *'tent" shotfid be constructed of material which has a weight of
.75-1.0 !bs/ft:.
The rear side of and "bleacher style" seating should be enclosed to provide
a barrier around the facility to help control noise.
f.
Mixing console noise levels during concerts must be restricted to 100-105 d.B
maximum.
Specific Process
The noise study demonstrating noise levels will meet the threshold shall be prepared by a
qualified noise consultant or acoustician and submitted to the City for review and approval.
Once construction is completed City inspectors verify that the attenuation features have been
installed and attenuation achieved meets the forecast.
74
Mitigation Milestone
Documentation submitrod to the City prior to initiating hotel and arena operations.
The inspection dam, including noise measurements, shall be placed in the project file within one
week of verifying the design's effectiveness.
Responsible Monitoring Par~
City of Temecula Planning and/or Building and Safety Departments
Prerequisite Aetion('sl For
Documentation submitted to the City for review and approval.
City verifies attenuation meets threshold.
City Verification
75
General Impact
Significant operating noise levels may affect sensitive noise receptors.
Mitigation M~'~ure
4.4.4.10
The City shall require any future residential uses adjacent to the Western
Bypass Road that place residences w~hin the 6~ ctB CN~L~. noise contour to
install sound attenuation barriers or walls sufficient to reduce noise to a level
below this significance threshold.
Specific Process
The City will include a condition implementing the above requirements if and when it approves
residential development adjacent to the Western By-pass Road. '
A copy of the conditions of approval sl~11 be placed in the project file for retention.
Mitigation Milestone
Development of the condition prior to a hearing to approve residential development adjacent to
the Western By-pass Road.
Copy of the conditions of approval placed in project file when a land use entitlement is granted
for such residential development.
Responsible Monitoring Party
City of Temecula Planning and/or Building and Safety Departments
Prerequisite Actionf s). For
Submittal of an application to develop residential uses adjacent to the Western By-pass Road.
Approval of a development adjacent to the Western By-pass Road.
CiD' Verification
76
General lr~a~
Significant operating noise levels may affect sensitive noise receptors.
Mitigation Measure
4.4.4.11 When noise levels along the Western Bypass Road near existing residences
exceeds the City threshold of significance for residentini areas (65 dB
CNEL/Ld.), the City shall install a sound attenuation wall to reduce noise
levels from exceedirtg this value at the resideD_e~__.
Specific Process
A contingency for installing a sound a~nuation wall in the area of concern shall be included in
the road engineering plans and funding. "'
A copy of the drawing/funding documents shall be placed in the project file for retemion.
Using annual noise measurements or an acceptable noise model and annual traffic counts, the
City shall determine when the sound attenuation wall must be consn'ucted and then install the
wall.
Mitigation Milestone
The drawings and funding commitment shall be made prior to consn'ucting the Western By-pass
Road and the documents placed in the project file prior to initiating construction.
The City shall conduct annual noise measurements adjacent to the Western By-pass Road during
June of each year, on a day when the arena is conducting a performance.
Responsible Monitoring Party
City of Temecula Planning and Building and Safety Departments
Prerequisite Actionts) For
Submittal of drawing/funding documents for the Western By-pass Road to the City for retention.
Select date for annual monitoring in June each year when an arena performance is scheduled.
City Verification
7'7
~encr~l ln~l~t
Loss of an idearifled park/~on a~a due to imp!ementi,~ the Westside Specific Plan as
proposed.
The City shall require a modif'~n in the text of the Westside Specific
Plan, or a condition of approval, requiring the inclusion of a neighborhood
park/recreational facility in the high de.,sity residential d~s~ffp*ted !and. The
WSP text modification shall require the dmsi~ of the park/fa~ili~ to be
reviewed and approved by the City.
~pccific Process
A copy of the approved plan with the above modification shah be re*~ined in the project file.
Mitigation lVf,'lestone
The modification must be included in the Westside Specific Plan approved by the City.
Responsible Monitoring Par~
City of Temecula planning and/or Commamiry Servic. c$ Dcpartm~llts
Prerequisite Action(s~ For
Revisions to the Westside Specific plan for submittal to the City.
City Verification
78
Genera~ lmpaa
M_iti~tion Mea~re
4.6.4.1
To mitigate 1996 with-project cir~!ofi,~ system ~ml~et~ at the Rancho
Cailfornin Road/I-l~ North Ramps, the following steps must be taken: On the
westbound intersection approach, wkkn and/or restripe Rancho California
Road to pFovide one through lane -iifpted with the (eventual) separate left-
turn lane at the 1-15 South on-rump, one through lane, one optional
through/right-turn lane, and one right-turn lane. In order to accommodate
two lanes of right-turning traffic onto the l-l~ North on-ramp, said on-ramp
will require widening just north of Rancho California Road; these two lanes
should merge into one lane, however, prior to ~in_~ the mainline of X-
1~ North. (Note: T!~ need for these dual fight-tam lan~s and the ~ 1-15
North on-ramp will b~ ellmlnater], however, whe~ the scht-~u]ed *loop" on-ramp
ac~.~mmodafing eastbound Rancho Cal~ Road-W-nofihbound 1-15 traffic
ultimately is provided.)
Specific Process
Eugineer/ng drawings incorporating these improvements shall be provided to the City for
implementation and funding made available for their implementation.
The City shall verify thnt these improvements are installed as drawn afar they are ~.
Mitigation lVlilestone
The drawings and funding shall be in place prior to opening project facilities for operation.
The as built drawings shall be phced in the project file after completing their installation.
Responsible Monitorin1, Party
City of Temecuh Public Works Department
Prerequisite Actionf s) For
Drawings must be completed prior to submittal to the City.
City Verification
The local circ~,tlon syste~ is forecast to incur 'mgnificant reductions in quality of U'a~u= flow
in 1996.
Mitigation
4.6.4.2
To mtfipte 1996 with-project ch'cuJafion system impeet~ at the Front
Street/W~ Bypass Road int~swrion, the foUowing steps must be taken:
On the southbound intm. secfion approach, Front Street shall contain one left*
turn lane and one optional left-turn/right-turn lane. (Not~: Pe~us~ From
Street will enttend ~ ~ ~ W~ B~ ~ W ~ ~ ~ a five-
lane facility (two through lanes per direction phss a two-way-left-turn lane
according to the City), this southbound approach (~ the We,stem Bypass
~ three-~ nltc~vntiv¢ is impl~nellted, the ~on'$ LOS wonld be even
Specific Process
Engineering drawings in~g these improvements shah be provid~
implementation and funding made available for their implementation.
The City shall verify that these improvements are insudled as drawn after they are constructed.
Mitigation Milestone
The drawings and funding shah be in place prior to opening project facilities for operation.
The as built drawings shah be placed in the project file after completing their installation.
Responsible Monitoring Party
City of Temeoda Public Works Department
Prerequisite Action(s) For
Drawings must be completed prior to submittal to the City.
City Verification
8O
The local circulation system is forecast m incur significant reductions in quality of traff~ flow
in 1996.
4.6.4.3
BaFton A~,,*hmon's trnffic study idmfif'ms mveral additional road desi~
measuru that nFe ,¢~o, .... ,e~uded to reduce oveFall traffic.impeets. These are
reprodueed in Appendix 4. These ,¢eo...,.d, nd-fiom ~ be implemented as
part of the proposed project at a b d~ermined by the City to prevent
det~iorafion of traffic flow below LOS D. The smms of the circulation
s-~mm components addressed in the r~ommendations shall be assessed as
part of the City's annual traffic survey and evaluation.
Specific Process
Engineering drawings incorporating these improvements shah be provided to the City for
implementation and funding made avnilnhle for their impl~nentnfion.
The City sbnl] vexfly that these improvements are in.~tnll~l as drawn after they are conmuct~...
Mitigation Milestone
The drawings and funding shah be in place when the City det~rmi-~ they are needed based on
their annual traffic surveys or other studies as appropriate.
The as built drawings shall be placed in the project file after completing their in.~tn!lafion.
Re~tponsible Monitoriu~ pnr(y
City of Temecuh Public Works Department
Prerequisite Actionf s) For
Drawings must be completed prior to submittal to the City.
City Verification
81
The local cSwulafion sys~m i~ forec~ W ~ ~~ ~~ h ~ of ~
~fion M~
4.6.4.4 ~e ~ ~ ~ ~a!lofion of ~ ~m ~ ~ l~fiom
~ Old To~ nd ~e h~m ~1~ ~e ~ ~ work
~ whm m~ ~ ~ b~ a~l~
S~c~c ~-ocess
complex shall be provided to the City for implementation and 6~mtln~ made awilahle for their
implementation.
The City shall verify that these hl~provements are in.~11~l as dlawn after they are con~ructed.
Miti~tion Mii~one
The drawings and funding shall be in place prior to opening project facilities for operation.
The as built drawings shall be phced in the pwject file after completing their installation.
Responsible Monitoring Party
City of Temecula Public Works and/or Planning Departments
Prerequisite Action(s) For
Drawings must be completed prior to submittal to the City.
City Verification
82
4.6.4.5
The C~tty shall roquh'e hiv-sbare funding as described in the Congestion
Mnnogum~ Plan Traffic Impact Analysis for the stir_t-_' improvement at
the Rancho California Road/I-IS Southbound ramps. This funding can be
provided when annual traffic surveys indicate a need for the road
improvements. There are three alternatives available to the City to
mitigation sigllificallt traffic flow impacts at these ramps. They are: widen
the Rancho California Road bridge on the south side to accommodate an
additional eastbound through lane; construct a southbound loop on-ramp in
the northwest quadrant of the interchange; construct a new southbound off-
ramp at ,qonti~go Road.
Specific Process
Fair-share funding requixement,s shall be identified ~nd the City shall identify when funds will
have to be provided to support the improvements dependent upon thh fair shal~fhnding.
The City shall verify that these improvements are installed when required and place as-built
drawings ing the file after they are constructed.
Mitigation Milestone
The funding shall be identified prior to initiating operation of any project fac'fiities and the
funding shall be in in place when required by the City.
The as built drawings shall be placed in the project file after completing theft installation.
Re~,onsible Monitoring, Par~
City of Temecula Public Works Department
Prerequisite Action(s) For
Drawings must be completed prior to submittal to the City.
City Verification
83
Th~ local ch~ulatioa system is forecast to incur 's~mificant reduc~ms in quality of txaf~ flow
at proira bu~ ou~
4.6.4.7 T~e ~ty ~ require ~ ~u~di~ u ~ in the ~onge~tion
~mmt PI~ Tm~c l~p~ct ~ for ~e ~d~ ~pmvmmt at
pm~ whm ~ ~ ~ in~e a ~ for ~e ~d
~v~, ~ ~e ~ ~ ~ nd I-~ ~~ ~, ad~te
mMp~on ~~ m~~n of a ~w ~d l~p off-~p h ~e
M~wm qn~ of ~e ~~ ~mp~ ~ m~ would
~u~ ~~ ~e ~bound o~p a~ r~m ~e ~in~ of ~nt
S~ w~ ~ ~ ~e W~ B~ R~
S~c ~s
~w~s ~ ~e ~e ~r ~ey ~ ~~.
~n~ s~ ~ ~ ~ p~ wh~ ~~ by ~e Cid.
~e ~ built ~w~gs s~ ~ ph~ ~ ~e p~ ~ ~ ~~ ~e~
~nsible Mo~ ~
Ci~ of Tem~ ~b~c W~ ~~t
~uisi~ A~on(s~ F~
~w~gs mu~ ~ ~1~ prior ~ ~~ m ~e Cid.
Ci~ Ve~on
86
C~ncml Impact
Potenfiu! 'stgniftmnt visual imp~ct~ have been forecast to occur at a few locations within the
community.
Mitigation M~.mre
4.?.~.1
Slope ~rudin~ terhnlques on the slope rt~ Pujol Street shall aim to blend
with the ~**~*fi"l nature of the top(~mphy. Gradin~ techniques shall
emphasize slope contouring inelq~din~ contc*tr nndubition and variable slopes.
In addition, tops and toes of slopes shall be rounded. ]~u'd edges and an~les
are to be avoided. Slopes shall be designed to smoothly blend with r~mnini~q~
Sl~ific Process
Copies of the grading plan in~ the above grading techni .mle~ shall be provided w the
City for review and approval.
The City shall verify that the gr~_din~ i~ completed ill ac, colda!!ce with ~ gl~dlng plan by
verifying it with field in.~3tion~ chlring COilSfriction arid wll~l completed.
MJtiration Milestone
The grading plan shall be submitted for re-view and approval prior to initiating construction on
this slop~.
The as built drawings shall be placed in the project file aft~ completing their installation.
Responsible Monitorin~ P~rty
City of Tcmecu]a Public Works Depamaent
Prerequisite Actiones) For
Grading p!:~n pmpa~,~l and submitted to the City for rtwiew and approval.
Drawings must I~ completed prior to submittal to the City.
City Verification
87
Gcncz~ Impact
The local dxculation system is forrecast to incur sig~i~nt xeduO~m.~ in quality of traff~ flow
at projcct build out.
4.6.4.6
The City shah ,~tui,¢ hir-dmre funding as dmcn3Md in the Congestion
Management lqan Traf~ lml~Ct Analysis for the ~Pp~tea impFovanents at
the at SR 79 South and the I*IS Northbound rmnps. This fundin~ can be
provided when annnl traffic surveys inai~e a need for the road
modirmd to inchde provisions for a double left turn eonf'~uration at the off*
ramp approach to Sit 7~ South. It was also .~co.,,,,~tded that the ultimate
'mterdmnge improvement pbms inchde a provision for three eastbound
through lanes at the intermcan.
$1;~cifi¢ Proooss
Fair-share funding requixements shall be identified and the City shall identify when funds will
have to be pwvided w support the improvements dependent upon this fa/r share-funding.
The City shall verify that these improvements are installed when zequired and place as-built
drawings lag the file after they are constructed.
Mitigation Milestone
The funding sh~ be identified prior to initiating operation of any project hcilifies and the
funding shall be in in place when required by the City.
The as built drawings shall be placed in the project file after completing their installation.
Re~)onsible Monitorhlg ParO'
City of Temecuh Public Works Department
Prerequisite Actiones) For
Drawings must be completed prior to submittal to the City.
City Ver/fication
The local cixo,htlem system h f~ ~ ~ '~ ~ h ~ ~ ~ ~w
~p~ ~ ~
~fi~fi~ M~
4.6.4.7 ~e ~ ~'~ f~ ~ m ~ ~ ~e ~~on
~~ ~ ~c lm~ ~ f~ ~e ~~ ~p~v~ at
~eat ~ ~ ~ ~d I-~ ~d ~p. ~ f~ ~ ~
p~~ ~ 9nmto! ~M ~ h~ a n~ for ~e ~d
~p~mm. M ~e ~ ~ ~ ~ I-~ ~~ud ~, ad~e
'~n ~~ m~~n ~ a ~ ~d ~p off-~p h ~e
m~w~ q~~ of ~e ~ lmpl~ ~n~ ~ m~ would
~ ~~ ~e M~~d o~p a~ f~ ~e ~in~ of ~m
S~ wh~ ~ ~~ ~e W~ B~ ~&
S~ific ~s
F~-s~ ~g ~~U s~ ~ i~~ ~ ~ C~ ~ ~ w~ ~ ~
~ve ~ ~ pm~ m ~ ~ ~mv~U ~~ ~ *~ ~ ~~g.
~e Ci~ s~ v~ ~ ~ ~pmv~ ~ ~~ w~ ~ ~d p~ ~-b~t
~w~gs ~g ~e ~ ~ ~ey ~ ~~.
~ga~on ~e~one
~e ~n~g s~ ~ i~n~ p~ ~ ~g ~on of ny p~ hc~ ~d ~e
~n~g s~ ~ ~ ~ p~ wh~ ~ by ~e Cid.
~e ~ bu~t ~w~gs s~ ~ p~ ~ ~e pmj~ ~e ~r ~l~g ~e~
~nsible Motif ~
Ci~ of Tem~uh ~bHc W~ ~ent
~uisite A~on(s) ~
~w~gs mu~ ~ ~mp~ p~ m sub~ m ~ C~.
Ci~ VeXation
85
Gener~ Impact
Potential signifi/mnt vi,mal impacts have been fmec~ W occur ~ a few locations within the
Mitif~ation M~astr~
Crrodln_~ on the slope edfe fm:in~ Pujol Street shall be Feve~etated or
hndscaped immediately upon completion of fradinz activities, concurrent
with projea development. Lundscapin~ shall be natural in appearance and
!ir.~r arrangemeres of landscaping are to be avoidmi.
Specific Proce~
Copies of the landscaping phn in~poFafiug the above schedule and landscaping ~chniques shall
The City shall verif~ tl~ the landscapin~ has been completed in accordance with the hndscaping
plan by verifying it with field ~on~ during construction and when completed.
M/ti~ation Milc.qWne
The hndscaping plan shall be submitted for l~view and approval prior w ' 'initiating conm'uction
on this slope.
The a~ built dxawings shall be phced in r~ project file afar completing ~ir ~on.
Responsible Monitorinv Party
¢it~ of T~mecuh Public Works Department
Prcl~quisitc A~on(s)FoF
Landscaping plan prepared and submiwd w the City for n-view and approval.
Drawings mu~ be comple~d prior to submiuai to the City.
Cid/Verification
~ significant visual impacU have been forecast to occur at a few locations within the
comm~,mlty.
l~fi~ation l~r~
4.7.S.3 Visible ret~inlnf~ walls over eight feet in height shall be avoided unless
Specific Process
Copies of the l~n4sc-~ing p~an incorpo~ing the any vi.~le ret~nlag walls over eight feet in
height shall be provided to the City for review and approval.
The City shall verify that such re~inittg wall(s) had/have beell ~ ~leted in ac, corda~ with the
landscaping plan by verifying it with field ~ons during constm~ and when completed.
lViitigation Milestone
The landscaping plan shaIl be submitted for review and approval prior to initi~tln~ consml/Xion
on such retaining w~11.~.
The as built drawings shall be placed in the project file after completing their ~on.
Responsible Monitori~lg Party
City of Temecula Planning and/or Building and Safety Departments
Prerequisite Action(s) For
Landscaping plan prepared and submitted w the City for review and approval.
Drawings must be completed prior to submittal to the City.
CiCy Verification
89
Potential .~g~tic~at visual iml~tCts have be~ foRcast to occur at a few locations ~ ~
4.7~.4 ~ ~ ~ ~
S~ffic ~s
C~i~ of ~ p~aa~ ~g ~~iag of ~ ~ ~ W~ S~ P~ ~
~e Ci~ ~ v~ ~ tach ~~~g ~ ~ m~ ~~ wi~ ~e p~
by ve~ng it ~ ~ ~o~ ~ ~~ ~ w~ ~~.
~fi~fion Mil~ne
~e p~s s~ ~ mb~ for ~ew ~d ~m~ pfi~ ~ ~g in~l~a~ of u~fi~.
~e ~ b~t ~w~gs s~ ~ p~ ~ ~e p~ ~ ~r mmpl~g ~k ~l~a~on.
Re~nsible Moffi~g ~
Ci~ of Tem~ ~b~c Wo~ ~d B~ing ~d S~ ~~
~u~ite A~onfs~ N~
~e p~s p~ ~d ~~ m ~e Ci~ for ~ew ~d ~mv~.
~w~gs mu~ ~ mmpl~ pfi~ m mb~ ~ ~
Ci~ Ve~mfion
Potm~al 'mgnifit:aat vimre1 irup~ have been forecast to occur at a few locations within the
community.
Mi~ov M,.amre
4.7.5.5 Bermln~ andiandscaping Mmll be employml to conceal and sol'ten visual
impacts of parking arms.
Spcci~c Process
Copies of landscape plan.~ showing measmm talam to conceal and sofum visual impacts of
parking areas shall be provided to the City for lb-view alld approval.
The City shall verify that such beaming and ianOsc~pirlg has been complet~ in accordance with
the pian.~ by verlag it with field hlspectioas ~ coiistrt!~ aild wheel completed.
MitiTation Milestone
The lnndscape plnn.~ shall be submitted for review and approval l~ior to initlntlng construction
on the parking areas.
The as built drawings shall be placed in the project file a~ter complet~ their installation.
Responsible Monitorin~ Par~
City of Temecula Planning Depa.mnent
Prere~luisite Actionfs~ For
The plnn.~ prepa~.~i and submitted to the City for review and approval.
Drawings must be completed prim' to submittal to the City.
Cirv Verification
91
Miti~fion M~.mre
4.8.3.1 No further archamiogical investigation is ~cc~ ...... ~mdmd for this project.
However, should any known or suspected archaeological materials be
mcoumered during project devdopmmt, a qualif'mi historical archaeologist
should be ran*oPted- Work should be suspmded in any area where
salvaged if found signif'mint.
Specific Process ...
The applicant shall submit tl~ name of a qualifnxl archaeologist who will be on call for thi.~
project and who will orenee management of any archaeolo~ ~ discove,,ed during
construction.
A response program shall be submitted for review and approval by the City for implemeanafio.n
if any such re, somees am discovered.
Mitigation Milestone
The program and name of the qualified archaeologist shall be submitted for m-view and approval
prior to 'initialing construction at any location for this project.
R~!ponsibl¢ Monitorin~ par~
City of Terncoda Building and Safety and/or Public Works Departments
Prerequisite Action(s) For
The plans prepaxed and submitted to the City for ~-view and approval.
Drawings must be completed prior to submittal to the City.
City Verification
92
4.8.3.2
Potential project imppc~ to historic bnildi:l~, i!lc~ those that are not
formally reco~n_ i~, will be 'nutigated below a level of significance through
impltm*--tntlon of the provisions airmdy contained within the OTSP OM
Town Historic Presetration 1]Oirict Ordimmce. ~hose provisions allow for
conditions of approval for Certif'm~m of Histoztc Appropriateness. It is
~¢~-.....e~ded that conditions of approval for dmnoi~on or alteration of any
historic building include appropriate historical and architectural
documentation prior to modification of the building.
Specific Process
established by the State Office of Historic Preservation.
The fin,qli7~ documentation for any such historic smictnre shall be submitted City for review
and approval.
Mitigation Milestone
The documentation shall be initiated prior to any disturbance of a ~ structure and
completed within Six months of the initial disturbance of the structure.
Responsible Monitorin~ Party
City of Temecula Planning Department
Prerequisite ActioniO For
A decision to impact a hiswfic structure.
The documentation must be completed prior to submittal to the City.
City Verification
93
C~ncral ln~pact
Potential si 'graffcant himo~cal structure imlmc~-~ may occur duc to impl~n~ti~l~ tttc pm~ect.
4.8~.3 In order to 'dmfinguish __r~)~m_~ ~ historic buildings from new construction
which uses historic ar(~itectnral :~--n~nts, it is reconmaended that historic
buildings in commercial ar~s be marked with small plaques contoinitlg their
histor~ names and dates of construction, and tlmt pFomotionai/interpFefive
literature for the project dearly 'dutin~uish between historic buiidin~ and
Fecem consWuction.
Specific Process
The ~ity and applicant shall work with the Tcmccula Museum to ~ s~cmxcs ,h~) x~uirc
plaques and develop the interpretive litc~ for distribution to the public.
Miti~don Mile~one
The pla~ues and documen~on shall be submJ~i ~ the City prior ~ ini~ o~e~on of any
proj ~--~ facility.
Responsible Monitoring par~y
City of Temecula Planning and Building and S~ety Dcpartment~
Prerequisite Action(s) For
Prior to occupancy
The documentation must be completed prior to submittal to the City.
City Verification