The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About011212 Temecula Creek Inn Specific Plan Public Scoping Meeting Agenda December 15 2011 � - . ' . . _ � � �! �._� City of Temecula `�;vav;"" Community Development Planning Division Notice of Preparation , And Public Scoping Meeting Notice To: Agencies and Interested Parties Subject: Notice of Preparation of a Draft Environmental Impact Report for the TEMECULA CREEK INN SPECIFIC PLAN � Lead Agency: City of Temecula Consulting Firm: RBF Consulting Planning Department 40810 County Center Drive 41000 Main Street Suite 100 Temecula, CA 92590 Temecula, CA 92591 Contact: Matt Peters, AICP Contact: Kevin Thomas, CEP Phone Number: (951) 694-6408 Phone Number: 951-676-8042 ext. 2074 The City of Temecula Planning Department will be the Lead Agency and will prepare an Environmental Impact Report for the project identified below. We need to know the views of your agency as to the scope and content of the environmental information which is germane to your agency's statutory responsibilities in connection with the proposed project. Your agency will need to use the EIR prepared by our agency when considering your permit or other approval for the project. The project description, location, and initial environmental study are contained in the attached materials. Due to the time limits mandated by State law your response must be sent at the earliest possible date but not later than 30 days after receipt of this notice. Please send ,your response to Matt Peters at the address shown above. We will need the name for a contact person in your agency. Public Scoping Meeting: A public scoping meeting is tentatively scheduled for January 12, 2012 at 6:00 P.M. at the Civic Center Conference Room, 41000 Main Street, Temecula, CA 92590. Project Title: Temecula Creek Inn Specific Plan Environmental Impact Report Project Location: The proposed Temecula Creek Inn Specific Plan Project (Project) is generally located in the southern portion of the City of Temecula, California, which is located in southwest Riverside County. Specifically, the Project is located at 44501 Rainbow Canyon Road, immediately east of Interstate 15 and approximately 1,000 feet south of Temecula Parkway (State Route 79). The Project is bisected by Rainbow Canyon Road, which is parallel and bordered on the east by I-15. Refer to attached Project Location. Notice of Preparation And Pubiic Scoping Meeting Notice Draft EIR for Temecula C�eek Inn Specific Plan Project Description: The proposed Project plans to re-develop fhe existing 305-acre site into a Resort Community by expanding the hotel and conferenoe cenfec, and by adding a private residential component. The proposed Projecf wouid be divided into five Rlanning Areas and would expand the existing hotel by adding 99 new roams, increase the size of the eonference center, and add a spa facility. The. project would re=desigrr portions of the existing 27-hole goff course by eliminating 9 holes and create an 18-hole championship golf course. Private residential land uses would be introduced that would include 409 dwelling units, with a mix of single family detached homes, townhomes and stacked flat units. The Project proposes an optional "Active AdulY' oveclay that would convert portions of the hotel rooms into 126 Active Aduft residential units; which would increase the total proposed dwelling units from 409 to 535 u❑its if this option is pursued. The Project would aJlow a vacation rental component for 174 dwelling units located in the townhome and stacked flat residential areas that could be managed by the Temecula Creek Inn facility, if pursued by the individual owner. The proposed Project would re-align and improve portions of Rain6ow Canyon Road along the property frontage to comply with the City of Temecula's engineering.standards for radii and site distance. Refer to attached Site Plan: Environmental Constderations: The EIR will address the following possi6le environmental effects: Aesthetics, Air Quality, Cultural Resoarces Greenhouse Gas Errtissions, Hazards and Hazardous Materials; Hydrology and Water Quality, Land Use. and Planning, Noise, Population and Housing, Public Services and Utilities,. and other issues as identified as part of the Notice of Preparation: (NOP) process. The EIR will also address a reasonabfe range of altematives, cumulative impacts and additional mandatory secfions as required by CEQA, and will inc(ude a mitigation monitoring and reporting program. Comments: Comments regarding environmental cohcerns should be sent to the City of Temecula, Planning Department, 41000 Main Street, Temecula, CA, 92590, Attn: Matt Peters. Public comments an the NOP will be accepted until S:OO p.m. on January 20, 2012. For questions regarding this NOP, Please contact Matt Peters, AICP, Associate Planner, at (951) 694-6408. Project Information: A copy of the NOP and Initial Study is available at the following iocations: City of Temeeula Temecula Public Library Planning Division 306Q0 Pauba Road 41000 Main Street Temecula,.CA 92562. Temecula, CA 92590 �� City Website: www:cityoftemecula.ora ATTACHMENT$: {provided under separate cover or available at above locations) - Project Location - Site Plan - Initial Study /� �3 11 Pafrick Richardson, Director of Planning and Redevelopment Date �� _! �. ��` v r � `\^\ y�,� � ��.��L3� � . �"�t,��l�� -. ; ` .� �t�-� � ` w j, �� '�� , � R a ,� 1� l ,c � � .� � k �i� \1� 't�J.`r�j't�\��Y:O,,k�T\f��'�f�y� •! � <� .71�� ,�:, 8'l.,�nti�� t�.:�- �� -�- ` „i. � �.�, � �i" � _ ' i�;•:�� "'� � �� A , \ � g��i�"� � �� . .'43C'fl�� ?��..� , �J�� C � 7L �� ti . '' �] �'� �r:"' �'�`� e t Y �`�!. � � ? �'�,1��:�� '. 'f1. ' � L / , � ��...!�� "`'; � � 4 ` y ' � +J j , ~ .d n.l� V4 � .,� �� `i �: [ ' •f �� ,�' -� ,fi.l�!! � � '' �.+'i�� yf, '• \ '�'!4v � ,'� t y �. � �. .' � 1 }, �� M ;.j�;�✓.�3.Y' �-'.rrswl F s.�� yy �_ �' �'. '!'� ��`- ��. �� f �. tr � }� . � . Z � - t �� '4 °,'� r , '� � � � #- t'�' , � � � �'. ;n•z�� J � '�. R. � 5 � � � . �� r, `�� t . �' '. �iR,�` i , � \� , .. ,'� . � n t � . � . "r � ar#r ' . �� b' �� -� � � 9 �1'" '� � d. ' `'� �,`' � ` � �,,,� , �f� } ��,��,a r wr.�•wA.�:;, w �Y:1°'�,+ �` . y � � �. �.4'• � ; � �, ,��: �`�� 1. ^`_ .y.� {�y' �; �l� �\ � �.' - t �•� � �•,•',, � I � ' � 1 S � � 77 � ,� ��' �'��.��. )' � I ' `�,• � r . '�i�'. � . �, � J� P � ��."1 � �� _- �.a�' � ' % � • � • . ,� �� i ` �� \ � �'",��'"� y� :' +��• t+�' � �i/ , r , �,(� } _ /• �,�`� ` � R �,;�..: t1.\ t s` -r /�� ' y �,� � �4�� ',� s . o�� -`�� ' { . � y �� `\ � «: �, +�,;., ' ' i � ' � ,�` .:'`° -� ; , ..-' "' .� �,�' -.;��, �,� � �, � � � � ,c•, ��' � � ;, -��,�`, ��, ..ti �� 'y1� �,�.ty's��'. ;4 Jt 4�'� ..a. _ �i �� .. � , �µ� , �\� �.., �, y,�ji' �.:�'^��`: �y � �\iy�'�4.a'�� t 1 � r� . - s � p / : �� .b� s:�'�� j �~ �� :� s" � Y✓� �� '�,- �J1 'ry <...=�'` � '"r �. 791 ;�- �.,. �'� �� , r�'a �" `'�'' ��'�, ��;, • _ � �. ,'� � �+� �1 ` .�_ � r r , �' ± ''''�`—_`��'� , n . " J � : �I� ' . Y ,s. A � # .M � .� �r'�� '�;.�~ °,- + ` �''�_ �, . �- _ �?�" ,i - � �r� �'� r `' i �� `�� ar. '1i� y : : ,�v.-�"� � � I " � j , '-�''�' a!a � � . 't �a.' -,.'S � z a � 1 � ` . . � ,.. �. � ,� � .« �' � � + * ''� � +�� r ,'� 3 � F , T � `, / ?� { � 3'� ��, �� _ - � � -. �� ` C'�� 7 �r�'�` �� `\ ,4` ' '�� 1 i _ � �� - ., � �,. '�`j `_�' ti� �,, y� a �- � '* :Ct�a`c L •��3r F , i ,' �, �_` ,�'-i �, �'�^ � . j'' �'�r .� . 'tI ^:.7 � . �•� .� �... +�. � ^ •r !" � � � !� ��7 � � n C � � ,� � 1 �r .1 � '�,� . �`�. . � '��-:: �'�} � y4 � .. � � � '� ,vt��'� 2 r �'rL' a � -� d �,f'� �� },., �.J -'� �"'�4 .,z��. �'�1�..' `c� �. : 1.� X,� �M . �'. � � `!. � �!'. +'r 'y''��' �a J9. ..�.� �`. ' . 1�` .. . Y yp S y; [ � j'2 f � � �1�`"'Ij� 7�r � y�: ..� .� �y�:� \.��.�` � . .i t � � r� � � ` �l'��. � r .�. ,m�) �, .,� I '»+ t �,_��^�' ,' � §� `. 9 �� . .. ,� � ~r �; A l ��. \ '-�\ -��\ � `. \` � f � � . . � � 1 . � - 1� - - � �d;i� � •91 � rr� i J , `� , 'a�� . i; _ Y } � ., -y. ` •,yv91 ` i � � � � rv otig�� '� �'!� �' �.� '$t � � ? �,t-�'1�. X � . � � . '1a.. � :t . . t - �,a� . y� , w,.. � � �i h f y . 4 � � � � . o R .y . y � � :t � � _ ��..�' � � � _i ��j�� li✓: Z' y �, .. o . � M �.. .- .�.. . ,` ../ � ;,r[ �� ' �\ � T .. . ;A �1G . , � y f � r' � � is,�� u:�,1- "�i � � � .��. �"S� a.3` � . .� -. � a0 ` �� h � . \` �,. i `�'.s � .� ', ,. t t �.� ;� �_ `. � > �4 � . � : � , , �� ' r . �',.;. y°} b, , 4� � cy ' 7 ' yr . ��. �-� ,� \ ��r � '�?�. � . ^i � � �:... . ` �:"ti'' -� �.S �j , � r`r - � �� , -��.� ..X_ �p . r,. ��' •� � �`.�> •�� ''�s� � �� , � r �� y' ft 1 ��f' A , � � � � � , f ,� • � , '� s_ �� . �;{.��- ».` . ,4- 1�i�,.•� � . ., r' .i • � � •�.' � ; a>� F � , r� .;�r . A �. � 1 .?�,;- ��' � '1 � � 4 �� , •� .��_ '> � P ��u��'� �� , :A:.�' i / l� .T tn � w Photo Sowce- Gcogla Earth TEMECULA CREEK INN JN15-102412NOV2077 SPECIFIC PLAN EIR . � . Project Location CONSLILTING TEMECULA CREEK INN SITE EXHIBIT REVISION N0. 8 March 24, 201 > • ��... �''' "� .'``, •'�,. -_ . � . � � -- /� 56� � � � •' !'iA��tiNG AF[A A�ri 1� � y�..� � FkG°[al+:ih'E BCvh:�<ti � �.,� '� � `,�� . ��1�� ' �`�, Z '" ,9 �.50o sr. .or� 1 1 u - i�.. .w�+�� : �' :� _".-, � yy � � "�'' `� _ , � �C�t" �� , ,� � �20o sr tc�r � M1 "�'� 7`•ti�, t �� . __ . , , _ �� - �,�� ..� tl.&AO 41:� . ;�, � �M� . . .�1� h• �. � ;�� ' A� ?� ' f�1 y � � . . : � 1 _ SiA0Yl0 ftA� .�•. r�� `15Y 4•^^ — r01alMOUSC dNE<� � � /�,—� �� _ � � ,a .. +• / ,'i fi-.-� � � �'. , . , I FxKIfMG f,Ot{' r4R+W�. � P.4S � - �• � � -� ` � vwwcvogv car �e,�r:. �` \`Sw � r _ - i • �'� - � ,_ �A ` � � � —�` � Fnsrtuc car c.am. �. � ^ ' / � \ - = � C �.i � � ' �I � � � F'NGF'O$�D GU.F GR�.: �.. 1 "�_ �+ `� - � �- _ � a ?`' �. ' ` � l ''�!. :; � � `-� _ '� . , c.% a+�wRr __._ =�.�_, . �� , . � '�t__ .N � �- - 1 ; - - t P o o . e ,5, 1 p, � � � e' � ' • � , ~ \\ �+ � � � - . � �� V .� � J �`n T a . -' --- v . . � f� � V .� � �•�,� _, T � — � � i / .� � \ �`�'� � f F�#lAGE TfR� SUMIII�Rr . � , � �� '\d � � _ �.� �a � � � ��- , • � PAS y ° � � � � �•t � [�. � r \� ` C� P.�S�� '�� f�'� { ` S \;., �--.'\ -- `� ��,_��, t,:D 1 � ��+ � � _ �;"�� _ .1� .� �.. , �; (� � - �, ^ � � ,� ..�.`�Ii'r _ A � (�j �� - . -� ` -1� � ' _ �',� ' I � o � , �'r .. ti � � � � � � • , � ^ �- -�'��'1 .� �1 %t PA3 4 ,�`� ` � =�=j F _ ` j . •• � . � [: N �.��\ _ _ � �: IG . �_ _ ` , � � ,.� { 1 C 1 � ' , '�`'F,. O � �, ',t � � \ �� - �1 ,��,*` � 1.. � � i � _ .� �'� ,., �i � R � ,,� ,, �� : . �' ,' , p�i s ` � n,l s �� ` � � �,. y, , . , � � �,� . `r A �� 1 �.` �� _ � . . �. � � � • � � _ � ` �,� L - i ' • �, �� a4.- �i .�`. a �:: r � -1 � , '� ` �'• � I . �;• j• , � 'y� , � 1 � , � � f ' ,• . - " � 'li ,..: ' .� - - i ¢ r � i �"rE.� . i- � • .� .r, � � � �,� • � � � rn . a A • f ,r ''�� f . �� ` _ ; " , ;; / _ ; � ,' ,fi . � �:.� _, . °�=� � �,� � I -- � 4` ` � , ' .>it� '," � � �...�." � ':; . '`�� , i : r � N ._ 4�_ Source: Latitude 33 Planning & Engineering TEMECULA CREEK INN JN 15-102412 11/it SPECIFIC PLAN EIR . f . Site Plan CONSULTING INITIAL STUDY H:\pdata\15102412\EIR\Initial Study\TCI IS rev Nov. 2011.doc City of Temecula P.O. Box 9033,.Temecula, CA 92589-9033 Environmental Checklist Pro'ect Title Temecula Creek Inn S ecific Plan. PA08-0118 Lead Agency Name and Address City of Temecula P.O. Box 9033, Temecula, CA 92589-9033 Contact Person and Phone Number Matt Peters, Case Planner 951 694-6408 Project Location The Temecula Creek Inn Specific Plan area consists of 305 acres located. in the southwesterly portion of the City of Temecula, California. The project site is generally bound by Interstate 15 on the west, Temecula Creek.to the north, Pechanga Creek to the west, � and an abandoned landfill and the Pechanga Indian Reservation to , the south. Rainbow Canyorr Road generally runs north and south, ' and arallel to 1-45 and bisects the ro'ect.site. Project Sponsor's Name and Address Randi Coopersmith, Principal . r. Latitude 33 Planning and Engineering � 5355 Mira Sorrento Place, Suite 650 San Diego, CA 92121 General Plan Designation Highway Tourist Commercial (HT) and Open Space (OS) with a Recreation Commercial Overla Zonin Public Park and Recreation . PR Description of Project A Specific Plan for the Temecula Creek Inn to expand into a master- planned 18-hole golf course resort and community. The development is on 305 acres located at 44501 Rainbow Ganyon Road in the City of Temecula. The Specific Plan proposes five Planning Areas: Planning Area 1 includes an expansion of the existing hotel and the addition of a.spa and banquet facilities totaling 153,837 square feet. Planning Area 1 also includes an option for 126. Active Adult units to replace existing hotel rooms. Planning Areas 2-4 include a maximum of 409 single family and multi=family residential units ranging in size from 1,600 to 4;300 square feet. Planning Area 5 maintains the 18- hole golf course. Related Cases PA08-0119, PA08-0120, PA08- 0121 (APNs 922-220-002; 003; 008; 031; and 922-230-002; 003; 004; 007; 008) A General Plan Amendment to amend the City of Temecula General Plan Land Use Element text and exhibits to allow for non-resort related uses including single and multi-family residences for fhe proposed. Temecula Creek Inn expansion located at 44501 Rainbow Canyon Road and to amend the Circulation Element to refine the location of the Eastern Bypass. Related Cases PA08-0118, PA08- 0120, PA08-0121 (APNs 922-220-002; 003; 008; 031; and 922-230- 002; 003; 004; 007; 008) A Zone Change to amend the City of Temecula Zoning Map and change the current zoning from Public Park 8� Recreation (PR) to SP-14 Temecula Creek Inn. A Vestin Tentative Tract Ma to subdivide nine arcels 305 acres H:\pdata\151b2412\EIR\Initial Study\TCI IS rev Nov. 2011.doc into 276 lofs for commercial, single and multi-family residential, and open space development for the proposed Temecula Creek Inn expansion located at 44501 Rainbow Canyon Road. Related Cases PA08-0118, PA08-0119, PA08-0121 (APNs 922-220-002; 003; 008; 031; and 922-230-002; 003; 004; 007; 008) A Development Plan to construct a 153,837 square foot expansion to the Temecula Creek Inn and golf-course resort located at 44501 Rainbow Canyon Road. The expansion includes a 126,382 square foot hotel, a 14,825 square foot banquet facility and a 12,630 square foot spa facility to be located within Planning Area 1 of the proposed Temecula Creek Inn Specific Plan. Related Cases PA08-0118, PA08-0119, and PA08-0120 (APNs 922-220-002; 003; 008; 031; and 922-230-002; 003; 004; 007; 008) Surrounding Land Uses and Setting The Temecula Creek Inn Specific. Plan Area consists of 305 acres located in the southwesterly portion of the City of Temecula, CA. The site is located just east of Interstate 15, which runs north and south and is the dominant travel corridor in the area. Temecula ` Creek Inn is approximately 1,000 feet south of Temecula Parkway . (formerly State Highway 79 South). The Temecula Creek, a small commercial area, and residential development are situated between Temecula Parkway and the project site. Pechanga Parkway is currently the primary access route to Pechanga Indian Casino and Entertainment Center, which is to the south east of the project site. ' Pechanga Casino is the largest and most frequented land use in the immediate area. Rainbow Canyon Road generally runs north and south and arallel to I-1.5 and bisects the ro'ect site. Other public agencies whose approval None is re uired H:\pdata\15102412\EIR\Initial Study\TCI IS rev Nov. 2011.doc l� x� , t'��* �� a \ � , d'�� I 1 �;� �.�,�,¢'�^ � -�`� y �� 1 / , �� T �� +�� ; f��y�.� Z �. ' �w � �„1 '� � �� r11, �`•�t' � . �`� � �f'lli�'� � i �� 4 ,� "��.' .. . �• -' � a-�,��-�' r � � ' c, �;� �� S_ '�'".,�, ��' � � , 1 '�� : � �1 �arb.,l�4 iml� .g� �...' a � � ' �;• S • '1 - - . S;�e - �}�(i�� 1'� �� .: � :`- �; g.. f � �� i� `A � �,,` � r ,. * � ,.-.' �� ,�.- �.��.��'1�� . � i �� '�� '" ., � `. 1 . �+ Y � �Sdn (� ,i� �l�y- �. �� t��.. �.♦ t:� � ��* � �' :.h�,'t" a�� :� � � *!4 d� 23 .a- � �.�.:.? � . i t I�_ L :-v) i; ��'J � . � �'{��!�/ �. - � i}iT! 3�� n��'� _1 "�� t. . f ._ ' X 1 t` �'� l�+nf� " � �S �� :` .� 1't \, ` , J ,� _ ' , a �,� , �� f n � . S ,,�l� �l�i�" � '�.� �' � 1 �F l � � �: p� r..� � -� � � f ' , . t . '� ,F � � +` j k � 1.,� ► N ,� .. +�� ° .I�i � �, � ' '� �`� ^'. � ; �� fti: s i �� a �i14., „ . �' s�' ti � ^r� � -► ^�, � j �. rr ; w ,�.s, : �.,�. v��i y � r�' ,r.. , ►� . :�� << � 1 �� .'��,' �'�� ✓ �� a ' s1 �� ' ' �, i �: ��i �i �.. .,( �!y p' - �.. � � � . _ .:.� a � ��x..l,=,r 4 � �! 1' ��+ r ��/� � , . � � �` 1. � �'�' , �„ '� ��;. • �, ..,,� j--� :r.', _ �:r �}'s��.� �' °W� ��'G�� ' ./� � ��• �-'' _ � .M.�`,` Y t { ,, ' ,, q � � �� ,�.j� �� --��;-:�. ��.��: M �� .t� �. �,,�.� �� • �, � �- ,� , - � � � �� '�� ,r: . , �; ,��, ; �. a - �,, , . ` + a �, 1 1 ti \ «a r' . �� z. �'-- � t ' �� ,.` �.� . �, . A•. �.'�i�� -. ��.- �'+.t � ��1 � �' 1 �` .l � / � J--'r'�' is .' �� ! • Y' NI ,£r.�i K' � �} \. ; � � 1 �.� ,� �� Q� � _ v �,;y� Rf.fg.��i , �� Y �.� �` : -� �� •� . I � r � " �r f ' c �?'�� ' 'I"� \ �l '�� ' ,�.' �� 1/ . � q � \ - �Ktii; �1 �-�� ` t �• ' � " ` . z � � , �` i .... '�- �� .:: '7 -'..�.i .T 4 �'. - '"` �.- �� t' r . �C "wti� 7 9 � :- _.,, = ' ^�t- 1 1l ��'` ` a �``� � �r �,� .1� � . - ?;'—�.r. i �4.-r� .TL'��.� ~ . - . �'�� . �' ..E�� ' ^' � l � - � ,✓, �' �'�' 1 � � , p ,� - .r.a� .. � - _ '".��' �� }' ��" �� M �, �,� �`_��-° � �� ' �? - ' , '1,six' ,. ',.� ` � "+, -�'R� / ` � �' h�'?� � � ,.. �i r . 11 , � '�r�� '�'A+' , � � -?� 1 � �` ti. s ��. �- 3 �' %'� ` ,,. �- ; t � � _ w,,, I � � � y �". :� .. �w� ` � �� `�,. zn "4, . - � �� r �i -, y -"�� ~ ��.'�"� a'�� -.� ��j,�'' �c � ,��. � �,: 1 -'�a.i�� , �� '`'��.� '��.t ^t�� ' �� . \ . . . .� � tl � � � �' •�' C �� t�n�" .+�°� .�,�t � , .�i�� -� '":•. 7 r. t '� .�,� :,��5`n '�M�;' �� .1 y� 4 � 1 � ��'l \.. 1 �. � �tt ' � S� ' �r -'. �" �" � �� }- �' `�`� f`` �f .. � =• � I � -'!.: R! : r 's'r-' e �i. �' � � .\ � � � � ��'•� "�° �'"� .� - i 4 ;• , ' \� �� ` :` _>2 � �� . � �., ,: � � y ` � � . ��. .�v ^� � L ` y � ' � R +� p�� '�4 ` 3 • 4 �tl�I� } ; �i� �� - �. k ` � •1 � � • �� J � �. . q �� •`�•` e ..' ;�' '�:•, � �K. � .� . �' „ .`�� 1'. �d'I �• -0 � � � . �:�. . . �'` '•� �;', �� r �. '7y''�ri�3c,` xfiY t`�. �"`'ti i..�.�: 5 1:L4 :�r. � r�r �C ' 'A �'� .. . o ° ,�y..�y�-a �yr_ j ..; � � �� i�. t �{' ' .. `g`f.C. � �i � '� ♦ � I �� t`:� � �'•• ��.� *•• > o /'t� `i Y �a � `� �' _ Y< #� , �i,PY^"+Y-� C1r �r �.. y Y` t �.� � \ 's- ?►�• ,.., , a3 ��s, S � � : � :� � � � '�� /h.t <. n ' J„ r ' '�. �. �.\�' �� .�} o. �1�,• r. .�..� .��.e.#{�� ay ,� ..�„�' ��. ,�� % , j' �•� 6.� � �~ � !� � � 1 � f � �� i�s � �Y�a��1 �.� ' • ". '� J� t .,I �:� � �, .�,: �� 3�� ! �� r 1 / y `f`,�j• � � _� � ,�� ,� : � � 'r'' '.':.,�'�. � F r� r I +� �, r � � �L�� / � a + o � � � ` '� ,�'� `r . 1 " ��:� � R E :•` � . ��' _ + 1 ;F I c � �, 1 / � �,�r��.. ,� l.. t � . s_ ._' i ..� � �", . /N./�il� � l .. flr� � Y� �'!+ .: �, t. Photo Source�. Gooqle Eann TEMECULA CREEK INN JN15�102412Dec2071 INITIAL STUDY � Vicinity Map CONSULTING Figure 1.2 TEMECULA CREEK INN SITE EXHIBIT REVISION N0. 8 March 24, 2011 � �'�� '�^�`"�y�' r . V_ lV.hhAN� A �h, 'k ..'-j:� � .�`�,,: � � R vrrcwea r n �,; �. . �� , ,�� h _ 1 � � 1� 5.3G0 S X.� 4 f \ � �' ' w �� t `.�1� � ` � \ �` . ` + ' �Y � �1.G��.�� `� \ `.� 7.200 CF !n:' 1 ,'�' �� ,j `, \ _ „ e. 7i ^M�'� ��%'�� , d(` � 28W i0.2[�. . , '� ;�'t-+- , � -�. . � ��`v`+� .; �, 11 �' ^ Ir l �� <c. � _ SfA01fC0 �Lf; � .. - � i .. -� ��,r G { � � � • (y - � � i' '� rok«»a,se .v.� . . -� _,,.�/� � 1 ' ' " r� � '�. • �' rl "�_,_� _ - (; ; i ex;s7wc car .. �� P�S � � ��;�..�"' i .. 1 . � � -�, • ewoaosra ,ar .��.�.: , � : ..��w `I � �- � � � � � � 7� ,. \ ,... - 1% - IA � � _ ." f ` � � ' t ;.f, - �smrc car c•em<�. ,. , - � � { �..w � } � � � - b 4,�� .�. �.�c. . .. ..F... � ` .� � .td�- � � ✓ � � + � \ r . ��' -:?; � .'-�- �,� :'' L � ��, -� . . ...._ . �n.. , L � � � , -..�� 1 � - ' . ��-'� 1 �:� __ �, - ,_ 3 f � _. , � � � � ta �'�.' \ -�� .- J � i, s^�m a s�� o � o '� � � .� �� -- � x � �;, , , -� y r � .,} � � -' � � ,A� o;;�, , � ; � n�rrac� �s�,�cwr i ; ? Y � z ,,� ' �� F � — - °.� � �f'A5 , � �� , v , �„ �' �.. � � � �_� � � ; P,� S � �� ',��'�."-►-�'\` �.� �� . �� ' • ,�i n Y,_y �,� � �� J �� I I� I a � , : { ' , � _....� r j .. �1 -- - 1 - � �, � � f :m �'�.�. +/ � '' _ + z 1 _ll , .. '�r �PAS��+ � 3° 4 Y � - � � �, ,- � i I � ; f \ 4�, " � ` ; _ /Y ,��' { '1 - `..�_ � � ,.. • '�•� f �� • 1 - �� ? � , � - I , �l . ��=., ` ; �. p�s ` - ras `��. � i , `�, '� '' : �. ; � ! : � . � i � � .. t ;. _ A2�Y �� fn. � �, . t !� I � ;� "' , _ � ti ,/ . , � A ��.� �� + - � � I , � r � t _J ' �• �� .. /; �� , � I ', � (�, � .�+cz . � � `. . ` �+<,i : ,�' - a ?�! ' , � � �` _ ��' 't� - , � \ � � sa R • � ' �';�. , ,� �� . �� ; „-; -; * ;. . ..:,-: � ,; ; �..: _ � :. ��'� �' ,�, } � �' ��• - � �. � R� �� '•,. `'; � ,� J,-- � ��r �.. :.i � "T' � ' . � . . , �,,, ��„� � r .�. ti^ - �) - 'p'' ' , ..�.....' 4as Source: Latitude 33 Planning & Engineering TEMECULA CREEK INN JN15-102412 iZ11 INITIAL STUDY . . . Land Use Plan Map CONSULTING Figure 3.1 Environmental Factors Potentially Affected � � � The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a"Potentially Significanf Impact" as indicated by the checkiist on the following pages. X Aesthetics Mineral Resources A riculfure and Forest Resources X Noise X Air Quali X Po ulation and Housin Biolo ical Resources X Public Services X Greenhouse Gas Emissions Recreation X CulturaL Resources X Trans ortation and Traffic Geolo and Soils X Utilities and Service S stems X Hazards and Hazardous Ma#erials X Mandato Findin s of Si nificence X H drolo and Water Quali None X Land Use and Plannin ' Determination (To be completed by the lead agency) On the basis of this initial evaluation: I find that the proposed project CO.ULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DEGLARATION wilt be re ared. I find that although the proposed project could .heve a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a signifieant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made by or agreed to by the ro'ect ro onent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be re ared. � I fincl that the proposed project MAY have . a significant effect on the environment, and an X ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT 'is re uired. I find thet the proposed project MAY have a"potentially significant impact" , ot "potentially significant unless mitigated'' impact on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier documenf pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed. by mitigation measures .based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONtVIENTAL IMPACT REPORT is re uired, but it must anal ze onl the effects that remain to be addressed. I find that although ttie proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment; because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DEGL:ARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigafed pursuant to that earlier EtR or NEGATIVE DEGLARATION including revisions or mitigation measures that are im osed u on the ro osed ro'ect, nothin further is re uired. % - �f N�� ( Signature Date Kevin Thomas, CEP � RBF Gonsulting For: Matt Peters, AICP City of Temecula 1. AESTHETICS. Would the project: Cess Than Potentiaily . Significant With _ Less Than Issues and Supporting Info�mation Sources Significant . Mitigation .: Significant .' No - Im act Inco orated Im act Im act - a Have a substantiaf adverse effect on a scenic vista? X b Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not ;. limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic hi hwa ? X c Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundin s? X d Greate a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversel affect.da or ni httime views in the area? X Comments: 1.a.b.d. Potentially Significant Impact: The Community Design Element of the City of.Temecula's General Plan identifies important scenic view sheds to ensure that all new public and private development projects will not obstruct the public views of scenic cesources. According to the General Plarr Community Design Plan Exhibit on page CD-5, 4he project site has been identified as a viewshed, therefore, an EIR should be prepared to assess the impact. 1.c Less Than Significant Impact: The project site is subject to the Mt. Palomar Lighting Ordinance, which will reduce the potential for light or glare and reduce to a less than significant impact. H:\pdata\15102412\EIR\Initial Study\TCI IS rev Nov. 2011.doc 2. AGRICULTURE AND FOREST RESOURCES. In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California Dept. of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. In determining whether impacts to forest resources, including timberland, are significant environmental effects, lead agencies �may refer to information compiled by the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection .regarding the state's inventory of foresf . land, including the Forest and Range Assessment Project and the Forest Legacy Assessment Project; and forest carbon measurement methodology provided in Focest Protocols adopted by the California Air Resources Board. Would the project: Less Than . Potentially Significant With Less Than .' Issues and Supporting Information Sources Significant Mitigation SignificanL : No Im act Incor oreted Im acT Im act a Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of . Statewide Importance (Fa�mland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant fo tlie Fa�mland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the Califomia Resources Agency, to non-a ricultural use? X . b Conflict with existing zoning for agr'icultural use, or a � Williamson.Act contract? X c Conflict wifh existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest . land (as defined in Public Resources Code section 12220(g)), timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code section 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code section 51104 ? X d Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use X e Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non-forest use? X Comments 2.a.-e. No Impact: According to Figure OS-3 of the City of Temecula General Plan, the project site does not contain any Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance to non-agricultura.l use and therefore will not convert or impact any of these Farmlands. The project site does not contain any type of farmland, nor is the project site intended to be used for an agricultural use. No impact will occur as a result of the project. H:\pdata\15102412\EIR\Initial Study\TCI IS rev Nov. 2011.doc � 3. AIR QUALITY. Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air pollution control district may be. relied upon to make the following determinations. Would the project: tess Than-_ Potentially. Significant With - Less Than Issues and Supporting Information Sources - Significant _ Mitigation = _= Significant _ No Im act " Inco orated Im act- - Im act a. Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air ualit lan? X b: Violate any air quality standard or contcibute substantially to an existin or ro'ecfed air ualit violation? X c Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non- attainment under an applicable federaf or state ambient air quality standard (including �eleasing emissions which exceed uantitative thresholds for.ozone recursors ? X d Expose sensitive receptors to, substantial pollutanf concentrations? X e Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of eo le? X , Comments: 3.a.-e. Potentially Significant Impact: Air quality impacts as they relate to construction. activity, traffic, and a variety of future building emissions, may result in air quality and greenhouse gas impacts. As a result, an EIR should be prepared to assess the impacts associated with the proposed project: H:\pdata\15102412\EIR\Initial Study\TCI IS rev Nov. 2011.doc L 4. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the project? Less'Than. Potentially Significant With Less Than Issues and Supporting Inforrriation Sources Significant Mitigation : Significant No Im act Inco orated Im act Im act a Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or .by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and X Wildlife Service? b Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or US Fish and Wildlife X Service? ' c Have a substantial adverse effect of #ederally protected � wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological ' X interru tion, or other means? d Interfere substantially with the movement of any native - resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, X or im ede the use of native wildlife nurse sites? . e Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting. biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or X ordinance? f Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state. habitat X conservation lan?. Comments 4.a-d, and f. Less Than Significant Impact: The project has. already been reviewed and contains an approved Determination of Biologically Equivalent or Superior Preservation (DBESP), approved Habitat Acquisition and Negotiation Strategy (HANS), and Regional Conservation Authority Joint Project Review Consistency Determination. All development plan projects within the Specific Plan area will require review for consistency with the approved documents and the Wester.n Riverside County Multi Species Habitat and Conservation Plan (MSHCP), and all development projects will continue to be required to undergo this review. As a result, less than significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 4.e. Less than Significant Impact: Per the Heritage Tree Ordinance, Section 8.48.120 — Applicability, "Previously adopted specific plans and future specific plan areas. Such plans contain their own requirements for protection and preservation of Heritage Trees." The applicant has gone through an extensive exercise to define, inventory and preserve heritage trees throughout the Specific Plan area in their Heritage Tree Survey, which identified 225 heritage trees. Having gone through this exercise, the project was redesigned and resulted in a reduction to 19 heritage trees (8% of the heritage trees) being disturbed internal to the project site versus 83 in the original design. In addition, 6 heritage trees will be disturbed for General Plan improvements to Rainbow Canyon Road to widen the road to four lanes (secondary arterial; 4 lanes undivided), and these trees would eventually be disturbed with or without the proposed Temecula Creek Inn Specific Plan project. Of H:\pdata\15102412\EIR\Initial Study\TCI IS rev Nov. 2011.doc the 19 trees internal to the site that are currently proposed to be disturbed, four are located in areas proposed for internal streets and 15 are located within 12 of the proposed residential lots. Consistent with the City's Heritage T�ee Ordinance (Section 8.48.120 of the Temecula Municipal Code), the Temecula Creek Inn Specific Plan will include its own requirem.ents for protection and preservation of heritage trees based on the abovementioned Heritage Tree Survey. As a result, less than significant impacfs are anticipated as a result of this project. H:\pdata\15102412\EIR\Initial Study\TCI IS rev Nov. 2011.doc 5. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the project: Less'Than Potentially_ Significant With _ Less.Than lssues and Supporting Information Sources Significant . Mitigation : Significant _ No Im act Inco orated Im act_ Im act a Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in Section 15064.5? X b Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological cesource pursuant to Section 15064.5? X c Directly or indirectly destroy . a. unique paleontological resource. or site or uni ue eolo ic feature? . X d Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal.cemeteries? X Comments: 5.a.-d Potentially Significant Impact: The City of Temecula General Plan identifies #he project site as containing sensitive paleontological and archaeological areas, as well as the Stone House. In addition, according to the Phase I Cultural Resources Survey of the Temecula Creek Inn Property, Temecula, California prepared by Appliecl Earthworks, Inc. of Helix Environmental Planning, Inc., "Six new cultural resources were discovered and documented, and three pceviously recorded sites were examined and their records updated." Fucthermore, coordination needs to take place with the Pechanga Band of Luiseno lndians to develop a management plan for any resources that may be unearthed, to afford the Band an opportunity to monitor ground-disturbing activities and to participate in the decisions regarding collection and curation of any such resources. Development of the project site has potentially significant impacts and an EIR should be prepared. H:\pdata11 51 024 1 2\EIR\Initial Study\TCI IS rev Nov. 2011.doc 6. GEOLOGY AND SOILS. Would the project: � Cess Than - Potentially .- Significant With . Less Than Issues and Supporting Information Sources . Significant . Mitigation . Signific8nt No: Im act lncor orafed Im act - Im act . a Expose people or structures to potential substantial. adverse effects,.includin the.riskofloss, in�u , or.death involvin : i. Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on tfie most` recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of X Mines and Geolo S ecial Publication 42. ii Stron seismic. round shakin ? X iii. .Seismic-related round failure, includin li uefacfion? X iv Landslides? X b Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of to soil? . X c Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or thaf would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral � s readin , subsidence, li uefaction or colla se? X d Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks . to life or ro ert ? X e Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems X where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater? � Comments: 6.a.i. No Impact: According to the City of Temecula General Plan EIR the project area is located outside of the Alquist-Priolo Special Studies Zone. In addition, the Geotechnical Study prepared by Advanced Geotechnical Solutions, Inc. (Report Number 1102-05-B-1) states that, "The Wolf Valley and Temecula segments of the Elsinore Fault Zone are the closest active faults with both being approximately 500 feet north of the site. No impacts are anticipated as a result of the proposed Specific Plan. 6.a.ii.,iii., c, and d. Less Than Significant Impact With Mitigation Incorporated: The project area is � located within a. seismically active region. According to the Geotechnical Study prepared by Advanced Geotechnical Solutions; Inc. (Report Number 1102-05-B-1), "The potential for seismic hazards such as liquefaction, dry sand settlement, ground oscillations, lateral spreading and dynamic settlement exist on site to varying degrees." Detailed mitigation recommendations are included , in the document. All development projects will have to be evaluated individually through soils reports and geotechnical studies and will be required to meet current building codes at the time of construction. The EIR should address all geologic impacts and include mitigation to reduce the impacts to a less than significant impact. 6.a.iv. Less Than Significant Impact: The project area does contain some significant slopes; but does not haVe a history of landslides. New slopes resulting from development will be reviewed by Planning and Public Works and be designed to minimize slope and impacts. As a result, the Specific Plan is not anticipated to result in significant exposure of people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving landslides. 6.b. Less Than Significant Impact: There is always the potential for soil erosion whenever ground disturbing activities occur. Any potential impact will be addressed by individual development plans and H:\pdata\15102412\EIR\Initial Study\TCI IS rev Nov. 2011.doc implementation of standard grading erosion control measures through the grading permit.. All projects will be required to develop in accordance with City standards, including National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) standariis, which require the implementation of erosion control and best management practices (BMPs). tess than significant impacts are anticipated as a result of the proposed Specific Plan. 6.e. No Impact: A public sewer system is available throughout the entire project area and all future development projects within the area will be required to connect to the public sewer system: Septic tanks will not be utilized within the project area. No impacts are anticipated as a result of the proposed Specific Plan. H:\pdata\15102412\EIR\Initial Study\TCI IS rev Nov: 2011.doc 7. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS. Would the project: Cess Than Potentially .. Significant With , Less Than Issues and SuppoRing Info�mation Sources Significant Mitigation . Significant : No - Im act. Inco orafed Im act Im act . a Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that. may have a significant. impact on the environment? X b Conflict with an applicable plan; policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse ases? X Comments: � 7.a:-b. Potentially Significant Impact: Air quality impacts as they relate to construction activity, traffic, and a variety of future building emissions, may result in air quality and greenhouse gas impacts: As'a result, an EIR should be prepared to assess the impacts associated with the proposed project. H:\pdata\15102412\EIR\Initial Study\TCI IS rev Nov. 2011.doc � - . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . �� 8. HA2ARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS. Would the project: Cess Than - Potentially - Significant With _ Less Than Issues and Supporting Info�mation Sources Significant . Mitigation . Significant : No . Im act. Inco orafed Im act Im act . a Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transportation, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? X . b Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into i the environment? X c Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of X an existin or ro osed school? d Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a si nificant hazard fo the ublic or the. environment? X e For a project located within an airport land use plan or, � where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of �. a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the X , ro'ect area? f For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or workin in the ro'ect area? X g Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency X evacuation lan? h Expose people or structures to a significant risk or loss, injury. or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where X residences are intermixed with wildlands? Comments: 8:a. Less Than Significant Impact: Future development within the Specific Plan area will include typical uses associated with commercial, hotel and residential uses, which do not use hazardous materials beyond typical cleaning supplies. A less than significant impact is anticipated. 8.b. Less Than Significant Impact: It is not anticipated that the project would create a significant hazard to the public or the environment resulting in the release of hazardous materials into the environment. Therefore, less than significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 8.c Less Than Significant Impact: The Specific Plan area is not within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed public school, where the potential for hazardous emissions or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste would cause an impact to sensitive receptor sites. The operation of construction equipment and machinery for future development projects may emit some hazardous emissions, but these impacts will be addressed in the Air Quality section. Less than significant impacts are anticipated. H:\pdata\15102412\EIR\Initial Study\TCI IS rev Nov. 2011.doc 8.d. Potentially Significant Impact: Per the City's GIS Map System, The Specific Plan area is not located on a hazardous waste site. However, the project area is adjacent to an abandoned landfill and more information is needed to assess the potential impacts. As a result, an EIR should be prepared. 8.e.f. No Impact: The Specific Plan area is not located within an airport land use plan or within two miles of a public o private airstrip according to Figure LU-2 in the Land Use Element of the City of Temecula General Plan. No impact on airport uses will result from the project. 8.g. No Impact: Development within the Specific Plan will be required to be designed so as not to interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan. No impacts are anticipated. 8.h. Less than Significant Impact: According to the City of Temecula General Plan and GIS Map Data, a portion of the project is within a High Fire Hazard Area. A Fuel Modification Plan .will be incorporated into the Temecula Creek Inn Specific Plan to address structure setback and landscape requirements to address this hazard. As a result, less than significant impacts are anticipated as a result of the project. H:\pdata\15102412\EIR\Initial Study\TCI IS rev Nov. 2011.doc 9. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY. Would the project: Cess Than Potentially . Significant With . Less Than Issues and Supporting Info�mation Sources - Significant . Mitigation Significant No. Im act. Inco orafed Im act Im ac4 a Violate any water quality standards or waste discha�ge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade water ualit ? X b Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater rechacge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would.drop to a level which would not support existing land . uses or planned uses for which ermits have been ranted ? X c Subsfantially alter tfie existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site? X d Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount . of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off-site? X e Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned storm water drainage X systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? f Re uire the. re aration of a ro`ect-s ecific 1NQMP? X g Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Ma or other flood hazard delineation ma ? X h Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures whicli would im ede or redirect flood flows? X i Expose people. or structures to a significant risk of loss, - injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? X Inundation b seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? X - Comments: 9.a: Less Than Significant Impact: Future development within the Specific Plan area will be required to be designed so as not to violate any water quality standards or was discharge requirements. All development will be required to comply with the requirements of the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit from the State Water Resources Control Board. By complying with the NPDES requirements, and potential impacts of future development projects within the Specific Plan area are anticipated to be less than significant. 9.b. Less Than Significant Impact: The proposed Specific Plan is not anticipated to result in a substantial depletion of groundwater supplies or substantial interFerence with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level. The proposed Specific Plan is not anticipated to have an effect on the quantity and quality of ground waters, either through H:\pdata\15102412\EIR\Initial Study\TCI IS rev Nov. 2011.doc direct additions or withdrawals or through interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavation or through substantial loss of groundwater recharge capability. Less than significant impacts are antici,pated as a result of the project. _ 9.c., and d. Less Than Significant Impact: Based on the proposed Land Use Plan, and as stated in a Preliminary Drainage Study Report prepared by Latitude 33 Planning and Engineering, "Existing drainage patterns will be maintained and there will be no net diversion as a result of the development." Therefore, the proposed Specific Plan would not alter the course of a stream or river, nor result in substantial alteration to the existing pattern of the site in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation andbr flooding .on- or off-site, or. A less than significant impact is anticipated as a result of the proposed Specific Plan. 9.e. Less Than Significant Impact: The project will be required to be designed so that Development . within the Specific Plan area will not create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned storm water drainage systems. A less than significant impact is anticipated as a result of the proposed Specific Plan. 9.f. Less Than Significant Impact: A Draft Wafer Quality Management Plan (WQMP) has .already been prepared and reviewed by the City. The project will be required to be designed so that it will not result in substantial additional s.o.urces of polluted runoff through implementation of the final WQMP document. As a result, less than significant impacts are anticipated as a result of the proposed Specific Plan. 9.g., and h. Potentially Significant Impact: A portion of the Specific Plan area (adjacent to Temecula Creek) is within a 100 year floodplain and it appears the proposed site design does not ayoid this area. As a result, an EIR should be prepared to assess the impacts associated with the project. 9.i, Potentially Significant Impact: According to the City of Temecula General Plan and GIS Mapping, the SpecificPlan area is within a dam inundation area. As a result, development within the Specific Plan area could potentially result in the exposure of people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death 'involving flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam. As a result, an EIR should be prepared to assess the impacts of the project. 9.j. No Impact: The Specific Plan area is not subject to inundation by sieche or tsunami and is not anticipated to be subject to mudflow as these events are not known to occur.in this region. No impacts are anticipated as a result of the project. H:lpdata\15102412\EIR\Initial Study\TCI IS rev Nov. 2011.doc 10. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the project: Less Than. Potentially Significant With . Less Than Issues and Supporting Information Sources Significant - Mitigation : Significant No Im act Inco orated Im act Im ect a Ph sicall divide an established communit ? X b Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but .not limited. to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? X c Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan? X Comments: 10.a. No Impact: The proposed Specific Plan is intended to facilitate the development of the Temecula Creek Inn into. a cohesive and connected, master-planned, 18=hole golf course resort and community. The proposed project will not divide an established community. _ No impacts are anticipated as a result of the project. 10.b: Potentially Significant Impact: The proposed project is a new Specific Plan, which .will require an amendment to the City of Temecula Generaf Plan and a Zone Change. As a result, an EIR should be prepared to assess the impacts associated with the project. 10.c. No Impact: The project has already been reviewed and contains an approved Determination of Biologically Equivalent or Superior Preservation (DBESP) .approved Habitat Acquisition and Negotiation Strategy (HAN.S), and Regional Conservation Authority Joint Project Review Consistency Determination. All development plan projects within the Specific Plan area will require review for consistency with the approved documents and the Western Riverside County Multi Species Habitat and Conservation Plan (MSHCP); and all development projects will continue to be required fo undergo this review. As .a result, no impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. H:\pdata\15102412\EIR\Initial Study\TCI IS rev Nov. 2011.doc 11: MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the project: Less Than. Potentially SignificantWith . LessShan Issues and Supporting Inforrriation Sources Significant - Mitigation : Significant No Im act Inco orated Im act- Im act a Result in the loss of . availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state? X b. Result in the loss of availability of a locally-important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local eneral lan, s ecific lan or other land use. lan? X Comments: 11.a.-b. No Impact: The proposed Specific Plan will not result : in the loss of available, known mineral resource or in the loss of an available, locally important mineral resource recovery site. The State Geologist has given the Gity of Temecula a classification of MRZ-3a. MRZ-3 areas contain sedimentary deposits that have the potential for supplying sand and gravel for concrete and crushed stone for aggregate. However, these areas are not considered to contain mineral resources of significant economic value. No impact is anticipated as a result of the proposed Specific Plan: H:\pdata\15102412\EIR\Initial Study\TCI IS rev Nov. 2011.doc r 12. NOISE. Would the project result in: Less Than_ Potentially, Significant With Less Than , Issues and Supporting Inforrriation Sources Significant Mitigation - Significant . No Im act' Incor orated Im act Im act a Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels. in excess.of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other a encies? X b Exposure ofi persons to or generation of excessive roundborne vibration or roundborne noise levels? .. X c A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise ievels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the ro'ect? X d A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the ro'ect? X e For a.project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a. public airport or public use airport, would the . ; project expose people residing or working in #he project area to excessive noise levels? X f For a project within fhe vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose people residing or working in the ro'ect acea to excessive noise levels? X Comments: 12.a.-b; Potentially Significant Impact: Development within the Specific Plan area may result in the.exposure of persons to or the generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local General Plan or. noise ordinance due to construction; traffic noise from Interstate 15 and Rainbow Canyon Road,.or from other activities within the Specific Plan area. In addition, impacts such as blasting that could result from the proposed Conditional Use Permit for the Liberty Quarry just beyond the City limits in Riverside County should .be noted in the .noise assessment. As a result, an EIR should be prepared to assess the impacts associated with the project. 12.c.-d. Potentially Significant Impact: Development within the Specific Plan area may result in a substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project and may result in a substantial temporary or periodic increase an ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project. As a.result, an EIR should be prepared to assess the impacts associated with the project. 12.e.-f. No Impact: The Specific Plan area is not located within any airport land use plan nor is it located near any private air strip. The closes airport with an associated Comprehensive Land Use Plan is the French Valley Airport, which is located approximately 6 miles north of the project site. No impacts are associated as a result of the proposed Specific Plan. H:\pdata\15102412\EIR\Initial Study\TCI IS rev Nov. 2011.doc 13. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the project: Cess Than Potentially . Significant With . Less Than Issues and Supporting Info�mation Sources Significant Mitigation . Significant . No. �' Im act lnco orafed Im act Im acE . a Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for ezample, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or.other infrastructure ? X b Displace substantial numbers of existing . housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? X . c Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? X Comments: 13.a. Potentially Significant Impact: ,The proposed Specific Plan would allow for the development of 409 to 535 single family and multi-family dwelling units. This proposed development was not anticipated in the previous General Plan update and the project requires a General Plan Amendment. These units, along with the extension of new infrastructure and 5 new gated access points to Rainbow Canyon Road may require improvements to Rainbow Canyon Road that could have a potentially significant impact.. As a result, an EIR should be prepared to assess the impacts associated with the project. . 13.b.-c. No Impact: The proposed Specific Plan would allow development on an existing golf course. The project will not result in the displacement of a substantial number of existing housing, nor will it. result in the displacement of substantial numbers of people. No impacts are anticipated. , H:\pdata\15102412\EIR\Initial Study\TCI IS rev Nov. 2011.doc 14. PUBLIC SERVICES. Cess Than Potentially .- Significant With : Less Than Issues and Supporting Info�mation Sources . � Significant . Mitigation . Significant . No- Im act. lncor orafed tm act - Im act a Would fhe project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which � could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other erformance ob'ectives for an of the ublic services: Fire rotection2 X Police rotection? X Schools? X Parks? X. Other ublic facilities? X Comments: 14.a: Potentially Significant Impact: The.proposed Specific Plan would allow for the development of 409 to 535 single family and multi-family dwelling units. This proposed development was not anticipated in the previous General Plan update and the project requires a General Plan Amendment: Future development of the Specific Plan area will incrementally increase the need for fhese services. Therefore, an EIR should be prepared to assess the impacts associated with the project. H:\pdata\15102412\EIR\Initial Study\TCI IS rev Nov. 2011.doc 15. RECREATION. Cess Than Potentially .. Significant With Less Than Issues and Supporting Info�mation Sources . Significant . Mitigation . Significant . No. Im act Inco orated Im act Im act . a Would the projecf increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional .parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? X b Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which mi ht have an adverse h sical effect on#he environment? X Comments: 15.a. Less Than Significant lmpact: The proposed Specific Plan and associated . residential development is anticipated to.result in an increase in activity at some of the surrounding City and regional parks such as the Wolf Creek Sports Park. However, much of the demands will be met onsite via park, trail and resort facilities. Therefore, the increase in aetivity is not anticipated to be so great as to result in substantial physical. deterioration of the park facilities. Less than significant impacts are anticipated as a result of the project. 15.b. No Impact: . The proposed Specific Plan does not propose the construction or expansion of recreational facilities fhat might have an adverse physical effect on the environment. No irnpact is anticipated as a result of the proposed Specific Plan. � , H:\pdata\15102412\EIR\Initial Study\TCI IS rev Nov. 2011.doc 16. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC. Would the project: Cess Than Potentially .. Significant With . Less Than Issues and SuppoRing Into�mation Sources _ Significant . Mitigation . Significant . No. . Im act Inco orafed Im act Im ac4 a Conflict. with an applicable plan, ordinance or policy establishing measures of effectiveness for the performance of the circulation system, taking into account all modes of transportation including mass transit and non-motorized travel and relevant components of the .circulation system, , including 6ut not iimited to intersections, streets, highways and freeways; pedestrian and bicycle paths and mass transit? X b Conflict with an . applicable congestion management program, including, but not limited to level of service - standards and travel demand measures, or other standards established by the county congestion management agency for desi nated roads or hi hwa s? X c Result in a change in air traffic pattems, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safet risks? X d Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses e. ., farm e ui ment ? X e Result in inade uate emer enc access? X f Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs regarding . public transit, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities, or otherwise decrease the erformance or safet of such facilities? X Comments: 16.a.-b. Potentially Significant Impact: The proposed Specific Plan for the Temecula Creek Inn may have the potential to cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system (i.e., result in a substantial increase in either .the number of vehicle trips, the volume to capacity ratio on roads or congestion at intersections) and may have the potential to exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service standard established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways. As a result, an EIR should be prepared to assess the impacts associated with the project. 16.c. No Impact: The Specific Plan area is not anticipated to result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks. The Specific Plan area is not within the French Valley Airport influence area; therefore, no impacts are anticipated as a result of the proposed Specific Plan. 16.d.-e. Less Than Significant Impact: All development within the Specific Plan will be required to be designed consistent with City standards, including street design, emergency access, and the proposed uses within the Specific Plan will be compatible. Less Than Significant Impacts are anticipated as a result of the proposed Specific Plan. 16.f. No Impact: All development projects within the Specific Plan area will be required to be consistent with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks). No impacts are anticipated as a result of the proposed Specific Plan. H:\pdata\15102412\EIR\Initial Study\TCI IS rev Nov. 2011.doc 17. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the project: Less THan ' Potentially , Significant Witli : Less Than' Issues and Supporting Information Sources Significant : Mitigation - Significanf No . Im act inco orated . Im act im act . a Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the a licable Re ional Water Qualit Control Board? X b Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction .of which could cause significant env.ironmental �effects? X c Require or result in the construction of new storm water draihage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental , effects? X d Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the projecY from existing entitlements : and resources, or are new or , ex anded entitlements needed? X e Result in . a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the projecYs projected demand in addition to the rovider's existin commitments? X f Be.served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the ro'ecYs solid waste dis osal needs? X g Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and re ulations related to solid waste? X Comments: 17.a.-g. Potentially Significant Impact: The proposed Specific Plan may have the potential to exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applic.able Regional Water Quality Control Board, may require the. expansion of water or wastewater treatment facilities, may require the construction of new storm water drainage facilities, may impact water supplies from_existing entitlements or resources, or may be affected by landfill capacity. Any deficiencies in the area of utilities and service systems may result in significant impacts on the environment. As a result, an EIR should be prepared to assess the impacts associated with the project. J , H:\pdata\15102412\EIR\Initial Study\TCI IS rev Nov. 2011.doc 18. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE. Would the project: . Cess Than Potentially -- Significant With . Less Than Significant Mitigation . Significant . No Issues and Su ortin Information Sources Im act lnco orafed Im act Im ac4 a Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment substantially reduce the. habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or ahimal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or rehisto ? X b Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but .cumulatively considerable ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of robable future ro'ects ? X c Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directl. .or indirectl ? X Comments: . . 18.a. Potentially Significant lmpact: Based on evaluations and discussions contained in this Initial Study, the proposed Specific Plan may have a significant potential to degrade the quality of the environment. Additional information is required to determine whether the proposed Specific Plan would result in a significant impact on the environment. As a result, an EIR should be prepared to assess the potential impacts identified in this initial study. 18.b.-c. Potentially Significant Impact: Based on evaluations and discussions contained in this Initial Study, the proposed Specific Plan Amendment may have impacts that are cumulatively considerable as a result of the incremental effects of the project in context of the effects, past, current and probable future projects. As a result, an EIR should be prepared to assess the potential impacts identified in this initial study. H:\pdata\15102412\EIR\Initial Study\TCI IS rev Nov. 2011.doc 19. EARLIER ANALYSES. Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering program EIR, or other CEQA process, one or more effects have been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section 15063(c)(3)(D). In this case a discussion should identify . the. following on attached sheets. a Earlier anal ses used. Identi earlier anal ses and state where the are available for review. b Impacts adequately addressed. Identify which affects from the above checklisf were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed b miti ation measures based on the earlier anal sis. c Mitigation measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated," describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined. from the earlier document and the extent to which the address site-s ecific conditions for the ro'ect. SOURCES 1. City of Temecula General Plan 2. City of Temecula General Plan Final Environmental Impact Report 3. South Coast Air Quality Management District CEQA Air Quality Handbook : 4. City of Temecula GIS 5: . Traffic Scoping Study, March 2, 2011, Urban Systems Associates 6. Geotechnical Review, February 23, 2011, Advanced Geotechnical Solutions Inc. 7. Preliminary Drainage Study, March 2011, Latitude 33 Planning & Engineering 8. Water Quality Management Plan, March 2011, Latitude 33 Planning 8� Engineering 9. Herifage Tree Survey, February 2010, Latitude 33 Planning & Engineering � 10. Approved Determination of Biologically Equivalent or Superior Preservation (DBESP), Helix Environmental, December 2010 11. Approved Habitat Evaluation and Acquisition Negotiation Strategy (HANS), Helix Environmental; ` December 2010 12. Regional Conservation Authority Joint Project Review Consistency Determination, Helix Environmental, January 17, 2011. 13. Phase I Gultural Resources Survey, Applied EarthWorks Inc., February 2006 H:\pdata\15102412\EIR\Initial Study\TCI IS rev Nov. 2011.doc