Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout102115 PC AgendaIn compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you need special assistance to participate in this meeting, please contact the office of the City Clerk (951) 694-6444. Notification 48 hours prior to a meeting will enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility to that meeting [28 CFR 35.102.35.104 ADA Title II]. TEMECULA PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS 41000 MAIN STREET TEMECULA, CALIFORNIA OCTOBER 21, 2015 — 6:00 PM CALL TO ORDER: Flag Salute: Roll Call: PUBLIC COMMENTS Next in Order: Resolution: 15-21 Commissioner Youmans Guerriero, Harter, Telesio, Turley-Trejo and Youmans A total of 15 minutes is provided so members of the public may address the Commission on items that are not listed on the Agenda. Speakers are limited to three minutes each. If you desire to speak to the Commission about an item not on the Agenda, a salmon colored "Request to Speak" form should be filled out and filed with the Commission Secretary. When you are called to speak, please come forward and state your name for the record. For all other agenda items a "Request to Speak" form must be filed with the Commission Secretary prior to the Commission addressing that item. There is a three-minute time limit for individual speakers. NOTICE TO THE PUBLIC All matters listed under Consent Calendar are considered to be routine and all will be enacted by one roll call vote. There will be no discussion of these items unless Members of the Planning Commission request specific items be removed from the Consent Calendar for separate action.. CONSENT CALENDAR 1 Minutes RECOMMENDATION: 1.1 Approve the Action Minutes of September 16, 2015 1 PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS Any person may submit written comments to the Planning Commission before a public hearing or may appear and be heard in support of or in opposition to the approval of the project(s) at the time of hearing. If you challenge any of the projects in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing or in written correspondences delivered to the Commission Secretary at, or prior to, the public hearing. Any person dissatisfied with any decision of the Planning Commission may file an appeal of the Commission's decision. Said appeal must be filed within 15 calendar days after service of written notice of the decision, must be filed on the appropriate Planning Department application and must be accompanied by the appropriate filing fee. 2 Planning Application No. PA15-0513, a Development Plan for an Audi dealership encompassing a showroom and offices, auto parts and service facility, and a bay for car washing and detailing totaling approximately 37,500 square feet, and Planning Application No. PA15-1477, a Sign Program for the proposed Audi dealership to be located at 40955 Temecula Center Drive, generally located on the west side of Temecula Center Drive between Temecula Center Drive and Interstate 15, approximately 1,000 feet west of Ynez Road within the Harveston Specific Plan, Stuart Fisk RECOMMENDATION: 2.1 Adopt a resolution entitled: PC RESOLUTION NO. 15- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA15-0513, A DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR A AUDI AUTO -DEALERSHIP ENCOMPASSING A SHOWROOM AND OFFICES, AUTO PARTS AND SERVICE FACILITY, AND A BAY FOR CAR WASHING AND DETAILING TOTALING APPROXIMATELY 37,500 SQUARE FEET TO BE LOCATED AT 40955 TEMECULA CENTER DRIVE, GENERALLY LOCATED ON THE WEST SIDE OF TEMECULA CENTER DRIVE BETWEEN TEMECULA CENTER DRIVE AND INTERSTATE 15, APPROXIMATELY 1,000 FEET WEST OF YNEZ ROAD (A PORTION OF A.P.N. 916-400-032) 2.2 Adopt a resolution entitled: PC RESOLUTION NO. 15- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA, CALIFORNIA CERTIFYING THE SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT PREPARED FOR THE AUDI OF TEMECULA PROJECT, ADOPTING FINDINGS PURSUANT TO THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT, AND ADOPTING A MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM IN CONNECTION THEREWITH FOR THE AUDI OF TEMECULA PROJECT TO BE LOCATED 2 AT 40955 TEMECULA CENTER DRIVE, GENERALLY LOCATED ON THE WEST SIDE OF TEMECULA CENTER DRIVE BETWEEN TEMECULA CENTER DRIVE AND INTERSTATE 15, APPROXIMATELY 1,000 FEET WEST OF YNEZ ROAD (A PORTION OF A.P.N. 916-400-032) 2.3 Adopt a resolution entitled: PC RESOLUTION NO. 15- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA15-1447, A SIGN PROGRAM FOR AN AUDI AUTO -DEALERSHIP ENCOMPASSING WALL SIGNS, MONUMENT SIGNS, AND DIRECTIONAL SIGNS LOCATED AT 40955 TEMECULA CENTER DRIVE, GENERALLY LOCATED ON THE WEST SIDE OF TEMECULA CENTER DRIVE, BETWEEN TEMECULA CENTER DRIVE BETWEEN TEMECULA CENTER DRIVE AND INTERSTATE 15, APPROXIMATELY 1,000 FEET WEST OF YNEZ ROAD (A PORTION OF A.P.N. 916-400-032) 3 Long Range Planning Proiect No. LR10-0014 consisting of: 1) The Uptown Jefferson Specific Plan; 2) A General Plan Amendment to: (a) amend the Land Use Policy Map, assigning the territory within the Uptown Jefferson Specific Plan with a land use designation of "Specific Plan Implementation (SPI)" and specifying that all land uses within the Specific Plan shall comply with the provisions of the Specific Plan; (b) amend the Circulation Element by changing the roadway classification for Jefferson Avenue, north of Winchester Road, from a Principle Arterial to a Maior Arterial; and (c) make textual amendments by incorporating reference to the Uptown Jefferson Specific Plan in various chapters of the General Plan; 3) A Zoning Map Amendment adding the Uptown Jefferson Specific Plan boundaries; 4) A Temecula Municipal Code amendment revising the Adult Business Overlay boundary by removing it from the Uptown Jefferson Specific Plan area; and 5) Certification of the Programmatic Environmental Impact Report, Dale West RECOMMENDATION: 3.1 Adopt a resolution entitled: PC RESOLUTION NO. 15- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA, CALIFORNIA RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA CERTIFY THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR THE UPTOWN JEFFERSON SPECIFIC PLAN, ADOPT FINDINGS PURSUANT TO THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT, ADOPT A STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS, AND ADOPT A MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM IN CONNECTION WITH THE ADOPTION OF THE UPTOWN JEFFERSON SPECIFIC PLAN 3.2 Adopt a resolution entitled: 3 PC RESOLUTION NO. 15- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPT AN ORDINANCE ENTITLED "AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA ADOPTING THE UPTOWN JEFFERSON SPECIFIC PLAN, AMENDING THE TEMECULA ZONING CODE TO ADD THE UPTOWN JEFFERSON SPECIFIC PLAN TO THE APPROVED SPECIFIC PLAN ZONES, AMENDING THE TEMECULA ZONING MAP TO REFLECT THE UPTOWN JEFFERSON SPECIFIC PLAN, AND AMENDING THE ADULT BUSINESS OVERLAY ZONE TO ELIMINATE THE UPTOWN JEFFERSON SPECIFIC PLAN AREA" AND A RESOLUTION ENTITLED "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA AMENDING THE LAND USE ELEMENT, THE LAND USE POLICY MAP, THE CIRCULATION ELEMENT, AND THE COMMUNITY DESIGN ELEMENT OF THE GENERAL PLAN IN CONFORMITY WITH THE UPTOWN JEFFERSON SPECIFIC PLAN" 4 Planning Application Number LR15-1411, an Ordinance that allows for the planning, designing, installing, maintaining, and managing water efficient landscapes in new construction and rehabilitated projects within the City of Temecula, Dale West RECOMMENDATION: 4.1 Adopt a resolution entitled: PC RESOLUTION NO. 15- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPT AN ORDINANCE ENTITLED "AMENDING CHAPTER 17.32 OF THE TEMECULA MUNICIPAL CODE TO UPDATE THE WATER EFFICIENT LANDSCAPE DESIGN STANDARDS; DECLARING THE URGENCY THEREOF; AND FINDING THIS ORDINANCE IS EXEMPT FROM THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENT QUALITY ACT (CEQA) UNDER CEQA GUIDELINES SECTION 15308, CLASS 8 (LONG RANGE PLANNING PROJECT NO. LR15- 1411)" 5 Planning Application Number LR15-1285, an amendment to the Temecula Municipal Code to revise the expiration date and time extensions for Development Plans, Dale West RECOMMENDATION 5.1 Adopt a resolution entitled: PC RESOLUTION NO. 15- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA ADOPT ORDINANCE NO. 15- AMENDING THE TEMECULA MUNICIPAL CODE BY EXTENDING THE 4 TIME FOR COMMENCEMENT OF CONSTRUCTION UNDER CERTAIN DEVELOPMENT PERMITS. REPORTS FROM COMMISSIONERS REPORTS FROM COMMISSION SUBCOMMITTEE(S) DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT REPORT ADJOURNMENT Next regular meeting: Planning Commission, Wednesday, November 4, 2015, 6:00 PM City Council Chambers, 41000 Main Street, Temecula, California. NOTICE TO THE PUBLIC The agenda packet (including staff reports) will be available for public viewing in the Main Reception area at the Temecula Civic Center (41000 Main Street, Temecula) after 4:00 PM the Friday before the Planning Commission meeting. At that time, the agenda packet may also be accessed on the City's website — www.cityoftemecula.orq — and will be available for public viewing at the respective meeting. Supplemental material received after the posting of the Agenda Any supplemental material distributed to a majority of the Commission regarding any item on the agenda, after the posting of the agenda, will be available for public viewing in the Main Reception area at the Temecula Civic Center (41000 Main Street, Temecula, 8:00 AM — 5:00 PM). In addition, such material may be accessed on the City's website — www.cityoftemecula.org — and will be available for public viewing at the respective meeting. If you have questions regarding any item on the agenda for this meeting, please contact the Planning Department at the Temecula Civic Center, (951) 694-6400. 5 ACTION MINUTES TEMECULA PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS 41000 MAIN STREET TEMECULA, CALIFORNIA SEPTEMBER 16, 2015 — 6:00 PM Next in Order: Resolution: 15-21 CALL TO ORDER: Flag Salute: Vice Chairperson Guerriero Roll Call: Guerriero, Harter, Telesio, Turley-Trejo and Youmans Staff Attendees: Watson, De La Torre, Lee, Fisk, Lehner, and Jacobo PUBLIC COMMENTS A total of 15 minutes is provided so members of the public may address the Commission on items that are not listed on the Agenda. Speakers are limited to three minutes each. If you desire to speak to the Commission about an item not on the Agenda, a salmon colored "Request to Speak" form should be filled out and filed with the Commission Secretary. When you are called to speak, please come forward and state your name for the record. For all other agenda items a "Request to Speak" form must be filed with the Commission Secretary prior to the Commission addressing that item. There is a three-minute time limit for individual speakers. NOTICE TO THE PUBLIC All matters listed under Consent Calendar are considered to be routine and all will be enacted by one roll call vote. There will be no discussion of these items unless Members of the Planning Commission request specific items be removed from the Consent Calendar for separate action.. CONSENT CALENDAR 1 Minutes RECOMMENDATION: 1 1.1 Approve the Action Minutes of September 2, 2015; APPROVED 5-0; MOTION BY COMMISSIONER TELESIO, SECOND BY COMMISSIONER GUERRIERO; AYE VOTES FROM COMMISSIONERS TELESIO, HARTER, GUERRIERO, TURLEY-TREJO AND YOUMANS COMMISSION BUSINESS 2 Old Town Market Opportunities Study (presentation by Paul Marra, Keyser Marston Associates, Inc.) RECOMMENDATION: 2.1 Receive and file; RECEIVE AND FILE REPORTS FROM COMMISSIONERS REPORTS FROM COMMISSION SUBCOMMITTEE(S) DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT REPORT ADJOURNMENT Next regular meeting: Planning Commission, Wednesday, October 7, 2015, 6:00 PM City Council Chambers, 41000 Main Street, Temecula, California. Lanae Turley-Trejo Luke Watson, Interim Chairperson Director of Community Development 2 DATE OF MEETING: TO: FROM: PREPARED BY: PROJECT SUM MARY: RECOMMENDATION: CEQA: STAFF REPORT — PLANNING CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNING COMMISSION October 21, 2015 Planning Commission Chairperson and members of the Planning Commission Luke Watson, Director of Community Development Stuart Fisk, Case Planner Planning Application No. PA15-0513, a Development Plan for an Audi dealership encompassing a showroom and offices, auto parts and service facility, and a bay for car washing and detailing totaling approximately 37,500 square feet, and Planning Application No. PA15-1477, a Sign Program for the proposed Audi dealership to be located at 40955 Temecula Center Drive, generally located on the west side of Temecula Center Drive between Temecula Center Drive and Interstate 15, approximately 1,000 feet west of Ynez Road within the Harveston Specific Plan Approve with Conditions Supplemental Environmental Impact Report to supplement the previously adopted Harveston Specific Plan El R; CEQA Section 15163, Supplement to an EI R PROJECT DATA SUMMARY Name of Applicant: General Plan Designation: Zoning Designation: Existing Conditions/ Land Use: Site: North: South: East: West: Andrew Dzulynsky, Ware Malcomb Architects & Kathryn Conniff, Horine Group, representing Hoehn Motors Service Commercial Harveston Specific Plan Vacant Mercedes-Benz of Temecula/Service Commercial Vacant land/Service Commercial Vacant land/Service Commercial 1-15 Freeway Existinq/Proposed Min/Max Allowable or Required Lot Area: 4.5 acres 30,000 square feet minimum Total Floor Area/Ratio: 0.19 .40 target/1.5 maximum Landscape Area/Coverage: 36% 20% Parking Required/Provided: 173 145 spaces required (One space proposed per 300 square feet of indoor sales area; one space per 300 square feet of office space; one space per 1,000 square feet of gross outdoor sales area; four spaces per service bay) BACKGROUND SUMMARY The applicant submitted a Development Plan application on April 6, 2015 and a Sign Program application on September 28, 2015. The Development Plan proposes a single story (plus mezzanine) buiding for an Audi dealership including a showroom, parts and service facility, and associated car wash facility totaling approximately 37,500 square feet. The car wash bay is also contained within the service area portion of the builidng. City staff and the applicant have worked together to achieve a high quality site plan and design. At the beginning of the review process for the project, staff determined that a Supplmental Environmental Impact Report (SEIR) would be required for the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) compliance. Approximately 45 employees would work at the proposed dealership on a daily basis. The proposed showroom operation hours would be from 8:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m., Monday through Friday; from 9;00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. on Saturday, and from 10:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. on Sunday. The automotive service center would be open to the public Monday through Friday from 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m.; Saturday from 8:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m., and would be closed on Sundays.open. Due to the close proximity of Harveston residences in the area, the City held two community meetings regarding the Audi proposal. The first Harveston Community meeting was held on March 25, 2015. The discussion began with an introduction of the project to the community presented by the applicant's representitives. The primary concern identified by the residents was the desire to have a traffic signal installed the the intersection of Ynez Road and Temecula Center Drive/Waverly Lane. As a result of this discussion, staff had a warrant analysis prepared to assess the current need for a signal at this location as part of the environmental review for the project. The second Harveston Community meeting was held on August 13, 2015. The purpose of this meeting was to provide Harveston residents with an update on the project and to discuss the conclusions of the environmental review completed for the project. The City's environmental consultant (ESA) and Public Works staff explained that warrants for a traffic signal at the intersection of Ynez Road and Temecula Center Drive/Waverly Lane will not be met with this project, but the the signal would be required at some point with future development within the Harveston commercial properties along Ynez Road. Staff discussed the project timeline and environmental review process and encouraged residents to voice any concerns at the meeting or through the environmental review process. Questions and comments from the residents were positive and favorable to the project. Staff has worked with the applicant to ensure that all concerns have been addressed, and the applicant concurs with the recommended Conditions of Approval. 2 ANALYSIS Site Plan The project conforms to the development regulations of the Service Commercial zone within the Harveston Specific Plan. The building setbacks meet the minimum setback requirements and the FAR of 0.19 is far below the 0.40 target and 1.5 maximum. The 4.5 acre site is designed for the dealership to take advantage of it's freeway frontage while providing nearby residents with a substantial buffer. The showroom will face Temecula Center Drive and the service area will be placed toward the rear of the site. A "jewel box" display area will be incorporated into the building facing Interstate 15 to provide a presense along the freeway corridor. The showroom/sales office portion of the building is separated from the service area by service drop off lanes, but the two portions of the building are connected by a canopy over the service drop off area. The car wash facility is incorporated into the service area of the building. Two points of entry to the project are provided off Temecula Center Drive. The primary entrance to the service area will be the northern entry, while the parking areas for the showroom are located off from both the northern and southern entries. Emergency access is provided around the perimeter of the site, which will also be used for the drop-off of new vehicles. Approximately 28 parking spaces would be allocated for display of vehicles and would be situated at the front of the project site. In addition, approximately 13 display spaces will be included within the indoor showroom area. A total of approximately 29 customer parking spaces would be located along the south side of the showroom and in the parking stalls located at the north side of the showroom. Roughly 72 parking spaces would be located on the north and south side of the service building for customer vehicles in for service. A total of 44 employee parking spaces would be provided at the parking area on the north side of the building. The total number of spaces provided for sales, service, and customers, and display is 173 spaces. The City's Development Code requires four spaces per service bay (72 required spaces) and one space per 300 square feet of retail or office space (57 required spaces). The City's Development Code does not have specific parking standards for auto dealerships due to the vast array of parking needs for the various types of dealerships. The industry standard of parking for auto dealerships is one space per 1,000 square feet of gross outdoor sales area (16 required spaces). The total number of spaces required based on these uses is 145 spaces. Landscaping The landscape plan conforms to the landscape requirements of the Harveston Specific Plan. Six species of trees are proposed for the project, including Bottle Tree, Desert Museum Palo Verde, London Plane Tree, Coast Live Oak, Mesa Oak, and Date Palm. The Harveston Specific Plan requires a minimum of 20 feet of landscape buffer and a 20 foot building setback along Temecula Center Drive. The project provides a minimum of 20 feet to over 40 feet of landscaping along Temecula Center Drive. Consistent with the Specific Plan, London Plane Trees will be planted along Temecula Center Drive as the street tree for the project at locations to the north and south of the project access driveways. Date Palms will be placed immediately in front of the building along Temecula Center Drive. The Specific Plan also requires a minimum 50 foot landscaped buffer/setback area adjacent to the Interstate 15 right-of-way. The project provides this required 50 foot landscape buffer/setback and includes the landscape materials specified by the Specific Plan, including Coast Live Oak and Mesa Oaks. In addition, this area will be planted with California Lilac, 3 California Buckwheat, Deer Grass, Dwarf Coyote Brush, and Purple Leaf Sage. Trees will be placed strategically to allow visibility of the glass curtain wall "jewel box" vehicle display built into the southwest corner of the building. An approximately 60 foot wide area along the southern project boundary is designated for future development and will be planted with a hydroseed mix, consistent with the requirements of the Temecula Municipal Code. Access/Circulation The project proposes to extend Temecula Center Drive approximately 525 feet and to construct a new temporary turnaround at the southwest corner of the property. Access to the proposed car dealership will be provided by two access points located off Temecula Center Drive. The first access, which is located closest to Ynez Road, is intended for those customers visiting the service department, parts department, or showroom. The second access is primarily intended for showroom customers. The emergency access drive wraps around the entire site. The Fire Department has also reviewed the plan and determined that there is proper access and circulation to provide emergency services to the site. Sign Program To provide for appropriate signage for an automobile dealership on the site, the applicant submitted a Sign Program application for the project. The Sign Program allows for wall signs that complement the building architecture and exterior building materials, provides criteria for on-site directional signage, and allows for a 32'-9 %" high monument sign at the project's Interstate 15 frontage and a 15'-0" high monument sign at the project's Temecula Center Drive frontage that complement the building design and are consistent with the type and height of monument signs approved and in place for the adjacent Mercedes-Benz of Temecula site. The wall sign at the front of the building consists of "Audi Temecula" with the Audi emblem. The "Audi" portion of the sign is proposed in red, the "Temecula" is proposed in black, and the Audi emblem portion of the sign is proposed in silver. The Audi emblem wall signs proposed at the rear and sides of the building would also be silver. The proposed monument signs exterior sheeting material would consist of Alucobond (an aluminum composite material) in silver metallic color with a dark grey skirt and base. An LED light strip (white light) is also proposed along one edge of both of the monument signs from the top to the bottom of the signs. Signs designating customer parking spaces are proposed to be a 2 foot by 2 foot sign area constructed of Alucobond in sliver metallic with black letters mounted at a height of 6 feet mounted on a 2 3/8 inch diameter steel pipe painted Audi Silver. Service and exit directional signage is proposed to be a 1'-9" by 1'-9" sign area constructed of Alucobond in sliver metallic with black letters mounted at a height of 3 feet mounted on a 2 3/8 inch diameter steel pipe painted Audi Silver. LEGAL NOTICING REQUIREMENTS Notice of the public hearing was published in the U -T San Diego on October 10, 2015 and mailed to the property owners within the required 850 -foot radius. 4 ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION Staff has reviewed the project in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and determined that a Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (SEIR) would be prepared for the project. The SEIR includes mitigation measures and concluded that with implementation of the mitigation measure the environmental impacts resulting from the project can be mitigated to a less than significant level. In the areas of light and glare, biology, hydrology, and noise, there are instances where environmental impacts require mitigation to be determined less than significant. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of the project and the SEIR is the appropriate review and document for the project. FINDINGS Development Plan (Code Section 17.05.010.F) The proposed use is in conformance with the General Plan for Temecula and with all applicable requirements of State law and other Ordinances of the City. The proposal is consistent with the land use designation and policies reflected within the Harveston Specific Plan and the City of Temecula General Plan. The project is located within a Service Commercial zoning designation of the Specific Plan, which permits the sale of automobiles. The proposed auto dealership has also been carefully designed to be sensitive to the adjacent residences. The overall development of the land is designed for the protection of the public health, safety, and general welfare. The project is consistent with the development standards of the Harveston Specific Plan. The architecture and site layout for the project has been reviewed utilizing the commercial development standards within the Harveston Specific Plan. The project has met the performance standards in regards to circulation, architectural design and site plan design. The project has been reviewed for, and as conditioned, is consistent with all applicable policies, guidelines, standards and regulations intended to ensure the development will be constructed and function in a manner that is consistent with the public health, safety, and welfare. Sign Program (Code Section 17.28.080.B) The proposed signs enhance the development, and are in harmony with, and visually related to: a) All of the signs included in the sign program. This shall be accomplished by incorporating several common design elements such as materials, letter style, colors, illumination, sign type or sign shape; b) The buildings and/or the developments they identify by utilizing materials, colors or design motifs included in the building being identified; and c) Surrounding development by not adversely affecting surrounding land uses or obscuring adjacent approved signs. The proposed signs utilize Audi's corporate colors, shapes and emblems and reflect the building design by using similar materials and colors. As such, the proposed signs are visually related to a) all of the signs included in the sign program and incorporate common design elements including materials, colors, sign type and sign shape; b) the building the signs identify; and c) the surrounding development since the proposed signs complement those used on the adjacent Mercedes-Benz of Temecula site and do not obscure adjacent approved signs. 5 The sign program accommodates future revisions which may be required due to changes in building tenants. The proposed sign program can accommodate future revisions which may be required due to changes in building tenants. The building is designed for automobile sales and service, including a showroom, parts department, and service bays and the sign program criteria will accommodate any future revisions due to changes in building tenants, which would be anticipated to continue to be automotive based tenants. The proposed sign program satisfies the intent of this chapter, in that the sign program complies with all the regulations of this chapter, except that flexibility is allowed with regard to sign area, number, location and height. Further, to the extent the sign program does not comply with the requirements of this chapter as to sign area, number, location and height, the proposed sign program enhances the development and more fully accomplishes the objectives of this chapter. The proposed sign program is consistent with the intent of the Municipal Code requirements for a sign program. The Harveston Specific Plan allows for monument signs, building mounted signs, and encourages signs that are consistent with building texture, color, and architectural style. The propose sign program is consistent with these objectives. The Specific Plan limits wall mounted signs to a height of 42 inches in height, however the proposed Audi emblem portion of the wall mounted signs are up to 79 inches in height. The proposed wall mounted sign height is in scale with elements of the building on which they will be located and is appropriate in scale to the building, and are slightly lower in height than the 92-1/2 inch emblem sign existing on the adjacent Mercedes-Benz of Temecula building. In addition, the Specific Plan does not allow for freeway -oriented freestanding monument signs, however the proposed freestanding freeway oriented sign is consistent with the existing sign for Mercedes-Benz of Temecula and is an important feature for an automobile dealership. As such, the proposed wall signs and freeway -oriented freestanding monument sign enhance the development and more fully accomplish the objectives of Chapter 17.28 of the Temecula Municipal Code. ATTACHMENTS Aerial Map Plan Reductions Resolution - Development Plan Exhibit A - Draft Conditions of Approval Resolution - SEIR Certification Exhibit A — Findings and Facts in Support of Findings Exhibit B - Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Resolution — Sign Program Exhibit A — Draft Conditions of Approval Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report Notice of Public Hearing 6 AERIAL MAP City of Temecula PA15-0513 NORTH 0 250 500 Feet This map was made by the City of Temecula Geographic Information System The map 1s derived from base data produced by the Riverside County Assessor's Department and the Transportation and Land Management Agency of Riverside County. The City of Temecula assumes no warranty or legal responsibility for the information contained on this map. Data and Information represented on this map are subject to update and modification. The Geographic In formalion System and other sources should be queried for bre inost current information, This map is not for reprint or resale. � Z Geographic Inlarmatio Systems PLAN REDUCTIONS CAUTION IF THIS SHEET IS NOT 24,36 IT IS A REDUCED PRINT 1V11116180S38 NV1d 1N361d013430 9O6DSO O1NI8d 31VO alela3 lead lelaseedeeD sled grad SelPeal HIA100/VIAI TIVM .PrOWMI .1.11,0.11 M. IN.., •01.• so ss• A...pl....M.00 --IA/ 6296 V3 `V111031A131 RAIU E13.1N139 V11 -1931A131 vinoDv\o± icinv NI -1301-1 m 9 i '- =m1 .._._..111C,10.aall 1, 1 i91 Weld 31IS Lu 1- 0 04 04 N. h 'ALLY ss W al g. 6-9044 6 4i f61 iiii ''# iiv2 N i - h 4, P,' i dr 4i s?, ig $501,P "4 1 liVqnk v. h sR12,-,„, ii§ ' IPgi °Mr ql/ MT% J 9 59 h 11 4 1 '61 W 2z - tp II!# 1E49 fi00614i79/11 SITE LEGEND <I 4 ou 82, 24 2 `6 g0 2 „ of 4 g 112 B GEFA NOTE SITE PLAN PREPARED ON MARCH 19TH. 2015 Li <] 0•01 11/4 L \'\ (11 t)1 \\ ' 1\ riini`o 0 I \\ % 1 0-4) vo. RE `1.= .3n3s. 4304w L N21.4942-4/ 23530. INTERSTATE 15 27625' Et/ 1VUIY 8f1S08 NVId 1N0Y Ol3A3O 40 609100 031NN1d 3100 atiels3leay �epaawwo�roy u6�sap 6u�pea� gIyI0oly nwn is.... :::« ,;; ssszs VO'b�n13w31�CJ I 3Alaa 831N30 brin03W31 `d1nO2W2l 'anyNH2OH _ 9. •• r N a OVERALL FIRST FLOOR 4$ I . rM ,tea.` : _ NVldHJOOld.LSHId ;{, �._ , .EDg - Y F1E OVERALL FIRST FLOOR 4$ I rM . ft ..-'-.. ��11 [i r a � .�� its ,, gelll Qa. I�j! A ii }}i;T s �I���i�1jliL�:::.E : `_, �^+ !� ^.4 1- w 4 e d 8 1 . f�1 ` � •T1[ 0.1 �Yj +e+ r J �1 • 8 $y f Itla d - WI 4 y� I ALL LEGEND ruMAZZIWrOturED I UNDERSIDE OF CEILING NON PATE° PAPIllION aom...a�m.r....e.v.•..m..ue _'* — 1 0H Et s �wr ?; aso re 1i 11 qpa .P1 —IUd G ilf , umrcx .ywmnc L' A.rarra rr y.Cwkt Wri.�fi�wl.Ywlt W.ri>ta.nxe aw. [ 6 mr. writ f I ._- 1 ,-C'i �_ iS$ f p 1 R � I Y � R n:n.. ....Y rµv,1 a. 6466,4141.. 4.4 Kati r. M WWII S...114:4.14 4..n 66�. n.. Iaryf: e jai --ii � :__' y• arrni .... -0 E#1V1.101811631,11,11/1d1N31•1d013A30 1,0 60 9106 ,03.1.NINd 31V0 nnq Ind 16Ina1,0003 •6/ 016.0 601#6n ELIA10 TWIN 3'dYM .itiegl, VA ) .C.,..1 RIM...1W ...1,.. „, .. ,„..,...e, .s., ...9 ........ ..... , 689Z6 VO V111031/131. 3A1Ela H31N30 V111031/131 V11103V13.1 lc:Inv NI -1301-1 4 1 i HI, j. HI 4.. 9 .-,. L. . I , i , t 2 g $ C\1 N C\„I < yehitia-- 041111ViliNii Vii.f.iThpfWf.....fg1=101-',..,., .-V1.1W-.'— WM ---i , NVld Id0O1d 3NINVZZ31/ OVERALL MEZZANINE FLOOR PLAN • , • .I ,;•.) --/' o 0 w ..•). 4 1 i HI, j. HI 4.. A01 , g g 9 Fig — - - - OVERALL MEZZANINE FLOOR PLAN YALE ftar • I 47 ND NOTES= zrazartanarcam....En 4'1 NKr% nt ATED 20 I OM WALL W11111.1.10N0 PERFORATE.0.01,MGAIL PROPRIETARY FAIMSCALEN SYSTEM .4..4711..114C11.114,171,11:14 202 DIFFER.111. OAKUM CURTAIN WALL SYSTEM WITH OA 6IASS LL .10111,ON WED PARMION TO STRIATAS 203 WO/4%0VA SO. PM. WZ,TRODE:016 41.114Mal MAW WIN,. 1YP M,L. my, 4ore mho...Len nastrK. STRUCtIMI. CO.IETE VAIL 213 ACM PANE.) SYSTEM DERSCE OF LEUNG NON RATED PAPIIIION 215 CeST01.0120NE FURNITURE MO MUM.< TIJ P COJO. rts=ba xxit Wi1CtOWM,EcWtP 42. F F MR OPEN. ., 13 ' d PI 4 11101111111111111 It 4i1 7); 0.,..... •• [gl ' •••r 1 'ii II ' M —F--- .- .. '11 WALL LEG IXINIffmTml 1 .iM', Li I. 1. ,• 1 ' . '!. .. , .. . 1 .- i ---4 . ' . • H I - . , .0. _ , i .q. L - t, t 1-311 it 'MI Ttl 11 )g r „.., li 111. ii1) ......: .5/ ill _ • Ir g II n --- t I V a Li 1 h , -,.., e ..lel AM 4 k' fp am auk ''''' (,-‘1, r.,;, k_-,) .. r - • t • -- ..I ,.,_ _, EN 1V111190936 NV -Id IN3166d013630 60606102,031N18d MVO 71E153 lead lepaww0 aolu61.06ulyeal gYAioDZVw H2IVM -o ,,,., a.i., ..=.: 68436 V3 `V1f133W31 3AILa l31N30 V1f193W31 d1n03w3l Iand NH2OH C $ , 2 $ r co ;i :n ��._ INIMI NVId dOOLI 1 y 6 EH 19111 9 9 9 9 3 9 NVId 1N3W2013A30 40'60-9LOZ :031N19d 3190 �l�ls3le�N lepaawLuop aoy *sap 6ulPeal ENO TWIN H1IVM , ,. o V. �� 69S36 V3 `` in03W31 3AIhi0 1:131N39` inD3W31 b1nO2W2l 'any NH3OH 3 i ; £ 11 $ § T - + '— :�'_ -- R E u SNOILVA3"13 HOIkl3.LX3 0 Mtgg >1 COLOR LEGEND z w O w J 00 93 la L 4 2 MI I n 4 Y.0 ig ..1iI' Lr II I — 111111 ;FP 11 � e1 429 €=u 99 4 4 E# 1V11IWSOS321 NVId 1N3I d013A30 60°60 GIOZ,031NIild 31V0 W07llMtl3MVWY Y Q A .�' t 3H0r1d bo'Vm3W3 004 3B5 .13}19 rLLPV (016-1S. (OW U•XAW "'°°'"""°M.x. T1 •A SllO 1y 1MAf ? 06-SSL (BB). IH 1026.'N11130 Wall AT1VA 13WV0 061Z .110.10 ar11801-1 f VINJOJI1V3'V13 NaL 3AIJa b31N3a ` ino2v 31 / V Y\1i Iaflb' NH3OH • $ groe-92911Se 0 .r.,.... -111:315A0'11 r'. -...U. tlre `' .1 "$'i�ZiELALi iS-SM-1CEIM62fi NI g r° i a 4 11`EU W`7lflLY'IL . • 'lp tl31N30.611000W. S3tli'1SnwifMIOia .1 45.,:n .1ocn ast$ LT{. 15%1Mi11a••%; 7,...91.r•. EN 1v11wyens3a Wld 11,1311d013A30 6060910Z 03.1.WtId MVO .01.a.1,a. ye ealan ar b. Mu. Paa.al ....au ma. Nor -op ? '.. 1 ' - ; p 2 ,.7 .:2 _7 7 ; ; ,,T., ; ; .2 .:4 . '..4 A ..3 A ;,A,` ; ; A ; 7 p 11•.; ..? `i ' 3 ' .3' ; ; p '; p p ; Viral c , ; :,-; •,,,, ,; .,, :..-,', ',.. ',., R p ; ,;',;,),; ) '7.! .1' ,i'' A' A A ; A ,,,,,,,_•,, A! '-.; AL, A A A .' .',' .'`.• :.., elf. :,/1 ; .,7: ; . 1.7, .5.' p A A ; A ? „•,' ; ; „ 7 ; .. 7 ; ; ' ,i ; ; ; ; ,".• ; ; ; ; ; ; A ; A A A A At ? ; I-' ,i2 ..?' .51,4). 'A', iC114 A , 7 ; ; ,p ; '.7 ; 1 ,:_-. 7 ; ; ; ; ,.; ,i' ,,•.-: A A p 2 ; t; 40 .rq' LipEh a AAAA ; lilLi • ;1'• i'' ..t6EI:V i :?.. 7.' 1-3 .; L: A .; 'A ..i. 7 7 7 3 ; 1 : p ; ,.5, j . ;. A, A,,,i •,' ; ; 1: .7 •P'A • L4'14.- 7 7 ; P ; ; ,:l_ .3 .:-. ," 3 A ,.; A ; .,„ E„ c E 0 0 VINNOAFIVO 'v1no3w3± -111091A131 1 ams3 irad 1E13..1.03 JOi u6isao 6uunai MO .....1" ..N11.a• 111•14 3AIICI 131N30 V •=-...._-.17,2,1:. EEINOTIVIA1 31IVM 8,..a.orl I., 1,0,4 i %am), V1n031A13± 10011V N1H3OH r Z , g 1.11 h Ntrld 018131N0101 -Id 3118 .01.a.1,a. ye ealan ar b. Mu. Paa.al ....au ma. Nor -op ? '.. 1 ' - ; p 2 ,.7 .:2 _7 7 ; ; ,,T., ; ; .2 .:4 . '..4 A ..3 A ;,A,` ; ; A ; 7 p 11•.; ..? `i ' 3 ' .3' ; ; p '; p p ; Viral c , ; :,-; •,,,, ,; .,, :..-,', ',.. ',., R p ; ,;',;,),; ) '7.! .1' ,i'' A' A A ; A ,,,,,,,_•,, A! '-.; AL, A A A .' .',' .'`.• :.., elf. :,/1 ; .,7: ; . 1.7, .5.' p A A ; A ? „•,' ; ; „ 7 ; .. 7 ; ; ' ,i ; ; ; ; ,".• ; ; ; ; ; ; A ; A A A A At ? ; I-' ,i2 ..?' .51,4). 'A', iC114 A , 7 ; ; ,p ; '.7 ; 1 ,:_-. 7 ; ; ; ; ,.; ,i' ,,•.-: A A p 2 ; t; 40 .rq' LipEh a AAAA ; lilLi • ;1'• i'' ..t6EI:V i :?.. 7.' 1-3 .; L: A .; 'A ..i. 7 7 7 3 ; 1 : p ; ,.5, j . ;. A, A,,,i •,' ; ; 1: .7 •P'A • L4'14.- 7 7 ; P ; ; ,:l_ .3 .:-. ," 3 A ,.; A ; .,„ E„ c E 0 0 1- z 0 a 0 w U uJ ,n 1- CAUTION: IF THIS SHEET IS NOT 24' 1V111Wens3M NVld 1N3Wd013A30 4060 S10(,031NIHd 3100 �lelsd leas lelvaunua3 aa; u6lsa0 6ulpeal MAIO07 RUYAN _« r„ry 10„/„011Mi/ arIIII 111zz,z1 nrzs rNariui X13 n1 1a Ylrnsil uu+ri^xrLR�?.._�. JJYYjj VIN JO I1V3'Vlna3W31 3AI�i4 2i31N30 brl(173W31 vino 3 W 31 Iaflb NH2OH y.._ z 4 t. S r —I v"u rs 'oil yww^w .Fo,as .a. .� N. #.5‘.. .4. '�� NVId 3dV050Ntl1AaVNIW013ad W m.M.l KV041W Ysr OPMAYMN..Ar Planning Application 0 Approval Date: Amended By: Audi Temecuta 40955 Temecula Center Drive Temecula, CA 92590 SIGN PROGRAM APN: 916-400-032 Designed By: Sign Contractor's Inc. 400 W FOOTHILL BLVD #130 GLENDORA, CA 91741 626-335-2887 info©rrsigns corn va. 9/21/2015 P.A. w...: Audi Temecula ••a 40955 Temecula Center Drive a. -n m, Van ca.ractora Inc Temecula, CA 92590 gxexcwn1s., a ed lor, NM om .,.vt,e.maid :ed i.ed M ale mw am 1 Audi Temecula 40955 Temecula Center Drive Temecula CA 92590 - TABLE OF COHTEHTS COVER PAGE TABLE OF CONTENTS 2 INTRODUCTION TO THIS SIGN PROGRAM, GENERAL GUIDELINES, & PROHIBITED SIGNS 3 PERMITTED SIGN TYPES, MATERIALS, COLORS, & COLOR CHART - 4 SIGN SQUARE FEET CHART 5 SITE PLAN 6 EAST ELEVATION SIGN #1 — — 7 SOUTH ELEVATION (SIGNS #2 & #21) 8 WEST ELEVATION (SIGN #4) 9 NORTH ELEVATION (SIGNS #5, #6, & #7) 10 AUDI 4100 LOGO RINGS CLIP MOUNTED (SIGNS #2 & #4) 11 AUDI 670 LOGO ENTRANCE ELEMENT (SIGN #6) 12 AUDI 10' NON -ILLUMINATED SERVICE LETTERS (SIGN #7) 13 OVERVIEW SHEET (SIGN #1A, #1B, & #1C) 14 AUDI 5800 LOGO RINGS WITH SUPPORT TUBING (SIGNS #1A, #5, & #21) 15 AUDI 24" CHANNEL LETTERS WITH SUPPORTTUBING ON CORRUGATED SIDING (SIGN #15) 16 AUDI 24" DEALER NAME CHANNEL LETTERS WITH SUPPORT TUBING (SIGN #1C) - 17 - PYLON SET BACKS 18 AUDI 4500 PYLON (SIGN 08) AUDI 10000 PYLON (SIGN #20) AUDI PARKING SIGN 6'-0"-1/ HCP (SIGNS #9, #10, & #11) AUDI PARKING SIGN 6-0" ADS-1/CP (SIGNS 812 & #13) AUDI PARKING SIGN 6'-0° ADS-1/CP (SIGNS #15, #16, & #17) CUSTOM AUDI DIRECTIONAL (SIGNS #18 & #19) 19 20 21 22 23 24 r... : 912 112 01 5 . ny: sy. ra,..", n. Audi Temecula 40955 Temecula Center Drive Temecula, CA 92590 2 Audi Temecula 40955 Temecula Center Drive Temecula, CA 92590 INTRODUCTION The purpose al flus sign program is To insure IMO all signage 08 carwistent wdtr rhe promo owner's mlenlion to create a visually appealing, yet functional professional anvilonmenl and olsa to minute the Benign and yroduceee quality of all signs within the project The signs specified herein shall be related to their surroundings in lerms of size, shape, color and material, as well as illumination. in order to complement the overall design of the building and nol compete visually with other signs in the area. GENERAL GUIDELINES 1, Conformance to the slandards specified herein will be strictly enforced Designated tenants will be responsible for the design. installation and maintenance of their sign(s). Scratched or damaged painl, improperly installed signs, or building damage as a result of sign installation must be replace or repaired within thirty (30) days if occurrence al the sole expense or the tenant Signs shall be removed by tenant at the end of their lease and fascia repaired to a like new condition 2. Ne sign will be painled directly onlo building wall or surface of any building 3 Sale signs special announcements, posters, banners sandwich boards, or any non-pennanenl signs are not permitted Temporary banner permits can be obtained/purchased from Planning Department subject to certain regulations and Planning Department approval. 4. No sign shag be constructed or maintained 10 flash, rotate, or in any way simulate molion or create sound 5. No sign shag be constructed or located as to constitule a nuisance or in any way be detrimental to adjoining uses 6. Should discrepancies occur regarding specificalions contained herein relating 10 signage, the City of Temecula Sign Ordinance shall be the delerminanl reference, 7 Tenant signage will not exceed 80% in length of designated sign area. 8, The Planning Director shall have the final authority on inlerprelalions on fonts, colors, and language in the sign program PROHIBITED SIGN TYPES, COLORS, FONTS, & ILLUMINATION A. All signs prohibited by the Temecula Municipal Code B. Amenity signs C. Animated or moving signs D. Box signs E. Bunting signs F. Cabinet or can signs G. Flashing signs H. All lemporary signs are prohibited unless they are approved and permitted in accordance with Section 17,28 of the Temecula Municipal Code or respective specific plan, I. Neon Colors J. Any font not approved by Audi. K. Signs that do not conform with Palomar Ordinance 655 L. Upward facing lighls M. Unshielded downward facing lights N. All temporary signs are prohibged unless they are approved and permitted in accordance with Section 17,28 of the Temecula Municipal Code or specific plan. 912112915 Prawn a: sr^ corattm r< 140(1 w..: Audi Temecula rm.>z 40955 Temecula Center Drive Temecula, CA 92590 I 3 Audi Temecula 40955 Temecula Center Drive Temecula, CA 92590 PERMITTED SIGN TYPES A. Illuminated channel letter signs B. Non -illuminated channel letter signs C. Blade signs D. Directory signs E. Window signs F. 1/2"Thick Dimensional Letters PERMITTED SIGN COLORS & COLOR CHART 3M 7755-520 Chrome • • • •• - • • ••• • • r ._ Black Grid Pattern 2793 Red Acrylic faces PERMITTED SIGN MATERIALS A. 3mm Formed Acrylic B. 1/8"Thick Red #2793 Acrylic C. 3/16"Thick Red #2793 Acrylic D. 1/8" Day/Night Acrylic E. 1/2"Thick Black Sintra (PVC) F. 5"Deep .090 Aluminum G. 4mm Alucobond H. 3M High Performance Black Vinyl RAL 9006 Silver Day-Nite Dark Grey (retums and support Acrylic faces Mica DB 703 tubes, clips or raceway) Audi Silver Black Vinyl vv., 9/2112915 y... M.MIA�wH.w oar v.., Audi Temecula 49955 Temecula Center Drive Temecula, CA 92590 AA: ArAs h.a+Ca...WA •rr•M.0r.... ,..mow. -"w R.».....N...,n. Itemnn 4 Audi Temecula 40955 Temecula Center Drive Temecula, CA 92590 SIGN ID: o.m SIGN TYPE ILLUMINATION FLOOR & DIRECTION 512E MAXIMUMS SQUARE FOOTAGE MAX NOTES 41a Welt S.gn Illuminated E Elevation 79" h x 228,375"w 12529 41 b Wall Sign IIIumlsinted E Elevation 24"h x 92 25"w 15,38 410 /YaII Sari Illuminated E Elevation 24"h x 193"w 3217 42 Wall Sign Illuminated 5 Elevation 55 88"h x 161 44"w 6265 43 .—.. — — — REMOVED FROM SCOPE 04 well Sign Illuminated W Elevation 5588"h x 16194"w 6265 45 Wall Sign Illuminated N Elevation 79" h x226375"w 12529 46 Wall Sign Illuminated N Elevation 14 63'1102638"w 2-68 07 Wall Sign Illuminated N Elevation 10"h x 15463"w 10,74 48 Pylon Sign Illuminated NE Driveway 180"h x57"w 7125 49 Parking Sign Non -Illuminated 5 Parking Lot 24th x 24"w 400 410 Parking Sign Non -Illuminated 5 Parking Lot 24"hx 24"w 400 411 Parking Sign Non -Illuminated 5 Parking Lot 24"h x 24"w 400 412 Parking Sign Non -Illuminated N Parking Lot 24th x 24"w 400 413 Parking Sign Non -Illuminated N Parking Lot 24"h 0 24"w 400 414 — -- — — REMOVED FROM SCOPE 415 Parking Sign Non -Illuminated N Parking Lot 24'h x 24"w 400 416 Parking Sign Non -Illuminated N Parking Lot 2411 x 24"w 400 417 Parking Sign Non -Illuminated N Parking Lot 24"h x 24"w 4,00 418 0inApraSgn Non -Illuminated N Parking Lot 21'h x 21"w 3.00 419 DlectloriSign Non -Illuminated S Parking Lot 21"hx 21"w 300 420 Pylon Sign Illuminated SW Corner 394"h x 120"w 326.33 421 Wall Sign Illuminated 5 Elevation 79"hx 228-38"w 125-29 9/21/2015 Drawn sr. sy" wogs o n: Audi Temecula •�+� 40955 Temecula Center Drive Temecula, CA 92590 unpuiska,-thlaw, ova,. plann.pe rep F<a . w nxa, r 5 Audi Temecula 40955 Temecula Center Drive Temecula, CA 92590 rrwrr.o,r 4 '"er 12 aha _ •1 .443i 43 16 • 13 + r �" 7 L5 ; 5 9 2 r r 0 Sign Plan Sign 111 - Sheet 305 •AR5600 ST Rings -Sheet 306A •ALT -24 ST -Sheet 306B • ADL -24 ST- Sheet306C = 17284 sq ft total Sign 62 - Sheet 302 •AR4100 CP -6265 sq Sign 63- Removed from scope Sign 64 -Sheet 302 •AR4100 CP - 52.65 IN it Sign 55 -Sheet 306A • AR5800 ST -125.29 sq ft Sign S6 - Sheet 303 • AEE670-268 eq ft Sign 17 -Sheet 304 •ABSL 10 NI- 1074 sg11 Sign 58 - Sheet402 • AP4500 -71.25 sq ft Sign 119,10,11- Sheet 601 • ADS1+IP-4.0 sq ft each Sign 512,13 - Sheet 602 • ADS1-CP - 4.0 sq ft each sin 511. 9.2frotottl h0m 1400 1 Sign 415,10.17 - Sheet 602-A • ADS1-CP-4.0 sq 11 each Sign 418,19 -Sheet 603 •ADS-CoSmm- 3 0 sq ft each Sign 6220 -Sheet 403 • AP10000-332 sq ft Sign 621 - Sheet 301A • AR5800 ST -125.29 sq ft 14 N i, (r) Two 111141, Project North Met 9/2112015 ha*. t Audi Temecula .4e•+o 40955 Temecula Center Drive Temecula, CA 92590 Sede:As noted — 6 Audi Temecula 40955 Temecula Center Drive Temecula, CA 92590 • 4y4.118' i TA 1/4' , -1. 16'-1' 5' 19'-03/8' 6allom of kvUvs la a _ _ _ _ 71-Wrviinal with insiee or nags - / / / / / 19T5' Aucii Temetuto. '9 East Elevation Scale: 1/16 = 1 -Cr ® 11217 Seq 91 54ex 30513 51•244306c 81Ne13062 #1424.57 2{/1_244X A10550691 'F34600 FC we. 9121/2015 Scot /, me w..: Audi Temecula 'ear 40955 Temecula Center Drive Temecula, CA 92590• WI �Ww•..v.dMwM rr v,+1...1 7 4 Audi Temecula 40955 Temecula Center Drive Temecula, CA 92590 0 0 Zoo a2 {etet342 6285 3q F1 I 11 South Elevation 1'=20•,0' ®11,17 2974' 19•-0118'i e! I ca. 9/2112015 nyw. er: Audi Temecula - aea•er 40955 Temecula Center Drive Drama ar. nn cn.u.n.Y k Temecula, CA 92590 •• -Ma +r•Merl�rye..� rMY�,wr{Yry aw-saae nm 8 Aucl TemecuLa 40955 Temecula Center Drive Temecula, CA 92590 11 lo: 18TH• S54 114 Slwu 302 Afii r06CP 529150 Fl West Elevation Scale:1116•=1-0 ®11x17 or. 912112015 Yel:4 mhJ 0 . Audi Temecula l 40950 Temecula Center Drive Temecula, CA 92590 WRY � ,d :,m' �vKa x, 137PW,.a9mutoan„rm es named. toed 4 vutmtoAtogb of wm,m„ bmr.PswA,ed nwM 1 9 c 11#u# � # { r I 18TH• S54 114 Slwu 302 Afii r06CP 529150 Fl West Elevation Scale:1116•=1-0 ®11x17 or. 912112015 Yel:4 mhJ 0 . Audi Temecula l 40950 Temecula Center Drive Temecula, CA 92590 WRY � ,d :,m' �vKa x, 137PW,.a9mutoan„rm es named. toed 4 vutmtoAtogb of wm,m„ bmr.PswA,ed nwM 1 9 Audi Temecula 40955 Temecula Center Drive Temecula, CA 92590 lop of rings to align with lop of window mWlian • a 120.5' 11 318" above melhon to left $d 12.1056. Audi Service Drive OPEN North Elevation Scale: l"=20' -D'® 11x17 Sign t/6 Sheet 303 AEE -670 27 Sq Fl [1 ign #5 Sh el 306a AR5800-ST 125 29 Sq Fl 299-6 Sign #7 Sheet 304 ABSL10-NI 10 75 Sq Fl Met —1 Ili o...: 9/21/2015 Yalerer oared Protect a.... Audi Temecula Adao 40955 Temecula Center Drive Pawn nn sign cnnnuntnn k Temecula, CA 92590 PeriCurroe Sens Ph toe -erred re toe •a.a...i.tete tor .,deeded a ant roc 10 Ct.�, a_. Audi Temecula 40955 Temecula Center Drive Temecula, CA 92590 • usr, 1 1411r T •Of Structural - AR -4100 -CP Scale 117=1'-0-@1ro17 t3'-5 77lr 1141.#1i7 ulotte�r 4ti0 mm 25 yr —!,!rt 1* W.-4.6.0—r— _ er3rd— 144 III. 411 r_ 44N 41 WM IP Color View Not b Scab J 1 3M 7755-520 Black GM Pale, Chrome 2% 14-t 2' deep box %WILEDpawl supply 1 kalwanisaLKasbii.t1 1. 7veeY.lupplr 42W6W! CyA.4n t4 t.ION!m Ea (102) While LEDs `MM1 Arora Asad 210 ' 'Voltage Aai-1 120V2T7V 1271r Section View Scan 3"=1'ir ®11"117 - Square Feel: 4'-7 7/9" x 13'5 7/16" = 62.61 j Audi 4100 Logo Rings Clip Mounted Sign M2, 94 61116- 2.81' Side View Scab 1/2,1 -C @ 11'x17 - Mustang Mete I1T Termed acrylic logo xclh 387755-520 arms ha surface vinyl 2- x 2'1 L9 -Nan Mounting dips rMkkocipHad., r —+ 2-114- 00 necri€vc Disconnect watch Black god pattern secuN so.fece - Mkt clew 316- gap al wax) 'f Mechanical rasle,ws- Section View Scab I-1 /2,1.-0" 11117 Fined Nydex becks p.r ee)d4tw vra x 14-0 2- deep boo WI) LEDpovrr supply •.,' 6gs9Mu iieLgo.a err.: 912112015 ..o7..o w..: Audi Temecula • mled D rawn K. Sy, Cia.a,w+ 40955 Temecula Center Drive Temecula, CA 92590 '., _0ypµx.4.r—y-anal 4.000.0w 1+11.• * a41r.r 1.1.14. E.-00 . 14•1 wi.. 11 ( Audi Temecula 40955 Temecula Cenler Drive Temecula, CA 92590 Structural - AEE - 70 Scab 3=l' -U ® 11117 Audi Color View Scab 1-1/2'=1'-0' ® 11'x17 3M 7]55520 Chrome ■ 2793 Red 00 0 feces mm VHS adles.2 ',00long S rr—.;. f2+H0A1 Aaybc Lanes wrlh VHS ache hatlung Side Elevation Scale - 3=1'-0' 11117 I l Section View — Scale FA Size @11017 Square Feet: 1'-2 5/6' x 2'-2 316" = 2.70 Audi 670 Logo Entrance Element Sign 66 o.v: 9/21/2015 Drawn nr. cwrrwn r. ••h• Audi Temecula .m. 40955 Temecula Center Drive Temecula, CA 92590 _ .,eprockg. wad try ot drained iv any fon, 12 Audi LLL Temecula 40955 Temecula Center Drive Temecula, CA 92590 Structural - ABSL-10-NI Scale: 1"=1'-0" Q 11"xtr Audi Service Drive Color View Scale: NTS 12'-10 5/8' Audl 10" Non -Illuminated Service Letters Sign 87 Square Feet: 10" x 12'-10 5/8" = 10.75 UT ff, Mouning T.BD No .,E' wet omewcaN 1M2' Sinha Woo panted black Side View scale: 1"=1-0" 115,17" o.a; 9/21/2015 UV, c"n.rm„ Inc P.O.... Audi Temecula 40955 Temecula Center Drive Temecula, CA 92590 Second Reeson 13 �t•;.:� Au d Temecula 40955 Temecula Center Drive Temecula, CA 92590 7,881r S ry+e19 Sheet 3085 ALT24 3T 15 382411 t 2 t T 18 Sign 81C Sheel308c ADL24-ST 322 Sq Ft 2 t 19'-030' .6405 ARSBgOST :1258 Sq Ft 1 173 48 Wel Sq FI Audi Temecula. +!'' .6 1.T4 Overview Sheet VAndow mutton (5,p) 11 3/6' above window maim Deselne of le5as to sign wan evaded regs Meeslrem 48 ire bateda11op wbdaw nx=E': , even when letters we not pos4oned dim. ow: 9/21/2015 were a...: Audi Temecula a....1. sn c..rrortors .tdivv: 40955 Temecula Center Drive Temecula, CA 92590 w.ox..S to o b.ki�orparatiun bra, pia pc...M.1,A TH. Pembn :1 14 Audi Temecula 40955 Temecula Center Drive Temecula, CA 92590 0.9.11PrIL2131rvi 26-9'15 t amr t 0. we y 11.14r y alto- arm Front Elevation - AR -5800 -ST Scale 1/2,1,47 Q 11-x17 Oly (3) 3M 7755520 Black GM Pallein Chrome Color View Scale 1/4'=1'-0 011-x17" 4 x I4 x 2"deep hoc 044 LED paver uppy 059594. 12WSOW 11H tiP01 242 3 10 Amps 5e (150) Whits LEDs Mi. Aep RM,_,d' 010 Voltage Reg'd 120012-71V 1 Section View Scab 1-177=1'1r 0 11'117 7f --Vali Wslsg VIM HT famed acrylrbio .Ah 151 Tr35520Chame rxs41u18ar144 Fatx,ca!ed 093 Ahm backs. errv8+1 x77015.wr 142 x4 1/4' Ppe 0anddl 05oxred sx Acle Il4' hbxingrritsar 7-00'y 2 3/4' t/-Caouglvs try dhers AI042-1/4.41053 Pa heal sett Iappng Noel MN w,-_ i. Sauare Feat: 6'-7" x 19'0 3/8" = 126.29 Audi 5800 Logo Rings with Support Tubing Sign Y1A, 5, 21 • 2 x 2 x 1/4' Nun angle Carogaxx5 I•x 11/2-x VW Q'ahes PM"nr"TI'be Mounting Detail @ Top Scab: 3,1'-0' ® 11-x17• Side Uew Scab: 12=1-0' 41 1A1 -x17 v WMe LEDs ----. DWk god pattern 2cIsufaa— (ol4 clear 3B• ppa Ap•1 • J._ 1 .— Z -Pur. by others 110x 11/2410 SS fla heed sal lappng Neel mdO saes l— - 7-Purlmb/W'zrs I I•, Hta'•99 AWm,rxm rube— 2'x2x1/4'PAm angle uexance fasteners f .. 2 414'.3790094. t wAh LEDFwaf 11(417 23/4• l Co eaglet ryares marled to Z Pulls (Z-Purles spa/ed 24.10 36'06) - 4/041-12' 410 SS Pal hMse4 r4;'l0pcelmar971.1 ,cf'4exflrApuh .ler Pod 546''.5 .1U r ).L.11,04)361%.11-.9.1 Mf l2prg sheet Mal suers Section View Scale 1-1 rL=1'lr®11N1T w1.: 9/21/2015 5.cale:II no. 5}.. c",r.�la, Inc rml.rt w..: Audi Temecula 53M0,.: 40955 Temecula Center Drive Temecula, CA 92590 ®.rw=.1/+r +. 15 Audi Temecula 40955 Temecula Center Drive Temecula, CA 92590 r\ 4I r felhoe,,,r. Structural -ALT-24-ST Scale r=1'-0'®11Y1T 7,4 114'Audl L9 -0e,5 75 SE' S,pp n Trtw9 2 07110' Support TWy 2'v 2, 14 transformer box mooned belay] later • s Rcp niei'e for ailali real to Cur .gg'm Perforated Atoms. (CPA) Para ONLY P er -ed aft., r roofers, fa eras rg 51CPA lona h. ma n. p4lr ! 12 4 h• fe were ehed as a. tea bmaugllr Perr:l ra math ly Atwell/mkr. 12Y4e1V alk Pall* 04118..$.G RED LEDs Mar Amps Req'd 1.1 weal. Aw'4 124YR70V Color View Scale None ■ 2793 Red Arm. races .-d awn torahs Red auyk .r rime s RAL9096 Sher RAL 90065 e (renals and argon tabes dgawn ay) Cwppzmas-/ - ! MtlM1"s Side View Scale 1'=1'-0'®11,11T C- a 7 1 NSIO. l Agan. =acrse.- ! 15'2141 Red -I •-• �f� ma,. teems Awl LF9a- ',v'yy y ?anAae Square Feet: 2'-0" : 7'-0 114" = 15.38 Audi 24" Channel Letters with Support Tubing on Corrugated Siding Sign 61B 010x2-I14'110SS-- yal teal se4larpeg reel lanter1 .19111re 4mrts naMad sealant., . . sheaf maal screws r.3. ,4'+... eV. - —l. c„,„„„„rr ?Rt air r by dbes Ahmu.m4Jx Meunung Detail IR70e Scale S=1' -IT at 11-x1T l'dretxr --ds'elrearo RAL 9IC6 Shoe red am. Section View Scale 1-12'=3-0' @ 11y1r Z -Putin by Sloes AdyrsWNe dadrm Z- Purim by Glees 1'x1-12'115' Alumnum lute 11 ray room,. mess pet wall andeons Sed.T4e condo a; Read 4^d[. L201wa supply - 12041:i•90= *1• PON 7C C le 04s Mb.: 9/21/2015 4wl s .1 Audi Temecula - 40955 Temecula Center Drive a•-•�-sM �.r�lmk Temecula, CA 92590 crel repodmedmedkr Glaclosed to art/ 16 `.2 Audi Temecula 40955 Temecula Center Drive Temecula, CA 92590 2' x 2' x 14' power supply box %sill &connect watch (mounted behind letter) .berm for lirseaion only kind placement may very Structural - ADL -24 -ST Scale 3/6•=1•-0•®11x1T Nate United is RespanseLe for atraclmenI to Corrugated Perforaled Nunmm (C PA)Panel ONLY Ormer/Conbecla is responshle for ensue no that CPA pall attachment wl meet local engneenng as prescribed by the locnl buldng/agn permmng aMmry D Color View Sale Nene 1- of return remain 0ey/M1e acrylic 4' of return b RAL 9006 Silva Electrical Sp. 4Ioflons Power Supply 12V/60W Qty Rapid 2a1-1Anps Ea White LEDs Max Amps Req'd 2.2 Voltage Redd: 120V/277V RAL £CYE Sher (iehunsand sgrpal lubes drs n tocewayl Day-RAe Amt. laces Square Feet: 2'-0" x16'-1" = 32.2 Audi 24" beater Name Channel Letters with Support Tubing Sign M1C err eCdn �. 910x2-114'41053 Rat head sell tapping sheet motel screws Side View Sale 3/6-=1'-0' ® 11'S1T 090 Alum yip.. 113 Day-Mle— ecrykc returns IIB' Day -Nile -� acrykc laces 090 Nan becks — 114' Mounbrg hardwire White LEDs -- 12'x41/4• Rpe stand -o6 rxr, rn•Wax ed. ore, M others s• i 3' .2-3/41 3N• Pipe sleeve A4us1±1e bracket • • - 1100 I-112.410 SS taw head sell lapping sheet metal screws '�— iPN.sr a+.r. rx1-17x1,! Nauru= hbe MALIntInp Detail a Tap Sale 3-=1'-0' @ 11-x17 1' of return means-- L 4' of return Day2ae acryic a RAL 9006 Salver Section View 2 Pain by others 1' x 1-12• x 1/B• Numinun lube Mounting hadwae screws per well condbons SmFTite conduit as Req'd !Warm LED paver supply 2'oF. I/4•Num mounted to ZFuins lj Pµy spaced 24'*VP 0 C l Scle. l-1/2-=1'-0- ® 11-x12 E.. : 9121/2015 oro* . w..: Audi Temecula r�= 40955 Temecula Center Drive as to o.. co.rrto, k Temecula, CA 92590 LY WI Clerom 56, 1111.ah,ted.r., �maa taw s.a.a•e.,lain �" cr Ra lua�ww..l.:�.. ..n..0 rm. ivA second Pemen 17 `.� Audi Temecula 40955 Temecula Center Drive Temecula, CA 92590 PYLON SET BACKS o...: 9/21/2015 Audi Temecula r• -r, a.,+= 40955 Temecula Center Drive Pawn a. Skn .°.•rl� M Temecula, CA 92590 Mn.w..dtiwr•alnwo w- 1 Itemun soorall EaT 18 Audi Temecula 40955 Temecula Center Drive Temecula, CA 92590 Plan View r Y dTt 55, 1 Audi • LED 61868p LED LgYI S',:q Nos Plans View t .3'i: , Audi 4500 Pylon Bess p,ae Ce6er Square Feet: 4'A" x 1 S-0" • 71.25 r iliac ©'�lr.8414141•. Sign 09 LED Lyh' She SPECIFICATIONS F, el S e eASuba e ^-L°. G'x 11!"4114218 %041*••-0rw SF ▪ lr Vex. r V. of ,,e Tyvet `esouWdv -tlGN wt. NV. Nei eft AN unmll al 6-8.41 ,840.141111.10,46a -a4•1•1 PT .aeras 3e+Nn+..1 7 j1 Lt 1 e- 11 TILT see, ]3 e— 4,4'x5416' • Square Nee 5.a Tr 1rz- imams 11 luvrogoa.saear• *sr+n.,lct, 3.M1u100�-+Y:�9Rl +00n0 de. yryt1019'ka 'PO S 4 Lego Rug, W0le LEDs Paver S:c4_r 121/I60W PS ® 1 I Arros Ea 'Aar Leers Red LEDs P.EI 5.08 121/160W PSC 1 1 Amps Ea LED Lg1I 51415 BTS 00011.1 LDolhA LED Fed:'cs Peas. Soeth 0100412 @. 89 Arr,os Ea 5d'aaa 120-2h1V %%Camps RNd 109 ■ '4414r.5 'kGrArd Sa.ei 2793 Rad r,ca DD 755 Acy61e6- fi— wink, Yreri 712 x25 x 9 wnxe's .a Nse carer laa ate) F ont / Rear Elevation - AP -4500 Scale 318'=1'-0" 9 11,417 Structural }- Sat TIC=11-01 911017 LB I/ wriitut Side View Scale T6'=1'-0 9 11x17 TBD Base Plate Scale I"=1'-0-0' ® 11017 4 4 E I i c axess nc o.d., 9/21/2015 leeNsass .Y4 • Drr•'r M sb'conrirwa Audi Temecula .a0 -e 40955 Temecula Center Drive Temecula, CA 92590 pentAA Lexpebantcr.11, kr you, ,4M1.mxseoNeess t4 clef loud ID 1- w,.<., 'r" .iMEI'p.�� — •r.,wwwrerµwo4 r. 19 GSM Audi Temecula 40955 Temecula Center Drive Temecula, CA 92590 LEDL.0151 } — - —. Plan View Scab: 3/15 1'-O ®11 a 17 .Audh oars LED U611 Shp e Tom. Ypod Lice Stitll Ca Sart d aria 114 al, >-p hays Sap,*-- -. 1 - . 11 r- ��AP 10000 - .. -. 29 T Don rslrrn•LI. v.:an • - • Seuelun0 e..u..u..,�e 5'x6s60Sllxal Scam Tdxa Typed Section BB 1.163.•• • Can WemMd Pud Siler Mdabc lmn Pana cni1 Pal SPAN Malaec y 6 Audi 10000 Pylon � Square Peel: 10'X 3P-IG•e772 j SION020 • 6 x 6x3B' Spee Tax 4-1209 electro reel -IXni(0) bnriE6m pe Local codes } ,.I • Base Rale Caar -Carrels Pati P swarm beyond ye ewer (al Was) Side 500000 soh aIs--T.narn 7 Pfm tsmem dmmMlnmlOMd Sea M44c rahtht grey nadaDB 703 Wm The reseal uru, ,r aled LL11.Nrs cross p• 7W. a•nns.ed no an. se t The logo adP.tl Was are bat a rih LEDs (Low a 1999vM53/16) We. Bbd V•pl CN/ inked Type Evex'el laessiseaf 1t2 Wall NV: LEDs Pam 5mN 12V/60W PS® 95Mes Ea 'PUM de 1R Wal Red LEDs Pam & N 12V6OW B.GSMa; Ee LED LOS Slap BTS GOOW Led.* LID Wades Pore SNy M100L120 Wawa Ea ■ ■ Dak Gal Pa/ Sl:a 2793P.ed Mca DB 703 Peylo Picas _p�'_ • 1314- DWRlo amxma6i0 T ill- DAM*. Waning Dols an 4 • 112 T Sled El P610 0161390 Y.. ,e••.0 ver ts. Imp Illxr 6IOIITZT sled gusaaz Ddm 9/21/2016 1 n.q., w..: Audi Temecula �•• •_.•a •*. 40955 TF.nit SUN: L3 aTas ry11Vs weer• to v., mono, l.. Temecula, CA 92690 e.. •,.,...t aeam.d �.l.a..d M W [urn syu aY.d.sd r.Y.o mama! we Inman M1, ,c1Y.1 fu®squatlwlnn .o.eeea mad Yr. Med lo ow. waae.cn s..tlYmm•• 20 Audi Cts Temecula 40955 Temecula Center Drive Temecula, CA 92590 ti 4- 4 Top panted Aub SM • rJ rD Plan View Scale 3/4=1'11 @ 11117 z smraa 40(2113•0DI Ramie:Mud Salver Top pa,IedAu0 Star I TBD TBD Front Elevation - 6'-0" ADS-1/CP Scale_ 3/4,1'{1® 11x 17 any: 2 Rear Elevation c12, 3 1,1 11' it 17,1. TDD Side View Scale 3'4=1°.0 4211x17 1, Li -B— Partial Section 66 Fc 12.311.11 Square Feet: 2'-0' x 2'-0' = 4 R' (.27m) j Audi Perking Sign 6'-0" ADS-1/CP Signs 112,13 SPECIFICATIONS: Sq, Is made of 1mlAluzOodAud SNaMekf: YR.E aayk lenses am Bush rat thecurrzNe Alla sdesubces C ,y and arrow Bbd Vny1 Cape a Aud type E•Ie dei ■ Ave. 344x Black Vary! Detail A Scab 129111717 D.a 9121/2015 o.... k.»n c.K,ica.k P"*“... Audi Temecula ' 40955 Temecula Center Drive Temecula, CA 92590 wi.+pt+r.1Y'w4.Rh .r�+ti.,x..• MI ....a. 22 we. 9/2112016 se*:... a.ae 54. 'k1.e 1 .01. w..: Audi Temecula .e,.. 40905 Temecula Center Drive Temecula, CA 92590 Yam•. ►�1.~.1:..ru 611, .04r. ama�..,e I wM.m,Mnm. reew.o Secodw..eo `=Audi Temecula 40955 Temecula Center Drive Temecula, CA 92590 m mI —. Tcp panted Aud S1,e, 9gaen Fee1�2.4-s 2.4' b4 rt'1.27117 f Audi Parking Sign 6'.O ADS-1/CP Signs 115.10, 17 { Deb1A Sb kion.° 7,7 1100: _� 1 Plan View 5aS 3'a'n1' l_R !la l7 Cuecomer Parking,— —Sei:+.y+nar • c e .ec.yw hurl !Aw I uses..-. a +— TCJ4,a% /ieODl Rolled Ami law Top pa.xedAudl sow +31 II I I • I- TBD Front Elevation - 6'-0" ADS-1/CP Scab: 314-1'd ® 11x 17 0113 Rear Elevation Soar -3/4,1,0- 0 11117 SPECIFICATIONS - Sal a::adeollawn w bond A!e Slyer/Mai: Wb6art laws are *Eh WI Marvaem are fade stoic. Ccpyand anon Bbd ynyl copy sAua Type Emended � �� sNesna 4— Partial Section B -B Scale: 1:2 Q711x17 s • TBD Side View Scale: 3,4=1.0. ®11x17 Detail A aa. 12041.117 ■ xua Sow BlackVmryl f 23 Audi Temecula 40955 Temecula Center Drive Temecula, CA 92590 L Pian Wow ra. 7325 ■ 4 Sery ce Exit 4 ba Sam .M!me— a deme Top pellet Acti Slier • Service 4 s3brpm3a Aaas.. Exit r.bo 40(2-B,9'00) BanbdAro %Nes H S1deA-ADS4 t)TY2 Scab: 1 -"t' -a ® 11317 Scale: 1=1'd 4211317 S]deB-ADS•". S,'de - ADS. Seale' 1,1,0- 411 11x17 Partial Section B -B Subs. 12®11317 Detail A Swle 12 ®11317 Square Feet:1'4"x 1%9"=3A 1 Custom Audi Directional Sign 510,419 cari.....9L'B." a"S: Dreamt a made deaAA3daMAW SAer Meta& Whin acerb areas are L3,weh Me moan orae site season Copy end mw Bbd Kryl Coq aAudTwo E3la3be Nobs ADS -I rammer stny7e Ice bard 65-80% albcaW have re aloe a Tan cede imYifwa' Ca (12241m) as hap ad4 square be( (3716 sq a)bbl ■ Aub SAer Bad Keel -1 ora 9/21/2015 1 r.dr.e"... Audi Temecula 3 - 40955 Temecula Center Drive Temecula, CA 92590 • RP Raman 24 RESOLUTION DEVELOPMENT PLAN PC RESOLUTION NO. 15- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA15-0513, A DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR AN AUDI AUTO -DEALERSHIP ENCOMPASSING A SHOWROOM AND OFFICES, AUTO PARTS AND SERVICE FACILITY, AND A BAY FOR CAR WASHING AND DETAILING TOTALING APPROXIMATELY 37,500 SQUARE FEET TO BE LOCATED AT 40955 TEMECULA CENTER DRIVE, GENERALLY LOCATED ON THE WEST SIDE OF TEMECULA CENTER DRIVE BETWEEN TEMECULA CENTER DRIVE AND INTERSTATE 15, APPROXIMATELY 1,000 FEET WEST OF YNEZ ROAD (A PORTION OF A.P.N. 916-400-032) Section 1. Procedural Findings. The Planning Commission of the City of Temecula does hereby find, determine and declare that: A. On April 6, 2015, Andrew Dzulynsky of Ware Malcomb Architects and Kathryn Conniff of the Horine Group filed Planning Application No. PA15-0513, Development Plan Application, on behalf of Hoehn Motors, Inc. in a manner in accord with the City of Temecula General Plan and Development Code. B. The Application was processed including, but not limited to a public notice, in the time and manner prescribed by State and local law. C. The Planning Commission, at a regular meeting, considered the Application and environmental review on October 21, 2015, at a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law, at which time the City staff and interested persons had an opportunity to and did testify either in support or in opposition to this matter. D. At the conclusion of the Planning Commission hearing and after due consideration of the testimony, the Planning Commission approved Planning Application No. PA15-0513 subject to and based upon the findings set forth hereunder. E. All legal preconditions to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred. Section 2. Further Findings. The Planning Commission, in approving the Application hereby finds, determines and declares that: Development Plan, Development Code Section 17.05.010.F A. The proposed use is in conformance with the General Plan for Temecula and with all applicable requirements of State law and other Ordinances of the City; The proposal is consistent with the land use designation and policies reflected within the Harveston Specific Plan and the City of Temecula General Plan. The project is located within a Service Commercial zoning designation of the Specific Plan, which permits the sale of automobiles. The proposed auto dealership has also been carefully designed to be sensitive to the adjacent residences. B. The overall development of the land is designed for the protection of the public health, safety, and general welfare. The project is consistent with the development standards of the Harveston Specific Plan. The architecture and site layout for the project has been reviewed utilizing the commercial development standards within the Harveston Specific Plan. The project has met the performance standards in regards to circulation, architectural design and site plan design. The project has been reviewed for, and as conditioned, is consistent with all applicable policies, guidelines, standards and regulations intended to ensure the development will be constructed and function in a manner that is consistent with the public health, safety, and welfare. Section 3. Environmental Findings. The Planning Commission hereby makes the following environmental findings and determinations in connection with the approval of the Development Plan Application, PA15-0513: A. Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), a Supplemental Environmental Impact Report was completed for the project to assess the potential environmental effects of the approval of the Development Plan Application, as described in the Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (SEIR). Based upon the findings contained in that study, City staff determined that with implementation of mitigation measures there was no substantial evidence that the Project could have a significant effect on the environment and Notice of Determination would appropriate for the project. B. Thereafter, City staff provided public notice of the public comment period and of the intent to adopt the Supplemental Environmental Impact Report as required by law. The public comment period commenced on July 20, 2015 and expired on September 8, 2015. Copies of the documents have been available for public review and inspection at the offices of the Department of Community Development, located at City Hall, 41000 Main Street, Temecula, California 92590. C. Five written comments were received prior to the public hearing and a response to all the comments made therein was prepared, submitted to the Planning Commission and incorporated into the administrative record of the proceedings. D. The Planning Commission has reviewed the Supplemental Environmental Impact Report and all comments received regarding the Supplemental Environmental Impact Report prior to and at the October 21, 2015 public hearing, and based on the whole record before it finds that: (1) the Supplemental Environmental Impact Report was prepared in compliance with CEQA; (2) there is no substantial evidence that the Project will have a significant effect on the environment; and (3) the Supplemental Environmental Impact Report reflects the independent judgment and analysis of the Planning Commission. E. Based on the findings set forth in Resolution 15- , the Planning Commission has adopted the Supplemental Environmental Impact Report prepared for this project. Section 4. Conditions. The Planning Commission of the City of Temecula approves Planning Application No. PA15-0513, a Development Plan for an Audi auto dealership encompassing a showroom and offices, auto parts and service facility, and a bay for car washing and detailing totaling approximately 37,500 square feet located at 40955 Temecula Center Drive, generally located on the west side of Temecula Center Drive between Temecula Center Drive and Interstate 15, approximately 1,000 feet west of Ynez Road, subject to the Conditions of Approval set forth on Exhibit A, attached hereto, and incorporated herein by this reference. Section 5. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the City of Temecula Planning Commission this 21st day of October 2015. Lanae Turley-Trejo, Chairperson ATTEST: Luke Watson Secretary [SEAL] STATE OF CALIFORNIA } COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE )ss CITY OF TEMECULA I, Luke Watson, Secretary of the Temecula Planning Commission, do hereby certify that the forgoing PC Resolution No. 15- was duly and regularly adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Temecula at a regular meeting thereof held on the 21st day of October 2015, by the following vote: AYES: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: NOES: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS ABSTAIN: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS Luke Watson Secretary EXHIBIT A DRAFT CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL EXHIBIT A CITY OF TEMECULA DRAFT CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL Planning Application No.: PA15-0513 Project Description: Audi Development Plan: A Development Plan application for Hoehn Motors, Inc. to construct a 37,468 square foot Audi dealership on 4.5 acres within the Harveston Specific Plan, located at 40955 Temecula Center Drive, generally located on the west side of Temecula Center Drive between Interstate 15 and Temecula Center Drive, approximately 1,000 feet west of Ynez Road. Assessor's Parcel No.: 916-400-032 (portion of) MSHCP Category: Commercial (Per Harveston/Winchester Hills Development Agreement) DIF Category: Retail (Per Harveston/Winchester Hills Development Agreement) TUMF Category: Retail (Per Harveston/Winchester Hills Development Agreement) Quimby Category: Exempt (non-residential development) Approval Date: October 21, 2015 Expiration Date: October 21, 2017 PLANNING DIVISION Within 48 Hours of the Approval 1. Filing Notice of Determination. The applicant/developer shall deliver to the Planning Division a cashier's check or money order made payable to the County Clerk in the amount of Three Thousand Seventy-Nine Dollars and Seventy-Five Cents ($3,079.75)which includes the Three Thousand Twenty-Nine Dollars and Seventy-Five Cents ($3,029.75 )fee, required by Fish and Wildlife Code Section 711.4(d)(3) plus the Fifty Dollars ($50.00) County administrative fee, to enable the City to file the Notice of Determination for the Environmental Impact Report required under Public Resources Code Section 21152 and California Code of Regulations Section 15904. If within said 48-hour period the applicant/developer has not delivered to the Planning Division the check as required above, the approval for the project granted shall be void by reason of failure of condition (Fish and Wildlife Code Section 711.4(c)). General Requirements 2. Indemnification of the City. The applicant and owner of the real property subject to this condition shall hereby agree to indemnify, protect, hold harmless, and defend the City with Legal Counsel of the City's own selection from any and all claims, actions, awards, judgments, or proceedings against the City to attack, set aside, annul, or seek monetary damages resulting, directly or indirectly,from any action in furtherance of and the approval of the City,or any agency or instrumentality thereof, advisory agency, appeal board or legislative body including actions approved by the voters of the City, concerning the Planning Application. The City shall be deemed for purposes of this condition, to include any agency or instrumentality thereof, or any of its elected or appointed officials, officers, employees, consultants, contractors, legal counsel, and agents. City shall promptly notify both the applicant and landowner of any claim, action, or proceeding to which this condition is applicable and shall further cooperate fully in the defense of the action. The City reserves the right to take any and all action the City deems to be in the best interest of the City and its citizens in regards to such defense. 3. Expiration. This approval shall be used within one two years of the approval date; otherwise, it shall become null and void. By use is meant the beginning of substantial construction contemplated by this approval within the two year period, which is thereafter diligently pursued to completion, or the beginning of substantial utilization contemplated by this approval,or use of a property in conformance with a Conditional Use Permit. 4. Time Extension. The Director of Community Development may, upon an application being filed prior to expiration, and for good cause, grant a time extension of up to 3 one-year extensions of time, one year at a time. 5. Consistency with Specific Plans. This project and all subsequent projects within this site shall be consistent with the Harveston Specific Plan. 6. Consistency with Development Agreements. The project and all subsequent projects within this site shall be subject to the Harvestonminchester Hills Development Agreement. 7. Compliance with EIR. The project and all subsequent projects within this site shall comply with all mitigation measures identified within the Harveston EIR and the project Supplemental EIR. 8. Conformance with Approved Plans. The development of the premises shall substantially conform to the approved site plan and elevations contained on file with the Planning Division. 9. Signage Permits. A separate building permit shall be required for all signage. 10. Landscape Maintenance. Landscaping installed for the project shall be continuously maintained to the reasonable satisfaction of the Director of Community Development. If it is determined that the landscaping is not being maintained, the Director of Community Development shall have the authority to require the property owner to bring the landscaping into conformance with the approved landscape plan. The continued maintenance of all landscaped areas shall be the responsibility of the developer or any successors in interest. 11. Water Quality and Drainage. Other than storm water, it is illegal to allow liquids,gels, powders, sediment,fertilizers, landscape debris, and waste from entering the storm drain system or from leaving the property. To ensure compliance with this Condition of Approval: a. Spills and leaks shall be cleaned up immediately. b. Do not hose down parking areas, sidewalks, alleys, or gutters. c. Ensure that all materials and products stored outside are protected from rain. d. Ensure all trash bins are covered at all times. 12. Modifications or Revisions. The permittee shall obtain City approval for any modifications or revisions to the approval of this project. 13. Trash Enclosures. The trash enclosures shall be large enough to accommodate a recycling bin, as well as regular solid waste containers. 14. Trash Enclosures. Trash enclosures shall be provided to house all trash receptacles utilized on the site. These shall be clearly labeled on the site plan. 15. Covered Trash Enclosures. All trash enclosures on site shall include a solid cover and the construction plans shall include all details of the trash enclosures, including the solid cover. 16. Phased Construction. If construction is phased, a construction staging area plan or phasing plan for construction equipment and trash shall be approved by the Director of Community Development. 17. Construction and Demolition Debris. The developer shall contact the City's franchised solid waste hauler for disposal of construction and demolition debris and shall provide the Planning Division verification of arrangements made with the City's franchise solid waste hauler for disposal of construction and demolition debris. Only the City's franchisee may haul demolition and construction debris. 18. Public Art Ordinance. The applicant shall comply with the requirements of the City's Public Art Ordinance as defined in Section 5.08 of the Temecula Municipal Code. 19. Property Maintenance. All parkways, including within the right-of-way, entryway median, landscaping,walls,fencing, recreational facilities,and on-site lighting shall be maintained by the property owner or maintenance association. Prior to Issuance of Grading Permit 20. Placement of Transformer. Provide the Planning Division with a copy of the underground water plans and electrical plans for verification of proper placement of transformer(s) and double detector check prior to final agreement with the utility companies. 21. Placement of Double Detector Check Valves. Double detector check valves shall be installed at locations that minimize their visibility from the public right-of-way, subject to review and approval by the Director of Community Development. 22. Archaeological/Cultural Resources Grading Note. The following shall be included in the Notes Section of the Grading Plan: "If at any time during excavation/construction of the site, archaeological/cultural resources, or any artifacts or other objects which reasonably appears to be evidence of cultural or archaeological resource are discovered, the property owner shall immediately advise the City of such and the City shall cause all further excavation or other disturbance of the affected area to immediately cease. The Director of Community Development at his/her sole discretion may require the property owner to deposit a sum of money it deems reasonably necessary to allow the City to consult and/or authorize an independent,fully qualified specialist to inspect the site at no cost to the City, in order to assess the significance of the find. Upon determining that the discovery is not an archaeological/ cultural resource, the Director of Community Development shall notify the property owner of such determination and shall authorize the resumption of work. Upon determining that the discovery is an archaeological/cultural resource, the Director of Community Development shall notify the property owner that no further excavation or development may take place until a mitigation plan or other corrective measures have been approved by the Director of Community Development." 23. Discovery of Cultural Resources. The following shall be included in the Notes Section of the Grading Plan: "If cultural resources are discovered during the project construction (inadvertent discoveries), all work in the area of the find shall cease, and a qualified archaeologist and representatives of the Pechanga Tribe shall be retained by the project sponsor to investigate the find, and make recommendations as to treatment and mitigation." 24. Relinquishment of Cultural Resources. The following shall be included in the Notes Section of the Grading Plan: "The landowner agrees to relinquish ownership of all cultural resources, including all archaeological artifacts that are found on the project area, to the Pechanga Tribe for proper treatment and disposition." 25. Preservation of Sacred Sites. The following shall be included in the Notes Section of the Grading Plan: "All sacred sites are to be avoided and preserved." 26. MSHCP Pre-Construction Survey. A 30-day preconstruction survey, in accordance with MSHCP guidelines and survey protocol, shall be conducted prior to ground disturbance. The results of the 30-day preconstruction survey shall be submitted to the Planning Division prior to scheduling the pre-grading meeting with Public Works. 27. Burrowing Owl Grading Note. The following shall be included in the Notes Section of the Grading Plan: "No grubbing/clearing of the site shall occur prior to scheduling the pre-grading meeting with Public Works. All project sites containing suitable habitat for burrowing owls, whether owls were found or not, require a 30-day preconstruction survey that shall be conducted within 30 days prior to ground disturbance to avoid direct take of burrowing owls. If the results of the survey indicate that no burrowing owls are present on-site, then the project may move forward with grading, upon Planning Division approval. If burrowing owls are found to be present or nesting on-site during the preconstruction survey, then the following recommendations must be adhered to: Exclusion and relocation activities may not occur during the breeding season, which is defined as March 1 through August 31, with the following exception: From March 1 through March 15 and from August 1 through August 31 exclusion and relocation activities may take place if it is proven to the City and appropriate regulatory agencies (if any) that egg laying or chick rearing is not taking place. This determination must be made by a qualified biologist." 28. Rough Grading Plans. A copy of the Rough Grading Plans shall be submitted and approved by the Planning Division. Prior to Issuance of Building Permit 29. Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee (TUMF). The City of Temecula adopted an ordinance on March 31, 2003 to collect fees for a Riverside County area wide Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee (TUMF). This project is subject to payment of these fees at the time of building permit issuance. The fees are subject to the provisions of Chapter 15.08 of the Temecula Municipal Code and the fee schedule in effect at the time of building permit issuance pursuant to the Harveston/Winchester Hills Development Agreement. 30. Development Impact Fee (DIF1. The developer shall comply with the provisions of Title 15, Chapter 15.06 of the Temecula Municipal Code and all its resolutions by paying the appropriate City fee pursuant to the Harveston/Winchester Hills Development Agreement. 31. Construction Landscaping and Irrigation Plans. Four (4) copies of Construction Landscaping and Irrigation Plans shall be reviewed and approved by the Planning Division. These plans shall be submitted as a separate submittal, not as part of the building plans or other plan set. These plans shall conform to the approved conceptual landscape plan,or as amended by these conditions. The location, number, height and spread, water usage or KC value, genus, species, and container size of the plants shall be shown. The plans shall be consistent with the Water Efficient Ordinance and Water Storage Contingency Plan per the Rancho California Water District. The plans shall be accompanied by the appropriate filing fee (per the City of Temecula Fee Schedule at time of submittal)and one copy of the approved Grading Plan. • 32. Landscaping Site Inspections. The Landscaping and Irrigation Plans shall include a note stating, "Three landscape site inspections are required. The first inspection will be conducted at installation of irrigation while trenches are open. This will verify that irrigation equipment and layout is per plan specifications and details. Any adjustments or discrepancies in actual conditions will be addressed at this time and will require an approval to continue. Where applicable, a mainline pressure check will also be conducted. This will verify that the irrigation mainline is capable of being pressurized to 150 psi for a minimum period of two hours without loss of pressure. The second inspection will verify that all irrigation systems are operating properly, and to verify that all plantings have been installed consistent with the approved construction landscape plans. The third inspection will verify property landscape maintenance for release of the one-year landscape maintenance bond." The applicant/owner shall contact the Planning Division to schedule inspections. 33. Agronomic Soils Report. The Landscaping and Irrigation Plans shall include a note on the plans stating, "The contractor shall provide two copies of an agronomic soils report at the first irrigation inspection." 34. Water Usage Calculations. The Landscaping and Irrigation Plans shall include water usage calculations per Chapter 17.32 of the Development Code (Water Efficient Ordinance), the total cost estimate of plantings and irrigation (in accordance with approved plan). Applicant shall use evapotranspiration (ETo) factor of 0.70 for calculating the maximum allowable water budget. 35. Landscape Maintenance Program. A landscape maintenance program shall be submitted to the Planning Division for approval. The landscape maintenance program shall detail the proper maintenance of all proposed plant materials to assure proper growth and landscape development for the long-term esthetics of the property. The approved maintenance program shall be provided to the landscape maintenance contractor who shall be responsible to carry out the detailed program. 36. Specifications of Landscape Maintenance Program. Specifications of the landscape maintenance program shall indicate, `Three landscape site inspections are required. The first inspection will be conducted at installation of irrigation while trenches are open. This will verify that irrigation equipment and layout is per plan specifications and details. Any adjustments or discrepancies in actual conditions will be addressed at this time and will require an approval to continue. Where applicable,a mainline pressure check will also be conducted. This will verify that the irrigation mainline is capable of being pressurized to 150 psi for a minimum period of two hours without loss of pressure. The second inspection will verify that all irrigation systems are operating properly, and to verify that all plantings have been installed consistent with the approved construction landscape plans. The third inspection will verify property landscape maintenance for release of the one-year landscape maintenance bond." The applicant/owner shall contact the Planning Division to schedule inspections. 37. Irrigation. The landscaping plans shall include automatic irrigation for all landscaped areas and complete screening of all ground mounted equipment from view of the public from streets and adjacent property for(private common areas; front yards and slopes within individual lots; shrub planting to completely screen perimeter walls adjacent to a public right-of-way equal to 66 feet or larger; and, all landscaping excluding City maintained areas and front yard landscaping which shall include, but may not be limited to, private slopes and common areas). Choose those that apply 38. Hardscaping. The landscape plans shall include all hardscaping for equestrian trails and pedestrian trails within private common areas. 39. Precise Grading Plans. Precise Grading Plans shall be consistent with the approved rough grading plans including all structural setback measurements. 40. Building Construction Plans for Outdoor Areas. Building Construction Plans shall include detailed outdoor areas (including but not limited to trellises, decorative furniture, fountains, hardscape) to match the style of the building subject to the approval of the Director of Community Development. 41. Landscaping Requirement for Phased Development. If any phase or area of the project site is not scheduled for development within six months of the completion of grading, the landscaping plans shall indicate it will be temporarily landscaped and irrigated for dust and soil erosion control. 42. WQMP Treatment Devices. All WQMP treatment devices, including design details, shall be shown on the construction landscape plans. If revisions are made to the WQMP design that result in any changes to the conceptual landscape plans after entitlement, the revisions will be shown on the construction landscape plans, subject to the approval of the Director of Community Development. 43. Utility Screening. All utilities shall be screened from public view. Landscape construction drawings shall show and label all utilities and provide appropriate screening. Provide a three-foot clear zone around fire check detectors as required by the Fire Department before starting the screen. Group utilities together in order to reduce intrusion. Screening of utilities is not to look like an after-thought. Plan planting beds and design around utilities. Locate all light poles on plans and ensure that there are no conflicts with trees. Prior to Release of Power, Building Occupancy or Any Use Allowed by This Permit 44. Letter of Substantial Conformance. The applicant shall submit a letter of substantial conformance, subject to field verification by the Director of Community Development or his/her designee. Said letter of substantial conformance shall be prepared by the project designer and shall indicate that all plant materials and irrigation system components have been installed in accordance with the approved final landscape and irrigation plans. Such letter of substantial conformance shall be submitted prior to scheduling for the final inspection. 45. Screening of Loading Areas. The applicant shall be required to screen all loading areas and roof mounted mechanical equipment from view of the adjacent residences and public right-of-ways. If upon final inspection it is determined that any mechanical equipment, roof equipment or backs of building parapet walls are visible from any portion of the public right-of-way adjacent to the project site, the developer shall provide screening by constructing a sloping tile covered mansard roof element or other screening reviewed and approved by the Director of Community Development. 46. Landscape Installation Consistent with Construction Plans. All required landscape planting and irrigation shall have been installed consistent with the approved construction plans and shall be in a condition acceptable to the Director of Community Development. The plants shall be healthy and free of weeds, disease, or pests. The irrigation system shall be properly constructed and in good working order. 47. Performance Securities. Performance securities, in amounts to be determined by the Director of Community Development, to guarantee the maintenance of the plantings in accordance with the approved construction landscape and irrigation plan, shall be filed with the Planning Division for a period of one year from final Certificate of Occupancy. After that year, if the landscaping and irrigation system have been maintained in a condition satisfactory to the Director of Community Development, the bond shall be released upon request by the applicant. 48. Installation of Site Improvements. All site improvements, including but not limited to, parking areas and striping shall be installed. 49. Compliance with Conditions of Approval. All of the foregoing conditions shall be complied with prior to occupancy or any use allowed by this permit. Outside Agencies 50. Flood Protection. Flood protection shall be provided in accordance with the Riverside County Flood Control District's transmittal dated June 9,2015, a copy of which is attached. The fee is made payable to the Riverside County Flood Control Water District by either a cashier's check or money order, prior to the issuance of a grading permit(unless deferred to a later date by the District), based upon the prevailing area drainage plan fee. 51. Compliance with EMWD. The applicant shall comply with the recommendations set forth in the Eastern Municipal Water District's transmittal dated April 30, 2015, a copy of which is attached. 52. Compliance with RCWD. The applicant shall comply with the recommendations set forth in the Rancho California Water District's transmittal dated April 22, 2015, a copy of which is attached. PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT General Requirements 53. Conditions of Approval. The developer shall comply with all Conditions of Approval, the Engineering and Construction Manual and all City codes/standards at no cost to any governmental agency. 54. Entitlement Approval. The developer shall comply with the approved site plan, the conceptual Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) and other relevant documents approved during entitlement. Any significant omission to the representation of site conditions may require the plans to be resubmitted for further review and revision. 55. Precise Grading Permit. A precise grading permit for onsite improvements (outside of public right-of-way)shall be obtained from Public Works 56. Encroachment Permits. Prior to commencement of any applicable construction, encroachment permit(s)are required and shall be obtained: a. from Public Works for public off-site improvements, and b. from the California Department of Transportation, if encroaching within their right-of-way. 57. Street Improvement Plans. The developer shall submit public/private street improvement plans for review and approval by Public Works. The plans shall be in compliance with Caltrans and City codes/standards; and shall include, but not limited to, plans and profiles showing existing topography, existing/proposed utilities, proposed centerline, top of curb and flowline grades 58. Storm Drain Improvement Plans. The developer shall submit storm drain improvement plans if the street storm flows exceeds top of curb for the 10-year storm event and/or is not contained within the street right-of-way for the 100-year storm event. A manhole shall be constructed at right-of-way where a private and public storm drain systems connect. The plans shall be approved by Public Works. 59. Private maintenance. All drainage and water quality facilities shall be privately maintained. 60. Development Agreement. The Applicant shall comply with the Development Agreement between the City of Temecula and Lennar Homes, LLC and Winchester Hills I, LLC and all subsequent amendments. 61. Underlying Condition of Approvals. The Applicant shall comply with the all underlying Conditions of Approval for: a. the Harveston Specific Plan No. 13 (PA99-0418)as approved on August 14, 2001; b.Tentative Tract Map No. 29639(PA00-0295) as approved on August 14, 2001; and c.Tentative Parcel Map No. 36336 (PA10-0298) as approved on January 5, 2011. Prior to Issuance of a Grading Permit 62. Environmental Constraint Sheet(ECS). The developer shall comply with all constraints per the recorded ECS with any underlying maps related to the subject property. 63. Required Clearances. Prior to issuance of ANY permit, the developer shall receive written clearances/permits from applicable agencies such as CalTrans and/or other affected agencies. 64. Grading/Erosion & Sediment Control Plan. The developer shall submit a grading/erosion & sediment control plan(s) to be reviewed and approved by Public Works. All plans shall be coordinated for consistency with adjacent projects and existing improvements contiguous to the site. The approved plan shall include all final WQMP water quality facilities and all construction-phase pollution-prevention controls to adequately address non-permitted runoff. Refer to the City's Engineering & Construction Manual at: http://www.cityoftemecula.org/Temecula/Government/Pu blicWorks/engineeringconstmanual.ht m 65. Erosion & Sediment Control Securities. The developer shall comply with the provisions of Chapter 24, Section 18.24.140 of the Temecula Municipal Code by posting security and entering into an agreement to guarantee the erosion & sediment control improvements. 66. NPDES General Permit Compliance. The developer shall obtain project coverage under the State National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) General Permit for Construction Activities and shall provide the following: a. A copy of the Waste Discharge Identification Number (WDID) issued by the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB); b. The project's Risk Level (RL) determination number; and c. The name, contact information and certification number of the Qualified SWPPP Developer (QSD) Pursuant to the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) requirements and City's storm water ordinance, a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) shall be generated and submitted to the Board. Throughout the project duration, the SWPPP shall be routinely updated and readily available (onsite) to the State and City. Review www.cabmphandbooks.com for SWPPP guidelines. Refer to the following link: http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/water_issues/programs/stormwater/construction.shtm I 67. Water Quality Management Plan(WQMP)and O&M Agreement. The developer shall submit a final WQMP (prepared by a registered professional engineer) with the initial grading plan submittal, based on the conceptual WQMP from the entitlement process. It must receive acceptance by Public Works. A copy of the final project-specific WQMP must be kept onsite at all times. In addition, a completed WQMP Operation and Maintenance(O&M)Agreement shall be submitted for review and approval. Upon approval from City staff, the applicant shall record the O&M agreement at the County Recorder's Office in Temecula. Refer to the WQMP template and agreement link below: http://www.cityoftemecula.org/Temecula/Government/Pu blicWorks/W QM PandN PDESNVQMP. htm 68. Abandonment of Existing Easement. Prior to issuance of ANY permit, the developer shall provide a copy of the recorded easement abandonment for the temporary storm water management facility which encumber the property. 69. Storm Drain Easement. Prior to issuance of ANY permit, the Developer shall submit drainage easement documents for review and approval for the storm drain facilities along the northerly and southerly property boundaries. 70. Drainage. All applicable drainage shall be depicted on the grading plan and properly accommodated with onsite drainage improvements and water quality facilities, which shall be privately maintained. Alterations to existing drainage patterns or concentration and/or diverting flows is not allowed unless the developer constructs adequate drainage improvements and obtains the necessary permissions from the downstream property owners. All drainage leaving the site shall be conveyed into a public storm drain system, if possible. The creation of new cross lot drainage is not permitted 71. Drainage Study. A drainage study shall be prepared by a registered civil engineer and submitted to Public Works with the initial grading plan check in accordance with City, Riverside County and engineering standards. The study shall identify storm water runoff quantities (to mitigate the 100-year storm event) from the development of this site and upstream of the site. It shall identify all existing or proposed offsite or onsite, public or private, drainage facilities intended to discharge this runoff. Runoff shall be conveyed to an adequate outfall capable of receiving the storm water runoff without damage to public or private property. The study shall include a capacity analysis verifying the adequacy of all facilities. Any upgrading or upsizing of drainage facilities necessary to convey the storm water runoff shall be provided as part of development of this project 72. Soils Report. A soils report, prepared by a registered soil or civil engineer,shall be submitted to Public Works with the initial grading plan submittal. The report shall address the sites soil conditions and provide recommendations for the construction of engineered structures and preliminary pavement sections 73. Letter of Permission/Easement. The developer shall obtain documents (letters of permission or easements)for any offsite work performed on adjoining properties. The document's format is as directed by, and shall be submitted to, Public Works for acceptance. The document information shall be noted on the approved grading plan. 74. Sight Distance. The developer shall limit landscaping in the corner cut-off area of all street intersections and adjacent to driveways to provide for minimum sight distance and visibility. 75. Habitat Conservation Fee. The developer shall comply with the provisions of Chapter 8.24 of the Temecula Municipal Code (Habitat Conservation) by paying the appropriate fee set forth in the ordinance or by providing documented evidence that the fees have already been paid. Prior to Issuance of Encroachment Permit(s) 76. Public Utility Agency Work. The developer shall submit all relevant documentation due to encroaching within City right-of-way;and is responsible for any associated costs and for making arrangements with each applicable public utility agency. 77. Traffic Control Plans. A construction area traffic control plan (TCP) will be required for lane closures and detours or other disruptions to traffic circulation; and shall be reviewed and approved by Public Works. The TCP shall be designed by a registered civil or traffic engineer in conformance with the latest edition of the Caltrans Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD)and City standards. 78. Improvement Plans. All improvement plans (including but not limited to street, storm drain, traffic)shall be reviewed and approved by Public Works 79. Street Trenching. All street trenches shall conform to City Standard No.407; refer to the City's Paving Notes. Prior to Issuance of Building Permit(s) 80. Private Street. Private street plans shall conform to applicable City of Temecula Standards subject to approval by the Department of Public Works. The following design criteria shall be observed: a. Flowline grades shall be 0.5% minimum over P.C.C. and 1.00% minimum over A.C. paving. b. Driveways shall conform to the applicable City of Temecula Standard Number 207A. c. Improvement plans shall extend 300 feet beyond the project boundaries. d. Minimum centerline radii shall be in accordance with City of Temecula Standard Number 113. e. All curves shall include a 100-foot minimum tangent section. f. All street and driveway center line intersections shall be at 90 degrees. g. Street improvement plans shall include plans and profiles showing existing topography, utilities, proposed centerline, top of curb and flowline grades. 81. Construction of Street Improvements. All street improvement plans shall be approved by Public Works. The developer shall start construction of all public and/or private street improvements, as outlined below, in accordance to the City's General Plan/Circulation Element and corresponding City standards. All street improvement designs shall provide adequate • right-of-way and pavement transitions per Caltrans' standards to join existing street improvements. a. Improve Temecula Center Drive - Private (per the Harveston Specific Plan — Industrial Collector - 78' R/W) along its parcel frontage to the southerly parcel boundary with an interim turnaround to include installation of half-width street improvements plus twelve feet, paving, curb, gutter, sidewalk, streetlights, drainage facilities, signing and striping, and utilities (including but not limited to water and sewer). 82. Street Lights. The developer shall submit a completed SCE street light application, an approved SCE Streetlight Plan and pay the advanced energy fees. If not obtaining a building permit, this shall be done prior to installation of additional street lighting. All costs associated with the relocation of any existing street lights shall be paid by the developer. 83. Certifications. Certifications are required from the registered civil engineer-of-record certifying the building pad elevation(s) per the approved plans and from the soil's engineer-of-record certifying compaction of the building pad(s). Prior to Issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy 84. Completion of Improvements. The developer shall complete all work per the approved plans and Conditions of Approval to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. This includes all onsite work (including water quality facilities), public improvements and the executed WQMP Operation and Maintenance agreement. 85. Utility Agency Clearances. The developer shall receive written clearance from applicable utility agencies(i.e., Rancho California and Eastern Municipal Water Districts, etc.)for the completion of their respective facilities and provide to Public Works. 86. Replacement of Damaged Improvements/Monuments. Any appurtenance damaged or broken during development shall be repaired or removed and replaced to the satisfaction of Public Works. Any survey monuments damaged or destroyed shall be reset per City Standards by a qualified professional pursuant to the California Business and Professional Code Section 8771. 87. Certifications. All necessary certifications and clearances from engineers, utility companies and public agencies shall be submitted as required by Public Works. BUILDING AND SAFETY DIVISION General Requirements 88. Final Building and Safety Conditions. Final Building and Safety conditions will be addressed when building construction plans are submitted to Building and Safety for review. These conditions will be based on occupancy, use, the California Building Code (CBC), and related codes which are enforced at the time of building plan submittal. 89. Compliance with Code. All design components shall comply with applicable provisions of the 2013 edition of the California Building, Plumbing and Mechanical Codes; 2013 California Electrical Code; California Administrative Code, 2013 California Energy Codes, 2013 California Green Building Standards, California Title 24 Disabled Access Regulations, and City of Temecula Municipal Code. 90. Disabled Access. Applicant shall provide details of all applicable disabled access provisions and building setbacks on plans to include: a. All ground floor units to be adaptable. b. Disabled access from the public way to the main entrance of the building. c. Van accessible parking located as close as possible to the main entry. d. Path of accessibility from parking to furthest point of improvement. e. Path of travel from public right-of-way to all public areas on site, such as club house, trash enclose tot lots and picnic areas. 91. County of Riverside Mount Palomar Ordinance. Applicant shall submit, at time of plan review, a complete exterior site lighting plan showing compliance with County of Riverside Mount Palomar Ordinance Number 655 for the regulation of light pollution. All streetlights and other outdoor lighting shall be shown on electrical plans submitted to the Building and Safety Division. Any outside lighting shall be hooded and aimed not to shine directly upon adjoining property or public rights-of-way. 92. Street Addressing. Applicant must obtain street addressing for all proposed buildings by requesting street addressing and submitting a site plan for commercial or multi-family residential projects or a recorded final map for single-family residential projects. 93. Clearance from TVUSD. A receipt or clearance letter from the Temecula Valley School District shall be submitted to the Building and Safety Department to ensure the payment or exemption from School Mitigation Fees. 94. Obtain Approvals Prior to Construction. Applicant must obtain all building plans and permit approvals prior to commencement of any construction work. 95. Obtaining Separate Approvals and Permits. Trash enclosures, patio covers, light standards, and any block walls will require separate approvals and permits. 96. Sewer and Water Plan Approvals. On-site sewer and water plans will require separate approvals and permits. 97. Hours of Construction. Signage shall be prominently posted at the entrance to the project, indicating the hours of construction, as allowed by the City of Temecula Municipal Ordinance 9.20.060,for any site within one-quarter mile of an occupied residence. The permitted hours of construction are Monday through Saturday from 7:00 a.m. to 6:30 p.m. No work is permitted on Sundays and nationally recognized Government Holidays. 98. House Electrical Meter. Provide a house electrical meter to provide power for the operation of exterior lighting, irrigation pedestals and fire alarm systems for each building on the site. Developments with single user buildings shall clearly show on the plans how the operation of exterior lighting and fire alarm systems when a house meter is not specifically proposed. At Plan Review Submittal 99. Submitting Plans and Calculations. Applicant must submit to Building and Safety four (4) complete sets of plans and two (2) sets of supporting calculations for review and approval including: a. An electrical plan including load calculations and panel schedule, plumbing schematic, and mechanical plan applicable to scope of work. b. A Sound Transmission Control Study in accordance with the provisions of the Section 1207, of the 2013 edition of the California Building Code. c. A precise grading plan to verify accessibility for persons with disabilities. d. Truss calculations that have been stamped by the engineer of record of the building and the truss manufacturer engineer. Prior to Issuance of Grading Permit(s) 100. Onsite Water and Sewer Plans. Onsite water and sewer plans, submitted separately from the building plans, shall be submitted to Building and Safety for review and approval. 101. Demolition Permits. A demolition permit shall be obtained if there is an existing structure to be removed as part of the project. Prior to Issuance of Building Permit(s) 102. Plans Require Stamp of Registered Professional. Applicant shall provide appropriate stamp of a registered professional with original signature on the plans. Prior to Beginning of Construction 103. Pre-Construction Meeting. A pre-construction meeting is required with the building inspector prior to the start of the building construction. FIRE PREVENTION General Requirements 104. Fire Hydrants. The Fire Prevention Bureau is required to set minimum fire hydrant distances per CFC Appendix C. Standard fire hydrants(6"x 4"x(2)2 W outlets)shall be located on fire access roads and adjacent public streets. For all Commercial projects hydrants shall be spaced at 350 feet apart,and shall be located no more than 210 feet from any point on the street or Fire Department access road(s) frontage to a hydrant. The required fire flow shall be available from any adjacent hydrant(s) in the system. The fire line may be required to be a looped system. The upgrade of existing fire hydrants may be required (CFC Appendix C and Temecula City Ordinance 15.16.020) 105. Fire Dept. Plan Review. Final fire and life safety conditions will be addressed when building plans are reviewed by the Fire Prevention Bureau. These conditions will be based on occupancy, use, the California Building Code (CBC), California Fire Code (CFC), and related codes which are in force at the time of building plan submittal 106. Fire Flow. The Fire Prevention Bureau is required to set a minimum fire flow for the remodel or construction of all commercial and residential buildings per CFC Appendix B. The developer shall provide for this project, a water system capable of delivering 4,000 GPM at 20-PSI residual operating pressure for a 4-hour duration for commercial projects.The fire flow as given above has taken into account all information as provided. (CFC Appendix B and Temecula City Ordinance 15.16.020) Prior to Issuance of Grading Permit(s) 107. Access Road Widths. Fire Department vehicle access roads shall have an unobstructed width of not less than 24 feet and an unobstructed vertical clearance of not less than 13 feet 6 inches (CFC Chapter 5 and City Ordinance 15.16.020) 108. All Weather Access Roads. Fire apparatus access roads shall be designed and maintained to support the imposed loads of fire apparatus and shall be with a surface to provide all-weather driving capabilities. Access roads shall be 80,000 lbs. GVW with a minimum of AC thickness of .25 feet. In accordance with Section 3310.1, prior to building construction, all locations where structures are to be built shall have fire apparatus access roads. (CFC Chapter 5 and City Ordinance 15.16.020) 109. Gradient Of Access Roads. The gradient for fire apparatus access roads shall not exceed 15 percent(CFC Chapter 5 and City Ordinance 15.16.020) 110. Turning Radius. Dead end roadways and streets in excess of 150 feet which have not been completed shall have a turnaround capable of accommodating fire apparatus (CFC Chapter 5 and City Ordinance 15.16.020) 111. All Weather Access Roads. Fire apparatus access roads shall be designed and maintained to support the imposed loads of fire apparatus and shall be with a surface to provide all-weather driving capabilities. Access roads shall be 80,000 lbs. GVW with a minimum of AC thickness of .25 feet. In accordance with Section 3310.1, prior to building construction, all locations where structures are to be built shall have fire apparatus access roads. (CFC Chapter 5 and City Ordinance 15.16.020) Prior to Issuance of Building Permit(s) 112. Required Submittals (Fire Underground Water). The developer shall furnish three copies of the water system plans to the Fire Prevention Bureau for approval prior to installation for all private water systems pertaining to the fire service loop. Plans shall be signed by a registered civil engineer, contain a Fire Prevention Bureau approval signature block, and conform to hydrant type, location, spacing and minimum fire flow standards. Hydraulic calculations will be required with the underground submittal to ensure fire flow requirements are being met for the on-site hydrants. The plans must be submitted and approved prior to building permit being issued (CFC Chapter 33 and Chapter 5) 113. Required Submittals (Fire Sprinkler Systems). Fire sprinkler plans shall be submitted to the Fire Prevention Bureau for approval. Three sets of sprinkler plans must be submitted by the installing contractor to the Fire Prevention Bureau. These plans must be submitted prior to the issuance of building permit 114. Required Submittals (Fire Alarm Systems). Fire alarm plans shall be submitted to the Fire Prevention Bureau for approval. Three sets of alarm plans must be submitted by the installing contractor to the Fire Prevention Bureau. The fire alarm system is required to have a dedicated circuit from the house panel. These plans must be submitted prior to the issuance of building permit Prior to Issuance of Certificate of Occupancy 115. Gates and Access. All manual and electronic gates on required Fire Department access roads or gates obstructing Fire Department building access shall be provided with the Knox Rapid entry system for emergency access by fire fighting personnel (CFC Chapter 5). 116. High Piled Stock(Proposed). Buildings housing high-piles combustible stock shall comply with the provisions of California Fire Code Chapter 32 and all applicable National Fire Protection Association standards. The storage of high-piled combustible stock may require structural design considerations or modifications to the building. Fire protection and life safety features may include some or all of the following: an automatic fire sprinkler system(s) designed for a specific commodity class and storage arrangement, hose stations, alarm systems, smoke vents, draft curtains, Fire Department access doors and Fire Department access roads (CFC Chapter 32 and City Ordinance 15.16.020) 117. Knox Box. A"Knox-Box"shall be provided. The Knox-Box shall be installed a minimum of six feet in height and be located to the right side of the fire riser sprinkler room (CFC Chapter 5). 118. Addressing. New and existing buildings shall have approved address numbers, building numbers or approved building identification placed in a position that is plainly legible and visible from the street or road fronting the property. These numbers shall contrast with their background. Commercial buildings shall have a minimum of 12-inch numbers with suite numbers being a minimum of six inches in size. All suites shall have a minimum of 6-inch high letters and/or numbers on both the front and rear doors. (CFC Chapter 5 and City Ordinance 15.16.020). 119. Site Plan. The applicant shall prepare and submit to the Fire Department for approval, a site plan designating fire lanes with appropriate lane painting and/or signs (CFC Chapter 5). 120. Additional Submittals (Fire Above/Below Ground Tanks). The developer/applicant shall be responsible for obtaining underground and/or aboveground tank permits for the storage of combustible liquids, flammable liquids or any other hazardous materials from both the County Health Department and Fire Prevention Bureau (CFC Chapter 57 and City Ordinance 15.16.020) 121. File Format Requirements. A simple plot plan and a simple floor plan, each as an electronic file of the.DWG format, must be submitted to the Fire Prevention Bureau. Contact Fire Prevention for approval of alternative file formats which may be acceptable WARREN D. WILLIAMS General Manager -Chief Engineer RIVERSIDE COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL AND WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT City of Temecula Planning Department Post Office Box 9033 Temecula, California 92589-9033 Attention: Stuart Fisk Ladies and Gentlemen: Re: PA 15-0513 1995 MARKET STREET RIVERSIDE, CA 92501 95 1.955.1200 FAX 951.788.9965 www.rcflood.org 170364 JUN 15 2015 The District does not normally recommend conditions for land divisions or other land use cases in incorporated cities. The District also does not plan check city land use cases, or provide State Division of Real Estate letters or other flood hazard re;Jo,'^,s. For such cases.. District colnment3Ireco:i;mendatrnns for such cases are normally limited to items of specific interest to the District including District Master Drainage Plan facilities, other regional flood control and drainage facilities which could be considered a logical component or extension of a master plan system, and District Area Drainage Plan fees (development mitigation fees). in addition, information of a general nature is provided. The District has not reviewed the proposed project in detail and the following checked comments do not in anyway constitute or imply District approval or endorsement of the proposed project with respect to flood hazard, public healh and safety or any other such issue: No comment. X This project would not be impacted by District Master Drainage Plan facilities nor are other facilities of regional interest proposed. This project involves District Master Plan facilities. The District will accept ownership of such facilities on written request of the City. Facilities must be constructed to District standards, and District plan check and inspection will be required for District acceptance. Plan check, inspection and administrative fees will be required. This project proposes channels, storm drains 36 inches or larger in diameter or other facilities that could be considered regional in nature and/or a logical extension of the adopted Master Drainage Plan. The District would consider accepting ownership of such facilities on written request of the City. Facilities must be constructed to District standards, and District plan check and inspection will be required for District acceptance. Plan check, inspection and administrative fees will be required. X This project is located within the limits of the District's Murrieta Creek/Santa Gertrudis Valley Area Drainage Plan for whicdrainage fees have been adopted; applicable fees should be paid by cashier's check or money order only to the Flood Control District or City prior to issuance of grading permits. Fees to be paid should be at the rate in effect at the time of issuance of the actual permit. An encroachmentermit shall be obtained for any construction related activities occurring within District right of way or facilities. Forpfurther information, contact the District's encroachment permit section at 951.955.1266. GENERAL INFORMATION This project may require a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit from the State Water Resources Control Hoard. Clearance for grading, recordation or other final approval should not be given until the City has determined that the project has been granted a permit or is shown to be exempt. If this project involves a Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) mapped flood plain, then the City should require the applicant to provide all studies, calculations, plans and other information required to meet FEMA requtrements, and should further require that the applicant obtain a Conditional Letter of Map Revision (CLOMR) prior to grading, recordation or other final approval of the project, and a Letter of Map Revision (LOMR) prior to occupancy. if a natural watercourse or mapped flood plain is impacted by this project, the City should require the applicant to obtain a Section 1602 Agreement from the California Department or Fish and Game and a Clean Water Act Section 404 Permit from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, or written correspondence from these agencies indicating the project is exempt from these requirements. A Clean Water Act Section 401 Water Quality Certification may be required from the local California Regional Water Quality Control Board prior to issuance of the Corps 404 permit. c: Riverside County Planning Depat lucent Attn: Kristi Lovelady SKM:blm Very truly yours, a I D Engineering Project Manager Date: June 9, 2015 Board of Directors President Randy A. Record Vice President David J Slawson Directors Joseph J. Kuebler, CPA Philip E. Paule Ronald W. Sullivan General Manager Paul D. Jones II, P.E. Treasurer Joseph J. Kuebler, CPA Chairman of the Board, The Metropolitan Water District ofSo. Calif. Raialy A. Record Legal Counsel Lemieux & O'Neill EASTERN MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICT SINCE 1950 April 30, 2015 City of Temecula 41000 Main Street Temecula, Ca 92590 Attention: Stuart Fisk Subject: Audi Development Plan: A Development Plan application for Hoehn Motors, Inc. to construct an Audi dealership to be located south of and adjacent to Mercedes-Benz of Temecula. APN: 916-400-032. The subject project requires sewer service from EMWD. The details of said service connection points will be further detailed in a separate document, known as EMWD's Plan of Service (POS), to be developed by the project proponent. On December 29, 2014, the subject project was reviewed for Due Diligence with EMWD's New Business Department, with a Project Number WS2014-785. To date, EMWD has not received a Work Order deposit to develop Plan of Service for this project. The project must provide a public sewer pipe with an acceptable size and associated access and maintenance easement. If you have questions or concerns, please do not hesitate to contact me. Since rfy, Mar©un EI -Hage, M.. P.E. Senior Civil Engineer New Business Development (951) 928-3777 x4468 Ek-I}agem ernwd.arg ME:pn Attachment: Section J. Statement of Operations from Hoehn Audi Temecula dated April 02, 2015. City of Temecula First Submittal Subject Project Notice due date 04/28/2015 Mailing Address: Post Office Box 8300 Perris, CA 92572-8300 Telephone: (951) 928-3777 Fax: (951) 928-6177 Location: 2270 Trumble Road Perris, CA 92570 Internet: www.emwd.org r V, f\ L) O — I..0" I 1005 1t.,1c 11111 NI ll011\ I, C..1I I. 1 „1,1111( Board of Directors John E. Hoagland President James "Stew" Stewart Sr. Vice President Stephen J. Corona Ben R. Drake Lisa D. Herman William E. Plummer Roger C. Ziemer Officers Matthew G. Stone General Manager Richard S. Williamson, P.E. Assistant General Manager Jeffrey D. Armstrong CFO/Treasurer Fred F. Edgecomb, MPA Director of Operations & Maintenance Andrew L. Webster, P.E. Chief Engineer Kelli E. Garcia District Secretary James B. Gilpin Best Best & Krieger LLP General Counsel April 22, 2015 City of Temecula Planning Department 41000 Main Street Temecula, CA 92590 SUBJECT: WATER AVAILABILITY HOEHN AUDI TEMECULA; PORTION OF LOT NO. 7 OF TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 36336; PORTION OF LOT NOS. 109, 110, 120, AND 121 OF MAP BOOK 8/359; APN 916-400-032 [CITY OF TEMECULA] Dear Case Planner: Please be advised that the above -referenced project/property is located within the service boundaries of Rancho California Water District (RCWD/District). The subject project/property fronts an existing 16 -inch diameter water pipeline (1380 Pressure Zone) and an existing 6 -inch diameter recycled water pipeline (1381 Pressure Zone) within Waverly Lane, Ynez Road, and Date Street. Water service to the subject project/property does not exist. Additions or modifications to water service arrangements are subject to the Rules and Regulations (governing) Water System Facilities and Service, as well as the completion of financial arrangements between RCWD and the property owner. Where private on-site water facilities (for water service, fire service, irrigation, or other purpose) will cross or will be shared amongst multiple lots/project units (only by special variance of the Rules and Regulations), and/or where such 'common' facilities will be owned and maintained by a Property Owners' Association, RCWD requires execution and recordation of a Reciprocal Easement and Maintenance Agreement or equivalent document of covenants, codes, and restrictions. Water availability is contingent upon the property owner(s) signing an Agency Agreement that assigns water management rights, if any, to RCWD. In addition, water availability is subject to water supply shortage contingency measures in effect (pursuant to RCWD's Water Shortage Contingency Plan or other applicable ordinances and policy), and/or the adoption of a required Water Supply Assessment for the development, as determined by the Lead Agency. Rancho California Water District 49100 P..o,l . P..ot f1FF,..o Rn., 0017 09500.0017 . /0011 90C_ROnn . FAY /0011 90R_af0en1 r City of Temecula April 22, 2015 Pate Two In accordance with Resolution 2007-10-5, the project/property will be required to use recycled water for all landscape irrigation, which should be noted as a condition for any subsequent development plans. Recycled water service, therefore, would be available upon construction of any required on-site and/or off-site recycled water facilities and the completion of financial arrangements between RCWD and the property owner. Requirements for the use of recycled water are available from RCWD. As soon as feasible, and prior to the preparation of California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) documents, the project proponent should contact RCWD for a determination of existing water system capability, based upon project -specific demands and/or fire flow requirements, as well as a determination of proposed water facilities configuration. If new facilities are required for service, fire protection, or other purposes, the project proponent should contact RCWD for an assessment of project -specific fees and requirements. Please note that separate water meters will be required for all landscape irrigation. Sewer service to the subject project/property, if available, would be provided Municipal Water District. If no sewer service is currently available to project/property, all proposed waste discharge systems must comply with the Resources Control Board and/or health department requirements. If you should have any questions or need additional information, please contact an Services Representative at the District office at (951) 296-6900. Sincerely, RANCHO CALIFORNIA WATER DISTRICT LAC &molt Krisma Crowell Engineering Services Representative cc: Corey Wallace, Engineering Manager-CIP & Development Phillip Dauben, Associate Engineer Heath McMahon, Construction Contracts Manager Corry Smith, Engineering Services Supervisor Kathryn Conniff, City of Temecula 15 PKC: hab 012\F450\FEG by Eastern the subject State Water Engineering Rancho California Water District 42135 Wincheaer Rnarl • Pn,t OFfire Rnr 9017 • Tamarila f ahfn,•n;a 99SRQ_Q017 • (C1;11 )QC Qfifl • 0 1Y (Q01 i 9Q0 .x•: r.� RESOLUTION SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT AND MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM PC RESOLUTION NO. 15- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA, CALIFORNIA CERTIFYING THE SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT PREPARED FOR THE AUDI OF TEMECULA PROJECT, ADOPTING FINDINGS PURSUANT TO THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT, AND ADOPTING A MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM IN CONNECTION THEREWITH FOR THE AUDI OF TEMECULA PROJECT TO BE LOCATED AT 40955 TEMECULA CENTER DRIVE, GENERALLY LOCATED ON THE WEST SIDE OF TEMECULA CENTER DRIVE BETWEEN TEMECULA CENTER DRIVE AND INTERSTATE 15, APPROXIMATELY 1,000 FEET WEST OF YNEZ ROAD (A PORTION OF A.P.N. 916-400-032) THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Recitals and Procedural Findings. The Planning Commission hereby finds and determines that: A. On April 6, 2015, Andrew Dzulynsky of Ware Malcomb Architects and Kathryn Conniff of the Horine Group filed Planning Application No. PA15-0513, Development Plan, which application is hereby incorporated by reference. The Project applicant proposes to develop an automobile dealership encompassing a showroom and offices, auto parts and service facility, and a bay for car washing and detailing totaling approximately 37,500 square feet. B. Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the City is the lead agency for the Project because it is the public agency with the Authority and principal responsibility for approving the Project. C. The City proceeded with a Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (SEIR) for the Audi of Temecula Project pursuant to CEQA Guideline 15163 because the project site falls within the Harveston Specific Plan which was the subject of a separate EIR (SCH# 1999041033) and only minor additions would be necessary to make this previously certified EIR adequately apply with regard to the Audi of Temecula Project. D. In addition, a Supplemental EIR is in compliance with CEQA for the Audi of Temecula Project because the conditions as described in Public Resources Code 21166 and in CEQA Guidelines 15162 and 15163 exist because the development of an Audi dealership on the Project site constitutes new information of substantial importance that was not known at the time of the previous Harveston Specific Plan EIR. E. The previous Harveston Specific Plan EIR involved extensive environmental review on a variety of environmental topics for both the current project site as well as the surrounding area covered by the Harveston Specific Plan. As such, the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for the prior Specific Plan EIR is hereby incorporated by reference to the extent any mitigation measures articulated in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program are applicable to the Audi of Temecula Project site. In addition, the mitigation measures in this Specific Plan EIR Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program will be adopted as conditions of approval of the Audi of Temecula Project to the extent they are applicable to the project site. However, no mitigation measures regarding a fair -share contribution to regional traffic improvements systems shall be applicable to the Audi of Temecula Project as this fair -share contribution has been satisfied by the original developer applicant. Additionally, any mitigation measures regarding specific infrastructure improvements identified in the Harveston Specific Plan Mitigation Monitoring Plan have been satisfied and are therefore not applicable to the Audi of Temecula Project. The Harveston Specific Plan EIR and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program are available for public review at the City of Temecula Planning Department. F. In addition to the prior Harveston Specific Plan EIR, the project site and the surrounding Harveston Specific Plan Area is the subject of a development agreement entered into between the City of Temecula, and Lennar Homes, Inc. and Winchester Hills, LLC (collectively "owner") in 2001. This prior development agreement provides certain vested rights to the owners. The subject site is part of the Harveston Specific Plan that is addressed in the development agreement and all action taken by the City with regard to the Mercedes- Benz project site, including CEQA environmental review and required mitigation, is in full compliance with all legal rights articulated in the development agreement. G. On May 5, 2015, in accordance with CEQA Guideline Section 15082, the City published a Notice of Preparation (NOP) of a Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report ("Draft SEIR") and circulated it to governmental agencies, organizations, and persons that may be interested in the Project, including nearby landowners, homeowners, and tenants. The NOP requested comments from the public by June 8, 2015. H. In response to the NOP, written comments were received from the South Coast Air Quality Management District. The comment letter assisted the City in formulating the analysis in the Draft SEIR. On March 25, 2015 and August 13, 2015, community meetings were held to solicit public input and comment on the scope of the Supplemental EIR and on the proposed Project. J. Upon completion of the Draft SEIR dated July 2015, the City initiated a 45 -day public comment period by filing a Notice of Completion with the State Office of Planning and Research on July 20, 2015. K. The City also published a Notice of Availability for the Draft SEIR in a newspaper of general circulation within the City. Copies of the Draft EIR were sent to public agencies, organizations, and individuals. In addition, the City placed copies of the Draft SEIR at the City's library and made copies available for review at City offices. The public comment period for the Draft SEIR was from July 20, 2015 through September 8, 2015. L. Before, during and after the official public review period for the Draft SEIR, the City received five (5) written comment letters from the State Clearinghouse, California Department of Fish and Wildlife, California Department of Transportation, Eastern Municipal Water District, and Rancho California Water District, all of which were responded to by the City. Those comments and the responses are included as part of the Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report/Response to Comments document (Final SEIR). M. Pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21092.5 and CEQA Guideline 15088, the City provided its responses to all public agency comments 10 days prior to any certification of the SEIR. N. Environmental impacts identified in the SEIR that are found to be less than significant and do not require mitigation are described in Exhibit A, Section IV, attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference. 0. Environmental impacts identified in the SEIR as potentially significant but that can be reduced to less than significant levels with mitigation are described in Exhibit A, Section V, attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference. P. No environmental impacts are identified in the SEIR as significant and unavoidable. Q. Alternatives to the Project that might eliminate or reduce significant environmental impacts are described in Exhibit A, Section VI, attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference. R. Prior to taking action, the Planning Commission reviewed and considered and has exercised its independent judgment on the proposed Final SEIR and all of the information and data in the administrative record, and all oral and written testimony presented to it during meetings and hearings and finds that the Final SEIR is adequate and was prepared in full compliance with CEQA. No comments or any additional information submitted to the City have produced any substantial new information requiring circulation or additional environmental review of the SEIR under CEQA requiring additional public review because no new significant environmental impacts were identified, and no substantial increase in the severity of any environmental impacts would occur. Section 2. The Planning Commission of the City of Temecula, California, hereby certifies the Supplemental Environmental Impact Report and all changes to the Supplemental Environmental Impact Report as described in the Errata which is part of the Final SEIR, adopts findings pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act as set forth in Exhibit A attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference; adopts the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program attached hereto as Exhibit B and incorporated herein by reference and imposes each mitigation measure as a condition of Project approval, and incorporates by reference the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for the Harveston Specific Plan EIR (SCH# 1999041033), and imposes all mitigation measures therein that are applicable to the project site as conditions of Project approval. City staff shall implement and monitor the mitigation measures as described in Exhibit B and those applicable to the Project site from the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program from the Harveston Specific Plan EIR. Section 1. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the City of Temecula Planning Commission this 21st day of October 2015. Lanae Turley-Trejo, Chairperson ATTEST: Luke Watson, Secretary [SEAL] STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE )ss CITY OF TEMECULA ) I, Luke Watson, Secretary of the Temecula Planning Commission, do hereby certify that the forgoing PC Resolution No. 15- was duly and regularly adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Temecula at a regular meeting thereof held on the 21st day of October, 2015, by the following vote: AYES: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: NOES: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: ABSTAIN: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: Luke Watson, Secretary EXHIBIT A FINDINGS AND FACTS IN SUPPORT OF FINDINGS EXHIBIT A Findings and Facts in Support of Findings I. Introduction The California Environmental Quality Act, Public Resources Code § 21000, et seq. ("CEQA") and the State CEQA Guidelines, 14 Cal. Code Regs. § 15000, et seq. (the "Guidelines") provide that no public agency shall approve or carry out a project for which an environmental impact report has been certified that identifies one or more significant effects on the environment caused by the project unless the public agency makes one or more of the following findings: A. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project, which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effects identified in the Environmental Impact Report (EIR). B. Such changes or alterations are within the responsibility of another public agency and not the agency making the finding. Such changes have been adopted by such other agency or can and should be adopted by such other agency. C. Specific economic, social, or other considerations make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the EIR.1 Pursuant to the requirements of CEQA, the City Council of the City of Temecula hereby makes the following environmental findings in connection with the proposed Audi of Temecula project (the "Project"), as more fully described in the Final Supplemental EIR (SEIR). These findings are based upon written and oral evidence included in the record of these proceedings, comments on the Draft SEIR and the written responses thereto, and reports presented to the Planning Commission by City staff and the City's environmental consultants. 11. Project Objectives As set forth in the SEIR, objectives that the City of Temecula and applicant seek to achieve with this Project (the "Project Objectives") are as follows: 1 Cal. Pub. Res. Code § 21081; 14 Cal. Code Regs. § 15091. The City's project objectives include: • Plan and implement a project that is consistent with the goals and policies of the City of Temecula General Plan. • Provide for high quality, high-end service commercial uses consistent with the Harveston Specific Plan that serve the needs of the City residents. • Create job growth for the local economy. The applicant's project objectives are: • To adequately serve the existing Audi customer base in the Temecula area. • To maximize Audi's market share in Riverside County and the Temecula area. • To construct a high-end facility of architectural quality that complements other commercial uses in the area. III. Previous Environmental Review The project is located within the Harveston Specific Plan that was approved in 2001. This Specific Plan covers approximately 550 acres and is located between Margarita Road and Interstate 15, along the Temecula City limits, in the northwest section of the City. The Specific Plan depicts a land use designation of Service Commercial for the project site. The proposed use, an automotive dealership, is consistent with the applicable land use and zoning designation in the Specific Plan. The SEIR has been prepared to address the anticipated environmental effects of the project in conformance with the provisions of CEQA and CEQA Guidelines, as amended. City staff has determined that only minor changes to the previously certified Harveston Specific Plan EIR are necessary to address the impacts of the project. Therefore, the project does not require a major revision to the previously certified Harveston Specific Plan EIR, and a Supplemental EIR, in accordance with CEQA Guidelines Sections 15162 and 15163, is the appropriate document to respond to these minor project -specific changes. The environmental analysis for the project assessed whether the project would result in a new significant environmental effect not previously addressed in the Harveston Specific Plan EIR or a substantial increase in severity of a previously identified significant environmental effect. Section 15150(a) of the State CEQA Guidelines states that an EIR: may incorporate by reference all or portions of another document which is a matter of public record or is generally available to the public. Where all or part of another document is incorporated by reference, the incorporated language shall be considered to be set forth in full as part of the text of the EIR. In Tight of the previous environmental review contained in the Harveston Specific Plan EIR (State Clearinghouse No. 1999041033), the SEIR incorporates by reference the relevant analysis of environmental topics considered in the Harveston Specific Plan EIR. The level of specificity of an EIR is determined by the nature of the project and the rule of reason. The City, as lead agency, has determined the key environmental issues that could have significant impacts associated with the project, and which are the focus of this SEIR analysis, include: (A) aesthetics, (B) air quality, (C) greenhouse gas emissions and climate change, (D) noise, (E) biological resources, (F) transportation and traffic, and (G) hydrology/water quality and water supply. Based on previous environmental analysis, existing conditions of the project site, and project details, the following environmental effects were adequately evaluated in the Harveston Specific Plan EIR and determined not to be significant for the project; and, therefore, are were not analyzed in the SEIR: agriculture and forestry, land use, geology and soils, public services and utilities, cultural resources, population and housing, and growth -inducing impacts. A. On May 6, 2015, in accordance with CEQA Guideline Section 15082, the City published a Notice of Preparation (NOP) of a Draft SEIR and circulated it to governmental agencies, organizations, and persons that may be interested in the Project, including land owners, tenants, and business owners in proximity to the site. The NOP requested comments by June 8, 2015. Responses to the NOP were received from the following agencies: the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) and the South Coast Air Quality Management District. No project -specific concerns were raised by these agencies. In addition to the pubic noticing required under CEQA, City staff held an informational meeting on March 25, 2015 at the Harveston clubhouse with the residents of the Harveston community to explain the project and listen to any concerns. The community raised concern about the need for a traffic signal at the intersection of Waverly and Ynez to make it easier for pedestrians to cross the street at the intersection. IV. Effects Determined to be Less Than Significant Without Mitigation The Draft Supplemental EIR completed in July 2015 found that the proposed Project would have a less than significant impact without the imposition of mitigation on a number of environmental topic areas. The less than significant environmental impact determination was made for each of the following topic areas listed below, based on the more expansive discussions contained in the Supplemental EIR. A. Aesthetics 1. The Project would not have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista. 2. The Project would not substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway. 3. The Project would not substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings. B. Air Quality 1. The Project would not violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation. 2. The Project would not result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non -attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard. 3. The Project would not expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations. 4. The Project would note create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people. C. Greenhouse Gases and Climate Change 1. The Project would not generate GHG emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment. 2. The Project would not conflict with any applicable plan, policy or regulation of an agency adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of GHGs. D. Noise 1. The Project would not expose persons to, or generate, excessive ground - borne vibration or ground -borne noise levels. 2. The Project would not result in a substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project. 3. The Project would not result in a substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project. 4. The Project would not expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels for a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport. 5. The Project would not expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels for a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip. E. Biological Resources 1. The Project would not have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2. The Project would not have a substantial adverse effect on federally 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 interruption, or other means. 3. The Project would not interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites. 4. The Project would not conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance. 5. The Project would not conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan. F. Transportation and Traffic 1. The Project would not 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 but not limited to intersections, streets, highways and freeways, pedestrian and bicycle paths, and mass transit. 2. The Project would not 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 designated roads or highways. 3. The Project would not 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. 4. The Project would not substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment). 5. The Project would not result in inadequate emergency access. 6. The Project would not conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs regarding public transit, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities, or otherwise decrease the performance or safety of such facilities. 7. The Project would not result in a change in level of service conditions at an intersection from LOS D to LOS E or LOS F. 8. The Project would not result in an increase in vehicle delay by two seconds or more at an intersection operating at LOS E or F. 9. The Project would not result in a cumulative impact due to an increase in delay of two or more seconds at an intersection currently operating at LOS E or F. G. Hydrology and Water Quality 1. The Project would not violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements. 2. The Project would not substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level. 3. The Project would not place housing within a 100 -year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map. 4. The Project would not place within a 100 -year flood hazard area structures which would impede or redirect flood flows. 5. The Project would not expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam. V. Potentially Significant Environmental Impacts Determined to be Mitigated to a Less Than Significant Level The Draft Supplemental EIR identified the potential for the Project to cause significant environmental impacts in the areas of: aesthetics; noise; biological resources; hydrology and water quality; and noise. Measures have been identified that would mitigate all of the impacts in this section to a less than significant level. The City Council finds that the feasible mitigation measures for the Project identified in the Final Supplemental EIR would reduce the Project's impacts to a less than significant level. The City Council adopts all of the feasible mitigation measures for the Project described in the Final Supplemental EIR as conditions of approval of the Project and incorporates those into the Project, as discussed more fully in Exhibit C. A. Aesthetics 1. New Source of Light and Glare The project would establish a new use on an undeveloped site which would result in increased light and glare sources. The project would include nighttime building lighting, security lighting, and landscape lighting. This new source of light could have adverse effects on nighttime views and surrounding communities in proximity of the site. As described below, these impacts can be mitigated to Tess than significant levels. a) Findings Changes or alterations have been required in or incorporated into the Project, including the mitigation measure described below, which ensure that the Project's potential light and glare impacts remain less than significant. Mitigation Measure MM -AES -1: The following measures to reduce Tight and glare are required: • The applicant shall ensure that all lighting fixtures contain "sharp cut- off" fixtures, and shall be fitted with flat glass and internal and external shielding. "Sharp cut-off" fixtures are designed to provide controlled light distribution to minimize light spillover and create little - to -no glare. This fixture contains a sharp cut-off to reduce waste light. The lamp is deeply recessed within the reflector to eliminate glare. • The applicant shall ensure that all fixtures shall be parallel with the finished grade of the project site and no fixtures shall be tilted above a 90 -degree angle. • The applicant shall incorporate step-down lighting into the project to the satisfaction of the City Community Development Director. The step-down lighting shall occur each evening between the following intervals: 6:00 P.M., 7:30 P.M. and 10:30 P.M. • The applicant shall ensure that site lighting systems and showroom lighting shall be grouped into control zones to allow for open, closing, and night light/security lighting schemes. All control groups shall be controlled by an automatic lighting control system utilizing a time clock, photocell, and low voltage relays. • The applicant shall ensure that design and layout of the site shall take advantage of landscaping to block light sources and reflection from cars. Well-placed landscaping would reduce glare from cars in the parking lot and from metal/glass building surfaces, and help to shield nighttime security lighting from adjacent roadway systems. • Prior to the issuance of construction permits for a project -specific development within the project area that includes outdoor lighting, the applicant shall submit an outdoor lighting plan and photometric plan to be reviewed and approved by the City Community Development Director. The lighting plan shall be in compliance with Ordinance No. 655 as adopted by the Riverside County Board of Supervisors and shall include, but not be limited to, the following information and standards: o Light fixtures shall not exceed 4,050 lumens; o Light fixtures shall be fully shielded so that light rays emitted by the fixtures are projected below the horizontal plan passing through the lowest point of the shield; o A map showing all lamp locations, orientations, and intensities, including security, roadway, and task lighting; o Specification of each light fixture and each light shield; o Total estimated outdoor lighting footprint, expressed as lumens per acre; and, o Specification of motion sensors and other controls to be used, especially for security lighting. ■ The City shall conduct a post -installation inspection to ensure that the site is in compliance with the design standards in Mitigation Measure MM -AES -1 and Riverside County Ordinance No. 655. • In order to mitigate potential impacts to the Mount Palomar Observatory, all lighting plans shall be reviewed by the City to assure utilization of low pressure sodium vapor lamps, step-down lighting techniques, shielding to prevent upward and outward illumination. ® The use of highly reflective construction materials on exterior wall surfaces shall be prohibited. The exterior of permitted buildings shall be constructed of materials such as high performance tinted non - mirrored glass, painted metal panels and pre -cast concrete or fabricated wall surfaces. b) Facts in Support of Findings The Project will be required to comply with existing Riverside County Mount Palomar Ordinance No. 655 requiring lighting to fully shielded, where feasible, and partially shielded, in all other cases. Lighting for on - premises advertising displays would be shielded and focused to minimize spill light into the night sky or adjacent properties. With the implementation of MM -AES -1, potential light and glare impacts associated with the project will be less than significant. B. Noise and Vibration (operations) 1. Operational Noise New development within the Project area may introduce noise levels that could exceed the City's exterior noise standards at existing properties that are located adjacent to and/or near the new development sites. Specifically, new development within the Project area could expose nearby sensitive receptors to noise levels exceeding 69 dBA Ldn over ambient levels due to operation of the outdoor loudspeaker paging system. a) Findings Changes or alterations have been required in or incorporated into the Project, including the following mitigation measures that reduce the potential noise impacts to sensitive receptors to less than significant. Mitigation Measure MM -N01-1: The applicant shall implement a silent paging system throughout the project to eliminate loudspeaker paging noise. b) Facts in Support of Findings Implementation of Mitigation Measure MM -N01-1 would ensure that a silent paging system would be used for the project in lieu of a loudspeaker paging system. With implementation of this mitigation, this impact would be reduced to a less -than -significant level. C. Biological Resources 1. Special Status Species, Sensitive Species, or Candidate Species The project could have potential adverse effects on special -status wildlife species, including the burrowing owl, as well as other migratory birds and raptors protected under California Fish and Game Code and/or the Migratory Bird Treaty Act that have the potential to occur on or in the vicinity of the project site. It is possible that direct and indirect impacts to wildlife from project -level development activities (e.g., grading, vegetation removal, excavation and construction, temporary changes to the hydrology, and increased dust and noise levels during construction) could occur. a) Findings Changes or alterations have been required in or incorporated into the Project, including the mitigation measures described below, to ensure that the Project's potential impacts to special status species remain Tess than significant. Mitigation Measure MM -BIO -1: Impacts to raptors and other migratory birds shall be avoided by the implementation of the following measure: A pre -construction clearance survey for active nests of raptors and migratory birds shall be conducted by a qualified biologist who is knowledgeable in the nesting requirements of the avian species in the region. The survey shall occur no more than 3 days -prior to any construction or ground -disturbing activities. If active nest(s) (with eggs or fledglings) are identified within the project site, (CDFW for state listed species, species of special concern, and MSHCP covered species; USFWS for birds covered under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act and listed species) they shall not be disturbed until the young have hatched and fledged (matured to a state that they can leave the nest on their own). An appropriate buffer from construction setback from any active nesting location shall be adhered to in order to avoid disturbance of the nest until the young have fledged or the nest is no longer considered active, as determined by a qualified biologist. On- site monitoring during construction by a biological monitor may also be required based on sensitivity of the species and proximity of the nest to construction activities. If no active nests are identified, construction may commence. Mitigation Measure MM -BIO -2: Impacts to burrowing owl shall be avoided through implementation of the following measure: ■ Due to the project site's location within a burrowing owl survey area and presence of suitable habitat on the project site (regardless of the findings of the focused burrowing owl survey), a 30 -day pre - construction survey for burrowing owl is required in accordance with the MSHCP. The one -day survey will be conducted by a qualified biologist within all suitable habitat areas on the project site and study area, and will focus on areas previously identified during the focused surveys as containing suitable habitat and potentially suitable burrows. If no burrowing owls are observed construction may commence. If burrowing owls are observed the RCA and/or City will be notified and additional measures will be required to demonstrate compliance with the MSHCP. Since burrowing owl is a covered species under the MSCHP, burrowing owls (less than 3 pairs) that occupy the site may be evicted from their burrows and allowed to move offsite. b) Facts in Support of Findings Although, implementation of the proposed Project could result in impacts to special status species as discussed above, implementation of Mitigation Measures MM -BIO -1 and MM -BIO -2 which require pre - construction and construction biological surveys, measures to protect species and habitat if they are encountered, and compliance with the MSHCP, potential impacts to special status species, sensitive species, or candidate species would be minimized to a less than significant level. D. Hydrology and Water Quality 1. Impacts from Stormwater Runoff Operation of the proposed Project would involve the conversion of the current undeveloped lot into a new automobile dealership with the addition of new impermeable surfaces that would alter the direction, volume and rate of overland flows during storm events. a) Findings Changes or alterations have been required in or incorporated into the Project, including the mitigation measures described below, to ensure that the Project's potential impact associated with stormwater runoff is less than significant. Mitigation Measure MM -HYD -1: Prior to issuance of a grading permit, a final drainage study shall be prepared by a registered civil engineer and submitted to Public Works with the initial grading plan check in accordance with City, Riverside County and engineering standards. The study shall identify storm water runoff quantities (to mitigate the 100 -year storm event) from the development of this site and upstream of the site. It shall identify all existing or proposed offsite or onsite, public or private, drainage facilities intended to discharge this runoff. Runoff shall be conveyed to an adequate outfall capable of receiving the storm water runoff without damage to public or private property. The study shall include a capacity analysis verifying the adequacy of all facilities. Any upgrading or upsizing of drainage facilities necessary to convey the storm water runoff shall be provided as part of development of this project. b) Facts in Support of Findings In addition to Mitigation Measure MM -HYD -1, compliance with the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Construction General Permit and the Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4) Permit in effect at the time of construction would minimize temporary increases in stormwater runoff per the implementation of Best Management Practices (BMPs). As a result, construction activities would not contribute runoff that would exceed the capacity of the adjacent existing drainage system, or the capacity of new system components installed under implementation of Mitigation Measure MM -HYD -1. Adherence to requirements of the City and the Riverside Flood Control and Water Conservation District (RCFCWCD) drainage control requirements, as stated in Mitigation Measure MM -HYD -1, in effect at the time of construction would ensure no substantial increases in stormwater runoff. Impacts related to increases in stormwater runoff and drainage capacity would be less than significant with mitigation. 2. Erosion and Siltation The project would develop the currently vacant site and create new impervious surfaces (approximately 127,800 square feet) that could create additional stormwater flows offsite potentially increasing the potential for increased erosion and siltation if not designed appropriately. a) Findings Changes or alterations have been required in or incorporated into the Project, including the mitigation measures described below, to ensure that the Project's potential impacts related to erosion and siltation to less than significant. Mitigation: Implement Mitigation Measure MM -HYD -1. b) Facts in Support of Findings Adherence to requirements found in the MS4 permit in effect at the time of construction, as outlined in Mitigation Measure HYD -1, would ensure no substantial increases in stormwater runoff through maximizing onsite infiltration through permeable paving and bio -retention basins and thereby minimizing the potential for erosion and siltation. Impacts would be Tess than significant with mitigation. VI. Project Alternatives A. Alternatives Considered But Rejected in the Program EIR An EIR must briefly describe the rationale for selection and rejection of alternatives. The Lead Agency may make an initial determination as to which alternatives are potentially feasible and, therefore, merit in-depth consideration, and which are clearly infeasible. Alternatives that are remote or speculative, or the effects of which cannot be reasonably predicted, need not be considered (CEQA Guidelines, Section 15126.6(0(3)). An alternative site or location for the project need not be considered when its implementation is "remote and speculative" such as the site being out of the purview of the lead agency or beyond the control of a project applicant. Alternative sites were not selected for evaluation. The CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(0(2) specifies that the key question with alternative sites is "whether any of the significant effects of the project would be avoided or substantially lessened by putting the project at another location." While other similar -sized areas of land could be found, based on the known general conditions, allowed uses in the area, and the magnitude of the proposal, an alternative site in the area would likely have the same or similar impacts after mitigation as the project. In addition, an alternative location is beyond the control of the applicant and would be difficult to still proceed within a reasonably similar time frame for project completion. Therefore, it would not be feasible to consider other site locations for this Project. The Supplemental EIR analyzed three other project alternatives. These three alternatives were considered but ultimately found not to meet the project's objectives as for the various reasons stated below. B. Alternatives Considered in the Program EIR 1. Alternative One — No Project Alternative (No Development) a) Summary of Alternative This alternative is analyzed within project -level EIR as it is required under CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(e). According to Section 15126.6(e)(2) of the CEQA Guidelines, the "no project" analysis shall discuss, "...what is reasonably expected to occur in the foreseeable future if the project were not approved, based on current plans and consistent with available infrastructure and community services." When the project is a development project, CEQA Guidelines §15126.6(e)(3)(B) states that "the No Project Alternative is the circumstance under which the project does not proceed." So, for the purposes of this EIR, the No Project Alternative represents a scenario under which the Project would not be built and the site would remain in its existing undeveloped condition. The site would continue to contain a temporary storm water siltation basin and non-native grasses and ruderal forbs on a previously graded lot. b) Reasons for Rejecting Alternative The No Project/No Development Alternative would result in fewer impacts to aesthetics, air quality, greenhouse gas emissions and climate change, noise, biological resources, transportation and traffic, and hydrology, water quality, and water supply than the proposed project because no changes would occur at the site. However, this Alternative would not meet any of the project objectives. In addition, this Alternative would not support the development objectives for the Harveston Specific Plan Service Commercial area. For these reasons, the Planning Commission rejects this alternative as infeasible. 2. Alternative Two — Reduced Project Alternative a) Summary of Alternative Under this alternative, the project's building square footage would be reduced by one-third from approximately 37,470 square feet to approximately 24,730 square feet. The project components would be similar to the project as proposed, but at a smaller scale. b) Reasons for Rejecting Alternative As a result of the reduced amount of development under Alternative 2, there would be a shortened construction period, less construction equipment usage, and reduced vehicle trips to the site generated by employees and patrons, and thus a reduction in all impacts areas. This includes impacts to aesthetics, air quality, greenhouse gas emissions and climate change, noise, biological resources, transportation and traffic, and hydrology, water quality, and water supply. Alternative 2 would meet several of the proposed Project objectives; however by reducing the size of the facility it fails to meet these specific project objectives: to adequately serve the Audi customer base in the Temecula area, and to maximize Audi's market share in the Temecula area and Riverside County. Therefore, Alternative 2 would not fully achieve all of the project objectives. For this reason, the Planning Commission rejects this alternative as infeasible. 3. Alternative Three — Retail Use Alternative a) Summary of Alternative Under this alternative, the project site would be developed as a commercial retail center comprised of a typical mix of uses found in such centers, such as sales offices, restaurants, banks and financial institutions; and permitted in the Service Commercial area of the Harveston Specific Plan. Using the target floor area ratio (FAR) in the Harveston Specific Plan for Service Commercial of 0.4 FAR, the building square feet of commercial under this alternative would more than double to approximately 78,400 square feet as compared to the project's approximately 37,470 square feet. b) Reasons for Rejecting Alternative Alternative 3 would result in greater building mass that would increase Tight and glare effects. Alternative 3 would likely have a longer construction period resulting in increased temporary air quality and noise impacts. Alternative 3 would more than double the proposed development intensity on the site thereby increasing employees and patronage to the site, which would result in greater operational emissions, greenhouse gas emissions, and increased vehicular traffic noise, as compared to the project. Alternative 3 would result in nearly three times as many vehicle trips as the proposed Project; therefore the alternative would result in greater impacts to the circulation system as compared to the Project. Under Alternative 3, a similar area of ground would be disturbed and impacts to biological resources would be similar to those under the proposed project. Although there would be more impervious surfaces on the site under Alternative 3, the project would be required to adopt a water quality management plan and best management practices in both cases to ensure that it also did not have significant impacts to hydrology and water quality. Alternative 3 would result in a greater demand for potable water than the proposed Project. Alternative 3 would meet several of the project objectives; however by developing a use on the site other than a new car dealership, it fails to meet these specific objectives: to adequately serve the Audi customer base in the Temecula area, and to maximize Audi's market share in the Temecula area and Riverside County. Therefore, the Planning Commission rejects this alternative as infeasible. C. Environmentally Superior Alternative The CEQA Guidelines, Section 15126.6(e)(2), requires the identification of the environmentally superior alternative. The No Project Alternative (No Development) would be environmentally superior to the project based on the minimization or avoidance of physical environmental impacts. However, the No Project Alternative (No Development) does not meet any of the project objectives. In addition, CEQA Guidelines (Section 15126.6(c)) require that, if the environmentally superior alternative is the No Project Alternative (No Development), the EIR shall also identify an environmentally superior alternative among the other alternatives. A summary comparison of the ability of the alternatives to meet project objectives and potential impacts associated with the alternatives as compared to the project is provided in Tables A-1 and A-2, below. Based on this comparison, Alternative 2 (Reduced Project Alternative) is the environmentally superior alternative. However, Alternative 2 fails to meet certain project objectives as shown in Tales A-1. TABLE A-1 ABILITY OF ALTERNATIVES TO MEET PROJECT OBJECTIVES Project Objectives Alt. 1: No Project Alternative (No Development) Alt. 2: Reduced Project Alternative Alt.3: Retail Use Alternative Plan and implement a project that is consistent with the goals and policies of the City of Temecula General Plan. Provide for high quality, high-end service commercial uses consistent with the Harveston Specific Plan that serves the needs of the City residents. Create job growth for the local economy. To adequately serve the existing Audi customer base in the Temecula area. To maximize Audi's market share in Riverside County and the Temecula area. To construct a high- end facility of architectural quality that complements other commercial uses in the area. No No No No No No Yes Yes Yes No No Yes Yes Yes Yes No No Yes TABLE A-2 IMPACT SUMMARY COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROJECT Alternative Alternative Alternative Potential 1: No 2: 3: Project Project Reduced Retail Use Impacts Alternative Project Aesthetics Fewer Similar Increased Air Quality Fewer Fewer Increased GHG Emissions/ Fewer Fewer Increased Climate Change Noise Fewer Fewer Increased Biological Fewer Similar Similar Resources Traffic Fewer Fewer Increased Hydrology and Water Fewer Fewer Increased Quality D. The Project As Proposed 1. Summary of Project The Project involves the development of an Audi dealership on the site and is described in detail in the Supplemental EIR. 2. Reasons for Selecting Project as Proposed The City Council has carefully reviewed the attributes and environmental impacts of all the alternatives analyzed in the Final Supplemental EIR and has compared them with those of the proposed Project. The City Council finds that each of the alternatives is infeasible for various environmental, economic, technical, social, or other reasons set forth above. The City Council further finds that the Project as proposed is the best combination of features to serve the interest of the public and achieve the Project objectives. More specifically, the Project as proposed is consistent with the uses prescribed to the site in the Harveston Specific Plan while meeting each of the Project objectives. The Project is the only proposal that meets the objective to adequately serve the Audi customer base in the Temecula area, and to maximize Audi's market share in the Temecula area and Riverside County. Furthermore, each of the Project's effects on the environment that were identified in the Supplemental EIR can be adequately mitigated to Tess than significant levels. If the proposed Project is not built, it is possible that another development could be proposed for the site at a greater density that would have increased effects on the environment. For these reasons, the City Council selects the Project as proposed. EXHIBIT B MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program EXHIBIT B OF TEMECULA MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM Verification of Compliance N co c Mitigation Measures Aesthetics c a >, C' O N U co 0. c 5 � M -0 aa)) p N U U O E • O _T C rn 0 1- a co > 'N o 0 m 0 a) 7 0) t -a) ._ U 0 a) C O a) U L 0) 0 F- `0 0 CIS 0 (1) N 435 0 I - c o o U U C O N U C °_2. U U 2 c ) 0 0 0 00 ° C a) _ ) a) O) P. .0 a co .2N N cN .OY Ep a) N O a (,3 aa w . N c ) 0 ) p E o Q NNcoUNN co U ) 7 .L.' a: O - '-UOwcc Y O E .0 a) @ V O O a = n ofmw. E B>•E. .E. - a ' CO COm a) COO r -N C�0Oc@t N.2rnoE = n OEN° uE� - ca u) co.� 3 = °o °d ., m i•,inrn 12 T3 m To c aa) o ;n0 °c° in ?� m E ui �µ , 2 co= I- aaa) a) ya)o)%y m �Eu > - Nom a) o a) �c Z aN � a)0 N MI L C +a%, " o a) �' C 'c 1:-.1) j .;1,0 N 2,0- :2' 0) .N cif •cm p) E N W c V1 N 0 ac6) of c 0 2 c0).° 3 c m �rnc'4 `DY c E a) Q Q o N j C U V .3 O N C a0 .� a) N •C O p p m Op 0 to U > c a) cT] U 2 a .-v ° m `m aai Karn y m Tu �° o �° �'uo-i)O c m E w m c a) o. L al P m CO N o Ec U a a� am -m o f w� 0�ma�ca� 7'7, > ca _C •v oQ�fO y��°rn.�uTi co fa -{C - E ._c.)_ .L-� C L N N QC C T .ii.- if) aV O a)d dow &- ",0U ma)a I9 ` p m `° ° `° N'Nt c aai m� MCI a)o co 3 3 m E° 0° c �Qy 3 M O O �a O a o O L N c 0 O) 0 a) L „,-c . -2-.,..a) a) O L L = 0 7 L L C .- O a.)° - N a] as H•. a- Ua I- 3 . I_ nn,- I- Nia u) m a H a) "c3 -5, o rncca :, r • . • • • 2.0) O I C.D -045 1 c s a N > > .� ° O. C .8.. O o a- pSa°rnN-C cu or °aa 3L'n c w c 0 c 1- CD 0 Ecap) •E a `o O N a) iz it).0 o � . ` 0 o. 2a� cc , ) N L E a t c ° c E C c 7,3C O p O 'a O • V C U . 3.. N > p 4803o_o_a) m a7 C U 0E€•Za�c N o 2-) o E E U ya):�02oa) > L L U 0 LO+ - �) U C N 0 U - a c „,0 m a)Nf m d N o 0 r .L.. AUDI OF TEMECULA MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Verification of Compliance E O (0 lE 0 Q) U C C O+' 2 m - ¢a E U a) rn 7 c T V)'a 0 c O O } 0 0. 0 < CD Mc a) E o c ►U a) O � C Q W Mitigation Measures V) a) O f0 0 a) a o 0 m a)2 m 0c ca o c . ca N N o.5 EU y m 0 0 0 m t O. u! L 2 T m N Q p C .O O a)• gym, Q V a)w -r,, rn3 a o c = 0 ° c o • ds m ac) 'V_'0 0 m N = 0 48 y m U U �m 0 7 a > a) a c E c co C a) Vl o O O 2 C U O w O p N >+ a) 0 co N c, 2g2 -c,_ O 1' c U m ,n aa) a) 0 N O C c w> E O (O m .t.. m m _� c a) a7 E O) a) p U 'O a) t c p c 01 ` 0 -O > O D C a) Q `t 0 �O N '0 (0(�� 7 c w fa N W 0 Q a s N 2 a) Q c N (�/) Q O U .:.=., L (n 7 YO nL.+ C N N E L a C) 0 y O 7 a) 0 u! L m p• L W o .0 O) m X T m Q U L— uJ (/) C T 7 E N 7 a) 1E D .c5 O y m E 0 2 o C -0a O w w W m m `) m a) m O c 9 7 N m U c TiQ c Q a ....• 0) L m a) m co -- a To '5' ami o7 m E m (0� aa)) rn3 aa) 0 of i w L =' p) 7 .- a. 4-' V V a p c 0 7• U 0 (a o N o0c co o a;o oa) 702 Qw 2iv a)aNa) a m 0>Q' of o `0m co.-0��i' mmc�' ��`0E _ ui °' 7 7a:° (Ln.7 •=a1 0 0 Q 0- °'E m� rn o a—) o m (- w CD o -o o 'N c) `— m e w a) m — Z E6.'4co a. ,c a) N E a) L a o E a 7 N •N c 8U) 0 0 ._ f O L o Q N 9 J J o L 0) Q .0 - u) I-' = fn 9 .> o .0 15 p N •� ::(1_ ai vi iCt5 0 0 0 0 0 o a)0• o�03aou)2a .07 H 2O �O ma a) N ° W 7 N U• 0". .L..) L 7 a) ' m H uJP E.4 Biological Resources T E 9 se- O N 0 m OQ 0 0) 0) 0 c.0 .N 0 (1) N 2 c .+_' N N 0)( OF 0 a c c O 2 m O N 0 0. E 9 • (1) 070 OD 0 E (� ro u!7 co N 2�ami E E 0) o rn m 3 ..,73 o E E N m 0 0)0) E o K 2 AUDI OF TEMECULA MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program rification of Compliance 0) 0 • C • C O '0 < a E c O � d c >, N 'c U c Oo Q C O) 02 c d E c O 0 w Q W O) c m o Win) 'c r oa 5 Mitigation Measures m V- U O 0) • E UH Pre-Constru = 0) m ogN o}? • 0 7 N N 8 aLO, c — y'> U Tt t 0 c 0 C L O c Q C 0 � • 7 0) •— Vf N~ YO OQ w C N (0 0= g T m c o_ av tl) a) 7 C 7 T y N O aa)) v 00 -2 o m '� v m c o =o R a) c (0 _O U N 0 0 N 0 Q C O 0 L 15 a) 2 0 v > 0 7 m Na) U O 2 U) U m9 m c E 0> 'rn c N L (2- a>VoEo� as 0�mw N 2 0) .00)— L 0) O N V •C N U w.0 a C L C L N 7 > a > o o .o Fa) -o co "'''5D -04&1c c) rn E o D 0 -c c 7 0 c 0 .o C a(0 N 0) c 0 T'> •O L Li N cif a) 0 'U L .0 0 O ca c a) •.� O 00 0u)0 = E EN> N U N 0 c0 ,,,> ,_(/) a) C a) 0N V C U N L 0 U L 7 '0 0 0) co 135D(3)—c N C U a) > c c c0 u) c ' O 0 0. N .O •N L U N c(1) U O E U E E U a) T 0 c L 0 w Q o N .. L • 3 Z o� N.> o c L O) .L• O+ N N y T o N N 2 N 2 c .( 07 N c 7 c L N • 0 0 fn N m w Q 3 .2...; •3 c U O t-. 0) N L c 7 0) • M O Op 0 N N N >, y6 0 0 N ,V TD- o) N j .0 0) �7 3 j 0 o Z y-0 N 0 N o o c0 9 w C 0 L L C C C N N T 0 o • o U O E = co L 0 U 0 N0 N m 0c0 0 00 N w N -0UL Ca) N w0) 0 NL CO OIt a .. • v m=� 3� o X 0 0 0 (0 o o N w m c 3 •�° c a) - m • o a• Ei 0 0 a Pa m 'm o aj o w co N m o a c c :‘,00 0 co o. -c.... o ch Z = cac° o '3 o° •3 '3 > cu tai O _N • 0 N 'O -0 L o>i L c 6 L L T ui O Y ▪ a s Z 3 a) 0 .S v a ca o m C f0 7 c N y L 7 • 9 C= E 0) a) 'O^ C O O o c .+0' c_ 0 L L7 L) d >O 20 Qco"ocLo9�N=a)3u—d2NE ` a 0 2 a> rn '§ H :? >, 0)— E m 3 U a) Y 0 .E ▪ m c o a •N N c w • E U a cc)" = y N L o Tj 3 V Ti):' 70 •� 3 o> 07 a 3 d 0 0 0 0 L 2 0 .> 0 0 ›...c 0 0 2 0 2 O 7 7 0 7 7 O o 7 0 C N 0 C U= c L 0 N a L .O g 0" o_ o_ U L • E N c) _c .L.. 7 0 (6 O }' ▪ P 0 a) • 0).0 5 co Hydrology and Water Quality M 0 m E o c AUDI OF TEMECULA MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Verification of Compliance N 60 07 E 0) a1 w (0 0 N (0 .•, c m E (() 0) C Q W O) a) 2 to � N oa Mitigation Measures CD O 0 • C 0) 0)y 0 U C co 0 a) maw E C•- 0) rnOUI- io 'U (0 O a) 7 0) U c a) C (I) •— -C 0) E = O.N CD I-00 OO co U a) E a) H o o a� 0 CO a 0) • m_ y N O— N 2 C N0 a 2 m 0 C E 0 U) C (0 0` a a) a N 0 0 • 0) c (7.) QO. O 07 O 0 Q N a 2 (o EOc cfO�a),N (0 .0 C c On 0) N N 3 'Op > _ 0` C (I) 0 7 C a) O a) > ) N= a O U a > N -a 7. '00 N T` C V N U3 mai `5. -Oa m>'8 • aY728E'e• we) ass> �o N o '-9 E co 0p �;O a N (0 • '� C— w (0 a) L." U CD (ins a)>t0 �a)I-Ucr >, 0 .�T. ;0 0) N ,> !G y (0 N m' - >„ V f0 €= Q c 0) tT+ a 0 C N • c N a , (Ln �O 0) O0 > Q • -a »>, » 8 3 T� 'v) ,U O z,-5 w C E O 7 a) �O j 0, O a w 0)> '- C (n T �, a C , cn(6 O (0 "•-•2 O (0 C C a (n o 0 0- N 0 > 76a U~ o E „ -a=_ wL+ N — tc CO co y_ 0 O O. O> 0 CO CU ,C 0 U) `p D) ,U U) 0) n C U a D) 0 0 t 0 7 T N� Q N U Po •E ((0 0 0 0 0 N 7 E N N O Z (0 0 co O a) 7 D) '- (L) OWC 0 a) C s 0) .T. 4E) = O 6 C 0O U I - Construction RESOLUTION SIGN PROGRAM PC RESOLUTION NO. 15- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA15-1477, A SIGN PROGRAM FOR AN AUDI AUTO -DEALERSHIP ENCOMPASSING WALL SIGNS, MONUMENT SIGNS, AND DIRECTIONAL SIGNS LOCATED AT 40955 TEMECULA CENTER DRIVE, GENERALLY LOCATED ON THE WEST SIDE OF TEMECULA CENTER DRIVE, BETWEEN TEMECULA CENTER DRIVE BETWEEN TEMECULA CENTER DRIVE AND INTERSTATE 15, APPROXIMATELY 1,000 FEET WEST OF YNEZ ROAD (A PORTION OF A.P.N. 916-400- 032) Section 1. Procedural Findings. The Planning Commission of the City of Temecula does hereby find, determine and declare that: A. On September 28, 2015, Andrew Dzulynsky of Ware Malcomb Architects and Kathryn Conniff of the Horine Group filed Planning Application No. PA15-1477, Sign Program Application, on behalf of Hoehn Motors, Inc. in a manner in accord with the City of Temecula General Plan and Development Code. B. The Application was processed including, but not limited to a public notice, in the time and manner prescribed by State and local law. C. The Planning Commission, at a regular meeting, considered the Application and environmental review on October 21, 2015, at a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law, at which time the City staff and interested persons had an opportunity to and did testify either in support or in opposition to this matter. D. At the conclusion of the Planning Commission hearing and after due consideration of the testimony, the Planning Commission approved Planning Application No. PA15-1477 subject to and based upon the findings set forth hereunder. E. All legal preconditions to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred. Section 2. Further Findings. The Planning Commission, in approving the Application hereby finds, determines and declares that: Sign Program (Code Section 17.28.080.B) A. The proposed signs enhance the development, and are in harmony with, and visually related to: a) All of the signs included in the sign program. This shall be accomplished by incorporating several common design elements such as materials, letter style, colors, illumination, sign type or sign shape; b) The buildings and/or the developments they identify by utilizing materials, colors or design motifs included in the building being identified; and c) Surrounding development by not adversely affecting surrounding land uses or obscuring adjacent approved signs. The proposed signs utilize Audi's corporate colors, shapes and emblems and reflect the building design by using similar materials and colors. As such, the proposed signs are visually related to a) all of the signs included in the sign program and incorporate common design elements including materials, colors, sign type and sign shape; b) the building the signs identify; and c) the surrounding development since the proposed signs complement those used on the adjacent Mercedes-Benz of Temecula site and do not obscure adjacent approved signs. B. The sign program accommodates future revisions which may be required due to changes in building tenants. The proposed sign program can accommodate future revisions which may be required due to changes in building tenants. The building is designed for automobile sales and service, including a showroom, parts department, and service bays and the sign program criteria will accommodate any future revisions due to changes in building tenants, which would be anticipated to continue to be automotive based tenants. C. The proposed sign program satisfies the intent of this chapter, in that the sign program complies with all the regulations of this chapter, except that flexibility is allowed with regard to sign area, number, location and height. Further, to the extent the sign program does not comply with the requirements of this chapter as to sign area, number, location and height, the proposed sign program enhances the development and more fully accomplishes the objectives of this chapter. The proposed sign program is consistent with the intent of the Municipal Code requirements for a sign program. The Harveston Specific Plan allows for monument signs, building mounted signs, and encourages signs that are consistent with building texture, color, and architectural style. The propose sign program is consistent with these objectives. The Specific Plan limits wall mounted signs to a height of 42 inches in height, however the proposed Audi emblem portion of the wall mounted signs are up to 79 inches in height. The proposed wall mounted sign height is in scale to the elements of the building on which are proposed to be located and is appropriate in scale to the building, and are slightly lower in height than the 92-1/2 inch emblem sign approved and existing on the adjacent Mercedes-Benz of Temecula building. In addition, the Specific Plan does not allow for freeway -oriented freestanding monument signs, however the proposed freestanding freeway oriented sign is consistent with the existing sign for Mercedes-Benz of Temecula and is an important feature for an automobile dealership. As such, the proposed wall signs and freeway -oriented freestanding monument sign enhance the development and more fully accomplish the objectives of Chapter 17.28 of the Temecula Municipal Code. Section 3. Environmental Findings. The Planning Commission hereby makes the following environmental findings and determinations in connection with the approval of the Sign Program, PA15-1477: A. Pursuant to California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA), a Supplemental Environmental Impact Report was completed for the project to assess the potential environmental effects of the approval of the Development Plan Application, as described in the Supplemental Environmental Impact Report ("the Project"). Based upon the findings contained in that study, City staff determined that with implementation of mitigation measures there was no substantial evidence that the Project could have a significant effect on the environment and Notice of Determination would appropriate for the project. B. Thereafter, City staff provided public notice of the public comment period and of the intent to adopt the Supplemental Environmental Impact Report as required by law. The public comment period commenced on July 20, 2015 and expired on September 8, 2015. Copies of the documents have been available for public review and inspection at the offices of the Department of Community Development, located at City Hall, 41000 Main Street, Temecula, California 92590. C. Five written comments were received prior to the public hearing and a response to all the comments made therein was prepared, submitted to the Planning Commission and incorporated into the administrative record of the proceedings. D. The Planning Commission has reviewed the Supplemental Environmental Impact Report and all comments received regarding the Supplemental Environmental Impact Report prior to and at the October 21, 2015 public hearing, and based on the whole record before it finds that: (1) the Supplemental Environmental Impact Report was prepared in compliance with CEQA; (2) there is no substantial evidence that the Project will have a significant effect on the environment; and (3) the Supplemental Environmental Impact Report reflects the independent judgment and analysis of the Planning Commission. E. Based on the findings set forth in Resolution 15- , the Planning Commission has adopted the Supplemental Environmental Impact Report prepared for this project. Section 4. Conditions. The Planning Commission of the City of Temecula approves Planning Application No. PA15-1477, a Sign Program for an Audi auto dealership located at 40955 Temecula Center Drive, generally located on the west side of Temecula Center Drive between Temecula Center Drive and Interstate 15, approximately 1,000 feet west of Ynez Road, subject to the Conditions of Approval set forth on Exhibit A, attached hereto, and incorporated herein by this reference. Section 5. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the City of Temecula Planning Commission this 21st day of October 2015. Lanae Turley-Trejo, Chairperson ATTEST: Luke Watson Secretary [SEAL] STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE )ss CITY OF TEMECULA I, Luke Watson, Secretary of the Temecula Planning Commission, do hereby certify that the forgoing PC Resolution No. 15- was duly and regularly adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Temecula at a regular meeting thereof held on the 21st day of October 2015, by the following vote: AYES: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: NOES: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS ABSTAIN: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS Luke Watson Secretary EXHIBIT A DRAFT CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL EXHIBIT A CITY OF TEMECULA DRAFT CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL Planning Application No.: PA15-1477 Project Description: Assessor's Parcel No.: MSHCP Category: DIF Category: TUMF Category: Quimby Category: Approval Date: Expiration Date: PLANNING DIVISION A Sign Program for Audi of Temecula located at 40955 Temecula Center Drive. 916-400-032 (a portion of) NA (No New Square Footage/Grading) NA (No New Square Footage) NA (No New Square Footage Exempt (Non -Residential Project) October 21, 2015 October 21, 2017 General Requirements 1. Indemnification of the City. The applicant and owner of the real property subject to this condition shall hereby agree to indemnify, protect, hold harmless, and defend the City with Legal Counsel of the City's own selection from any and all claims, actions, awards, judgments, or proceedings against the City to attack, set aside, annul, or seek monetary damages resulting, directly or indirectly, from any action in furtherance of and the approval of the City, or any agency or instrumentality thereof, advisory agency, appeal board or legislative body including actions approved by the voters of the City, concerning the Planning Application. The City shall be deemed for purposes of this condition, to include any agency or instrumentality thereof, or any of its elected or appointed officials, officers, employees, consultants, contractors, legal counsel, and agents. City shall promptly notify both the applicant and landowner of any claim, action, or proceeding to which this condition is applicable and shall further cooperate fully in the defense of the action. The City reserves the right to take any and all action the City deems to be in the best interest of the City and its citizens in regards to such defense. 2. Expiration. This approval shall be used within two years of the approval date; otherwise, it shall become null and void. By use is meant the beginning of substantial construction contemplated by this approval within the two year period, which is thereafter diligently pursued to completion, or the beginning of substantial utilization contemplated by this approval, or use of a property in conformance with a Conditional Use Permit. 3. Conformance with Approved Plans. The development of the premises shall substantially conform to the approved site plan and elevations contained on file with the Planning Division. 4. Signage Permits. A separate building permit shall be required for all signage. 5. Modifications or Revisions. The permittee shall obtain City approval for any modifications or revisions to the approval of this project. DRAFT SUPPLEMENTAL EIR AUDI OF TEMECULA Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report SCH No. 2015051024 Prepared for July 2015 City of Temecula r ESA 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 AUDI OF TEMECULA Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report SCH No. 2015051024 Prepared for July 2015 City of Temecula 550 West C Street Suite 750 San Diego, CA 92101 619.719.4200 www.esassoc.com Los Angeles Oakland Orlando Palm Springs Petaluma Portland Sacramento San Francisco Seattle Tampa Woodland Hills 150189 TABLE OF CONTENTS Audi of Temecula Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report Page Executive Summary S-1 1. Introduction 1-1 1.1 Purpose 1-1 1.2 Intended Uses of this SEIR 1-1 1.3 Environmental Review Context 1-1 1.4 CEQA SEIR Process 1-2 1.5 Organization of this Draft SEIR 1-4 2. Project Description 2-1 2.1 Introduction 2-1 2.2 Project Objectives 2-5 2.3 Project Characteristics 2-5 2.4 Project Construction 2-12 2.5 Operations and Maintenance 2-13 2.6 Environmental Characteristics 2-13 2.7 Economic Characteristics 2-13 2.8 Discretionary Approvals and Intended Uses of the EIR 2-14 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation Measures 3-1 3.1 Aesthetics 3.1-1 3.2 Air Quality 3.2-1 3.3 Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Climate Change 3.3-1 3.4 Noise 3.4-1 3.5 Biological Resources 3.5-1 3.6 Transportation and Traffic 3.6-1 3.7 Hydrology, Water Quality and Water Supply 4. Cumulative Impacts 4-1 4.1 Introduction 4-1 4.2 Cumulative Projects 4-1 4.3 Description of Cumulative Effects 4-5 5. Alternatives Analysis 5-1 5.1 Introduction 5-1 5.2 CEQA Requirements 5-1 5.3 Review of Significant Environmental Impacts 5-3 5.4 Alternatives Not Evaluated in this EIR 5-3 5.5 Alternatives Selected for Consideration 5-3 Alternative 1: No Project Alternative 5-5 Alternative 2: Reduced Project Alternative 5-6 Alternative 3: Retail Use Alternative 5-8 5.6 Environmentally Superior Alternative 5-10 Audi of Temecula 1 ESA / 150189 Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report July 2015 Table of Contents Page 6. Other CEQA Considerations 6-1 6.1 Significant Irreversible Environmental Changes 6-1 6.2 Significant Unavoidable Impacts 6-2 7. Acronyms, References and List of Preparers 7-1 7.1 Acronyms 7-1 7.2 References 7-6 7.3 List of Preparers 7-11 Appendices A. Notice of Preparation and Comment Letters B. Air Quality/GHG Analysis Worksheets C. Noise Analysis Worksheets D. Biological Assessment / MSHCP Consistency Report E. Traffic Impact Analysis F. Focused Burrowing Owl Survey Figures 2-1 Regional Location Map 2-2 2-2 Project Location Map 2-3 2-3 Harveston Land Use Plan 2-4 2-4 Site Plan 2-6 2-5 First Floor Plan 2-7 2-6 Mezzanine Floor Plan 2-8 2-7 Building Elevations 2-9 2-8 Landscape Plan 2-11 3.1-1 Location Map of Existing Conditions Photos 3.1-4 3.1-2 View Looking North from the Project Site 3.1-5 3.1-3 View Looking East from the Project Site 3.1-6 3.1-4 View Looking South from the Project Site 3.1-7 3.1-5 View Looking West from the Project Site 3.1-8 3.4-1 Effects of Noise on People 3.4-2 3.4-2 Noise Monitoring Locations 3.4-7 3.5-1 Vegetation 3.5-3 3.5-2 MSHCP Criteria Cells 3.5-20 4-1 Cumulative Projects Map 4-4 Audi of Temecula 11 ESA / 150189 Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report July 2015 Table of Contents Page Tables S-1 Summary of Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures S-6 3.2-1 Air Quality Data Summary (2011 - 2013) 3.2-6 3.2-2 South Coast Air Basin Attainment Status 3.2-7 3.2-3 Ambient Air Quality Standards for Criteria Pollutants 3.2-8 3.2-4 SCAQMD Regional Air Quality Significance Thresholds 3.2-20 3.2-5 SCAQMD Localized Significance Thresholds 3.2-21 3.2-6 Proposed Regional Construction Emissions 3.2-24 3.2-7 Proposed Project Unmitigated Operational Emissions 3.2-25 3.2-8 Peak Hourly Traffic Volumes 3.2-26 3.2-9 Proposed Project Unmitigated Localized Daily Construction Emissions 3.2-27 3.2-10 Proposed project Localized Operational Emissions 3.2-28 3.3-1 Estimated Construction and Operations -Related GHG Emissions 3.3-13 3.4-1 Existing Noise Environments surrounding the Project Site 3.4-8 3.4-2 Existing Roadway Noise Levels (weekday) 3.4-9 3.4-3 Existing Roadway Noise Levels (weekend) 3.4-9 3.4-4 Construction Vibration Damage Criteria 3.4-11 3.4-5 Groundborne Vibration Impact Criteria for General Assessment 3.4-11 3.4-6 Community Noise Exposure (Ldn or CNEL) 3.4-12 3.4-7 Caltrans Vibration Damage Potential Threshold Criteria 3.4-13 3.4-8 Caltrans Vibration Annoyance Potential Criteria 3.4-14 3.4-9 Temecula Land Use / Noise Standards 3.4-15 3.4-10 City of Temecula Noise/Land Use Compatibility Matrix 3.4-16 3.4-11 Typical Construction Noise Levels 3.4-21 3.4-12 Typical Noise Levels from Construction Equipment 3.4-22 3.4-13 Ambient Daytime Noise Level Increases at Off-site Sensitive Uses 3.4-23 3.4-14 Vibration Source Levels for Construction Equipment 3.4-24 3.4-15 Roadway Noise Levels with Project (weekday) 3.4-29 3.4-16 Roadway Noise Levels with Project (weekend) 3.4-30 3.5-1 Habitat Types on the Project Site 3.5-4 3.5-2 Special -Status Plant Species 3.5-6 3.5-3 Special -Status Wildlife Species 3.5-13 3.6-1 Intersection Level of Service Criteria 3.6-1 3.6-2 Roadway Segment Thresholds 3.6-2 3.6-3 Existing (2015) Intersection Level of Service 3.6-5 3.6-4 Intersection Level of Service - Existing (2015) with Project 3.6-10 3.6-5 Intersection Level of Service - Year 2016 Baseline with Project 3.6-11 3.7-1 Water Quality Objectives for Inland Surface Waters within the Murrieta and Auld Hydrologic Areas 3.7-2 3.7-2 Beneficial Uses of Surface Water Bodies within the Project Area 3.7-3 3.7-3 303(d) Impaired Waterbodies within the Project Area 3.7-4 4-1 Planned And Approved Projects In The Project Area 4-3 4-2 Roadway Noise Levels with Project (weekday) 4-8 4-3 Roadway Noise Levels with Project (weekend) 4-9 4-4 Intersection Level of Service - Year 2016 Baseline with Project and Cumulative Projects 4-10 5-1 Ability of Alternatives to Meet Project Objectives 5-4 5-2 Impact Summary Comparison of Alternatives to the Project 5-4 Audi of Temecula 111 ESA / 150189 Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report July 2015 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY S.1 Introduction The City of Temecula (City) has prepared this Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (Draft SEIR) to provide the public and responsible and trustee agencies information about the potential effects on the local and regional environment associated with construction and operation of the proposed Audi new car dealership (project). This Draft SEIR has been prepared pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). This Draft SEIR is being circulated to local, state and federal agencies, and to interested organizations and individuals who may wish to review and comment on the document. Publication of this Draft SEIR marks the beginning of a 45 -day public review period (public review period ends September 3, 2015) during which written comments may be directed to the City of Temecula at the address below. Comments on the project should be directed to: Stuart Fisk Senior Planner City of Temecula Planning Department 41000 Main Street Temecula, CA 92590 stuart.fisk@cityoftemcula.org (e-mail) (951) 506 - 5159 (phone) S.2 Background The project is located in the City of Temecula, California within Riverside County. Temecula was incorporated on December 1, 1989. On November 9, 1993, Temecula adopted the City's General Plan. Since the initial adoption of the City's first General Plan, 13 specific plans have been adopted to govern land use within defined geographic regions of the City. The Harveston Specific Plan, approved in 2001, governs the development of the project site. This specific plan covers approximately 550 acres located between Margarita Road and I-15, along the Temecula City limits, in the northwest section of the City. The Harveston Land Use Plan is divided into 12 planning areas and includes parks, a school, low- to high-density residential land use areas, and a service commercial land use area. The project site is located in the service commercial area of the Specific Plan. Audi of Temecula Supplemental Draft Environmental Impact Report S-1 ESA / 150189 July 2015 Executive Summary The Harveston Plan Service Commercial area contains approximately 113 acres. Permitted uses include a mixture of commercial and office/professional uses, and support service uses that could serve the adjacent business park developments. The Service Commercial land use designation is intended to provide for intensive commercial uses, selected light manufacturing uses that typically require extensive floor area and limited business park uses south of Date Street to provide a transition from existing business park uses to the south. Typical commercial uses include mid -rise office buildings, home improvements stores, discount retail stores, furniture stores, and auto sales, service and repair. The project site is 4.5 acres. It is undeveloped and was previously sheet graded as part of the original Harveston Specific Plan mass grading approval. Non-native grasses and ruderal (weedy) forbs dominate the vegetation on-site. The site is annually mowed and hydro -seeded for fire maintenance, weed abatement, and erosion and dust control purposes. The topography of the site is relatively flat. Elevation on the site ranges from approximately 1,070 feet above mean sea level (AMSL) on the west boundary to 1,095 feet AMSL on the east boundary. The project site contains a temporary retention basin for stormwater run-off on the southwestern portion of the site. S.3 Project Objectives The City's project objectives include: • Plan and implement a project that is consistent with the goals and policies of the City of Temecula General Plan. • Provide for high quality, high-end service commercial uses consistent with the Harveston Specific Plan that serve the needs of the City residents. • Create job growth for the local economy. The applicant's project objectives are: • To adequately serve the existing Audi customer base in the Temecula area. • To maximize Audi's market share in Riverside County and the Temecula area. • To construct a high-end facility of architectural quality that complements other commercial uses in the area. S.4 Project Description The project involves the construction of an approximately 37,468 square -foot Audi car dealership with incidental car maintenance, parts and repair services, and a service bay for car wash and detailing. The project site is 4.5 acres and consists of a portion of Assessor's Parcel Number 916- 400-032, and is a part of Parcel 7, Tentative Parcel Map 36336. It is located on the west side of the current terminus (cul-de-sac) of Temecula Center Drive. Surrounding land uses include Fletcher Jones Mercedes Benz of Temecula to the northwest, undeveloped land designated as Audi of Temecula Supplemental Draft Environmental Impact Report S-2 ESA / 150189 July 2015 Executive Summary Service Commercial in the Harveston Specific Plan to the east and south, and the I-15 freeway corridor to the west. Project components include a one-story showroom building with a new car delivery area, sales area, service advisor area, customer lounge and boutique area, offices, and administrative areas. A mezzanine level within the showroom building provides additional office and customer areas. The showroom and service facilities are designed as two separate buildings which are architecturally connected by a covered service drop off area. The showroom building would be 30 feet -8 inches feet high; the canopy over the service drop off area would be 18 feet high; and the service building would be 24 feet high. The service building includes parts storage, service bays, tool room, oil and air equipment rooms, an employee break room and trash room. Two service bays are dedicated to car wash and detailing. Car washing activities would use filtered, recycled water. A `jewel box" for displaying cars is located at the south portion of the service building, facing I-15. The proposed buildings would be built to California Green Building Standards Code (CALGreen) building standards. S.5 Summary of Impacts A summary of the environmental impacts, mitigation measures, and level of impact remaining after mitigation is presented in Table S-1 of this Executive Summary. The analysis contained in the EIR uses the words "significant" and "less than significant" in the discussion of impacts. These terms specifically define the degree of impact in relation to thresholds used to determine significance of impact identified in each environmental impact section of this Draft SEIR. As required by CEQA, mitigation measures have been included in this Draft SEIR to avoid or substantially reduce the level of significant impacts. Table S-1 at the end of this chapter presents a summary of the impacts and mitigation measures identified for the project. The complete impact statements and mitigation measures are presented in Chapter 3, Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures. The level of significance for each impact was determined using significance criteria (thresholds) developed for each category of impacts; these criteria are presented in the appropriate sections of Chapter 3. Significant impacts are those adverse environmental impacts that meet or exceed the significance thresholds. Table S-1 indicates the measures that will be implemented to avoid, minimize, or otherwise reduce significant impacts to a less than significant level. The impacts associated with the project would occur during the construction phase and the operational phase. Although most construction impacts would be short term, they can pose significant disruptions to nearby communities. Less than Significant Impacts As presented in more detail in Chapter 3, Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation Measures, all impacts in the following topical areas were found to be less than significant: • Air Quality; Audi of Temecula Supplemental Draft Environmental Impact Report S-3 ESA / 150189 July 2015 Executive Summary • Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Climate Change; and • Transportation and Traffic. Significant Impacts Impacts in the following topical areas were found to be significant, but mitigation measures are available that would reduce the potential impacts to a less than significant level: • Aesthetics; • Biological Resources; • Hydrology/Water Quality and Water Supply; and • Noise. Significant and Unavoidable Impacts CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.2(b) requires a discussion of any significant impacts that "cannot be avoided if the proposed project is implemented." Based upon the analysis in Chapter 3, there were no significant and unavoidable impacts associated with the implementation of the project. S.6 Analysis of Alternatives Three alternatives are analyzed in Chapter 5 of this document. These alternatives are summarized as follows: Alternative 1: No Project Alternative (No Development) Under this alternative, the project would not be built and the project site would remain in its existing, undeveloped condition. The site would continue to contain a temporary storm water siltation basin and non-native grasses and ruderal forbs on a previously graded lot. The following discusses the impacts associated with the No Project Alternative, Alternative 1, in comparison to the impacts of the project. Alternative 2: Reduced Project Alternative Under this alternative, the project's building square footage would be reduced by one-third from approximately 37,470 square feet to approximately 24,730 square feet. The project components would be similar to the project as proposed, but at a smaller scale. Alternative 3: Retail Use Alternative Under this alternative, the project site would be developed as a commercial retail center comprised of a typical mix of uses found in such centers, such as sales offices, restaurants, banks and financial institutions; and permitted in the Service Commercial area of the Harveston Specific Plan. Using the target floor area ratio (FAR) in the Harveston Specific Plan for Service Audi of Temecula Supplemental Draft Environmental Impact Report S-4 ESA / 150189 July 2015 Executive Summary Commercial of 0.4 FAR, the building square feet of commercial under this alternative would more than double to approximately 78,400 square feet as compared to the project's approximately 37,470 square feet. Environmentally Superior Alternative An EIR must identify the environmentally superior alternative. The No Project Alternative (No Development) would be environmentally superior to the project based on the minimization or avoidance of physical environmental impacts. However, the No Project Alternative (No Development) does not meet any of the project objectives. In addition, State CEQA Guidelines (Section 15126.6(c)) require that, if the environmentally superior alternative is the No Project Alternative (No Development), the EIR shall also identify an environmentally superior alternative among the other alternatives. A summary comparison of the ability of the alternatives to meet project objectives and potential impacts associated with the alternatives as compared to the project is provided in Chapter 5 of this SEIR. Based on this comparison, Alternative 2 (Reduced Project Alternative) is the environmentally superior alternative. However, Alternative 2 fails to meet certain project objectives, namely: to adequately serve the Audi customer base in the Temecula area, and to maximize Audi's market share in the Temecula area and Riverside County. S.7 Areas of Known Controversy Section 15123 (b)(2) of the State CEQA Guidelines requires that an EIR summary identify areas of controversy known to the Lead Agency, including issues raised by other agencies and the public. On May 5, 2015, a Notice of Preparation (NOP) for the proposed project was distributed by the City of Temecula to the State Clearinghouse, interested agencies, and the public. Responses to the NOP were received by the following agencies: South Coast Air Quality Management District and the Pechanga Temecula Band of Luiseno Mission Indians. Key environmental concerns raised by these organizations included: (1) the identification of any potential adverse air quality and greenhouse gas emissions impacts, (2) the identification of any adverse effects on traffic and local roadways, and (3) the provision for an updated cultural records search for the project. Please note that while cultural resources is not a topic being analyzed in this Draft SEIR, for reasons stated in Section 1.3 of this SEIR, a record search was performed by staff at the California Historical Resources Information System - Eastern Information Center on July 2, 2015. The records search included a review of all recorded cultural resources within a one- half -mile radius of the project site, as well as a review of cultural resource reports on file. The results of the records search indicate that sixteen cultural resources studies have been conducted within one-half mile of the project site, three of which covered portions of the project site. One cultural resource, a house constructed circa 1932, has been recorded within one-half mile of the project site. No cultural resources have been recorded within the project site. Audi of Temecula Supplemental Draft Environmental Impact Report S-5 ESA / 150189 July 2015 Executive Summary to W W Z 0 U' H Z to to 0 WQ a m2 i- 2 2 Z 0 Z W LL 0 >2 2 to o a)o 400 cc 'E CD in Mitigation Measures Environmental Impact Less than significant. Mitigation Measure MM -AES -1: The following measures to reduce light and glare are required: 0)a) m a) o a) oo i o oa) m3 o°�' ° a) CD c) - .� U t t -O a) as x co O U U ."- C L o _ O_ ."- a) Q _a L a) — ._ a) a) n3 a) C -O N o N U O_ o U O U t a) E. CO i.N N �- j'7-�i -cam a) a) _o .0 O OL - C 0 t U Q) z_Lo(ri m m o o o m o vi 1E _c 0) `m U Eco o)0- a) �c°E of —c— >•.. a/ �°.So ° u°i o oo ,Eo _o rn m al v o �� m�t� o ai >, �Z �N o a) �.Nw p `o) w aa)) 0— o ° a) ° a) m.2)c`a ° p m _ o — N tea)° -- -0 �Qo N E°o° = , ° "N0 —Q °c -o _o o a) ° ° S vi Q °� o) Qm_om a) a) .o m m a) LE m ° "� BEY o m� > N a) a)-2 `o `o L t m as 0 t'� ° p 3 �E o° 3 U `per = m E N a) p o o E '� ° o QN p� °,o o) Qom a) N a)a) 2 -o CO 2O O o o.m 0 O O . N 0) N O) O) as c U N (0 N . a) > -O N -- -o a) N ° N a) N (n -p N m �-= 3.S �.5 ° E t o QE m° mLE N E 92 c6 ° a) N N _N N N O a) C N O O 7 a) E ° Q p COQ � '0) °- E �' m a) t p � ._ vi t m m V1 m p o n N N E N C OL N 0- -- N >'"N N ,� Q 0 ,� X p o> [l N p p L(nU0 - p3 a)u)E mca m (050-E a°i m n m °� U "�o ° o m _ N Q N N— N d O) - (n Q 7 p (6 s= 73 _ co 7 p "- o (0 O "• -0 8- ° N min c- > a°)) o ° no .S� o °n �° E E m �)(n �2 o °ci) E o p) (A O) 'O t O a) O_ c (p p O N a.- -t: w Q~ — 10 OU (writ� (6 (°p C U (� -O O) 7 92 C LO m 2 m N C U (6 in ° (6 .N p a) (6 .t QU a) U >, : O =) in O O_ _ N in t "tea) m m a) N m C)- o2- E 2 m o o axi Q n° o o vi a) a) L N (6 "_ : 'N .o) o O .� O n N �_ Z w E _ 8 O "N N 7 o p 0) 'O .N H a) > `p d O U .--� N w C L >, a) -' C "tn 'O p (6 N N -' a) 0 0) 0 c CD -E n m o om 2 Ti o) cm "> Q0., al c . c)-0 mo m m Si m o o E o .U"� ro °in (0 s75 s ° -2)-° >• "�0O ° ani ani Q al 3 o m o ocL O N o E- m o ERI _ m a= N N U C— N 0 o 0 p >, N .O N N .- 'O '� .; C '� w p LED E a) w N C E >, a) U Ut U. U (6 a) N m N (6 Q) 7 t t.N CO— N N 0 c.- p to '450 O_ QN n C a) C E n O p O N p N o_ Q N "o_ O N N O (.0° (6 J J L Q (n H (n `m a) s 0 `p- ru O) o (6 N (6 E L N N 2 7 C U +-- -O "Q -O 0 -O 'O 'c 7 _c -5 °° °Ea) °°m °>�� c°i E� o 0 0 0 0 0 0� 12 (T) 0a`) Ham — o H= H0•E H o ° H m -"c a"S °"S Hm ° 20 H ax) • • • • • Executive Summary W W Z 0 H 0 z Q (n c I— o 0 �0 J W Q J � Z < W z 0 z W lL 0 > Mitigation Measures Environmental Impact mirrored glass, painted metal panels and pre -cast concrete or fabricated wall surfaces. w 0 z None required. = E c 2 U a) 0 O O O O 0 m ° N L O 0 E '- 0- 0 Q0 (T E o o Less than significant. O CO 0 0 a)p 0o (n L �� 0 0 0 U E U O N N w > 0 LO N O - LO > > _o N > �o N m > N 0 0 0-p > 0> O m N a) ° o -c min u_ 0 -°Q -6.0_a m O� -6 U -0 c 0 -6 E 0 O 0 m O O p p 0 (>6 (6 .. a) O m O o o (ono5��O-cQ NE. N o > O-6 E O a)> m'O aj O'�>0 _a 0 'O O N O .° LL O O O .= 'c N N O ) N'7= QD Q 0 U 0 c s Q _cirisC'o - EO ° o m 6) 0 L a) -6 0 7 C, N U Q-6 '� a) (n O ° 0 a) > N a) 0 0 0 o U -0 '(i)a) (o N N 0 0 0 00 (6 0 I§ N L 0 O w a) O >-.A,.; O) Q m c c >0 = a)= 0) D a) ° o E (°)tU_ .-a w o 0_g a) 0 a) (o m m U> O° U 0 -c co 0 a) >m2 a) O O �� o c O 0)m U)O 0' m p ° 92--0� moo- o _O (0 (o > 0 V 0) fn a) ,c-_.; N 0 .= m a) ° ._00 —o � g O O O 0).E LO !n .> 0 N- N -6 m Q U o o .O o Qo '-(0)N c- (9- aTi a°i 0- (6 EU0) '6 0 -6 O a) Q 0) in To Q N O E _cU m(D T O a)0 o_ O 0 00 2 -.6. a) p mO E0 0) .N ,- E m0 6)0 6)O 0 ".%),,.0 Y 0 0° 0 -O L p m (n C U s_ U 0 0 =,U 43"),S 0 0 a1 Q co H 0 N m E a) t O -(,) O o _a C m N L_ 0= o N X co O p 0 p 0 n (C O �m o p6 a) m ).-o g -o 0 O_ m m° 1) O O' a) 2 O a) 0 w 2 0 -6 O -06 0 :> N 0 - N o a) Q� —92 oQ oU m N� m oU_ sa-= _ o cC E C1 N P Q • : .1 0 o O O 0 m N -0 Y i m as O 0 c _c 0(6 O O °coO a) N ,� O 0 o) Q O Q o 0 0 0 m (�a o.° m.2 La) 0 mAs o� 0 E Fi N N c t 0 'O ID N 6 p- E Z r,/_) U .0 N .0 m _0 .� 0 p° E_a -6 'X N C m° 0 �_ m min (E6 m 0 2-a C 2.— E ) O -'O N 0) � E O N Q 6) a) 0> 0_2 O - L p .& o 0 4) (`0 `p N ) O > O ° o0-.J ° a.) ..-• m 3 a) O m—+ - _a U m .0)E 0 0' as d : ._ ., L m N '06 c m °t m Q. N L c O 0'06 .'O a): = 5 Y O .N U .N 0 _ .0 t 7 N U 0° O o Q _0 _0 0 0 0 O .c N 0 O 0 .E 0 0 0 O (n m m o (n Less than significant. C '2 c .2 oL (�oo°Q (6 O a) 0 O ,.. N m m U co O La 0 N O -c O (Es Oa)(o m=m a) _c UQ >2 7 -c Lo_ -c ° N c (n O 0 T>O a) o N.� a) O N -6 _C m O- m as o �o m- E E o (h m 0 N p 0 0 0 N a) (6 N .N 0) >, N - ) 6) ) E a)> O O m O O C OO > Q 0 i.° Q O m 0 7 p O c N t o 2 E�� 0 m o~- ��--a o L N 6) O° >, O p O 0 0 c (70 >6 co g L-0La 2g o o L O "0 > p Q 0 'O 0 'O N 7i 0 m u, N� m o m a v0) -c m U 0 - (n O U L p a) a) —_ 0 O o c 0 U -o 0 O N (n 0 O CO .�--. N O (n U_a ) N o_ E)- c _ m-0. 3 c�� -0 p >'o o p 5 t�-�0 a- U o 0-0 0 0 � a) in a) O O O (6 a) 0 O D 0 -6 O -6 (n (n ° m N OD. >- N U N co O E N 'O .w215O 2 r= c C) > a, 0O w N'5 O 0 g m i%i 006)—Q_. () of N � O � ° o 0 m a) O 6"ca _ a) Ti _a O 7 Q(n O N O O> co O O O U) Q O O> c U m (6 m V U fl- 0 'O 0 c O N 2 ° c a) 00 0 0DI) N 0U >i Q o .E 2f.. R ca 0) tcs 0 • E < 6) 0 co N O O W -6 O 0 O a) 0 0 � a) a) 72 To -5 >> o a)- o� 6)p Qm E a) -°c pp 0 O O O Q (n 0 a -o .C) 0 0_ Q N o .O N o E l!') ' O 00O a)0 EO Qc' (00(0.(6 g)) o N 7 N N a) -c 0 0 N° 0 N N 00 00 O 0 a.i_ t U) 0 u) U O (n > TDO N .� _co- 0 m LL - • • Q (L & U T .0 N (n '> 0 U! N O w 1 .O = O N m O N 0 6 O O2 c0 -00-0o>0 7 0 a) . Q_b- o0 m 0)0 a) 0 a) (n 'U 0 00 U :N ( o '§ >,.? .--� N O N N E E .� N .O E E (40 mo > U))0 °0o -.o a`) 6E �2 �_ 0 a) c UO 0 00 0 p O '0 0 m _a .E 0 3 m 0 (0 U 0 Q3 Q U E Executive Summary Mitigation Measures Environmental Impact z None required. 0 ) 0_ 0)co \\), q- \_ \§m/ co a)}0 E Less than significant. /ra� o_0 c§t\ /f# O J• = 7\ -(0 °E /S \&/7\ ƒ§§g/±£7 -tec 2/® {C -CW E »k[%/[/) 20 ]=7\2 ccc.a //\\) O c=—:O> (0 — (0 5 \ » o- o2050 E -F) - \£®§/5c% g,og%r <73 w 02 0 § ]=O0-(0 0 O 0 7°T (0> U) // »22\a=#Tr, 07 -0 - ca_ (1) 0 §277§§32co 15 E\2/]]o2_} o \®a=== /I00.(0 \ 2(00-0 •FD = 11) 2 —0 co 0wc im CO c > °- E 1§/[7§/(/ 2 o. o5 me oo2k�y 2f\§2_ - J=>=2 ° al •E w- • 5Oo 17)-2 >, 2k�_c oco °®y2\�Qa= \/Gage co `£77°Ey 247])9/& $ z Less than significant. z None required. 0 \ .o 2 - (0 »7 q£o §\ (0 ƒ/) CHAPTER 1 Introduction 1.1 Purpose This Supplemental Draft Environmental Impact Report (SEIR) has been prepared by the City of Temecula (City), pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), California Public Resources Code Sections 21000 et seq., and the state CEQA Guidelines in the Code of Regulations, Title 14, Section 15000. The purpose of this SEIR is to evaluate the potential environmental impacts of the proposed Audi of Temecula project (project), which includes approval of a site development plan for a new car dealership located within the Service Commercial area of the Harveston Specific Plan. 1.2 Intended Uses of this SEIR This SEIR is intended to inform the City, public agencies, and the public in general of the project's environmental effects, to examine and institute methods of mitigating any adverse environmental impacts should the project be approved, and to consider alternatives to the project as proposed. CEQA provides that public agencies should not approve projects until all feasible means available have been employed to avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effects of such projects. 1.3 Environmental Review Context The project is located within the Harveston Specific Plan that was approved in 2001. This Specific Plan covers approximately 550 acres and is located between Margarita Road and I-15, along the Temecula City limits, in the northwest section of the City. The Specific Plan depicts a land use designation of Service Commercial for the project site. The proposed use, an automotive dealership, is consistent with the applicable land use and zoning designation in the Specific Plan. The Draft SEIR has been prepared to address the anticipated environmental effects of the project in conformance with the provisions of CEQA and CEQA Guidelines, as amended. City staff has determined that only minor changes to the previously certified Harveston Specific Plan EIR are necessary to address the impacts of the project. Therefore, the project does not require a major revision to the previously certified Harveston Specific Plan EIR, and a Supplemental EIR, in accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 and 15163, is the appropriate document to respond to these minor project -specific changes. The environmental analysis for the project will assess whether the project would result in a new significant environmental effect not previously addressed in the Harveston Specific Plan EIR or a substantial increase in severity of a previously identified significant environmental effect. Audi of Temecula Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 1-1 ESA / 150189 July 2015 I. Introduction Section 15150(a) of the State CEQA Guidelines states that an EIR: may incorporate by reference all or portions of another document which is a matter of public record or is generally available to the public. Where all or part of another document is incorporated by reference, the incorporated language shall be considered to be set forth in full as part of the text of the EIR. In light of the previous environmental review contained in the Harveston Specific Plan EIR (State Clearinghouse No. 1999041033), this SEIR incorporates by reference the relevant analysis of environmental topics considered in the Harveston Specific Plan EIR which is available for public review at the City of Temecula Community Development Department. The level of specificity of an EIR is determined by the nature of the project and the rule of reason. The City, as lead agency, has determined the key environmental issues that could have significant impacts associated with the project, and that will be the focus of this SEIR analysis, include: aesthetics, air quality, greenhouse gas emissions and climate change, biological resources, noise, transportation and traffic, and hydrology/water quality and water supply. Based on previous environmental analysis, existing conditions of the project site, and project details, the following environmental effects were determined not to be significant and are therefore not discussed in detail in this Draft SEIR: agriculture and forestry, land use, geology and soils, public services and utilities, cultural resources, population and housing, and growth -inducing impacts. 1.4 CEQA SEIR Process 1.4.1 Notice of Preparation On May 6, 2015, in accordance with Sections 15063 and 15082 of the State CEQA Guidelines, the City published a Notice of Preparation (NOP) of a Draft SEIR, and circulated it to the State Clearinghouse, resources agencies, and interested parties. The NOP requested comments on the scope of the Draft SEIR, and asked that those agencies with regulatory authority over any aspect of the project describe that authority. The comment period extended through June 8, 2015. The NOP provided a general description and location of the project and a preliminary list of probable environmental effects. Responses to the NOP were received from the following agencies: the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) and the South Coast Air Quality Management District. No project -specific concerns were raised by these agencies. A copy of the NOP and any comment letters are included in this Draft SEIR as Appendix A. Community Outreach In addition to the pubic noticing required under CEQA, City staff held an informational meeting on March 25, 2015 at the Harveston clubhouse with the residents of the Harveston community to explain the project and listen to any concerns. The community raised concern about the need for a traffic signal at the intersection of Waverly and Ynez to make it easier for pedestrians to cross the street at the intersection. Audi of Temecula Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 1-2 ESA / 150189 July 2015 I. Introduction 1.4.2 Draft SEIR Pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines, § 15162(a), a Supplemental EIR may be required if there are: 1) substantial changes to the project; 2) there are substantial changes in the project's circumstances; or 3) new information that would not have been known at the time the EIR was certified becomes available. This Draft SEIR provides and analysis of the project impacts and reflects the changes in the environment from the approval of the Harvetson Specific Plan EIR. This Draft SEIR provides a description of the project, environmental setting, project impacts, and mitigation measures for impacts found to be significant, as well as an analysis of project alternatives. Significance criteria have been developed for each environmental resource analyzed in this Draft SEIR, and are defined for each impact analysis section. Impacts are categorized as follows: • Significant and unavoidable; • Potentially significant, but can be mitigated to a less -than -significant level; • Less than significant (mitigation is not required under CEQA, but may be recommended); or • No impact. CEQA requires that SEIRs evaluate ways of avoiding or minimizing identified environmental effects where feasible through the application of mitigation measures or project alternatives. 1.4.3 Public Review This document is being circulated to local, state and federal agencies, and to interested organizations and individuals who may wish to review and comment on the Draft SEIR. This Draft SEIR, and the Harveston Specific Plan and Harveston Specific Plan EIR are currently available for public review at the City of Temecula Community Development Department, at the address listed below. Publication of this Draft SEIR marks the beginning of a 45 -day public review period. Written comments should be sent on or before September 3, 2015, by the close of business to: Stuart Fisk Senior Planner City of Temecula Community Development Department 41000 Main Street Temecula, CA 92590 Stuart.fisk@cityoftemecula.org (e-mail) 951.506.5159 (phone) 1.4.4 Final SEIR Written and oral comments received in response to the Draft SEIR will be addressed in a Response to Comments document which, together with the Draft SEIR, will constitute the Final Audi of Temecula Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 1-3 ESA / 150189 July 2015 I. Introduction SEIR. The City will then consider SEIR certification (State CEQA Guidelines Section 15090). If the SEIR is certified, the City may consider project approval. Prior to approving the project, the City must make written findings with respect to any significant environmental effect identified in the SEIR in accordance with Section 15091 of the State CEQA Guidelines. 1.4.5 Mitigation, Monitoring and Reporting Program CEQA requires lead agencies to adopt a reporting and mitigation monitoring program for the changes to the project which it has adopted or made a condition of project approval in order to mitigate or avoid significant effects on the environment (CEQA Section 21081.6, State CEQA Guidelines Section 15097). The Mitigation, Monitoring and Reporting Program will be available to the public at the same time as the Final SEIR 1.5 Organization of this Draft SEIR This Draft SEIR has been organized into the following sections: S. Executive Summary. This chapter summarizes the contents of the Draft SEIR. 1. Introduction. This chapter discusses the CEQA process and the purpose of the Draft SEIR. 2. Project Description. This chapter provides an overview of the project, describes the objectives of the project, and provides detail on the characteristics of the project. 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures. This chapter describes the environmental setting and identifies impacts of the project for each of the following environmental resource areas: aesthetics; air quality; greenhouse gas emissions and climate change; noise; biological resources; transportation and traffic; and hydrology/water quality and water supply. Measures to mitigate impacts of the project are presented for each resource area. 4. Cumulative Impacts. This chapter describes the potential impacts of the project when considered together with other projects in the project area. 5. Alternatives. This chapter presents an overview of the alternatives development process and describes the alternatives to the project that were considered, including the No Project Alternative. 6. Other CEQA Considerations. This chapter provides an analysis of the extent to which the project's primary and secondary effects would commit resources to uses that future generations would probably be unable to reverse. The section also discusses any significant and unavoidable impacts associated with the project. 7. Acronyms, References and List of Preparers. This chapter provides a list of acronyms used throughout the Draft SEIR, the resources referenced in the Draft SEIR, and a list of the individuals who contributed to the preparation of the Draft SEIR. Audi of Temecula Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 1-4 ESA / 150189 July 2015 CHAPTER 2 Project Description This chapter includes a general description of the project's characteristics, which provides a basis for the environmental analysis contained in this Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (SEIR). In addition, the objectives of the project are presented and the probable discretionary actions listed. 2.1 Introduction The project involves the development of 4.5 acres as an automotive dealership (Audi) as part of the Harveston Specific Plan (Harveston Plan). Regionally, the project site is situated in the northern portion of the City of Temecula (City), which is located within the County of Riverside approximately 85 miles southeast of Los Angeles, 60 miles northeast of San Diego, and 25 miles inland from the Pacific Ocean (Figure 2-1). The project is generally located in the northern portion of the City, north of Date Street, east of Interstate 15 (I-15), south of Temecula Center Drive, and west of Ynez Road (Figure 2-2). The Harveston Plan is an approximately 550 -acre planned community that was initially approved by the City Council in 2001. The Harveston Plan includes parks and open space, an elementary school, low- to high-density residential, and service commercial land uses (Figure 2-3). The project is located within the Service Commercial area of the Plan. The Harveston Plan Service Commercial area contains approximately 113 acres. Permitted uses include a mixture of commercial and office/professional uses, and support service uses that could serve the adjacent business park developments. The Service Commercial land use designation is intended to provide for intensive commercial uses, selected light manufacturing uses that typically require extensive floor area, and limited business park uses south of Date Street to provide a transition from existing business park uses to the south. Typical commercial uses include mid -rise office buildings, home improvements stores, discount retail stores, furniture stores, and auto sales, service and repair. Audi of Temecula Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 2-1 ESA / 150189 July 2015 Ly 1. Wont A GL ENDORA IEA f DI:A_ A1131,..m -sA€',DMMIA Rancho ucamonga RK mss!,±''' :.. Fontana Rialto San /est Covina OntarioP om Ona Ontario Intl aaGRANU 3ERRAL V ON ID" C.drpinn Lader Pak 814.14v..61"' 6R EST INE. cr }pSr,,°L]A'*E A RROr311H EAD RIr,,Io P4ak. Sk OVA nl Vs,I• 1 Renninp Lal. 9 grind. .�F :IS PattcrM IM, '.Ir1 A- Nr, •. 71AR4'1#1G1,1 TS CHIN, HOWL ND HE IS;R TS '75 ER kl'iIAMDND BAR i pp7 112 A®RA 4'EA YORBA LIN e on. woo LA 0 Ta▪ heirh :'I,I..Pm, Orange arden Grove Santa Ana MIR LONGI A, Fm,,vb# f y\Ai4 part Qllnv PEDL'EY--..or NO 0 sr. Bernardino ✓I:AND3 M.mm. YUCAIPA Miasma Ow Dow Lal• 91444 UMONT MANNING Homeland A4rd1.• TY' .A'Gr.eh.elw SAN JACINTO HLI ET Florida A,. :., Irvine 1- osiaa Mesa Trakaca LAKE WORE I::.NGHO SANTA MA pVIE JO el Cw4Ia,..L I''" v 1"" UNA HILLS 74 LAal) 41:• i i:ACR 4 0 LAjyL LINA NIGUEL 1111 SAN JUAN CAPISTRANO DANA POINT Fprs ix ono 94.4423 SEM ELATE 7� CLi LA PROJECT LOCATION $Jw B 21004. •d FAL LBROOK Lah Ra, Oceanside VISTA `To 14L' II �& ARG r. r.cirl.r"i4-:,fl Escondido Pa{pnar Alrpot I Pau".r VAS, 0 oYALLEY CENTER ENI 11, 1AS 'y GaM d ifl •6y •12314 ra Rancho Sanu F• SOLANA SEAL 9.1 Mi Amiii1. M La P OWA Y a Romana RAMUNA Alma./ I + 67 AKESIDE 311 oPldrnrm an YUCCA VAL Id ..t.» v x114 DESERT HOT APR!". North P31.. 51,110g. Palm .... PALM SPRINGS Ian1U CATHEDRAL Idrllapd RANC]•. PALM 01 .1 01111101111 ..t.M 1I' cq 4 G1 Hd116 0 tam 171 EE WINS GAR , ALPINE JON r.... a. fM... Randall* mita ak.l a T Aron peer Lags, 0 �� 46,000 I J Valle Feet SOURCE: Service Layer Credits: Sources: Esri, HERE, DeLorme, USGS, Intermap, increment P Corp., NRCAN, Esri Japan, METI, Esri China (Hong Kong), Esri (Thailand), TomTom, Mapmylndia, © OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS User Community Audi of Temecula . 150189 Figure 2-1 Regional Location Map SOURCE: NAPI 2014 Audi of Temecula. 150189 Figure 2-2 Project Location Map 0 � � x Medium (7-12 du/ac max.) High (13-20du/ac Non -Residential Uses E c0 Open Space/Re lam■■ o, I Figure 2-3 Harvestor=Land Ug Plan I a 1-811114%,, `i4, WOMEN 141%.1414411ft:S71*7 .LS••_.1 ■ �yN7 �r 5 1 u 0 v� Audi of Temecula . 150189 SOURCE: EDAW 2. Project Description 2.2 Project Objectives The City's project objectives include: • Plan and implement a project that is consistent with the goals and policies of the City of Temecula General Plan. • Provide for high quality, high-end service commercial uses consistent with the Harveston Specific Plan that serve the needs of the City residents. • Create job growth for the local economy. The applicant's project objectives are: • To adequately serve the existing Audi customer base in the Temecula area. • To maximize Audi's market share in Riverside County and the Temecula area. • To construct a high-end facility of architectural quality that complements other commercial uses in the area. 2.3 Project Characteristics The project involves the construction of an approximately 37,468 square -foot Audi car dealership with incidental car maintenance, parts and repair services, and a service bay for car wash and detailing. The project site is 4.5 acres and consists of a portion of Assessor's Parcel Number 916- 400-032, and is a part of Parcel 7, Tentative Parcel Map 36336. It is located on the west side of the current terminus (cul-de-sac) of Temecula Center Drive. Surrounding land uses include Fletcher Jones Mercedes Benz of Temecula to the northwest, undeveloped land designated as Service Commercial in the Harveston Specific Plan to the east and south, and the I-15 freeway corridor to the west. Project components include a one-story showroom building with a new car delivery area, sales area, service advisor area, customer lounge and boutique area, offices, and administrative areas. A mezzanine level within the showroom building provides additional office and customer areas. The showroom and service facilities are designed as two separate buildings which are architecturally connected by a covered service drop off area. The showroom building would be 30 feet -8 inches high; the canopy over the service drop off area would be 18 feet high; and the service building would be 24 feet high. The service building includes parts storage, service bays, tool room, oil and air equipment rooms, an employee break room and trash room. There would be two 1,000 gallon, above -ground storage tanks located within the service building; one for motor oil, the other for waste oil and waste coolant. Two service bays are dedicated to car wash and detailing. Car washing activities would use filtered, recycled water. A `jewel box" for displaying cars is located at the south portion of the service building, facing I-15. The proposed buildings would be built to California Green Building Standards Code (CALGreen) building standards. Figures 2-4 through 2-7 show the site plan, floor plans, and building elevations of the project. Audi of Temecula Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 2-5 ESA / 150189 July 2015 Audi of Temecula . 150189 SOURCE: RBF Consulting Audi of Temecula . 150189 SOURCE: Ware Malcomb o,az o,oe 0 I OVERALL FIRST FLOOR ,( ® Ittl%iiiiiiir l'/P7_ IIj ��., II it** d p. ,® ,7II N I ®I FI 1 h S F w�8 0 120 ¢w g3 � f — un H r ulr ± uL7i0y, a �., u'i l0 Ci_� 8 1 ® _ // n iu 41 ij ;1 w w -Q amNwa je! " — — — n - z wEz 83 °•M ® ¢¢;Iw8 �6 ® w_�_ I_ � L�OI� - w @a Jif . t N� ��;;;�$ COTIN Nail �'�� #,, / ALL LEGEND 9 8 ?) J I 00)...044,, I , 2 N_ ® I W r 1 1 _ _ _ a '7 ILL 1 k N pqq i ml 088 � k(n, L ^ m LJ e` A C osz o .,, ee ,z sass o� 7. ..os, m � �l Audi of Temecula . 150189 SOURCE: Ware Malcomb Audi of Temecula . 150189 CO C N d O O LL LL ) c4 c N N N 2 SOURCE: Ware Malcomb „, s� �z «n �� 0 OVERALL MEZZANINE FLOOR PLAN OH 8 111111 1111111111a e� vv, ,`' ����111111��1111111111'-'- w EM M 12 J 1__ 1 . , _LL cc o 1r� � _ -3 , I ly E 8�a III 3g� �� ill 8 m �1•� �p r1A >J u� 0—‘ 1 1 1 1 1 1 LL 8� m8 to of m2o m to of 1 1 1 1 _ _ 1 73 1 j 1 8w 1 40 r i ,u� 1 1 y ,�s y 1 - ,, sass .o e Cy o oe o Audi of Temecula . 150189 CO C N d O O LL LL ) c4 c N N N 2 SOURCE: Ware Malcomb Audi of Temecula . 150189 NI- 2 N 0 O CD CC CD 0W 0) CO SOURCE: Ware Malcomb MEZZ FLOOR FIRST FLOOR '. 11111111111-M MEZZ FLOOOR 4l LL 7 © z O Q y� o LL CD 0 z4 Oc, Q LUJ a a ' W I \ Ir a CD - E3899 I II WEST EXTERIC g 1 0 z s 6 92 �86 a a a. 4 < OPs 0 w o-—- aOyo Seo I I 3 � 1 Ss 1 ® i w '3 tw3 o i 3'g ,u °giga swim 4w� g . ..z h� I®II � eso 0 ". 10E1011 III IIII o s==_ ®mw 8 0 a �,0 m<i8- 0 0, CD - aQ„ .g ffSa9 .'69 w8 QQ ,L00 w 3 CD— d4 0 E33 . ° ,4o1 ' 8 0‘9��II Z W (5 o W (5 LU a 98 Q Q x 8 c; 6 R _ o,ez - ¢N 666 O o- � 3Qo 666 E<83 ;/USF M III 1010101000 010101011111 ,0,i0 I 8 iu . w hSs <8 of 8 -`a a a.. . Q V R a ww agN �8 W36 g < o zz Audi of Temecula . 150189 NI- 2 N 0 O CD CC CD 0W 0) CO SOURCE: Ware Malcomb 2. Project Description Access, Parking and Circulation Ingress and egress to the project site would be from Temecula Center Drive which would be extended/improved along the frontage of the site as part of the project. Automobile access to the project site from the surrounding area would occur via I-15 exit to either Murrieta Hot Springs Road (north of the site) or Rancho California Road/Highway 79 (south of the site), then to Ynez Road and Temecula Center Drive. There would be two entry points into the site with an internal drive aisle that bisects the sales and service buildings. Parking would be required to comply with the Section 17.24 of the Temecula Municipal Code Required parking on-site would be based on type and size of use areas (i.e. office, outdoor and indoor sales, service, etc.) and would require a minimum of 145 spaces. The project provides for a total of 173 parking spaces, and bike racks as required by the City. Landscaping and Drainage The proposed landscape plan follows the landscape design requirements set forth in Section 17.32.060 of the Temecula Municipal Code, and the applicable design guidelines and development standards in the Harveston Specific Plan. The plan uses a combination of overstory trees, shrubs and groundcover in a water efficient design (Figure 2-8). The water -wise design includes the use of drought tolerant plants, grouping of plants with similar water needs, adding soil amendments that hold water, and elimination of any turf areas. Recycled water would be used for landscape irrigation. A four -foot high masonry block retaining wall with planted shrubbery along the face to discourage graffiti would be constructed at the top of the slope facing I-15, on the southwest portion of the site, running north -south for a distance of approximately 170 feet. Best management practices proposed for storm water treatment include a system of water quality basins and an underground detention basin located at the perimeter of the site prior to releasing the water into the existing storm water system. In addition, porous pavement/pavers are proposed for the surface parking areas to allow storm water infiltration. The site would consist of approximately 125,656 square feet of impervious surface. Signage and Lighting Signage would be required to conform to design guidelines and development standards pertaining to signage in Service Commercial areas, per the Harveston Specific Plan, Section 17.28 of the Temecula Municipal Code, and the Temecula City -Wide Design Guidelines. The Audi ring logo would be placed on the north, east, and south face of the showroom building, and the south and west face of the service building. The Audi rings and the words "Audi of Temecula" will contain LED lighting for internal illumination. Two pylon monument signs with LED light lenses that are flush with the curvature of the side surfaces are proposed at the northeast (along Temecula Center Drive) and southwest corners of the development The logo and Audi letters will be backlit with LED lighting. The sign at the southwest corner would be visible from I-15, and the sign at the northeast corner would be visible from Ynez Road. Directional and parking signage is proposed to assist with customer on-site circulation. The project would be required to meet all Service Audi of Temecula Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 2-10 ESA / 150189 July 2015 PLANT SCHEDULE 1 g 3 I 3 i P4 LLiLLc7, ' LLIIn cn Ltn1 'el NnNn H n n 8 '3 ''''' n h n n n H n ny, ct cLL' H n n c', ± H n n 333 2 6 CcDUj LI' g g 1 q22 1 1 1 3 . 6 6 0 0 8 6 8 '6 8 9 - . 69 69 69 0'8 03 9 3 3' 29 9 3 '33 66 39 - 2 0 ilki7 • .1111 3 i • 1 I 1 U 111 LANDSCAPE TABULATIONS 1 P4 LLiLLc7, ' LLIIn cn Ltn1 'el NnNn H n n Lc'jL`, H n n n h n n n H n ny, ct cLL' H n n c', ± H n n Audi of Temecula . 150189 SOURCE: Ware Malcomb 2. Project Description Commercial signage guidelines and standards as detailed in Section 11.0, Development Standards, of the Harveston Specific Plan, the City's Municipal Code, and the City-wide Design Guidelines. Also, a comprehensive signage plan is required to be approved as part of the development approval process or, subsequently, by the Planning Department. Adherence to these development standards would ensure that signage proposed as part of the project would be compatible with existing development and be consistent with the Harveston Specific Plan and other applicable regulations. Street lighting that matches the existing lighting along Temecula Center Drive would be installed along the frontage of the project site. In addition, parking lot lighting would be strategically installed around the interior of the site to provide adequate lighting for operations and safety. All lighting would comply with the Harveston Specific Plan design guidelines and development standards related to Service Commercial development; and would be in compliance with the Palomar Observatory Light Pollution Ordinance (Ordinance No. 655, Riverside County, California). The project proposes to incorporate a "step-down" lighting regimen that would progressively dim parking lot lighting to minimize obtrusive light visible by residents of the Harveston community. The step-down lighting would occur each evening at the following intervals: 6:00 pm, 7:30 pm, and 10:30 pm. From 10:30 pm to sunrise the project site would be lit with only security lights. Infrastructure Development of the project would include the provision of necessary infrastructure, including the extension of a private road (Temecula Center Drive) to access the site Additional infrastructure improvements would include drainage systems, sewage disposal systems, water pipelines, solid waste/sanitary systems, electrical conduits, natural gas pipelines, and telecommunications. These systems would be constructed on- and off-site and would be fully provided and maintained by the project owner (on-site facilities), municipal agencies, or utility service providers. The on-site water and sewer lines would be considered private property and would be maintained by the project owner. Gravity sewer lines would be designed to standards governed by the Eastern Municipal Water District (EMWD). The proposed project would convey wastewater to the (EMWD) wastewater treatment plant in Temecula. The payment of sewer connection fees would be required in addition to water district fees and meter installation fees. 2.4 Project Construction Initial construction is anticipated to begin within six months of project approval by the City. Construction of the project is estimated to take approximately nine months. During this time it is estimated that the peak construction force would be 164 people consisting of a range of laborers, craftsman, and supervisory, support, and management personnel. Project construction activities would include site preparation, earthmoving, and general construction. Heavy construction equipment would be determined by the construction contractor and may include, but not be limited to, backhoes, front-end loaders, dump trucks, graders, and trenching machines. A total of approximately 3,000 cubic yards of cut and 3,000 cubic yards of fill would be required for the Audi of Temecula Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 2-12 ESA / 150189 July 2015 2. Project Description project. These cut/fill quantities would be balanced on site. Water for grading compaction and dust control would be trucked to the project site. Water consumption during construction is estimated to be 34,615 gallons. 2.5 Operations and Maintenance Hours of operation would be: Monday through Friday, 7:00am to 8:00pm; Saturday, 8:00am to 7:00pm; and Sunday, 10:00am to 6:00pm. The operations and maintenance workforce are estimated to be 45 employees at peak periods of operation. Potable water consumption during operations is estimated to be 1,720 gallons per day. The car wash would use mostly recycled water plus three to five gallons of fresh water per vehicle serviced. The landscape irrigation would use recycled water. 2.6 Environmental Characteristics Less than Significant Impacts As presented in more detail in Chapter 3, Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation Measures, all impacts in the following topical areas were found to be less than significant: • Air Quality; • Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Climate Change; and • Transportation and Traffic. Significant Impacts Impacts in the following topical areas were found to be significant, but mitigation measures are available that would reduce the potential impacts to a less than significant level: • Aesthetics; • Biological Resources; • Hydrology/Water Quality and Water Supply; and • Noise. 2.7 Economic Characteristics The project's technical characteristics are described in Section 2.3 (Project Characteristics). The proposed project would bring economic benefits to the City by providing service commercial land uses contributing c to the City's tax base. Implementation of the project would provide employment opportunities for the local community The peak operations and maintenance workforce is estimated to be 45 employees. In addition, construction employees would also be needed to construct the project. The number of construction employees would vary depending upon the phase of construction. Audi of Temecula Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 2-13 ESA / 150189 July 2015 2. Project Description 2.8 Approvals — Discretionary and Other This SEIR is intended to provide documentation pursuant to CEQA to cover federal, state, regional, and local discretionary approvals that are required to implement the project. Discretionary and other ministerial approvals required to implement the project include: Agency Action City of Temecula Planning Commission Regional Water Quality Control Board Rancho California Water District City of Temecula (other permits) Eastern Municipal Water District Certification of the Final Environmental Impact Report and MMRP Development Plan Approval Sign Program Approval [All Planning Commission actions are appealable to the City Council] Review and approval of storm water permits Review and approval of water service permits Grading and building permits Review and approval of sewer plans Audi of Temecula Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 2-14 ESA / 150189 July 2015 CHAPTER 3 Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.1 Aesthetics 3.1.1 Introduction This section describes the existing visual or aesthetic resources within and surrounding the project area, and analyzes the impacts of the project on these resources. The evaluation is based on the project's potential to impact visual character and quality and create light and glare, and compares the existing visual character of the site to that resulting from implementation of the project. Visual or aesthetic resources are generally defined as both the natural and built features of the landscape that contribute to the public's experience and appreciation of the environment. Depending on the extent to which a project's presence would alter the perceived visual character and quality of the environment, a visual or aesthetic impact may occur Familiarity with the following terms and concepts will aid the reader in understanding the content of this chapter. Visual character is a general description of the visual attributes of a particular land use setting. An area's visual character generally includes a description of the visual attributes of a particular land use setting. The purpose of defining the visual character of an area is to provide the context within which the visual quality of a particular site or locale is most likely to be perceived by the viewing public. For urban areas, visual character is typically described on the neighborhood level or in terms of areas of common land use, intensity of development, and/or landscaping and urban design features. For natural and open space settings, visual character is most commonly described in terms of areas with common landscape attributes, such as landform, vegetation, or water features. A project viewshed is defined as the general area from which a project would be visible or could be seen. For purposes of describing a project's visual setting and assessing potential visual impacts, the viewshed or "seen area" can be broken down into distance zones of foreground, middleground, and background. The foreground is defined as the zone within one-quarter mile to one-half mile from the viewer. The middleground can be defined as a zone that extends from the foreground up to three to five miles from the viewer, and the background extends from about three to five miles to infinity. Audi of Temecula Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 3.1-1 ESA / 150189 July 2015 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.1 Aesthetics A scenic vista is generally considered to be a location from which the public can experience unique and exemplary high-quality views—typically from elevated vantage points that offer panoramic views of great breadth and depth. 3.1.2 Environmental Setting Physical Setting Regional Visual Characteristic Regional views within the City of Temecula are characterized by flat or gently rolling terrain with residential communities, industrial/commercial development and agricultural land. The Santa Rosa Plateau, located at the southern end of the Santa Ana Mountains, provides a prominent visual backdrop immediately west of the City. Distant views of Palomar Mountain and the Cleveland National Forest exist to the south. The project site is located at the terminus of Temecula Center Drive on an open undeveloped lot between Interstate 15 (I-15) to the west and Ynez Road and undeveloped land to the east. The Harveston Community is located approximately 770 feet east of the project site, on the east side of Ynez Road. A six-foot high block wall separates the residences from Yenz Road. There is a Mercedes-Benz Auto Dealership to the north of the project site, and additional undeveloped land and Date Street to the south. Surrounding land uses primarily consist of undeveloped areas, residential uses and commercial/industrial uses. The architectural character and integrity of the area in the immediate vicinity of the project site is commercial/industrial, with a commercial use directly north (auto dealership) and light industrial uses across the I-15 freeway corridor to the west/southwest. Project Site The 4.5 -acre project site is located in the northwest portion of a larger 112.4 -acre designated Service Commercial area within the Harveston Specific Plan. The project site is relatively flat and undeveloped and contains a temporary storm water de -silting basin in the center of the site. Figures 3.1-1 through 3.1-5 are photos of the existing conditions surrounding the project site. The site has been previously graded by the Harveston Community master developer and is elevated above I-15. Surrounding Area Figure 3.1-1 shows the location and directional view of the photos showing existing conditions surrounding the project site. The following is a more detailed description of the surrounding land uses. • North — The area immediately north of the project site is occupied by a Mercedes-Benz Auto Dealership. This auto dealership contains approximately 80,000 square feet of building space on 13.7 aces. The overall height of the tallest building (showroom) is 28 feet. In addition, there are approximately 968 parking spaces on-site with a landscape buffer separating the building and parking areas from Temecula Center Drive (Figure 3.1-2). Audi of Temecula Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 3.1-2 ESA / 150189 July 2015 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.1 Aesthetics • East — The project site is bordered to the east by the terminus of Temecula Center Drive, an undeveloped lot and Ynez Road. East of Ynez Road are existing single-family homes which are part of the Harveston residential community, which includes approximately 1,900 dwelling units (single-family homes and multi -family residential units) including associated parks and community facilities. Ynez Road is a major arterial roadway (four lanes) from Winchester Road to the Temecula/Murrieta city boundary and is the main access road into the Harveston Specific Plan's Service Commercial area where the project is located (Figure 3.1-3). • South — The project site is bordered on the south by undeveloped land and Date Street. This area to the south is also designated as Service Commercial within the Harveston Specific Plan. Future development in this area could feature high-end service commercial development, thus complimenting the project. Business and industrial parks are located further south beyond this undeveloped area (Figure 3.1-4). • West — The project site is bordered on the west by the I-15 freeway corridor. I-15 is a major north -south freeway servicing the Temecula/Murrieta area, linking it to Riverside and the Los Angeles metropolitan area (via Corona) and to San Diego (via Escondido). The western perimeter, bordering the I-15 freeway, is steeply contoured downward. Further to the west are views of a large industrial/commercial area including retail development, warehouses and associated facilities (Figure 3.1-5). Light and Glare The project site is undeveloped and does not contain light producing sources. The nighttime lighting environment surrounding the site mainly consists of passing vehicle headlights, scattered street lighting, and lighting from the adjacent Mercedes Benz dealership. Audi of Temecula Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 3.1-3 ESA / 150189 July 2015 SOURCE: NAPI 2014 Audi of Temecula. 150189 Figure 3.1-1 Location Map of Existing Conditions Photos co N _C 1 ZS , T O L Z • C O • 01 o LL O H J o 4) Q SOURCE: Ware Malcomb 4) U O O 0 O L E O SOURCE: Ware Malcomb (3) C a--. o r E r M Cn • • i cu CS) LL O H J "c5_ ▪ a) < i EY01•12101 ATMTWAFI 41 u a) U a) O 0 a) L E O SOURCE: Ware Malcomb 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.1 Aesthetics Regulatory Setting State Scenic Highway Program The State Scenic Highway Program, created by the California Legislature in 1963, was established to preserve and protect scenic highway corridors from change that would diminish the aesthetic value of lands adjacent to highways. A highway is designated under this program when a local jurisdiction adopts a scenic corridor protection program, applies to the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) for scenic highway approval, and receives notification from Caltrans that the highway has been designated as a Scenic Highway. When a city or county nominates an eligible scenic highway for official designation, it defines the scenic corridor, which is land generally adjacent to and visible to a motorist on the highway. Based on the Riverside County Comprehensive General Plan and City of Temecula General Plan, State Highway 79 North (Winchester Road) is listed as a State Eligible Scenic Highway and is located (about one mile) south of the project site. Based on a site visit performed by ESA on April 21, 2015, the site is not visible from State Highway 79 North. City of Temecula General Plan The General Plan does not identify any scenic vistas within the vicinity of the project. Additionally, the site does not contain any outstanding scenic vistas or resources that warrant preservation. The following General Plan policies for visual resources and aesthetics, which are found within the Open Space and Conservation Element, are relevant to the project (City of Temecula, 2005): Open Space Goal 5: Conservation of open space areas for a balance of recreation, scenic enjoyment, and protection of natural resources and features. Policy 5.1 Conserve the western escarpment (Santa Rosa Plateau) and southern ridgelines, the Santa Margarita River, slopes in the Sphere of Influence, and other important landforms and historic landscape features through the development review process. Policy 5.8 Require re -vegetation of graded slopes concurrent with project development to minimize erosion and maintain the scenic character of the community. The project site is not located in an area that could substantially alter views of the western escarpment (Santa Rosa Plateau) and southern ridgelines, the Santa Margarita River, and slopes in the Sphere of Influence. Also, as previously mentioned, the General Plan does not identify any scenic vistas within the project site, nor does the site contain any outstanding scenic vistas or resources that warrant preservation. Per City requirements, slopes along the perimeter of the project would be landscaped. The landscaping in these areas would include drought -tolerant vegetation, requiring only supplemental water in the summer months as the landscaping matures. Audi of Temecula Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 3.1-9 ESA / 150189 July 2015 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.1 Aesthetics City of Temecula City -Wide Design Guidelines Temecula's City-wide Design Guidelines provide site planning, architectural design, and landscape design criteria for commercial, industrial, and residential development. The guidelines also establish criteria for unique design characteristics found within specialized development types, such as specific commercial and public uses. The design standards and criteria contained within the guidelines are the primary tool for implementing the policies contained within the Community Design Element (City of Temecula, 2005). Harveston Specific Plan and Design Guidelines The Harveston Specific Plan governs the project design with the intent to provide aesthetically suitable development. It contains concrete standards and development criteria that supplement those of the General Plan. The Specific Plan includes City -approved design guidelines that assure new development will be visually pleasing and that while unique, will not contrast with the surrounding uses. The Design Guidelines contain standards regarding acceptable architecture and landscape standards, to minimize potential adverse aesthetic impacts to the surrounding uses. The Service Commercial designation allows intensive commercial uses, selected light manufacturing uses that typically require extensive floor area, and limited business park uses south of Date Street to provide a transition from existing business park uses to the south. Warehousing and light manufacturing may be permitted as supporting uses for a business that is consistent with the Service Commercial designation. Typical commercial uses include mid -rise office buildings, home improvements stores, discount retail stores, furniture stores, auto sales, auto service, and auto repair (City of Temecula, 2003). The objective of the following criteria (taken from Section 10.0 of the Harveston Specific Plan Guidelines) is to create an attractive Service Commercial environment, complimentary in scale and aesthetic to the entire development of Planning Area 12 (of which the project site is a part). As proposed the project would be consistent with the architectural and landscape architectural guidelines contained in the Specific Plan (City of Temecula, 2003). 10.6 Service Commercial Architectural Guidelines 10.6.1 - Siting and Orientation a. Buildings should be designed using simple contemporary forms organized around a single element or group of elements (that is, major spaces, landscape elements, etc.). The objective is for these areas to be positively differentiated as quality Service Commercial and Business Park environments. b. All design shall incorporate the combination of compatible architecture and landscape forms to insure that this development achieves an image that is distinctive, clearly understandable, and unified. c. All designs shall appear as an integrated part of an overall site design concept. Audi of Temecula Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 3.1-10 ESA / 150189 July 2015 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.1 Aesthetics d. To unify the site, use common site design elements such as lighting and signage, enriched paving, and landscape treatments. Site design shall incorporate variations in elevations. e. Buildings should be arranged to create and enclose a variety of outdoor spaces: plazas, squares, eating areas, usable open space, etc. Open areas must be large enough to be usable, but not so large as to appear empty. 15 to 50 feet in width is generally appropriate. f. Building units should vary in orientation and be clustered to create zones of similar activities. Such clusters should be dispersed throughout the site to reduce the impact of development on neighboring residential areas. g. Parking: Guest parking or visitor parking should be located in close proximity to main entrances. Employee parking and loading zones should be located to the side or rear of the buildings and attractively screened from public streets with landscaping or other site design elements. Street parking shall not be permitted. h. Vehicular and pedestrian circulation routes should be well separated and defined by landscape and site design elements. 10.6.2 — Form, Scale and Massing a. Buildings should be designed with well articulated elevations and with openings and entries that are clearly defined b. Scale, particularly for large industrial structures, should be given careful consideration. Long, uninterrupted expanses of walls shall not be allowed. 10.6.3 — Architectural Features and Details a. All buildings and structures shall comply with the applicable provisions of the City-wide Design Guidelines. In addition, all elevations facing the freeway shall include substantially similar architectural treatments that are located on the building front elevations. b. Fixtures and finishes should be selected for their contribution to the overall theme of the development. 10.6.9 — Lighting b. Screen site lighting from direct view by adjacent residential neighborhoods. c. All lighting on-site must conform with applicable Mount Palomar lighting restricted zone requirements. The illumination shall not spill over and adversely affect adjacent properties. Audi of Temecula Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 3.1-11 ESA / 150189 July 2015 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.1 Aesthetics Palomar Observatory Light Pollution Ordinance The City of Temecula is located within close proximity to the Palomar Observatory. To prevent "skyglow" condition, the observatory requires unique nighttime lighting restrictions. This skyglow condition would adversely impact the use of the telescope at the observatory. Generally, observatory sites need to be 30 to 40 miles from large lighted areas so that the nighttime sky will not be brightened. Temecula adheres to Riverside County's Light Pollution Ordinance (No. 655), which restricts nighttime lighting for areas within a 15 -mile radius (Zone A) and a 45 -mile radius (Zone B) of the Palomar Observatory. Zone A refers to the circular area 15 miles in radius centered on Palomar Observatory. Zone B refers the circular area defined by two circles, one 45 miles in radius centered on Palomar Observatory, and the other the perimeter of Zone A. The project is located within Zone B (45 -mile Radius Lighting Impact Zone) and is required to comply with Ordinance No. 655. The requirements for lamp source and shielding of light emissions for outdoor light fixtures are less stringent under Zone B as compared to Zone A. For instance, parking lots, walkway and security lamps above 4,050 lumens are allowed under Zone B if they are fully shielded, whereas in Zone A, they are prohibited. Furthermore, low pressure sodium decorative lamps and other lamps that are 4,050 lumens and below are allowed under Zone B, whereas in Zone A, they are prohibited. It should be noted that when lighting is "allowed" by this ordinance, it must be fully shielded1, if feasible, and partially shielded2, in all other cases. Lighting for on -premises advertising displays shall be shielded and focused to minimize spill light into the night sky or adjacent properties. In conformance with Riverside County's Light Pollution Ordinance, Ordinance No. 655, all artificial outdoor light fixtures must be installed in conformance with the provisions of the ordinance, the Building Code, the Electrical Code, and lighting requirements specified in the Zoning Ordinance of the County of Riverside, along with any other related state and federal regulations such as California Title 24. Section 59.105 of Ordinance No. 655 sets forth specific requirements for lamp source and shielding of light emissions for outdoor light fixtures. Lighting for on -premises advertising displays must be shielded and focused to minimize light spill into the night sky or adjacent properties. 3.1.3 Impact Assessment Methodology The project would involve implementation of the Harveston Specific Plan. The Harveston Specific Plan is intended to improve the existing character of the area and create a cohesive community through implementation of various districts and associated development standards. It contains concrete standards and development criteria that supplement those of the General Plan. 1 Fully Shielded - constructed so that light rays emitted by the fixtures are projected below the horizontal plan passing through the lowest point on the fixture from which light is emitted 2 Partially Shielded — constructed so that ninety percent (90%) of the light rays emitted by the fixture are projected below the horizontal plane passing through the lowest point of the shield. Audi of Temecula Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 3.1-12 ESA / 150189 July 2015 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.1 Aesthetics The Specific Plan includes City approved design guidelines that assure new development will be visually pleasing and that while unique, will not be in contrast with the surrounding uses. The Design Guidelines contain standards regarding acceptable architecture and landscape standards, to minimize potential adverse aesthetic impacts to the surrounding uses. The potential aesthetic impacts of the project are evaluated considering such factors as the scale, mass, proportion, orientation, architectural detailing, exterior materials and colors, lighting and landscaping/buffering associated with the design of the project. Thresholds of Significance Based on Appendix G of the State CEQA Guidelines, impacts related to aesthetic issues may be considered significant if the proposed project would: • Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista; • Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway; • Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings; or • Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area. Impacts Scenic Vistas A scenic vista is usually a view of a valued resource, such as waterways, the ocean, hills, valleys, or mountains. Temecula's location and natural setting provide opportunities for scenic views of local agriculture and the rolling hills of southern, eastern and western areas, as well as Murrieta and Temecula Creeks. The City of Temecula General Plan Community Design Element identifies important scenic viewsheds to ensure that all new public and private development projects will not obstruct the public views of scenic resources. The General Plan does not identify any scenic viewsheds within the vicinity of the project. Additionally, the site does not contain any outstanding scenic vistas or resources that warrant preservation. The project is not located in an area that could substantially alter views of the western escarpment (Santa Rosa Plateau) and southern ridgelines, the Santa Margarita River, and slopes in the Sphere of Influence. Further, as previously mentioned, the General Plan does not identify any scenic viewsheds within the project site, nor does the site contain any outstanding scenic vistas or resources that warrant preservation. In addition, perimeter and interior landscaping containing understory and overstory trees would soften the building mass of the project as viewed from Ynez Road. The project would not have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista. No scenic vistas have been identified per the City's General Plan, and no scenic vista would be adversely impacted from project development. As such, impacts would be less than significant and no mitigation would be required. Significance Determination: Less than significant. Audi of Temecula Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 3.1-13 ESA / 150189 July 2015 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.1 Aesthetics Scenic Resources The project is not located within a designated scenic highway corridor. The project would not damage a scenic resource and/or degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site. The project site is located in a mixed-use area that includes residential and other commercial land uses. State Highway 79 North (Winchester Road), part of the California Freeway and Expressway System, is located over one mile south of the project site and is eligible for the State Scenic Highway System. The project would not be visible from Winchester Road due to distance and existing development between the project and Winchester Road. As such, no eligible or officially -designated scenic highways are affected by the project. Additionally, the project is located adjacent to the I-15, which is designated by Caltrans as an Eligible State Scenic Highway; however, it is not officially designated as a State Scenic Highway by Caltrans. Views of the project area and distant mountains from I-15 are obscured by a steeply sloping berm with sparse trees and shrubbery that line I-15 along the east right-of-way. Development of the project would result in a change of views that include a higher density built environment, but would also continue to be obscured by the existing topography and proposed landscaping. Therefore, views of the project for passengers along I-15 would not be substantially altered by the project and impacts would be less than significant. Because the site does not have any designated scenic resources (trees, rock outcroppings, historic buildings) and is not located near any scenic highways, the project would not result in any impacts to scenic resources related to a scenic highway. As such, impacts would be less than significant and no mitigation would be required. Significance Determination: Less than significant. Visual Character As described in Chapter 2, plans for the proposed project include a one-story showroom building, auto service facility, associated parking and other customer -related amenities. The project development would total approximately 37,478 square feet of building space to house the dealership including car maintenance, repair services, and a car wash facility. The building mass would be less than half of the existing Mercedes Benz car dealership directly north of the project, with comparable building heights and a varied exterior facade that would include walls of glass and simplified logos. Figure 2-7 shows building elevations of the proposed structures. The architectural character of the project would be similar to the surrounding development (Mercedes Benz dealership). Also, design standards contained in the Harveston Specific Plan would provide architectural guidelines, plant material guidelines, a streetscene and landscaping guidelines, and lighting standards in order to create a cohesive and well -recognizable character for the area. Compliance with the Harveston Specific Plan and Design Guidelines would ensure that no significant visual impacts would result from development of the project. As such, impacts to existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings would be less than significant. Significance Determination: Less than significant. Audi of Temecula Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 3.1-14 ESA / 150189 July 2015 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.1 Aesthetics Light and Glare The project would establish a new use on an undeveloped site which would result in increased light and glare sources. The project would include nighttime building lighting, security lighting, and landscape lighting. This new source of light could have adverse effects on nighttime views and surrounding communities in proximity of the site. Implementation of Mitigation Measure MM -AES -1 would reduce impacts related to light and glare to less than significant levels. Impact AES -1: The project would significantly increase sources of light and glare throughout the project area. Significance Determination: Significant; mitigation required. Mitigation Measure MM -AES -1: The following measures to reduce light and glare are required: • The applicant shall ensure that all lighting fixtures contain "sharp cut-off' fixtures, and shall be fitted with flat glass and internal and external shielding. "Sharp cut-off' fixtures are designed to provide controlled light distribution to minimize light spillover and create little -to -no glare. This fixture contains a sharp cut-off to reduce waste light. The lamp is deeply recessed within the reflector to eliminate glare. • The applicant shall ensure that all fixtures shall be parallel with the finished grade of the project site and no fixtures shall be tilted above a 90 -degree angle. • The applicant shall incorporate step-down lighting into the project to the satisfaction of the City Community Development Director. The step-down lighting shall occur each evening between the following intervals: 6:00 P.M., 7:30 P.M. and 10:30 P.M. • The applicant shall ensure that site lighting systems and showroom lighting shall be grouped into control zones to allow for open, closing, and night light/security lighting schemes. All control groups shall be controlled by an automatic lighting control system utilizing a time clock, photocell, and low voltage relays. • The applicant shall ensure that design and layout of the site shall take advantage of landscaping to block light sources and reflection from cars. Well-placed landscaping would reduce glare from cars in the parking lot and from metal/glass building surfaces, and help to shield nighttime security lighting from adjacent roadway systems. • Prior to the issuance of construction permits for a project -specific development within the project area that includes outdoor lighting, the applicant shall submit an outdoor lighting plan and photometric plan to be reviewed and approved by the City Community Development Director. The lighting plan shall be in compliance with Ordinance No. 655 as adopted by the Riverside County Board of Supervisors and shall include, but not be limited to, the following information and standards: o Light fixtures shall not exceed 4,050 lumens; o Light fixtures shall be fully shielded so that light rays emitted by the fixtures are projected below the horizontal plan passing through the lowest point of the shield; Audi of Temecula Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 3.1-15 ESA / 150189 July 2015 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.1 Aesthetics o A map showing all lamp locations, orientations, and intensities, including security, roadway, and task lighting; o Specification of each light fixture and each light shield; o Total estimated outdoor lighting footprint, expressed as lumens per acre; and, o Specification of motion sensors and other controls to be used, especially for security lighting. • The City shall conduct a post -installation inspection to ensure that the site is in compliance with the design standards in Mitigation Measure MM -AES -1 and Riverside County Ordinance No. 655. • In order to mitigate potential impacts to the Mount Palomar Observatory, all lighting plans shall be reviewed by the City to assure utilization of low pressure sodium vapor lamps, step-down lighting techniques, shielding to prevent upward and outward illumination. • The use of highly reflective construction materials on exterior wall surfaces shall be prohibited. The exterior of permitted buildings shall be constructed of materials such as high performance tinted non -mirrored glass, painted metal panels and pre -cast concrete or fabricated wall surfaces. Significance after Mitigation: Less than significant. Audi of Temecula Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 3.1-16 ESA / 150189 July 2015 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.2 Air Quality This section provides an overview of the existing air quality at the project site and in the surrounding region, a summary of applicable air quality regulations, and analyses of potential short- term and long-term air quality impacts from implementation of the project. Mitigation measures are recommended, as necessary, to reduce significant air quality impacts. 3.2.1 Environmental Setting Climate and Meteorology The project site is located in the City of Temecula in the portion of Riverside County that lies within the South Coast Air Basin (Basin). The project area is under the jurisdiction of the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD). The Basin is a 6,600 -square -mile coastal plain bounded by the Pacific Ocean to the southwest and the San Gabriel, San Bernardino, and San Jacinto Mountains to the north and east. The Basin includes the non -desert portions of Los Angeles, Riverside, and San Bernardino counties, and all of Orange County. The ambient concentrations of air pollutants are determined by the amount of emissions released by sources and the atmosphere's ability to transport and dilute such emissions. Natural factors that affect transport and dilution include terrain, wind, atmospheric stability, and sunlight. Therefore, existing air quality conditions in the area are determined by such natural factors as topography, meteorology, and climate, in addition to the amount of emissions released by existing air pollutant sources. Atmospheric conditions such as wind speed, wind direction, and air temperature gradients interact with the physical features of the landscape to determine the movement and dispersal of air pollutants. The topography and climate of southern California combine to make the Basin an area of high air pollution potential. The Basin is a coastal plain with connecting broad valleys and low hills, bounded by the Pacific Ocean to the west and high mountains around the rest of the perimeter. The general region lies in the semi-permanent high-pressure zone of the eastern Pacific, resulting in a mild climate tempered by cool sea breezes with light average wind speeds. The usually mild climatological pattern is disrupted occasionally by periods of extremely hot weather, winter storms, or Santa Ana winds. During the summer months, a warm air mass frequently descends over the cool, moist marine layer produced by the interaction between the ocean's surface and the lowest layer of the atmosphere. The warm upper layer forms a cap over the cool marine layer and inhibits the pollutants in the marine layer from dispersing upward. In addition, light winds during the summer further limit ventilation. Furthermore, sunlight triggers the photochemical reactions that produce ozone. The region experiences more days of sunlight than any other major urban area in the nation except Phoenix (SCAQMD, 2013a). The Temecula area is an interior valley of the Basin. Clouds and fog that form along the coast infrequently extend as far inland as the Temecula Valley, and usually burn off quickly after sunrise. Precipitation is greatest during the winter season from December through February. Based on past climate records, the average annual maximum temperature in the area is 78.6 Audi of Temecula Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 3.2-1 ESA / 150189 July 2015 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.2 Air Quality degrees Fahrenheit (°F) and the average annual minimum temperature is 50.6° F. The average precipitation in the area is about 13 inches annually (Weather Currents, 2015). Criteria Air Pollutants The California Air Resources Board (CARB) and the United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) currently focuses on the following air pollutants as indicators of ambient air quality: ozone, carbon monoxide (CO), nitrogen dioxide (NO2), sulfur dioxide (SO2), respirable particulate matter with an aerodynamic diameter of 10 micrometers or less (PM10), fine particulate matter with an aerodynamic diameter of 2.5 micrometers or less (PM25), and lead. The pollutants are referred to as "criteria air pollutants" since they are the most prevalent air pollutants known to be injurious to human health and extensive health -effects criteria documents are available about their effects on human health and welfare. A general description of these pollutants is provided below. Federal standards have been established for each criteria pollutant to meet specific public health and welfare criteria set forth in the federal Clean Air Act (CAA). California has generally adopted more stringent ambient air quality standards for the criteria air pollutants (referred to as State Ambient Air Quality Standards, or state standards) and has adopted air quality standards for some pollutants for which there is no corresponding national standard. These standards are discussed in the Regulatory Framework, 3.2.2. Ozone Ozone, the main component of photochemical smog, is primarily a summer and fall pollution problem. Ozone is not emitted directly into the air, but is formed through a complex series of chemical reactions involving other compounds that are directly emitted. These directly emitted pollutants (also known as ozone precursors) include reactive organic gases (ROGs) or volatile organic compounds (VOCs), and oxides of nitrogen (NOx). While both ROGs and VOCs refer to compounds of carbon, ROG is a term used by CARB and is based on a list of exempted carbon compounds. VOC is a term used by the USEPA and is based on USEPA's own exempt list. The time period required for ozone formation allows the reacting compounds to spread over a large area, producing regional pollution problems. Ozone concentrations are the cumulative result of regional development patterns rather than the result of a few significant emission sources. Once ozone is formed, it remains in the atmosphere for one or two days. Ozone is then eliminated through reaction with chemicals on the leaves of plants, attachment to water droplets as they fall to earth ("rainout"), or absorption by water molecules in clouds that later fall to earth with rain ("washout"). Short-term exposure to ozone can irritate the eyes and cause constriction of the airways. In addition to causing shortness of breath, ozone can aggravate existing respiratory diseases such as asthma, bronchitis, and emphysema. Carbon Monoxide CO, a colorless and odorless gas, is a relatively non-reactive pollutant that is a product of incomplete combustion and is mostly associated with motor vehicles. When inhaled at high Audi of Temecula Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 3.2-2 ESA / 150189 July 2015 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.2 Air Quality concentrations, CO combines with hemoglobin in the blood and reduces the oxygen -carrying capacity of the blood. This results in reduced oxygen reaching the brain, heart and other body tissues. This condition is especially critical for people with cardiovascular diseases, chronic lung disease, or anemia. CO measurements and modeling were important in the early 1980s when CO levels were regularly exceeded throughout California. In more recent years, CO measurements and modeling have not been a priority in most California air districts due to the retirement of older polluting vehicles, lower emissions from new vehicles, and improvements in fuels. Nitrogen Dioxide NO2 is a reddish -brown gas that is a by-product of combustion processes. Automobiles and industrial operations are the main sources of NO2. Combustion devices emit primarily nitric oxide (NO), which reacts through oxidation in the atmosphere to form NO2. The combined emissions of NO and NO2 are referred to as NOx, which are reported as equivalent NO2. Aside from its contribution to ozone formation, NO2 can increase the risk of acute and chronic respiratory disease and reduce visibility. NO2 may be visible as a coloring component of a brown cloud on high pollution days, especially in conjunction with high ozone levels. Sulfur Dioxide Sulfur dioxide (SO2) is a colorless, extremely irritating gas or liquid. It enters the atmosphere as a pollutant mainly as a result of burning high sulfur -content fuel oils and coal, and from chemical processes occurring at chemical plants and refineries. When SO2 oxidizes in the atmosphere, it forms sulfur trioxide (SO3). Collectively, these pollutants are referred to as sulfur oxides (SOx). Major sources of SO2 include power plants, large industrial facilities, diesel vehicles, and oil - burning residential heaters. Emissions of SO2 aggravate lung diseases, especially bronchitis. It also constricts the breathing passages, especially in people with asthma and people involved in moderate to heavy exercise. SO2 potentially causes wheezing, shortness of breath, and coughing. Long-term SO2 exposure has been associated with increased risk of mortality from respiratory or cardiovascular disease. Particulate Matter PM10 and PM25 consist of particulate matter that is 10 microns or less in diameter and 2.5 microns or less in diameter, respectively (a micron is one -millionth of a meter). PM10 and PM25 represent fractions of particulate matter that can be inhaled into the air passages and the lungs and can cause adverse health effects. Acute and chronic health effects associated with high particulate levels include the aggravation of chronic respiratory diseases, heart and lung disease, and coughing, bronchitis and respiratory illnesses in children. Recent mortality studies have shown an association between morbidity and mortality and daily concentrations of particulate matter in the air. CARB has estimated that achieving the ambient air quality standards for PM10 could reduce premature mortality rates by 6,500 cases per year (CARB, 2004a). Particulate matter can also damage materials and reduce visibility. One common source of PM25 is diesel exhaust emissions. PM10 consists of particulate matter emitted directly into the air, such as fugitive dust, soot, and smoke from mobile and stationary sources, construction operations, fires, and natural windblown dust; and particulate matter formed in the atmosphere by condensation and/or transformation of Audi of Temecula Draft Environmental Impact Report 3.2-3 ESA / 150189 July 2015 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.2 Air Quality SO2 and ROG. Traffic generates particulate matter emissions through entrainment of dust and dirt particles that settle onto roadways and parking lots. PM10 and PM25 are also emitted by burning wood in residential wood stoves and fireplaces and open agricultural burning. PM10 can remain in the atmosphere for up to seven days before gravitational settling, rainout, and washout remove it. Lead Lead is a metal found naturally in the environment and is present in some manufactured products. There are a variety of activities that can contribute to lead emissions, which are grouped into two general categories, stationary and mobile sources. On -road mobile sources include light-duty automobiles; light-, medium-, and heavy-duty trucks; and motorcycles. Emissions of lead have dropped substantially over the past forty years. The reduction before 1990 is largely due to the phase-out of lead as an anti -knock agent in gasoline for on -road automobiles. Substantial emission reductions have also been achieved due to enhanced controls in the metals processing industry. In the Basin, atmospheric lead is generated almost entirely by the combustion of leaded gasoline and contributes less than one percent of the material collected as total suspended particulates. As lead has been well below regulatory thresholds for decades and the project is not a source of lead, lead is not discussed in this analysis beyond the Regulatory Environment, Section 3.2.2. Toxic Air Contaminants Concentrations of toxic air contaminants (TACs), or in federal parlance, hazardous air pollutants (HAPs), are also used as indicators of ambient air quality conditions. A TAC is defined as an air pollutant that may cause or contribute to an increase in mortality or in serious illness, or that may pose a hazard to human health. TACs are usually present in minute quantities in the ambient air; however, their high toxicity or health risk may pose a threat to public health even at low concentrations. According to the California Almanac of Emissions and Air Quality (CARB, 2009), the majority of the estimated health risk from TACs can be attributed to relatively few compounds, the most important being particulate matter from diesel -fueled engines (diesel PM). Diesel PM differs from other TACs in that it is not a single substance, but rather a complex mixture of hundreds of substances. Although diesel PM is emitted by diesel -fueled internal combustion engines, the composition of the emissions varies depending on engine type, operating conditions, fuel composition, lubricating oil, and whether an emission control system is present. Unlike the other TACs, no ambient monitoring data are available for diesel PM because no routine measurement method currently exists. However, CARB has made preliminary concentration estimates based on a particulate matter exposure method. This method uses the CARB emissions inventory's PM10 database, ambient PM10 monitoring data, and the results from several studies to estimate concentrations of diesel PM. In addition to diesel PM, the TACs for which data are available that pose the greatest existing ambient risk in California are benzene, 1,3 -butadiene, acetaldehyde, carbon tetrachloride, hexavalent chromium, para -dichlorobenzene, formaldehyde, methylene chloride, and perchloroethylene. Audi of Temecula Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 3.2-4 ESA / 150189 July 2015 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.2 Air Quality Odorous Emissions Odors are generally regarded as an annoyance rather than a health hazard. However, manifestations of a person's reaction to foul odors can range from psychological (e.g., irritation, anger, or anxiety) to physiological (e.g., circulatory and respiratory effects, nausea, vomiting, and headache). Offensive odors are unpleasant and can lead to public distress generating citizen complaints to local governments. Although unpleasant, offensive odors rarely cause physical harm. The occurrence and severity of odor impacts depend on the nature, frequency, and intensity of the source, wind speed, direction, and the sensitivity of receptors. Project Area Air Quality Setting Existing Air Quality SCAQMD maintains monitoring stations within district boundaries that monitor air quality and compliance with associated ambient standards. The project site is located in the Temecula/Anza area sub region. Currently, the nearest monitoring station to the project site is the Lake Elsinore monitoring Station (506 W. Flint St. Lake Elsinore), which is located approximately 15 miles northwest of the project site. This station monitors ambient concentrations of ozone, NO2, and CO, but does not monitor SO2 or PM10, or PM25. The nearest monitoring station that monitors ambient concentrations of PM10 is the Perris Station. The closest monitoring station that monitors PM25 is the Mira Loma Station, and the closest station that monitors SO2 is the Metropolitan Riverside County 1 Station. Concentrations from the monitoring stations for the most recent three years (2011 — 2013) are shown in Table 3.2-1.1 Both CARB and USEPA use this type of monitoring data to designate areas according to their attainment status for criteria air pollutants. The purpose of these designations is to identify the areas with air quality problems and thereby initiate planning efforts for improvement. The three basic designation categories are nonattainment, attainment, and unclassified. Unclassified is used in an area that cannot be classified on the basis of available information as meeting or not meeting the standards. In addition, the California designations include a subcategory of nonattainment- transitional, which is given to nonattainment areas that are progressing and nearing attainment. The current attainment status for the Basin is provided in Table 3.2-2. Sensitive Land Uses Land uses such as schools, children's daycare centers, hospitals, and convalescent homes are considered to be more sensitive to poor air quality than the general public because the population groups associated with these uses have increased susceptibility to respiratory distress. In addition, residential uses are considered more sensitive to air quality conditions than commercial and industrial uses, because people generally spend longer periods of time at their residences, resulting in greater exposure to ambient air quality conditions. Recreational land uses are considered moderately sensitive to air pollution. Exercise places a high demand on respiratory functions, which can be impaired by air pollution, even though exposure periods during exercise 1 2014 data has not been reviewed and finalized as of the date of this analysis. Typically the previous year's data is available around June or July of the following year. Audi of Temecula Draft Environmental Impact Report 3.2-5 ESA / 150189 July 2015 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.2 Air Quality are generally short. In addition, noticeable air pollution can detract from the enjoyment of recreation. TABLE 3.2-1 AIR QUALITY DATA SUMMARY (2011 — 2013) Monitoring Data by Year Pollutant Standarda 2011 2012 2013 Ozone - Lake Elsinore Monitoring Station Highest 1 Hour Average (ppm) 0.133 0.111 0.102 Days over State Standard 0.09 ppm 19 10 6 Highest 8 Hour Average (ppm) 0.106 0.089 0.089 Days over National Standard 0.075 ppm 28 17 12 Days over State Standard 0.070 ppm 45 29 25 Carbon Monoxide - Lake Elsinore Monitoring Station Highest 8 Hour Average (ppm) 0.7 0.7 06 Days over National Standard 9 ppm 0 0 0 Days over State Standard 9.0 ppm 0 0 0 Nitrogen Dioxide - Lake Elsinore Monitoring Station Highest 1 Hour Average (ppm) 0.0503 0.0483 0.0466 Days over National Standard 0.100 ppm 0 0 0 Days over State Standard 0.18 ppm 0 0 0 Annual Average (ppm) 0.0096 0.0102 0.0084 Days over National Standard 0.053 ppm 0 0 0 Days over State Standard 0.030 ppm 0 0 0 Sulfur Dioxide - Metropolitan Riverside County 1 Monitoring Station Highest 1 Hour Average (ppm) 0.0513 0.0043 0.0081 Days over State Standard 0.25 ppm 0 0 0 Particulate Matter (PM10) - Perris Monitoring Station Highest 24 Hour Average (µg/m3)b 65 62 70 Days over National Standard (measured)° 150 µg/m3 0 0 0 Days over State Standard (measured)° 50 µg/m3 3 1 10 Annual Average (µg/m3)b 20 µg/m3 29.2 26.5 33.6 Particulate Matter (PM2.5) - Mira Loma Monitoring Station Highest 24 Hour Average (µg/m3)b 56.3 39.3 56.5 Days over National Standard (measured)c 35 µg/m3 8 7 9 Annual Average (µg/m3)b 12 µg/m3 15.3 15.1 14.12 ppm = parts per million; µg/m3 = micrograms per cubic meter. a Generally, state standards and national standards are not to be exceeded more than once per year. b Concentrations and averages represent federal statistics. State and federal statistics may differ because of different sampling methods. Measurements are usually collected every six days. Days over the standard represent the measured number of days that the standard has been exceeded. SOURCE: SCAQMD, 2013b, 2012, 2011. Audi of Temecula Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 3.2-6 ESA/ 150189 July 2015 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.2 Air Quality TABLE 3.2-2 SOUTH COAST AIR BASIN ATTAINMENT STATUS Attainment Status Pollutant California Standards Federal Standards Ozone Extreme Nonattainment Severe Nonattainment CO Attainment Unclassified/Attainment NO2 Attainment Unclassified/Attainment SO2 Attainment Attainment PM,o Nonattainment Attainment PM25 Nonattainment Nonattainment Lead Attainment Nonattainment SOURCE: GARB, 2013a; USEPA, 2013. Currently, sensitive uses located in the project site vicinity include single-family residential uses and schools. Specifically, the nearest residential development is located across Ynez Road over 900 feet to the north and northeast of the project site. The nearest schools care the Ysabel Barnett Elementary School and the Buchanan Elementary school. They are located over 4,000 feet from the project site to the east and northeast respectively. 3.2.2 Regulatory Framework The project site is located in the southwestern portion of Riverside County within the Basin. Air quality in the project area is regulated by USEPA, CARB, and SCAQMD. The City of Temecula General Plan also contains an Air Quality Element that establishes a policy foundation to implement local air quality improvement measures and provides a framework for coordination of air quality planning efforts with surrounding jurisdictions. United States Environmental Protection Agency Criteria Air Pollutants At the federal level, USEPA has been charged with implementing national air quality programs. USEPA's air quality mandates are drawn primarily from the federal CAA, which was enacted in 1970. The most recent major amendments to the CAA were made by Congress in 1990. The CAA requires USEPA to establish National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). USEPA has established primary and secondary NAAQS for the following "criteria air pollutants": ozone, CO, NO2, SO2, PM10, PM25, and lead. Table 3.2-3 shows the NAAQS for these pollutants. Audi of Temecula Draft Environmental Impact Report 3.2-7 ESA / 150189 July 2015 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.2 Air Quality TABLE 3.2-3 AMBIENT AIR QUALITY STANDARDS FOR CRITERIA POLLUTANTS Averaging Pollutant Time State National Pollutant Health and Standard Standard Atmospheric Effects Major Pollutant Sources Ozone Carbon Monoxide (CO) Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2) Sulfur Dioxide (S02) Respirable Particulate Matter (PM10) Fine Particulate Matter (PM2.5) Lead (Pb) Hydrogen Sulfide Sulfates (SO4) Visibility Reducing Particles 1 hour 8 hours 1 hour 8 hours 1 hour Annual Arithmetic Mean 1 hour 3 hours 24 hours Annual Arithmetic Mean 24 hours Annual Arithmetic Mean 24 hours Annual Arithmetic Mean 30 Day Average Calendar Quarter Rolling 3 -Month Average 1 hour 24 hour 8 hour 0.09 ppm 0.07 ppm 0.075 ppm 20 ppm 9.0 ppm 35 ppm 9 ppm 0.18 ppm 0.100 ppm 0.030 ppm 0.053 ppm 0.25 ppm 75 ppb 0.50 ppm 0.04 ppm 0.14 ppm 0.03 ppm High concentrations can directly affect lungs, causing irritation. Long-term exposure may cause damage to lung tissue. Classified as a chemical asphyxiant, carbon monoxide interferes with the transfer of fresh oxygen to the blood and deprives sensitive tissues of oxygen. Irritating to eyes and respiratory tract. Colors atmosphere reddish - brown. Irritates upper respiratory tract; injurious to lung tissue. Can yellow the leaves of plants, destructive to marble, iron, and steel. Limits visibility and reduces sunlight. 50 lag/m3 150 lag/m3 May irritate eyes and respiratory tract, decreases in lung capacity, cancer and increased mortality. Produces haze and limits visibility. 20 lag/m3 35 lag/m3 12 lag/m3 15 lag/m3 1.5 lag/m3 1.5 lag/m3 0.15 lag/m3 0.03 ppm No National Standard 25 lag/m3 No National Standard Extinction of No National 0.23/km; Standard visibility of 10 miles or more Increases respiratory disease, lung damage, cancer, and premature death. Reduces visibility and results in surface soiling. Disturbs gastrointestinal system, and causes anemia, kidney disease, and neuromuscular and neurological dysfunction (in severe cases). Nuisance odor (rotten egg smell), headache and breathing difficulties (higher concentrations) Decrease in ventilatory functions; aggravation of asthmatic symptoms; aggravation of cardio- pulmonary disease; vegetation damage; degradation of visibility; property damage. Reduces visibility, reduced airport safety, lower real estate value, and discourages tourism. Formed when ROG and NOx react in the presence of sunlight. Major sources include on -road motor vehicles, solvent evaporation, and commercial / industrial mobile equipment. Internal combustion engines, primarily gasoline -powered motor vehicles. Motor vehicles, petroleum refining operations, industrial sources, aircraft, ships, and railroads. Fuel combustion, chemical plants, sulfur recovery plants, and metal processing. Dust and fume -producing industrial and agricultural operations, combustion, atmospheric photochemical reactions, and natural activities (e.g., wind -raised dust and ocean sprays). Fuel combustion in motor vehicles, equipment, and industrial sources; residential and agricultural burning; Also, formed from photochemical reactions of other pollutants, including NOx, sulfur oxides, and organics. Present source: lead smelters, battery manufacturing and recycling facilities. Past source: combustion of leaded gasoline. Geothermal power plants, petroleum production and refining Industrial processes. See PM25. NOTE: ppm = parts per million; ppb = parts per billion; pg/m3= micrograms per cubic meter. SOURCE: CARE, 2013b. Audi of Temecula Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 3.2-8 ESA / 150189 July 2015 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.2 Air Quality The CAA also requires each state to prepare an air quality control plan, referred to as a state implementation plan (SIP). The CAA Amendments of 1990 (CAAA) added requirements for states with nonattainment areas to revise their SIPs to incorporate additional control measures to reduce air pollution. The SIP is modified periodically to reflect the latest emissions inventories, planning documents, and rules and regulations of the air basins, as reported by their jurisdictional agencies. USEPA is responsible for reviewing all SIPs to determine whether they conform to the mandates of the CAA and its amendments, and to determine whether implementing the SIPs will achieve air quality goals. If USEPA determines a SIP to be inadequate, a federal implementation plan that imposes additional control measures may be prepared for the nonattainment area. If an approvable SIP is not submitted or implemented within the mandated time frame, sanctions may be applied to transportation funding and stationary sources of air pollution in the air basin. USEPA also has regulatory and enforcement jurisdiction over emission sources beyond state waters (outer continental shelf), and those that are under the exclusive authority of the federal government, such as aircraft, locomotives, and interstate trucking. USEPA's primary role at the state level is to oversee state air quality programs. USEPA sets federal vehicle and stationary source emissions standards and provides research and guidance in air pollution programs. California Air Resources Board Criteria Air Pollutants CARB, a department of the California Environmental Protection Agency (Ca1EPA), oversees air quality planning and control throughout California by administering the SIP. Its primary responsibility lies in ensuring implementation of the 1989 amendments to the California Clean Air Act (CCAA), responding to the federal CAA requirements, and regulating emissions from motor vehicles sold in California. It also sets fuel specifications to further reduce vehicular emissions. The amendments to the CCAA establish California Ambient Air Quality Standards (CAAQS), and a legal mandate to achieve these standards by the earliest practical date. These standards apply to the same criteria pollutants as the federal CAA, and also include sulfates, visibility reducing particulates, hydrogen sulfide and vinyl chloride. They are also generally more stringent than the federal standards. Table 3.2-3 shows the CAAQS for these pollutants. CARB is also responsible for regulations pertaining to TACs. The Air Toxics "Hot Spots" Information and Assessment Act was enacted in 1987 as a means to establish a formal air toxics emission inventory risk quantification program. Assembly Bill (AB) 2588, as amended, establishes a process that requires stationary sources to report the type and quantities of certain substances their facilities routinely release. South Coast Air Quality Management District Criteria Air Pollutants SCAQMD attains and maintains air quality conditions in the Basin through a comprehensive program of planning, regulation, enforcement, technical innovation, and promotion of the understanding of air quality issues. The clean air strategy of SCAQMD includes preparation of Audi of Temecula Draft Environmental Impact Report 3.2-9 ESA / 150189 July 2015 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.2 Air Quality plans for attainment of ambient air quality standards, adoption and enforcement of rules and regulations concerning sources of air pollution, and issuance of permits for stationary sources of air pollution. SCAQMD also inspects stationary sources of air pollution and responds to citizen complaints, monitors ambient air quality and meteorological conditions, and implements programs and regulations required by the CAA, CAAA, and CCAA. Air Quality Management Plan SCAQMD and the SCAG are responsible for preparing the air quality management plan (AQMP), which addresses federal and state CAA requirements. The AQMP details goals, policies, and programs for improving air quality in the Basin. The 2012 AQMP was adopted by the SCAQMD Governing Board on December 12, 2012. The purpose of the 2012 AQMP for the SCAB is to set forth a comprehensive and integrated program that will lead the region into compliance with the federal 24-hour PM25 air quality standard, and to provide an update to the SCAB's commitment towards meeting the federal 8 -hour ozone standards (SCAQMD, 2013a). The AQMP would also serve to satisfy recent USEPA requirements for a new attainment demonstration of the revoked 1 -hour ozone standard, as well as a vehicle miles travelled (VMT) emissions offset demonstration. Specifically, the AQMP would serve as the official SIP submittal for the federal 2006 24-hour PM25 standard, for which USEPA had established a due date of December 14, 2012. In addition, the AQMP updates specific new control measures and commitments for emissions reductions to implement the attainment strategy for the 8 -hour ozone SIP. The 2012 AQMP sets forth programs which require integrated planning efforts and the cooperation of all levels of government: local, regional, state, and federal. Currently, SCAQMD staff has already begun initiating an early development process for the next AQMP. SCAQMD Rules and Regulations All projects are subject to SCAQMD rules and regulations in effect at the time of construction. Specific rules applicable to the construction anticipated under the project would include the following: Rule 401— Visible Emissions. A person shall not discharge into the atmosphere from any single source of emission whatsoever any air contaminant for a period or periods aggregating more than three minutes in any 1 hour that is as dark or darker in shade as that designated No. 1 on the Ringelmann Chart, as published by the United States Bureau of Mines. Rule 402 — Nuisance. A person shall not discharge from any source whatsoever such quantities of air contaminants or other material that cause injury, detriment, nuisance, or annoyance to any considerable number of persons or to the public, or that endanger the comfort, repose, health, or safety of any such persons or the public, or that cause, or have a natural tendency to cause, injury or damage to business or property. The provisions of this rule do not apply to odors emanating from agricultural operations necessary for the growing of crops or the raising of fowl or animals. Rule 403 — Fugitive Dust. This rule is intended to reduce the amount of particulate matter entrained in the ambient air as a result of anthropogenic (human -made) fugitive dust sources by Audi of Temecula Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 3.2-10 ESA / 150189 July 2015 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.2 Air Quality requiring actions to prevent, reduce, or mitigate fugitive dust emissions. Rule 403 applies to any activity or human -made condition capable of generating fugitive dust. Rule 1113 — Architectural Coatings. No person shall apply or solicit the application of any architectural coating within the SCAQMD with VOC content in excess of the values specified in the Rule. Toxic Air Contaminants At the local level, air pollution control or management districts may adopt and enforce CARB control measures. Under SCAQMD Regulation XIV (Toxics and Other Non -Criteria Pollutants), and in particular Rule 1401 (New Source Review), all sources that possess the potential to emit TACs are required to obtain permits from SCAQMD. Permits may be granted to these operations if they are constructed and operated in accordance with applicable regulations, including new source review standards and air toxics control measures. SCAQMD limits emissions and public exposure to TACs through a number of programs. SCAQMD prioritizes TAC -emitting stationary sources based on the quantity and toxicity of the TAC emissions and the proximity of the facilities to sensitive receptors. The Air Toxics Control Plan (March 2000, revised March 26, 2004) is a planning document designed to examine the overall direction of SCAQMD's air toxics control program. It includes development and implementation of strategic initiatives to monitor and control air toxics emissions. Control strategies that are deemed viable and are within SCAQMD's jurisdiction will each be brought to the SCAQMD Board for further consideration through the normal public review process. Strategies that are to be implemented by other agencies will be developed in a cooperative effort, and the progress will be reported back to the Board periodically (SCAQMD, 2004). In September 2008, the SCAQMD completed the Multiple Air Toxics Exposure Study III (MATES III). MATES III is a monitoring and evaluation study conducted in the Basin and is a follow up to previous air toxics studies. The study consists of several elements including a monitoring program, an updated emissions inventory of toxic air contaminants, and a modeling effort to characterize risk across the Basin. The study focuses on the carcinogenic risk from exposure to air toxics. However, it does not estimate mortality or other health effects from particulate exposures. MATES III shows that the region around the project site area has an estimated carcinogenic risk of up to 416 in a million (SCAQMD, 2008a). These model estimates were based on monitoring data collected at 10 fixed sites within the Basin. City of Temecula General Plan The Air Quality Element "establishes policy foundation to implement local air quality improvement measures and provides a framework for coordination of air quality planning efforts with surrounding jurisdictions" (City of Temecula, 2005). The goals and policies relevant to the Air Quality analysis include: Goal 2 Improve air quality through effective land use planning in Temecula. Audi of Temecula Draft Environmental Impact Report 3.2-11 ESA / 150189 July 2015 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.2 Air Quality Policy 2.1 Encourage new development that provides employment opportunities for Temecula residents to improve the balance of jobs relative to housing. Policy 2.3 Minimize land use conflicts between emission sources and sensitive receptors. Policy 2.4 Mitigate air quality impacts associated with development projects to the greatest extent feasible. Goal 3 Enhance mobility to minimize air pollutant emissions. Policy 3.4 Policy 3.5 Establish a convenient and efficient system of bicycle routes and pedestrian walkways. Promote the use of alternative clean -fueled vehicles, new transportation technologies, and combustion engine alternatives for personal and business use. Goal 4 Adopt effective energy conservation and recycling practices to reduce emissions. Policy 4.1 Encourage community -wide reductions in energy consumption through conservation. Policy 4.3 Encourage energy-efficient design in new development projects. The following 15 implementation programs have also been introduced in Temecula to reduce air quality emissions. AQ -1 Multi -Jurisdictional Coordination AQ -2 Public Participation AQ -3: Land Use Compatibility AQ -4 Jobs/Housing Balance AQ -5: Mitigation Measures AQ -6: Sensitive Receptors AQ -7: Design Guidelines AQ -8: Alternative Work Schedules AQ -9: Rideshare and Transit Incentives AQ -10: Special Events AQ -11: Transportation Alternatives AQ -12: Alternative Fueled Vehicles AQ -13: Multi -Use Trails and Bikeways Master Plan AQ -14: Park and Ride Facilities AQ -15: Energy Efficient Design Audi of Temecula Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 3.2-12 ESA / 150189 July 2015 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.2 Air Quality Municipal Code The following section of the City of Temecula municipal code is relevant to the project (City of Temecula, 2015): 18.06.100 Dust prevention and control plan. Dust prevention and control procedures shall be employed while construction activity occurs to minimize wind borne particles. At minimum, all grading operations, land clearing, loading, stockpiling, landscaping, vehicular track -out and haul routes shall comply with South Coast Air Quality Management District (AQMD) Rule 403 (fugitive dust emissions) and the provisions of Subarticle 3.8 of the grading manual. (Ord. 04-04 § 4 (part)) Harveston Specific Plan The Harveston Specific Plan was prepared in September 1999 and last amended in August 2003. The plan was designed to meet the requirements of the City of Temecula's General Plan and provide a cohesive and comprehensive document of guidelines and standards for implementation of the development within the Specific Plan area. The following development standards presented in the Specific Plan are applicable to the air quality analysis (City of Temecula, 2003). Circulation Plan Development Standards: 3: Provisions shall be made for a safe and efficient paseo, urban trail and sidewalk network, providing pedestrian and bicycle circulation in conjunction with the roadway network. A sidewalk system shall be developed along Date Street, Margarita Road, Ynez Road, collector Streets and along most of the other project roadways. Pedestrian traffic shall be separated from vehicular traffic, particularly in commercial and high density areas. 12: The project shall comply with the conditions and requirements set forth by the City of Temecula. Water Plan Development Standards/Sewer Plan Development Standards: 4: The project shall comply with Title 20, California Administrative Code Section 1604 (f) Appliance Efficiency Standards), which establishes efficiency standards that set the maximum flow rate of all new showerheads, lavatory faucets, as well as Health and Safety Code Section 17621.3 which requires low -flush toilets and urinals in virtually all buildings. (Note this is superseded by Title 24 regulations). Grading Plan General Development Standards: 1: All grading activities shall be in substantial conformance with the overall Conceptual Grading Plan (Figure 82), and shall implement any grading -related mitigation measures outlined in the Preliminary Geotechnical Investigations (EIR Technical Appendices). Grading for the site shall balance on-site. 5: The applicant shall be responsible for maintenance and upkeep of all planting and irrigation systems until those operations become the responsibility of other parties. Audi of Temecula Draft Environmental Impact Report 3.2-13 ESA / 150189 July 2015 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.2 Air Quality 7: Graded, but undeveloped land shall be maintained weed -free and planted with interim landscaping, such as hydroseed, and temporary irrigation within ninety (90) days of completion of grading, unless building permits are obtained. 10: Prior to commencing any grading, including clearing and grubbing, a grading permit shall be obtained from the City of Temecula. 12: Soil stabilizers shall be used to control dust as required by SCAQMD Rule 403. 14: Grading shall comply with the mitigation measures, pursuant to the Harveston Specific Plan EIR. Landscape Plan General Development Standards: 13: All landscaping shall meet the City of Temecula Water Efficient Ordinance, Chapter 1732 of the City of Temecula Development Code. 22: Graded/disturbed areas not to be developed within six months shall be temporarily planted and irrigated to provide dust and erosion control. Service Commercial Zone 12 Development Standards: 3a: A minimum of twenty percent (20%) of the site shall be landscaped and automatic irrigation shall be installed. 3b: Parking lot landscaping and shading shall conform to applicable City Ordinance. 3c: A minimum of a fifty foot (50') landscaped buffer/setback area shalt be provided adjacent to the Interstate 15 right-of-way. No parking or driving surfaces are allowed in this area. The following air quality mitigation measures presented in the Specific Plan EIR for the project area are relevant to the air quality analysis. 1. Prior to grading and construction, the developer shall be responsible for compliance with the following: a. During clearing, grading, earth moving, or excavation, maintain equipment engines in proper tune. b. After clearing, grading, earth moving, or excavation: i. Wet the area down, sufficient enough to form a crust on the surface with repeated soakings, as necessary, to maintain the crust and prevent dust pick up by the wind. ii. Spread soil binders; and iii. Implement street sweeping as necessary c. During construction: i. Use water trucks or sprinkler systems to keep all areas where vehicles move damp enough to prevent dust raised when leaving the site; Audi of Temecula Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 3.2-14 ESA / 150189 July 2015 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.2 Air Quality ii. Wet down areas in the late morning and after work is completed for the day; iii. Use low sulfur fuel (0.5% by weight) for construction equipment. 2. Prior to grading and construction, the developer shall be responsible for compliance with the following: a. Require a phased schedule for construction activities to minimize daily emissions. b. Schedule activities to minimize the amount of exposed excavated soil during and after the end of work periods. c. Treat unattended construction areas with water (disturbed lands which have been, or are expected to be unused for four or more consecutive days). d. Require the planting of vegetative ground cover as soon as possible on construction sites. e. Install vehicle wheel -washers before the roadway entrance at construction sites. f. Wash off trucks leaving site. g - Require all trucks hauling dirt, sand, soil, or other loose substances and building materials to be covered, or to maintain a minimum freeboard of two feet between the top of the load and the top of the truck bed sides. h. Use vegetative stabilization, whenever possible, to control soil erosion from storm water especially on super pads. i. Require enclosures or chemical stabilization of open storage piles of sand, dirt, or other aggregate materials. Control off-road vehicle travel by posting driving speed limits on these roads, consistent with City standards. k. Use electricity from power poles rather than temporary diesel or gasoline power generators. J- 3. Prior to grading and construction, the developer shall be responsible for the paving of all access aprons to the project site and the maintenance of the paving. 4. Prior to issuance of grading permits, the developer shall be responsible for assuring that construction vehicles be equipped with proper emission control equipment to substantially reduce emissions. 5. Prior to issuance of grading permits, the developer shall be responsible for the incorporation of measures to reduce construction related traffic congestion into the project grading permit. Measures, subject to the approval and verification by the Public Works Department, shall include, as appropriate: a. Provision of rideshare incentives. b. Provision of transit incentives for construction personnel. Audi of Temecula Draft Environmental Impact Report 3.2-15 ESA / 150189 July 2015 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.2 Air Quality c. Configuration of construction parking to minimize traffic interference. d. Measures to minimize obstruction of through traffic lanes. e. Use of a flagman to guide traffic when deemed necessary. 6. Prior to the building / construction operations, individual contractors will commit in writing to the following: a. Scheduling receipt of construction materials to non -peak travel periods (i.e., 7:30 —8:30 AMand4:00-6:00PM); b. Routing construction traffic through areas of least impact sensitivity; and c. Limiting lane closures and detours to off-peak travel periods. 7. Prior to the approval of tentative maps and/or development plans, developers will submit tract maps and/or street improvement plans to the RTA for review and comment regarding bus turnouts, shelters, etc. Transit -oriented facilities and design features will be incorporated into the design of the project as appropriate, to the satisfaction of the City. City staff will focus on the review plans for commercial uses to provide transit related features. 8. Prior to the approval of a development plan, City staff will review plans, especially for commercial and park uses, for the provision of appropriate, necessary, and adequate pedestrian and bicycle facilities. 9. Prior to the approval of development plan, City staff will review plans for all service commercial uses to encourage the provision of park and ride facilities. 10. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the developer shall provide proof to the City's Traffic Engineer that the project has contributed its 'fair -share' towards regional traffic improvement systems (i.e., traffic impact fees) for the area. This shall include efforts to synchronize traffic lights on streets impacted by project development. 3.2.3 Impact Assessment Methodology Air pollutant emissions associated with the project would result from operations of a car dealership at the project site and from traffic volumes generated by this new use. Construction activities would also generate air pollutant emissions at the project site and on roadways resulting from construction -related traffic. The increase in emissions generated by these activities and other secondary sources have been estimated and compared to the applicable thresholds of significance recommended by SCAQMD (SCAQMD, 2015). Construction Impacts Short-term construction -generated emissions of criteria air pollutants and ozone precursors associated with the project were modeled using the California Emissions Estimator Model (Ca1EEMod), Version 2013.2.2, as recommended by SCAQMD. Modeling was based on project - specific data provided by the applicant, where available. Where project -specific information was Audi of Temecula Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 3.2-16 ESA / 150189 July 2015 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.2 Air Quality not available, reasonable assumptions based on other similar projects and default model settings were used to estimate criteria air pollutant and ozone precursor emissions. Modeling Assumptions and output files are provided in Appendix B of this report. In addition, to determine whether or not construction activities associated with the project would create significant adverse localized air quality impacts on nearby sensitive receptors, the worst- case daily emissions contribution from the project was compared to SCAQMD's localized significance thresholds (LSTs). The LSTs developed by SCAQMD are based on the pounds of emissions per day that can be generated by a project without causing or contributing to adverse localized air quality impacts, and only applies to the following criteria pollutants: CO, NOx, PM10, and PM25. The analysis of localized air quality impacts focuses only on the on-site activities of a project, and does not include emissions that are generated offsite from, for example, on -road haul or delivery truck trips (SCAQMD, 2008b). For the purpose of analyzing localized air quality impacts, SCAQMD has developed LSTs for three project site sizes: one -acre, two -acres and five -acres. The LSTs established for each of the aforementioned site acreages represent the amount of pollutant emissions that would not exceed the most stringent applicable federal or state ambient air quality standards. Although the project site is 4.5 acres, the actual daily disturbance based on the equipment used onsite would equal one acre. Therefore, the LSTs for the one -acre site was used to represent the maximum amount of daily pollutant emission that could occur without causing or contributing to adverse localized air quality impacts. Under conditions where the project's on-site construction emissions would, even with incorporation of mitigation, exceed the LSTs for a one -acre site, air dispersion modeling of the project's construction emissions would be required to evaluate the potential localized air quality impacts of the project on the closest offsite sensitive receptors, in accordance with SCAQMD's recommendation. However, under conditions where it is determined that the project's peak daily construction emissions would not exceed the LSTs for a one -acre site, then it can be concluded that the project's construction emissions would not result in any adverse localized air quality impacts on off-site sensitive receptors. In conducting the localized air quality analysis, which focuses only on on-site emissions, the project's on-site construction emissions generated from combustion sources (e.g., off-road construction equipment) under a worst-case construction scenario were extracted from the Ca1EEMod model run outputs. Additionally, to account for the combustion emissions associated with vehicles traveling within the project site during construction, the mobile source emissions from Ca1EEMod were proportioned to represent a worst-case, on-site travel distance for the worker vehicles and vendor and haul trucks of 0.5 miles. The daily total on-site combustion, mobile, and fugitive dust emissions associated with the project were combined and evaluated against SCAQMD's LSTs for a one -acre site. Operational Impacts Long-term (i.e., operational) regional emissions of criteria air pollutants and precursors associated with the project, including mobile- and area -source emissions, were also quantified using the Ca1EEMod computer model. Area -source emissions, which are widely distributed and made of many small emissions sources (e.g., building heating and cooling units, landscaping equipment, Audi of Temecula Draft Environmental Impact Report 3.2-17 ESA / 150189 July 2015 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.2 Air Quality consumer products, painting operations, etc.), were modeled according to the size and type of land use proposed. Mass mobile -source emissions were modeled based on the daily vehicle trips that would result from the project. Project trip generation rates were obtained from the project's traffic impact analysis (VA Consulting, Inc., 2015). The resulting long-term operational emissions were then compared with the applicable SCAQMD thresholds for determination of significance. Modeling Assumptions and output files are provided in Appendix B of this report. In addition to regional air quality impacts, the project's localized air quality impacts during operation is also analyzed by extracting the on-site operational emissions from the Ca1EEMod model run for the project and evaluating those emissions against SCAQMD's applicable operational LSTs. Since SCAQMD only provides LSTs at receptor distances of 82, 164, 328, 656, and 1,640 feet from the emissions source, and the nearest receptor is over 900 feet from the project site, the LSTs for a receptor distance of 656 feet from the project site was used to evaluate the potential localized air quality impacts. Although the project is 4.5 acres in size, emissions from the project were compared to the two -acre LST thresholds to provide a screening -level analysis. Where the project's localized operational emissions exceed the two -acre LSTs, dispersion modeling of the emissions would be conducted to evaluate the potential localized air quality impacts of the project on the nearest off-site sensitive receptors. Where localized operational emissions do not exceed the two -acre LSTs, the project is considered to be less than significant. Similar to the construction LSTs, on-site mobile emissions for a 0.5 -mile vehicle trip distance were proportioned from the mobile source emissions and added to the area source emissions. CO Hotspots Historically, qualitative screening procedures and guidelines contained in the Transportation Project -Level Carbon Monoxide Protocol (the Protocol) were used to determine whether a project poses the potential for a CO hotspot (UCD ITS, 1997). According to the Protocol, projects may worsen air quality if they increase the percentage of vehicles in cold start modes by two percent or more; significantly increase traffic volumes (by five percent or more) over existing volumes; or worsen traffic flow, defined for signalized intersections as increasing average delay at intersections operating at level of service (LOS) E or F or causing an intersection that would operate at LOS D or better without the project, to operate at LOS E or F. However, it should be noted that CO concentrations have declined dramatically in California due to existing controls and programs and most areas of the state, including the region in which the project is located, have no problem meeting the state and federal CO standards. Additionally, CO hotspots have not been seen in the most congested intersections in the region in well over a decade. CO measurements and modeling were important in the early 1980s when CO levels were regularly exceeded throughout California. In more recent years, CO measurements and modeling have not been a priority in most California air districts due to the retirement of older polluting vehicles, fewer emissions from new vehicles and improvements in fuels (CARB, 2004b). The reduction in older polluting vehicles and emissions controls on newer vehicles have increased the number of vehicles that can idle and the length of time that a number of vehicles can idle before emissions would trigger a CO impact. This increase in vehicle idling has made the use of the LOS as an indicator obsolete for determining CO impacts. For this reason, several air districts, Audi of Temecula Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 3.2-18 ESA / 150189 July 2015 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.2 Air Quality including the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) (BAAQMD, 2009), have adopted guidelines that focus on criteria other than LOS and percentage traffic increase, and instead focus on total volumes and consistency with congestion management plans. For the purposes of this analysis, total hourly vehicle volumes through intersections and an assessment of the project's consistency with congestion management plans will be conducted to evaluate potential impacts associated with CO hotspots. Intersections that exceed the BAAQMD screening criteria (detailed under Thresholds of Significance below) would be required to conduct dispersion modeling to determine the potential impact from the impacted intersections. Toxic Air Contaminants TAC generators located within the Basin are associated with diesel -fueled vehicles and specific types of facilities such as dry cleaners, gas stations, distribution centers, and ports. The project consists of an automotive dealership and service facilities that would not include any of the aforementioned TAC emitter facilities, nor would it be anticipated to include diesel -powered generators or emergency backup generators. Therefore, it is not anticipated that off-site receptors would be impacted by TAC emissions resulting from project's operations. Therefore, this analysis discusses impacts from TACs on a qualitative basis. Thresholds of Significance Based on the state CEQA Guidelines, a project would have a significant adverse effect on air quality resources if it would: • Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan; • Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation; • Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non -attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors); • Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations; or • Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people. The City of Temecula has not developed specific air quality thresholds for air quality impacts. However, as stated in Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the above determinations. As such, the significance thresholds and analysis methodologies in SCAQMD's CEQA Air Quality Handbook are used in evaluating project impacts. SCAQMD has established daily mass thresholds for regional pollutant emissions, which are shown in Table 3.2-4. Audi of Temecula Draft Environmental Impact Report 3.2-19 ESA / 150189 July 2015 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.2 Air Quality TABLE 3.2-4 SCAQMD REGIONAL AIR QUALITY SIGNIFICANCE THRESHOLDS Pollutant Mass Daily Thresholds (lbs/day) Construction Operations Oxides of Nitrogen (NOx) 100 55 Reactive Organic Gases (ROG) 75 55 Respirable Particulate Matter (PM10) 150 150 Fine Particulate Matter (PM2e) 55 55 Oxides of Sulfur (SOx) 150 150 Carbon Monoxide (CO) 550 550 TACs (including carcinogens and Maximum Incremental Cancer Risk non -carcinogens e 10 in 1 million Cancer Burden > 0.5 excess cancer cases (in areas e 1 in 1 million) Chronic & Acute Hazard Index e 1.0 (project increment) a As the project would not involve the development of any major lead emissions sources, lead emissions would not be analyzed further in this report. SOURCE: SCAQMD, 2011. Aside from regional air quality impacts, projects in the Basin are also required to analyze local air quality impacts. As discussed previously, SCAQMD has developed LSTs that represent the maximum emissions from a project that are not expected to cause or contribute to an exceedance of the most stringent applicable federal or state ambient air quality standards, and thus would not cause or contribute to localized air quality impacts. LSTs are developed based on the ambient concentrations of that pollutant for each of the 38 source receptor areas (SRAs) in the Basin. The localized thresholds, which are found in the mass rate look -up tables in SCAQMD's Final Localized Significance Threshold Methodology document, were developed for use on projects that are less than or equal to five acres in size or have a disturbance of less than or equal to five acres daily. As discussed previously, the construction LSTs for a one -acre site and operational LSTs for a two -acre site in SRA 26 (Temecula), which are shown in Table 3.2-5, would be used to evaluate the project's localized air quality impacts. It should be noted that with regards to NOx emissions, the two principal species of NOx are NO and NO2, with the vast majority (95 percent) of the NOx emissions being comprised of NO. However, because adverse health effects are associated with NO2, not NO, the analysis of localized air quality impacts associated with NOx emissions is focused on NO2 levels. For combustion sources, SCAQMD assumes that the conversion of NO to NO2 is complete at a distance of 5,000 meters from the source. Audi of Temecula Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 3.2-20 ESA / 150189 July 2015 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.2 Air Quality TABLE 3.2-5 SCAQMD LOCALIZED SIGNIFICANCE THRESHOLDS Pollutant Monitored Within SRA 26 — Temecula Valley Allowable emissions (pounds/day) as a function of receptor distance (feet) from site boundary 82 (ft) 164 (ft) 328 (ft) 656 (ft) 1,640 (ft) Construction Thresholds —1 Acre Site Nitrogen Oxides (NOx)a 162 203 292 460 896 Carbon Monoxide (CO) 661 974 1,918 4,850 21,040 Respirable Particulate Matter (PM1o) 4 12 30 67 178 Fine Particulate Matter (PM25) 3 4 8 20 86 Operational Thresholds — 2 acre Site Nitrogen Oxides (NOx)a 234 275 363 521 941 Carbon Monoxide (CO) 970 1,386 2,452 5,641 22,403 Respirable Particulate Matter (PM10) 2 5 10 18 45 Fine Particulate Matter (PM2_5) 1 2 3 6 22 The localized thresholds listed for NOx in this table take into consideration the gradual conversion of NO to NO2.The analysis of localized air quality impacts associated with NOx emissions focuses on NO2 levels as they are associated with adverse health effects. SOURCE: SCAQMD, 2009. CO Hotspot The decrease in emissions of CO from vehicles has increased the number of vehicles that can idle at an intersection before CO impacts occur. Because of this, the use of the LOS as an indicator for CO impacts has become obsolete. For this reason, several air districts, including the BAAQMD (BAAQMD, 2009), have adopted guidelines that focus on criteria other than LOS and percentage traffic increase, and instead focus on total volumes and consistency with congestion management plans. The BAAQMD criteria are as follows: 1. Consistency with an applicable congestion management program established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways, regional transportation plan, and local congestion management agency plans. 2. Traffic volumes at affected intersections would not be increased to more than 44,000 vehicles per hour. 3. Traffic volumes at affected intersections would not be increased to more than 24,000 vehicles per hour where vertical and/or horizontal mixing is substantially limited (e.g., tunnels, parking garages, bridge underpass, natural or urban street canyon, below -grade roadway). For the purposes of this analysis, intersections that exceed the BAAQMD screening criteria should conduct dispersion modeling to determine the potential impact from the affected Audi of Temecula Draft Environmental Impact Report 3.2-21 ESA / 150189 July 2015 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.2 Air Quality intersections. Where the screening values are not exceeded, the project would be determined to be less than significant with respect to localized CO impacts. Impacts Consistency with Applicable Air Quality Plan The project is located within the Basin, which is under the jurisdiction of the SCAQMD. As such, SCAQMD's 2012 AQMP is the applicable air quality plan for the project. Projects that are consistent with the regional population, housing, and employment forecasts identified by SCAG are considered to be consistent with the AQMP growth projections, since the forecast assumptions by SCAG forms the basis of the land use and transportation control portions of the AQMP. Additionally, because SCAG's regional growth forecasts are based upon, among other things, land uses designated in general plans, a project that is consistent with the land use designated in a general plan would also be consistent with the SCAG's regional forecast projections, and thus also with the AQMP growth projections. The project site is identified in the General Plan as within the Harveston Specific Plan. The Harveston Plan is an approximately 550 -acre planned community that was initially approved by the City Council in 2001. The Harveston Plan includes parks and open space, an elementary school, low- to high-density residential, service commercial, and a business park (refer to Figure 2-3). The project is located within the Service Commercial area of the Plan. The Service Commercial land use designation is intended to provide for intensive commercial uses, selected light manufacturing uses that typically require extensive floor area, and limited business park uses south of Date Street to provide a transition from existing business park uses to the south. Typical commercial uses include mid -rise office buildings, home improvements stores, discount retail stores, furniture stores, and auto sales, service and repair. The planned use at the project site, a car dealership, is consistent with the Service Commercial designation of the Harveston Specific Plan, and therefore, consistent with the City's General Plan. Additionally, the project will be required to implement all applicable air quality mitigation measures in the adopted Harveston Mitigation Monitoring Plan. As the project is consistent with the General Plan, it is anticipated to be consistent with SCAG's regional forecast projections and, in turn, would also be consistent with the growth projections accounted for in SCAQMD's AQMP. Therefore, the project would not conflict with, or obstruct, implementation of the AQMP and this impact would be less than significant. Significance after Mitigation: Less than significant. Violation of Air Quality Standards — Construction The project would involve the construction of approximately 37,468 square -foot Audi car dealership with incidental car maintenance, parts and repair services, and a service bay for car wash and detailing to be built over approximately 4.5 acres. Construction activities associated with the project would generate pollutant emissions from the following construction activities: (1) site preparation, grading, and excavation; (2) construction workers traveling to and from project site; (3) delivery and hauling of construction supplies to, and debris from, the project site; (4) fuel Audi of Temecula Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 3.2-22 ESA / 150189 July 2015 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.2 Air Quality combustion by on-site construction equipment; (5) building construction, application of architectural coatings, and paving. These construction activities would temporarily create emissions of dust, fumes, equipment exhaust, and other air contaminants. The amount of emissions generated on a daily basis would vary, depending on the intensity and types of construction activities occurring simultaneously at the time. Construction emissions are considered short term and temporary, but have the potential to represent a significant impact with respect to air quality. Particulate matter (i.e., PM10 and PM25) are among the pollutants of greatest localized concern with respect to construction activities. Particulate emissions from construction activities can lead to adverse health effects and nuisance concerns, such as reduced visibility and soiling of exposed surfaces. Particulate emissions can result from a variety of construction activities, including excavation, grading, demolition, vehicle travel on paved and unpaved surfaces, and vehicle and equipment exhaust. Construction emissions of PM can vary greatly depending on the level of activity, the specific operations taking place, the number and types of equipment operated, local soil conditions, weather conditions, and the amount of earth disturbance. Emissions of ozone precursors ROG and NOx are primarily generated from mobile sources and vary as a function of vehicle trips per day associated with debris hauling, delivery of construction materials, vendor trips, worker commute trips, and the types and number of heavy-duty, off-road equipment used and the intensity and frequency of their operation. A large portion of construction -related ROG emissions also result from the application of architectural coatings and vary depending on the amount of coatings applied each day. It is mandatory for all construction projects in the SCAB to comply with SCAQMD Rule 403 for controlling fugitive dust. Incorporating Rule 403 into the project would reduce regional PM10 and PM25 emissions from construction activities. Specific Rule 403 control requirements include, but are not limited to, applying water in sufficient quantities to prevent the generation of visible dust plumes, applying soil binders to uncovered areas, reestablishing ground cover as quickly as possible, utilizing a wheel washing system to remove bulk material from tires and vehicle undercarriages before vehicles exit the proposed project site, covering all trucks hauling soil with a fabric cover and maintaining a freeboard height of 12 inches, and maintaining effective cover over exposed areas. Compliance with Rule 403 was accounted for in the construction emissions modeling. Table 3.2-6 summarizes the modeled peak daily emissions of criteria air pollutants and ozone precursors associated with the project's worst-case construction scenario. It is assumed that the grading phase for the project would be completed before paving, building construction, and architectural coating phases would begin. Additionally it was assumed that the paving phase would overlap with the beginning of the building construction phase and that architectural coating phase would overlap with the end of the building construction phase. Due to the limited existing vegetation, it was assumed that vegetation removal would be part of the grading phase. Audi of Temecula Draft Environmental Impact Report 3.2-23 ESA / 150189 July 2015 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.2 Air Quality TABLE 3.2-6 PROPOSED REGIONAL CONSTRUCTION EMISSIONS Construction Year Estimated Maximum Daily Emissions (lbs/day) ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10 PM2.5 Onsite 52.01 46.85 31.07 0.05 3.07 2.87 Offsite 0.93 2.10 16.63 0.04 3.74 1.01 Total Construction Emissions 52.94 48.95 47.70 0.09 6.81 3.88 Regional Significance Threshold 75 100 550 150 150 55 Significant Impact? No No No No No No NOTE: Construction emissions would be slightly different during the summer and winter seasons. Maximum daily emissions of ROG and NOx would generally be higher during the winter while emissions of CO and SO2 would generally be higher in the summer. The maximum emissions for each pollutant over the course of the summer and winter seasons are shown in this table. SOURCE: ESA, 2015; Appendix B As shown in Table 3.2-6, the maximum daily construction emissions generated by the project's worst-case construction scenario would not exceed SCAQMD's daily significance threshold for any criteria pollutants. Therefore, construction phase emissions would have a less than significant impact related to regional air quality. Significance Determination: Less than significant. Violation of Air Quality Standards — Operations Implementation of the project would result in long-term regional emissions of criteria air pollutants and ozone precursors associated with area sources, such as natural gas consumption, landscaping, applications of architectural coatings, and consumer products, in addition to operational mobile emissions. According to the traffic impact analysis prepared for the project, development of the project would result in an increase in 1,227 vehicle trips per day during the week and 1,130 vehicle trips per day on the weekend. Modeled operations emissions are presented in Table 3.2-7. As shown, the project would result in long-term regional emissions of criteria pollutants that would not exceed the SCAQMD's applicable thresholds. Therefore, the project's operational emissions would not result in or substantially contribute to emissions concentrations that exceed the NAAQS and CAAQS. Significance Determination: Less than significant. Audi of Temecula Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 3.2-24 ESA / 150189 July 2015 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.2 Air Quality TABLE 3.2-7 PROPOSED PROJECT UNMITIGATED OPERATIONAL EMISSIONS Emissions Source Estimated Emissions (lbs/day) ROG NOx CO SO2 PMto PM25 Area Sources 0.98 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Energy Sources 0.03 0.31 0.26 0.00 0.02 0.02 Mobile Sources 3.78 7.21 27.86 0.49 3.53 1.00 Total Emissions 4.79 7.52 28.12 0.49 3.55 1.02 Regional Significance Threshold 55 55 550 150 100 55 Significant Impact? No No No No No No SOURCE: ESA, 2015; Appendix B Exposure of Sensitive Receptors to Pollutant Concentrations CO Hotspot A total of six local intersections were analyzed as part of the traffic impact analysis that was prepared for the project (VA Consulting, Inc., 2015). The existing plus project and baseline 2016 plus project peak hour conditions were evaluated against the screening level threshold of 24,000 vehicles per hour. Peak hourly traffic volumes for each of the study area intersections are shown in Table 3.2-8. Under all scenarios, the total vehicles generated during the PM peak hour are greater than those for the AM peak hour at all study intersections. As shown, the maximum hourly traffic generated under the existing plus project and baseline 2016 plus project scenarios, which occurs at the intersection of Winchester Road and Ynez Road during the PM weekday peak hour, is 7,474 and 8,426 vehicles per hour, respectively. For weekends the peak hourly traffic for this intersection is 7,304 and 7,719 for the existing plus project and baseline 2016 plus project scenarios, respectively. As none of the peak hour traffic at all of the intersections would come close to 24,000 vehicles per hour, CO emissions from these vehicles volumes would be less than significant. According to the project specific traffic impact analysis (VA Consulting, Inc., 2015), the project does not require a CMP analysis because the City requirements for traffic studies exceed the CMP requirements and the project will be subject to the City requirements for mitigation. Additionally, the CMP for Riverside County does not address specific intersections. Therefore, because the project is subject to requirements that are more restrictive than the CMP it can be concluded that the project would not conflict with the Riverside CMP requirements. Given that the project would not exceed the screening level intersection volumes, nor would it conflict with the local CMP, impacts related to CO hotspots would be less than significant. Audi of Temecula Draft Environmental Impact Report 3.2-25 ESA / 150189 July 2015 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.2 Air Quality TABLE 3.2-8 PEAK HOURLY TRAFFIC VOLUMES Intersection Existing Plus Project Baseline 2016 Plus Project AM PM AM PM Weekday Jackson Ave at Murrieta Hot Springs 3,448 4,574 4,463 5,846 Waverly Lane at Ynez Road 949 1,455 1,188 1,647 Date Street at Ynez Road 1,504 2,205 1,728 2,433 Winchester Road at Ynez Road 5,238 7,474 6,042 8,426 Winchester Road at 1-15 NB ramps 4,650 5,600 5,319 6,340 Winchester Road at 1-15 SB ramps 3,919 4,379 4,160 4,636 Maximum Traffic Volumes 5,238 7,474 6,042 8,426 Screening Threshold 24,000 24,000 24,000 24,000 Significant? No No No No Weekend Jackson Ave at Murrieta Hot Springs 4,016 4,764 Waverly Lane at Ynez Road 1,130 1,250 Date Street at Ynez Road 1,633 1,775 Winchester Road at Ynez Road 7,304 7,719 Winchester Road at 1-15 NB ramps 5,598 5,937 Winchester Road at 1-15 SB ramps 3,149 3,332 Maximum Traffic Volumes 7,304 7,719 Screening Threshold 24,000 24,000 Significant? No No SOURCE: VA Consulting, Inc., 2015. Significance Determination: Less than significant. Localized Construction Air Quality Impacts - Criteria Air Pollutants The daily on-site construction emissions generated by the project were evaluated against SCAQMD's LSTs for a one -acre site to determine whether the emissions would cause or contribute to adverse localized air quality impacts. The nearest offsite sensitive receptors are the single family residential dwelling units located across Ynez Road, approximately 900 feet from the project site. As discussed previously, because the mass rate look -up tables provided by SCAQMD only provides LSTs at receptor distances of 82, 164, 328, 656, and 1,640 feet, the LSTs for a receptor distance of 656 feet are used to evaluate the potential localized air quality impacts associated with the project's peak day construction emissions. Table 3.2-9 identifies the daily unmitigated, localized onsite emissions that are estimated to occur during the project's worst-case construction scenario. Audi of Temecula Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 3.2-26 ESA/ 150189 July 2015 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.2 Air Quality TABLE 3.2-9 PROPOSED PROJECT UNMITIGATED LOCALIZED DAILY CONSTRUCTION EMISSIONS Construction Year Estimated Maximum Daily On -Site Emissions (lbs/day) NOx CO PM10a PM2.5a 2016 38.45 26.08 4.47 3.25 Localized Significance Threshold' 460 4,850 67 20 Significant Impact? No No No No Emissions account for implementation of dust control measures as required by SCAQMD Rule 403—Fugitive Dust. b LST values for a 1 -acre site in SRA 26. SOURCE: ESA, 2015; Appendix B As shown in Table 3.2-9, the daily unmitigated emissions generated onsite by the project's worst- case construction scenario would not exceed the applicable SCAQMD LSTs for a one -acre site in SRA 26. Therefore, localized air quality impacts associated with the project during construction would be less than significant. Significance Determination: Less than significant. Localized Construction Air Quality Impacts — TACs Project construction would result in short-term emissions of diesel PM, which is a TAC. Diesel PM poses a carcinogenic health risk that is measured using an exposure period of 70 years. The exhaust of off-road heavy-duty diesel equipment would emit diesel PM during site grading; paving; installation of utilities, materials transport and handling; building construction; and other miscellaneous activities. SCAQMD has not adopted a methodology for analyzing such impacts and has not recommended that health risk assessments be completed for construction -related emissions of TACs. The dose to which receptors are exposed is the primary factor used to determine health risk (i.e., the potential exposure to TACs to be compared to applicable standards). Dose is a function of the concentration of a substance or substances in the environment and the duration of exposure to the substance. Dose is positively correlated with time, meaning that a longer exposure period would result in a higher exposure level for the maximally exposed individual. Thus, the risks estimated for a maximally exposed individual are higher if a fixed exposure occurs over a longer period of time. According to the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA), carcinogenic health risk assessments, which determine the exposure of sensitive receptors to TAC emissions, should be based on a 70 -year exposure period; however, such assessments should be limited to the period or duration of activities associated with the project. The construction period for the project would be nine months, much less than the 70 -year period used for risk determination. Because off-road heavy-duty diesel equipment would be used only for short time period (approximately nine months), project construction would not expose any Audi of Temecula Draft Environmental Impact Report 3.2-27 ESA / 150189 July 2015 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.2 Air Quality nearby sensitive receptors to substantial emissions of TACs. This impact would be less than significant. Significance Determination: Less than significant. Localized Operational Air Quality Impacts — Criteria Air Pollutants During project operations, the daily amount of localized pollutant emissions generated onsite by the project would not be substantial. The project's on-site operational emissions are shown in Table 3.2-10. As shown, the project's total operational -related emissions generated onsite would not exceed SCAQMD's screening operational LSTs. Thus no dispersion modeling is required and localized air quality impacts during project operations would be less than significant. TABLE 3.2-10 PROPOSED PROJECT LOCALIZED OPERATIONAL EMISSIONS Estimated Emissions (lbs/day) NOx CO PM10 PM2.5 Daily Operational Emissions Localized Significance Threshold Significant Impact? 0.95 1.82 0.21 0.09 521 5,641 18 6 No No No No SOURCE: ESA, 2015; Appendix B Significance Determination: Less than significant. Localized Operational Air Quality Impacts — TACs Typical sources of acutely and chronically hazardous TACs include industrial manufacturing processes, warehouses, and dry cleaning facilities. The project would not include any of these potential sources, although minimal emissions may result from the use of consumer products. The automotive repair facility will be using a non -water based solvent QwikSolv. According to the material safety data sheet (MSDS) for the product, this solvent is non -carcinogenic and therefore would not pose a potential cancer risk to workers or off-site residents. Exposure could cause inhalation, ingestion, eye, and skin irritation. However, exposure to sensitive receptors would not result in potential impacts due to the distance between the facility and the nearest residents. Employees implementing proper protection, such as gloves and splash goggles (or respirators if concentrations exceed 100 ppm), would minimize exposure and potential health impacts. Additionally, it is not anticipated that generators or emergency back-up generators would be required. However, if a generator was implemented it would be subject to SCAQMD regulatory requirements, which limit the allowable emissions to a level below that which would result in a significant impact. As such, the operation of a generator at the project site would not expose surrounding sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant or TAC emissions. Significance Determination: Less than significant. Audi of Temecula Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 3.2-28 ESA / 150189 July 2015 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.2 Air Quality Objectionable Odors Land uses that are associated with odor complaints typically include agricultural uses, wastewater treatment plants, food processing plants, chemical plants, composting, refineries, landfills, dairies, and fiberglass molding. As the proposed automotive dealership does not include any of the uses that have been identified as being associated with odors, the project is not expected to result in objectionable odors for the nearby sensitive uses. During construction of the project, exhaust from equipment and activities associated with the application of architectural coatings and other interior and exterior finishes may produce discernible odors typical of most construction sites. Such odors would be a temporary source of nuisance to adjacent uses, but would not affect a substantial number of people. Odors associated with project construction would be temporary (occurring only when active construction activities are occurring over the approximately nine-month construction period at the project site), and intermittent in nature (intensity would be directly related to the wind speed and direction which changes throughout the day). Additionally, the project construction activities would be subject to SCAQMD Rule 402 (Nuisance), which prohibits the release of nuisance odors that would adversely affect any considerable number of persons or the public, and would limit the idling of equipment to five minutes or less. Because the nearest receptors are located over 900 feet from the project site, and odor emissions dissipate rapidly with distance, the odors generated from the project would be temporary and intermittent and occur only during construction activities would not be considered a significant environmental impact. Therefore, impacts associated with objectionable odors would be less than significant. Significance Determination: Less than significant. Cumulative Increase of Criteria Pollutants The project site is located within the Basin, which is considered the cumulative study area for air quality. Because the Basin is currently classified as a state nonattainment area for ozone, PMto, and PM25, cumulative development consisting of the project along with other reasonably foreseeable future projects in the Basin as a whole could violate an air quality standard or contribute to an existing or projected air quality violation. However, based on SCAQMD's cumulative air quality impact methodology, SCAQMD recommends that if an individual project results in air emissions of criteria pollutants (ROG, CO, NOx, SOx, PM10, and PM25) that exceed the SCAQMD's recommended daily thresholds for project -specific impacts, then it would also result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of these criteria pollutants for which the project region is in non -attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard. As shown in Tables 3.2-6 and 3.2-7, the project's construction and operational emissions would not exceed SCAQMD's daily thresholds. Additionally, because the project is consistent with the AQMP, the emissions from the project have been taken into account with respect to regional emissions and the ability for the Basin to meet the required attainment status. Thus, because the project's individual air quality impacts are less than significant, and the project is consistent with the AQMP, the project would not result in a cumulatively considerable net increase in any criteria pollutants for which the Basin is in non -attainment. Significance Determination: Less than significant. Audi of Temecula Draft Environmental Impact Report 3.2-29 ESA / 150189 July 2015 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.3 Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Climate Change This section provides a discussion of global climate change, existing regulations pertaining to global climate change, and potential greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions resulting from development of the project. Impacts related to GHGs and climate change are analyzed and mitigation measures are provided for any potentially significant impacts. 3.3.1 Environmental Setting Gases that trap heat in the atmosphere are called GHGs. The major concern with GHGs is that increases in their concentrations are causing global climate change. Global climate change is a change in the average weather on Earth that can be measured by wind patterns, storms, precipitation, and temperature. Although there is disagreement as to the rate of global climate change and the extent of the impacts attributable to human activities, most in the scientific community agree that there is a direct link between increased emissions of GHGs and long term global temperature increases. The principal GHGs are carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), sulfur hexafluoride (SF6), perfluorocarbons (PFCs), and hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs). Because different GHGs have different warming potential and CO2 is the most common reference gas for climate change, GHG emissions are often quantified and reported as CO2 equivalents (CO2e). For example, SF6 is a GHG commonly used in the utility industry as an insulating gas in circuit breakers and other electronic equipment. SF6, while comprising a small fraction of the total GHGs emitted annually world-wide, is a much more potent GHG with 22,800 times the global warming potential as CO2. Therefore, an emission of one metric ton (MT) of SF6 could be reported as an emission of 22,800 MT of CO2e. Large emission sources are reported in million metric tons (MMT) of CO2e.1 Some of the potential effects in California of global warming may include loss in snow pack, sea level rise, more extreme heat days per year, more high ozone days, more forest fires, and more drought years (CARB, 2009). Globally, climate change has the potential to impact numerous environmental resources through potential, though uncertain, impacts related to future air temperatures and precipitation patterns. The projected effects of global warming on weather and climate are likely to vary regionally, but are expected to include the following direct effects (IPCC, 2001): • Higher maximum temperatures and more hot days over nearly all land areas; • Higher minimum temperatures, fewer cold days and frost days over nearly all land areas; • Reduced diurnal temperature range over most land areas; • Increase of heat index over land areas; and • More intense precipitation events. 1 A metric ton is 1,000 kilograms; it is equal to approximately 1.1 U.S. tons and approximately 2,204.6 pounds. Audi of Temecula Draft Supplemental Environmental Inpact Report 3.3-1 ESA / 150189 July 2015 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.3 Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Climate Change Also, there are many secondary effects that are projected to result from global warming, including global rise in sea level, impacts to agriculture, changes in disease vectors, and changes in habitat and biodiversity. While the possible outcomes and the feedback mechanisms involved are not fully understood and much research remains to be done, the potential for substantial environmental, social, and economic consequences over the long term may be great. California produced 459 gross MMTCO2e in 2012 (CARB, 2014a). Combustion of fossil fuel in the transportation sector was the single largest source of California's GHG emissions in 2012, accounting for 36 percent of total GHG emissions in the state (CARB, 2014a). This sector was followed by the electric power sector (including both in-state and out-of-state sources) (21 percent) and the industrial sector (19 percent) (CARB, 2014a). 3.3.2 Regulatory Framework United States Environmental Protection Agency The federal CAA does not specifically regulate GHG emissions; however, the U.S. Supreme Court has determined that GHGs are pollutants that can be regulated under the federal CAA. There are currently no federal regulations that set ambient air quality standards for GHGs. Executive Order S-3-05 In 2005, in recognition of California's vulnerability to the effects of climate change, Governor Schwarzenegger established Executive Order S-3-05, which set forth a series of target dates by which statewide emissions of GHGs would be progressively reduced, as follows: • By 2010, reduce GHG emissions to 2000 levels; • By 2020, reduce GHG emissions to 1990 levels; and • By 2050, reduce GHG emissions to 80 percent below 1990 levels. Executive Order B-30-15 In April 2015, Governor Brown established Executive Order B-30-15 that establishes an interim 2030 GHG reduction targets for California. This target is intended to guide regulatory policy and investments in California to help further California's ability to meet the 2050 reduction target established by Executive Order S-3-05. Executive Order B-30-15 establishes a GHG emissions reduction target of 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030. Assembly Bill 32- California Global Warming Solutions Act California Assembly Bill 32 (AB 32), the Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006, requires CARB to establish a statewide GHG emissions cap for 2020 based on 1990 emission levels. AB 32 required CARB to adopt and enforce programs and regulations that identify and require selected sectors or categories of emitters of GHGs to report and verify their statewide GHG emissions. In December 2007 CARB adopted 427 MT CO2e as the statewide GHG emissions limit equivalent to the statewide levels for 1990. This is approximately 28 percent below forecasted 2020 "business -as -usual" emissions of 596 MMT of CO2e, and about 10 percent below average annual GHG emissions during the period of 2002 through 2004 (CARB, 2009). Audi of Temecula Draft Supplemental Environmental Inpact Report 3.3-2 ESA / 150189 July 2015 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.3 Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Climate Change CARB published the Expanded List of Early Action Measures To Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions In California Recommended For Board Consideration in September 2007 (CARB, 2007). CARB adopted nine Early Action Measures for implementation, including Ship Electrification at Ports, Reduction of High Global -Warming -Potential Gases in Consumer Products, Heavy -Duty Vehicle Greenhouse Gas Emission Reduction (Aerodynamic Efficiency), Reduction of Perfluorocarbons from Semiconductor Manufacturing, Improved Landfill Gas Capture, Reduction of Hydrofluorocarbon-134a from Do -It -Yourself Motor Vehicle Servicing, Sulfur Hexaflouride Reductions from the Non -Electric Sector, a Tire Inflation Program, and a Low Carbon Fuel Standard. As of January 1, 2012, the GHG emissions limits and reduction measures adopted in 2011 by CARB became enforceable. In designing emission reduction measures, CARB aimed to minimize costs, maximize benefits, improve and modernize California's energy infrastructure, maintain electric system reliability, maximize additional environmental and economic co -benefits for California, and complement the state's efforts to improve air quality. Climate Change Scoping Plan In December 2008, CARB approved the AB 32 Scoping Plan outlining the state's strategy to achieve the 2020 GHG emissions limit (CARB, 2009). This Scoping Plan, developed by CARB in coordination with the Climate Action Team (CAT), proposes a comprehensive set of actions designed to reduce overall GHG emissions in California, improve the environment, reduce dependence on oil, diversify California's energy sources, save energy, create new jobs, and enhance public health. As required by AB 32, the Scoping Plan must be updated at least every five years to evaluate the mix of AB 32 policies to ensure that California is on track to meet the targets set out in the legislation. In October 2013, a draft update to the initial Scoping Plan was developed by CARB in collaboration with the California Climate Action Team (LCAT). The draft update builds upon the initial Scoping Plan with new strategies and expanded measures, and identifies opportunities to leverage existing and new funds to drive GHG emission reductions through strategic planning and targeted program investments. The draft update to the initial Scoping Plan was presented to CARB's Board for discussion at its February 20, 2014 meeting. Subsequently, the first update to the AB 32 Scoping Plan was approved on May 22, 2014 by CARB. As part of the proposed update to the Scoping Plan, the emissions reductions required to meet the 2020 statewide GHG emissions limit were further adjusted. The primary reason for adjusting the 2020 statewide emissions limit was based on the fact that the original Scoping Plan relied on the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's (IPCC) 1996 Second Assessment Report (SAR) to assign the global warming potentials (GWPs) of GHGs. Recently, in accordance the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), international climate agencies have agreed to begin using the scientifically updated GWP values in the IPCC's Fourth Assessment Report (AR4) that was released in 2007. Because CARB has begun to transition to the use of the AR4 100 -year GWPs in its climate change programs, CARB recalculated the Scoping Plan's 1990 GHG emissions level with the AR4 GWPs. As the recalculation resulted in 431 MMTCO2e, the 2020 GHG emissions limit established in response to AB 32 is now slightly Audi of Temecula Draft Supplemental Environmental Inpact Report 3.3-3 ESA / 150189 July 2015 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.3 Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Climate Change higher than the 427 MMTCO2e in the initial Scoping Plan. Considering that the proposed update also adjusted the 2020 BAU forecast of GHG emissions to 509 MMTCO2e, a 15 percent reduction below the estimated BAU levels was determined to be necessary to return to 1990 levels by 2020 (CARB, 2014b). Executive Order S-1-07 Executive Order S-1-07, which was signed by Governor Schwarzenegger in 2007, proclaims that the transportation sector is the main source of GHG emissions in California. It establishes a goal to reduce the carbon intensity of transportation fuels sold in California by at least 10 percent by 2020. As a result of this order, CARB approved a proposed regulation to implement the low carbon fuel standard (LCFS) on April 23, 2009, which will reduce GHG emissions from the transportation sector in California by about 16 MMT in 2020. The LCFS is designed to reduce California's dependence on petroleum, create a lasting market for clean transportation technology, and stimulate the production and use of alternative, low -carbon fuels in California. The LCFS is designed to provide a durable framework that uses market mechanisms to spur the steady introduction of lower carbon fuels. The framework establishes performance standards that fuel producers and importers must meet each year beginning in 2011. Senate Bill 375 SB 375, which establishes mechanisms for the development of regional targets for reducing passenger vehicle GHG emissions, was adopted by the state on September 30, 2008. On September 23, 2010, CARB adopted the vehicular GHG emissions reduction targets that had been developed in consultation with the metropolitan planning organizations (MPOs); the targets require a 7 to 8 percent reduction by 2020 and between 13 to 16 percent reduction by 2035 for each MPO. SB 375 recognizes the importance of achieving significant GHG reductions by working with cities and counties to change land use patterns and improve transportation alternatives. Through the SB 375 process, MPOs, such as the Southern California Council of Governments (SCAG), will work with local jurisdictions in the development of sustainable communities strategies (SCS) designed to integrate development patterns and the transportation network in a way that reduces GHG emissions while meeting housing needs and other regional planning objectives. SCAG's reduction target for per capita vehicular emissions is 8 percent by 2020 and 13 percent by 2035 (CARB, 2010). The MPOs prepared their first SCS according to their respective regional transportation plan (RTP) update schedule with the SCAG RTP/SCS adopted on April 4, 2012. Senate Bill 87 Senate Bill (SB) 97, enacted in August 2007, required the Office of Planning and Research (OPR) to develop guidelines for the mitigation of GHG emissions, or the effects related to releases of GHG emissions. On April 13, 2009, the OPR submitted proposed amendments to the Natural Resources Agency in accordance with SB 97 regarding analysis and mitigation of GHG emissions. As directed by SB 97, the Natural Resources Agency adopted Amendments to the CEQA Guidelines for greenhouse gas emissions on December 30, 2009. On February 16, 2010, the Office of Administrative Law approved the Amendments, and filed them with the Secretary Audi of Temecula Draft Supplemental Environmental Inpact Report 3.3-4 ESA / 150189 July 2015 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.3 Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Climate Change of State for inclusion in the California Code of Regulations. The Amendments became effective on March 18, 2010. California Green Building Standard Code In January 2010, the State of California adopted the 2010 California Green Building Standards Code (CALGreen), which became effective in January 2011. Building off of the initial 2008 California Green Building Code, the 2010 CALGreen Code represents a more stringent building code that requires, at a minimum, that new buildings and renovations in California meet certain sustainability and ecological standards. The 2010 CALGreen Code has mandatory Green Building provisions for all new residential buildings that are three stories or fewer (including hotels and motels) and all new non-residential buildings of any size that are not additions to existing buildings. In early 2013 the California Building Standards Commission adopted the 2013 California Building Standards Code that also included the latest 2013 CALGreen Code, which became effective on January 1, 2014. The mandatory provisions of the code are anticipated to reduce 3 MMT of GHG emissions by 2020, reduce water use by 20 percent or more, and divert 50 percent of construction waste from landfills The 2013 California Energy Code (Title 24, Part 6), which is also part of the CALGreen Code (Title 24, Part 11, Chapter 5.2), became effective on July 1, 2014. SCAQMD As a method for determining significance under CEQA, SCAQMD developed a draft tiered flowchart in 2008 for determining significance thresholds for GHGs for industrial projects where SCAQMD is acting as the lead agency. In December 2008, SCAQMD adopted a threshold of 10,000 MTCO2e/year for industrial facilities, but only with respect to projects where SCAQMD is the lead agency. SCAQMD has not adopted a threshold for residential or commercial projects at the time of this writing. The SCAQMD flowchart uses a tiered approach in which a proposed project is deemed to have a less than significant impact related to GHG emissions when any of the following conditions are met: • GHG emissions are within GHG budgets in an approved regional plan; • Incremental increases in GHG emissions due to the project are below the defined Significance Screening Levels, or Mitigated to Less than the Significance Screening Level; • Performance standards are met by incorporating project design features and/or implementing emission reduction measures; and • Carbon offsets are made to achieve target significance screening level. City of Temecula General Plan The Air Quality Element "establishes policy foundation to implement local air quality improvement measures and provides a framework for coordination of air quality planning efforts Audi of Temecula Draft Supplemental Environmental Inpact Report 3.3-5 ESA / 150189 July 2015 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.3 Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Climate Change with surrounding jurisdictions" (City of Temecula, 2005). The goals and policies relevant to the GHG analysis include: Goal 3 Enhance mobility to minimize air pollutant emissions. Policy 3.4 Establish a convenient and efficient system of bicycle routes and pedestrian walkways. Policy 3.5 Promote the use of alternative clean -fueled vehicles, new transportation technologies, and combustion engine alternatives for personal and business use. Goal 4 Adopt effective energy conservation and recycling practices to reduce emissions. Policy 4.1 Encourage community -wide reductions in energy consumption through conservation. Policy 4.2 Promote local recycling of wastes and the use of recycled materials. Policy 4.3 Encourage energy-efficient design in new development projects. The following 15 implementation programs have also been introduced in Temecula to reduce GHG emissions. AQ -1 Multi -Jurisdictional Coordination AQ -2 Public Participation AQ -3: Land Use Compatibility AQ -4 Jobs/Housing Balance AQ -5: Mitigation Measures AQ -6: Sensitive Receptors AQ -7: Design Guidelines AQ -8: Alternative Work Schedules AQ -9: Rideshare and Transit Incentives AQ -10: Special Events AQ -11: Transportation Alternatives AQ -12: Alternative Fueled Vehicles AQ -13: Multi -Use Trails and Bikeways Master Plan AQ -14: Park and Ride Facilities AQ -15: Energy Efficient Design Sustainability Plan The City of Temecula committed to becoming a sustainable community in July of 2008. Subsequently, the City of Temecula's Sustainability Plan was developed and adopted on June 22, 2010 (City of Temecula, 2010). The Sustainability Plan is designed as a blueprint by which the Audi of Temecula Draft Supplemental Environmental Inpact Report 3.3-6 ESA / 150189 July 2015 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.3 Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Climate Change City can address sustainability and climate change by setting targets for GHG reductions, energy and water use, growth planning, reducing waste and championing emerging technologies. The Sustainability Plan provides recommendations on performance in energy, green buildings, water resources, air resources, waste management, transportation, open space, and community outreach. Goals, success indicators, and implementation measures have been developed for each category as a way to monitor the Plan's success. The following goals are outlined by the Sustainability Plan. Energy Goals: 1. Reduce Energy Consumption throughout the community through use of the latest technology, practices, and programs to support this goal. 2. Support the use of clean energy throughout the community through the use of the latest technology practices and programs. 3. Reduce fossil fuel use in vehicles. Green Building Goals: 1. Improve the quality of buildings throughout the City by increasing the number of green building measures used during construction. 2. Improve the knowledge of green building principles and practices for City staff and builders in the Temecula area. Water Resources Goals: 1. Reduce potable water use. 2. Increase reclaimed water use at municipal facilities. 3. Reduce amount of urban run-off, where conditions do not allow infiltration. 4. Improve surface water quality through filtration and focused education efforts. 5. Protect natural groundwater recharge areas. 6. Capture and use stormwater runoff for irrigation purposes at City owned and maintained landscaped areas. Air Resources Goals: 1. Reduce greenhouse gases from City Operations. 2. Establish baseline air quality data for the Temecula Community. Waste Management Goals: 1. Reduce total waste generated and reduce the use and release of household hazardous waste. 2. Increase green purchasing. Transportation Goals: 1. Disperse activity notes throughout the City. Audi of Temecula Draft Supplemental Environmental Inpact Report 3.3-7 ESA / 150189 July 2015 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.3 Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Climate Change 2. Create a flexible network of alternative modes of transportation. 3. Distribute trip types among all modes of transportation (vehicle, transit, pedestrian, bicycle, etc.). 4. Maintain physical roadway conditions along transit corridors. 5. Improve the transportation system to better connect jobs, housing, schools, shopping and recreational uses. Open Space Goals: 1. Increase the amount of open space within City Boundaries. 2. Improve accessibility to open space areas. 3. Protect the City's natural assets. 4. Create or enhance public space/plazas within nonresidential zoning districts. Community Outreach Goals: 1. Share information and educate the community. Harveston Specific Plan The Harveston Specific Plan was prepared in September 1999 and last amended in August 2003. The plan was designed to meet the requirements of the City of Temecula's General Plan and provide a cohesive and comprehensive document of guidelines and standards for implementation of the development within the Specific Plan area. The following development standards presented in the Specific Plan would aid in the reduction of GHG emissions (City of Temecula, 2003). Circulation Plan Development Standards: 3: Provisions shall be made for a safe and efficient paseo, urban trail and sidewalk network, providing pedestrian and bicycle circulation in conjunction with the roadway network. A sidewalk system shall be developed along Date Street, Margarita Road, Ynez Road, collector streets and along most of the other project roadways. Pedestrian traffic shall be separated from vehicular traffic, particularly in commercial and high density areas. 12: The project shall comply with the conditions and requirements set forth by the City of Temecula. Water Plan Development Standards/Sewer Plan Development Standards: 4: The project shall comply with Title 20, California Administrative Code Section 1604 (f) Appliance Efficiency Standards, which establishes efficiency standards that set the maximum flow rate of all new showerheads, lavatory faucets, as well as Health and Safety Code Section 17621.3 which requires low -flush toilets and urinals in virtually all buildings. (Note this is superseded by Title 24 regulations). Audi of Temecula Draft Supplemental Environmental Inpact Report 3.3-8 ESA / 150189 July 2015 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.3 Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Climate Change Grading Plan General Development Standards: 14: Grading shall comply with the mitigation measures, pursuant to the Harveston Specific Plan EIR. Landscape Plan General Development Standards: 13: All landscaping shall meet the City of Temecula Water Efficient Ordinance, Chapter 1732 of the City of Temecula Development Code. 22: Graded/disturbed areas not to be developed within six months shall be temporarily planted and irrigated to provide dust and erosion control. Service Commercial Zone 12 Development Standards: 3a: A minimum of twenty percent (20%) of the site shall be landscaped and automatic irrigation shall be installed. 3b: Parking lot landscaping and shading shall conform to applicable City Ordinance. 3c: A minimum of a fifty foot (50') landscaped buffer/setback area shalt be provided adjacent to the Interstate 15 right-of-way. No parking or driving surfaces are allowed in this area. The following air quality mitigation presented in the Specific Plan EIR for the project area that is relevant to GHG emissions reductions are as follows: 1. Prior to grading and construction, the developer shall be responsible for compliance with the following: a. During clearing, grading, earth moving, or excavation, maintain equipment engines in proper tune. b. After clearing, grading, earth moving, or excavation. 2. Prior to grading and construction, the developer shall be responsible for compliance with the following: d. Require the planting of vegetative ground cover as soon as possible on construction sites. J - Control off-road vehicle travel by posting driving speed limits on these roads, consistent with City standards. k. Use electricity from power poles rather than temporary diesel or gasoline power generators. 5. Prior to issuance of grading permits, the developer shall be responsible for the incorporation of measures to reduce construction related traffic congestion into the project grading permit. Measures, subject to the approval and verification by the Public Works Department, shall include, as appropriate: a. Provision of rideshare incentives. b. Provision of transit incentives for construction personnel. Audi of Temecula Draft Supplemental Environmental Inpact Report 3.3-9 ESA / 150189 July 2015 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.3 Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Climate Change c. Configuration of construction parking to minimize traffic interference. d. Measures to minimize obstruction of through traffic lanes. e. Use of a flagman to guide traffic when deemed necessary. 7. Prior to the approval of tentative maps and/or development plans, developers will submit tract maps and/or street improvement plans to the RTA for review and comment regarding bus turnouts, shelters, etc. Transit -oriented facilities and design features will be incorporated into the design of the project as appropriate, to the satisfaction of the City. City staff will focus on the review plans for commercial uses to provide transit related features. 8. Prior to the approval of a development plan, City staff will review plans, especially for commercial and park uses, for the provision of appropriate, necessary, and adequate pedestrian and bicycle facilities. 9. Prior to the approval of development plan, City staff will review plans for all service commercial uses to encourage the provision of park and ride facilities. 10. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the developer shall provide proof to the City's Traffic Engineer that the project has contributed its `fair -share' towards regional traffic improvement systems (i.e., traffic impact fees) for the area. This shall include efforts to synchronize traffic lights on streets impacted by project development. 3.3.3 Impact Assessment Methodology At the time of writing of this report, SCAQMD has not formally adopted a uniform methodology for analyzing impacts related to GHG emissions or global climate change. Similarly, the City also has not adopted any guidelines for GHG analysis. Pursuant to full disclosure and according to OPR's CEQA Guidelines that state, "A lead agency should make a good -faith effort, based to the extent possible on scientific and factual data, to describe, calculate or estimate the amount of GHG emissions resulting from a project," the construction and operational emissions associated with the project have been quantified using methods described below. SCAQMD recommends the use of Ca1EEMod for estimating construction and operational emissions associated with land use projects. Ca1EEMod estimates the emissions of CO2, CH4, and N2O as well as the resulting total CO2e emissions associated with construction -related GHG sources such as off-road construction equipment, material delivery trucks, soil haul trucks, and construction worker vehicles. As Ca1EEMod currently uses IPCC's 1996 SAR to assign the GWPs for CH4 and N2O, the emissions for these two GHGs were taken from the Ca1EEMod outputs and converted to CO2e emissions outside of Ca1EEMod using the updated GWPs from IPCC's AR4. The GHG analysis incorporates similar assumptions as the air quality analysis for consistency. Based on SCAQMD's 2008 Draft Guidance Document — Interim CEQA Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Significance Threshold document, SCAQMD recommends that for construction GHG emissions the total emissions for a project be amortized over a 30 -year period and added to its operational emission estimates (SCAQMD, 2008). Audi of Temecula Draft Supplemental Environmental Inpact Report 3.3-10 ESA / 150189 July 2015 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.3 Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Climate Change Operational emissions of GHGs, including GHGs generated by direct and indirect sources, are estimated according to the recommended methodologies from SCAQMD. Direct sources include emissions such as vehicle trips, natural gas consumption, and landscape maintenance. Indirect sources include offsite emissions occurring as a result of the project's operations such as electricity and water consumption and solid waste disposal. The direct and indirect emissions generated during the project's operations were estimated using CalEEMod. Similar to the calculation of the project's construction -related GHG emissions, the operational emissions of CH4 and N2O were extracted from the Ca1EEMod output file and converted to CO2e emissions using the GWPs from IPCC's AR4. Modeling was based on project -specific data (e.g., size and type of proposed use) and vehicle trip information from the project's traffic analysis (VA Consulting Inc., 2015). All construction and operational GHG emission estimate assumptions and calculations are provided in Appendix B to this report. Thresholds of Significance The following GHG significance thresholds that are used in this report are also based on the state CEQA Guidelines. Implementation of the project would result in a significant GHG-related impact if it would: • Generate GHG emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment; or • Conflict with any applicable plan, policy or regulation of an agency adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of GHGs. The increased concentration of GHGs in the atmosphere has been linked to global warming, which can lead to climate change. Construction and operation of the project would incrementally contribute to GHG emissions along with past, present, and future activities, and the CEQA Guidelines acknowledge this as a cumulative impact. As such, impacts of GHG emissions are analyzed here on a cumulative basis. Currently, while SCAQMD has issued proposed standards and guidelines, there is no adopted state or local standard for determining the cumulative significance of the project's GHG emissions on global climate change. However, the SCAQMD has proposed a screening threshold value of 3,000 MTCO2e per year for projects as presented by the Stakeholder Working Group in November 2009 (SCAQMD, 2009). Since the City also has not adopted any significance criteria or guidelines for GHG analysis at the time of this writing, it is reasonable under CEQA for the City, as the lead agency, to consider using a screening level that is recommended by SCAQMD, which is the applicable air pollution control agency for the City. Thus, the annual GHG emissions threshold of 3,000 MTCO2e proposed by the SCAQMD will be utilized for determining the significance of the project's GHG emissions. Audi of Temecula Draft Supplemental Environmental Inpact Report 3.3-11 ESA / 150189 July 2015 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.3 Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Climate Change Impacts Project -Generated GHG Emissions The project would generate GHG emissions from a variety of sources. First, GHG emissions would be generated during construction of the project. Once fully operational, the project's operations would generate GHG emissions from both area sources and mobile sources. Indirect source emissions generated by the project include electrical consumption, water and wastewater usage (transportation), and solid waste disposal. Mobile (direct) sources of air pollutants associated with the project would consist of motor vehicles trips generated by employees and patrons of the dealership. Construction Emissions Construction -related GHG emissions for the proposed project were estimated using the same assumptions as the air quality analysis. The project's total estimated GHG emissions during construction would be approximately 428.04 MTCO2e. This would equal to approximately 14.27 MTCO2e per year after amortization over 30 years per SCAQMD methodology. Operational Emissions Area and indirect sources associated with the project would primarily result from electricity and natural gas consumption, water transport (the energy used to pump water to and from the project site), and solid waste generation. GHG emissions from electricity consumed on the project site would be generated offsite by fuel combustion at the electricity provider. GHG emissions from water transport are also indirect emissions resulting from the energy required to transport water from its source. In addition, the new car dealership at the project site would also generate mobile source emissions from motor vehicle trips generated by employees and patrons. The estimated operational GHG emissions resulting from project implementation are shown in Table 3.3-1. Additionally, in accordance with SCAQMD's recommendation, the project's amortized construction -related GHG emissions are added to the operational emissions estimate in order to determine the project's total annual GHG emissions. As shown in Table 3.3-1, the project would have annual total emissions of 987.08 MTCO2e. This would not exceed the SCAQMD's 3,000 MTCO2e screening threshold. Therefore, the increase in GHG emissions resulting from project implementation is considered to be less than significant. Significance Determination: Less than significant. Audi of Temecula Draft Supplemental Environmental Inpact Report 3.3-12 ESA / 150189 July 2015 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.3 Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Climate Change TABLE 3.3-1 ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATIONS -RELATED GHG EMISSIONS Emission Source Estimated Emissions CO2e (MT/yr) Construction Annual Construction (Amortized over 30 years) 14.27 Operational Emissions Area Sources 0.00 Energy Consumption' 176.90 Mobile Sources 703.00 Solid Waste 71.99 Water Consumptionb 20.92 Total Operational Emissions 972.81 Total Project Emissions 987.08 Threshold 3,000 Significant? No NOTES: CO2e= carbon dioxide equivalent; MT/yr = metric tons per year. a The energy-related GHG emissions, as estimated by CaIEEMod, use 2008 Title 24 energy usage rates. However, according to the CEC, buildings that are constructed in accordance with the 2013 Building and Energy Efficiency Standards would be 15 percent more energy efficient than the 2008 Standards. As such, this additional reduction in energy consumption was accounted for in the projects estimated GHG emissions associated with energy consumption. b GHG emissions reductions associated with water use resulting from compliance with CALGreen requirements, which requires a minimum 20 percent reduction in indoor water use and the provision of irrigation controllers for outdoor water use, were accounted for in CaIEEMod model run. SOURCE: ESA, 2015; Appendix B Consistency with GHG Emissions Reduction Plans or Policies Consistency with CARB Scoping Plan Out of the Recommended Actions contained in CARB's Scoping Plan, the actions that are most applicable to the project would be Actions E-1 (increased Utility Energy efficiency programs including more stringent building and appliance standards), GB -1 (Green building), and W-1 (Increased water use efficiency). CARB Scoping Plan Action E-1, together with Action GB -1 (Green Building), aims to reduce electricity demand by increased efficiency of Utility Energy Programs and adoption of more stringent building and appliance standards, while Action W-1 aims to promote water use efficiency. The project would be designed to comply with the CALGreen Code to ensure that the new dealership would use resources (energy, water, etc.) efficiently and significantly reduce pollution and waste. Therefore, the project would be consistent with the Scoping Plan measures through incorporation of stricter building and appliance standards. Consistency with Harveston Specific Plan The Harveston Specific Plan does not have specific measures for the reduction of GHG emissions. However, implementation of the development standards identified within the Specific Plan will result in the reduction of GHG emissions from the project site through the potential reduction in vehicle trips and/or resource efficiency. For example, Circulation Standard 3 requires the separation of vehicular traffic from pedestrian traffic. The project has sidewalks that are Audi of Temecula Draft Supplemental Environmental Inpact Report 3.3-13 ESA / 150189 July 2015 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.3 Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Climate Change separated from the street by a landscaped area. Additionally landscaping is required to meet the City's water efficiency Ordinance and installed automatic irrigation systems which will reduce water consumption. Air quality mitigation implemented as part of the Specific Plan Mitigation Monitoring Program will also reduce GHG emissions through the potential for reduction in vehicle trips and vehicle idling. Therefore, the implementation of the project would be consistent with the goals and policies of the Specific Plan. Consistency with Temecula Sustainability Plan The Sustainability Plan is designed as a blueprint by which the City can address sustainability and climate change by setting targets for GHG reductions, energy and water use, growth planning, reducing waste and championing emerging technologies. The initiatives contained in the Sustainability Plan include a variety of goals aimed at reducing GHG emissions City-wide and advancing development that enhances the pedestrian and transit environment. The project, which would be subject to the building requirements of the CALGreen Code, would support the City's effort of reducing GHG emissions. Overall, development of the project would be consistent with the Temecula Sustainability Plan. Significance Determination: Less than significant. Audi of Temecula Draft Supplemental Environmental Inpact Report 3.3-14 ESA / 150189 July 2015 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.4 Noise This section evaluates the potential for noise and groundborne vibration impacts to result from implementation of the project. This includes the potential for the project to result in impacts associated with a substantial temporary and/or permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project site; exposure of people in the vicinity of the project site to excessive noise and groundborne vibration levels; and whether this exposure is in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance. Finally, mitigation measures intended to reduce impacts to noise and vibration are proposed, where appropriate, to avoid or reduce significant impacts of the project. Data used to prepare this analysis were obtained from the City of Temecula General Plan Noise Element, the City of Temecula Municipal Code, and by measuring existing and modeling future noise levels at the project site and the surrounding land uses. Information contained in the project's Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) prepared by VA Consulting, Inc. (Appendix E of this SEIR) was used in the modeling of traffic noise exposure. Noise Principles and Descriptors Noise is generally defined as unwanted sound. Sound, traveling in the form of waves from a source, exerts a sound pressure level (referred to as sound level) that is measured in decibels (dB), which is the standard unit of sound amplitude measurement. The dB scale is a logarithmic scale that describes the physical intensity of the pressure vibrations that make up any sound, with 0 dB corresponding roughly to the threshold of human hearing and 120 to 140 dB corresponding to the threshold of pain. Pressure waves traveling through air exert a force registered by the human ear as sound. Sound pressure fluctuations can be measured in units of hertz (Hz), which correspond to the frequency of a particular sound. Typically, sound does not consist of a single frequency, but rather a broad band of frequencies varying in levels of magnitude. When all the audible frequencies of a sound are measured, a sound spectrum is plotted consisting of a range of frequency spanning 20 to 20,000 Hz. The sound pressure level, therefore, constitutes the additive force exerted by a sound corresponding to the sound frequency/sound power level spectrum. The typical human ear is not equally sensitive to all frequencies of the audible sound spectrum. As a consequence, when assessing potential noise impacts, sound is measured using an electronic filter that deemphasizes the frequencies below 1,000 Hz and above 5,000 Hz in a manner corresponding to the human ear's decreased sensitivity to extremely low and extremely high frequencies. This method of frequency weighting is referred to as A -weighting and is expressed in units of A -weighted decibels (dBA). A -weighting follows an international standard methodology of frequency deemphasis and is typically applied to community noise measurements. Some representative noise sources and their corresponding A -weighted noise levels are shown in Figure 3.4-1. Audi of Temecula Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 3.4-1 ESA / 150189 July 2015 CC O (/) OJ � W Z J Oy EO OZ W J N u) W J Z J m PUBLIC REACTION Jet Flyover at 1000 Ft. Gas Lawn Mower at 3 Ft. Inside Subway Train (New York) 1 1 1 1 1 1 Li 1 1 0o 1 01 LL a1 ▪ 1 c a) EI 0 o >, m 1 m M E _c `n m 3 1 d m a) c a) IY 0I 01 <o O Z1 Z c c 1 2J1 m1 ° n J1 n E I I— jl �I dF 7 jI fnCC N y1 JI £ j �I 1 0 ZI �1 U= 1 0 0I 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 m 1 1 2 LL I LL I 1E I. M o 1 1 o to o LL m o cc 2'm Y co ti, 8TolL72 • x co tn o o co E a M d • Z d o m y l 1 • N is N m c O U w t a) U 2 m cn 5 E 1 m m IL— L >, r ✓ J 31 d 3 — m` G)) O 0 o m C C u- • (71U) >1 IJ a UE) 0 J 0 O 1 1 OcmcoN. 0 crMNO T L( ..— 0 Broadcast and Recording Studio Threshold of Hearing t t f t f 0) a> a> E_ LETTERS OF PROTEST O U U REFERENCE J a O U O U ACCEPTANCE T Qi oo cp- M 8 ro 0 d ci,o O IL O o z Q 0 U) U W SOURCE: ESA 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.4 Noise Noise Exposure and Community Noise An individual's noise exposure is a measure of noise over a period of time. A noise level is a measure of noise at a given instant in time. The noise levels presented in Figure 3.4-1 are representative of measured noise at a given instant in time; however, they rarely persist consistently over a long period of time. Rather, community noise varies continuously over a period of time with respect to the contributing sound sources of the community noise environment. Community noise is primarily the product of many distant noise sources, which constitute a relatively stable background noise exposure, with the individual contributors unidentifiable. The background noise level changes throughout a typical day, but does so gradually, corresponding with the addition and subtraction of distant noise sources such as traffic. What makes community noise variable throughout a day, besides the slowly changing background noise, is the addition of short -duration, single -event noise sources (e.g., aircraft flyovers, motor vehicles, sirens), which are readily identifiable to the individual. These successive additions of sound to the community noise environment change the community noise level from instant to instant, requiring the measurement of noise exposure over a period of time to legitimately characterize a community noise environment and evaluate cumulative noise impacts. This time -varying characteristic of environmental noise is described using statistical noise descriptors. The most frequently used noise descriptors are summarized below: Leq: The Leq, or equivalent sound level, is used to describe noise over a specified period of time in terms of a single numerical value; the Leq of a time -varying signal and that of a steady signal are the same if they deliver the same acoustic energy over a given time. The Leq may also be referred to as the average sound level. Lindx: The maximum, instantaneous noise level experienced during a given period of time. Lmm: The minimum, instantaneous noise level experienced during a given period of time. Ldn: Also termed the DNL, the Ld„ is the average A -weighted noise level during a 24-hour day, obtained after an addition of 10 dBA to measured noise levels between the hours of 10:00 P.M. to 7:00 A.M. to account nighttime noise sensitivity. CNEL: CNEL, or Community Noise Equivalent Level, is the average A -weighted noise level during a 24-hour day that is obtained after an addition of 5 dBA to measured noise levels between the hours of 7:00 P.M. to 10:00 P.M. and after an addition of 10 dBA to noise levels between the hours of 10:00 P.M. to 7:00 A.M. to account for noise sensitivity in the evening and nighttime, respectively. Effects of Noise on People Noise is generally loud, unpleasant, unexpected, or undesired sound that is typically associated with human activity that is a nuisance or disruptive. The effects of noise on people can be placed into four general categories: • Subjective effects (e.g., dissatisfaction, annoyance); • Interference effects (e.g., communication, sleep, and learning interference); • Physiological effects (e.g., startle response); and • Physical effects (e.g., hearing loss). Audi of Temecula Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 3.4-3 ESA / 150189 July 2015 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.4 Noise Although exposure to high noise levels has been demonstrated to cause physical and physiological effects, the principal human responses to typical environmental noise exposure are related to subjective effects and interference with activities. Interference effects of environmental noise refer to those effects that interrupt daily activities and include interference with human communication activities, such as normal conversations, watching television, telephone conversations, and interference with sleep. Sleep interference effects can include both awakening and arousal to a lesser state of sleep. With regard to the subjective effects, the responses of individuals to similar noise events are diverse and are influenced by many factors, including the type of noise, the perceived importance of the noise, the appropriateness of the noise to the setting, the duration of the noise, the time of day and the type of activity during which the noise occurs, and individual noise sensitivity. Overall, there is no completely satisfactory way to measure the subjective effects of noise, or the corresponding reactions of annoyance and dissatisfaction on people. A wide variation in individual thresholds of annoyance exists, and different tolerances to noise tend to develop based on an individual's past experiences with noise. Thus, an important way of predicting a human reaction to a new noise environment is the way it compares to the existing environment to which one has adapted (i.e., comparison to the ambient noise environment). In general, the more a new noise level exceeds the previously existing ambient noise level, the less acceptable the new noise level will be judged by those hearing it. With regard to increases in A -weighted noise level, the following relationships generally occur: • Except in carefully controlled laboratory experiments, a change of 1 dBA cannot be perceived; • Outside of the laboratory, a 3 dBA change in noise levels is considered to be a barely perceivable difference; • A change in noise levels of 5 dBA is considered to be a readily perceivable difference; and • A change in noise levels of 10 dBA is subjectively heard as doubling of the perceived loudness. These relationships occur in part because of the logarithmic nature of sound and the decibel system. The human ear perceives sound in a non-linear fashion, hence the decibel scale was developed. Because the decibel scale is based on logarithms, two noise sources do not combine in a simple additive fashion, but rather logarithmically. For example, if two identical noise sources produce noise levels of 50 dBA, the combined sound level would be 53 dBA, not 100 dBA. Noise Attenuation Stationary point sources of noise, including stationary mobile sources such as idling vehicles, attenuate (lessen) at a rate between 6 dBA for hard sites and 7.5 dBA for soft sites for each doubling of distance from the reference measurement. Hard sites are those with a reflective surface between the source and the receiver, such as asphalt or concrete surfaces or smooth bodies of water. No excess ground attenuation is assumed for hard sites and the changes in noise levels with distance (drop-off rate) is simply the geometric spreading of the noise from the source. Soft sites Audi of Temecula Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 3.4-4 ESA / 150189 July 2015 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.4 Noise have an absorptive ground surface such as soft dirt, grass, or scattered bushes and trees. In addition to geometric spreading, an excess ground attenuation value of 1.5 dBA (per doubling distance) is normally assumed for soft sites. Line sources (such as traffic noise from vehicles) attenuate at a rate between 3 dBA for hard sites and 4.5 dBA for soft sites for each doubling of distance from the reference measurement (Caltrans, 2009). Fundamentals of Vibration As described in the Federal Transit Administration's (FTA) Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment (FTA, 2006), ground -borne vibration can be a serious concern for nearby neighbors of a transit system route or maintenance facility, causing buildings to shake and rumbling sounds to be heard. In contrast to airborne noise, ground -borne vibration is not a common environmental problem. It is unusual for vibration from sources such as buses and trucks to be perceptible, even in locations close to major roads. Some common sources of ground -borne vibration are trains, heavy trucks and buses traveling on rough roads, and construction activities such as blasting, pile - driving, and operation of heavy earth -moving equipment. There are several different methods that are used to quantify vibration. The peak particle velocity (PPV) is defined as the maximum instantaneous peak of the vibration signal. The PPV is most frequently used to describe vibration impacts to buildings. The root mean square (RMS) amplitude is most frequently used to describe the effect of vibration on the human body. The RMS amplitude is defined as the average of the squared amplitude of the signal. Decibel notation (VdB) is commonly used to measure RMS. The relationship of PPV to RMS velocity is expressed in terms of the "crest factor," defined as the ratio of the PPV amplitude to the RMS amplitude. Peak particle velocity is typically a factor of 1.7 to 6 times greater than RMS vibration velocity (FTA, 2006). The decibel notation acts to compress the range of numbers required to describe vibration. Typically, ground -borne vibration generated by man-made activities attenuates rapidly with distance from the source of the vibration. Sensitive receptors for vibration include structures (especially older masonry structures), people (especially residents, the elderly, and sick), and vibration sensitive equipment. The effects of ground -borne vibration include movement of the building floors, rattling of windows, shaking of items on shelves or hanging on walls, and rumbling sounds. In extreme cases, the vibration can cause damage to buildings. Building damage is not a factor for most projects, with the occasional exception of blasting and pile -driving during construction. Annoyance from vibration often occurs when the vibration levels exceed the threshold of perception by only a small margin. A vibration level that causes annoyance will be well below the damage threshold for normal buildings. The FTA measure of the threshold of architectural damage for conventional sensitive structures is 0.2 in/sec PPV (FTA, 2006). In residential areas, the background vibration velocity level is usually around 50 VdB (approximately 0.0013 in/sec PPV). This level is well below the vibration velocity level threshold of perception for humans, which is approximately 65 VdB. A vibration velocity level of 75 VdB is considered to be the approximate dividing line between barely perceptible and distinctly perceptible levels for many people (FTA, 2006). Audi of Temecula Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 3.4-5 ESA / 150189 July 2015 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.4 Noise 3.4.1 Environmental Setting Existing Ambient Daytime Noise Levels The project involves the development of 4.5 acres as an automotive dealership (Audi) as part of the Harveston Specific Plan . Regionally, the project site is situated in the northern portion of the City of Temecula, which is located within the County of Riverside approximately 85 miles southeast of Los Angeles, 60 miles northeast of San Diego, and 25 miles inland from the Pacific Ocean (refer to Figure 2-1). The project is generally located in the northern portion of the City, north of Date Street, east of Interstate 15 (I-15), south of Temecula Center Drive, and west of Ynez Road (refer to Figure 2-2). Sources of noise in the City of Temecula are typical of those found in other cities and include, but not limited to, traffic, construction work, commercial operations, human activities, emergency vehicles, and aircraft overflights.. As described in the City's General Plan Noise Element, noise in the City is the cumulative effect of noise from transportation activities and stationary sources, with motor vehicles being the dominant source of continuous noise. Properties adjacent to freeways can experience decibels as high as 70 to 75 dBA (City of Temecula, 2005). Stationary noise typically refers to noise from commercial establishments, machinery, air conditioning systems, compressors, residential and recreational uses, and landscape maintenance equipment. The noise environment surrounding the project site is influenced primarily by traffic on I-15 and Ynez Road. Short-term noise level measurements were conducted in the project vicinity on May 12, 2015, from 10:20 A.M. to 12:00 P.M., to establish existing ambient noise conditions at existing off-site land uses. Measurement sites were chosen to represent existing noise -sensitive uses, including the existing single-family residential uses located to the east and northeast of the project site and the mobile homes located north of the project site, beyond the existing Mercedes Benz auto dealership. The noise surveys were conducted using a Larson Davis SoundTrack LXT sound meter, which was calibrated prior to use to ensure the accuracy of the measurements. The results of the noise survey are shown in Table 3.4-1. The measurement locations are identified in Figure 3.4-2. Audi of Temecula Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 3.4-6 ESA / 150189 July 2015 cco N (1) 0 uu C (6 i 0 o - E L� O) _ �L O 0 E Q O 2 a) O z SOURCE:NAIP, 2014 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.4 Noise TABLE 3.4-1 EXISTING NOISE ENVIRONMENTS SURROUNDING THE PROJECT SITE Location Date and Time Period Leq dBA Ln,ax dBA Noise Sources Short-term Measurements 1. Single-family residential uses located northeast of project site, at the northeast corner of Ynez Road and Waverly Lane. 2. Single-family residential uses located northeast of the project site along Ynez Road, south of Waverly Lane. 3. Mobile home community located north of the project site, beyond the Mercedes Benz auto dealership and south of Elm Street 05/12/15 63.3 10:20 — 10:35 A.M. 80.8 Vehicular traffic on Ynez Road; Vehicles idling at stop sign. 05/12/15 61.3 78.5 10:38 — 10:52 A.M. 05/12/15 11:04-11:19 A.M. Vehicular traffic on Ynez Road. 59.2 64.4 Minimal cars driving by; birds chirping. SOURCE: ESA, 2015 Existing Roadway Noise Levels Existing roadway noise levels were calculated for 12 roadway segments located in proximity of the project site. The roadway segments selected for analysis are considered to be those that are expected to be most directly impacted by project -related traffic; which, for the purpose of this analysis, includes the roadways that are nearest to the project site. These roadways, when compared to roadways located further away from the project site, would experience the greatest percentage increase in traffic generated by the project. Calculation of the existing roadway noise levels was accomplished using the Federal Highway Administration Highway Noise Prediction Model (FHWA-RD-77-108) and traffic volumes at the study intersections analyzed in the project's TIA. The model calculates the average noise level at specific locations based on traffic volumes, average speeds, and site environmental conditions. The average daily noise levels along these roadway segments during weekday and weekend conditions are presented in Table 3.4-2 and Table 3.4-3, respectively. Audi of Temecula Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 3.4-8 ESA / 150189 July 2015 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.4 Noise TABLE 3.4-2 EXISTING ROADWAY NOISE LEVELS (weekday) Existing Land Uses located Roadway Roadway Segment along Roadway Segment dBA Ldna Murrieta Hot Springs Road Jackson Avenue Ynez Road Date Street Winchester Road West of Jackson Avenue Residential/Commercial 66.7 East of Jackson Avenue Residential/Commercial 65.5 South Murrieta Hot Springs Road Residential/Commercial 61.5 North of Waverly Lane Residential/Commercial 61.5 South of Waverley Lane Residential 61.9 North of Date Street Residential 61.9 South of Date Street Residential 62.8 North of Winchester Road Church/Commercial/Office 71.5 South of Winchester Road Commercial 69.6 East of Ynez Road Residential 60.9 West of Ynez Road Commercial 73.6 East of Ynez Road Commercial 70.0 a Values represent noise levels from the centerline of each roadway to the approximate receptor property line. TRAFFIC INFORMATION SOURCE: VA Consulting, Inc., 2015. TABLE SOURCE: ESA, 2015. Calculation data and results provided in Appendix C. TABLE 3.4-3 EXISTING ROADWAY NOISE LEVELS (weekend) Existing Land Uses located Roadway Roadway Segment along Roadway Segment dBA Ldna Murrieta Hot Springs Road Jackson Avenue Ynez Road Date Street Winchester Road West of Jackson Avenue Residential/Commercial 66.1 East of Jackson Avenue Residential/Commercial 66.0 South Murrieta Hot Springs Road Residential/Commercial 61.0 North of Waverly Lane Residential/Commercial 59.9 South of Waverley Lane Residential 60.5 North of Date Street Residential 60.5 South of Date Street Residential 61.4 North of Winchester Road Church/Commercial/Office 70.2 South of Winchester Road Commercial 69.3 East of Ynez Road Residential 59.4 West of Ynez Road Commercial 73.7 East of Ynez Road Commercial 70.3 a Values represent noise levels from the centerline of each roadway to the approximate receptor property line. TRAFFIC INFORMATION SOURCE: VA Consulting, Inc., 2015. TABLE SOURCE: ESA, 2015. Calculation data and results provided in Appendix C. Audi of Temecula Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 3.4-9 ESA / 150189 July 2015 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.4 Noise Existing Groundborne Vibration Levels Aside from periodic construction work that may occur throughout the city, other sources of groundborne vibration in the project site vicinity may include heavy-duty vehicular travel (e.g., refuse trucks and delivery trucks) on local roadways. Trucks traveling at a distance of 50 feet typically generate groundborne vibration velocity levels of around 63 VdB (approximately 0.006 in/sec PPV), and these levels could reach 72 VdB (approximately 0.016 in/sec PPV) where trucks pass over bumps in the road (FTA, 2006). Sensitive Receptors Noise sensitive land use are defined as those specific land uses that have associated indoor and/or outdoor human activities that may be subject to stress and/or significant interference from noise produced by community sound sources. For instance, residences, hotels, schools, churches, rest homes, and hospitals are generally more sensitive to noise than commercial and industrial land uses. The project site currently consists of 4.5 acres of undeveloped land that shows evidence of previous disturbance from rough grading activities. The nearest existing sensitive receptors in the vicinity of the project site consist primarily of single-family residential uses located to the northeast, east, and southeast fronting Ynez Road, and a mobile home community to the north, beyond the existing Mercedes Benz auto dealership. 3.4.2 Regulatory Framework Detailed below is a discussion of the relevant regulatory setting and noise regulations, plans, and policies. Federal Noise Standards There are no federal noise standards that directly regulate environmental noise related to the construction or operation of the project. With regard to noise exposure and workers, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) regulations safeguard the hearing of workers exposed to occupational noise. Federal regulations also establish noise limits for medium and heavy trucks (more than 4.5 tons, gross vehicle weight rating) under 40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), Part 205, Subpart B. The federal truck pass -by noise standard is 80 dB at 15 meters from the vehicle pathway centerline. These controls are implemented through regulatory controls on truck manufacturers. Federal Transit Administration Vibration Standards The FTA has adopted vibration standards that are used to evaluate potential building damage impacts related to construction activities. The vibration damage criteria adopted by the FTA are shown in Table 3.4-4. Audi of Temecula Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 3.4-10 ESA / 150189 July 2015 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.4 Noise TABLE 3.4-4 CONSTRUCTION VIBRATION DAMAGE CRITERIA Building Category PPV (in/sec) I. Reinforced -concrete, steel or timber (no plaster) II. Engineered concrete and masonry (no plaster) III. Non -engineered timber and masonry buildings IV. Buildings extremely susceptible to vibration damage 0.5 0.3 0.2 0.12 SOURCE: FTA, 2006. In addition, the FTA has also adopted standards associated with human annoyance for groundborne vibration impacts for the following three land -use categories: Vibration Category 1 — High Sensitivity, Vibration Category 2 — Residential, and Vibration Category 3 — Institutional. The FTA defines Category 1 as buildings where vibration would interfere with operations within the building, including vibration -sensitive research and manufacturing facilities, hospitals with vibration -sensitive equipment, and university research operations. Vibration -sensitive equipment includes, but is not limited to, electron microscopes, high-resolution lithographic equipment, and normal optical microscopes. Category 2 refers to all residential land uses and any buildings where people sleep, such as hotels and hospitals. Category 3 refers to institutional land uses such as schools, churches, other institutions, and quiet offices that do not have vibration -sensitive equipment, but still have the potential for activity interference. The vibration thresholds associated with human annoyance for these three land -use categories are shown in Table 3.4-5. No thresholds have been adopted or recommended for commercial and office uses. TABLE 3.4-5 GROUNDBORNE VIBRATION IMPACT CRITERIA FOR GENERAL ASSESSMENT Land Use Category Frequent Events a Occasional Events b Infrequent Events Category 1: Buildings where vibration 65 VdBd 65 VdBd 65 VdBd would interfere with interior operations. Category 2: Residences and buildings 72 VdB 75 VdB 80 VdB where people normally sleep. Category 3: Institutional land uses with 75 VdB 78 VdB 83 VdB primarily daytime use. a "Frequent Events" is defined as more than 70 vibration events of the same source per day. b "Occasional Events" is defined as between 30 and 70 vibration events of the same source per day. c "Infrequent Events" is defined as fewer than 30 vibration events of the same kind per day. d This criterion is based on levels that are acceptable for most moderately sensitive equipment such as optical microscopes. SOURCE: FTA, 2006. California Department of Health Services Noise Standards The California Department of Health Services (DHS) has established guidelines for evaluating the compatibility of various land uses as a function of community noise exposure. These guidelines for land use and noise exposure compatibility are shown in Table 3.4-6. In addition, Audi of Temecula Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 3.4-11 ESA / 150189 July 2015 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.4 Noise Section 65302(f) of the California Government Code requires each county and city in the state to prepare and adopt a comprehensive long-range general plan for its physical development, with Section 65302(g) requiring a noise element to be included in the general plan. The noise element must: (1) identify and appraise noise problems in the community; (2) recognize Office of Noise Control guidelines; and (3) analyze and quantify current and projected noise levels. The State of California also establishes noise limits for vehicles licensed to operate on public roads. For heavy trucks, the State pass -by standard is consistent with the federal limit of 80 dBA. The State pass -by standard for light trucks and passenger cars (less than 4.5 tons, gross vehicle rating) is also 80 dBA at 15 meters from the centerline. These standards are implemented through controls on vehicle manufacturers and by legal sanction of vehicle operators by state and local law enforcement officials. TABLE 3.4-6 COMMUNITY NOISE EXPOSURE (Lan OR CNEL) Land Use Normally Conditionally Normally Clearly Acceptablea Acceptableb Unacceptablec Unacceptabled Single-family, Duplex, Mobile Homes Multi -Family Homes Schools, Libraries, Churches, Hospitals, Nursing Homes Transient Lodging — Motels, Hotels Auditoriums, Concert Halls, Amphitheaters Sports Arena, Outdoor Spectator Sports Playgrounds, Neighborhood Parks Golf Courses, Riding Stables, Water Recreation, Cemeteries Office Buildings, Business and Professional Commercial Industrial, Manufacturing, Utilities, Agriculture 50 - 60 50 - 65 50 - 70 50 - 65 50 - 70 50 - 75 50 - 70 50 - 75 55 - 70 60 - 70 60 - 70 60 - 70 50 - 70 50 - 75 67 - 77 70 - 75 70 - 75 70 - 80 70 - 80 67-75 70 - 80 above 75 70 - 80 above 75 above 75 above 75 above 80 above 75 above 70 above 75 above 75 above 80 a Normally Acceptable: Specified land use is satisfactory, based upon the assumption that any buildings involved are of normal conventional construction without any special noise insulation requirements. b Conditionally Acceptable: New construction or development should be undertaken only after a detailed analysis of the noise reduction requirements is made and needed noise insulation features included in the design. Conventional construction, but with closed windows and fresh air supply systems or air conditioning will normally suffice. c Normally Unacceptable: New construction or development should generally be discouraged. If new construction or development does proceed, a detailed analysis of the noise reduction requirements must be made and needed noise insulation features included in the design. d Clearly Unacceptable: New construction or development should generally not be undertaken. SOURCE: Office of Planning and Research, 2003 The state has also established noise insulation standards for new multi -family residential units, hotels, and motels that would be subject to relatively high levels of transportation -related noise. These requirements are collectively known as the California Noise Insulation Standards (Title 24, Audi of Temecula Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 3.4-12 ESA / 150189 July 2015 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.4 Noise California Code of Regulations). The noise insulation standards set forth an interior standard of 45 dB Ldn/CNEL in any habitable room. They require an acoustical analysis demonstrating how dwelling units have been designed to meet this interior standard where such units are proposed in areas subject to noise levels greater than 60 dB Ldn/CNEL. Title 24 standards are typically enforced by local jurisdictions through the building permit application process. State Vibration Standards There are no state vibration standards applicable to the project. Moreover, according to the California Department of Transportation's (Caltrans) Transportation and Construction Vibration Guidance Manual (2013), there are no official Caltrans standards for vibration. However, this manual provides guidelines that can be used as screening tools for assessing the potential for adverse vibration effects related to structural damage and human perception. The manual is meant to provide practical guidance to Caltrans engineers, planners, and consultants who must address vibration issues associated with the construction, operation, and maintenance of Caltrans projects. The vibration criteria established by Caltrans for assessing structural damage and human perception are shown in Table 3.4-7 and Table 3.4-8, respectively. TABLE 3.4-7 CALTRANS VIBRATION DAMAGE POTENTIAL THRESHOLD CRITERIA Structure and Condition Maximum PPV (in/sec) Continuous/Frequent Transient Sources Intermittent Sources Extremely fragile historic buildings, ruins, ancient monuments Fragile buildings Historic and some old buildings Older residential structures New residential structures Modern industrial/commercial buildings 0.12 0.08 0.2 0.5 0.5 1.0 2.0 0.1 0.25 0.3 0.5 0.5 NOTE: Transient sources create a single isolated vibration event, such as blasting or drop balls. Continuous/frequent intermittent sources include impact pile drivers, pogo -stick compactors, crack and -seat equipment, vibratory pile drivers, and vibratory compaction equipment. SOURCE: Caltrans, 2013. Audi of Temecula Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 3.4-13 ESA / 150189 July 2015 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.4 Noise TABLE 3.4-8 CALTRANS VIBRATION ANNOYANCE POTENTIAL CRITERIA Structure and Condition Maximum PPV (in/sec) Continuous/Frequent Transient Sources Intermittent Sources Barely perceptible 0.04 0.01 Distinctly perceptible 0.25 0.04 Strongly perceptible 0.9 0.10 Severe 2.0 0.4 NOTE: Transient sources create a single isolated vibration event, such as blasting or drop balls. Continuous/frequent intermittent sources include impact pile drivers, pogo -stick compactors, crack and -seat equipment, vibratory pile drivers, and vibratory compaction equipment. SOURCE: Caltrans, 2013. City of Temecula General Plan Noise Element The California Government Code Section 65302(g) requires that a noise element be included in the General Plan of each county and city in the State. The Noise Element of the City of Temecula General Plan is intended to identify sources of noise and provide goals and policies that ensure that noise from various sources does not create an unacceptable noise environment. The City's noise standards are correlated with land use classifications in order to maintain identified ambient noise levels and to limit, mitigate, or eliminate intrusive noise that exceeds the ambient noise levels within a specified zone. The noise standards for each land use classification defined in the City are summarized in Table 3.4-9. The standards shown in Table 3.4-9 represent the maximum acceptable exterior noise level, as measured at the property boundary, which is used to determine noise impacts. The City's primary goal with regard to community noise is to minimize the exposure of residents to unhealthful or excessive noise levels to the extent possible. To this end, the Noise Element establishes noise/land use compatibility guidelines based on cumulative noise criteria for outdoor noise. These guidelines are based, in part, on the community noise compatibility guidelines established by the DHS for use in assessing the compatibility of various land use types with a range of noise levels. The City's noise/land use compatibility guidelines are shown in Table 3.4-10. Audi of Temecula Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 3.4-14 ESA / 150189 July 2015 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.4 Noise TABLE 3.4-9 TEMECULA LAND USE / NOISE STANDARDS Property Receiving Noise Maximum Noise Level (Ld„ or CNEL, dBA) Type of Use Land Use Designation Interior Exteriora Residential Hillside Rural Very Low 45 65 Low Low Medium Medium 45 65/70b High 45 70b Commercial and Office Neighborhood, Service, etc. Community Highway Tourist Service 70 Professional Office 50 70 Light Industrial Industrial Park 55 75 Public/Industrial Schools 50 65 All others 50 70 Open Space Vineyards/Agriculture 70 Open Space 70/65° a Regarding aircraft -related noise, the maximum acceptable exposure for new residential development is 60 dB CNEL. b Maximum exterior noise level up to 70 dB CNEL are allowed for Multiple -Family Housing. ° Where quiet is a basis required for the land use SOURCE: City of Temecula, 2005. In accordance with the Noise Element of the City of Temecula General Plan, a noise exposure of up to 60 dBA Ld„ or CNEL exposure is considered to be the most desirable target for the exterior of noise -sensitive land uses or at sensitive receptors such as homes, schools, churches, libraries, hospitals, hotels, motels, etc. It is also recognized that such a level may not always be possible in areas of substantial traffic noise intrusion. In addition, all new residential development in the City would be required to comply with Title 24 standards of the State Health and Safety Code. These standards establish maximum interior noise levels for new residential development, requiring that sufficient insulation be provided to reduce interior ambient noise levels to 45 dBA Ld„ or CNEL or less. Audi of Temecula Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 3.4-15 ESA / 150189 July 2015 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.4 Noise TABLE 3.4-10 CITY OF TEMECULA NOISE/LAND USE COMPATIBILITY MATRIX Land Use Community Noise Exposure (Ldn or CNEL, dBA) Normally Conditionally Normally Clearly Acceptablea Acceptableb Unacceptablec Unacceptabled Residentiale 50 - 60 Transient Lodging — Motel, Hotel 50 - 60 Schools, Libraries, Churches, 50 - 60 Hospitals, Nursing Homes Auditoriums, Concert Halls, Am phitheatersf Sports Arena, Outdoor Spectator Sportsf Playgrounds, Parks 50 - 70 Golf Course, Riding Stables, 50 - 70 Water Recreation, Cemeteries Office Buildings, Business 50 - 65 Commercial, and Professional Industrial, Manufacturing, Utilities, 50 - 70 Agriculture Agriculture above 50 60 - 70 60 - 70 60 - 70 50 - 70 50 - 75 65 - 75 70 - 80 70 - 75 70 - 80 70 - 80 70 - 75 70 - 80 above 75 above 80 above 75 above 80 above 80 above 70 above 75 above 75 above 80 a b c d e Normally Acceptable: Specified land use is satisfactory based on the assumption that any buildings involved are of normal conventional construction, without any special noise insulation requirements. Conditionally Acceptable: New construction or development should be undertaken only after a detailed analysis of the noise requirements is made and needed noise insulation features included in the design. Conventional construction, but with closed windows and fresh air supply systems or air conditioning will normally suffice. Normally Unacceptable: New construction or development should generally be discouraged. If it does proceed, a detailed analysis of the noise reduction requirements must be made and needed noise insulation features included in the design. Clearly Unacceptable: New construction or development should generally not be undertaken. Regarding aircraft -related noise, the maximum acceptable exposure for new residential development is 60 dB CNEL. No normally acceptable condition is defined for these uses. Noise studies are required prior to approval. SOURCE: City of Temecula, 2005. The City of Temecula General Plan Noise Element contains various goals and policies to address citywide noise issues. The following are relevant to the project: Goal 1 Separate significant noise generators from sensitive receptors. Policy 1.2 Limit the hours of construction activity next to residential areas to reduce noise intrusion in the early morning, late evening, weekends and holidays. Goal 2 Minimize transfer of noise impacts between adjacent land uses. Policy 2.1 Limit the maximum permitted noise levels crossing property lines and impacting adjacent land uses. Audi of Temecula Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 3.4-16 ESA / 150189 July 2015 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.4 Noise Policy 2.2 Establish criteria for placement and operation of stationary outdoor equipment. Policy 2.3 Require that mixed-use structures and areas be designed to prevent transfer of noise and vibration from commercial areas to residential areas. Goal 3 Minimize the impact of noise levels throughout the community through land use planning Policy 3.1 Enforce and maintain acceptable noise limit standards. Policy 3.2 Work with the County of Riverside and the City of Murrieta to minimize or avoid land use/noise conflicts prior to project approvals. Policy 3.3 Encourage the creative use of site and building design techniques as a means to minimize noise impacts. Policy 3.7 Evaluate potential noise conflicts for individual sites and projects, and require mitigation of all significant noise impacts as a condition of project approval. Goal 4 Minimize impacts from transportation noise sources. Policy 4.1 Minimize noise conflicts between land uses and the circulation network, and mitigate sound levels where necessary or feasible to ensure the peace and quiet of the community. City of Temecula Municipal Code The following sections of the Temecula Municipal Code are relevant to the proposed project: 9.20.030 Exemptions Sound emanating from the following sources is exempt from the provisions of Chapter 9.20 (Noise) of the City of Temecula Municipal Code: • Property maintenance, including, but not limited to, the operation of lawnmowers, leaf blowers, etc., provided such maintenance occurs between the hours of 7:00 AM and 8:00 PM. • Motor vehicles, other than off-highway vehicles. This exemption does not include sound emanating from motor vehicle sound systems. • Heating and air conditioning equipment. 9.20.040 General Sound Level Standards No person shall create any sound, or allow the creation of any sound, on any property that causes the exterior sound level on any other occupied property to exceed the sound level standards set forth in Table 3.4-9 and Table 3.4-10 (see above). Audi of Temecula Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 3.4-17 ESA / 150189 July 2015 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.4 Noise 9.20.060 Special Sound Sources Standards No person shall engage in or conduct construction activity, when the construction site is within one-quarter mile of an occupied residence, between the hours of 6:30 PM and 7:00 AM, Monday through Friday, and shall only engage in or conduct construction activity between the hours of 7:00 AM and 6:30 PM on Saturday. Further, no construction activity shall be undertaken on Sunday and nationally recognized holidays. The City Council may, by formal action, exempt projects from the provisions of this chapter. 9.20.070 Exceptions Exceptions may be requested from the standards set forth in Sections 9.20.040 (general sound standards) or 9.20.060 (special sound sources standards) and may be characterized as construction -related or single event exceptions. An application for a construction -related exception shall be made on a minor exception form. The form shall be submitted in writing at least three working days (seventy-two hours) in advance of the scheduled and permitted activity and shall be accompanied by the appropriate inspection fee(s). The application is subject to approval by the city manager or designated representative. No public hearing is required. Harveston Specific Plan and Design Guidelines The EIR for the Harveston Specific Plan identified potentially significant noise impacts from development of the Specific Plan, but concluded that the impacts would all be less than significant with implementation of the mitigation measures in the EIR. The Specific Plan EIR proposed mitigation measures that would reduce temporary construction impacts to less than significant. This Supplemental EIR has incorporated the adopted mitigation measures from the Specific Plan EIR to reduce the construction noise impacts of the project. City of Temecula Groundborne Vibration Regulation While the City of Temecula has not adopted any numerical thresholds for construction or operational groundborne vibration impacts, Section 17.08.080 of the City Municipal Code states that any existing or proposed use which generates vibrations that can or may be considered a nuisance or hazard on any adjacent property shall be cushioned or isolated to prevent generation of such vibrations. 3.4.4 Impact Assessment Methodology Implementation of the project could result in the introduction of noise levels that may exceed permitted City noise levels. The primary sources of noise associated with the project would be construction activities within the project site and project -related traffic volumes associated with operation of the proposed car dealership. Secondary sources of noise would include new stationary sources (such as heating, ventilation, and air conditioning units) associated with the 1 The general sound level standards set forth in Section 9.20.040 of the City Municipal Code apply to sound emanating from all sources, including special sound sources. Audi of Temecula Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 3.4-18 ESA / 150189 July 2015 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.4 Noise new facility. The increase in noise levels generated by these activities and other sources associated with the project have been quantitatively estimated and compared to the applicable noise standards and thresholds of significance. Aside from noise levels, groundborne vibration would also be generated during the construction of the project at the project site by various construction -related activities and equipment. Thus, the groundborne vibration levels generated by these sources have also been quantitatively estimated and compared to applicable thresholds of significance. Construction Noise Levels Construction noise levels were estimated by data published by the United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) for general outdoor construction activities. These noise levels are then analyzed against the construction noise standards established in the City's municipal code to determine whether an exceedance of allowable noise levels would occur across any adjacent property boundaries. Roadway Noise Levels Roadway noise levels have been calculated for selected study roadway segments located near the project site based on information provided in the TIA for the project. The roadway segments selected for analysis are expected to be most directly impacted by project -related traffic, which, for the purpose of this analysis, includes the roadways that are nearest to the project site. These roadways, when compared to roadways located further away from the project site, would experience the greatest percentage increase in traffic generated by the project. The noise levels were calculated using the FHWA-RD-77-108 model and traffic volumes from the project's TIA. Groundborne Vibration Associated with Project Construction and Operation Groundborne vibration levels resulting from construction activities at the project site were estimated by data published by the FTA in its Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment document. Potential vibration levels resulting from construction of the proposed car dealership and associated components are identified for off-site locations that are sensitive to vibration based on their distance from construction activities. Thresholds of Significance Based on the CEQA Guidelines, a project would have a significant effect on the environment with respect to noise and/or ground -borne vibration if it would result in: • Exposure of persons to, or generation of, noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies; • Exposure of persons to, or generation of, excessive ground -borne vibration or ground - borne noise levels; • A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project; Audi of Temecula Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 3.4-19 ESA / 150189 July 2015 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.4 Noise • A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project; • Exposure of people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels (for a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport); or • Exposure of people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels (for a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip). Impacts in the following issue areas were found to not be significant and will not be discussed further in this Draft SEIR: Exposure of people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels associated with a public use airport or private airstrip. The project area is not located within any airport land use plan nor is it located near any private airstrips. The nearest airport with an associated Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan is the French Valley Airport, which is located approximately six miles north of the project site. Given this distance, no impacts are anticipated as a result of the project and no further analysis is warranted in this SEIR. Noise Criteria Construction and stationary operational noise levels associated with the project would result in a significant impact if the City's construction noise regulations are violated and the City's operational noise standards (see Table 3.4-9) are exceeded. The CEQA Guidelines does not define the levels at which permanent and temporary increases in ambient noise are considered "substantial." Therefore, with regards to traffic noise, the significance of the project's noise impacts can be determined by comparing estimated project - related noise levels to existing no -project noise levels. With respect to the community noise environment, the average healthy ear can barely perceive a noise level change of 3 dBA. A change from 3 to 5 dBA may be noticed by some individuals who are sensitive to changes in noise. A 5 dBA increase is readily noticeable, while the human ear perceives a 10 dBA increase as a doubling of sound. As such, for the purpose of the project's traffic noise analysis, it is assumed that a significant impact on traffic noise levels from project operations would occur if the project would cause the ambient noise level measured at the property line of affected land uses to increase by 3 dBA (Ldn) to or within the "normally unacceptable" or "clearly unacceptable" category identified in the City's noise/land use compatibility matrix (see Table 3.4- 10), or any 5 dBA or greater noise increase. For example, a 3 dBA increase in traffic noise levels at a residential land use as a result of project operations would be considered potentially significant if the additional traffic noise contribution would cause the noise levels to fall within the "normally unacceptable" or "clearly unacceptable" noise level categories (i.e., 70 dBA Ldn or greater). If the additional traffic noise contribution from the project would not cause the noise levels at a residential land use to exceed 70 dBA Ldn, then a 5 dBA Ldn increase in noise levels would be necessary to result in a potentially significant impact, as a 5 dBA increase is considered to be readily noticeable. Audi of Temecula Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 3.4-20 ESA / 150189 July 2015 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.4 Noise Vibration Criteria The CEQA Guidelines also do not define the levels at which groundborne vibration or groundborne noises are considered "excessive." As discussed previously, the City has not adopted any numerical thresholds for construction or operational groundborne vibration impacts. Additionally, there are no federal, state, or local vibration regulations or guidelines directly applicable to the project. However, publications of the FTA and Caltrans are two of the seminal works for the analysis of vibration relating to transportation and construction -induced vibration. The project is not subject to FTA or Caltrans regulations; nonetheless, these guidelines serve as a useful tool to evaluate vibration impacts. For the purpose of this analysis, the vibration criteria for structural damage and human annoyance established in the most recent Caltrans' Transportation and Construction Vibration Guidance Manual (2013), which are shown previously in Tables 3.4- 7 and 3.4-8, are used to evaluate the potential vibration impacts of the project on nearby sensitive receptors. Impacts Construction Noise Construction activity noise levels at and near the project site would fluctuate depending on the particular type, number, and duration of uses of various pieces of construction equipment. Construction -related material haul trips would raise ambient noise levels along haul routes, depending on the number of haul trips made and types of vehicles used. In addition, certain types of construction equipment generate impulsive noises (such as pile driving), which can be particularly annoying. Pile driving, however, is not proposed for project development. Table 3.4-11 shows typical noise levels during different construction stages. Table 3.4-12 shows typical noise levels produced by various types of construction equipment. TABLE 3.4-11 TYPICAL CONSTRUCTION NOISE LEVELS Construction Phase Noise Level (dBA, Leq)a Ground Clearing 84 Excavation 89 Foundations 78 Erection 85 Finishing 89 a Average noise levels correspond to a distance of 50 feet from the noisiest piece of equipment associated with a given phase of construction and 200 feet from the rest of the equipment associated with that phase. SOURCE: USEPA, 197t Audi of Temecula Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 3.4-21 ESA / 150189 July 2015 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.4 Noise TABLE 3.4-12 TYPICAL NOISE LEVELS FROM CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT Construction Equipment Noise Level (dBA, Leq at 50 feet ) Dump Truck 88 Portable Air Compressor 81 Concrete Mixer (Truck) 85 Scraper 88 Jack Hammer 88 Dozer 87 Paver 89 Generator 76 Pile Driver 101 Backhoe 85 SOURCE: Cunniff, 1977. Noise from construction activities generally attenuates at a rate of 6 to 7.5 dBA per doubling distance. Based on the project site layout and terrain, an attenuation of 6 dBA will be assumed. The nearest residences are approximately 859 feet from project construction. Based on the noise levels presented in Table 3.4-11, noise levels from various construction phases can reach as high as 89 dBA at 50 feet. When this noise level is attenuated out to 859 feet, the nearest residences to the project site would experience noise levels of about 64 dBA Leq during the loudest construction activities at the project site. Under a worst-case scenario where a noise level of 64 dBA Leq occurs continuously over an eight-hour work day, the estimated Ldn noise level at the nearest residences resulting from project construction would be 59 dBA. According to Section 9.20.040 of the City's Municipal Code, residential land uses such as single-family residences should not be exposed to an exterior noise level that exceeds a maximum of 65 dB Ldn/CNEL (refer to Table 3.4-9) generated by a noise source, including construction activities. As such, the project's construction noise levels would not exceed the City's exterior noise standards for residential uses. While the City's exterior noise standard for residential uses would not be exceeded during project construction, the use of heavy construction equipment at the site during the grading and building phases could still result in increased noise levels at the nearest off-site sensitive receptors. Table 3.4-13 shows the increase in ambient daytime noise levels at the nearest off-site sensitive receptor locations as a result of project construction. Audi of Temecula Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 3.4-22 ESA / 150189 July 2015 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.4 Noise TABLE 3.4-13 AMBIENT DAYTIME NOISE LEVEL INCREASES AT OFF-SITE SENSITIVE USES Off-site Sensitive Land Uses Location Approximate Distance to project site Boundary (ft.)a Existing Monitored Daytime Ambient Noise Levels (dBA Leq) Estimated Hourly Construction Noise Levels Noise Level (dBA Leq) Difference Single-family residences Single-family residences Mobile homes Northeast of the project site, 924 63 64 1.0 at the northeast corner of Ynez Road and Waverly Lane. Northeast of the project site 859 61 64 3.0 along Ynez Road, south of Waverly Lane. North of the project site, 1,054 59 63 4.0 beyond the Mercedes Benz auto dealership and south of Elm Street a The approximate distances are measured from the nearest project site boundary to the nearest sensitive -receptor property line. b The noise levels at these off-site receptors were reduced by 5 dBA to account for existing shielding by an approximately eight -foot wall fronting the receptors. SOURCE: ESA, 2015; provided in Appendix E of this SEIR As shown in Table 3.4-13, the ambient exterior noise levels at all of the off-site sensitive receptors would experience an increase in noise levels of less than 5 dBA. As such, construction noise associated with the proposed project would not be substantially greater than existing noise levels at these nearby sensitive receptor locations. Therefore, construction activities associated with the proposed project would not generate a substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity. Overall, because project construction would not exceed the City's exterior noise standard for residential uses and would not result in a substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels at the nearest sensitive receptors, the project's construction noise impacts would be less than significant. In addition, implementation of the following mitigation measures from the adopted Harveston Specific Plan Mitigation Monitoring Program would further ensure construction noise levels would remain below a level of significance. 1. As specified in City of Temecula Ordinance No. 94-25, no construction may occur within one-quarter (1/4) of a mile of any occupied residence during the following hours: A. 6:30 pm to 6:30 am, Monday through Friday. B. Before 7:00 am of after 6:30 pm, Saturday. C. At any time on Sunday or any nationally recognized holiday. 2. All construction equipment shall use properly operating mufflers, and no combustion equipment such as pumps, generators or motors shall be allowed to operate within one quarter (1/4) mile of any occupied residence from 6:30 pm to 6:30 am unless such equipment is surrounded by a noise protection earthen berm or solid barrier. Audi of Temecula Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 3.4-23 ESA / 150189 July 2015 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.4 Noise 3. All construction staging shall be performed as far as possible from occupied dwellings. Significance Determination: Less than significant. Exposure to Ground -Borne Vibration — Construction Construction activities that would occur within the project site would include grading activities, which would have the potential to generate low levels of groundborne vibration. Persons residing and working in close proximity to a construction site could be exposed to the generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels related to construction activities. The results from vibration can range from no perceptible effects at the lowest vibration levels, to low rumbling sounds and perceptible vibrations at moderate levels, to slight structural damage at the highest levels. Site ground vibrations from construction activities very rarely reach the levels that can damage structures, but they can be perceived in the audible range and be felt in buildings very close to a construction site. The various PPV and RMS velocity (in VdB) levels for the types of construction equipment that would operate during the construction of the project are identified in Table 3.4-14. Based on the information presented in Table 3.4-14, vibration velocities could reach as high as approximately 0.089 inch -per -second PPV at 25 feet from the source activity, depending on the type of construction equipment in use. This corresponds to a RMS velocity level (in VdB) of 87 VdB at 25 feet from the source activity. TABLE 3.4-14 VIBRATION SOURCE LEVELS FOR CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT Equipment Approximate PPV (in/sec) Approximate RMS (VdB) 25 50 60 75 100 25 50 60 75 100 Feet Feet Feet Feet Feet Feet Feet Feet Feet Feet Large Bulldozer 0.089 0.031 0.024 0.017 0.011 87 78 76 73 69 Caisson Drilling 0.089 0.031 0.024 0.017 0.011 87 78 76 73 69 Loaded Trucks 0.076 0.027 0.020 0.015 0.010 86 77 75 72 68 Jackhammer 0.035 0.012 0.009 0.007 0.004 79 70 68 65 61 Small Bulldozer 0.003 0.001 0.0008 0.0006 0.0004 58 49 47 44 40 SOURCE: FTA, 2006 Given that the nearest sensitive receptors to the project site are located approximately 859 feet northeast of the project site, the estimated vibration velocity forecasted to occur at these off-site sensitive receptors would be approximately 0.0004 in/sec PPV. For the purpose of this analysis, these nearest residences are considered to be "new residential structures," based on the structure descriptions provided under Caltrans vibration criteria (refer to Table 3.4-7). As the nearest single-family residences would not be exposed to PPV groundborne vibration levels that exceed the 0.5 in/sec PPV threshold for continuous/frequent intermittent vibration sources shown in Table 3.4-7, vibration impacts associated with building damage would be less than significant. Audi of Temecula Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 3.4-24 ESA / 150189 July 2015 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.4 Noise Additionally, based on Caltrans criteria for human annoyance (refer to Table 3.4-8), the vibration levels experienced at the nearest residences would not be perceptible. As such, vibration impacts during project construction at the nearest off-site residential uses would be less than significant. With respect to non-residential uses, the nearest structure associated with the adjacent Mercedes Benz auto dealership is located approximately 50 feet from the project site's northern boundary line. Given this distance, the estimated vibration velocity forecasted to occur at this off-site structure would be approximately 0.03 in/sec PPV. Based on Caltrans' structure descriptions, this nearby structure is, for the purpose of this analysis, considered to be a "modern industrial/commercial building." As this nearest structure would not be exposed to vibration levels exceeding 0.5 in/sec PPV from construction activities at the project site, vibration impacts associated with building damage would be less than significant. Additionally, with respect to human annoyance, the vibration levels experienced at this off-site structure would also be less than distinctly perceptible. Therefore, vibration impacts at this off-site structure would be less than significant. Significance Determination: Less than significant. Exposure to Ground -Borne Vibration - Operations The project would not involve activities or operation of stationary or mobile equipment that would result in high vibration levels, which are more typical for large industrial projects that employ heavy machinery. During project operations, the primary source of vibration would likely be heavy trucks accessing the site for the purposes of transporting new passenger vehicles to the proposed car dealership. However, the FTA's Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment states that it is unusual for vibration from vehicular sources (including buses and trucks) to be perceptible, even in locations close to major roads. As discussed previously, trucks traveling at a distance of 50 feet typically generate groundborne vibration velocity levels of around 63 VdB (approximately 0.006 in/sec PPV), and these levels could reach 72 VdB (approximately 0.016 in/sec PPV) where trucks pass over bumps in the road (FTA, 2006). Based on Caltrans vibration criteria, these low vibration levels from single truck pass -by events would not be perceptible at the nearest residences to the project site. As such, no sources of "excessive" groundborne vibration or noise levels are anticipated during project operations. Thus, vibration impacts associated with project operations would be less than significant. Significance Determination: Less than significant. Operational Noise Heating, Ventilating, and Air Conditioning (HVAC) Equipment Noise The HVAC system for maintaining comfortable temperatures within the proposed buildings would typically consist of packaged rooftop air conditioning systems. Such rooftop HVAC units typically generate noise levels of approximately 55 dBA at a reference distance of 100 feet from the operating units during maximum heating or air conditioning operations (City of Temecula, 2008). According to Section 9.20.030 (Exemptions) of the City Municipal Code, sound emanating from heating and air conditioning equipment are exempt from the City's noise standards. Nonetheless, the noise level of the HVAC system, if on the edge of the proposed Audi of Temecula Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 3.4-25 ESA / 150189 July 2015 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.4 Noise building structure nearest to the off-site sensitive receptors (i.e., single-family residential uses) located approximately 900 feet to the northeast, would be about 36 dBA. Over the course of a 24- hour period, the noise levels at the nearest off-site sensitive receptors would be approximately 42 dBA Ldn, which would not exceed the City's exterior noise thresholds for residential uses. Thus, noise associated with the project's HVAC equipment noise would be less than significant. Service Center Internal Equipment Noise Power tools, electric machinery, and air compressors would be used within the service center premises for the repair of motor vehicles. Potentially significant noise sources associated with auto service operations include air impact wrenches, tire breakers, and air supply compressors. It is anticipated that the service center building would operate under the same hours as the car dealership, which would be: Monday through Friday, 7:00 A.M. to 8:00 P.M.; Saturday, 8:00 A.M. to 7:00 P.M.; and Sunday, 10:00 A.M. to 6:00 P.M. The noise levels of these sources at sensitive receptor locations are stated below. Impact Wrench Noise Levels A potentially significant noise source at the proposed auto maintenance facility would be the operation of air impact wrenches during tire changes. These wrenches typically produce a maximum noise level of about 88 dBA at a distance of 10 feet (City of Temecula, 2008). Impact wrenches are used twice for each wheel removal/replacement operation with an average duration of use of 10 to 15 seconds per wheel (City of Temecula, 2008). The nearest residential property to the service center is located at a distance of approximately 1,226 feet to the northeast. At this distance, impact wrench maximum noise levels are predicted to be approximately 46 dBA without mitigation. Due to this relatively low noise level and the fact that noise from the use of impact wrenches would only occur intermittently throughout the project's operating hours, the noise levels at the nearest residential property would not be substantial. Even under a worst-case analysis where noise levels of 46 dBA would occur continuously from 7:00 A.M. to 8:00 P.M., the noise level at the nearest sensitive receptor offsite would be 44 dBA Ldn, which would not exceed the City's exterior noise standards for residential uses. Also, shielding will be provided by the enclosure of the service center and parking lot area in between the service station and the residences which would reduce these noise levels further. As such, the noise impacts from the use of impact wrenches would less than significant. Tire Breaker Noise Levels Tire breakers are also a potentially significant noise source due to the rapid release of air pressure through a number of small holes adjacent to the tire sidewall. Noise produced by this type of pneumatic tire breaker reaches a brief maximum level of about 105 dBA at 10 feet. Other types of tire breakers, where the rapid air release has been eliminated and replaced with an air/hydraulic control system, produce noise levels of approximately 74 dBA at a distance of 10 feet (City of Temecula, 2008). For a worst-case estimate of tire -breaker noise generation, it is assumed that the louder type of tire breaker could be used at the proposed facility. Tire breakers are used twice for each tire removal/replacement operation. The average duration of use is approximately 20 seconds per wheel (City of Temecula, 2008). Audi of Temecula Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 3.4-26 ESA / 150189 July 2015 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.4 Noise The nearest residential property to the service center is located at a distance of approximately 1,226 feet to the northeast. At this distance, impact wrench maximum noise levels are predicted to be approximately 63 dBA without mitigation. While the noise from the use of tire breakers would only occur intermittently (approximately 20 seconds per wheel) throughout the project's operating hours, the noise levels at the nearest residential property would not be substantial. Even under a worst-case analysis where noise levels of 63 dBA would occur continuously from 7:00 A.M. to 8:00 P.M., the noise level at the nearest sensitive receptor offsite would be 61 dBA Ldn, which would not exceed the City's exterior noise standards for residential uses. Also, shielding will be provided by the enclosure of the service center and parking lot area in between the service station and the residences which would reduce these noise levels further. As such, impacts from this noise source would be less than significant. Air Compressor Noise Levels The noise produced by air supply compressors varies considerably with compressor size, type, and operating conditions. At similar tire maintenance facilities, reference noise levels were measured at 60 dBA at 50 feet for steady-state compressor operation (City of Temecula, 2008). The compressors typically cycle on and off intermittently during the work day to meet air supply demands (City of Temecula, 2008). At the nearest residential property, located approximately 1,226 feet to the northeast, the worst-case noise level associated with compressor usage would be 32 dBA without mitigation. While noise from air compressors would only occur intermittently during the work day, even under a worst-case analysis where noise levels of 32 dBA would occur continuously from 7:00 A.M. to 8:00 P.M., the noise level at the nearest sensitive receptor offsite would be 30 dBA Ldn, which would not exceed the City's exterior noise standards for residential uses. Also, shielding will be provided by the enclosure of the service center and parking lot area in between the service station and the residences which would reduce these noise levels further. As such, impacts from this noise source would be less than significant. Car Wash In addition to the proposed service center at the project site, two service bays within the service building would also be dedicated to car wash and detailing activities, which would generate noise levels as well. The drying system is the loudest part of a car wash; depending on the system used, a car wash blower could create noise levels of approximately 67 dBA at 50 feet from the exit (City of Temecula, 2008). At the nearest residential property, located approximately 1,226 feet to the northeast, the noise level could potentially be 39 dBA during car drying. To further dampen the noise the exit will face the customer lobby building, thus attenuating the noise levels more. Even under a worst-case analysis where noise levels of 39 dBA would occur continuously from 7:00 A.M. to 8:00 P.M., the noise level at the nearest sensitive receptor offsite would be 37 dBA Ldn, which would not exceed the City's exterior noise standards for residential uses. As such, impacts from this noise source would be less than significant. Paging System A loudspeaker paging system consisting of outdoor speakers is used at some car dealerships. While loudspeakers vary in the amount of noise they produce, a maximum noise level of approximately 77 dBA can be produced at a distance of 590 feet (City of Temecula, 2008). At the nearest residential property located approximately 1,226 feet to the northeast, noise levels from Audi of Temecula Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 3.4-27 ESA / 150189 July 2015 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.4 Noise the speakers can reach up to 71 dBA. While it is uncertain how often noise from a loudspeaker paging system would occur over the course of the proposed car dealerships operating hours, under a worst-case scenario where noise levels are generated continuously from 7:00 A.M. to 8:00 P.M., the noise level at the nearest sensitive receptor offsite would be 69 dBA Ld1, which would exceed the City's exterior noise standards for residential uses. As such, impacts would be potentially significant if continuous noise is generated by the loudspeaker paging system over the entire duration of the new dealership's work hours. As such, Mitigation Measure MM-NOI-1 will be implemented to ensure that a silent paging system be used for the project in lieu of a loudspeaker paging system. Impact NOI-1: A loudspeaker paging system used at a car dealership could have a significant impact on sensitive receptors in the area. Significance Determination: Significant; mitigation required Mitigation Measure MM-NOI-1: The applicant shall implement a silent paging system throughout the project to eliminate loudspeaker paging noise. Significance after Mitigation: Less than significant. Total Composite Operational Noise Levels While the noise levels associated with each of the project's potential operational noise sources have been estimated above, over the course of a day there would be times when these various noise sources would occur concurrently at the project site. Based on the estimated noise levels at the nearest residential property located approximately 1,226 feet to the northeast of the service center building from each of the operational noise sources identified above, and due to the logarithmic nature of noise, a composite noise level of 63 dBA would occur at this nearest off-site property when noise from these separate noise sources occur concurrently.2 While the identified operational noise sources would only occur intermittently and for short durations throughout the day, under a worst-case scenario where this maximum noise level occurs continuously from 7:00 A.M. to 8:00 P.M., the noise level at the nearest sensitive receptor offsite would be 61 dBA Ld1, which would not exceed the City's exterior noise standards for residential uses. Furthermore, it should be noted that additional noise shielding will also be provided by the enclosure of the service center and parking lot area in between the service station and the nearest off-site residences. Overall, the operational noise levels generated by the project would be less than significant. Significance after Mitigation: Less than significant. Traffic Noise The project would contribute to an increase in local traffic volumes, resulting in higher noise levels along local roadways. Using a spreadsheet based upon algorithms from the Federal Highway Administration's Highway Traffic Noise Prediction Model (FHWA-RD-77-108) and 2 Due to the logarithmic nature of noise, the noise level of 63 dBA generated by tire breakers would be the dominant noise level experienced at the nearest off-site sensitive receptor even when the other operational noise sources (i.e., impact wrenches, air compressors, and car wash) occur concurrently. Audi of Temecula Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 3.4-28 ESA / 150189 July 2015 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.4 Noise traffic data from the project's TIA provided by VA Consulting Inc., traffic noise levels were analyzed for 12 roadway segments. The segments analyzed and results of the modeling for weekday and weekend traffic conditions are shown in Table 3.4-15 and Table 3.4-16, respectively. TABLE 3.4-15 ROADWAY NOISE LEVELS WITH PROJECT (weekday) Roadway Segment Existing Land Uses Located Along Roadway Segmentb Noise Levels in dBA Ldna Existing Project Traffic Volumes Existing With Project Traffic Volumes Significance Exceed Increase Threshold Threshold? Murrieta Hot Springs Road, West of Jackson Ave. Murrieta Hot Springs Road, East of Jackson Ave. Jackson Avenue, south of Murrieta Hot Springs Rd Ynez Road, north of Waverley Ln. Ynez Road, south of Waverly Ln. Ynez Road, north of Date St. Ynez Road, south of Date St. Ynez Road, north of Winchester Rd. Ynez Road, south of Winchester Ave. Date Street, east of Ynez Rd. Winchester Road, west of Ynez Rd. Winchester Road, east of Ynez Rd. Residential/ Commercial Residential/ Commercial Residential/ Commercial Residential/ Commercial Residential Residential Residential Church/Commercial/ Office Commercial Residential Commercial Commercial 66.7 66.7 0 66.5 66.5 0 61.5 61.6 0.1 61.5 61.6 0.1 61.9 62.1 0.2 61.9 62.1 0.2 62.8 62.9 0.1 71.5 71.6 0.1 69.6 69.6 0 60.9 61.0 0 73.6 73.6 0 70.0 70.0 0 5.0 No 5.0 No 5.0 No 5.0 No 5.0 No 5.0 No 5.0 No 3.0 No 5.0 No 5.0 No 5.0 No 5.0 No N/A = Non -applicable a Values represent noise levels at the approximate property line of the nearest receptors. b Along roadway segments that have multiple land uses, the lower noise level standard amongst the multiple land uses was used to provide a conservative analysis. TRAFFIC INFORMATION SOURCE: VA Consulting, Inc., 2015; TABLE SOURCE: ESA, 2015. Calculation data and results provided in Appendix C. Audi of Temecula Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 3.4-29 ESA / 150189 July 2015 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.4 Noise TABLE 3.4-16 ROADWAY NOISE LEVELS WITH PROJECT (weekend) Roadway Segment Existing Land Uses Located Along Roadway Segmentb Noise Levels in dBA Ldna Existing Project Traffic Volumes Existing With Project Traffic Volumes Significance Increase Threshold Exceed Threshold? Murrieta Hot Springs Road, West of Jackson Ave. Murrieta Hot Springs Road, East of Jackson Ave. Jackson Avenue, south of Murrieta Hot Springs Rd Ynez Road, north of Waverley Ln. Ynez Road, south of Waverly Ln. Ynez Road, north of Date St. Ynez Road, south of Date St. Ynez Road, north of Winchester Rd. Ynez Road, south of Winchester Ave. Date Street, east of Ynez Rd. Winchester Road, west of Ynez Rd. Winchester Road, east of Ynez Rd. Residential/ Commercial Residential/ Commercial Residential/ Commercial Residential/ Commercial Residential Residential Residential Church/Commercial/ Office Commercial Residential Commercial Commercial 66.1 66.1 0 66.0 66.0 0 61.0 61.2 0.2 59.9 60.2 0.3 60.5 61.0 0.5 60.5 61.0 0.5 61.4 61.6 0.2 70.2 70.5 0.3 69.3 69.3 0 59.4 59.5 0.1 73.7 73.7 0 70.3 70.3 0 5.0 No 5.0 No 5.0 No 5.0 No 5.0 No 5.0 No 5.0 No 3.0 No 5.0 No 5.0 No 5.0 No 5.0 No N/A = Non -applicable a Values represent noise levels at the approximate property line of the nearest receptors. b Along roadway segments that have multiple land uses, the lower noise level standard amongst the multiple land uses was used to provide a conservative analysis. TRAFFIC INFORMATION SOURCE: VA Consulting, Inc., 2015; TABLE SOURCE: ESA, 2015. Calculation data and results provided in Appendix C. As shown in Table 3.4-15, the project would increase local noise levels during the weekday by a maximum of 0.2 dBA Ld„ at the roadway segment of Ynez Road south of Waverley Lane and north of Date Street. As shown in Table 3.4-16, local noise levels during the weekend would be increased by a maximum of 0.5 dBA Ld„at the same roadway segments. As the increase in traffic noise levels generated by the project under weekday and weekend conditions would not exceed the applicable thresholds, impact would be less than significant. Significance Determination: Less than significant. Audi of Temecula Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 3.4-30 ESA / 150189 July 2015 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.5 Biological Resources This section describes and evaluates potential impacts to biological resources that could result from implementation of the project. Existing biological conditions within the project site and study area, applicable policies, ordinances, and regulations, potential environmental impacts, and mitigation measures, where appropriate, are described. 3.5.1 Environmental Setting Regional Setting The project site is located in southwestern Riverside County, in a valley near the eastern foothills of the Santa Ana Mountains. The terrain on the project site is relatively flat with elevations ranging from approximately 1,070 feet above mean sea level (AMSL) to 1,095 feet AMSL. Climate conditions in the region vary considerably, and are representative of the California Mediterranean climate. Average temperatures during the winter range from 36 to 66 degrees Fahrenheit. Average temperatures during the hottest summer months range from 66 to 98 degrees Fahrenheit. Average precipitation is 11.4 inches per year (The Weather Channel, 2015). The proposed project site lies within the Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP). The MSHCP is a comprehensive, multi jurisdictional plan focusing on conservation of plant and wildlife species and their associated habitats in western Riverside County. The MSHCP establishes a framework and mechanism for projects to comply with State and federal endangered species regulations (Western Riverside County Regional Conservation Authority, 2003a). The project site is also located within the community of Harveston, which holds a Development Agreement with the City of Temecula, as such, the proposed project is not required to comply with the provisions of the MSHCP since the Development Agreement for the area (2001) permits developers to only comply with pre -2003 regulations prior to the implementation of the MSHCP. Project Setting The project site is 4.5 acres. It is undeveloped and was previously sheet graded as part of the original Harveston Specific Plan mass grading approval. Non-native grasses and ruderal (weedy) forbs dominate the vegetation on-site. The site is annually mowed and hydro -seeded for fire maintenance, weed abatement, and erosion and dust control purposes. The topography of the site is relatively flat. Elevation on the site ranges from approximately 1,070 feet above mean sea level (AMSL) on the west boundary to 1,095 feet AMSL on the east boundary. The project site contains a temporary retention basin for stormwater run-off on the southwestern portion of the site. The project site has been graded with what appears to be stormwater management tiers that direct on-site generated stormwater over the edge of the graded slopes in areas covered in black plastic sheeting and sand bags. Stormwater is then directed towards Warm Springs Creek at the toe of Audi of Temecula Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 3.5-1 ESA / 150189 July 2015 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.5 Biological Resources the slopes through a plastic sheet and sandbag system. The proposed project site is composed of compacted fill material and no longer has a native soil profile. The project site was surveyed in early May during a period of drought in the region. No puddles or ponding was observed on the project site during the habitat assessment survey. Soils on the project site were generally soft and friable. According to the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) Web Soil Survey, soils on the project site are mapped as Ramona and Buren loam. Three other soils are mapped for the study area but outside of the project site boundary, Ramona and Buren sandy loams, Hanford coarse sandy loam, and Chino silt loam. Due to previous disturbances the natural soil profile no longer exists. General Biological Resources The regional and local settings for terrestrial biological resources were developed from existing documentation for the project site and adjacent parcels, as well as various biological surveys conducted to determine the general habitat on site as well as the presence of sensitive biological resources. Existing literature reviewed to assist in determining baseline conditions on the site and surrounding area include the Audi of Temecula Biological Assessment/MSHCP Consistency Analysis Report (ESA, 2015a), Audi of Temecula Focused Burrowing Owl Report (ESA, 2015b), Fletcher Jones Temecula Mercedes Benz Dealership Biological Assessment/Conformance Report (ESA, 2008a), and the Fletcher Jones Mercedes-Benz of Temecula Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report SCH# 2008011052 (ESA, 2008b). Biological Survey A reconnaissance level site survey was conducted by ESA biologist Tommy Molioo on May 5, 2015. Site conditions at the time of survey (morning) included cloudy skies, an average temperature of 55 degrees Fahrenheit, and 1 to 3 mile per hour winds from the south. During the reconnaissance survey, site conditions were noted. The survey provided the following information on existing plant communities and wildlife. Vegetation and Habitat Plant communities are generally described by the assemblages of plant species that occur together in the same area forming habitat types. Descriptions of vegetation were generally characterized based on dominant species, according to Holland (1986) and Sawyer Keeler -Wolf (1995). Details of each habitat type, disturbed areas, and land use observed within the project site are described below. Plant names used in this report follow the Jepson Manual (Hickman, 1993). The entire project site is mapped as containing ruderal habitat with basins (Figure 3.5-1). Developed land is mapped within the study area, outside of the project site boundary. Table 3.5-1 shows the acreage by habitat type. Audi of Temecula Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 3.5-2 ESA / 150189 July 2015 0) c co � o Lo L N E U) H O D 7 SOURCE:NAIP, 2014 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.5 Biological Resources TABLE 3.5-1 HABITAT TYPES ON THE PROJECT SITE Habitat Type Approximate Acreage Ruderal 4.5 Developed 0.0 GRAND TOTAL 4.5 SOURCE: ESA, 2015 Ruderal The entire project site consists of a graded, filled, and compacted land composed almost entirely of ruderal (weedy) vegetation with areas of bare ground. The entire project site plus a majority of the surrounding study area contain ruderal habitat. Two stormwater basins are located in the center of the project site that are also characterized as ruderal habitat. Plant species observed during the habitat assessment include a mixture of non-native grasses and herbaceous forbs. Dominant species include short -podded mustard (Hirschfeldia incana), redstem stork's bill (Erodium cicutarium), and red brome (Bromus rubens). Two native species, clustered tarweed (Deinandra fasciculata) and horseweed (Erigeron canadensis), were also dominant throughout the project site but are still common in disturbed settings. Other commonly observed species include prickly lettuce (Lactuca serriola), yellow star thistle (Centaurea solstitialis), tocalote (Centaurea melitensis), wild oats (Avena fatua), soft chess (Bromus hordaceous), and cheeseweed (Malva parviflora). Scattered native and non-native trees are located outside the project site along the western border including, western sycamore (Platanus racemosa). Peruvian pepper (Schinus molle), and red gum (Eucalyptus camaldulensis). Developed Land Developed land does not occur within the project site boundary, but is mapped within the study area for the existing Mercedes Benz dealership to the north and I-15 to the west. The developed land is characterized by concrete surfaces with associated buildings and infrastructure. No natural soils or vegetation exists within the developed land. Only landscaped ornamental trees were observed in areas mapped as developed land. Representative site photographs are included in Appendix D of this SEIR. Wildlife The project site is characterized by disturbed ruderal habitat located within an undeveloped area surrounded by development that provides suitable habitat to support common wildlife species known to occur in upland and urban environments. Wildlife species observed or detected during the habitat assessment survey include common avian and mammal species typical of disturbed upland habitats and urban environments. Avian species observed or detected included western kingbird (Tyrannus verticalis), western meadowlark (Sturnella neglecta), common raven (Corvus corax) and mourning dove (Zenaida macroura) Mammal species observed includes domestic Audi of Temecula Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 3.5-4 ESA / 150189 July 2015 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.5 Biological Resources dog (Canis familiaris) and black -tailed jackrabbit (Lepus californicus). No amphibian or reptile species were observed during the survey. Sensitive Biological Resources Special -status species are those plants and animals listed, proposed for listing, or candidates for listing as threatened or endangered by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) or the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) under the federal Endangered Species Act (FESA); those considered "species of concern" by the USFWS; those listed or proposed for listing as rare, threatened, or endangered by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) under the California Endangered Species Act (CESA); animals designated as "Species of Special Concern" by the CDFW; and plants occurring on lists 1B, 2, and 4 of the California Native Plant Society (CNPS) Inventory of Rare and Endangered Vascular Plants of California (CNPS, 2015). Natural Communities of Special Concern are habitat types considered rare and worthy of tracking in the California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB) by the CDFW because of their limited distribution or historic loss over time. Potential sensitive biological resources in proximity to the project site were also reviewed through the County online mapping database (County of Riverside, 2015). Sensitive Natural Communities The CNDDB tracks the occurrence of what the CDFW terms "Terrestrial Natural Communities" that are "considered rare and worthy of consideration by CNDDB." The following 6 communities/habitats are recorded in the CNDDB within a 3 mile radius/nine quad CNDDB search for the project site: • Southern Coast Live Oak Riparian Forest • Southern Cottonwood Willow Riparian Forest • Southern Interior Basalt Flow Vernal Pool • Southern Sycamore Alder Riparian Woodland • Southern Willow Scrub • Valley Needlegrass Grassland None of these six natural communities were found on the project site. Special -Status Plants A total of 81 species of plants and 3 species of mosses/lichens were recorded in the CNDDB and evaluated for potential occurrence on the proposed project site based on elevations, and the type and quality of soils and habitats present at the project site. The majority of species evaluated for the project are included on the CNPS list of species, although a few are federal and state listed species. A list of special -status plants evaluated for the project site, as well as their specific life history requirements and potential for occurrence on the project site are included in Table 3.5-2 Audi of Temecula Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 3.5-5 ESA / 150189 July 2015 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.5 Biological Resources below. Plant species for this study can be grouped based on habitat type, soils type and elevation requirements. TABLE 3.5-2 SPECIAL -STATUS PLANT SPECIES Species Listing Status (USFWS/CDFW/ CNPS) General Habitat Potential for Species Occurrence within the Project Area Plants Abronia villosa var. aurita Chaparral sand -verbena Allium munzii Munz' onion Ambrosia pumila San Diego ambrosia Amsinckia douglasiana Douglas' fiddleneck Arctostaphylos rainbowensis Rainbow manzanita Astragalus pachypus var. jaegeri Jaeger's milk -vetch Atriplex coronata var. notatior San Jacinto Valley crownscale Atriplex pacifica South Coast saltscale Atriplex parishii Parish's brittlescale Atriplex serenana var. davidsonii Davidson's saltscale Ayenia compacta California ayenia Berberis nevinii Nevin's barberry --/--/1B.1 Found in sandy areas, chaparral and coastal scrub habitats. FE/ST/1B. 1 FE/ --/1 B.1 441B.1 441B.1 FE/ --/1 B.1 441B.2 Found in chaparral, coastal scrub, cismontane woodland, pinyon -juniper woodland, valley and foothill grassland, usually in heavy clay soils between elevations of 300-1035 m. Chaparral, coastal scrub, valley and foothill grassland in alkali sandy loam or clay soils. Persist where disturbance has been superficial, sometimes near margins. Found in cismontane woodland, and valley and foothill grassland habitats on Monterey shale substrate in dry conditions. Elevations between 0- 1,950 m. Found with chaparral, usually found in grabbro chaparral in Riverside and San Diego counties at elevations of 270-790 m. Associated with coastal scrub, chaparral, valley and foothill grasslands and cismontane woodlands. Found in playas, chenopod scrub, valley and foothill grassland, and vernal pools. Prefers dry, alkali flats in the San Jacinto River Valley at elevations of 400-500 m. Found in coastal scrub, coastal bluff scrub, playas and chenopod scrub in alkali soils at elevations of 1-500 m. Found in alkali meadows, vernal pools, playas and chenopod scrub. Associated with alkali soils, coastal scrub and coastal brush scrub. --/--/1B.2 Associated with alkali soils, coastal scrub and coastal brush scrub. --/--12B.3 FE/SE/1 B.1 Occurs on rocky soils in Mojavean desert scrub and Sonoran desert scrub habitats at elevations between 150-1,095 m. Chaparral, cismontane woodland, coastal scrub, riparian scrub. Often on steep north facing slopes or in the banks of sandy washes. No potential. No suitable habitat present on site. No potential. No suitable soils/habitat present on site. No potential. No suitable soils/habitat present on site. Low potential. Moderately suitable vegetation communities on site but lacks suitable substrate. No potential. No suitable habitat present on site. No potential. No suitable habitat present on site. No potential. No suitable habitat present on site. No potential. No suitable soils/habitat present on site. No potential. No suitable soils/habitat present on site. No potential. No suitable soils/habitat present on site. No potential. No suitable soils/habitat present on site. No potential. No suitable habitat present on site. Audi of Temecula Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 3.5-6 ESA / 150189 July 2015 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.5 Biological Resources TABLE 3.5-2 SPECIAL -STATUS PLANT SPECIES Species Listing Status (USFWS/CDFW/ CNPS) General Habitat Potential for Species Occurrence within the Project Area Brodiaea filifolia Thread -leaved brodiaea Brodiaea orcuttii Orcutt's brodiaea Brodiaea santarosae Santa Rosa Basalt brodiae California macrophylla Round -leaved filaree Calochortus catalinae Catalina mariposa lily Calochortus plummerae Plummer's mariposa lily Calochortus weedii var. intermedius Intermediate mariposa lily Camissoniopsis lewisii Lewis' evening -primrose Carex buxbaumii Buxbaum's sedge Caulanthus simulans Payson's jewel -flower FT/SE/1B. 1 --/--/1 B.2 4-416.2 44113.2 Found in cismontane woodland, coastal scrub, playas, valley and foothill grassland, and vernal pools. Usually associated with annual grassland and vernal pools often surrounded by shrubland habitats. Clay soils and at elevations of 25-860 m. Found in vernal pools, valley and foothill grassland, closed -cone coniferous forest, cismontane woodland, chaparral, and meadows. Mesic, clay habitats, sometimes serpentine; usually in vernal pools and small drainages at elevations of 30-1615 m. Can be found on basaltic soils within valley and foothill grassland habitats between 565 and 1,045 m. in elevation. Found in clay soils and associated with cismontane woodlands and valley -foothill grasslands. Found in a variety of habitats including chaparral, cismontane woodland, coastal scrub, and valley and foothill grassland from elevations between 15 and 700 m. Found in coastal scrub, chaparral, valley and foothill grasslands, cismontane woodlands and lower montane coniferous forests; occurs on rocky or sandy sites, usually of alluvial or granitic material; common after fire. Found in coastal scrub, chaparral, valley and foothill grassland on dry, rocky open slopes and rock outcrops at elevations of 120-850 m. --/--/3 Found in a variety of habitats including, coastal bluff scrub, cismontane woodland, coastal dunes, coastal scrub, and valley and foothill grasslands. It is restricted to sandy or clay soils between 0 and 300 m. in elevation. --/--/4.2 This perennial rhizomatous herb occurs in mesic environments in association with bogs and fens, meadows and seeps, marshes and swamps. Known to occur between 3 and 3,300 m. --/--/4.2 Found in chaparral and coastal scrub habitats on sandy and granitic soils between 90 and 2,200 m. in elevation. No potential. No suitable soils/habitat present on site. No potential. No suitable soils/habitat present on site. Low potential. Moderately suitable vegetation communities on site but lacks suitable substrate. No potential. No suitable soils/habitat present on site. No potential. No suitable soils/habitat present on site. No potential. No suitable soils/habitat present on site. No potential. No suitable habitat present on site. No potential. No suitable soils/habitat present on site. No potential. No suitable soils/habitat present on site. No potential. No suitable soils/habitat present on site. Audi of Temecula Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 3.5-7 ESA / 150189 July 2015 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.5 Biological Resources TABLE 3.5-2 SPECIAL -STATUS PLANT SPECIES Species Listing Status (USFWS/CDFW/ CNPS) General Habitat Potential for Species Occurrence within the Project Area Ceanothus cyaneus Lakeside ceanothus Ceanothus ophiochilus Vail Lake ceanothus Centromadia punegns ssp. laevis Smooth tarplant Chaenactis glabriuscula var. orcuttiana Orcutt's pincushion Chamaebatia australis southern mountain misery Chorizanthe leptotheca peninsular spineflower Chorizanthe parryi var. parryi Parry's spineflower Chorizanthe polygonoides var. longispina Long-spined spineflower Clinopodium chandleri San Miguel savory Convolvulus simulans small -flowered morning-glory Cryptantha wigginsii Wiggins' cryptantha Deinandra paniculata paniculate tarplant Dodecahema leptoceras Slender -horned spineflower FT/SE/1B. 1 44113.1 --/--14.2 Found in closed -cone coniferous forest and chaparral at elevations of 100-1515 m. Found in chaparral on grabbro seams on north -facing ridges on the eastern sides of mountains at elevations of 620-825 m. Associated with valley and foothill grasslands, chenopod scrub, meadows, playas and riparian woodlands. Found in coastal bluff scrub and coastal dunes, on sandy sites at elevations of 3-100 m. This perennial evergreen shrub is found only in chaparral habitats on gabbroic or metavolcanic soils at elevations of 300 — 1,020 m. Found in chaparral, coastal scrub, and lower montane coniferous forest habitats on alluvial fans and granitic soils. Between 300 and 1,900 m. in elevation. --/--/3.2 Found in coastal scrub and chaparral, sometimes on the interface of two vegetation types. Associated with dry, sandy soils, dry slopes and flats. --/--/1B.2 Found in chaparral, coastal scrub, meadows, valley and foothill grassland in gabbroic clay soils. Found in a variety of habitats including chaparral, cismontane woodland, coastal scrub, riparian woodland, and valley and foothill grasslands. Specific to rocky, gabbroic or metavolcanic soils between 120 — 1,075 m. in elevation. --/--/4.2 Found in openings in chaparral, coastal scrub, and valley and foothill grassland habitats on clay and serpentine seeps. Between 30 — 700 m. in elevation. --/--/4.2 FE/SE/1B. 1 This annual herb occurs in coastal scrub habitats on clay soils at 20 -275 m. in elevation. Found in coastal scrub, valley and foothill grasslands, and vernal pools. It is restricted to vernally mesic sites on sandy soils between 25-940 m. Sandy soils of alluvial origin in chaparral, cismontane woodland, alluvial fan coastal scrub maintained by infrequent flooding. No potential. No suitable habitat present on site. No potential. No suitable habitat present on site. No potential. No suitable habitat present on site. No potential. No suitable soils/habitat present on site. No potential. No suitable soils/habitat present on site. Not observed during surveys. No potential. No suitable soils/habitat present on site. No potential. No suitable soils/habitat present on site. No potential. No suitable soils/habitat present on site. No potential. No suitable soils/habitat present on site. No potential. No suitable soils/habitat present on site. No potential. No suitable soils/habitat present on site. No potential. No suitable soils/habitat present on site. No potential. No suitable soils/habitat present on site. Audi of Temecula Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 3.5-8 ESA / 150189 July 2015 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.5 Biological Resources TABLE 3.5-2 SPECIAL -STATUS PLANT SPECIES Species Listing Status (USFWS/CDFW/ CNPS) General Habitat Potential for Species Occurrence within the Project Area Dudleya multicaulis Many -stemmed dudleya Dudleya viscida Sticky dudleya Eryngium aristulatum var. parishii San Diego button -celery Geothallus tuberosus Campbell's liverwort Harpagonella palmeri Palmer's grapplinghook Hesperocyparis forbesii Tecate cypress Holocarpha virgata ssp. elongata graceful tarplant Hordeum intercedens vernal barley Horkelia cuneata ssp. puberula Mesa horkelia Horkelia truncata Ramona horkelia Juglans californica Southern California black walnut Juncus acutus ssp. leopoldii southwestern spiny rush FE/SE/1 B.1 --/--/4.2 --/--/4.2 --/--/3.2 44113.3 --/--14.2 --/--/4.2 Found in chaparral, coastal scrub and valley and foothill grasslands. Microhabitat includes clayey soils and grassy slopes. Found in coastal scrub, coastal bluff scrub and chaparral on north and south -facing cliffs and banks at elevations of 10-550 m. Found in vernal pools, coastal scrub, valley and foothill grassland. San Diego mesa hardpan and claypan vernal pools and southern interior basal flow vernal pools, usually surrounded by scrub at elevations of 15-620 m. Found in coastal scrub and vernal pools. Known from mesic soil at elevations of 10-600 m. Found in chaparral, coastal scrub, and valley and foothill grassland communities on clay soils and openings in grassy areas within shrubland. Found in closed -cone coniferous forests and chaparral habitats, on clay, gabbroic or metavolcanic soils. Between 80 — 1,500 m. Found in chaparral, cismontane woodland, coastal scrub, and valley and foothill grasslands. Elevation limits 60 — 1,100 m. Found in coastal dunes, coastal scrub, valley and foothill grasslands (specifically saline flats and depressions), and vernal pools. Found in chaparral, cismontane woodland and coastal scrub habitats; found in gravelly or sandy sites. Found in chaparral and cismontane woodland. Habitats in California include mixed chaparral, vernal streams, and disturbed areas near roads. Clay soils at elevations of 400- 1300 m. Found in chaparral, cismontane woodlands, coastal scrub, and riparian woodlands, on alluvial systems. Found in coastal dunes in mesic situations, meadows and seeps (alkaline), and marshes and coastal salt swamps, between 3 — 900 m. No potential. No suitable soils/habitat present on site. No potential. No suitable /habitat present on site. No potential. No suitable habitat present on site. No potential. No suitable soils/habitat present on site. No potential. No suitable soils/habitat present on site. No potential. No suitable soils/habitat present on site. No potential. No suitable soils/habitat present on site. No potential. No suitable soils/habitat present on site. No potential. No suitable soils/habitat present on site. No potential. No suitable soils/habitat present on site. No potential. No suitable soils/habitat present on site. No potential. No suitable soils/habitat present on site. Audi of Temecula Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 3.5-9 ESA / 150189 July 2015 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.5 Biological Resources TABLE 3.5-2 SPECIAL -STATUS PLANT SPECIES Species Listing Status (USFWS/CDFW/ CNPS) General Habitat Potential for Species Occurrence within the Project Area Juncus luciensis Santa Lucia dwarf rush Lasthenia glabrata ssp. coulteri Coulter's goldfields Lepechinia cardiophylla heart -leaved pitcher sage Lepidium virginicum var. robinsonii Robinson's pepper -grass Lillium humboldtii ssp. ocellatum ocellated Humboldt lily Lilium parryi Lemon lily Limnanthes alba ssp. parishii Parish's meadowfoam Microseris douglasii ssp. platycarpha small -flowered microseris Monardella hypoleuca ssp. intermedia intermediate monardella Monardella hypoleuca ssp. lenata Felt -leaved monardella Monardella macrantha ssp. hallii Hall's monardella Myosurus minimus ssp. apus Little mousetail Navarretia fossalis Spreading navarretia Found in chaparral, Great Basin scrub, lower montane coniferous forests, meadows and seeps, and vernal pools, between 300 — 2,040 m. Associated with coastal salt marshes, playas, valley foothills and grasslands, and vernal pools. Found in closed -cone coniferous forests, chaparral, and cismontane woodlands between 520 — 1,370 m. Found in scrublands- chaparral and coastal scrub; dry, sandy soils. --/--/4.2 Found in openings in chaparral, cismontane woodlands, coastal scrub, lower montane coniferous forests, and riparian woodlands between 30 — 1,800 m. 44113.2 Found in lower and upper montane coniferous forest, meadows and seeps, riparian forest. Found in meadows, seeps and vernal pools. Vernally moist areas and temporary seeps of highland meadows and plateaus; often bordering lakes and streams at elevations of 600-1760 m. --/SE/1B.2 --/--/4.2 Found on clay soils in cismontane woodlands, coastal scrub, valley and foothill grasslands, and vernal pools, between 15 — 1,070 m. --/--/1B.3 Found usually in the understory of chaparral, cismontane woodland, and sometimes in lower montane coniferous forests between 400 — 1,250 m. --/--/1B.2 Found in chaparral and cismontane woodlands. Occurs in understory in mixed chaparral, chamise chaparral, and southern oak woodland; sandy soil at elevations of 300-1575 m. --/--/1B.3 Found in broadleafed upland forests, chaparral, cismontane woodlands, lower montane coniferous forests, and valley and foothill grasslands, between 730 — 2,195 m. --/--/3.1 Found in vernal pools and alkaline soils at elevations of 20-640 m. FT/ --/1B.1 Associated with vernal pools, chenopod scrub, marshes, swamps and playas. No potential. No suitable soils/habitat present on site. No potential. No suitable habitat present on site. No potential. No suitable soils/habitat present on site. No potential. No suitable habitat present on site. No potential. No suitable soils/habitat present on site. No potential. No suitable habitat present on site. No potential. No suitable habitat present on site. No potential. No suitable habitat/soils present on site. No potential. No suitable habitat/soils present on site. No potential. No suitable soils/habitat present on site. No potential. No suitable soils/habitat present on site. No potential. No suitable soils/habitat present on site. No potential. No suitable habitat present on site. Audi of Temecula Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 3.5-10 ESA / 150189 July 2015 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.5 Biological Resources TABLE 3.5-2 SPECIAL -STATUS PLANT SPECIES Species Listing Status (USFWS/CDFW/ CNPS) General Habitat Potential for Species Occurrence within the Project Area Navarretia prostrata Prostrate navarretia Nolina cismontana Chaparral nolina Orcuttia californica California Orcutt grass Packera ganderi Gander's ragwort Pickeringia montana var. tomentosa woolly chaparral -pea Piperia cooperi chaparral rein orchid Polygala cornuta var. fishiae Fish's milkwort Pseudognaphalium leucocephalum white rabbit -tobacco Quercus engelmannii Engelmann oak Romneya coulteri Coulter's matilija poppy Scutellaria bolanderi ssp. austromontana Southern skullcap Sibaropsis hammittii Hammitt's clay -cress Sphaerocarpos drewei Bottle liverwort FE/SE/1 B.1 --/Rare/16.2 44113.2 --/--14.2 --/--14.3 --/--126.2 --/--/4.2 --/--14.2 --/--/1B.1 Associated with coastal scrub, valley and foothill grassland, vernal pools. Found in chaparral and coastal scrub primarily on sandstone and shale substrates, also known from gabbro, at elevations of 140-1275 m. Associated with vernal pools at elevations of 15-660 m. Found in chaparral, recently burned sites and gabbro outcrops at elevations of 400-1200 m. Found in chaparral, cismontane woodland, coastal scrub, rip woodland, and valley and foothill grassland. Prefers rocky, gabbroic or meravolcanic substrate at elevations of 120-1005 m. Found in chaparral, cismontane woodlands, and valley and foothill grasslands between 15 — 1,585 m. Found in chaparral, cismontane woodlands, and riparian woodlands between 100 — 1,000 m. Found on sandy, gravelly soils in chaparral, cismontane woodland, coastal scrub, and riparian woodland habitats. Found in chaparral, cismontane woodland, riparian woodland, and valley and foothill grassland habitats between 50 — 1,300 m. Found often in burned areas in chaparral and coastal scrub habitats between 20 — 1,200 m. Found in chaparral, cismontane woodland and lower montane coniferous forest. In gravelly soils on streambanks or in mesic sites in oak and pine woodlands at elevations of 425-2000 m. Found in valley and foothill grassland, and chaparral. Mesic microsites in open areas on clay soils in stipa grassland. Often surrounded by adenostoma chaparral at elevations of 730-1065 m. Found in chaparral and coastal scrub. Much of suitable habitat lost to urbanization. Found on soil at elevations of 90-600 m. No potential. No suitable soils/habitat present on site. No potential. No suitable habitat present on site. No potential. No suitable habitat present on site. No potential. No suitable habitat present on site. No potential. No suitable soils/habitat present on site. No potential. No suitable habitat present on site. No potential. No suitable habitat present on site. No potential. No suitable habitat/soils present on site. No potential. No suitable habitat present on site. No potential. No suitable habitat present on site. No potential. No suitable soils/habitat present on site. No potential. No suitable soils/habitat present on site. No potential. No suitable habitat present on site. Audi of Temecula Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 3.5-11 ESA / 150189 July 2015 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.5 Biological Resources TABLE 3.5-2 SPECIAL -STATUS PLANT SPECIES Species Listing Status (USFWS/CDFW/ CNPS) General Habitat Potential for Species Occurrence within the Project Area Tretracoccus dioicus--/--/1B.2 Found in chaparral and coastal scrub Parry's tetracoccus in stony, decomposed gabbro soil. Viguiera laciniata San Diego County viguiera Mosses/Lichens Schizymenium shevockii Shevock's copper -moss Selaginella cinerascens ashy spike -moss Texosporium sacti-jacobi Woven -spored lichen --/--/4.2 Found in chaparral and coastal scrub habitats between 60 — 750 m. 44113.2 Found in cismontane woodland. Grows on metamorphic rocks, mesic sites and on rocks along road at elevations of 750-1400 m. --/--/1B.3 Found in chaparral and coastal scrub habitats between 20 — 640 m. Tortula californica--/--/1B.2 California screw -moss Found in chaparral on open sites. In California, associated with Adenostoma fasciculatum, Eriogonum spp. and Selaginella spp. At pinnacles and on small mammal pellets at elevations of 290-660 m. Found in chenopod scrub, valley and foothill grassland. Grows on sandy soils at elevations of 10-1460 m. No potential. No suitable soils/habitat present on site. No potential. No suitable habitat present on site. No Potential. No suitable habitat present on site. No potential. No suitable habitat present on site. No Potential. No suitable habitat present on site. No Potential. No suitable habitat present on site. Status Codes: Federal (USFWS) FE = federally endangered FT = federally threatened FC = federal candidate FPS= fully protected species. State (CDFW) SSC = state species of special concern SE = state endangered ST = state threatened CR = Listed as Rare by the State of California (plants only) FPS = California Fully Protected Species CNDDB = Tracked by the CNDDB, but with no other special regulatory or management status CNPS 1A = Plants presumed extinct in California 1B = Plants rare, threatened, or endangered in the state and elsewhere 2 = Plants rare, Threatened, or Endangered in California but more common elsewhere 3 = Plants about which more information is needed 4 = Plants of limited distribution An extension reflecting the level of threat to each species is appended to each rarity category as follows: .1 — Seriously endangered in California .2 — Fairly endangered in California .3 — Not very endangered in California SOURCE: CNDDB, 2015. Audi of Temecula Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 3.5-12 ESA / 150189 July 2015 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.5 Biological Resources Special -Status Wildlife A total of 24 special -status wildlife species were recorded in the CNDDB and evaluated for potential occurrence on the proposed project site based on the type and quality of habitat present at the project site. The majority of species evaluated for the project area are former federal species of concern and California species of special concern, although a few are federal and state listed species. A list of special -status wildlife evaluated for the project site, as well as their specific habitat requirements and potential for occurrence on the project site are included in Table 3.5-3 below. Wildlife species evaluated for this study can be grouped by habitat type or ecological niche including coastal sage scrub, grassland, aquatic, and riparian habitats, or as ground dwelling or wide-ranging resident or migratory bird species. TABLE 3.5-3 SPECIAL -STATUS WILDLIFE SPECIES Species Listing Status (USFWSICDFW) General Habitat Potential for Species Occurrence within the Project Area Crustaceans Brachinecta lynchi FT/ -- Vernal pool fairy shrimp Endemic to the grasslands of the central valley, central coast mountains, and south coast mountains, in astatic rain -filled pools. Inhabit small, clear -water sandstone - depression pools and grassed swale, earth slump, or basalt -flow depression pools. No Potential. No suitable habitat present on site. Brachinecta sandiegonensis FE/-- Endemic to San Diego and Orange No Potential. No suitable San Diego fairy shrimp County mesas. Found in vernal pools. habitat present on site. Linderiella santarosae Santa Rosa Plateau fairy shrimp Streptocephalus woottoni Riverside fairy shrimp Fish Gila orcuttii Arroyo chub FE/ -- Found only in the vernal pools on Santa Rosa Plateau in Riverside County. Found in southern basalt -flow vernal pools. Endemic to western Riverside, Orange and San Diego Counties in areas of tectonic swales/earth slump basins in grassland and coastal sage scrub. Inhabit seasonally astatic pools filled by winter/spring rains. Hatch in warm water later in the season. No Potential. No suitable habitat present on site. No Potential. No suitable habitat present on site. --/SSC Amphibians Anaxyrus californicus FE/SSC Arroyo toad Prefers slow water stream sections with muddy or sandy bottoms. Feeds on aquatic vegetation, insects, and associated invertebrates. Rivers with sandy banks, willow, cottonwoods and sycamores, loose gravelly areas. No Potential. No suitable habitat present on site. No Potential. No suitable habitat present on site. Audi of Temecula Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 3.5-13 ESA / 150189 July 2015 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.5 Biological Resources TABLE 3.5-3 SPECIAL -STATUS WILDLIFE SPECIES Species Listing Status (USFWS/CDFW) General Habitat Potential for Species Occurrence within the Project Area Rana aurora draytonii California red -legged frog Spea hammondii Western spadefoot Taricha torosa torosa Coast range newt Reptiles Emys marmorata Southwestern pond turtle Aspidoscelis hyperythra Orange -throated whiptail Aspidoscelis tigris stejnegeri Coastal western whiptail Charina trivirgata Rosy boa Coleonyx variegates abbotti San Diego banded gecko Crotalus ruber red -diamond rattlesnake FT/SSC --/SSC --/SSC --/SSC --/SSC --/SSC Lowlands and foothills in or near permanent sources of deep water with dense, shrubby or emergent riparian vegetation. Requires 11-20 weeks of permanent water for larval development and must have access to estivation habitat. Prefers open areas with sandy or gravelly soils, in a variety of habitats including mixed woodlands, grasslands, chaparral, sandy washes, lowlands, river floodplains, alluvial fans, playas, alkali flats, foothills, and mountains. Rainpools or shallow temporary pools, which do not contain bullfrogs, fish, or crayfish, are necessary for breeding. Found in coastal drainages from Mendocino to San Diego county; lives in terrestrial habitats and will migrate over lkm to breed in ponds, reservoirs and slow moving streams. Found in ponds and small lakes with abundant vegetation. Also seen in marshes, slow-moving streams, reservoirs, and occasionally in brackish water. Prefers permanent freshwater ponds and slow streams edged with sandy soils for laying eggs. Inhabits low -elevation coastal scrub, chaparral and valley -foothill hardwood habitats, prefers washes and other sandy areas with patches of brush and rocks. Found in deserts and semi -arid areas with sparse vegetation; also found in woodland and riparian areas. Found in desert and chaparral, from the coast to the Mojave and Colorado deserts, prefers moderate to dense vegetation and rocky cover. Found in granite or rocky outcrops in coastal scrub and chaparral habitats. Found in chaparral, woodland, grassland and desert areas. Occurs in rocky, dense vegetation, requires rodent burrows, cracks in rocks or surface cover objects. No Potential. No suitable habitat present on site. No Potential. No suitable habitat present on site. No Potential. No suitable habitat present on site. No Potential. No suitable habitat present on site. No Potential. No suitable habitat present on site. No Potential. No suitable habitat present on site. No Potential. No suitable habitat present on site. No Potential. No suitable habitat present on site. No Potential. No suitable habitat present on site. Audi of Temecula Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 3.5-14 ESA / 150189 July 2015 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.5 Biological Resources TABLE 3.5-3 SPECIAL -STATUS WILDLIFE SPECIES Species Listing Status (USFWS/CDFW) General Habitat Potential for Species Occurrence within the Project Area Diadophis punctatus modestus San Bernardino ringneck snake Diadaphis punctatus similis San Diego ringneck snake Phrynosoma blainvillei Coast horned lizard Salvadora hexalepis virgultea Coast patch -nosed snake Thamnophis hammondii Two -striped garter snake Birds Accipiter cooperi Cooper's hawk Aimophila ruficeps canescens Southern California rufous - crowned sparrow Aquila chiysaetos Golden eagle Artemisiospiza belli belli Bell's sage sparrow --/SSC --/SSC --/SSC --/SSC --/SSC --/SSC --/WL Found in open, relatively rocky areas, often in moist microhabitats near intermittent streams. Prefers movement through surface litter or herbaceous vegetation, avoids open/barren areas. Most common in open, relatively rocky areas, often in somewhat moist microhabitats near intermittent streams. Avoids moving through open or barren areas by restricting movements to areas of surface litter or herbaceous vegetation. Found in chaparral, coastal sage scrub grassland, and wash habitats. Sandy, rocky or gravelly soils; friable soils. Found in bush or shrubby vegetation in coastal southern California. Requires small mammal burrows for refuge and overwintering sites. Highly aquatic, found in or near permanent or freshwater, often along streams with rocky beds and riparian growth. Ideal habitat is characterized as having dense emergent vegetation for escape from predation, deep and shallow pools of water, open areas along the margins to allow for basking, and upland habitat with access to structures suitable for hibernation and escape from flooding. Found in riparian areas, and open woodlands, chiefly of open, interrupted or marginal type. Nests in riparian growths of deciduous trees and live oak woodlands. Found in coastal sage scrub and sparse, mixed chaparral, frequents relatively steep, often rocky hillsides with grass and forb patches. Nests in canyons and large trees in open habitats. Nests in chaparral dominated by fairly dense stands of chamise and found in coastal sage scrub in south of range. Nest located on the ground beneath a shrub or in a shrub 6-18 inches above ground. Territories about 50 yards apart. No Potential. No suitable habitat present on site. No Potential. No suitable habitat present on site. No Potential. No suitable habitat present on site. No Potential. No suitable habitat present on site. No Potential. No suitable habitat present on site. No Potential. No suitable habitat present on site. No Potential. No suitable habitat present on site. No Potential. No suitable habitat present on site. No Potential. No suitable habitat present on site. Audi of Temecula Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 3.5-15 ESA / 150189 July 2015 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.5 Biological Resources TABLE 3.5-3 SPECIAL -STATUS WILDLIFE SPECIES Species Listing Status (USFWS/CDFW) General Habitat Potential for Species Occurrence within the Project Area Athene cunicularia Burrowing owl Buteo regalis Ferruginous hawk Buteo swainsoni Swainson's hawk Campylorhyncus brunneicapillus sandiegensis Coastal cactus wren Charadrius alexandrinus nivosus Western snowy plover Circus cyaneus Northern harrier Coccyzus americanus occidentalis Western yellow -billed cuckoo Elanus leucurus White-tailed kite Eremophila alpestris actia California horned lark --/SSC --/SSC --/ST --/SSC FT/SSC --/SSC FC/SE --/FPS --/SSC Found in a variety of habitats that contain small mammal burrows, including open, dry annual or perennial grasslands, agricultural, rangelands, deserts and scrublands characterized by low- growing vegetation. Found in open grasslands, sagebrush flats, desert scrub, low foothills and fringes of pinyon -juniper habitats. Also documented in dry and irrigated croplands. Breeds in grasslands with scattered trees, juniper -sage flats, riparian areas, savannahs and agricultural or ranch lands with groves or lines of trees. Found in southern California coastal sage scrub. Require tall opuntia cactus for nesting and roosting. Will nest beside or near tidal waters, and includes all nesting colonies on the mainland coast, peninsulas, offshore islands, adjacent bays and estuaries from southern Washington to southern Baja California, Mexico Historic records suggest that nesting western snowy plovers were once more widely distributed in coastal California. Nests on ground in shrubby vegetation, usually at marsh edge, nest built of a large mound of sticks in wet areas. Forages in grassland, from salt grass in desert sink to mountain marshes. Prefer open woodlands with clearings and a dense shrub layer. They are often found in riparian forest and woodlands near streams, rivers or lakes. Low riparian vegetation near river bottoms. Nests near wet meadows and open grasslands, dense oak, willow or other tree stands. Found in short -grass prairie, "bald" hills, mountain meadows, open coastal plains, fallow grain fields and alkali flats. Moderate Potential. Marginal habitat is present on site but the presence of small mammal burrows increases the suitability for burrowing owl to occur. Focused surveys resulted in negative findings. No potential. No suitable habitat present on site. No potential. No suitable habitat present on site. No Potential. No suitable habitat present on site. No Potential. No suitable habitat present on site. No Potential. No suitable habitat present on site. No Potential. No suitable habitat present on site. No Potential. No suitable habitat present on site. No Potential. No suitable habitat present on site. Audi of Temecula Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 3.5-16 ESA / 150189 July 2015 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.5 Biological Resources TABLE 3.5-3 SPECIAL -STATUS WILDLIFE SPECIES Species Listing Status (USFWS/CDFW) General Habitat Potential for Species Occurrence within the Project Area Haliaeetus leucocephalus Bald eagle Nycticorax nycticorax Black -crowned night heron Plegadis chihi White-faced ibis Polioptila californica californica Coastal California gnatcatcher Vireo bellii pusillus Least Bell's vireo Mammals Antrozous pallidus Pallid bat Chaetodipus californicus femoralis Dulzura pocket mouse Chaetodipus fallax fallax Northwestern San Diego pocket mouse Dipodomys stephensi Stephens' kangaroo rat Eumops perotis californicus Western mastiff bat Lasiurus xanthinus Western yellow bat --/SE --/SSC FT/SSC FE/SE --/SSC --/SSC --/SSC FE/ST --/SSC Found along open shore, lake margins, and rivers for both nesting and wintering, usually nests within 1 mile of water. Nests in large, old- growth, or dominant live tree w/open branches, especially ponderosa pine. Colonial nester, usually in trees and occasionally in tule patches. Rookery sites located adjacent to foraging areas: lake margins, mud -bordered bays, marshy spots. Frequents marshes, swamps, ponds and rivers. Prefers dense tule thickets for nesting, interspersed with areas of shallow water for foraging. Coastal sage scrub habitat in arid washes, on mesas or on slopes of coastal hills. Permanent resident of coastal sage scrub below 2500 ft. Low riparian vegetation near vicinity of water or dry river bottoms, below 2000 ft. Nests are placed along margins of bushes or on twigs projecting into pathways, usually willow, baccharis or mesquite. Found in deserts, grasslands, woodlands, and forests. Most common in open, dry habitats with rocky areas for roosting. Found in a variety of habitats including coastal sage scrub, chaparral and grassland in San Diego County. Is attracted to grass - chaparral edges. Found in coastal scrub, chaparral, grasslands, sagebrush, etc. Primarily found in annual and perennial grasslands, also occurs in coastal scrub and sagebrush with sparse canopy cover. Found in open, semi -arid to arid habitats including conifer and deciduous woodlands, coastal scrub, grasslands, chaparral, etc. Roosts in crevices in cliff faces, high buildings, trees and tunnels. Found in valley foothill riparian, desert riparian, desert wash and palm oasis habitats. Roosts in trees, particularly palms, forages over water and among trees. No Potential. No suitable habitat present on site. No Potential. No suitable habitat present on site. No Potential. No suitable habitat present on site. No Potential. No suitable habitat present on site. No Potential. No suitable habitat present on site. No Potential. No suitable habitat present on site. No Potential. No suitable habitat present on site. No Potential. No suitable habitat present on site. No potential. No suitable habitat present on site. No Potential. No suitable habitat present on site. No Potential. No suitable habitat present on site. Audi of Temecula Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 3.5-17 ESA / 150189 July 2015 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.5 Biological Resources TABLE 3.5-3 SPECIAL -STATUS WILDLIFE SPECIES Species Listing Status (USFWS/CDFW) General Habitat Potential for Species Occurrence within the Project Area Lepus californicus bennettii San Diego black -tailed jackrabbit Myotis yamanensis Yuma myotis Neotoma lepida intermedia San Diego desert woodrat Nyctinomops femorosaccus Pocketed free -tailed bat Onchomys torridus ramona Southern grasshopper mouse Perognathus longimembris brevinasus Los Angeles pocket mouse Perognathus longimembris internationalis Jacumba pocket mouse Arthropods Cicindela senilis frosti Tiger beetle Euphydryas editha quino Quino checkerspot butterfly Socalchemmis icenoglei lcenogle's socalchemmis spider --/SSC --/SSC --/SSC --/SSC --/SSC --/SSC FE/ -- Associated with open grassland and brushland, and coastal sage scrub habitats in southern California. This species is typically associated with a nearby water source. Maternity colonies are found in buildings, under bridges, and in mines and caves. Chaparral, coastal sage scrub, and desert habitats. Abundant in rock outcrops, rocky cliffs, and slopes. Found in a variety of arid areas in S. California; pine -juniper woodlands, desert scrub, palm oasis, desert wash, desert riparian, etc. Found in desert areas, especially scrub habitats with friable soils for digging, prefers low to moderate shrub cover. Found in lower elevation grasslands and coastal sage scrub communities. Found in desert riparian, desert scrub and desert wash habitats. Also in coastal scrub and sagebrush. Rarely found on rocky sites. Found along mudflats and beaches in southern California. Found in sunny openings within chaparral and coastal sage scrub. Requires high densities of food plants which include: Plantago erecta, P. insularis, and Orthocarpus purpurascens. Known only from the type locality in the vicinity of Winchester, in Riverside County. Low. Moderately suitable habitat occurs on site and the common black -tailed jackrabbit was observed on site. However, the site is located inland, outside of the coastal range of this species. No Potential. No suitable habitat present on site. No Potential. No suitable habitat present on site. No Potential. No suitable habitat present on site. No Potential. No suitable habitat present on site. No Potential. No suitable habitat present on site. No Potential. No suitable habitat present on site. No Potential. No suitable habitat present on site. No Potential. No suitable habitat present on site. No potential. No suitable habitat present on site. Status Codes: Federal (USFWS) FE = federally endangered FT = federally threatened FC = federal candidate FPS= fully protected species. SOURCE: CDFW, 2015 State (CDFW) SSC = state species of special concern SE = state endangered ST = state threatened CR = Listed as Rare by the State of California (plants only) FPS = California Fully Protected Species CNDDB = Tracked by the CNDDB, but with no other special regulatory or management status Audi of Temecula Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 3.5-18 ESA / 150189 July 2015 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.5 Biological Resources Habitat Conservation Planning The project site is located within the Southwest Area Plan (SWAP) of the MSHCP, and is not located within any Subunits, Criteria Cells or Cell Groups (Figure 3.5-2). The western portion of the study area, outside of the project site boundaries, occurs partially within Criteria Cell 6525 (County of Riverside Transportation and Land Management Agency, 2015). The Criteria Area represents the area within which MSHCP Criteria are applied to achieve land contributions toward the assembly of the overall MSHCP Conservation Area. The MSHCP Criteria for each Criteria Cell establish conservation goals. For example, the goal for Criteria Cell 6525 is to contribute to the assembly of Proposed Constrained Linkage 15 and will focus on conserving Riversidean alluvial fan sage scrub (RAFSS) habitat along Warm Springs Creek and adjacent grassland habitat. Areas conserved within this Cell will be connected to RAFSS habitat proposed for conservation in Criteria Cell 6409 to the north. Conservation within this Criteria Cell 6525 will be approximately 5 percent of the Cell focusing in the northeastern portion of the Cell (Western Riverside County Regional Conservation Authority, 2003b). 3.5.2 Regulatory Framework The following provides a general description of the applicable regulatory requirements for the project, including federal, state, and local policies and guidelines. Migratory Bird Treaty Act The Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) of 1918, as amended, is designed to protect birds that migrate and cross state lines to provide management of migratory birds at a federal level. The MBTA prohibits the kill or transport of native migratory birds, or any part, nest, or egg of such bird unless allowed by another regulation adopted in accordance with the MBTA. Federal Endangered Species Act The Federal Endangered Species Act (FESA) was established to protect wildlife species and habitats from extinction and diminishment. The FESA is administered by the USFWS and applies to federally listed species and habitat occupied by the federally listed species. FESA Section 9 forbids acts that directly or indirectly harm listed species. Specifically, Section 9 identified prohibited acts related to endangered species, and all persons, including federal, state, and local governments, from taking listed fish and wildlife species, except as specified under the provisions for exceptions (16 U.S.C. 1539). The term `take' is defined as to harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect, or to attempt to engage in any such activity (16 U.S.C. 1532[18]). Audi of Temecula Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 3.5-19 ESA / 150189 July 2015 s+E McElroy Private Al rflad a d 7 c z r Murrieta Walmart 6422 6416 ▪ Murrieta O plaza HN .0 5977, 5974 385 m. 6185 6075 r 6182 6299 6297 6407 6530 6528 • 6525 6658 6779 6780 6656 T E M 6781 STUDY AREA a MixiLake Lakeke Pad rk Ca itnunity Park 1 6887 6888 7005 7075 6890 7008 • rcula0 7076 7077 44. 6891% 707 Bunter lid The GdI Club al Rancho Calilorr>Ia Chaparral High 0 Legend Q Project Site L1 Study Area (500 -ft Q MSHCP Criteria Cells Existing Cores, Habitat Blocks and Linkages Constrained Linkage Core Linkage MSHCP Cell Groups D' J' K' L' 2400 11 V Feet ® W SOURCE: USGS; DFG Audi Dealership . D150189 Figure 3.5-2 MSHCP Criteria Cells 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.5 Biological Resources Clean Water Act In 1948, Congress passed the Federal Water Pollution Control Act. The Act was later amended in 1972 and became known as the Clean Water Act (CWA). The CWA establishes the basic structure for regulating discharges of pollutants into the waters of the United States. The act specifies a variety of regulatory and non -regulatory tools to sharply reduce direct pollutant discharges into waterways, finance municipal wastewater treatment facilities, and manage polluted runoff. • Sections 303 and 304 provide for water quality standards, criteria, and guidelines. • Section 401 requires every applicant for a federal permit or license for any activity that may result in a discharge to a water body to obtain a water quality certification that the proposed activity will comply with applicable water quality standards. Under Section 401 of the CWA, the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) must certify that actions receiving authorization under Section 404 of the CWA also meet state water quality standards. • Section 402 regulates point- and nonpoint-source discharges to surface waters through the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) program. In California, the SWRCB oversees the NPDES program, which is administered by the Regional Water Quality Control Boards. The NPDES program provides for both general permits (those that cover a number of similar or related activities) and individual permits. Anti - backsliding requirements provided for under CWA Sections 402(o)(2) and 303(d)(4) prohibit slackening of discharge requirements and regulations under revised NPDES permits. With isolated/limited exceptions, these regulations require effluent limitations in a reissued permit to be at least as stringent as those contained in the previous permit. • Section 404 of the Clean Water Act establishes a program to regulate the discharge of dredged and fill material into waters of the U.S., including some wetlands. Activities in waters of the U.S. that are regulated under this program include fills for development, water resource projects (e.g., dams and levees), infrastructure development (e.g., highways and airports), and conversion of wetlands to uplands for farming and forestry. This program is administered by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. California Endangered Species Act The California Endangered Species Act (CESA) is similar in many ways to the FESA. CESA is administered by the CDFW. CESA provides a process for CDFW to list species as threatened or endangered in response to a citizen petition or by its own initiative (Fish and Game Code § 2070 et seq.). Section 2080 of CESA prohibits the take of species listed as threatened or endangered pursuant to the Act (Fish and Game Code § 2080). Section 2081 allows CDFW to authorize take prohibited under Section 2080 provided that: (1) the taking is incidental to an otherwise lawful activity; (2) the taking will be minimized and fully mitigated; (3) the applicant ensures adequate funding for minimization and mitigation; and (4) the authorization will not jeopardize the continued existence of listed species (Fish and Game Code § 2081). Audi of Temecula Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 3.5-21 ESA / 150189 July 2015 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.5 Biological Resources California Department of Fish and Game Code The California Fish and Game (CFG) Code regulates the taking of birds, mammals, fish, amphibians, and reptiles, as well as natural resources such as wetlands and waters of the State. It includes the CESA (Sections 2050-2115) and Streambed Alteration Agreement regulations (Sections 1600-1616), as well as provisions for legal hunting and fishing, and tribal agreements involving the take of native wildlife. Any project impact to State -listed species within or adjacent to a project site would require a permit under CESA. Also, if a project proposes to alter a State - defined wetland, then a Streambed Alteration Agreement would be required from CDFW. California Native Plant Protection Act The California Native Plant Protection Act (CNPPA) of 1977 (Fish and Game Code Sections 1900-1913) is intended to preserve, protect, and enhance endangered or rare native plants in California and gives the CDFW authority to designate State endangered, threatened, and rare plants and provides specific protection measures for identified populations. The Act also directs the California Fish and Game Commission to adopt regulations governing taking, possessing, propagation, and sale of any endangered or rare native plant. Vascular plants listed as rare or endangered by the California Native Plant Society but have no designated status or protection under federal or State endangered species legislation are defined as follows (CNPS, 2015): • Rank 1A: Plants Believed Extinct. • Rank 1B: Plants Rare, Threatened, or Endangered in California and elsewhere. • Rank 2: Plants Rare, Threatened, or Endangered in California, but more numerous elsewhere. • Rank 3: Plants About Which More Information is Needed - A Review List. • Rank 4: Plants of Limited Distribution - A Watch List. Natural Community Conservation Planning Program The Natural Community Conservation Program (NCCP) Act, Sections 2800-2840 of the State Fish and Game Code, authorized the preparation of NCCPs to protect natural communities and species while allowing a reasonable amount of economic development. The MSHCP, adopted by the County of Riverside on June 17, 2003, serves as a Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP) pursuant to the NCCP Act and pursuant to Section 10 (a)(1)(B) of the FESA. Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan The project site lies within the Western Riverside County MSHCP. The MSHCP involves the assembly and management of a 500,000 -acre Conservation Area for the conservation of natural habitats and their constituent wildlife populations. The MSHCP was developed to serve as a HCP pursuant to the Natural Communities Conservation Planning (NCCP) Act and Section 10(a)(1)(B) of the FESA. It encompasses 1.26 million acres and includes all unincorporated Riverside County land west of the crest of the San Jacinto Mountains to the Orange County line as well as Audi of Temecula Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 3.5-22 ESA / 150189 July 2015 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.5 Biological Resources jurisdictional areas of the Cities of Temecula, Murrieta, Lake Elsinore, Canyon Lake, Norco, Corona, Riverside, Moreno Valley, Banning, Beaumont, Calimesa, Perris, Hemet, and San Jacinto. The overarching purpose of the plan is to balance development and economic interests with species and lands conservation goals. The MSHCP permits development of lands and take of species "in exchange for the assembly and management of a coordinated MSHCP Conservation Area" (Western Riverside County Regional Conservation Authority, 2003a). The approval of the MSHCP and the Implementing Agreement (IA) by the USFWS and the CDFW allows signatories of the IA to issue "take" authorizations for the 146 species covered by the MSHCP (termed "covered species"), including state and federally listed species, as well as other identified sensitive species. The "take" authorization includes impacts to the habitats of the covered species. The MSHCP requires new development to pay fees to support the financing for the MSHCP. The fees are intended to meet mitigation requirements for CEQA, FESA and CESA. The MSHCP is further broken down into core areas and linkages, which are the focus of reserve and preservation actions. The project is not located within any of the identified core or special linkage areas. The project site is within a Burrowing Owl Habitat Assessment Area. The project site is located within the community of Harveston which holds a Development Agreement with the City of Temecula. Per the Development Agreement, the project is not subject to the requirements of the MSHCP nor the associated mitigation fee; but rather, requires compliance with the environmental regulations in affect at the time of the Agreement (pre- MSHCP). Stephens' Kangaroo Rat Habitat Conservation Plan The proposed project is located within the boundary of the adopted Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP) for the endangered Stephens' kangaroo rat (SKR) implemented by the Riverside County Habitat Conservation Agency (RCHCA). The SKR HCP mitigates impacts from development on the SKR by establishing a network of preserves and a system for managing and monitoring them. Through implementation of the SKR HCP, more than $45 million has been dedicated to the establishment and management of a system of regional preserves designed to ensure the persistence of SKR in the plan area. This effort has resulted in the permanent conservation of approximately 50 percent of the SKR occupied habitat remaining in the HCP area. Through direct funding and in-kind contributions, SKR habitat in the regional reserve system is managed to ensure its continuing ability to support the species. The City is a member agency of the RCHCA and does require a SKR per acre fee for new development after August 27, 1996, per Section 8.24 of the City's Municipal Code. The proposed project is located within the SKR HCP area. The required SKR mitigation fee for the project site and surrounding area was paid in 2003 at the time the area was mass graded. Therefore, this required fee has been satisfied for the project. City of Temecula General Plan The City of Temecula has a comprehensive General Plan that addresses multiple aspects of City planning and development, as well as the preservation of natural resources such as open space, sensitive biological resources, and water. The following are biological resource goals and policies Audi of Temecula Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 3.5-23 ESA / 150189 July 2015 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.5 Biological Resources from the City's General Plan Open Space/Conservation Element that are applicable to this project: Goal 3: Conservation of important biological habitats and protection of plant and animal species of concern, wildlife movement corridors, and general biodiversity. Policy 3.1: Require development proposals to identify significant biological resources and provide mitigation, including the use of adequate buffering and sensitive site planning techniques, selective preservation, provision of replacement habitats, and other appropriate measures. Policy 3.3: Coordinate with the County of Riverside and other relevant agencies in the adoption and implementation of the Riverside County Multi -Species Habitat Conservation Plan. Policy 3.7: Maintain and enhance the resources of Temecula Creek, Pechanga Creek, Murrieta Creek, Santa Gertrudis Creek, Santa Margarita River, and other waterways to ensure the long-term viability of habitat, wildlife and wildlife movement corridors. Implementation Program OS -9: Require development proposals in all areas inside or adjacent to sensitive habitat areas, designated critical habitat, and Western Riverside County MSHCP conservation areas and core linkages as defined by the USFWS, the CDFW, and the MSHCP, to provide detailed biological assessments, assess potential impacts, and mitigate significant impacts to a level below significance. Implementation Program OS -11: Require appropriate resource protection measures to be prepared in conjunction with specific plans and subsequent development proposals. Such requirements may include the preparation of a Vegetation Management Program that addresses landscape maintenance, fuel modification zones, management of passive open space areas, corridor connections for wildlife movement, conservation of water sources, and rehabilitation of biological resources displaced in the planning process, and use of project design, engineering, and construction practices that minimize impacts to sensitive species, MSHCP conservation areas, and designated critical habitats. Implementation Program OS -14: Continue to participate in multi -species habitat conservation planning, watershed management planning, and water resource management planning efforts. Implementation Program OS -32: Require project developers to retain coast live oak woodland, including oaks within new development areas, and require surveys of all coast live oak trees prior to construction to determine if any raptor nests are present and active. If active nests are observed, postponement of construction activities until the end of the fledgling season is required. The City Audi of Temecula Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 3.5-24 ESA / 150189 July 2015 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.5 Biological Resources shall apply the following guidelines from the Riverside County Oak Tree Management Guidelines (see General Plan for details). Implementation Program OS -33: Require project proponents to minimize impacts to Coastal sage scrub, Riversidean alluvial fan sage scrub, chaparral, and non-native grassland consistent with the MSHCP. Such mitigation measures will include, but are not limited to: on-site preservation, off-site acquisition of mitigation land located within the City and inside MSHCP conservation areas, and habitat restoration of degraded sage scrub vegetation that increases habitat quality and the biological function of the site. Implementation Program OS -34: Require project proponents to minimize impacts to Coastal sage scrub, Riversidean alluvial fan sage scrub, chaparral, and non-native grassland consistent with the MSHCP. Such mitigation measures will include, but are not limited to: on-site preservation, off-site acquisition of mitigation land located within the City and inside MSHCP conservation areas, and habitat restoration of degraded sage scrub vegetation that increases habitat quality and the biological function of the site. Implementation Program OS -35: Review development -associated impacts to MSHCP conservation areas for consistency with the MSHCP reserve and buffer development requirements, and require compliance with the following MSHCP Urban/Wildlife Interface Guidelines (see General Plan for details). Implementation Program OS -36: Require work corridor surveys to identify active nests for projects with the potential to adversely impact nesting migratory birds, as defined under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA). Development projects shall avoid active nests and, if necessary, require seasonal timing constraints for riparian habitat clearing and an MBTA Special Purpose permit prior to the removal of active nests of MBTA covered species. Goal 5: Conservation of open space areas for a balance of recreation, scenic enjoyment, and protection of natural resources and features. Policy 5.3: Encourage the use of clustered development and other site planning techniques to maximize the preservation of permanent open space. Implementation Program OS -24: Provide for a planned residential development process in the Development Code to allow clustering of development and the dedication of open space for conserving natural resources, views, and providing additional recreational opportunities. Audi of Temecula Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 3.5-25 ESA / 150189 July 2015 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.5 Biological Resources City of Temecula Municipal Code City of Temecula Heritage Tree Ordinance (Ord. 09-05 § 1) The purpose of this Ordinance is to protect and preserve Oak, California Bay Laurel, California Black Walnut, California Holly, and California Sycamore trees as well as other trees of special significance to the community; and to justify special efforts to preserve and protect them from development activity. Conservation Mitigation Fees Temecula's Municipal Code Chapter 15 regulates the implementation of the MSHCP within the City Limits through a Conservation Mitigation Fee. Future development within the City will be required to pay these MSHCP fees or those adopted at the time of development. The project site is exempt from the MSHCP mitigation fee per the Development Agreement for the Harveston community, Section 4.2.1. 3.5.3 Impact Assessment Methodology Future development within the project area would result in a potential direct, indirect, temporary, and permanent impact to biological resources. A direct impact would be a modification, disturbance, or destruction of biological resources that would result from project -related activities, such as the removal of a wetland. An indirect impact would be an impact to protected plant and wildlife species or habitat from project -related development that has the potential to indirectly affect the species or habitat, such as the introduction of invasive plant species or increased noise levels. Temporary impacts would be impacts that are considered to be reversible and temporary in nature, such as noise generated during construction. Permanent impacts are impacts that are considered to be irreversible. Thresholds of Significance Based on Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, impacts to biological resources would be considered significant if the proposed project would: • 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 Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; • 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 Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; Audi of Temecula Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 3.5-26 ESA / 150189 July 2015 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.5 Biological Resources • Have a substantial adverse effect on federally 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 interruption, or other means; • Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites; • Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance; and • Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan. Impacts Special Status Species, Sensitive Species, or Candidate Species Plants There is no potential for any of the plant species listed in Table 3.5-2 to occur on the project site due to the lack of suitable habitat on the site from previous grading disturbances that have removed all the native vegetation and soils from the site. The remaining vegetation consists of predominantly ruderal (weedy) species on compacted soils composed of fill material. No impacts to special -status species would occur as a result of development of the project and no mitigation measures to address special -status plants are required. Wildlife The project could have potential adverse effects on one special -status wildlife species, burrowing owl, if the species were to occupy suitable habitat prior to or during construction. Potential impacts could result in mortality of individuals or interference with reproductive success. This species, as well as other migratory birds and raptors protected under California Fish and Game Code and/or the MBTA that have the potential to occur on or in the vicinity of the project site based on the presence of suitable habitat and/or recorded historical observations discovered during the literature search. It is possible that direct and indirect impacts to wildlife from project - level development activities (e.g., grading, vegetation removal, excavation and construction, temporary changes to the hydrology, and increased dust and noise levels during construction) could occur and mitigation is required to reduce any impacts to less than significant. Impact BIO -1: Impacts to raptors and other migratory birds include direct injury or mortality if these species should occupy the site just prior to and during construction, as well as the loss of potential foraging and nesting habitat. Potential nesting habitat includes mature ornamental trees outside the project site, along the western boundary, and areas of bare ground on the site which provide suitable nesting habitat for ground -nesting species such as western meadowlark and killdeer. It is possible that raptors and other migratory birds would nest on-site due to the proximity to open space and the riverine system of Murrieta Creek to the north. Significance Determination: Significant; mitigation required. Audi of Temecula Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 3.5-27 ESA / 150189 July 2015 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.5 Biological Resources Mitigation Measure MM -BIO -1: Impacts to raptors and other migratory birds shall be avoided by the implementation of one of the following measures: • All construction and ground disturbing activities shall take place outside of the raptor and migratory bird breeding season (February 1 -August 31). • If construction and ground disturbing activities are necessary during the breeding season (February 1 -August 31), a pre -construction clearance survey for active nests of raptors and migratory birds shall be conducted by a qualified biologist. The survey shall occur a maximum of 14 days prior to any construction or ground -disturbing activities. If active nest(s) (with eggs or fledglings) are identified within the project site, (CDFW for state listed species, species of special concern, and MSHCP covered species; USFWS for birds covered under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act and listed species) they shall not be disturbed until the young have hatched and fledged (matured to a state that they can leave the nest on their own). If active nests are found, a suitable buffer (e.g. 200-300 feet for common raptors and 30-50 feet for passerines) shall be established around active nests and no construction within the buffer shall be allowed until a qualified biologist has determined the nest is no longer active (e.g. the nestlings have fledged and are no longer reliant on the nest). On-site monitoring during construction by a biological monitor may also be required based on sensitivity of the species and proximity of the nest to construction activities. If no active nests are identified, construction may commence. Significance after Mitigation: Less than significant. Impact BIO -2: A focused survey for burrowing owl was conducted by ESA in May 2015, which resulted in negative fmdings of burrowing owl within the project site and surrounding study area. However, due to the presence of suitable habitat on the site and delay between the completion of focused surveys and the start of construction activities, burrowing owls could move onto the site prior to project construction. Suitable habitat would include the areas within the project site and study area mapped as ruderal habitat on Figure 3.5-1 and containing potentially suitable small mammal burrows. Potential impacts to this species would include loss of foraging and nesting habitat. Individuals present during grading and other construction related activities have the potential to be killed or displaced through burrow collapse and other impacts. Significance Determination: Significant; mitigation required. Mitigation Measure MM -BIO -2: Impacts to burrowing owl shall be avoided through implementation of the following measure: • Due to the project site's location within a burrowing owl survey area and presence of suitable habitat on the project site (regardless of the findings of the focused burrowing owl survey), a 30 -day pre -construction survey for burrowing owl is required in accordance with the MSHCP. The one -day survey will be conducted by a qualified biologist within all suitable habitat areas on the project site and study area, and will focus on areas previously identified during the focused surveys as containing suitable habitat and potentially suitable burrows. If no burrowing owls are observed construction may commence. If burrowing owls are observed the RCA and/or City will be notified and Audi of Temecula Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 3.5-28 ESA / 150189 July 2015 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.5 Biological Resources additional measures will be required to demonstrate compliance with the MSHCP. Since burrowing owl is a covered species under the MSCHP, burrowing owls (less than 3 pairs) that occupy the site may be evicted from their burrows and allowed to move offsite. Significance after Mitigation: Less than significant. Critical Habitat, Sensitive Vegetation Communities, and Jurisdictional Waters including Wetlands and Riparian Habitat The project site is located on a graded and compacted parcel of land. No USFWS-designated Critical Habitat, federally protected wetlands, waters of the U.S. or waters of the state, riparian habitats or other sensitive natural communities are located within the project site. Implementation of the proposed project would not 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 CDFW or USFWS. Implementation of the proposed project would also not have a substantial adverse effect on federally 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 interruption, or other means. Short-term construction activities and operation of the proposed project would not affect Warm Springs Creek to the north, as project design features would minimize impacts the project could potentially have on any adjacent natural resources. Significance Determination: No impact. Wildlife Corridors The project site is located on a graded, leveled and compacted parcel of land. The site contains mostly non-native fill that supports mainly non-native ruderal vegetation. The site is immediately bordered by undeveloped land to the east and south, and surrounded by residential and commercial development in all directions, including an existing automotive dealership to the immediate north. Proposed Constrained Linkage 15 is located to the north of the automotive dealership within Warm Springs Creek that contains native vegetation to support the movement of wildlife north towards Proposed Core 2. The project site is separated from Proposed Constrained Linkage 15 by existing development and the site does not function to facilitate the movement of wildlife between areas of larger undeveloped land. The project site is also not located within any established wildlife corridors or nursery sites. Therefore, the project would not interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites. No mitigation measures are required. Significance Determination: No impact. Conflict with Habitat Conservation Plans, Natural Community Conservation Plans, or Other Approved Local, Regional, State, or Federal Regulations, Policies, Ordinances or Plans The project site occurs within the areas covered by the Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP) and the Long -Term Stephens' Kangaroo Rat Audi of Temecula Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 3.5-29 ESA / 150189 July 2015 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.5 Biological Resources Habitat Conservation Plan (SKR HCP). These plans promote the conservation and recovery of biological resources in western Riverside County and provide coverage for FESA and CESA incidental take for listed species. The Western Riverside County MSHCP is broken into Area Plans, and Cell Groups. The project site falls within the Southwest Area Plan, however no portions of the site occur within in Criteria Cells, Cell Groups, Subarea Plans, Core Areas, and Linkages. A small portion of the study area for the project (part of the 500 -foot buffer around the project boundary) occurs within the eastern portion of Criteria Cell 6525; however, this area is outside the project boundary and no project impacts would occur within this Criteria Cell. Criteria Cell 6525 was established to contribute to the assembly of Proposed Constrained Linkage 15 which follows Warm Springs Creek. Conservation for Cell 6525 focuses on Riversidean alluvial fan sage scrub (RAFSS) habitat along Warm Springs Creek and the adjacent grassland habitat. Chapter 15.10 of the Temecula Municipal Code establishes mitigation fees for funding the preservation of natural ecosystems within Temecula city limits in accordance with the MSHCP. However, the project applicant is not required to comply with the provisions of the MSHCP as a development agreement was obtained for the project in 2001, prior to the adoption of the MSHCP in 2004. Government Code Section 65864 states that only those policies, rules, and regulations which were existing at the time of approval for a developmental project must be followed by applicant. The proposed project site is also not part of Warm Springs Creek and does not support RAFSS or grassland habitat. Due to the presence of only non-native ruderal habitat on the project site, and the absence of any special -status species or sensitive biological resources, the proposed project would not conflict with the provisions of the Western Riverside County MSHCP. Section 8.24 of the Temecula Municipal Code states that all applicants within the SKR HCP plan area shall conduct a biological survey for the Stephens' kangaroo rat and pay the required impact and mitigation fee. ESA conducted a habitat assessment for the Stephens' kangaroo rat during the reconnaissance -level survey. No kangaroo rat signs were observed during the site visit, and no suitable habitat exists on site due to the high levels of disturbance and the origin of site soils. County Ordinance 663.10 regarding the SKR HCP states that "impacts to the Stephens' kangaroo rat are not limited to loss or degradation of actually occupied habitat only." Therefore, direct and indirect impacts to the Stephen's kangaroo rat, including habitat destruction would be mitigated through payment of the required mitigation fee. Mitigation fees will be used to finance the implementation of the SKR HCP conservation measures. Due to the lack of suitable native habitat on the project site, and with the previous payment of the required mitigation fees, the project would not conflict with the provisions of any adopted habitat conservation plan, natural community conservation plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan. The project also would not conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance. Significance Determination: Less than significant. Audi of Temecula Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 3.5-30 ESA / 150189 July 2015 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.6 Transportation and Traffic This section describes transportation and traffic along travel routes that would be used by the project and in the vicinity of the project site, and the associated regulatory framework. The impact analysis presents the criteria used to evaluate the significance of potential impacts to transportation and traffic as a consequence of implementing the project or alternatives, the methods used in evaluating these impacts, and the results of the impact assessment. This analysis is a summary of the Transportation Impact Analysis (TIA) Report prepared by VA Consulting, Inc., which is provided in Appendix E of this SEIR. 3.6.1 Environmental Setting Level of Service Analysis The traffic analysis employs a methodology based on empirical research conducted by the Transportation Research Board (TRB) and other authorities. The 2000 Highway Capacity Manual methodology for signalized and all -way stop -controlled intersections estimates the average control delay for vehicles travelling through the intersection. For side -street stop -controlled intersections, the methodology estimates the control delays for each turning movement and identifies the delay for the longest delayed approach (if there is a shared lane, delay is averaged for all turning movements from that lane). After the quantitative delay estimates are complete, the methodology assigns a qualitative letter grade that represents the operating condition (delay/congestion) of the intersection. These grades range from level of service (LOS) A (minimal delay) to LOS F (excessive congestion). LOS E represents at -capacity operations. Descriptions of the LOS letter grades for signalized and unsignalized intersections are provided in Table 3.6-1. TABLE 3.6-1 INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE CRITERIA Level of Signalized Delay Unsignalized Delay Service Description (Seconds) (Seconds) A Operations with very low delay occurring with favorable < 10.0 < 10.0 progression and/or short cycle length. — — B Operations with low delay occurring with good progression > 10.0 to 20.0 >10.0 to 15.0 and/or short cycle lengths. Operations with average delays resulting from fair progression C and/or longer cycle lengths. Individual cycle failures begin to > 20.0 to 35.0 >15.0 to 25.0 appear. Operations with longer delays due to a combination of p unfavorable progression, long cycle lengths, or high V/C > 35.0 to 55.0 >25.0 to 35.0 ratios. Many vehicles stop and individual cycle failures are noticeable. Operations with high delay values indicating poor progression, E long cycle lengths, and high V/C ratios. Individual cycle > 55.0 to 80.0 >35.0 to 50.0 failures are frequent occurrences. Operation with delays unacceptable to most drivers occurring F due to over saturation, poor progression, or very long cycle > 80.0 >50.0 lengths. SOURCE: Highway Capacity Manual (Transportation Research Board, 2000). Audi of Temecula Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 3.6-1 ESA / 150189 July 2015 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.6 Transportation and Traffic Intersection Assessment Intersection level of service is determined based on average delay per the above-described standard Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) 2000. This is in line with the City of Temecula Traffic Impact Analysis Guidelines. The City of Temecula accepts LOS D signalized intersections as adequate. The City has no specific LOS criteria for unsignalized intersections. However, for the purpose of this SEIR, LOS D has been assumed as the minimum acceptable LOS for unsignalized intersections. If the LOS decreases from LOS D to LOS E or F as a result of a project, mitigation measures must be identified to improve the LOS at the intersection to LOS D or better. In addition, if the project would increase the intersection delay two seconds or more at intersections operating at LOS E or F, the project applicant must identify mitigation measures to improve the delay at the intersection. Should an unsignalized intersection be found to be operating at LOS E or LOS F, a traffic signal warrant would be prepared to determine whether signalization of the intersection is needed. Roadway Segment Assessment Roadway segment operations were evaluated by comparing the projected traffic volumes to the maximum two-way daily traffic volume identified in the City of Temecula General Plan Circulation Element. In accordance with the City's General Plan Circulation Element, LOS E or better shall be maintained at all study roadway segments. Roadway segment operations were evaluated by comparing the projected traffic volumes to the level of service thresholds identified in the City of Temecula Traffic Impact Analysis Guidelines. The City of Temecula Roadway Classifications and maximum two-way daily traffic volumes for roadway segment are shown in Table 3.6-2. The maximum two-way traffic volume is assumed to represent an LOS E threshold. TABLE 3.6-2 ROADWAY SEGMENT THRESHOLDS Roadway Classification Number of Maximum Two -Way Lanes3 Daily Traffic Volume Urban Arterial 8-10 D 72,200 Principal Arterial 6 D 54,000 Major Arterial 4 D 36,000 Secondary Arterial 4 D 29,000 Modified Secondary Arterial 4 D 20,000 Limited Secondary Arterial 2 D 16,000 Collector 2 U 14,000 Rural Highway 2 U 10,000 1. All capacity figures are based on optimum conditions and are intended as guidelines for planning purposes only. 2. Two-lane roadways designated as future arterials that conform to arterial design standards for vertical and horizontal alignment are analyzed as arterials.3. "D" is abbreviated for divided by a raised median or separated by striped median and "U" is abbreviated for undivided. SOURCE: City of Temecula General Plan, 2005. Audi of Temecula Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 3.6-2 ESA / 150189 July 2015 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.6 Transportation and Traffic Existing Roadway Network The project site is served by a network of regional and local roadways. These roadways are located within the jurisdiction of the City of Temecula, the City of Murrieta, and unincorporated Riverside County. I-15 is the major north -south roadway in the project site vicinity, connecting with the City of Murrieta to the north and unincorporated Riverside County to the south. I-15 is an eight -lane freeway in the project vicinity. The project site is located along the west side of Temecula Center Drive west of Ynez Road. Ingress and egress to the project site would be from Temecula Center Drive which would be extended/improved along the frontage of the site as part of the project. Automobile access to the project site from the surrounding area would occur via I- 15 exit to either Murrieta Hot Springs Road (north of the site) or Winchester Road (State Route 79) (south of the site), then to Ynez Road and Temecula Center Drive (see Figure 2-4). A brief description of roadways within the project area is provided below. Interstate 15 (I-15) is an urban arterial eight -lane north -south freeway that extends through San Bernardino County to the north, and San Diego County to the south. Access to the project site is provided via a freeway interchange at Winchester Road or Murrieta Hot Springs Road. The posted speed limit is 65 miles per hour (MPH). Interstate 215 (I-215) is a principal arterial six -lane north -south freeway that begins at I-15, adjacent to the project site, and extends through San Bernardino County to the north. The posted speed limit is 65 MPH. Murrieta Hot Springs Road is a six -lane east -west road that is designated as a Multi -Modal Transportation Corridor per the City of Temecula. It is located north of the project sire and the posted speed limit along Murrieta Hot Springs Road is 45 MPH. Temecula Center Drive is the access point to the project site. It currently has half -width improvements from Ynez Road to its terminus at the temporary cul-de-sac located at the northeast corner of the project site, adjacent to the Fletcher Jones Mercedes Benz dealership. The proposed project improvements consist of removing the cul-de-sac and extending Temecula Center Drive with half -width improvements along the project's frontage. A new terminus (i.e. cul-de-sac) would be constructed at the southern end of the project site. The proposed improvement of Temecula Center Drive, as part of the project, will be based on a Collector roadway cross-section and will provide a 56 -foot curb -to -curb width in a 78 -foot right-of-way. Temecula Center Drive and Waverly Lane are currently not designated within the Circulation Element of the General Plan. Winchester Road (SR -79) is an urban arterial east -west State highway located south of the project site. This roadway will provide access to the project site via Ynez Road. Winchester Road is an eight -lane divided roadway. The posted speed limit is 45 MPH. Abutting land uses are primarily commercial developments. Ynez Road is a north -south principal arterial roadway located east of the project site that provides direct access to the project site. Ynez Road is a six -lane divided roadway. The posted speed limit is 45 MPH. Audi of Temecula Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 3.6-3 ESA / 150189 July 2015 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.6 Transportation and Traffic Date Street (French Valley Parkway) is a principal arterial east -west roadway located south of the project site that would provide access to the project site via the future French Valley Parkway Interchange at I-15, planned by Caltrans. Date Street is a four -lane divided roadway east of Ynez Road and a partially constructed six -lane divided roadway west of Ynez Road that currently terminates near the I-15 right-of-way. Phase 1 of the French Valley Parkway/I-15 interchange, involving roadway improvements on the west side of I-15, has been completed. Phase 2 improvements to occur on the east side of I-15, connecting Jefferson Street and Ynez Road, is in the planning and scoping stage. As this interchange has yet to secure dedicated construction funding for Phase 2 and is the planning stage, this interchange has not been factored into the traffic analysis for purposes of this SEIR as it is too speculative to know with certainty its construction date. Existing Bus Transit Facilities The project area is serviced by the Riverside Transit Agency and operates Route 23 which provides transportation in the vicinity of the project including stops along Murrieta Hot Springs Road and Winchester Road. Route 243 is a circulator bus route primarily serving the Cities of Murrieta and Wildomar. It also provides transportation to the Inland Valley Medical Center, Rancho Springs Medical Center, Chaparral High School, and County Center Drive. Route 23 operates on 10- minute interval schedule (RTA, 2015). Bicycle and Pedestrian Network Bicycle facilities are provided throughout Temecula, including Class I, II, and III facilities. Class I facilities are off-road, dedicated paths. Class II facilities are typically painted bicycle lanes that share right-of-way with automobiles. Class III facilities are designated bicycle routes, with bikes and vehicles sharing the roadways with minimal striping. The Harveston community located just east of the project has a system of bicycle and pedestrian trails and walkways throughout the development. Also, there are Class II and III bicycle facilities and sidewalks along the following major roadways in the general vicinity of the project: • Ynez Road (Class II) • Date Street (Class II) • Harveston Drive (Class II) • Lakeview (Class II) • Overland Drive Class III (unmarked) Temecula Center Drive, the access road leading to the project site, has a sidewalk on the north side of the roadway. According to the City of Temecula General Plan, Class II Bike Lanes in the project area are planned on: • Jefferson Avenue • Rancho California Road Audi of Temecula Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 3.6-4 ESA / 150189 July 2015 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.6 Transportation and Traffic • Winchester Road • Overland Drive • Date Street / Proposed French Valley Parkway The City of Temecula is currently updating its Multi -Use Trails and Bikeways Master Plan, which may result in changes to the existing or proposed facilities identified above. As such, no additional improvements have been identified beyond those already noted in the City's General Plan. Existing Traffic Volumes and Levels of Service Traffic volumes in the project area were calculated based on traffic counts taken by National Data and Surveying Services in April and May of 2015 during weekday AM and PM peak hours, as well as Saturday peak hours (2PM-6PM). Figures 4A, 4B, and 4C in the TIA (Appendix E of this SEIR) show the existing intersection turning movement volumes for the AM and PM peak hours and are used to represent Existing (2015) conditions. Intersection Operations Existing traffic volumes described above, lane configurations collected in the field, and signal timing information maintained by City staff were used to evaluate operations at the study intersections for existing AM and PM peak -hour conditions. The results are summarized in Table 3.6-3. As shown in Table 3.6-3, all study intersections currently operate acceptably at LOS D or better during the peak hours. TABLE 3.6-3 EXISTING (2015) INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE Weekday Weekend Study Intersection AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Peak Hours (2-6PM) Delay Delay Control (sec/veh) LOS (sec/veh) LOS Delay (seclveh) LOS Jackson Avenue/Murrieta Hot 1. Springs Signal 14.0 B 18.8 B Ynez Road/Waverly 2. Lane Stop Sign 10.3 B 15.7 C 3. Ynez Road/Date Street Signal 30.2 C 26.2 C Ynez Road/Winchester 4. Road Signal 36.3 D 42.8 D 1-15 NB Ramps/Winchester 5. Road 1-15 SB Ramps/Winchester 6. Road SOURCE: VA Consulting Inc., 2015. Sec/veh = seconds per vehicle Signal 16.2 B 26.5 C Signal 21.5 C 27.6 C 17.3 B 10.6 B 41.2 D 42.5 D 39.3 D 23.0 C Audi of Temecula Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 3.6-5 ESA / 150189 July 2015 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.6 Transportation and Traffic Roadway Segment Operations Figures 5A and 5B of the TIA (Appendix E of this SEIR) show existing 24-hour daily traffic volumes and volume to capacity ratios within the TIA study area for weekday and weekend conditions. All volume to capacity (v/c) ratios are based on maximum two-way daily capacities as identified in the City of Temecula Circulation Element. Therefore, a v/c ratio of .90 or below indicates a roadway operating at LOS D or better based on 24-hour traffic volumes. The analyses show that all TIA study area roadway segments are operating at Level of Service D or better under both existing weekday and Saturday 24-hour conditions, with the exception of Winchester Road between Ynez Road and the I-15 interchange. Existing weekday and Saturday volumes on this segment are over LOS D theoretical capacity, however, there are exclusive right -turn lanes and dual -left turn lanes along this segment that augment the assumed daily capacity and actual LOS is anticipated to be LOS D as confirmed by intersection analysis. All data for the LOS analysis is included in the TIA in Appendix E of this SEIR. 3.6.2 Regulatory Framework Congestion Management Program Compliance The purpose of the state -mandated Congestion Management Program (CMP) is to monitor roadway congestion and assess the overall performance of the region's transportation system. Based upon this assessment, the CMP contains specific strategies and improvements to reduce traffic congestion and improve the performance of a multi -modal transportation system. Examples of strategies include increased emphasis on public transportation and rideshare programs, mitigating the impacts of new development, and better coordinating land use and transportation planning decisions. Based on the approval of Proposition 111 in 1990, regulations require the preparation, implementation, and annual updating of a CMP in each of California's urbanized counties. One required element of the CMP is a process to evaluate the transportation and traffic impacts of large projects on the regional transportation system. That process is undertaken by local agencies, project applicants, and traffic consultants through a transportation impact report usually conducted as part of the CEQA project review process. Authority for local land use decisions including project approvals and any required mitigation remains the responsibility of local jurisdictions. Western Riverside County Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee Program The Western Riverside Council of Governments (WRCOG) is designated as the program administrator for the Western Riverside Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee (TUMF) Program, which funds large regional infrastructure improvements, i.e., interchanges, major regional roadways, etc. The Western Riverside TUMF charges a development fee for each new single-family unit and multi -family unit in the City of Temecula. As administrator, WRCOG receives all fees generated from the TUMF as collected by the local jurisdictions, and invests, accounts for, and expends the fee in accordance with the TUMF ordinance, the administrative plan and applicable state laws. The project is exempt from the TUMF fee per the Development Agreement, Section 4.2.4.4. Audi of Temecula Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 3.6-6 ESA / 150189 July 2015 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.6 Transportation and Traffic Southern California Association of Governments 2012-2035 Regional Transportation Plan (RTP)/ Sustainable Communities Strategy (SCS) The Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) developed the RTP/SCS which is a long-range transportation plan that encompasses its member counties, including Riverside County, and is updated every four years. The RTP/SCS provides a vision for transportation investments throughout the region. Using growth forecasts and economic trends that project out over a 20 -year period, the RTP/SCS considers the role of transportation in the broader context of economic, environmental, and quality -of -life goals for the future, identifying regional transportation strategies to address our mobility needs (SCAG, 2012). City of Temecula General Plan — Circulation Element The City of Temecula General Plan defines traffic congestion using the same LOS system described above. The minimum LOS deemed acceptable by the City of Temecula is LOS D. Goals, policies, and an implementation program in the Circulation Element of the General Plan that pertain to this project include the following (City of Temecula, 2005): Goal 1 Strive to maintain a Level of Service "D" or better at intersections within the City during peak hours and Level of Service "C" or better during non -peak hours. Policy 1.1 Policy 1.2 Policy 1.5 Use the Circulation Element Roadway Plan to guide detailed planning and implementation of the City's roadway system, including appropriate road width and median transitions when a roadway classification changes. Pursue trip reductions and transportation systems management measures to reduce and limit congestion at intersections and along streets within the City. Require additional right-of-way and impose additional parking restrictions for approaches to all Principal Intersections to allow for future intersection improvements and turning movements. Implementation Program 6: Implement the following procedures and requirements to minimize the impacts of proposed development projects on the City's circulation system, and to encourage increased use of alternative transportation. • Evaluate development proposals for potential impacts to the transportation and infrastructure systems. • Require mitigation in the form of physical improvements and/or impact fees for significant impacts prior to or concurrent with project development. • Require dedication of adequate right-of-way along new roadways to permit pedestrian and bicycle facilities. • Require new development to incorporate design features which facilitate transit service and encourage transit ridership, such as bus pullout areas, covered bus stop facilities, Audi of Temecula Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 3.6-7 ESA / 150189 July 2015 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.6 Transportation and Traffic efficient trail systems through projects to transit stops, installation of bike lanes, bikeways, and bicycle parking, and incorporation of pedestrian walkways that pass through subdivision boundary walls, as appropriate. 3.6.3 Impact Assessment Methodology For the proposed land uses within the project site, trip generation was determined using standard rates developed by the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) and published in Trip Generation Manual (9th Edition). Use of these rates is consistent with industry procedures for estimating traffic impacts. The project -level traffic impact analysis considered the following scenarios: • Existing Conditions (2015) With Project • Year 2016 Baseline With Project — Year 2016 Baseline is the anticipated completion date of the project and was calculated by applying a two percent ambient growth rate for one year to the existing (2015) traffic volumes. This scenario provides the basis for determining project -specific impacts, mitigation, and conditions of approval. No improvements to the existing intersection traffic controls and geometrics were assumed, and, thus, were not used to determine project completion year LOS estimates. • Year 2016 Baseline With Project and Cumulative Projects The target level of service to be maintained at the TIA study area intersections is LOS D. At intersections with a Level of Service E or F without project traffic volumes, a maximum impact of 2 seconds of additional intersection delay may be added after project traffic volumes are included. If more than 2 seconds of delay are added by the project traffic volumes, mitigation will be required at the intersection. Thresholds of Significance Based on Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, traffic and circulation impacts would be considered significant if the project would: • 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 but not limited to intersections, streets, highways and freeways, pedestrian and bicycle paths, and mass transit; • 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 designated roads or highways; • Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks; Audi of Temecula Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 3.6-8 ESA / 150189 July 2015 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.6 Transportation and Traffic • Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment); • Result in inadequate emergency access; or • Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs regarding public transit, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities, or otherwise decrease the performance or safety of such facilities. According to the City of Temecula's General Plan, the minimum level of service standard for signalized intersections has been established at LOS D. It should be noted that the City of Temecula has not established or adopted specific thresholds for significant impacts at intersections. Based on traffic engineering industry standards, as well as thresholds established by adjacent jurisdictions, the following significance thresholds have been established: • Intersections increasing from LOS D to LOS E or LOS F as a result of the proposed project are considered a significant project impact. • Intersections operating at LOS E or F, where the proposed project increases the vehicle delay by two seconds or more are considered a significant project impact. • A cumulative impact is identified if the intersection is operating at LOS E or F and the proposed project increases the intersection delay by two seconds or more. Impacts Project Effect on Circulation System Existing Conditions (2015) With Project Roadway Segment Operations Existing Conditions With Project weekday and Saturday 24-hour roadway segment volumes and volume to capacity (v/c) ratios within the TIA study area are shown on Figures 10A and 10B, respectively, in the TIA (Appendix E of this SEIR). The project would generate a total of 1,227 weekday vehicle trips; with 55 inbound and 18 outbound trips during the A.M. peak hour, and 40 inbound and 60 outbound trips during the peak P.M hours. All v/c ratios shown on Figures 10A, and 10B are based on maximum two-way daily capacities. Figures 10A and 10B show that all TIA study area roadway segments are operating at LOS D or better under the Existing Conditions With Project weekday and Saturday 24-hour conditions, with the exception of Winchester Road between Ynez Road and the I-15 interchange. Existing weekday and Saturday volumes on this segment are over LOS D theoretical capacity, however, there are exclusive right -turn lanes and dual -left turn lanes along this segment that augment the assumed daily capacity, and actual LOS is anticipated to be LOS D as confirmed by intersection analysis. Intersection Operations Table 3.6-4 shows the results of intersection level of service analysis for the TIA study area intersections for Existing Conditions With Project weekday and Saturday peak hour traffic conditions. Table 3.6-4 shows that all study area intersections would operate at an acceptable LOS D or better. Audi of Temecula Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 3.6-9 ESA / 150189 July 2015 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.6 Transportation and Traffic TABLE 3.6-4 INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE - EXISTING (2015) WITH PROJECT Weekday Weekend Study Intersection AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Peak Hours (2-6PM) Delay Delay Control (sec/veh) LOS (sec/veh) LOS Delay (sec/veh) LOS Jackson Avenue/Murrieta Hot 1. Springs Signal 14.1 B 19.1 B Ynez Road/Waverly 2. Lane Stop Sign 10.9 B 18.5 C 3. Ynez Road/Date Street Signal 30.5 C 26.9 C Ynez Road/Winchester 4. Road Signal 37.1 C 44.1 D 1-15 NB Ramps/Winchester 5. Road 1-15 SB Ramps/Winchester 6. Road SOURCE: VA Consulting Inc., 2015. Signal 16.4 B 24.2 C Signal 21.7 C 28.0 C 17.7 B 12.2 B 40.1 D 44.0 D 40.0 D 23.1 C Significance Determination: Less than significant. Year 2016 Baseline with Project Roadway Segment Operations Year 2016 Baseline With Project weekday and Saturday 24-hour roadway segment volumes and v/c ratios within the TIA study area are shown on Figures 15A and 15B, respectively, in the TIA (Appendix E of this SEIR). All volume to capacity (v/c) ratios shown on these figures are based on maximum two-way daily capacities. Figures 15A and 15B show that all TIA study area roadway segments are operating at LOS D or better under the Year 2016 Baseline With Project weekday and Saturday 24-hour conditions, with the exception of Winchester Road between Ynez Road and the I-15 interchange. As previously discussed, the augmented capacity of this roadway that was not considered in the v/c analysis is anticipated to provide a minimum LOS D. Intersection Operations Table 3.6-5 shows the results of intersection level of service analysis for the TIA study area intersections for Year 2016 Baseline With Project weekday and Saturday peak hour traffic conditions. Table 3.6-5 shows that all TIA study area intersections would operate at an acceptable LOS D or better. Audi of Temecula Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 3.6-10 ESA / 150189 July 2015 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.6 Transportation and Traffic TABLE 3.6-5 INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE — YEAR 2016 BASELINE WITH PROJECT Weekday Weekend Study Intersection AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Peak Hours (2-6PM) Delay Delay Control (sec/veh) LOS (sec/veh) LOS Delay (sec/veh) LOS Jackson Avenue/Murrieta Hot 1. Springs Signal 14.1 B 20.2 C Ynez Road/Waverly 2. Lane Stop Sign 11.0 B 18.8 C 3. Ynez Road/Date Street Signal 30.7 C 27.7 C Ynez Road/Winchester 4. Road 1-15 NB Ramps/Winchester 5. Road 1-15 SB Ramps/Winchester 6. Road SOURCE: VA Consulting Inc., 2015. Signal 37.8 D 44.7 D Signal 16.6 B 28.5 C Signal 22.1 B 28.4 C 18.5 B 12.4 B 25.1 C 45.9 D 42.5 D 23.4 C Signal Warrants The term "signal warrants" refers to the list of established criteria used by Caltrans and other public agencies to quantitatively justify or ascertain the potential need for installation of a traffic signal at an unsignalized intersection. Urban warrants were used for the intersections. A traffic signal warrant was prepared for the unsignalized intersection of Ynez Road and Temecula Center Drive/Waverly Lane for Year 2016 Baseline With Project and cumulative traffic conditions and does not satisfy minimum thresholds for signalization. The proposed project is not anticipated to ever generate sufficient traffic volumes to warrant signalization, even if the site were to be served by only one driveway. The analysis showed that signalization was not warranted at this location. Significance Determination: Less than significant. Conformance with Congestion Management Program The focus of the CMP is the development of an Enhanced Traffic Monitoring System in which real-time traffic count data can be accessed by Riverside County Transportation Commission (RCTC) to evaluate the condition of the Congestion Management System (CMS) as well as meet other monitoring requirements at the State and federal levels. Per the adopted level of service target of LOS E, a deficiency plan is required when a CMS segment falls to LOS F. Preparation of a deficiency plan is the responsibility of the local agency where the deficiency is located. Other agencies identified as contributors to the deficiency also will be required to coordinate with the development of the plan. The plan must contain mitigation measures, including Transportation Audi of Temecula Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 3.6-11 ESA / 150189 July 2015 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.6 Transportation and Traffic Demand Management (TDM) strategies and transit alternatives, and a schedule of mitigating the deficiency. To ensure that the CMS is appropriately monitored to reduce the occurrence of CMP deficiencies, it is the responsibility of local agencies, when reviewing and approving development proposals, to consider the traffic impacts on the CMS. A CMP analysis is not required for the project as the City requirements for a traffic study exceed the CMP requirements and the project will be subject to the City requirements for mitigation. Furthermore, there are no CMP arterials or roadway segments within the project area. CMP facilities within the City of Temecula are I-15, I-215, and SR -79. As such, the project would not result in impacts to CMP facilities. Significance Determination: Less than significant. Result In a Change in Air Traffic Patterns The project is over three miles from the nearest airport (French Valley Airport) and is not within any Airport Influence Area; therefore, the project is not anticipated to result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks. Significance Determination: No impact. Substantially Increase Hazards Due to a Design Feature or Incompatible Uses All development within the project area would be required to be designed consistent with City standards and the Harveston Specific Plan, including street design, emergency access, and compatibility of uses. Therefore, the project would not substantially increase hazards due to design features or incompatible uses. Impacts would be less than significant. Significance Determination: Less than significant. Result In Inadequate Emergency Access As described above, primary vehicular access to the project site is located along the west side of Temecula Center Drive west of Ynez Road. Ingress and egress to the project site would be from Temecula Center Drive which would be extended/improved along the frontage of the site as part of the project. The project would construct half -width improvements of Temecula Center Drive along the frontage of the site and provide a new cul-de-sac terminus. Site access is to be provided from two driveways on either side of the site showroom and service buildings. A 24 -foot wide drive aisle/fire lane transverses the site and connects the two access driveways on either side of the proposed project buildings. The proposed access/fire lane would provide adequate emergency vehicle access. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in a significant impact related to vehicular and emergency access. Significance Determination: Less than significant. Audi of Temecula Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 3.6-12 ESA / 150189 July 2015 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.6 Transportation and Traffic Conflict with Adopted Policies, Plans, or Programs Regarding Public Transit, Bicycle, or Pedestrian Facilities The project would be required to comply with City codes, policies and standards for transit, bicycle and pedestrian facilities, and the Development Standards in the Harveston Specific Plan pertaining to these types of facilities. Compliance with these codes, policies and standards would result in a less than significant impact on public transit, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities. Significance Determination: Less than significant Audi of Temecula Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 3.6-13 ESA / 150189 July 2015 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.7 Hydrology, Water Quality and Water Supply This section identifies and analyzes issues related to hydrology, water quality and water supply in the context of the project. It includes the environmental and regulatory setting; the criteria used to determine the significance of potential impacts; the methods used in evaluating these impacts; and the results of the impact assessment. The analysis considers existing conditions and proposed conditions based on the Project Specific Water Quality Management Plan prepared by RBF Consulting as well as the Preliminary Technical Drainage Study also prepared for the site by RBF Consulting (RBF, 2015a and RBF, 2015b). 3.7.1 Environmental Setting Regional Setting The City of Temecula is located in a region characterized by a generally mild coastal climate, with an average annual temperature of 65 degrees Fahrenheit and average annual rainfall of 10 to 13 inches. Proceeding inland, temperature and rainfall intensity variations increase. Surface and ground waters within the region generally flow east to west toward the Pacific Ocean (San Diego County, 2005). The project site is located within the Santa Margarita River Watershed (SMRW) under the jurisdiction of the San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board (SDRWQCB). The SMRW consists of approximately 750 square miles within San Diego County and southwestern Riverside County, and is drained primarily by the Santa Margarita River, Murrieta Creek and Temecula Creek. About two miles south of the project site, Murrieta Creek and Temecula Creek converge to form the Santa Margarita River. The Santa Margarita River flows southwest into the Temecula Gorge, crosses the San Diego County line just north of the City of Fallbrook, flows through the coastal plain encompassing parts of Camp Pendleton, and then discharges into the Pacific Ocean through the Santa Margarita Estuary. The Temecula Gorge and the Santa Ana Mountains serve as a natural barrier between the upper and lower portions of the SMRW. The SMRW contains nine hydrologic basins delineated by the SDRWQCB and is primarily based on surface drainage boundaries (San Diego County, 2005). Presently, several waterbodies within SMRW are listed on the Clean Water Act section 303(d) list due to excessive nutrients from a variety of sources including agriculture, nursery operations, municipal wastewater discharges, urban runoff, septic systems, and golf course operations. Other serious water quality and environmental concerns in the watershed include excessive sedimentation from development and agricultural areas, groundwater degradation and contamination with nitrates and other salts, habitat loss, channelization, flooding, and scour. Local Setting The project site is located in the upper portion of the SMRW, within the Murrieta Hydrologic Area. Two tributaries to Murrieta Creek, Warm Springs Creek, and Santa Gertrudis, lie roughly northwest and southeast of the site, respectively. The project site is currently vacant with poor vegetation cover and was previously rough graded as part of the Harveston development project. Audi of Temecula Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 3.7-1 ESA / 150189 July 2015 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.7 Hydrology, Water Quality and Water Supply Stormwater runoff currently flows overland towards the west where it is directed to a culvert that crosses Interstate 15 (RBF, 2015a). Additionally, storm drainage improvements are located within Margarita road and along Santa Gertrudis Creek. The project site is located in a 19 acre portion of the Harveston Specific Plan that has been identified as System A. System A is drained by a 24 inch drainage pipe which has an inlet capacity of 39 cubic feet per second (cfs). The peak flow for the 100 year storm event has been calculated at 27.1 cfs under existing conditions. Murrieta Creek and Warm Springs Creek are unlined and Santa Gertrudis Creek is concrete -lined. Murrieta Creek Channel and Santa Gertrudis Creek Channel are both considered drainage conveyances by the Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District (RCFC, 2015). Water Quality The SDRWQCB lists water quality objectives for inland surface waters that must be protected against degradation. Table 3.7-1 shows the water quality objectives for the Murrieta and Auld hydrologic areas. Table 3.7-2 shows the beneficial uses associated with Murrieta Creek and Santa Gertrudis Creek, as designated by the SDRWCB Basin Plan. TABLE 3.7-1 WATER QUALITY OBJECTIVESI FOR INLAND SURFACE WATERS WITHIN THE MURRIETA HYDROLOGIC AREAS Constituent Murrieta Hydrologic Area2 Total Dissolved Solids (TDS) 750 Chloride (CI) 300 Sulfate (SO4) 300 Percent sodium (%Na) 60 Nitrogen and Phosphorous (N&P) a3 Iron (Fe) 0.3 Manganese (Mn) 0.05 Methylene Blue -Activated Substances (MBAS) 0.5 Boron (B) 0.75 Tastes and Odors (ODOR) None Turbidity (Turb NTU) 20 Color Units 20 Fluoride (F) 1.0 1. Concentrations not to be exceeded more than 10% of the time during any one year period. 2. mg/L or as noted 3. Concentrations of nitrogen and phosphorus, by themselves or in combination with other nutrients, shall be maintained at levels below those which stimulate algae and emergent plant growth. Threshold total Phosphorus (P) concentrations shall not exceed 0.05 mg/I in any stream at the point where it enters any standing body of water, or 0.025 mg/I in any standing body of water. A desired goal in order to prevent plant nuisances in streams and other flowing waters appears to be 0.1 mg/I total P. These values are not to be exceeded more than 10% of the time unless studies of the specific body in question clearly show that water quality objective changes are permissible and changes are approved by the Regional Board. Analogous threshold values have not been set for nitrogen compounds; however, natural ratios of nitrogen to phosphorus are to be determined by surveillance and monitoring and upheld. If data are lacking, a ratio of N: P=10:1 shall be used. SOURCE: SDRWQCB, 2011. Audi of Temecula Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 3.7-2 ESA / 150189 July 2015 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.7 Hydrology, Water Quality and Water Supply TABLE 3.7-2 BENEFICIAL USES OF SURFACE WATER BODIES WITHIN THE PROJECT AREA Beneficial Uses Municipal and Domestic Supply (MUN) E E Agricultural Supply (AGR) E E Industrial Service Supply (IND) E E Industrial Process Supply (PROC) E E Groundwater Recharge (GWR) P Freshwater Replenishment (FRSH) Hydropower Generation (POW) Contact Water Recreation (REC-1) P E Non -contact Water Recreation (REC-2) E E Preservation of Biological Habitats of Special Significance (BIOL) Warm Freshwater Habitat (WARM) E E Cold Freshwater Habitat (COLD) Wildlife Habitat (WILD) E E Rare, Threatened or Endangered Species (RARE) Spawning, Reproduction, and/or Early Development (SPWN) E = Existing beneficial use P = Potential beneficial use (a use which once existed and could potentially exist again) SOURCE: SDRWQCB, 2011. Murrieta Creek and Santa Gertrudis Creek are both listed as impaired on the State of California's 2010 list of impaired water bodies pursuant to provisions of Clean Water Act Section 303(d). Murrieta Creek is impaired by metals/metalloids, nutrients, pesticides and toxicity. Santa Gertrudis Creek is impaired by metals/metalloids, nutrients, pathogens, and pesticides. Table 3.7-3 shows the 303(d) impairments and potential pollutant sources for Murrieta Creek and Santa Gertrudis Creek. Audi of Temecula Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 3.7-3 ESA / 150189 July 2015 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.7 Hydrology, Water Quality and Water Supply TABLE 3.7-3 303(D) IMPAIRED WATERBODIES WITHIN THE PROJECT AREA Waterbody Pollutant Potential Source Murrieta Creek Warm Springs Creek Santa Gertrudis Creek Chlorpyrifos Natural Sources, Urban Runoff/Storm Sewers, Nonpoint Source Copper Natural Sources, Urban Runoff, Nonpoint Source Iron Natural Sources Manganese Source Unknown Nitrogen Urban Runoff, Point Source, Nonpoint Source Phosphorous Urban Runoff, Point Source, Nonpoint Source Toxicity Urban Runoff/Storm Sewers, Point Source, Nonpoint Source Chlorpyrifos Urban Runoff, Storm Sewers E. coli Urban Runoff, Storm Sewers Fecal Coliform Urban Runoff, Storm Sewers Iron Natural Sources Manganese Natural Sources Phosphorous Urban Runoff, Storm Sewers Total Nitrogen as N Urban Runoff, Storm Sewers Chlorpyrifos Urban Runoff, Nonpoint Source Copper Urban Runoff, Nonpoint Source E. coli Urban Runoff, Natural Sources, Nonpoint Source Fecal Coliform Natural Sources, Nonpoint Source, Urban Runoff Iron Nonpoint Source, Urban Runoff Manganese Source Unknown Phosphorous Nonpoint Source, Urban Runoff Toxicity Source Unknown SOURCE: SWRCB, 2010. Flood Zone The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) identifies areas throughout the United States that are at risk for flooding. Flood Zone A identifies areas subject to inundation by the one percent -annual -chance (100 -year) flood event. Murrieta Creek is the most flood -prone of the City's creeks although there is a flood zone area identified along Warm Springs Creek (City of Temecula, 2005). However, according to the FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM), the project site is located just outside of the 100 -year flood zone for Warm Springs Creek (FEMA, 2008). Groundwater Hydrology and Quality The project site overlies the Temecula Valley Groundwater Basin, which has a surface area of about 137 square miles. The basin is bounded by nonwater-bearing crystalline rocks of the Penninsular Ranges. Natural recharge of the basin's water -bearing alluvium is from direct precipitation and percolation in the Warm Springs, Tucalota, Santa Gertrudis, Murrieta, and Audi of Temecula Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 3.7-4 ESA/ 150189 July 2015 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.7 Hydrology, Water Quality and Water Supply Pechanga Creeks and the Temecula River. Groundwater flows to the southwestern part of the basin. Groundwater is generally unconfined, excluding beneath the Pauba Valley and near some faults that cut the basin. The Elsinore fault—which traverses the project area (City of Temecula, 2005)—may affect groundwater movement. Total storage capacity is estimated to be about 253,000 acre-feet (AF); the existing amount of groundwater storage is unknown (DWR, 2004). Groundwater in the basin is largely sodium bicarbonate by character, and is considered mostly suitable only for domestic and irrigation uses. The project site is underlain entirely by the Temecula Aquifer. Estimates of groundwater stored in the Temecula Aquifer range from 1.34 to 2 million AF (MWD, 2007). Percent sodium is the primary water quality concern within the lower Temecula Aquifer (San Diego County, 2005). Dams and Levees There are three dams located within the general proximity of the project site. Lake Skinner is located approximately 6 miles southwest of the project site which is held by a 43,800 -acre feet earthen dam. Failure of the Lake Skinner Dam would result in flooding along Tucalota Creek and Benton Road. The project area is also located 9 miles west of Vail Lake Dam, which contains a 51,000 -acre foot storage reservoir. Failure of this facility would cause flooding in the Pauba and Temecula Valleys, along with I-15 and an adjacent three-mile area. Finally, the project site is approximately nine miles southwest of Diamond Valley Lake, which is the largest reservoir in Southern California and is impounded by two earthen dams. Failure of this facility would lead to flooding in the northern parts of the Temecula Planning Area (which includes the City of Temecula and some surrounded unincorporated communities) Both Lake Skinner and Vail Lake are considered as having a high downstream hazard potential ranking, which applies to dams whose failure or disoperation would probably cause loss of human life. However, the project site is located outside of any of these dam inundation areas (City of Temecula, 2005). 3.7.2 Regulatory Framework Clean Water Act The Clean Water Act (CWA) (33 U.S.C. § 1251 et seq.), formerly the Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, was enacted with the intent of restoring and maintaining the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the waters of the U.S. The CWA required states to set standards to protect, maintain, and restore water quality through the regulation of point source and certain non -point source discharges to surface water. The CWA was enacted to prohibit the discharge of pollutants to waters of the U.S. from any point source, unless a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit authorizes the discharge. Regulatory and permitting processes have been established to control the quality of water runoff from urban development. The CWA was amended in 1987, requiring the United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) to create specific requirements for storm water discharges. In response to the 1987 amendments to the CWA, the USEPA established Phase I of the NPDES Stormwater Program, which required NPDES permits for: (1) municipal separate storm sewer systems generally serving or located in incorporated cities with 100,000 or more people (referred to as municipal permits); (2) nine specific categories of industrial activity Audi of Temecula Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 3.7-5 ESA / 150189 July 2015 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.7 Hydrology, Water Quality and Water Supply (Order No. 2014-0057-DWQ, Adopted April 1, 2014) (including landfills); and (3) construction activity that disturbs one acre or more of land. In March 2003, Phase II of the NPDES Program extended the requirements for NPDES permits to numerous small municipal separate storm sewer systems, construction sites of one to five acres, and industrial facilities owned or operated by small municipal separate storm sewer systems, all of which were previously exempted from permitting requirements. Section 402(p) of the CWA mandates that these municipal storm water permits must: (1) effectively prohibit the discharge of non -storm water to the system except under certain provisions, and (2) require controls to reduce pollutants in discharges from the system to the maximum extent practicable, including Best Management Practices (BMPs); control techniques; and system, design, and engineering methods. National Flood Insurance Program FEMA is responsible for determining flood elevations and floodplain boundaries based on United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) studies. FEMA is also responsible for distributing the Flood Insurance Rate Maps used in the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP). These maps identify the locations of special flood hazard areas, including the 100 -year floodplain. FEMA allows non-residential development in the floodplain; however, construction activities are restricted within flood hazard areas, depending on the potential for flooding within each area. Federal regulations governing development in a floodplain are set forth in Title 44, Part 60 of the Code of Federal Regulations, enabling FEMA to require municipalities that participate in the NFIP to adopt certain flood hazard reduction standards for construction and development in 100 - year floodplains. The City's Flood Damage Prevention Regulations detail methods and provisions for construction and development in 100 -year floodplains. Construction General Permit The California Construction Stormwater Permit (Construction General Permit, Order No. 2012- 006-DWQ, amends 2009-0009-DWQ as amended by 2010-0014-DWQ), adopted by the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB), regulates construction activities that include clearing, grading, and excavation resulting in soil disturbance of at least one acre of total land area. The Construction General Permit authorizes the discharge of storm water to surface waters from construction activities. It prohibits the discharge of materials other than storm water and authorized non -storm water discharges and all discharges that contain a hazardous substance in excess of reportable quantities established at 40 Code of Federal Regulations 117.3 or 40 Code of Federal Regulations 302.4, unless a separate NPDES Permit has been issued to regulate those discharges. The Construction General Permit requires that all developers of land where construction activities will occur over more than one acre do the following: • Complete a Risk Assessment to determine pollution prevention requirements pursuant to the three Risk Levels established in the General Permit • Eliminate or reduce non -storm water discharges to storm sewer systems and other waters of the Nation Audi of Temecula Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 3.7-6 ESA / 150189 July 2015 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.7 Hydrology, Water Quality and Water Supply • Develop and implement a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP), which specifies BMPs that will reduce pollution in storm water discharges to the Best Available Technology Economically Achievable/Best Conventional Pollutant Control Technology standards • Perform inspections and maintenance of all BMPs In order to obtain coverage under the NPDES Construction General Permit, the Legally Responsible Person must electronically file all Permit Registration Documents with the SWRCB prior to the start of construction. Permit Registration Documents must include: • Notice of Intent • Risk Assessment • Site Map • SWPPP • Annual Fee • Signed Certification Statement Typical BMPs contained in SWPPP are designed to minimize erosion during construction (minimization of vegetation disturbance), stabilize construction areas (soil binders), control sediment (fiber rolls and sand bags), control pollutants from construction materials (vehicle fueling and maintenance only in designated areas), and address post construction runoff quantity (volume) and quality (treatment) (final site stabilization including hydroseeding). The SWPPP must also include a discussion of the program to inspect and maintain all BMPs. Regional Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4) Permit The project area is currently under the jurisdiction of the SDRWQCB 2010 MS4 Permit issued to the Riverside County Copermittees in the Santa Margarita Region (Order No. R9-2010-0016). The MS4 Permit requires Copermittees to reduce the discharge of storm water pollutants to the maximum extent practicable and ensure MS4 discharges do not cause or contribute to violations of water quality standards. The MS4 Permit also requires implementation of various site design BMPs and treatment control BMPs to reduce the possibility of pollutants stored or produced on- site from entering surface water. The MS4 Permit also includes Low Impact Development (LID) BMPs for Priority Development Projects. The following are Priority Development Project Categories as defined by the Permit: a) New development projects that create 10,000 square feet or more of impervious surfaces (collectively over the entire project site) including commercial, industrial, residential, mixed-use, and public projects. This category includes development projects on public or private land which fall under the planning and building authority of the Copermittees. b) Automotive repair shops. This category is defined as a facility that is categorized in any one of the following Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) codes: 5013, 5014, 5541, 7532-7534, or 7536-7539. Audi of Temecula Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 3.7-7 ESA / 150189 July 2015 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.7 Hydrology, Water Quality and Water Supply c) Restaurants. This category is defined as a facility that sells prepared foods and drinks for consumption, including stationary lunch counters and refreshment stands selling prepared foods and drinks for immediate consumption (SIC code 5812), where the land area for development is greater than 5,000 square feet. Restaurants where land development is less than 5,000 square feet must meet all SSMP requirements except for structural treatment BMP and numeric sizing criteria requirement F.1.d.(6) and hydromodification requirement F.1.h. d) All hillside development greater than 5,000 square feet. This category is defined as any development which creates 5,000 square feet of impervious surface which is located in an area with known erosive soil conditions, where the development will grade on any natural slope that is twenty-five percent or greater. e) Environmentally Sensitive Areas (ESAs). All development located within, or directly adjacent to, or discharging directly to an ESA (where discharges from the development or redevelopment will enter receiving waters within the ESA), which either creates 2,500 square feet of impervious surface on a proposed project site or increases the area of imperviousness of a proposed project site to 10 percent or more of its naturally occurring condition. "Directly adjacent" means situated within 200 feet of the ESA. "Discharging directly to" means outflow from a drainage conveyance system that is composed entirely of flows from the subject development or redevelopment site, and not commingled with flows from adjacent lands. f) Impervious parking lots 5,000 square feet or more and potentially exposed to runoff. Parking lot is defined as a land area or facility for the temporary parking or storage of motor vehicles used personally, for business, or for commerce. Street, roads, highways, and freeways. This category includes any paved impervious surface that is 5,000 square feet or greater used for the transportation of automobiles, trucks, motorcycles, and other vehicles. Where Copermittees develop revised standard roadway design and post -construction BMP guidance that comply with the provisions of Section F.1 of the Order, public works projects that implement the revised standard roadway sections do not have to develop a project specific SSMP. The standard roadway design and post -construction BMP guidance must be submitted with the Copermittee's updated SSMP. h) Retail Gasoline Outlets (RGOs). This category includes RGOs that meet the following criteria: (a) 5,000 square feet or more or (b) a projected Average Daily Traffic (ADT) of 100 or more vehicles per day. g) In June 2013, the SDRWQCB Regional MS4 Permit, or Fifth Term Permit (Order No. R9-2013- 0001; NPDES No. CAS0109266), was adopted and will uniformly regulate all three counties within the San Diego Region to maximize efficiency. The Regional MS4 Permit focuses less on completing specific actions and more on reaching goals and desired outcomes towards the improvement of water quality. The San Diego County Copermittees were made subject to this new permit in June of 2013. Orange County Copermittees became subject to the order following the expiration of their current MS4 permit on December 16, 2014. Riverside County Copermittees will become subject to the order following the expiration of the current MS4 Permit Audi of Temecula Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 3.7-8 ESA / 150189 July 2015 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.7 Hydrology, Water Quality and Water Supply (Order No. R9-2010-0016) on November 10, 2015. The Regional MS4 Permit requires a minimum set of BMPs for all development projects (regardless of project type or size), during the planning process (i.e., prior to project approval and issuance of local permits), including unpaved roads and flood management projects. The Regional MS4 Permit also requires certain LID BMPs for all development projects, including conservation of natural areas and minimization of soil compaction. In addition, the Regional MS4 Permit includes additional specific requirements for Priority Development Projects. Priority Development Projects include the following: a) New development projects that create 10,000 square feet or more of impervious surfaces b) Redevelopment projects that create and/or replace 5,000 square feet or more of impervious surface on an existing site of 10,000 square feet or more of impervious surfaces c) New and redevelopment projects that create 5,000 square feet or more of impervious surfaces and support one or more of the following uses: 1. Restaurants 2. Hillside development projects 3. Parking lots 4. Streets, roads, highways d) New or redevelopment projects that create or replace 2,500 square feet or more of impervious surface and discharge directly into an environmentally sensitive area e) New development projects that support either automotive repair shops or retail gasoline outlets f) New or redevelopment projects that result in the disturbance of one or more acres of land and are expected to generate pollutants post construction Additional requirements for priority projects include structural LID BMPs, (such as runoff filtration, hydromodification management, infiltration, and groundwater protection) and long- term maintenance plans for these BMPs. All developers are required to submit a construction BMP plan that details seasonally appropriate and effective BMPs for construction of a project site to the City for approval. Examples of construction BMPs include good housekeeping, erosion control, sediment control, and run-on and run-off control. The Regional MS4 Permit lists the following BMP requirements that must be implemented during the planning process (i.e., prior to project approval and issuance of local permits) for all development projects (regardless of project type or size): (1) General Requirements: a) On-site BMPs must be located so as to remove pollutants from runoff prior to its discharge to any receiving waters, and as close to the source as possible. b) Structural BMPs must not be constructed within waters of the U.S. c) On-site BMPs must be designed and implemented with measures to avoid the creation of nuisance or pollution associated with vectors (e.g., mosquitos, rodents, or flies). Audi of Temecula Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 3.7-9 ESA / 150189 July 2015 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.7 Hydrology, Water Quality and Water Supply (2) Source Control BMP Requirements: a) Prevention of illicit discharges into the MS4 b) Storm drain system stenciling or signage c) Protect outdoor material storage areas from rainfall, run-on, runoff, and wind dispersal d) Protect materials stored in outdoor work areas from rainfall, run-on, runoff, and wind dispersal e) Protect trash storage areas from rainfall, run-on, runoff, and wind dispersal f) Any additional BMPs determined to be necessary by the Copermittee to minimize pollutant generation at each project (3) Low Impact Development (LID) BMP Requirements: a) Maintenance or restoration of natural storage reservoirs and drainage corridors (including topographic depressions, areas of permeable soils, natural swales, and ephemeral and intermittent streams) b) Buffer zones for natural water bodies (where buffer zones are technically infeasible, require project applicant to include other buffers such as trees, access restrictions, etc.) c) Conservation of natural areas within the project footprint including existing trees, other vegetation, and soils d) Construction of streets, sidewalks, or parking lot aisles to the minimum widths necessary, provided public safety is not compromised e) Minimization of the impervious footprint of the project f) Minimization of soil compaction to landscaped areas g) Disconnection of impervious surfaces through distributed pervious areas h) Landscaped or other pervious areas designed and constructed to effectively receive and infiltrate, retain and/or treat runoff from impervious areas, prior to discharging to the MS4 i) Small collection strategies located at, or as close as possible to, the source (i.e., the point where storm water initially meets the ground) to minimize the transport of runoff and pollutants to the MS4 and receiving waters Use of permeable materials for projects with low traffic areas and appropriate soil conditions k) Landscaping with native or drought tolerant species 1) Harvesting and using precipitation j) Furthermore, should the development be considered a priority project under Regional MS4 requirements, the applicant would be required to implement specific structural BMPs that conform to performance requirements described below: Audi of Temecula Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 3.7-10 ESA / 150189 July 2015 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.7 Hydrology, Water Quality and Water Supply a) Each Priority Development Project must be required to implement LID BMPs that are designed to retain (i.e., intercept, store, infiltrate, evaporate, and evapotranspire) on-site the pollutants contained in the volume of storm water runoff produced from a 24-hour 85th percentile storm event (design capture volume). b) Post -project runoff conditions (flow rates and durations) must not exceed pre -development runoff conditions by more than 10 percent (for the range of flows that result in increased potential for erosion, or degraded instream habitat downstream of Priority Development Projects). c) Each Priority Development Project must avoid critical sediment yield areas or implement measures that allow critical coarse sediment to be discharged to receiving waters, such that there is no net impact to the receiving water. d) A Priority Development Project may be allowed to utilize alternative compliance in lieu of complying with the performance requirements identified above. The Priority Development Project must mitigate for the post -project runoff conditions not fully managed on-site, if utilized New elements in the Regional MS4 Permit include stormwater and non-stormwater action level compliance, development of a water quality improvement plan (WQIP) in each watershed management area, use of water quality action levels to prioritize actions under the WQIP, more specific monitoring and assessment programs, and updated jurisdictional runoff management programs (based off of WQIP strategies). The WQIP for the Santa Margarita River Watershed Management Area has yet to be developed; its deadline for completion is June of 2015. Once developed, the City of Temecula Jurisdictional Runoff Management Plan (JRMP) for the Santa Margarita Region will be updated concurrently based off of WQIP principles. According to Regional MS4 Requirements, the WQIP will identify priority water bodies and water body improvement goals and schedules, along with a monitoring and assessment program that assess the progress towards achieving those goals. Riverside County Flood Control Design Handbook for Low Impact Development Best Management Practices The Riverside County Flood Control Water Conservation District Design Handbook for LID BMPs supplements the WQMP by providing guidance for the planning, design and maintenance of LID BMPs, which may be used to mitigate the water quality impacts of developments within Riverside County. The handbook highlights BMPs that are integrated into site design and passively remove pollutants from runoff through natural processes such as infiltration, biofiltration, and evapotranspiration; it also highlights BMPs that require little maintenance. The handbook contains detailed information and designs for seven LID BMPs that are designed to encourage replication of the site's natural hydrologic processes. The maximum tributary drainage area, siting considerations, design procedures, and maintenance requirements are detailed for each BMP. Audi of Temecula Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 3.7-11 ESA / 150189 July 2015 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.7 Hydrology, Water Quality and Water Supply City of Temecula Jurisdictional Runoff Management Program for the Santa Margarita Region In 2012, the City of Temecula released its JRMP for the Santa Margarita Region which describes the City of Temecula's specific runoff management programs and activities to comply with Order No. R9-2010-0016, issued to the Riverside County Copermittees in the Santa Margarita Region by the SDRWQCB on November 10, 2010 (2010 SMR MS4 Permit). This JRMP is the principal document that comprehensively translates the 2010 SMR MS4 Permit requirements into actions within the City of Temecula. The JRMP lists minimum BMPs specific to construction activities (e.g., soil stabilization) and City (e.g., litter management), commercial (e.g., trash receptacle maintenance) and residential operations (e.g., automobile parking). For each BMP category, enhanced BMPs must also be implemented if the development is discharging to the hydrologic area of a 303(d) impaired waterbody where the City of Temecula has determined that the site/source generates pollutants for which the water body segment is impaired. The JRMP is the City of Temecula's map for compliance with the 2010 MS4 Permit and associated WQMP. Per Regional MS4 Permit (Order No. R9-2013-0001) requirements, this JRMP will need to be updated according to WQIP policies. City of Temecula Storm Water Ordinance The City of Temecula adopted the Stormwater and Urban Runoff Management and Discharge Controls Ordinance (TMC Title 8.28) with the purpose and intent of protecting the water quality of City watercourses, water bodies, groundwater and wetlands in a manner pursuant to and consistent with the federal CWA, in order to ensure the future health, safety and general welfare of the citizens of the City by: • Regulating non-stormwater urban runoff to the storm drain system • Reducing pollutants in stormwater to the maximum extent practicable • Establish requirements for development projects for permanent water quality control measures • Establish requirements to reduce pollutant discharges from construction sites • Establish requirements to reduce pollutants in runoff from existing development • Prohibiting illicit connections and illegal discharges to the storm drain system New development and modifications to existing development is required to be designed to control pollutants in stormwater and urban runoff so as to prevent any deterioration of water quality that would impair subsequent or competing uses of the receiving waters. The City Engineer approves the BMPs that would be implemented to prevent deterioration and approves the manner of implementation. The ordinance requires a WQMP for all new development projects that meet the specified categories listed in the City of Temecula MS4 permit and modifications to existing development projects as defined in the MS4 permit. Audi of Temecula Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 3.7-12 ESA / 150189 July 2015 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.7 Hydrology, Water Quality and Water Supply City of Temecula Flood Damage Prevention Regulations This ordinance applies to all areas of special flood hazards, areas of flood -related erosion hazards and areas of mudslide (i.e., mudflow) hazards under the jurisdiction of the City (Ord. 91-12 § 3.1). "Special flood hazard area (SFHA)" means an area having special flood or flood -related erosion hazards and shown on a Federal Insurance Rate Map as zone A, AO, Al—A30, AE, A99 or AH. The Project site is located within flood zone A of Murrieta Creek, and is, therefore, subject to the City's Municipal Code Chapter 15.12, Flood Damage Prevention Regulations. City's Municipal Code Chapter 15.12 is intended to promote the public health, safety, and general welfare, and to minimize public and private losses due to flood conditions in specific areas by provisions designed: • To protect human life and health • To minimize expenditure of public money for costly flood -control projects • To minimize the need for rescue and relief efforts associated with flooding and generally undertaken at the expense of the general public • To minimize prolonged business interruptions • To minimize damage to public facilities and utilities such as water and gas mains, electric, telephone and sewer lines, streets and bridges located in areas of special flood hazard • To help maintain a stable tax base by providing for the sound use and development of areas of special flood hazard so as to minimize future flood blight areas • To insure that potential buyers are notified that property is in an area of special flood hazard • To insure that those who occupy the areas of special flood hazard assume responsibility for their actions. (Ord. 91-12 § 1.3) In order to accomplish its purposes, the City's Municipal Code Chapter 15.12 includes methods and provisions for: • Restricting or prohibiting uses which are dangerous to health, safety and property due to water or erosion hazards, or which result in damaging increases in erosion or flood heights or velocities • Requiring that uses vulnerable to floods, including facilities which serve such uses, be protected against flood damage at the time of initial construction • Controlling the alteration of natural flood -plains, stream, channels and natural protective barriers, which help accommodate or channel flood waters • Controlling fill, grading, dredging and other development which may increase flood damage • Preventing or regulating the construction of flood barriers which will unnaturally divert flood waters or which may increase flood hazards in other areas (Ord. 91-12 § 1.4) Audi of Temecula Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 3.7-13 ESA / 150189 July 2015 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.7 Hydrology, Water Quality and Water Supply City of Temecula General Plan The following goals and policies from the City of Temecula General Plan would apply to the Project (City of Temecula, 2005): Open Space Element Goal 2 Conservation and protection of surface water, groundwater and imported water resources. Policy 2.1 Coordinate with the Riverside County Flood Control District to design flood control improvements that preserve, to the maximum extent feasible, important natural features and resources of the local creeks and riparian forest of the Santa Margarita River. Policy 2.2 Identify and protect groundwater resources from depletion and sources of pollution in cooperation with the Rancho California Water District and the San Diego Water Quality Control Board. Policy 2.3 Conserve potable water by requiring water conservation techniques in all new development. Policy 2.4 Use reclaimed water for the irrigation of parks, golf courses, public landscaped areas and other feasible applications as service becomes available from Rancho California Water District and Eastern Municipal Water District. Policy 2.5 Require the use of soil management techniques to reduce erosion, eliminate off-site sedimentation, and prevent other soil -related problems that may adversely affect waterways in the community. Policy 2.6 Regulate and manage lands adjacent to or affecting watercourses as stipulated by the Regional Water Resources Control Board. Policy 2.7 Ensure that approved projects have filed a Notice of Intent and Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan in accordance with the Federal Clean Water Act, prior to issuance of grading permits. Policy 2.8 Ensure adequate inspection and enforcement of the requirements of general construction permits, particularly related to erosion control during grading and construction. Policy 2.9 Participate in regional planning for the Santa Margarita River Watershed in conjunction with federal, State, regional and local agencies, and nonprofit organizations. Policy 2.10 Participate in water resource management planning to facilitate the long-term availability of water resources for western Riverside County. Audi of Temecula Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 3.7-14 ESA / 150189 July 2015 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.7 Hydrology, Water Quality and Water Supply Policy 2.11 Participate in outreach educational programs to educate the public about water conservation methods, new technologies and drought resistant landscapes. Policy 2.12 Work with appropriate agencies to encourage ground water recharge facilities along flood control channels and creeks. Public Safety Element Goal 1 Protection from natural hazards associated with geologic instability, seismic events, wild land fires, flooding, and dam failures. Policy 1.6 Provide and maintain adequate flood control facilities and limit development within the 100 -year floodplain and potential dam inundation areas. Policy 1.7 Prohibit development of any kind within the floodway portion of the 100 -year floodplain. Plan Growth Management and Public Facilities Element Goal 7 An effective, safe and environmentally compatible flood control system. Policy 7.1 Work with the Riverside County Flood Control District and other agencies involved with Murrieta Creek flood control improvements to implement a solution that maximizes retention of natural resources and provision of recreation opportunities along the Creek. Policy 7.3 Wherever possible, give priority to flood control methods that maintain natural areas, maximize the beneficial uses of water through natural systems, and provide additional trail opportunities. 3.7.3 Impact Assessment Methodology The following analysis is based on proposed project plans, analysis prepared for the Harveston Specific Plan EIR, a Project Specific Water Quality Management Plan and Preliminary Technical Drainage Study prepared by RBF Consulting (RBF, 2015a, 2015b), and existing regulatory requirements. Thresholds of Significance Based on Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, impacts related to hydrology and water quality would be considered significant if the project would: • Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements • Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the Audi of Temecula Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 3.7-15 ESA / 150189 July 2015 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.7 Hydrology, Water Quality and Water Supply local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted) • Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site • Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off-site • Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff • Otherwise substantially degrade water quality • Place housing within a 100 -year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map • Place within a 100 -year flood hazard area structures which would impede or redirect flood flows • 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 The following topics are considered to have no impact from the project based on the project characteristics, geographical location, and underlying conditions according to several geotechnical investigations that have occurred within the Specific Plan area. No impact discussion is provided for these topics for the following reasons: Place Housing or other Structures in a 100 -year Flood Zone The project site is located outside of the FEMA flood zone as identified in the FEMA FIRM map for the project area. The project also does not include any residential land use component. Therefore as a result of location outside of the flood zone and no housing structures proposed, there would not be any impact related to flood zone hazards. Flooding from Failure of a Levee or Dam The project site is not currently protected by any levees but is located downstream of Lake Skinner, and west of Vail Lake and Diamond Valley Lake. According to inundation mapping provided by the City of Temecula, the project site is located outside of the inundation hazard areas for these dams. Therefore, even in the unlikely event of catastrophic failure of any of these dams, the project site would have a very low probability of being affected by a sudden release of water. No impacts are anticipated as a result of the project. Therefore, this impact threshold was not studied further. Audi of Temecula Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 3.7-16 ESA / 150189 July 2015 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.7 Hydrology, Water Quality and Water Supply Impacts — Hydrology Stormwater Runoff and Drainage Capacity Operation Proposed development would involve the conversion of the current undeveloped lot into a new automobile dealership with the addition of new impermeable surfaces that would alter the direction, volume and rate of overland flows during storm events. As part of NPDES requirements, overland flows and drainage volumes and rates at the site would be required to include LID BMPs that are designed to retain (i.e., intercept, store, infiltrate, evaporate, and evapotranspire) on-site the volume of storm water runoff produced from a 24-hour 85th percentile storm event (design capture volume) and post -project runoff conditions (flow rates and durations) must not exceed pre -development runoff conditions by more than 10 percent. The proposed drainage improvements include bio -retention basins surrounding the parking areas as well as an underground storage basin which would ultimately connect to a 36 -inch storm drain line that empties into the existing culvert which crosses beneath Interstate 15. A preliminary drainage study has been prepared for the site to determine the peak post -developed onsite 10 -year (Q10) and 100 -year (Q100) runoff for the site (RBF, 2015). The methodology of the study was in compliance with the Riverside Flood Control and Water Conservation District (RCFCWCD) Hydrology Manual. The preliminary study determined that the Q10 peak flow with drainage improvements (i.e., four bio -retention features and an underground storage basin) would be 8.22 cubic feet per second (cfs) and the Q100 peak flow with drainage improvements would be 12.26 cfs (RBF, 2015b). The 36 -inch storm drain would receive flows from the site as well as contributing flows from an inlet located on the east side of the cul-de-sac. The inlet connects to a 24 -inch storm drain which continues along the southern boundary of the project site becoming a 36 inch storm drain that eventually connects to the existing culvert. The drainage improvements would be designed to ensure that the Design Capture Volume (DCV) would be addressed by the selected BMPs in accordance with LID BMP Design Handbook as found in the NPDES MS4 permit requirements. LID BMPs would be required prior to volume based conventional treatment methods and all drainage improvements would be required to accommodate calculated post -development peak flows for the 10 -year and 100 -year storm events using methodology that complies with RCFCWCD. Adherence to requirements of City and RCFCWCD drainage control requirements, as stated below in Mitigation Measure HYD -1, in effect at the time of construction would ensure no substantial increases in stormwater runoff. Impacts related to increases in stormwater runoff and drainage capacity would be less than significant with mitigation. Significance Determination: Significant; mitigation required. Mitigation Measure MM -HYD -1: Prior to issuance of a grading permit, a final drainage study shall be prepared by a registered civil engineer and submitted to Public Works with the initial grading plan check in accordance with City, Riverside County and engineering standards. The study shall identify storm water runoff quantities (to mitigate the 100 -year storm event) from the development of this site and upstream of the site. It shall identify all existing or proposed offsite Audi of Temecula Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 3.7-17 ESA / 150189 July 2015 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.7 Hydrology, Water Quality and Water Supply or onsite, public or private, drainage facilities intended to discharge this runoff. Runoff shall be conveyed to an adequate outfall capable of receiving the storm water runoff without damage to public or private property. The study shall include a capacity analysis verifying the adequacy of all facilities. Any upgrading or upsizing of drainage facilities necessary to convey the storm water runoff shall be provided as part of development of this project. Significance after Mitigation: Less than significant. Impacts — Water Quality Water Quality Standards or Waste Discharge Requirements Construction Construction of the project would require earthwork activities that could expose and loosen surface soils and potentially expose them to mix with storm water runoff and degrade surface water quality. Furthermore, construction would require the use of heavy equipment and construction -related chemicals, such as concrete, cement, asphalt, fuels, oils, antifreeze, transmission fluid, grease, solvents and paints. These potentially harmful materials could be accidentally spilled or improperly disposed of during construction and could wash into and pollute surface waters or groundwater, which would result in a significant impact to water quality. Implementation of the following mitigation measure in the adopted Harveston Specific Plan Mitigation Monitoring Program would ensure that construction -related impacts on water quality would be less than significant. 1. Prior to issuance of any grading permits, the developer shall submit a "Notice of Intent" (NOI), along with the required fee to the State Water Resources Control Board to be covered under the State National Pollutants Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) General Construction permit and provide the City with a copy of the written reply containing the developer's identification number. The project would disturb more than one acre, and therefore the developer would be required to obtain coverage under the statewide NPDES Construction General Permit. The Construction General Permit requires the development and implementation of a SWPPP for all construction activities. The SWPPP would identify site-specific best management practices (BMPs) to control construction activities. The SWPPP would identify the sources of sediment and other pollutants that may affect the quality of storm water discharges during construction, and describes the implementation and maintenance of erosion control and sediment control BMPs to reduce or eliminate sediment, pollutants adhering to sediment, and other non -sediment pollutants in storm water as well as non -storm water discharges. Erosion control is any source control practice that protects the soil surface and prevents soil particles from being detached by rainfall, flowing water, and wind. Sediment control is any practice that traps soil particles after they have been detached and moved by rain, flowing water, and wind. Sediment control measures are passive systems that rely on filtering or settling the particles out of the water or wind that is transporting them. Sediment control BMPs are most effective when used in combination with erosion control Audi of Temecula Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 3/-18 ESA / 150189 July 2015 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.7 Hydrology, Water Quality and Water Supply BMPs and is the most effective means to prevent sediment from leaving the project site and potentially entering storm drains or receiving waters. Adherence to these conditions would ensure that potential water quality degradation associated with smaller construction activities would be minimized With implementation of the above mitigation measure construction -related impacts to water quality from the project would be less than significant. Operation The project would develop the currently vacant site and create new impervious surfaces (approximately 135,656 square feet) that would introduce the potential for new or additional pollutants to be generated in the area (e.g., pathogens, nutrients, pesticides, sediment, trash and debris, oxygen demanding substances, oil and grease). Operation of the new dealership would also include a car washing area and a service bay to perform light automobile maintenance that could potentially discharge associated pollutants into surface waters either directly or during storm water runoff events, if not managed appropriately. The two waterbodies near the project area (Warm Springs and Murrieta Creek) are both currently listed as impaired on the EPA's 303(d) list by point, nonpoint and urban runoff sources, including pesticides, building construction materials, heating systems, and fertilizer Operation of the project could create new or exacerbate existing impairments within these waterbodies, which would result in a significant impact related to water quality. Best management practices proposed for storm water treatment include a system of water quality basins and an underground detention basin located at the perimeter of the site prior to releasing the water into the existing storm water system. In addition, porous pavement/pavers are proposed for the surface parking areas to allow storm water infiltration. However, per the following mitigation measures in the adopted Harveston Specific Plan Mitigation Monitoring Program the operation of the project would be required to comply with the development planning requirements of the current SDRWQCB MS4 permit drainage control requirements and the City of Temecula Stormwater Ordinance. These include implementation of non-structural, structural, source control and treatment control BMPs during the planning process prior to project approval for development projects, which can include infiltration basin, detention basin, vegetated swale, media filter, storm drain stenciling or signage, protection of material and trash storage areas from rainfall, and vector avoidance strategies. The following mitigation measures from the adopted Harveston Specific Plan Mitigation Monitoring Program would be required to be implemented for the proposed project: 2. Prior to the issuance of the grading permit, the developer shall provide a Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) showing conformance to all NPDES requirements (enacted by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and Regional Water Quality Control Board, San Diego Region) for review and approval by the City Engineer. The plan shall reduce the discharge pollutants to the maximum extent practical using best management practices, control techniques and systems, design and engineering methods, and such other provisions which are appropriate. Audi of Temecula Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 3.7-19 ESA / 150189 July 2015 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.7 Hydrology, Water Quality and Water Supply 3. Catch Basin Filters: Storm water runoff may contain quantities of oil and grease from the use of vehicles. Catch basin filters could be installed on the on-site catch basins to absorb these contaminants before they get into the storm drain system. Catch basin filter is a filter which utilizes a natural absorbent material called Amorphous Alumina silicate (Fossil Rock) to filter out oil and grease and also maintain sufficient flow rate. Exact design of the filters may vary according to the characteristics of the proposed catch basins. A maintenance program would need to be developed, if possible to make this practice practical. Such a program typically includes periodic inspections, debris removal, local area cleanup, and replacement of filter absorbent materials. An entity would need to be identified to carry out the maintenance program. 4. Catch Basin Cleaning: Cleaning of catch basins would be performed regularly to remove debris and reduce pollutant concentrations before the first flush during storm seasons. Cleaning would also minimize clogging of the catch basin filter and underground drainage system. This catch basin cleaning practice should be at minimum provided once a year before the wet season to eliminate debris accumulated during the summer 5. Storm Drain System Signage: The Standard "No Dumping" signs would be posted at all the catch basins onsite. Significance Determination: Less than significant. Erosion and Siltation Construction Runoff from the project area currently flows overland and into the culvert beneath Interstate 15 where it then empties into Murrieta Creek. Development of the project would not directly alter the course of Murrieta Creek. However, construction of the project would require activities such as earthwork activities, which could temporarily alter ground surface and drainage patterns resulting in additional stormwater runoff. Compliance with the NPDES Construction General Permit for all construction activities would minimize exposure of disturbed soils through implementation of BMPs; and would result in less than significant impacts from stormwater runoff during construction. Significance Determination: Less than significant. Operation As noted above, the project would develop the currently vacant site and create new impervious surfaces (approximately 127,800 square feet) that could create additional stormwater flows offsite potentially increasing the potential for increased erosion and siltation if not designed appropriately. However, as also noted above, the project is required to include drainage control features such as permeable paving, bio -retention basins and other features which promote onsite infiltration of stormwater runoff and thus minimizing the amount of runoff volumes. The Audi of Temecula Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 3.7-20 ESA / 150189 July 2015 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.7 Hydrology, Water Quality and Water Supply proposed plans include construction of four bio -retention basins as well as an underground storage detention basin which would be designed in accordance with drainage control requirements. Adherence to requirements found in the MS4 permit in effect at the time of construction, as outlined in Mitigation Measure HYD -1, would ensure no substantial increases in stormwater runoff through maximizing onsite infiltration through permeable paving and bio - retention basins and thereby minimizing the potential for erosion and siltation. Impacts would be less than significant with mitigation. Significance Determination: Significant; mitigation required. Mitigation: Implement Mitigation Measure MM -HYD -1. Significance after Mitigation: Less than significant. Impacts — Water Supply Groundwater Supplies Construction The project would require use of water during construction for various activities and BMPs such as dust suppression, washing of heavy equipment prior to leaving the site and others. The estimated water usage during construction activities is 34,615 gallons, primarily for dust control across the 4.5 acre site. The use of the non -potable water for dust control is considered a temporary demand necessary to meet other environmental protections. The water would be supplied by the Rancho California Water District (RCWD), which would be the water supplier for the project and could include use of reclaimed water for dust suppression in accordance with the water quality management plan for the project. Therefore considering that the RCWD should have sufficient water supplies to accommodate the short term need of the project's water use during construction and use of reclaimed water where practical, the project would have a less than significant impact on water supplies. Impacts would be less than significant with regard to the impact of project construction on local groundwater supplies. Operation Development and operation of the project would represent new water demands for the currently undeveloped site. RCWD currently obtains water from the following primary water sources: (1) local groundwater from the Murrieta -Temecula Groundwater Basin; (2) imported State Water Project (SWP) and Colorado River water from Metropolitan through Eastern Municipal Water District (EMWD) and Western Municipal Water District (WMWD); and (3) recycled water from both RCWD and EMWD facilities (RCWD, 2015a). RCWD receives its imported water (treated and untreated) directly through six Metropolitan water turnouts, three in EMWD's service area and three in WMWD's service area. The District pumps groundwater from 52 district wells and recycles water at its Santa Rosa Water Reclamation Facility (SRWRF). Additional recycled water is available from EMWD's Temecula Valley Regional Water Reclamation Facility (TVRWRF). RCWD owns and operates 43 storage Audi of Temecula Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 3.7-21 ESA / 150189 July 2015 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.7 Hydrology, Water Quality and Water Supply reservoirs and one surface reservoir, Vail Lake. The storage capacity of Vail Lake is 45,207 acre feet (AF) and it is used to help recharge groundwater, through the use of infiltration basins downstream from the Vail Lake release facilities. Historically, groundwater has supplied between 25 to 40 percent of the EMWD's total water supply and imported water has supplied between 60 to 70 percent (RCWD, 2015a). Recycled water has provided less than five percent; however, current and planned improvements will increase the use of recycled water. Water supplies for 2015 available to RCWD total 93,790 acre- feet (RCWD, 2015a). However, because of recent drought conditions, RCWD has recently issued a "Stage 4a— Extreme Water Supply Warning" according to the District's Water Shortage Contingency Plan (Plan) (RCWD, 2015b). The Plan, which is required by law, provides how the District will respond to reduced water supply conditions for its customers. Among the requirements are reductions in use of water for outdoor uses and limitations of variance issuances. The estimated annual water usage for the project is approximately 70 hundred cubic feet (HCF) per month (1 Hundred Cubic Feet = 748 gallons) or approximately 840 HCF per year. Analysis of water supply projections for RCWD demonstrates that projected supplies exceed demand (9,978 acre-feet supply surplus for 2015) with planned projected growth of the City through the year 2041 (RCWD, 2015a). Surplus supplies are projected to grow as further recycled water supply improvements are brought online. The scope of the project does not meet the requirements of Senate Bill 610 necessary to warrant preparation of a water supply assessment because it would not employ more than 1,000 employees, create more than 250,000 square feet of commercial space, or require the equivalent water demand as a 500 unit residential development. In addition, the project would include LID features such as use of permeable pavers where feasible for onsite infiltration, use of reclaimed water for non -potable uses such as irrigation, and bio -retention basins that also encourage onsite infiltration. Therefore, considering the mixed source of water supplies, the total demand of the project, the use of LID into project design, and use of reclaimed water, the potential impact on local groundwater recharge and supplies from operation of the project would be less than significant on water supply. Significance Determination: Less than significant. Audi of Temecula Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 3.7-22 ESA / 150189 July 2015 CHAPTER 4 Cumulative Impacts 4.1 Introduction Section 15130 of the CEQA Guidelines requires that an EIR address cumulative impacts of a project when the project's incremental effect would be cumulatively considerable. "Cumulatively considerable" means that "the incremental effects of an individual project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects as defined in Section 15130" (Section 15065(c)). A cumulative effect is not deemed considerable if the effect would be essentially the same whether the proposed project is implemented or not. Section 15355 of the CEQA Guidelines states that "cumulative impacts can result from individually minor but collectively significant projects taking place over a period of time." A cumulative impact is not considered significant if the impact can be mitigated to below the level of significance through mitigation, including providing improvements and/or contributing funds through fee -payment programs. The EIR must examine "reasonable options for mitigating or avoiding any significant cumulative effects of a proposed project" (CEQA Guidelines Sections 15130(a)(3) and 15130(b)(5)). According to Section 15130 of the CEQA Guidelines, the discussion of cumulative effects "... need not provide as great a detail as is provided of the effects attributable to the project alone. The discussion should be guided by the standards of practicality and reasonableness" The evaluation of cumulative impacts is required by Section 15130 to be based on either: (A) a list of past, present, and probable future projects producing related or cumulative impacts, including, if necessary, those projects outside the control of the agency, or (B) a summary of projections contained in an adopted general plan or related planning document, or in a prior environmental document which has been adopted or certified, which described or evaluated regional or area -wide conditions contributing to the cumulative effect. Any such planning document shall be referenced and made available to the public at a location specified by the Lead Agency. 4.2 Cumulative Projects This analysis considers the impacts of the proposed project in combination with the potential environmental effects of other projects in the general area. "Other projects," also referred to as "cumulative projects," include recently completed projects, projects currently under construction, Audi of Temecula Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 4-1 ESA / 150189 July 2015 4. Cumulative Impacts and future projects currently under review by the governmental jurisdictions in the vicinity of the project. The potential for projects to have a cumulative impact depends on both geographic location as well as project schedule. 4.2.1 Geographic Scope The project area is located in the southern portion of the city of Temecula. The potential for specific project -generated impacts to contribute to a significant cumulative impact would occur if the impacts are located within the same generalized geographic area. This geographic area varies depending upon the resource area being evaluated and the geographic extent of the potential impact. For example, the geographic area associated with construction noise impacts would be limited to areas directly affected by construction noise associated with the proposed project in conjunction with the identified cumulative projects. In contrast, the geographic area that could be affected by the project and cumulative construction -related air emissions would include the entire air basin. For purposes of this SEIR, it was determined that other related projects located within an approximately 1.5 -mile radius of the project site would provide an adequate analysis of cumulative impacts. The County of Riverside and cities of Temecula and Murrieta were contacted for a list of projects. This list of other projects used in the analysis of cumulative effects is provided in Table 4-1. 4.2.2 Project Timing In addition to the geographic scope, cumulative impacts are determined by the timing of the other projects relative to the proposed project. Schedule is particularly relevant to the consideration of cumulative construction -related impacts, since construction impacts tend to be relatively short- term. However, for future projects, construction schedules are often broadly estimated and can be subject to change. Although the timing of the other projects will likely fluctuate due to schedule changes or other unknown factors, this analysis assumes these projects would be implemented concurrently with construction of the proposed project in 2016. 4.2.3 Type of Projects Considered As described in Chapter 3 of this SEIR, the majority of impacts associated with implementation of the project are short-term and related to construction. Table 4-1 lists current and future projects that could potentially contribute to cumulative impacts within the general vicinity of the project. Cumulative projects are also depicted on Figure 4-1. Audi of Temecula Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 4-2 ESA / 150189 July 2015 4. Cumulative Impacts w 1- 0 0 a w x H Z 4—~ JO CO Hp w 0 a a Z w Z Z J a O 0 J 0 aa)) p _ E 0- o o ru > Ho dc) 7 d m a) co `m co i 0 2 o as m m - d C U C' a) O Q CC ( c a) —1 O in O L C (0 C O= U O O a) c -a t - O z Et w Road and south of Nicholas Road. East side of Jackson Avenue north of Fig Street. > co'E N d`7 Q Q Q d • m al )Q N 6 a) d co Uas N a) > cov. a E O QxO092 O 0 o .0� o U °�Lteco al TD Cl_ a) (nL> CO N C C OD - QU7 m l!7 0 L (0UQo O 0 0 o c '7 N 'g C O-0 CO (0 O) O- 0 O < o -0 < c�i a) N— `O a) c �° o — >, c.o mtk2E p, m _ �.o� aocozu oU �� o 77) moo ca)(oQ � -aa) m o 0 2 E E m a) 'c a) U O 0 U o 0 m E Ua- � o QE O O O O U p) O o_ O O .O O O (n o o (/) '� S c mE ',:5 o ° o c a) a) O t a) n m-0 o O a) a) -o m- c%- E a m ;12 u) co o a) I O N co 00 .7 -0 92 `) C ED 7 a) a 7 co OA t '� .� 'E .E) E — N 'c rn -o '� a) a) p 0 1....... ._ In 0) oo N 0) �.0(n aE-E a) E m (n com2) N—•- o 2 0-0 0 a) .o 0 E E E >'w � `a Q C dm.— CC.U'tno om Q2 Q0- NN Q� Commercial City of Temecula City of Temecula 0) 0 '5 J C Li C (6 co co co N a) >, 7 c C C C C C (n - o (o a) - co -0 -0 -0 o -0 N.. To o a)O N <u_ 0 Et Et r Et Et Et 0 ccs oo o 0 N o a (6) a (6) m � Et ,, 7 0 - . co co C) Et0 O 0 EtL (n co c co c pco 0) 0 C 2 Q Q ) Q (n U) j (1) co N 2 2 > 1 2 7 (0 o (6 -O Q (6 (0 2 TD al TD al c O O O-.4-.) O 7 7 -7 2 7 a) 2o 2o m 2a) ga) to O O O O.E O.L s2 t o s o 0 o to sa 5 m . !- m o - zQ (ons (ons wJ (on> z°> A 2,213 square -foot drive-thru restaurant; approval pending. An 84 -unit condominium development; approved. A 184 -unit condominium development; approved. A 196 -unit apartment complex; approval pending. A 112 -unit apartment complex; approved. CO 7 CO CO RS (0 CO (0 CO CO (0 CO 0 a) o o a) o o a) o o a) O O O O O O O O O O O >, >, >, >, >, > >, >, > >, >, U U U U U U U U U U U N CO V U) (O N 0) d) 0 N () SOURCE: City of Temecula Community Development Department, 2015. Note: Refer to table 4-1 for cumul E H 0 SOURCE: Street Map USA; ESA 4. Cumulative Impacts 4.3 Description of Cumulative Effects Aesthetics The proposed project site and surrounding area contains mixed residential and other commercial land uses. There are no eligible or officially -designated scenic highways affected by the proposed Project. No scenic vistas have been identified within the proposed project area, per the City's General Plan. The cumulative projects list includes residential, office, commercial and mixed-use developments north of the project in Murrieta, as well as commercial, office and mixed use developments in Temecula. Like the project, these projects would represent an orderly, contiguous, and planned extension of the urban limit of the cities of Temecula and Murrieta. They would not involve `leap -frog' development that would isolate pockets of agricultural lands within urban development and would therefore help preserve the more rural vistas and mountain views that extend further into Riverside County. In addition, the project and cumulative projects would be required to comply with City codes and regulations and the Harveston Specific Plan Development Standards governing light and glare. Therefore, the cumulative development scenario would not result in significant impacts on scenic vistas, scenic resources, visual character, and light and glare. Significance Determination: Less than significant. Air Quality The project site is located within the Southern Coast Air Basin (Basin), which is considered the cumulative study area for air quality. Because the Basin is currently classified as a state nonattainment area for ozone, PM10, and PM25, cumulative development consisting of the project along with other reasonably foreseeable future projects in the Basin as a whole could violate an air quality standard or contribute to an existing or projected air quality violation. However, based on SCAQMD's cumulative air quality impact methodology, SCAQMD recommends that if an individual project results in air emissions of criteria pollutants (ROG, CO, NOx, SOx, PM10, and PM25) that exceed the SCAQMD's recommended daily thresholds for project -specific impacts, then it would also result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of these criteria pollutants for which the project region is in non -attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard. As shown in Tables 3.2-6 and 3.2-7, the project's construction and operational emissions would not exceed SCAQMD's daily thresholds. Additionally, because the project is consistent with the AQMP, the emissions from the project have been taken into account with respect to regional emissions and the ability for the Basin to meet the required attainment status. Thus, because the project's individual air quality impacts are less than significant, and the project is consistent with the AQMP, the project would not result in a cumulatively considerable net increase in any criteria pollutants for which the Basin is in non -attainment. Significance Determination: Less than significant. Audi of Temecula Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 4-5 ESA / 150189 July 2015 4. Cumulative Impacts Biological Resources The project site is currently undeveloped and surrounded by residential and commercial development. There is additional undeveloped land to the south and east of the project site that may be developed for future build -out of the Harveston Specific Plan. Since the undeveloped land surrounding the site has been previously disturbed from grading and weed abatement activities, little to no native vegetation or natural soil profiles exist that could support any sensitive natural communities or any sensitive plant and wildlife resources, with the exception of burrowing owl. Since burrowing owl is a covered species under the MSHCP, incidental take and conservation measures are already set in place to conserve the species and larger areas of suitable habitat, through participation (payment of the development fee) and demonstrating project compliance with the MSHCP. As such, the potential cumulative impact to burrowing owl through construction of the proposed project is considered less than significant. Additionally, the payment of the mitigation fee for SKR HCP would offset the project's contribution to the cumulative loss of habitat and ensure the preservation of large blocks of high quality natural habitat elsewhere within western Riverside County. For these reasons, the combined effects on these species would not be cumulatively significant. The project would not contribute to cumulative impacts on any other biological resources including Critical Habitat, jurisdictional waters/wetlands, wildlife corridors and linkages, and any local HCP. Significance Determination: Less than significant. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Climate Change Global climate change is a change in the average weather on Earth that can be measured by wind patterns, storms, precipitation, and temperature. Therefore the geographic scope for the analysis of cumulative construction- and operational -related impacts resulting from the emissions of GHG is worldwide. Construction and operation of the project would incrementally contribute to GHG emissions along with past, present, and future activities, and the CEQA Guidelines acknowledge this as a cumulative impact. As such, impacts of GHG emissions as analyzed in Section 3.3 of this SEIR represent the cumulative analysis. As discussed in detail in the Section 3.3, annual emissions of GHGs from project implementation is 987.08 MTCO2e. This would not exceed the SCAQMD's 3,000 MTCO2e screening threshold. Therefore, the increase in GHG emissions resulting from project implementation would not be cumulatively considerable. Significance Determination: Less than significant. Noise Cumulative noise assessment considers development of the proposed project in combination with ambient growth and other development projects within the vicinity of the project. As noise is a localized phenomenon, and drastically reduces in magnitude as distance from the source increases, only projects and ambient growth in the nearby area could combine with the project to Audi of Temecula Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 4-6 ESA / 150189 July 2015 4. Cumulative Impacts result in cumulative noise impacts. The cumulative projects listed in Table 4-1 have the potential to generate construction and/or operational noise in the vicinity of the project site. Development of the project in combination with the related projects would result in an increase in construction -related and traffic -related noise in the City. However, each of the related projects would be subject to Section 9.20.040 of the City Municipal Code, which establishes the allowable interior and exterior noise standards for various types of land uses in the City. In addition, the construction activities associated with all related projects would also be subject to Section 9.20.060(D) of the City Municipal Code, which establishes the permitted hours for construction Construction noise is localized in nature and decreases substantially with distance. Consequently, in order to achieve a substantial cumulative increase in construction noise levels, more than one source emitting high levels of construction noise would need to be in close proximity to the project. The nearest related project is located east of Jackson Avenue and north of Elm Street, over 3,000 feet northwest of the project site. Due to this distance, and along with the numerous intervening structures located between these two sites, a substantial increase in construction noise levels would not occur should construction for this related project occur at the same time as the proposed project. Therefore, this cumulative impact would be less than significant. As such, the project's contribution to construction noise would not be cumulatively considerable. Cumulative development in the City may result in the exposure of people to or the generation of excessive groundborne vibration. As discussed above, the nearest related project is located over 3,000 feet northwest of the project site. Due to this distance, and the rapid attenuation of groundborne vibration, the proposed project and this related project are not in close enough proximity to each other to affect the same sensitive receptors should construction for this related project occur at the same time as the project. Only receptors located in the immediate vicinity of each construction site would be potentially impacted by each development. Therefore, future development would result in a less -than -significant cumulative impact in terms of groundborne vibration. As such, the project's contribution to groundborne vibration would not be cumulatively considerable. The project and other cumulative projects would generate operational noise primarily by adding more traffic to the area. Table 4-2 and Table 4-3 show the future cumulative traffic noise with the project, and the difference between it and cumulative traffic noise without the project. As depicted in these tables, no roadway segment associated with cumulative development would result in a significant noise increase; and the project's incremental contribution to operational noise impacts would not be cumulatively considerable. Significance Determination: Less than significant. Audi of Temecula Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 4-7 ESA / 150189 July 2015 4. Cumulative Impacts TABLE 4-2 ROADWAY NOISE LEVELS WITH PROJECT (WEEKDAY) Roadway Segment Existing Land Uses Located Along Roadway Segmentb Noise Levels in dBA Lana Existing Project Traffic Volumes Future Future Without With Project Project Traffic Traffic Volumes Volumes Significance Exceed Increase Threshold Threshold? Project Contribution to Cumulative Increase Murrieta Hot Springs Road, West of Jackson Ave. Murrieta Hot Springs Road, East of Jackson Ave. Jackson Avenue, south of Murrieta Hot Springs Rd Ynez Road, north of Waverley Ln. Ynez Road, south of Waverly Ln. Ynez Road, north of Date St. Ynez Road, south of Date St. Ynez Road, north of Winchester Rd. Ynez Road, south of Winchester Ave. Date Street, east of Ynez Rd. Winchester Road, west of Ynez Rd. Winchester Road, east of Ynez Rd. Residential/ Commercial Residential/ Commercial Residential/ Commercial Residential/ Commercial Residential Residential Residential Church/ Commercial/Office Commercial Residential Commercial Commercial 66.7 67.8 67.8 66.5 67.6 67.6 61.5 62.5 62.6 61.5 62.2 62.3 61.9 62.5 62.7 61.9 62.5 62.7 62.8 63.2 63.3 71.5 71.8 72.0 69.6 70.0 70.0 60.9 61.3 61.3 73.6 73.4 73.3 70.0 70.6 70.6 1.1 1.1 1.1 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.5 0.3 0.4 0.4 0.3 0.6 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 No No No No No No No No No No No No 0 0 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.2 0 0 (0.1) 0 N/A = Non -applicable a Values represent noise levels at the approximate property line of the nearest receptors. b Along roadway segments that have multiple land uses, the lower noise level standard amongst the multiple land uses was used to provide a conservative analysis. TRAFFIC INFORMATION SOURCE: VA Consulting, Inc., 2015 TABLE SOURCE: ESA, 2015. Calculation data and results provided in Appendix C. Audi of Temecula Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 4-8 ESA/ 150189 July 2015 4. Cumulative Impacts TABLE 4-3 ROADWAY NOISE LEVELS WITH PROJECT (WEEKEND) Roadway Segment Existing Land Uses Located Along Roadway Segmentb Noise Levels in dBA Lana Existing Project Traffic Volumes Future Future Without With Project Project Traffic Traffic Volumes Volumes Significance Exceed Increase Threshold Threshold? Project Contribution to Cumulative Increase Murrieta Hot Springs Road, West of Jackson Ave. Murrieta Hot Springs Road, East of Jackson Ave. Jackson Avenue, south of Murrieta Hot Springs Rd Ynez Road, north of Waverley Ln. Ynez Road, south of Waverly Ln. Ynez Road, north of Date St. Ynez Road, south of Date St. Ynez Road, north of Winchester Rd. Ynez Road, south of Winchester Ave. Date Street, east of Ynez Rd. Winchester Road, west of Ynez Rd. Winchester Road, east of Ynez Rd. Residential/ Commercial Residential/ Commercial Residential/ Commercial Residential/ Commercial Residential Residential Residential Church/ Commercial/Office Commercial Residential Commercial Commercial 66.1 66.8 66.9 0.8 66.0 66.7 66.7 0.7 61.0 61.8 61.9 0.9 59.9 60.5 60.7 0.8 60.5 61.0 61.5 0.5 60.5 61.1 61.5 1 61.4 61.7 61.9 0.5 70.2 70.5 70.7 0.5 69.3 69.5 69.5 0.2 59.4 59.7 59.8 0.4 73.7 73.9 74.0 0.3 70.3 70.5 70.6 0.3 5.0 No 5.0 No 5.0 No 5.0 No 5.0 No 5.0 No 5.0 No 5.0 No 5.0 No 5.0 No 5.0 No 5.0 No 0.1 0 0.1 0.2 0.5 0.4 0.2 0.2 0 0.1 0.1 0.2 a Values represent noise levels at the approximate property line of the nearest receptors. Calculations were prepared by ESA; data and results are provided in Appendix C. b Along roadway segments that have multiple land uses, the lower noise level standard amongst the multiple land uses was used to provide a conservative analysis. SOURCES: VA Consulting, Inc., 2015 TABLE SOURCE: ESA, 2015. Calculation data and results provided in Appendix C. Transportation and Traffic Year 2016 Baseline With Project and Cumulative Projects Roadway Segment Operations Year 2016 Baseline With Project and Cumulative Projects weekday and Saturday 24-hour roadway segment volumes and v/c ratios within the study area are shown on Figures 16A and 16B, respectively, in the TIA (Appendix E of this SEIR). All volume to capacity (v/c) ratios shown on these figures are based on maximum two-way daily capacities. Figures 16A and 16B Audi of Temecula Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 4-9 ESA/ 150189 July 2015 4. Cumulative Impacts show that all study area roadway segments are operating at LOS D or better under the Existing With Project weekday and Saturday 24-hour conditions, with the exception of Winchester Road between Ynez Road and the I-15 interchange. As previously discussed, the augmented capacity of this roadway that was not considered in the v/c analysis is anticipated to provide a minimum LOS D. Intersection Operations Table 4-4 shows the results of intersection level of service analysis for the study area intersections for Year 2016 Baseline With Project And Cumulative Projects weekday and Saturday peak hour traffic conditions. Table 4-4 shows that all study area intersections would operate at an acceptable LOS D or better.. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant. TABLE 4-4 INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE — YEAR 2016 BASELINE WITH PROJECT AND CUMLATIVE PROJECTS Study Intersection Weekday Weekend AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Peak Hours (2-6PM) Delay Delay Delay Control (seclveh) LOS (sec/veh) LOS (sec/veh) LOS 1. Jackson Avenue/ Murrieta Hot Springs 2. Ynez Road/ Waverly Lane 3. Ynez Road/ Date Street 4. Ynez Road/ Winchester Road 5. 1-15 NB Ramps/ Winchester Road 6. 1-15 SB Ramps/ Winchester Road Signal 15.7 B 36.3 D 20.6 C Stop Sign 13.9 B 28.4 D 13.8 B Signal 33.5 C 31.1 C 27.5 C Signal 53.7 D 52.2 D 48.4 D Signal 18.9 B 42.8 D 46.0 D Signal 23.6 C 33.4 C 24.1 C SOURCE: VA Consulting Inc., 2015. Significance Determination: Less than significant. Hydrology, Water Quality and Water Supply As discussed in Section 3.7, Hydrology and Water Quality, the construction of the project would disturb surface soils and result in an increase in impervious surfaces and thus stormwater runoff. Compliance with existing stormwater regulations, mitigation measures adopted in the Harveston Specific Plan Mitigation Monitoring Program, and Mitigation Measure MM -HYD -1 in this SEIR would result in a less than significant impact on the local drainage system. Cumulative projects could also contribute to increased runoff due to increases in impervious surfaces. Any proposed development in the watershed that is larger than one acre would similarly have to satisfy all applicable requirements of the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Audi of Temecula Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 4-10 ESA / 150189 July 2015 4. Cumulative Impacts permits and Chapter 8.24, Stormwater/Urban Runoff Management and Discharge Controls of the City of Temecula's Municipal Code, to the satisfaction of the City of Temecula's Public Works Department. Cumulative projects could have general construction -related impacts on water quality in the project area if not managed appropriately. Construction activities at other project sites could also increase erosion and subsequent sedimentation. As with the project, all related projects are subject to the same federal regulations (Clean Water Act), state regulations (Porter Cologne Water Quality Control Act), and local regulations (Standard Urban Stormwater Mitigation Plan) that protect water quality and water resources. These regulations include NPDES permit requirements, stormwater pollution prevention plans, and post -development stormwater quality and quantity requirements. All of these regulations are designed to ensure that the incremental effects of individual projects do not cause a substantial cumulative impact. Therefore, despite the potential for the related projects to alter drainage patterns and runoff conditions, the adherence to the aforementioned requirements and implementation of LID drainage improvements would ensure that they do not result in cumulatively considerable impacts related to sedimentation, flooding, water quality, drainage system capacity, flood hazard areas, failure of a levee or dam, seiche, tsunami, or mudflows. When considered in combination with other developments similarly bound by the same regulations, the project's incremental contribution to water quality and quantity impacts, with proposed mitigation, would not be cumulatively considerable. Significance Determination: Less than significant. Audi of Temecula Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 4-11 ESA / 150189 July 2015 CHAPTER 5 Alternatives Analysis 5.1 Introduction According to the CEQA Guidelines, an EIR must describe a reasonable range of alternatives to a proposed project that could feasibly attain most of the basic project objectives, and would avoid or substantially lessen the proposed project's significant environmental effects. This alternatives analysis summarizes the alternatives screening process conducted to identify feasible alternatives that meet project objectives. As required by CEQA, this analysis first considers which alternatives can meet most of the basic project objectives, and then to what extent those remaining alternatives can avoid or reduce the environmental impacts associated with the proposed project. Information used to select an "environmentally superior alternative" is also provided in this chapter. 5.2 CEQA Requirements Section 15126.6(f) of the CEQA Guidelines provides direction on the required alternatives analysis: The range of alternatives required in an EIR is governed by a "rule of reason" that requires the EIR to set forth only those alternatives necessary to permit a reasoned choice. The alternatives shall be limited to ones that would avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant effects of the project. Of those alternatives, the EIR need examine in detail only the ones that the Lead Agency determines could feasibly attain most of the basic objectives of the project. The range of feasible alternatives shall be selected and discussed in a manner to foster meaningful public participation and informed decision making. The alternatives may include a different type of project, modification of the proposed project, or suitable alternative project sites. An EIR need not consider every conceivable alternative to a project. Rather, the alternatives must be limited to ones that meet the project objectives, are feasible, and would avoid or substantially lessen at least one of the significant environmental effects of the project. "Feasible" means capable of being accomplished in a successful manner within a reasonable period of time, taking into account economic, environmental, legal, social, and technological factors. Section 15126.6(b) of the CEQA Guidelines states that an EIR: must identify ways to mitigate or avoid the significant effects that a project may have on the environment, the discussion of alternatives shall focus on alternatives to the project or its location which are capable of avoiding or substantially lessening any significant effects of the project, even if these alternatives would impede to some degree the attainment of the project objectives, or could be more costly. Audi of Temecula Draft Supplemental Environmental Inpact Report 5-1 ESA / 150189 July 2015 5. Altematives Analysis Section 15126.6(d) of the CEQA Guidelines provides further guidance on the extent of alternatives analysis required: The EIR shall include sufficient information about each alternative to allow meaningful evaluation, analysis, and comparison with the proposed project. A matrix displaying the major characteristics and significant environmental effects of each alternative may be used to summarize the comparison. If an alternative would cause one or more significant effects in addition to those that would be caused by the project as proposed, the significant effects of the alternative shall be discussed, but in less detail than the significant effects of the project as proposed. The EIR must briefly describe the rationale for selection and rejection of alternatives and the information the Lead Agency relied on when making the selection. It also should identify any alternatives considered but rejected as infeasible by the Lead Agency during the scoping process and briefly explain the reasons for the exclusion. Alternatives may be eliminated from detailed consideration in the EIR if they fail to meet most of the project objectives, are infeasible, or do not avoid any significant environmental effects. Section 15126.6(e)(1) of the CEQA Guidelines also requires that the No Project Alternative must be addressed in this analysis. The purpose of evaluating the No Project Alternative is to allow decision -makers to compare the potential consequences of the proposed project with the consequences that would occur without implementation of the proposed project. Finally, an EIR must identify the environmentally superior alternative. The No Project Alternative may be the environmentally superior alternative to the proposed project based on the minimization or avoidance of physical environmental impacts. However, the No Project Alternative must also achieve the project objectives in order to be selected as the environmentally superior alternative. CEQA Guidelines (Section 15126.6(e)(2)) require that if the environmentally superior alternative is the No Project Alternative, the EIR shall identify an environmentally superior alternative among other alternatives. As identified in Section 2.2, Project Objectives of this SEIR, the objectives of the Audi of Temecula project include the following: The City's project objectives include: • Plan and implement a project that is consistent with the goals and policies of the City of Temecula General Plan. • Provide for high quality, high-end service commercial uses consistent with the Harveston Specific Plan that serve the needs of the City residents. • Create job growth for the local economy. The applicant's project objectives are: • To better serve the existing Audi customer base in the City. • To expand Audi's market share in Riverside County and the Temecula area. Audi of Temecula Draft Supplemental Environmental Inpact Report 5-2 ESA / 150189 July 2015 5. Altematives Analysis • To construct a high-end facility of architectural quality that complements other commercial uses in the area. 5.3 Review of Significant Environmental Impacts Based on the CEQA Guidelines, several factors need to be considered in determining the range of alternatives to be analyzed in an EIR and the level of analytical detail that should be provided for each alternative. These factors include (1) the nature of the significant impacts of the proposed project; (2) the ability of alternatives to avoid or lessen the significant impacts associated with the project; (3) the ability of the alternatives to meet the objectives of the project; and (4) the feasibility of the alternatives. As there are no significant impacts associated with the project, the ability of alternatives to avoid or lessen any impacts identified in Chapter 3 of this EIR were analyzed, in addition to the ability to meet project objectives, and the feasibility of the alternatives. 5.4 Alternatives Not Evaluated in this EIR An EIR must briefly describe the rationale for selection and rejection of alternatives. The Lead Agency may make an initial determination as to which alternatives are potentially feasible and, therefore, merit in-depth consideration, and which are clearly infeasible. Alternatives that are remote or speculative, or the effects of which cannot be reasonably predicted, need not be considered (CEQA Guidelines, Section 15126.6(0(3)). An alternative site or location for the project need not be considered when its implementation is "remote and speculative" such as the site being out of the purview of the lead agency or beyond the control of a project applicant. Alternative sites were not selected for evaluation. The CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(0(2) specifies that the key question with alternative sites is "whether any of the significant effects of the project would be avoided or substantially lessened by putting the project at another location." While other similar -sized areas of land could be found, based on the known general conditions, allowed uses in the area, and the magnitude of the proposal, an alternative site in the area would likely have the same or similar impacts after mitigation as the project. In addition, an alternative location is beyond the control of the applicant and would be difficult to still proceed within a reasonably similar time frame for project completion. 5.5 Alternatives Selected for Consideration Three alternative scenarios, representing a range of reasonable alternatives to the proposed project, were selected for detailed analysis. They are: Alternative 1: No Project Alternative; Alternative 2: Reduced Project Alternative; and Alternative 3: Retail Use Alternative. The goal for evaluating any of these alternatives is to identify ways to avoid or lessen the significant environmental effects resulting from implementation of the proposed project, while attaining most of the project objectives. The following discussion provides a general description of each alternative, its ability to meet the project objectives, and a qualitative discussion of its environmental impacts as compared to the project. As provided in Section 15126.6(d) of the CEQA Guidelines, the significant effects of these Audi of Temecula Draft Supplemental Environmental Inpact Report 5-3 ESA / 150189 July 2015 5. Alternatives Analysis alternatives are identified in less detail than the analysis of the proposed project in Chapter 3 of this EIR. Table 5-1 compares the ability of the alternatives to meet the project objectives. Table 5-2 provides a side-by-side comparison of the potential impacts of the alternatives to the impacts of the project. TABLE 5-1 ABILITY OF ALTERNATIVES TO MEET PROJECT OBJECTIVES Project Objectives Alt. 1: No Project Alternative (No Devel opment) Alt. 2: Reduced Project Alternative Alt.3: Retail Use Alternative Plan and implement a project that is consistent with the goals and policies of the City of Temecula General Plan. Provide for high quality, high-end service commercial uses consistent with the Harveston Specific Plan that serves the needs of the City residents. Create job growth for the local economy. To adequately serve the existing Audi customer base in the Temecula area. To maximize Audi's market share in Riverside County and the Temecula area. To construct a high-end facility of architectural quality that complements other commercial uses in the area. No Yes Yes No No No No No Yes Yes No No Yes Yes Yes No No Yes TABLE 5-2 IMPACT SUMMARY COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROJECT Potential Project Impacts Alternative 1: No Project Alternative Alternative 2: Reduced Project Alternative 3: Retail Use Aesthetics Air Quality GHG Emissions/ Climate Change Noise Biological Resources Traffic Hydrology and Water Quality Fewer Fewer Fewer Fewer Fewer Fewer Fewer Similar Fewer Fewer Fewer Similar Fewer Fewer Increased Increased Increased Increased Similar Increased Increased Audi of Temecula Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 5-4 ESA/ 150189 July 2015 5. Altematives Analysis Alternative 1: No Project Alternative (No Development) Under this alternative, the project would not be built and the project site would remain in its existing, undeveloped condition. The site would continue to contain a temporary storm water siltation basin and non-native grasses and ruderal forbs on a previously graded lot. The following discusses the impacts associated with the No Project Alternative, Alternative 1, in comparison to the impacts of the project. Aesthetics The project would have a less than significant impact on aesthetics. Under the No Project Alternative, potential aesthetic changes relating to the replacement of existing site features would not occur. Alternative 1 would not result in the development of the site or increase in nighttime lighting from vehicles, buildings, landscape features, and signage associated with a new car dealership under the project. As a result, the project site would continue in its existing form with its visual and aesthetic character unchanged. Even though the aesthetic changes resulting from the project would not be considered significant impacts, the No Project Alternative's impacts to aesthetics would be less as compared to the project because no change, such as increased nighttime lighting, would occur. Air Quality The project would have a less than significant direct and cumulative air quality impact from construction and operational activities. The No Project Alternative would not result in construction of the proposed new car dealership; as such, no construction- or operational -related air quality impacts would occur. As such, the No Project Alternative would have fewer impacts to air quality as compared to the project. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Climate Change The project would have a less than significant cumulative impact on global climate change from greenhouse gas emissions. Under the No Project Alternative, no development would occur on the site and no greenhouse gas emissions would be produced. Therefore, Alternative 1 would have fewer impacts to global climate change from greenhouse gas emissions as compared to the project. Noise The project would have a less than significant direct and cumulative noise impact from construction and operational activities. Under the No Project Alternative, the project site would remain undeveloped, with no noise -generating sources would occur onsite. The No Project Alternative would not alter the current noise environment at the site and it would not result in exposing future populations or adjacent sensitive receptors to new noise sources. Therefore, the No Project Alternative is considered to have fewer noise impacts as compared to the project. Audi of Temecula Draft Supplemental Environmental Inpact Report 5-5 ESA / 150189 July 2015 5. Altematives Analysis Biological Resources The project would have a less then significant impact on biological resources with the implementation of mitigation measures. Under the No Project Alternative, ground disturbance from development would not happen and, as such, no impacts to existing flora and fauna would occur. Therefore, the No Project Alternative would have fewer impacts to biological resources as compared to the project. Traffic The project would have a less than significant impact on traffic with the implementation of mitigation measures. The No Project Alternative would not result in any of the traffic -related impacts associated with the project, as no construction activities would occur. Therefore, there would be no increase in short-term impacts related to truck trips or worker commute trips on the regional roadways as required by the project. Additionally, there would be no long-term traffic impacts due to the operation of the car dealership. Thus, the No Project Alternative would have fewer impacts on traffic as compared to the project. Hydrology, Water Quality and Water Supply The project would result in less than significant impacts to hydrology, water quality, and water supply. Under the No Project Alternative, no development of the site would occur, and, therefore, no impact to hydrology and water quality above those associated with the existing conditions. Alternative 1 would not use potable or recycled water. As such, the No Project Alternative would result in fewer hydrology and water quality impact as compared to the project. Ability to Meet Project Objectives The No Project Alternative would not meet any of the project objectives, and would maintain current conditions, as no development would take place on the undeveloped lot. Plans for the development of the Harveston Specific Plan Service Commercial area would not be fulfilled. Alternative 2: Reduced Project Alternative Under this alternative, the project's building square footage would be reduced by one-third from approximately 37,470 square feet to approximately 24,730 square feet. The project components would be similar to the project as proposed, but at a smaller scale. Due to the smaller scale of the project, it is anticipated this alternative would result in a shortened construction period, less construction equipment usage, and reduced vehicle trips to the site generated by employees and patrons. Therefore, this project alternative would result in the following reduced impacts: Aesthetics The project would have a less than significant impact on aesthetics. Under the Reduced Project Alternative, the building square footage would be reduced; however, building heights would likely remain the same as the project. The foreground, middle ground, and back ground views of the reduced building mass would likely have similar effects as compared to the project when viewed during the daylight hours. Nighttime lighting and glare effects would be reduced under Audi of Temecula Draft Supplemental Environmental Inpact Report 5-6 ESA / 150189 July 2015 5. Altematives Analysis Alternative 2 because this Alternative would require less on-site lighting, due to the reduced project footprint. Additionally, Alternative 2 would result in less than significant impacts with the use of "sharp cut-off' fixtures designed to provide controlled light distribution to minimize light spillover and create little -to -no glare. Light fixtures would be parallel with the finished grade of the project site, and landscaping would be utilized to shield glare from the project site. Overall, it is anticipated that Alternative 2 would result in fewer aesthetic impacts as compared to the project. Air Quality The project would result in a less than significant direct and cumulative impact on air quality, and significant unavoidable impacts from construction activities. Construction activities under Alternative 2 would also generate temporary air quality impacts; however these temporary impacts from on-site construction emissions (ROG, NOX, CO, SO2, PM10, and PM25) would be reduced due to reduced construction equipment usage and a shortened construction phase because of a 33 percent reduction in building size. This reduction is project size would result in less intensive grading, paving, and building and architectural coating activities than those under the proposed project. Similar to the project, operational emissions under Alternative 2 would be generated primarily from on -road vehicular traffic, area sources, and indirectly by the energy consumption of the buildings onsite. Operational air quality impacts under this alternative would be less than those under the project as this alternative would generate fewer operational emissions due to a decrease in building square footage, resulting in less mobile source emissions from employees and patrons. As such, it is anticipated that Alternative 2 would result in fewer construction and operational air quality impacts as compared to the project. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Climate Change The project would result in a less that significant cumulative impact on global climate from greenhouse gas emissions. With implementation of Alternative 2, the project's building square footage would be reduced by one-third. Thus, the project's construction period would be reduced and equipment use would be for a shorter duration under Alternative 2. Temporary short-term construction pollutant emissions that would be generated under Alternative 2 would be slightly less than the proposed project. This decrease in building square footage would also result in less vehicular traffic to the project site by motor vehicle trips generated by employees and patrons of the dealership as compared to the project. As such, Alternative 2 would result in fewer greenhouse gas emissions and, therefore, less impact on climate change as compared to the project. Noise The project would result in less than significant impacts to noise. Alternative 2 would reduce the development by one-third which would result in a shorter construction period. The amount of construction equipment necessary would also be reduced. Therefore, less equipment and a shorter construction period would result in less noise exposure to the area. Alternative 2 would result in less operational noise from vehicular trips than the project because of less motor vehicle trips generated by employees and patrons of the dealership. When compared to the project, Alternative 2 would result in fewer noise -related impacts. Audi of Temecula Draft Supplemental Environmental Inpact Report 5-7 ESA / 150189 July 2015 5. Altematives Analysis Biological Resources The project would result in a less than significant impact on biological resources. Alternative 2 would reduce the development by one-third; however, it is anticipated that under Alternative 2 the whole site would be graded to accommodate buildings, parking, infrastructure, and storm water treatment and conveyance. Therefore, biological impacts associated with Alternative 2 would likely be similar as compared to the project. Traffic The project would generate an estimated 1,227 average daily t trips (ADT) during the week and would have a less than significant impact on the surrounding circulation system. Alternative 2 would reduce the project's development by 33 percent (approximately 12,740 square feet). This reduction in building square footage would reduce the number of permanent employees and visitors to the site; it is anticipated to result in reduced ADT made by employees and patrons to the site and thus fewer impacts to the circulation system as compared to the project. Hydrology, Water Quality and Water Supply The project would result in a less than significant impact on hydrology, water quality, and water supply. Alternative 2 would have a reduced building footprint and would result in reduced impervious surfaces at build out. This would result in less surface runoff and related effects on hydrology and water quality when compared to the project. Similar to the project, Alternative 2 would be required to adopt a water quality management plan and best management practices to ensure that it also did not have significant impacts to hydrology and water quality. Therefore, impacts to hydrology and water quality would be similar as compared to the project. It is also expected that a reduction in building square footage would also reduce the demand for potable water. Therefore, Alternative 2 would result in similar impacts to hydrology and water quality, but fewer impacts to water supply as compared to the project. Ability to Meet Project Objectives Alternative 2 would meet several of the project objectives; however by reducing the size of the facility it fails to meet these specific project objectives: to adequately serve the Audi customer base in the Temecula area, and to maximize Audi's market share in the Temecula area and Riverside County. Alternative 3: Retail Use Alternative Under this alternative, the project site would be developed as a commercial retail center comprised of a typical mix of uses found in such centers, such as sales offices, restaurants, banks and financial institutions; and permitted in the Service Commercial area of the Harveston Specific Plan. Using the target floor area ratio (FAR) in the Harveston Specific Plan for Service Commercial of 0.4 FAR, the building square feet of commercial under this alternative would more than double to approximately 78,400 square feet as compared to the project's approximately 37,470 square feet. Audi of Temecula Draft Supplemental Environmental Inpact Report 5-8 ESA / 150189 July 2015 5. Altematives Analysis Aesthetics The project would result in less than significant impacts to aesthetics. Alternative 3 would result in a commercial development with a greater building intensity than the proposed project. This increase would result in greater building mass and increased light and glare effects. This alternative would introduce additional sources of light and glare on the new buildings. However, it is anticipated the developer would employee the use of "sharp cut-off' fixtures designed to provide controlled light distribution to minimize light spillover and create little -to -no glare. Similar to the proposed project, light fixtures would be parallel with the finished grade of the project site, and landscaping would be utilized to shield glare from the project site. Overall, due to the increase in intensity Alternative 3 would have an increased effect on aesthetics as compared to the project. Air Quality The project would result in less than significant impacts to air quality Alternative 3 would likely have a longer construction period and, therefore, an increase in temporary air quality impacts from the following construction activities: (1) site preparation, grading, and excavation; (2) construction workers traveling to and from project site; (3) delivery and hauling of construction supplies to, and debris from, the project site; (4) fuel combustion by on-site construction equipment; (5) building construction, application of architectural coatings, and paving. Similar to the proposed project, operational emissions under Alternative 3 would be generated primarily from on -road vehicular traffic, area sources, and indirectly by the energy consumption of the commercial building onsite. A more than doubling of building square feet under Alternative 3 over the project would increase employees and patronage to the site result in greater operational emissions as compared to the project. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Climate Change The project would result in a less that significant cumulative impact on global climate from greenhouse gas emissions. With implementation of Alternative 3, the project's building square feet would more than double. This increase in building area would increase employees and patronage to the site which would result in an increase in vehicular traffic, area source emissions, and energy use as compared to the project.. Area and indirect sources associated with the project would primarily result from increased electricity and natural gas consumption, water transport (the energy used to pump water to and from the project site), and solid waste generation. GHG emissions from electricity consumed on the project site would be generated offsite by fuel combustion at the electricity provider. GHG emissions from water transport are also indirect emissions resulting from the energy required to transport water from its source. As such, Alternative 3 would result in greater greenhouse gas emissions and, therefore, an increased impact on climate change as compared to the project. Noise The project would result in less than significant impacts to noise. Alternative 3 would increase the development density by more than 100 percent which would result in a longer construction period and, therefore, would expose the area to construction noise for a longer period. In addition, Audi of Temecula Draft Supplemental Environmental Inpact Report 5-9 ESA / 150189 July 2015 5. Altematives Analysis operational noise from vehicular traffic would increase from the increased trips associated with a commercial retail center as compared to the project. When compared to the project, Alternative 3 would result in greater noise -related impacts. Biological Resources The project would result in less than significant impacts to biological resources. Under Alternative 3, a similar area of ground would be disturbed as the project. Therefore, impacts to biological resources would be similar as compared to the project. Traffic The project would generate an estimated 1,227 ADT during the week and would have a less than significant impact on the surrounding circulation system. Alternative 3 would increase the project's development by approximately 12,740 square feet. This increase in building square footage and the introduction of a commercial use would generate an estimated 3,348 ADT during the week, nearly three times the rate of the project. As such, Alternative 3 would result in greater impacts to the circulation system as compared to the project. Hydrology, Water Quality and Water Supply The project would result in a less then significant impact on hydrology, water quality, and water supply. Alternative 3 would have a larger building footprint likely resulting in more impervious surface at build out than the project. This would result in more surface runoff and related effects on hydrology and water quality when compared to the project. However, similar to the project, Alternative 3 would be required to adopt a water quality management plan and best management practices to ensure that it also did not have significant impacts to hydrology and water quality. Therefore, impacts to hydrology and water quality would be similar as compared to the project. It is also expected that an increase in building square footage would require greater demand for potable water than the project. Therefore, Alternative 3 would result in similar impacts to hydrology and water quality, but greater impacts to water supply as compared to the project. Ability to Meet Project Objectives Alternative 3 would meet several of the project objectives; however by developing a use on the site other than a new car dealership, it fails to meet these specific objectives: to adequately serve the Audi customer base in the Temecula area, and to maximize Audi's market share in the Temecula area and Riverside County. 5.6 Environmentally Superior Alternative An EIR must identify the environmentally superior alternative. The No Project Alternative (No Development) would be environmentally superior to the project based on the minimization or avoidance of physical environmental impacts. However, the No Project Alternative (No Development) does not meet any of the project objectives. In addition, CEQA Guidelines (Section 15126.6(c)) require that, if the environmentally superior alternative is the No Project Alternative (No Development), the EIR shall also identify an environmentally superior alternative among the other alternatives. Audi of Temecula Draft Supplemental Environmental Inpact Report 5-10 ESA / 150189 July 2015 5. Altematives Analysis A summary comparison of the ability of the alternatives to meet project objectives and potential impacts associated with the alternatives as compared to the project is provided in Tables 5-1 and 5-2, above. Based on this comparison, Alternative 2 (Reduced Project Alternative) is the environmentally superior alternative. However, Alternative 2 fails to meet certain project objectives identified in Section 5.5, above. Audi of Temecula Draft Supplemental Environmental Inpact Report 5-11 ESA / 150189 July 2015 CHAPTER 6 Other CEQA Considerations This chapter presents the evaluation of other types of environmental impacts required by CEQA that are not covered within the other chapters of this Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (SEIR). Other CEQA considerations addressed in this chapter include significant irreversible environmental changes that would be caused by the project, and significant and unavoidable adverse impacts. 6.1 Significant Irreversible Environmental Changes Section 21100(b)(2)(B) of the CEQA Statutes and Section 15126.2(c) of the CEQA Guidelines require that an EIR analyze the extent to which the proposed project's primary and secondary effects would impact the environment and commit nonrenewable resources to uses that future generations would not be able to reverse. "Significant irreversible environmental changes" include the use of nonrenewable natural resources during the initial and continued phases of the project, should this use result in the unavailability of these resources in the future. Primary impacts and, particularly, secondary impacts generally commit future generations to similar uses. Also, irreversible damage can result from environmental accidents associated with projects. Irretrievable commitments of these resources are required to be evaluated in an EIR to ensure that such consumption is justified (CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.2(c)). Approval of the project would cause irreversible environmental changes consisting of the following: • Commitment of land that will be physically altered to create a commercial use. The relatively small commitment of land to this use (4.5 acres) is considered less than significant when compared to other development in a local and regional context, and the surrounding urban built environment. • Alteration of the human environment as a consequence of the development process. The project, which represents a commitment of land to a commercial use, changes the undeveloped, open land currently occurring on the project site. The project is consistent with the adopted Harveston Specific Plan land use and zoning designations. • Increased requirements of public services and utilities for the project, which represents a permanent commitment of these resources. Service providers have indicated adequate supply of water to service the project and the ability to provide fire protection, police protection, emergency medical service, and solid waste and wastewater services. Audi of Temecula Draft Supplemental Environmental Inpact Report 6-1 ESA / 150189 July 2015 6. Other CEQA Considerations • Use of various nonrenewable natural resources for project construction and operations, such as diesel, gasoline, or oil for construction equipment and natural gas or other fossil fuels used to provide power and heating sources to the proposed commercial use. The energy consumed in developing and maintaining the site may be considered a permanent investment. The project would not use nonrenewable fossil fuels at a greater rate than other typical specific plan projects. If this project were not to occur, similar resources would likely be used to develop the project site per the Harveston Specific Plan. The project would not increase the overall rate of use of any nonrenewable natural resource or result in the substantial depletion of any nonrenewable resource. • Use of various renewable natural resources, such as water, lumber, and soil, for potential construction and operations. The project is a relatively minor consumer of these supplies when compared to other local and regional users. The project's use of reclaimed water for landscaping and car wash service would also reduce demand for potable water. The project would not increase the overall rate of use of any renewable natural resource or result in the substantial depletion of any renewable resource. 6.2 Significant Unavoidable Impacts As required by CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.2(b), an EIR must describe any significant impacts that cannot be avoided, including those impacts that can be mitigated but not reduced to a less than significant level. Chapter 3 of this SEIR describes the potential environmental impacts of the project and recommends mitigation measures to reduce impacts, where feasible. As discussed in this Draft SEIR, implementation of the project would result in significant impacts to Aesthetics, Biological Resources, Noise, and Hydrology/Water Quality and Water Supply. However, these impacts would be mitigated to below a level of significance with implementation of mitigation measures identified in this Draft SEIR. Based upon the analysis in Chapter 3, there were no significant and unavoidable impacts associated with the implementation of the project. Audi of Temecula Draft Environmental Impact Report 6-2 ESA / 150189 July 2015 CHAPTER 7 Acronyms, References and List of Preparers 7.1 Acronyms AB Assembly Bill AC acres ADT Average Daily Traffic AMSL above mean sea level AQMP Air Quality Management Plan BMPs Best Management Practices CAAQS California Ambient Air Quality Standards Caltrans California Department of Transportation CALGreen California Green Building Standards Code Ca1EPA Environmental Protection Agency Ca1EEMod California Emissions Estimator Model CARB California Air Resources Board CBC California Building Code CCAA California Clean Air Act CCR California Code of Regulations CDFW California Department of Fish and Wildlife CEQA California Environmental Quality Act CESA California Endangered Species Act CFCs chlorofluorocarbons CFR Code of Federal Regulations CH4 methane CHP California Highway Patrol City City of Temecula Cl Chlorine CMP Congestion Management Program CMS federal Congestion Management System CNDDB California Natural Diversity Database CNEL Community Noise Equivalent Level CNPS California Native Plant Society CNPSEI California Native Plant Society's Electronic Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants of California Audi of Temecula Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 7-1 ESA / 150189 July 2015 7. Acronyms, References and List of Preparers CO carbon monoxide CO2 carbon dioxide CO2/yr tons of carbon dioxide per year CO2E carbon dioxide equivalent CUP Conditional Use Permit CWA Clean Water Act dB Decibels dBA A -Weighted Decibels DHS California Department of Health Services DIF Developer Impact Fees DNL 24-hour Day and Night A -weighted Noise Exposure Level DPM diesel particulate matter DWR Department of Water Resources EIR Environmental Impact Report EMWD Eastern Municipal Water District FCAA Federal Clean Air Act FCAAA Federal Clean Air Act Amendments FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency FESA Federal Endangered Species Act FHWA Federal Highway Administration FICON Federal Interagency Committee on Noise FIP Federal Implementation Plan FIRM FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Map FONSI Finding of No Significant Impact FRAB Fire and Resource Assessment Program ft feet FTA Federal Transit Administration GCP General Construction Permit GHG Greenhouse Gases GISP General Industrial Storm Water Permit HAP hazardous air pollutant HCM2000 Highway Capacity Manual HCP Habitat Conservation Plan HCF hundred cubic feet HCM Highway Capacity Manual HFCs hydrofluorocarbons HVAC heating, ventilation, and air conditioning Hz Hertz I-15 Interstate 15 ITE Institute of Transportation Engineers Audi of Temecula Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 7-2 ESA / 150189 July 2015 7. Acronyms, References and List of Preparers JRIVIP L50 L90 LEED LCP LCFS Ldn Leo LF LID Lmax LOS LSM MBTA MMRP MMTCO2E MPH MPO MSHCP MT MWD N2O NAAQS NB NEPA NFIP NMFS NOI NOP NO2 NOx NPDES NPS NRCS 03 ODOR PAH Pb PFCs PM City of Temecula Jurisdictional Runoff Management Plan median sound level noise level that is equaled or exceeded 90 percent of the specified time period Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design Local Coastal Program Low Carbon Fuel Standard ambient noise level without project equivalent sound level linear feet Low Impact Development Instantaneous maximum noise level Level of Service significant levels with mitigation Migratory Bird Treaty Act Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program million metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent miles per hour Metropolitan Planning Organization Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan metric tons Metropolitan Water District nitrous oxide National Ambient Air Quality Statements northbound National Environmental Protection Act National Flood Insurance Program National Marine Fisheries Service Notice of Intent Notice of Preparation nitrogen dioxide nitrogen oxides National Pollution Discharge Elimination System nonpoint source Natural Resources Conservation Service ozone Tastes and Odors polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons lead perflourocarbons particulate matter Audi of Temecula Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 7-3 ESA / 150189 July 2015 7. Acronyms, References and List of Preparers ppm PPV RAF SS RAQS RCHCA RCIP RCFC RCTC RCWD RGO RIVTAM RMS ROC ROG RTA RTP RWQCB SB SCAB SCADA SCAG SCAQMD SCH SCIC SDAB SDAG SDAPCD SDRWQCB SEIR SF6 sf SFHA SIP SKR SKRHCP SMRW SO2 SO3 SOX SWAP parts per million peak particle velocity Riversidean alluvial fan sage scrub Regional Air Quality Strategies Riverside County Habitat Conservation Agency Riverside County Integrated Plan Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District Riverside County Transportation Committee Rancho California Water District Retail Gasoline Outlets Riverside Traffic Analysis Model root mean square reactive organic compounds reactive organic gases Riverside Transportation Authority Regional Transportation Plan Regional Water Quality Control Board southbound South Coast Air Basin Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition Southern California Association of Governments South Coast Air Quality Management District State Clearinghouse South Coastal Information Center San Diego Air Basin San Diego Association of Governments San Diego Air Pollution Control District San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board Supplemental Environmental Impact Report sulfur hexafluoride square feet Special Flood Hazard Areas State Implementation Plan Stephen's kangaroo rat Stephen's Kangaroo Rat Habitat Conservation Plan Santa Margarita River Watershed Sulfur dioxide Sulfur trioxide Sulfur oxide Southwest Area Plan Audi of Temecula Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 7-4 ESA / 150189 July 2015 7. Acronyms, References and List of Preparers SWMP Storm Water Management Plan SWP State Water Project SWPPP Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan SWRCB State Water Resources Control Board TAC toxic air contaminants TDS Total Dissolved Solids TES Threatened and Endangered Species TLA Traffic Impact Analysis TLMA Transportation and Land Management Agency TMDL Total Maximum Daily Loads TPO Traffic Phasing Ordinance TSCA Toxic Substances Control Act TSF total square footage TTM Tentative Tract Map TUMF Traffic Uniform Mitigation Fee TVRWRF EMWD's Temecula Valley Regional Water Reclamation Facility UBC Uniform Building Code µg/m3 micrograms per cubic meter USACE U.S. Army Corps of Engineers USDOT U.S. Department of Transportation USEPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency USFWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service V/C Volume -to -Capacity Ratio VOC Volatile organic compound VMT Vehicle miles traveled WDR Waste Discharge Requirement WHR Wildlife -habitat Relationship WQIP Water Quality Improvement Plan WQMP Water Quality Management Plan WRCOG Western Riverside Council of Governments WMND Western Municipal Water District Audi of Temecula Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 7-5 ESA / 150189 July 2015 7. Acronyms, References and List of Preparers 7.2 References Aesthetics City of Temecula, 2005. City of Temecula General Plan, 2005. Adopted 1993, updated 2005. City of Temecula, 2003. Harveston Specific Plan, prepared by EDAW, Inc., Amended August 2003. Air Quality Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) 2009. Revised Draft Options and Justification Report California Environmental Quality Act Thresholds of Significance. October. CARB, 2013a. Area Designation Maps/State and National. Available at: www.arb.ca.gov/desig/adm/adm.htm/. Accessed March 30, 2015. CARB, 2013b. Ambient Air Quality Standards. Last revised: June 4, 2013. Available at: http://www.arb.ca.gov/research/aags/aags2.pdf. Accessed: March 30, 2015. CARB, 2009. The California Almanac of Emissions and Air Quality - 2009 Edition. Available at: http://www.arb.ca.gov/aqd/almanac/almanac09/almanac09.htm. CARB, 2004a. Proposed List of Measures to Reduce Particulate Matter - PM10 and PM2.5 (Implementation of Senate Bill 656, Sheer 2003). October 18. CARB, 2004b. 2004 Revision to the California State Implementation Plan for Carbon Monoxide Updated Maintenance Plan for Ten Federal Planning Areas. July 22. City of Temecula, 2015. Temecula Municipal Code. Title 18. Construction, Grading and Encroachments Chapter 18.06 Grading Permit, Applications and Requirements. Section 18.06.33 Dust Control and Prevention Plan. May. Available at: http://www.qcode.us/codes/temecula/. City of Temecula, 2005. City of Temecula General Plan. Air Quality Element. Adopted 1993, updated 2005. City of Temecula, 2003. Harveston Specific Plan. September, 1999.Amended August 2003. South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD), 2015. SCAQMD Air Quality Significance Thresholds. Available at: http://www.agmd.gov/CEQA/handbook/signthres.pdf. Accessed March 30, 2015. SCAQMD, 2013a. Final 2012 Air Quality Management Plan. February. Audi of Temecula Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 7-6 ESA / 150189 July 2015 7. Acronyms, References and List of Preparers SCAQMD, 2013b, 2012, 2011. Historical Data By Year. Available at: http://www.agmd.gov/home/library/air-quality-data-studie s/historical-data-by-year. Accessed March 30, 2015. SCAQMD, 2009. Final Localized Significance Threshold Methodology, Appendix C — Mass Rate LST Look -up Tables. Revised October 21, 2009. SCAQMD, 2008a. Mates III Multiple Air Toxics Exposure Study. September. Available at: http://www3.agmd.gov/webappl/matesiii/. Accessed April, 2015. SCAQMD, 2008b. Final Localized Significance Threshold Methodology. Revised July, 2008. SCAQMD, 2004. An Air Toxics Control Plan for the Next Ten Years. Published March 2000, updated March 2004. UC Davis, Institute of Transportation Studies (UCD ITS). 1997. Transportation Project -Level Carbon Monoxide Protocol- Revised 1997. USD -ITS -RR -99-21. Available at: http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/InfoSvcs/EngApps/software.htm. US Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 2013. The Greenbook Nonattainment Areas for Criteria Pollutants. Available at: http://www.epa.gov/air/oaqps/greenbk/index.html. Accessed March 30, 2015. VA Consulting, Inc. 2015. Hoehn Audi Traffic Impact Analysis, Temecula California. May. WeatherCurrents.com , 2015. Temecula, California All -Time Records, Archive, and Climate Information. Available at: http://weathercurrents.com/temecula/Archive.do. Accessed March 30, 2015. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Climate Change California Air Resources Board (CARB), 2014a. California Greenhouse Gas Inventory for 2000- 2012 by Category as Defined in the 2008 Scoping Plan. Available at: http: //www. arb.c a. gov/cc/inventory/data/table s/ghg inventory scopingplan_00-12_2014- 03-24.pdf. CARB, 2014b. Proposed First Update to the Climate Change Scoping Plan: Building on the Framework. February. CARB, 2010. Proposed SB 375 Greenhouse Gas Targets: Documentation of the Resulting Emission Reductions based on MPO Data, August 9, 2010. CARB, 2009. Climate Change Scoping Plan: A Framework for Change. Published December 2008, amended version included errata and Board requested modifications posted May 11, 2009.available at: http://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/scopingplan/document/adoptedscoping plan.pdf. Audi of Temecula Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 7-7 ESA / 150189 July 2015 7. Acronyms, References and List of Preparers CARB, 2007. Expanded List of Early Action Measures To Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions In California Recommended For Board Consideration. City of Temecula, 2010. City of Temecula's Sustainability Plan. June. City of Temecula, 2005. City of Temecula General Plan. Air Quality Element. Adopted 1993, updated 2005.. City of Temecula, 2003. Harveston Specific Plan. September, 1999. Amended August 2003. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). 2001. Climate Change 2001: Working Group I: The Scientific Basis. Last revised 2001. Available at: http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc%5Ftar/wg1/032.htm#5. South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD), 2009. Greenhouse Gas CEQA Significance Threshold Stakeholder Working Group #14. November 19. Available at: http: //www. agmd. gov/home/re gulations/ce ga/air-quality-analysis-handbook/ghg- significance-thresholds. Accessed March 30, 2015. SCAQMD, 2008. Draft Guidance Document — Interim CEQA Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Significance Threshold. October. VA Consulting, Inc. 2015. Hoehn Audi Traffic Impact Analysis, Temecula California June 2015. Biological Resources California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW), 2015. California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB). Wildlife Habitat Data Analysis Branch, Habitat Conservation Division, CDFW, Sacramento, CA. California Native Plant Society (CNPS). 2015. Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants (online edition, v8 -Ola). California Native Plant Society. Sacramento, CA. Accessed May 2015. County of Riverside. 2015. The Riverside County Land Information System. Map My County. Available at: http://mmc.rivcoit.org/MMC_Public/Viewer.html?Viewer=MMC_Public. Accessed on May 11, 2015. Leighton Consulting, Inc. 2014. Geotechnical Exploration and Percolation Testing Report Proposed Audi Dealership, Temecula, CA. October 30, 2014. Hickman, J C (ed.), 1993. The Jepson Manual of Higher Plants of California. University of California Press, Berkley and Los Angeles, CA. Holland, Robert F. Preliminary Descriptions of the Terrestrial Natural Communities of California. 1986. California Department of Fish and Game, Natural Heritage Division, Sacramento, CA. Audi of Temecula Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 7-8 ESA / 150189 July 2015 7. Acronyms, References and List of Preparers Environmental Science Associates (ESA), 2015a. Audi of Temecula Biological Assessment/MSHCP Consistency Analysis Report. On File at ESA. ESA. 2015b. Audi of Temecula Focused Burrowing Owl Report. On File at ESA. ESA, 2008a. Fletcher Jones Temecula Mercedes Benz Dealership Biological Assessment/Conformance Report. On File at ESA. ESA. 2008b. Fletcher Jones Mercedes-Benz of Temecula Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report SCH# 2008011052. On File at ESA. Sawyer, John O. and Keeler -Wolf, Todd. 2009. A Manual of California Vegetation, 2nd Edition. California Native Plant Society. United Sates of America. The Weather Channel, 2015. Average Weather for Temecula, CA. Available at: www.weather.com. Accessed May 12, 2015. County of Riverside Transportation and Land Management Agency, 2015. Riverside County Integrated Plan (RCIP) Conservation Summary Report Generator. Available at: http://rctlma.org/Online-Services/rcip-report-generator. Accessed on May 8, 2015. Western Riverside County Regional Conservation Authority, 2003a. County of Riverside. Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP), June 17, 2003. Available at: http://www.wrc-rca.org/Permit_Docs/mshcp_vol1.html. Western Riverside County Regional Conservation Authority 2003b. Western Riverside County MSHCP. Understanding the Plants and Animals of the Western Riverside Multiple Species Conservation Plan. Species List. Noise California Department of Transportation (Caltrans). 2013. Transportation and Construction Vibration Guidance Manual. September. Caltrans, 2009. Technical Noise Supplement. November. City of Temecula. 2005. City of Temecula General Plan. Noise Element. Adopted 1993, updated 2005. City of Temecula, 2008. Fletcher Jones Mercedes-Benz of Temecula Supplemental Environmental Impact Report SCH # 2008011052. May. Cunniff, Patrick F. 1977. Environmental Noise Pollution. May 4. Federal Transit Administration (FTA). 2006. Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment. May. Audi of Temecula Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 7-9 ESA / 150189 July 2015 7. Acronyms, References and List of Preparers Office of Planning and Research. 2003. State of California Genera Plan Guidelines. October. United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 1971. Noise from Construction Equipment and Operations, Building Equipment, and Home Appliances. December 31. VA Consulting. Inc.,2015. Hoehn Audi Automotive Dealership Traffic Impact Analysis Temecula, CA. June. Hydrology and Water Quality City of Temecula. 2005. City of Temecula General Plan. Public Safety Element. Adopted 1993, updated 2005. Department of Water Resources (DWR). 2004. Hydrologic South Coast: Temecula Valley Groundwater Basin. California's Groundwater Bulletin 118. Available at:http://www.water.ca.gov/pubs/groundwater/bulletin118/basindescriptions/9-5.pdf , 2004. Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), Flood Insurance Rate Map, Riverside County, Map No. 06065C2720G, August 28, 2008 Metropolitan Water District (MWD), 2007. Chapter W: Groundwater Reports. Accessed at http: //www.mwdh2o.com/mwdh2o/pages/yourwater/supply/groundwater/PDFs/EastsideMe tropolitanBasins/Temecula-MurrietaBasin.pdf, September 2007. Rancho California Water District (RCWD), 2015a. Water Supply Assessment for Altair Specific Plan, May 14, 2015. RCWDb, May 14, 2015 News Release, May 14, 2015. RBF Consulting. 2015a. Project Specific Water Quality Management Plan, Audi Dealership, Temecula, April 2015. RBF Consulting. 2015b. Preliminary Technical Drainage Study, Audi of Temecula, April 6, 2015. San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board (SDRWQCB). Basin Plan, 2011. Available at http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/sandiego/water_issues/programs/basin_plan/ , 2011. San Diego County, 2005. Santa Margarita River Watershed Urban Water Management Plan. March 2005. Available at: http://www.projectcleanwater.org/pdf/smg/smrwmp3-10- 05.pdf, State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB), 2010. Integrated Report (Clean Water Act Section 303(d) List / 305(b) Report). Available at: http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/water issues/programs/tmdl/integrated2010.shtml. Audi of Temecula Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 7-10 ESA / 150189 July 2015 7. Acronyms, References and List of Preparers 7.3 List of Preparers Lead Agency — City of Temecula Aaron Adams, City Manager Luke Watson, Interim Director of Community Development Tom Garcia, Director of Public Works Jerry Gonzales, Associate Engineer Stuart Fisk, Senior Planner Consultants to the Lead Agency Environmental Science Associates (EIR Preparers) Eric Ruby, Project Director Jack Gorzeman, Senior Managing Associate Michelle Irace, Associate Planner Terrance Wong, Managing Associate Heather Dubois, Managing Associate Courtney Casey, Associate Eric Schniewind, Managing Associate Tommy Molioo, Senior Associate Laura Rocha, Managing Associate VA Consulting (Traffic) Keith Rutherfurd, V.P. Traffic Engineering Stan Ng, Senior Design Engineer Audi of Temecula Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 7-11 ESA / 150189 July 2015 FINAL SUPPLEMETNAL EIR AUDI OF TEMECULA Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report SCH No. 2015051024 Prepared for September 2015 City of Temecula r ESA 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 AUDI OF TEMECULA Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report SCH No. 2015051024 Prepared for September 2015 City of Temecula 550 West C Street Suite 750 San Diego, CA 92101 619.719.4200 www.esassoc.com Irvine Los Angeles Oakland Orlando Palm Springs Petaluma Portland Sacramento San Francisco Seattle Tampa Woodland Hills 150189 TABLE OF CONTENTS Audi of Temecula Final Supplemental EIR Page 1. Introduction 1-1 1.1 Background 1-1 1.2 Use of the Final SEIR and the CEQA Process 1-2 1.3 Method of Organization 1-3 1.4 Focus of Comments 1-3 1.5 Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures 1-4 2. Errata 2-1 Executive Summary of the Draft SEIR 2-1 Biological Resources (Section 3.5 of the Draft SEIR) 2-2 Transportation and Traffic (Section 3.6 of the Draft SEIR) 2-2 Hydrology, Water Quality and Water Supply (Section 3.7 of the Draft SEIR) 2-3 3. Response to Comments 3-1 Letter 1: State Clearinghouse 3-3 Response to Letter 1: State Clearinghouse 3-5 Letter 2: California Department of Fish and Wildlife 3-6 Responses to Letter 2: California Department of Fish and Wildlife 3-10 Letter 3: California Department of Transportation 3-13 Responses to Letter 3: California Department of Transportation 3-16 Letter 4: Eastern Municipal Water District 3-18 Response to Letter 4: Eastern Municipal Water District 3-29 Letter 5: Rancho California Water District 3-30 Response to Letter 5: Rancho California Water District 3-31 Tables Table 1-1: Summary of Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures 1-5 Table 3-1: List of Comments Received 3-1 Audi of Temecula 1 ESA / 105189 Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report September 2015 CHAPTER 1 Introduction This Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (Final SEIR) was prepared pursuant to the State of California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) of 1970 (as amended) (California Public Resources Code 21000 et seq.) and in accordance with the State Guidelines for the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA Guidelines). The proposed project addressed in this report is the construction and operation of a new Audi car dealership. The City of Temecula is the CEQA lead agency for this SEIR. The project involves the construction of an approximately 37,468 square -foot Audi car dealership on 4.5 acres of land with incidental car maintenance, parts and repair services, and a service bay for car wash and detailing. Project components include a one-story showroom building with a new car delivery area, sales area, service advisor area, customer lounge and boutique area, offices, and administrative areas. A mezzanine level within the showroom building provides additional office and customer areas. 1.1 Background On July 20, 2015, the City of Temecula (the lead agency) released for public review a Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (Draft SEIR) for the project. Following a 45 -day review period, the public review and comment period on the Draft SEIR closed on September 3, 2015. Overall, five comment letters were received on the proposed project. The Revisions to the Draft SEIR and Response to Comments constitute the Final SEIR for the proposed project and are included as Chapter 2, Errata and Chapter 3, Response to Comments. The Final SEIR is an informational document prepared by the lead agency that must be considered by decision makers before approving or denying the proposed project. Section 15132 of the Guidelines for California Environmental Quality Act (commonly referred to as the CEQA Guidelines) specifies the Final EIR shall consist of the following: a) The Draft EIR or a revision of the draft. b) Comments and recommendations received on the Draft EIR either verbatim or in summary. c) A list of persons, organizations, and public agencies commenting on the Draft EIR. d) The responses of the Lead Agency to significant environmental points raised in the review and consultation process. e) Any other information added by the lead agency. Audi of Temecula Final Supplemental Environmental Inpact Report 1-1 ESA / 150189 September 2015 1. Introduction Section 15004 of the CEQA Guidelines states that before the approval of any project subject to CEQA, t the lead agency must consider the final environmental document, which in this case is the Final SEIR. This Final SEIR has been prepared pursuant to the requirements of CEQA. This Final SEIR incorporates comments from public agencies and the general public, and contains appropriate responses by the lead agency to those comments. 1.2 Use of the Final SEIR and the CEQA Process The Final SEIR allows the public an opportunity to review revisions to the Draft SEIR, the response to comments, and other components of the SEIR, including revisions and/or corrections to the Draft SEIR, prior to approval of the project. The Final SEIR serves as the environmental document to support approval of the proposed project, either in whole or in part, if the project is approved. After completing the Final SEIR and before approving the project, the lead agency must make the following three certifications, as required by Section 15090 of the CEQA Guidelines: • The Final SEIR has been completed in compliance with CEQA; • The Final SEIR was presented to the decision-making body of the lead agency, and that the decision-making body reviewed and considered the information in the Final EIR prior to approving the project; and • The Final SEIR reflects the Lead Agency's independent judgment and analysis. As required by Section 15091(a) of the CEQA Guidelines, no public agency shall approve or carry out a project for which an EIR has been certified that identifies one or more significant environmental effects of the project unless the public agency makes one or more written fmdings (Findings of Fact) for each of those significant effects, accompanied by a brief explanation of the rationale for each finding supported by substantial evidence in the record. The possible findings are: (1) Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the final EIR. (2) Such changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency and not the agency making the finding. Such changes have been adopted by such other agency or can and should be adopted by such other agency. (3) Specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, including provision of employment opportunities for highly trained workers, make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the final EIR. These certifications and the Findings of Fact are included in a separate Findings document. The word "approval" is defined by Section 15352 of the CEQA Guidelines to mean "the decision by a public agency which commits the agency to a definite course of action in regard to a project intended to be carried out by any person..." In addition, the CEQA Guidelines state that "[w]ith private projects, approval occurs upon the earliest commitment to issue or the issuance by the public agency of a discretionary contract, grant, subsidy, loan, or other form of financial assistance, lease, permit, license, certificate, or other entitlement for use of the project." Audi of Temecula Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 1-2 ESA / 150189 September 2015 1. Introduction 1.3 Method of Organization This Final SEIR for the proposed project contains information in response to concerns raised by written comments sent to the City of Temecula. The Final SEIR is organized into the following chapters: • Chapter 1, Introduction, consists of a summary of the background of the proposed project, information about the certification of the Final EIR, and a brief discussion of the intended uses of the Final EIR. Chapter 1 also contains the final Summary Table of Impacts and Mitigation Measures. • Chapter 2, Errata, discusses the revisions to the proposed project and Draft SEIR, including text changes and/or additions proposed by the City of Temecula, as lead agency, and text changes and/or additions in response to comments received on the Draft SEIR. Chapter 2 does not contain any changes to the appendices. • Chapter 3, Response to Comments, contains a matrix of agencies and organizations that submitted written comments on the Draft SEIR. This matrix identifies the issue areas addressed by those comments. Chapter 3 also includes a copy of each written comment letter, and a written response to each comment. 1.4 Focus of Comments Section 15200 of the CEQA Guidelines establishes the purpose of public review of a draft environmental document: The purposes of review of EIRs and negative declarations include: (a) Sharing expertise, (b) Disclosing agency analyses, (c) Checking for accuracy, (d) Detecting omissions, (e) Discovering public concerns, and (f) Soliciting counter proposals. Sections 15204(a) and 15204(c) of the CEQA Guidelines further state: (a) In reviewing draft EIRs, persons and public agencies should focus on the sufficiency of the document in identifying and analyzing the possible impacts on the environment and ways in which the significant effects of the project might be avoided or mitigated. Comments are most helpful when they suggest additional specific alternatives or mitigation measures that would provide better ways to avoid or mitigate the significant environmental effects. At the same time, reviewers should be aware that the adequacy of an EIR is determined in terms of what is reasonably feasible, in light of factors such as the magnitude of the project at issue, the severity of its likely environmental impacts, and the geographic scope of the project. CEQA does not require a lead agency to conduct Audi of Temecula Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 1-3 ESA / 150189 September 2015 1. Introduction every test or perform all research, study, analysis and experimentation recommended or demanded by commenters. When responding to comments, lead agencies need only respond to significant environmental issues and do not need to provide all information requested by reviewers, as long as a good faith effort at full disclosure is made in the EIR. (c) Reviewers should explain the basis for their comments, and should submit data or references offering facts, reasonable assumptions based on facts, or expert opinion supported by facts in support of the comments. Pursuant to Section 15064, an effect shall not be considered significant in the absence of substantial evidence. Section 15204(0 of the CEQA Guidelines establishes the rule that a responsible or trustee agency may submit proposed mitigation measures, limited to the resources subject to the statutory authority of that agency. These measures must include complete and detailed performance objectives for the measures or refer the lead agency to the appropriate guidelines or reference materials. 1.5 Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures A detailed discussion of existing environmental conditions, environmental impacts and recommended mitigation measures is included in Chapter 3, Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation Measures of the Draft SEIR. Project impacts, recommended mitigation measures, and level of significance after mitigation are summarized in Table 1-1. Audi of Temecula Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 1-4 ESA / 150189 September 2015 Introduction w ce Q w 2 Z 0 Q H Z I - ,U 1:1- co2 1- J H Z W 2 z 0 ce Z W LL 0 >- ce Q 2 2 Mitigation Measures Environmental Impact Less than significant. m -6 m (6 7 U � N N "� t .' _C i C" m (6 O C o) N T m w Qm (z -6 a o)UL m° E-9 _>.• a) O w Q N 'U C a) C a) . N N m m C j .0 'E 0 N-1) m o) C "- uj N O 1 > '� Q >,N N (0 O o).E U w N O - — .� >, -O m p m m - C -a p co- 0 -O U C Q._ a) O- E— E m -o QEU o m m - Q'5Q a) -c C - o� o Wi m° U Q°� m m E w a' `m C� o �° m and o.�p �� Q w m (o ° o� C T .O (0 t a) .O N O 2 C (6 & O Y N U .0 -o •.� -o C a c N m a) cmi �' m m o•Qto o� C o U °'� Q�-C a) `m m m a °� m E N'� mo o m a)�o °� 0 m �� — > m m 0 vmi o O -E a) o 'a -E. al 0) 0> m. a)o mo) vi o a.) u) Via' vi t °� m ° a) OU a) Q m -E w o N .0 -0 U Q �> C O O -D'(.7) 0 Q O 2 272.2)) = > �0.� aEi �� m of m.5 Q� U 0 m p m� •o� m_° t m �) > api m pn E `o �� �� �) E Q 'a-) E o)� ° N 3 m� a_)Qo °� (-) TD Qm"��) n O o �- a) o o m,_ "Co - o o) E m C C 3—aoi o c o o m mf) (n E -°o m"o) o o 8 m vi.0 m 0 0 C �flilU p >� oRw oa)o m0 �3 Q mm0 m oo —QD —oma vimtNco o m U m ".- ap) S. •o Qo co m 0 E °- ° cm) >,°oYn a) co Q o Q m N a) �� � m�° °p � U� � � o 9 o a) CD � Q� C o m H o)p m_c m m E m m 8_ ca m m N C o E� - o C m o m `o E� C o E m Qa) C' QD �E o a) m p-5 g r 4= -FD' a)-0 a) o Qo o �� E m ° m ° - m U o co � .m N OUB) NNom .� Eo � mm m ( -a°) m ami o E Q °) 3'�m E api ° E"= api api m ° m m 0 E E w m m� c)3 ° ° d) (6 -6 m m m — C — U N — 8 Q _N N i 0 o m m O LO C m m 0 .2i C m C L N 8 1 m 0( �0t ) U N.1 .N m m 4- m O Qm� c c _ o° ° E ° cD 0 p m U (,9 7 m > 7 7 7 -6 t— Ut m"N m�m m.0) m. 0)m o� .m a) m >; o m U > al m mom~,((. -1•))o �.S m E o w o w w o� Q a) !-= R m m a' '� '� _0 Q_vpi'' gym' c'a' 0 o )-E 5 tea) m E api Q o� Qw co Q T Zr) Q Q 0_175 U d Q O o) N -505 O Y >, p 7 C U •=1 J N �-" Q m (n 17-5 N (n m mm m m m.Oo m°po o�tm= C°oE�.� o� m C me,- — N �.� -(',5 _c t a) cm t >, 4= a) a) .o Op- O 0 0 O O 0 L C Q 2 H m o m 3 H o H m m� H_a — U H M 92 -cm d 3 oU0 m D)'9 :. o- . . . a) 0 U . U > m C m o O m EC "N -o t OO � O Na) O N Q a) a) -o H c �t .0) W k 0 Q m R U Q O �LO CO NE) N LO N - _0 Q E m W N 10 0 m E m 0 E 0 w Ts' E F m � c Q LL W W z 0 H Q C c C o �0 W J J m W Z i z 0 z W LL 0 > Introduction Mitigation Measures Environmental Impact 0) 0 a) C — Q N (O �-2 c.o N .U) - (CTz O O 0 o ( N U) (n O TD N Q t al E N W (O 7 C O 0- U) O N (O Q Q) N N To — N TO 5 2 Q 0_ 3 E S E� N (p O 2 .� O C C o O C= SSC 0 5 O� �.oL O U) CO„(75 C d N N O — cOn o C. co N (6 Q O) 2 N N U) u) .0 2 O O N E� O N 7 E C C (A — L 0-- 0 al .2- CO.5 E U 2 0 10 (00, U (6 0I(O O T 2 1) i C 7 C C O 0'(� 0) (. ,' -a N N Z E Q) C O 'a-) C E N N .(A N U) .J L U C >i 0-a)C C — 1 p U U) U -o 'O O O c .O E U U) (D_ Q) 0 C °) 0 0o to ,2 O)c fl- 0 (O >' O ''E .0 ii.g H N .0 (a)) 0 o — 0- 0) (I) C Q) ( E— 0 a E U 0_ (0 (`o ��mo E> o c o_ U)�0 O N H o - Q> 0 H Q (Oo (o) • • • > a Q z None required. C co N N C N N 2� T 0 -(7,s� 0- -(6 O O U al O E 0 C E U U) w Q C E 0) Less than significant. co 'cif -0 o ct o w -o N U) 0 _ U O ° U) O C "(7) O (6 O N C U) CO 'o -in > O co C O 0 m -,10CO LL >, 0 () U O' 0 (q j O (A (A° 'O 02 U U) C 0 (A au > N O as i- • -6 N U) 0 N o t .> 0 Q0j O N 00 0 00 O0 w 0 (O N (A U Q N 0 U s 0 (A s Q pj T N 0 (6 N ;,7 j.E >' C N N L 0 N N_ O p_05 .�' > O 0 - N 5 C 0 0) C UL 0 � _NmC0 .OO(O 0)0.ON "- U) O C _C CNH oUQO°N•E t .O 73c -c— 1co as T �.NL C E Un(A -0 a) U3ao�2 92 o o e >QN o) s' 'O H O Q N N •N C pN>C'0.0O 0 co UO O N O O U N.O TOCc OCO OC A — U) o -._oC�C ai 0jNs O EO N U2CUSCp=OUN N Eo 7. E L U (O N- C 0 0 _0 ) 0) � N>_ O C U 0 (CO o - C OU (6 .0 2 j 'U) ) 0> -O N 0 N o070 ,m _0mm0m oC- .mm E C O 'O "�-' 0 �o 0 ._ N C T s E C >, N U) 0 C '- 0 N O E - U 48 .O U) U) 7 N () (>6,'E U) E U) N E () O C N 0 0- `) U) . N --7. 'o ID E 0 0 l4 ' 00 O U) 0 O) N > 12 1.) >, . C (O >,-8. . 4 U_2 ,m aFi o f ami m E'(g)E L L U (A — C �� 0-2 7 C U) S C E Qj 0 x C em: -§Q.-6_a)mo a)pO '� O Q (o (A 0 0 0 -0 0 QOU a)70 2 m To(1) t _ 6 O C N N -o O O 2 c LE (O N - L U) O 0 C .? N L 2 O N 0 SS rs2N E --0.--p N (O E ID c c (O C C 00 C Q C C �, Oj E 0 L w O :-• C U) C: O C O U (A dj j O N w 5 C E '(T) o-0 .= m �� U N i �.E o (L)`� -o (O 0 .O w N x O: 'o 0) U) 2 -00 (NO 0 Q N m m m'� o o m U co N 0E—,_w-do-,T) dO CE o j t •' U i '5): =. .0 .UU EQ7 7 UU _o=wQwoO o-- E U O -o U) 0 0- O C U) A L '— o_ U) U) to c9 E C N .-. ' >, '(7, p O O C— U) (A (1) UU C.-00UOO)0>C) EUA U — ' 0 as0.) Introduction do c io crs w2 c rn in Mitigation Measures Environmental Impact Less than significant. U > co co CD __F, C 'O � -0 O 0 O N a) Z-1.5 L (n a) m U O >, O N N O U O O'U -0� �.C'O c o c O� C 0a) C N 0 OU N O N O U .N -" 0ms > 7 N O 2= U° L 2) ( -0 (A co N j§ a) UO C O t N -O a) N w > as N L 0) 0 0) N a) OU > w O .- N coO N NTDEEQ O O 2 O N -= > U .-. L O .� O O L�02 a) 7 C• E O >Lm O O a) 'O a) 0 CO N >i co 0-2 CO N> p O C 0 0 0 O N OU O a) O Q'O >� N w fl- Na) .O _ O N N C (0 U a N N E (6 O7 O L (6 O E :J > a) g E UO 0 -co. C a) - c O a)U— N 0) a) O> (0 0 0 0 1 (n O 0.° �>;° o �� o� oc o0 op = .N 2 o •o (n O O oco 50-00>,x_00 92 _c o_0 co) O_ U o m� 0- -c o m� Nva) o 0 �� _ C C y C -C L C_)-0 �C .E a) c .� O d a) o.° 3 O.cL CO at c o E 2"5 al- o< m EU E O 3 N O) (6 OU (6 W' .E OU O i C, 4) c m O C C E N O a)L E O o a.) U 3, E_8.c_c Q O (6 O C O 00 O O C (0 U- > O >i .0 (0 a) c O Q O O E .0 a) U O -O --- C O a) N O_ 0) (n O 0)7) . O- C.0 .L- -2— 0 a) a) O 0 .L O i 0 0 (0'- o (0t L OL N N 0 N N a) O (0 a) O (0 0) L O2 a) L C .— C N> U-0 'O .2 N -g c- TD.'0%(-2 0 a) -0 o T. N > a) > - N 1 L O O E 2 .N N 'O a) i) C N -0 (0 C i (0 O ---� .J C U L Ep I N N 0 N a) O- 22,-,,_ ., .O O) N N >i O a) a) ' (a P N L U Q 0> 1 2 O O >'-C U t N co w2 o a .7)-� EL.2'm 0 -cc o N C 0) L co N C 4O Q .§ ›, C >, 0 (L�0 OU 0)" N Q (n O-0 0 a) U . O 'O , c N W O d L N (A a)(O N O N N > 7 (n _ 0 N p L L C) D O O 0co ,— O O 'o O U m a) O -p L a) C) U Q) u a � O C - (n C a) (n . Q--ELa o 2 o O 2 o �O ° m a)� - 00(0 (0) (0 O.0 OU,L.. i1 .0 O 0)Q0 1 Greenhouse Gases and Climate Change z None required. Hydrology and Water Quality Less than significant. L O O (8) § ._ >.10 — 'O 0) 0 O 'a5 0C CO CO N O N 'O (0 'O O .0 72 w L (0 a) -`0 8D2 .2 N OH 82L (0 .0 -Oa) " L . OS L 0 O C a) (� ° > L w 0 C (0- N O- O C N co d (0 _a) O_< U U) N 0 O a) a) 0 m o _coL 0)0 .� c -D) m > (0 0 .=c71 Q _ N cE-0s`omE c > a) 'O .0 O O O O r .`. O L > m Q > c-F� rm O.5) (0 o- oa)a,o N N> > co a) N 0 (EDL-� O o . O O N 0 N 0 .N L 10 Wn a N U ._ 0= O(0 NCOE) aL .(noW 0 •U Q a) N O !n C a) ›- OY-o 0 =. O >N E _tet ( (00 o (0 —5i 5 (i)O > ��� m= m > d N (0 -0 -c N 0 >i N '6 Qo E �o W N 0 (n E O p .0 y� L O- N () O R Co _oO H .-. O E O O 0 O C � to N D N � o N C L (0 E> .E °) Ti 0) 0 (4 t N ) (n O C '06 ) — (1) n (0 00) Q co U co O O O O O a) `0 N -0 C N O C a) 0�— a- O NO O - C E O N 0 (00 a) N 0 E E 0 o N Q > _ Q '06 O O Z (0 C 0 0 } C - _ E a `n) E R c-0 CL t E L O O . C U 2i O — a) y O Z Less than significant. a) > O 0) C .0) co 0 C a) :N (0 0 0 E .voi N•O Q C E (0 L O U N (0 7 as cD 0 O H a) OE 2 O d � N Q co -c O 0 U (0 0) 0 U (0 a) O ; ((0 a) 0 m g O O (n Q E C (0 0. 0 w N — 0 O O L N Q 'O 7 O O 0 C Z Q i O o_oo N O E -0a z None required. CHAPTER 2 Errata This section contains revisions to the Draft SEIR. The following corrections and changes are made to the Draft SEIR, and are incorporated herein as part of the Final SEIR. The changes below were made to the Draft SEIR in response to comments received and errata discovered after the Draft SEIR was circulated. These corrections and clarifications represent additional information or revisions that do not significantly alter the proposed project, change the Draft SEIR's significance conclusions, or result in a conclusion that significantly more severe environmental impacts will result from the proposed project. Instead, the errata made to the Draft SEIR below merely "clarifies or amplifies or makes insignificant modifications" in the already adequate Draft SEIR, as is permitted by CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5(b). The revisions that follow were made to the text of the Draft SEIR. Amended text is identified by page number. Additions to the Draft SEIR text are shown with underlining and text removed from the Draft SEIR is shown with strikethrough. The following revisions to the text of the Draft SEIR are made: Executive Summary of the Draft SEIR Page S-7, Table S-1, Mitigation Measure MM -BIO -1 is revised to read as follows: Mitigation Measure MM -Bio -1: Impacts to raptors and other migratory birds shall be avoided by the implementation of one of the following measures: • All construction and ground disturbing activities shall take place outside of the raptor and migratory bird breeding season (February 1 August 31). • If construction and ground disturbing activities are necessary during the breeding season , - A pre -construction clearance survey for active nests of raptors and migratory birds shall be conducted by a qualified biologist who is knowledgeable in the nesting requirements of the avian species in the region. The survey shall occur at least 1/1 days no more than 3 days prior to any construction or ground -disturbing activities. If active nest(s) (with eggs or fledglings) are identified within the project site, (CDFW for state listed species, species of special concern, and MSHCP covered species; USFWS for birds covered under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act and listed species) they shall not be disturbed until the young have hatched and fledged (matured to a state that they can leave the nest on their own). An appropriate buffer from construction setback from any active nesting location shall be adhered to in order to avoid disturbance of the nest until the young have fledged or the nest is no longer considered active, as determined by a qualified biologist. On-site monitoring during construction by a biological monitor may also be required based on sensitivity of the species and proximity of the nest to construction activities. If no active nests are identified, construction may commence. Audi of Temecula Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 2-1 ESA / 150189 September 2015 2. Errata Biological Resources (Section 3.5 of the Draft SEIR) Page 3.5-28, Mitigation Measure MM -BIO -1 is revised to read as follows: Mitigation Measure MM -BIO -l: Impacts to raptors and other migratory birds shall be avoided by the implementation of one of the following measures: • All construction and ground disturbing activities shall take place outside of the raptor and migratory bird breeding season (February 1 August 31). • If construction and ground disturbing activities are necessary during the breeding season (February 1 August 31), a A pre -construction clearance survey for active nests of raptors and migratory birds shall be conducted by a qualified biologist. The survey shall occur maximum of 11 days no more than 3 days prior to any construction or ground -disturbing activities. If active nest(s) (with eggs or fledglings) are identified within the project site, (CDFW for state listed species, species of special concern, and MSHCP covered species; USFWS for birds covered under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act and listed species) they shall not be disturbed until the young have hatched and fledged (matured to a state that they can leave the nest on their own). If active nests arc found, a suitable buffer (c.g. 200 300 feet for common raptors and 30 50 feet for passerines) shall be established around active nests and no construction within the buffer shall be allowed until a qualified biologist has determined the nest is no longer active (c.g. the nestlings have fledged and arc no longer reliant on the nest). An appropriate buffer from construction setback from any active nesting location shall be adhered to in order to avoid disturbance of the nest until the young have fledged or the nest is no longer considered active, as determined by a qualified biologist. On-site monitoring during construction by a biological monitor may also be required based on sensitivity of the species and proximity of the nest to construction activities. If no active nests are identified, construction may commence. Transportation and Traffic (Section 3.6 of the Draft SEIR) Page 3.6-11, Table 3.6-5 is revised as follows: TABLE 3.6-5 INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE — YEAR 2016 BASELINE WITH PROJECT Study Intersection Weekday Weekend AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Peak Hours (2-6PM) Delay Delay Control (sec/veh) LOS (sec/veh) LOS Delay (sec/veh) LOS 1. Jackson Avenue/ Murrieta Hot Springs 2. Ynez Road/ Waverly Lane 3. Ynez Road/ Date Street 4. Ynez Road/ Winchester Road Signal 14.1 B 20.2 C Stop Sign 11.0 B 18.8 C Signal 30.7 C 27.7 C Signal 37.8 D 44.7 D 18.5 B 12.4 B 25.1 C 45.9 D Audi of Temecula Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 2-2 ESA / 150189 September 2015 2. Errata Study Intersection Weekday Weekend AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Peak Hours (2-6PM) Delay Delay Control (sec/veh) LOS (sec/veh) LOS Delay (sec/veh) LOS 5. I-15 NB Ramps/ Winchester Road 6. I-15 SB Ramps/ Winchester Road Signal 16.6 B 28.5 C Signal 22.1 -BC 28.4 C 42.5 D 23.4 C SOURCE: VA Consulting Inc., 2015. Hydrology, Water Quality and Water Supply (Section 3.7 of the Draft SEIR) Page 3.7-21, the following text is revised to read as follows: RCWD receives its imported water (treated and untreated) directly through six Metropolitan water turnouts, three in EMWD's service area and three in WMWD's service area. The District pumps groundwater from 52 district wells and recycles water at its Santa Rosa Water Reclamation Facility (SRWRF). Additional recycled water is available from EMWD's Temecula Valley Regional Water Reclamation Facility (TVRWRF). Page 3.7-22, the following text is revised to read as follows: Historically, groundwater has supplied between 25 to 40 percent of the EMWDRCWD's total water supply and imported water has supplied between 60 to 70 percent (RCWD, 2015a). Audi of Temecula Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 2-3 ESA / 150189 September 2015 CHAPTER 3 Response to Comments As stated in CEQA Guidelines, Sections 15132 and 15362, the Final EIR must contain information summarizing the comments received on the Draft EIR, either verbatim or in summary; a list of persons commenting; and the response of the lead agency to the comments received. Five comment letters were received by the City in response to the Draft SEIR. This chapter provides copies of each letter received and the responses to these comments. A summary of the comments is provided below in Table 3-1. TABLE 3-1 LIST OF COMMENTS RECEIVED Letter # Agency/Commenter Date of Letter Environmental Issues State Agencies 1 State Clearinghouse September 1, 2015 2 California Department August 26, 2015 of Fish and Wildlife 3 California Department September 2, 2015 of Transportation Local Agencies 4 Eastern Municipal July 27, 2015 Water District 5 Rancho California August 5, 2015 Water District Notifies City that the CEQA review process has been satisfied. The project impacts existing storm water basins that may require a Notice of Lake or Streambed Alteration. Request to edit two mitigation measures. Additional traffic analysis is requested for certain 1-15 ramps/intersection. An encroachment permit will be required if work is performed in State R/W. The project will require onsite and offsite sewer facilities and associated easements. Requests a text change on page 3.7-21 of the Draft EIR regarding recycled water. The responses to comments to the above letters are presented below. These responses do not significantly alter the proposed project, change the Draft SEIR's significance conclusions, or result in a conclusion such that significantly more severe environmental impacts would result from the proposed project. Instead, the information presented in the responses to comments "merely clarifies or amplifies or makes insignificant modifications" in the Draft SEIR, as is permitted by CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5(b). Regarding recirculation of the Draft SEIR, CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5, requires the lead agency to recirculate an EIR only when significant new information is added to the EIR after public notice is given of the availability of the Draft EIR for public review. New information added to an EIR is not significant unless the EIR has changed in a way that deprives the public of Audi of Temecula Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 3-1 ESA / 150189 September 2015 3. Response to Comments a meaningful opportunity to comment upon a substantial adverse, environmental effect of the project or a feasible way to mitigate or avoid such an effect that the project's proponent's have declined to implement (CEQA Guidelines, Section 15088.5). In summary, significant new information consists of: (1) disclosure of a new significant impact; (2) disclosure of a substantial increase in the severity of an environmental impact; (3) disclosure of a feasible project alternative or mitigation measure considerably different from the others previously analyzed that would clearly lessen environmental impacts of the project but the project proponent declines to adopt it; and/or (4) the Draft EIR was so fundamentally and basically inadequate and conclusory in nature that meaningful public review and comment were precluded (CEQA Guidelines, Section 15088.5). Recirculation is not required where, as stated above, the new information added to the EIR merely clarifies or amplifies or makes insignificant modifications in an adequate EIR (CEQA Guidelines, Section 15088.5). Audi of Temecula Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 3-2 ESA / 150189 September 2015 EDMUND G. BROWN JR. GOVERNOR Comment Letter 1 STATE OF CALIFORNIA GOVERNOR'S OFFICE of PLANNING AND RESEARCH STATE CLEARINGHOUSE AND PLANNING UNIT fjECL E SEP- 92QC5 September 1, 2015 Stuart Fisk City of Temecula 41000 Main Street Temecula, CA 92590 Subject: Audi of Temecula Development Plan (PA 15-05 13) SCUM: 2015051024 Dear Stuart Fisk: The State Clearinghouse submitted the above named Supplemental to selected state agencies for review. On the enclosed Document Details Report please note that the Clearinghouse has listed the state agencies that reviewed your document, The review period closed on August 31, 2015. and the continents from the responding agency (les) is (are) enclosed. if this comment package is not in order, please notify the State Clearinghouse immediately. Please refer to the project's ten -digit State Clearinghouse number in future correspondence so that we may respond promptly. Please note that Section 2 ] 104(c) of the California Public Resources Code states that: "A responsible or other public agency shall only snake substantive comments regarding those activities involved in a project which are within an area of expertise of the agency or which are required to be carried out or approved by the agency. Those comments shall be supported by specific documentation." These comments are forwarded for use in preparing your final environmental document. Should you need more information or clarification of the enclosed comments, we recommend that you contact the commenting agency directly. This letter acknowledges that you have complied with the State Clearinghouse review requirements for draft environmental documents, pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act. Please contact the State Clearinghouse at (916) 445-0613 if you have any questions regarding the environmental review process. Sincerely, Scott Morgan Director, State Clearinghouse Enclosures cc: Resources Agency 1400 10th Street P.O. Box 3044 Sacramento, California 95812-3044 (916) 445-0613 FAX (916) 323-3018 www,opr,ca.gov 1-A Document Details Report Comment Letter 1 State Clearinghouse Data Base SCH# 2015051024 Project Title Audi of Temecula Development Plan (PA15-0513) Lead Agency Temecula, City of Type SIR Supplemental EIR Description Note: Ref. SCH# 199904/033 The project involves the construction of an approximately 37,468 sf Audi car dealership with incidental car maintenance, parts and repair services, and a service bay far car wash and detailing on a 4.5 acre parcel. Project components include a one-story showroom building with a new car delivery area, sales area, service advisor area, customer lounge and boutique area, offices, and administrative areas, The proposed use, an automotive dealership, is consistent with the applicable land use and zoning designation in the Harveston Specific Plan. Lead Agency Contact Name Stuart Fisk Agency City of Temecula Phone 951 506 5159 Fax email Address 41000 Main Street City Temecula State CA Zip 92590 Project Location County Riverside City Temecula Region Lai 1 Long 33° 32' 8.58" N 1 117' 10' 14.76" W Cross Streets Temecula Center Drive, Ynez Road (east), 1-15 (west), Date Street (south) Parcel No. 916-400-032 Parcel 7, TPM 36336 Township Range Section Base Proximity to: Highways Airports Railways Waterways Schools Land Use Hwy 15, 79, 215 No No Murrieta, Warm Springs and Santa Gertrudis Creeks Various Harveston Specific Plan -Service Commercial Project Issues AestheticNisual; Air Quality; Biological Resources; Drainage/Absorption; Economics/Jobs; Flood Plain/Flooding; Noise; Sewer Capacity; Soil Erosion/Compaction/Grading; Traffic/Circulation; Vegetation; Water Quality; Water Supply; Wetland/Riparian; Wildlife; Landuse; Cumulative Effects Reviewing Agencies Resources Agency: Department of Fish and Wildlife, Region 6; Department of Parks and Recreation; Department of Water Resources; California Highway Patrol; Caltrans, District 8; Air Resources Board: Regional Water Quality Control Board, Region 9; Native American Heritage Commission Date Received 07/17/2015 Start or Review 07/17/2015 End of Review 08/3112015 Note: Blanks in data fields result from insufficient information provided by lead agency 3. Response to Comments Response to Letter 1: State Clearinghouse IA The commenter states that the Draft Supplemental EIR has been submitted to selected agencies for review, and acknowledges that the City has complied with State Clearinghouse review requirements for draft environmental documents, pursuant to CEQA. This comment is noted for the record. Audi of Temecula Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 3-5 ESA / 150189 September 2015 CALIFORNIA WILDLIFE 1PPI State of California - Natural Resources Agency DEPARTMENT QF FISH AND WILDLIFE Inland Deserts Region 3602 inland Empire Blvd., Suite C-220 Ontario, CA 91764 (909) 484-0459 www.wildiife.ca.gov August 26, 2015 Mr. Stuart Fisk Senior Planner, City of Temecula Planning Department 41000 Main Street Temecula, CA 92590 EDMUND G. BROWN, Jr., Governor 'Y4- CHARLTON H. BONHAM, Director Subject: Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report Hoehn Audi of Temecula Project State Clearinghouse No. 2015051024 Dear Mr. Fisk: The California Department of Fish and Wildlife (Department) appreciates the opportunity to comment on the Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (DSEIR) for the Hoehn Audi of Temecula Project (project) [State Clearinghouse No. 2015051024]. The Department is responding to the DSEIR as a Trustee Agency for fish and wildlife resources (California Fish and Game Code Sections 711.7 and 1802, and the California Environmental Quality Act [CEQA] Guidelines Section 15386), and as a Responsible Agency regarding any discretionary actions (CEQA Guidelines Section 15381), such as the issuance of a Lake or Streambed Alteration Agreement (California Fish and Game Code Sections 1600 et seq.) and/or a California Endangered Species Act (CESA) Permit for Incidental Take of Endangered, Threatened, and/or Candidate species (California Fish and Game Code Sections 2080 and 2080.1). Prosect Description The 4.5 -acre project site is located northeast of Interstate -15, northwest of Temecula Center Drive, and south of Warm Springs Creek and Fletcher -Jones Mercedes Benz of Temecula; within the City of Temecula, Riverside County, California; Assessor's Parcel Number (APN) 916-400-032. The project proposes to construct an approximately 37,468 square -foot Audi car dealership with incidental car maintenance, parts, and repair services, and a service bay for car wash and detailing. Project components include a one-story showroom building with a new car delivery area, sales area, service advisor area, customer lounge and boutique area, offices, and administrative areas. A mezzanine level would be included within the showroom building. The showroom and service facilities are designed as two separate buildings which would be architecturally connected by a covered service drop off area. The showroom building would be 30 feet -8 inches high; Conserving California's Wildlife Since 1870 Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report Hoehn Audi of Temecula Project SCH No. 2015051024 Page 2 of 4 the canopy over the service drop off area would be 18 feet high; and the service building would be 24 feet high. The service building includes parts storage, service bays, tool room, oil and air equipment rooms, an employee break room and trash room. There would be two 1,000 gallon, above -ground storage tanks located within the service building; one for motor oil, the other for waste oil and waste coolant. Two service bays would be dedicated to car wash and detailing. Car washing activities would use filtered, recycled water. A "jewel box" for displaying cars is located at the south portion of the service building, facing 1-15. The proposed buildings would be built to California Green Building Standards Code (CALGreen) building standards. Biological Resources and Impacts The Department has jurisdiction over the conservation, protection, and management of fish, wildlife, native plants, and the habitat necessary for biologically sustainable populations of those species (i.e., biological resources); and administers the Natural Community Conservation Planning Program (NCCP Program). The Department offers the comments and recommendations presented below to assist the City of Temecula (City; the CEQA Lead Agency) in adequately identifying and/or mitigating the project's significant, or potentially significant, impacts on biological resources. Following review of the Biological Resources section, the Department identified a number of questions, comments and concerns, and requests that each of these be addressed prior to adoption of the DSEIR. The Department's questions, comments, and concerns include: 1. Existing On -Site Basins. The project site appears to contain two existing stormwater basins. Please clarify the nature of these basins, including the source(s) of flow into the basins, the direction of the flow, and the amount of water that flows into and/or through the basins. Please also quantify the area of the basins that will be impacted by project activities. Impacts to the basins, or to the upstream or downstream drainages, may require submission of a Notification of Lake or Streambed Alteration. Fish and Game Code section 1602 requires an entity to notify the Department prior to commencing any activity that may do one or more of the following: Substantially divert or obstruct the natural flow of any river, stream or lake; Substantially change or use any material from the bed, channel or bank of any river, stream, or lake; or Deposit debris, waste or other materials that could pass into any river, stream or lake. Please note that "any river, stream or lake" includes those that are episodic (i.e., those that are dry for periods of time) as well as those that are perennial (i.e., those that flow year round). This includes ephemeral streams, desert washes, and watercourses with a subsurface flow. It may also apply to work undertaken within the flood plain of a body of water. Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report Hoehn Audi of Temecula Project SCH No. 2015051024 Page 3 of 4 Please note the Department's criteria for determining the presence of areas subject to Fish and Game Code section 1602 jurisdiction is more comprehensive than the MSHCP criteria in Section 6.1.2. Upon receipt of a complete notification, the Department determines if the proposed project activities may substantially adversely affect existing fish and wildlife resources and whether a Lake and Streambed Alteration (LSA) Agreement is required. An LSA Agreement includes measures necessary to protect existing fish and wildlife resources. CDFW may suggest ways to modify your project that would eliminate or reduce harmful impacts to fish and wildlife resources. The Department's issuance of an LSA Agreement is a "project" subject to CEQA (see Pub. Resources Code 21065). To facilitate issuance of an LSA Agreement, if necessary, the SEIR should fully identify the potential impacts to the lake, stream, or riparian resources, and provide adequate avoidance, mitigation, and monitoring and reporting commitments. Early consultation with the Department is recommended, since modification of the proposed project may be required to avoid or reduce impacts to fish and wildlife resources. To obtain a Lake or Streambed Alteration notification package, please go to https://www.wildlife.ca.gov/Conservation/LSA/Forms. 2. Nesting and Migratory Birds. Mitigation Measure MM -BIO -1 states that "If construction and ground disturbing activities are necessary during the breeding season (February 1 -August 31), a pre -construction clearance survey for active nests of raptors and migratory birds shall be conducted by a qualified biologist. The survey shall occur a maximum of 14 days prior to any construction or ground -disturbing activities." Because some raptor species begin nesting as early as January 1, and passerines may nest later than August 31, the Department recommends that preconstruction nesting bird surveys take place regardless of the time of year. We recommend that the surveys be performed no more than three (3) days prior to the initiation of project activities, as instances of nesting may otherwise be missed. Please note that it is the project proponent's responsibility to comply with all applicable laws related to nesting birds and birds of prey. Migratory non -game native bird species are protected by international treaty under the federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) of 1918, as amended (16 U.S.C. 703 et seq.). In addition, sections 3503, 3503.5, and 3513 of the Fish and Game Code (FGC) also afford protective measures as follows: Section 3503 states that it is unlawful to take, possess, or needlessly destroy the nest or eggs of any bird, except as otherwise provided by FGC or any regulation made pursuant thereto; Section 3503.5 states that is it unlawful to take, possess, or destroy any birds in the orders Falconiformes or Strigiformes (birds -of -prey) or to take, possess, or destroy the nest or eggs of any such bird except as otherwise provided by FGC Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report Hoehn Audi of Temecula Project SCH No. 2015051024 Page 4 of 4 or any regulation adopted pursuant thereto; and Section 3513 states that it is unlawful to take or possess any migratory nongame bird as designated in the MBTA or any part of such migratory nongame bird except as provided by rules and regulations adopted by the Secretary of the Interior under provisions of the MBTA. 3, Burrowing Owl Preconstruction Survey and Avoidance. Mitigation Measure MM - BIO -2 requires a preconstruction survey for Burrowing Owl, and allows eviction of owls from their burrows if fewer than three pairs of owls are discovered on-site. Owls that are removed from their burrows are vulnerable to predation during the time they spend searching for new burrows. In order to reduce potential project impacts to burrowing owls to a less than significant level, the Department requests that Mitigation Measure MM BIO -2 be modified to include consultation with the Department for any relocation (passive or active) of burrowing owls. We recommend notification to the Department if owls are found to be present onsite and development of a conservation strategy in cooperation with the US Fish and Wildlife Service, the Department, and the Western Riverside County Regional Conservation Authority (RCA). The Department appreciates the opportunity to comment on the DSEIR for the Hoehn Audi of Temecula Project (SCH No. 2015051024), and requests that the City address the Department's comments and concerns prior to adoption of the final SEIR. If you should have any questions pertaining to these comments, please contact Gabriele Quillman at (909) 980-3818 or at gabriele.quillman@wildlife.ca.gov. Sincerely, 2 ! Nair Cfri.- eg +nal anager cc: State Clearinghouse, Sacramento 3. Response to Comments Responses to Letter 2: California Department of Fish and Wildlife 2A The commenter requests clarification on the nature of the two existing storm water basins on the project site, specifically, the source of flows into the basins, the direction of flow, and the amount of water that flows into and/or through the basins. Additionally, the commenter requests the basins to be quantified to know the acreage that will be impacted by project activities, and if these impacts will require a Notification of Lake or Streambed Alteration. The storm water basin closest to the freeway is a desilting basin that was installed during the mass grading of the project site in 2002-2003 as part of the Harveston Specific Plan development. The source of flow is sheet flow from the adjacent mass graded pads which moves in an east to west direction. Silt settles in the basin and the water exits through an outlet into an existing storm drain that crosses beneath Interstate 15 (I-15). The 100 -year flood flows were determined to be 25 cfs (Mark Doty, PE, QSD, Michael Baker International). The desilting basin is approximately 0.49 acre in size, and approximately 90 percent (0.45 acre) of this basin will be impacted by the proposed project because the basin will be relocated to the south and decreased in size by 25 percent. It is being reduced in size because the tributary area for the relocated desilting basin is being reduced by the proposed project. As part of the project, new bio -retention basins will be installed around the proposed parking areas, as well as a new system of storm water pipes and a new underground storage basin, which would ultimately connect to the existing 36 - inch storm drain line that empties into the existing culvert that crosses beneath I-15. The second (larger) existing basin is approximately 1.42 acres in size and is located in the center of the project site. This basin is a temporary retention basin for the recently developed and adjacent Mercedes dealership property. The source of flow is entirely runoff from the adjacent Mercedes property that enters the basin through a culvert. The 100 -year flood flows were determined to be 59.9 cfs (Mark Doty, PE, QSD, Michael Baker International). Since this basin functions as a retention basin, the water does not exit the basin or connect to any downstream drainage feature or storm water system. This retention basin would be entirely removed during construction of the proposed project. Additionally, both basins were intended to be temporary basins to control runoff on the mass graded pads until the pads were to be developed as part of the Harveston Specific Plan. These basins did not historically connect to any stream, lake or river; or any blue - line stream depicted on USGS topographic maps. The project site and adjacent properties have been graded with storm water management tiers that direct onsite generated storm water into the desilting basin which is covered in black plastic sheeting and sand bags. Based on the definition of CDFW regulated waters of the State provided in CDFW's comment letter, the project site does not contain any characteristic features that would be considered waters of the State regulated by CDFW under Section 1602 of FGC. The Audi of Temecula Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 3-10 ESA / 150189 September 2015 3. Response to Comments project site does not contain any river, stream or lake; the bed, channel or bank of any river, stream or lake will not be impacted; nor will the project deposit debris, waste or other material that could pass into any river, stream or lake. These include any perennial or ephemeral streams, desert washes or watercourses with subsurface flows. The basins are entirely man-made features from previous grading activities and function as retention/detention basins that accept runoff from sheet flows and an inlet from the adjacent development and graded pads. Additionally both basins do not support vegetation that could provide habitat for any species reliant on riparian or wetland habitats, particularly since the soils are significantly disturbed and the basins are regularly maintained (mowed) to minimize growth of weeds. Although the desilting basin connects to an existing storm water system that connects to a culvert below I-15 and eventually will flow towards Warm Springs Creek, the construction of the project will not alter or change the flow of storm water from the site, and is designed to maintain the existing storm water system offsite. Therefore, no waters of the State subject to CDFW jurisdiction are located on the site that would require a Notification of Lake or Streambed Alteration. 2B The commenter recommends that the pre -construction survey for nesting birds and raptors be conducted regardless of the time of year because some raptor species can nest as early as January 1 and some passerines may nest later than August 31. The commenter also recommends that the surveys be performed no more than 3 days prior to the initiation of project activities, as instances of nesting may otherwise be missed. Mitigation Measure MM -BIO -1 has been revised to reflect the commenter's recommendation that "the pre -construction survey for nesting birds and raptors be conducted regardless of the time of year because some raptor species can nest as early as January 1 and some passerines may nest later than August 31." The revised measure specifically requires that a pre - construction survey be performed no more than three (3) days prior to the initiation of project construction activities. 2C The commenter notes that it is the project proponent's responsibility to comply with all applicable laws related to nesting birds and birds of prey. This comment is noted for the record. 2D The commenter requests that Mitigation Measure MM -BIO -2 be modified to include notifying CDFW if any burrowing owls are present onsite prior any relocation of the owls to reduce their vulnerability to predation; and, to develop a conservation strategy in cooperation with CDFW, USFWS, and the RCA. The project site is within the boundaries of the Western Riverside County MSHCP and is required to adhere to the burrowing owl survey guidelines established by the MSHCP. The MSHCP has its own guidance regarding addressing impacts to burrowing owl, which was approved by CDFW during the implementation of the MSHCP that states if less than three pairs of burrowing owls are occupying a site, the owls may be evicted from their burrows and allowed to move onto another adjacent property. This protocol has been Audi of Temecula Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 3-11 ESA / 150189 September 2015 3. Response to Comments established by the MSHCP and implemented by the RCA, and consultation with CDFW is not required by the MSHCP. The burrowing owl is a covered species under the MSHCP and the long-term conservation of the species (and potential take) has been accounted for and mitigated through participation in the MSHCP. Audi of Temecula Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 3-12 ESA / 150189 September 2015 STATE OF CALIFORNIA—CALIFORNIA STATE TRANSPORTATION AGENCY EDMUND G. BROWN Jr. Govern DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION DISTRICT 8 PLANNING (MS 722) 464 WEST 49ISTREET, 6th Floor SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92401-1400 PHONE (909) 383-4557 FAX (909) 383-5936 TTY (909) 383-6300 www.dot.ca.gov/dist8 Serious draught Help save water! September 2, 2015 File: 08-RIV-15-PM-7.669 Stuart Fisk Senior Planner City of Temecula Planning Department 41000 Main Street Temecula, CA 92590 Audi of Temecula Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report SCH No. 2015051024 Mr. Fisk, The California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) has completed the review of the Audi of Temecula project's Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (SEIR). The project is located in the City of Temecula east of Interstate 15, south of the current automobile dealership, and north and west of Temecula Center Drive and undeveloped land. The project proposal involves the construction of an approximately 37,468 square foot automobile dealership. As the owner and operator of the State Highway System (SHS), it is our responsibility to coordinate and consult with local jurisdictions when proposed development may impact our facilities. Under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), we are required to make recommendations to offset associated impacts with the proposed project. Although the project is under the jurisdiction of the City of Temecula, due to the Project's potential impact to State facilities, it is also subject to the policies and regulations that govern the SHS. Due to this, we offer the comments below. Traffic Operations Analysis Further analysis is requested regarding the Traffic Impact Analysis Report dated June 2015. These analyses include: • Ramp merge/diverge analysis at the northbound and southbound directions of the I45 and Winchester Road interchange to determine development impacts at these locations. • Ramp merge/diverge analysis at the northbound and southbound directions of the I-215 and Murrieta Hot Springs Road interchange to determine development impacts at these locations. • Ramp intersection analysis at the northbound and southbound ramps of the I-215 and Murrieta Hot Springs Road interchange. "Provide a safe, sustainable, integrated and efficient transportation system to enhance California's economy and livability" 3-A 3-B Mr. Fisk September 2, 2015 Page 2 Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fees: As stated in the SEIR, section 3.6.2, "the project is exempt from the TUMF fee per the Development Agreement, Section 4.2.4.4." As a condition of approval, we request a copy of this agreement for our records and assessment. Hydrology and Grading:. These comments will be provided in a subsequent Ietter. Multimodal Accessibility: Caltrans is committed to providing a safe, sustainable, integrated and efficient transportation system for all users. Planning facilities for pedestrians, cyclists, and transit riders will encourage more multimodal trips, reducing congestion, vehicles miles traveled, greenhouse gas emissions, and our State's effect on climate change. To assist the City in reducing vehicle trips associated with the proposed development, we offer the following comments: • Referring to the City of Ternecula General Plan Circulation Element, Class II Bike Lanes and a Multi -Use trail are proposed along Ynez Road through the project area. We suggest the lead agency and project applicant consider constructing bike lanes or Class IV Protected Bike Lanes to accommodate the accessibility of cyclists and to minimize intersection conflicts between cyclists and future Audi of Temecula customers. • The project shall accommodate necessary R/W to meet Americans with Disability Act sidewalk standards. • Adequate bicycle parking shall be provided at the project site. Encroachment Permit Requirements: When development does occur a need for encroachment permits will be necessary for any work performed within the I-15 R/W. Furthermore, the applicant's environmental documentation must include such work in their project description and indicate that an encroachment permit will be needed. As part of the encroachment permit process, the developer must provide appropriate environmental approval for potential environmental impacts to State R/W. Issuance of a Caltrans Encroachment Permit will be required prior to any construction within State R/W. In addition, all work undertaken within State R/W shall be in compliance to all current design standards, applicable policies, and construction practices. Detailed information regarding permit application and submittal requirements is available at: "Provide a safe, sustainable, integrated and efficient transportation system to enhance California's economy and livability" 3-C 3-D 3-E 3-F Mr. Fisk September 2, 2015 Page 3 Office of Encroachment. Permits California Department of Transportation 464 West Fourth Street, 6th Floor, MS 619 San Bernardino, CA 92401-1400 (909) 383-4526 Thank you for providing us the opportunity to review the Audi of Temecula SEIR and for your consideration of these and future comments. These recommendations are preliminary and summarize our review of materials provided for our evaluation. If this proposal is revised in any way, please forward appropriate information to this office so that updated recommendations for impact mitigation may be provided. If you have questions concerning these comments, or would like to meet to discuss our recommendations, please contact Dustin Foster (909) 806-3955 or myself at (909) 383-4557. Sincerely, MARK ROBERTS Office Chief Intergovernmental Review, Community and Regional Planning "Provide a safe, sustainable, integrated and efficient transportation system to enhance California's economy and livability" 3. Response to Comments Responses to Letter 3: California Department of Transportation 3A The commenter states that as the owner and operator of the State Highway System (SHS), CEQA requires the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) to make recommendations to offset associated impacts with the proposed project. Although the project is under the jurisdiction of the City of Temecula, due to the project's potential impact to State facilities it is also subject to the policies and regulations that govern the SHS. Thank you for your comments. The participation of Caltrans in the public review of this document is appreciated. This comment has been noted for the record. 3B The commenter requests that additional traffic analysis be performed for ramp/merge analysis at the northbound and southbound directions of I-15/Winchester Road; ramp/merge analysis at the northbound and southbound directions of I-215/Murrieta Hot Springs Road; and ramp intersection analysis at the northbound and southbound ramps of 10215/Murrieta Hot Springs Road interchange. An analysis of regional freeway congestion would be more appropriate at a regional (Countywide) level such as at the Regional Transportation Plan level. The lead agency has the authority under CEQA to determine its preferred analysis methodologies and thresholds of significance. Under CEQA, the City is required to consult with Caltrans which was done through the Notice of Preparation (NOP) process in accordance with City of Temecula guidelines and CEQA requirements. No comments were received from Caltrans during the NOP comment period. As detailed in the Traffic Impact Analysis (Appendix E of the Draft Supplemental EIR), six offsite intersections were analyzed which included northbound and southbound ramps at Winchester Road and I-15. The City, as lead agency, has determined that the TIA sufficiently analyzed the project's potential impact on the surrounding circulation system, the results of which are summarized in Section 3.6, Transportation and Traffic of the Draft Supplemental EIR. 3C The commenter requests that, as a condition of approval, the Development Agreement for the Harveston Specific Plan (City of Temecula Ordinance No. 01-08) be provided to Caltrans for their records and assessment. The Development Agreement referenced above is in the Official Records of the City Clerk, City of Temecula, CA. This document can be accessed through the City's Laserfiche WebLink at: http://laserfiche . cityofteme cula.org/WebLink8/2/doc/73668/Page 3.aspx 3D The commenter notes that any hydrology and grading comments will be provided in a subsequent letter. This comment is noted for the record. Audi of Temecula Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 3-16 ESA / 150189 September 2015 3. Response to Comments 3E The commenter states that Caltrans is committed to providing a safe, sustainable, integrated and efficient transportation system for all users. As such, the commenter suggests that the lead agency (City) and project applicant consider constructing bike lanes along Ynez Road, as outlined in the City of Temecula General Plan Circulation Element, to accommodate the accessibility of cyclists and to minimize intersection conflicts between cyclists and future Audi of Temecula customers. The commenter also states that the project must accommodate necessary right-of-way (R/W) to meet the Americans with Disabilities Act sidewalk standards, and provide adequate bicycle parking at the project site. The segment of Ynez Road between County Center Drive and the north city limits which would serve as one of the main access road to the proposed project has existing Class 2 bike lanes on both sides of the road. Regarding construction standards for sidewalks and bicycle parking requirements, the project applicant will be required to comply with Title 16 — Subdivisions of the City of Temecula Municipal Code which sets forth street and sidewalk design and layout requirements within public rights-of-way which meet the Americans with Disabilities Act standards. In addition, the project applicant will be required to comply with Chapter 17.24 of the Municipal Code which establishes bicycle parking requirements for service commercial establishments, such as the proposed Audi dealership. F The commenter notes that an encroachment permit will be needed for any work performed within the I-15 R/W, and, as part of the encroachment permit process, the developer must provide appropriate environmental approval for the potential environmental impacts to State R/W. An encroachment permit for the proposed project is not anticipated, as there will be no work performed within the I-15 R/W. Audi of Temecula Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 3-17 ESA / 150189 September 2015 Board of Directors President Randy A. Record `ice President David J. Slawson Directors Joseph J. Koehler, CPA Philip E. Paula Ronald W. Sullivan General Manager Paul D. Jones II, PE. Treasurer Joseph J. Koehler, CPA Chairman of the Board, The Metropolitan Water District o fSo. Calif Randy A. Record Legal Counsel Lemieux & O'Neill July 27, 2015 EASTERN MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICT SINCE 1950 City of Temecula Community Development — Planning Division 41000 Main Street Temecula, CA 92590 Attention: Stuart Fisk Comment Letter 4 Subject: Audi of Temecula Development Plan (PA15-0513) JUL 30201 The subject project requires water, sewer and recycled water services from EMWD. The details of said service connection points are further detailed in a separate document, known as EMWD's Pian of Service (POS), developed by the project proponent. The subject project is an active project with EMWD's New Business Departnment, with a Work Order Number 15428, and a Record Number WS2014-785, The project requires on-site and offsite sewer facilities and associated easements to adequately serve the project demands. Attached, please find a copy of the latest approved POS for the subject project, as issued by EMWD. If you have questions or concerns, please do not hesitate to contact me. Sincerely, jive/ 1,10 , KaAc -W6e Maroun El -Hage, M. , P.E. //S Senior Civil Engineer New Business Development (951) 928-3777 x4468 El-hagern emwd.org MEemn Attachment Mailing Address. Post Office Box 8300 Perris, CA 92572-8300 Telephone: (951) 928-3777 Fax: (951) 928-6177 Location: 2270 Trumble Road Perris, CA 92570 Internet: www.emwd.org City of Temecula Community Development Planning Division Comment Letter 4 RECEIVED JUL 2 3 2015 EMWD - MAIL ROOM Notice of Completion of a Draft Supplemental EIR SCI -f#: 2015051024 PROJECT: APPLICANT: LOCATION: Audi of Temecula Development Plan (PA15-0513) Ware Malcomb Architects & Horine Group Approximately 800 feet west of Ynez Road, between Interstate 15 and Temecula Center Drive, City of Temecula, County of Riverside DESCRIPTION: The project consists of a Development Plan application for Hoehn Motors. Inc. to construct an approximately 37,468 square foot Audi dealership on a 4.5 acre site designated For Service Commercial uses. The project is located within the previously adopted Harveston Specific Plan (State Clearinghouse [SCH] No. 1999041033), which covers approximately 550 acres located between Margarita Road and 1-15, along the northern Temecula City limits. The Specific Plan shows a land use designation of Service Commercial for the project site. The proposed use, an auto dealership, is a permitted use under the applicable [and use designation of the Specific Plan, The City of Temecula has completed a Draft Supplemental EIR for the project described above. This notice is made pursuant to Section 15085 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Pursuant to the requirements of CEQA the City has completed a Draft Supplemental EIR to supplement the previously certified Harveston Specific Plan EIR (which this project was a part of) and to address any potential issues for the project described above. The Draft Supplemental EIR is available for public review on the City of Temecula website at cityoftemecula.arg, the Temecula Public Library located at 30600 Pauba Road, Temecula Grace Mellman Community Library located at 41000 County Center, Temecula, and at the City of Temecula Community Development Department, Planning Division, Monday through Friday from 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. As required by Section 15105 of CEQA, the public reviewing and commenting period for this proposed notice of completion for a Supplemental Draft EIR is July 20, 2015 to September 3, 2015. Written comments and responses to this notice should be addressed to the contact person Estee below at the following address: City of Temecula, 41000 Main Street, Temecula, CA 92590. The public notice of the intent to adopt this Supplemental EIR is provided through: ZThe Local Newspaper l Posting the Site Notice to Adjacent Property Owners if you Pro ed additional infor ation or have any questions concerning this project, please contact the P1 Stuart Fis •, AICP at (951) 506-5159 or stuart.fisk@a cityofternecula.org. atson Interim Director of Community Development 7//o Z-o1s- City of Temecula Planning Department Comment Letter 4 Agency Distribution List PROJECT: Audi of Temecula Development Plan (PA15-0513) DISTRIBUTION DATE: July 16, 2015 CASE PLANNER: Stuart Fisk CITY OF TEMECULA: Building & Safety Fire Department Sheriff Parks & Recreation (TCSD) Public Works STATE: Caltrans Fish & Game Mines & Geology Regional Water Quality Control Board State Clearinghouse (15 Copies) Water Resources FEDERAL: Army Corps of Engineers Fish and Wildlife Service Federal Aviation Administration REGIONAL: Air Quality Management District Western Riverside COG Regional Conservation Authority CITY OF MURRIETA: Planning ....... .. RIVERSIDE COUNTY: Airport Land Use Commission .. Engineer .. Flood Control. Health Department Parks and Recreation Planning Department Habitat Conservation Agency (RCHCA) Riverside Transit Agency UTILITY: Eastern Municipal Water District Time Warner Rancho CA Water District, Southern California Gas Southern California Edison Temecula Valley School District Metropolitan Water District OTHER: Pechanga Indian Reservation . Eastern Information Center Local Agency Formation Comm RCTC Temecula Unified School District Rincon Band of Luiseno Indians Harveston Homeowners' Association Comment Letter 4 PLAN OF SERVICE SUMMARY 2 F LICANT: Tc 0!! out tills form a 4 Applicant to compete Gray sections, EMWD to complete Yellow/White sections L PROJECT INFORMATION 2 Conditional POSI ❑ res 4 f 0 her or name rn 2 0 2 a 4 11, WATER DEMAND AND SEWER FLOW ASSESSMENT r4 u. 0o x 0 C'1 10 1- F co 0 0. 4 - tt a d 0 t? u 4 0- LL 0 Q Q w 8. to ❑ z❑ 0 4 w w 0 re o. G Q Z g -- 0 0 0 0 4 Z 4 7 3 a (7) re 4 4 U Q m 7 0 5 0 w- 4 N 0 n. 000 4 0 0 a re 0 4 4 0 0 i DEMAND ASSMT. G' 4 00 0 0 0 3 41 4 ca w I1 0 ❑ 2 5 a. O0 2 (b) SOARD APPROVAL REQUIRED? W. WATER SUPPLY d w en a 0 0 RALPH P?IRANER FOR REVIEWICOMMENT2 Pressure Conditions F 4 Printed: 1/16)2015, 4:29 PM File Name: Audi of Temecula WS 2014-785 WO 15428,xls Comment Letter 4 PLAN OF SERVICE SUMMARY }. /. [ 0 ) ) w § Lu } ( ) k f K R ) ƒ la ) Proposed 12- r to be constructed thrxrgh a proposed EMWD easement (future Temecula Center Drive) to the project site (please refer to Exhibit 'A }. Developers engineer to coordinate with EMWD Plan Check during the pian check phase. Developer agrees to constrict the oversized 12" sewer without any flnandal contribution from EMWD (please refer to attached e-mail dated 7/2115). • Length (If)i"'' Location ) I |� \ E. � | ck \_ N t 1 OnsitelOffslte k e & # S | ¥5. ) -i 7 ■ k . ƒ \ S. f 11 3 ƒ OnsltelOffsite §me. § k c/ a 2 §k$ } /0 0. J J 0 E § ) Sire needed )o ) k f K R ) ƒ la ) Proposed 12- r to be constructed thrxrgh a proposed EMWD easement (future Temecula Center Drive) to the project site (please refer to Exhibit 'A }. Developers engineer to coordinate with EMWD Plan Check during the pian check phase. Developer agrees to constrict the oversized 12" sewer without any flnandal contribution from EMWD (please refer to attached e-mail dated 7/2115). • Length (If)i"'' Location I |� \ E. � ck \_ N t 1 OnsitelOffslte k Onsit&Oftske 00 }E. 00 5. :.-e� d §/ 0 2 Printed: 711612015, 4:29 PM / File Name: Audi of Temecula WS 2014-785 WO 15428.x1s Comment Letter 4 PLAN OF SERVICE SUMMARY XI. RECYCLED WATER FACILITY REQUIREMENTSSP" E I 'N/A- not within EMWtO's recycled service area C 0 11y3 O J C N Onsileri}ffslte OnsfterOffslte 1 0 uJ W C E V ns, maps, etc. XII. FRONTAGE 0'1 Ts 0 h Potentially Reimbursable DescrIption!General Location .5 m 0 E 16 41 0 E 0 pay C 7, 0 m • n' G 0 E C E E C1 v In 0 0 Alicia Arana ✓ w d z E 0 rts 0 CO o c o w, U c (Ly (1) 3 c Qi zE0 z 0 Q) G C] v R O 2 47 Q.10 (13 1 C � E 0 11 & E © .,0T, v 10:1- g is co as XIII. Fire Flow Demand c C Q 0 0 a 2 0) Y n D b 13 co of g P a) Q Immo ° j fl cri Q7 -127 o� v g - S3 m E LL t1_ +-' 0 U c m 1 leap, a€C (11v o a t 8 co O S m m-0 0 g U �`. E m @4=2 D w E 0 o 0 C 4t.0.00 I U z II N 1 o C) -o i -- a co '> 4— o c k � Printed: 7116!2015, 4:29 PM File Name: Audi of Temecula WS 2014-785 WO 1542B.xls Comment Letter 4 PLAN OF SERVICE SUMMARY 3 0 x G Is this project In a CFD: q o kuQ OO 3, w ra 2 1 4212, .S� ti ra 3 ku [7 Ute xN 1 a W 0. Qui XVI. ESTIMATE CONNECT FEES FOR APPLICANT BENEFIT a5 XVII. TIME LIMITATION 3330 0. b VJ n' 17033 C IC 41 21) 5 N Pi XVIII. ADDITIONAL NOTES A 2 It s ji 12 R ! jima� 8G 1 ki N F 0 w 1 5 re ¢y W .4 c w 5 sw 'Rs6: 'E =c E.3 i aa��fg$ r�nU' ro 2 6▪ Q _U d 9 N FP E � � w N.y ALL O rel "' Q a � � 2$a N � Q 2.g2 2 8 58 ;La G mSia EL c31 �tC gtu0 E iw 1 N y vez mliEu M n 4 w bE 4 SYN N r 9 rc3 J b 2@. +SVA O m i£ • C v m u m G c8„, cr a vx ano Eur c to N Imo} " 2N � gVa �z a CQ C o N ▪ p� q °g ▪ Grhe F W Printed: 711612915, 4:29 PM 4 33 a Fib Name: Audi of Temecula WS 2014-785 WO 15426.xls Comment Letter 4 LL 3 ts 4 TEa Fri ° 2 2 €1 0 = LLJ 'ct co 0) EMWD New Business and Development kel 49 1 44 cr 44:44.,4# divto 441044\ • Comment Letter 4 Exhibit 2 Project and Tributary Flow Areas 201€ 2 CONNECTION POINT ZONE 3 CON+ECTION POINT Comment Letter 4 Chew, Edmund From: Doty, Mark <MDOTY@mbakerinti.com> Sent: Tuesday, July 14, 2015 2:05 PM To: Chew, Edmund Subject: FW: Audi of Temecula - PO5 update From: Doty, Mark Sent: Thursday, July 02, 2015 12:33 PM To: 'Raines, Brian' Cc: Boeck, Michael; El -Hage, Maroun Subject: RE: Audi of Temecula - PO5 update Brian, Per our conversation regarding the Audi property in Temecula we would prefer to upsize the pipe from an 8" to a 12". The design of the 12" will remain the same as the 8", a 0.50% slope with around 8' of cover at the end. We would like to do this because is the property owner of the remaining land is not sure what type of development will be constructed en the remaining parcels. It is zones service commercial which the 8" will suffice, but in the event a higher density project comes along we would like to have the availability in the pipe for a higher density. An advantage of upsizing now is the line will only need to be installed once. Rather than installing an 8" now then upsizing it later at additional costs. The pipe will be upsized at no expense to the district, the property owner and the Audi owner will be paying for the Construction. Mark Doty, PE, QSD 1 Senior Associate / Project Manager l Michael Baker International 40810 County Center Drive, Suite 100 1 Temecula, CA 92591 1 [0] 951-575-8042 ! [M] 951-225-2030 mdotv@mbakerintl.com 1 www.mbakerintl.com Michael Baker I LATIN M*TIQII AL rtnm►eai y1 0 II wO �,. t ,, t75 ) amake QflifC cp YF I (ft.}i From: Raines, Brian [mallto:rainesb@emwd.org] Sent: Thursday, July 02, 2015 11:24 AM To: Doty, Mark Cc: Boeck, Michael; El -Hage, Maroun Subject: Audi of Temecula - POS update Importance: High Comment Letter 4 EASTERN MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICT New Business Development Department Work Order Deposit(-) Work Sheet (for POTS & PC) Project: Du Dili encs M In da : Plan of Service Engineer:.m..,.....M...,...,.�....�.._......�..._..._..,....�._....,..........._.»...,...,.»..._,..........,..»,,......_ File Name: Farm: NBD-053 rsian Date: 611812013 Phase I: Due Diligence Phase ,1„ WatQrt Sewer &Recycled water (No Charge for initial research and Due Diligence meeting). Depose Amount Required For This Project So 1 Water FOS 2 3 or 4 -Hour Fire Row Tests Phase 11: Plan Of Service Phase Proiect Size: Smatt EDUs: 1-100 $ 2,000 Medium 101-200 $ 2,500 Larne Over 200 $ 3,000 $ 1.200 $ 1,200 $ 1,200 a Sewer POS $ 2,000 $ 2,500 $ 3,000 4 Recycled Water Use Exhibit varies; use RWDeposit Work Sheet - Farm NSD -042) 5 Ret tied Wster Public Facilities i(?lan ..................................................... $ 2,500 $ 3 000 T Sewer Flow AAenitarink sy District staff Amount Varies Jmin, $2 000 per manhole}_, B Plan Check Support lif needed,)_ $ 1,500_ $ _w. 1,500 __$__14500.• 9... Project Complexity, such es: PZ Reali nmenr.. _._ » . ,.».» ..._. ,.....•.......'_. $ Storage, Booste, Llft Station Phase II (Plan Of Serice) Total: Phase 111: Plan Check Phase On-site Rec tied Water Irri, ation Plan Check: 1 Single source park Streetscape Tract Commercial, ,Dual source l park, School .......Bitsalgatiar Cpo Mr1Stiort (nsPectirjrn ,3... Singte source park d CammeFM.0,1 12ua1 Sauroe a SchooiL T » Water & Seweri" l Number Of Sheets ..._1.2 sheets .m, 7 3-8 sheets ,w». ....».. two or more systems $ 6Og0 , one system $ 7,000 Vanes: use RW Deposit Work Sheet - FormiIBD-042] --(Varies:use RW Deposit Worlr Shoe[ Form NRb-042) 1Nm112s;use RW Deposit Work Sheet - Form NBD-042) ,� fVeries use R1M1t Liepasit Work Sheat - Form Na0-042, �...... �1laries. use�RW oeposit Work 5heet�-Form IVB[}-042�� Deposit With Easement, Add CFD Specs, Add One or more systems $ 2.000 $ 1.000 one system $ 4,000 $ 1,500 1,500 9 9.13 sheets $ 1,500 10 11 µry. 1A-20 sheets w «rt 12 13 14 15 16 _ 11 H 51.7Pneumatic boaster Stetian 18-BpastRr Pump Station...:..:.:...:n.:m::��..._....._.........,........._...._M......,_........,.... $ ._ i�4,00p.._,..,......,,.�.�.».�...,�........._.�.W_._,_. 19 Water Store' a Reservoir.:.,»..,.......,........ »..., .,.»... _...»....� .,..,.. $.^-.12 090 ......_.................»..,,..........,........•......... 20 Sewer Lift Station $12,00[7 ._ ..� ..._w._._..�.... 21-25 sheets 35 sheets two, or more systems $ 9:000 $ 1.500„ one system $ 10,000 $ 2,000 1.000 1,000 1,999 �i000 1,000 1,000 two or more systems $ 13,000 $ 2,000 $ 11000 one system $ 15,000 $ 2,000 $ 1,000 two or more systems $ 1$000 5 2,00[7 $ 1,000 one system $ 20.000 $ 2,000 $ 1,000 two or more systems $ 23,000 $ 2,000 $ 1 000 Phase 111 (Plan Check) Total: * Deposit amount is based an the average District cost to review and process a typical project, • During the POS and the Plan Check phases, the District reserves the right to review charges to a project and request additional funds if necessary. • Initial deposits may be increased based on project complexity, as determined by District staff. ' All Plan Check charges must be paid prior to approval of the plans. " Dual Source Site: Project site that has both potable and recycled water served onsite. Dual source sites are required per CDPH and EMWD to have cross connection test performed prior to acceptance and release of the project site. "*" Recheck of approved plans: Apply 2/3 of the above Plan Check deposit (Additional fees to be determined based on the amount of design changes) File: Form_NDD-053_DD Deposit Worksheet 2013_06_18(4) Page 1 011 3. Response to Comments Response to Letter 4: Eastern Municipal Water District 4A The commenter notes that the proposed project requires EMWD approval of a Plan of Service (POS) for onsite and offsite sewer facilities. EMWD has approved the POS for the proposed project, a copy of which is attached to the comment letter. This comment is noted for the record. Audi of Temecula Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 3-29 ESA / 150189 September 2015 4c.1 T' „, ,m I1030St,5 NlV II iV ]Ilgtitit__I. Board of Directors John E. Hoagland President James "Stew' Stewart Sr. Vice President Stephen J. Corona Ben R. Drake Lisa D. Herman Wtniam E. Plummer Roger C, Ziemer Officers Matthew G. Stone General Manager Richard S. W;I1ieanenn. P.E. Assistant General Manager Jeffrey D. Armstrong CFO/Treasurer Fred F, Edgee:amh, MPA Dire wr of ayar tiros & Maintenance Andrew L. Webster, P.E, Chit Engineer Salk E, Garcia District Secretary Seines B. Glpin Seat Best & Krieger LLP General Counsel August 5, 2015 AU6 - 7 2015 Luke Watson 11 Interim Director of Cta`mmunityDevelopment City of Temecula 41000 Main Street Temecula, CA 92590 SUBJECT: DRAFT SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT [SCH NO. 20150510241 FOR AUDI OF TEMECULA Dear Mr. Watson: Rancho California Water District (RCWD/District) appreciates the opportunity to provide comments for the Public Review of the Supplemental Environmental Impact Report [SCH No. 2015051024] for Audi of Temecula. RCWD's comments are as follows: SECTION 3.7: HYDROLOGY, WATER QUALITY, AND WATER SUPPLY Page 3.7-21 through 3.7-22: The text in the second paragraph describing the Impacts to Water Supply in regards to the Operation of Groundwater Supplies should be edited as follows: "RCWD receives its imported water (treated and untreated) directly through six Metropolitan water turnouts, three in EMWD's service area and three in WMWD's service area. The District pumps groundwater from 52 district wells and recycles water at its Santa Rosa Water Reclamation Facility (SRWRF). RCWD owns and operates 43 storage reservoirs and one surface reservoir, Vail Lake. The storage capacity of Vail Lake is 45,207 acre feet (AFD) and it is used to help recharge groundwater, through the use of infiltration basins downstream from the Vail Lake release facilities." If you should have any questions or need additional information, please call me at the District office at (951) 296-6900. Sincerely, RANCHO CALIFORNIA WATER DISTRICT Jeff Kirshberg, P.E. Principal Engineer cc: Andrew Webster, Chief Engineer Corey Wallace, Engineering Manager-CIP & Development IS JK_hab0031.FEG Rancho California Water District 42135 Winri ester Road • Peat Office Box 8017 - Ton -rale, California 92589-9U17 • (9511298491X) • FAX (91)298-&$P0 www.ranchowater.eem 3. Response to Comments Response to Letter 5 Rancho California Water District 5A The commenter requests that an edit to Section 3.7, Hydrology, Water Quality and Water Supply of the Draft SEIR be made that deletes the following sentence on page 3.7-21: Additional recycled water is available from EMWD's Temecula Valley Regional Water Reclamation Facility (TVRWRF). The requested edit has been made and is reflected in Chapter 2, Errata of the Final SEIR. Audi of Temecula Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 3-31 ESA / 150189 September 2015 NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING Case No: Applicant: Proposal: Notice of Public Hearing A PUBLIC HEARING has been scheduled before the City of Temecula PLANNING COMMISSION to consider the matter described below: PA15-0513 and PA15-1477 Andrew Dzulynsky, Ware Malcomb Architects & Kathryn Conniff, Horine Group A Development Plan for an Audi auto -dealership encompassing a showroom and offices, auto parts and service facility, and a bay for a car washing and detailing totaling approximately 37,500 square feet, and Planning Application No. PA15- 1477, a Sign Program for the proposed Audi dealership to be located on the west side of the current terminus (cul-de-sac) of Temecula Center Drive, between Temecula Center Drive and Interstate 15 within the Harveston Specific Plan. Environmental: In accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the proposed project will not have a significant impact upon the environment based upon a completed Supplemental Environmental Impact Report. As a result, the Supplemental Environmental Impact Report will be adopted in compliance with CEQA. Case Planner: Stuart Fisk; (951) 506-5159 Place of Hearing: City of Temecula, Council Chambers Date of Hearing: October 21, 2015 Time of Hearing: 6:00 p.m. gin f`''Sertt Site 250 504 MM f!C The agenda packet (including staff reports) will be available for viewing in the Main Reception area at the Temecula Civic Center (41000 Main Street, Temecula) after 4:00 p.m. the Friday before the Planning Commission Meeting. At that time, the packet may also be accessed on the City's website — www.cityoftemecula.orq. Any Supplemental Material distributed to a majority of the Commission regarding any item on the Agenda, after the posting of the Agenda, will be available for public review in the Main Reception area at the Temecula Civic Center (41000 Main Street, Temecula), 8:00 a.m. — 5:00 p.m. In addition, such material will be made available on the City's website — www.cityoftemecula.orq — and will be available for public review at the respective meeting. If you have any questions regarding any item of business on the Agenda for this meeting, please call the Planning Department, (951) 694-6400. STAFF REPORT — PLANNING CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNING COMMISSION DATE OF MEETING: October 21, 2015 TO: Planning Commission Chairperson and members of the Planning Commission FROM: Luke Watson, Director of Community Development PREPARED BY: Dale West, Associate Planner PROJECT Long Range Planning Project No. LR10-0014 consisting of: SUMMARY: 1) The Uptown Jefferson Specific Plan; 2) A General Plan Amendment to: (a) amend the Land Use Policy Map, assigning the territory within the Uptown Jefferson Specific Plan with a land use designation of "Specific Plan Implementation (SPI)" and specifying that all land uses within the Specific Plan shall comply with the provisions of the Specific Plan; (b) amend the Circulation Element by changing the roadway classification for Jefferson Avenue, north of Winchester Road, from a Principle Arterial to a Major Arterial; and (c) make textual amendments by incorporating reference to the Uptown Jefferson Specific Plan in various chapters of the General Plan; 3) A Zoning Map Amendment adding the Uptown Jefferson Specific Plan boundaries; 4) A Temecula Municipal Code amendment revising the Adult Business Overlay boundary by removing it from the Uptown Jefferson Specific Plan area; and 5) Certification of the Programmatic Environmental Impact Report. CEQA: Environmental Impact Report RECOMMENDATION: That at the October 21, 2015 meeting, the Planning Commission consider the Uptown Jefferson Specific Plan, the draft Enviornmental Impact Report, the General Plan Amendment, Zoning Map Amendment, and amendment to the Temecula Municipal Code to remove the Uptown Jefferson Specific Plan area from the Adult Business Overlay zone, take public testimony and continue the public hearing to November 4, 2015. That at the November 4, 2015 meeting, the Planning Commission 1. Adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. 15- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA, CALIFORNIA RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA CERTIFY THE 1 FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR THE UPTOWN JEFFERSON SPECIFIC PLAN, ADOPT FINDINGS PURSUANT TO THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT, ADOPT A STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS, AND ADOPT A MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM IN CONNECTION WITH THE ADOPTION OF THE UPTOWN JEFFERSON SPECIFIC PLAN" 2. Adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. 15- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPT AN ORDINANCE ENTITLED "AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA ADOPTING THE UPTOWN JEFFERSON SPECIFIC PLAN, AMENDING THE TEMECULA ZONING CODE TO ADD THE UPTOWN JEFFERSON SPECIFIC PLAN TO THE SPECIFIC PLAN ZONES, AMENDING THE TEMECULA ZONING MAP TO REFLECT THE UPTOWN JEFFERSON SPECIFIC PLAN, AND AMENDING THE ADULT BUSINESS OVERLAY ZONE TO ELIMINATE THE UPTOWN JEFFERSON SPECIFIC PLAN AREA" AND A RESOLUTION ENTITLED "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA AMENDING THE LAND USE ELEMENT, THE LAND USE POLICY MAP, THE CIRCULATION ELEMENT, AND THE COMMUNITY DESIGN ELEMENT OF THE GENERAL PLAN IN CONFORMITY WITH THE UPTOWN JEFFERSON SPECIFIC PLAN" 3. Recommend that staff prepare a Streetscape Beautification and Marketing Plan for the Uptown Jefferson Specific Plan area. PROJECT DATA SUMMARY Name of Applicant: City of Temecula General Plan Community Commercial (CC), Highway Tourist Commercial (HT), Designation: Service Commercial (SC), Industrial Park (IP), and Open Space (OS) Zoning Designation: Community Commercial (CC), Highway Tourist Commercial (HT), Service Commercial (SC), Business Park (BP), Light Industrial (LI), and Open Space — Conservation (OS -C) Existing Conditions/ Land Use: Site: Retail, restaurant, office, hotel, gas station, service commercial other uses, and vacant 2 North: City of Murrieta — retail, service commercial, industrial, office, public institutional, open space and vacant South: Old Town Temecula — retail, service commercial, restaurant, hotel, motel, gas station, residential, other uses, and vacant East: Interstate 15 and retail West: Murrieta Creek, industrial, and service commercial BACKGROUND SUMMARY The Jefferson Avenue Study Area ("Study Area") is located north of Rancho California Road, west of Interstate 15, east of Diaz Road/Murrieta Creek and south of Cherry Street. The Study Area is approximately 560 acres and consists primarily of a mix of developed commercial property, and property designated as conservation/open space (Murrieta Creek). In January 2011, the Temecula City Council determined that enhancing the Study Area's economic assets would be critical to sustaining the area's long term future viability and established the Jefferson Corridor Ad Hoc Subcommittee, consisting of two City Council members: Jeff Comerchero, Michael McCracken, and Ron Roberts (former committee member). The Ad Hoc Subcommittee directed staff to hold public outreach and visioning workshops to obtain community input for the future Specific Plan area. From October 2011 through July 2012, the Community Development Department orchestrated six community visioning workshops and engaged the community in an effort to develop a Specific Plan for the Uptown Jefferson Area. The Envision Jefferson public visioning process resulted in the following Guiding Principles, Recommendations and related Goals to guide the development of the Uptown Jefferson Specific Plan (sometimes referred to as "Specific Plan"). Guiding Principle #1 Ensure the Specific Plan is based upon economic & market realities. Guiding Principle #2 Ensure the Specific Plan is flexible in order to allow for innovation and reaction to market realities. Recommendation 1 - Strengthen Economic Development Goal: Spark the revitalization of the area through comprehensive economic development strategies that support a sustainable fiscal foundation for the future. Recommendation 2 - Expand the Mix of Uses Goal: Allow for greater flexibility and a wider array of land use options within the Specific Plan area. Recommendation 3 - Define Districts and Neighborhoods Goal: Encourage the definition and development of districts within the area based upon current and historical uses in order to cultivate unique character. Recommendation 4 - Improve Transportation, Mobility, Connectivity and Circulation Goal: Encourage the development of a multi -modal, interconnected circulation network that improves circulation for vehicles, bicycles, pedestrians and transit. Recommendation 5 - Integrate Recreation, Open Spaces and Trails Goal: Encourage public and private investment in the development of world class walking and biking trails, public open spaces and active and passive recreation spaces. 3 Recommendation 6 - Create Updated and Flexible Development Standards Goal: Create urban development standards that will guide future development while being flexible and adaptable to changing market demands and economic conditions. Recommendation 7 - Build and Maintain a Comprehensive Utility Infrastructure System Goal: Ensure adequate infrastructure capacity to support future urban development. Recommendation 8 - Establish Distinct Identity Goal: Establish a recognizable identity, experience, and brand. To date 33 public hearings or noticed public meetings have been held through either the Envision Jefferson public visioning process, Jefferson Sub -committee meetings, Steering Committee meetings, City Commission meetings, and a Developer Forum. The City has also engaged in outreach through the Envision Jefferson website, and the City of Temecula website. Numerous stakeholders were involved in the process to determine the best land uses and development standards necessary to create a new and vibrant Uptown Jefferson. Staff has completed the draft Uptown Jefferson Specific Plan based on the guiding principles and recommendations to develop a plan based on the community's vision. Staff is now presenting the draft Specific Plan to the Planning Commission for review and comment before seeking adoption of the Specific Plan by City Council. Pending the Planning Commission's recommendations to City Council, staff intends to seek City Council adoption of the draft Uptown Jefferson Specific Plan, a General Plan Amendment, a Zone Change, a Zoning Map Amendment and a Municipal Code Amendment, along with certification of the Program Environmental Impact Report (EIR), adoption of findings pursuant to California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), adoption of a Statement of Overriding Considerations, and adoption of a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program on November 17, 2015. ANALYSIS Uptown Jefferson Specific Plan The proposed Specific Plan is a form based development code which provides for a range of uses including mixed use residential development, access to open space and recreational areas, and improved pedestrian, bicycle, vehicular mobility and connectivity. Staff chose using a form based code because it focuses on building form, building placement, and the creation of a pedestrian scale environment. All aspects of the Specific Plan considered the guiding principles, recommendations and the community's vision for the area. Market Assessment - In order to ensure the Specific Plan is based on economically feasible development and an appropriate mix of uses, staff consulted with Keyser Marston Associates Inc. (KMA) to perform a market assessment of the types of land uses that the Study Area could support based on prevailing market factors, trade area growth projections, and anticipated macroeconomic changes within each major land use category. The focus of the KMA market assessment was to evaluate the potential for development of new mixed-use development in the Study Area. The assessment relied upon readily available third -party demographic and market data sources. KMA reviewed both existing and historical market trends to better understand future development potential. KMA also prepared 10 -year market demand projections for various land uses within the Study Area. 4 An extrapolation of the KMA study over a 20 -year period indicates that the Study Area could support approximately 5.5 million square feet of development. Anticipated 20 Year Specific Plan Development Scenario 1 Buildable Acres 2 Commercial s.f. 3 Residential d.u. Total Development Potential 128 acres 1.9 million s.f. 3,726 d.u. 5.5 million s.f. 1 "Nets -out" Murrieta Creek Open Space. Assumes 30% of the total gross acres to be dedicated to future streets and alleys. Assumes 50% of the remaining acreage will be dedicated to surface parking or a parking garage and is not counted in the total development potential. 2 Assumes a FAR of 1.0 for Retail and Restaurant uses and an FAR of 2.0 for Office and Hotel uses for all districts, except Uptown Center where a FAR of 2.5 was assumed for Office and Hotel uses. 3 Assumes a Residential density of 45 du/acre in all districts. The Market Assessment also considered the demographic trends and market conditions for the Study Area and surrounding trade area. KMA assessed the market support for each land use in the near-, mid-, and long term. These rankings are summarized as follows: Market Strength by Land Use Land Use Near-term 0-5 Years Mid-term 5-10 Years Long-term 10+ Years Office Weak Moderate Strong Hotel Weak Moderate Moderate Multi -Family Residential Moderate Strong Strong Retail/Restaurant Weak Moderate Moderate Districts and Land uses - The Specific Plan establishes the following six zoning districts and two overlay zones: Zoning Districts 1. Uptown Center District (UC) 2. Uptown Hotel/Tourism District (UHT) 3. Uptown Sports/Transit District (US) 4. Uptown Arts District (UA) 5. Creekside Village District (CV) 6. Murrieta Creek Recreation and Open Space District (MCR -OS) Overlay Zones 1. Creekside Village Commercial Overlay Zone (CV -CO) 2. Wilder Hills Residential Overlay Zone (WH-RO) 5 Each zoning district and overlay zone has specific land uses and development standards which vary slightly by district in order to achieve differences between the districts. The boundaries of each district and overlay zone were established based on the existing land uses, geographic and surrounding physical features, and the desired vision of the community. Vertical or horizontal mixed-use development is encouraged to promote a more urban style environment which was desired by the community. The allowable land uses within the Specific Plan varies from what is currently allowed under the existing zoning. Industrial and heavy automotive repair uses would no longer be allowed under the Specific Plan. Residential uses, which are currently not allowed under the existing zoning, would be allowed under the Specific Plan. The industrial and heavy automotive repair uses that currently exist in the proposed Specific Plan area would be considered incompatible uses when located adjacent to residential uses. However, it is also the policy of the Specific Plan that legal non -conforming uses that were legally established prior to the adoption of the Specific Plan are allowed to continue as they were, without any restriction to their operations. Should the legal non -conforming land use be discontinued for a continuous period of 365 days or more, the legal non -conforming use shall not be reestablished. It should also be noted the Specific Plan also allows a property owner to apply to extend the legal non -conforming status beyond the initial 365 day period due to hardship, and there is no limit to the number of extensions of one-year extensions of time that may be granted. Mobility and Infrastructure - The infrastructure needed for enhancing mobility within the Specific Plan area was analyzed with the goal of improving mobility for vehicular travel, bicyclists, pedestrians and transit users to achieve the community's vision for a bicycle and pedestrian friendly urban experience. To accomplish this goal, the existing right-of-way (ROW) and curb - to -curb street cross sections were evaluated to determine if on -street parking, bicycle facilities, and 20 -foot sidewalks were feasible throughout the Specific Plan area. The result was a series of new street cross sections that include 20 -foot sidewalks, on -street parking, bicycle facilities, curb bulb -outs at intersections, bus turn -outs, and painted or raised medians. The new cross sections fit within the existing ROW and curb -to -curb sections, enabling the existing street cross sections to be retrofitted with the new street cross sections without acquiring additional ROW or the need to widen any of the existing streets. New streets have been added to the Specific Plan in order to create a grid pattern street network with smaller blocks. Smaller blocks and a grid pattern street network create more pedestrian friendly and walkable neighborhoods, by reducing the size of existing blocks and creating additional connections resulting in improved mobility throughout the Specific Plan area. The location of new streets is proposed as a hypothetical street network to allow for flexibility in their location as development occurs. The hypothetical street network will be constructed as new development occurs where new block size standards are exceeded. The construction of new streets will be equitably funded by all new development via an in -lieu fee, which is described in further detail below. New Streets In -lieu fee - As discussed above, the Specific Plan calls for new internal streets to enhance internal connectivity, mobility and to create more pedestrian friendly and walkable neighborhoods. The new streets will be funded by new development via an in -lieu fee. The fee is based on the overall cost of the new streets and is based on a standard 66 foot street cross section. The future vision for Specific Plan Area is a vibrant, pedestrian -friendly, urban district within the City of Temecula. The goal is to support a mix of uses, including residential. Accordingly, the 6 Specific Plan calls for streets that achieve a better balance between the needs of pedestrians, bicycles, cars and public transit. The creation of smaller blocks in Uptown Temecula Specific Plan area is a key strategy to achieve a multi -modal street network. Smaller blocks will provide safe, convenient and walkable routes to neighborhood conveniences, parks, and open spaces. Smaller blocks will also support the mobility of those that live, work and play in the Specific Plan Area and help create a destination for those visiting the area. The following objectives in the Specific Plan summarize how the Street, Block and Alley Design Guidelines of the Specific Plan will achieve improved multi -modal mobility, increased circulation and better connectivity within the specific plan area. 1. Expand upon the existing street network to promote a walkable, pedestrian friendly urban environment by adding new streets, blocks and alleys to the current circulation network. 2. Retrofit existing streets to accommodate safe, innovative and comfortable pedestrian and bicycle facilities. 3. Implement new east/west linkages within the specific plan area, across Interstate -15, and across Murrieta Creek. 4. Encourage pedestrian access and connectivity to the future creek trail and planned park/recreation amenity planned on the north end of the project area. 5. Implement additional north/south linkages for vehicles, pedestrian, cyclists and transit, to connect the Specific Plan area to Old Town to the south, and Murrieta to the north. 6. Encourage the development of more logical block shapes, grid patterns, and smaller block sizes, to increase walkability and allow for enhanced way -finding. 7 Encourage greater intersection density by incentivizing the construction of additional streets and smaller blocks as properties redevelop. 8. Create new street frontage and visibility for isolated, landlocked parcels by adding new streets, blocks and alleys to the existing circulation network. The following methodology was used in conducting the Nexus Study and reaching its conclusions: 1. Reviewed the proposed new street system in terms of physical features and preliminary cost estimates. 2. Reviewed build -out projections for the Specific Plan by land use type, i.e., dwelling units, office space, retail space, and hotel rooms. 3. Reviewed comparable land and building sales values in the trade area. 4. Estimated the nexus amount of financial obligation for new streets that can be attributed to each land use type. 5. Evaluated the potential economic impact of the new streets in -lieu fee on new development. The Nexus Study concluded that the nexus -supported new streets in -lieu fee for residential uses is estimated at $12,701 per unit, and for non-residential uses, it is estimated to range between $8.50 and $19.87 per square feet. These in -lieu fees represent Keyser Marston's conclusion as to the nexus between the need for new streets in the Specific Plan Area and development and the nexus between the amount of such a fee and benefit to the development. The Nexus Study also concluded, however, that these fees would be economically unfeasible and recommended that the following lower fees be adopted: $6,351 for a Residential Unit; $4.25 per square foot of gross building area for Office Uses; $9.94 per square foot of gross building area for Retail Uses; and $6.23 per square foot of gross building area for Hotel Uses. Utility Infrastructure - The infrastructure needed to support the anticipated development of the Specific Plan area was analyzed for water supply, sewer capacity, storm water conveyance, electricity, natural gas, solid waste disposal and telecommunications. Staff coordinated with service providers to determine if there is adequate infrastructure for future development in conformity with the Specific Plan. All utility service providers indicated that adequate capacity exists, with exception to wastewater system capacity. Eastern Municipal Water District (EMWD) is the service provider for wastewater collection and treatment in the Specific Plan area. EMWD indicated the existing sewer pipelines in the Specific Plan area do not have ample capacity to accommodate the additional wastewater flow that would be generated under the Specific Plan at build -out. However, developers will pay their fair share of the EMWD mitigation fees to upsize the impacted sewer pipelines at Jefferson Avenue, Via Montezuma and Del Rio Road. Plan Administration — The Uptown Jefferson Specific Plan proposes a streamlined approval process for planning applications. All planning applications (with the exception of an application for a variance) will have the ability for administrative approval, when a Notice of Intent to Approve is posted on site and the notice is mailed to all property owners within 600 feet of the proposed project, 20 days prior to the date of the Director of Community Development's decision to approve. The Notice of Intent to Approve must include the: 1) the date and time that the Planning Director will administratively approve the proposed project, 2) an explanation of the matter to be considered, 3) a detailed description of the proposed project and a summary of the project scope, 4) the findings being made for approval of the proposed project, 5) the general description (in the form of text or a diagram) of the property's location, 6) the location where the plans and/project file can be reviewed by the public, and 7) the procedures for requesting a public hearing. A public hearing will not be held unless a hearing is requested in writing by any member of the City Council, Planning Commission, the applicant, or by an affected party owning real property within 600 feet of the exterior boundaries of the proposed project. If a hearing is requested, the hearing will be conducted by the Director of Community Development, unless the Director of Community Development defers such a decision to the Planning Commission. Specific Plan Changes Since the May 2015 Draft — Since the May 2015 draft of the Uptown Jefferson Specific Plan was released for public comment, several changes have been made to address public concerns and/or clarify the intent of the Specific Plan. These changes have 8 been incorporated into the Final Draft Uptown Jefferson Specific Plan (October 2015). A summary of these proposed changes may be found in Attachment A to this staff report. General Plan Amendments Land Use Element - The proposed General Plan Amendment would change the land use designations for parcels within the proposed Uptown Jefferson Specific Plan area to a single General Plan designation of "Specific Plan Implementation" from their current designations of Community Commercial (CC), Highway Tourist Commercial (HT), Service Commercial (SC), Industrial Park (IP) and Open Space (OS). The purpose of the Specific Plan Implementation land use designation is to ensure consistency between the land uses and development characteristics of the Uptown Jefferson Specific Plan area and the General Plan by referring directly to the Specific Plan for the intended uses and development characteristics for this area. If approved, the General Plan Amendment would change the General Plan Land Use Map (Figure LU -3) for the area within the proposed Specific Plan boundaries, add Uptown Jefferson Specific Plan to the Approved Specific Plan Areas (Table LU -4), remove Jefferson Avenue Mixed Use Area from the Land Use Focus Areas (Figure LU -5) and Mixed Use Overlay Areas (Table LU -6), and add the description of the Uptown Jefferson Specific Plan to the text within the Land Use Element. Circulation Element — The proposed General Plan Amendment would amend the Roadway Plan (Figure C-2) of the Circulation Element of the General Plan, by changing the classification of Jefferson Avenue, north of Winchester Road, from Principle Arterial (6 -lane divided) to Major Arterial (4 -lane divided). The proposed change is consistent with the community's vision, the transition of Jefferson Avenue at the City's corporate boundary with the City of Murrieta, and with the proposed Jefferson Avenue street cross section that is south of Winchester Road. Community Design Element — The proposed General Plan Amendment would add the description of the Uptown Jefferson Specific Plan to the text of the Community Design Element. It would also amend the Community Design Plan (Figure CD -1) by removing Mixed Use Overlay Area No. 1, identifying the intersections of Winchester Road/Jefferson Avenue, Overland Drive/Jefferson Avenue, and Del Rio/Jefferson Avenue as focal intersections, and identifying Jefferson Avenue for a major streetscape improvement. Zoning Map and Zoning Code Amendments The proposed Specific Plan requires a Zoning Map amendment changing the zoning designations of Community Commercial (CC), Highway Tourist Commercial (HT), Service Commercial (SC), Business Park (BP), and Light Industrial (LI) to the designation of Uptown Jefferson Specific Plan. The Specific Plan also requires an amendment to Section 17.16.070 of the Temecula Municipal Code by adding the Uptown Jefferson Specific Plan to the list of approved specific plans. Adult Business Special Use Overlay Zone No. 1 Amendment The Specific Plan requires an amendment to Chapter 5.09 Adult Business Regulations of the Temecula Municipal Code by removing the Uptown Jefferson Specific Plan boundary from the Special Use Overlay No.1. In 1998, the City adopted the Adult Business Overlay Zone as Special Use Overlay No. 1, which 9 designated commercially -zoned parcels as possible locations for the establishment of adult businesses ("Overlay Zone"). All of the parcels in the Overlay Zone have adequate lighting, sidewalks, access roads, power and other utilities to support a commercial enterprise. Temecula Municipal Code section 5.09.040 requires a 1,000 -foot buffer between adult businesses in the Overlay Zone. In addition, no person shall operate an adult business without first obtaining an adult business license and a modified version of a conditional use permit. At this point, the City does not have any adult businesses operating within its borders. The Specific Plan area overlaps with 58 parcels in the Overlay Zone. Due to concerns about the secondary effects of having adult businesses operate in the proposed Specific Plan area and the incompatibility of land uses, the proposed Specific Plan and the proposed amendment to the Adult Business Ordinance would limit adult businesses to only those portions of the Overlay Zone that are located outside of the proposed Specific Plan area. If the City adopts zoning code and zoning map amendments to remove the parcels located in the proposed Specific Plan area from the Overlay Zone, there would still be 426 parcels remaining in the Overlay Zone available for the establishment of adult businesses. The City seeks to remove the Specific Plan area from the boundaries of the Overlay Zone to address the secondary effects of adult businesses. The City is not seeking to regulate free speech, but is concerned about the secondary effects of adult businesses. Adult businesses tend to attract prostitution, drug use, crime, noise, and disorderly conduct. Adult businesses also reduce property values for the surrounding businesses and residences. Because there are no adult businesses located within the City, evidence of the adverse secondary effects of adult oriented businesses can be found in various studies and reports which have been considered by other municipalities and local governments including, but not limited to: • Eric S. McCord and Richard Tewksbury, Does the Presence of Sexually Oriented Businesses Relate to Increased Levels of Crime? An Examination Using Spatial Analyses, Crime & Delinquency (2012); • Alan C. Weinstein and Richard McCleary, The Association of Adult Businesses with Secondary Effects: Legal Doctrine, Social Theory, and Empirical Evidence, 29 Cardozo Arts & Entertainment Law Journal 565 (2012); • Richard McCleary and Lori Sexton, Testimony on SB 3348 (March 2012); • Jacqueline Reuben, Chris Serio -Chapman, Christopher Welsh, Richard Matens and Susan G. Sherman, Correlates of Current Transactional Sex Among a Sample of Female Exotic Dances in Baltimore, MD, 88 Journal of Urban Health 342 (April 2011); • The Bureau of Business Research, IC Institute, and the Institute of Domestic Violence and Sexual Assault of the University of Texas at Austin, An Assessment of the Adult Industry in Texas (March 2009); • Richard McCleary and Alan C. Weinstein, Do "Off -Site" Adult Businesses Have Secondary Effects? Legal Doctrine, Social Theory, and Empirical Evidence, 31 Law & Policy 217 (April 2009); • Richard McCleary, Rural Hotspots: The Case of Adult Businesses, 19 Criminal Justice 10 Policy Review 153 (2008); • Valerie Jenness, Richard McClearly and James W. Meeker, Crime -Related Secondary Effects of Sexually -Oriented Businesses, Report to the County Attorney Palm Beach County, Florida (August 15, 2007); • Richard McCleary, Crime Related Secondary Effects of Sexually Oriented Businesses: Report to the City Attorney (May 2007); • Department of Planning and Development Director's Report, Adult Cabarets in Seattle (March 2006); • Duncan Associates, Survey of Appraisers Fort Worth & Dallas Effects of Land Uses on Surrounding Property Values (2004); • Report of Richard McCleary in People of the State of Illinois v. The Lion's Den, Inc., In the Circuit Court for the Fourth Judicial District of Illinois, Case Number 04 -CH -26; • Eric Damian Kelly and Connie B. Cooper, Survey, Findings and Recommendations of Sexually Oriented Businesses Toledo, Ohio (August 2002); • David Sherman, Sexually Oriented Businesses: An Insider's View, Proponent Testimony S.B. 251 Ohio Senate Judiciary Committee on Civil Justice (December 2002); • An Insider's View of Sexually Oriented Businesses, Testimony of David Sherman (2000); • Duncan Associates, Sexually -Oriented Business Study Rochester, New York (July 2000); and • National Law Center for Children and Families, NLC Summaries of "SOB Land Use" Studies (1996). These studies and reports establish that adult business often have a harmful effect on nearby businesses and residential areas, causing an increase in crime in both the surrounding neighborhoods and in the adult business establishments themselves, and a decrease in property values. The Uptown Jefferson Specific Plan area is intended to create a unique destination place within the City of Temecula through the careful planning of land uses, public spaces, development standards and public transportation. Uptown Jefferson will be Temecula's newest "destination." Vibrant, sophisticated and unique, the area will be home to a diverse mix of residents of all ages, experiences and interests, living in eclectic, up-and-coming neighborhoods. These neighborhoods in Uptown Jefferson will provide a unique metropolitan experience, rivaled by no other place in the city or region. The neighborhoods will be upscale and culturally robust, each with a distinct character and identity, offering a mix of homes, shops, offices, restaurants and other locally -serving uses. Complemented by an expanded mix of new locally -owned and corporate businesses, collectively they will provide high quality jobs, as well as goods and services to local residents. Temecula Municipal Code section 17.08.020(H) provides that the intent of the Overlay Zone is "to designate areas that adult businesses may be considered" and that this area is "generally 11 away from residential uses and other sensitive uses and is primarily located within the commercial districts." The Specific Plan will add a significant number of new residential units to the Specific Plan Area that has been largely commercial and industrial. The Specific Plan area will include a mix of residences, shops, offices, restaurants and other locally -serving uses. The Specific Plan contemplates that the residential uses will be integrated with the other uses to activate the area during the day, evenings and weekends. The Specific Plan seeks to encourage live/work arrangements, and mixtures of compatible, pedestrian -oriented retail, office, public facilities, open space, and house at activity nodes through urban design standards. The urban neighborhoods in Uptown Jefferson are located within walking distance to a hub of quality and thriving businesses, technologically innovative employment centers, and higher - education facilities. The vibe of Uptown Jefferson will foster creativity, stimulate innovation, and provide a place for community members to work, learn and refashion the world around them. And historically important, locally -owned and operated business and services will continue to thrive, side-by-side with the new wave of entrepreneurial ventures. Uptown Jefferson will also contribute to the local tourism industry with expanded hotel offerings, restaurants and shops. In addition to expanding its service to traditional weekend -oriented tourism, the stronger presence of businesses and corporations will fill hotel rooms and support small conventions and events that occur during the week. The secondary effects of adult businesses would not be appropriate so close to the residential uses within the Specific Plan area. As noted above, the residential uses will be intermingled with commercial uses. The secondary effects associated with adult businesses would not be compatible with the residential uses and would be disruptive to the residents of Uptown Jefferson. The City Council may revise the Overlay Zone to remove the parcels located in the Specific Plan area from the Overlay Zone if it finds that: (1) the sites available to adult businesses are an actual part of the real estate market, and (2) there are an adequate number of sites for adult businesses. 1. The sites available to adult businesses are an actual part of the real estate market. To be part of the actual real estate market, the sites must be zoned for commercial use, available for commercial use, or if zoned for manufacturing or industrial uses, it must be feasible for the sites to be used for commercial uses (i.e., they must be connected to roadways and appropriate infrastructure). The GIS map prepared by staff indicates that 426 commercially - zoned parcels would remain available for adult businesses after removing the parcels in the Specific Plan area from the Overlay Zone. All of these commercially -zoned parcels have adequate access to appropriate infrastructure (e.g., utilities, roads, and sidewalks). In addition, many of the available parcels are actually vacant commercial spaces. These parcels could be developed to support an adult use business. Therefore, the sites available to adult businesses are an actual part of the real estate market. 2. There are an adequate number of sites for adult businesses. There are an adequate number of sites that are within the real estate market to provide a reasonable opportunity for adult businesses to be located in the City. The City has a total population of 106,780. 1.8% of land in the City is available to adult businesses. Even in light of the 1,000 -foot buffer between adult uses, which are required by the Municipal Code, the map indicates that at least 13 adult businesses could simultaneously locate within the Overlay Zone 12 after it is amended to exclude the Uptown Jefferson Specific Plan area from its boundaries. Given the size of the City, the City has never received an application for an adult business,.and the fact that the City does not have a single adult business operating within its borders, the available sites are adequate and are part of the real estate market. Thus, there is an adequate number of sites available for adult businesses even if the parcels located within the Specific Plan area are removed from the Overlay Zone. LEGAL NOTICING REQUIREMENTS Notice of the public hearing was published in the San Diego Union -Tribune on October 11, 2015 and will be published on October 24, 2015 and mailed to the property owners within the required 600 -foot radius. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION The Specific Plan, Zoning Code Amendment, Zoning Map Amendment, and an Amendment to the Temecula Municipal Code revising the Adult Business Overlay boundary by removing it from the Specific Plan area ("proposed Project") was processed, in the time and manner prescribed by State and local law, including the California Environmental Quality Act, Public Resources Code § 21000, et seq. and the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines, 14. Cal. Code Regs. § 15000 et seq. (collectively referred to as "CEQA"). Pursuant to CEQA, the City is the lead agency for the Specific Plan, as the public agency with both general governmental powers and the principal responsibility for implementing the Specific Plan. On June 2, 2013, in accordance with CEQA Guideline Section 15082, the City published a Notice of Preparation ("NOP") of a Draft Environmental Impact Report ("Draft EIR") and circulated it to governmental agencies, organizations, and persons that may be interested in the proposed Project. The NOP requested that comments on the topics to be analyzed in the Draft EIR for the proposed Project be submitted to the City by July 12, 2013. In response to the NOP, the City received written comments from various individuals and organizations. These comment letters assisted the City in narrowing the issues and alternatives for analysis in the Draft EIR. On June 27, 2013, in accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15082(c)(1), the City held a public scoping meeting to obtain comments from interested parties on the scope of the Draft EIR. A Draft EIR was prepared under staff's direction by ESA (State Clearinghouse Number 2013061012) and was distributed to responsible agencies, interested groups, organizations, and individuals. Upon completion of the Draft EIR in March 2015, the City initiated a public comment period by filing a Notice of Completion with the State Office of Planning and Research. The Draft EIR was made available for public review and comment for a period of 45 days. The public review and comment period for the Draft EIR established by the State Clearinghouse commenced on April 2, 2015 and expired on May 18, 2015. A Notice of Completion and Recirculation of a Draft EIR was also sent to adjacent property owners indicating a review period of May 19, 2015 through July 6, 2015. Copies of the documents have been available for public review and inspection at the City of Temecula Community Development Department, Planning Division, located at 41000 Main Street; the Temecula Public Library located at 30600 Pauba Road; the Temecula Grace Mellman Community Library located at 41000 County Center; the City of Temecula website; and the Envision Jefferson Avenue website. The City also published a Notice of Availability for the Draft EIR on April 4, 2015 in the San Diego Union - Tribune, a newspaper of general circulation in the City. The City received written comments and responded to each comment in the Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR). A copy of 13 the City's response has been provided to commenting agencies as required by State law. A copy of theFinal EIR document has been provided to the Commission. The environmental analysis identified four areas where impacts were not considered to be significant (Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Climate Change, Land Use and Planning, Population and Housing, and Public Services) and nine areas where potentially significant impacts were identified which could be avoided or mitigated. These nine areas include Aesthetics; Biological Resources; Cultural Resources; Geology, Soils, and Seismicity, Hazards and Hazardous Materials; Hydrology and Water Quality; Noise (operational); Transportation and Traffic; and Utilities and Water Supply Assessment. The Final EIR contains mitigation measures for those environmental impacts that can be mitigated to a less than significant impact. Four impact areas were identified as resulting in an unavoidable, significant impact and include the following: Direct Impacts • Air Quality (construction and operations) - Construction and operation activities associated with implementation of the proposed project would violate air quality standards related to Reactive Organic Gases (ROG) and Nitorgen Dioxide (NOx) emissions and would result in significant air quality impacts at the Program EIR level. Under conditions where one or more of the construction phases overlap, these pollutant emissions could be even higher. While implementation of Mitigation Measures would reduce the emissions of ROG and NOx that are analyzed for the worst-case construction scenario evaluated in the Program EIR, these emissions would not be reduced to below South Coast Air Quality Management District's (SCAQMD) thresholds for the two respective criteria pollutants. When the operational ROG emissions of the proposed project are compared to that of the existing land uses, the primary emissions source contributing to the net increase in ROG emissions is associated with area sources, which include emissions generated from architectural coatings (reapplication of coatings on structures over time), consumer products, natural gas fireplaces/stoves, and landscaping. Amongst these area sources, the majority (75 percent) of the estimated ROG emissions generated by the proposed project were associated with the use of consumer products by the new residents in the proposed project area. The estimated net daily emissions of ROG during operation of the new land uses associated with the proposed project would exceed the SCAQMD's regional significance threshold. As the regulation of ROG emissions from consumer products is beyond the City's control, no feasible mitigation is currently available to reduce the amount of ROG emissions generated under the proposed project to the extent that these emissions would be below the SCAQMD's recommended threshold. Although Mitigation Measures will be implemented to lessen the short term construction and ongoing operational air quality impacts, none were identified that could reduce the impacts to below the level of significance and therefore impacts still will remain potentially significant. • Noise (construction) - Construction activities occurring at each individual development site in the proposed project area would potentially expose their respective adjacent or nearby receptor(s) to substantial increases in ambient noise levels. Mitigation Measures such as noise reduction devices and techniques during construction activities for the new developments occurring in the proposed project area would be implemented to reduce the construction -related noise levels at nearby receptors to the maximum extent feasible. Where future construction sites within the proposed project area are located immediately adjacent to existing land uses, however, a substantial temporary or periodic 14 increase in ambient noise levels above levels existing without the proposed project would remain significant. Therefore, the proposed project's construction noise would be a temporary significant and unavoidable impact on the nearby existing land uses. Cumulative Impacts • Air Quality (construction and operations) - The Program EIR shows the worst-case daily construction emissions associated with the proposed project would exceed the SCAQMD's construction thresholds for ROG and NOx (ozone precursors). Therefore, the proposed project would exceed SCAQMD's respective thresholds during construction for pollutants for which the Basin is in non -attainment (i.e., ozone and NO2). Although Mitigation Measures will be implemented to lessen the long term air quality impacts, no mitigation measures were identified that could reduce the impacts to below the level of significance, and therefore impacts will remain potentially significant. The proposed project's pollutant emissions would, in conjunction with other past, current, and probable future projects, be cumulatively considerable and cumulative impacts would be significant and unavoidable. • Cultural Resources (historic) - Construction activities associated with implementation of the proposed project could cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historic resource as defined in CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5, including the Gonzalez Adobe and other structures that are 50 years or older. If avoidance of identified historic resources is deemed infeasible, the City shall require the preparation of a treatment plan to include, but not limited to, photo -documentation and public interpretation of the resource. The plan will be submitted to the City for review and approval prior to implementation. Surveys of structures 50 years of age or older have not been done and the details of any treatment plan are unknown; therefore, it is possible that the treatment plan may be insufficient to reduce the impacts of the loss of a historic resource to a less -than -significant level. As such, the impact would remain significant and unavoidable after implementation Mitigation Measures, at a program EIR level analysis. In accordance with Section 15093 of the State CEQA Guidelines, the City Council must adopt a Statement of Overriding Consideration prior to approving the Uptown Jefferson Specific Plan. The Statement of Overriding Consideration states that any significant adverse project effects are acceptable if the expected project benefits outweigh unavoidable adverse environmental impacts. The Statement of Overriding Considerations is attached as Exhibit B to Resolution No. 15 - The benefits provided through approval of the Uptown Jefferson Specific Plan Project outweigh the unavoidable adverse environmental effects identified in the Final Program EIR. Among the benefits that this proposed project provides the community are expanded economic opportunities through a more active urban downtown, an increased variety in housing types to complement the City's current housing stock, the potential for the addition of a full service hotel to serve the Temecula area, and the potential for significant new employment. FINDINGS General Plan Amendment 1. The General Plan Amendment is in the public interest. 15 The General Plan Amendment, which will establish the Specific Plan area, is in the public interest. The Specific Plan area includes much of the oldest commercial development in the City. At one time, the Specific Plan area was vibrant and bustling with activity. Although many of the businesses within the Specific Plan area are still economically -vibrant and provide vital services to the community, the area has since been overshadowed by new development and private investment in other parts of the City. As a result, the Specific Plan seeks to spark the revitalization of the area which is critical to its long term future and will promote economic longevity which is in the public interest. 2. The General Plan Amendment is compatible with the health, safety and welfare of the community. The General Plan Amendment is compatible with the health, safety, and welfare of the community. The City has engaged in extensive studies and review of the potential impacts of the Specific Plan as well as the various potential benefits to the City by the development of the Specific Plan and concluded that the Specific Plan is in the best interests of and is not detrimental to the health, safety and general welfare of the City. The Specific Plan was reviewed and determined to be in conformance with the City's General Plan, as amended, and the Growth Management Action Plan. These documents set policies and standards that protect the health, safety and welfare of the community. In addition, the Specific Plan establishes specific building design guidelines and standards that ensure compatibility and interface with the surrounding community in terms of density, design and circulation. Therefore, the Specific Plan is compatible with the health, safety and welfare of the community. 3. The General Plan Amendment is compatible with existing and surrounding uses. The General Plan Amendment is compatible with surrounding land uses. The current land uses north, east and west of the Specific Plan area consist primarily of commercial and industrial uses. The current land uses to the south of the Specific Plan area consist of predominately tourist service development. The Specific Plan would provide for a mix of land uses including commercial, and residential uses. Northwest and northeast of the proposed Specific Plan area is open space. The Specific Plan would maintain approximately 240 -acres zoned Open Space - Conservation. The Specific Plan area is adjacent to Murrieta Creek, but would preserve the open space designation that surrounds the creek. 4. The amendments will not have an adverse effect on the community and are consistent with the goals and policies of the adopted General Plan. The General Plan Amendment is consistent with the direction, goals and policies of the General Plan. The General Plan Amendment will establish the Specific Plan area which will implement the goals and policies of the City's General Plan, provide balanced and diversified land uses, and impose appropriate standards and requirements with respect to land development and use in order to maintain the overall quality of life and the environment within the City. The goals and policies in the Land Use Element of the General Plan encourage "a complete and integrated mix of residential, commercial, industrial, public and open space land uses (Goal 1)," and "a City of diversified development character where rural and historical areas are protected and co -exist with newer urban development (Goal 2)." The General Plan Amendment establishing the Specific Plan area will assist in implementing these goals by establishing neighborhoods that are upscale and culturally robust, each with a distinct character and identity, offering a mix of homes, shops, offices, restaurants and other locally -serving uses. The Specific Plan's land use 16 mix will include commercial, retail and residential uses, public open space amenities and intentional pedestrian -orientated design of streets and sidewalks that will maximize the connectivity of the area. The Specific Plan establishes six zoning districts which are based upon current and historical uses in order to cultivate a unique character for each area. This will ensure that locally -owned and operated business and services will continue to thrive, side-by- side with the new wave of entrepreneurial ventures. The proposed General Plan Amendment will result in compatible future development, which will meet the recommended land use and circulation pattern, maximum density and intensity of development, a desired mix of uses and other factors consistent with the goals and policies of the General Plan. Specific Plan 1. The proposed Specific Plan is consistent with the General Plan and Development Code. The Specific Plan is consistent with the direction, goals and policies of the General Plan, as amended. The Specific Plan implements the goals and policies of the City's General Plan, provides balanced and diversified land uses, and imposes appropriate standards and requirements with respect to land development and use in order to maintain the overall quality of life and the environment within the City. The goals and policies in the Land Use Element of the General Plan encourage "a complete and integrated mix of residential, commercial, industrial, public and open space land uses (Goal 1)," and "a City of diversified development character where rural and historical areas are protected and co -exist with newer urban development (Goal 2)." The Specific Plan will assist in implementing these goals by establishing neighborhoods that are upscale and culturally robust, each with a distinct character and identity, offering a mix of homes, shops, offices, restaurants and other locally -serving uses. The Specific Plan's land use mix that will include commercial, retail and residential uses, public open space amenities and intentional pedestrian -orientated design of streets and sidewalks will maximize the connectivity of the area. The Specific Plan establishes six zoning districts which are based upon current and historical uses in order to cultivate a unique character for each area. This will ensure that locally -owned and operated business and services will continue to thrive, side-by-side with the new wave of entrepreneurial ventures. The Land Use Element of the General Plan, as noted on page LU -26, anticipates that the City will provide comprehensive planning of large areas and identifies a portion of the Uptown Jefferson Specific Plan area for mixed-use development. Minor General Plan revisions will provide that the provisions of the Uptown Jefferson Specific Plan are integrated into the City's General Plan and are required so that the Uptown Jefferson Specific Plan can continue to support the City's General Plan objectives for the area, which will include promoting revitalization and guide future development by encouraging urban in -fill and a mix of uses including residential, commercial retail, hotel and hospitality, office/employment, higher education, and cultural arts that co -exist within close proximity to one another, supported by a multi -modal transportation network and connected to recreation and open spaces. The Specific Plan is consistent with the City's Development Code, after the proposed amendments are incorporated. The Specific Plan area is properly planned and zoned and is physically suitable for the type of proposed uses contemplated in the area. The Specific Plan also complies with all applicable Development Code Standards required for specific plans including Chapter 17.16 (Specific Plan Zoning Districts) and Section 17.01.040 (relationship to General Plan) and is consistent with the City of Temecula General Plan goals, policies and objectives. 17 2. The proposed Specific Plan would not be detrimental to the public interest, health, safety, convenience or welfare of the City. The City has engaged in extensive studies and review of the potential impacts of the Specific Plan as well as the various potential benefits to the City by the development of the Specific Plan and concluded that the Specific Plan is in the best interests of and is not detrimental to the health, safety and general welfare of the City. Although many of the businesses within the Specific Plan area are still economically -vibrant and provide vital services to the community, the area has since been overshadowed by new development and private investment in other parts of the City. As a result, the Specific Plan seeks to spark the revitalization of the area which is critical to its long term future and will promote economic longevity which is in the public health, safety and welfare. The Specific Plan was reviewed and determined to be in conformance with the City's General Plan, as amended, and the Growth Management Action Plan. These documents set policies and standards that protect the health, safety and welfare of the community. In addition, the Specific Plan establishes specific building design guidelines and standards that ensure compatibility and interface with the surrounding community in terms of density, design and circulation. Therefore, the Specific Plan is compatible with the health, safety and welfare of the community. 3. The subject property is physically suitable for the requested land use designations and the anticipated land use developments. The subject area of the Uptown Jefferson Specific Plan consists of approximately 560 acres. As outlined in the Land Use Element of the City's General Plan (page LU -32), the purpose of Specific Plan is to provide a comprehensive planning document for large areas so that a coordinated planning approach is provided for all anticipated land use developments. As such, the entire Specific Plan area has been reviewed based on existing structures and future build out potential and is physically suitable for the land use designations provided by the Uptown Jefferson Specific Plan. There are no physical constraints of the Specific Plan area which would preclude or prohibit the requested land use designations or anticipated developments. Moreover, the Specific Plan land uses are consistent with the land uses of the General Plan, as amended, and will serve as the tool to regulate and implement the goals and policies of the General Plan. The Specific Plan area benefits from a range of assets including Murrieta Creek and nearby open spaces, lush hillside views, and convenient freeway accessibility. The Specific Plan area is physically suitable for proposed land use designations because it will maintain 240 acres as open space, and will encourage public and private investment in the development of world class walking and biking trails, public open spaces and passive recreation spaces. The Specific Plan will also promote in -fill development in the older commercial and industrial centers to revitalize the area. 4. The proposed Specific Plan shall ensure the development of desirable character which will be compatible with existing and proposed development in the surrounding neighborhood. As identified within the City's General Plan Land Use Element, Figure LU -5 and Table LU -6, a large portion of the Uptown Jefferson Specific Plan is identified as a Land Use Focus Area designated for mixed-use development. As such, the adoption of the Uptown Jefferson Specific Plan will provide development standards and guidelines that enhance the area economically 18 and ensure the development of a desirable character as envisioned by the community and which is compatible with existing and proposed development in Uptown Jefferson Specific Plan. The Specific Plan is a form -based code which emphasizes the physical form of buildings to foster predictable built results as the organizing principle for the code, rather than focusing on the strict separation of uses. Under a form -based code, buildings are constructed in a manner that yield flexibility in building form and design, allowing for land uses to fluctuate as a result of the changing economic landscape. The form -based code will employ the combination of both building forms and building frontages to create a pedestrian scaled -urban environment, and encourage mixed-use development in an urban setting. Additionally, the development of six separate districts will encourage the development of the distinct areas based upon current and historical uses in order to cultivate a unique character for each district. The Specific Plan is compatible with surrounding land uses. The current land uses north, east and west of the Specific Plan area consist primarily of commercial and industrial uses. The current land uses to the south of the Specific Plan area consist of predominately tourist service development. The Specific Plan would provide for a mix of land uses including commercial, and residential uses. Northwest and northeast of the proposed Project area is open space. The Specific Plan would maintain approximately 240 -acres zoned Open Space -Conservation. The Specific Plan area is adjacent to Murrieta Creek, but would preserve the open space designation that surrounds the creek. Zone Change 1. The proposed Zone Change is consistent with the General Plan and Development Code. The proposed Zone Change conforms to the City's General Plan. The General Plan Land Use Element anticipates plans that parcels adjacent to Jefferson Avenue will include mixed use development. The Zone Change is also consistent with Development Code Section 17.02.020 "Consistency between the General Plan and Zoning Districts" matrix which provides guidelines for zoning consistency. The Zoning Code and Zoning Map Amendments comply with all applicable policies, guidelines, standards and regulations of the General Plan and Development Code. 2. The proposed Zone Change would not be detrimental to the public interest, health, safety, convenience or welfare of the City. The proposed Zoning Code and Zoning Map Amendments will not be detrimental to the public interest and welfare of the City. The Zoning Code and Zoning Map Amendments will allow for the development of the Specific Plan area. The Specific Plan includes provisions regulating site design, building height, setbacks, parking, circulation, and other associated site improvements and these provisions are intended to protect the health and safety of those working and/or residing in and around the Specific Plan area. The Specific Plan is consistent with all applicable policies, guidelines, standards and regulations intended to ensure that the development will be constructed, and function in a manner consistent with the public health, safety, and welfare. 3. The subject property of the Zone Change is physically suitable for the requested land use designations and the anticipated land use developments. 19 The proposed Zone Change is physically suitable for development in the Specific Plan Area. There are no physical constraints of the Specific Plan area which would preclude or prohibit the requested land use designations or anticipated developments. The Specific Plan area benefits from a range of assets including Murrieta Creek and nearby open spaces, lush hillside views, and convenient freeway accessibility. The Specific Plan area is physically suitable for proposed land use designations because it will maintain 240 acres as open space, and will encourage public and private investment in the development of world class walking and biking trails, public open spaces and passive recreation spaces. The Specific Plan will also promote in -fill development in the older commercial and industrial centers to revitalize the area. Furthermore, the standards within each proposed zone provides guidelines that are suitable for anticipated land use developments. 4. The proposed Zone Change shall ensure the development of desirable character which will be compatible with existing and proposed development in the surrounding neighborhood. As identified in the City's General Plan Land Use Element, Figure LU -5 and Table LU -6, a large portion of the Uptown Jefferson Specific Plan is identified as a Land Use Focus Area designated for mixed-use development. As such, the Zone Change will allow for development that will enhance the Specific Plan area economically and ensure the development of a desirable character as envisioned by the community and which is compatible with existing and proposed development in Uptown Jefferson Specific Plan. ATTACHMENTS A. List of Changes to the May 2015 Draft Uptown Jefferson Specific Plan and Website Link to Draft Uptown Jefferson Specific Plan and Draft EIR B. PC Resolution No. (Environmental Impact Report) Exhibit A Draft CC Resolution (EIR Certification) Exhibit A - Findings of Fact Exhibit B - Statement of Overiding Considerations Exhibit C - Mitigation Measures C. PC Resolution No. (Overall recommendation of City Council actions) Exhibit A Draft CC Ordinance (Specific Plan and Adult Use Overlay) Exhibit A - Zoning Map Exhibit B - Special Use Overlay Zone No. 1 Exhibit B Draft CC Resolution (General Plan Amendment) Exhibit A - Land Use Element Exhibit B - Land Use Policy Map Exhibit C - Community Design Element Exhibit D - Circulation Element D. Notice of Public Hearing E. Uptown Jefferson Specific Plan which can be downloaded at [http://www.cityoftemecula.orq/Temecula/Government/Comm Dev/Jefferson+Avenue+Stu dy+Area. htm] F. Uptown Jefferson Final Environmental Impact Report which can be downloaded at [http://www.cityoftemecula.orq/Temecula/Government/CommDev/Jefferson+Avenue+Stu dy+Area. htm] 20 ATTACHMENT A SUMMARY OF PROPOSED CHANGES TO THE FINAL UPTOWN JEFFERSON SPECIFIC PLAN ATTACHMENT A Summary of proposed changes to the Final Uptown Jefferson Specific Plan 1. Plan Applicability. Language was added to Section C in Chapter 2 to exempt any development and land use proposals within the proposed project area from having to comply with the Specific Plan if a planning application was submitted to and deemed complete by the City's Community Development Department on or before April 28, 2015, but was not yet approved, denied or conditionally approved by the City Council following a recommendation from the Planning Commission. The language further states that the City Council may impose reasonable conditions on a conditional use permit in order to mitigate the impact of the project that would otherwise be compatible with the allowable uses and development standards under the proposed Uptown Jefferson Specific Plan, including, without limitation, the duration of the incompatible use and architectural design of the project. 2. Administrative Amendments to the Specific Plan. Subsection G.6 in Chapter 2 Plan Administration was added to allow minor administrative amendments to the Specific Plan by the Director of Community Development provided the amendments do not change existing policies and do not change the community's vision or the intended goals and objectives of the Specific Plan. 3. Extension of Legal Non -Conforming Land Uses. Subsection E.3 has been added to allow a property owner to apply for a one-year extension of time beyond the initial 365 day of discontinuance. Additional language has been added to clarify that a fire or other calamity, act of God, or public enemy does not constitute a discontinuance of use. 4. Interpretation. Table 2-1 of Chapter 2 Plan Administration was amended by removing the Interpretation Planning Application to be consistent with the balance of administrative policies in Chapter 2. 5. Land Use Matrix. Table 3-1 was amended by adding "Religious Institutions without a School or Daycare" as a permitted use in all zoning districts, "Office" as a permitted use in the Creekside Village District, and uses for health, fitness, dance, martial arts studios that are less than 5,000 square feet as a permitted use. 6. Land Uses Not Listed. A sentence was added to Section B in Chapter 3 Land Use and Development Standards, which requires the Director of Community Development determination for land uses not listed in Table 3-1. 7. Parking Requirements. Table 3-17 was amended by increasing the parking requirement for a "Residential" use from 1.5 spaces per unit to 1.75 spaces per unit to be more consistent with market demands. The parking requirement for Religious Institutions was added to Table 3-17. ATTACHMENT B PC RESOLUTION - ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT RESOLUTION NO. 15- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA, CALIFORNIA RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA CERTIFY THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR THE UPTOWN JEFFERSON SPECIFIC PLAN, ADOPT FINDINGS PURSUANT TO THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT, ADOPT A STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS, AND ADOPT A MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM IN CONNECTION WITH THE ADOPTION OF THE UPTOWN JEFFERSON SPECIFIC PLAN SECTION 1. Recitals and Procedural Findings. The Planning Commission of the City of Temecula does hereby find, determine, and declare as follows: A. The Uptown Jefferson Specific Plan ("Specific Plan") has been initiated and prepared on behalf of the City of Temecula. The Specific Plan area is approximately 2.3 miles long and encompasses approximately 560 acres. The Specific Plan area is located north of Rancho California Road, west of Interstate 15, south of Cherry Street, and east of Diaz Road. The Specific Plan area is divided into six zoning districts: Uptown Center District, Uptown Hotel/Tourism District, Uptown Sports/Transit District, Uptown Arts District, Creekside Village District and the Murrieta Creek Recreation and Open Space District. In addition, there are two overlay zones: Creekside Village Commercial Zone and the Wilder Hills Residential Overlay Zone. It is projected that approximately 5.5 million square feet of new development could be constructed in the Specific Plan area within twenty years. This includes approximately 1.7 million square of feet of commercial development, 315 new hotel rooms and 3,726 new residential dwelling units. B. The adoption of the Specific Plan also includes a General Plan Amendment, a Zoning Code Amendment to add the Specific Plan area, a Zoning Map Amendment to change the zoning classification of the properties located within the Specific Plan area, and the elimination of the Uptown Jefferson Specific Plan area from the Adult Business Overlay Zone (collectively referred to as the "Project"). C. The proposed Project was processed including, but not limited to, a public notice, in the time and manner prescribed by State and local law, including the California Environmental Quality Act, Public Resources Code § 21000, et seq. and the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines, 14. Cal. Code Regs. § 15000 et seq. (collectively referred to as "CEQA"). Pursuant to CEQA, the City is the lead agency for the Specific Plan, as the public agency with both general governmental powers and the principal responsibility for implementing the Specific Plan. -1- 11086-0006\ 1892255v2.doc D. On June 2, 2013, in accordance with CEQA Guideline Section 15082, the City published a Notice of Preparation ("NOP") of a Draft Environmental Impact Report ("Draft EIR") and circulated it to governmental agencies, organizations, and persons that may be interested in the proposed Project. The NOP requested that comments on the topics to be analyzed in the Draft EIR for the proposed Project be submitted to the City by July 12, 2013. E. In response to the NOP, the City received written comments from various individuals and organizations. These comment letters assisted the City in narrowing the issues and alternatives for analysis in the Draft EIR. F. On June 27, 2013, in accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15082(c)(1), the City held a public scoping meeting to obtain comments from interested parties on the scope of the Draft EIR. G. The City's consultants thereafter prepared, in accordance with State CEQA Guidelines Section 15168, a Draft EIR for the proposed Project (State Clearinghouse Number 2013061012). H. Upon completion of the Draft EIR in March 2015, the City initiated a public comment period by filing a Notice of Completion with the State Office of Planning and Research on April 1, 2015. The public comment period commenced via the State Clearing House from April 2, 2015 through May 18, 2015. A Notice of Completion and Recirculation of a Draft EIR was also sent to adjacent property owners indicating a review period of May 19, 2015 through July 6, 2015. Copies of the documents have been available for public review and inspection at the City of Temecula Community Development Department, Planning Division, located at 41000 Main Street; the Temecula Public Library located at 30600 Pauba Road; the Temecula Grace Mellman Community Library located at 41000 County Center; the City of Temecula website; and the Envision Jefferson Avenue website. The City also published a Notice of Availability for the Draft EIR on April 4, 2015 in the San Diego Union -Tribune, , a newspaper of general circulation in the City. In response to the Draft EIR, written comments were received from various agencies, individuals, and organizations. The City responded to all written comments. Those comments and the responses thereto are included as part of the Final Environmental Impact Report/Response to Comments document ("Final EIR"). The Final EIR consists of the Draft EIR, Comments and Responses to Comments, the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, and the Errata listing changes made to the Draft EIR in response to comments. J. Pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21092.5, the City provided its responses to all persons, organizations, and agencies who commented on the Draft EIR. K. On October 21, 2015 and November 4, 2015, the Planning Commission held duly noticed public hearings on the proposed Project and the Draft EIR at which -2- 11086-0006\ 1892255v2.doc time all persons interested had the opportunity to present oral and written evidence on the proposed Project and the Draft EIR. L. Section 15091 of the State CEQA Guidelines prevents the City from approving or carrying out a project for which an EIR has been completed that identifies any significant environmental effects unless the City makes one or more of the following written finding(s) for each of those significant effects accompanied by a brief explanation of the rationale for each finding: 1. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effects as identified in the Final EIR; or, 2. Such changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency and not the agency making the finding. Such changes have been adopted by such other agency or can and should be adopted by such other agency; or, 3. Specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, including provision of employment opportunities for highly trained workers, make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the final EIR. M. Section 15093 of the State CEQA Guidelines requires that if a project will cause significant unavoidable adverse impacts, the City must adopt a Statement of Overriding Considerations prior to approving the project. A Statement of Overriding Considerations states that any significant adverse project effects are acceptable if expected project benefits outweigh unavoidable adverse environmental impacts. N. Environmental impacts identified in the Final EIR which the Planning Commission finds are less than significant and do not require mitigation are described in Section N of the proposed City Council Resolution, a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit A and incorporated herein by this referecne as though set forth in full. O. Environmental impacts identified in the Final EIR as potentially significant, but which the Planning Commission finds can be mitigated to a less than significant level through the imposition of mitigation measures and/or conditions identified in the Final EIR and set forth herein are described in Section 0 of the proposed City Council resolution. P. Environmental impacts identified in the Final EIR as potentially significant but which the Planning Commission finds cannot be fully mitigated to a less than significant level despite the imposition of all feasible mitigation measures described in Section P of the proposed City Council resolution. -3- 11086-0006\ 1892255v2.doc Q. Alternatives to the Project that might eliminate or reduce significant environmental impacts are described in Section Q of the proposed City Council resolution. R. A discussion of the proposed Project benefits identified by City staff and a Statement of Overriding Considerations for the environmental impacts that cannot be fully mitigated to a less than significant level are set forth in Section R of the proposed City Council resolution. S. Public Resources Code section 21081.6 requires the City to prepare and adopt a mitigation monitoring and reporting program for any proposed Project for which mitigation measures have been imposed to assure compliance with the adopted mitigation measures. SECTION 2. Review and Independent Judgment of the Planning Commission. Prior to taking action, the Planning Commission has heard, been presented with, reviewed and considered all of the information and data in the administrative record including the Final EIR, and all oral and written testimony presented to it during meetings and hearings. The Planning Commission finds the Final EIR is an accurate and objective statement that fully complies with CEQA, State CEQA Guidelines and the City's local CEQA Guidelines. The Final EIR reflects the independent judgment of the Planning Commission and is deemed adequate for purposes of making decisions on the merits of the proposed Project and related actions. The Planning Commission further finds that the additional information provided in the staff reports, in comments on the Draft EIR, the responses to comments on the Draft EIR, and the evidence presented in written and oral testimony does not constitute new information requiring recirculation of the Draft EIR or additional review of the Final EIR under CEQA. None of the information presented has deprived the public of a meaningful opportunity to comment upon a substantial environmental impact of the proposed Project or a feasible mitigation measure or alternative that the City has declined to implement. The minor modifications to the Final EIR do not require adiditonal public review because there has not been a substantial increase in the severity of any environmental impacts. SECTION 3. Recommendation to the City Council. Pursuant to its obligations under 14 Cal. Code Regs. § 15025(c), the Planning Commission has reviewed and considered the proposed Project and the Draft EIR prepared for the proposed Project, and written comments thereon, and has considered the significant and unavoidable environmental impacts of the proposed Project. The Planning Commission finds that there are proposed Project benefits that would outweigh any of the adverse impacts identified in the Draft EIR, and on this basis, hereby recommends that the City Council of the City of Temecula certify the Final Environmental Impact Report, adopt findings pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act, adopt a Statement of Overriding Considerations, and adopt a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program in connection with the adoption of the Uptown Jefferson Specific Plan, as set forth in the City Council Resolution that is attached as Exhibit A to this Resolution and incorporated herein as though set forth in full. -4- 11086-0006\ 1892255v2.doc PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED by the Planning Commission of the City of Temecula this 4th day of November, 2015. Lanae Turley-Trejo Chariman ATTEST: Luke Watson Secretary [SEAL] STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE ) ss CITY OF TEMECULA I, Luke Watson, Secretary of the Planning Commission, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution No. 2015- was duly introduced at a meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of Temecula on the 4th day of November, 2015, and said Resolution was duly adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Temecula on the 21st day of October, 2015, by the following vote: AYES: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS : NOES: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: ABSTAIN: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: -5- 11086-0006\ 1892255v2.doc Luke Watson Sectretary Exhibit A City Council Resolution -6- 11086-0006\ 1892255v2.doc RESOLUTION NO. 15- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA CERTIFYING THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT, ADOPTING FINDINGS PURSUANT TO THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT, ADOPTING A STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS, AND A MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM IN CONNECTION WITH THE ADOPTION OF THE UPTOWN JEFFERSON SPECIFIC PLAN SECTION 1. Procedural Findings. The City Council of the City of Temecula does hereby find, determine and declare that: A. The Uptown Jefferson Specific Plan ("Specific Plan") has been initiated and prepared on behalf of the City of Temecula. The Specific Plan area is approximately 2.3 miles long and encompasses approximately 560 acres. The Specific Plan area is located north of Rancho California Road, west of Interstate 15, south of Cherry Street, and east of Diaz Road. The Specific Plan area is divided into six zoning districts: Uptown Center District, Uptown Hotel/Tourism District, Uptown Sports/Transit District, Uptown Arts District, Creekside Village District and the Murrieta Creek Recreation and Open Space District. In addition, there are two overlay zones: Creekside Village Commercial Zone and the Wilder Hills Residential Overlay Zone. It is projected that approximately 5.5 million square feet of new development could be constructed in the Specific Plan area within twenty years. This includes approximately 1.7 million square of feet of commercial development, 315 new hotel rooms and 3,726 new residential dwelling units. B. The adoption of the Specific Plan also includes a General Plan Amendment, a Zoning Code Amendment to add the Specific Plan area, a Zoning Map Amendment to change the zoning classification of the properties located within the Specific Plan area, and the elimination of the Uptown Jefferson Specific Plan area from the Adult Business Overlay Zone (collectively referred to as the "Project"). C. The Project was processed including, but not limited to a public notice, in the time and manner prescribed by State and local law, including the California Environmental Quality Act, Public Resources Code § 21000, et seq. and the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines, 14. Cal. Code Regs. § 15000 et seq. (collectively referred to as "CEQA"). Pursuant to CEQA, the City is the lead agency for the Specific Plan, as the public agency with both general governmental powers and the principal responsibility for implementing the Specific Plan. D. On June 2, 2013, in accordance with CEQA Guideline Section 15082, the City published a Notice of Preparation ("NOP") of a Draft Environmental Impact Report ("Draft EIR") and circulated it to governmental agencies, organizations, and persons that may be interested in the proposed Project. The NOP requested that comments on the -1- 11086-0006\ 1892250v2.doc topics to be analyzed in the Draft EIR for the proposed Project be submitted to the City by July 12, 2013. E. In response to the NOP, the City received written comments from various individuals and organizations. These comment letters assisted the City in narrowing the issues and alternatives for analysis in the Draft EIR. F. On June 27, 2013, in accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15082(c)(1), the City held a public scoping meeting to obtain comments from interested parties on the scope of the Draft EIR. G. The City's consultants thereafter prepared, in accordance with State CEQA Guidelines Section 15168, a Draft EIR for the proposed Project (State Clearinghouse Number 2013061012). H. Upon completion of the Draft EIR in March 2015, the City initiated a public comment period by filing a Notice of Completion with the State Office of Planning and Research on April 1, 2015. The public comment period commenced via the State Clearing House from April 2, 2015 through May 18, 2015. A Notice of Completion and Recirculation of a Draft EIR was also sent to adjacent property owners indicating a review period of May 19, 2015 through July 6, 2015. Copies of the documents have been available for public review and inspection at the City of Temecula Community Development Department, Planning Division, located at 41000 Main Street; the Temecula Public Library located at 30600 Pauba Road; the Temecula Grace Mellman Community Library located at 41000 County Center; the City of Temecula website; and the Envision Jefferson Avenue website. The City also published a Notice of Availability for the Draft EIR on on April 4, 2015 in the San Diego Union -Tribune, a newspaper of general circulation in the City. In response to the Draft EIR, written comments were received from various agencies, individuals, and organizations. The City responded to all written comments. Those comments and the responses thereto are included as part of the Final Environmental Impact Report/Response to Comments document ("Final EIR"). The Final EIR consists of the Draft EIR, Comments and Responses to Comments, the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, and the Errata listing changes made to the Draft EIR in response to comments. J. Pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21092.5, the City provided its responses to all persons, organizations, and agencies who commented on the Draft EIR. K. On October 21, 2015 and November 4, 2015, at duly noticed public hearings as prescribed by law, the Planning Commission considered the proposed Project and any comments received prior to or at the public hearings, at which time the City staff presented its report, and interested persons had an opportunity to and did testify either in support or in opposition to the proposed Project and the EIR, the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, and the Statement of Overriding -2- 11086-0006\ 1892250v2.doc Considerations. Following consideration of the entire record of information received at the public hearing and due consideration of the proposed Project, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 15-_ recommending that the City Council certify the Final EIR prepared for the proposed Project, adopt Findings pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act, adopt a Statement of Overriding Considerations, and adopt a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for the proposed Project. The Planning Commission also adopted Resolution No. 15-_, thereby recommending that the City Council take various actions, including adopting General Plan Amendment, Zoning Code and Zoning Map amendments related to the approval of the proposed Project. L. Section 15091 of the State CEQA Guidelines requires that the City, before approving a project for which an EIR is required, make one or more of the following written finding(s) for each significant effect identified in the EIR accompanied by a brief explanation of the rationale for each finding: 1. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effects as identified in the Final EIR; or, 2. Such changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency and not the agency making the finding. Such changes have been adopted by such other agency or can and should be adopted by such other agency; or, 3. Specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, including provision of employment opportunities for highly trained workers, make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the final EIR. M. Section 15093 of the State CEQA Guidelines requires that if a project will cause significant unavoidable adverse impacts, the City must adopt a Statement of Overriding Considerations prior to approving the project. A Statement of Overriding Considerations states that any significant adverse project effects are acceptable if expected project benefits outweigh unavoidable adverse environmental impacts. N. Environmental impacts identified in the Final EIR that are found to be less than significant and do not require mitigation are described in Section III and IV of Exhibit A to this Resolution. Exhibit A, Findings and Facts in Support of Findings, is hereby incorporated by reference as if set forth in full herein. O. Environmental impacts identified in the Final EIR that are found to be less than significant through the imposition of mitigation are described in Section V of Exhibit A to this Resolution. P. Environmental impacts identified in the Final EIR as potentially significant but which cannot be fully mitigated to a less than significant level despite the imposition -3- 11086-0006\ 1892250v2.doc of all feasible mitigation measures are described in Section VI of Exhibit A to this Resolution. Q. Alternatives to the proposed Project that might eliminate or reduce significant environmental impacts are described in Section VII of Exhibit A of this Resolution. R. A discussion of the proposed Project benefits identified by City staff and a Statement of Overriding Considerations for the environmental impacts that cannot be fully mitigated to a less than significant level are set forth in Exhibit B to this Resolution, which is hereby incorporated by reference as if set forth in full herein. S. Public Resources Code section 21081.6 requires the City to prepare and adopt a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for any project for which mitigation measures have been imposed to ensure compliance with the adopted mitigation measures. The Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program is attached to this Resolution as Exhibit C, and is hereby incorporated by reference as if set forth in full herein. T. On Novebmer 17, 2015, the City Council of the City of Temecula considered the proposed Project including the Specific Plan, the General Plan Amendments, the Zoning Code Amendments and Zoning Map Amendment, and the elimination of the Uptown Jefferson Specific Plan area from the Adult Business Overlay Zone the Draft EIR, the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, and the Statement of Overriding Considerations, at a duly noticed public hearing at which time all interested persons had an opportunity to and did testify either in support or in opposition to this matter. The City Council considered all the testimony and any comments received regarding the proposed Project, the Draft EIR, the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, and the Statement of Overriding Considerations prior to and at the public hearing. SECTION 2. Substantive Findings. The City Council of the City of Temecula, California does hereby: A. Declare that the City Council has independently considered the administrative record before it, which is hereby incorporated by reference and which includes the Final EIR, the written and oral comments on the Draft EIR, staff reports and responses to comments incorporated into the Final EIR, and all testimony related to environmental issues. B. Determine that the Final EIR fully analyzes and discloses the potential impacts of the proposed Project, and that those impacts have been mitigated or avoided to the extent feasible for the reasons set forth in the Findings attached hereto as Exhibit A, with the exception of those impacts found to be significant and unmitigable as discussed therein. C. Declare that prior to taking action, the City Council has heard, been presented with, reviewed and considered all of the information and data in the -4- 11086-0006\ 1892250v2.doc administrative record including the Final EIR, and all oral and written testimony presented to it during meetings and hearings. The City Council finds the Final EIR is an accurate and objective statement that fully complies with CEQA, State CEQA Guidelines and the City's local CEQA Guidelines. The Final EIR reflects the independent judgment of the City Council and is deemed adequate for purposes of making decisions on the merits of the proposed Project and related actions. The City Council further finds that the additional information provided in the staff reports, in comments on the Draft EIR, the responses to comments on the Draft EIR, and the evidence presented in written and oral testimony does not constitute new information requiring recirculation of the Draft EIR or additional review of the Final EIR under CEQA. None of the information presented has deprived the public of a meaningful opportunity to comment upon a substantial environmental impact of the proposed Project or a feasible mitigation measure or alternative that the City has declined to implement. The minor modifications to the Final EIR do not require adiditonal public review because there has not been a substantial increase in the severity of any environmental impacts. SECTION 3. Certification of the Final EIR. The City Council hereby certifies the Final EIR as being in compliance with CEQA. The City Council further adopts the findings pursuant to CEQA as set forth in Exhibit A attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference; adopts the Statement of Overriding Considerations as set forth in Exhibit B attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference; and adopts the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program attached hereto as Exhibit C and incorporated herein by reference. The City Council further determines that all of the findings made in this Resolution (including Exhibit A) are based upon the information and evidence set forth in the Final EIR and upon other substantial evidence that has been presented at the hearings before the Planning Commission and the City Council, and in the record of the proceedings. The City Council further finds that each of the overriding benefits stated in Exhibit B, by itself, would justify proceeding with the proposed Project despite any significant unavoidable impacts identified in the Final EIR or alleged to be significant in the record of proceedings. SECTION 4. The City Council hereby imposes as a condition on the proposed Project each mitigation measure specified in Exhibit C, and directs City staff to implement and to monitor the mitigation measures as described in Exhibit C. SECTION 5. Custodian of Records. The City Clerk of the City of Temecula is the custodian of records, and the documents and other materials that constitute the record of proceedings upon which this decision is based are located at the Office of the City Clerk, City of Temecula, 41000 Main Street, Temecula, California 92590. This information is provided in compliance with Public Resources Code Section 21081.6. SECTION 6. Severability. The City Council hereby declares that the provisions of this Resolution are severable and if for any reason a court of competent jurisdiction shall hold any sentence, paragraph, or section of this Resolution to be invalid, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining parts of this Resolution. -5- 11086-0006\ 1892250v2.doc SECTION 7. Certification and Effective Date. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution which shall become effective upon its adoption. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the City of Council of the City of Temecula this 17th day of November 2015. ATTEST: Randi Johl-Olson City Clerk [SEAL] STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE )ss CITY OF TEMECULA ) -6- 11086-0006\ 1892250v2.doc Jeff Comerchero, Mayor -7- 11086-0006\ 1892250v2.doc EXHIBIT A Findings and Facts in Support of Findings I. Introduction. The California Environmental Quality Act, Public Resources Code § 21000, et seq. ("CEQA") and the State CEQA Guidelines, 14 Cal. Code Regs. § 15000, et seq. (the "Guidelines") provide that no public agency shall approve or carry out a project for which an environmental impact report has been certified that identifies one or more significant effects on the environment caused by the project unless the public agency makes one or more of the following findings: A. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project, which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effects identified in the Program Environmental Impact Report (EIR). B. Such changes or alterations are within the responsibility of another public agency and not the agency making the finding. Such changes have been adopted by such other agency or can and should be adopted by such other agency. C. Specific economic, social, or other considerations make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the Program EIR.1 Pursuant to the requirements of CEQA, the City Council of the City of Temecula hereby makes the following environmental findings in connection with the proposed Uptown Jefferson Specific Plan, the General Plan Amendment, a Zoning Code Amendment to add the Specific Plan area, a Zoning Map Amendment to change the zoning classification of the properties located within the Specific Plan area, and the elimination of the Uptown Jefferson Specific Plan area from the Adult Business Overlay Zone (the "Project"), as more fully described in the Final Program EIR. These findings are based upon written and oral evidence included in the record of these proceedings, comments on the Draft Program EIR and the written responses thereto, and reports presented to the Planning Commission and the City Council by City staff and the City's environmental consultants. II. Project Objectives. As set forth in the Program EIR, objectives that the City of Temecula seeks to achieve with this Project (the "Project Objectives") are as follows: A. Create a vibrant locale by providing a mix of land uses including housing, commercial/retail, office, higher education institutions, hotels and other tourist -oriented uses, cultural uses, and open space and recreational opportunities. Cal. Pub. Res. Code § 21081; 14 Cal. Code Regs. § 15091. A-1 B. Strengthen opportunities for economic development in the Specific Plan area by building upon existing assets as well as encouraging new public and private investment in the area that attracts high -wage, quality employment opportunities and higher education facilities. C. Establish a distinct identity for the Specific Plan area by beautifying Jefferson Avenue and making it "Temecula's Great Street." D. Identify and establish interrelated, compatible districts and neighborhoods with their own unique identities. E. Develop a signage strategy for wayfinding, neighborhood/district identification, and gateway monumentation that emphasizes the distinct character of the area's location, natural setting, and built environment. F. Create a form -based code to guide future development that allows greater density, increased building heights, design standards for architecture, street character and public realms, and flexible urban parking standards. G. Establish an efficient and interconnected multi -modal mobility network through circulation and transit improvements, including the French Valley Interchange, Overland Drive Extension, Rancho Way Extension, Jefferson Avenue Streetscape Beautification, and working with Regional Transit Authority (RTA) on the siting of a new transit center. H Enhance bicycle and pedestrian mobility in the Specific Plan area through the development of human -scaled streets, blocks, and alleys as well as incorporating public plazas and providing links with open spaces and recreational amenities. 1. Ensure that new development in the Specific Plan area is adequately served by utilities. III. Effects Determined to be Less Than Significant/No Impact in the Initial Study The City of Temecula conducted an Initial Study in May 2013 to determine significant effects of the Project. In the course of this evaluation certain impacts were found to be less than significant due to the inability of a project of this scope to create such impacts or the absence of project characteristics producing effects of this type. The following issue areas were determined not to be significant for the reasons set forth in the Initial Study and were not analyzed in the EIR: (A) Agriculture and Forest Resources; (B) Mineral Resources; and (C) Recreation. Impacts related to the following issue areas were found to be potentially significant and were studied in the Program EIR: (A) Aesthetics; (B) Air Quality; (C) Biological Resources; (D) Cultural Resources; (E) Geology and Soils; (F) Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Climate Change; (G) Hazards and Hazardous Materials; (H) Hydrology and Water Quality; (I) Land Use and Planning; (J) Noise; (K) Population and Housing; (L) Public Services; (M) Transportation and Traffic ; and (N) Utilities and Services A-2 A. On June 6, 2013, in accordance with CEQA Guideline Section 15082, the City published a Notice of Preparation (NOP) of a Draft EIR and circulated it to governmental agencies, organizations, and persons that may be interested in the Project, including land owners and business owners within the boundaries of the Uptown Jefferson Specific Plan, and land owners located within 600 feet of the Specific Plan boundaries. The NOP requested comments by July 12, 2013. On June 27, 2013, in accordance with CEQA Section 21083.9 of the State CEQA Guidelines, the City sponsored a public scoping meeting to obtain comments from interested parties on the scope of the Draft EIR. Comments received on the NOP included: the scope of traffic impact analysis and potential traffic impacts; scope of the air quality and greenhouse gas emissions analyses; impacts to public services and utilities, including the adequacy of water supply for the Project; impacts to Native American cultural resources and outreach with the Native American tribes in the area; impacts to biological resources, including consideration of the Project's proximity to Murrieta Creek and its location within the Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan area; and consistency with local and regional land use plans, including the Regional Transportation Plan and Sustainable Communities Strategy goals. No comments were received on areas other than those found to be potentially significant in the Initial Study. IV. Effects Determined to be Less Than Significant without Mitigation in the Program EIR The Draft Program EIR completed in March 2015 found that the proposed Project would have a less than significant impact without the imposition of mitigation measures on a number of environmental topic areas. The less than significant environmental impact determination was made for each of the following topic areas listed below, based on the more expansive discussions contained in the Program EIR. A. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Climate Change 1. The Project would not generate Greenhouse Gas (GHG) emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment. 2. The Project would not conflict with any applicable plan, policy or regulation of an agency adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of GHGs. B. Land Use and Planning 1. The Project would not physically divide an established community. 2. The Project would not conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the Project adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect. 3. The Project would not conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan. A-3 C. Population and Housing 1. The Project would not induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly or indirectly. 2. The Project would not displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere. 3. The Project would not displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere. D. Public Services 1. The Project would not result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, or create a need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the following public services: • Fire protection; • Police protection; • Schools; • Parks; or • Other public facilities. 2. The Project would not increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facilities would occur or be accelerated. 3. The Project would not include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment. V. Potentially Significant Environmental Impacts Determined to be Mitigated to a Less Than Significant Level The Draft Program EIR identified the potential for the Project to cause significant environmental impacts in the areas of aesthetics; air quality; biological resources; cultural resources; geology, soils and seismicity; hazards and hazardous materials; hydrology and water quality; noise; transportation and traffic; and utilities and water supply assessment. With the exception of specific impacts to air quality (construction and operations), noise (construction), and cumulative impacts to air quality and A-4 cultural resources, discussed in Section VI below, measures have been identified that would mitigate all of the impacts to the topic areas identified above to a less than significant level. The City Council finds that the feasible mitigation measures for the Project identified in the Final Program EIR would reduce the Project's impacts to a less than significant level, with the exception of those unmitigable impacts discussed in Section VI below. The City Council adopts all of the feasible mitigation measures for the Project described in the Final Program EIR as conditions of approval of the Project and incorporates those into the Project, as discussed more fully in Exhibit C. A. Aesthetics 1. New Source of Light and Glare The Project has the potential to increase the intensity and density of development throughout the Project area, which could result in increased light and glare sources. In addition, although the Project would be consistent with the Riverside County Ordinance No. 655 and implement measures to reduce light and glare, given the proposed density and intensity of the Project, new development could substantially increase nighttime light sources. As described below, these impacts can be mitigated to less than significant levels. a) Findings Changes or alterations have been required in or incorporated into the Project, including the mitigation measure described below, which ensure that the Project's potential light and glare impacts remain less than significant. Mitigation Measure MM -AES -1: The following light and glare standards shall be applied to all future development within the Specific Plan area: • The applicant shall ensure that all lighting fixtures contain "sharp cut-off' fixtures, and shall be fitted with flat glass and internal and external shielding. • The applicant shall ensure that site lighting systems shall be grouped into control zones to allow for opening, closing, and night light/security lighting schemes. All control groups shall be controlled by an automatic lighting system utilizing a time clock, photocell, and low voltage relays. • The applicant shall ensure that design and layout of the site shall take advantage of landscaping, on-site architectural massing, and off—site architectural massing to block light sources and reflection from cars. • Prior to the issuance of construction permits for a project -specific development within the Project area that includes outdoor lighting, the applicant shall submit an outdoor lighting plan and photometric plan to be reviewed and approved by the City of Temecula. The lighting plan shall be in compliance with Ordinance No. 655 as A-5 adopted by the Riverside County Board of Supervisors and shall include, but not be limited to, the following information and standards: o Light fixtures shall not exceed 4,050 lumens; o Light fixtures shall be fully shielded so that light rays emitted by the fixtures are projected below the horizontal plan passing through the lowest point of the shield. o A map showing all lamp locations, orientations, and intensities, including security, roadway, and task lighting; o Specification of each light fixture and each light shield; o Total estimated outdoor lighting footprint, expressed as lumens per acre; and o Specification of motion sensors and other controls to be used, especially for security lighting. • The City shall conduct a post -installation inspection to ensure that the site is in compliance with the design standards in Mitigation Measure MM -AES -1 and Riverside County Ordinance No. 655. • The use of highly reflective construction materials on exterior wall surfaces shall be prohibited. The exterior of permitted buildings shall be constructed of materials such as high performance tinted non -mirrored glass, painted metal panels and pre -cast concrete or fabricated wall surfaces. b) Facts in Support of Findings The Project will be required to comply with existing Riverside County Ordinance No. 655 requiring lighting to be shielded, directed down to avoid glare onto adjacent properties and emit low levels of glare into the sky. In addition, the Project would discourage large surface parking areas, which can be a primary source of daytime glare, and would increase landscaping throughout the area, which would provide additional shielding from lighting and glare; likely reducing the overall amount of light and glare that is currently produced in the Project area. With the implementation of MM -AES -1 (above), potential light and glare impacts associated with the Project will be less than significant. B. Biological Resources 1. Special Status Species, Sensitive Species, or Candidate Species The proposed Project has the potential to impact special status species within the Uptown Jefferson Specific Plan area. Development occurring as a result of the Project could result in direct and indirect impacts to special -status plants including disturbing or removing the plants or their habitat during construction. Construction equipment could introduce invasive weeds A-6 that could out -compete special status plants. All impacts to special status plants would be considered significant. Additionally, impacts to raptors and other migratory birds include direct loss of potential foraging and nesting habitat. Potential impacts to burrowing owl habitat would include loss of foraging and nesting (i.e., burrowing) habitat. Burrowing owls present during grading and other construction related activities have the potential to be killed or displaced through burrow collapse and other impacts. Lastly, future development could result in adverse effects to vernal pools and special -status vernal pool species (fairy shrimp) that may occur in flat, open areas between the developed portions of the Project site and Murrieta Creek. a) Findings Changes or alterations have been required in or incorporated into the Project, including the mitigation measures described below, to ensure that the Project's potential impacts to special status species remain less than significant. Mitigation Measure MM -BIO -1: Prior to any ground -disturbing activities for individual development projects, pre -construction clearance surveys shall be conducted in accordance with Section 6.0 of the Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP) for special -status plant species in suitable habitat areas that will be subject to ground - disturbing activities. The surveys will be conducted in the appropriate season. All special - status plant species observed shall be marked and afforded a level of protection within 100 feet of the construction footprint, per the terms and conditions of the MSHCP. As appropriate, the special -status or habitats of concern mapping within the construction limits shall be updated. A biologist will provide verification and report through memorandum to the Western Riverside County Regional Conservation Authority (RCA) Monitoring Program Administrator. Mitigation Measure MM -BIO -2: Impacts to raptors and other migratory birds shall be avoided by the implementation of one of the following measures: • All construction and ground disturbing activities shall take place outside of the raptor breeding season (February 1 -August 30). • If construction and ground disturbing activities are necessary during the breeding season (February 1 -August 30), a focused survey for active nests of raptors and migratory birds shall be conducted by a biologist (a person possessing a bachelors in science with a minimum of one year nest survey experience performing raptor surveys). The survey shall occur a maximum of 14 days prior to any construction or ground -disturbing activities. If active nest(s) (with eggs or fledglings) are identified within the project site, (CDFW for state listed species, species of special concern, and A-7 MSHCP covered species; USFWS for birds covered under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act and listed species) they shall not be disturbed until the young have hatched and fledged (matured to a state that they can leave the nest on their own). A 500 -foot construction setback from any active nesting location shall be adhered to in order to avoid disturbance of the nest until the young have fledged or the nest has failed, as determined by a qualified biologist. If no active nests are identified, construction may commence. Mitigation Measure MM -BIO -3: Future development that occurs outside of land designated as Developed/Disturbed on Figure 3.3-1 shall be surveyed by a qualified biologist (i.e., knowledgeable in burrowing owl biology) using MSHCP approved burrowing owl survey protocols within 30 days prior to construction to determine presence/absence of burrowing owl. If no burrowing owls are identified on the project site during these pre -construction surveys, no additional mitigation is necessary and construction can commence. If burrowing owl(s) are found on-site, the City and RCA will be notified. The following species-specific mitigation actions would be required if burrowing owls are found: • Since a burrowing owl is a covered species under the MSHCP, adequate conservation of the species and its habitat are achieved through participation in the MSHCP. Avoidance of the active burrow(s) is the preferred method to reduce potential impacts to burrowing owl to a less than significant level. • However, if the Project cannot avoid the active burrow(s), owls within active burrow(s) may be evicted with the use of one-way doors and passively relocated to suitable habitat with natural or artificial burrows within 100 meters of the proposed project site, as regulated by the RCA. • If eviction/passive relocation is not feasible, preparing and implementing an active translocation plan, if appropriate and approved by the RCA and CDFW that includes identifying a receptor site for the owl(s), may also be acceptable. • However, if 3 or more pairs of burrowing owls are observed on 35 -plus acres of suitable habitat, onsite conservation of the habitat is required by the MSHCP in accordance with Section 6.3.2 of the MSHCP Plan. Onsite conservation of habitat will be negotiated between the project applicant and the RCA through a Determination of Biologically Equivalent or Superior Preservation (DBESP) and/or a Habitat Assessment and Negotiation Strategy (HANS) application. Mitigation Measure MM -BIO -4: The specific MSHCP conservation objectives for fairy shrimp shall be met through implementation of the Riparian/Riverine Areas and Vernal Pools Policy presented in Section 6.1.2 of the MSHCP. Prior to City approval of an individual development project located outside of land designated as Developed/Disturbed on Figure 3.3-1, an assessment of the construction footprint shall be A-8 conducted to determine whether suitable wetlands or seasonally inundated habitats (vernal pools, stock ponds, ephemeral ponds, impoundments, road ruts, or other human - modified depressions) currently exist within the construction footprint. Wetland mapping assembled as part of that policy shall be reviewed as part of the project review process and, if suitable fairy shrimp habitat is identified on the wetland maps and cannot be avoided, a single -season dry or wet season survey for fairy shrimp species shall be conducted by a qualified biologist in accordance with the sampling methods described in the 1996 USFWS Interim Survey Guidelines to Permittees for Recovery Permits under Section 10(a)(1)(A) of the Endangered Species Act for the Listed Vernal Pool Branchiopods. If survey results are positive, a certain percentage of the occupied portions of the property that provide for long-term conservation value for the fairy shrimp shall be conserved. The MSHCP provides general guidance which suggests ninety percent of the occupied portions of the site shall be conserved and ten percent of the occupied portions allowed for development under the MSHCP; however, the required conservation/impact ratio shall be determined by the RCA on a project -by -project basis. If listed branchiopods are detected, then the following restrictions and protection will be implemented to avoid or minimize impacts to the resource during construction: Seasonal Vernal Pool Work Restriction. For seasonal avoidance of special -status vernal pool branchiopods and vernal pool -dependent species (e.g., western spadefoot toad), the contractor will not work within 250 feet of aquatic habitats suitable for these species (e.g., vernal pools and other seasonal wetlands) from October 15 to June 1 (corresponding to the rainy season), or as determined through informal or formal consultation with the RCA Monitoring Program Administrator and/or USACE. Ground -disturbing activities may begin once the habitat is no longer inundated for the season. If any work remains to be completed after October 15 exclusion fencing and erosion control measures will be placed at the vernal pools (or other seasonal wetlands) by the contractor under supervision of a biologist. The fencing will act as a buffer between ground -disturbing activities and the vernal pools and other seasonal wetlands as determined through consultations with the RCA Monitoring Program Administrator, and/or USACE. The biologist will document compliance with the fencing requirement through a memorandum submitted to the RCA Monitoring Program Administrator. Implement and Monitor Vernal Pool Protection. If temporary impacts can be avoided, the vernal pool(s) will be protected by erecting exclusion fencing. The contractor, under the supervision of the project biologist, will erect and maintain the exclusion fencing. Resource agency consultations with the RCA Monitoring Program Administrator and/or USACE will occur as needed. If vernal pools and/or listed branchiopods are detected, and an avoidance alternative is not feasible, then the following measures shall be implemented: A-9 Determination of Biologically Equivalent or Superior Preservation (DBESP). In accordance with Section 6.1.2 of the MSHCP, a DBESP shall be prepared as part of an individual development project approval by the City to ensure replacement of any lost functions and values of habitat as it relates to vernal pools and listed branchiopods. The DBESP shall contain a mitigation strategy, subject to the approval of the RCA, which may contain on-site habitat creation and conservation, or off-site land acquisition in an approved mitigation bank for vernal pools and listed branchiopods; each is described below. On-site Habitat Creation. Should an avoidance alternative not be feasible, vernal pool basins and watershed shall be created on-site at a replacement ratio of 1:1, subject to the approval of the RCA. If on-site restoration is infeasible, an appropriate off-site location will be selected that exhibits the appropriate vernal pool soil conditions. The required off-site replacement ratio shall be determined by the RCA based on the specifics of the project. Vernal pool restoration sites shall be conserved in perpetuity through a conservation easement, deed restriction, or other appropriate mechanism. Specifications for the creation of habitat and a long-term monitoring program (typically five years, complete with success criteria) shall be included in the DBESP. 0(f -site Land Acquisition. Should both an avoidance alternative and habitat creation not be feasible, then off-site land acquisition in an approved mitigation bank for vernal pools and listed branchiopods shall be implemented at a replacement ratio of 1:1, subject to the approval of the RCA. The required replacement ratio shall be determined by the RCA on a project -by -project basis. Mitigation through off-site acquisition shall occur by purchasing vernal pool mitigation credits at the Barry Jones (aka Skunk Hollow) Wetland Mitigation Bank. Mitigation Measure MM -BIO -5: Prior to any ground -disturbing activities associated with individual development projects, a biologist shall conduct a visual and acoustic survey for roosting bats according to accepted protocol. The biologist will contact the RCA Monitoring Program Administrator and/or CDFW if any hibernation roosts or active nurseries are identified within the construction footprint. The biologist will submit a memorandum documenting compliance to the RCA Monitoring Program Administrator. Bat Exclusion and Deterrence. During ground -disturbing activities, if individual or groups of bats are found within the construction footprint, the bats shall be safely excluded by either opening the roosting area to change lighting and airflow conditions, or by installing one-way doors, or other appropriate methods specified by the RCA Monitoring Program Administrator and/or CDFW. The contractor will leave the roost undisturbed by project -related activities for a minimum of one week after implementing exclusion and/or eviction activities. The contractor will not implement exclusion measures to evict bats from established maternity roosts. The A-10 biologist will submit a memorandum documenting compliance to the RCA Monitoring Program Administrator. b) Facts in Support of Findings Although, implementation of the proposed Project could result in impacts to special status species as discussed above, implementation of Mitigation Measures MM -BIO -1 through MM -BIO -5 which require pre -construction and construction biological surveys, measures to protect species and habitat if they are encountered, and compliance with the MSHCP, potential impacts to special status species, sensitive species, or candidate species would be minimized to a less than significant level. 2. Impacts to Critical Habitat, Sensitive Vegetation Communities, and Jurisdictional Waters including Wetlands and Riparian Habitat The proposed Project has the potential to impact critical habitat and sensitive vegetation communities within the Jefferson Specific Plan area. a) Findings Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into the Project, including the mitigation measures described below, to ensure that the Project's potential impacts to critical habitat and sensitive vegetation communities remain less than significant. Mitigation: Implement Mitigation Measures MM -BIO -1 and MM -BIO -4. b) Facts in Support of Findings Implementation of the Project could result in impacts to vernal pool resources in undeveloped portions of the Project area or could affect areas of wetland habitat that exist within the Project boundaries. However, implementation of Mitigation Measures MM - BIO -1 and MM -BIO -4 which require biological surveys and MSHCP vernal pool protection implementation measures would minimize potential impacts to a less than significant level. C. Cultural Resources (Archaeological and Paleontological) 1. Impacts to Archaeological Resources The proposed Project has the potential to impact archaeological resources located within the Uptown Jefferson Specific Plan area. The records search indicated that a total of nine archaeological resources are located within one mile of the Project area. Three (CA -RW -644, -717, and -1727H) are located within the Project area. Two of these resources (CA -RW -644 and -717) are prehistoric archaeological sites, and one (CA -RW -1727H) is a historic -period archaeological site. None have been evaluated for their eligibility for listing in the California A-11 Register or local historic register. Therefore, the Project area has moderate to high potential for significant impacts to archaeological resources. a) Findings Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into the Project, including the mitigation measure described below, to ensure that the Project's potential impacts to archaeological resources remain less than significant. Mitigation Measure MM -CUL -1: Individual development projects or other ground disturbing activities such as installation of utilities, shall be subject to a Phase I cultural resources inventory on a project -specific basis prior to the City's approval of project plans. The study shall be carried out by a qualified archaeologist, defined as an archaeologist meeting the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for professional archaeology, and shall be conducted in consultation with the Pechanga Band of Luisefio Indians. The cultural resources inventory would consist of: a cultural resources records search to be conducted at the Eastern Information Center; scoping with the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) and with interested Native Americans identified by the NAHC; a pedestrian archaeological survey where deemed appropriate by the archaeologist; and recordation of all identified archaeological resources on California Department of Parks and Recreation 523 forms. If potentially significant cultural resources are encountered during the survey, the City shall require that the resources are evaluated for their eligibility for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources and for significance as a historical resource or unique archaeological resource per CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5. Recommendations shall be made for treatment of these resources if found to be significant, in consultation with the City and the Pechanga Band of Luisefio Indians. Per CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.4(b)(3), project redesign and preservation in place shall be the preferred means of mitigation to avoid impacts to significant cultural resources, including prehistoric and historic archaeological sites, locations of importance to Native Americans, human remains, historical buildings, structures and landscapes. Methods of avoidance may include, but shall not be limited to, project re-route or re -design, project cancellation, or identification of protection measures such as capping or fencing. Consistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.4(b)(3)(C), if it is demonstrated that resources cannot be avoided, the qualified archaeologist shall develop additional treatment measures, which may include data recovery or other appropriate measures, in consultation with the City and the Pechanga Band of Luisefio Indians. The City shall conduct consultation with the Pechanga Band of Luisefio Indians on a project -specific basis. In addition, the project proponent shall retain archaeological monitors and Native American monitors from the Pechanga Band of Luiseno Indians during ground - disturbing activities that have the potential to impact significant cultural resources as determined by a qualified archaeologist in consultation with the City. A-12 During project -level construction, should prehistoric or historic subsurface cultural resources be discovered, all activity in the vicinity of the find shall stop and a qualified archaeologist, in consultation with the Pechanga Band of Luisefio Indians, will be contacted to assess the significance of the find according to CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5. If any find is determined to be significant, the archaeologist shall determine, in consultation with the City and the Pechanga Band of Luisefio Indians, appropriate avoidance measures or other appropriate mitigation. Per CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.4(b)(3), project redesign and preservation in place shall be the preferred means to avoid impacts to significant cultural resources. Methods of avoidance may include, but shall not be limited to, project re-route or re -design, project cancellation, or identification of protection measures such as capping or fencing. Consistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.4(b)(3)(C), if it is demonstrated that resources cannot be avoided, the qualified archaeologist shall develop additional treatment measures in consultation with the City, which may include data recovery or other appropriate measures, in consultation with the Pechanga Band of Luiseno Indians. All significant cultural materials recovered will be, as necessary and at the discretion of the consulting archaeologist and in consultation with the Pechanga Band of Luisefio Indians, and any other local Native American groups expressing interest, subject to scientific analysis, professional museum curation, and documentation according to current professional standards. Mitigation Measure MM -CUL -2: Project -level development involving ground disturbance and containing structures 50 years old or older shall be subject to a historic built environment survey, and potentially historic structures shall be evaluated for their potential historic significance, prior to the City's approval of project plans. The survey shall be carried out by a qualified historian or architectural historian meeting the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Architectural History. Consultation with the Pechanga Band of Luisefio Indians shall also occur during the evaluation. If potentially significant resources are encountered during the survey, demolition or substantial alteration of such resources identified shall be avoided. If avoidance of identified historic resources is deemed infeasible, the City shall require the preparation of a treatment plan to include, but not limited to, photo -documentation and public interpretation of the resource. The plan will be submitted to the City for review and approval prior to implementation. b) Facts in Support of Findings Future development under the Project could significantly impact archaeological sites and/or sites of traditional cultural value to tribes; and structures 50 years old or older. Development occurring under the Project has the potential to result in significant impacts to these resources. However, implementation of Mitigation Measure MM -CUL -1 requires consultation with the Pechanga Band of Luisefio Indians, a qualified archeologist to be on-site during ground disturbance activities, and identifies protections measures to be A-13 implemented in the event resources are discovered. Also, Mitigation Measure MM -CUL - 2 requires a historic build environment survey prior to City approval of any development plans. These mitigation measures would minimize impacts to a less than significant level. 2. Paleontological Resources The proposed Project is underlain by the Pauba Formation and younger and older Quaternary Alluvium. The Pauba Formation and older Quaternary Alluvium have high paleontological sensitivity and therefore the potential to cause a significant impact on paleontological resources. a) Findings Changes or alterations have been required in or incorporated into the Project, including the mitigation measure described below, to ensure that the Project's potential impacts to paleontological resources remain less than significant. Mitigation Measure MM -CUL -3: For project -level development involving ground disturbance, a qualified paleontologist shall be retained to determine the necessity of conducting a study of the project area(s) based on the potential sensitivity of the project site for paleontological resources. If deemed necessary, the paleontologist shall conduct a paleontological resources inventory designed to identify potentially significant resources. The paleontological resources inventory would consist of: a paleontological resources records search to be conducted at the San Bernardino County Museum and/or other appropriate facilities; a field survey where deemed appropriate by the paleontologist; and recordation of all identified paleontological resources. The paleontologist shall provide recommendations regarding additional work for the project. Impacts to significant paleontological resources, if identified, shall be avoided. In addition, the project proponent shall retain paleontological monitors during construction for ground -disturbing activities that have the potential to impact significant paleontological resources as determined by a qualified paleontologist. In the event that paleontological resources are discovered, the project proponent will notify a qualified paleontologist. The paleontologist will document the discovery as needed, evaluate the potential resource, and assess the significance of the find under the criteria set forth in CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5. If fossil or fossil bearing deposits are discovered during construction, excavations within 50 feet of the find will be temporarily halted or diverted until the discovery is examined by a qualified paleontologist, in accordance with Society of Vertebrate Paleontology standards. The paleontologist will notify the appropriate agencies to determine procedures that would be followed before construction is allowed to resume at the location of the find. If avoidance is determined to be infeasible, the qualified paleontologist shall implement a paleontological mitigation program. At each fossil locality, field data forms shall be used A-14 to record pertinent geologic data, stratigraphic sections shall be measured, appropriate sediment samples shall be collected and submitted for analysis, and any other activities necessary for the timely and professional documentation and removal of fossils. Any fossils encountered and recovered shall be prepared to the point of identification, catalogued, and donated to a public, non-profit institution with a research interest in the materials. Accompanying notes, maps, and photographs shall also be filed at the repository. b) Facts in Support of Findings The potential exists for significant paleontological resources to be located beneath the ground surface in the Project area. Construction activities could result in the inadvertent discovery and damage of these paleontological resources, which would be a significant impact. However, Temecula's General Plan (implementation measure OS -26) requires that a paleontologist be retained to observe grading activities in areas where the probable presence of paleontological resources is identified. Implementation of Mitigation Measure MM -CUL -3 will ensure any potential impacts to paleontological resources are minimized to be less than significant. 3. Impacts to unidentified Human Remains The proposed Project has the potential to cause an impact to human remains in the event human remains are discovered. a) Findings Changes or alterations have been required in or incorporated into the Project, including the mitigation measures described below, to ensure that the Project's potential impacts unidentified human remains remain less than significant. Mitigation Measure MM -CUL -4: Project -level development involving ground disturbance within the Project area shall address the potential discovery and proper treatment of human remains, which is always a potential in areas that have not been previously disturbed or only partially disturbed through prior development. The City shall require that if human remains are uncovered during project construction, work in the vicinity of the find shall cease and the Riverside County coroner shall be contacted to evaluate the remains, following the procedures and protocols set forth in Section 15064.5 (e)(1) of the CEQA Guidelines. If the County coroner determines that the remains are Native American, the coroner will contact the Native American Heritage Commission, in accordance with Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5, subdivision (c), and Public Resources Code 5097.98 (as amended by AB 2641). The NAHC will then designate a Most Likely Descendent of the deceased Native American, who will engage in consultation to determine the disposition of the remains. A-15 b) Facts in Support of Findings The archaeological site record for site CA -RW -644 has indicated that human remains near the site had been identified eroding out of the bank of a nearby creek, possibly Santa Gertrudis, and were recovered by public employees in the early 1970s (Humbert and Hammond, 1973) and ground -disturbing construction conducted throughout the Project area that is associated with implementation of the Project could result in damage to previously unidentified human remains. However, this impact would be minimized to less than significant by implementation of Mitigation Measure MM -CUL -4. 4. Cumulative Impacts to Cultural Resources The Project could cause cumulative impacts to cultural resources including archaeological resources, fossils and human remains. a) Findings Changes or alterations have been required in or incorporated into the Project, including the mitigation measures described below to ensure that the Project's cumulative impacts to cultural resources remain less than significant. Mitigation: Implement Mitigation Measures MM -CUL -1, MM -CUL -2, MM -CUL -3 and MM -CUL -4. b) Facts in Support of Findings The analysis in the Program EIR includes several mitigation measures to reduce potential Project impacts to cultural resources during construction of the Project. Should other projects in the cumulative scenario not implement similar measures, the cumulative scenario could result in a significant cumulative impact; however, the Project, with mitigation, would not contribute to the cumulative impact. Therefore, with implementation of Mitigation Measures MM -CUL -1, MM -CUL -2 and MM -CUL -4, the Project's contribution to cumulative impacts on cultural resources would not be cumulatively considerable. Excavation activities associated with the Project in conjunction with other projects in the area could contribute to the progressive loss of fossil remains, as -yet unrecorded fossil sites, associated geological and geographic data, and fossil bearing strata. However, the Project would have a less than significant impact to paleontological resources with incorporation of Mitigation Measure MM -CUL -3. With the implementation of this measure, the Project's contribution to cumulative impacts on paleontological resources would not be cumulatively considerable. Should other projects in the cumulative scenario not implement similar measures, the cumulative scenario could result in a significant cumulative impact through progressive damage or loss of potentially significant fossils; A-16 however, the Project, with mitigation, would not have a considerable contribution to the cumulative impact. Furthermore, implementation of Mitigation Measure MM -CUL -4 would mitigate the Project's potential to disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries, and the Project's contribution to cumulative impacts on human remains would not be cumulatively considerable. D. Geology, Soils and Seismicity 1. Impacts to soil erosion The Project has the potential to cause an impact on water quality or waste discharge upon construction and operation of developments within the project area. Construction could include grading and other earth moving activities exposing soils to erosion, which could lead to erosion and runoff. In addition, the incremental increase of development over the span of 20-30 years is likely to contribute to pollution such as motor oil or fertilizers being washed away during rainfall or when a street, walkway, or parkway surface is being cleaned. a) Findings Changes or alterations have been required in or incorporated into the Project including the mitigation measures described below, to ensure that the Project's potential impacts associated with soil erosion are less than significant. Mitigation: Implement Mitigation Measures MM -HYD -la and MM -HYD -lb. b) Facts in Support of Findings Construction activities associated with future development could disturb soils that are protected by vegetation or expose soils covered by asphalt or concrete, resulting in soil erosion and loss of topsoil. As detailed in MM -HYD -1 and MM -HYD -2, individual development projects occurring during Project implementation would be required to implement the construction best management practices (BMPs), as detailed in the Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) as required by the Construction General Permit under the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System Program for sites greater than one acre and each individual development project would be required to prepare a Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) as required by the City. These mitigation measures will reduce soil impacts to less than significant. E. Hazards and Hazardous Materials 1. Construction activities occurring under the Project may occur on sites containing contamination, which could result in releases of hazardous materials A-17 As noted in the Program EIR, a number of sites within the Specific Plan area have been impacted by petroleum hydrocarbons from leaking underground storage tanks or other chemical constituents such as solvents associated with dry cleaning operations that could expose individuals to hazardous conditions resulting from exposure of contaminated soils or groundwater. Exposure of residents to underground hazardous wastes is considered a potentially significant impact. a) Findings Changes or alterations have been required in or incorporated into the Project, including the mitigation measures described below, to ensure that the Project's potential impacts associated with hazards and hazardous materials are less than significant. Mitigation Measure MM-HAZ-la: For individual development projects within the Project area, the applicant shall retain a qualified environmental consulting firm to conduct a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment in accordance with ASTM standard E1527-05 prior to building permit approval. Any recommendations made in the Phase I report as well as any remediation as required by the overseeing agency shall be completed prior to commencement of any construction activities. Mitigation Measure MM-HAZ-lb: Any subsurface materials exposed during construction activities that appear suspect of contamination, either from visual staining or suspect odors, shall require immediate cessation of excavation activities and notification of the Riverside County Department of Environmental Health. Soils suspected of contamination through visual observation or from observed odors, shall be segregated from other soils and placed on and covered by plastic sheeting and characterized for potential contamination in accordance with direction received from the County. If contamination is found to be present, any further proposed groundbreaking activities within areas of identified or suspected contamination shall cease and shall not resume until a site specific health and safety plan, prepared by a licensed professional and approved by Department of Environmental Health, has been completed and submitted to the City. Mitigation Measure MM-HAZ-lc: Any groundwater generated during construction dewatering shall be contained and profiled in accordance with Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) or Temecula Valley Regional Water Reclamation Facility requirements depending on whether water will be discharged to storm drains or sanitary sewers. Any water that does not meet permitted requirements by these two agencies shall be transported offsite for disposal at an appropriate facility, or treated, if necessary to meet applicable standards, prior to discharge in accordance with approval from the RWQCB or Temecula Valley Regional Water Reclamation Facility. A-18 b) Facts in Support of Findings Some of the listed sites in the Project area have been closed indicating that there is no longer any contamination at levels that could adversely affect human health or the environment. Investigations and remediation efforts are generally required by overseeing agencies such as the County's Hazardous Materials Program, RWQCB, and the DTSC, which establish cleanup levels according to existing or proposed uses. In general, soils contaminated from releases of petroleum hydrocarbons associated with underground storage tanks (USTs) are found in limited areas around the origin of release and do not migrate very far offsite. Further, implementation of Mitigation Measures MM-HAZ-la through MM-HAZ-lc will reduce potential impacts related to hazardous materials to less than significant levels. F. Hydrology and Water Quality 1. Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements Construction of the Project would require demolition of existing structures, pavement breaking, ditching, and excavation; these activities could expose and loosen building materials and sediment, which has the potential to mix with storm water runoff and degrade surface water quality. Furthermore, construction would require the use of heavy equipment and construction -related chemicals, such as concrete, cement, asphalt, fuels, oils, antifreeze, transmission fluid, grease, solvents and paints. These potentially harmful materials could be accidentally spilled or improperly disposed of during construction and could wash into and pollute surface waters or groundwater, which would result in a significant impact to water quality. In addition, chemicals used during the operation of the new commercial and residential structures could potentially discharge into surface waters either directly or during storm water runoff events, resulting in degradation of surface water quality. a) Findings Changes or alterations have been required in or incorporated into the Project, including the mitigation measures described below, to ensure that the Project's potential impacts to water quality associated with construction and operation is reduced to less than significant. Mitigation Measure MM -HYD -1: Development construction that disturbs one acre or more individually shall comply with the NPDES Construction General Permit regulations in effect at the time so as not to violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements. Compliance with the Construction General Permit would include filing of a Notice of Intent with the SWRCB and the preparation of a SWPPP incorporating construction BMPs for control of erosion and sedimentation contained in stormwater runoff. Development construction that disturbs less than one acre individually shall comply with the MS4 permit issued by the SDRWQCB in effect at the time so as not to A-19 violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements. Compliance with the MS4 permit for construction projects disturbing less than an acre would require the preparation of a construction BMP plan detailing erosion, sediment, and waste management control BMPs to be implemented throughout construction to be submitted and approved by the City of Temecula. Mitigation Measure MM -HYD -2: As a condition of approval, each future development project will be required to generate a project -specific Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP), as required by the City of Temecula Stormwater Ordinance and as specified in the City's Jurisdictional Runoff Management Plan, which will ensure that the project implements specific water quality features to meet the City's MS4 Permit and Stormwater Ordinance requirements. Potential BMPs required by the WQMP include non-structural, structural, source control and treatment control BMPs or a combination thereof. This WQMP shall be reviewed and approved by the City of Temecula prior to the issuance of a building or grading permit. b) Facts in Support of Findings Implementation of a SWPPP and water quality -related BMPs described in Mitigation Measure MM -HYD -1 and MM -HYD -2 would ensure that construction -related impacts on water quality, including potential harmful materials accidentally spilled or improperly disposed of during construction and could wash into and pollute surface waters or groundwater, would be less than significant. In addition, future developments will be required to generate a project -specific WQMP, which will reduce impacts to surface waters, either directly or during storm water runoff events, from the use of chemicals, to less than significant levels. 2. Impacts from Stormwater Runoff a) Findings Both construction and operation of the Project could result in impacts related to stormwater runoff. Construction of the proposed development within the Project area would require activities such as pavement breaking, ditching, and excavation, which could temporarily alter the existing site's ground surface and drainage patterns, which could result in significant impacts related to stormwater runoff. In addition, new development within the Project area and changes in the extent of permeable or impermeable surfaces would alter the direction and volume and rate of overland flows during both wet and dry periods and could result in increases in stormwater runoff. Findings Changes or alterations have been required in or incorporated into the Project, including the mitigation measures described below, to ensure that the Project's potential impact associated with stormwater runoff is less than significant. A-20 Mitigation: Implement Mitigation Measure MM -HYD -1; and Mitigation Measure MM -HYD -3: As a condition of approval, each future development project will be required to generate a project -specific Drainage or Hydrology Study, as required by the City of Temecula Stormwater Ordinance and as specified in the City's Jurisdictional Runoff Management Plan, which will ensure that the project implements specific hydromodification features to meet the City's MS4 Permit and Stormwater Ordinance requirements. Potential hydromodification features identified may include detention or infiltration basins (i.e., intercept, store, infiltrate, evaporate, and evapotranspire). The project -specific Drainage or Hydrology Study shall be reviewed and approved by the City of Temecula prior to the issuance of a building or grading permit. b) Facts in Support of Findings Although construction and operation of the Project has the potential to have significant impacts associated with stormwater runoff, Mitigation Measures MM -HYD- 1 and MM - HYD -3 would reduce impacts to less than significant. As part of Mitigation Measure MM -HYD- 1, compliance with the NPDES Construction General Permit for construction disturbing greater than an acre and compliance with the MS4 permit in effect at the time of construction for construction disturbing less than an acre would minimize temporary increases in stormwater runoff per the implementation of BMPs. In addition, adherence to requirements found in the MS4 permit in effect at the time of construction, as outlined in MM -HYD -3, would ensure no substantial increases in stormwater runoff occur during operation of the Project. Impacts would be less than significant with mitigation. 3. Drainage System Capacity Related to Construction and Operation. a) Findings Construction of the proposed development within the Project area would require activities such as pavement breaking, ditching, and excavation, which could temporarily alter the existing site's ground surface and drainage patterns, which could result in significant impacts related to stormwater runoff that exceed the capacity of the existing drainage system. In addition, new development within the Project area and changes in the extent of permeable or impermeable surfaces would alter the direction, volume and rate of overland flows during both wet and dry periods and could result in increases in stormwater runoff that exceed the capacity of the existing drainage system. Changes or alterations have been required in or incorporated into the Project, including the mitigation measures described below, to ensure that the Project's potential impacts related to drainage system capacity are less than significant. Mitigation: Implement Mitigation Measure MM -HYD- 1 and Mitigation Measure MM -HYD -3. A-21 b) Facts in Support of Findings As part of Mitigation Measure MM -HYD -1, compliance with the NPDES Construction General Permit for construction disturbing greater than an acre and compliance with the MS4 permit in effect at the time of construction for construction disturbing less than an acre would minimize temporary increases in stormwater runoff per the implementation of BMPs. As a result, construction activities would not result in runoff that would exceed the capacity of the adjacent existing drainage system capacity. In addition, as part of Mitigation Measure MM -HYD -3, each future development project will be required to generate a project -specific Drainage or Hydrology Study, as required by the City of Temecula Stormwater Ordinance and as specified in the City's Jurisdictional Runoff Management Plan. Adherence to requirements found in the MS4 permit in effect at the time of construction, as outlined in Mitigation Measure MM -HYD - 3, would ensure no substantial increases in stormwater runoff would occur such that the existing capacity of storm water drainage systems would not be exceeded. Impacts would be less than significant with mitigation. G. Noise and Vibration (operations) 1. Operational Noise New development within the Project area may introduce noise levels that could exceed the City's exterior noise standards at existing properties that are located adjacent to and/or near the new development sites. Specifically, new development within the Project area could expose nearby sensitive receptors to noise levels exceeding 5 dBA over ambient levels due to operation of heating, ventilating, and air conditioning (HVAC) equipment. a) Findings Changes or alterations have been required in or incorporated into the Project, including the following mitigation measures that reduce the potential noise impacts to sensitive receptors to less than significant. Mitigation Measure MM-NOI-3: For project -specific development, the applicant shall provide evidence to the City that operational noise levels generated by the development would not exceed the City's permissible exterior noise standards. If City noise standards would be exceeded, design measures shall be taken to ensure that operational noise levels would be reduced to levels that comply with the permissible City noise standards. These measures may include, but are not limited to, the erection of noise walls, use of landscaping, and/or the design of adequate setback distances for the new developments. Mitigation Measure MM-NOI-4a: Individual development projects shall minimize noise impacts from mechanical equipment, such as ventilation and air conditioning units, A-22 by locating equipment away from receptor areas, installing proper acoustical shielding for the equipment, and incorporating the use of parapets into building design to ensure that noise levels do not exceed the ambient noise level on the premises of existing development by more than five decibels. Mitigation Measure MM-NOI-4b: Prior to City approval of a residential development project within the Project area, the applicant shall provide documentation to the City that all exterior windows associated with a proposed residential development will be constructed to provide a sufficient amount of sound insulation to ensure that interior noise levels would be below an Ldn or CNEL of 45 dB in any habitable room. b) Facts in Support of Findings Under the Project, new land uses that would occur in the Project area include residential, commercial, office, and mixed-use developments. These new developments may introduce noise levels that could exceed the City's exterior noise standards at existing properties that are located adjacent to and/or near the new development sites. However, for project -specific development, the applicant shall provide evidence to the City that operational noise levels generated by the development would not exceed the City's permissible exterior noise standards and implement measures to reduce noise levels, per Mitigation Measure MM-NOI-3. In addition, to ensure that the nearby noise -sensitive uses to the Project site would not be adversely affected by any HVAC equipment noise, Mitigation Measure MM-NOI-4a would be implemented, which prohibits noise from HVAC equipment from exceeding the ambient noise level on the premises of other occupied properties by more than 5 dBA. In order to ensure that the future residents in the Project area would not be adversely affected by operational noise associated with mechanical equipment from adjacent properties, Mitigation Measure MM-NOI-4b would be implemented to ensure that all exterior windows associated with the proposed residential uses would be constructed such that sufficient sound insulation is provided to ensure that interior noise levels would be below a Ldn or CNEL of 45 dBA in any residential unit. H. Noise/Land Use Compatibility With changes in the community noise environment in the Project area over the course of the Project's buildout period, the new development projects proposed in the Project area may not meet the applicable noise/land use compatibility noise standards established by the City. a) Findings Changes or alterations, including the mitigation measure described below, have been required in or incorporated into the Project that ensure land use compatibility impacts are reduced to less than significant. A-23 Mitigation Measure MM-NOI-5: Prior to City approval of a project -specific development within the Project area, the applicant shall provide evidence to the City that the City's noise/land use compatibility standards are met for the land use being developed. Measures that can be taken to ensure compliance with the City's noise/land use compatibility standards include, but are not limited to, the erection of noise walls, use of landscaping, use of window insulation (double -paned glazing), and/or, where applicable, the design of adequate setback distances. b) Facts in Support of Findings Implementation of Mitigation Measure MM-NOI-5 would require all future development associated with the Project to be considered on a case-by-case basis to ascertain whether an individual development would violate the City's noise/land use compatibility standards and, where necessary, implement measures to ensure compliance with the City's standards. Therefore, with implementation of this mitigation measure, this impact would be reduced to a less -than -significant level. I. Transportation and Traffic 1. Impacts on Circulation System from Existing (2013) Plus Project Traffic Conditions The Project would result in significant impacts at the following intersections under the Existing (2013) Plus Project Conditions: • Ynez Road & Winchester Road • Nicholas Road & Winchester Road a) Findings Changes or alterations, including the mitigation measure described below, have been required in or incorporated into the Project that reduce traffic impacts under the Existing (2013) Plus Project Conditions to less than significant. Mitigation Measure MM -TRA -1: The City shall monitor the performance of the intersections listed below on an on-going basis and ensure that signal timing optimization occurs at these intersections prior to or concurrent with Proj ect-related development that would increase the AM peak -hour delay by more than two seconds. • Ynez Road & Winchester Road — AM peak hour (Project's fair -share contribution for this mitigation measure is 10 percent) • Nicholas Road & Winchester Road — AM peak hour (Project's fair -share contribution for this mitigation measure is 5 percent) A-24 Prior to the issuance of the initial building permit for each project -specific development within the Project area, the applicant shall pay its fair share, as determined by the City, toward the signal timing optimization for the intersections listed herein. b) Facts in Support of Findings After implementation of Mitigation Measure MM -TRA -1, the intersection at Ynez Road & Winchester Road would operate at an acceptable LOS D (delay = 37.1 seconds). The intersection at Nicholas Road & Winchester Road would operate at LOS E with delay improved to 55.8 seconds (i.e., better than under existing conditions). Impacts would be less than significant. 2. Impacts on Circulation System under Future Year (2035) Plus Project Conditions. The Project would result in significant impacts at the following intersections under Future Year (2035) Plus Project conditions: • Jefferson Avenue at Cherry Street/Proposed French Valley Parkway — AM peak hour • Winchester Road at Murrieta Hot Springs Road — AM peak hour • Old Town Front Street and Temecula Parkway — AM peak hour a) Findings Changes or alterations, including the mitigation measure described below, have been required in or incorporated into the Project that reduce traffic impacts under the Future Year (2035) Plus Project Conditions to less than significant. Mitigation Measure MM -TRA -2: The City shall monitor the performance of the intersections listed below on an on-going basis and ensure that the following improvements occur at these intersections prior to or concurrent with Project -related development that would increase the AM peak -hour delay by more than two seconds. • At the intersection of Jefferson Avenue at Cherry Street / Proposed French Valley Parkway, the westbound approach lane shall be re -configured from one left turn lane, two through lanes, and a shared through -right turn lane to two left turn lanes, one through lane and one shared lane (Project's fair -share contribution is 10 percent). • At the intersection of Winchester Road and Murrieta Hot Springs Road, add a right - turn overlap traffic signal phase to the southbound direction (Project's fair -share contribution is 5 percent). • At Old Town Front Street and Temecula Parkway, add an exclusive right -turn lane to the northbound direction (Project's fair -share contribution is 5 percent). A-25 b) Facts in Support of Findings Prior to the issuance of the initial building permit for each project -specific development within the Project area, the applicant shall pay its fair share, as determined by the City, toward the improvements for the intersections listed herein. In addition, after implementation of Mitigation Measure MM -TRA -2, operations during the AM peak hour at the intersection of Jefferson Avenue at Cherry Street/Proposed French Valley Parkway would improve to an acceptable LOS C (delay = 31.4 seconds). The intersection at Winchester Road and Murrieta Hot Springs Road would continue to operate at an unacceptable LOS F during the AM peak hour; however, delay would improve to 92.6 seconds, which is better than pre -project conditions. Finally, AM peak hour operations at Old Town Front Street and Temecula Parkway would improve to LOS E (delay = 61.7 seconds), which while an unacceptable service level, would be better than pre -project conditions. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant. J. Utilities and Water Supply Assessment 1. Water and Wastewater Treatment Facilities Expansion and Capacity Buildout of the Project would result in the need for larger diameter or parallel sewer lines for three lengths of sewer pipe within the Project area, and the need to increase the capacity of the Temecula Valley RWRF to handle an additional 0.8 mgd of wastewater flow; the construction of which could result in significant environmental effects. a) Findings Changes or alterations, including the mitigation measures described below, have been required in or incorporated into the Project that reduce impacts related to treatment facility expansion and capacity to less than significant. Mitigation Measure MM-UTL-la: Prior to the issuance of construction permits for a project -specific development within the Project area, the project applicant shall pay its fair share of Eastern Municipal Water District mitigation fees to upsize the impacted sewer pipelines at Jefferson Avenue, via Montezuma and Del Rio Road. Mitigation Measure MM-UTL-lb: Prior to the issuance of construction permits for a project -specific development within the Project area, the project applicant shall pay Eastern Municipal Water District's then in effect Financial Participation Charge associated with obtaining sewer service. b) Facts in Support of Findings The additional wastewater flow need for implementation of the Project would necessitate a future capacity expansion which would result in the construction of new wastewater A-26 treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, which would be significant impacts. However, payment of mitigation fees and other fees to the Eastern Municipal Water District as described in Mitigation Measures MM-UTL- la and MM-UTL-lb would reduce the potential impacts to less than significant. 2. Impacts to Stormwater Drainage Facilities Buildout of the Project would result in the need for the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities; the construction of which could result in significant environmental effects. a) Findings Changes or alterations, including the mitigation measures described below, have been required in or incorporated into the Project that reduce impacts to stormwater drainage facilities to less than significant. Mitigation: Implement Mitigation Measure MM -HYD -2 and MM HYD -3 b) Facts in Support of Findings As a part of the WQMP implemented by Mitigation Measure MM -HYD -2, the Project would be required to incorporate low impact development (LID) best management practices (BMPs) into Project design, which include measures to reduce increases in runoff through hydromodification and infiltration protection. In addition, adherence to requirements found in the MS4 permit in effect at the time of construction, would ensure no substantial increases in on-site or off-site storm water runoff would occur and cause significant environmental effects. Lastly, Mitigation Measure MM -HYD -3 would minimize potential permanent increases in stormwater runoff during operation of the development. With the incorporation of Mitigation MM -HYD -2 and MM -HYD -3, impacts to stormwater drainage facilities will be less than significant. VI.Environmental Effects that Remain Significant and Unavoidable After Mitigation In the environmental areas of air quality, noise and cultural resources, there are instances where potential environmental impacts would remain significant and unavoidable, as discussed below. A. Air Quality (Construction and Operations) 1. Violation of Air Quality Standards — Construction Construction activities associated with implementation of the Project would violate air quality standards related to ROG and NOx emissions and would result in significant air quality impacts at the Program EIR level. A-27 a) Findings Specific economic, social, or other considerations make infeasible mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the Program EIR. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into the Project that avoid or substantially lessen the potential significant environmental effect as identified in the Program EIR. Although the following Mitigation Measures will be implemented to lessen the short term air quality impacts, none were identified that could reduce the impacts to below the level of significance and therefore impacts still will remain potentially significant. Mitigation Measure MM -AIR -la: Future project -level development shall incorporate the following mitigation measures to minimize emissions of NOx associated with construction activities for the Project: • Construction activities shall require the use of 2010 and newer diesel haul trucks (e.g., material delivery trucks and soil import/export) to the extent feasible. Under conditions where it is determined that 2010 model year or newer diesel trucks are not readily available or obtainable for a project, the applicant shall be required to provide this evidence to the City and shall instead use trucks that meet USEPA 2007 model year NOx emissions requirements.' • Off-road diesel -powered construction equipment greater than 50 horsepower (hp) shall meet USEPA Tier III off-road emissions standards. In addition, construction equipment shall be outfitted with BACT devices certified by CARB. A copy of each unit's certified tier specification, BACT documentation, and CARB or SCAQMD operating permit shall be provided at the time of mobilization of each applicable unit of equipment. Under conditions where a newer or alternative technology becomes available in the future that would result in either equivalent or larger reductions in NOx emissions than the use of tiered construction equipment, that technology shall be applied. Where alternatives to USEPA Tier III equipment are chosen for a project, the applicant shall be required to show evidence to the City that comparable NOx emissions reductions that are no less than what could be achieved by a Level 3 diesel 2 CARB's On -Road Heavy -Duty Diesel Vehicle (In -Use) Regulation requires the phase-in of 2010 model year engines or equivalent by January 1, 2023. Under this regulation, PM and NOx emissions are projected to be reduced by approximately 3 tons per day and 88 tons per day, respectively, in 2023. Whereas trucks that meet 2007 model year NOx emissions requirements are estimated to reduce NOx emissions by at least 40 percent in engines that are certified to the 2004 through 2006 model year heavy-duty diesel engine emissions standard, trucks that meet 2010 model year NOx emissions requirements are estimated to reduce NOx emissions by at least 85 percent in engines that are certified to the 2004 through 2006 model year heavy-duty diesel engine emissions standard. 3 As the 2010 model year engines or equivalent would be gradually phased in over time in California, these engines may not always be readily available for the construction activities associated with the Project. As such, under these circumstances the USEPA 2007 model year NOx emissions standards, which were scheduled to be phased -in for heavy-duty highway engines between 2007 and 2010, would be used instead. A-28 emissions control strategy for a similarly sized engine as defined by CARB regulations would be achieved. • After January 1, 2015, off-road diesel -powered construction equipment greater than 50 hp shall meet the Tier IV emission standards, where available. Under conditions where it is determined that equipment meeting Tier IV emission standards are not readily available or obtainable for a project, the applicant shall be required to provide this evidence to the City and shall instead use USEPA Tier III equipment. In addition, construction equipment shall be outfitted with BACT devices certified by CARB. Any emissions control device used by the contractor shall achieve emissions reductions that are no less than what could be achieved by a Level 3 diesel emissions control strategy for a similarly sized engine as defined by CARB regulations. A copy of each unit's certified tier specification, BACT documentation, and CARB or SCAQMD operating permit shall be provided at the time of mobilization of each applicable unit of equipment. Mitigation Measure MM -AIR -lb: Future project -level development shall incorporate the following in the construction specifications of a development project: • Require that construction -related equipment, including heavy-duty equipment, motor vehicles, and portable equipment, shall be turned off when not in use for more than five minutes. • Require that construction operations rely on the electricity infrastructure surrounding the construction site rather than electrical generators powered by internal combustion engines to the extent feasible. Mitigation Measure MM -AIR -lc: Future project -level development shall document project construction emissions prior to City approval of a project. If it is shown that a development would generate construction -related VOC emissions exceeding SCAQMD's threshold, the architectural coatings phase for that project shall use coatings and solvents with a VOC content lower than that required under SCAQMD Rule 1113. Mitigation Measure MM-AIR-ld: The City shall encourage all construction contractors to apply for SCAQMD "SOON" funds, which provides funds to accelerate clean-up of off-road diesel vehicles such as heavy-duty construction equipment. b) Facts in Support of Findings The Program EIR analysis of the Project determined that under an estimated worst-case construction scenario, implementation of the Project would result in significant air quality impacts associated with ROG and NOx emissions. Additionally, under potential conditions where one or more of the construction phases shown in EIR Table 3.2-6 overlap, these pollutant emissions could be even higher. While implementation of A-29 Mitigation Measures MM -AIR -la through MM-AIR-ld would reduce the emissions of ROG and NOx that are analyzed for the worst-case construction scenario evaluated in the Program EIR, these emissions would not be reduced to below SCAQMD's thresholds for the two respective criteria pollutants. Therefore, for the analysis of the Project's worst- case scenario, impacts from construction ROG and NOx emissions would be significant and unavoidable. 2. Violation of Air Quality Standards — Operations Operational activities associated with implementation of the Project would violate air quality standards related to ROG emissions and would result in significant air quality impacts at this program level. a) Findings As the regulation of ROG emissions from consumer products is beyond the City's control, no feasible mitigation is currently available to reduce the amount of ROG emissions generated under the Project to the extent that these emissions would be below the SCAQMD's recommended threshold; thus, this impact remains significant and unavoidable. b) Facts in Support of Findings When the operational ROG emissions of the Project are compared to that of the existing land uses, the primary emissions source contributing to the net increase in ROG emissions is associated with area sources, which include emissions generated from architectural coatings (reapplication of coatings on structures over time), consumer products, natural gas fireplaces/stoves, and landscaping. Amongst these area sources, the majority (75 percent) of the estimated ROG emissions generated by the Project were associated with the use of consumer products by the new residents in the Project area.4 The estimated net daily emissions of ROG during operation of the new land uses associated with the Project would exceed the SCAQMD's regional significance threshold. As the regulation of ROG emissions from consumer products is beyond the City's control, no feasible mitigation is currently available to reduce the amount of ROG emissions generated under the Project to the extent that these emissions would be below the SCAQMD's recommended threshold. Thus, this impact would be significant and unavoidable. 3. Cumulative Impacts to Air Quality Consumer products are defined in CalEEMod to be chemically formulated products used by household consumers that include, but is not limited to, detergents; cleaning compounds; polishes; floor finishes; cosmetics; personal care products; home, lawn, and garden products; disinfectants; sanitizers; aerosol paints; and automotive specialty products. A-30 As the Basin is currently classified as a state non -attainment area for ozone, NO2, PM10, and PM25, cumulative development consisting of the Project along with other reasonably foreseeable future projects in the Basin as a whole could violate an air quality standard or contribute to an existing or projected air quality violation. This is considered to be a significant cumulative impact. With respect to the Project's contribution to this cumulative impact, according to the SCAQMD, individual construction projects that exceed the SCAQMD recommended daily thresholds for project -specific impacts would cause a cumulatively considerable increase in emissions for those pollutants for which the Basin is in non -attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard. As the Project's construction -related ROG and NOx emissions (both of which are ozone precursors) and operational ROG emissions would exceed the SCAQMD's recommended daily thresholds, the Project would contribute to a cumulative air quality impact with respect to ozone and NO2.5 a) Findings Specific economic, social, or other considerations make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the Program EIR. Changes or alterations have been required in or incorporated into the Project that avoid or substantially lessen the potential significant environmental effects as identified in the Program EIR. The following Mitigation Measures listed below will be implemented to lessen construction and long term operational air quality impacts; however, no mitigation measures were identified that could reduce the impacts to below the level of significance, and therefore impacts will remain potentially significant. Mitigation Measures: Implementation of Mitigation Measures MM -AIR -la and MM - AIR -lb from Section 3.2, Air Quality, would reduce construction emissions of ROG and NOx associated with the worst-case construction scenario analyzed for the Project; however, not to below a level of significance. b) Facts in Support of Findings The Program EIR shows that the worst-case daily construction emissions associated with the Project would exceed the SCAQMD's construction thresholds for ROG and NOx (ozone precursors). Therefore, the Project would exceed SCAQMD's respective thresholds during construction for pollutants for which the Basin is in non -attainment (i.e., ozone and NO2). The Project's pollutant emissions would, in conjunction with other 5 It should be noted that because the Basin in currently a non -attainment area for ozone and NO2, and both ROG and NOx emissions are ozone precursors (i.e., ozone is created by sunlight acting on ROG and NOx in the air), the exceedance of SCAQMD's recommended daily thresholds for these pollutants by the Project would result in a significant contribution to cumulative air quality impacts. A-31 past, current, and probable future projects, be cumulatively considerable and cumulative impacts would be significant and unavoidable. With respect to Project operations, with the exception of ROG emissions, the total net operational emissions associated with the Project would not exceed the SCAQMD's thresholds for NOx, CO, SOx, PM10, and PM2.5. With respect to the Project's operational emissions ofNOx, CO, SOx, PM10, and PM2.5, these pollutant emissions would not be cumulatively considerable and cumulative impacts would be less than significant. However, as the net operational ROG emissions associated with the Project would exceed the SCAQMD's operational threshold, the Project's ROG emissions, which are ozone precursors, would be cumulatively considerable and cumulative impacts would be significant and unavoidable. B. Cultural Resources 1. Direct Impacts to Cultural Resources (Historic) Construction activities associated with implementation of the Project could cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historic resource as defined in CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5, including the Gonzalez Adobe and other structures that are 50 years or older. a) Findings Specific economic, social, or other considerations make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the Program EIR. Changes or alterations have been required in or incorporated into the Project that avoid or substantially lessen the potential significant environmental effects as identified in the Program EIR. The following Mitigation Measure listed below will be implemented to lessen impacts to historic resources; however, none were identified that could reduce the impacts to the built historic features below the level of significance, and therefore impacts to these resources will remain potentially significant. Mitigation Measure MM -CUL -2: Project -level development involving ground disturbance and containing structures 50 years old or older shall be subject to a historic built environment survey, and potentially historic structures shall be evaluated for their potential historic significance, prior to the City's approval of project plans. The survey shall be carried out by a qualified historian or architectural historian meeting the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Architectural History. If potentially significant resources are encountered during the survey, demolition or substantial alteration of such resources identified shall be avoided. If avoidance of identified historic resources is deemed infeasible, the City shall require the preparation of a treatment plan to include, but not limited to, photo -documentation and public interpretation of the resource. The plan will be submitted to the City for review and approval prior to implementation. A-32 b) Facts in Support of Findings Surveys of structures 50 years of age or older have not been done and the details of any treatment plan are unknown; therefore, it is possible that the treatment plan may be insufficient to reduce the impacts of the loss of a historic resource to a less -than - significant level. As such, the impact would remain significant and unavoidable after implementation of MM -CUL -2, at a program EIR level analysis. 2. Cumulative Impacts to Cultural Resources (Historic) Cumulative impacts to cultural resources in this area could occur if any other existing or proposed projects, in conjunction with the Project, had or would have impacts on cultural resources that, when considered together, would be cumulatively significant. a) Findings Specific economic, social, or other considerations make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the Program EIR. Changes or alterations have been required in or incorporated into the Project that avoid or substantially lessen the potential significant environmental effects as identified in the Program EIR. The following Mitigation Measure listed below will be implemented to lessen cumulative impacts to historic resources; however, none were identified that could reduce the impacts to built historic features below the level of significance, and therefore cumulative impacts to these resources will remain potentially significant. Mitigation Measures: MM -CUL -2. b) Facts in Support of Findings The potential construction impacts of the Project, in combination with other projects in the area, could contribute to a cumulatively significant impact on built historical resources. Mitigation Measure MM -CUL -2 has been developed in order to reduce impacts to built historic resources. However, MM -CUL -2 may not reduce the impacts of the loss of a historic resource to a less -than -significant level and this impact would remain significant and unavoidable. Therefore, the Project's cumulative effects to historic built resources, in conjunction with other past, current, and probable future projects, would be cumulatively considerable and cumulative impacts would be significant and unavoidable. C. Noise and Vibration (Construction) Construction activities occurring at each individual development site in the Project area would potentially expose their respective adjacent or nearby receptor(s) to substantial increases in ambient noise levels. A-33 a) Findings Specific economic, social, or other considerations make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the Program EIR. Although mitigation measures were evaluated for their ability to eliminate the potential significant adverse impacts upon cumulative air quality impacts, none were identified that could reduce the impacts to below the level of significance. Mitigation Measure MM-NOI-la: Prior to the issuance any grading or building permits for project -specific development, the applicant shall provide evidence to the City that the development will not exceed the City's exterior noise standards for construction (see Table 3.10-5). If it is determined that City noise standards for construction activities would be exceeded, the applicant shall submit a construction -related exception request to the City Manager at least one week in advance of the project's scheduled construction activities, along with the appropriate inspection fee(s), to ensure that the project's construction noise levels would be granted an exception from the noise standards set forth in Section 9.20.040 of the City of Temecula Municipal Code. If a construction - related exception request is denied by the City, design measures shall be taken to reduce the construction noise levels to the maximum extent feasible to achieve compliance with the City's construction noise standards. These measures may include, but are not limited to, the erection of noise barriers/curtains, use of advanced or state-of-the-art mufflers on construction equipment, and/or reduction in the amount of equipment that would operate concurrently at the development site. Mitigation Measure MM-NOI-lb: Project -specific development located within the Project area shall: • Ensure that noise and groundborne vibration construction activities whose specific location on a construction site may be flexible (e.g., operation of compressors and generators, cement mixing, general truck idling) shall be conducted as far as possible from the nearest noise and vibration -sensitive land uses. • Ensure that the use of construction equipment or construction methods with the greatest peak noise generation potential will be minimized. Examples include the use of drills and jackhammers. When impact tools (e.g., jack hammers, pavement breakers, and caisson drills) are necessary, they shall be hydraulically or electrically powered wherever possible to avoid noise associated with compressed air exhaust from pneumatically powered tools. Where use of pneumatic tools is unavoidable, an exhaust muffler on the compressed air exhaust shall be used; this muffler can lower noise levels from the exhaust by up to about 10 dBA. External jackets on the tools themselves shall be used where feasible; this could achieve a reduction of 5 dBA. Quieter procedures, such as use of drills rather than impact tools, shall be used whenever feasible. A-34 • Locate stationary construction noise sources away from adjacent receptors and muffled and enclosed within temporary sheds, incorporate insulation barriers, or other measures to the extent feasible. • Ensure that all construction truck traffic is restricted to routes approved by the City of Temecula, which shall avoid residential areas and other sensitive receptors, to the extent feasible. • Designate a construction relations officer to serve as a liaison with surrounding residents and property owners who is responsible for responding to address any concerns regarding construction noise and vibration. The liaison's telephone number(s) shall be prominently displayed at construction locations. • Hold a preconstruction meeting with the City's job inspectors and the general contractor or onsite project manager to confirm that noise and vibration mitigation and practices (including construction hours, sound buffers, neighborhood notification, posted signs, etc.) are implemented. b) Facts in Support of Findings As described in the Program EIR, it is anticipated that the City, through the environmental review process, will consider all future developments associated with the Project on a case-by-case basis to ascertain whether an individual development would generate a substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels on its surrounding off-site uses. However, for the purposes of this EIR, it is assumed that there would likely be future developments associated with the Project that would be located in close enough proximity to existing land uses such that the construction noise levels generated would result in a substantial temporary increase in ambient noise levels at those existing land uses. As such, Mitigation Measure MM-NOI-lb which would require the implementation of noise reduction devices and techniques during construction activities for the new developments occurring under the Project would be implemented to reduce the construction -related noise levels at nearby receptors to the maximum extent feasible. Nonetheless, under circumstances where future construction sites within the Project area are located immediately adjacent to existing land uses, the noise impacts related to a substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels above levels existing without the proposed project would remain significant. Although mitigation measures would reduce the Project's construction noise levels to the maximum extent feasible, it is anticipated that the nearest existing land uses to each of the proposed developments in the Project area would continue to experience a substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels during construction activities. Therefore, the Project's construction noise would be a temporary significant and unavoidable impact on the nearby existing land uses. A-35 VII. Project Alternatives A. Alternatives Considered But Rejected in the Program EIR An EIR must briefly describe the rationale for selection and rejection of alternatives. The Lead Agency may make an initial determination as to which alternatives are potentially feasible and, therefore, merit in-depth consideration, and which are clearly infeasible. Alternatives that are remote or speculative, or the effects of which cannot be reasonably predicted, need not be considered (CEQA Guidelines, Section 15126.6(0(3)). An alternative site or location for the project need not be considered when its implementation is "remote and speculative" such as the site being out of the purview of the lead agency or beyond the control of a project applicant. Alternative sites were not selected for evaluation. The CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(0(2) specifies that the key question with alternative sites is "whether any of the significant effects of the project would be avoided or substantially lessened by putting the project at another location." The Project would involve adoption of a Specific Plan with the intent of revitalizing this particular location in the City and taking advantage of its attributes, including the opportunity to create a high-density urban environment and its proximity to major transportation routes. Therefore, it would not be feasible to consider other site locations for this Project. The Program EIR analyzed three other project alternatives. These three alternatives were considered but ultimately found not to meet the project's objectives as for the various reasons stated below. B. Alternatives Considered in the Program EIR 1. Alternative One — No Project/Existing General Plan a) Summary of Alternative This alternative is analyzed within this program -level EIR as it is required under CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(e). According to Section 15126.6(e)(2) of the CEQA Guidelines, the "no project" analysis shall discuss, "...what is reasonably expected to occur in the foreseeable future if the project were not approved, based on current plans and consistent with available infrastructure and community services." When the project is the revision of an existing land use policy, CEQA Guidelines §15126.6(e)(3)(A) states that "the No Project Alternative will be the continuation of the existing plan... into the future." So, for the purposes of this EIR, the No Project Alternative represents development under the currently adopted General Plan as further described below. This alternative, however, does not represent a "no build" scenario in which no future development or redevelopment would occur. The No Project/Existing General Plan Alternative assumes that the Uptown Jefferson Specific Plan would not be adopted and implemented. Instead, the planning area would be developed according to the existing 2005 General Plan land use map, zoning, and A-36 development patterns. With buildout of the existing General Plan, total development in the Project area would amount to approximately 4.7 million square feet, representing an increase of approximately 933,708 square feet over existing conditions, including approximately 1,043,479 square feet of Community Commercial uses; 711,944 square feet of Highway Tourist Commercial uses; 1,773,719 square feet of Service Commercial uses; 1,192,150 square feet of Industrial Park uses; and 12,414 square feet of Public Institutional uses. b) Reasons for Rejecting Alternative The No Project/Existing General Plan Alternative would result in greater impacts to greenhouse gas emissions, land use, noise, and traffic impacts than the proposed project due to the number of vehicle trips associated with the substantial development allowed under the No Project/General Plan Alternative. In addition, this Alternative would not emphasize the mixed use development promoted by the proposed Project, and therefore would not reduce dependence on vehicles. Finally, this Alternative would not meet the project's primary objective of updating the existing Uptown Jefferson Specific Plan. For all of these reasons, the City Council rejects this alternative as infeasible. 2. Alternative Two — Reduced Project Alternative a) Summary of Alternative Under this alternative, the total development would be reduced by 25 percent, which would result in a buildout of approximately 1.3 million square feet of commercial uses (as opposed to the 1.7 million square feet that would occur under the Project), approximately 2,795 dwelling units, and 236 hotel rooms. This alternative would include the same proposed Districts, including Uptown Center District, Uptown Hotel/Tourism District, Uptown Sports District, Uptown Arts District (with the Wilder Hills -Residential Overlay), Creekside Village District (with the Creekside Village -Commercial Overlay), and Murrieta Creek Recreation and Open Space District. Under this alternative, these districts would contain the same provisions related to density and building heights. b) Reasons for Rejecting Alternative As a result of the reduced amount of development under Alternative 2, there would be fewer trips generated per day and thus a reduction in several impacts such as noise, air quality, and traffic impacts within the Specific Plan area. In addition, since the overall development would be reduced, there would be reduced impacts to aesthetics, population and housing, public services, as well as utilities and water supplies. Alternative 2 would achieve the proposed project objectives by creating a vibrant locale by providing a mix of land uses including housing, commercial/retail, office, higher education institutions, hotels and other tourist -oriented uses, cultural uses, and open space and recreational opportunities; strengthening opportunities for economic development in the Specific Plan A-37 area by building upon existing assets as well as encouraging new public and private investment in the area that attracts high -wage, quality employment opportunities and higher education facilities; establishing a distinct identity for the Specific Plan area by beautifying Jefferson Avenue and making it "Temecula's Great Street," identifying and establishing interrelated, compatible districts and neighborhoods with their own unique identities; developing a signage strategy for wayfinding, neighborhood/district identification, and gateway monumentation that emphasizes the distinct character of the area's location, natural setting, and built environment; creating a form -based code to guide future development that allows greater density, increased building heights, design standards for architecture, street character and public realms, and flexible urban parking standards and establishing an efficient and interconnected multi -modal mobility network through circulation and transit improvements. However, Alternative 2 would not provide the most efficient use of the Specific Plan area and would therefore, not fully attain the economic potential of the project site because the allowable development for the project would be reduced by 25 percent, reducing the potential of the project's viability. Therefore, Alternative 2 would not fully achieve all of the project objectives. For this reason, the City Council rejects this alternative as infeasible. 3. Alternative Three — Reduced Residential/Increased Commercial Alternative a) Summary of Alternative Under this alternative, allowable floor area ratios (FARs) would be adjusted in order to decrease the total amount of residential space that would be constructed and to increase the total amount of commercial square footage that could be developed. Commercial square footage would be increased by 3 million square feet; resulting in a buildout potential of approximately 4.7 million square feet of commercial uses (as compared to the 1.7 million square feet anticipated for the Project). Residential development would also be reduced by approximately 40 percent, which would result in approximately 2,176 dwelling units (as compared to the potential 3,726 that would occur under the Project). This alternative would include the same proposed Districts, including Uptown Center District, Uptown Hotel/Tourism District, Uptown Sports District, Uptown Arts District (with the Wilder Hills -Residential Overlay), Creekside Village District (with the Creekside Village -Commercial Overlay), and Murrieta Creek Recreation and Open Space District. b) Reasons for Rejecting Alternative Due to the increased commercial development (as compared to the proposed Project) and the increased vehicle trips associated therewith, Alternative 3 would result in increased adverse air quality, noise, and traffic impacts. In addition, this alternative would not emphasize a mixed-use environment in which residents would benefit from nearby shopping and employment opportunities nearly as much as the proposed Project, and A-38 therefore this alternative would result in greater greenhouse gas emission and climate change impacts than the proposed Project. Although Alternative 3 would achieve most project objectives and would promote economic activity within the City because commercial development would be emphasized over residential development, Alternative 3 would reduce residential development by 40 percent decreasing encouragement of developing an increased number of high-quality residential neighborhoods compared to either the existing Specific Plan or the proposed project. Therefore, Alternative 3 would not achieve all of the project objectives as well as the proposed project, and would have greater adverse impacts. Therefore, the City Council rejects this alternative as infeasible. C. Environmentally Superior Alternative The CEQA Guidelines, Section 15126.6(e)(2), requires the identification of the environmentally superior alternative. While none of the alternatives would reduce the significant and unavoidable impacts related to cultural resources and construction noise, the environmentally superior alternative would be Alternative 2, the Reduced Project Alternative, as it would have potentially fewer environmental impacts to air quality, GHG, land use and planning, operational noise, and transportation and traffic as compared to the Project and the other alternatives. Alternative 2 also would meet all of the Project objectives. A summary of the potential impacts associated with the alternatives as compared to the Project is provided in EIR Table 5-5 below. TABLE 5-5: SUMMARY COMPARISON OF PROJECT ALTERNATIVE IMPACTSa Potential Project Impacts Alt. 1: No Project Alternative (No Development) Alt. 2: Reduced Project Alternative AIt.3: Reduced Residential/Increased Commercial Uses Alternative Aesthetics Reduced Reduced Reduced Air Quality Reduced Reduced Increased Biological Resources Similar Similar Similar Cultural Resources Similar Similar Similar Geology, Soils, and Seismicity Similar Similar Similar Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Climate Change Increased Reduced Increased Hazards and Hazardous Materials Similar Similar Similar Hydrology and Water Quality Reduced Similar Similar Land Use and Planning Increased Similar Similar A-39 Noise and Vibration Increased Reduced Increased Population and Housing Reduced Reduced Reduced Public Services Similar Reduced Reduced Transportation and Traffic Increased Reduced Increased Utilities and Water Supply Assessment Reduced Reduced Reduced a Definitions: • Increased = impacts of alternative greater than Project's impacts • Similar = impacts of alternative similar to Project's impacts • Reduced = impacts of alternative less than Project's impacts SOURCE: Environmental Science Associates, 2013. D. The Project As Proposed 1. Summary of Project The Project involves adoption of the Uptown Jefferson Specific Plan and is described in detail in the Program EIR. 2. Reasons for Selecting Project as Proposed The City Council has carefully reviewed the attributes and environmental impacts of all the alternatives analyzed in the Final Program EIR and has compared them with those of the proposed Project. The City Council finds that each of the alternatives is infeasible for various environmental, economic, technical, social, or other reasons set forth above. The City Council further finds that the Project as proposed is the best combination of features to serve the interest of the public and achieve the project goals. More specifically, the Project as proposed strikes a proper balance between commercial development that focuses on economic activity, and high-quality residential development that emphasizes a mixed-use environment in which residents benefit from nearby shopping and employment opportunities. This proposed Uptown Jefferson Specific Plan recognizes the need for economic activity and growth in the City but also promotes sound environmental policies due to the reduced reliance on vehicle trips (stemming from mixed use development) and proximity to public transportation. For all of these reasons, the City Council selects the Project as proposed. A-40 EXHIBIT B Statement of Overriding Considerations The following Statement of Overriding Considerations is made in connection with the proposed approval of the Amendment to the Uptown Jefferson Specific Plan (the "Project"). CEQA requires the decision-making agency to balance the economic, legal, social, technological or other benefits of a project against its unavoidable environmental risks when determining whether to approve a project. If the benefits of the project outweigh the unavoidable adverse effects, those effects may be considered acceptable. CEQA requires the agency to provide written findings supporting the specific reasons for considering a project acceptable when significant impacts are unavoidable. Such reasons must be based on substantial evidence in the Program EIR or elsewhere in the administrative record. The reasons for proceeding with this Project despite the adverse environmental impacts that may result are provided in this Statement of Overriding Considerations. The City Council finds that the economic, social and other benefits of the Project outweigh the significant and unavoidable impacts to air quality, noise, and cultural resources. In making this finding, the City Council has balanced the benefits of the Project against its unavoidable impacts and has indicated its willingness to accept those adverse impacts. The City Council finds that each one of the following benefits of the Project, independent of the other benefits, would warrant approval of the Project notwithstanding the unavoidable environmental impacts of the Project: A. The City Council finds that all feasible mitigation measures have been imposed to either lessen Project impacts to less than significant or to the extent feasible, and furthermore, that alternatives to the Project are infeasible because they generally have similar or greater impacts, or they do not provide the benefits of the Project, or are otherwise socially or economically infeasible as fully described in the Statement of Facts and Findings. B. The proposed Project strikes a proper balance between commercial development that focuses on economic activity, and high-quality residential development that emphasizes a mixed-use environment in which residents benefit from nearby shopping and employment opportunities. C. The proposed Project will reduce potential adverse environmental impacts compared with build- out under the currently -existing Uptown Jefferson Specific Plan due to its emphasis on mixed- use development and the benefits that such development provides, including reduced vehicle trips as a result of proximity to shopping, entertainment, and employment opportunities. D. The proposed Project will create additional housing units beyond what currently exists in the Uptown Jefferson Specific Plan area or what currently could be developed in that area and thus will add to the available housing stock in the City. E. The proposed Project will augment the City's economic base by providing additional tax revenues resulting from the commercial component of the proposed allowable development. B-1 The City Council finds that the foregoing benefits provided through approval of the Uptown Jefferson Specific Plan Project outweigh the identified significant adverse environmental impacts. The City Council further finds that each of the individual Uptown Jefferson Specific Plan Project benefits discussed above outweighs the unavoidable adverse environmental effects identified in the Final Program EIR and therefore finds those impacts to be acceptable. The City Council further finds that each of the benefits listed above, standing alone, is sufficient justification for the City Council to override these unavoidable environmental impacts. B-2 EXHIBIT C Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Please see attached -9- 11086-0006\ 1892250v2.doc EXHIBIT C MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM V LL r.) W N Z 0 ce W LL LL W Z 0 a Verification of Compliance Ta c >, a c) c o c O.0 o) a) 2 Mitigation Measures Aesthetics 0) a �+ > c 2 (0 ( ) 0) n cas T = 7 N ��p L a)NwU ; ,7 CT) rnw Unm >') 0 as o N c1) UH 0 U c 2 O c c ` 0 U c) c 0 a0 a m 0 TO ii y a, a) C �C0 L O v) f6 L U m a) > C- C °) 53 N co Si o C f0 w C N U E y 7 W a) "j = y C ` t t (6 Y u) N O 0 -O O) C p f0 a ...� U- V O p 7 0 L N (� V) L C U O 7CO 0 ° V a C n O a t/1 '� .O. p rn Q 0 p co V f0 Nlb' w U O) • O U (0 c0 70 c0 U a) a) c s 0 ca U U y0 O) N X L-' N o ° +� c C c N E 7 y C° N >+ CO C 0 p_ C •� rnaci pCp 7 �.� a) w m ° ° o N� 4-, ° _Q 0 c E as .0 Q U E C 0 •aF N •. a L > 9 D N 0- 2 0 -Q N 0 C C) c w 3aoi t v'oQi• c��o �°m a�N co c° v—amiaUicn (1) oo ya) mm O - a Y 3 N O) a) •C f0 O °` (0 T l) u) a O U_ w L u) › w w L 7 03 L f0 L L c0 f0 a U N `7- L N L 0) "O a C a) _ f0 w n U °) °1 u) U T> ~ CA C w w0 U ___..2).-0 «'0 w O c/) C p c 7 f0 v) L E N- O C a) cp ow Q) C r EO p U c L O c (A C j) E U •O U a c CD C CO 7 U (0 _� �-� -- 7 0- C f0 f0 o O N Q vi rLn NL E o c o 3 a° N� ca =c; w- �� °) `S E >, 4 m E a) os 0 -p a) a) «. O a) C L c0 u) c N m p) C 0 O a) U ° C 7 E ri N - 7 C - 0 - 7 C - Q'N .0 U a) w •� H 11J a .2 V) u) .L C C c (0 C •V "° p a r m To �. (13 CD s0 °) mE0 0_ EaiCDmm p_ >, •§ •S g Ea) °N oc x C U U f0 >°°cii°UOX d 03 O U u1 °' V V) `-'•y7 a) (UCa)Cp0>,Ui„,-: C 'OQ) .:08: OQ)Zp Ik- e V= an.ywNCwOf0�� c�j�ojul a>>a)aEmo cm Ca°i ;° ° ° N�� .avm.ate�c a.Yd)� oc~ aEicaQ cn I� ? cn Ya)c co EL CD u) ca cv ac m ma- °Y'D y o f° o c UL ' O U L N L m C O L L O O Q O O O O O O O L y ca ca � .� F H co c� o I-. to E w a cn o 15.5 0 0 .2 H 2 d • • • • IGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM L UPTOWN JEFFERSON SPECT Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Pro Verification of Compliance N t6 E a) _N O) C c O c o ea N O < C E c.)) O = 4 C LU C d r� Ca O Mitigation Measures O O O C N ci) la ) CD _� U > C 00 r, O V) o �CD C0o 0 ? EO Q CD a (O — E) E .2 N > o -o am 0 EL c EL c cu N a) co co %-. CO c_ 0 O_ U _c w a)o0a) > o_ N E 2 N N N = X NO o N O C c0 7 >+t0) Q 7 Cn a,`° LI- E N a) O U a) O) a C 0 07 CN 0 7 ` a) o ca c O N ) co O 07-E a) _ C '- 20 H 8 Ea • 2010 model year engines or equivalent by January 1, 2023. Under this regulation, PM and NOx emissions are projected to be N U N O (0 � a3 a) 0 N L_ C L U 0 3 � 0) .0 CO v 0 0 3 N (0 O co O N .>-.. U CO W C f� O 0 O U N C N 0 3 a) .0 r) o � 0) FL) N (3,3" La1 T L T d 0 .0 T T(11 L 3 To o o c C 0 T a) a) N E f6 co a .E" a) _ c a) -0 N N m J L ) a) L (a E O N .� m Tm 3 o U v c 2 t • T L N o a > CO a) C 0 C L _ '- fa N > Tui N Q U N O N . O N_ 0 a E m a) co x a O N V 0) Z a a) as N N L T U j O J 11 C CO O -- ro E U C N L O N T > N O Q Ti) O O W al a O l/) p c N D S c ) J m m O T aci V .0+ C m a) 0 W = E T V a 2 a E p O. O 2 d' (0 E 'ci c T O N O -0o a) N -0 (.1 .L.. m a) Y cd a) U 2 Q 0 NC U m o c >, c Cl- O a 0 c c) 5 N E co,5w a) co E� rn4_ 00cco>'5o To '0 co O a) O).- a) .,- 0 C a) C 00 -0 _C 0) i,.E = 0 w U H m `0 0 CO 7 0 0)) >.E UH c O 0 C 2 O N U c D 0 C.) 45 NC d0 Mitigation Measure MM -AIR -la: Future project -level development shall incorporate the following mitigation measures to minimize emissions of NOx associated with construction activities for the Project: • Construction activities shall require the use of 2010 and newer diesel haul trucks (e.g., material delivery trucks and soil import/export) to the extent feasible. Under conditions where it is determined that 2010 model year or newer diesel trucks are not readily available or obtainable for a project, the applicant shall be required to provide this evidence to the City and shall instead use trucks that meet USEPA 2007 model year NOx emissions requirements. 2 • Off-road diesel -powered construction equipment greater than 50 horsepower (hp) shall meet USEPA Tier III off-road emissions standards. In addition, construction equipment shall be outfitted with BACT devices certified by CARB. A copy of each units certified tier specification, BACT documentation, and CARB or SCAQMD operating permit shall be provided at the time of mobilization of each applicable unit of equipment. Under conditions where a newer or alternative technology becomes available in the future that would result in either equivalent or larger reductions in NOx emissions than the use of tiered construction equipment, that technology shall be applied. Where alternatives to USEPA Tier III equipment are chosen for a project, the applicant shall be required to show evidence to the City that comparable NOx emissions reductions that are no less than what could be achieved by a 2010 model year engines or equivalent by January 1, 2023. Under this regulation, PM and NOx emissions are projected to be N U N O (0 � a3 a) 0 N L_ C L U 0 3 � 0) .0 CO v 0 0 3 N (0 O co O N .>-.. U CO W C f� O 0 O U N C N 0 3 a) .0 r) o � 0) FL) N (3,3" La1 T L T d 0 .0 T T(11 L 3 To o o c C 0 T a) a) N E f6 co a .E" a) _ c a) -0 N N m J L ) a) L (a E O N .� m Tm 3 o U v c 2 t • T L N o a > CO a) C 0 C L _ '- fa N > Tui N Q U N O N . O N_ 0 a E m a) co x a O N V 0) Z a a) as N N L T U j O J 11 C CO O -- ro E U C N L O N T > N O Q Ti) O O W al a O l/) p c N D S c ) J m m O T aci V .0+ C m a) 0 W = E T V a 2 a E p O. O 2 d' (0 E 'ci c T O N O -0o a) N -0 (.1 .L.. m a) Y cd a) U 2 Q 0 UPTOWN JEFFERSON SPECIFIC PLAN MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Verification of Compliance O •c U c o c O=(I) Q C C) N 0 Q Mitigation Measures ▪ c 0 O) 73 • > • c N LO„ N y Q 0 a) 0 N 0) N E >° c a) !+1o UNm°.�>oo> am ac �'tui c as NO . w> , E .. ca a) -0 a) d o .- -0 Q N O O 0) O N w c ° 0 0 L N L - a)- cL. ° 7:3, -0 N y U > C E 0 ` LO.c > ..T�-.....L' N O N C> N O _ O C ul a) E C aV (n O N U n C N a) N U N Ea) B,,OUN)ao)c •Qof°°� `oE —0 .)0" Uoa �U8• )02 •a) a) t . o 0 y -0l 'E'oocmUu) ° mo >Q c°> > Qn �� �a)ca)a��«a>ic�m tea) a) u) mw o a)`o_-U�Y Q c cD o o a)Y o> co a) n3Tc�o�a)EcNo CD CI) e)"3 O c d a) C H +L•' aa) C -00 > C ?-' CO 'L•'' O` 0 •� n N �+ CO (0 E CO O uo o)- E-o).0a=--0 _I -o f0 22 �i�� � E m.yE• c� N ▪ m r•E c> y o c o a)NJ L opa) o c0 o m E °nX n p 0) N C a)•a) O O >,'y N N 0 0 u! 0 O C— 0 0 a) O 8 ,�. N d a) n Q '�) y L >, a) c •'> E LI- .LO. (0 N O O • LL C> C y c 8E20 a) o n )n % U� o� o mU ��(�namo���v,���maj���c c>c nym ,-2f°,°-'(°U> CV ocmEm.5m�>,>�N8o�°) �m o oma) �NmE80 „1a • �nw >'� �0 v°)i EQL ° mQ�L o Q 3 o c g� O Q o.. o ALM Na`)0CT 0>a)�aoo�aoCUNc �o c�L LAN Eo00�3� ° c ma ° ��—� >".2 m' o m m o 3 o o •ai a) .0_C a)w N a) Z'rn-yar N cUt o a) a) c o 3 ▪ =w m 0 E 0 o ti ° >� a) c -0 m w c o aN U% ° o n•� �'o n° U c ° ° _ (° oQ N ,� To U O (0 y (?),,,T., a a) (2 n a7 Q. N N 0 o w N c_ ._ O O 2 Ce) a) a� '5 3.c 2 a) � -6 03 � (v , Ona 5 a) m 2 c � E 9Y cU > rn c «: c 75. -o c c c c� aoi a) v o `o E mow" x O v 0•3L NU N C= 0• (.4 a) ,_ n c O N p O o¢ n a 07 U n O a) O N a) :.+ 0 0` o 0)v, J N Q a) (n -o 0) (0 (0 U U o w U U u) O O •10 C O '0 d N O (0 -0 a �, L C Icca To— NE m 0 • OU +L. U 7 L OS t, U O C O) O Z cU 0 o is L Q O) O 2 • T(� C V U 0 E ) 0 i- 5 7 Cg- >, f°c r d U O n c0 — Q 0 15 oc� 5 (O. c o ))0 w00 7 (0 co >' 47 C .2-0 (6 Uv > CD ) 2 c c m co?a) (YO 0 a) (0 C1 ) ''5 . . :coU 2 O ° aw M 0 a 00 o a5 O2 UPTOWN JEFFERSON SPECIFIC PLAN MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Verification of Compliance E m • c c O = m <5E co V O) e" C c o C o u) • 0 < c d Eu ocm wQ w 0) Em O g � C L 0a Mitigation Measures Biological Resources E c E 'C '> > U a) C 0 O Uwaa aco Z 0 0 o 4722(CLO)aN 7 0 C 0 0 co L as c acs .. c • 3 N a; m E `f E • U N C V • C (0'> 0.N= 0 O o)a0mo0� 02 U O '1,(7) 01Q '00CD- C` a0 UU 0) c0 ^ .L.-. U ) ▪ a) f6 c O C (0' Y U p dC n-5 (Oi) C 0 a_ _c C w a) O O a) ° w c« C a E ar° `.0 � 0.▪ E C V) O a V( m> a) U Q E N • U1] a)t' con Cd Cl a— 0 oVa j04-7c85)=.,,°)E W _ 2'C 7U7— 7 o 60 V c o 0 g 3 C w o (00 w (0 w Nw c)0 .muLC C2 t{C O u0) 200za)0°c ;;. > .'�' C' 2 coots a c >, 5 m) n -3 CD -0 °� aa)) oa0ia);- oa0i , a) o C 0) UHaco>'v)o > . C4- 2 c o co a c>., co n ca °� a0) o°0 woaa) T E 0 0) OHaccs>'()0 To U m0 O 01 (1) oc o a) - L_ 0) y E� O 0 UHm oo v o m0 al 7 0) 0 O a) C L_ O) .>,E� 0 0 UHm o`O m 0 a0) aa)) 5 H Mitigation Measure MM -AIR -4: Prior to City approval of future Pre -Construction / City of project -specific residential developments within the Project area and Construction Temecula located within 500 feet of 1-15, a health risk assessment (HRA) shall be conducted to evaluate the health risks to these residential developments associated with TACs from the mobile sources traveling along the portion of 1-15 that is adjacent to the Project area. Based on the findings in the HRA, appropriate measures shall be taken, if necessary, to reduce the cancer risk resulting from TAC - exposure from 1-15 to below 10 in one million for the maximally - exposed individual. These measures may include, but are not limited to, relocating the residential development beyond 500 feet of the freeway or implementation of appropriate Minimum Efficiency Reporting Value (MERV) filters at the residential development. Mitigation Measure MM -AIR -3: Prior to City approval of an Pre -Construction / individual development project that would have the construction Construction equipment and activity listed below, a project -specific LST analysis shall be prepared and submitted that identifies the resulting construction emissions and demonstrates how the emissions would not exceed SCAQMD's LSTs or result in pollutant emissions that would cause or contribute to an exceedance of the most stringent applicable federal or state ambient air quality standards. • Requires more than a maximum of six pieces of heavy-duty diesel equipment operating concurrently for eight hours per day; • Involves more than a maximum daily amount of 3,500 cubic yards of dirt handling associated with grading activities; • Requires more than 10 miles of on-site travel by haul trucks per day; and, • Involves an on-site storage (soil) pile of more than 0.02 acres Biological Resources E c E 'C '> > U a) C 0 O Uwaa aco Z 0 0 o 4722(CLO)aN 7 0 C 0 0 co L as c acs .. c • 3 N a; m E `f E • U N C V • C (0'> 0.N= 0 O o)a0mo0� 02 U O '1,(7) 01Q '00CD- C` a0 UU 0) c0 ^ .L.-. U ) ▪ a) f6 c O C (0' Y U p dC n-5 (Oi) C 0 a_ _c C w a) O O a) ° w c« C a E ar° `.0 � 0.▪ E C V) O a V( m> a) U Q E N • U1] a)t' con Cd Cl a— 0 oVa j04-7c85)=.,,°)E W _ 2'C 7U7— 7 o 60 V c o 0 g 3 C w o (00 w (0 w Nw c)0 .muLC C2 t{C O u0) 200za)0°c ;;. UPTOWN JEFFERSON SPECIFIC PLAN MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Verification of Compliance coa c 'c7 'C U c O C O !_ a) u) 0 < E a) E W Q W 0) d O w 'E L ca O 2 Mitigation Measures 'O >+ E ns U m O N C >, U 0C O.0.0 a) C w U O N N0 rn C > co > rn o 0 oa0i E UH 0 0 G) E UH c 0 U c I- O cn U C ` 0 U ) C 0 0 0 G7 � ❑ cn c E o aQ E c` a3 C .2oa c U c a) O > > O E a)0 o sa u) 17).G)00 L 0 5 Q o QCT o nEU C O U C O w U C ` 0 .v ti)C 0 dU a) — C C w ZEA a) /) •o cia o 0 7 L 'O v— CO 7 — CO 0 _ _ • 0 N N w • O E — a) m a) E ra y_ (0 o Z U w us c a) a`> Z�,c�v w a)L'� E o 0 c -cn m acv o a) as 08 w 0-0 mao C C U L N M Lco (p >, o cu U, O co d 0),0 .O U 0 D i O a) (V O >+ >+ ', w iv a) v w 7 O C _O c o 0 2 20 N f a) L c CU C '> C j) (` N 7 (3 •E. a) 2 .L-, 0 7 0 L 'J O O L c p > Q w L U L c w= c 0 ro w C' oaE) me �� E 0 min 3U as Ct EQ o 7 a w Z,� o C y n5 c Z a) w E 8 a7 co C Ca 7 c0i In a) E10 >,a3 o c� a) 15 d C w ate) 7 a) O A a) C 0 w c 0 .L.. a) O O) Y a) 'O _ i p C (0 O O U O 'O N (v (vli > O C C a) .o ili p0c oa cu.)0.•E oEa0aasOmc w — O c` oo ) w .0) 7 L a w LO•, 0- L w C N '? co N C > w o E 7 w -o« c L a) 2 0 C .LO. -0 co a O •C w Nui C •O a) a) u)> a) co C 9' -c ._ L > to L w >,.,& C O N N> 0 E Q > .� > 'O N a) c 0 .- co2) O a) . O `) U L c` w- U"0 N LL C N> E 0 .LO- 0 U d c0 O N a) a u) L a) O> w a) u) w t0i) L M ` w _O N 3 •c E° y w U o)— 4— co `p U 212 a0) c o N in 0)>,c U,- E� a) c awi�o c0i cY) CD 5E ca E E 0 o C c a) -D C 0• Y•'c)'c) 0 >,>,a a) o)o E 0 84 0) — 7 U 77 o U a) @ w a s N N N -O C p 8 o c < 71.<wo w 0 u) 0.E- a) u) wI— wr w `o »=a 0 7 ai a) d E) cn c0 a) a 2 m 8 2 a) -§ E a)c EE o g,'.� o 7-oo a) O ( E_ .0 iv it m a w ca) c 3 u) L -43. ca § o o Z cQ cp y a C)'0 3 O 0 my D-.0 C v E o 0� o C c 0-p (0 7 C c CO 0 7 ;c: i0VU(dOa) w>�o��2�rn aas0 a) o 2 g .o :0,' U ua) 0- 0 0 aoina0 CU 0 c0 C 0 -p w = O o a) 9E a) w C a) IL cA1 L a) Z,w a7 0 C 0w�u)---cyom tiiv as_ m� 3 012.5 m Z 7 U _ 70 2 2 ry wrnO' > CJ)• L ' cc ` 'CS- Vm2ccu T -p) O) 0 _a °. TD ga�g 3 7 C e w ca O .0 a) w o m N Z p 0.... � p) a) 3 C c— 7 p W p cLr- (n rr O 0 cn 0 a) C a U -o2 C g a 0aa 3 a'i ca) o o ami �_' CDY f6 0` > w C -0 7 7 7 7 7. 0 "O L O a scow owo_am cm N O N N T UPTOWN JEFFERSON SPECIFIC PLAN MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Verification of Compliance a) O a) O) 0 c c c O(f6 0 Ts <5E C o U 0 � cs, N•C a c c 0. C O) (n < c E o 0) oQ W Mitigation Measures U 0 a) 0 0 U > 0 (0-0 U 0 CL.. 70 0 0 U co L >, o >o .2a) 0 3 a N a) m 0 dog a aT30 U E N > N N O` 0 =a)u) (a >jo (nEa) oE'5)ac 2a m c rn as (a a) a)2o c3a.0 S cs QVC a) C o SO V's N co cam oa `o G) (O.L.. 3 a> 00 as O a o V'5 '5 a .0 N O O To ru).5 co co a3o owg a)L•s. o L 2 '2- V S p 3 0 0 • 0 0> w S 0'"' N a)U 0 o 0 N 0 0 0 • f0 . L• .c 0� 3 c L 0 Q m (0o oau5 =a.3 0 ECL • CO O 0.) > E U H CO d C) '- 0 0 0 d • ,O0 W O) CO 0 a• av 0 �� o.EOm`) a� (n(00 0 € 5U)a c>, Nma�iaia�oi�oa) as c 3w-La•� 0 w 0) L :0:1 NN o0 a NC L0 c5 30 • m as a)o �0 0 E�a'50)E o`_-0c050a)c'5 0 aw' c▪ u) c,_ o o!ari J< 0 c o o (o o ` 0 m-_SceU) a) U y U 4; (0 22 .42 U C S 0 O fEn 0 (0 L. O> N fp t° • 0 C in( .T2 t L LE) 0O O O f0 0 ca. E -8.-c (I) m >Q o •w o) -0 (COM O 3 0 LL 0 U C C.- a a C > (0 a) w. o .0 0 O a >, 0 Q O E a «0. > 0 0 co 0 _ 0 U) U Q_) 0 N 3 N toil O CU) N O- Z 0 aC y U 0_0 o U o'o OC= w_ (0 'a 0 I00(000.(0...- . • C C o a .4= • O U L O '� U 0 0 L p O N 0 a C N c5 m a 0 (0 >� � �_ ()) J • 0 5 to _C m o 0 o 2 OU -0 • 0 mro -0 o c 0 0 5 0 o (0_,) >, o f9 c C w N `- C O-.0- C N 0 CLD c >,w,� E 0 too(u)€ °u^ 0m Crnrna¢ acorn 0)n aauoiocac•-• n)0No Z, - D O„ -O y 0 L 0 y 0. 0 E c a O O a) aL d • c aria o c w a Y o CV 0 (0 m >, a (0 0 c E 0 O U pc o c 3 c 0) 0 I— > g 0")c'c_ E 3 Q� o 'i = C d 0 C `) 0 T u) U ,«, -a) 22 O 0 T O 8 0 "fiO 0 (0 7 u) U a) c9 F) N U � cc _ o Q O C) p` a -0 C N ELI) N= (6 0 ca =h u) a (E O 0 L 0( N (0(0 (0 C (0 0 0 o v,co0a) oEaniE 0) 0)c Eo_ L' 0 O 7 a N L C 'C N 0 o) 0 yw° o a n o 5 ani a) �0 0• 0)o Q�- m w :°. 0 cO o -ELL (0 E� • 0 3 0 Eaa m N 2 5- N N 0 0 rn• Eo>>c@0Ea5Eo)rZ0 a)0 0 0 0 0> c �, 2 0-cu)-oC) u0) wt � - (L (0 (0) 3u)c) UPTOWN JEFFERSON SPECIFIC PLAN MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Verification of Compliance a) CD 0 C c Y < E c o ai co a c >, f/) 'C c.) c o c o - d a c O) n0< d E do P Mitigation Measures wco c `� c` O >` O U a) a) O) C w a) � O O) � L E O C) O'9"- - N O. 0 N E co O "a O C 'U co 0 2 0 O o 6I cO C 30c C O �.L• O O N O c O a L O a) Q o oCO : C 0' w a_ w c a'ul c c 0j ° 0 < c N 0 O c °) 0 d a) 9 U ° > o a) a) p c0 ° N E w CC O a) c C 0) ° E w U aio.0L— (2 -0 a a) 0.3 a°' m rn (o• E a) 2 a) a) a) a p E 0) ii2 a w ID 3 L as `) a) 0).E map w p c C> o]; j O) 2 +L,, H C1 w E L 'y C .O o C Q- U) p 'C w U w C Q.L. 3 N O 0 N Q - N w X 0 w a) (.L••, uJ j 0 w e N C -d to) °)) O ,O�` a) a c.2 0 (1)F..,-° a) w 7 0 a) aE-2'v� `�-a o.E cp a) c.- E Q) °cod aZ o L,< E a) c-5°- ° X2 ami 4w 0 0. .5 O p a) -O C w> O O O c 0 C In 7. O O w a) Q a) d w o $r �� aw a) a)'� o o wQY a) a)� p� c.42a E m mU c °w co ° w -0 -c w `oca) m o c caw i O w �' 2 0 •O 0 E c o L1 - a) -C a Ct N"0 0° O° w CU o m 0 �. N w 03 O N ° E ow c c a) L o ° o� c6 oya c0 arc °o w c vi ��cmw Q. a) c N C ,LOQ O L a co U 0 p V7) 5 O cn L C' .- c c m a c O O a p 3 C C w U° a) > •� co 0 °.-0wUa aoi� to-°� -Ea ° °n cU 0 -0u) -.200D, --Cal 3°foro 'm ° ° c 3 m ) wtn w- a 820,2 N c o N O (Dui O 0 >, n7 > in in E a w •0 -C a..0 w c o Ln�L °. oU c a) pa ow c p c c ° cU a o W 3 0 7 C d 0 2 0 'N ui 0 il ll Cai = u) a) ww •E a0i -0 0) 0 O -0 w 0 'EO > 0 y w rn Uc ommawo�w°vE��ccocavmam��°_ o>c om � o mcAw c a) m-0 ° E 2- E§ as O o o o .-6,0m °o ac) E N.mw � ow 3° o a c m 0 Lw a) o� E� t� mRid > ° c c)E m �w o 3 �:> m o ao o a c) -2c m CO o ° b• a• c co E m p C C C O 0- c N 7 - a) co c Q o w w U CIL- 0- d c a N a c o O a) $�`�-a2va)°a 2cP �m000aoc c 0T°nincmalrn�Eg) cocoa% aa)E me a m E Z CD a�� o ° c �' wN am m �' o o a�°i �w�w aci -S .5 0 m oa °in To c a) •__ 713 E c a? o c oma) c To c w o_E c o - o Ea) -(7)-.5m5 ' c a)_0 Eve N c C N O° N° cc) co d d •Lr a`) O C 10 N o c L V) CO O y N X 'O aw) 1 > °> c a) O >a—c4 'cc�ac)a�a �ww3> Qa3cooma32aa)2 °a)a�Q �mw O UPTOWN JEFFERSON SPECIFIC PLAN MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM and Reporting Program Mitigation Monitori Verification of Compliance y 0) E a) 0) C C 0 fa C6 < 5 E o _d C >, (0•C c O C a:V. 0) a) a Q c c E tea) c 12W Mitigation Measures m 0 0.) E UH c O U c 2 O U C 0 0 N N C O 00 �? - E aco 0) c C VI — .s O 0 (0 � -O a) 0 a% o c a a c0 c >� g'7 > c aL•' o 00 0 Eo O O N O L C O O Uci, O L N p L O L (0 O a) O c O, o y f` N_ O - O L O c y (6 O L Q) > w a a1 C Q L C U° a) N L a) w a co N ,-- co _o 7 N > ccEca`I)i ' o a'�wmmE c�co ���omu_ ma)�ns8c- CO- o mocu aa)m°0 0c_ aa)Y 2 0 o— c_ U L a C a) o (15--• -o N O a) U 0 j y Q C E w (0 ,„- co "0 a) cMI 0 a) a) U a o c 0) (0 .-, a) o O a (0 `-' U 2C O O L "' 2 a) a) am) C .• co 0) ' O (` <a a co C c— O O >co �O a N 0 a) 0 CO N 0.. O O C a >' N N O ... L O a c .�.a. C1 (0 a a y N .` (j t� Ul o c a a) O L 7 N CcOU)< 03�m2`ccina)>`m .yc0c°)oc 0. w -9 W 0) > 7 c N a) CD 0 O '.. U L 70 0> Q 7 a (0 co •.T+ m w Z p 0 07 . (D (0/) L N LO y-• r.+ L 0 0 N CO c m0 a) w c .. y_c 0 0- a) Nvc '' co c c (0 m5L a) o c c 3 c F) owY m.L V o El(?) cw c m� ° Om i`p a) 0 H (0 p O c _ Q N C' CO '0 O a) 0) f0 I- Q '. C CL -C 0 > a) a3 0 NL •7U 0 E o .yic c a_0 • 7" a92 s c o ac oa U ay o °) �_.N N m a� Qc o aa))cer m vim) 0. m c cum u9- . O 'C L L C) '� E E C .L.+ H � o c . C= cc •p �� Q w� 'y N (CO L am c af°i E �' m° v (nom -° ° E 1.3., CU m E E oaf Um Lc) a O N O L s -Op => f0 a) « c 0 O N E C U J U P C O C C co o 2 .003 P o jou) ?3 � C a) a) ° E E L -i as E .a5 2 -- > .o > E 0) iv iv W co o,_ a) a :n 0. Li E •6 (0 • v°) 0c :?0 o0 02� E ms? co a a m a o o •rnrn a (4). CO Owia o.0 0.0 E:: o 0. c co -(3 E� o Z ) T 0 E c' a)=0 E c 7 3 a 0 U 6 L1:1 ri(no>oE 5 0- _o O c° O -07• °`° Eo c0. O - ° o c�� �a o .2 0) Q) c N a) •'� C 0@ co O •C f0 0 .0 0� c E y� Q 0) U 1e.3.,) 2 C N (f) D5 'O 0 a) _0 a) LL- 019 � 0 0°' 0 _O m C U (0 0, c., L O _c a) 0 O O L C rn F • 0-0a0)D O p•C.a :: C O� 0 CL UO N ( O CO O r2 0-0 11/' c 0)O Cd N `0.0. C 8 C 2 (0 w, tc y C) U L o O C 0 0 0 2 mm o 0 ((0 00< 00 UPTOWN JEFFERSON SPECIFIC PLAN MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Verification of Compliance Y E 0 w (0 To O) C C o 47,10 Qa E c 0 _o rn =c�, c `o c C O) d o < ce a) E 0 0 w Q W a .U. • c O O (C a)• 7 O (c6 O F- 'O U > to oo0`E Z o �i 0 0 a0�'Ea)m0) cU 0 c nE a)o`oEgcaa) E -o s E 'N 00 0 • _ 2 a.65 ▪ E .N E m ° 7 c a`)E c 3 0 ° 7CU).0N O c ooL Em 02 `o 2 0 > ( O a)6 N . d w 0a_.c .)$ E rn d -° co a) E:> ti �c >,C >.0 U (n 0 p 07 E c` o °3`o E.E0 c o� 0. rn¢ To'c V o o o_ C) �0 f�0 '>> `▪ O co m o 2 C.L+ U (0 c0 a) 1- 0 Cultural Resources T N _ c C C o c0 L ._ 0 U > �p o y0 a) o a)00U 00(0N �E oa� mora U I -0 <>UH U 3H co co (2) > (0 c4-4 (o •O O U c 4_ U a) a) a) 4) O 04_ (O0 _ '02 n U H 0 < O U N C 0 OL �.0 0 p C O ▪ N i ,o-7., C U O co M O O N co U C O .L-1 17 L a) N cn c CO w 2 al p` 0 L' N a) N 7 c .`O+ "f'' (n f0 U U N • ! :: (n Q n I- mw -a 7 2 a) L C'' oc 7 L2 •475- U) 0) U O N C.U. fn a' • �= Cg t V) rp • m ui� mc c ").3-c o o a`°) E a) o cii UPTOWN JEFFERSON SPECIFIC PLAN MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Verification of Compliance a) c c O !2 Z. Q'vE co — C.1 _N 0) c T (0'c c o c o . a) O. E O) N 2 Q a) E v c C.) a) 0) 4- Q W 0) C o .. ca •� t oa Mitigation Measures o f° Q oco �_ c a) a) O ... fD w C ° •� ° rq c mr'c 2 0 .0 00 3 f0C7 � cs o � �a c o c— o o° co73- rnE �c��o°.oU°�Dm�V-55 CI) CO c m 0)0 ao ° m E 0 0 f6 r 0) N O (° c -N_, a) c ° 0- u1 g ) ° CI > 0 c ( -0 �a0�Z -°aa))c'°cococ�cc�Q4yE�oa°)8�gnE� r Y 0 O 0 0 . 0 0 .— CO a o U a CG 2 0' V) V — r O (° E C 'a 0 .N C a) N 0 d V) '- J c (° c E•� 2Y aria 0..4_1 c a) ai c �� o f0 au) a E a) -c c cam° c c°° '(O O fD cpr Qa)-0 0 01ID.6c E > E co o -cr 0 0 E N d w 0) u) `a) .0 J « u) E a) a) V 0 a) c r c CO a1 U . CD ° cv a) — o� M 0To p o • -0 L. �.m a� ,•(N Vic. c 3 Ey o a �'cw o r 0 00m-0 c`c-a4- o ac:° -o (n o c N.°'5 ° ca) -- O 0 C TO N ° 0 m C C— ° 0..-Z. N °,_ 7 u) 0 p E- 7 o CO w 0 ) E U o L"0 ID U co L c o E as uJ _ 0 r 0 ° O c0 c c rn c c 4 N m as o° u•a) w c�0> cc �a a0 °a` o m c� CU acco rn� �' �L� E� Ea c a3 8 0 a).N o a E 0) C .0 V)=-17)'0 p 0 O (0 0, O N N r O U` Oc .)._' C c o N •c UQ E)V1 c N f°a-r•-a a) a °," a0 N U< u1 a)U V) C p>> `) o LT)m Y c r c w ° o W 19 c':( ,rO_, °:2v ju 0 C00a) m Ec o c3cna°io 0 af°) .o 2 aowo w 3� (u 0 o c m Z c cp ococ°o E0)w°aao))ca)ca`))u),_-o',�pc2o-°c�ou�v°°iooc a a,20 o m m c c a; 6 2 g2, -0 'C '� y w m 0— 0 .0- -p t U -o o c .E .0 c O fD 0 pis U c 0= a) a) . o 0° •m O 7 c 7 .•V O c c 0) a) O> c a 7 a) a) o a) V o Q 7 cn c 7 0 E EJ aQ 0 w > o 00•)w c00.5 0aa0a co ° coJ co c0 u, -o UPTOWN JEFFERSON SPECIFIC PLAN MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Verification of Compliance 19 E 0 cc N l9 D of •c iTU c C O < o E C o arm C 0 C c N 2 Q c ar Ecu C Q W rn C 0 O N i Q- 0 2 Mitigation Measures T O 0) L C C C CD • - O c9 CO - 0 V > a3 .51 0 03 L.- N o o 0 0 0 0,7)0-0 d E °' cTE NL b- •:`t >UH 8•3H o` 7 O CU C 0 a) o • m 0O E •-• TO L O UH a=Q= CO rn CC 0 O CO 7 y9 N 0 0 > EE7 L a c9 0 aai 0 U I - as 0 0i 0 UH c 0 C O c 0 2 0i N C 0 O 0 c 0 U C 2 O N U C 2 0 U m FL.) c 0 0U -a a) O c — o. N CO V 7 C O a Q a) CO ooEmEa) V, N O a aL N C a- L O E j YO E `E N 2 2 12 m T a7 y c 0- o. ' m 0 0 c . o -Oo c9 C fLp ._ ., C N 7 0 Q ` C rn 7 -0 CO coCO E N V p O L 7 U O 00 0 > mem o od a>) CO aa) ca o m e cot 2 L O -c y C N U 0 E c O C L O N No d v°aY.rw 3.= a gL 0a as —U 7 c -o-c 2 E '0 N T•6Q O 0 w 0 L. J O L LN O.T O 0 o o 0 •- a H O U 7 0 U c O O 5 U . 7 a e— (/) �m Y ZTo aNim c u) 2 N U • C N O CL 0 7 y V L �= y 0 0 :2 5c 46 -2 a) O m>�ccc o mLco �c- m �:o � O -0 o as c 0). >. o) E C ! 01 cOOOLJ° C N C `0OL-`.NOo.a) a7O>_ C 8 L co LQN 8 c9 C O c N a) 2iv w LO,w c c N C o o 8 O y +� .. p m a) a) a) O O E 3 O 0 > Oa) O� C 3 N p C 7 N o N» Q N a) a) _c co c9 '52 N a) L> C 0 L > ti.) 7 0 L a) L O U .O C H C U O '5 f- a) 4- 7ti cu -O O O 7 N 0 C . a3 0 CO 0 0 co U U c V 0 a)ornocou))288iQ,me 00)0 neo c� na > c C N 7'c CO(1)0" 0 7 N 0 N c 0 0 a) O l00 CO E (1)050—coo-°54-2c •r-, (9 f6 C_ 0 o N 00 0 C C 0) N 'C a) U 2 U O LO O O Q •ai y a) N a) O CO 0 ,c a) co c O a oo m O C 7 U a) V "O CO -O 0 Q w U 73° a) 'E N-5 Q a) N a) O co O O O •5 C U o— C N 7> c ���cao)a°>-Z'N�ooEcD ca No3° En5 o Etn 0�c `o J CO a) a w Q >, N cc -3 7 O�� �� c ,O O) a) .-U Cr w N� N .w n U N a) N O N N N C 0- w— O C N (0 0) O C 0 7 "O O V c c� c N N� E�� �� o QQ -0000'x'0 co 22 2 .+ o o c 8 8 NF> 0. u) Q • ` c o E Pc C¢7 cc) a) 0 o' - O Ew c 7 a) N c CCD A cc `_' T 07 70 C N a) Q . i_) -' c. 7 N 7-00 O V y � D E c9 (6 L '� N N U O C N c 2 0 O 6 Q c- 0 c a C 16 -2 6 d U N C O f9 N ,_6-0°) Q O a) L_ w Oa) N o N U U a T1V) Q -c o t c0 y 70 , .0 o . _ _ o o) c rn0 2 c o° .5) .5) 59 .....CD c o � cv 0.0 cook c c c c o o a) m a) m 0 0 0) -0 co o O-0 O O 0' O N°` a) C > Q p 3 N . o)> aoi m 0 mo om�� o o� E ai ° co mof .-0 p C Q a) ' a) a) c a) O a) O 'C O 6 w° a) O N 5 O _.2 Elm c a� —co a0au) c9 _ o. _ ° E z 0 ° a0.at UPTOWN JEFFERSON SPECIFIC PLAN MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM Verification of Compliance E co To 'a. c 0 c c c O la <5E c o _v o (7) 'c C) c o c a C Ca cu 2 Ct c Eu 4-8 < 137 w .c_ a ) N w L ca 0 Mitigation Measures T (0 C c 0) CCO O N 0 L . o co 0 - T E c r >OH 0 _ 3H co m C 0c C O CO j (p U a) 0 0a)„C0 > E c L � 8•31E Construction E o rn oa) 0) O N a) cu d co c 'U1 c N 0 .0O O(0Eco u) 0aa a) P 0' 0 a) a) L T c a E ya) -1-73,E E O T p c 0 a) N.D Y �-0a c. - Q a) CQ.. oc Y o a E vi (0 vi w vi a)— OL 0 o' m� ) u) CO Q) mac 0 o ami a2 T 0.0 N• N C 0= O� Z, 0 (o cO c� a 0) N O N 2 L U 0 CO 0' 2 E O C 8 O 0 0 O cc) N.0 U 0 d a) .- N c a U E L pO 0 O N d O a c L C C x' (0 •C « a) CL cnw (D CON w-2 0 0 `) cu c a) o C a :r C "0 C C 0" .O D ch N O O N Z.= o N 0 CO > 0 U O o E y° N o N N. a) c U- w 00 0) 0 E 0 N a o c U 0 O 0• 0 E T 7 ° 2 c .� u) a) ° N O 0 a) 0 C co U 0 - (% UPTOWN JEFFERSON SPECIFIC PLAN MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Verification of Compliance cu U c c Oo. !� < D E c o Mitigation Measures Hazards and Hazardous Materials C ." m 0 faO coD c C > 7 () Ca) .2_oE E cs N H C O N c a) > N o( 0 0 W 2 U co 0 a) 0) U C O C O a) L_ 0) E= o v, N7a) 5 I- m o o 0 a) 7 U Oa) E UH U Oa) T E UH c m E E EY al C N c -F/3 4,2 a) > O N C Q 0 CCE W m U as 0 a) 7 O) o a)co c C L 0) E.5 O 0 F - `o 0 0 0 Construction 0 o 0 a C C 7 O.crt L.. a) E E O c CN E Q c .� LO a) > 0 C> -533 L C cD. W a) >2W-pEwE E N a) -3 c 7 0 O C O Q 7 N( Y .2 Pca U' -a a N Lo - 'a 'O 0 Ni_ d C . f= 'a O E 0 a LL 0 C L O O U w Q7 E co U C O E C < T 0 (0 f0 . C a E N O L)2 CD CD Q=L> E a 7 IQ Q a) a a) c ((0 3> _ U cc (0 U D E N a) O 6 a) 2 Q .0 0) y U •- '� > d L C a) T 2 Qac)U) 9a O off' o w - O f6 CD (a U (n 0 = a) EO oQ .9 O O c 1 (OU O t/jUO c; Y)L-. 5 a) a) 'O .9 a) N O O O C O E L F E v) C m ago C= C m Q�w u7i c E Ia co = 2 (1,5 C a) N N 0 C f O 0 C C'- U 2 O 0 O a) O rU a •> E a) N N a) CO C T C 7 Q co 0 2 0 L a) o a t f6 0' .- - coQ c .- O O U C N (V N 2 O 0 () L 0) O W 7 E (0 2 a -C C a a C (A 2 L U a) ..L.+ CcY(>_0> 02.o3oaV li> f6 a) E O 0) to L 9 U CO a) 7=.0IN co an O N w N C1 3 7 - >> > E D1 r) O O U N L rCD O O co CD C C ) N aE0O O N COC C � -0L2coccrY°0o02�20na� 7 0 N S 2 c co 0cc CD wy wUNaf6•o Ew °a)$c -EOcO) co0W.7C aWC a E0Lcoom oao00oo o� Cc 0 ,0 oc-` MI 4- CE >y > C - aU � 0iN E d� c LEZc 8 c Q�Lc0O .5 _c - o 0- NnQ c uN 1 aN2O co 2 N 5 2 0 (A O co 0 0 Q N N QL TO, oa)2.4 EQ QE @ f6 N O a' O'er O O r N 5 Q E 8 ami 5a".! 3a a a) a) m• V N E Q U N c� C O W 'O Q co C p> -0 . C a) N ''' :� 0 f C. C O m a) O U C 2 0 0 N (0 E= N C 0) �a) N y c L 0)) m� L NV "O N N ... m >, .. 07c.o o c o U N a) - C > =LIC N _ > O N a O U (0(0Lcy 0 .. E 0).2- cD aH 2° g0)N >'U QN o NL c a) o -o o o�,_a> -F., 0 -mm (v UL a) > N• � m c0 co 2 '3 (0 (1) C (0 0 w N> 03 c f0 ccU(��a)m(a))a V C N 2 c'D L. ._T1 O E LE 3 O . IS a - 2 "a coU1- "00 co -0 N IL UPTOWN JEFFERSON SPECIFIC PLAN MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Verification of Compliance k E ) 0 c Ek .2 .5E -o Mitigation Measures Hydrology and Water Quality Noise and Vibration 0 3k a) 0B0 0]=2 ) 0) & 0 eemoa co ƒE J 0 jo o g« 00 c E f )jt! }®�= cn —C (J) • .0 & 2 § -• — : ` co$/§f,§0, • / f%= ) `o«2 2°e 3 q =2� �E:"au *� / k/jj+0k\00 • 0—> (1) -5 f / ® �_= o®o- 2&m#>2f[Q /t -°(I) ,j /S8g >=xo,9 `�o�o�g 0• ee@22j($ t 'a moo zƒ00W0X Ec 0a2a° 10D6"u-0/acX 0 ,G°a#44� 2��a5. 0) E c _)c o Eoo2c/m2, • 0) 0.9 l;/ 0:t2@v6 =m:� °— - • .0�=`8 0 0) • o§§/§,go£ Issuance of Building Permit, review of plans, field verification and sign -off by City of Temecula ƒ(/2 CD . CO Oto=c — _ ¥9f%8 qt«-o=»E f3§2§oJ Mitigation Measure MM -HYD -la: Development construction that Pre -Construction / City of City of disturbs one acre or more individually shall comply with the NPDES Construction/ Temecula Temecula Construction General Permit regulations in effect at the time so as Post -Construction Building Official not to violate any water quality standards or waste discharge or other requirements. Compliance with the Construction General Permit Designee would include filing of a Notice of Intent with the SWRCB and the preparation of a SWPPP incorporating construction BMPs for control of erosion and 'sedimentation contained in stormwater runoff. Development construction that disturbs less than one acre individually shall comply with the MS4 permit issued by the SDRWQCB in effect at the time so as not to violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements. Compliance with the MS4 permit for construction projects disturbing less than an acre would require the preparation of a construction BMP plan detailing erosion, sediment, and waste management control BMPs to be implemented throughout construction to be submitted and approved by the City of Temecula. Mitigation Measure MM -HYD -1b: As a condition of approval, each Pre -Construction / City of City of future development project will be required to generate a project- Construction/ Temecula Temecula specific Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP), as required by Post -Construction Building Official the City of Temecula Stormwater Ordinance and as specified in the or other City's Jurisdictional Runoff Management Plan, which will ensure that Designee the project implements specific water quality features to meet the City's MS4 Permit and Stormwater Ordinance requirements. Potential BMPs required by the WQMP include scheduling, minimization of vegetation disturbance, sandbags, vehicle fueling and maintenance in designated areas, and storm drain stenciling. This WQMP shall be reviewed and approved by the City of Temecula prior to the issuance of a building or grading permit. Noise and Vibration 0 3k a) 0B0 0]=2 ) 0) & 0 eemoa co ƒE J 0 jo o g« 00 c E f )jt! }®�= cn —C (J) • .0 & 2 § -• — : ` co$/§f,§0, • / f%= ) `o«2 2°e 3 q =2� �E:"au *� / k/jj+0k\00 • 0—> (1) -5 f / ® �_= o®o- 2&m#>2f[Q /t -°(I) ,j /S8g >=xo,9 `�o�o�g 0• ee@22j($ t 'a moo zƒ00W0X Ec 0a2a° 10D6"u-0/acX 0 ,G°a#44� 2��a5. 0) E c _)c o Eoo2c/m2, • 0) 0.9 l;/ 0:t2@v6 =m:� °— - • .0�=`8 0 0) • o§§/§,go£ UPTOWN JEFFERSON SPECIFIC PLAN MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Verification of Compliance 10 E O)V c c O < S E c O _o Ecu ) c W Mitigation Measures a E c coU co o m c d O U cc a) E a`�- aE) 00cm>�0 To U co 0 a) 0) - a) .. U C a) C O > E O.N UHm o`o m oa") 0 I— C in a) -w O 0 N •0 O D a) • d L E c - Y f6 'R •- E )5 c is oocnEcc' oda c ca a) fn C O C a) 2 Ey c m U 2 O C 0( O (1)(6 U .c U O a) ..+ L C U o m-0 (.r)U 6-15 CD a) (1) ai�j.u_2- c0i o ac) a`) u)0 E. C E a 0I c.— >, u) QO U N >+s P O a) E (0 6 Y.� ocmo U 73 7 (0 CU) U C nUOCCOu)" LV) Ua)a) iO Cu) „wo, CpE E E 7o. U L C cc)'7 u) o1 �-8 coCm c O 4 E o cocEovioa)o a�ooc�`oogca 0 a) XY (o Yo a) t E a) ca�a)2wDi) I(0 c- a 0 E (0 CO o ' r 0 C CO O O U a) (n 0 4!) w N O U N N UJ L-8-u) N co"' > O 1:3O L a) O 2 o@ 7 0 U a C O 0 a) L E > Ca O a) N O 0 N O -o 8 V CO O O y fE6 U O O O O U C` 0)U N (0 -OL co .O 0. o_ N -la N a) Y D o C�a E c o m o 0 3 c rn coi o a Jo > co p N (0 a 0 o 0) co O O w co W N _ U a) C O O v= n Q U N c a) E 0 a) a 0 CO c« wc o o L O m L N a -EYc 002•c� E 0<o N j o$ N c _a c 'as U a; o E N c m O a7 O O u) a N a 0 0 co O) 0 f`0 a) U 2 0 E c -0= L d- n Zm 0o0oc ocncm>,o c2f°moE rL U CO n a) L. y 0) O O O O X c,, y 0 C O O co L Lp N 3 0 7 a O O u) O CA ,c!, ) L W 5 m 7 O a N.7 >, j 7 y a,.c co 3 mx a) m °�) o�� o ��s v, �L m o �E�vi w ECL .—(6 u)7 E(6m c a) 0 oa E m m� �� Nth a)(,)0 0co 5 (1 • ) '.0. Coa)0>mt(oCcXa)O..13)`.-0-L�a) OS O W (o U fV W E a@ n uJ a c a) w w �(� • • 2 0 _c caY O o n E E O a) w C N (0 a) 2aL m U o `o co a) uI y C O c CaC 0 o ?E,cu C C c O (o •- 0 ` f6 d O ai o 8 Q a C U cri (0) C'C,1) 2 23(iC U (0, N 2 0 "O L X J (6 u) a) UPTOWN JEFFERSON SPECIFIC PLAN MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Verification of Compliance O E a1 10 To c p) V c c c <• 5E C o U d O) (0'c c o c o N • O Q CO ac d E u co cm oQ c W Mitigation Measures c E co0o `m O a O >., U O)0 E N C '-pw U-- O' a) • -o .c c N 0 co > O O E O U 0a) c > 7 U p)� O a 0) N f)8 0E N 0 c0 > N O T 07 U co 0 a) O� a) 0 a) c L p) > E0'N UIm oO m O 00)) > E 0I c O U C 2 O N U 0 0 .v c d0 0 0)) �E UH c c O 0 U • C O N U O 7 O Uv)V 0 0 0 00 c co o C N N C 0 p • on 2 C O N C. a 0 A L • p u) a` C a) U c a) mo ) a( rn ` U .2 c o C O.'� a)) N C M U u),„ O 12 C '. 8 c > E C c C i 0 0 uu))-0 U 0 c c E o c0 N T .LO+'p O cm Q N c0 p o 1] N 2 a) I— N L 0 C `) o pc • >cEoc6 •- -p 0) O >, CI o 0 N 115) C• mcoo2a) a)O270 C C�9 E O L L vi o . E U•> c a cIrt t."'�Oc c80ca) C O) N y p C O = Ip c` •p in N U =p O C L c O C c a cocpcu, 8c $ CD C N O U w d C)Y �,O C 0 C 2 O o c0 £ P5 UO)N O L•a C7,_.0cEp U. - y o C cU C0S22 207 :./ c — O C L N To CD O) N c E "N' N C U U a) a) t-, ° L 0 0 cn!C a) N O Nm0—• 1E 0 >moa) EE�a` in o. c E y' o C L a .-5 , _, p @ U> y U y 9 0 iC c N@ Y 2 U C O - U L cD L N N. To co O .0 L a N>• O CD c (0 N ,n N- -C U O C ) E a) c fn M U C0 C "O o ;O ` O. a). _ o ) EL_ 0) v) m o> a c o O 2 c> O O C f0 a 3 0 0) O a) L N O 2 Tz N N ll1= 47 NC C > NN(N6 u)O N — Uiii a) co ` 0 w c (` fV co a 02)0'500=a CO 0 0 N c) Z c f0 U X L 0 Z N U N 20pp0C L 8'5cp 21.0� c.oa daa+o NN 0 WdO Lc• C c7 a) -0 U a iNO =2 y_ O • -XN ' a-0 CD 2 -C O co C N:0 2 NS c C u) N u) U O c m c NGL c :.L. •C a 4-5 LO N.p).c a) a' E cv7 p` .- w •0 ` - co 0 a CUd7,O,_ 45 , paO 0_7L7O L +pNp 2 a) L S U -.2 0 3 2 .0 w c a7 cn _cS aS C > > O coo 3 aC N _ C a) O O12 4. O N C > `� 77 ao o E ao c 7 N N • O U C ..+ rf CD N O N C N 7 N U c0 a)0 a) — u)et, 7 al CD "N > a) 0 N. c co g) E m voi N a) C . eu N N 'O-2 o0Y 8c ooa— ='5 � L72 U 0)-O L 0 O co ri aa) .9.), -0 u)a-0 0 0 a Z • O L-' N L u7i o La a) U N N s) a))m cnco 3 a) aap g>-oocEN•o�.2 a (6 oO) N >+ o o a) eiioca)a)a)U�-a y N a) X p 'O N O O .� O) a) -� C d _ c) c UN = -OO c0 N aN 0) ~O • >) .2'- dacpp O U1 U U O) c0 N E N N O. c0a c :Ea)."" O N a) O_ 0) 7 N �L .. C O..0 O o - m o 00)) E 0I— g - 0 U C O C U c O O 0 TA X00 000 N N N'a L N.L•O.c O O) c c c.- a) rn— a) oEc.E EO.D p [0 p a7.2 c 0 • 7 a E y �NC1N aa) (0 co U co N U co N X 7 c00 p 7 d c1Y >, 0 0 > N U C -o• EyoNo a 7 � E C 2 O 1. 27aY> O Nc cr)g Z N 0 T N 2 aF.c o O E E,_a ;.�• O2 • O'er — `) C a) a) -o a) c .N C o O c cEcaEa) O C o 0 p O i E-mmEc O)- = a 10 co c E•5 ✓) L a) O 0) ) UPTOWN JEFFERSON SPECIFIC PLAN MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM I Reporting Program Verification of Compliance k Ts c n• ) O. < �� Mitigation Measures Transportation and Traffic Issuance of Grading Permit and Issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy of Temecula CZ \ \/, ]R=k/\ ±§7L 9 ±§£E{&2 be&%,ao » \, o 7E§@ %Q-=2 ®2300) Demo❑ co ƒk of %/& o/ Pre -Construction / Construction / Post -Construction level on the premises of existing development by more than five decibels.. Mitigation Measure MM -N01 -4b: Prior to City approval of a residential development project within the Project area, the applicant shall provide documentation to the City that all exterior windows associated with a proposed residential development will be constructed to provide a sufficient amount of sound insulation to ensure that interior noise levels would be below an Ld„ or CNEL of 45 dB in any habitable room. Mitigation Measure MM -N01-5: Prior to City approval of a project - specific development within the Project area, the applicant shall provide evidence to the City that the City's noise/land use compatibility standards are met for the land use being developed. Measures that can be taken to ensure compliance with the City's noise/land use compatibility standards include, but are not limited to, the erection of noise walls, use of landscaping, and/or the design of adequate setback distances. Transportation and Traffic Issuance of Grading Permit and Issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy 7\% � °±> ±0_§,o 0 0) C D-0) \\\cO $ ,ot ?}\\ >§±7 §ew9 City of City of Temecula Temecula Engineer or other Designee co ƒk of Mitigation Measure MM -TRA -1: The City shall monitor the Pre -Construction/ performance of the intersections listed below on an on-going basis Construction and ensure that signal timing optimization occurs at these intersections prior to or concurrent with Project -related development that would increase the AM peak -hour delay by more than two seconds. • Ynez Road & Winchester Road — AM peak hour (Project's fair - share contribution for this mitigation measure is 10 percent) • Nicholas Road & Winchester Road — AM peak hour (Project's fair -share contribution for this mitigation measure is 5 percent) Prior to the issuance of the initial building permit for each project - specific development within the Project area, the applicant shall pay its fair share, as determined by the City, toward the signal timing optimization for the intersections listed herein. Mitigation Measure MM -TRA -2: The City shall monitor the Pre -Construction/ performance of the intersections listed below on an on-going basis Construction and ensure that the following improvements occur at these intersections prior to or concurrent with Project -related development that would increase the AM peak -hour delay by more than two seconds. • At the intersection of Jefferson Avenue at Che Street / UPTOWN JEFFERSON SPECIFIC PLAN MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM Mitigatlan Monitoring and Reporting Program Verification of Compliance E £ co c 0 < E -j k•t �c \ < �■ E \� ] \k 0a Mitigation Measures =2 = i$ 5§E\ h > - §£=% om2 • �\( 0. 0 f/k -0 cC0 CO . ,� o §GE - o2 33/ 0_\ 0 - MI 000 202 ]_w• D -°-4,/• c/ 2\} 80o 2\/7 �G42 220-\»0 °°c2 o DoLc) §�k�®�\� 0/•7\» E2c£$ o n §-.o t 2-=—D C {� � _ �f� >-."2 +y �(fdfJ« ƒ&t�a472 7/§\22) \§/2»�\ 0.22 2 =oma== _-o ���»§r> �,=,g }�_ . c, p= ®k=m�$- e a)m==/e: 3=/ $a)@ LL .0 0 r�5EE=g -2@6' °�£ LO -5,, « a),o8£�5¢z2t37£$ Ea)(a)e_c 2-c)ƒff)k eccc®�c� �=�2§k±£E«Rfak`.0- L- 80-£ »/ 8 Utilities and Water Supply Assessment J =os 0 0>, 8D0 2777E f §k/\ ƒE §J Pre -Construction / o / cn 0 a ZG=_ )20 0u2o = t �5©= ®%j E2 §ƒ§-0 o7).` ±�37 7 ••-• a//{ 0>_5 §/$§ r 0-0 /$\c =\ij\ 2-D2 ,22 %}%m: )Ec Eta / 0_ c )±\/§ ƒ7§2 _j*fes< j2\2 - a.20 i-o�. n=�.0 2'E =f - 2- - - 5o%0— 220== 5»§To.0 ■$773 e±fes! ;7a 5% ;®f)m 20-/)0 §i0=b `£ ¥ 2/�«± 2,_/7S 0g,�. @a8%= a2Jf2 •#f7={ ',7' 2 • E o E s§0 50./\0 ATTACHMENT C PC RESOLUTION - RECOMMENDED CITY COUNCIL ACTIONS 25 RESOLUTION NO. 15- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPT AN ORDINANCE ENTITLED "AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA ADOPTING THE UPTOWN JEFFERSON SPECIFIC PLAN, AMENDING THE TEMECULA ZONING CODE TO ADD THE UPTOWN JEFFERSON SPECIFIC PLAN TO THE APPROVED SPECIFIC PLAN ZONES, AMENDING THE TEMECULA ZONING MAP TO REFLECT THE UPTOWN JEFFERSON SPECIFIC PLAN, AND AMENDING THE ADULT BUSINESS OVERLAY ZONE TO ELIMINATE THE UPTOWN JEFFERSON SPECIFIC PLAN AREA " AND A RESOLUTION ENTITLED "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA AMENDING THE LAND USE ELEMENT, THE LAND USE POLICY MAP, THE CIRCULATION ELEMENT, AND THE COMMUNITY DESIGN ELEMENT OF THE GENERAL PLAN IN CONFORMITY WITH THE UPTOWN JEFFERSON SPECIFIC PLAN" SECTION 1. Recitals and Procedural Findings. The Planning Commission of the City of Temecula does hereby find, determine and declare that: A. The Uptown Jefferson Specific Plan ("Specific Plan") has been initiated and prepared on behalf of the City of Temecula. The Specific Plan area is approximately 2.3 miles long and encompasses approximately 560 acres. The Specific Pian area is located north of Rancho California Road, west of Interstate 15, south of Cherry Street, and east of Diaz Road. The Specific Plan area is divided into six zoning districts: Uptown Center District, Uptown Hotel/Tourism District, Uptown Sports/Transit District, Uptown Arts District, Creekside Village District and the Murrieta Creek Recreation and Open Space District. In addition, there are two overlay zones: Creekside Village Commercial Zone and the Wilder Hills Residential Overlay Zone. It is projected that approximately 5.5 million square feet of new development could be constructed in the Specific Pian area within twenty years. This includes approximately 1.7 million square of feet of commercial development, 315 new hotel rooms and 3,726 new residential dwelling units. B. On October 21, 2015 and November 4, 2015, the Planning Commission, at regular meetings, considered the Specific Plan, at which time the City staff and interested persons had an opportunity and did testify either in support or opposition to the matter. C. The adoption of the Specific Plan also includes a General Plan Amendment, a Zoning Code Amendment to add the Specific Plan area, a Zoning Map Amendment to change the zoning classification of the parcels located within the Specific -1- 11086-0006 \ 1- 11086-0006\I8 92276v2. doc Plan area, and the elimination of the Uptown Jefferson Specific Plan area from the Adult Business Overlay Zone (collectively referred to as the "Project"). D. The Project was processed including, but not limited to a public notice, in the time and manner prescribed by State and local law, including the California Environmental Quality Act, Public Resources Code § 21000, et seq. and the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines, 14. Cal. Code Regs. § 15000 et seq. (collectively referred to as "CEQA"). E. On June 2, 2013, in accordance with CEQA Guideline Section 15082, the City published a Notice of Preparation ("NOP") of a Draft Environmental Impact Report ("Draft EIR") and circulated it to governmental agencies, organizations, and persons that may be interested in the proposed Project. The NOP requested that comments on the topics to be analyzed in the Draft EIR for the proposed Project be submitted to the City by July 12, 2013. F. In response to the NOP, the City received 12 written comments from various individuals and organizations. These comment letters assisted the City in narrowing the issues and alternatives for analysis in the Draft EIR. G. On June 27, 2013, in accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15082(c)(1), the City held a public scoping meeting to obtain comments from interested parties on the scope of the Draft EIR. H. The City's consultants thereafter prepared, in accordance with State CEQA Guidelines Section 15168, a Draft EIR for the proposed Project (State Clearinghouse Number 2013061012). I. Upon completion of the Draft EIR in March 2015, the City initiated a public comment period by filing a Notice of Completion with the State Office of Planning and Research on April 1, 2015. The public comment period commenced via the State Clearing House from April 2, 2015 through May 18, 2015. A Notice of Completion and Recirculation of a Draft EIR was also sent to adjacent property owners indicating a review period of May 19, 2015 through July 6, 2015. Copies of the documents have been available for public review and inspection at the City of Temecula Community Development Department, Planning Division, located at 41000 Main Street; the Temecula Public Library located at 30600 Pauba Road; the Temecula Grace Mellman Community Library located at 41000 County Center; the City of Temecula website; and the Envision Jefferson Avenue website. The City also published a Notice of Availability for the Draft EIR on April 4, 2015 in the San Diego Union -Tribune, a newspaper of general circulation in the City. J. In response to the Draft EIR, written comments were received from various agencies, individuals, and organizations. The City responded to all written comments. Those comments and the responses thereto are included as part of the Final Environmental Impact Report/Response to Comments document ("Final EIR"). The Final EIR consists of the Draft EIR, Comments and Responses to Comments, the -2- 11086-0006\ 1892276 v2.doc Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, and the Errata listing changes made to the Draft EIR in response to comments. K. Pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21092.5, the City provided its responses to all persons, organizations, and agencies who commented on the Draft EIR. L. On October 21, 2015 and November 4, 2015, at duly noticed public hearings as prescribed by law, the Planning Commission considered the proposed Project and any comments received prior to or at the public hearing, at which time the City staff presented its report, and interested persons had an opportunity to and did testify either in support or in opposition to the proposed Project and the EIR, the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, and the Statement of Overriding Considerations. Following consideration of the entire record of information received at the public hearing and due consideration of the proposed Project, on November 4, 2015, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 15-_ recommending that the City Council certify the Final EIR prepared for the proposed Project, adopt Findings pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act, adopt a Statement of Overriding Considerations, and adopt a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for the proposed Project. M. All legal preconditions to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred. SECTION 2. Recommendation Regarding Ordinance. Following consideration of the entire record of information received at the public hearing, including the staff reports and public comments, the Planning Commission of the City of Temecula hereby recommends that the City Council adopt Ordinance 15- , entitled "AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA ADOPTING THE UPTOWN JEFFERSON SPECIFIC PLAN, AMENDING THE TEMECULA ZONING CODE REGARDING APPROVED SPECIFIC PLAN ZONES, AMENDING THE TEMECULA ZONING MAP, AND AMENDING THE ADULT BUSINESS OVERLAY ZONE TO ELIMINATE THE UPTOWN JEFFERSON SPECIFIC PLAN AREA", in the form attached to this resolution as Exhibit "A", attached hereto, and incorporated herein by this reference. SECTION 3. Recommendation Regarding Resolution. Following consideration of the entire record of information received at the public hearing, including the staff reports and public comments, the Planning Commission of the City of Temecula further recommends that the City Council adopt Resolution No. , entitled "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA AMENDING THE LAND USE ELEMENT, THE LAND USE POLICY MAP, THE CIRCULATION ELEMENT, AND THE COMMUNITY DESIGN ELEMENT OF THE GENERAL PLAN IN CONFORMITY WITH THE UPTOWN JEFFERSON SPECIFIC PLAN", in the form attached to this resolution as Exhibit "B" attached hereto, and incorporated herein by this reference. -3- 11086-0006\ 1892276 v2.doc PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED by the Planning Commission of the City of Temecula this 4th day of November, 2015. Lanae Turley-Trejo, Chairman ATTEST: Luke Watson Secretary [SEAL] STATE OF CALIFORNIA } COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE ) ss CITY OF TEMECULA I, Luke Watson, Secretary of the City of Temecula, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution No. 2015- was duly introduced at a meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of Temecula on the 4th day of November, 2015, and said Resolution was duly adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Temecula on the 21st day of October, 2015, by the following vote: AYES: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: NOES: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: ABSTAIN: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: -4- 11086-0006\1892276v2.doc Luke Watson Secretary EXHIBIT "A" ORDINANCE NO. _ -5- 11086-0006\ 1892276v2.doc ORDINANCE NO. 15 - AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA ADOPTING THE UPTOWN JEFFERSON SPECIFIC PLAN, AMENDING THE TEMECULA ZONING CODE TO ADD THE UPTOWN JEFFERSON SPECIFIC PLAN TO THE APPROVED SPECIFIC PLAN ZONES, AMENDING THE TEMECULA ZONING MAP TO REFLECT THE UPTOWN JEFFERSON SPECIFIC PLAN, AND AMENDING THE ADULT BUSINESS OVERLAY ZONE TO ELIMINATE THE UPTOWN JEFFERSON SPECIFIC PLAN AREA THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. Recitals and Procedural Findings. The City Council of the City of Temecula does hereby find, determine and declare that: A. The Uptown Jefferson Specific Plan ("Specific Plan") has been initiated and prepared on behalf of the City of Temecula. The Specific Plan area is approximately 2.3 miles long and encompasses approximately 560 acres. The Specific Plan area is located north of Rancho California Road, west of Interstate 15, south of Cherry Street, and east of Diaz Road. The Specific Plan area is divided into six zoning districts: Uptown Center District, Uptown Hotel/Tourism District, Uptown Sports/Transit District, Uptown Arts District, Creekside Village District and the Murrieta Creek Recreation and Open Space District. In addition, there are two overlay zones: Creekside Village Commercial Zone and the Wilder Hills Residential Overlay Zone. It is projected that approximately 5.5 million square feet of new development could be constructed in the Specific Plan area within twenty years. This includes approximately 1.7 million square of feet of commercial development, 315 new hotel rooms and 3,726 new residential dwelling units. B. On October 18, 2011, December 6, 2011, February 2, 2012, April 5, 2012, June 14, 2012, and July 19, 2012, the City conducted Community Visioning Workshops to provide information about the Specific Plan and to craft a community driven vision and set of policy directions that would provide the City with a clear focus for developing policies and standards for the Specific Plan. C. The adoption of the Specific Plan also includes a General Plan Amendment, a Zoning Code Amendment to add the Specific Plan area, a Zoning Map Amendment to change the zoning classification of the properties located within the Specific Plan area, and the elimination of the Uptown Jefferson Specific Plan area from the Adult Business Overlay Zone (collectively referred to as the "proposed Project"). D. The proposed Project was processed including, but not limited to a public notice, in the time and manner prescribed by State and local law, including the -1- 11086-0006\1892270v2.doc California Environmental Quality Act, Public Resources Code § 21000, et seq. and the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines, 14. Cal. Code Regs. § 15000 et seq. (collectively referred to as "CEQA"). Pursuant to CEQA, the City is the lead agency for the Specific Plan, as the public agency with both general governmental powers and the principal responsibility for implementing the Specific Plan. E. A Draft Environmental Impact Report ("Draft EIR"), Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, and Statement of Overriding Considerations were prepared for the proposed Project in accordance with CEQA. Upon completion of the Draft EIR in March 2015, the City initiated a public comment period by filing a Notice of Completion with the State Office of Planning and Research on April 1, 2015. The public comment period commenced via the State Clearing House from April 2, 2015 through May 18, 2015. A Notice of Completion and Recirculation of a Draft EIR was also sent to adjacent property owners indicating a review period of May 19, 2015 through July 6, 2015. Copies of the documents have been available for public review and inspection at the City of Temecula Community Development Department, Planning Division, located at 41000 Main Street; the Temecula Public Library located at 30600 Pauba Road; the Temecula Grace Mellman Community Library located at 41000 County Center; the City of Temecula website; and the Envision Jefferson Avenue website. F. On October 21, 2015 and November 4, 2015, the Planning Commission held duly noticed public hearings to consider the proposed Project, including the Specific Plan, the General Plan Amendments, the Zoning Code Amendments and Zoning Map Amendment, and the elimination of the Uptown Jefferson Specific Plan area from the Adult Business Overlay Zone. City staff presented a report, and interested persons had an opportunity to and did testify either in support or in opposition to the proposed Project, the EIR, the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, and the Statement of Overriding Considerations. At the conclusion of the November 4, 2015 Planning Commission hearing and after due consideration of the entire record before the Planning Commission, including both an oral and written staff report and public comment, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. entitled "A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPT AN ORDINANCE ENTITLED "AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA ADOPTING THE UPTOWN JEFFERSON SPECIFIC PLAN, AMENDING THE TEMECULA ZONING CODE TO ADD THE UPTOWN JEFFERSON SPECIFIC PLAN TO THE APPROVED SPECIFIC PLAN ZONES, AMENDING THE TEMECULA ZONING MAP TO REFLECT THE UPTOWN JEFFERSON SPECIFIC PLAN, AND AMENDING THE ADULT BUSINESS OVERLAY ZONE TO ELIMINATE THE UPTOWN JEFFERSON SPECIFIC PLAN AREA" AND A RESOLUTION ENTITLED "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA AMENDING THE LAND USE ELEMENT, THE LAND USE POLICY MAP, THE CIRCULATION ELEMENT, AND THE COMMUNITY DESIGN ELEMENT OF THE GENERAL PLAN IN CONFORMITY WITH THE UPTOWN JEFFERSON SPECIFIC PLAN." G. On November 17, 2015, the City Council of the City of Temecula considered the proposed Project including the Specific Plan, the General Plan -2- 11086-0006\1892270v2.doc Amendments, the Zoning Code Amendments and Zoning Map Amendment, and the elimination of the Uptown Jefferson Specific Plan area from the Adult Business Overlay Zone the Draft EIR, the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, and the Statement of Overriding Considerations, at a duly noticed public hearing at which time all interested persons had an opportunity to and did testify either in support or in opposition to this matter. The City Council considered all the testimony and any comments received regarding the proposed Project, the Draft EIR, the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, and the Statement of Overriding Considerations prior to and at the public hearing. H. On November 17, 2015, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 15-_, "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA AMENDING THE LAND USE ELEMENT, THE LAND USE POLICY MAP, THE CIRCULATION ELEMENT, AND THE COMMUNITY DESIGN ELEMENT OF THE GENERAL PLAN IN CONFORMITY WITH THE UPTOWN JEFFERSON SPECIFIC PLAN" which amended the Land Use Element Map of the Temecula General Pian to change the land use designations of parcels within the Uptown Jefferson Specific Plan area from Community Commercial (CC), Service Commercial (SC), Highway Tourist Commercial (HT), Business Park (BP), Industrial Park (IP), Public Institutional (PI), and Open Space Conservation (OS -C) to Specific Plan Implementation. Pursuant to Resolution No. 15- , the City Council also amended the Land Use Element text of the Temecula General Plan by adding the description of the Uptown Jefferson Specific Plan and removing the Jefferson Avenue Mixed Use Overlay Area. I. Following consideration of the entire record of information received at the public hearing, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 15- entitled "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA CERTIFYING THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT PREPARED FOR THE UPTOWN JEFFERSON SPECIFIC PLAN AND RELATED ACTIONS, AND ADOPTING FINDINGS PURSUANT TO THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT, A STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS, AND A MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM IN CONNECTION WITH THE ADOPTION OF THE UPTOWN JEFFERSON SPECIFIC PLAN" certifying and adopting the Final EIR, the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, and the Statement of Overriding Considerations. The Final EIR and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program accurately address the impacts associated with the adoption of the Ordinance. SECTION 2. Legislative Findings. Based on the evidence and all other applicable information presented, the City Council makes the following findings regarding the Specific Plan: A. The Specific Plan will comply with the requirements of California Government Code section 65451 based on the following: (1) The Specific Plan contains diagrams and text which specify in detail the distribution, location, and extent of the uses of land, including -3- 11086-0006\ 1892270v2.doc open space, within the area covered by the plan (pages 3-1 through 3-23 of Specific Plan). (2) The Specific Plan contains diagrams and text which specify in detail the proposed distribution, location, and extent and intensity of major components of public and private transportation, sewage, water, drainage, solid waste disposal, energy, and other essential facilities proposed to be located within the area covered by the plan and needed to support the land uses described in the plan (pages 6-1 through 6-21 of Specific Plan). (3) The Specific Plan contains diagrams and text which specify in detail the standards and criteria by which development will proceed, and standards for the conservation, development, and utilization of natural resources, where applicable (pages3-19 through 3-23 of Specific Plan). (4) The Specific Plan contains a program of implementation measures including regulations, programs, public works projects, and financing measures necessary to carry out paragraphs (1), (2), and (3) above (pages 7-1 through 7-19 of Specific Plan). (5) The Specific Plan includes a statement of the relationship of the Specific Plan to the General Plan (pages 2-1 and 2-3 of Specific Plan). B. Pursuant to Temecula Municipal Code Section 17.16.020(E), the City Council in adopting the Specific Plan finds determines and declares that: (1) The proposed specific plan is consistent with the General Plan and development code. The Specific Plan is consistent with the direction, goals and policies of the General Plan, as amended. The Specific Plan implements the goals and policies of the City's General Plan, provides balanced and diversified land uses, and imposes appropriate standards and requirements with respect to land development and use in order to maintain the overall quality of life and the environment within the City. The goals and policies in the Land Use Element of the General Plan encourage "a complete and integrated mix of residential, commercial, industrial, public and open space land uses (Goal 1)," and "a City of diversified development character where rural and historical areas are protected and co -exist with newer urban development (Goal 2)." The Specific Plan will assist in implementing these goals by establishing neighborhoods that are upscale and culturally robust, each with a distinct character and identity, offering a mix of homes, shops, offices, restaurants and other locally -serving uses. The Specific Plan's land use mix that will include commercial, retail and residential uses, -4- 11086-0006\I892270v2.doc public open space amenities and intentional pedestrian -orientated design of streets and sidewalks will maximize the connectivity of the area. The Specific Plan establishes six zoning districts which are based upon current and historical uses in order to cultivate a unique character for each area. This will ensure that locally -owned and operated business and services will continue to thrive, side-by-side with the new wave of entrepreneurial ventures. The Specific Plan is consistent with the City's development code, as amended by this Ordinance. The Specific Plan area is properly planned and zoned and is physically suitable for the type of proposed uses contemplated in the area. (2) The proposed Specific Plan would not be detrimental to the public interest, health, safety, convenience or welfare of the City. The City has engaged in extensive studies and review of the potential impacts of the Specific Plan as well as the various potential benefits to the City by the development of the Specific Plan and concluded that the Specific Plan is in the best interests of and is not detrimental to the health, safety and general welfare of the City. Although many of the businesses within the Specific Plan area are still economically -vibrant and provide vital services to the community, the area has since been overshadowed by new development and private investment in other parts of the City. As a result, the Specific Plan seeks to spark the revitalization of the area which is critical to its long term future and will promote economic longevity which is in the public health, safety and welfare. The Specific Plan was reviewed and determined to be in conformance with the City's General Plan, as amended. These documents set policies and standards that protect the health, safety and welfare of the community. In addition, the Specific Plan establishes specific building design guidelines and standards that ensure compatibility and interface with the surrounding community in terms of density, design and circulation. Therefore, the Specific Plan is compatible with the health, safety and welfare of the community. (3) The subject property is physically suitable for the requested land use designations and the anticipated land use developments. There are no physical constraints of the Specific Plan area which would preclude or prohibit the requested land use designations or anticipated developments. Moreover, the Specific Plan land uses are consistent with the land uses of the General Plan, as amended, and will serves as the tool to regulate and implement the goals and policies of the General Plan. The Specific Plan area benefits from a range of assets including Murrieta Creek and nearby open spaces, lush hillside views, and convenient -5- 11086-0006\1892270v2.doc freeway accessibility. The Specific Plan area is physically suitable for proposed land use designations because it will maintain 240 acres as open space, and will encourage public and private investment in the development of world class walking and biking trails, public open spaces and passive recreation spaces. The Specific Plan will also promote in -fill development in the older commercial and industrial centers to revitalize the area. (4) The proposed Specific Plan shall ensure development of desirable character which will be compatible with existing and proposed development in the surrounding neighborhood. The Specific Plan is a form -based code which emphasizes the physical form of buildings to foster predictable built results as the organizing principle for the code, rather than focusing on the strict separation of uses. Under a form -based code, buildings are constructed in a manner that yield flexibility in building form and design, allowing for land uses to fluctuate as a result of the changing economic landscape. The form -based code will employ the combination of both building forms and building frontages to create a pedestrian scaled -urban environment, and encourage mixed-use development in an urban setting. Additionally, the development of six separate districts will encourage the development of the distinct areas based upon current and historical uses in order to cultivate a unique character for each district. The Specific Plan is compatible with surrounding land uses. The current land uses north, east and west of the Specific Plan area consist primarily of commercial and industrial uses. The current land uses to the south of the Specific Plan area consist of predominately tourist service development. The Specific Plan would provide for a mix of land uses including commercial, and residential uses. Northwest and northeast of the proposed Project area is open space. The Specific Plan would maintain approximately 240 -acres zoned Open Space -Conservation. The Specific Plan area is adjacent to Murrieta Creek, but would preserve the open space designation that surrounds the creek. SECTION 3. Adoption of Specific Pian. The City Council of the City of Temecula hereby adopts the Uptown Jefferson Specific Plan. The Specific Plan is on file in the City Clerk's office and is incorporated herein by reference as though set forth in full, SECTION 4. Zoning Code Amendment. A. Section 17.16.070 (Approved specific plans) of Chapter 17.16 (Specific Plan Zoning District SP-) of Title 17 (Zoning) of the Temecula Municipal Code is amended to add the following Specific Plan area: -6- 11086-0006\ 1892270v2.doc "SP -14 Uptown Jefferson" SECTION 5. Zoning Map Amendment. The City Council hereby amends the Zoning Map of the City of Temecula to add the zoning classification "Uptown Jefferson Specific Plan" to the Zoning Map as shown on Exhibit A to this Ordinance incorporated herein by this reference as though set forth in full. SECTION 6. Adult Business Overlay Zone Amendment. A. Legislative Findings (1) The City Council seeks to remove the parcels located in the Specific Plan area from the boundaries of the Adult Business Overlay Zone which is identified as Special Use Overlay No. 1 ("Overlay Zone"). (2) It is not the intent of this Ordinance to suppress any speech activities protected by the First Amendment, but rather to address the adverse secondary effects of adult businesses. It is further the intent and purpose of this Ordinance to reduce the secondary effects of adult businesses upon the residential uses that will be located within the Specific Plan area. (3) The City Council finds that adult businesses tend to attract prostitution, drug use, crime, noise, and disorderly conduct. Adult businesses also reduce property values for the surrounding businesses and residences, and contribute to blight and the downgrading of the areas in which they are located or surrounding areas. (4) The City Council finds that the protection and preservation of the public health, safety and welfare require that certain distances be maintained between adult businesses and residential uses. Temecula Municipal Code section 17.08.020 provides that the intent of the Overlay Zone is "to designate areas that adult businesses may be considered" and that this area is "generally away from residential uses and other sensitive uses and is primarily located within the commercial districts." The Specific Plan area will include a mix of residences, shops, offices, restaurants and other locally -serving uses. The Specific Plan contemplates that the residential uses will be integrated with the other uses to activate the area during the day, evenings and weekends. The Specific Plan seeks to encourage live/work arrangements, and mixtures of compatible, pedestrian -orientated retail, office, public facilities, open space, and house at activity nodes through urban design standards. The City Council hereby finds that the secondary -7- 11086-0006\1892270v2.doc (5) effects of adult businesses would not be appropriate so close to the residential uses that will be located in the Specific Plan area. The secondary effects associated with adult businesses would not be compatible with the residential uses and would be disrupted to the residents of Specific Plan area. The City Council further finds that the removal of parcels located in the Specific Plan area from the boundaries of the Overlay Zone will allow adequate sites for adult businesses to locate in the City. City staff has advised that 426 commercially -zoned parcels would remain available for adult businesses after removing the parcels in the Specific Plan area from the Overlay Zone. All of those commercially -zoned parcels have adequate access to appropriate infrastructure (e.g., utilities, roads, and sidewalks). In addition, City staff has indicated that a number of the available parcels are actually vacant commercial spaces. Even in light of the 1,000 -foot buffer between adult uses, which are required by Temecula Municipal Code section 5.09.040, approximately 13 adult businesses could simultaneously locate in the Overlay Zone after it is amended to exclude the Specific Plan area from its boundaries. Given the size of the City and the fact that the City does not have a single adult business operating within its borders at this point, the available sites are adequate and are part of the real estate market. (6) The City Council further finds that there are an adequate number of sites that are within the real estate market to provide a reasonable opportunity for adult businesses to be located in the City. The City has a total population of 106,780. 1.8 percentage of land in the City is theoretically available to adult businesses. In addition, there are 13 sites that are potentially available for adult uses. Currently, there are no businesses that wish to offer adult entertainment in the City. Since its inception, the City has never received an application for an adult business. B. Amendment Section 17.08.020 (H) (Description of commercial/office/industrial districts.) of Chapter 17.08 (Commercial/Office/Industrial Districts) of Title 17 (Zoning) of the Temecula Municipal Code is amended to add: "Special Use Overlay Zone No. 1 is depicted on the map attached as Exhibit B to Ordinance No. 15- _, and is incorporated herein by this reference as though set forth in full." -8- 11086-0006\ 1892270v2.doc Section 17.08.030 (Use regulations.) of Chapter 17.08 (Commercial/Office/Industrial Districts) of Title 17 (Zoning) of the Temecula Municipal Code is amended as follows: Table 17.08.030 Schedule of Permitted Uses Commercial/Office/Industrial Districts Description of Use A NC CC HTC SC �PO ' BP LI Adult Businesses -subject to Chapter 5.09 of the Temecula Municipal Code' 7. Only within Special Overlay Zone No. 1 as described and depicted in Ordinance No. 15 - SECTION 7. Consistency with General Plan The foregoing amendments outlined in Sections 4, 5, and 6 above are consistent with the goals and policies of the General Plan for the City of Temecula. SECTION 8. Severability. If any section, subsection, subdivision, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this Ordinance or the application thereof to any person or place, is for any reason held to be invalid or unconstitutional by the final decision of any court of competent jurisdiction, the remainder of this Ordinance shall be and remain in full force and effect. SECTION 9. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall take effect thirty (30) days after its adoption. SECTION 10. Notice of Adoption. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Ordinance and cause it to be published in the manner required by law. -9- 11086-0006\1892270v2.doc EXHIBIT "A" Zoning Map -10- 11086-0006\ 1892270v2.doc b•—••^4-1:1=.' Zoning Map City of Temecula EffecOve Date August 9,2005 my "resew nes SS... 1=1., Mrers. Canty ao.nelary 2.111g OillsIgnatbn3 D•SignatiOn 1 Pt, Inslluxn.1,11 01,..SPace1031 Publc P•nae011ecrelltien1PRI - Open apace Colfernlatn105,1 :NC.; com,aarn set. tweet. EXHIBIT B Special Use Overlay Zone No. 1 -11- 11086-0006\1892270v2.doc 4e SNI, A— N din r s Y7h PL)ESiA DL'SC41, • SPECIAL USE OVERLAY June 2015 t�t:p t iUya Sried Special Use Overlay Zone No. 1 L._..City Parcels 0 500 1,000 2000 Feet EXHIBIT "B" CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. -6- 11086-0006\ 1892276v2,doc RESOLUTION NO. 15- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA AMENDING THE LAND USE ELEMENT, THE LAND USE POLICY MAP, THE CIRCULATION ELEMENT, AND THE COMMUNITY DESIGN ELEMENT OF THE GENERAL PLAN IN CONFORMITY WITH THE UPTOWN JEFFERSON SPECIFIC PLAN THE TEMECULA CITY COUNCIL HEREBY FINDS, DETERMINES AND RESOLVES: SECTION 1. Recitals and Procedural Findings. The City Council of the City of Temecula does hereby find, determine and declare that: A. The Uptown Jefferson Specific Plan ("Specific Plan") has been initiated and prepared on behalf of the City of Temecula. The Specific Plan area is approximately 2.3 miles long and encompasses approximately 560 acres. The Specific Plan area is located north of Rancho California Road, west of Interstate 15, south of Cherry Street, and east of Diaz Road. The Specific Plan area is divided into six zoning districts: Uptown Center District, Uptown Hotel/Tourism District, Uptown Sports/Transit District, Uptown Arts District, Creekside Village District and the Murrieta Creek Recreation and Open Space District. In addition, there are two overlay zones: Creekside Village Commercial Zone and the Wilder Hills Residential Overlay Zone. It is projected that approximately 5.5 million square feet of new development could be constructed in the Specific Plan area within twenty years. This includes approximately 1.7 million square of feet of commercial development, 315 new hotel rooms and 3,726 new residential dwelling units. B. The adoption of the Specific Plan also requires a General Plan amendment, a zoning code amendment to add the Specific Plan area, a zoning map amendment to change the zoning classification of the parcels located within the Specific Plan area, and the elimination of the Uptown Jefferson Specific Plan area from the Adult Business Overlay Zone (collectively referred to as the "Project"). C. The General Plan Amendment encompasses 1) an amendment to the Land Use Element incorporating the description of the Uptown Jefferson Specific Plan, adding Uptown Jefferson Specific Plan to the Approved Specific Plan Areas (Table LU - 4), removing Jefferson Avenue Mixed Use Area from the Land Use Focus Areas (Figure LU -5) and Mixed Use Overlay Areas (Table LU -6), and amending the Land Use Policy Map (Figure LU -3), 2) an amendment to the Community Design Element incorporating the description of Uptown Jefferson Specific Plan to the text of the Community Design Element, amending the Community Design Plan (Figure CD -1) by removing Mixed Use Overlay Area No. 1, identifying the intersections of Winchester Road/Jefferson Avenue, Overland Drive/Jefferson Avenue, and Del Rio/Jefferson Avenue as focal intersections, and identifying Jefferson Avenue for a major streetscape improvements, and 3) an amendment to the Roadway Plan (Figure C-2) of the Circulation Element of the General -1- 11086-0006\ 1891916v2.doc Plan by changing the classification of Jefferson Avenue, north of Winchester Road, from a Principal Arterial (6 -lane divided) to a Major Arterial (4 -lane divided), collectively referred to as the "General Plan Amendment." D. On October 21, 2015 and November 4, 2015, the Planning Commission held public hearings to consider whether to recommend the adoption of the Specific Plan, the General Plan Amendment, zoning code admendments, and zoning map amendments, and certification of the Final EIR. On November 4, 2015, after due consideration of the entire record before the Planning Commission, and after due consideration of the testimony regarding the proposed amendments, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 15- recommending, in part, that the City Council approve the General Plan Amendment including: amending the Land Use Element, the Land Use Policy Map, the Community Design Element, and the Circulation Element to create consistency between the Specific Plan and the City's General Plan. E. On November 17, 2015, the City Council held a public hearing to review the Project pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act, Cal. Pub. Res. Code § 21000 et seq. ("CEQA"), and the State CEQA Guidelines, 14 C.C.R. § 15000 et seq. F. Upon the close of the public hearing, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 15- , certifying the Final Environmental Impact Report ("Final EIR"), adopting Findings pursuant to CEQA, adopting a Statement of Overriding Considerations, and adopting a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for the Project. Resolution No. 15- and the findings therein are hereby incorporated by this reference as though set forth in full. G. On October 13, 2015, the City Council of the City of Temecula considered the proposed Project including the Specific Plan, the General Plan Amendments, the Zoning Code Amendments and Zoning Map Amendment, the elimination of the Uptown Jefferson Specific Plan area from the Adult Business Overlay Zone the Draft EIR, the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, and the Statement of Overriding Considerations, at a duly noticed public hearing at which time all interested persons had an opportunity to and did testify either in support or in opposition to this matter. The City Council considered all the testimony and any comments received regarding the proposed Project, the Draft EIR, the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, and the Statement of Overriding Considerations prior to and at the public hearing. H. All legal preconditions to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred. SECTION 2. Legislative Findings. The City Council, in approving the General Plan Amendment hereby further finds, determines and declares that: (1) The General Plan Amendment is in the public interest; The General Plan Amendment, which will establish the Specific Plan area, is in the public interest. The Specific Plan area includes much of the oldest commercial development in the City. At one time, the Specific Plan area was vibrant and bustling with activity. Although many of the -2- 11086-0006\ 1891916v2.doc businesses within the Specific Plan area are still economically -vibrant and provide vital services to the community, the area has since been overshadowed by new development and private investment in other parts of the City. As a result, the Specific Plan seeks to spark the revitalization of the area which is critical to its long term future and will promote economic longevity which is in the public interest. (2) The General Plan Amendment is compatible with the health, safety and welfare of the community; The General Plan Amendment is compatible with the health, safety, and welfare of the community. The City has engaged in extensive studies and review of the potential impacts of the Specific Plan as well as the various potential benefits to the City by the development of the Specific Plan and concluded that the Specific Plan is in the best interests of and is not detrimental to the health, safety and general welfare of the City. The Specific Plan was reviewed and determined to be in conformance with the City's General Plan, as amended. These documents set policies and standards that protect the health, safety and welfare of the community. In addition, the Specific Plan establishes specific building design guidelines and standards that ensure compatibility and interface with the surrounding community in terms of density, design and circulation. Therefore, the Specific Plan is compatible with the health, safety and welfare of the community. (3) The General Plan Amendment is compatible with existing and surrounding uses; The proposed General Plan Amendment is compatible with surrounding land uses. The current land uses north, east and west of the Specific Plan area consist primarily of commercial and industrial uses. The current land uses to the south of the Specific Plan area consist of predominately tourist service development. The Specific Plan would provide for a mix of land uses including commercial, and residential uses. Northwest and northeast of the proposed Specific Plan area is open space. The Specific Plan would maintain approximately 240 -acres zoned Open Space - Conservation. The Specific Plan area is adjacent to Murrieta Creek, but would preserve the open space designation that surrounds the creek. (4) The amendments will not have an adverse effect on the community and are consistent with the goals and policies of the adopted General Plan; The proposed General Plan Amendment is consistent with the direction, goals and policies of the General Plan. The General Plan amendments will establish the Specific Plan area which will implement the goals and policies of the City's General Plan, provide balanced and diversified land -3- 11086-0006\1891916v2.doc uses, and impose appropriate standards and requirements with respect to land development and use in order to maintain the overall quality of life and the environment within the City. The goals and policies in the Land Use Element of the General Plan encourage "a complete and integrated mix of residential, commercial, industrial, public and open space land uses (Goal 1)," and "a City of diversified development character where rural and historical areas are protected and co -exist with newer urban development (Goal 2)." The General Plan Amendment establishing the Specific Plan area will assist in implementing these goals by establishing neighborhoods that are upscale and culturally robust, each with a distinct character and identity, offering a mix of homes, shops, offices, restaurants and other locally -serving uses. The Specific Plan's land use mix will include commercial, retail and residential uses, public open space amenities and intentional pedestrian -orientated design of streets and sidewalks that will maximize the connectivity of the area. The Specific Plan establishes six zoning districts which are based upon current and historical uses in order to cultivate a unique character for each area. This will ensure that locally - owned and operated business and services will continue to thrive, side-by- side with the new wave of entrepreneurial ventures. The proposed General Pian Amendment will result in compatible future development, which will meet the recommended land use and circulation pattern, maximum density and intensity of development, a desired mix of uses and other factors consistent with the goals and policies of the General Plan. SECTION 3. Amendment to the Land Use Element. The Land Use Element of the General Plan is hereby amended by adding the description of the Uptown Jefferson Specific Pian and the Specific Plan Implementation to the text of the Land Use Element and adding Uptown Jefferson Specific Plan to the Approved Specific Plan Areas (Table LU -4), and removing Jefferson Avenue Mixed Use Area from the Land Use Focus Areas (Figure LU -5) and Mixed Use Overlay Areas (Table LU -6) as provided in Exhibit "A," attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference as though set forth in full. SECTION 4. Amendment to the Land Use Policy Map. The Land Use Policy Map Figure LU -3 in the Land Use Element of the General Plan is hereby amended to include the Uptown Jefferson Specific Plan Areaas provided in Exhibit "B," attached hereto incorporated herein by this reference as though set forth in full. SECTION 5. Amendment to the Community Design Element. The Community Design Element is hereby amended by adding the description of Uptown Jefferson Specific Plan to the text of the Community Design Element, amending the Community Design Plan (Figure CD -1) by removing Mixed Use Overlay Area No. 1, identifying the intersections of Winchester Road/Jefferson Avenue, Overland Drive/Jefferson Avenue, and Del Rio/Jefferson Avenue as focal intersections, and identifying Jefferson Avenue for a major streetscape improvements as provided in Exhibit "C," attached hereto incorporated herein by this reference as though set forth in full. -4- 11086-0006\ 1891916v2.doc SECTION 6. Amendment to the Circluation Element. The Roadway Plan (Figure C-2) of the Circulation Element of the General Plan, is hereby amended by changing the classification of Jefferson Avenue, north of Winchester Road, from a Principal Arterial (6 -lane divided) to a Major Arterial (4 -lane divided) as provided in Exhibit "D," attached hereto incorporated herein by this reference as though set forth in full. SECTION 7. City Manager Authorization. The City Manager is hereby authorized and directed to take all steps necessary to implement these amendments. SECTION 8. Consistency with General Plan. The Land Use, Circulation and Community Design Elements of the General Plan, as amended by this Resolution, are consistent with the other Elements of the General Plan in conformity with Government Code section 65300.5. Insofar as other portions of the General Plan need to be revised to effectuate General Plan Amendment, the City Clerk is hereby authorized and directed to make all necessary revisions to effectuate this amendment. SECTION 9. Effective Date. This Resolution shall be effective upon the effective date of Ordinance No. 15- , "AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA ADOPTING THE UPTOWN JEFFERSON SPECIFIC PLAN, AMENDING THE TEMECULA ZONING CODE REGARDING APPROVED SPECIFIC PLAN ZONES, AMENDING THE TEMECULA ZONING MAP, AND AMENDING THE ADULT BUSINESS OVERLAY ZONE TO ELIMINATE THE UPTOWN JEFFERSON SPECIFIC PLAN AREA". SECTION 10. Notice of Adoption. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Ordinance and cause it to be published in the manner required by law. -5- 11086-0006\ 1891916v2.doc EXHIBIT A The Land Use Element Text Changes -6- 11086-0006\1891916v2.doc important economic and environmental relationships to both the City and area residents. However, properties within this designation may not be subject to City or County planning, zoning, and building regulations. Cooperative efforts between the City, County, and local Tribal Governments are important to ensuring that areawide issues are appropriately addressed to the benefit of all local residents. RC— R.ECREAI1ON COMMERCIAL OVERLAY Intensity Range: Varies Target Intensity: N/A The Recreation Commercial Overlay designation may be applied to properties designated for Open Space use. This designation provides for operation and development of resort or amusement oriented commercial and recreational uses of regional interest that draw visitors from throughout the City and region. Permitted uses include commercial recreation, conference centers, golf courses, clubhouses, hotels, resorts (including fractional ownership units), restaurants, parks, camp grounds, open spaces and community facilities. Restaurants, hotels, and resort uses are accessory to the underlying open space uses. SPI - SPECIFIC PLAN IMPLEMENTATION, 111 reosiiv R Inue.! Varies `;)rpLJ till .unstt{'; Varies The Specific Plan Implementation (SPI) designation may be applied to areas within the City which have an approved Specific Plan. This designation allows for a variety of land uses which include both residential and non-residential uses. Geographic areas designated SPI typically allow for mixed use development as specified by the approved specific plan. TARGET DENSmES AND INTENSITIES For various reasons, many parcels in the community have not been developed to their maximum density or intensity. Future development is expected to occur at the target level of density or intensity stated in Table LU -1 for each land use designation. For L I I Y J I 1 \Ill L \ G L\ A L ill 'k Formatted: Left Formatted: Font: Felix Titling, Bold C I I 1 SPECIFIC PLANS Many areas within the City and Planning Area are subject to the plans, policies and implementation measures of currently adopted or anticipated future Specific Plans. The purpose of Specific Plans is to provide comprehensive planning of large areas consistent with the General Plan. A Specific Plan area designation is used to identify 25 such areas within the Temecula Planning Area, which because of size, location, and/or special development opportunities require a coordinated and comprehensive planning approach (see Figure LU - 4). In identified Specific Plan areas of 100 or more acres, approval of a Specific Plan is required prior to approval of any discretionary land use entitlement or issuance of any building or grading permit. In some areas, Village Center Plans, which allow greater intensities, can also be used. Planned development overlays can be used for smaller areas. Specific Plans must be prepared in accordance with the requirements of Section 65451 of the California Government Code and the City's Development Code, which contains some additional requirements tailored to meet local needs and conditions. Designated areas will require detailed plans indicating land uses, circulation, major infrastructure and facilities, open space and parks, and appropriate implementation measures. All Specific Plans will be evaluated for consistency with the goals, policies, plans and programs of the General Plan. Approved Specific Plan Areas — As shown in Table LU -4, a total of 24 Specific Plans have been approved within the planning area as of (,)c.I abtx 5015. Specific Plan documents for each of these areas are available for reference at the City Planning Department. Approved land uses for each Specific Plan are shown on the Land Use Policy Map. I- I vI L ( 11 L \ IU_'� I 1 h \ L 1' [ \ TABLE LU4 APPROVED SPECIFIC PLAN AREAS Label in Fig. LU- 3 Adopted Specific Plan Location Description/Objectives General Plan Land Uses Acres SP -9 Redhawk South of Vail Ranch SP. Pre -incorporation Specific Plan approved in 1988 uhcludmg residential and commercial/industrial development ` 121, 21, PI, OS 1,261 SP -1U Vail Ranch South of Temecula Creek, between Margarita and Butterfield Stage Roads. Pre -incorporation Specific Plan approved in 1988 including residential and commercial/industrial development. LM, P1, OS, HT, IP 628 SP -11 Ronpaugh Ranch Along Butterfield Stage Road in the northeast corner of the City. To develop a master planned residential community providinga variety of housing types suited to the terrain and sensitive to natural landforms. The maximum density is not to exceed an average of three dwelling units per acre. Future development should protect sensitive natural resources of the area. L, LM, M, NC, OS, P1 792 SP -12 Wolf Creek Southern portion of the City, along Pechanga Parkway. To provide a balance of uses with commercial and public uses serving the surrounding area. Intended to be a village center in the southeast portion of the City. /I -M, NC, CC, PI, OS, M 551 SP -13 Harveston Between Margarita Road, and 1-15, along City limits. 'To provide a mix of land uses with higher density residential close to commercial and employment uses, and to provide open space !oaks between residential, pubic and commercial uses. [ \I, NI, H, SC, rI 1, OS 557 SP -I-1 L4.1.t•,unit-uhm440 rx „.-alar Pi. \nthoflLulcIv, dlfuclrr,-rl,rkrpiir,rIy,vrc•.u-gn,}. y.ypy�u VT: sr tri 1. uII ,r as lk...L HA.it td.littePWtan• 1•j,sltiltlt ni 1 Itt-rp SiiveL.nd ,µ ,[�� Itflata nt till alk( a lrLLaiLIsasa,n iIrdn51• rr a is Ir.l t'nrnrx•n'xif tt'Wll h,rt'f 11' 1'1 (91 aUdarir_4=1tkh tfik ttll. •, o • ,. a .. u"c- dui au ,'aal.rd lin I\1104 •rtn}a'i incl} III U111. nn•IN T .nIaik•ard ly a nmbl iasr o f Dia, Road. t all_Crw'jushotln,n Liam uk an3cu+ut[ti.k v. r Y'n'arnut uu,D 1i. n Wu.-. PDO -1 PDO -5 Temecula Creek Village Rancho Pueblo Along 5R-79 South, betveen Jedediah Smith Road and Margarita Road. To achieve comprehensively planned mixed-use developments with compatible/complementary mixtures of office, support commercial, residential, and services. 1'O 33 49 Sphere of Influence #184 Rancho Bela Vista North of Murrieta Hot' Springs Road and the City limit. To pruvak•7 reniticntal plainerprmuwady- dotpsulecto. Ihr nnmsl rewuleesuf tikunk f follow anti lullvrk•attas, prrn•xkya range of rrsitTe ttul dt'tmlcsnruntewd lu a mnngueitirlp it xpacr syr0.nn, and in'ic:= to adpcent \I, P1,05 797 P 1 A A TABLE LU -6 MIXED USE OVERLAY AREAS Mixed Use Overlay Areas Development Capacity Name Location Residential Units' Non -Residential Square Feet2 Daily Trip Cap (ADT) I. I f. Along Avenue, 411 822 aibt1444-944440tJ 4§,994 Jcffcr3 n I,a3 I Iaci,n,ias Street 1. .th of A. 1, ,,,,.er -and nd South of the pping located arca at y 21. Town Center/Tower Plaza North of intersection of Rancho California Road and Ynez Road. 668-1,3373 1,090,000-1,460,000 30,000 32. South of Old Town Service Commercial areas on Front Street south of Santiago Road 94-189 160,000-210,000 6,000 1. Residential range based on 204%-40°'o residential use of site at 28 units per nct acrc. 2. Non-residential range based on 60°,0-80°6 non-residential use of site at 0.35:1 FAR. 3. Senior housing is strongly encouraged as a part of the residential component of the Town Center/Tower Plaza site, PRESERVING RURAL AREAS Mixed use areas and village centers will also be linked via multi -use trails, and regional and local transit service. The City will work with regional planning agencies to ensure that mixed use areas are linked to any future commuter or high speed rail service connecting Temecula to other parts of the region. Rural areas within the planning area are of special economic and aesthetic importance to the City. Community members have considered future land use options within three Rural Preservation Areas, and have expressed a desire to keep these areas rural. Rural Preservation Areas are identified in Figure LU -5, and listed in Table LU -7. C L\ l 0. \ L I' L \\ ILI30 I ['town Jefferson nu:hides much of the city's first commercial elt�clrlhrncnr anti nncr Wati .111 t411�7e11'rA17L 1(14811y ng dire) unity clef1[1:{11111 alf,l1r I11.k tI( rtRitc 11i1;1L :9 39?. which il'irt tlte_t}ilittitry tchu'ul;n; 01nlniir1itarc through the area prior tii the CtnasrrLiCtitL1 esf 1rirerstaIL 15. 1.,,iting Intl iIICtiLTle'ration 111 lily City it: t919. the 1rreit ctnitintieLI rel ele•t•r1e11) under n•1ltcal 1selst-\\•corp! Lear II develesynru'nr patiLrus: an eclectic unix tif :tlirt1.1.0eilIL'd light llllllltill't+}i.. e11'lt'y..; trap-ctlinine'cial anti retail it.es serving tlw local ( lIi1Lnnrltti .�ltbnugh main nr the btrtilltt'sLL's tvirhlrl the arca ars •ulI eCt,tsr117ticaUa•visaL thg aI4 has !leen eel't:rslladllnv:t' by. new development activity taking place viscvvhere to the city. .1 a lestllr. it was (il'iL'r'it1U1('tl that enhancing the iIrea's ee41114 111tiC assets would be critical tii the area's itud the (:in', IPrig resin i'trittrc. lu tlr(ler ree ImilttenL Veeihill-7;11ieill- the €:(:rescan J ttea. n tijsvt'rtic Blau etas keen deV.`eltllscdl to achieve the einnn)uuity's future vision itild spark renewed ini rttil anti likl•(SI l'nd:llt 11.11,n Ilse' area. Uptown Iltki'rst en will be 'l'c1slecuhl'. newest "(!:sols ITirxl..' Vil)ranL mriiiii,titeared a141 Luti(lue. the .10:11 will become Ittlm12 tfl:t diverse flux, eat 1-esttleuts of all ayes, experict1Ces anti intcrrst4. 11v1.11}; 111 ee11.1:11C, ull srs(l-ed)mirsl ntaghbelrhelticls. These Il1211hbbrsrhrl(i(I% In L°11[e slvu )etferstin will pL.t''idle a u11ititic ttletrcll)tslitan eslscriencr- nYvalmll by no other place: al tilt' city 111' region. 111e• 11e'gllblii'hlii tis tt•ill be.: and cult'ur.rllt roinin. each mull :1 distinct character-in&LiLlt:Iltliv. tsar's -111 .1 mix tit homes. shops. offices. rtsraur.nnts and eirinc0 1f et tlly- $121Tiily ll.ti1 . l:stltrrirall) enhanced anti t1ltt-rCt111111'CI1LI surer [1L[WO rks lsrsivitle expanded intibility options to residents. wt11'krt and visitors. 111 addition. !11112-ste11) 1)arkltly combined with ciliclt'nrii ifl$9L trey !mill sidewalks ;111(1 sire bikev.rays. 'These expanded ilv.TWtrrkw Lit hIt'lclt paT111.4. si,iLl\'aIk,., anti n1n11ti-LI.0 1 tails s,tllin(•t't neighborhoods 1)nsine sses. aittl ree real ton ;ryes Tl rads (11-ta ( :reek e,t 41111eci acrlve play ticjls and parl(s nil rhe ritlr'tI.Lcr11 arca. ( )lel •1'llwit eel t11c $(nrtb. rhe I)Lleeinc•sL breis Do the west. anti i'1 n11( n;il.1L Mall and <Idler tieit;lrhtsrIID( Os til the tall. l \. 1 . LI i Ill 11 C, 1 \ IL l P l [Formatted: Font: Felix Titling, 14 pt Figure LU -4 Specific Plan Areas CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN Approved Specific Plans SP- 1 Roripaugh Hills SP- 2 Rancho Highlands SP- 3 Margarita Village SP- 4 Paloma/Paseo Del Sol SP- 5 Old Town SP- 6 Campos Verdes SP- 7 Temecula Regional Center SP- 8 WestsideNillages at Old Town SP- 9 Redhawk SP -10 Vail Ranch SP -11 Roripaugh Ranch SP -12 Wolf Creek SP -13 Harveston SP -14 Uptown Jefferson PDO -4 Temecula Creek Village PDO -5 Rancho Pueblo # 106 Dutch Village # 184 Rancho Bella Vista # 213 Winchester Properties/Silverhawk # 265 Borel Airpark #284 Quinta Do Lago # 286 Winchester 1800 # 238 Crown Valley Village # 313 Morgan Hill Future Specific Plans Y Specific Plan Area Y Z Specific Plan Area Z v Rd 5.1.r Rd County of Riverside �.— 'OM s -I. ♦4 1 r' Temecula City Boundary Sphere of Influence Boundary Planning Area Source: Temecula GIS and Cotton/Bridges/Associates Moog ter/alnmen \Cat rat .—. N 0 5,000 10,1000 H Fee I-1 I--► I 0 2 Miles 1 1 it [ C LI L \ ( I N E R ;A L P L\ N lll28 0 5,000 H H I H H 1 0 1 Figure LU -5 Land Use Focus Areas CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN Legend EOM Mixed Use Overlay Areas Rural Preservation Areas Future Growth Area — Temecula City Boundary Sphere of Influence Boundary Planning Area Source' Temecula GIS and Cotton/Bridges/Associates --• County of Riverside 10; 000 Feet Miles 2 I \ 1 LI I. \ ( I NI K \t ILI31 1' \ N EXHIBIT B The Land Use Policy Map Figure LU -3 -7- 1108 6-0006\ 18 91916 v2. doc NelMr 0.1 City of Murrieta Sphere of influence a -3 County of Riverside Jean Nichol. Ry ,,,gg,re • !kcal Rd Buck Rd City of Murrieta. • j P0tN90.p ' inimarrrrnOrr! Cun4ur Figure LU -3 Land Use Policy Map CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN ® Specific Plan Implementation RESIDENTIAL Hitrke (00 I DWA0 Max) Rural (01-02 00/00 Max) 1,.•9U=.S24a Do, Max) Low (0 5-2 9 Du/Ac Max) - Low Median (3 089 DWAc Max) Mrgepll,70.I:.4y9292 Meal II= High (130-200 D91A0 Max) COMMERCIALI COME Neighborhood Comnwrcial i Community Commerical � ] Highway Tourist Commercial Seance Commercial F0 Prvae•.ebur. INDUSTRIAL MI Industrial Park RA= MEI OOPEN SPACE CEM Pa., uglac.4050 !19 ® Wleyards0Agnc9haal MI 0pan SP.. 1:ZD Tribal Trus! Lands ® Recreation Canmwrcal Overlay [--:.:. zr.im3.aa, '" y NORTH 2500 1250 0 2500 5000 7500 Feel •ra 1011,• ke = • - - r-•••. .r-� __. ..., _ n..., ad�•...,� • •. p ..-.�.•n •.. .. .r •.. �. •.. • . Adopted April 12, 2005 Rawsed Maroh 29, 2012 (CC Resolution 12-04) i — - - _ V Figure LU -3 Land Use Policy Map CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN ® Specific Plan Implementation RESIDENTIAL Hitrke (00 I DWA0 Max) Rural (01-02 00/00 Max) 1,.•9U=.S24a Do, Max) Low (0 5-2 9 Du/Ac Max) - Low Median (3 089 DWAc Max) Mrgepll,70.I:.4y9292 Meal II= High (130-200 D91A0 Max) COMMERCIALI COME Neighborhood Comnwrcial i Community Commerical � ] Highway Tourist Commercial Seance Commercial F0 Prvae•.ebur. INDUSTRIAL MI Industrial Park RA= MEI OOPEN SPACE CEM Pa., uglac.4050 !19 ® Wleyards0Agnc9haal MI 0pan SP.. 1:ZD Tribal Trus! Lands ® Recreation Canmwrcal Overlay [--:.:. zr.im3.aa, EXHIBIT C The Community Design Element -8- 11086-0006\ 1891916v2.doc OLD TOWN TEMECULA AREA DESIGN CONCEPTS Old Town Temecula represents a great opportunity for the City to preserve its heritage while promoting local tourism. The Old Town area is recognized as the heart of the City and a separate Specific Plan has been prepared for the area. While the area no longer functions as a "Town Center" or "Downtown," many of the attributes of Old Town help to establish the area as a special place within the City of Temecula. The placement of additional civic and cultural uses in Old Town would help revitalize and restore the area. UPTOWN JEFFERSON Uptown Jefferson is located immediately north of Old Town Temecula. This area encompasses much of Temecula's first commercial core, and was once a bustling and important locally - serving community destination. Since this finite, the area has been overshadowed by development activity, intrastructure improvements and private investment taking place elsewhere in the city. However, enhancing this area's economic assets is critical to the area's long term future. The revitalization of the area will occur through the implernentafion of the Uptown Jefferson Specific Plan, as well as through the application of various economic development strategies, land use incentives, and by allowing for greater development intensity within the area. This area is anticipated to include a mix of land uses, such as urban residential neighborhoods, commercial retail, hotel and hospitality, office/employment, higher education, cultural arts, and recreation -related uses that co -exist within close proximity to one another. This synergy in land use will create a vibrant destination, up- scale residential neighborhoods and establish viable emplovtnent opportunities within the City. 011 1 E \1 1 C LI L 1 CD -17 G f\ E R\ L 11 1\\ C 0 M M u N 1 T Y E S I G N I— H LI N lJ t Figure CD -1 Community Design Plan CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN Legend Activity and Design Elements OActivity Node 0. Hry&Navi / 0 Focal Intersection O WY F.1.i.M c Weed Il n ikralfi& Ana. eves and Vterraheda P,,lapr ytreei sue' rurvr srnrtouee Nature/Wilderness Trails (Ktnq,. a Inm and mountain a.�n community Trail Local Trail Public, Open Space, and Recreation Facilities IVC.CMNK.KeViiKMtM ,� V oeyards/Agricultural 1111 Open Space. Parks. and Recreational Facilities is—a-1 Temecula City Boundary L/I Sphere of Influence Boundary Planning Area Corm a Community Cirear County of Riverside SOecil Rd Jean HI ch Dine Rd 0 2,500 5,000 7,500 10,000 Feet Miles HHt--! H i-1 0 05 1 r 15 2 EXHIBIT D The Circulation Element -9- 11086-0006\1891916v2.doc Figure C-2 Roadway Plan CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN Legend Interchange Improvements Urban Arterial (8 Lanes divided) Principal Arterial (6 Lanes divided) 11 Major Arterial (4 Lanes divided) Secondary Arterial (4 Lanes undivided) Modified Secondary Arterial (4 Lanes separate Limited Secondary Arterial (2 Lanes divided) Collector (2 Lanes undivided) Rural Highway (2 Lanes undivided) PM Rd uti City of Murrieta Sphere of Influence z - Jean R.Mhn_Rd County of Riverside SIM RJ Ruch Rd City of Murrieta J y-+- ✓ }..fa. r" 0 5.000 10, i00 — Feet ITO Miles 2 0 C 1 I Y T f NI [ C a [. A GI NI It AL. A N C-21 ATTACHMENT D NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING Notice of Public Hearing A PUBLIC HEARING has been scheduled before the City of Temecula PLANNING COMMISSION to consider the matter described below: Case No: LR10-0014 Uptown Jefferson Corridor Specific Plan Applicant: City of Temecula Proposal: Recommend adoption of the Uptown Jefferson Specific Plan to allow for greater flexibility and a wider array of land use and development options within the 560 - acre Project area. In addition, the Project would focus on increasing mobility opportunities and facilitating alternative transportation options, including walking, biking, and transit, through the implementation of new "complete streets" roadway configurations, traffic calming strategies, pedestrian -oriented facilities, and bike lanes. The Project would include a form -based code to better define development regulations and design standards in order to encourage higher density urban development. Anticipated build -out of the Specific Plan assumes up to 3,726 residential units, approximately 1.7 million square feet of commercial uses, and 315 hotel rooms. The project is located north of Rancho California Road, west of Interstate 15, south of Cherry Street, and east of Diaz Road (See attached map). Environmental: Based upon the information contained in the Initial Environmental Study and pursuant to the requirements of CEQA, the City completed a Draft EIR, to address any potential issues for the project described above. A Draft EIR (State Clearinghouse Number 2013061012) was distributed to responsible agencies, interested groups, organizations, and individuals. The public review and comment period for the Draft EIR established by the State Clearinghouse commenced on April 2, 2015 and expired on May 18, 2015. A Notice of Completion and Recirculation of a Draft EIR was also sent to adjacent property owners indicating a review period of May 19, 2015 through July 6, 2015. Copies of the documents have been available for public review and inspection at the City of Temecula Community Development Department, Planning Division, located at 41000 Main Street; the Temecula Public Library located at 30600 Pauba Road; the Temecula Grace Mellman Community Library located at 41000 County Center; the City of Temecula website; and the Envision Jefferson Avenue website. Case Planner: Place of Hearing: Date of Hearing: Time of Hearing: Dale West, (951) 693-3918 City of Temecula, Council Chambers October 21, 2015 6:00 p.m. The agenda packet (including staff reports) will be available for viewing in the Main Reception area at the Temecula Civic Center (41000 Main Street, Temecula) after 4:00 p.m. the Friday before the Planning Commission Meeting. At that time, the packet may also be accessed on the City's website — www.cityoftemecula.orq. Any Supplemental Material distributed to a majority of the Commission regarding any item on the Agenda, after the posting of the Agenda, will be available for public review in the Main Reception area at the Temecula Civic Center (41000 Main Street, Temecula), 8:00 a.m. — 5:00 p.m. In addition, such material will be made available on the City's website — www.cityoftemecula.orq — and will be available for public review at the respective meeting. If you have any questions regarding any item of business on the Agenda for this meeting, please call the Planning Department, (951) 694-6400. STAFF REPORT — PLANNING CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNING COMMISSION DATE OF MEETING: October 21, 2015 TO: Planning Commission Chairperson and members of the Planning Commission FROM: Luke Watson, Director of Community Development PREPARED BY: Dale West, Case Planner PROJECT Planning Application Number LR15-1411, an Ordinance that allows SUMMARY: for the planning, designing, installing, maintaining, and managing water efficient landscapes in new construction and rehabilitated projects within the City of Temecula. CEQA: Categorically Exempt Section 15307, Section 15308 as an action taken to assure the maintenance, restoration, or enhancement of a natural resource or the environment where the regulatory process involves procedures for protection of the environment, and Section 15061 (b)(3), the general rule that CEQA applies only to projects that have the potential for causing a significant effect on the environment. RECOMMENDATION: Adopt a Resolution recommending that the City Council approve an amendment to Title 17 of the Temecula Municipal Code that would replace Chapter 17.32 entitled Water Efficient Landscape Design with a new Chapter 17.32 of the same name BACKGROUND SUMMARY The City first adopted a Water Efficient Design Landscape Ordinance in May of 1994, which established water efficient landscape standards for the City and thus incorporating them into Title 17 of the City of Temecula Municipal Code. In July 2008, the City updated its Water Efficient Landscape Design Ordinance to respond to anticipated cutbacks of water delivery from the Sacramento Delta, and severe drought conditions in the western United States. In 2009, the City again updated its Water Efficient Landscape Design Ordinance as required by the State based on the State's Model Ordinance. Since July 2009, drought conditions continue and water purveyors have increased their water conservation efforts through more stringent irrigation policies and tiered rate structures. In addition, Governor Brown's Executive Order (EO B-29-15) directed the California Department of Water Resources to update the State's Model Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance through expedited regulation. The California Water Commission approved the Ordinance on July 15, 2015. The State requires Cities and Counties to adopt the State's Model Ordinance or an equally effective Ordinance by December 1, 2015. If an agency does not take action by December 1, 2015, the State's Model Ordinance becomes effective by default. C:\Program Files (x86)\neevia.com\docConverterPro\temp\NVDC\D68FD084-5DE5-46D2-85BE-B733B5E76CF2\10897.docx 1 ANALYSIS Staff has analyzed the State's Model Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance and has incorporated appropriate changes resulting in the City's Ordinance being consistent and equally effective as the State's Model Ordinance. The City of Temecula's updated Water Efficient Landscape Design Ordinance promotes water efficient landscaping through the appropriate use of irrigation technology and management, and prescribes reasonable standards, restrictions, and requirements concerning water use in the landscaped areas. The new standards will apply to all discretionary permits and/or approvals for residential, multifamily, commercial, mixed-use, industrial, and public institutional uses. Staff is proposing changes throughout Chapter 17.32 of the City of Temecula Municipal Code to improve clarification, as well as making technical changes to ensure compliance and consistency with the State Model Ordinance. As a result, staff is recommending Chapter 17.32 be replaced in its entirety with the proposed Water Efficient Landscape Design Ordinance. A strikeout version has not been provided as part of this staff report; however, a strikeout version can be made available upon request by contacting the Community Development Department. The following is a list of the significant changes made to the City's Water Efficient Landscape Design Ordinance as a result of Executive Order B-29-15: • Applies to all new construction landscapes with an aggregate landscape area equal to or greater than 500 square feet. • Applies to all rehabilitated landscape projects with an aggregate landscape area equal to or greater than 2,500 square feet. • Residential landscapes greater than 5,000 square feet and non-residential landscapes greater than 1,000 square feet require a dedicated landscape water meter or submeter. • Irrigation emission devices must meet the national standard stated in the Ordinance to ensure that only high efficiency sprinklers are installed. • Flow sensors that detect and report high flow conditions due to broken pipes and/or broken sprinkler heads are required for landscape areas greater than 5,000 square feet. • Landscape areas less than 10 feet wide and adjacent to non -permeable surfaces must be irrigated with subsurface drip or other technology that produces no overspray or runoff. • The maximum amount of water that can be applied to a landscape is reduced from 70% of the reference evapotranspiration (ETo) to 55% for residential landscape projects, and to 45% of ETo for non-residential projects. • The irrigation efficiency of devices used to irrigate landscapes has been changed from one default irrigation efficiency for the entire site of 0.71 to irrigation efficiencies for drip irrigation of 0.81 and for overhead spray of 0.75. • Landscape areas under 2,500 square feet may comply with the performance requirements of the Ordinance, or conform to new prescriptive measures contained in Appendix D of this Ordinance. C:\Program Files (x86)\neevia.com\docConverterPro\temp\NVDC\D68FD084-5DE5-46D2-85BE-B733B5E76CF2\10897.docx 2 The Department of Water Resources estimates that a typical landscape will use approximately 20% less water when implemented under the new standards. LEGAL NOTICING REQUIREMENTS A Notice of Public was published in the U -T San Diego on October 10, 2015. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION This project is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines, 14 Cal. Code Regs. Section 15307 and 15308, as an action taken to assure the maintenance, restoration, or enhancement of a natural resource or the environment where the regulatory process involves procedures for protection of the environment. This Ordinance does not contemplate any construction activities and is limited to ensuring water efficient landscaping options to preserve water. There is no evidence to suggest that the Ordinance will result in a significant impact on the environment, including impacts due to unusual circumstances. The adoption of this Ordinance includes provisions that will result in the enhancement and protection of water resources in the City. Based on the foregoing and other substantial evidence in the record, the City Council hereby finds and determines that the Ordinance is exempt from the provisions of CEQA, pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines Sections 15307 and 15308. As a separate and independent ground, the City Council finds that the Ordinance is covered by the general rule that CEQA applies only to projects that have the potential for causing a significant effect on the environment. Because it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the Ordinance will have a significant effect on the environment, the Ordinance is not subject to CEQA pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines Section 15061 (b)(3). ATTACHMENTS PC Resolution Draft Ordinance No. 15 - Notice of Public Hearing C:\Program Files (x86)\neevia.com\docConverterPro\temp\NVDC\D68FD084-5DE5-46D2-85BE-B733B5E76CF2\10897.docx 3 PC RESOLUTION PC RESOLUTION NO.15- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPT AN ORDINANCE ENTITLED "AMENDING CHAPTER 17.32 OF THE TEMECULA MUNICIPAL CODE TO UPDATE THE WATER EFFICIENT LANDSCAPE DESIGN STANDARDS; DECLARING THE URGENCY THEREOF; AND FINDING THIS ORDINANCE IS EXEMPT FROM THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA) UNDER CEQA GUIDELINES SECTION 15308, CLASS 8 (LONG RANGE PLANNING PROJECT NO. LR15-1411)" Section 1. Procedural Findings. The Planning Commission of the City of Temecula does hereby find, determine and declare that: A. On October 21, 2015 the Planning Commission identified a need to amend the adopted Municipal Code to amend Chapter 17.32 of the Temecula Municipal Code regarding the Water Efficient Landscape Design Ordinance (Planning Application No. PA15-1411). B. The Ordinance was processed including, but not limited to a public notice, in the time and manner prescribed by State and local law. C. The Planning Commission, at a regular meeting, considered the application and environmental review on October 21, 2015 at a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law, at which time the City staff and interested persons had an opportunity to and did testify either in support or in opposition to this matter. D. At the conclusion of the Planning Commission hearing and after due consideration of the testimony, the Planning Commission recommended that the City Council approve Long Range Planning Project No. LR15-1411 subject to and based upon the findings set forth hereunder. E. All legal preconditions to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred. Section 2. Further Findings. The Planning Commission, in approving the application hereby finds, determines and declares that: A. The proposed Ordinance is in conformance with the General Plan for Temecula and with all applicable requirements of State law and other Ordinances of the City; The proposed Water Efficient Landscape Design Ordinance conforms to the City of Temecula General Plan in that the criteria for establishing a Water Efficient Landscape Design Ordinance identified in the City of Temecula General Plan Open Space/Conservation Element. Furthermore, the proposed Water Efficient Landscape Design Ordinance directly responds to Goal 2 (Conservation and protection of surface water, groundwater and imported water resources), and the following Policies of the General Plan Open Space/Conservation Element as summarized: Policy 2.2 - Identify and protect groundwater resources, Policy 2.3 - Conserve potable water by requiring water conservation in new development, Policy 2.4 - Use reclaimed water for irrigation of parks, public landscaped public landscaped areas and other feasible applications, and Policy 2.11- Participate in outreach and public education programs about water conservation.. B. The proposed Ordinance is consistent with the Municipal Code and Development Code for the City of Temecula; The proposed Water Efficient Landscape Design Ordinance has been designed to be internally consistent with the Municipal Code and the Development Code in terms of referencing key components of the City's currently adopted Water Efficient Landscape Design Ordinance, which applies to existing and new construction landscapes. Section 3. Environmental Compliance. In accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act, the proposed Ordinance No. 15- (Water Efficient Landscape Design), this project is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines, 14 Cal. Code Regs. Section 15307 and 15308, as an action taken to assure the maintenance, restoration, or enhancement of a natural resource or the environment where the regulatory process involves procedures for protection of the environment. This Ordinance does not contemplate any construction activities and is limited to ensuring water efficient landscaping options to preserve water. There is no evidence to suggest that the Ordinance will result in a significant impact on the environment, including impacts due to unusual circumstances. The adoption of this Ordinance includes provisions that will result in the enhancement and protection of water resources in the City. Based on the foregoing and other substantial evidence in the record, the City Council hereby finds and determines that the Ordinance is exempt from the provisions of CEQA, pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines Sections 15307 and 15308. As a separate and independent ground, the City Council finds that the Ordinance is covered by the general rule that CEQA applies only to projects that have the potential for causing a significant effect on the environment. Because it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the Ordinance will have a significant effect on the environment, the Ordinance is not subject to CEQA pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines Section 15061 (b)(3). Section 4. Recommendation. The Planning Commission of the City of Temecula recommends that the City Council approve Long Range Planning Project No. LR15-1411, a proposed Citywide Ordinance as set forth on Exhibit A, attached hereto, and incorporated herein by this reference. Section 5. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the City of Temecula Planning Commission this 21st day of October 2015. Lanae Turley-Trejo, Chairperson ATTEST: Luke Watson, Secretary [SEAL] STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE )ss CITY OF TEMECULA I, Luke Watson, Secretary of the Temecula Planning Commission, do hereby certify that the forgoing PC Resolution No. 15- was duly and regularly adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Temecula at a regular meeting thereof held on the 21st day of October 2015, by the following vote: AYES: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: NOES: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: ABSTAIN: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: Luke Watson, Secretary EXHIBIT A DRAFT ORDINANCE ORDINANCE NO. 15 - AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA AMENDING CHAPTER 17.32 OF THE TEMECULA MUNICIPAL CODE TO UPDATE THE WATER EFFICIENT LANDSCAPE DESIGN STANDARDS; DECLARING THE URGENCY THEREOF; AND FINDING THIS ORDINANCE IS EXEMPT FROM THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA) UNDER CEQA GUIDELINES SECTION 15308, CLASS 8 THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Findings. The City Council of the City of Temecula does hereby find, determine and declare that: A. On April 1, 2014, Governor Edmund G. Brown Jr. issued an executive order to strengthen the state's ability to manage water and habitat effectively in drought conditions and called on all Californians to redouble their efforts to conserve water. The executive order finds that the continuous severe drought conditions present urgent challenges across the state including water shortages in communities and for agricultural production, increased wildfires, degraded habitat for fish and wildlife, threat of saltwater contamination, and additional water scarcity if drought conditions continue into 2015. B. The executive order refers to the Governor's Proclamation No. 1-17-2014, issued on January 17, 2014, declaring a State of Emergency to exist in California due to severe drought conditions. The January Proclamation notes that the state is experiencing record dry conditions, with 2014 projected to become the driest year on record. Since January, state water officials indicate that reservoirs, rainfall totals and the snowpack remain critically low. This follows two other dry or below average years, leaving reservoir storage at alarmingly low levels. The January Proclamation highlights the State's dry conditions, lack of precipitation and the resulting effects on drinking water supplies, the cultivation of crops, and the survival of animals and plants that rely on California's rivers and streams. C. On April 1, 2015, Governor Brown issued Executive Order B-29-15 that, among other things, directed the Department of Water Resources to update the State Model Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance ("Model Ordinance") through expedited regulation. D. The purpose of the updated Model Ordinance is to increase water efficiency standards for new and existing landscapes through more efficient irrigation systems, greywater usage, onsite storm water capture, and by limiting the portion of landscapes that can be covered in turf. E. On July 15, 2015, the California Water Commission, acting on behalf of the Department of Water Resources, approved the 2015 update to the Model Ordinance. F. The City Council is adopting the Model Ordinance in substantially the same form as approved by the California Water Commission in order to promote the efficient use of water within the City and to comply with the Governor's Executive Order and Government Code Section 65595. G. On October 21, 2015 the Planning Commission of the City of Temecula held a duly noticed public hearing on this Ordinance providing an opportunity for the public to comment on the Ordinance. After considering all written and oral comments received, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 15- recommending that the City Council adopt this Ordinance. H. On November 10, 2015 the City Council of the City of Temecula held a duly noticed public hearing on this Ordinance providing an opportunity for the public to comment on the Ordinance. The City Council considered all written and oral comments received prior to its adoption of this Ordinance. I. All legal prerequisites to the adoption of this Ordinance have been fulfilled. Section 2. Adoption of Revised Water Efficient Landscape Design Ordinance. Chapter 17.32 (Water Efficient Landscape Design) of Title 17 (Zoning) of the Temecula Municipal Code is hereby amended in its entirety to read as follows: "CHAPTER 17.32: WATER EFFICIENT LANDSCAPE DESIGN 17.32.010 Purpose. 17.32.020 Definitions. 17.32.030 Applicability. 17.32.040 General provisions. 17.32.050 Procedures. 17.32.060 Landscape requirements. 17.32.070 Irrigation system design requirement. 17.32.080 Grading plan requirements. 17.32.090 Residential requirements. 17.32.100 Commercial, office, industrial, public institutional requirements. 17.32.110 Open space/recreation/conservation zoning district requirements. 17.32.120 Maintenance and enforcement. 17.32.130 Appendices. 17.32.010 PURPOSE Landscapes that are designed, installed, managed and maintained with the watershed based approach can improve California's environmental conditions and provide benefits and realize sustainability goals. Such landscapes will make the urban environment resilient in the face of climatic extremes. The following Water Efficient Landscape Standards are designed to assist landscape architects, irrigation designers, contractors, planners and the public in the selection of plant materials and irrigation methods that result in more water efficient and water conscious landscaping throughout the City. The purpose of this chapter is: A. To promote high quality, water efficient landscaping, water use management and water conservation through the use of water efficient landscaping, wise use of turf areas and appropriate use of irrigation technology and management. B. Create the conditions to support life in the soil by reducing compaction, incorporating organic matter that increases water retention, and promoting productive plant growth that leads to more carbon storage, oxygen production, shade, habitat and esthetic benefits. C. Minimize energy use by reducing irrigation water requirements, reducing reliance on petroleum based fertilizers and pesticides, and planting climate appropriate shade trees in urban areas. D. Conserving water by capturing and reusing rainwater and graywater wherever possible and selecting climate appropriate plants that need minimal supplemental water after establishment. E. Protecting air and water quality by reducing power equipment use and landfill disposal trips, selecting recycled and locally sourced materials, and using compost, mulch and efficient irrigation equipment to prevent erosion. F. Protecting existing habitat and creating new habitat by choosing local native plants, climate adapted non-invasive and avoiding invasive plants. Utilizing integrated pest management with least toxic methods as the first course of action. G. To promote the values and benefits of landscape practices that integrate and go beyond the conservation and efficient use of water. H. To provide for provisions for water management practices and water waste prevention. To establish a structure for planning, designing, installing, maintaining, and managing water efficient landscapes in new construction and rehabilitated projects by encouraging the use of a watershed approach that requires cross -sector collaboration of industry, government and property owners to achieve the many benefits possible. J. To reduce landscape water demands without sacrificing landscape quality or quantity. K. To retain flexibility and encourage creativity through appropriate design. L. To eliminate water waste from overspray and/or runoff. M. To promote water conservation through public awareness. N. To implement the requirements to meet the State of California Water Conservation in Landscaping Act 2006 and the California Code of Regulations Title 23, Division 2, Chapter 2.7, and Executive Order B-29-15. 17.32.020 DEFINITIONS "Applied water" means the portion of water supplied by the irrigation system to the landscape. "Active recreational use" means areas of active play or recreation such as sport fields, school yards, picnic grounds, or other areas of intense foot traffic that provide public benefit. "Amendment" means additions to the soil, such as compost, leaf mold, peat moss, or ground bark, which improves aeration and drainage of clay soils and helps hold water in sandy soils. "Application rate" means the depth of water applied to a given area in one hour, usually measured in inches per hour. "Applied water" means the portion of water supplied by the irrigation system to the landscape. "Automatic irrigation controller" means a timing device used to remotely control valves that operate an irrigation system. Automatic irrigation controllers are able to self -adjust and schedule irrigation events using either evapotranspiration (weather -based) or soil moisture data and utilize non-volatile memory. "Backflow prevention device" means a safety device used to prevent pollution or contamination of the water supply due to the reverse flow of water from the irrigation system. "Check valve" or "anti -drain valve" means a valve located under a sprinkler head to hold water in the system to prevent drainage from sprinkler heads when the system is off. "Compost" means the safe and stable product of controlled biologic decomposition of organic materials that is beneficial to plant growth. "Conversion factor (0.62)" means the number that converts acre -inches per acre per year to gallons per square foot per year. "Distribution uniformity" means a measure of the uniformity of irrigation water applied over a defined area. "Drip irrigation" means any non -spray low volume irrigation system utilizing emission devices with a flow rate measured in gallons per hour. Low volume irrigation systems are specifically designed to apply small volumes of water slowly at or near the root zone of plants. "Drip system operator indicator" means a visual device that indicates the system is operating at recommended pressure and functioning within normal parameters. "Ecological restoration project" means a project where the site is intentionally altered to establish a defined, indigenous, historic ecosystem. "Effective precipitation" or "usable rainfall" (Eppt) means the portion of total precipitation which becomes available for plant growth. "Emitter" means drip irrigation emission device that delivers water slowly from the system to the soil. "Established landscape" means the point at which plants in the landscape have developed significant root growth into the site. Typically, most plants are established after one or two years of growth. "Establishment period" means, for purposes of this chapter, the first year after installing the plants in the landscape, or the first two years if irrigation will be terminated after establishment. The actual establishment period varies depending upon the plant species, the development of the plant's root system, soil conditions, and other environmental factors. Native habitat mitigation areas and trees may need three to five years for establishment. "Estimated total water use" (ETWU) means the total water used for the landscape as described in Section 13.32.070. "Estimated annual water use (EAWU)" means the total amount of water estimated to be needed to keep the plants in the landscaped area healthy. It is based upon such factors as the local evapotranspiration rate, the size of the landscaped area, the types of plants, and the efficiency of the irrigation system, as calculated by the formula contained in Section 17.32.070. "Evapotranspiration" (ET) means the quantity of water evaporated from adjacent soil and other surfaces, and transpired by plants during a specific time. "ET Adjustment Factor" (ETAF) means a factor of 0.55 for residential areas and 0.45 for non-residential areas, that, when applied to reference evapotranspiration, adjusts for plant factors and irrigation efficiency, two major influences upon the amount of water that needs to be applied to the landscape. The ETAF for new and existing (non- rehabilitated) Special Landscape Areas shall not exceed 1.0. The ETAF for existing non-rehabilited landscapes in 0.8. "Evapotranspiration rate" means the quantity of water evaporated from adjacent solid and other surfaces and transpired by plants during a specific time. "Flow rate" means the rate at which water flows through pipe fittings, valves, and emission devices, measured in gallons per minute, gallons per hour, or cubic feet per second. "Flow sensor" means an inline device installed at the supply point of the irrigation system that produces a repeatable signal proportional to flow rate. Flow sensors must be connected to an automatic irrigation controller, or flow monitor capable of receiving flow signals and operating master valves. "Friable" means a soil condition that is easily crumbled or loosely compacted down to a minimum depth per planting material requirements, whereby the root structure of newly planted material swill be allowed to spread unimpeded. "Fuel Modification Plan Guideline" means guidelines from a local fire authority to assist residents and businesses that are developing land or building structures in a fire hazard severity zone. "Graywater" means untreated wastewater that has not been contaminated by any toilet discharge, has not been affected by infectious, contaminated, or unhealthy bodily wastes, and does not present a threat from contamination by unhealthful processing, manufacturing, or operating wastes. Graywater includes, but is not limited to, wastewater from bathtubs, showers, bathroom washbasins, clothes washing machines, and laundry tubs, but does not include wastewater from kitchen sinks or dishwashers, Health and Safety Code Section 17922.12. "Hardscape" means any durable surface material (pervious and nonpervious). "Hydrozone" means a portion of the landscape area having plants with similar water needs and rooting depths that are served by a valve or set of valves with the same irrigation schedule. A hydrozone may also be nonirrigated, for example, a naturalized area. "Infiltration rate" means the rate of water entry into the soil expressed as a depth of water per unit of time (e.g. inches per hour). "Invasive species" are non -indigenous species (e.g., plants or animals) that adversely affects the habitats they invade economically, environmentally, or ecologically. Lists of invasive species are included within the Western Riverside County Multi -Species Habitat Conservation Plan (incorporated by reference). "Irrigation efficiency" (IE) means the measurement of the amount of water beneficially used divided by the amount of water applied. Irrigation efficiency is derived from measurements and estimates of irrigation system characteristics and management practices. The irrigation efficiency for purposes of this ordinance is 0.75 for overhead spray devices and 0.81 for drip systems. "Landscape architect" means a person who holds a license to practice landscape architecture in the state of California Business and Professional Code, Section 5615. "Landscape area" (LA) means all the planting areas, turf areas, and water features in a landscape design plan subject to the Maximum Applied Water Allowance calculation. The landscape area does not include footprints of buildings or structures, sidewalks, driveways, parking lots, decks patios, gravel or stone walks, other pervious or non - pervious hardscapes, and other non -irrigated areas designed for non -development (e.g. open spaces and existing native vegetation). "Landscape coefficient" means the functional equivalent of a crop coefficient in agriculture. When multiplied times ETo, it estimates the amount of water required to maintain landscape plants in good condition. "Landscape irrigation audit" means an in depth evaluation of the performance of an irrigation system conducted by a Certified Landscape Irrigation Auditor. An irrigation audit includes, but is not limited to: inspection, system tune-up, system test with distribution uniformity or emission uniformity, reporting overspray or runoff that causes overland flow, and preparation of an irrigation schedule. The audit must be conducted in a manner consistent with the Irrigation Association's Landscape Irrigation Auditor Certification program or other U.S. Environmental Protection Agency "Watersense" labeled auditing program. "Land use entitlement" means any legislative, discretionary or quasi-judicial review that requires City approval. "Lateral line" means the water delivery pipeline that supplies water to the emitters or sprinklers from the valve. "Low volume irrigation" means the application of irrigation water at low pressure through a system of tubing or lateral lines and low-volume emitters such as drip, drip lines, and bubblers. Low volume irrigation systems are specifically designed to apply small volumes of water slowly at or near the root zone of plants. "Main line" means the pressurized pipeline that delivers water from the water source to the valves or lateral lines. "Master shut-off valve" means an automatic valve installed at the irrigation supply point which controls water flow into the irrigation system. When this valve is closed, water will not be supplied to the irrigation system. A master valve will greatly reduce any water loss due to a leaky station valve. "Maximum Applied Water Allowance (MAWA)" means the upper limit of annual applied water for the established landscaped area. It is based upon the area's reference evapotranspiration, the ET Adjustment Factor, and the size of the landscape area. The Estimated Total Water Use shall not exceed the Maximum Applied Water Allowance. Special Landscape Areas, including recreation areas, areas permanently and solely dedicated to edible plants such as orchards and vegetable gardens, and areas irrigated with recycled water are subject to the MAWA with an ETAF not to exceed 1.0. MAWA + (ETo) (0.62) [(ETAF x LA) + ((1-ETAF) x SLA)]. "Median" means an area between opposing lanes of traffic that may be unplanted or planted with trees, shrubs, perennials, and ornamental grasses. "Microclimate" means the climate of a small, specific area that may contrast with the climate of the overall landscape area due to wind, sun exposure, plant density, or proximity to reflective surfaces. "Moisture -sensing device" means a device that measures the amount of moisture in the soil. "Mulch" means any organic material such as leaves, bark, straw or inorganic mineral materials such as rocks, gravel or decomposed granite left loose and applied to the soil surface to reduce evaporation and suppress weeds. "New construction" means for the purposes of this ordinance, a new building with a landscape, or other new landscape, such as a park, playground, or greenbelt without an associated building. "Non-residential landscape" means landscapes in commercial, institutional, industrial and public settings that may have areas designated for recreation or public assembly. It also includes portions of common areas of common interest developments with designated recreational areas. "Operating pressure" means the pressure at which an irrigation system is designed by the manufacture to operate (static pressure minus pressure losses). This is usually indicated at the base or nozzle of a sprinkler. "Overhead sprinkler irrigation system" or "overhead spray irrigation system" means a system that delivers water through the air (e.g. spray heads and rotors). "Overspray" means when sprinklers deliver water beyond the landscaped area, wetting pavements, walks, structures, or other non -landscaped areas. "Parkway" means the area between a sidewalk and the curb or traffic lane. It may be planted or unplanted, and with or without pedestrian egress. "Plant factor" or "plant water use factor" means a factor that, when multiplied by ETo, estimates the amount of water needed by plants. For purposes of this ordinance, the plant factor range for very low water use plants is 0 to 0.1, the plant factor range for low water use plants is 0.01 to 0.3, the plant factor for moderate water use plants is 0.4 to 0.6 and the plant factor for high water use plants is 0.7 to 1.0. Plan factors cited in this ordinance are derived from the publication "Water Use Classification of Landscape Species". Plant factors may also be obtained from horticultural researchers from academic institutions or professional associations as approved by the California Department of Water Resources (DWR). "Percolation" means the movement of water through the soil. "Potable water" means water which is meant for human consumption. "Pressure compensation bubbler" means an irrigation emitter useful for watering trees and shrubs with water basins; produces a reduced flow of water that bubbles on the soil. "Quick coupling system" means a sprinkler system which uses permanently installed valves and sprinklers that can be moved from valve to valve. "Rain sensor" means a component of the irrigation system that automatically suspends the irrigation schedule when it rains. "Reclaimed water," "recycled water," or "treated sewage effluent" means treated or recycled water of a quality suitable for nonpotable uses such as landscape irrigation and water features, but not intended for human consumption. "Recreation area" means areas, excluding private single family residential areas, designated for active play, recreation or public assembly in parks, sport fields, picnic grounds, amphitheaters, or golf courses tees, fairways, roughs, surrounds and greens. "Reference evapotranspiration (ETo)" means a standard measurement of environmental parameters which affect the water use of plants. ETo is expressed in inches per day, month, or year and is an estimate of the evapotranspiration of a large field of four to seven-inch tall, cool season turf that is well watered. Reference evapotranspiration is used as the basis of determining the Maximum Allowable Water Allowance so that regional differences in climate can be accommodated. The annual ETo for Temecula is 56.7. "Rehabilitated landscape" means any re -landscaping project that requires a permit, plan check, or design review, meets the requirements of Section 17.32.030, and the rehabilitated landscape area is equal to or greater than 2,500 square feet. "Runoff" means water which is not absorbed by the soil or landscape to which it is applied. Runoff occurs when water is applied at too great a rate or when there is a slope. "Soil moisture sensing device" or "soil moisture sensor" means a device that measures the amount of water in the soil. The device may also suspend or initiate an irrigation event. "Soil texture" means the classification of soil based on its percentage of sand, silt and clay. "Special Landscaped Area (SLA)" means an area of the landscape dedicated solely to edible plants, recreation areas, areas irrigated with recycled water, or water features using recycled water. "Sprinkler head" or "spray head" means a device which discharges water through a nozzle. "Static water pressure" means the pipeline or municipal water supply pressure when water is not flowing. "Station" means an area served by one valve or set of valves that operate simultaneously. "Submeter" means a metering device to measure water applied to the landscape that is installed after the primary utility water meter. "Temporarily Irrigated" means irrigation for the purposes of establishing plants, or irrigation which will not continue after plant establishment. "Turf" means a groundcover of cool- or warm -season grass that is mowed. "Valve" means a device used to control the flow of water in the irrigation system. "Water feature" means a design element where open water performs as aesthetic or recreational function. Water features include ponds, lakes, waterfalls, fountains, artificial streams, spas, and swimming pools. The surface area of water features is included in the high water use hydrozone of the landscape area. Constructed wetlands used for on-site wastewater treatment or stormwater best management practices that are not irrigated and used solely for water treatment or stormwater retention are not water features and therefore, are not subject to the water budget calculation. "Water intensive landscaping" means a landscape with a WUCOLS plant factor of 0.7 or greater. "Water Use Classification of Landscape Species (WUCOLS)" means the publication entitled "Water Use Classification of Landscape Species" published by the U.C. Cooperative Extension and the Department of Water Resources 2014. 17.32.030 APPLICABILITY A. Except as provided in subsection B of this section, requirements of this chapter shall apply to: 1. New construction projects with an aggregate landscape area equal to or greater than 500 square feet requiring a building landscape permit, plan check or design review. 2. Rehabilitated landscape projects with an aggregate landscape area equal to or greater than 2,500 square feet requiring a building or landscape permit, plan check, or design review. 3. Existing landscapes limited to Sections 17.32.050 and 127.32.060. 4. Cemeteries: recognizing the special landscape needs of cemeteries, new and rehabilitated cemeteries are limited to Sections 17.32.070. Existing cemeteries are limited to Section 17.32.150. 5. In the event Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions are required by the City for any permit subject to this Chapter, a condition shall be incorporated into any project approval prohibiting the use of water intensive landscaping and requiring the use of low water use landscaping pursuant to the provisions of this Chapter in conjunction with common area/open space landscaping. Additionally, such a condition shall also require the Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions to incorporate provisions concerning landscape irrigation system management and maintenance. This Chapter shall not be construed as requiring landscaping on common areas or open space that is intended to remain natural. Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions shall not prohibit the replacement of turf with less water intensive plant species. 6. For projects using treated or untreated graywater or rainwater captured on site, any lot or parcel within the project that has less than 2,500 square feet of landscape area and meets the lot or parcel's landscape water requirement (Estimated Total Water Use) entirely with treated or untreated graywater or through stored rainwater captured on site is subject only to Appendix B. B. This chapter shall not apply to: 1. Registered federal, state, and/or local historical sites and/or structures; 2. Ecological restoration projects that do not require a permanent irrigation system; and 3. Existing plant collections as part of botanical gardens and arboretums open to the public. 17.32.040 PROCEDURES A. The submittal, review, revision and approval of all required landscape and irrigation plans shall be in compliance with already established City procedures for land use entitlements. The requirements of this chapter shall be submitted jointly along with the required applications, plans and fees required for land use entitlement as required by the Director of Community Development and on file in the Community Development Department. B. The landscape plan package shall include: construction landscape plans, irrigation plans, agronomic soils report, water budget, irrigation schedule, and maintenance schedule. C. An Agronomic Soil Report is required on all projects for appropriate specifications of soil amendments, and to facilitate selection of water efficient plant species suitable for the site. A soil analysis shall be conducted for the site from reasonable soil samples of the site. The Soil Report shall describe the soil type, pH, soluble salts, infiltration rate, limiting soil characteristics, and recommended soil amendments needed to remediate limiting soil characteristics. D. A construction cost estimate is required with all construction landscape plans. E. A landscape maintenance schedule is required with all landscape plans as identified in Section 17.32.110. F. Landscaping plans shall be prepared using the Water Budget Formula described in the Appendix A to Chapter 17.32. In addition, landscaping plans shall provide a water budget which includes estimated annual water use (in hundred cubic feet per year (ccf/yr)) and the area (in square feet) to be irrigated; and precipitation rates for each valve circuit. The Director of Community Development or designee shall approve all landscaping plans. G. Prior to the issuance of a building permit for a project, subject to this Chapter, or as otherwise specified in the conditions of approval for a project, planting and irrigation plans prepared for the project shall be submitted for review and approval by the Director of Community Development. H. Prior to the issuance of a certificate of use and occupancy, an applicant shall submit a letter of completion, subject to field verification by the planning director or his or her designee. Said letter of completion shall be prepared by the landscape architect and shall indicate that all plant materials and irrigation system components have been installed in accordance with the approved final landscape and irrigation plans. If a certificate of use and occupancy is not required for the project, such letter of completion shall be submitted prior to scheduling for the final inspection. The letter of completion shall be signed and certified by a licensed landscape architect and shall indicate: 1. Date. 2. Project information: a. Project name. b. Project applicant name, mailing address, telephone number. c. Project address. d. Property owner name and mailing address. 3. A field inspection of the irrigation system was completed prior to backfilling (evidence of field inspection shall be attached). 4. The landscaping has been installed in conformance with the approved planting and irrigation plans. a. Where there have been significant changes made in the field during construction, "as -built" drawings shall be included with the certification. b. A diagram of the irrigation plan showing hydrozones shall be kept with the irrigation controller for subsequent management purposes. 5. Irrigation audit report performed by a certified irrigation auditor after project installation (audit report shall be attached). 6. The irrigation controller has been set according to the irrigation schedule. 7. The irrigation system has been adjusted to maximize irrigation efficiency and eliminate overspray and runoff. 8. A copy of the irrigation and maintenance schedule has been given to the property owner, local water purveyor, and the Director of Community Development. All landscape irrigation audits shall comply with the most current publication of the "Irrigation Association Certified Landscape Irrigation Auditor Training Manual and shall be conducted by a certified landscape irrigation auditor. J. The Director of Community Development or his/her designee shall have the right to enter upon the project site at any time before, during and after installation of the landscaping to conduct inspections for the purposes of enforcing this Chapter. 17.32.050 GENERAL PROVISIONS A. Landscape plans and irrigation plans shall be drawn to the same scale. B. All landscape plan approvals are subject to and dependent upon the applicant complying with all applicable City Ordinances, codes, regulations and adopted policies. C. Should any provision of this chapter conflict with any other provisions already established by the City, the more water efficient provision shall apply. D. If the water purveyor for a proposed project has adopted more restrictive water efficient landscaping requirements, all landscaping and irrigation plans submitted shall comply with the water purveyor's requirements. Said plans shall be accompanied by a written document from the water purveyor delineating the more restrictive requirements. E. Landscape design shall facilitate the implementation of landscape maintenance practices which foster long-term water conservation. Said practices may include, but not be limited to, scheduling irrigation based on established industry standards, conducting water audits and establishing a water budget to limit the amount of water applied per landscape acre. F. Landscaping for fuel modification zones shall be subject to standards required by the City's Fire Department. G. Landscaping adjacent to the Western Riverside County Multi -Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP) conservation areas shall avoid invasive species as listed in the MSHCP. 17.32.060 LANDSCAPE DESIGN REQUIREMENTS For the efficient use of water, a landscape shall be carefully designed and planned for the intended function of the project. The design and installation of all proposed landscape improvements subject to this section shall comply with the following provisions: A. All conceptual and construction landscape plans shall be prepared by a Landscape Architect licensed by the State of California. B. All landscaping plans shall comply with the City of Temecula Citywide Design Guidelines. C. All landscaped areas shall be irrigated with an automatic irrigation system as required in this Chapter. D. Water Quality Management Plan Best Management Practices (if applicable) that affect the landscaping shall be identified on the conceptual and construction landscape plans and in the construction landscape plan details. E. Landscape design shall provide for the functional aspects of landscaping such as grading, drainage, minimal runoff, erosion prevention, wind barriers, provisions for shade and reduction of glare, and outdoor activities. F. Permeable surfaces shall be used wherever permissible in place of impervious surfaces, to encourage on-site water infiltration and support water conservation measures. G. A shallow swale shall be designed at the toe of all berms which are adjacent to sidewalks or other impervious surfaces to "catch" any runoff. This will help prevent weathering of pavement. If overhead spray irrigation is used for bermed areas, sprinkler heads shall be placed at the toe of the berm, so as to water from the bottom up. H. If the area proposed for development is improved and is not scheduled for development within six months of the completion of the previous phase, it shall be temporarily landscaped and irrigated for dust and soil erosion control. Temporary landscape areas shall use the low water use hydrozone for the water budget calculation. Enhanced hardscape features that include public art, sculpture and/or water features may be counted as part of the required landscaping as long as they are designed and integrated in a manner that accentuates the landscaping. J. Permeable surfaces shall be used wherever permissible in place of impervious paving, to encourage on-site water infiltration and support water conservation measures. K. Plant Material. 1. Plants identified on the landscape plan shall be selected from the approved plant list (Appendix C) of this Ordinance. 2. Existing mature landscaping that is in good healthful condition shall be retained by incorporating such landscaping into the landscape plan. 3. The protection, preservation and enhancement of native species and natural areas are required where feasible. 4. Landscape design shall provide for the grouping of plants in regard to their water, soil, sun and shade requirements and in relationship to the buildings, so as to facilitate appropriate and efficient water applications. Plants with different water needs shall be irrigated separately. 5. Turf shall be limited to only those areas designated for active recreational use. 6. Turf shall not be planted in areas that are less than ten (10) feet in width. 7. Turf is not permitted on bermed areas or on slopes greater than 25 percent due to the problem of water runoff. 8. High water use plants, characterized by a plant factor of 0.7 to 1.0 are prohibited in street medians. L. Protective tree grates shall be provided for trees planted in pedestrian areas. M. Root barriers shall be placed where trees are planted within five feet of any hardscape element or building. N. Soil Preparation, Mulch and Amendments. 1. Prior to the planning of any materials, compacted soils shall be transformed to a friable condition. On engineered slopes, only amended planting holes need to meet this requirement. 2. Soil amendments shall be incorporated according to recommendations of the soil report and what is appropriate for the plants selected. 3. For landscape installations, compost at a rate of a minimum of four (4) cubic yards per 1,000 square feet of permeable areas shall be incorporated to a depth of six (6) inches into the soil. Soils with greater than 6% organic matter in the top six (6) inches of soil are exempt from adding compost and tilling. 4. A minimum three-inch (3") layer of mulching shall be installed and maintained over all non -turf areas. In areas with groundcover planted from flats, the mulch depth shall be no less than one and one-half inches. The mulching should be in the form of shredded bark, bark chips of varying sizes, or other similar materials. The size and type of mulch used should allow for moisture to pass through the surface, thus providing permeability and reduced erosion, particularly on slopes. Nonporous material shall not be placed under mulch. 5. Stabilizing mulching products shall be used on slopes. 6. Organic mulch materials made from recycled or post -consumer shall take precedence over inorganic materials or virgin forest products unless the recycled post -consumer product is not locally available. Organic mulches are not required where prohibited by fuel modification plans as determined by the City's Fire Department. O. Decorative water features. 1. Recirculating water systems shall be used for water features. 2. Where available, recycled water shall be used for decorative water features. 3. The surface area of a water feature shall be included in the high water use hydrozone area of the water budget calculation. P The landscape plan, at a minimum, shall include: 1. Project address (if available, parcel and or lot number(s)). 2. Water supply type (e.g. potable or recycled). 3. Property lines, streets, and street names. 4. Building locations, driveways, sidewalks, retaining wall, and other pervious or non -pervious hardscape features. 5. Special landscape areas. 6. Identify areas irrigated with recycled water. 7. Identify type of mulch and application depth. 8. Identify soil amendments, type and quantity. 9. Identify type and surface area of water features. 10. Type and installation detail of any stormwater best management practices that encourage on-site retention and infiltration of stormwater. 11. A legend indicating all plant species by botanical name and common name, spacing, plant factor and quantities of each typed of plant by container size. 12. Delineate and label each hydrozone, and identify each hydrozone as low, moderate, or high water use. 13. Identify area, in square feet devoted to landscaping and a breakdown of the total areas by landscape hydrozone. 14. Identify any applicable rain harvesting or catchment technologies. 15. Identify any graywater discharge piping, system components and areas(s) of distribution. 17.32.070 WATER EFFICIENT LANDSCAPE WORKSHEET A. A project applicant shall complete the Water Efficient Landscape Worksheet in Appendix A, which contains information on the plant factor, irrigation method, irrigation efficiency, and areas associated with each hydrozone. Calculations are then made to show that the evapotranspiration adjustment factor (ETAF) for the landscape project does not exceed a factor of 0.55 for residential areas and 0.45 for non-residential areas, exclusive of Special Landscape Areas. The ETAF for a landscape projects is based on the plant factors and irrigation methods selected. The Maximum Applied Water Allowance is calculated based on the maximum ETAF allowed (0.55 for residential area and 0.45 for non-residential areas) and expressed as annual gallons required. The Estimated Total Water Use (ETWU) is calculated based on the plants used and irrigation method selected for the landscape design. ETWU must be below the MAWA. 1. In calculating the Maximum Applied Water Allowance and Estimated Total Water Use, a project applicant shall use the ETo value as specified on the Water Efficient Landscape Worksheet in Appendix A. 2. Water budget calculations shall adhere to the following requirements: a. The plant factor used shall be from WUCOLS or from horticultural researchers with academic institutions or professional associates as approved by the California Department of Water Resources (DWR). The plant factor ranges from 0 to 0.1 for very low water using plants, and from 0.7 to 1.0 for high water use plants. b. All Water features shall be included in the high water use hydrozone and temporarily irrigated areas shall be included in the low water use hydrozone. c. All Special Landscape Areas shall be identified and their water use calculated as shown in Appendix A. d. ETAF for new and existing (non -rehabilitated) Special Landscape Areas shall not exceed 1.0 17.32.080 SOIL MANAGEMENT REPORT In order to reduce runoff and encourage healthy plant growth, a soil management report shall be completed by the project applicant, or his/her designee, as follows: A. Submit soil samples to a laboratory for analysis and recommendations. B. Soil sampling shall be conducted in accordance with laboratory protocol, including protocols regarding adequate sampling depth for the intended plants. C. The soil analysis shall include: 1. Soil Texture. 2. Infiltration rate determined by laboratory test or soil texture infiltration rate table. 3. pH. 4. Total soluble salts; 5. Sodium. 6. Percent organic matter. 7. Recommendations. D. In projects with multiple landscape installations (e.g. production homes) a soil sampling rate of 1 in 7 lots or approximately 15% will satisfy this requirement. Large landscape projects shall sample at a rate equivalent to 1 in 7 lots. 17.32.090 IRRIGATION SYSTEM DESIGN REQUIREMENTS All irrigation systems shall be designed, constructed, managed, and maintained to achieve the highest overall efficiency possible. Efficiency is measured by the amount of water beneficially used to sustain plant life divided by the amount of water applied. Efficiency is affected by the attributes of the controller, method of irrigation, irrigation equipment, proper hydrozoning, site topography, condition and size of plants, and weather conditions. The design and installation of all irrigation improvements shall be in compliance with the following provisions: A. Landscape water meters, defined as either a dedicated water service meter or primate submeter shall be installed for all non-residential irrigated landscapes of 1,000 square feet or greater and residential irrigated landscapes of 5,000 square feet or greater. A landscape water meter may be either: 1. A customer service meter dedicated to landscape use provided by the local water purveyor. 2. A privately owner meter or submeter. B. The irrigation plan shall incorporate appropriate irrigation equipment, drip irrigation, bubbler, spray head, and/or rotor irrigation heads in order to provide the most efficient irrigation system. C. A manual shut-off valve shall be required as close as possible to the point of connection of the water supply, to minimize water loss in case of an emergency or routine repair. D. The irrigation plan shall be prepared at the same scale as the construction landscape plan and, at a minimum, shall identify the following: 1. Location and size of service lateral(s). 2. Location and size of water meter(s). 3. Point of connection (POC) location and static pressure at POC. Each point of connection shall indicate the size of the water meter, the static pressure available, and the maximum flow of the irrigation system. 4. Manufacturer's name, model number, total flow rate (gallons per minute), designed operating pressure (psi), and precipitation rate for each overhead spray and bubbler circuit, and total flow rate (gallons per hour) and design operating pressure (psi) for each drip and low volume irrigation circuit. 5. Location, size, and type of all irrigation components including, but not limited to smart controller, central controller, master valve, flow sensor, backflow prevention device, ball valves, anti -drain check valves, pressure supply (main) line, lateral lines, pipe sizing, valves, spray heads, rotors, drip, low volume irrigation equipment, gallons per minute, pressure regulators, and pumps. 6. Hydraulic calculation worksheet including flow rate (gallons per minute), design operating pressure, and pressure loss for valve with "worse condition." 7. Precipitation rate (inches per hour) for each spray type circuit. 8. Irrigation legend to include all irrigation equipment used on the project. 9. Location and identification of each hydrozone. 10. A hydrozone information table for each hydrozone. 11. Topographic elevation lines to determine slope. 12. Proximity to existing or planned recycled/non-potable water lines. 13. Irrigation system details for assembly and installation. 14. Calculation for the project's landscape Water Budget Formula (see Appendix A). E. Automatic irrigation controllers utilizing either evapotranspiration or soil moisture sensor data shall be required for irrigation scheduling in all irrigation systems. F. If the water pressure is below or exceeds the recommended pressure of the specified irrigation devices, the installation of a pressure regulating device is required to ensure the dynamic pressure at each emission device is within the manufacturer's recommended pressure range for optimal performance. G. If the static pressure is above or below the required dynamic pressure of the irrigation system, pressure -regulating devices such as inline pressure regulators, booster pumps, or other devices shall be installed to meet the required dynamic pressure of the irrigation system. H. Static water pressure, dynamic or operating pressure and flow reading of the water supply shall be measured at the point of connection. These pressure and flow measurements shall be conducted at the design stage. If the measurements are not available at the design stage, the measurements shall be conducted at installation. Sensors (rain, freeze, wind, etc.), either integral or auxiliary, that suspend or alter irrigation operation during unfavorable weather conditions shall be required on all irrigation systems, as appropriate for local climatic conditions. Rain sensors shall be placed within an unobstructed natural rainfall area and shall be located above the irrigation spray pattern. J. Backflow prevention devices shall be required to protect the water supply from contamination by the irrigation system. K. Flow sensors that detect high flow conditions created by system damage or malfunction are required for all non-residential landscapes and residential landscapes of 5,000 square feet or larger. L. Master shut-off valves are required on all projects except landscapes that make use of technologies that allow for the individual control of sprinklers that are individually pressurized in a system equipped with low pressure shut down features. M. All irrigation emission devices must meet the requirements set in the American National Standards Institute (ANSI) standard, American Society of Agricultural and Biological Engineer's/International Code Council's (ASABE/ICC) 802-2014 "Landscape Irrigation Sprinkler and Emitter Standards." All sprinkler heads installed in the landscape must document a distribution uniformity low quarter of 0.65 or higher using the protocol defined in ASABE/ICC 802-2014. N. Residential front yard typical irrigation plans must demonstrate that sufficient capacity exists on the specified irrigation controller to supply adequate additional zones for future side and backyard landscaping. More than one controller per residential unit shall be avoided. 0. All non-residential irrigation plans shall be designed for use of non -potable water in all areas scheduled for non -potable water in the future. Provisions for the conversion to a nonpotable water system shall be provided within the landscape plan should there be the possibility for future nonpotable water availability. Water systems designed to utilize nonpotable water shall be designed to meet all applicable standards of the City of Temecula, the California Regional Water Quality Control Board, State Department of Health Services, the Riverside County Health Department and the local reclaimed water purveyor. P. Separate valves shall be provided for separate water use planting areas, so that plants with similar water needs are irrigated by the same irrigation valve. Drip irrigation techniques or similar high -efficiency irrigation type shall be provided where appropriate (i.e., shrubs, massing in -mulched areas) in instances where spray irrigation is not necessary. Q. A separate valve shall be dedicated to trees with a minimum of two (2) irrigation bubblers per tree. R. Irrigation systems shall be zoned according to plant water use, slope aspect, and sun/shade microclimate. If low water use plants (that can also survive/flourish with medium water application) are used within a medium water use hydrozone, they must be counted as medium water use in the irrigation calculations. High water use plants may not be mixed with low water use plants within the same hydrozone. S. The capacity of the irrigation systems shall not exceed: 1. The capacity required for peak water demand based on water budget calculations. 2. Meter capacity. 3. Backflow preventer type and device capacity. T. The use of head check valves shall be included in irrigation systems where low point drainage could occur. U. The use of swing/spring check valves shall be proved in lateral lines where elevation differences from the valve to highest head exceeds seven (7) feet. V. Low head drainage is not permitted. W. Swing joints or other riser -protection components are required on all risers subject to damage that are adjacent to hardscape or in high traffic areas of turf grass. X. Bermed areas should be irrigated with drip line irrigation. If overhead irrigation is necessary for bermed areas, then sprinkler heads shall be placed at the toe of the berm Y. Slopes greater than 25% shall not be irrigated with an irrigation system with an application rate exceeding 0.75 inches per hour. Z. Overhead spray systems shall not be used in landscape areas narrower than ten (10) feet in width. AA. Overhead irrigation shall not be permitted within 24 inches of any non -permeable surface, unless the landscaped area is adjacent to a permeable surface and no overspray or run-off occurs. BB. In mulched planting areas, the use of low volume irrigation is required to maximize water infiltration into the root zone. CC. Rotors and spray heads shall be designed and installed with no overspray onto non -permeable surfaces, structures, and non -vegetated areas. Head-to-head coverage with matched precipitation heads shall be required, unless otherwise directed by the manufacturer. Rotors and spray heads shall be zoned separately. Half rotors and full rotors shall be zoned separately unless matched precipitation nozzles are used. DD. Point -to point drip systems shall utilize Schedule 40 PVC lateral lines. The lateral lines shall either be placed on -grade and secured with pipe anchors at a minimum 10 feet on center for slopes greater than 3:1 or buried one foot below grade. EE. High efficiency irrigation methods (e.g. drip, MP rotators, and microsprays) are required for appropriate applications. FF. For drip line installations, in-line pressure regulators shall be used per factory recommendations for the specific irrigation products being used. If drip line is being installed, it must be filtered at the valve along with any other necessary equipment. GG. Drip system operator indicators shall be included for each drip irrigation valve. HH. The delivery tubing for point-to-point irrigation systems shall be no longer than three feet and attached to grade at minimum two foot intervals. II. Emitter line drip systems shall have the lines placed no more than 18 inches apart. The emitter lines adjacent to curbs or walks shall be placed at a maximum of nine inches from the curb or walk. Emitter lines shall be attached to grade at a minimum of five feet on -center. All plants shall be planted between two emitter lines. JJ. The finish grade for all on -grade drip systems shall be a minimum of three inches below adjacent curbs or walks. KK. All drip systems shall utilize the mature canopy size of the plant in determining the number of emitters to be placed at each plant. A schedule showing the varying amount of emitters shall be placed on the plans. The run-times shall be shown in the irrigation schedules. LL. The maximum square feet of any drip valve shall be 2,500 square feet. MM. All non-residential drip systems shall have a brass/bronze line -sized basket strainer placed at the point of connection. NN. Systems shall be scheduled so that the irrigation precipitation rate does not exceed the infiltration rate of the soil. 00. A baseline irrigation schedule shall be provided on the plans for the six-month initial plant establishment period. The contractor shall adjust the schedule to meet site specific requirements and use the baseline schedule to set the weather based controller. The schedule currently in effect shall be posted in the controller. PP. A second baseline irrigation schedule shall be provided on the plans which incorporate the specific water needs of the plants throughout the post -establishment calendar year. The contractor shall adjust the schedule to meet site specific requirements and use the baseline schedule to set the weather based controller. The schedule currently in effect shall be posted in the controller. QQ. The irrigation schedules shall include the recommended irrigation days per week, number of cycles per day, minutes of run times per cycle, and estimated amount of applied irrigation water, expressed in gallons per month and gallons per year. RR. The controller shall be operational and set to real-time weather prior to the completion of the 90 -day maintenance period of the installing contractor. SS. After establishment of the plant materials, the irrigation of landscaped areas shall be limited to the hours between dusk and early morning in order to provide maximum benefit to the plant material and to reduce unnecessary water loss through wind drift and evaporation. Drip irrigation systems are exempt from this provision. 17.32.100 GRADING PLAN REQUIREMENTS (if applicable) A. A grading design plan may be required and shall include rough/precise grade elevations prepared for the project by a licensed civil engineer. B. The grading of a project site shall be designed to minimize soil erosion, runoff, and water waste. C. The grading plan shall include: 1. Height of graded slopes. 2. Drainage patterns. 3. Pad elevations. 4. Finished grade. 5. Stormwater retention improvements (if applicable). D. To prevent excessive erosion and runoff, it is highly recommended that project applicants: 1. Grade so that all irrigation and normal rainfall remains within property lines and does not drain on to non -permeable hardscapes. 2. Avoid disruptions of natural drainage patterns and undisturbed soil. 3. Avoid soil compaction in landscape areas. E. The grading design plan shall contain the following statement: "I have complied with the criteria of the ordinance and applied them accordingly for the efficient use of water in the grading design plan" and shall bear the signature of a licensed professional as authorized by law. 17.32.110 RESIDENTIAL REQUIREMENTS A. Single -Family Residential Requirements. 1. Street trees shall be planted along all streets in residential areas. On any street, at least one street tree shall be provided at the front of each residential lot. In the street side yard, slope, and similar areas, at least one street tree per 45 linear feet of street shall also be provided. 2. Front yard landscaping shall be provided in all residential zoning districts. In addition to the street tree requirement, front yard landscaping shall include, at a minimum, one 15 -gallon size tree per lot, one 5 -gallon size tree per lot, and a variety of drought tolerant shrubs and ground -cover. Shrubs shall be a minimum five gallons at the time of planting. Turf areas shall be used sparingly in response to functional needs only and shall be in compliance with the Water Budget Formula (Appendix A). 3. Slope banks five feet or greater in vertical height with slopes between 5:1 and 2:1 shall, at a minimum, be irrigated and landscaped with a combination of appropriate shrubs, vegetative ground cover, and mulch that will absorb rainwater and reduce runoff for erosion control. If drip irrigation is used on slopes, a fertilizer injector system shall also be used. a. Slope banks five feet or greater in vertical height with slopes greater than or equal to 3:1 shall, at a minimum, be landscaped to soften their appearance as follows: One 15 -gallon or larger tree per each 600 square feet of slope area. ii. One gallon or larger shrub for each 100 square feet of slope area. iii. Appropriate vegetative ground cover or mulch. iv. In addition to the above requirements, slope banks in excess of eight feet in vertical height with slopes greater or equal to 2:1 shall also provide one 5 -gallon or larger tree per each 1,000 square feet of slope area. 4. All trees and shrubs shall be planted in staggered clusters to soften and vary the slope plane. 5. Trees and shrubs shall be planted in a manner that at maturity they do not interfere with utility lines, sight lines for traffic safety, encroach on adjacent property, or create barriers to the solar access rights of adjoining property owners. 6. Residential front yard typical irrigation plans must demonstrate that sufficient capacity exists on the specified irrigation controller to supply adequate additional zones for future side and backyard landscaping. More than one controller per residential unit shall be avoided. 7. The project applicant shall provide home buyers with educational information regarding the design, installation and maintenance of water efficient landscape and irrigation landscapes as approved by the Director of Community Development or water purveyor, upon the sale of each dwelling unit within the project. The plans shall include a key identifying the common names of the plants used in the landscaping. B. Residential Model Homes Requirements. 1. All model homes in residential subdivisions shall comply with provisions of this chapter. 2. The project applicant shall distribute outdoor water conservation pamphlets provided by local water purveyors, if available, to buyers upon the sale of each dwelling unit within the development. 3. A sign shall be displayed in the front yard of each model home which is clearly visible to home buyers. The sign shall indicate that the model home features water efficient landscape, hydrozones, and irrigation equipment which contributes to overall water efficiency. C. Multi -Family Residential Requirements. 1. Parking areas shall comply with the standards as set forth by Chapter 17.24 of the Temecula Municipal Code. 2. All setback areas shall be landscaped, including interior courts, open space areas, and boundary areas that are not covered with buildings, pavement, or other hardscape surface. 3. Turf areas shall be used for functional needs only and shall be in compliance with the Water Budget Formula (Appendix A). 17.32.120 COMMERCIAL/OFFICE/INDUSTRIAL/PUBLIC INSTITUTIONAL REQUIREMENTS A. All development projects shall also comply with the City of Temecula Citywide Design Guidelines. B. Street trees shall be planted at a minimum of one tree per 30 linear feet of street frontage. Trees shall be a minimum 15 -gallon size at the time of planting. Shrubs shall be a minimum of five gallons at the time of planting. C. Setback areas that are not used for vehicular and pedestrian access shall be landscaped. In addition, all interior courts open space areas and boundary areas that are not covered with buildings, pavement, or other hardscape surface shall be landscaped. D. Landscape designs shall consider such factors as the function of the landscape elements, consistency with the building and its architectural design, compatibility to the area, special design features, berming, use of hardscape or nonorganic materials, drought -tolerant plant materials for water conservation, and utilize planting (i.e., combination of shrubs, trees and climbing vines) to break up large building masses and perimeter walls and fencing. E. The use or combination of berming, landscape materials, low level walls and structures, shall be used to screen parking areas, loading areas, trash enclosures, and utilities from public view. Parking areas shall comply with the standards as set forth by Chapter 17.24 of the Temecula Municipal Code. F. Slope banks five feet or greater in vertical height with slopes between 5:1 and 2:1 shall, at a minimum, be irrigated and landscaped with a combination of appropriate shrubs, vegetative ground cover, and mulch that will absorb rainwater and reduce runoff for erosion control. All trees and shrubs shall be planted in staggered clusters to soften and vary the slope plane. If drip irrigation is used on slopes, a fertilizer injector system shall also be used. 1. Slope banks five feet or greater in vertical height with slopes greater than or equal to 3:1 shall, at a minimum, be irrigated and landscaped with a combination of appropriate shrubs, vegetative ground cover, and/or mulch that will absorb rainwater and reduce runoff for erosion control, and to soften their appearance as follows: a. One 15 -gallon or larger tree per each 600 square feet of slope area. b. One gallon or larger shrub for each 100 square feet of slope area. c. Appropriate vegetative ground cover or mulch that will absorb rainwater and reduce runoff. 2. In addition to the requirements above, slope banks in excess of ten feet in vertical height with slopes greater or equal to 2:1 shall also provide on five -gallon or larger tree per each 1,000 square feet of slope area. G. Where trees are planted in pedestrian areas, a protective tree grate shall be provided. H. Trees and shrubs shall be planted so that they do not interfere with utilities, light standards, sight lines for traffic safety, encroach on adjacent property, or obstruct to the solar access rights of adjoining property owners. 17.32.130 OPEN SPACE/RECREATION/CONSERVATION ZONING DISTRICTS REQUIREMENTS A. A minimum of 80 percent of the net lot area shall be open space and unencumbered with buildings. Open space may include walkways and recreation areas. B. A minimum of 50 percent of the net lot area shall be covered with a drought - tolerant landscaping. C. A minimum of one drought tolerant shade tree shall be provided for every 1,000 square feet of net area. D. Turf areas shall be used for functional needs only and shall be in compliance with the Water Budget Formula (Appendix A). E. Any remaining areas which are not otherwise landscaped or surfaced for a specific recreational activity shall be covered with drought -resistant vegetation, decorative hardscape. F. Pervious hardscape shall be used where feasible. G. Vehicular access ways shall be paved. 17.32.140 IRRIGATION AUDIT A. All landscape irrigation audits shall be conducted by a local agency landscape irrigation auditor or a third party certified landscape irrigation auditor. Landscape audits shall not be conducted by the person who designed the landscape or installed the landscape. B. In large projects or projects with multiple landscape installations (i.e. production home developments) an auditing rate of 1 in 7 lots or approximately 15% will satisfy this requirement. C. For new construction and rehabilitated landscape projects installed after December 1, 2015: 1. The project applicant shall submit an irrigation audit report with the Certificate of Completion to the local agency that may include, but is not limited to: inspection, system tune-up, system test with distribution uniformity, reporting overspray or run off that causes overland flow, and preparation of an irrigation schedule, including configuring irrigation controllers with application rate, soil types, plant factors, slope, exposure and any other factors necessary for accurate programming. 2. The local agency shall administer programs that may include, but not be limited to, irrigation water use analysis, irrigation audits, and irrigation surveys for compliance with the Maximum Applied Water Allowance. 17.32.150. PROVISIONS FOR EXISTING LANDSCAPES. A. A local agency may by mutual agreement, designate another agency such as a water purveyor, to implement some or all of the requirements contained in this ordinance. Local agencies may collaborate with water purveyors to define each entity's specific responsibilities relating to this ordinance. 17.32.160. IRRIGATION AUDIT, IRRIGATION SURVEY, AND IRRIGATION WATER USE ANALYSIS. A. This section, 493.1, shall apply to all existing landscapes that were installed before December 1, 2015 and are over one acre in size. 1. For all landscapes in 493.1(a) that have a water meter, the local agency shall administer programs that may include, but not be limited to, irrigation water use analyses, irrigation surveys, and irrigation audits to evaluate water use and provide recommendations as necessary to reduce landscape water use to a level that does not exceed the Maximum Applied Water Allowance for existing landscapes. The Maximum Applied Water Allowance for existing landscapes shall be calculated as: MAWA = (0.8) (ETo) (LA) (0.62). 2. For all landscapes in 493.1(a), that do not have a meter, the local agency shall administer programs that may include, but not be limited to, irrigation surveys and irrigation audits to evaluate water use and provide recommendations as necessary in order to prevent water waste. B. All landscape irrigation audits shall be conducted by a certified landscape irrigation auditor. 17.32.170 MAINTENANCE AND ENFORCEMENT A. Landscapes shall be maintained to ensure water efficiency. Landscape maintenance shall include, but not be limited to routine inspection, adjusting and repair of the irrigation system and its components, resetting irrigation controllers, aerating and dethatching turf areas, replenishing mulch, fertilizing, pruning, weeding, clearing of debris, monitoring for pests and disease, the removal and timely replacement of dead plants, and repair and timely replacement integrated architectural features. B. A 90 -day maintenance period is required of the installing contractor immediately following approval of the final landscape inspection. C. An annual landscape maintenance schedule shall be prepared and provided to the property owner and Director of Community Development. The maintenance schedule shall identify plant types (turf, shrubs, groundcover, trees, etc.), mulch and/or inorganic ground cover, and shall indicate the frequency of pruning and fertilizer applications by plant type and the replenishment of mulch. D. Repair of irrigation equipment shall be done with originally specified materials or their equivalent. E. The City will rely on water purveyors to enforce landscape water use efficiency requirements to existing landscape. The City shall coordinate with local water purveyors and identify programs that enhance and encourage landscape water use efficiency such as: 1. Tiered water rate structure. 2. Allocation -based conservation water pricing structure. 3. A rate structure at least as effective as the above options. 4. Irrigation audits and/or irrigation surveys. 5. Penalties for water waste. F. New or rehabilitated landscape areas shall be subject to a landscape audit. The landscape audit shall include inspection of plant materials and irrigation systems in accordance with the State of California Landscape Water Management Program as described in the Landscape Irrigation Auditors Handbook, the entire document, which is hereby incorporated by reference. G. Landscape audits will be coordinated with the water purveyor and shall be conducted by a certified Landscape Irrigation Auditor. 17.32.180 CERTIFICATE OF COMPLETION. A. The Certificate of Completion (see Appendix D for a sample certificate) shall include the following six (6) elements: 1. Project information sheet that contains: a. Date. b. Project name. c. Project applicant name, telephone, and mailing address. d. Project address and location. e. Property owner name, telephone, and mailing address. 2. Certification by either the signer of the landscape design plan, the signer of the irrigation design plan, or the licensed landscape contractor that the landscape project has been installed per the approved Landscape Documentation Package. a. Where there have been significant changes made in the field during construction, the "as -built" or record drawings shall be included with the certification. b. A diagram of the irrigation plan showing hydrozones shall be kept with the irrigation controller for subsequent management purposes. 3. Irrigation scheduling parameters used to set the controller. 4. Landscape and irrigation maintenance schedule. 5. Irrigation audit report. 6. Soil analysis report, if not submitted with Landscape Documentation Package, and documentation verifying implementation of soil report recommendations. B. The project applicant shall: 1. Submit the signed Certificate of Completion to the Director of Community Development or his/her designee. 2. Ensure that copies of the approved Certificate of Completion are submitted to the local water purveyor and property owner or his or her designee. 17.32.190 REPORTING A. Local agencies shall report on implementation and enforcement by December 31, 2015. Local agencies responsible for administering individual ordinances shall report on their updated ordinance, while those agencies developing a regional ordinance shall report in their existing ordinance. Subsequently, reporting for all agencies will be due by January 31st of each year. Reports shall be submitted to the DWR as follows. B. Local agencies are to address the following: 1. State whether you are adopting a single agency ordinance or a regional agency alliance ordinance, and the date of adoption or anticipated date of adoption. 2. Define the reporting period. The first reporting period shall commence on December 1, 2015 and the end on December 28, 2015. In subsequent years, all local agency reporting will be for the calendar year. 3. State if using a locally modified Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance (WELO) or the MWELO. If using a locally modified WELO, how is it different than MWELO, is it at least as efficient as MWELO, and are there any exemptions specified? 4. State the entity responsible for implementing the ordinance. 5. State number and types of projects subject to the ordinance during the specified reporting period. 6. State the total area (in square feet or acres) subject to the ordinance over the reporting period, if available. 7. Provide the number of new housing starts, new commercial projects, and landscape retrofits during the reporting period. 8. Describe the procedure for review of projects subject to the ordinance. 9. Describe actions taken to verify compliance. Is a plan check performed; if so, by what entity? Is a site inspection performed; if so, by what entity? Is a post- installation audit required; if so, by whom? 10. Describe enforcement measures. 11. Explain challenges to implementing and enforcing the ordinance. 12. Describe educational and other needs to properly apply the ordinance. 17.32.200. APPENDICES. All references in this chapter to Appendix A, B, C and D are to the codified appendices adopted by Ordinance No. 15- Section 3. Adoption as an Urgency Ordinance. The City Council finds that this ordinance is necessary for the immediate preservation of the public peace, health, and safety, and declares that it shall take effect immediately upon its adoption as an urgency ordinance pursuant to Government Code Sections 36934 and 36937. The findings described in Section 2 of this ordinance describe the significant impacts on the drought facing the people of California and the people of the City and the recognition by the Governor of these immediate impacts thought his Emergency Proclamations concerning the drought and his Executive Orders expediting the measures set forth in this Ordinance to reduce water consumption and reduce the impacts of the drought. Section 4. CEQA Findings. This project is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines, 14 Cal. Code Regs. Section 15307 and 15308, as an action taken to assure the maintenance, restoration, or enhancement of a natural resource or the environment where the regulatory process involves procedures for protection of the environment. This Ordinance does not contemplate any construction activities and is limited to ensuring water efficient landscaping options to preserve water. There is no evidence to suggest that the Ordinance will result in a significant impact on the environment, including impacts due to unusual circumstances. The adoption of this Ordinance includes provisions that will result in the enhancement and protection of water resources in the City. Based on the foregoing and other substantial evidence in the record, the City Council hereby finds and determines that the Ordinance is exempt from the provisions of CEQA, pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines Sections 15307 and 15308. As a separate and independent ground, the City Council finds that the Ordinance is covered by the general rule that CEQA applies only to projects that have the potential for causing a significant effect on the environment. Because it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the Ordinance will have a significant effect on the environment, the Ordinance is not subject to CEQA pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines Section 15061 (b)(3). Section 5. Severability. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, or phrase of this Ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid or unconstitutional by a decision of any court of competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this Ordinance. The City Council hereby declares that it would have passed this Ordinance and each and every section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase not declared invalid or unconstitutional without regard to whether any portion of the Ordinance would be subsequently declared invalid or unconstitutional. Section 6. Notice of Adoption. The City Clerk shall certify to the passage and adoption of this Ordinance and shall cause the same to be published or posted in the manner required by law. PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Temecula this 10th day of November, 2015. Jeff Comerchero, Mayor ATTEST: Randi Johl-Olson, City Clerk [SEAL] STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE ) ss CITY OF TEMECULA I, Randi Johl-Olson, City Clerk of the City of Temecula, do hereby certify that the foregoing Ordinance No. - was duly introduced and placed upon its first reading at a meeting of the City Council of the City of Temecula on the day of , and that thereafter, said Ordinance was duly adopted by the City Council of the City of Temecula at a meeting thereof held on the day of , the following vote: AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: ABSTAIN: COUNCIL MEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Randi Johl-Olson, City Clerk Appendix A Water Efficient Landscape Worksheet. This worksheet is filled out by the project applicant and it is a required element of the Landscape Documentation Package. Reference Evapotranspiration (ETo) 56.7 Hydrozone # /Planting Description' Plant Factor (PF) Irrigation Method' Irrigation Efficiency (IE)` ETAF (PF/IE) Landscape Area (sq. ft.) ETAF x Area Estimated Total Water Use (ETWU)` Regular Landscape Areas Totals (A) (B) Special Landscape Areas 1 1 1 Totals (C) (D) ETWU Total Maximum Allowed Water Allowance (MAWA)` aHydrozone #,Planting Description E.g. 1.) front lawn 2.) low water use plantings 3.) medium water use planting °Irrigation Method overhead spray or drip eMAWA (Annual Gallons Allowed). (Eto) (0.62) [(ETAF x LA) + ((1-ETAF) x SLA)] where 0.62 is a conversion factor that converts acre - inches per acre per year to gallons per square foot per year, LA is the total landscape area in square feet, SLA is the total special landscape area in square feet, and ETAF is .55 for residential areas and 0.45 for non- residential areas. ETAF Calculations Regular Landscape Areas Total ETAF x Area (B) Total Area (A) All Landscape Areas Total ETAF x Area (B+D) Total Area (A+C) Sitewide ETAF (B+D) - (A+C) °Irrigation Efficiency 0.75 for spray head 0.81 for drip dETWU (Annual Gallons Required) = Eto x 0.62 x ETAF x Area where 0.62 is a conversion factor that converts acre - inches per acre per year to gallons per square foot per year. Average ETAF for Regular Landscape Areas must be 0.55 or below for residential areas, and 0.45 or below for non-residential areas. Appendix B Prescriptive Compliance Option A. This appendix contains prescriptive requirements which may be used as a compliance option to the requirements of Chapter 7.32. B. Compliance with the following items is mandatory and must be documented on a landscape plan in order to use the prescriptive compliance option: 1. Submit a Landscape Documentation Package which includes the following elements: a. Date. b. Project applicant. c. Project address (if available, parcel and/or lot number(s)). d. Total landscape area (square feet), including a breakdown of turf and plant material. e. Project type (e.g., new, rehabilitated, public, private, cemetery, homeowner -installed). f. Water supply type (e.g., potable, recycled, well) and identify the local retail water purveyor if the applicant is not served by a private well. g. Contact information for the project applicant and property owner. h. Applicant signature and date with statement, "I agree to comply with the requirements of the prescriptive compliance option to the MWELO". 2. Incorporate compost at a rate of at least four cubic yards per 1,000 square feet to a depth of six inches into landscape area (unless contra-indicated by a soil test). 3. Plant material shall comply with all of the following. a. For residential areas, install climate adapted plants that require occasional, little or no summer water (average WUCOLS plant factor 0.3) for 75% of the plant area excluding edibles and areas using recycled water; for non-residential areas, install climate adapted plants that require occasional, little or no summer water (average WUCOLS plant factor 0.3) for 100% of the plant area excluding edibles and areas using recycled water. b. A minimum three inch (3") layer of mulch shall be applied on all exposed soil surfaces of planting areas except in turf areas, creeping or rooting groundcovers, or direct seeding applications where mulch is contraindicated. 4. Turf shall comply with all of the following: a. Turf shall not exceed 25% of the landscape area in residential areas, and there shall be no turf in non-residential areas. b. Turf shall not be planted on sloped areas which exceed a slope of 1 foot vertical elevation change for every 4 feet of horizontal length. c. Turf is prohibited in parkways less than 10 feet wide, unless the parkway is adjacent to a parking strip and used to enter and exit vehicles. Any turf in parkways must be irrigated by sub -surface irrigation or by other technology that creates no overspray or runoff. 5. Irrigation systems shall comply with the following: a. Automatic irrigation controllers are required and must use evapotranspiration or soil moisture sensor data and utilize a rain sensor. b. Irrigation controllers shall be of a type which does not lose programming data in the event the primary power source is interrupted. c. Pressure regulators shall be installed on the irrigation system to ensure the dynamic pressure of the system is within the manufacturers recommended pressure range. d. Manual shut-off valves (such as a gate valve, ball valve, or butterfly valve) shall be installed as close as possible to the point of connection of the water supply. e. All irrigation emission devices must meet the requirements set in the ANSI standard, ASABE/ICC 802-2014. "Landscape Irrigation Sprinkler and Emitter Standard," All sprinkler heads installed in the landscape must document a distribution uniformity low quarter of 0.65 or higher using the protocol defined in ASABE/ICC 802-2014. f. An area less than ten (10) feet in width in any direction shall be irrigated with subsurface irrigation or other means that produces no runoff or overspray. 6. For non-residential projects with landscape areas of 1,000 sq. ft. or more, a private submeter(s) to measure landscape water use shall be installed. C. At the time of final inspection, the permit applicant must provide the owner of the property with a certificate of completion, certificate of installation, irrigation schedule and a schedule of landscape and irrigation maintenance. Appendix D Sample Certificate of Completion This certificate is to be filled out by the project applicant upon completion of the landscape project. PART 1. PROJECT INFORMATION SHEET Date Project Name Name of Project Applicant Telephone No. Fax No. Title Email Address Company Street Address City State Zip Code Project Address and Location: Street Address Parcel, tract or lot number, if available. City Latitude/Longitude (optional) State Zip Code Property Owner or his/her designee: Name Telephone No. Fax No. Title Email Address Company Street Address City State Zip Code Property Owner "I/we certify that I/we have received copies of all the documents within the Landscape Documentation Package and the Certificate of Completion and that it is our responsibility to see that the project is maintained in accordance with the Landscape and Irrigation Maintenance Schedule." Property Owner Signature Date Please answer the questions below: 1. Date the Landscape Documentation Package was submitted to the local agency 2. Date the Landscape Documentation Package was approved by the local agency 3. Date that a copy of the Water Efficient Landscape Worksheet (including the Water Budget Calculation) was submitted to the local water purveyor. PART 2. CERTIFICATION OF INSTALLATION ACCORDING TO THE LANDSCAPE DOCUMENTATION PACKAGE "I/we certify that based upon periodic site observations, the work has been substantially completed in accordance with the ordinance and that the landscape planting and irrigation installation conform with the criteria and specifications of the approved Landscape Documentation Package." Signature* Date Name (print) Telephone No. Fax No. Title Email Address License No. or Certification No. Company Street Address City State Zip Code *Signer of the landscape design plan, signer of the irrigation plan, or a licensed landscape contractor. PART 3. IRRIGATION SCHEDULING Attach parameters for setting the irrigation schedule on controller. PART 4. SCHEDULE OF LANDSCAPE AND IRRIGATION MAINTENANCE Attach schedule of Landscape and Irrigation Maintenance. PART 5. LANDSCAPE IRRIGATION AUDIT REPORT Attach Landscape Irrigation Audit Report. PART 6. SOIL MANAGEMENT REPORT Attach soil analysis report, if not previously submitted with the Landscape Documentation Package. Attach documentation verifying implementation of recommendations from soil analysis report. APPENDIX C - PLANT LIST Appendix A Water Efficient Landscape Worksheet. This worksheet is filled out by the project applicant and it is a required element of the Landscape Documentation Package. Reference Evapotranspiration (ETo) 56.7 Hydrozone # /Planting Descriptions Plant Factor (PF) Irrigation Methodb Irrigation Efficiency (IE)` ETAF (PF/IE) Landscape Area (sq. ft.) ETAF x Area Regular Landscape Areas Estimated Total Water Use (ETWU)e Totals (A) (B) Special Landscape Areas 1 1 1 Totals (C) (D) ETWU Total Maximum Allowed Water Allowance (MAWA)e 8Hydrozone II/Planting Description °Irrigation Method `Irrigation Efficiency E. g overhead spray 0.75 for spray head 1.) front lawn or drip 0.81 for drip 2.) low water use plantings 3.) medium water use planting eMAWA (Annual Gallons Allowed) = (Eto) (0.62) [(ETAF x LA) + ((1-ETAF) x SLA)J where 0.62 is a conversion factor that converts acre - inches per acre per year to gallons per square foot per year, LA is the total landscape area in square feet, SLA is the total special landscape area in square feet, and ETAF is .55 for residential areas and 0.45 for non- residential areas. ETAF Calculations Regular Landscape Areas Total ETAF x Area (B) Total Area (A) All Landscape Areas Total ETAF x Area (B+D) Total Area (A+C) Sitewide ETAF (B+D) _ (A+C) ETWU (Annual Gallons Required) = Eto x 0.62 x ETAF x Area where 0.62 is a conversion factor that converts acre - inches per acre per year to gallons per square foot per year. Average ETAF for Regular Landscape Areas must be 0.55 or below for residential areas, and 0.45 or below for non-residential areas. Appendix B Prescriptive Compliance Option A. This appendix contains prescriptive requirements which may be used as a compliance option to the requirements of Chapter 7.32. B. Compliance with the following items is mandatory and must be documented on a landscape plan in order to use the prescriptive compliance option: 1. Submit a Landscape Documentation Package which includes the following elements: a. Date. b. Project applicant. c. Project address (if available, parcel and/or lot number(s)). d. Total landscape area (square feet), including a breakdown of turf and plant material. e. Project type (e.g., new, rehabilitated, public, private, cemetery, homeowner -installed). f. Water supply type (e.g., potable, recycled, well) and identify the local retail water purveyor if the applicant is not served by a private well. g. Contact information for the project applicant and property owner, h. Applicant signature and date with statement, "I agree to comply with the requirements of the prescriptive compliance option to the MWELO". 2. Incorporate compost at a rate of at least four cubic yards per 1,000 square feet to a depth of six inches into landscape area (unless contra-indicated by a soil test). 3. Plant material shall comply with all of the following. a. For residential areas, install climate adapted plants that require occasional, little or no summer water (average WUCOLS plant factor 0.3) for 75% of the plant area excluding edibles and areas using recycled water; for non-residential areas, install climate adapted plants that require occasional, little or no summer water (average WUCOLS plant factor 0.3) for 100% of the plant area excluding edibles and areas using recycled water. b. A minimum three inch (3") layer of mulch shall be applied on all exposed soil surfaces of planting areas except in turf areas, creeping or rooting groundcovers, or direct seeding applications where mulch is contraindicated. Turf shall comply with all of the following: a. Turf shall not exceed 25% of the landscape area in residential areas, and there shall be no turf in non-residential areas. b. Turf shall not be planted on sloped areas which exceed a slope of 1 foot vertical elevation change for every 4 feet of horizontal length. c. Turf is prohibited in parkways less than 10 feet wide, unless the parkway is adjacent to a parking strip and used to enter and exit vehicles. Any turf in parkways must be irrigated by sub -surface irrigation or by other technology that creates no overspray or runoff. 5. Irrigation systems shall comply with the following: a. Automatic irrigation controllers are required and must use evapotranspiration or soil moisture sensor data and utilize a rain sensor. b. Irrigation controllers shall be of a type which does not lose programming data in the event the primary power source is interrupted. c. Pressure regulators shall be installed on the irrigation system to ensure the dynamic pressure of the system is within the manufacturers recommended pressure range. d. Manual shut-off valves (such as a gate valve, ball valve, or butterfly valve) shall be installed as close as possible to the point of connection of the water supply. e. All irrigation emission devices must meet the requirements set in the ANSI standard, ASABE/ICC 802-2014. "Landscape Irrigation Sprinkler and Emitter Standard," All sprinkler heads installed in the landscape must document a distribution uniformity low quarter of 0.65 or higher using the protocol defined in ASABE/ICC 802-2014. f. An area less than ten (10) feet in width in any direction shall be irrigated with subsurface irrigation or other means that produces no runoff or overspray. 6. For non-residential projects with landscape areas of 1,000 sq. ft. or more, a private submeter(s) to measure landscape water use shall be installed. C. At the time of final inspection, the permit applicant must provide the owner of the property with a certificate of completion, certificate of installation, irrigation schedule and a schedule of landscape and irrigation maintenance. Botanical name Arctostaphylos Acacia redolens Baccharis pilularis cvs. Baccharis 'Centennial' Lantana montevidensis Maleophora crocea Myoporum parvifolium Rosemarinus 'Prostratus' Teucrium chamaedrys Abelia grandiflora prostrata Arctotheca calendula Berberis spp. Cerastium tomentosum Ceratostigma pumbaginoides Cotoneaster spp.(ground covers) Fragaria chiloensis Gazania spp. Geranium incanum Hypericum calycinum Juniperus conferta Lirope spicata Lotus corniculatus Mahonia repens Muehlenbeckia axillaris Myoporum X'Pacificum' Myoporum South Coast' Parthenocissus quinquefolia Pelargonium peltatum Potentilla verna Senecio mandraliscae Thymus pseudolanuginosus Thymus serphyllum Trachelosperrnum asiaticum Trifolium fragiferum O'Connor Verbena rigida Zoyzia tenuifolia Ophiopogan japonicum Lotus scoparius Nolina parryi Achillea millefolium Achillea tomentosa Artemisia absinthium Baileya multiradiata Coreopsis auriculata'Nana' Coreopsis lanceolata Deschampsia caespitosa Dymondia margaretae Elymus spp. Encelia califomica Epilobium spp.(Zauchneria) Kniphofia uvaria Narcissus spp. Pennisetum alopecuroides Pennisetum setaceum'Cupreum' Stipa pulchra Stipa tenuissima Agapanthus africanus Anigozanthos flavidus Armeria maritima Asparagus spp. Calamagrostis spp. Carex comans Centaurea cineraria Chrysanthemum superbum Cuphea ignea Delphinium elatum Dietes bicolor Dietes iridiodes Digitalis purpurea Erigeron karvinskianus Erodium chamaedryoides Appendix C - Plant List Common name emerald carpet prostrate acacia dwarf coyote brush bentennial baccharis lantana ice plant (Maleophora) myoprum trailing rosemary germander prostrate glossy abelia cape weed barberry snow in summer dwarf plumbago cotoneaster wild strawberry gazania cranesbill Aaron's beard shore juniper creeping lily turf birdsfoot trefoil creeping mahonia creepng wire vine pacifica saltbush south coast myoprum Virginia creeper ivy geranium spring cinquefoil kleinia wolly thyme creeping thyme Asian star jasmine O'Connor's legume vervian Mascarene grass mondo grass deer weed bear grass common yarrow woolly yarrow wormwood desert marigold dwarf coreopsis coreopsis tufted hairgrass dymondia wild rye Califomia encelia Califomia fuchsia red hot poker daffodil Chinese pennisetum purple fountain grass feather grass feather grass lily-of-the-nile kangaroo paw sea pink ornamental asparagus feather reed sedge dusty miller (cineraria) Shasta daisy cigar plant candle larkspur fortnight lily fortnight lily foxglove fleabane cranesbill Height Spread Riv.Co. Type Kc Kc Feet Feet Native Comments GC 0.2 L 1 5 GC 0.2 L 2 12 GC 0.2 L 2 8 GC 0.2 L 2 5 GC 0.2 L 1 5 GC 0.2 L 0.5 2 GC 0.2 L 0.5 8 GC 0.2 L 2 6 GC 0.2 L 1 2 GC 0.5 M 2 3 GC 0.5 M 1 5 GC 0.5 M 1 6 GC 0.5 M 0.5 3 GC 0.5 M 1 4 GC 0.5 M 1 5 GC 0.5 M 0.5 1 GC 0.5 M 0.5 2 GC 0.5 M 0.5 2 GC 0.5 M 1 3 GC 0.5 M 1 6 GC 0.5 M 1 3 GC 0.5 M 1 3 GC 0.5 M 2 3 GC 0.5 M 1 3 GC 0.5 M 2 15 GC 0.5 M 2 10 GC 0.5 M 1 5 GC 0.5 M 2 4 GC 0.5 M 1 3 GC 0.5 M 1 3 GC 0.5 M 1 1 GC 0.5 M 1 1 GC 0.5 M 1 3 GC 0.5 M 1 6 GC 0.5 M 1 4 GC 0.5 M 0.5 2 GC 0.8 H 1 1 P 0.1 VL 2 2 X P 0.1 VL 6 3 X P 0.2 L 3 3 P 0.2 L 0.5 3 P 0.2 L 3 3 P 0.2 L 1 1.5 P 0.2 L 0.5 2 P 0.2 L 1.5 2 P 0.2 L 1.5 1 P 0.2 L 0.5 2 P 0.2 L 2 2 P 0.2 L 4 4 X P 0.2 L 3 3 P 0.2 L 2 3 P 0.2 L 2 1 P 0.2 L 3 3 P 0.2 L 4 4 P 0.2 L 1.5 1.5 P 0.2 L 1.5 1.5 P 0.5 M 1.5 1.5 P 0.5 M 2 2 P 0.5 M 0.5 1 P 0.5 M 1 3 P 0.5 M 2 2 P 0.5 M 1 3 P 0.5 M 2 2 P 0.5 M 2 2 P 0.5 M 1 1 P 0.5 M 3 2 P 0.5 M 3 3 P 0.5 M 3 3 P 0.5 M 4 2 P 0.5 M 1.5 3 P 0.5 M 0.5 1 Appendix C - Plant List Height Spread Riv.Co. Botanical name Common name Type Kc Kc Feet Feet Native Comments Erysimium linifolium wallflower P 0.5 M 2 2 Festuca califomica Califomia fescue P 0.5 M 0.5 1 Festuca ovina glauca blue fescue P 0.5 M 0.5 1 Gaura lindheimer gaura P 0.5 M 3 3 Geranium sanguinium cranesbill P 0.5 M 1 2 Helictotrichon sempervirens blue oat grass P 0.5 M 2 2 Hemerocallis spp. day lily P 0.5 M 1 2 Heuchera sanguinea coral bells P 0.5 M 1 2 Imperata cylindrica 'Rubra' Japanese blood grass P 0.5 M 1 2 Iris spp. Douglas iris hybrids P 0.5 M 2 1 Lillium asiatic asian lily P 0.5 M 2 1 Linaria purpurea toadflax P 0.5 M 1.5 1 Lirope muscari big blue lily turf P 0.5 M 1 1.5 Miscanthus sinensis eulalia grass P 0.5 M 5 5 Muhlenbergia dumosa bamboo muhly P 0.5 M 3 3 Muhlenbergia rigens deer grass P 0.5 M 3 3 X Nepeta Xfaassenii catmint P 0.5 M 2 2 Penstemon heterophyllus penstemon P 0,5 M 1 2 X Stachys bysantina Iamb's ears P 0,5 M 1.5 1.5 Tulbaghia fragrans sweet garlic P 0.5 M 1 1 Tulbaghia violacea society garlic P 0.5 M 1 1 Zantedeschia aethiopica common calla P 0,5 M 2 1 Bergenia crassifolia winter blooming bergenia P 0.8 H 2 2 Equisetum spp. horsetail P 0.8 H 4 2 Contain roots Adenostoma fasciculatum chamise S 0.1 VL 10 10 X Adenostoma sparsifolium red shanks/ribbonwood S 0.1 VL 10 10 X Calliandra eriophylla fairy duster S 0.1 VL 3 4 Cercocarpus minutiflorus San Diego mountain mahogany S 0.1 VL 6 10 X Fallugia paradoxa Apache plume S 0.1 VL 6 4 Lobelia laxiflora Mexican bush lobelia S 0.1 VL 2 2 Salvia apiana white sage S 0.1 VL 4 4 X Simmondsia chinensis jojoba S 0.1 VL 6 6 X Agave americana century plant S 0.2 L 5 5 Arctostaphylos cultivars manzanita cultivars S 0.2 L Varies Varies Arctostaphylos spp. manzanita S 0.2 L Varies Varies X Baccharis pilularis consan. coyote brush S 0,2 L 10 6 X Baccharis sarothroides desert broom S 0.2 L 10 6 X Buddleia marrubiifolia woolly butterfly bush S 0.2 L 5 5 Caesalpinea gilliesii desert bird of paradise S 0.2 L 10 10 Caesalpinea mexicana Mexican bird of paradise S 0.2 L 6 6 Callistemon citrinus bottle brush S 0.2 L 12 10 Convolvulus cneorum bush morning glory S 0.2 L 3 3 Senna artemisioides feathery cassia S 0.2 L 5 5 Senna eremophila deset cassia S 0.2 L 5 5 Ceanothus spp. California lilac S 0.2 L Varies Varies X Ceanothus cultivars ceanothus S 0.2 L Varies Varies Cereus peruvianus Penuvian apple cactus S 0.2 L 25 6 Cistus spp. rockrose S 0.2 L Varies Varies Comarostaphylis diversifolia summer holly S 0.2 L 10 10 X Convolvulus cneorum bush morning glory S 0.2 L 3 3 Dalea bicolor dalea (bicolor) S 0.2 L 3 3 Dasylirion spp. desert spoon S 0,2 L 3 3 Dendromecon spp. bush poppy S 0.2 L 15 15 Echium fastuosum pride of madeira S 0.2 L 5 5 Elaeagnus pungens silverberry S 0.2 L 12 12 Encelia farinosa brittle bush S 0.2 L 5 5 X Eriogonum spp. buckwheat S 0.2 L 3 4 X Euphorbia rigida euphorbia (rigida) S 0.2 L 2 3 Euryops pectinatus euryops/shrub daisy S 0.2 L 5 3 Forestiera neomexicana desert olive S 0,2 L 6 6 Fouquieria splendens ocotillo . S 0,2 L 15 5 X Fremontodendron spp. flannel bush S 0,2 L 15 12 X Galvesia speciosa island bush snapdragon S 0,2 L 2 4 X Grevillea spp. grevillea S 0,2 L 4 4 Hesperaloe parviflora red/yelow yucca S 0,2 L 3 3 Heteromeles arbutifolia toyon S 0,2 L 8 8 Ilex vomitoria yaupon S 0.2 L 6 6 Keckiella antirhinnoides yellow penstemmon S 0.2 L 6 8 X Keckiella cordifolia heart -leaved penstemmon S 0 2 L 5 8 X Lantana camara lantana S 0.2 L 3 5 Larrea tridentata creosote bush S 0 2 L 4 4 Botanical name Lavandula spp. Lavatera bicolor • Leptospermum scoparium Leucophyllum frutescens Mahonia nevinii Malosma laurina (Rhus laurina) Nerium oleander Rhamnus califomica Rhamnus crocea Rhus ovata Rosmarinus offfcinalis Ruellia brittoniana Salvia chamaedroides Salvia clevelandii Salvia gregii Salvia leucantha Salvia leucophylla Santolina spp. Sollya heterophylla Teucrium fruticans Trichostema lanatum Westringia fruticosa Yucca filamentosa Yucca whipplei. Abelia'Edward Goucher' Abelia X grandiflora Abelia 'Sherwoodii' Aspidistra elatior Buddleia davidii Buxus microphylla japonica Caesalpinea pulcherrima Callistemon viminalis Chamelaucium uncinatum Clivia miniata Cocculus laurifolius Coprosma kirkii Coprosma repens Cordyline australis Cotoneaster spp. (shrubs) Cycas revoluta Dodonaea viscosa Dodonaea viscosa'Purpurea' Escallonia spp. Euonymus japonicus Euryops pectinatus viridis Feijoa sellowiana Felicia amelloides Felicia fruticosa Gardenia veitchii Garrya eliptica Grewia occidentalis Hebe spp. Hibiscus syriacus Hypericum 'Hidecote' Ilex X altaclarensis 'W ilsonii' Ilex aquifolium Ilex cornuta'Burfordii' Ilex dimorphophilla Jasminum humile Jassminum mesnyi Juncus patens Juniperus spp. Ligustrum japonicum Mahonia aquifolium Mahonia bealei Mahonia 'Golden Abundance' Mahonia lomariifolia Murraya paniculata Myrtus communis Nandina domestica Nandina domestica'Purpurea' Appendix C - Plant List Common name lavender tree mallow New Zealand tea tree Texas ranger Nevin mahonia laurel sumac oleander coffeeberry redberry sugar bush rosemary mexican ruellia blue sage Cleveland sage autumn sage Mexican bush sage purple sage lavender cotton Australian bluebell creeper bush germander woolly blue curls coast rosemary Adam's needle our Lord's candle pink abelia glossy abelia Sherwood dwarf abelia cast iron plant butterfly bush Japanese boxwood dwarf poinciana weeping bottle brush Geraldton wax flower Kafir Lily laurel leaf cocculus creeping coprosma mirror plant cordyline cotoneaster sago palm hopseed bush purple hopseed bush escallonia evergreen euonymus green euryops pineapple guava blue marguerite shrub aster gardenia coast silktassel lavender star flower hebe rose of sharon St Johnswort Wilson holly English holly Burford holly Okinawan holly Italian jasmine pnmrose jasmine California grayrush juniper Japanese privet Oregon grape leatherleaf mahonia golden abundance mahonia Chinese holly grape orange jessamine true myrtle heavenly bamboo heavenly bamboo Height Spread Riv.Co. Type Kc Kc Feet Feet Native Comments S 0.2 L 3 3 S 0.2 L 6 4 S 0.2 L 6 6 S 0.2 L 6 6 S 0.2 L 4 6 S 0.2 L 8 8 S 0.2 L 10 10 S 0.2 L 10 10 X S 0.2 L 3 5 X S 0.2 L 8 8 X S 0.2 L 5 5 S 0.2 L 3 2 S 0.2 L 1 4 X S 0.2 L 4 4 S 0.2 L 4 4 S 0.2 L 4 4 S 0.2 L 4 4 S 0.2 L 2 2 S 0.2 L 2 4 S 0.2 L 5 5 S 0.2 L 4 4 X S 0.2 L 5 5 S 0.2 L 2 5 S 0.2 L 3 3 X S 0.5 M 4 4 S 0.5 M 5 5 S 0.5 M 3 4 S 0.5 M 2 2 S 0.5 M 6 6 S 0.5 M 4 4 S 0.5 M 10 10 S 0.5 M 20 15 S 0.5 M 6 6 S 0.5 M 2 2 S 0.5 M 25 25 S 0.5 M 2 3 S 0.5 M 10 6 S 0.5 M 20 6 S 0.5 M Varies Varies S 0.5 M 4 4 S 0.5 M 12 6 S 0.5 M 12 6 S 0.5 M Varies Varies S 0.5 M Varies Varies S 0.5 M 5 5 S 0.5 M 10 10 S 0.5 M 1.5 4 S 0.5 M 2 3 S 0.5 M 3 3 S 0.5 M 20 20 S 0.5 M 6 6 S 0.5 M 3 3 S 0.5 M 10 6 S 0.5 M 4 4 S 0.5 M 8 8 S 0.5 M 20 20 S 0.5 M 10 10 S 0.5 M 3 3 S 0.5 M 10 10 S 0.5 M 8 8 S 0.5 M 2 2 S 0.5 M Varies Varies S 0.5 M 10 10 S 0.5 M 6 6 S 0.5 M 8 8 S 0.5 M 6 4 S 0.5 M 8 4 S 0.5 M 10 10 S 0.5 M 5 4 S 0.5 M , 5 3 S 0.5 M 1.5 1 Non-residential landscapes only Contain roots Rabbit prone Botanical name Osmanthus fragrans Perovskia spp. Phormium hybrids Phormium tenax Photinia X fraseri Photinia serrulata Pittosporum tobira Pitt. tobira 'Wheelers Dwarf' Plumbago auriculata Punica granatum 'nana' Pyracantha spp. Rhamnus alaternus Rhaphiolepis spp. Rhaphiolepis'Majestic Beauty' Rosa 'Cecil Brunner' Rosa hybrids bush Spiraea japonica Tecomaria capensis Thymus vulgaris Trachelospermum jasminoides Veronica spp. Viburnum japonicum Viburnum rhytidophyllum Viburnum suspensum Viburnum tinus Xylosma congestum Prunus ilicifolia Quercus dumosa Quercus wislizeni Acacia baileyana Acacia cultriforrnis Acacia dealbata Acacia smallii Acacia stenophyla Arbutus unedo Nolina recurvata Brachychiton populneus Brahea edulis Ceratonia siliqua Cercidium floridum Cercidium microphyllum Cercidium praecox Cercis occidentalis Chilopsis linearis Chitalpa tashkentensis Cupressus arizonica var. glabra Cupressus sempervirens Elaeagnus angustifolia Eucalyptus camaldulensis Eucalyptus lehmannii Gleditsia triacanthos Laurus nobilis Leptospermum laevigatum Olea europaea Parkinsonia aculeata Phoenix canariensis Phoenix dactylifera Pinus brutia Pinus eldarica Pinus halepensis Pinus pinea Pittosporum phillyraeoides Prunus lyonii Quercus agrifolia Quercus chrysolepis Quercus ilex Quercus suber Rhus lancea Robinia X ambigua Schinus molle Sophora secundiflora Appendix C - Plant List Common name sweet olive Russian sage flax New Zealand flax Fraser photinia Chinese photinia mock orange dwarf pittosporum cape plumbago dwarf pomegranate firethorn Italian buckthorn Indian hawthorne majestic beauty Cecile Bnunner rose rose spiraea cape honeysuckle common thyme star jasmine veronica Japanese viburnum leatherleaf vibumum sadanqua vibumum laurustinus shiny xylosma holly leaf cherry California scrub oak interior live oak Bailey acacia knife acacia silver wattle desert sweet acacia shoestring acacia strawberry tree bottle palm bottle tree Guadelupe palm carob blue palo verde little leaf palo verde Sonoran palo verde westem redbud desert willow chitalpa smooth Arizona cypress Italian cypress Russian olive red gum bushy yate honey locust sweet bay Australian tea tree olive Mexican palo verde Canary Island date palm date palm Calabrian pine eldarica pine Aleppo pine Italian stone pine willow pittosporum Catalina cherry coast live oak canyon live oak holly oak cork oak African sumac locust California pepper tree Texas mountain laurel Height Spread Riv.Co. Type Kc Kc Feet Feet Native Comments S 0.5 M 10 10 S 0.5 M 3 3 S 0.5 M 4 3 S 0.5 M 5 4 S 0.5 M 10 10 S 0.5 M 10 10 S 0.5 M 8 8 S 0.5 M 2 2 S 0.5 M 6 8 S 0.5 M 3 3 S 0.5 M Varies Varies S 0.5 M 12 12 S 0.5 M 4 4 S 0.5 M 12 4 S 0.5 M 6 6 S 0.5 M Varies Varies S 0.5 M 4 4 S 0.5 M 6 8 S 0.5 M 1 2 S 0.5 M 1.5 5 S 0.5 M 1.5 1.5 S 0.5 M 10 10 S 0.5 M 8 8 S 0.5 M 8 8 S 0.5 M 8 8 S 0.5 M 8 8 T 0.1 VL 40 25 X T 0.1 VL 40 40 X T 0.1 VL 40 40 X T 0.2 L 25 30 T 0.2 L 12 12 T 0.2 L 40 30 T 0.2 L 30 20 T 0.2 L 30 20 T 0.2 L 20 20 T 0.2 L 6 6 T 0.2 L 40 30 T 0.2 L 30 10 T 0.2 L 30 30 T 0.2 L 30 30 X T 0.2 L 25 25 X T 0.2 L 25 25 T 0.2 L 15 15 T 0.2 L 25 25 T 0.2 L 25 25 T 0.2 L 40 20 T 0.2 L 50 10 T 0.2 L 20 20 T 0.2 L 70 40 T 0.2 L 25 25 T 0.2 L 50 30 T 0.2 L 30 30 T 0.2 L 30 30 T 0.2 L 25 25 T 0.2 L 20 20 X T 0.2 L 50 40 T 0.2 L 60 40 T 0.2 L 40 40 T 0.2 L 40 40 T 0.2 L 40 40 T 0.2 L 50 40 T 0.2 L 20 15 T 0.2 L 40 30 X T 0.2 L 40 50 X T 0.2 L 30 40 X T 0.2 L 50 50 T 0.2 L 50 50 T 0.2 L 25 25 T 0.2 L 40 20 T 0.2 L 35 35 T 0.2 L 25 25 Botanical name Washingtonia filifera Washingtonia robusta Acacia pendula Albizia julibrissin Alnus cordata Arbutus 'Marina' Arecastrum romanzoffianum Banksia integrifolia Bauhinia variegata Brachychiton acerifolius Brachychiton discolor Cedrus atlantica Cedrus deodora Celtis sinensis Cercis canadensis Chamaerops humilis Chionanthus retusus Cinnamomum camphora Citrus spp. Cupaniopsis anacardioides Cypressocyparis leylandii Eucalyptus citriodora Eucalyptus erythrocorys Eucalyptus nicholii Eucalyptus torquata Fraxinus oxycarpa 'Raywoodi' Fraxinus velutina Fraxinus velutina 'Modesto' Geijera parviflora Ginkgo biloba Junipenus scopulorum'Tolleson' Junipenus scopulorum Koelreuteria bipinnata Koelreuteria paniculata Lagerstroemia indica Ligustrum lucidum Liquidambar styraciflua Liriodendron tulipifera Magnolia grandiflora Magnolia soulangeana Magnolia stellata Malus spp. eg.'Prairie Fire' Maytenus boaria Melaleuca styphelioides Pinus canariensis Pinus torreyana Pistacia chinensis Platanus X acerifolia Platanus racemosa Podocarpus gracilior Podocarpus henkelii Podocarpus macrophyllus Populus fremontii Populus nigra 'Italica' Prunus caroliniana Prunus spp. (ornamental) Prunus spp. (ornamental) Punica granatum Pyrus calleryana cultivars Pyrus kawakamii Quercus lobata Quercus virginiana Sapium sebiferum Tipuana tipu Trachycarpus fortune' Tristaniopsis laurina Ulmus parvifolia Vitex agnus-castus Alnus rhombifolia Betula pendula Salix spp. Appendix C - Plant List Common name California fan palm Mexican fan palm weeping acacia silk tree Italian alder Marina arbutus queen palm tree banksia purple orchid tree flame tree Queensland lace bark Atlas cedar deodar cedar Chinese hackberry eastern redbud Mediterranean fan palm Chinese fringe tree camphor tree orange, lemon etc. carrotwood leyland cypress lemon scented gum red cap gum peppermint gum coral gum raywood ash Arizona ash Modesto ash Australian willow maiden hair tree Tolleson's juniper skyrocket juniper Chinese flame tree golden rain tree crape myrtle glossy privet sweet gum tulip tree southem magnolia saucer magnolia star magnolia crabapple mayten tree melaleuca Canary Island pine Torrey pine Chinese pistache London plane California sycamore fern pine long leaf yellow wood yew pine westem poplar Lombardy poplar Carolina laurel cherry flowering cherry flowering plum pomegranate Callery pear evergreen pear valley oak southem live oak Chinese tallow tree tipu tree windmill palm little leaf myrtle Chinese evergreen elm chaste tree white alder European white birch willow Height Spread Riv.Co. Type Kc Kc Feet Feet Native Comments T 0.2 L 50 10 X T 0.2 L 75 10 T 0.5 M 25 15 T 0.5 M 35 35 T 0.5 M 35 20 T 0.5 M 35 30 T 0.5 M 40 10 Not zone 18 T 0.5 M 20 10 T 0.5 M 30 30 T 0.5 M 50 30 T 0.5 M 30 30 T 0.5 M 50 30 T 0.5 M 60 30 T 0.5 M 40 40 T 0.5 M 30 30 T 0.5 M 20 15 T 0.5 M 30 20 T 0.5 M 40 40 T 0.5 M Varies Varies Not zone 18 T 0.5 M 40 40 T 0.5 M 20 10 T 0.5 M 60 30 T 0.5 M 20 10 T 0.5 M 30 20 T 0.5 M 15 10 T 0.5 M 50 30 T 0.5 M 50 30 T 0.5 M 50 30 T 0.5 M 25 20 T 0.5 M 60 30 T 0.5 M 20 10 T 0.5 M 20 3 T 0.5 M 30 30 T 0.5 M 30 30 T 0.5 M 25 20 T 0.5 M 35 30 T 0.5 M 50 20 T 0.5 M 50 30 T 0.5 M 60 30 T 0.5 M 20 20 T 0.5 M 10 20 T 0.5 M 20 20 T 0.5 M 30 20 T 0.5 M 30 20 T 0.5 M 60 20 T 0.5 M 40 30 T 0.5 M 40 40 T 0.5 M 50 30 T 0.5 M 60 40 X T 0.5 M 40 40 T 0.5 M 40 20 T 0.5 M 40 40 T 0.5 M 50 40 X T 0.5 M 50 15 T 0.5 M 35 20 T 0.5 M 25 25 T 0.5 M 25 25 T 0.5 M 20 20 T 0.5 M 40 20 T 0.5 M 40 40 T 0.5 M 60 50 X T 0.5 M 50 50 T 0.5 M 35 35 T 0.5 M 30 30 T 0.5 M 30 10 T 0.5 M 15 8 T 0.5 M 40 40 T 0.5 M 20 20 T 0.8 H 40 20 Surface roots T 0.8 H 30 15 T 0.8 H 20 20 Invasive roots Appendix C - Plant List Height Spread Botanical name Common name Type Kc Kc Feet Feet Clematis lasiantha pipestem clemaltis V 0.2 L 1 10 Lonicera japonica Japanese honeysuckle V 0.2 L 1 10 Lonicera japonica 'Halliana' Hall's honeysuckle V 0.2 L 1 10 Macfadyena unguis-cati cat's claw V 0.2 L 1 10 Vitis califomica California wild grape V 0.2 L 1 10 Ficus pumila creeping fig V 0.5 M 6 6 Clematis armandii evergreen clemeltis V 0.5 M 15 5 Clytostoma callistigioides violet trumpet vine V 0.5 M 15 5 Distictis buccinatoria blood red trumpet vine V 0.5 M 20 5 Distictis 'Rivers' royal trumpet vine V 0.5 M 20 5 Lonicera sempervirens trumpet honeysuckle V 0.5 M 20 5 Parthenocissus tricuspidata Boston ivy V 0.5 M 15 15 Rosa banksiae lady Banks rose V 0.5 M 15 15 Rosa hybrids..climbing climbing rose V 0.5 M 10 15 Solandra maxima cup of gold vine V 0.5 M 10 10 Solanum jasminoides potato vine V 0.5 M 10 10 Wisteria spp. wisteria V 0.5 M 20 20 Clematis hybrids deciduous clematis V 0.6 H 15 5 LEGEND GC, Ground cover P, Perennial S, Shrub T, Tree V, Vine C, Cool Season Grass W, Warm Season Grass Mowable Turf Grasses Cool Season Grasses, 80% of Eto Botanical name Agrostis palustris Poa pratensis Festuca rubra Festuca arundinacea Festuca arundinacea Lolium perenne Warm Season Grasses, 60% of Eto Botanical name Cynodon dactylon Cynodon species Buchloe dactyloides Zoysia japonica Stenotaphrum secundatum Pennisetum clandestinum Kc, Crop Coefficient Established by WUCOLS* Kc 0.1, Very Low water use Kc 0.2, Low water use Kc 0.5, Medium water use Kc 0.8, High water use, (Not recommended) *California Department of Water Resources WUCOLS III, August, 2000. Common name Creeping Bentgrass Kentucky Bluegrass Red Fescue Tall Fescue Tall Fescue, Dwarf Varieties Perennial Ryegrass Common name Common Bermudagrass Hybrid Bermudagrass Buffalograss Zoysia St. Augustine Kukuyugrass Type Kc Kc C H 0.8 C H 0.8 C H 0.8 C H 0.8 C H 0.8 C H 0.8 Type Kc Kc W M 0.5 W M 0.5 W M 0.5 W M 0.5 W M 0.5 W M 0.5 Riv.Co. Native Comments Turf Varieties Penncross, A-4 Rugby, Cobalt Dawson Marathon Bonsai, Matador Saturn, Manhattan Turf Varieties Safari, Sultan Santa Ana, TifDwarf, Tifway Texoka, Cody De Anza, El Toro Sod Only AZ1, Whittet X Comments Blu-Rye Mix Blu-Rye Mix Comments Appendix D Sample Certificate of Completion This certificate is to be filled out by the project applicant upon completion of the landscape project. PART 1. PROJECT INFORMATION SHEET Date Project Name Name of Project Applicant Telephone No. Fax No. Title Email Address Company Street Address City State Zip Code Project Address and Location: Street Address Parcel, tract or lot number, if available. City Latitude/Longitude (optional) State Zip Code Property Owner or his/her designee: Name Telephone No. Fax No. Title Email Address Company Street Address City State Zip Code Property Owner "I/we certify that I/we have received copies of all the documents within the Landscape Documentation Package and the Certificate of Completion and that it is our responsibility to see that the project is maintained in accordance with the Landscape and Irrigation Maintenance Schedule." Property Owner Signature Date Please answer the questions below: 1. Date the Landscape Documentation Package was submitted to the local agency 2. Date the Landscape Documentation Package was approved by the local agency 3. Date that a copy of the Water Efficient Landscape Worksheet (including the Water Budget Calculation) was submitted to the local water purveyor. PART 2. CERTIFICATION OF INSTALLATION ACCORDING TO THE LANDSCAPE DOCUMENTATION PACKAGE "I/we certify that based upon periodic site observations, the work has been substantially completed in accordance with the ordinance and that the landscape planting and irrigation installation conform with the criteria and specifications of the approved Landscape Documentation Package." Signature* Date Name (print) Telephone No. Fax No. Title Email Address License No. or Certification No. Company Street Address City State Zip Code *Signer of the landscape design plan, signer of the irrigation plan, or a licensed landscape contractor. PART 3. IRRIGATION SCHEDULING Attach parameters for setting the irrigation schedule on controller. PART 4. SCHEDULE OF LANDSCAPE AND IRRIGATION MAINTENANCE Attach schedule of Landscape and Irrigation Maintenance. PART 5. LANDSCAPE IRRIGATION AUDIT REPORT Attach Landscape Irrigation Audit Report. PART 6. SOIL MANAGEMENT REPORT Attach soil analysis report, if not previously submitted with the Landscape Documentation Package. Attach documentation verifying implementation of recommendations from soil analysis report. NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING Case No: Applicant: Proposal: Notice of Public Hearing A PUBLIC HEARING has been scheduled before the City of Temecula PLANNING COMMISSION to consider the matter described below: Environmental: Case Planner: Place of Hearing: Date of Hearing: Time of Hearing: LR15-1411, Water Efficient Landscape Design Ordinance City of Temecula An amendment to Chapter 17.32 of the City of Temecula Municipal Code updating the City's Water Efficient Landscape Design Ordinance to reflect standards of the State's Model Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance. This project is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines, 14 Cal. Code Regs. Section 15307 and 15308, as an action taken to assure the maintenance, restoration, or enhancement of a natural resource or the environment where the regulatory process involves procedures for protection of the environment. This Ordinance does not contemplate any construction activities and is limited to ensuring water efficient landscaping options to preserve water. There is no evidence to suggest that the Ordinance will result in a significant impact on the environment, including impacts due to unusual circumstances. The adoption of this Ordinance includes provisions that will result in the enhancement and protection of water resources in the City. Based on the foregoing and other substantial evidence in the record, the City Council hereby finds and determines that the Ordinance is exempt from the provisions of CEQA, pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines Sections 15307 and 15308. As a separate and independent ground, the City Council finds that the Ordinance is covered by the general rule that CEQA applies only to projects that have the potential for causing a significant effect on the environment. Because it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the Ordinance will have a significant effect on the environment, the Ordinance is not subject to CEQA pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines Section 15061 (b)(3). Dale West, (951) 693-3918 City of Temecula, Council Chambers October 21, 2015 6:00 p.m. The agenda packet (including staff reports) will be available for viewing in the Main Reception area at the Temecula Civic Center (41000 Main Street, Temecula) after 4:00 p.m. the Friday before the Planning Commission Meeting. At that time, the packet may also be accessed on the City's website — www.cityoftemecula.orq. Any Supplemental Material distributed to a majority of the Commission regarding any item on the Agenda, after the posting of the Agenda, will be available for public review in the Main Reception area at the Temecula Civic Center (41000 Main Street, Temecula), 8:00 a.m. — 5:00 p.m. In addition, such material will be made available on the City's website — www.cityoftemecula.orq — and will be available for public review at the respective meeting. If you have any questions regarding any item of business on the Agenda for this meeting, please call the Planning Department, (951) 694-6400. STAFF REPORT — PLANNING CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNING COMMISSION DATE OF MEETING: October 21, 2015 TO: Planning Commission Chairperson and members of the Planning Commission FROM: Luke Watson, Director of Community Development PREPARED BY: Dale West, Associate Planner PROJECT Planning Application Number LR15-1285, an amendment to the SUMMARY: Temecula Municipal Code to revise the expiration date and time extensions for Development Plans. CEQA: Section 15061(b)(3) The activity is covered by the general rule that CEQA applies only to projects, which have the potential for causing a significant effect on the environment. Where it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the activity in questions may have a significant effect on the environment, the activity is not subject to CEQA. RECOMMENDATION: Adopt a Resolution recommending that the City Council of the City of Temecula adopt Ordinance No._ amending the Temecula Municipal Code by extending the time for commencement of construction under certain development permits. BACKGROUND SUMMARY The process for which a development plan goes through to receive approval from the City can be extensive in which substantial resources from both the public and private sector are incurred to ensure the highest quality project is designed that benefits both the property owner and ensures the quality of life and economic needs of the community are met. To ensure the extensive effort incurred through processing of a development plan does not elapse and in response to the lingering financial challenges property owners face as a result of the economic recession that began in 2008, the City Council on November 18, 2014 directed staff to analyze and prepare a Municipal Code amendment that modifies the development plan expiration and extension of time regulations. Since the initial direction on November 18, 2014, staff conducted a review of development plan approval regulations in comparable cities throughout Southern California. In addition, a public workshop was held to receive input from the community on the potential changes to the term of development plan. On July 28, 2015, the City Council approved an Interim Ordinance that preserved the status quo of approved development plans with an expiration date between November 1, 2014 and December 1, 2015, and until such time as a permanent ordinance is completed and considered by the Planning Commission and City Council. C:\Program Files (x86)\neevia.com\docConverterPro\temp\NVDC\28A6C1 E1 -3E65-401 B-9196-5D2782E726FD\10898.docx 1 ANALYSIS Chapter 17.05 of the Temecula Municipal Code regulates the approval, expiration and extension of time for development plans. Under the current regulations, development plans expire within two years of approval if commencement of construction of the development plan has not occurred. The regulations also stipulate that a time extension of one year may be granted by the Director of Community Development, but no more than three one-year extensions of time may be granted. A development plan may be processed independently, or it may be processed along with a tentative map; however, tentative maps follow a different set of regulations for their expiration and extension of time. Under the current regulations (Chapter 16.09 of the Temecula Municipal Code), tentative maps expire three years after their approval date, and five one-year term time extensions may be granted. When development plans are processed along with tentative maps, their expiration dates and time extensions are not in sync with one another and development plans may expire sooner than their accompanying tentative map. To reconcile the incongruent timelines between development plans and tentative maps and to ensure the extensive efforts taken to receive approvals do not expire prematurely as a result of economic pressure, staff is proposing to extend the appropriate term of development plans from two years to three years. Staff is also proposing to increase the number of one-year individual extensions of time for development plans from three to five years. In doing so, both development plans and tentative maps follow the same expiration timeline. Additionally, staff is proposing that additional one-year time extensions may be granted beyond the initial eight years at a public hearing of the City Council. LEGAL NOTICING REQUIREMENTS Notice of the public hearing was published in the U -T San Diego on October 10, 2015. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION The proposed Municipal Code amendment allows for the expiration of approved development plans to be administratively extended up to 5 years beyond the initial 3 year term, and allows for additional 1 year time extensions by approval of the City Council at a public hearing. All existing approved development plans that have not expired, have undergone environmental review pursuant to California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines, and all future development plans are subject to review under CEQA Guidelines prior to their approval. As such, this proposed amendment to the Temecula Municipal Code is exempt from the requirements of CEQA pursuant to Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations, Section 15061(b)(3) because it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the proposed amendments to Title 17 of the Temecula Municipal Code may have a significant effect on the environment. ATTACH M ENTS PC Resolution Notice of Public Hearing C:\Program Files (x86)\neevia.com\docConverterPro\temp\NVDC\28A6C1 E1 -3E65-401 B-9196-5D2782E726FD\10898.docx 2 PC RESOLUTION PC RESOLUTION NO.15- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPT AN ORDINANCE ENTITLED "AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA AMENDING PORTIONS OF TITLE 17 OF THE TEMECULA MUNICIPAL CODE BY EXTENDING THE TIME FOR COMMENCEMENT OF CONSTRUCTION OF CERTAIN DEVELOPMENT PERMITS AND INCREASING THE NUMBER OF EXTENSIONS OF TIME ALLOWED FOR SAID PERMITS (LONG RANGE PLANNING PROJECT NO. LR15-1285)" Section 1. Procedural Findings. The Planning Commission of the City of Temecula does hereby find, determine and declare that: A. On November 18, 2014 the City Council directed staff to analyze and prepare a Municipal Code amendment that modifies the expiration of approved development plans. B. On July 28, 2015 the City Council of the City of Temecula approved an Interim Ordinance that preserved the status quo of approved development plans with an expiration date between November 1, 2014 and December 1, 2015, and until such time as a permanent ordinance is completed and considered by the Planning Commission and City Council. C. The Planning Commission, at a regular meeting, considered the application and environmental review on October 21, 2015, at a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law, at which time the City staff and interested persons had an opportunity to and did testify either in support or in opposition to this matter. D. At the conclusion of the Planning Commission hearing and after due consideration of the testimony, the Planning Commission recommended that the City Council approve Long Range Planning Application No. LR15-1285 subject to and based upon the findings set forth hereunder. E. All legal preconditions to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred. Section 2. Environmental Compliance. In accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act, the proposed Ordinance No. 15- (Ordinance Extending the Expiration of Development Plans) is exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") pursuant to Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations, Section 15061 (b) (3) because it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the Ordinance will have a significant effect on the environment. The Ordinance will have no adverse environmental affects because it will allows for the expiration of approved development plans to be administratively extended up to five years beyond the initial three year term, and allows for additional one year time extensions by approval of the City Council at a public hearing. All existing approved development plans that have not expired, have undergone environmental review pursuant to California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines, and all future development plans are subject to review under CEQA Guidelines prior to their approval. The Planning Commission, therefore, recommends that the City Council of the City of Temecula adopt a Notice of Exemption for the proposed ordinance. Section 3. Recommendation of Approval. The City of Temecula Planning Commission hereby recommends the City Council adopt an ordinance entitled, "An Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Temecula amending portions of Title 17 of the Temecula Municipal Code by extending the time for commencement of construction of certain development permits and increasing the number of extensions of time allowed for said permits for (Long Range Planning Application No. LR15-1285)" as set forth on Exhibit A, attached hereto, and incorporated herein by this reference. Section 4. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the City of Temecula Planning Commission this 21st day of October 2015. Lanae Turley-Trejo, Chaiperson ATTEST: Luke Watson, Secretary [SEAL] STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE )ss CITY OF TEMECULA I, Luke Watson, Secretary of the Temecula Planning Commission, do hereby certify that the forgoing PC Resolution No. 15- was duly and regularly adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Temecula at a regular meeting thereof held on the 21st day of October 2015, by the following vote: AYES: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: NOES: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: ABSTAIN: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: Luke Watson Secretary EXHIBIT A DRAFT ORDINANCE ORDINANCE NO. 15 - AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA AMENDING PORTIONS OF TITLE 17 OF THE TEMECULA MUNICIPAL CODE BY EXTENDING THE TIME FOR COMMENCEMENT OF CONSTRUCTION OF CERTAIN DEVELOPMENT PERMITS AND INCREASING THE NUMBER OF EXTENSIONS OF TIME ALLOWED FOR SAID PERMITS (LONG RANGE PLANNING APPLICATION NO. LR15-1285) THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Procedural Findings. The City Council of the City of Temecula does hereby find, determine and declare that: A. The economic recession that began in 2008 continues to impede a property owners ability to finance new development on their properties. B. During the application review process of a development plan, both the City of Temecula and the project applicant expend substantial resourses to ensure the highest quality project is designed that benefits both the property owner and ensures the quality of life and economic needs of the community are met. C. In order to preserve the substantial efforts of property owners to develop new projects, which in turn strengthen the employement and economic needs of the community, the City Council, on November 18, 2014, directed staff to study an extension of the expiration dates of development plans. D. On July 28, 2015 the City Council of the City of Temecula approved an Interim Ordinance that preserved the status quo of approved development plans with an expiration date between November 1, 2014 and December 1, 2015, and until such time as a permanent ordinance is completed and considered by the Planning Commission and City Council. E. The Planning Commission considered the proposed amendments to Title 17 of the Temecula Municipal Code ("Ordinance") on October 21, 2015, at a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law, at which time the City Staff and interested persons had an opportunity to and did testify either in support of or opposition to this matter. F. At the conclusion of the Planning Commission hearing and after due consideration of the testimony, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 15- _, recommending approval of the Ordinance by the City Council. G. The City Council, at a regular meeting, considered the Ordinance and on November 10, 2015, at a duly noticed public hearing, as prescribed by law, at which time the City Staff and interested persons had an opportunity to and did testify either in support or opposition to this matter. H. Following the public hearing, the City Council considered the entire record of information received at the public hearings before the Planning Commission and City Council. Section 2. Extension of Development Plans. This Ordinance shall apply to all Development Plans that have an expiration date November 1, 2014 or later. Section 3. Environmental Findings. The City Council hereby finds that this Ordinance is exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") pursuant to Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations, Section 15061(b)(3) because it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the proposed amendments to Title 17 of the Temecula Municipal Code may have a significant effect on the environment. The Ordinance will have no adverse environmental affects because it will allows for the expiration of approved development plans to be administratively extended up to five years beyond the initial three year term, and allows for additional one year time extensions by approval of the City Council at a public hearing. All existing approved development plans that have not expired, have undergone environmental review pursuant to California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines, and all future development plans are subject to review under CEQA Guidelines prior to their approval. The Planning Commission, therefore, recommends that the City Council of the City of Temecula adopt a Notice of Exemption for the proposed ordinance. Section 4. Section 17.05.010.G and H of Title 17 of the Temecula Muniicpal Code is hereby amended by revising the expiration and extension of time for development plans as follows: "G. Expiration of Development Plans. Within three years of development plan approval, commencement of construction shall have occurred or the approval shall become null and void. H. Time Extensions. The Director of Community Development may, upon an application being filed prior to the expiration, grant a time extension of one year (up to five extensions may be granted). Upon granting the extension, the Director of Community Development shall ensure that the development plan complies with all development code provisions. 1. For any time extension that administratively extends an approval that was originally approved at a public hearing, notice of the Director of Community Development's decision to administratively approve a time extension shall be posted at the site and mailed at least ten days prior to its approval to the applicant and its representative (as shown on the application); to the property owner (as shown on the latest available equalized assessment roll of the County of Riverside) or the owner's agent; to all persons whose names and addresses appear on the latest available assessment roll of the County of Riverside as owners of property within a distance of six hundred feet from the exterior boundaries of the site for which the application is filed (a minimum of thirty property owners); to anyone filing a written request for notification; and to such other persons whose property might, in the Director of Community Development's judgment, be affected by the establishment of the use or zone requested. Notice shall also be sent to public departments, bureaus, or agencies which are determined by the Director of Community Development to be affected by the application. 2. For matters that are considered to have special significance or impact, the Director of Community Development may refer such items to the Planning Commission for consideration at a noticed public hearing. 3. A request for an extension of time beyond the fifth approval of an extension of time may be granted by the City Council at a public hearing. 4. A modification made to an approved development plan does not affect the original approval date of a development plan. 5. Any development plan which was approved in conjunction with a tentative subdivision map shall expire no sooner than the approved tentative map or any extension of time approved for the tentative map, whichever occurs later." Section 5. Section 17.05.020.G and H of Title 17 of the Temecula Muniicpal Code is hereby amended by revising the expiration and extension of time for administratively approved development plans as follows: "G. Expiration of Administrative Approval. Within three years of administrative approval, commencement of construction shall have occurred or the approval shall become null and void. H. Time Extension. The Director of Community Development may, upon an application being filed prior to expiration and for good cause, grant a time extension of up to five one-year extensions of time. Each extension of time shall be granted in one- year increments only. Upon granting of an extension, the Director of Community Development shall ensure that conditions of the administrative approval comply with all current development code provisions. 1. For any time extension that administratively extends an approval that was originally approved at a public hearing, notice of the Director of Community Development's decision to administratively approve a time extension shall be posted at the site and mailed at least ten days prior to its approval to the applicant and its representative (as shown on the application); to the property owner (as shown on the latest available equalized assessment roll of the County of Riverside) or the owner's agent; to all persons whose names and addresses appear on the latest available assessment roll of the County of Riverside as owners of property within a distance of six hundred feet from the exterior boundaries of the site for which the application is filed (a minimum of thirty property owners); to anyone filing a written request for notification; and to such other persons whose property might, in the Director of Community Development's judgment, be affected by the establishment of the use or zone requested. Notice shall also be sent to public departments, bureaus, or agencies which are determined by the Director of Community Development to be affected by the application. 3. A request for an extension of time beyond the fifth approval of an extension of time may be granted by the City Council at a public hearing. 4. A modification made to an approved development plan does not affect the original approval date of a development plan. 5. Any development plan which was approved in conjunction with a tentative subdivision map shall expire no sooner than the approved tentative map or any extension of time approved for the tentative map, whichever occurs later." Section 6. Severability. If any section or provision of this Ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid or unconstitutional by any court of competent jurisdiction, or contravened by reason of any preemptive legislation, the remaining sections and/or provisions of this Ordinance shall remain valid. The City Council hereby declares that it would have adopted this Ordinance, and each section or provision thereof, regardless of the fact that any one or more section(s) or provision(s) may be declared invalid or unconstitutional or contravened via legislation. Section 7. Certification. The Mayor shall sign and the City Clerk shall certify to the passage and adoption of this Ordinance and shall cause the same or a summary thereof to be published and posted in the manner required by law. Section 8. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall take effect thirty (30) days after passage. PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Temecula this 10th day of November, 2015. Jeff Comerchero, Mayor ATTEST: Randi Johl-Olson, City Clerk [SEAL] STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE ) ss CITY OF TEMECULA ) I, Randi Johl-Olson, City Clerk of the City of Temecula, do hereby certify that the foregoing Ordinance No. 15- was duly introduced and placed upon its first reading at a meeting of the City Council of the City of Temecula on the 10th day of November, 2015, and that thereafter, said Ordinance was duly adopted by the City Council of the City of Temecula at a meeting thereof held on the day of , , the following vote: AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: ABSTAIN: COUNCIL MEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Randi Johl-Olson, City Clerk NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING Notice of Public Hearing A PUBLIC HEARING has been scheduled before the City of Temecula PLANNING COMMISSION to consider the matter described below: Case No: LR15-1285, Development Plan Extension of Time Applicant: City of Temecula Proposal: An amendment to Title 17 of the City of Temecula Municipal Code extending the expiration of and extension of time for Development Plans Environmental: In accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the proposed project is exempt from further environmental review and a Notice of Exemption will be adopted in compliance with CEQA (Section 15061(b)(3)). The activity is covered by the general rule that CEQA applies only to projects, which have the potential for causing a significant effect on the environment. Where it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the activity in questions may have a significant effect on the environment, the activity is not subject to CEQA. Case Planner: Place of Hearing: Date of Hearing: Time of Hearing: Dale West, (951) 693-3918 City of Temecula, Council Chambers October 21, 2015 6:00 p.m. The agenda packet (including staff reports) will be available for viewing in the Main Reception area at the Temecula Civic Center (41000 Main Street, Temecula) after 4:00 p.m. the Friday before the Planning Commission Meeting. At that time, the packet may also be accessed on the City's website — www.cityoftemecula.orq. Any Supplemental Material distributed to a majority of the Commission regarding any item on the Agenda, after the posting of the Agenda, will be available for public review in the Main Reception area at the Temecula Civic Center (41000 Main Street, Temecula), 8:00 a.m. — 5:00 p.m. In addition, such material will be made available on the City's website — www.cityoftemecula.orq — and will be available for public review at the respective meeting. If you have any questions regarding any item of business on the Agenda for this meeting, please call the Planning Department, (951) 694-6400.