HomeMy WebLinkAbout15-065 CC Resolution RESOLUTION NO. 15-65
' 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
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES HEREBY RESOLVE
AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1 . Procedural Findings. The City Council of the City of Temecula
does hereby find, determine and declare that:
A. 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,
1
Resos 15-65 1
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 on April 4, 2015 in the San Diego Union-Tribune, a newspaper of
general circulation in the City.
I. 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
Resos 15-65 2
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
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. 15-26 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. 15-27, 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.
Resos 15-65 3
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
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 November 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
Resos 15-65 4
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
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.
Resos 15-65 5
SECTION 6. Severabilitv. 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.
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 Council of the City of
Temecula this 17th day of November, 2015.
Le
Jeff Comerchero, Mayor
ATTES
W
Randi Jo , City Clerk
[SEAL]
1
Resos 15-65 6
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
' COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE ) ss
CITY OF TEMECULA )
I, Randi Johl, City Clerk of the City of Temecula, do hereby certify that the
foregoing Resolution No. 15-65 was duly and regularly adopted by the City Council of the
City of Temecula at a meeting thereof held on the 17th day of November, 2015, by the
following vote:
AYES: 5 COUNCIL MEMBERS: Edwards, McCracken, Naggar, Rahn,
Comerchero
NOES: 0 COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
ABSTAIN: 0 COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
ABSENT: 0 COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
Randi Johl, City Clerk
Resos 15-65 7
' 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.t
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; (1) 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, tenants, and business
owners within the boundaries of the Uptown Jefferson Specific Plan, and land owners and tenants
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
I. 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
I. 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
I. 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 FIR 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
I. 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:
• Light fixtures shall not exceed 4,050 lumens;
• 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.
• A map showing all lamp locations, orientations,and intensities, including
security, roadway, and task lighting;
• Specification of each light fixture and each light shield;
• Total estimated outdoor lighting footprint,expressed as lumens per acre; and
• 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-I
(above), potential light and glare impacts associated with the Project will be less than
significant.
B. Air Quality
I. Localized Construction Emissions
Future project-level development construction activities associated with the implementation
of the Project would not have a significant localized impact when construction activities: I)
would require no more than a maximum of six pieces of heavy-duty diesel equipment
operating concurrently for eight hours per day; 2) involve no more than a maximum daily
A-6
amount of 3,500 cubic yards of dirt handling associated with grading activities; 3) require no
more than 10 miles of onsite travel by haul trucks per day; and 4) involve an onsite storage
(soil)pile of no more than 0.02 acres. It is possible that project-level development could
exceed these construction activity thresholds, resulting in a significant localized air quality
impact.
a) Findings
Changes or alterations have been required in or incorporated into the Project, including
the mitigation measure described below, to ensure that construction emissions from
project-level development are less than significant.
Mitigation Measure MM-AIR-3: Prior to City approval of an individual development
project that would have the construction equipment and activity listed below,a project-
specific LST analysis that identifies the resulting construction emissions shall be
prepared using either SCAQMD's LST screening tables(for projects that are less than
five acres)or dispersion modeling(for projects that exceed five acres in size) . Where it
is determined that construction emissions would exceed the applicable LSTs or the most
stringent applicable federal or state ambient air quality standards, the project shall reduce
its daily construction intensity(e.g., reducing the amount of equipment used daily,
reducing the amount of soil graded/excavated daily,etc.)to a level where the project's
' construction emissions would no longer 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.
b) Facts in Support of Findings
Implementation of the Project could exceed air quality standards during construction if
grading activities exceeded certain levels of activity resulting in localized air quality
impacts. However, implementation of Mitigation Measures MM-AIR-I a through MM-
AIR-I d, and MM-AIR-3 would reduce potential impacts to a less than significant level.
2. Operational Sources of Toxic Air Contaminants
As the entire eastern boundary of the Project area is located adjacent to 1-15,there could
potentially be new residential uses that would be located within 500 feet of this freeway.
A-7
Consequently, the Project could potentially expose sensitive receptors to Toxic Air
Contaminants (TACs) from mobile sources on 1-15 to an extent that health risks could result.
a) Findings
Changes or alterations have been required in or incorporated into the Project, including
the mitigation measure described below,to ensure that TACs on sensitive receptors
located within the Project site are less than significant.
Measure MM-AIR-4: Prior to City approval of future project-specific residential
developments within the Project area and 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.
b) Facts in Support of Findings
' Implementation of the Project could expose sensitive receptors to TACs that exceed air
quality standards. However, implementation of Mitigation Measures MM-AIR-4 would
reduce potential impacts to a less than significant level.
C. Biological Resources
I. 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
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.
A-8
' 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 I-August 30).
• If construction and ground disturbing activities are necessary during the breeding
season (February I-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
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 of the Draft FIR,which depicts
A-9
vegetation communities within the Project area, 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 63.2 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
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
A-10
Section I0(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 I (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:
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
A-11
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.
Off-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
)ones(aka Skunk Hollow)Wetland Mitigation Bank.
Mitigation Measure MM-13I0-5: 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 CDF W 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
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-1310-1
A-12
' through MM-1310-5 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-1310-1 and MM-13104.
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-BI0 4 which require biological surveys and MSHCP vernal pool
protection implementation measures would minimize potential impacts to a less than
significant level.
D. 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-RIV-644,
-717, and -1727H)are located within the Project area.Two of these resources(CA-RIV-644
and-717) are prehistoric archaeological sites, and one(CA-RIV-1727H) is a historic-period
archaeological site.None have been evaluated for their eligibility for listing in the California
Register or local historic register.Therefore,the Project area has moderate to high potential
for significant impacts to archaeological resources.
a) Findings
A-13
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-I: 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 Luiseno
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 Luiseno 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 Luiseno Indians. The City shall conduct consultation with the
Pechanga Band of Luiseno 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.
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 Luiseno Indians, will be
contacted to assess the significance of the find according to CEQA Guidelines Section
A-14
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 Luisefio 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
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.
A-15
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
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,
A-16
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 3641). 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.
b) Facts in Support of Findings
The archaeological site record for site CA-RIV-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
A-17
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 FIR 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;
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
A-18
' formal cemeteries, and the Project's contribution to cumulative impacts on human
remains would not be cumulatively considerable.
E. Geology, Soils and Seismicity
I. 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-I and MM-HYD-2.
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 (S W PPP)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.
F. Hazards and Hazardous Materials
t. Construction activities occurring under the Project may occur on sites containing
contamination, which could result in releases of hazardous materials
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
A-19
' 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-1 a: 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-1b: 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-1 c: 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.
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,
A-20
' 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-I a
through MM-HAZ-lc will reduce potential impacts related to hazardous materials to less
than significant levels.
G. Hydrology and Water Quality
I. 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 S WPPP 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.
A-21
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 S WPPP and water quality-related BMPs described in Mitigation
Measure MM-HYD-I 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.
Mitigation: Implement Mitigation Measure MM-HYD-I; 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
A-22
' Jurisdictional Runoff Management Plan, which will ensure that the project implements
specific hydromodifcation 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-I and MM-
HYD-3 would reduce impacts to less than significant. As part of Mitigation Measure
MM-HYD-I, 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.
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.
b) Facts in Support of Findings
As part of Mitigation Measure MM-HYD-I, 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
A-23
' 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.
H. Noise and Vibration (operations)
t. 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-NOW: 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-N01-4a: Individual development projects shall minimize
noise impacts from mechanical equipment, such as ventilation and air conditioning units,
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.
A-24
' 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-NOl-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-NOl-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.
2. 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.
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
A-25
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-NCI-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.
1. Transportation and Traffic
I. 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 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.
A-26
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-27
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
I. 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-1 a: 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-1 b: 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-28
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-1 a 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)
I. 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 FIR level.
A-29
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 FIR. 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.3
• 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
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.
l 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-30
' emissions control strategy for a similarly sized engine as defined by CARB
regulations would be achieved.
• After January I, 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-le: 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 1 1 13.
Mitigation Measure MM-AIR-Id: 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 FIR 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-31
Mitigation Measures MM-AIR-I a through MM-AIR-Id 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 Fpwaifl
hPlev be above 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."
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 above
the SCAQMD's recommended threshold. Thus,this impact would be significant and
unavoidable.
3. Cumulative Impacts to Air Quality
' Consumer products are defined in CaIEEMod 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-32
As the Basin is currently classified as a state non-attainment area for ozone,NOz, PM,,, and
PMZ 5, 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 NO,.'
Findings
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-1 a and MM-
AIR-1 b 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.
a) 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 NOZ). The 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.
s It should be noted that because the Basin in currently a non-attainment area for ozone and NOi, 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-33
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, PM 10, and PM2.5. With respect to the Project's
operational emissions of NOx, CO, SOx, PM 10, 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
I. 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
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 FIR. The following Mitigation Measure will be implemented to lessen impacts
to historic resources; however, no mitigation measures 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.
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
A-34
' 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
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, no mitigation measures were
identified that could reduce the impacts to built historic features to 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)
1. Construction Noise
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-35
a) Findings
Mitigation measures were evaluated for their ability to eliminate the potential significant
increases in noise impacts upon adjacent or nearby receptor(s). The following mitigation
measures will be implemented to lessen noise impacts; however, no mitigation measures
were identified that could reduce noise impacts to sensitive receptors 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-1 b: 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 andjackhammers. 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-36
• 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-1 b 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.
' 2. Construction Vibration
A-37
' Construction activities occurring at each individual development site in the Project area
would potentially expose their respective onsite and/or offsite sensitive land uses to vibration
levels that exceed applicable FTA vibration thresholds for building damage and human
annoyance.
c) 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 to expose sensitive
receptors onsite and/or offsite to substantial vibration levels that exceed applicable FTA
vibration thresholds for building damage and human annoyance, none were identified that
could reduce the impacts to below the level of significance.
Mitigation Measure MM-NOI-2a: The operation of construction equipment that
generates high levels of vibration, such as large bulldozers, loaded trucks, and caisson
drills, shall be prohibited within 45 feet of residential structures and 35 feet of
institutional structures during construction of any project-specific development in the
Project area to the extent feasible. Small, rubber-tired construction equipment shall be
used within this area during demolition and/or grading operations to reduce vibration
effects,where feasible.
' Mitigation Measure MM-N0I-2b: Operation ofjackhammers shall be prohibited within
25 feet of existing residential structures and 20 feet of institutional structures during
construction activities associated with any project-specific development in the Project
area,to the extent feasible.
d) Facts in Support of Findings
As individual development projects would be spread over the Project's buildout period
and construction events are short-term in nature, it is anticipated that there would be an
infrequent amount of vibration events per day at sensitive land use receptors resulting
from the construction of individual development projects. However, depending on how
close an actual receptor location is to a construction site, and the type of building the
receptor is(e.g., non-engineered timber and masonry building, historical building,etc.),
the vibration levels at a receptor location could exceed the FTA's vibration thresholds for
building damage and human annoyance(refer to the"Thresholds of Significance"section
of the FIR for the applicable FTA vibration thresholds). As such, vibration impacts
during construction associated with the Project could be potentially significant.
Implementation of Mitigation Measures MM-NOI-2a and MM-NOI-2b would reduce
these impacts; however, not to below a level of significance.
A-38
' 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(f)(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-39
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; I,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 13 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-40
' 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-41
' 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
Alt.3:
Alt 1: Reduced
No Project Alt.2: Residential/increased
Alternative(No Reduced Project Commercial Uses
Potential Project Impacts Development) Alternative 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 Increased Reduced Increased
Climate Change
Hazards and Hazardous Materials Similar Similar Similar
Hydrology and Water Quality Reduced Similar Similar
Land Use and Planning Increased Similar Similar
A-42
' 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 Reduced Reduced Reduced
Water Supply Assessment
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-43
' 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 FIR 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.
C-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 FIR 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.
1
C-2
Mitigation Monitonng and Reponing Program
EXHIBIT C
UPTOWN JEFFERSON SPECIFIC PLAN MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
Responsible Action Verification of Compliance
Monitoring Enforcement Monitoring Indicating
Mitigation Measures Phase Agency Agency Compliance Initials Date Remarks
Aesthetics
Mitigation Measure MM-AES-1:The following light and glare Pre-Construction/ City of City of City of
standards shall be applied to all future development within the Construction Temecula Temecula Temecula
Specific Plan area Building Official project approval
• The applicant shall ensure that all lighting fixtures contain or other and field
"sharp cut-off'fixtures,and shall be fitted with flat glass and Designee verification and
internal and extemal shielding. sign-off by City
of Temecula
• The applicant shall ensure that site lighting systems shall be
grouped into control zones to allow for opening,dosing,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 adopted by the Riverside County Board
of Supervisors and shall include,but not be limited to,the
following information and standards:
• Light fixtures shall not exceed 4,050 lumens;
• Light fixtures shall be fully shielded so that light rays
emitted by the fixtures are projected below the horizontal
plane passing through the lowest point of the shield:
• A map showing all lamp locations,orientations,and
intensities,including security,roadway,and task lighting:
• Specification of each light fixture and each light shield:
• Total estimated outdoor lighting footprint,expressed as
lumens per acre:and.
• 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
Uptown Jefleison Spegfic Plan ESA/211247
MMRP July 2015
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
UPTOWN JEFFERSON SPECIFIC PLAN MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
Responsible Action Verification of Compliance
Monitoring Enforcement Monitoring Indicating
Mitigation Measures Phase Agency Agency Compliance Initials Date Remarks
Mitigation Measure MM-AES-1 and Riverside County
Ordinance No.655.
• The use of highly reflective construction materials on exterior
wall surfaces.The exterior of permitted buildings shall be
constructed of materials such as high performance tinted non-
mirrored glass,painted metal panels and precast concrete or
fabricated wall surfaces.
Air Quality
Mitigation Measure M1111 ta: Future project-level development Pre-Construction/ City of City of Issuance of
shall incorporate the following mitigation measures to minimize Construction Temecula Temecula Grading Permit
emissions of NOx associated with construction activities for the Building Official and field
Project: or other verification and
• Construction activities shall require the use of 2010 and newer Designee sign-off by City
diesel haul trucks(e.g.,material delivery trucks and soil of Temecula
imporUexport)to the extent feasible.l 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 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
1 CARS'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.
2 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 phaseo m for heavy-duty highway engines between 2007 and 2010,would be used instead.
Uptown Jaflarson Speufic Plan 2 ESA 1211247
MMRP
July 2015
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
UPTOWN JEFFERSON SPECIFIC PLAN MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
Responsible Action Verification of Compliance
Monitoring Enforcement Monitoring Indicating
Mitigation Measures Phase Agency Agency Compliance Initials Date Remarks
Level 3 diesel 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-1 b: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-1 c: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-td:The City shall encourage all
construction contractors to apply for SCAQMD"SOON"funds,which
provides funds to accelerate cleanup of off-road diesel vehicles
such as heavy-duty construction equipment.
Uptown Jefferson Spedfic Plen 3 ESA/211247
MMRP July 2015
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
UPTOWN JEFFERSON SPECIFIC PLAN MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
Responsible Action Verification of Compliance
Monitoring Enforcement Monitoring Indicating
Mitigation Measures Phase Agency Agency Compliance Initials Date Remarks
Mitigation Measure MM-AIR-3: Prior to City approval of an Pre-Construction/ City of City of City of
individual development project that would have the construction Construction Temecula Temecula Temecula
equipment and activity listed below,a project-specific LST analysis Building Official project approval
shall be prepared and submitted that identifies the resulting or other and field
construction emissions and demonstrates how the emissions would Designee verification and
not exceed SCAQMD's LSTs or result in pollutant emissions that sign-off by City
would cause or contribute to an exceedance of the most stringent of Temecula
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
Mitigation Measure MM-AIR-4:Prior to City approval of future Pre-Construction/ City of City of City of
project-specific residential developments within the Project area and Construction Temecula Temecula Temecula
located within 500 feet of 1-15,a health risk assessment(HRA)shall Building Official project approval
be conducted to evaluate the health risks to these residential or other and field
developments associated with TACs from the mobile sources Designee verification and
traveling along the portion of 1-15 that is adjacent to the Project sign-off by City
area. Based on the findings in the HR4,appropriate measures shall of Temecula
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.
Biological Resources
Mitigation Measure MM-13I0-1:Prior to any ground-disturbing Pre-Construction/ City of City of Certified
activities for individual development projects,pre-construction Construction Temecula Temecula Environmental
clearance surveys shall be conducted in accordance with Section Qualified Review
6.0 of the Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Program(MSHCP) Biologist Document
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
Uptown Jefferson Speafic Plan 4 ESA/211247
MMRP July 2015
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
UPTOWN JEFFERSON SPECIFIC PLAN MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
Responsible Action Verification of Compliance
Monitoring Enforcement Monitoring Indicating
Mitigation Measures Phase Agency Agency Compliance Initials Date Remarks
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-810-2:Impacts to raptors and other Pre-Construction/ City of City of Issuance of
migratory birds shall be avoided by the implementation of one of the Construction Temecula Temecula grading permit
following measures: Qualified and field
• All construction and ground disturbing activities shall take Biologist verification and
place outside of the raptor breeding season(February 1- sign-off by City
August 30). of Temecula
• 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 concem,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).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-8103:Future development that occurs Pre-Construction/ City of City of City of
outside of land designated as Developed/Disturbed on Figure 3.3-1 Construction Temecula Temecula Temecula
of the Draft EIR,which depicts vegetation communities within the Qualified project approval
project area,shall be surveyed by a qualified biologist Biologist and field
(i.e.,knowledgeable in burrowing owl biology)using MSHCP verification and
approved burrowing owl survey protocols within 30 days prior to sign-off by City
construction to determine presence/absence of burrowing owl.If no of Temecula
burrowing owls are identified on the 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:
uptoxn Jefferson Spedfic Plan 5 ESA/211247
MMRP July 2015
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
UPTOWN JEFFERSON SPECIFIC PLAN MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
Responsible Action Verification of Compliance
Monitoring Enforcement Monitoring Indicating
Mitigation Measures Phase Agency Agency Compliance Initials Date Remarks
• Since burrow 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 proposed 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-13I0-4:The specific MSHCP conservation Pre-Construction/ City of City of Field
objectives for fairy shrimp shall be met through implementation of Construction Temecula Temecula verification and
the Riparian/Riverine Areas and Vernal Pools Policy presented in Qualified sign-off by City
Section 6.1.2 of the MSHCP.Prior to City approval of an individual Biologist of Temecula
development project located outside of land designated as
Developed/Disturbed on Figure 3.3-1,an assessment of the
construction footprint shall be conducted to determine whether
suitable wetlands or seasonally inundated habitats(vemal 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 JSFWS Interim
Uptown Jefferson Speaft Plan 6 ESA 1211247
MMRP My 2015
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
UPTOWN JEFFERSON SPECIFIC PLAN MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
Responsible Action Verification of Compliance
Monitoring Enforcement Monitoring Indicating
Mitigation Measures Phase Agency Agency Compliance Initials Date Remarks
Survey Guidelines to Pennittees 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-tens 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
conservatiordimpact ratio shall be determined by the RCA on a
project-by-project basis.
If listed branchiopods are detected,then the following restriction 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 the
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:
Uptown Jefferson Speafic Plan 7 ESA 1 211247
MMRP July 2015
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
UPTOWN JEFFERSON SPECIFIC PLAN MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
Responsible Action Verification of Compliance
Monitoring Enforcement Monitoring Indicating
Mitigation Measures Phase Agency Agency Compliance Initials Date Remarks
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.
OH-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 Be"Jones(aka Skunk Hollow)Wetland
Mitigation Bank.
Mitigation Measure MM-13I0-5:Prior to any ground-disturbing Pre-Construction/ City of City of Issuance of
activities associated with individual development projects,a Construction Temecula Temecula grading permit
biologist or designee shall conduct a visual and acoustic survey for Qualified and field
roosting bats according to accepted protocol.The biologist will Biologist verification and
contact the RCA Monitoring Program Administrator,and/or CDFW if sign-off by City
any hibernation roosts or active nurseries are identified within the of Temecula
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
Uptown Jefferson Specific Plan B ESA 1211247
MMRP July 2015
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
UPTOWN JEFFERSON SPECIFIC PLAN MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
Responsible Action Verification of Compliance
Monitoring Enforcement Monitoring Indicating
Mitigation Measures Phase Agency Agency Compliance Initials Date Remarks
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 Biologist will submit a memorandum documenting compliance
to the RCA Monitoring Program Administrator.
Cultural Resources
Mitigation Measure MM-CUL-1: Individual development projects or Pre-Construction City of City of City of
other ground disturbing activities such as installation of utilities,shall Temecula Temecula Temecula
be subject to a Phase I cultural resources inventory on a project- qualified Project
specific basis prior to the City's approval of project plans.The study Archaeologist Approval;
shall be carded out by a qualified archaeologist,defined as an and Pechanga verification by
archaeologist meeting the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for tribal City of
professional archaeology,and shall be conducted in consultation representatives Temecula in
with the Pechanga Band of Luiseno Indians.The cultural resources consultation
inventory would consist of:a cultural resources records search to be with Pechanga
conducted at the Eastern Information Center;scoping with the Tribe
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 Luiseno 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 czipping or fencing.Consistent with
Uptown Jetrerson Spedfic Plan g
MMRP ESA 1211247
July 2015
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
UPTOWN JEFFERSON SPECIFIC PLAN MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
Responsible Action Verification of Compliance
Monitoring Enforcement Monitoring Indicating
Mitigation Measures Phase Agency Agency Compliance Initials Date Remarks
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 Luiseno Indians.The City shall conduct
consultation with the Pechanga Band of Luiseno 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.
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 Luiseno 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 Luiseno 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 Luiseno Indians,
subject to scientific analysis,professional museum curation,and
documentation according to current professional standards.
Uptown Jefferson Speafic Plan 1 D ESA 1 211247
MMRP
July 2015
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
UPTOWN JEFFERSON SPECIFIC PLAN MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
Responsible Action Verification of Compliance
Monitoring Enforcement Monitoring Indicating
Mitigation Measures Phase Agency Agency Compliance Initials Date Remarks
Mitigation Measure MM-CUL-2:Projectaevel development Pre-Construction/ City of City of City of
involving ground disturbance and containing structures 50 years old Construction Temecula Temecula Temecula
or older shall be subject to a historic built environment survey,and qualified Project
potentially historic structures shall be evaluated for their potential Historian or Approval;
historic significance,prior to the City's approval of project plans.The Architectural verification by
survey shall be carried out by a qualified historian of architectural Historian City of
historian meeting the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Temecula in
Architectural History.Consultation with the Pechanga Band of consultation
Luiseho Indians shall also occur during the evaluation.If potentially with Pechanga
significant resources are encountered during the survey,demolition Tribe
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.
Mitigation Measure MM-CULJ:For project-level development Pre-Construction/ City of City of Verification by
involving ground disturbance,a qualified paleontologist shall be Construction Temecula Temecula in City of
retained to determine the necessity of conducting a study of the consultation Temecula in
project area(s)based on the potential sensitivity of the project site with Pechanga consultation
for paleontological resources.If deemed necessary,the Tribe with Pechanga
paleontologist shall conduct a paleontological resources inventory Tribe
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 CECA Guidelines Section 15064.5.If fossil or
fossil bearing deposits are discovered during construction,
excavations within 50 feet of the find will be temporarily hatted or
upb.Jefferson Spedfic Plan 11 ESA 1211247
MMRP July 2015
� s �
Mitigation Monitoring and Reposing Program
UPTOWN JEFFERSON SPECIFIC PLAN MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
Responsible Action Verification of Compliance
Monitoring Enforcement Monitoring Indicating
Mitigation Measures Phase Agency Agency Compliance Initials Date Remarks
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 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 fled at the repository.
Mitigation Measure MM-CULd:Project-level development Construction City of City of Verification by
involving ground disturbance within the Project area shall address Temecula in Temecula in City of
the potential discovery and proper treatment of human remains, consultation consultation Temecula in
which is always a potential in areas that have not been previously with with Pechanga consultation
disturbed or only partially disturbed through prior development.The Pechanga Tribe with Pechanga
City shall require that if human remains are uncovered during Tribe Tribe
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 CEDA 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.
Geology,Soils,and Seismicity
Mitigation Measures MM-HYD-1 and MM-HYD-2 See MM-HYD-1 See MM- See MM-HYD-1 See MM-HYD-1
and MM-HYD 2 MM-HYD-1 and MM-HYD 2 antl MM-HYD 2
and MM-
HYD 2
Uptov Jefferson Speafic Plan 12 ESA 1211247
MMRP July 2015
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
UPTOWN JEFFERSON SPECIFIC PLAN MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
Responsible Action Verification of Compliance
Monitoring Enforcement Monitoring Indicating
Mitigation Measures Phase Agency Agency Compliance Initials Date Remarks
Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Mitigation Measure MM-HAZ-ia:For individual development Pre-Construction/ City of City of Issuance of
projects within the Project area,the applicant shall retain a qualified Construction Temecula Temecula Grading Permit
environmental consulting fin to conduct a Phase I Environmental Building Official and field
Site Assessment in accordance with ASTM standard E1527-05 prior or other verification and
to building permit approval.Any recommendations made in the Designee sign-off by City
Phase I report as well as any remediation as required by the of Temecula
overseeing agency shall be completed prior to commencement of
any construction activities.
Mitigation Measure MM-HAZ-1 b:Any subsurface materials Pre-Construction/ Riverside City of Field
exposed during construction activities that appear suspect of Construction County Temecula verification and
contamination,either from visual staining or suspect odors,shall Department sign-off by City
require immediate cessation of excavation activities and notification of of Temecula
of the Riverside County Department of Environmental Health.Soils Environment and Riverside
suspected of contamination through visual observation or from at Health County
observed odors,shall be segregated from other soils and placed on Department of
and covered by plastic sheeting and characterized for potential Environmental
contamination in accordance with direction received from the Health
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-1c:Any groundwater generated Construction RWQCB City of Field
during construction dewatedng shall be contained and profiled in Temecula verification and
accordance with Regional Water Quality Control Board(RWQCB)or Building Official sign-off by City
Temecula Valley Regional Water Reclamation Facility requirements or other of Temecula
depending on whether water will be discharged to storm drains or Designee
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.
Uptown Jefferson Speafic Plan 13 ESA 1 211247
MMRP
July 2015
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
UPTOWN JEFFERSON SPECIFIC PLAN MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
Responsible Action Verification of Compliance
Monitoring Enforcement Monitoring Indicating
Mitigation Measures Phase Agency Agency Compliance Initials Date Remarks
Hydrology and Water Quality
Mitigation Measure MM-HYD-1 :Development construction that Pre-Construction/ City of City of Issuance of
disturbs one acre or more individually shall comply with the NPDES Construction/ Temecula Temecula Building Permit,
Construction General Permit regulations in effect at the time so as Post-Construction Building Official review of plans,
not to violate any water quality standards or waste discharge or other field verification
requirements.Compliance with the Construction General Permit Designee and sign-off by
would include filing of a Notice of Intent with the SWRCB and the City of
preparation of a SWPPP incorporating construction BMPs for Temecula
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-2:As a condition of approval,each Pre-Construction/ City of City of Issuance of
future development project will be required to generate a project- Construction/ Temecula Temecula Building Permit,
specific Water Quality Management Plan(WQMP),as required by Post-Construction Building Official review of plans,
the City of Temecula Stormwater Ordinance and as specified in the or other field verification
City's Jurisdictional Runoff Management Plan,which will ensure that Designee and sign-off by
the project implements specific water quality features to meet the City of
City's MS4 Permit and Stormwater Ordinance requirements. Temecula
Potential BMPs required by the WQMP include scheduling,
minimization of vegetation disturbance 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.
Mitigation Measure MM-HYDJ:As a condition of approval,each Pre-Construction/ City of City of Issuance of
future development project will be required to generate a project- Construction/ Temecula Temecula Building Permit,
specific Drainage or Hydrology Study,as required by the City of Post-Construction Building Official review of plans,
Temecula Stormwater Ordinance and as specified in the City's or other field verification
Jurisdictional Runoff Management Plan,which will ensure that the Designee and sign-off by
project implements specific hydromodification features to meet the City of
City's MS4 Permit and Stormwater Ordinance requirements. Temecula
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
uptown JeRemon Speafic Plan 14 ESA 1211247
MMRP July 2015
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
UPTOWN JEFFERSON SPECIFIC PLAN MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
Responsible Action Verification of Compliance
Monitoring Enforcement Monitoring Indicating
Mitigation Measures Phase Agency Agency Compliance Initials Date Remarks
issuance of a building or grading permit.
Noise and Vibration
Mitigation Measure MM-NOI-la:Prior to the issuance any grading Pre-Construction/ City of City of Issuance of
or building permits for project-specific development,the applicant Construction Temecula Temecula Grading or
shall provide evidence to the City that the development will not Building Official Building
exceed the City's exterior noise standards for construction(see or other Permits and
Table 3.10-5).If it is determined that City noise standards for Designee field verification
construction activities would be exceeded,the applicant shall submit and sign-off by
a construction-related exception request to the City Manager at City of
least one week in advance of the project's scheduled construction Temecula
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-1 b:Project-specific development Pre-Construction/ City of City of Issuance of
located within the Project area shall: Construction Temecula Temecula Grading Permit
• Ensure that noise and groundborne vibration construction Building Official and field
activities whose specific location on a construction site may be or other verification and
by City sign-off
flexible(e.g.,operation of compressors and generators, Designee of Temecula
cement mixing,general truck idling)shall be conducted as far
as passible 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
Uptow Jefferson Speafic Plan 15 ESA/211207
MMRP July 2015
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
UPTOWN JEFFERSON SPECIFIC PLAN MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
Responsible Action Verification of Compliance
Monitoring Enforcement Monitoring Indicating
Mitigation Measures Phase Agency Agency Compliance Initials Date Remarks
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.
• 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 concems 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.
Mitigation Measure lifil .2a:The operation of construction Pre-Construction/ City of City of Issuance of
equipment that generates high levels of vibration,such as large Construction Temecula Temecula Grading Permit
bulldozers,loaded trucks,and caisson drills,shall be prohibited Building Official and field
within 45 feet of residential structures and 35 feet of institutional or other verification and
structures during construction of any project-specific development in Designee sign-off by City
the Project area,to the extent feasible.Small,rubber-tired of Temecula
construction equipment shall be used within this area during
demolition and/or grading operations to reduce vibration effects
where feasible.
Mitigation Measure MM-NOI-2b:Operation of jackhammers shall
be prohibited within 25 feet of existing residential structures and 20
feet of institutional structures during construction activities
associated with any project-specific development in the Project
area,to the extent feasible.
Mitigation Measure MM-NOI.3:For project-specific development, Pre-Construction/ City of City of Issuance of
the applicant shall provide evidence to the City that operational Construction/ Temecula Temecula Grading Permit
noise levels generated by the development would exceed the City's Post-Construction Building Official and field
Uptown Jefferson Speafic Plan 16 ESA 1211247
MMRP July 2015
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
UPTOWN JEFFERSON SPECIFIC PLAN MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
Responsible Action Verification of Compliance
Monitoring Enforcement Monitoring Indicating
Mitigation Measures Phase Agency Agency Compliance Initials Date Remarks
permissible exterior noise standards.If City noise standards would or other verification and
be exceeded,design measures shall be taken to ensure that Designee sign-off by City
operational noise levels would be reduced to levels that comply with of Temecula
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-N011a: Individual development projects Pre-Construction/ City of City of City of
shall minimize noise impacts from mechanical equipment,such as Construction/ Temecula Temecula Temecula
ventilation and air conditioning units,by locating equipment away Post-Construction Building Official project approval
from receptor areas,installing proper acoustical shielding for the or other and field
equipment,and incorporating the use of parapets into building Designee verification and
design to ensure that noise levels do not exceed the ambient noise sign-off by City
level on the premises of existing development by more than five of Temecula
decibels..
Mitigation Measure MM-NOldb: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 Le,or CNEL of
45 dB in any habitable room.
Mitigation Measure MM-NOI-5:Prior to City approval of a project- Pre-Construction/ City of City of City of
specific development within the Project area,the applicant shall Construction/ Temecula Temecula Temecula
provide evidence to the City that the City's noise/land use Post-Construction Building Official project approval
compatibility standards are met for the land use being developed. or other and field
Measures that can be taken to ensure compliance with the City's Designee verification and
noise/land use compatibility standards include,but are not limited sign-off by City
to,the erection of noise walls,use of landscaping,and/or the design of Temecula
of adequate setback distances.
Transportation and Traffic
Mitigation Measure MM-TRA-1:The City shall monitor the Pre-ConstructioN City of City of Issuance of
performance of the intersections listed below on an on-going basis Construction Temecula Temecula Grading Permit
and ensure that signal timing optimization occurs at these Engineer or and Issuance of
intersections prior to or concurrent with Project-related development other Designee a Certificate of
that would increase the AM peak-hour delay by more than two Occupancy
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
Uptov Jenerson Speafic Plan 17 ESA 211247
MMRP
Jury 2015
Mitigation Monitonng and Reporting Program
UPTOWN JEFFERSON SPECIFIC PLAN MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
Responsible Action Verification of Compliance
Monitoring Enforcement Monitoring Indicating
Mitigation Measures Phase Agency Agency Compliance Initials Date Remarks
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/ City of City of Issuance of
performance of the intersections listed below on an on-going basis Construction Temecula Temecula Grading Permit
and ensure that the following improvements occur at these Engineer or and Issuance of
intersections prior to or concurrent with Project-related development other Designee a Certificate of
that would increase the AM peak-hour delay by more than two Occupancy
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 the 1-15 Southbound Ramps and Temecula Parkway,add
an exclusive right-turn lane to the northbound direction
(Project's fair-share contribution 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 improvements
for the intersections listed herein.
uptown Jenamon Speafic Plan 1$ ESA/211207
MMRP
July 2015
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
UPTOWN JEFFERSON SPECIFIC PLAN MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
Responsible Action Verification of Compliance
Monitoring Enforcement Monitoring Indicating
Mitigation Measures Phase Agency Agency Compliance Initials Date Remarks
Utilities and Water Supply Assessment
Mitigation Measure MM-UTL-1 a:Prior to the issuance of Pre-Construction City of City of Issuance of
construction permits for a project-specific development within the Temecula Temecula construction
Project area,the project applicant shall pay its fair share of Eastern Building Official permits,and
Municipal Water District mitigation fees to upsize the impacted or other sign-off by City
sewer pipelines at Jefferson Avenue,via Montezuma and Del Rio Designee of Temecula
Road.
Mitigation Measure MM-UTL-1b:Prior to 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.
Uplown Jeftarson Speufic Plan 19 ESA 1211247
MMRP
July 2015